Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #26534

Subject: "Descartes proof for the existence of God," This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 04:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
Mon Jan-24-05 04:33 PM

  

          

Possibly, the most logically sound proof I have encountered,
as follows;

First, Descartes must prove that he himself exists, and he does so through his famous statement, "I think therefore I am", as it is a clear and distinct statement that is self evident, no proof beyond the act of saying it is required. The reasoning behind this statement is as follows; if I am able to percieve my own existence from within, I must therefore exist.

Next, Descartes will discuss the relationship between physical objects, and himself. He is not certain of physical objects in his environment, but of his relationship to them.

In an experiment, Descartes takes a piece of wax, and allows it to melt. He then, observes what has changed, and what has not changed. Through his experiment, Descartes arrives at the conclusion that the wax, may melt in many different ways, or in inifinite ways. The state of change between a solid piece of wax and a melted piece of wax is infinite. A simple example of the infinite are numbers.

I am not detailing each point of study as I want to arrive at the proof of God as quickly as possible for the sake of this conversation, so please excuse me for leaving information out if you have already studied Descartes.

Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which may be percieved as something that is decieving to his senses and himself. In order to disprove the existence of the "Evil Genius", Descartes is faced with the challenge of proving God's existence. He does this as follows;

Human beings are finite beings, meaning, our physical bodies will eventually die. Also, as finite beings, we are incapable of the infinite, yet we can be certain the infinite exists by observing a melting a piece of wax. We can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable of it's excecution. If you feel otherwise, please state how as human beings, we can excecute the infinite. Descartes concludes that God is a supreme being capable of the infinite.

Do you find this to be sound proof for the existence of God that is clear and distinct?

Furthermore, Descartes explores free will. Thus far, he is certain of Himself, as he can percieve his own existence; he is certain of GOD, as a supreme being capable of the infinite, and thus an infinite being.

According to Descartes we always have the freedom of saying "Yes" or "No" to any question or supposed act. We can be free from making error, by making clear and distinct statements about our situation and the consequence. Descartes feel's that we carry a reflection of the infinite within our free will, and thus, a reflection of GOD. As, there are an infinite amount of questions or acts that we can say "Yes", or "No" to. Therefore, even though we cannot excecute the infinite, as a sign of respect from GOD to us human beings, we are capable of facing an infinite, and any amount of questions/acts with a simple yes or no, thus, making use of our free will, which reflects the infinite, and thus GOD.

Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,
Jan 24th 2005
1
RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,
Jan 26th 2005
13
RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,
Jan 26th 2005
22
      RE: excuse me but,
Jan 26th 2005
24
RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,
Jan 27th 2005
37
      I won't pretend to speak for SH,
Jan 27th 2005
43
      RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,
Jan 29th 2005
44
      dude, you need to read some Camus posthaste
Jan 29th 2005
55
      Camus and Sartre...
Jan 31st 2005
65
           understood n/m
Jan 31st 2005
68
      RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,
Jan 31st 2005
61
           RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,
Jan 31st 2005
66
                RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,
Feb 01st 2005
69
                     RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,
Feb 05th 2005
73
                          What the hell?!
Feb 05th 2005
74
                               RE: What the hell?!
Feb 06th 2005
75
                                    RE: What the hell?!
Feb 06th 2005
76
                                         Theology part of philosophy?
Feb 06th 2005
78
                                         RE: Theology part of philosophy?
Feb 07th 2005
81
                                              RE: Theology part of philosophy?
Feb 16th 2005
91
                                                   RE: Theology part of philosophy?
Feb 16th 2005
92
                                                        How am I "cryptic"?
Feb 16th 2005
93
                                                             Postmodernism = Bullshit,
Feb 16th 2005
94
                                                                  these guys ain't postmodernists
Feb 16th 2005
95
                                                                       RE: these guys ain't postmodernists
Feb 16th 2005
96
                                         RE: What the hell?!
Feb 06th 2005
79
                                              RE: What the hell?!
Feb 07th 2005
82
                                                   RE: What the hell?!
Feb 07th 2005
83
                                                        RE: What the hell?!
Feb 07th 2005
84
                                                             RE: What the hell?!
Feb 07th 2005
87
                                                                  RE: What the hell?!
Feb 15th 2005
90
                                                                       RE: What the hell?!
Feb 19th 2005
97
      RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,
Jan 29th 2005
56
           okay...
Jan 30th 2005
60
                it's wrong, because your statement is not right
Jan 31st 2005
63
                     RE: it's wrong, because your statement is not right
Jan 31st 2005
64
                          an that's the crucial point
Feb 08th 2005
89
      inVerse, is that you?
Jan 29th 2005
51
           It is him.
Feb 06th 2005
77
                no, I'm not Inverse...
Feb 06th 2005
80
                     I was just joking
Feb 07th 2005
86
                          I realized this, but..
Feb 07th 2005
88
Why do you need proof?
Jan 24th 2005
2
RE: Why do you need proof?
Jan 24th 2005
3
Nice circular logic...
Jan 24th 2005
4
Nice Logical Self-Contradiction
Jan 26th 2005
14
Nice try
Jan 26th 2005
20
      hahahahahahaha!
Jan 26th 2005
21
      RE: Nice try
Jan 27th 2005
38
Faith
Jan 27th 2005
40
RE: Why do you need proof?
Jan 26th 2005
15
      RE: Why do you need proof?
Jan 26th 2005
31
      RE: incorrect context of "i think",
Jan 27th 2005
35
           Like I said, it's an assumption
Jan 27th 2005
41
                RE: a question,
Jan 29th 2005
45
                     what is it then if not an assumption?
Jan 29th 2005
48
                          RE: what about the act of thought?
Jan 29th 2005
49
                               RE: what about the act of thought?
Jan 29th 2005
50
                                    RE: interesting,
Jan 29th 2005
52
                                         The problem with Descartes
Jan 29th 2005
53
                                              RE: Thanks,
Jan 29th 2005
54
      RE: Why do you need proof?
Jan 27th 2005
42
Maybe its just over my head, but
Jan 24th 2005
5
RE: Maybe its just over my head, but
Jan 26th 2005
16
      I'm pretty sure it isn't logic
Jan 27th 2005
36
RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,
Jan 24th 2005
6
RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,
Jan 24th 2005
7
*sigh*
Jan 24th 2005
8
Look up GAGUT...
Jan 25th 2005
10
Sorry, dude.
Jan 25th 2005
12
      No dude, I'M SORRY...
Jan 26th 2005
28
           RE: No dude, I'M SORRY...
Jan 26th 2005
33
                that's harsh... lol
Jan 27th 2005
34
RE: *sigh*
Jan 26th 2005
18
      arright, I've got some time
Jan 26th 2005
25
           RE: arright, I've got some time
Jan 29th 2005
46
                RE: arright, I've got some time
Jan 31st 2005
62
RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,
Jan 24th 2005
9
ease up on the clich
Jan 26th 2005
17
      ease up on the bullshit
Jan 26th 2005
26
      tell me...
Jan 26th 2005
29
      RE: ease up on the clich
Jan 26th 2005
27
           oh man I'm an idiot....
Jan 26th 2005
30
excuse me, but how can a candle melt in infinite ways?
Jan 25th 2005
11
RE: think of it,
Jan 26th 2005
19
      RE: think of it,
Jan 26th 2005
23
invents?
Jan 26th 2005
32
You are not Descartes.
Jan 27th 2005
39
RE: I know,
Jan 29th 2005
47
      No, dude, that's not what I'm saying...
Jan 31st 2005
67
What am I (God)?
Jan 30th 2005
57
Your just a bunch of memories
Jan 30th 2005
58
you being one of them
Jan 30th 2005
59
"I feel therefore I exist"
Feb 01st 2005
70
This is a romanticist's worldview!!!
Feb 01st 2005
71
      So be it
Feb 01st 2005
72
hematite, bitche!!!! and the animal & mineral kingdom, jahlove7
Feb 07th 2005
85

SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 05:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
In response to Reply # 0


          

"Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which may be percieved as something that is decieving to his senses and himself. In order to disprove the existence of the "Evil Genius", Descartes is faced with the challenge of proving God's existence."

So Descartes theory on God stems from his need to disprove something that he "invents". Also, this argument assumes that the only infinite could be God.

If anything, I believe that this statement "We can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable of it's excecution." is exactly why we have created God. We can grasp the idea of their being an infinite but we can't explain it or begin to truly find it. To make ourselves better, we create a "God", based on our own image, to help explain this mystery and also to add hope and meaning to the yes and no choices that we make.
Also, this assumes that there is an infinite being. What if there isn't? What if everything is completely evolving and changing? Why is he certain that there is an infinite being?

This theory seems riddled with inventions and assumptions.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:10 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

>"Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which
>may be percieved as something that is decieving to his
>senses and himself. In order to disprove the existence of
>the "Evil Genius", Descartes is faced with the challenge of
>proving God's existence."
>
> So Descartes theory on God stems from his need to
>disprove something that he "invents". Also, this argument
>assumes that the only infinite could be God.

Not precisely,
He only puts himself into a state of radical doubt, in which he questions his environment. The "Evil Genius" does not need to be interpreted as an entity such as satan, but as the difference in, how the world actually is, and how we percieve it. There is a difference between the actual world, and our perception of it.

>
> If anything, I believe that this statement "We can grasp
>the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable of it's
>excecution." is exactly why we have created God. We can
>grasp the idea of their being an infinite but we can't
>explain it or begin to truly find it. To make ourselves
>better, we create a "God", based on our own image, to help
>explain this mystery and also to add hope and meaning to the
>yes and no choices that we make.

Well, we can explain the infinite, as we can put it into simple mathematics, go on, start counting from 1, you will never find the last number. I am not discussing what we have done with the idea of "God", but what Descartes has done.

> Also, this assumes that there is an infinite being. What
>if there isn't? What if everything is completely evolving
>and changing? Why is he certain that there is an infinite
>being?

If everything is completley evolving and changing, therefore, it is infinite in it's state of change correct? However, try to think of the infinite, as just that, the infinite. You are evolving and changing, yet your body will die. A body capable of the infinite, would never die. He isn't assuming that there is an infinite being, according to his logic, God exists. He has found the puzzle of the infinite, and if it clearly exists, and we are incapable of it, then, there must be a force that is capable of it, don't you agree? It doesn't have to be "GOD", it can be "life", the whole point, and my fascination with his proof, is that there is a force of the infinite that we are humbled by.

Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
In response to Reply # 13


          

"If everything is completley evolving and changing, therefore, it is infinite in it's state of change correct?"

No. You throw around the word infinite to loosely. Eventually one of those changes will lead to the end.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 08:23 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "RE: excuse me but,"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

>"If everything is completley evolving and changing,
>therefore, it is infinite in it's state of change correct?"
>
>No. You throw around the word infinite to loosely.
>Eventually one of those changes will lead to the end.

did you not say, "what if everything is completley evolving and changing?"

i am merely building on your own words, and it seems, that you have thrown the word too loosely, if you meant to say that something eventually leads to an end, you should have said so.
peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 02:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
In response to Reply # 1


          

Also, this assumes that there is an infinite being. What
>if there isn't? What if everything is completely evolving
>and changing?

Does the former negate the latter?

Why is he certain that there is an infinite
>being?

Keep going... let's assume there is no God:

Why are you on okayactivist?

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 08:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "I won't pretend to speak for SH,"
In response to Reply # 37


          

But I'm often confused, and a little perturbed, by this argument:

>>Why is he certain that there is an infinite
>>being?
>
>Keep going... let's assume there is no God:
>
>Why are you on okayactivist?

Why wouldn't he be? You seem to think that if someone doesn't "believe" in "God" (and again, I don't pretend to know anyone's beliefs, even my own), then it makes no sense for him to care about society. This is nonsense.

With or without God, there is still beauty. With or without God, there is still pain. We are completely aware of these things, we see them every day (which is more than I can say for God). We also know that they never take a completely local existence. If we assume there is no God, then IT'S UP TO US to increase the beauty and reduce the pain.

On the other hand, if we assume there's an all-powerful creature out there, we are tempted to leave all this difficult work to Him.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 10:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,"
In response to Reply # 43


          

>Why wouldn't he be? You seem to think that if someone
>doesn't "believe" in "God" (and again, I don't pretend to
>know anyone's beliefs, even my own), then it makes no sense
>for him to care about society. This is nonsense.

Wrong. I KNOW we ALL care about society. I'm not accusing anyone of not caring, but recognizing the fact that we share a common bond here. But that fact has to be legitimized by God for it to be a fact.

>With or without God, there is still beauty.

I disagree.

With or without
>God, there is still pain.

I agree.

We are completely aware of these
>things, we see them every day (which is more than I can say
>for God). We also know that they never take a completely
>local existence. If we assume there is no God, then IT'S UP
>TO US to increase the beauty and reduce the pain.

Why? I cannot see why it would matter if I blew up the world if there is no God. If there is no God, who is to say a Rwandan genocide is wrong? Aren't the murderers just as valid in their beliefs as I am?

>On the other hand, if we assume there's an all-powerful
>creature out there, we are tempted to leave all this
>difficult work to Him.

Why? To me it says we have a guide. peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 03:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "dude, you need to read some Camus posthaste"
In response to Reply # 44


  

          

--------------------
The People's Champ


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 12:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "Camus and Sartre..."
In response to Reply # 55


          

I enjoy existentialism as much as the next joe, but I'm on a different side of it than those cats.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 01:24 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "understood n/m"
In response to Reply # 65


  

          

--------------------
The People's Champ


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 12:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,"
In response to Reply # 44


          

>>Why wouldn't he be? You seem to think that if someone
>>doesn't "believe" in "God" (and again, I don't pretend to
>>know anyone's beliefs, even my own), then it makes no sense
>>for him to care about society. This is nonsense.
>
>Wrong. I KNOW we ALL care about society. I'm not accusing
>anyone of not caring, but recognizing the fact that we share
>a common bond here. But that fact has to be legitimized by
>God for it to be a fact.

WRONGGGGG!!! Can we all stop throwing that word around as if we really understood some shit? We're talking philosophy here, nobody is "wrong." Some of us make weak arguments, though; arguments which don't make any sense, and have no external justification outside of pure culture. Your statement that "that fact has to be legitimized by God for it to be a fact" is an interesting case in point.

You're arguing that humans have no common bond if not that supplied by a conscious creator? Did that statement come from anywhere other than your pastor?

The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back. It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and keep walking.

The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in the long run, we want to cooperate.

>>With or without God, there is still beauty.
>
>I disagree.
>
>With or without
>>God, there is still pain.
>
>I agree.

Oooh! Dramatic!

>We are completely aware of these
>>things, we see them every day (which is more than I can say
>>for God). We also know that they never take a completely
>>local existence. If we assume there is no God, then IT'S UP
>>TO US to increase the beauty and reduce the pain.
>
>Why? I cannot see why it would matter if I blew up the world
>if there is no God.

Most atheists are not so childish.

>If there is no God, who is to say a
>Rwandan genocide is wrong? Aren't the murderers just as
>valid in their beliefs as I am?

Sure, if the only justification you ask for is supernatural. In reality, what goes around comes around. The murderers have made a lot of enemies. They'll get theirs someday, and even if they don't they'll still be targets of revenge for the rest of their lives. Even if they aren't judged by God, they've been judged by the rest of us.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 12:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,"
In response to Reply # 61


          

>>>Why wouldn't he be? You seem to think that if someone
>>>doesn't "believe" in "God" (and again, I don't pretend to
>>>know anyone's beliefs, even my own), then it makes no sense
>>>for him to care about society. This is nonsense.
>>
>>Wrong. I KNOW we ALL care about society. I'm not accusing
>>anyone of not caring, but recognizing the fact that we share
>>a common bond here. But that fact has to be legitimized by
>>God for it to be a fact.
>
>WRONGGGGG!!! Can we all stop throwing that word around as
>if we really understood some shit? We're talking philosophy
>here, nobody is "wrong."

