>First of all, let me apologize for taking so long to reply.
>I've been distracted by my work. I guess we're even on that
>count now.

word.

>>On the subject of God's existence (which, let's be real, is
>>the only thing we've REALLY argued thus far), I have stated
>>that a conclusion is impossible, thus already counting out
>>any truth table.
>
>Okay, then when you said
>
>"If I say there is a God, and you say there is no God, one
>of us is wrong. This is the first rule in logical
>truth-value."
>
>citing the bivalent truth table, you were just being sloppy?

no. i was citing the only possibility for the conclusion that is existence, according to the english language.

>>However, in logic, there are premises and
>>conclusions, the former of which I can make so long as it
>>cannot be proven false. If I make the premise that there is
>>or is not a God, it cannot be proven false, and therefore is
>>a valid premise.
>
>Sure enough. I'm not trying to criticise that premise (even
>if it deserves some criticism, from a political standpoint).

You just did.

>>Give me another opition besides "exist" and "not exist",
>
>A quantum superposition of the states |existence> and
>|nonexistence>. For example, if the one-particle state in
>some Fock space is labeled |1>, and the Minkowski vacuum is
>labeled |0>, then one can prepare a system in the state
>
>|psi> = alpha |0> + beta |1>, where |alpha|^2 + |beta|^2 =
>1.
>
>Once this state is prepared, the particle both "exists," and
>"doesn't exist." The probability of measuring it existing
>is |beta|^2, while that of measuring it not existing is
>|alpha|^2. You can point out that after such a measurement,
>it did one or the other, and argue (in the classicist
>tradition)

hold up. I'm not talking about the classicist tradition. When was this ever asserted? I'm talking about existence anywhere, in any dimension, at any given time.

that it was actually in one state or the other
>even before the measurement; that our probabilistic
>description is not primitive, but rather a result of our
>ignorance of the system. However, this is not true. In a
>seminal paper, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen showed that this
>assumption has measurable, statistical consequences, and the
>resulting "quantum entanglement" measurements showed beyond
>any scientific doubt that objects do not take on an
>objective reality when they are not being directly observed.

Well, sure, but these are still "objects" in a "reality", regardless of its (the reality's) objectivity. Even this incredible discovery still does not lie outside the realm of existence.

>
>>>>>>There isn't any ambiguity in "exact accordance with that
>>>>>>which is". Perhaps you just don't understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay, then. Define for me "what is." And you'd better not
>>>>>use the word "truth." (I'd also like to see a definition of
>>>>>"exact accordance", but let's keep it simple)
>>>>
>>>>Whatever IS is TRUE and whatever is TRUE IS.. Consider them
>>>>synonymous, if you wish.
>>>
>>>Exactly, you've asserted synonymy, but you have not defined
>>>(with any logical rigor) either of the synonyms. That's all
>>>I'm saying. Linguistically, you're okay, but you can't
>>>start asserting truth tables until you start doing logic.
>>
>>Linguistically, I'm OK? And, again, I haven't assumed any
>>truth tables. I've made one premise. Beyond this are
>>rational notions like morality and purpose, which are
>>obviously not usable in logic.
>
>Okay. That's all I was getting at.

Cool.

