Reply to topic  [ 142 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
 Disproving God 
Author Message
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
you did not provide your evidence, though...

If saying that the understanding of beauty within something somehow proves that God exists... that's a very poor argument. My understanding of proof is what you can simply prove through either experimentation or simple observation (as you pointed out, I can see, touch and hear it, so I know that it's light, audio and physicality exists, unless, of course, my mind has an abnormality, which others can detect if scanning my brain).

I do not doubt your belief in God because you witness miracles or have some kind of philosophical understanding, I doubt your ability to provide evidence. Which no theist has ever done.

_________________
Image


Sat May 08, 2010 7:45 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
You missed the point of what I said. The point is they could provide evidence, its just evidence you would not accept. Likewise, you can provide evidence for many things that would be considered irrelevant and not really evidence to others as well.

For instance, those things you can see, hear and touch mean nothing to a Cartesian, and little to a Neitzchian necessarily.

My evidence? over 500 witnesses of the resurrected body, the fact that most of those died brutal deaths to hold to their claims, thus having no benefit from it if they were lying, various miracles and apparitions others have seen, the beauty of the tradition, mystical experiences that mean little to those other than those like myself that have experienced it, other things in nature that seem to point to such an existence, philosophy, so on and so forth.
However, while I find these and more very acceptable, particularly together, I doubt you will find them much of a substantial proof at all. At the same time I can tell you I don't find gravity to be substantially proven because it doesn't work with certain mathematics, quantum physics, and others, and we haven't found graviton either.

There is little reason at this particular point for either of us to be convinced by the other because we are operating under different modes and traditions of thinking, at least to an extent.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Sun May 09, 2010 9:44 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
Sworn testimonies that can be proven to have been made at the time are sufficient, but then we're talking about supernatural events. To really suggest that a dead body returned to life requires more than shifty documentation. But I'm merely a skeptic.

As for these "miracles" you claim of, none are actually proven to be supernatural. If an event occurred with no logical explanation, it merely means that we haven't found one yet. But hell, only a few decades ago someone would of thought that spontaneous combustion was an act of Satan.

My point, here, is that the physical world is mathematically acceptable. Sure, you question the physical world, but guess what, you are part of that world. If your physical mind sees this physical world, that means that you MUST accept what is logical or else you have nothing. To try and rationalize something beyond the Universe and its logic is claiming that you, somehow, have an ability that none of us have. Unless God came to you and showed you his world, you and none of the people you listen to have anything to make a claim on.

Philosophy is meant for deep meaning, but claiming that the physical world is irrelevant is claiming that thinking, itself, is irrelevant (because as stated, thinking is part of the physical world).

And gravity is a working theory... but we still accept that we are able to walk on a larger object (in space). No one doubts that... we just need to fill in the holes (like gravity and relativity).
But belief in God is not a theory for it is baseless in a scientific setting. It can't be tested and is merely like story telling. And religion... shit, it actually defies reality.

_________________
Image


Mon May 10, 2010 1:25 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
You still refuse to understand what I am trying to tell you, which interestingly illustrates my point.

I am not actually making an argument to you at the moment for the existence of God, I am telling you that there are different modes of thinking, there are different rationalities, and that they do not easily communicate with each other or prove ANYTHING to each other.

YOU are opperating under a particular tradition of thought which tells you that the physical world is mathematically acceptable, that you are part of the physical world, and that if a physical mind sees a physical world you MUST accept what is 'logical' or else you have nothing.

Interestingly, you didn't say what is logical. There are different forms of logic, and there are ways of thinking that would call into question the relevance of logic. The muslims and arabs that preserved the works of Aristotle, the founder of a large amount of logical speech, thought logic wasn't especially relavent but that it was instead simply Greek grammar. Even still, there are different forms of logic and different forms of rationality.

In fact, in some settings, the scientific method is pretty flimsy. Its use of physical tests as the primary means is weak to a mindset that believes dielectic is the primary or only way to discover the truth of a matter, which is a strong part of many forms of thinking.

To illustrate, your emphasis that the miracles be supernatural to some methods of thinking would not make much sense, or any point. So what if they aren't proven to be supernatural? Who said being supernatural had anything to do with it? What difference does it make? Some would say this. After all, the idea of the "Signs" in the parts of the Bible is actually meant to be entirely natural occurrences, as natural does not take away from God's involvement.