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.

Some of us make weak arguments,
>though; arguments which don't make any sense, and have no
>external justification outside of pure culture. Your
>statement that "that fact has to be legitimized by God for
>it to be a fact" is an interesting case in point.
>
>You're arguing that humans have no common bond if not that
>supplied by a conscious creator? Did that statement come
>from anywhere other than your pastor?

Yes.

>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.

Are you sure?

>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>keep walking.
>
>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>the long run, we want to cooperate.

So your morality is a based on your own survival? I don't believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack him in his jaw than keep walking?

>>>With or without God, there is still beauty.
>>
>>I disagree.
>>
>>With or without
>>>God, there is still pain.
>>
>>I agree.
>
>Oooh! Dramatic!

You made opinionated statements... I gave you my opinion.

>>We are completely aware of these
>>>things, we see them every day (which is more than I can say
>>>for God). We also know that they never take a completely
>>>local existence. If we assume there is no God, then IT'S UP
>>>TO US to increase the beauty and reduce the pain.
>>
>>Why? I cannot see why it would matter if I blew up the world
>>if there is no God.
>
>Most atheists are not so childish.

I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish. I just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was one.

>>If there is no God, who is to say a
>>Rwandan genocide is wrong? Aren't the murderers just as
>>valid in their beliefs as I am?
>
>Sure, if the only justification you ask for is supernatural.
> In reality, what goes around comes around. The murderers
>have made a lot of enemies. They'll get theirs someday, and
>even if they don't they'll still be targets of revenge for
>the rest of their lives. Even if they aren't judged by God,
>they've been judged by the rest of us.

No, they haven't. Not if their actions are as validated as your own. Then we have no right to judge them. I'm not asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Tue Feb-01-05 01:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,"
In response to Reply # 66


          

>>>>Why wouldn't he be? You seem to think that if someone
>>>>doesn't "believe" in "God" (and again, I don't pretend to
>>>>know anyone's beliefs, even my own), then it makes no sense
>>>>for him to care about society. This is nonsense.
>>>
>>>Wrong. I KNOW we ALL care about society. I'm not accusing
>>>anyone of not caring, but recognizing the fact that we share
>>>a common bond here. But that fact has to be legitimized by
>>>God for it to be a fact.
>>
>>WRONGGGGG!!! Can we all stop throwing that word around as
>>if we really understood some shit? We're talking philosophy
>>here, nobody is "wrong."
>
>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.

"The first rule in logical truth-value"?

?

?

Are you serious with that? I'm starting to think 40thStreetBlack was right. You are InVerse, aren't you?

But seriously, you argue that if you say God exists, and I say God doesn't exist, then one of us must be wrong. That statement is simply . . . um, what's the word? . . . wrong.

First of all, neither of us has defined what we mean by "God." Second, neither of us has defined what we mean by "existence." Third, neither of us has defined what we mean by "truth." Is a true statement provable in principle, not disprovable in principle, verifiable in principle, not unverifiable in principle?

Logic is a serious business. People shouldn't attempt to use it as a weapon until they are sure they can handle it.


>>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.
>
>Are you sure?

As sure as I need to be.

>>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>>keep walking.
>>
>>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>>the long run, we want to cooperate.
>
>So your morality is a based on your own survival?

Not only that. My own happiness and well-being, those of the people I care about, etc.

>I don't
>believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack
>him in his jaw than keep walking?

Why would I? Maybe that lack of inclination bothers you.

Okay, let's not talk about cracking a dude in the jaw, let's talk about stealing his wallet. Sure, I might like to have that money in the dude's wallet, but I know it comes at a serious price. If I was to take the wallet, first I run the risk that he might notice me and retaliate. But more importantly, if I was to steal the man's wallet, I would be contributing to a society in which I do not want to live. If I take the man's wallet, I am inviting him, or others, to take mine. Or even if they don't do that, they would at least lose trust in me, and lock me up for their own protection. My fear is not that God would judge me, it's that society would judge me, and that I would judge myself.

>>>>With or without God, there is still beauty.
>>>
>>>I disagree.
>>>
>>>With or without
>>>>God, there is still pain.
>>>
>>>I agree.
>>
>>Oooh! Dramatic!
>
>You made opinionated statements... I gave you my opinion.
>
>>>We are completely aware of these
>>>>things, we see them every day (which is more than I can say
>>>>for God). We also know that they never take a completely
>>>>local existence. If we assume there is no God, then IT'S UP
>>>>TO US to increase the beauty and reduce the pain.
>>>
>>>Why? I cannot see why it would matter if I blew up the world
>>>if there is no God.
>>
>>Most atheists are not so childish.
>
>I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish.

You say you don't think atheists are childish, but you also said that there is no reason an atheist should care if the world continued to exist or not. Those statements, it seems to me, are contradictory.

>I
>just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was
>one.

So you distrust all other atheists because you weren't successful at it yourself.

>>>If there is no God, who is to say a
>>>Rwandan genocide is wrong? Aren't the murderers just as
>>>valid in their beliefs as I am?
>>
>>Sure, if the only justification you ask for is supernatural.
>> In reality, what goes around comes around. The murderers
>>have made a lot of enemies. They'll get theirs someday, and
>>even if they don't they'll still be targets of revenge for
>>the rest of their lives. Even if they aren't judged by God,
>>they've been judged by the rest of us.
>
>No, they haven't. Not if their actions are as validated as
>your own.

But that's the thing. I'm not validating a damn thing! On the contrary, I'm the one saying those acts are despicable. Not because God told me so, just because it's clear to me.

>Then we have no right to judge them.

Why not? I'll do all the judging I want. God sure isn't gonna stop me.

>I'm not
>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,

Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it! I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I "believe" to exist.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Sat Feb-05-05 04:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,"
In response to Reply # 69


          

This is what you said:

We're talking philosophy
>>>here, nobody is "wrong."

The first rule in philosophy (logical truth-value) disagrees with what you said.

>
>But seriously, you argue that if you say God exists, and I
>say God doesn't exist, then one of us must be wrong. That
>statement is simply . . . um, what's the word? . . . wrong.

that was stupid and unnecessary.

>First of all, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>"God."

Here's mine:

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

Second, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>"existence."

I think, therefore I am.

Third, neither of us has defined what we mean
>by "truth."

Exact accordance with that which is.

Is a true statement provable in principle, not
>disprovable in principle, verifiable in principle, not
>unverifiable in principle?

Nothing is provable by principle. I cannot prove to you that there is a God, but the question of God's existence is either in accordance with that which is or it is not. I believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living if there is not.

>Logic is a serious business. People shouldn't attempt to
>use it as a weapon until they are sure they can handle it.

If this was an ambiguous reference in my general direction, I do not care.

>>>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>>>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>>>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.
>>
>>Are you sure?
>
>As sure as I need to be.

So you aren't sure.

>>>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>>>keep walking.
>>>
>>>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>>>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>>>the long run, we want to cooperate.
>>
>>So your morality is a based on your own survival?
>
>Not only that. My own happiness and well-being, those of
>the people I care about, etc.

>>I don't
>>believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack
>>him in his jaw than keep walking?
>
>Why would I? Maybe that lack of inclination bothers you.

Not really. You could be lying.

>Okay, let's not talk about cracking a dude in the jaw, let's
>talk about stealing his wallet. Sure, I might like to have
>that money in the dude's wallet, but I know it comes at a
>serious price. If I was to take the wallet, first I run the
>risk that he might notice me and retaliate. But more
>importantly, if I was to steal the man's wallet, I would be
>contributing to a society in which I do not want to live.
>If I take the man's wallet, I am inviting him, or others, to
>take mine. Or even if they don't do that, they would at
>least lose trust in me, and lock me up for their own
>protection. My fear is not that God would judge me, it's
>that society would judge me, and that I would judge myself.

And what basis would you or society judge you on?

>>I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish.
>
>You say you don't think atheists are childish, but you also
>said that there is no reason an atheist should care if the
>world continued to exist or not. Those statements, it seems
>to me, are contradictory.

Throughout the duration of this argument, you have given me no reason to think otherwise.

>>I
>>just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was
>>one.
>
>So you distrust all other atheists because you weren't
>successful at it yourself.

No. That's not what I said at all.

>But that's the thing. I'm not validating a damn thing! On
>the contrary, I'm the one saying those acts are despicable.
>Not because God told me so, just because it's clear to me.

But you stated their actions are as validated as your own previously. Are you going back on this statement?

>>Then we have no right to judge them.
>
>Why not? I'll do all the judging I want. God sure isn't
>gonna stop me.

No, He's not. It's your choice.

>>I'm not
>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>
>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>"believe" to exist.

OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.

Also, you said that your morality is based on your own survival... what is the point of survival without God?

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Sat Feb-05-05 10:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 73
Sat Feb-05-05 10:26 PM

          

You walk away from an argument without a word, and then you come back four and a half days later as if nothing had happened? I'd given up on you days ago. Luckily, I spend way too much time at the computer, so I noticed you anyway.


>This is what you said:
>
>We're talking philosophy
>>>>here, nobody is "wrong."
>
>The first rule in philosophy (logical truth-value) disagrees
>with what you said.

I don't know where you studied philosophy, but as far as I know, philosophy is bigger than logic, and logic is much bigger than buzzwords.

>>But seriously, you argue that if you say God exists, and I
>>say God doesn't exist, then one of us must be wrong. That
>>statement is simply . . . um, what's the word? . . . wrong.
>
>that was stupid and unnecessary.

Well, stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. And apparently it was necessary, since we're still arguing the point.

>>First of all, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>"God."
>
>Here's mine:
>
>the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
>omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the
>universe.

Great! Progress! Before there was one ill-defined buzzword. Now there are eight.

> Second, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>"existence."
>
>I think, therefore I am.

Cute, but useless in the present context. We're not talking about your existence here. We're talking about God's.

>Third, neither of us has defined what we mean
>>by "truth."
>
>Exact accordance with that which is.

Come on, now. You're just using the word "is" as a surrogate for the word "truth." You haven't defined either one.

>Is a true statement provable in principle, not
>>disprovable in principle, verifiable in principle, not
>>unverifiable in principle?
>
>Nothing is provable by principle.

That's almost true. There are actually all sorts of things which are provable not only in principle, but in fact with a great deal of ease. Open up Euclid and you'll see a long list of such things. However these things are not very profound in a religious sense. So I think I agree with you that provability is not an acceptable standard of truth. It is too restrictive.

>I cannot prove to you
>that there is a God, but the question of God's existence is
>either in accordance with that which is or it is not.

Again, you have not defined "that which is." And since you have not defined truth, you have also not been able to justify your assumption that a boolean logic is relevant. Believe it or not, there are consistent logics out there which are not as trivial as "is or is not."

>I
>believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living
>if there is not.

Sounds to me like you lead a very sad life. I'm sorry.

>>Logic is a serious business. People shouldn't attempt to
>>use it as a weapon until they are sure they can handle it.
>
>If this was an ambiguous reference in my general direction,
>I do not care.

Not just you. It was a reference to all those people who think they can use childish tricks of pseudo-logic to justify their FAITH. There is nothing wrong with faith. You said yourself that God's existence cannot be proven. More precisely, it cannot be proven without axioms, nor can it be disproven. We all need to choose our own axioms. You choose to assume God exists, I do not. I'm happy to admit that your view is probably just as valid as my own, as far as logic is concerned. You, on the other hand, repeatedly seem to imply that we are being illogical, yet you have never been precise enough to point out where.

>>>>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>>>>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>>>>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.
>>>
>>>Are you sure?
>>
>>As sure as I need to be.
>
>So you aren't sure.

As sure as I need to be.

>>>>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>>>>keep walking.
>>>>
>>>>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>>>>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>>>>the long run, we want to cooperate.
>>>
>>>So your morality is a based on your own survival?
>>
>>Not only that. My own happiness and well-being, those of
>>the people I care about, etc.
>
>>>I don't
>>>believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack
>>>him in his jaw than keep walking?
>>
>>Why would I? Maybe that lack of inclination bothers you.
>
>Not really. You could be lying.

Pretty weak. You hear something you can't accept, so you shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say it isn't so.

>>Okay, let's not talk about cracking a dude in the jaw, let's
>>talk about stealing his wallet. Sure, I might like to have
>>that money in the dude's wallet, but I know it comes at a
>>serious price. If I was to take the wallet, first I run the
>>risk that he might notice me and retaliate. But more
>>importantly, if I was to steal the man's wallet, I would be
>>contributing to a society in which I do not want to live.
>>If I take the man's wallet, I am inviting him, or others, to
>>take mine. Or even if they don't do that, they would at
>>least lose trust in me, and lock me up for their own
>>protection. My fear is not that God would judge me, it's
>>that society would judge me, and that I would judge myself.
>
>And what basis would you or society judge you on?

Nobody's around to ask them to have a "basis." They can come up with their own, they already have.

>>>I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish.
>>
>>You say you don't think atheists are childish, but you also
>>said that there is no reason an atheist should care if the
>>world continued to exist or not. Those statements, it seems
>>to me, are contradictory.
>
>Throughout the duration of this argument, you have given me
>no reason to think otherwise.

? So you agree that those statements are contradictory?

>>>I
>>>just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was
>>>one.
>>
>>So you distrust all other atheists because you weren't
>>successful at it yourself.
>
>No. That's not what I said at all.

I was playin'.

>>But that's the thing. I'm not validating a damn thing! On
>>the contrary, I'm the one saying those acts are despicable.
>>Not because God told me so, just because it's clear to me.
>
>But you stated their actions are as validated as your own
>previously. Are you going back on this statement?

I did not say that. I said that if there is no God, then God won't invalidate them. We, however, will.

>>>Then we have no right to judge them.
>>
>>Why not? I'll do all the judging I want. God sure isn't
>>gonna stop me.
>
>No, He's not. It's your choice.

Okay, so you agree that I'm not validating anyone's crimes.

>>>I'm not
>>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>>
>>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
>> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>>"believe" to exist.
>
>OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as
>valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.

I did not say that, literally or figuratively. You're welcome to "go back" yourself if you like. If I'm able to say that I exist without assuming I was produced by a conscious creator, I can just as easily say that morality exists without a conscious creator.

>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>survival... what is the point of survival without God?

I'm getting a kick out of it so far.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Sun Feb-06-05 09:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 74


          

>You walk away from an argument without a word, and then you
>come back four and a half days later as if nothing had
>happened? I'd given up on you days ago. Luckily, I spend
>way too much time at the computer, so I noticed you anyway.

I didn't walk away... I do a lot of shows. All apologies.

>
>>This is what you said:
>>
>>We're talking philosophy
>>>>>here, nobody is "wrong."
>>
>>The first rule in philosophy (logical truth-value) disagrees
>>with what you said.
>
>I don't know where you studied philosophy, but as far as I
>know, philosophy is bigger than logic, and logic is much
>bigger than buzzwords.

Logic is philosophy. Is this not clear?

>>>But seriously, you argue that if you say God exists, and I
>>>say God doesn't exist, then one of us must be wrong. That
>>>statement is simply . . . um, what's the word? . . . wrong.
>>
>>that was stupid and unnecessary.
>
>Well, stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. And
>apparently it was necessary, since we're still arguing the
>point.

...