>
>regarding The Pythagorean Theorem:
>>>>>>What? That's a provable, distinct mathematical equation
>>>>>>which makes a right triangle. It was founded on principle,
>>>>>>and proven later, like everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you accuse ME of not making any sense?
>>>>
>>>>Here is the pythagorean theorem:
>>>>
>>>>a-squared + b-squared = c-squared
>>>>
>>>>It was a principle at first, then when numbers were put in
>>>>place of the variables, it was proven to be true. So, yes,
>>>>I am accusing you of not making any sense.
>>>
>>>You're completely full of shit on this one, but again we're
>>>off on a tangent (so to speak). Numbers are of absolutely
>>>no use in proving the Pythagorean theorem. (Actually, they
>>>are of surprisingly little value throughout all of
>>>mathematics.) But don't take my word for it. Go check
>>>"Elements", Book I, proposition 47.
>>
>>Here is the first official statement in proposition 47:
>>
>>"In right-angled triangles the square on the side opposite
>>the right angle equals the sum of the squares on the sides
>>containing the right angle."
>>
>>So, if by "full of shit", you are referring to a substance
>>that makes me correct on the pythagorean theorem, then you
>>are correct, and I am full of shit.
>
>I had no doubt that you were familiar with the Pythagorean
>theorem. There's a reason I chose to cite the most famous
>theorem in the history of mathematics. If I wanted the
>history to go over your head, I would have cited the Morse
>index theorem, or the Gauss-Bonnet-Chern theorem.
>
>The problem (and again, this is completely irrelevant to the
>present discussion) was your statement that "numbers" were
>needed for its proof.

The basic formula was written in variables... so what was your point? It wasn't provable until it was demonstrated and proved, like every principle...

>>>>>>Everything you just listed still has an "is or is not"
>>>>>>answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you serious!? Look at the word "multivalent." Look at
>>>>>the etymology of that word, and compare it with the
>>>>>etymology of the word "bivalent."
>>>>
>>>>ok, multivalent means "many meanings" and bivalent, I
>>>>assume, means "two meanings". That doesn't exclude them
>>>>from anything. When we are talking about existence (which
>>>>is the context of what we are talking about), all of these
>>>>things have either a yes or no answer.
>>>
>>>Alright, so you admit that when you called me a liar (after
>>>I said consistent logics exist which are not as trivial as
>>>"is or is not"), you were full of shit.
>>
>>The lie was not in the conclusion that consistent logics
>>outside of yes-nos exist, but that it is a lie to assert
>>that consistent logics can serve as a valid premise for
>>existence itself.
>
>You're the one who's making particular premises about the
>nature of existence. I'm only here to argue that we should
>all be ready to rethink our dogmas.

I'm not arguing about the nature of existence, but rather that existence is obviously around us, in some form. Do we differ on this notion?

>>>So if we agree that multivalent logics exist, we must ask
>>>which, if any, are relavent to the problems at hand. You
>>>assert that with respect to the "existence" of "God", it is
>>>a classical, bivalent logic which is relevant. You do so
>>>without any evidence, or any arguments.
>>
>>Multivalent logics do exist, but are not relavent when we're
>>discussing existence. That's all I was saying. I apologize
>>if I wasn't being clear enough.
>
>Okay, but I'll remind you that they are not only relevant,
>but apparently necessary, in describing the natural world
>(even "existence" in the natural world).

I don't care about "existence" in the natural world, and my chosen defintion had nothing to do with the natural world.

This point is not
>relevant to the supernatural world (whatever that is),

This is exactly what I'm saying--existence is whatever is. I didn't put a classical boundary on it, as you have obviously assumed.

but
>the hard work it took for us to accept it reminds us that
>sometimes our premises are naive.

I don't accept the natural world staking the borders of existence.

>>>It appears to be a
>>>matter of faith, and if so that's okay. Of course, it seems
>>>a little curious to me that people's faith seems so often to
>>>line up with their culture.
>>
>>It is not by faith that God does or does not exist. I knew
>>that God did or did not exist as an agnostic, an atheist,
>>and a Christian.
>
>Just like Newton knew his corpuscles either did or did not
>exist.

Again, it appears that you're stuck in the traditional notion of existence.

