Is there a god?

[justone]

You keep stating that you know physics. Please point me to the physics book or article which makes the same claim you are making now. Can't find it? Its because it doesn't exist.

Your FSM is known as Argument from Ignorance Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My point that if an entity in a question is considered to be infinite in size it is considered to be one whole thing, can be found not only in any math book addressing infinity, and it also has been demonstrated in #242 where basic math is sited and stands correct and unchallanged in spite of all my request to challenge it. (∞-n=∞, ∞/n=∞, etc – you will have the same thing in the result.) A brief look at infinity
Math Forum: Ask Dr. Math FAQ: Large Numbers and Infinity

And I did not state that I knew physics, I stated – according to my knowledge of physics, that anyone was welcome to challenge. So far I have not seen any challenge to my statements, only you attempted and only once in all the posts, and you were wrong.

You are using pseudo-science. Or you are making some bold new revelation that no one in the history of humanity has ever made before, even other Christians. I think it is far more likely, especially given the absurdity of your reasoning and logic that you are using pseudo-science.

Again, if you see any absurdity, it would be easy for you to point it out; but so far you are reserving to an ad hom attack only. Well, if you wish me to counter it in the same way I can say that given the absurdity of your reasoning and logic it is clear that you are using pseudo-science. It is very intellectual of you… atheist.

As to your argument that I am ‘’making some bold new revelation that no one in the history of humanity has ever made before, even other Christians,’’ thus I must be wrong; you could start from expressing such a blind belief in the beginning, in the same way as all other atheists did. There has been no need to take my time in order to run out of contra arguments and to cycle back to SouthernDemocrat’s post.

Your argument is called Argument from Incredulity Argument from Incredulity - SkepticWiki

You keep on ignoring my post # 242, in the same way as all atheists do here. I have been pointing to St. Thomas Aquinas and to the fact that all I have been doing is trying to make his (and not only his) arguments more simple, and that I have been using the same methodolgy. Aquinas is a Saint for many Christians, so he is not an exclusion. ‘’no one in history of humanty’’… what is happening scourge, no more resources even try to maintan an intelligent conversation, only the need to escape into usual feelings of hatred? Since Aquinas and before Aquinas and after Aquinas Christians have been making the same ‘’revalations’’, as I do.

I think you are confused on what physics is. Do you mean philosophy or metaphysics or observed reality? Physics is a branch of science. Science, which includes physics, does not support or contradict the possibility of God in any way... at least for now.

I don’t mean philosophy or metaphysics or observed reality, I mean physics, as an empirical and experimental activity. Physics has its own rules outlined shortly and definitely. It cannot be a branch of science, because rules of science are different, and generally science has no rules today. “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting.” – Ernest Rutherford, the "father" of nuclear physics. Ernest Rutherford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet no science of physics book teaches the interpretation you describe. Not one, not even Christian scientists or Christian non-scientists. Just you.

You keep on using the same logical fallacy known as Argument from Ignorance. You also keep on using the same argument “’there are many of us, but you are justone.’’ You keep on ignoring my statements. You are another proof that atheists have no ability to sustain an intellegent conversation, that when they run out of sraw men they reserve to the brutal opressing force.

In physics it is absolutly OK to be justone. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei

‘’Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. ‘’ Albert Einstein


You have made feel great for a moment… but the truth is that I am not capable of inventing anything new. If I was
able to invent, I would not be sitting here. As the matter of fact, I keep on pointing that I have not expressed any opinion of mine in my post,
but I have listed some common positions of physics and math, in the same manner as many Christians had done before me.

1.As the matter of fact I quoted wikipedia which in spite of its atheistic agenda still confirmed my positions on physics in #242,
even if it did it through the squeezed teeth. As the matter of fact my reference to
2. Permanence of physical laws and Universality of physical laws, can be found here:
Properties of Stars

3. My very basic infinity math can be found here:
A brief look at infinity

And again, all I have done is trying to make well known things very simple and basic. Everything I said, had already been said in
more detailed and extended ways, starting from Aquinas.