>>>First of all, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>>"God."
>>
>>Here's mine:
>>
>>the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
>>omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the
>>universe.
>
>Great! Progress! Before there was one ill-defined
>buzzword. Now there are eight.

What is unclear?

>> Second, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>>"existence."
>>
>>I think, therefore I am.
>
>Cute, but useless in the present context. We're not talking
>about your existence here. We're talking about God's.

No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.

>>Third, neither of us has defined what we mean
>>>by "truth."
>>
>>Exact accordance with that which is.
>
>Come on, now. You're just using the word "is" as a
>surrogate for the word "truth." You haven't defined either
>one.

Actually, you are completely wrong. That's a webster's definition.

>>Is a true statement provable in principle, not
>>>disprovable in principle, verifiable in principle, not
>>>unverifiable in principle?
>>
>>Nothing is provable by principle.
>
>That's almost true. There are actually all sorts of things
>which are provable not only in principle, but in fact with a
>great deal of ease. Open up Euclid and you'll see a long
>list of such things.

Name one.

However these things are not very
>profound in a religious sense. So I think I agree with you
>that provability is not an acceptable standard of truth. It
>is too restrictive.

OK.

>>I cannot prove to you
>>that there is a God, but the question of God's existence is
>>either in accordance with that which is or it is not.
>
>Again, you have not defined "that which is." And since you
>have not defined truth, you have also not been able to
>justify your assumption that a boolean logic is relevant.
>Believe it or not, there are consistent logics out there
>which are not as trivial as "is or is not."

I defined truth by a friggin dictionary. If you don't understand the dictionary's definition, I simply cannot help you. As far as your consistent logic argument, that is just a lie.

>>I
>>believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living
>>if there is not.
>
>Sounds to me like you lead a very sad life. I'm sorry.

Thanks, but I don't need pity. Having lived where an atheist lives and where I live now, I certainly pity the atheist.

>>>Logic is a serious business. People shouldn't attempt to
>>>use it as a weapon until they are sure they can handle it.
>>
>>If this was an ambiguous reference in my general direction,
>>I do not care.
>
>Not just you. It was a reference to all those people who
>think they can use childish tricks of pseudo-logic to
>justify their FAITH. There is nothing wrong with faith.
>You said yourself that God's existence cannot be proven.

I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God... do you disagree?). You're reading way too into this simple equation. I'm not playing tricks.

>More precisely, it cannot be proven without axioms, nor can
>it be disproven. We all need to choose our own axioms. You
>choose to assume God exists, I do not. I'm happy to admit
>that your view is probably just as valid as my own, as far
>as logic is concerned.

As far as logic is concerned, possibly yes. But we disagree in terms of rationality, and if "purpose in life" is a means for a valid premise in a logical equation, then I probably disagree with you on a logical level as well.

You, on the other hand, repeatedly
>seem to imply that we are being illogical, yet you have
>never been precise enough to point out where.

I just haven't heard an answer to the question of what the meaning of life is from your perspective... and you still haven't given me one. This is the only thing I've pointed out.

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.

>>>>>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>>>>>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>>>>>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.
>>>>
>>>>Are you sure?
>>>
>>>As sure as I need to be.
>>
>>So you aren't sure.
>
>As sure as I need to be.

If sure means, "certainly knowing or believing", then you are not sure, by definition.

>>>>>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>>>>>keep walking.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>>>>>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>>>>>the long run, we want to cooperate.
>>>>
>>>>So your morality is a based on your own survival?
>>>
>>>Not only that. My own happiness and well-being, those of
>>>the people I care about, etc.
>>
>>>>I don't
>>>>believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack
>>>>him in his jaw than keep walking?
>>>
>>>Why would I? Maybe that lack of inclination bothers you.
>>
>>Not really. You could be lying.
>
>Pretty weak. You hear something you can't accept, so you
>shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say it isn't so.

You chose the word "maybe", which was weak to begin with. I chose the phrase "could be", which was the only appropriate response to your ambiguity.

>>>Okay, let's not talk about cracking a dude in the jaw, let's
>>>talk about stealing his wallet. Sure, I might like to have
>>>that money in the dude's wallet, but I know it comes at a
>>>serious price. If I was to take the wallet, first I run the
>>>risk that he might notice me and retaliate. But more
>>>importantly, if I was to steal the man's wallet, I would be
>>>contributing to a society in which I do not want to live.
>>>If I take the man's wallet, I am inviting him, or others, to
>>>take mine. Or even if they don't do that, they would at
>>>least lose trust in me, and lock me up for their own
>>>protection. My fear is not that God would judge me, it's
>>>that society would judge me, and that I would judge myself.
>>
>>And what basis would you or society judge you on?
>
>Nobody's around to ask them to have a "basis." They can
>come up with their own, they already have.

Where does it come from?

>>>>I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish.
>>>
>>>You say you don't think atheists are childish, but you also
>>>said that there is no reason an atheist should care if the
>>>world continued to exist or not. Those statements, it seems
>>>to me, are contradictory.
>>
>>Throughout the duration of this argument, you have given me
>>no reason to think otherwise.
>
>? So you agree that those statements are contradictory?

Some of the greatest existentialist thinkers in history didn't care whether or not the world existed, so no, those statements are not contradictory. See Nietzsche.

>>>>I
>>>>just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was
>>>>one.
>>>
>>>So you distrust all other atheists because you weren't
>>>successful at it yourself.
>>
>>No. That's not what I said at all.
>
>I was playin'.

OK.

>>>But that's the thing. I'm not validating a damn thing! On
>>>the contrary, I'm the one saying those acts are despicable.
>>>Not because God told me so, just because it's clear to me.
>>
>>But you stated their actions are as validated as your own
>>previously. Are you going back on this statement?
>
>I did not say that. I said that if there is no God, then
>God won't invalidate them. We, however, will.
>
>>>>Then we have no right to judge them.
>>>
>>>Why not? I'll do all the judging I want. God sure isn't
>>>gonna stop me.
>>
>>No, He's not. It's your choice.
>
>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?

>>>>I'm not
>>>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>>>
>>>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>>>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>>>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
>>> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>>>"believe" to exist.
>>
>>OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as
>>valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.
>
>I did not say that, literally or figuratively. You're
>welcome to "go back" yourself if you like. If I'm able to
>say that I exist without assuming I was produced by a
>conscious creator, I can just as easily say that morality
>exists without a conscious creator.

Wait... define "exist".

>>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>>survival... what is the point of survival without God?
>
>I'm getting a kick out of it so far.

And, after however many posts now, you have not answered the question. peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Sun Feb-06-05 02:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 75


          

>>You walk away from an argument without a word, and then you
>>come back four and a half days later as if nothing had
>>happened? I'd given up on you days ago. Luckily, I spend
>>way too much time at the computer, so I noticed you anyway.
>
>I didn't walk away... I do a lot of shows. All apologies.

No problem. It was just a surprise.

>>>This is what you said:
>>>
>>>We're talking philosophy
>>>>>>here, nobody is "wrong."
>>>
>>>The first rule in philosophy (logical truth-value) disagrees
>>>with what you said.
>>
>>I don't know where you studied philosophy, but as far as I
>>know, philosophy is bigger than logic, and logic is much
>>bigger than buzzwords.
>
>Logic is philosophy. Is this not clear?

Logic is a branch of philosophy; one of many. Theology is another branch of philosophy. Logic and theology are generally considered distinct (some would even say disjunct) fields of study.

>>>>But seriously, you argue that if you say God exists, and I
>>>>say God doesn't exist, then one of us must be wrong. That
>>>>statement is simply . . . um, what's the word? . . . wrong.
>>>
>>>that was stupid and unnecessary.
>>
>>Well, stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. And
>>apparently it was necessary, since we're still arguing the
>>point.
>
>...
>
>>>>First of all, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>>>"God."
>>>
>>>Here's mine:
>>>
>>>the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
>>>omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the
>>>universe.
>>
>>Great! Progress! Before there was one ill-defined
>>buzzword. Now there are eight.
>
>What is unclear?

supernatural
being
perfect
omnipotent
omniscient
originator
ruler
universe

I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously. In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not the same thing as logic.

>>> Second, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>>>"existence."
>>>
>>>I think, therefore I am.
>>
>>Cute, but useless in the present context. We're not talking
>>about your existence here. We're talking about God's.
>
>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.

I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I will point out that there are plenty of people out there who believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in any sense like we do.

>>>Third, neither of us has defined what we mean
>>>>by "truth."
>>>
>>>Exact accordance with that which is.
>>
>>Come on, now. You're just using the word "is" as a
>>surrogate for the word "truth." You haven't defined either
>>one.
>
>Actually, you are completely wrong. That's a webster's
>definition.

Hahahahahaha! Webster was not a logician. You'll have to try harder than that. An assertion of synonymy can serve as a definition only if the synonym is itself well defined.

>>>Is a true statement provable in principle, not
>>>>disprovable in principle, verifiable in principle, not
>>>>unverifiable in principle?
>>>
>>>Nothing is provable by principle.
>>
>>That's almost true. There are actually all sorts of things
>>which are provable not only in principle, but in fact with a
>>great deal of ease. Open up Euclid and you'll see a long
>>list of such things.
>
>Name one.

The pythagorean theorem is the first one which comes to mind.

>>However these things are not very
>>profound in a religious sense. So I think I agree with you
>>that provability is not an acceptable standard of truth. It
>>is too restrictive.
>
>OK.
>
>>>I cannot prove to you
>>>that there is a God, but the question of God's existence is
>>>either in accordance with that which is or it is not.
>>
>>Again, you have not defined "that which is." And since you
>>have not defined truth, you have also not been able to
>>justify your assumption that a boolean logic is relevant.
>>Believe it or not, there are consistent logics out there
>>which are not as trivial as "is or is not."
>
>I defined truth by a friggin dictionary. If you don't
>understand the dictionary's definition, I simply cannot help
>you. As far as your consistent logic argument, that is just
>a lie.

I advise you to close your friggin dictionary and open a fuckin encyclopedia. Look up "nonclassical logics", "modal logics", "quantum logic", "topos theory", "multivalent logics." You will see that I'm being quite honest. What is it with you always assuming that people are lying to you? Have some faith in your fellow man.

>>>I
>>>believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living
>>>if there is not.
>>
>>Sounds to me like you lead a very sad life. I'm sorry.
>
>Thanks, but I don't need pity. Having lived where an
>atheist lives and where I live now, I certainly pity the
>atheist.

Okay, let's leave it up to testimonials. I was raised a Christian. Looking back to "where a Christian lives", I pity the theist.

>>>>Logic is a serious business. People shouldn't attempt to
>>>>use it as a weapon until they are sure they can handle it.
>>>
>>>If this was an ambiguous reference in my general direction,
>>>I do not care.
>>
>>Not just you. It was a reference to all those people who
>>think they can use childish tricks of pseudo-logic to
>>justify their FAITH. There is nothing wrong with faith.
>>You said yourself that God's existence cannot be proven.
>
>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>do you disagree?).

I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in principle!?

And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic. Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other contexts.

>You're reading way too into this simple
>equation. I'm not playing tricks.

You are criticizing other people's arguments on logical grounds, despite the fact that you clearly have a very shallow knowledge of the subject.

>>More precisely, it cannot be proven without axioms, nor can
>>it be disproven. We all need to choose our own axioms. You
>>choose to assume God exists, I do not. I'm happy to admit
>>that your view is probably just as valid as my own, as far
>>as logic is concerned.
>
>As far as logic is concerned, possibly yes. But we disagree
>in terms of rationality, and if "purpose in life" is a means
>for a valid premise in a logical equation, then I probably
>disagree with you on a logical level as well.
>
>>You, on the other hand, repeatedly
>>seem to imply that we are being illogical, yet you have
>>never been precise enough to point out where.
>
>I just haven't heard an answer to the question of what the
>meaning of life is from your perspective... and you still
>haven't given me one. This is the only thing I've pointed
>out.

Okay, your only criticism of my argument is that I haven't told you "the meaning of life." Sorry, dude, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Why don't you tell me what the meaning of life is "from your perspective."

>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.

>>>>>>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>>>>>>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>>>>>>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you sure?
>>>>
>>>>As sure as I need to be.
>>>
>>>So you aren't sure.
>>
>>As sure as I need to be.
>
>If sure means, "certainly knowing or believing", then you
>are not sure, by definition.

I'm as sure as I need to be.

>>>>>>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>>>>>>keep walking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>>>>>>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>>>>>>the long run, we want to cooperate.
>>>>>
>>>>>So your morality is a based on your own survival?
>>>>
>>>>Not only that. My own happiness and well-being, those of
>>>>the people I care about, etc.
>>>
>>>>>I don't
>>>>>believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack
>>>>>him in his jaw than keep walking?
>>>>
>>>>Why would I? Maybe that lack of inclination bothers you.
>>>
>>>Not really. You could be lying.
>>
>>Pretty weak. You hear something you can't accept, so you
>>shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say it isn't so.
>
>You chose the word "maybe", which was weak to begin with. I
>chose the phrase "could be", which was the only appropriate
>response to your ambiguity.

It wasn't the ambiguity that bothered me. Indeed, it is my contention that a vast ambiguity is necessarily inherent in the subject matter. What bothers me is the fact that you are so quick to dismiss statements on the assumption that you are being lied to. Seems pretty paranoid.

>>>>Okay, let's not talk about cracking a dude in the jaw, let's
>>>>talk about stealing his wallet. Sure, I might like to have
>>>>that money in the dude's wallet, but I know it comes at a
>>>>serious price. If I was to take the wallet, first I run the
>>>>risk that he might notice me and retaliate. But more
>>>>importantly, if I was to steal the man's wallet, I would be
>>>>contributing to a society in which I do not want to live.
>>>>If I take the man's wallet, I am inviting him, or others, to
>>>>take mine. Or even if they don't do that, they would at
>>>>least lose trust in me, and lock me up for their own
>>>>protection. My fear is not that God would judge me, it's
>>>>that society would judge me, and that I would judge myself.
>>>
>>>And what basis would you or society judge you on?
>>
>>Nobody's around to ask them to have a "basis." They can
>>come up with their own, they already have.
>
>Where does it come from?

Where do I come from? Where do you come from? Why assume that everything "comes from" something else. There are counterexamples.

>>>>>I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish.
>>>>
>>>>You say you don't think atheists are childish, but you also
>>>>said that there is no reason an atheist should care if the
>>>>world continued to exist or not. Those statements, it seems
>>>>to me, are contradictory.
>>>
>>>Throughout the duration of this argument, you have given me
>>>no reason to think otherwise.
>>
>>? So you agree that those statements are contradictory?
>
>Some of the greatest existentialist thinkers in history
>didn't care whether or not the world existed, so no, those
>statements are not contradictory. See Nietzsche.

Let's not trivialize.

>>>>>I
>>>>>just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was
>>>>>one.
>>>>
>>>>So you distrust all other atheists because you weren't
>>>>successful at it yourself.
>>>
>>>No. That's not what I said at all.
>>
>>I was playin'.
>
>OK.
>
>>>>But that's the thing. I'm not validating a damn thing! On
>>>>the contrary, I'm the one saying those acts are despicable.
>>>>Not because God told me so, just because it's clear to me.
>>>
>>>But you stated their actions are as validated as your own
>>>previously. Are you going back on this statement?
>>
>>I did not say that. I said that if there is no God, then
>>God won't invalidate them. We, however, will.
>>
>>>>>Then we have no right to judge them.
>>>>
>>>>Why not? I'll do all the judging I want. God sure isn't
>>>>gonna stop me.
>>>
>>>No, He's not. It's your choice.
>>
>>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.