>
>
>>>>And if I am conscious, what is the meaning of this
>>>>>"afterlife"?
>>>>
>>>>Eternal fulfillment... imagine every overwhelming moment of
>>>>joy you've ever experienced on this earth... then imagine
>>>>having that joy for eternity.
>>>
>>>Ahh, if it feels good, do it.
>>>
>>>But I'm not asking why I would *want* to experience this
>>>afterlife. I'm asking about its *purpose*, in the same
>>>sense that people use when talking about the "meaning of
>>>life." Once I'm in the supernatural realm, the supernatural
>>>becomes natural.
>>
>>Perhaps the supernatural IS natural.
>>
>>>Is there then another step on that ladder?
>>
>>There either is or there isn't.
>
>cute
>
>>> Why does God exist?
>>
>>You've found the purpose... this is what we all need to
>>know, IMO.
>>
>>Who created Him?
>>
>>God simply is. Eternity cannot be created.
>
>Ahh. So there ARE things which didn't "come from" other
>things. If it's so easy for you to accept that God "simply
>is," why can't you say that the world "simply is"?

No. There is one Thing, one Exception. As far as the world goes, like I said before, "simply is" is the definition of existence, and I don't know what realm our world exists in, if it does exist. What I do know is that I'm typing to you right now, and sipping on water, and something somewhere exists.

>>>>>>>>I'm not going to try and logically prove anything like God
>>>>>>>>or love or air or existence. I can rationalize these things
>>>>>>>>to a valid point, IMHO, but I will never be able to prove
>>>>>>>>them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now you're making my argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I'm not. There still remains my statement that there
>>>>>>either IS or IS NOT a God. Nothing I have said will
>>>>>>contradict this.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, nothing *you* have said will contradict this. However a
>>>>>quick perusal of any textbook on modern mathematical logic
>>>>>most certainly will.
>>>>
>>>>No, it won't. I've taken several logic courses... name ONE.
>>>
>>>Aww, man, so now you're doubting AGAIN that consistent
>>>multivalent logics exist?
>>
>>No, I'm knowing that multivalent logics are not relavent in
>>the realm of existence.
>
>Well, they are relevant (and necessary) when describing the
>existence of physical objects. But I was wrong: for that
>discussion, you'll probably need a Quantum Mechanics book,
>not a logic book. I recommend Isham.

And, again, even the incredible steps forward in Quantum Mechanics do not deter the notion that something exists, somewhere--that something "is".

>>>I hope those were just some easy-A, lib.arts type courses.
>>>If they were meant to be a serious part of your education,
>>>you'd better ask for your money back.
>>
>>Well, I am a classics major... and you have said virtually
>>nothing throughout the duration of this discussion.
>
>That was a goofball comment on my part. I'd apologize, but
>the statement did more harm to my argument than it did to
>yours.

word.

>>>>That is to say, the energy given off by a neucleon to
>>>>attract an electron within a magnetic field powers these
>>>>"virtual photons",
>>>
>>>No, nothing "powers" them. They do not conserve energy.
>>
>>Yes, photons DO conserve energy.
>
>True, ordinary photons do conserve energy. But virtual
>photons do not. That's why they're called "virtual"
>photons. They are allowed this nonconservation because the
>definiteness of their existence is limited under
>restrictions placed by causality.

Ahh. I accept. But, again, even virtual photons do not outdo the premise, now that you know I'm not speaking in any sort of "classicist" sense.

>Don't argue with me on this. I'm writing right now from an
>office down the hall from the one Stephen Hawking uses every
>year when he visits my research group. I don't drop that
>name to brag, only to point out that I really do know what
>I'm talking about. If I ever want to argue with you about
>Christian doctrine, I'll be sure to read that Bible first.
>If you want to argue with me about particle physics, you'll
>probably want to read Weinberg first.

I'm with you. Obviously, you believed I had some sort of boundary on what does and does not exist, and that I knew the characteristic(s) (besides "is") for defining what does and does not exist. If this was the case, you were certainly correct in pointing out virtual photons. Since it is not the case, virtual photons are still irrelevant. I'll stay away from the physics jabber, though. Props to wherever you are and however you got there.