4. The more complicated form can be found in 2 of the most important books on physics of all times, but not only
in these books :Newton
Modern History Sourcebook: Isaac Newton: Optics

What books do you need in order to do basic operations?
Stay with rules defined in 4.
Apply 2. to things around you.
Use 3. to calculate.
Get 1. as the result.
It is all in the books.

The following statement is not in any way different from my statements, it says exactly the same as I say; the only difference is that I try to illustrate it with more basic math:

‘’I have never proceeded from any 'Genus supremum' of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no "Genus supremum' of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no 'Genus'; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God ‘’

‘’The fear of infinity is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual infinite, even though it in its highest form has created and sustains us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all around us and even inhabits our minds.’’

Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor (March 3, 1845[1] – January 6, 1918) was a German mathematician. He is best known as the creator of set theory, which has become a fundamental theory in mathematics.
This is fundamental mathematics. How one can understand the set theory if one does not know where it comes from? Cantor is a genius, accepted by everyone; one of 2 or 3 best mathematicians of the 20th century (all are believers in G-d, of course), I am not a genius at all…I am practically repeating Cantor in my mathematical part word by word... I am more like a translator… of too many of others.

to be continued

 

[justone]

Not quite. Lets use black holes as an example. What is beyond the event-horizon of a black hole is unknown. We KNOW that there is SOMETHING beyond the event horizon we just don't know what. We know of the existence of the unknown in this case.

Why don’t you try to repeat this slowly out loud?
When we KNOW that there is SOMETHING it cannot be unknown to us. We cannot KNOW and don’t know at the same time about the same thing – it is another absurd of yours. The first thing we know for sure is that we will know what is in the black hole however long it is going to take. In physics we never give up. As long as it is not infinite in size we will write down physical laws and build a machine to travel back and forth. Even if there is “’another universe’’ there, we will make it a part of our universe.

I'm a computer engineer. I probably have more math background than you ever will.

What is the probability? Why are you failing to submit calculations as always?
So far your background remains hidden from the view, in spite of the original hope of mine that you have some understanding of math.

The only confusion is the lack of any direction in your arguments. You keep claiming that your assertion is self-evident and try to explain it with examples yet I see no correlation. I don't even know what you are trying to prove with these examples. I thought you were arguing for the existance of God?

It seems that because science hasn't answered every question for you or because there is still some unknown areas that are still being worked out or because math equations don't work in certain conditions that this leaves the door open for you to claim God must exist. This is a non-sequitor.

Certainly this is a non-sequitor. Certainly I don’t make it. You take it directly from atheistic propaganda, - in reality, we, Christians do not say absurd of this type. Another straw man.

Likewise, you cannot claim that God exists or Christianity is valid until you prove your point. All I am getting out of your posts is claims of uncertainty in science. Uncertainty isn't proof for anything other than uncertainty itself.

So, you cannot show, demonstrate what scope I have violated, and you just throw in a red herring. Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It counts.
As to your red herring, it is very rotten, too - Uncertainty is a very specific term. You have not been able to show, demonstrate what scope I have violated, and you will not show where I ever make claims of uncertainty in science.

THIS is an outrageously unprovable, unverifiable, ignorant claim.

THIS is another personal attack, another demonstration of atheism. Of course, you have nothing to back up your hatred of the self evident reality, do you? You would not go so far that you would say why, would you? Atheism.
‘

"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Archibald Wheeler (born July 9, 1911) is an eminent American theoretical physicist. He is also known as the coiner of the popular name of the well known space phenomenon, the black hole, and he is also known as a maker of outrageously unprovable, unverifiable, ignorant claims, like the one quoted here by another maker of outrageously unprovable, unverifiable, ignorant claims of exactly the same meaning.

Thank you very much for demonstrating how atheists rely on their feeling of hatred and their fear of reality.
(Mathematically my statement was expressed as ∞ -n =∞, were n was any number you could imagine,… but it does not seem math ever matters for you)

Speculating on such is tripe. It shows the absurdity in your claims and your ignorance in claiming things which you cannot prove.