>>>>>I'm not
>>>>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>>>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>>>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>>>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>>>>
>>>>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>>>>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>>>>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
>>>> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>>>>"believe" to exist.
>>>
>>>OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as
>>>valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.
>>
>>I did not say that, literally or figuratively. You're
>>welcome to "go back" yourself if you like. If I'm able to
>>say that I exist without assuming I was produced by a
>>conscious creator, I can just as easily say that morality
>>exists without a conscious creator.
>
>Wait... define "exist".

Haha. I'm not the one pretending that logical rigor is available to us.

>>>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>>>survival... what is the point of survival without God?
>>
>>I'm getting a kick out of it so far.
>
>And, after however many posts now, you have not answered the
>question. peace,

What question, the meaning of life? I'll get that to you as soon as I figure it out. Why don't you tell us what you think it is, and we'll see if anyone finds it compelling. Maybe you could start an OkayCult.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Sun Feb-06-05 04:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "Theology part of philosophy?"
In response to Reply # 76


          

you wish.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 07:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "RE: Theology part of philosophy?"
In response to Reply # 78


          


Okay, true. But it used to be considered so. Long, long ago. In the same sense that meteorology was once considered a part of physics. It depends on how old school one is.

But you're making my point. Logic has not yet been equipped to deal with theology. And if it ever is, one or the other will be destroyed in the process.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Wed Feb-16-05 06:07 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
91. "RE: Theology part of philosophy?"
In response to Reply # 81


          

>
>Okay, true. But it used to be considered so. Long, long
>ago.

would you please substantiate this?


>But you're making my point. Logic has not yet been equipped
>to deal with theology.

umm... *laughs*

>And if it ever is, one or the other
>will be destroyed in the process.

either/or again? read luhmann and spenser brown.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
ovBismarck
Charter member
1868 posts
Wed Feb-16-05 06:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "RE: Theology part of philosophy?"
In response to Reply # 91


  

          

Why are you always so cryptic?

-------------
A seal walks into a club.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Wed Feb-16-05 09:42 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "How am I "cryptic"?"
In response to Reply # 92


          

dude talks bs.

if he's really interested in gettin rid of dogmas, he should read luhmann and spenser brown.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Feb-16-05 11:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "Postmodernism = Bullshit,"
In response to Reply # 93
Wed Feb-16-05 12:01 PM

          

or so they say.

I'll read Luhmann and Spencer-Brown as soon as you read Milnor and Choquet-Bruhat.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Wed Feb-16-05 12:00 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "these guys ain't postmodernists"
In response to Reply # 94


          

luhman was a sociologist and spenser brown a... *drum roll* mathematician!


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Feb-16-05 12:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "RE: these guys ain't postmodernists"
In response to Reply # 95


          

>luhman was a sociologist

psh! Sociology.

>and spenser brown a... *drum roll*
>mathematician!

Well, sort of . . . not really. But the point you seem to be getting at is that he argued against the dogmatic use of classical logics. This (rather silly) issue has made up a significant portion of my argument with LK1. And I'm the one taking that side.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Sun Feb-06-05 07:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 76


          

>>Logic is philosophy. Is this not clear?
>
>Logic is a branch of philosophy; one of many. Theology is
>another branch of philosophy. Logic and theology are
>generally considered distinct (some would even say disjunct)
>fields of study.

Theology is not a branch of philosophy.

>>What is unclear?
>
>supernatural- not bound by this world
>being - a thinking object
>perfect - perfect
>omnipotent - can do all
>omniscient - knows all
>originator - creator
>ruler - moral ruler
>universe - everything that is
>
>I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously.
>In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at
>the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not
>the same thing as logic.

That made absolutely no sense.

>>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.
>
>I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I
>will point out that there are plenty of people out there who
>believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in
>any sense like we do.

You asked me for a definition of existence. I can only give you a personal answer. Remember, I never claimed I could prove God's or have any beginning understanding of what His existence consists of since He simply IS. I cannot fathom eternity.

>>Actually, you are completely wrong. That's a webster's
>>definition.
>
>Hahahahahaha! Webster was not a logician. You'll have to
>try harder than that. An assertion of synonymy can serve as
>a definition only if the synonym is itself well defined.

There isn't any ambiguity in "exact accordance with that which is". Perhaps you just don't understand it.

>>Name one.
>
>The pythagorean theorem is the first one which comes to
>mind.

What? That's a provable, distinct mathematical equation which makes a right triangle. It was founded on principle, and proven later, like everything.

>>>Again, you have not defined "that which is." And since you
>>>have not defined truth, you have also not been able to
>>>justify your assumption that a boolean logic is relevant.
>>>Believe it or not, there are consistent logics out there
>>>which are not as trivial as "is or is not."
>>
>>I defined truth by a friggin dictionary. If you don't
>>understand the dictionary's definition, I simply cannot help
>>you. As far as your consistent logic argument, that is just
>>a lie.
>
>I advise you to close your friggin dictionary and open a
>fuckin encyclopedia. Look up "nonclassical logics", "modal
>logics", "quantum logic", "topos theory", "multivalent
>logics." You will see that I'm being quite honest. What is
>it with you always assuming that people are lying to you?
>Have some faith in your fellow man.

Everything you just listed still has an "is or is not" answer. Just because it can't be PROVEN, does not make it beyond this incredibly simple concept. God's existence is the same way.

>>>>I
>>>>believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living
>>>>if there is not.
>>>
>>>Sounds to me like you lead a very sad life. I'm sorry.
>>
>>Thanks, but I don't need pity. Having lived where an
>>atheist lives and where I live now, I certainly pity the
>>atheist.
>
>Okay, let's leave it up to testimonials. I was raised a
>Christian. Looking back to "where a Christian lives", I
>pity the theist.

It's your choice.

>>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>>do you disagree?).
>
>I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in
>principle!?

It is not a principle that there either IS or IS NOT a God. This is a simple fact. The answer cannot be proven in our worldly realm, but there either IS or IS NOT a God. Is this insanley difficult or something?

>And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the
>subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic.
> Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a
>bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this
>assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other
>contexts.

There either IS or IS NOT a God. Do you disagree? Answer the question this time.

>>You're reading way too into this simple
>>equation. I'm not playing tricks.
>
>You are criticizing other people's arguments on logical
>grounds, despite the fact that you clearly have a very
>shallow knowledge of the subject.

There either IS or IS NOT a God. This is the only logical premise I've made this entire time. We are still at phase one.

>>>More precisely, it cannot be proven without axioms, nor can
>>>it be disproven. We all need to choose our own axioms. You
>>>choose to assume God exists, I do not. I'm happy to admit
>>>that your view is probably just as valid as my own, as far
>>>as logic is concerned.
>>
>>As far as logic is concerned, possibly yes. But we disagree
>>in terms of rationality, and if "purpose in life" is a means
>>for a valid premise in a logical equation, then I probably
>>disagree with you on a logical level as well.
>>
>>>You, on the other hand, repeatedly
>>>seem to imply that we are being illogical, yet you have
>>>never been precise enough to point out where.
>>
>>I just haven't heard an answer to the question of what the
>>meaning of life is from your perspective... and you still
>>haven't given me one. This is the only thing I've pointed
>>out.
>
>Okay, your only criticism of my argument is that I haven't
>told you "the meaning of life." Sorry, dude, I'll have to
>get back to you on that one.

OK. I believe I've found it. That's our difference.

>Why don't you tell me what the meaning of life is "from your
>perspective."

Based on my faith and studies, the immediate followers of Christ (within a century of His death) had it down. The purpose of life is to be with God when we die.

>>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.

>>If sure means, "certainly knowing or believing", then you
>>are not sure, by definition.
>
>I'm as sure as I need to be.

...

>>You chose the word "maybe", which was weak to begin with. I
>>chose the phrase "could be", which was the only appropriate
>>response to your ambiguity.
>
>It wasn't the ambiguity that bothered me. Indeed, it is my
>contention that a vast ambiguity is necessarily inherent in
>the subject matter. What bothers me is the fact that you
>are so quick to dismiss statements on the assumption that
>you are being lied to. Seems pretty paranoid.

It was a response TO ambiguity... sorry it had to start off that way.

>>Where does it come from?
>
>Where do I come from? Where do you come from? Why assume
>that everything "comes from" something else. There are
>counterexamples.

Name one.

>>Some of the greatest existentialist thinkers in history
>>didn't care whether or not the world existed, so no, those
>>statements are not contradictory. See Nietzsche.
>
>Let's not trivialize.

Seriously, let's not.

>>>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. 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.

>>>>>>I'm not
>>>>>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>>>>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>>>>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>>>>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>>>>>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>>>>>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
>>>>> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>>>>>"believe" to exist.
>>>>
>>>>OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as
>>>>valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.
>>>
>>>I did not say that, literally or figuratively. You're
>>>welcome to "go back" yourself if you like. If I'm able to
>>>say that I exist without assuming I was produced by a
>>>conscious creator, I can just as easily say that morality
>>>exists without a conscious creator.
>>
>>Wait... define "exist".
>
>Haha. I'm not the one pretending that logical rigor is
>available to us.

Neither am I. I am open to the concept that either Something exists or nothing exists. But I gotta say on this one, that rationality heavily favors the whole "things exist" side of things.

>>>>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>>>>survival... what is the point of survival without God?
>>>
>>>I'm getting a kick out of it so far.
>>
>>And, after however many posts now, you have not answered the
>>question. peace,
>
>What question, the meaning of life? I'll get that to you as
>soon as I figure it out. Why don't you tell us what you
>think it is, and we'll see if anyone finds it compelling.
>Maybe you could start an OkayCult.

There's where we differ. I stated it earlier. Every religion started as a cult, then a sect, then a denomination... but my ideas certainly aren't original, to say the least. peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 09:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
82. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 79


          

>>>Logic is philosophy. Is this not clear?
>>
>>Logic is a branch of philosophy; one of many. Theology is
>>another branch of philosophy. Logic and theology are
>>generally considered distinct (some would even say disjunct)
>>fields of study.
>
>Theology is not a branch of philosophy.

Don't let DeleteMe take over for you. He seems to know a few things, enough to confuse you.

Some would say that everything which involves thought, even in the slightest, is a branch of philosophy. On those grounds . . . well, maybe I see your point.

>>>What is unclear?
>>
>>supernatural- not bound by this world

Okay, define "bound" and "this world"

>>being - a thinking object

define "thinking" and "object"

>>perfect - perfect

"perfect"

>>omnipotent - can do all

"do", "all"

>>omniscient - knows all

"know", and "all" again

>>originator - creator

"creator"

>>ruler - moral ruler

"moral" and "ruler"

>>universe - everything that is

okay, define "everything." And you still haven't told me what your meaning of "is" is.

>>
>>I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously.
>>In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at
>>the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not
>>the same thing as logic.
>
>That made absolutely no sense.

The point is that you're not making any progress at turning your theology into a logical structure. You're only making it more and more ambiguous and cumbersome. Now, elsewhere, you're saying you're not trying to prove anything. This implies to me that you're not trying to use logic. If that is the case, great. Let's let this drop.

>>>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.
>>
>>I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I
>>will point out that there are plenty of people out there who
>>believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in
>>any sense like we do.
>
>You asked me for a definition of existence. I can only give
>you a personal answer.

So you can say resolutely that God "exists", even though you can't tell me what you mean by that statement. You're right. Theology is not a part of philosophy.

>Remember, I never claimed I could
>prove God's or have any beginning understanding of what His
>existence consists of since He simply IS. I cannot fathom
>eternity.
>
>>>Actually, you are completely wrong. That's a webster's
>>>definition.
>>
>>Hahahahahaha! Webster was not a logician. You'll have to
>>try harder than that. An assertion of synonymy can serve as
>>a definition only if the synonym is itself well defined.
>
>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)

>>>Name one.
>>
>>The pythagorean theorem is the first one which comes to
>>mind.
>
>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?

>>>>Again, you have not defined "that which is." And since you
>>>>have not defined truth, you have also not been able to
>>>>justify your assumption that a boolean logic is relevant.
>>>>Believe it or not, there are consistent logics out there
>>>>which are not as trivial as "is or is not."
>>>
>>>I defined truth by a friggin dictionary. If you don't
>>>understand the dictionary's definition, I simply cannot help
>>>you. As far as your consistent logic argument, that is just
>>>a lie.
>>
>>I advise you to close your friggin dictionary and open a
>>fuckin encyclopedia. Look up "nonclassical logics", "modal
>>logics", "quantum logic", "topos theory", "multivalent
>>logics." You will see that I'm being quite honest. What is
>>it with you always assuming that people are lying to you?
>>Have some faith in your fellow man.
>
>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."

>Just because it can't be PROVEN, does not make it
>beyond this incredibly simple concept. God's existence is
>the same way.

We're not arguing about provability anymore. We're arguing about valence, about your contention that a major series of advances in mathematics and logic, involving at least two centuries of dedicated work, never happened. Maybe now every mathematician in the world is lying.


>>>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>>>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>>>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>>>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>>>do you disagree?).
>>
>>I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in
>>principle!?
>
>It is not a principle that there either IS or IS NOT a God.
>This is a simple fact. The answer cannot be proven in our
>worldly realm, but there either IS or IS NOT a God. Is this
>insanley difficult or something?

No, just naive.

>>And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the
>>subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic.
>> Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a
>>bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this
>>assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other
>>contexts.
>
>There either IS or IS NOT a God. Do you disagree? Answer
>the question this time.

Yes, I desagree, and I have been all along.

>>>You're reading way too into this simple
>>>equation. I'm not playing tricks.
>>
>>You are criticizing other people's arguments on logical
>>grounds, despite the fact that you clearly have a very
>>shallow knowledge of the subject.
>
>There either IS or IS NOT a God. This is the only logical
>premise I've made this entire time. We are still at phase
>one.
>
>>>>More precisely, it cannot be proven without axioms, nor can
>>>>it be disproven. We all need to choose our own axioms. You
>>>>choose to assume God exists, I do not. I'm happy to admit
>>>>that your view is probably just as valid as my own, as far
>>>>as logic is concerned.
>>>
>>>As far as logic is concerned, possibly yes. But we disagree
>>>in terms of rationality, and if "purpose in life" is a means
>>>for a valid premise in a logical equation, then I probably
>>>disagree with you on a logical level as well.
>>>
>>>>You, on the other hand, repeatedly
>>>>seem to imply that we are being illogical, yet you have
>>>>never been precise enough to point out where.
>>>
>>>I just haven't heard an answer to the question of what the
>>>meaning of life is from your perspective... and you still
>>>haven't given me one. This is the only thing I've pointed
>>>out.
>>
>>Okay, your only criticism of my argument is that I haven't
>>told you "the meaning of life." Sorry, dude, I'll have to
>>get back to you on that one.
>
>OK. I believe I've found it. That's our difference.

ARRIGHT! HISTORY IS ABOUT TO BE MADE! SOMEBODY CALL THE PAPERS, WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR THE "MEANING OF LIFE" RIGHT HERE ON OKAYACTIVIST!

>>Why don't you tell me what the meaning of life is "from your
>>perspective."
>
>Based on my faith and studies, the immediate followers of
>Christ (within a century of His death) had it down. The
>purpose of life is to be with God when we die.

That's all you've got? Sorry, but I'm a little disappointed. Why should I care if I'm with God when I die? I mean, if I'm dead, I won't even be conscious anymore, will I? And if I am conscious, what is the meaning of this "afterlife"?

>>>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.


>>>Where does it come from?
>>
>>Where do I come from? Where do you come from? Why assume
>>that everything "comes from" something else. There are
>>counterexamples.
>
>Name one.

The quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field, the so-called "virtual photons."