The point is, what I have just said will very likely convince you of nothing, and likewise what you say will not convince many of anything either, and I do not only mean theists. We are not using the same tradition of thought, the same phrases mean different things to us, the same evidence has different weight, value and credibility to us and to others.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Tue May 11, 2010 8:27 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
Logic is 2+2=4. If I do this, this will happen. I know this because that is what happens every other time I do this.

If I let go of this rock, it will be underneath my hand unless someone grabs it and puts it over, or if a giant gust of wind does some shit, or shit like that.

As I hold this glass, you can see water in it. That means that water is there.

That is logic.

Anyone who bullshits is intellectually dishonest and merely uses it to defend a belief that they know they can not provide evidence for. Different forms of thinking? As in, I accept science and the physical realm and you do not? But INSTEAD, accept the teachings of priests and theists who claim to hold the truths to this Universe... hmm.

_________________
Image


Tue May 11, 2010 1:43 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Not Quite Left-Winged
Not Quite Left-Winged
User avatar

Cash on hand:
424,020.00
Posts: 11160
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Your computer
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Disproving God
Haz wrote:
psychokittyboy wrote:
Haz, the burden of proof is always onthe accusor. If I had brought it up, saying God is real blah blah blah, the burden of proof would be on me.



No it isn't the burden of proof is the person who Is trying to say something exist as it's impossible to prove the non-existance of something.

It's like me trying to prove that zombies don't exist. I can't prove they don't exist...



And the fact that you can't prove something doesn't exist is PRECISELY the whole fucking point of PKB's thread. He asked a trick question there could be no answer to, efficiently destroying since the get-go Kami's argument/point.

Damn you're a moron, looks like you, just like the others you looked down upon "failed to show any intellectual prowess"

But that's irrelevant, who let you out of your cage?

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Thu May 13, 2010 2:30 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
CarsitoPyg wrote:
Logic is 2+2=4. If I do this, this will happen. I know this because that is what happens every other time I do this.

If I let go of this rock, it will be underneath my hand unless someone grabs it and puts it over, or if a giant gust of wind does some shit, or shit like that.

As I hold this glass, you can see water in it. That means that water is there.

That is logic.

Anyone who bullshits is intellectually dishonest and merely uses it to defend a belief that they know they can not provide evidence for. Different forms of thinking? As in, I accept science and the physical realm and you do not? But INSTEAD, accept the teachings of priests and theists who claim to hold the truths to this Universe... hmm.


Everything you said is based on many core assumptions that in the end have no real proof themselves. You assume that because you see it it must be real, but why? Because you see it? You can't prove an argument by using the argument. You assume that just because a thing happened one way (though it usually didn't ACTUALLY happen the exact same way) a thousand times before that it will necessarily do the same the next time you do it or a thousand times after. Why? Because it happened a thousand times before and you have tested it? How does that prove anything unless you assume everything will necessarily continue to work in an ordered pattern of cause and effect.

There are, however, many other ways of thinking based on other core assumptions.

The problem right now is, however, that you think I am trying to prove something to you beyond the point that there are different ways of thinking than your own, and by different ways I mean ways far more distant to your own than my own is. In fact, our thinking is rather similar (though distinct) in comparison with much of a wide variety of thought. I think the scientific method is valuable, and I like Arabic Mathematics. However, not everyone does, and I do not mean only theists would have different approaches to these matters (as I mentioned before). Some of these differences come down simply to cultural understandings, some to the way a language influences the range and patters of thought a person can operate with.

Some day you may study some philosophy and understand what I am saying to you, maybe though I guess I shouldn't hold out too much hope of that. I suppose the most basic assumption you have is that of objectivity and universal standard. I hold such ideas as well, though with possibly different flavors. Not everyone operates under the same 'universal standards' however, nor does everyone assume objectivity. In fact, one of the remarkable things about 'obvious facts' and 'universals' is that from culture to culture, school to school, philosopher to philosopher, they often use DIFFERENT 'obvious facts' and 'universals', or claim different 'primary or foundational assumptions'.

However, while I say all this, I'm guessing you probably have read about 1/3rd (if that) of what I've written anyway. So I'll leave you with this: 2+2=4 is primarily a Western idea, yet is not even always true. Its an old programmers joke that 2+2=5 for extremely high values of 2. When you run such conditions through a computer you will in fact at times get 2+2=5 under the right conditions, because the language operates so differently, and yet they are highly mathematical languages.