Another personal attack. You conclude that it is absurd and ignorance and I cannot prove, but you see that no proof is required for your conclusion. Why, just because you are an atheist? Thank you for the demonstration of how atheistic mind works, even if I have to hold my breath in order to avoid the smell. Thank you for the proof that atheists do not understand physics. Such speculating is a fundamental position of physics, and nothing else. It is accepted that if something has been regularly observed up to today, the same will be observed always. It is called the principal of Permanence of physical laws, I have been referring to it in #242. If it is observed that we have been intensively doing physics up to the moment, we must conclude that we will always doing physics. Any other suggestion belongs to fantasies of science. In physics we have rules and we follow them.

Science isn't perfect, but its better than any of the other options. Nothing else has shown the results science continually produces. You can't argue with tangible, reliable, reproducible, provable results.

As one can see from the statement above, science cannot produce tangible, reliable, reproducible, provable results, it produces only sheer fantasies and delirium. Physics does produce tangible, reliable, reproducible, provable results, because it has set of rules in difference from science. Our discussion is a proof, I have been listing some rules, and I have been consistently applying the rules, while you have been making your own rules as you go and denying rules of physics. “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting.” – Ernest Rutherford.

I think enough is enough.
I does not matter if there is evidence of G-d.
1.The matter is that atheists do not understand math and physics, and thus it is impossible to prove G-d by math and science to atheists.
2. The matter is that even if some understand math and physics, they have been brainwashed by atheistic propaganda so, that they do not even look at evidence, and in the most cases they do not reply to the evidence, but only to typical lies about Christians, they attribute to Christians things and views Christians do not have. And they argue the attributed views instead of arguing to real views of Christians.
3. Atheists are blinded by hatred of Christianity, whatever are the reasons of such hatred, and they come to express the hatred, rather than have a discussion where they would show any respect to their opponent views, if the views are different from atheistic.
4.I think I have made sufficient exposure of atheistic beliefs and hatred here, and I hve no interest of keep on going in circes, and answering to straw men, nasty ad hom attacks and unsubstanciated personal opinions, blind beleifs and fantasies which have no roots in reality and no rules to follow, and other things I cannot even put in words. ’The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” – Lord Kelvin .
Kelvin Is Lord!

 

[Mach]

I does not matter if there is evidence of G-d.

That ends the debate right there, as your position is a position of faith, and not reason.

1.The matter is that atheists do not understand math and physics, and thus it is impossible to prove G-d by math and science to atheists.

Incorrect. Gods are faith-based beliefs as you note above, thus, they are not part of math and physics by definition. Hope that helps!

2. The matter is that even if some understand math and physics, they have been brainwashed by atheistic propaganda so, that they do not even look at evidence, and in the most cases they do not reply to the evidence, but only to typical lies about Christians, they attribute to Christians things and views Christians do not have. And they argue the attributed views instead of arguing to real views of Christians.

Contradictory. You already claimed for your argument, evidence doesn't matter. Now you claim it does. See why your position is incorrect?

3. Atheists are blinded by hatred of Christianity, whatever are the reasons of such hatred, and they come to express the hatred, rather than have a discussion where they would show any respect to their opponent views, if the views are different from atheistic.

Atheists are those who have no beliefs in gods. Not sure why you are incorrectly generalizing them in other, spitefull ways. Please correct that!

4. ’The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” – Lord Kelvin .

You're quoting someone who claims they are unable to describe something? Do you see the irony there?

-Mach

 

[Jerry]

There exists a false assumption on this thread, that faith and reason are somehow divorced and mutually exclusive of the other.

Until my atheist friends here shed that false premise, I fear that no discussion of substance may occur.

 

[Mach]

There exists a false assumption on this thread, that faith and reason are somehow divorced and mutually exclusive of the other.
Until my atheist friends here shed that false premise, I fear that no discussion of substance may occur.

Methods of forming a belief:

Reason: requires evidence
Faith: does NOT require evidence

They are logical opposites, they are logically mutually exclusive, there is no "middle" in logic, and cannot be.

Doesn't get more clear than that. This is the same reason there is no confusion about what is taught in schools, or about separation of church and state, or about theology vs physics. I agree, if you don't state this basic premise, its' a confusing topic. I am glad someone cleared it up for me, I can only hope you're equally as glad. I'm serious, it explained a lot, as truth often does.