>>>>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.

>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.


>>>>>>>I'm not
>>>>>>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>>>>>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>>>>>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>>>>>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>>>>>>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>>>>>>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
>>>>>> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>>>>>>"believe" to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as
>>>>>valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.
>>>>
>>>>I did not say that, literally or figuratively. You're
>>>>welcome to "go back" yourself if you like. If I'm able to
>>>>say that I exist without assuming I was produced by a
>>>>conscious creator, I can just as easily say that morality
>>>>exists without a conscious creator.
>>>
>>>Wait... define "exist".
>>
>>Haha. I'm not the one pretending that logical rigor is
>>available to us.
>
>Neither am I. I am open to the concept that either
>Something exists or nothing exists. But I gotta say on this
>one, that rationality heavily favors the whole "things
>exist" side of things.

Oh, so you want to be rational! I take that to mean that you will judge facts by their evidenciary support. If so, you will likely come to the conclusion that "something" exists, but "God" doesn't.

>>>>>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>>>>>survival... what is the point of survival without God?
>>>>
>>>>I'm getting a kick out of it so far.
>>>
>>>And, after however many posts now, you have not answered the
>>>question. peace,
>>
>>What question, the meaning of life? I'll get that to you as
>>soon as I figure it out. Why don't you tell us what you
>>think it is, and we'll see if anyone finds it compelling.
>>Maybe you could start an OkayCult.
>
>There's where we differ. I stated it earlier. Every
>religion started as a cult, then a sect, then a
>denomination... but my ideas certainly aren't original, to
>say the least. peace,

Your ideas aren't original. On that we can agree.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 11:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
83. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 82
Mon Feb-07-05 12:29 PM

          

>>Theology is not a branch of philosophy.
>
>Don't let DeleteMe take over for you. He seems to know a
>few things, enough to confuse you.
>
>Some would say that everything which involves thought, even
>in the slightest, is a branch of philosophy. On those
>grounds . . . well, maybe I see your point.

I'm going by history books... I don't see philosophy as something outside of and bigger than religion.

As far as definitions for specific words go... I'm not really sure how specific you want me to get. I'm not a linguist, so I figured Webster might be a safe route. If we can't get more specific than a linguist, perhaps nothing--no word in the history of language--will ever be defined.

>>>
>>>I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously.
>>>In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at
>>>the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not
>>>the same thing as logic.
>>
>>That made absolutely no sense.
>
>The point is that you're not making any progress at turning
>your theology into a logical structure.

When did I try? I made one logical premise using common English words with definitions coming from one of the top linguists in the history of our language, and you contend that it is ambiguous. I'm not trying to prove God's existence, I'm simply making the statement that God does or does not exist.

>>>>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.
>>>
>>>I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I
>>>will point out that there are plenty of people out there who
>>>believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in
>>>any sense like we do.
>>
>>You asked me for a definition of existence. I can only give
>>you a personal answer.
>
>So you can say resolutely that God "exists", even though you
>can't tell me what you mean by that statement. You're
>right. Theology is not a part of philosophy.

I can't tell you how or by what physical standards God exists, but I can tell you that He either does or does not exist. If His physical nature is unlike that of our own or unbound to our universe or the only thing that is actually real or made of Pla-Doh, He still exists. If there is void, He does not.

>>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. Whatever is true is whatever is real, and whatever is real may or may not be within our physical realm or understanding.

>>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.

>>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.

>>Just because it can't be PROVEN, does not make it
>>beyond this incredibly simple concept. God's existence is
>>the same way.
>
>We're not arguing about provability anymore. We're arguing
>about valence, about your contention that a major series of
>advances in mathematics and logic, involving at least two
>centuries of dedicated work, never happened. Maybe now
>every mathematician in the world is lying.

No, actually, we WERE talking about provability, so you wasted your time with this whole argument, because I don't disagree with the facts you've put forth. You put these facts forth with the notion that they defy the yes-no of existence--this is what I disagreed with, and still do.


>>>>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>>>>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>>>>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>>>>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>>>>do you disagree?).
>>>
>>>I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in
>>>principle!?
>>
>>It is not a principle that there either IS or IS NOT a God.
>>This is a simple fact. The answer cannot be proven in our
>>worldly realm, but there either IS or IS NOT a God. Is this
>>insanley difficult or something?
>
>No, just naive.

It's naive to think that God both can and cannot exist.

>>>And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the
>>>subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic.
>>> Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a
>>>bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this
>>>assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other
>>>contexts.
>>
>>There either IS or IS NOT a God. Do you disagree? Answer
>>the question this time.
>
>Yes, I desagree, and I have been all along.

So there is a possibility for God to exist and not exist simultaneously? This is naive. The simplist level of logic disagrees with you.

>>Based on my faith and studies, the immediate followers of
>>Christ (within a century of His death) had it down. The
>>purpose of life is to be with God when we die.
>
>That's all you've got?

I'm a pretty simple dude.

Sorry, but I'm a little
>disappointed. Why should I care if I'm with God when I die?

Because that's the reason why you're here.

> I mean, if I'm dead, I won't even be conscious anymore,
>will I?

I believe you will.

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.

>>>>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.


>
>>>>Where does it come from?
>>>
>>>Where do I come from? Where do you come from? Why assume
>>>that everything "comes from" something else. There are
>>>counterexamples.
>>
>>Name one.
>
>The quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field, the
>so-called "virtual photons."

Perfect example! So, we have "virtual photons" which seemingly come from nothing, but in reality are in existence because of an electromagnetic field that is created by positive and negative energy given off by various "ons". That is to say, the energy given off by a neucleon to attract an electron within a magnetic field powers these "virtual photons", which are really just an illustration of the magnetic field particle itself. This is why "virtual photons" are also "responsible" for repelling electrons from other electrons, because the electrons actually create these fields as well.

>
>>>>>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.

>>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.

>>Neither am I. I am open to the concept that either
>>Something exists or nothing exists. But I gotta say on this
>>one, that rationality heavily favors the whole "things
>>exist" side of things.
>
>Oh, so you want to be rational! I take that to mean that
>you will judge facts by their evidenciary support. If so,
>you will likely come to the conclusion that "something"
>exists, but "God" doesn't.

Actually, no. Rationality doesn't limit itself to physical bounds, for science tells us that we mighty humans can't actually see or hear anything without our eyes and ears creating an understandable illusion. All we really know are the things we are capable of seeing and hearing, but it has been proven, repeatedly, that there are things we cannot see or hear. Do you disagree?

Now, as far as the existence of God goes, I would also like to point out that MY rationality CAN differ from yours, hence our discussion in morals. I believe in a basic, absolute morality, and because of this, it is rational for me to believe in God. You, on the other hand, believe in a relativist morality, so it is rational for you not to believe in God. This is where we differ. Do you agree?

>>>>>>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>>>>>>survival... what is the point of survival without God?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm getting a kick out of it so far.
>>>>
>>>>And, after however many posts now, you have not answered the
>>>>question. peace,
>>>
>>>What question, the meaning of life? I'll get that to you as
>>>soon as I figure it out. Why don't you tell us what you
>>>think it is, and we'll see if anyone finds it compelling.
>>>Maybe you could start an OkayCult.
>>
>>There's where we differ. I stated it earlier. Every
>>religion started as a cult, then a sect, then a
>>denomination... but my ideas certainly aren't original, to
>>say the least. peace,
>
>Your ideas aren't original. On that we can agree.

Sweet. I would be a little depressed if they were.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 03:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
84. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 83


          

>>>Theology is not a branch of philosophy.
>>
>>Don't let DeleteMe take over for you. He seems to know a
>>few things, enough to confuse you.
>>
>>Some would say that everything which involves thought, even
>>in the slightest, is a branch of philosophy. On those
>>grounds . . . well, maybe I see your point.
>
>I'm going by history books... I don't see philosophy as
>something outside of and bigger than religion.
>
>As far as definitions for specific words go... I'm not
>really sure how specific you want me to get. I'm not a
>linguist, so I figured Webster might be a safe route. If we
>can't get more specific than a linguist, perhaps nothing--no
>word in the history of language--will ever be defined.

Okay. So you finally agree that such concepts as "logical truth-value" are completely irrelevant to this debate.

>>>>I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously.
>>>>In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at
>>>>the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not
>>>>the same thing as logic.
>>>
>>>That made absolutely no sense.
>>
>>The point is that you're not making any progress at turning
>>your theology into a logical structure.
>
>When did I try?

When you criticised an argument (more than one of them, as I remember) on the grounds that it did not conform to your truth tables.

>I made one logical premise using common
>English words with definitions coming from one of the top
>linguists in the history of our language, and you contend
>that it is ambiguous. I'm not trying to prove God's
>existence, I'm simply making the statement that God does or
>does not exist.

And you are making THAT statement out of pure faith as well.

>>>>>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.
>>>>
>>>>I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I
>>>>will point out that there are plenty of people out there who
>>>>believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in
>>>>any sense like we do.
>>>
>>>You asked me for a definition of existence. I can only give
>>>you a personal answer.
>>
>>So you can say resolutely that God "exists", even though you
>>can't tell me what you mean by that statement. You're
>>right. Theology is not a part of philosophy.
>
>I can't tell you how or by what physical standards God
>exists, but I can tell you that He either does or does not
>exist.

You can tell me this out of faith, right? Or do you claim to KNOW this. If so, we'll keep arguing over the point.

>If His physical nature is unlike that of our own or
>unbound to our universe or the only thing that is actually
>real or made of Pla-Doh, He still exists. If there is void,
>He does not.
>
>>>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.

>Whatever is true is whatever is
>real, and whatever is real may or may not be within our
>physical realm or understanding.
>
>>>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.

>>>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.

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. 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.

>>>Just because it can't be PROVEN, does not make it
>>>beyond this incredibly simple concept. God's existence is
>>>the same way.
>>
>>We're not arguing about provability anymore. We're arguing
>>about valence, about your contention that a major series of
>>advances in mathematics and logic, involving at least two
>>centuries of dedicated work, never happened. Maybe now
>>every mathematician in the world is lying.
>
>No, actually, we WERE talking about provability, so you
>wasted your time with this whole argument, because I don't
>disagree with the facts you've put forth. You put these
>facts forth with the notion that they defy the yes-no of
>existence--this is what I disagreed with, and still do.

No, actually we WEREN'T talking about provability. We were talking about your "yes-no of existence." I asked you why you assumed this "yes-no" structure when there are other structures which are just as consistent, then you called me a liar and so began this part of the argument.

>>>>>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>>>>>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>>>>>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>>>>>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>>>>>do you disagree?).
>>>>
>>>>I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in
>>>>principle!?
>>>
>>>It is not a principle that there either IS or IS NOT a God.
>>>This is a simple fact. The answer cannot be proven in our
>>>worldly realm, but there either IS or IS NOT a God. Is this
>>>insanley difficult or something?
>>
>>No, just naive.
>
>It's naive to think that God both can and cannot exist.

No, it's naive to think we KNOW, either way.

>>>>And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the
>>>>subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic.
>>>> Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a
>>>>bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this
>>>>assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other
>>>>contexts.
>>>
>>>There either IS or IS NOT a God. Do you disagree? Answer
>>>the question this time.
>>
>>Yes, I desagree, and I have been all along.
>
>So there is a possibility for God to exist and not exist
>simultaneously? This is naive. The simplist level of logic
>disagrees with you.

No, it doesn't. Logic does not tell us which valence is favored, there are all sorts of consistent nonclassical logics. It is only your *faith* in the excluded middle which disagrees with me.

>>>Based on my faith and studies, the immediate followers of
>>>Christ (within a century of His death) had it down. The
>>>purpose of life is to be with God when we die.
>>
>>That's all you've got?
>
>I'm a pretty simple dude.
>
>>Sorry, but I'm a little
>>disappointed. Why should I care if I'm with God when I die?
>
>Because that's the reason why you're here.

So I shouldn't care. I'm just a machine, placed here to do a job.

>> I mean, if I'm dead, I won't even be conscious anymore,
>>will I?
>
>I believe you will.
>
>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. Is there then another step on that ladder? Why does God exist? Who created Him?

>>>>>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?

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.

>>>>>Where does it come from?
>>>>
>>>>Where do I come from? Where do you come from? Why assume
>>>>that everything "comes from" something else. There are
>>>>counterexamples.
>>>
>>>Name one.
>>
>>The quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field, the
>>so-called "virtual photons."
>
>Perfect example! So, we have "virtual photons" which
>seemingly come from nothing, but in reality are in existence
>because of an electromagnetic field that is created by
>positive and negative energy given off by various "ons".

Positive and negative energy? sigh

No, they don't come into existence because of the electromagnetic field. They come into existence in complete vacua, even with zero external electromagnetic field. When they do so, they ARE the electromagnetic field.

>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.

>which are really just an illustration of
>the magnetic field particle itself. This is why "virtual
>photons" are also "responsible" for repelling electrons from
>other electrons, because the electrons actually create these
>fields as well.

A word of warning: let this one drop. There are very few subjects on which I can be considered an authority. This, however, is one of them.

>>>>>>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.

>>>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. If he is such a bad example of a Christian, then so are all those people who voted for him on the grounds of "moral values." They all claim to be Christians. I have no reason to trust you as a judge of scripture over any of those automobiles.

>>>Neither am I. I am open to the concept that either
>>>Something exists or nothing exists. But I gotta say on this
>>>one, that rationality heavily favors the whole "things
>>>exist" side of things.
>>
>>Oh, so you want to be rational! I take that to mean that
>>you will judge facts by their evidenciary support. If so,
>>you will likely come to the conclusion that "something"
>>exists, but "God" doesn't.
>
>Actually, no. Rationality doesn't limit itself to physical
>bounds,

Oh great! SOMEONE CALL THE PAPERS AGAIN, DUDE'S ABOUT TO SHOW US SOME EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE...

>for science tells us that we mighty humans can't
>actually see or hear anything without our eyes and ears
>creating an understandable illusion. All we really know are
>the things we are capable of seeing and hearing,

What?!! There is evidence other than direct sight and sound.

>but it has
>been proven, repeatedly, that there are things we cannot see
>or hear. Do you disagree?

I don't think you understand your own question. But if you can give me scientific evidence that God exists, even if it doesn't involve direct visual or audible experience, we really will call the papers.

>Now, as far as the existence of God goes, I would also like
>to point out that MY rationality CAN differ from yours,
>hence our discussion in morals. I believe in a basic,
>absolute morality, and because of this, it is rational for
>me to believe in God. You, on the other hand, believe in a
>relativist morality, so it is rational for you not to
>believe in God. This is where we differ. Do you agree?

So you're saying that you believe in God *because of* your particular view of morality?

But seriously. I'm happy to admit that your view of morality is consistent with your belief in God. I think I admitted something along those lines a long time ago. But rationality requires more than just consistency.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 09:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 84
Mon Feb-07-05 10:20 PM

          

>>I'm going by history books... I don't see philosophy as
>>something outside of and bigger than religion.
>>
>>As far as definitions for specific words go... I'm not
>>really sure how specific you want me to get. I'm not a
>>linguist, so I figured Webster might be a safe route. If we
>>can't get more specific than a linguist, perhaps nothing--no
>>word in the history of language--will ever be defined.
>
>Okay. So you finally agree that such concepts as "logical
>truth-value" are completely irrelevant to this debate.

No, I was being sarcastic. What I'm saying is that we have a language, defined by linguists, and beyond the definition of a linguist, we have blah.