>>Electrons lose energy to
>>all photons through momentum. Virtual photons pop up when
>>something emits a photon which is almost immediately
>>absorbed by another particle of some kind. Regardless,
>>something that is as fleeting as a "virtual proton" is still
>>a perfect example because, while they may appear and
>>disappear, they DO exist, thus continuously validating the
>>"existence" premise in question.
>
>No, they do not just "exist." Their nature is always a
>quantum superposition of existence and nonexistence. This
>superposition is a necessary consequence of their
>nonconservation of energy.

You forget that you have readily claimed that "existence" cannot be defined. Obviously, to make the above claim, you must know what "existence" is. Since, as I know now, you are going by the classical, popular notion of "existence", the above statement can only be proven in your version, but not mine.

>
>>>>>>>>>Okay, so you agree that I'm not validating anyone's crimes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, YOU may not be (and I don't believe you are a bad
>>>>>>>>person), but your philosophy certainly lends itself to
>>>>>>>>validate the crimes of others. If we live in a relativist
>>>>>>>>world (which, if I'm not mistaken, you believe we do) then
>>>>>>>>every single moral principle is as valid as yours and mine.
>>>>>>>>I understand that you don't support the crimes of others,
>>>>>>>>personally, but your philosophy does. Dig?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Okay, I'll admit that my philosophy *could be used* to
>>>>>>>validate crimes, as soon as you admit that your philosophy
>>>>>>>*has been used* to validate (and to commit) crimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you say that horrible atrocities have and continue to be
>>>>>>committed in the name of Christ and God, then I
>>>>>>wholeheartedly agree with you... but I've never found any
>>>>>>justification for these actions in the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>>Haha. Well others certainly have.
>>>>
>>>>Name one.
>>>
>>>Go down your list of people who commited atrocities in the
>>>name of Christ or God. Every one was able to convince
>>>multitudes of people that what they were doing was in
>>>complete accordance with scripture. If you want to argue
>>>with them, argue with them, not me.
>>
>>Well, you asserted that people have found justifications for
>>these actions in the Bible. I was only pointing out that,
>>when in context, the Bible doesn't support any of these
>>actions.
>
>Tell that to them, not me. Personally, I don't really care
>to read the Bible "in context." It doesn't interest me any
>more than Weinberg interests you.

So, are you saying you'd rather make rash assumptions based on our President's actions and then rant on stereo-types?

I never said Weinberg didn't interest me. I'm actually quite interested in the knowledge you've shared with me.

This Bible just looks
>like a bunch of silly culture. It looks no more holy to me
>than the Koran or the I Ching do to you. If I don't care to
>follow your doctrine, then I can only judge it by judging
>those people who claim to be adherents. If you want to make
>the Christians of the world look respectable, you have a lot
>of work to do.

I'm aware of this, but I'm talking to you right now.

>>>>>>Occasionally,
>>>>>>a quote is taken out of context, but I've never seen actual
>>>>>>evidence that would support the Crusades of yesterday or
>>>>>>today. Judeo-Christian ethic is based on love and alms...
>>>>>>not wars and oil.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell that to the "Christian" in the white house.
>>>>
>>>>Now you are being just as rhetorical as the "Christian" in
>>>>the White House. I can call a car a walrus, but our
>>>>language and the actions and physical makeup of the car
>>>>(that is, not having tusks or making weird floppy movements)
>>>>do not allow me to be valid.
>>>
>>>Again, your argument is with him, not me. Like it or not,
>>>he's the most well known evangelical christian in the world
>>>right now, and it was your friends who put him on the world
>>>stage.
>>
>>My friends? Let me ask you this: Do you think the biggest
>>threat to Christianity is atheists or Christians?
>
>Neither. The biggest threat to Christianity is ordinary,
>level-headed thinking;

Interestingly enough, ordinary, level-headed thinking has led a lot more "ordinary, level-headed" people towards God, because many of these people believe life has purpose.

the recognition that the edifice of
>Christianity, like all religions, is built on the foundation
>of a particular culture -- one which is quickly
>disappearing.

Judaism? You might want to rethink that one.