-Mach

 

[Cephus]

There exists a false assumption on this thread, that faith and reason are somehow divorced and mutually exclusive of the other.

Until my atheist friends here shed that false premise, I fear that no discussion of substance may occur.

Faith and reason are often divorced from each other, simply because of the way faith is used. If faith is simply belief in something you cannot prove, that's fine. When it's belief in something that you can prove is ridiculous, then it's contradictory to reason.

Far too often, theists use the second version of faith.

 

[Jerry]

Methods of forming a belief:

Reason: requires evidence
Faith: does NOT require evidence

They are logical opposites, they are logically mutually exclusive, there is no "middle" in logic, and cannot be.

Doesn't get more clear than that. This is the same reason there is no confusion about what is taught in schools, or about separation of church and state, or about theology vs physics. I agree, if you don't state this basic premise, its' a confusing topic. I am glad someone cleared it up for me, I can only hope you're equally as glad. I'm serious, it explained a lot, as truth often does.

-Mach

I accept the fact that you embrace the false premise and am at peace with it.

 

[Jerry]

Faith and reason are often divorced from each other, simply because of the way faith is used. If faith is simply belief in something you cannot prove, that's fine. When it's belief in something that you can prove is ridiculous, then it's contradictory to reason.

Far too often, theists use the second version of faith.

When one accepts a faith, and then receives and observes the benefits there-of in their life, and these benefits are measured scientifically; having first read and reviewed such data, I find your argument lacking.

There are perfectly logical reasons to embrace a faith. Therefore, embracing a faith is not an unreasonable act, nor does it make a person unreasonable. Faith and reason are not divorced, and imo many atheists find this fact threatening in some way, though they shouldn’t.

 

[tecoyah]

When one accepts a faith, and then receives and observes the benefits there-of in their life, and these benefits are measured scientifically; having first read and reviewed such data, I find your argument lacking.

There are perfectly logical reasons to embrace a faith. Therefore, embracing a faith is not an unreasonable act, nor does it make a person unreasonable. Faith and reason are not divorced, and imo many atheists find this fact threatening in some way, though they shouldn’t.

In a way I will agree with you....but, it is Personal reason you refer to, not Universal. There are things accepted universally as reasonable, due to the obvious accumulated information backing them up. Then, there are reasonable issues that depend on individual experience to be taken as a reality. Religion, Faith, Ufo's, Nessie....these are examples of personal reasoning and many people are convinced they are a reality. Water, Rocks Trees...death, these are Universally accepted realities backed by hard data seen daily.

They are far from the same thing.

 

[justone]

Water, Rocks Trees...death, these are Universally accepted realities backed by hard data seen daily.

They are far from the same thing.

You are forgetting Bananas...












and your total inability to reasoning.

 

[Cephus]

There are perfectly logical reasons to embrace a faith.

Such as? Please demonstrate that embracing a religious faith gives you a better benefit than simply embracing reality.

 

[tecoyah]

You have forgotten Bananas...












and your total inability to reason.

Should the time come, where I again decide to address your inability to communicate functionally I will request your input. As it is, you serve no purpose whatsoever...please go back to whatever ward you came from.

 

[justone]

Should the time come, where I again decide to address your inability to communicate functionally I will request your input. As it is, you serve no purpose whatsoever...please go back to whatever ward you came from.

Now you are doing your work! What did happen with my previous posts? Was my English good enough :shocked2: or you were not hungry enough? Thanks anyway. Enjoy your favorite meal, - you've deserved it today..

 

[scourge99]

My point that if an entity in a question is considered to be infinite in size it is considered to be one whole thing, can be found not only in any math book addressing infinity, and it also has been demonstrated in #242 where basic math is sited and stands correct and unchallanged in spite of all my request to challenge it. (∞-n=∞, ∞/n=∞, etc – you will have the same thing in the result.) A brief look at infinity
Math Forum: Ask Dr. Math FAQ: Large Numbers and Infinity

How in the world does this prove or support your theory of God?

And I did not state that I knew physics, I stated – according to my knowledge of physics, that anyone was welcome to challenge. So far I have not seen any challenge to my statements, only you attempted and only once in all the posts, and you were wrong.