>>>>>I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously.
>>>>>In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at
>>>>>the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not
>>>>>the same thing as logic.
>>>>
>>>>That made absolutely no sense.
>>>
>>>The point is that you're not making any progress at turning
>>>your theology into a logical structure.
>>
>>When did I try?
>
>When you criticised an argument (more than one of them, as I
>remember) on the grounds that it did not conform to your
>truth tables.

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. 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.

>>I made one logical premise using common
>>English words with definitions coming from one of the top
>>linguists in the history of our language, and you contend
>>that it is ambiguous. I'm not trying to prove God's
>>existence, I'm simply making the statement that God does or
>>does not exist.
>
>And you are making THAT statement out of pure faith as well.

No, I do not. Nothing can exist and not exist. In fact, if there is a God, the only thing that we know exists is God.

>>>>>>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I
>>>>>will point out that there are plenty of people out there who
>>>>>believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in
>>>>>any sense like we do.
>>>>
>>>>You asked me for a definition of existence. I can only give
>>>>you a personal answer.
>>>
>>>So you can say resolutely that God "exists", even though you
>>>can't tell me what you mean by that statement. You're
>>>right. Theology is not a part of philosophy.
>>
>>I can't tell you how or by what physical standards God
>>exists, but I can tell you that He either does or does not
>>exist.
>
>You can tell me this out of faith, right? Or do you claim
>to KNOW this. If so, we'll keep arguing over the point.

Give me another opition besides "exist" and "not exist", and then immediately following, give yourself a Nobel Prize. I will give a speech at your ceremony.

>>If His physical nature is unlike that of our own or
>>unbound to our universe or the only thing that is actually
>>real or made of Pla-Doh, He still exists. If there is void,
>>He does not.
>>
>>>>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.

>>Whatever is true is whatever is
>>real, and whatever is real may or may not be within our
>>physical realm or understanding.
>>
>>>>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.

>>>>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.

>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.

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.

>No, actually we WEREN'T talking about provability. We were
>talking about your "yes-no of existence." I asked you why
>you assumed this "yes-no" structure when there are other
>structures which are just as consistent, then you called me
>a liar and so began this part of the argument.

We were discussing whether or not there were other structures besides a yes-no that could serve as premises for existence... I still stick by the answer being no--that nothing we can conceive will prove existence, but that existence, by definition, forces a yes-no premise. I apologize for saying what you said is a lie. I was out of line, but when existence is in question, none of the things you listed was relevant.

>>>>>>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>>>>>>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>>>>>>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>>>>>>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>>>>>>do you disagree?).
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in
>>>>>principle!?
>>>>
>>>>It is not a principle that there either IS or IS NOT a God.
>>>>This is a simple fact. The answer cannot be proven in our
>>>>worldly realm, but there either IS or IS NOT a God. Is this
>>>>insanley difficult or something?
>>>
>>>No, just naive.
>>
>>It's naive to think that God both can and cannot exist.
>
>No, it's naive to think we KNOW, either way.

I disagree. I think it is naive to think we can prove existence, but not to understand the concept of the word "exist" or the word "real" or the word "truth". I am open and even accepting of the idea that we cannot grasp our own reality to the point of "existence", but we can look around and know that SOMETHING exists, yes.

>>>>>And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the
>>>>>subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic.
>>>>> Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a
>>>>>bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this
>>>>>assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other
>>>>>contexts.
>>>>
>>>>There either IS or IS NOT a God. Do you disagree? Answer
>>>>the question this time.
>>>
>>>Yes, I desagree, and I have been all along.
>>
>>So there is a possibility for God to exist and not exist
>>simultaneously? This is naive. The simplist level of logic
>>disagrees with you.
>
>No, it doesn't. Logic does not tell us which valence is
>favored, there are all sorts of consistent nonclassical
>logics.

Yes, man, I'm with you here, but NOT on the specific subject of existence.

It is only your *faith* in the excluded middle
>which disagrees with me.

If you call the recognition of something having to exist in order for you and me and a giraffe and seeweed to be visable, living organisms as "faith", then ok.. we'll leave it at that. But I will endlessly contend, on the provable evidence that there are always things in places, that existence is necessary, even if every physical aspect we think we have is an illusion.

>>>>Based on my faith and studies, the immediate followers of
>>>>Christ (within a century of His death) had it down. The
>>>>purpose of life is to be with God when we die.
>>>
>>>That's all you've got?
>>
>>I'm a pretty simple dude.
>>
>>>Sorry, but I'm a little
>>>disappointed. Why should I care if I'm with God when I die?
>>
>>Because that's the reason why you're here.
>
>So I shouldn't care. I'm just a machine, placed here to do
>a job.

EDIT: I had a quote for this--

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things--the beauty, the memory of our own past--are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have not visited.


>>> I mean, if I'm dead, I won't even be conscious anymore,
>>>will I?
>>
>>I believe you will.
>>
>>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.

> 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.

>>>>>>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.

>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 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. 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.

>>>>>>>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.

>>>>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?

If he is such a bad example of a Christian, then so
>are all those people who voted for him on the grounds of
>"moral values." They all claim to be Christians. I have no
>reason to trust you as a judge of scripture over any of
>those automobiles.

Then don't. Read it for yourself, or continue to be as uneducated and rhetorical as the people you tear down.

>>>>Neither am I. I am open to the concept that either
>>>>Something exists or nothing exists. But I gotta say on this
>>>>one, that rationality heavily favors the whole "things
>>>>exist" side of things.
>>>
>>>Oh, so you want to be rational! I take that to mean that
>>>you will judge facts by their evidenciary support. If so,
>>>you will likely come to the conclusion that "something"
>>>exists, but "God" doesn't.
>>
>>Actually, no. Rationality doesn't limit itself to physical
>>bounds,
>
>Oh great! SOMEONE CALL THE PAPERS AGAIN, DUDE'S ABOUT TO
>SHOW US SOME EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE...
>
>>for science tells us that we mighty humans can't
>>actually see or hear anything without our eyes and ears
>>creating an understandable illusion. All we really know are
>>the things we are capable of seeing and hearing,
>
>What?!! There is evidence other than direct sight and
>sound.

well, yeah.. adding to my point... I was obviously speaking on general terms here..

>>but it has
>>been proven, repeatedly, that there are things we cannot see
>>or hear. Do you disagree?
>
>I don't think you understand your own question. But if you
>can give me scientific evidence that God exists, even if it
>doesn't involve direct visual or audible experience, we
>really will call the papers.

I can't... but you can't prove He doesn't, therefore the rationality between us differs.

>>Now, as far as the existence of God goes, I would also like
>>to point out that MY rationality CAN differ from yours,
>>hence our discussion in morals. I believe in a basic,
>>absolute morality, and because of this, it is rational for
>>me to believe in God. You, on the other hand, believe in a
>>relativist morality, so it is rational for you not to
>>believe in God. This is where we differ. Do you agree?
>
>So you're saying that you believe in God *because of* your
>particular view of morality?

No, I believe in God because I pray and physically feel God's presence in my everyday life. I rationalize God because of my particular view of morality, which has been and continues to be the particular view of the vast majority of the world since there was man.

"Wherever any precept of traditional morality is simply challenged to produce its credentials, as though the burden of proof lay on it, we have taken the wrong position."


***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Tue Feb-15-05 11:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
90. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 87
Tue Feb-15-05 11:29 PM

          

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.

>>>>>>I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously.
>>>>>>In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at
>>>>>>the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not
>>>>>>the same thing as logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>That made absolutely no sense.
>>>>
>>>>The point is that you're not making any progress at turning
>>>>your theology into a logical structure.
>>>
>>>When did I try?
>>
>>When you criticised an argument (more than one of them, as I
>>remember) on the grounds that it did not conform to your
>>truth tables.
>
>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?

>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).

>>>I made one logical premise using common
>>>English words with definitions coming from one of the top
>>>linguists in the history of our language, and you contend
>>>that it is ambiguous. I'm not trying to prove God's
>>>existence, I'm simply making the statement that God does or
>>>does not exist.
>>
>>And you are making THAT statement out of pure faith as well.
>
>No, I do not. Nothing can exist and not exist.

This is a standard classical perspective, but it is simply not true, once you look close enough.

>In fact, if
>there is a God, the only thing that we know exists is God.
>
>>>>>>>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I
>>>>>>will point out that there are plenty of people out there who
>>>>>>believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in
>>>>>>any sense like we do.
>>>>>
>>>>>You asked me for a definition of existence. I can only give
>>>>>you a personal answer.
>>>>
>>>>So you can say resolutely that God "exists", even though you
>>>>can't tell me what you mean by that statement. You're
>>>>right. Theology is not a part of philosophy.
>>>
>>>I can't tell you how or by what physical standards God
>>>exists, but I can tell you that He either does or does not
>>>exist.
>>
>>You can tell me this out of faith, right? Or do you claim
>>to KNOW this. If so, we'll keep arguing over the point.
>
>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) 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.

>and
>then immediately following, give yourself a Nobel Prize. I
>will give a speech at your ceremony.

I'm very honored by the suggestion, but Schrodinger already won a Nobel prize for this, in 1933.


>>>>>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.


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. Open Euclid again (or Google it again, if that's what you did), and look now at the proof. You will not see any numbers. Go through all thirteen books, and you will not see a single number (aside from those labeling the propositions, definitions and axioms). Even when he was building the foundations of number theory, he was working with purely geometrical structures.

>>>>>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.

>>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). This point is not relevant to the supernatural world (whatever that is), but the hard work it took for us to accept it reminds us that sometimes our premises are naive.

>>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.



>>>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"?

>>>>>>>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.

>>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.

>>>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.

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.

>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.


>>>>>>>>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. 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.

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



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Sat Feb-19-05 09:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
97. "RE: What the hell?!"
In response to Reply # 90


          

>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.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 03:45 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "RE: I won't pretend to speak for SH,"
In response to Reply # 43


          


>With or without God, there is still beauty.
>With or without
>God, there is still pain.

wrong.




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Sun Jan-30-05 11:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "okay..."
In response to Reply # 56


          


You wanna make an argument, or just leave it as a matter of naked opinion?


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 04:55 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "it's wrong, because your statement is not right"
In response to Reply # 60
Mon Jan-31-05 05:01 AM

          

it's as simple as that.

1. With or without God, there's still beauty

How do you know? What's "beauty"?

2. With or without God, there's still pain

How do you know? What's pain?


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 05:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "RE: it's wrong, because your statement is not right"
In response to Reply # 63


          

>it's as simple as that.

But you don't criticize me for being "wrong" below. You criticize me for not completely defining the elements at hand. A statement cannot be "wrong" if it does not exist!

>1. With or without God, there's still beauty
>
>How do you know? What's "beauty"?
>
>2. With or without God, there's still pain
>
>How do you know? What's pain?

Come over here and I'll show you what pain is.

But seriously, I don't mean to argue that we can define the terms with any degree of logical rigor. I simply mean that there are elements of everyday experience, to which the vast majority of us have agreed to give those designations.

Those experiences are everyday occurences for us, regardless of whether we believe them to come from a supernatural power.

Now you can get all metaphysical and say that I can convince myself to enjoy a bat to the head. But for some reason, we tend not to do so.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Tue Feb-08-05 09:26 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "an that's the crucial point"
In response to Reply # 64


          

´>I simply mean that
>there are elements of everyday experience, to which the vast
>majority of us have agreed to give those designations.

designations are man-made concepts. unfortunately, human beings can be quite different. Thus, pain can be beauty for some and beauty can be pain for others. now what?


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 03:14 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "inVerse, is that you?"
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

>Also, this assumes that there is an infinite being. What
>>if there isn't? What if everything is completely evolving
>>and changing?
>
>Does the former negate the latter?
>
>Why is he certain that there is an infinite
>>being?
>
>Keep going... let's assume there is no God:
>
>Why are you on okayactivist?

--------------------
The People's Champ


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Sun Feb-06-05 03:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
77. "It is him."
In response to Reply # 51
Sun Feb-06-05 03:30 PM

          

Or if it isn't, they certainly know each other.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Sun Feb-06-05 07:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "no, I'm not Inverse..."
In response to Reply # 77


          

>Or if it isn't, they certainly know each other.

Yes, we're certainly of the same religious realm and educated ourselves similarly, but beyond that, I really don't know him that well, other than a few private messages and conversations via Okay.


***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 08:27 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. "I was just joking"
In response to Reply # 80


  

          

because your post #37 was made in a very inVerse-esqe fashion.

-------------------------------------------------------------
"Wearily on I go, pain and misery my only companions. And vast
intelligence, of course. And infinite sorrow. I despise you all."


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 10:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
88. "I realized this, but.."
In response to Reply # 86


          

Okay is notorius for false identities, and I had to end the possibility immediately. Thanks though. I found it humorous.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Nettrice
Charter member
61747 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 05:15 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Why do you need proof?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

>"I think therefore I
>am"

Even in this statement there is an assumption. Descartes' self-image is based on whatever filter he sees through. We are all conditioned and everything we know is subjective.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Chike
Charter member
32916 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 05:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "RE: Why do you need proof?"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

i'll just address your point regarding "I think therefore I am". Descartes has started from the point of radical doubt, meaning that he is positing the possibility that everything he thinks is reality really isn't and is fed to his senses by the evil demon. Therefore, he can't claim the existence of a table by saying "Look, I see it right there" because what if the table is like a hallucination - it only seems to be real? (The Matrix really helps people understand this part)

At the end of the day, though, he has to admit that at least he himself exists. If he denied that, it would be implied in the very fact that he is denying something. That is, "I do not exist" would be a thought that is occurring to himself... he has no logical way to imagine that he himself does not exist, because by the act of imagining he is acting and thus existing.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 05:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Nice circular logic..."
In response to Reply # 2


          

The original post was "proof of god", and you respond (if you were responding to my post and not the original), "Why do you need proof".

"Even in this statement there is an assumption. Descartes' self-image is based on whatever filter he sees through. We are all conditioned and everything we know is subjective."

So the proof that there is a God is that humans can't prove anything?

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
14. "Nice Logical Self-Contradiction"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

"everything we know is subjective"

Is THAT true?

If you say "yes", Then you're stating an objective truth, and you refute yourself.

If you say "no", you refute yourself again.

Think.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "Nice try"
In response to Reply # 14


          

"everything we know is subjective"

The answer is: To the best of my knowledge, I believe so.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "hahahahahahaha!"
In response to Reply # 20


          


Yeah!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 02:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "RE: Nice try"
In response to Reply # 20


          

>"everything we know is subjective"
>
>The answer is: To the best of my knowledge, I believe so.

People can still lie in an objective moral realm.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Nettrice
Charter member
61747 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 03:14 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "Faith"
In response to Reply # 4
Thu Jan-27-05 03:14 PM

  

          

>So the proof that there is a God is that humans can't prove
>anything?

I am talking about faith. Faith can be defined as a rational attitude towards a potential object of knowledge which arises when we are subjectively certain it is true even though we are unable to gain theoretical or objective certainty.

The key words here are theoretical and objective certainty. It is not proof that I seek, just a philosophy or awareness that is based on my perception(s). Humans can spin their wheels trying to categorize or quantify what IMHO is subjective.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:15 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "RE: Why do you need proof?"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

>>"I think therefore I
>>am"
>
>Even in this statement there is an assumption.

What assumption?

Descartes'
>self-image is based on whatever filter he sees through.

This is not quite the same. He is not presenting a self-image, he is challenging existence. He is in actuality fighting the perceptive filters which you have mentioned. I think therefore I am, is a clear and distinct statement. Any human being, from any race or culture, can make this statement and find it to be true. There is no filter.

We
>are all conditioned and everything we know is subjective.