And Besides, logic, in the end, is based on patterns of accepted experience. It is not really based on anything that some would consider solid (abstract concepts or whatever). A new experience threatens to change logic at any turn, and all experience is rather limited. For instance, haven't you heard about the research group that broke what had been considered a 'law of physics'? When they, for a fraction of a second, caused an asymmetrical energy burst? It just shows that a new experience can change things at any time, and that logic is only "the pattern we have seen so far". And often that pattern is influenced by "what we selectively choose to include in our data" to begin with.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Fri May 14, 2010 1:18 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
But how does this help you in your belief in God... no, the Catholic Faith? It's one thing, like me, to not try and somehow say that God, without a doubt, doesn't exist, but it's another thing to actually believe in something as unsupported as God, especially the religiously understood God (Christianity and such).

and yes, I have read EVERYTHING you have written so far. Your problem is that you're trying to play with words and NOT play with actual mathematics. You claim that 2+2 can equal 5 if you do it just right. Sure, play with rounding and such, you can do that, but guess what, that does not change what math is. What it merely does is create optics and tricks; it's not defiance towards objectivity, but merely playing around with our simple understanding.

I do like philosophy and read the works of many philosophers. Guess what, they don't ALL agree with you. Philosophy is merely deep thought, it's not a science. Some may say that the physical world doesn't matter, which basically means that nothing matters, including the disregard of the physical world, and others will say that the only thing we can prove is what's objective. Some use philosophy to try and support the belief in God, and others use it to attack the belief in God. Philosophy is merely an argumentative war that holds no real answers. Science, on the other hand, at least has realistic methods vs. bullshit (things that are obviously not true). As you stated, someone was able to defy the laws of physics. It's possible that the Law we understand now may not be COMPLETE, or maybe it's possible that that scientific discovery was actually another optic. But, once again, it does not help your argument. It merely states that we don't know everything yet. Sure, we don't; but the difference between an Atheist and a Theist is that an Atheist is alright with not knowing everything yet and a Theist claims that he knows enough (and so that you don't try and bullshit that statement, I mean that theist claim that God exists and Atheists merely claim that they'll not consider belief in something until there's evidence).

_________________
Image


Fri May 14, 2010 2:49 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
As I said before, I WAS NOT making an argument either way for God. The point was the discussion is currently not on a common field of communication, as you continue to illustrate. The point is the idea of "proof" is irrelevant when there are entirely different concepts of proof at work between the two parties.

TO YOU the mathematics is a trick. That's because you come from a different mathematical tradition. It is NOT at ALL a trick in programming, its a reality that must be understood and handled, and it is VITAL to understand this as a reality. There are of course plenty of other forms of mathematics as well, as a former professor of mathematics I know could attest. Its not playing with "our simple understanding" it is USING a DIFFERENT understanding that between you and they who need to use it there is no "our" on the matter.

And I know the philosophers do not all agree with me. That actually illustrates my point further (and my point is actually not my point but Alasdair MacIntyre's point, one of the most prominent philosophers in the last century. His argument, in "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?" about the different ways of thinking and separations between traditions is pretty solid and I haven't seen much criticism or disagreement on THAT particular point of his arguments). Some philosophers agree within the same traditon based on closer commonality, many philosophers disagree from entirely different schools of thought that cannot substantially interact with each other on most serious matters except in rare or extreme circumstances.

You are also mistaken in your framing of "Philosophy is deep thought, it is not science". In a way you are right in accordance with logical speech, because to be accurate it is the other way around. Science is a branch of philosophy, as any scientist with a Ph.D. can tell you. The scientific method itself is a criteria for a certain kind of philosophical inquiry, and all conclusions based on data utilize some sort of philosophy to do make conclusions.

Also, an atheist, by most definitions, believes SPECIFICALLY that there is no God (for whatever reason, not always on the basis of lack of evidence). This itself is NOT affirming the lack of knowing everything. Agnosticism would be closer to that, as agnostic literally means "without knowledge". An atheist of the variety you are talking about is already employing a kind of philosophy that says "no evidence = not real", and again they are employing a philosophy that discounts any possible evidence as "invalid" for one reason or another.