You have NOT presented a clear argument yet. No one on this thread has a clue what your deductive or inductive reasoning for God is. You keep ranting about physics, infinity, atheism, and Aquinas but you have yet to tie your many words into any sort of proof, point, or conclusion that anyone here has found decipherable.

You keep on ignoring my post # 242, in the same way as all atheists do here. I have been pointing to St. Thomas Aquinas and to the fact that all I have been doing is trying to make his (and not only his) arguments more simple, and that I have been using the same methodolgy. Aquinas is a Saint for many Christians, so he is not an exclusion. ‘’no one in history of humanty’’…

Please PRECISELY tell me what argument of Aquinas' you are using. I'm sure everyone would like to know. You keep referring to Aquinas as support but you are extremely vague about what you think Aquinas said that has ANYTHING to do with your argument.

Science isn't perfect, but its better than any of the other options. Nothing else has shown the results science continually produces. You can't argue with tangible, reliable, reproducible, provable results.

As one can see from the statement above, science cannot produce tangible, reliable, reproducible, provable results, it produces only sheer fantasies and delirium.

You are using a computer, built using discoveries via the scientific method, to claim science (the scientific method) does not work. :rofl How ironic is that!!??

Physics does produce tangible, reliable, reproducible, provable results, because it has set of rules in difference from science. Our discussion is a proof, I have been listing some rules, and I have been consistently applying the rules, while you have been making your own rules as you go and denying rules of physics. “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting.” – Ernest Rutherford.

You are obviously confused on what science and the scientific method is. This seems to be an ongoing trend in many of the debates I've witnessed.

What have they been teaching you kids in school???

 

[Jerry]

In a way I will agree with you....but, it is Personal reason you refer to, not Universal. There are things accepted universally as reasonable, due to the obvious accumulated information backing them up. Then, there are reasonable issues that depend on individual experience to be taken as a reality. Religion, Faith, Ufo's, Nessie....these are examples of personal reasoning and many people are convinced they are a reality. Water, Rocks Trees...death, these are Universally accepted realities backed by hard data seen daily.

They are far from the same thing.

I find your likening of religion and faith with ufo's and the nessie to be both disingenuous and a, perhaps unintended, strawman. IMO you are grouping these things together by how much you understand them and by what stereotypes make you comfortable, and not by which has credible evidence.

 

[Jerry]

Such as? Please demonstrate that embracing a religious faith gives you a better benefit than simply embracing reality.

My argument was never against "embracing reality". That's your spin, not anything that I have said. My argument is that faith is a part of reality, and is leveled against accusations made by atheists that faith is irrational and illogical. I hold that such an assertion is provably false. If you wish to project yourself as superior to us irrational religious folks, you will at least need to act the part.

***

One must possess a faith in order to pray, and prayer has measured benefits above chance and placebo:

Prayer and forgiveness: Can psychology help?

Does God Answer Prayer? Researcher Says 'Yes'

Prayer: Heavenly Helpers

Can prayer harm?

I've posted these before many times on other threads, and they were ignored. I fully expect that they will be ignored again.

 

[Cephus]

My argument is that faith is a part of reality, and is leveled against accusations made by atheists that faith is irrational and illogical.

Faith is only part of reality in that the people who practice faith are real. The object of said faith is not demonstrably real, in fact it is often demonstrably false.

Having faith in "something" only works if the "something" actually exists. Otherwise, it's just delusion.

 

[Jerry]

Faith is only part of reality in that the people who practice faith are real. The object of said faith is not demonstrably real, in fact it is often demonstrably false.

Having faith in "something" only works if the "something" actually exists. Otherwise, it's just delusion.

If the object of the faith has to be real in order to the product of faith to exists, then since per my credible sources the product of faith is real, the object of the faith is also real.

That is not the argument I forward on this thread at this time, but it is the logical conclusion your logic must reach in light of the scientific evidence presented.

I honestly don’t care at all to get into a “my way is better than your way” argument, and I try not to present my argument as such here. Rather, I only seek at this time to halt the assertions that faith is inherently divorced from reason. That is a provably false premise which must be shed for any discussion of substance to occur.