I think you are straying from the discussion. This is not a conversation that is purely psychological, also, there is a level of objectivity that Descartes has proven to exist, and that is, that the world, which exists beyond the perceptive filter is composed of geometric shapes. Even if you are unaware of the formula for a triangle, you can still draw one. It is an innate idea. The laws of mathematics exist without us here to discover them, in essence mathematics may be viewed upon as a divine language. So you see, not everything we know is subjective.

Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 04:11 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: Why do you need proof?"
In response to Reply # 15


          

>>>"I think therefore I
>>>am"
>>
>>Even in this statement there is an assumption.
>
>What assumption?

"I think"


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 09:25 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "RE: incorrect context of "i think","
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

not, "i think im going to go to the store."

but,

"i am able to think that "i think im going to the store"

the act of thought is the context Descartes implies,
because he is able to think, and use his brain to process his own perception, and thus consider his own existence, through this act, he exists,

is that more clear?
peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 03:14 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "Like I said, it's an assumption"
In response to Reply # 35


          


>"i am able to think that "i think im going to the store"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 02:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "RE: a question,"
In response to Reply # 41


  

          

do you believe that any act of thought is an assumption?

peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 02:52 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "what is it then if not an assumption?"
In response to Reply # 45


          

Btw, an "I" presupposes the existence of a "you".


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 02:57 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "RE: what about the act of thought?"
In response to Reply # 48


  

          

the actual process itself, not any idea, but the ability to think, what is that? and, if you are correct, what can we trust if we continually assume?

peace

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 03:13 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "RE: what about the act of thought?"
In response to Reply # 49
Sat Jan-29-05 03:17 PM

          

>the actual process itself, not any idea, but the ability to
>think, what is that?

It's a dynamic process - and a thought which is an assumption.

Btw, "the ability to think" is an idea.

and, if you are correct, what can we
>trust if we continually assume?
>
>peace

That's a different question and, unfortunately, I cannot give you a precise answer. Neither will I say "nothing" nor will I say "God"... I'll say both at the same time.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 03:15 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "RE: interesting,"
In response to Reply # 50


  

          

i'm sure there is more to it, but, what....is an interesting question. thanks. peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 03:21 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "The problem with Descartes"
In response to Reply # 52
Sat Jan-29-05 03:23 PM

          

1. He's a logocentrist
2. There is not "I" without "you". You cannot birth yourself.
3. Can you prove that you exist?

Btw, Some reading material which is worth checking out:

- George Spenser Brown: Laws of Form
- Niklas Luhmann's books on system theory
- Deleuze & Guattari: Thousand Plateaus

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 03:28 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "RE: Thanks,"
In response to Reply # 53


  

          

I understand much better now. Thanks for the title's too. Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Nettrice
Charter member
61747 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 03:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "RE: Why do you need proof?"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

>>>"I think therefore I
>>>am"
>>
>>Even in this statement there is an assumption.
>
>What assumption?

Knowledge implies objective and subjective certainty. My point is that most spiritual people do not need truth because faith is enough. As I stated in another message, faith is a rational attitude towards a potential object of knowledge which arises when we are subjectively certain it is true even though we are unable to gain theoretical or objective certainty.

When Descartes states that he thinks it really is faith. He is not God and cannot create existence. Therefore, whatever he thinks is subjective certainty.

>The laws of mathematics exist
>without us here to discover them, in essence mathematics may
>be viewed upon as a divine language. So you see, not
>everything we know is subjective.

We are not God and, thus, we can only theorize what is "divine".

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

chillinCHiEF
Charter member
39871 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 05:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
5. "Maybe its just over my head, but"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

that doesn't make any sense.

"Human beings are finite beings, meaning, our physical bodies will eventually die. Also, as finite beings, we are incapable of the infinite, yet we can be certain the infinite exists by observing a melting a piece of wax. We can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable of it's excecution. If you feel otherwise, please state how as human beings, we can excecute the infinite. Descartes concludes that God is a supreme being capable of the infinite"

How can he jump from the conclusion that because we cannot "execute the infinite", that there is something that can? That isn't logic.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: Maybe its just over my head, but"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

>that doesn't make any sense.
>
>"Human beings are finite beings, meaning, our physical
>bodies will eventually die. Also, as finite beings, we are
>incapable of the infinite, yet we can be certain the
>infinite exists by observing a melting a piece of wax. We
>can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable
>of it's excecution. If you feel otherwise, please state how
>as human beings, we can excecute the infinite. Descartes
>concludes that God is a supreme being capable of the
>infinite"
>
>How can he jump from the conclusion that because we cannot
>"execute the infinite", that there is something that can?
>That isn't logic.

There is no jump. We cannot execute the infinite, yet it clearly does exist, therefore, there is a force that can execute the infinite. Is that not logical?

Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
chillinCHiEF
Charter member
39871 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 11:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
36. "I'm pretty sure it isn't logic"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

We can perceive that something can be infinite, but that doesn't follow that there is a specific force that can cause that.

Also, I'm not even sure that there are infinite possibilities for a candle to burn. I'm neither a mathematician or a physicist, but I'm pretty sure each atom in that candle has a maximum range of motion, which is a real number. If you could calculate the number of atoms or molecules or what have you in the candle, and how much each of them can move, you'd end up with a real number. Granted it would likely take a very long time, but the number certainly wouldn't be infinite.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Da Killa
Member since Jan 03rd 2005
84 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 06:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Aw. My first year at Ut and my Mind Body course. What a mind fuck. The only way I got through it was alot of weed and multiple viewing of the Matrix.

CD's to own
Wilco - A Ghost Is Born
R.L. Burnside - A Ass Pocket Full of Whiskey
Johnny Cash - Unearthed Box Set
Mendoza Line - Fortune



Iggy Pop - You suck just like the bands you like.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

WhiteNotion
Charter member
2538 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 06:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
In response to Reply # 0


          

i dont know how sound this proof is. isnt it called the ontological proof of god? how does he go from extreme doubt to large assumptions? the whole argument is built on the assumption that since we can imagine a perfect being, and since a quality of perfection is existence, a perfect being (god) must exist. this assumes too much.

flowtron. giving you true flows since 1985.

- Shaun James

http://criticamusica.tumblr.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 06:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "*sigh*"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Jan-24-05 07:36 PM

          

First of all, this isn't really a "proof," it is merely an argument. And despite Descartes's unquestionable greatness, this particular argument has not aged well.

>Possibly, the most logically sound proof I have encountered,
>as follows;

Go read some Euclid. Or better yet, Hilbert or Bertrand Russell. Just an aside.

>First, Descartes must prove that he himself exists, and he
>does so through his famous statement, "I think therefore I
>am", as it is a clear and distinct statement that is self
>evident, no proof beyond the act of saying it is required.

Well, that's a question of epistemology, not a tenet of logic.

>The reasoning behind this statement is as follows; if I am
>able to percieve my own existence from within, I must
>therefore exist.

And that's not reasoning, it's just repetition.

>Next, Descartes will discuss the relationship between
>physical objects, and himself. He is not certain of physical
>objects in his environment, but of his relationship to them.

And that much is very commendable. Descartes's relationalism is probably his greatest achievement, though it is still disputed today, in some quarters (I sit solidly on his side, though).

>In an experiment, Descartes takes a piece of wax, and allows
>it to melt. He then, observes what has changed, and what has
>not changed. Through his experiment, Descartes arrives at
>the conclusion that the wax, may melt in many different
>ways, or in inifinite ways. The state of change between a
>solid piece of wax and a melted piece of wax is infinite. A
>simple example of the infinite are numbers.

And here's where the age of the argument really begins to drag it down. In his time, it was natural to assume that the number, N, of ways in which a block of wax could melt is infinite. In fact, it is now known physically that N is not infinite! It is an enormous number, but finite nonetheless. This fact is a simple result of modern quantum mechanics, and it underlies all of our understanding of statistical thermodynamics. This is not to say that we "know" N is finite. There are likely some errors in the present formulation of quantum theory. Nonetheless, it is far more reasonable for us to assume N is finite.

But Descartes's argument is not about wax. It's about the nature of infinity in the physical world. In fact many of the quantities of the physical world, once assumed to be infinite, have been rendered finite by the modern quantum viewpoint. The extent of this is not yet completely clear. Many quantum systems admit finite bases (that is, a finite number of "states"). Many more admit "countable" bases (that's a designation that might be considered "in between" the standard definitions of finite and infinite), and some, truly, uncountably infinite bases. In fact, most systems admit more than one of the above, simultaneously. That is, the question of how many states a system might take, depends on how the observer chooses to differentiate them. And in fact, in the most mathematically rigorous treatments of quantum theory yet made, uncountably infinite bases are avoided like the plague. The problem is that they usually lead to logical inconsistencies, a sign that the "methods of distinction" which lead to infinite bases are generally unnatural, and amount to the philosopher forcing too much of his own opinions upon the system.

I doubt I'm making any sense. My point is that it now appears unlikely that any physical phenomena permit truly infinite variation. It seems more likely that the concept of infinity is an invention of man, and is forced upon the physical world now far too quickly.

>I am not detailing each point of study as I want to arrive
>at the proof of God as quickly as possible for the sake of
>this conversation, so please excuse me for leaving
>information out if you have already studied Descartes.
>
>Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which
>may be percieved as something that is decieving to his
>senses and himself. In order to disprove the existence of
>the "Evil Genius", Descartes is faced with the challenge of
>proving God's existence. He does this as follows;
>
>Human beings are finite beings, meaning, our physical bodies
>will eventually die.

Sure.

>Also, as finite beings, we are
>incapable of the infinite, yet we can be certain the
>infinite exists by observing a melting a piece of wax.

Again, that's not really true. We ASSUME the infinite exists, or rather, Descartes did.

>We
>can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable
>of it's excecution.

That seems to me to be a sign that it was a figment of our imagination all along.

>If you feel otherwise, please state how
>as human beings, we can excecute the infinite. Descartes
>concludes that God is a supreme being capable of the
>infinite.

And this is a HUGE leap! Even if we were to assume the physical existence of the infinite, there is absolutely no reason this requires a "being capable of the infinite."

>Do you find this to be sound proof for the existence of God
>that is clear and distinct?

Well, I think my view is clear.

>Furthermore, Descartes explores free will. Thus far, he is
>certain of Himself, as he can percieve his own existence; he
>is certain of GOD, as a supreme being capable of the
>infinite, and thus an infinite being.
>
>According to Descartes we always have the freedom of saying
>"Yes" or "No" to any question or supposed act.

Here is another big assumption. He was drawn to it culturally, not philosophically.

>We can be
>free from making error, by making clear and distinct
>statements about our situation and the consequence.
>Descartes feel's that we carry a reflection of the infinite
>within our free will, and thus, a reflection of GOD. As,
>there are an infinite amount of questions or acts that we
>can say "Yes", or "No" to. Therefore, even though we cannot
>excecute the infinite, as a sign of respect from GOD to us
>human beings, we are capable of facing an infinite, and any
>amount of questions/acts with a simple yes or no,

Wait a second! Didn't you just say that our lifespan is finite? How are we gonna answer an infinite number of questions?

>thus,
>making use of our free will, which reflects the infinite,
>and thus GOD.
>
>Peace.

There is, unfortuantely, a thin line between philosophy and spirituality. If your description presents an accurate picture of the Cartesian argument (and of that I'm not sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but note as you did that you omitted details to save space), then I can only consider this argument an act of faith, and not of logic.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
holdmedown
Charter member
170 posts
Tue Jan-25-05 01:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "Look up GAGUT..."
In response to Reply # 8


          

Google it if you have to, but I'm telling you there is a brother by the name of Dr. Oyibo who has mathematically and scientifically proven the existence of God through his "God Almighty Grand Unified Theorem" (aka. "the theory of everything")-- it is the Holy Grail of the physics world!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Tue Jan-25-05 09:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "Sorry, dude."
In response to Reply # 10


          

Hate to burst your bubble, but this guy Oyibo is what we call a crackpot. My group gets a stack of unpublishable, meaningless, incoherent, chrisdefendorf style papers every week from dudes who claim to have a "Grand Unified Theory" or a "Theory of Everything." They're full of words, and "ideas" about where Einstein "went wrong," but there is rarely any mathematics and never any logic.

I took your advice and looked into his background, just for fun. If he'd ever published anything related to fundamental physics, I would have seen it. I study quantum gravity and other quantum field theories. It's my job and I spend a LOT of time going through all the reputable journals. But I'd never heard of Dr. Oyibo until you mentioned him.

It turns out he's an interesting kind of crackpot, one with a PhD. His PhD, however, is not in any branch of fundamental physics, but rather in fluid dynamics (a very important and interesting field of study, but far afield from issues of fundamental structure). But despite this PhD, and whatever work he has actually done in his own field (and I don't doubt that there could be some), we must still refer to him as Dr. Oyibo, and not as Professor Oyibo. He has not gained tenure. Pretty surprising for a guy who understands the deepest mysteries of the physical universe.

He claims to have been nominated twice for Nobel Prizes, yet he appears to have published only ten distinct papers. That's a pretty strong batting record! He claims to have found a general solution to the Navier-Stokes equations, one of the great outstanding problems in all of mathematics, yet he has not published his solution, even if only to claim the million-dollar prize being offered by the Clay Mathematical Institute.

He claims to have a "Theory of Everything," and the one university in the world which gives him the benefit of the doubt, and invites him to talk about it publicly, is rebuked. He responds with something of the nature "I don't have to prove my theory, you need to disprove it." First of all, physical theories cannot be "proven" or "disproven." The words are not even used by serious physicists. Theories are either supported, or refuted, by experimental evidence. In the end, that's all we have, and that fact defines physics. There is always some degree of experimental uncertainty, and thus never any proof in the logical sense.

But even if we excuse his untidy language, the fact that he is unwilling to duscuss his GAGUT openly in an academic setting is a huge sign that even he knows that his "ideas" are bullshit. Most crackpots search out the academic conferences (at least, those which don't require any scientific credentials) in order to spread their "ideas" and finally become famous. But he, being the rare crackpot who actually knows some science, understands that he has absolutely nothing to support his claims.


Look, I'm not here to attack Oyibo, and certainly not to attack you. I just want to advertise a fact which is often misunderstood by the world at large. There is no idea so stupid that a scientist (by some definition) can not be found to support it. The statements of any particular scientist should usually be taken with a bit of skepticism, especially if he claims them to be new and profound, and even more so if his only credential is a PhD.

Noone's gonna prove that there is a God, and noone's gonna prove that there isn't one. That's what makes God God.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
holdmedown
Charter member
170 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 12:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "No dude, I'M SORRY..."
In response to Reply # 12


          

>Hate to burst your bubble, but this guy Oyibo is what we
>call a crackpot. My group gets a stack of unpublishable,
>meaningless, incoherent, chrisdefendorf style papers every
>week from dudes who claim to have a "Grand Unified Theory"
>or a "Theory of Everything." They're full of words, and
>"ideas" about where Einstein "went wrong," but there is
>rarely any mathematics and never any logic.
>
>I took your advice and looked into his background, just for
>fun. If he'd ever published anything related to fundamental
>physics, I would have seen it. I study quantum gravity and
>other quantum field theories. It's my job and I spend a LOT
>of time going through all the reputable journals. But I'd
>never heard of Dr. Oyibo until you mentioned him.

Dr. Oyibo has published several articles and books, 7 (yes, SEVEN) of which are available for sale on Amazon.com.
Guess it's possible that you DON'T know everything...

>It turns out he's an interesting kind of crackpot, one with
>a PhD. His PhD, however, is not in any branch of
>fundamental physics, but rather in fluid dynamics (a very
>important and interesting field of study, but far afield
>from issues of fundamental structure). But despite this
>PhD, and whatever work he has actually done in his own field
>(and I don't doubt that there could be some), we must still
>refer to him as Dr. Oyibo, and not as Professor Oyibo. He
>has not gained tenure. Pretty surprising for a guy who
>understands the deepest mysteries of the physical universe.