The thing to get through your head, if its possible, is that I am NOT currently making an argument for God but TRYING to tell you that it would be near impossible to do so not because there is no evidence but because we do not have the same criteria and commonality required to COMMUNICATE any evidence in a relevant manner. NOR could you possible present an argument REFUTING God to me for the same reasons. You can't present or refute evidence when the very idea and criteria of evidence is different between the two parties, and you cannot rationally make an argument to each other from two different schools of rationality.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Fri May 14, 2010 4:21 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
I prefer to go with Dawkins' "De Facto Atheist" definition. Sure, maybe it exists, but until you can actually provide some evidence for it, I'll not believe in it.

I understand your view on Atheism, though, i used to hold the same one. but i actually prefer to go with Dawkins on this one. As an agnostic, I do not believe in absolutes, but as an Atheist, I do not believe in something that is not backed up with any evidence at all.

We keep on having this back and fourth, and it's getting pretty repetitive. You claim that your idea of proof is different from mine, in that I demand physical evidence and you say that you have it, I would just never accept it because we have a different train of thought.

Interestingly, this is why YOU are a Catholic and I am an Atheist. But even more interesting, it's almost like your God doesn't want me to believe in Him if the only evidence he will provide is the kind that I can not accept without being intellectually dishonest. Every time I think about death and the horrible things that happen to human beings every day, I so badly wish that there was a God and an Afterlife so that I didn't have to be so god damned paranoid all the time. But I can't believe in something just because I want to... I need evidence...

w/e. I just hope that when I die it'll be subtle so that I don't have to spend my last few seconds in fear of turning to nothing.

_________________
Image


Fri May 14, 2010 10:59 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 0
Level 0
User avatar

Cash on hand:
0.00
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 1:24 pm
Location: England
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Disproving God
An Afterlife can never proved, but it will still be believed in. Why? Because if that's what has been drummed into your head your whole life, you're not really going to question it. If you question God, then that's doubting God, which is blasphemous, and... oh, you're going to hell now. Any proof regarding the existence of God will only be believed if it is 100% conclusive, and everyone knows that such a proof does not exist. It comes down to whether or not you want to believe it. If someone told you that the water found on Mars was proof that life existed there, you could choose to agree, or not. The only way to prove that God exists is if He comes down to Earth and shows Himself. Miracles are not conclusive prove because it takes a large leap of faith to believe they even happened. I believe in God because it makes sense to me. I do not see myself as being illogical, because the non-existence of God can not be proved either. Faith is what sways a person in either direction. Faith that your personal convictions are correct, or faith that there could be something larger than the world around us at play here.


Sun May 16, 2010 5:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 3
Level 3
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,429.04
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:21 pm
Location: Perry, NY.
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
psychokittyboy wrote:
How is he sadistic?

Better yet, how is an all knowing being stupid?


let's take a look at the commandments a second here

"thou shall not kill" very vague, does it mean man or anything at all? Plus let's not forget that god is perhaps the biggest mass murderer of all time, soddom and gamorah were destroyed by god.

"thou shall have no other gods but me" okay so this is egoisim, saying that you have free will to beleive what you want unless I say otherwise. Like a tyrant.

Now let's take a look at christianitys traditions: most are pagan or a mix of several other religions, surely if Christ were the son of god we would be celibrating only things about him yes?
If Christ were our savior how come there's still so much bullshit in the world and getting worse? God loves us yet life is a daily torture, but it's "gods test/plan". Making people live through a life of constant pain and struggle and insurmountable odds, freak and un-expected accidents and all the other stuff that can happen sure as hell seems sadistic to me. Oh and let's not forget the main point of the commandments: follow my rules or you burn in hell, but I love you and you have free will.

_________________
Image

We can't EVER go back to Arizona


Tue May 18, 2010 9:36 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
Sabre wrote:
psychokittyboy wrote:
How is he sadistic?

Better yet, how is an all knowing being stupid?


let's take a look at the commandments a second here

"thou shall not kill" very vague, does it mean man or anything at all? Plus let's not forget that god is perhaps the biggest mass murderer of all time, soddom and gamorah were destroyed by god.

"thou shall have no other gods but me" okay so this is egoisim, saying that you have free will to beleive what you want unless I say otherwise. Like a tyrant.