The issue of rather or not God exist is a seporate issue, in my mind.

 

[Thelost1]

If the object of the faith has to be real in order to the product of faith to exists, then since per my credible sources the product of faith is real, the object of the faith is also real.

This is not true, assuming I understand your sentence correctly.

It sounds nice, though.

 

[Mach]

I accept the fact that you embrace the false premise and am at peace with it.

The reason we all see that you are incorrect, is because we are aware of what makes something correct or not.

Someone who is not correct, would not be able to reasonably demonstrate how I'm incorrect, and how they are correct.

Let's look at your response. You forfeit. Yes, I would expect that since I am already aware you neither a reasonably position, nor a reasonable demonstration of how I'm incorrect.

Sorry Jerry, I answered your question accurately and truthfully, and you still deny it.

-Mach

 

[Mach]

If the object of the faith has to be real in order to the product of faith to exists.

Jerry, that's obviously false. Any kid can demonstrate to the contrary. I have to wonder why you don't already know why it's false.

I have faith Santa will bring me presents on Christmas day if I pray for them.
I get presents on christmas day.
Therefore, by Jerry's unreasonable nonsense, Santa exists.

Please Jerry, stop. Baby Jesus cries when you violate basic reasoning.
The ironic part is that you specifically are acting in an unethical, evil way, when you propose such false claims as true, despite having been shown how they are false. Leave the dark-side behind Jerry.

-Mach

 

[Jerry]

This is not true, assuming I understand your sentence correctly.

It sounds nice, though.

I could see valid arguments assuming a different "if" to cause the "than", such as the work of Matthew Alper in his book The God Part of the Brain. We could assume that there is no god, or we could dismiss the notion of god existing and be atheist in that regard, and attribute the measurable benefits of faith and prayer to the activation of The Gad Part of the Brain. Further, we could say that faith in an improvable diving being is what activates various elements of the human psyche which are beneficial to the species both individually and as a collective social organism. We cold claim that faith is a product of evolution, that faith is our superior intelligence coping with our inevitable demise in death.

Each of those premises, however, establish faith as a perfectly logical thing, and I have found that many atheists, if I may pick on Mach for a moment as an example, for some reason categorically refuse to admit that faith could be a reasonable thing on any level what so ever.

 

[Jerry]

The reason we all see that you are incorrect, is because we are aware of what makes something correct or not.

Someone who is not correct, would not be able to reasonably demonstrate how I'm incorrect, and how they are correct.

Let's look at your response. You forfeit. Yes, I would expect that since I am already aware you neither a reasonably position, nor a reasonable demonstration of how I'm incorrect.

Sorry Jerry, I answered your question accurately and truthfully, and you still deny it.

-Mach

If you are referring to a debate between you and I, then please realize that I gave up long ago. Neither one of us has been able to convince the other of their side.

Feel free to review my sources, though. I welcome any in put you have on them.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry, that's obviously false.

Please realize that that was an "if/than" statement, an exorcize in a logical hypothetical, not a claim of fact. I thought I had made it clear that that was not an argument I was forwarding at the time. Apparently I needed to spell that out better.

To my greater argument though, that premise in particular could be false, and faith still be a reasonable thing.

In faith we are measuring an effect above placebo or positive thinking, but we can not nail down the cause of this effect.

I welcome any theory you have on what the cause may be.

 

[Mach]

There exists a false assumption on this thread, that faith and reason are somehow divorced and mutually exclusive of the other.

Until my atheist friends here shed that false premise, I fear that no discussion of substance may occur.

Jerry, this post of yours is what I responded to above.

I demonstrated (and others) why it's not a false assumption, but in fact a correct and reasonable premise.

Reason: requries evidence
Faith: does not require evidence

Logical opposites
=====================================

You have not shown how this is incorrect, or how you are correct.
I realize you cannot, because this is the correct position.

You are free to have faith, and people here would probably do a lot to ensure you remain free to have faith in whatever you like, me included. However, there is no need to use false claims and expect reasonable people to accept them as true, when clearly we show why they are false. What do you expect us to do, something unethical like ignoring false claims?

-Mach