Now let's take a look at christianitys traditions: most are pagan or a mix of several other religions, surely if Christ were the son of god we would be celibrating only things about him yes?
If Christ were our savior how come there's still so much bullshit in the world and getting worse? God loves us yet life is a daily torture, but it's "gods test/plan". Making people live through a life of constant pain and struggle and insurmountable odds, freak and un-expected accidents and all the other stuff that can happen sure as hell seems sadistic to me. Oh and let's not forget the main point of the commandments: follow my rules or you burn in hell, but I love you and you have free will.


Actually, at the time of the commandments there wasn't a concept of Hell, nor will in the sense that we think of it today precisely (that was articulated by St. Augustine). There was a concept of law and justice though which should be followed.

You see the first commandment as egoism. You see all the commandments as "believe what you want unless I say otherwise". I don't know where you got the "believe what you want" part in the first place, but it all could also be seen as "here is the Truth, it is right to live by what is True, do so and you will find Goodness, do not and you will not find Goodness". It could almost be put in more hedonistic terms to equate to "avoid evil/harm".

As for the killing, technically it should be translated along the lines of 'murder' but there is some debate on that. Still, have you never been told by a supervisor, parent or professional not to do what they do because they actually know what they are doing and you do not, or not to mess with other peoples property? Would you trust an small child that can't even see over the wheel to drive a car? And the idea that MOST Christian traditions are pagan is a bit of a stretch. None are ACTUALLY pagan of course as none involve believing or worshiping multiple gods, which would be a primary criteria for them being pagan themselves, rather than related to or derived from pagan customs.

There are obviously many ways of looking at any of this, depending on what you already believe and how you view the world.

@Carsito: I never said there is no proof that COULD be presented to you to make you believe, I just said neither of US could present to each other EITHER proof or disproof. It's possible that there exists something to convince you, but you aren't likely to find it talking to those who don't share your concepts of things. However, its not like any of us are actually entitled to any proof one way or the other. Sure, a Good and Loving God probably would give proof, but to require that already makes some leaps, defining Good and Loving in certain ways and you have to already acknowledge the existence of God in some form in order to put a criteria, otherwise you are simply defining a personal term unrelated to any Being that may or may not be. But that's not where we have gone yet.
It's also not "my view" on atheism so much as a view that many atheists I've encountered hold, and it has to do with the etymology of the word. a, meaning not or away from, theist, meaning God, thus belief in "not God", as opposed to agnostic meaning "not knowledge" (loosely speaking of course). But whatever, there are on that matter, as with everything else we've been discussing, different ideas and ways of thinking from different traditions and viewpoints.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Wed May 19, 2010 1:58 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 3
Level 3
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,429.04
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:21 pm
Location: Perry, NY.
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
Lol, your arguments suck.

_________________
Image

We can't EVER go back to Arizona


Mon May 24, 2010 8:33 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Disproving God
Sabre wrote:
Lol, your arguments suck.


If only I had the balls to just flat out say that instead of playing his games of "lol, what kinds of proofs you needs, sir".

anyway, break down the ten commandments and my response (for shits and giggles):
1. "I am the Lord, your God/No Gods before me/no false Idols" - Asking a lot of me when you can't even prove that you exist, sir.
2. "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God". - But what if I stub my toe? And really, what is your name? Is it Iehova or Jesus?
3. "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". - Like how all the Christians do?
4. "Honor your father and your mother" - Oh right, teach us to never question authority... religion :awesome
5. "You shall not kill/murder" - What if he broke into my house? Or is it not considered murder if I can prove to a court that I had reasonable reason to believe that my life was endangered :fall
6. "You shall not commit adultery" - Open relationships are getting more popular now a days. Lots of hot women to fuck, so little time.
7. "You shall not steal" - Reasonable
8. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" - What if it's one of those situations where I'm wearing a wire and have to get the guy to confess by lying and shit... is that alright?
9. "Don't covet your neighbor's wife" - I think it's up to the wife on who she wants to fuck, not mine or my neighbors, you chauvinistic pig.
10. "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor" - What about property line disputes?

_________________
Image


Tue May 25, 2010 1:58 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 142 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Mods Database :: Imprint :: Crawler Feeds :: Reset blocks
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.

Portal XL 5.0 ~ Premod 0.3 phpBB SEO