This is completely unrelated to his credentials or accomplishments, stop taking cheap shots and focus on what we're talking about here, Mr. Physicist...


>He claims to have been nominated twice for Nobel Prizes, yet
>he appears to have published only ten distinct papers.
>That's a pretty strong batting record! He claims to have
>found a general solution to the Navier-Stokes equations, one
>of the great outstanding problems in all of mathematics, yet
>he has not published his solution, even if only to claim the
>million-dollar prize being offered by the Clay Mathematical
>Institute.
(see below please)

>He claims to have a "Theory of Everything," and the one
>university in the world which gives him the benefit of the
>doubt, and invites him to talk about it publicly, is
>rebuked. He responds with something of the nature "I don't
>have to prove my theory, you need to disprove it." First of
>all, physical theories cannot be "proven" or "disproven."
>The words are not even used by serious physicists. Theories
>are either supported, or refuted, by experimental evidence.
>In the end, that's all we have, and that fact defines
>physics. There is always some degree of experimental
>uncertainty, and thus never any proof in the logical sense.

If you go to the website of OFAPPIT Institute of Technology (Oyibo's research home), you will find a lot more real information about him, such as the following:

"Over 2,000 students, staff and professors of Harvard University, Columbia University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), State University of New York at Stony Brook (SUNY Stony Brook), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ( RPI) and New York University (NYU) have requested their respective administrations to invite Professor Gabriel Oyibo, the discoverer of God Almighty’s Grand Unified Theorem (GAGUT) otherwise called the Unified Field Theory or The Theory of Everything to present the discovery in school-wide symposiums at their respective universities.

In making the discovery Prof. G. Oyibo has finished the work of Professor Albert Einstein, who had championed the search for this all-encompassing theory on the origin of the universe in modern times. It is considered the Holy Grail of mathematics and physics. Professor G. Oyibo formally published the discovery in 1999 and the entire world was stunned by the revelation. There was great deal of skepticism, a reaction that is consistent with and expected of such a significant discovery. The skepticism varied from outright disbelief to restricted and qualified acceptance of the discovery.
(like you)

The GAGUT discovery has been published in a reputable mathematics journal that has readership in the most prestigious universities. The GAGUT discovery is recognized by the American and European Mathematical Societies as well as the American Institute of Physics...The GAGUT discovery has also been recognized by over 2,000 students, staff and professors from the following schools: Harvard University (120); 2. Columbia University (300); 3. MIT(296); 4. SUNY Stony Brook (1,070 ); 5. RPI (300); 6. NYU (300).

You still with me, smarty pants?? I guess these schools are wrong too.

>But even if we excuse his untidy language, the fact that he
>is unwilling to duscuss his GAGUT openly in an academic
>setting is a huge sign that even he knows that his "ideas"
>are bullshit. Most crackpots search out the academic
>conferences (at least, those which don't require any
>scientific credentials) in order to spread their "ideas" and
>finally become famous. But he, being the rare crackpot who
>actually knows some science, understands that he has
>absolutely nothing to support his claims.

Einstein was considered a crackpot in his day, so were Copernicus and Newton. SO, that statement doesn;t concern me in the slightest...What does concern me is your eagerness to discredit and dispute the claim without thoroughly researching before you speak. And for you to be in the scientific field, knowing the importance of empirical evidence, how can you look on one website and trash the man's accomplishments like that?
1) You said his Ph.D is in fluid dynamics, but in actuality he has his Ph. D. in Aeronautics and Mathematics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy, New York where he worked for four (4) years on NASA/AFOSR sponsored research. (some crackpot, huh?)
2) You said he hasn't written any books, and I showed them to you. (on AMAZON, there are 7)
3) You said that he has never proven the Navier-Stokes equation, and I showed you where Harvard's Clay School of Mathematics publicly recognizes his work.
4) You said that only one school recognized him and invited him to speak, I showed you 5.
5) You said he is unwilling to discuss GAGUT publicly, however between his many books and the interviews and transcripts found on his website, that is again, FALSE

Maybe you should research his work for real then get back to me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 09:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "RE: No dude, I'M SORRY..."
In response to Reply # 28


          

Look, man, I'm sorry if I offended you. If you wanna think his discoveries are important, fundamental, world-changing, go ahead. I came here to argue about Descartes, not Oyibo.

>Einstein was considered a crackpot in his day, so were
>Copernicus and Newton.

No, they were not. Newton was the most respected academic in the world. Some of Copernicus's work was persecuted, but not by the academic community (which didn't really exist at the time), rather by the church. Einstein was never considered anything close to a crackpot. He was unknown at first, but he was really the opposite of a crackpot. He was very much involved with tthe academic community. He studied the work of Maxwell and Lorentz in complete detail. He built the special theory of relativity on the firm foundation supplied by their work. That's how "revolutionary" ideas become real science, by not actually being as revolutionary as they look.

>SO, that statement doesn;t concern
>me in the slightest...What does concern me is your eagerness
>to discredit and dispute the claim without thoroughly
>researching before you speak. And for you to be in the
>scientific field, knowing the importance of empirical
>evidence, how can you look on one website and trash the
>man's accomplishments like that?
>1) You said his Ph.D is in fluid dynamics, but in actuality
>he has his Ph. D. in Aeronautics and Mathematics from
>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy, New York where
>he worked for four (4) years on NASA/AFOSR sponsored
>research. (some crackpot, huh?)

Aerodynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics. The fluid, by the way, is air. And when he's doing fluid dynamics (such as aerodynamics), I'm perfectly willing to think of him as a scientist. When he pretends to have a "Theory of Everything," he becomes a crackpot.

If his PhD is in aerodynamics from RPI, then chances are, he never even took a course in quantum field theory. Or in string theory. Or in advanced general relativity. Or in canonical quantum gravity. How could he solve the most fundamental problem in science if he doesn't even know what it is?!

>2) You said he hasn't written any books, and I showed them
>to you. (on AMAZON, there are 7)

It's easy to write a book. Anyone can publish a book, especially if he personally pays for the publication. It's more difficult to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Then, one's ideas must first be judged by people WHO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. That's the publication list that matters, and that one is tiny. And as regards fundamental physics, the list is nonexistant.

>3) You said that he has never proven the Navier-Stokes
>equation,

Actually I didn't say that. It wouldn't have made any sense. Equations are just equations, they cannot be proven or disproven. They can be SOLVED, and I probably did say that he has not found a general solution. I stand by that statement.

>and I showed you where Harvard's Clay School of
>Mathematics publicly recognizes his work.

No, you didn't, you directed me to the page of Oyibo's "home institution" (fitting description, since it's run out of his house), where HE mentions the CMI. If you go to the Clay Institute's website, www.claymath.org , you can search for his name. You will come up with nothing. A few months ago, a possible proof of the Poincare conjecture appeared. That was huge news. They reported it on the network nightly news shows. You claim there is a general solution of the NS equations out there, something much easier to check than a proof of the Poincare conjecture, yet the CMI doesn't even seem to have heard of it.

>4) You said that only one school recognized him and invited
>him to speak, I showed you 5.

No, those schools did not invite him to speak. According to Oyibo, a petition was circulated. That's easy to do, and was likely done by Oyibo himself. Again according to Oyibo, that petition gained 2000 signatures. Even if that number is accurate, it represents only a tiny cross section of the combined student populations of the 5 schools. The fact that 2000 students, spread across 5 universities, can be convinced to put a (possibly fake) signature on a petition as they are harangued in-between classes, is not surprising.

>5) You said he is unwilling to discuss GAGUT publicly,
>however between his many books and the interviews and
>transcripts found on his website, that is again, FALSE

So where can I go to find a MATHEMATICAL discussion (or even just a statement!) of his "theorem"? I've looked all over the OFAPPIT website, and come up with nothing. I've checked all the physics journals and e-print archives, and come up with nothing.

Do I go to one of his books? You're right that a few are listed on Amazon, but most are out of print. The rest are essentially out of print, with a 3 week wait for shipping, presumably that's how long it takes to print them out on Oyibo's home deskjet printer.

But even if I was willing to waste my money on one of his books, I'd have no guarantee that he would finally get to the point even there! Again, books are not peer-reviewed. New results are not presented in books.

>Maybe you should research his work for real then get back to
>me.

And maybe you should learn a little physics before you start arguing about its "holy grail."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 01:38 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "that's harsh... lol"
In response to Reply # 33


          

> The rest are
>essentially out of print, with a 3 week wait for shipping,
>presumably that's how long it takes to print them out on
>Oyibo's home deskjet printer.
>

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:33 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "RE: *sigh*"
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

>First of all, this isn't really a "proof," it is merely an
>argument. And despite Descartes's unquestionable greatness,
>this particular argument has not aged well.
>
>>Possibly, the most logically sound proof I have encountered,
>>as follows;
>
>Go read some Euclid. Or better yet, Hilbert or Bertrand
>Russell. Just an aside.

Can you say a little about it?

>
>>First, Descartes must prove that he himself exists, and he
>>does so through his famous statement, "I think therefore I
>>am", as it is a clear and distinct statement that is self
>>evident, no proof beyond the act of saying it is required.
>
>Well, that's a question of epistemology, not a tenet of
>logic.
>
>>The reasoning behind this statement is as follows; if I am
>>able to percieve my own existence from within, I must
>>therefore exist.
>
>And that's not reasoning, it's just repetition.
>

Hmm, I disagree with you. Please explain how it is repetition and not reasoning.

>>Next, Descartes will discuss the relationship between
>>physical objects, and himself. He is not certain of physical
>>objects in his environment, but of his relationship to them.
>
>And that much is very commendable. Descartes's
>relationalism is probably his greatest achievement, though
>it is still disputed today, in some quarters (I sit solidly
>on his side, though).
>
>>In an experiment, Descartes takes a piece of wax, and allows
>>it to melt. He then, observes what has changed, and what has
>>not changed. Through his experiment, Descartes arrives at
>>the conclusion that the wax, may melt in many different
>>ways, or in inifinite ways. The state of change between a
>>solid piece of wax and a melted piece of wax is infinite. A
>>simple example of the infinite are numbers.
>
>And here's where the age of the argument really begins to
>drag it down. In his time, it was natural to assume that
>the number, N, of ways in which a block of wax could melt
>is infinite. In fact, it is now known physically that N is
>not infinite! It is an enormous number, but finite
>nonetheless. This fact is a simple result of modern quantum
>mechanics, and it underlies all of our understanding of
>statistical thermodynamics. This is not to say that we
>"know" N is finite. There are likely some errors in the
>present formulation of quantum theory. Nonetheless, it is
>far more reasonable for us to assume N is finite.

You state that is it reasonable to assume that N is finite. Also, if you do not like the wax block experiment, you could just think of numbers, and counting from 1, to infinity. Correct? Are you stating that even that is finite?

>
>But Descartes's argument is not about wax. It's about the
>nature of infinity in the physical world. In fact many of
>the quantities of the physical world, once assumed to be
>infinite, have been rendered finite by the modern quantum
>viewpoint. The extent of this is not yet completely clear.
>Many quantum systems admit finite bases (that is, a finite
>number of "states"). Many more admit "countable" bases
>(that's a designation that might be considered "in between"
>the standard definitions of finite and infinite), and some,
>truly, uncountably infinite bases. In fact, most systems
>admit more than one of the above, simultaneously. That is,
>the question of how many states a system might take, depends
>on how the observer chooses to differentiate them. And in
>fact, in the most mathematically rigorous treatments of
>quantum theory yet made, uncountably infinite bases are
>avoided like the plague. The problem is that they usually
>lead to logical inconsistencies, a sign that the "methods of
>distinction" which lead to infinite bases are generally
>unnatural, and amount to the philosopher forcing too much of
>his own opinions upon the system.
>

You are using quantum theory to disprove infinity, ofcourse, within the bounds of quantum theory, which are clearly "finite", just like any study, you are going to find finite solutions. That is exactly the point Descartes is attempting to make. Human beings are incapable of the infinite. We are not discussing quantum theory here, we are discussing the infinite, the infinite is not subjected to quantum theory as it is just that, the infinite, and therefore you cannot possibly disprove it's existence. Also, if I understand you correctly, you mentioned that what was considered infinite is now proven to be finite. At one point in our world's history, we thought the world was flat. Do you see where I am going with this? Also, within the context of quantum theory, I see that there has been a great deal of assumption that is now beginning to be clarified. Your counter argument is irrelevant to this discussion, as it is subjected to a scientifical field of study. How can science possibly be infinite? It is the study of the finite is it not? Therefore, this only helps prove Descartes argument, that we are incapable of the infinite.

>I doubt I'm making any sense. My point is that it now
>appears unlikely that any physical phenomena permit truly
>infinite variation. It seems more likely that the concept
>of infinity is an invention of man, and is forced upon the
>physical world now far too quickly.
>

You are making sense. You mentioned "physical phenomena", I am not speaking about physical phenomena, I am speaking about God. Is God physical? I do not think infinity is an invention of man, as it is easy to disprove that by simply counting from 1 to infinity.

>>I am not detailing each point of study as I want to arrive
>>at the proof of God as quickly as possible for the sake of
>>this conversation, so please excuse me for leaving
>>information out if you have already studied Descartes.
>>
>>Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which
>>may be percieved as something that is decieving to his
>>senses and himself. In order to disprove the existence of
>>the "Evil Genius", Descartes is faced with the challenge of
>>proving God's existence. He does this as follows;
>>
>>Human beings are finite beings, meaning, our physical bodies
>>will eventually die.
>
>Sure.
>
>>Also, as finite beings, we are
>>incapable of the infinite, yet we can be certain the
>>infinite exists by observing a melting a piece of wax.
>
>Again, that's not really true. We ASSUME the infinite
>exists, or rather, Descartes did.
>

I'd like to hear your proof against the infinity when faced with simple counting.

>>We
>>can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable
>>of it's excecution.
>
>That seems to me to be a sign that it was a figment of our
>imagination all along.
>

I disagree.

>>If you feel otherwise, please state how
>>as human beings, we can excecute the infinite. Descartes
>>concludes that God is a supreme being capable of the
>>infinite.
>
>And this is a HUGE leap! Even if we were to assume the
>physical existence of the infinite, there is absolutely no
>reason this requires a "being capable of the infinite."
>

It does not have to be a being, or "God". It can simply be a force of the infinite, and truly, that takes higher ground over human beings incapable of executing the infinite. The fact that Descartes called it God, is probably because he was brought up in a religious environment and took it upon himself to prove the existence of "GOD", which does not actually have to be labeled that.

>>Do you find this to be sound proof for the existence of God
>>that is clear and distinct?
>
>Well, I think my view is clear.
>
>>Furthermore, Descartes explores free will. Thus far, he is
>>certain of Himself, as he can percieve his own existence; he
>>is certain of GOD, as a supreme being capable of the
>>infinite, and thus an infinite being.
>>
>>According to Descartes we always have the freedom of saying
>>"Yes" or "No" to any question or supposed act.
>
>Here is another big assumption. He was drawn to it
>culturally, not philosophically.
>

I disagre. Please provide some reasoning, blanket statements don't say much.

>>We can be
>>free from making error, by making clear and distinct
>>statements about our situation and the consequence.
>>Descartes feel's that we carry a reflection of the infinite
>>within our free will, and thus, a reflection of GOD. As,
>>there are an infinite amount of questions or acts that we
>>can say "Yes", or "No" to. Therefore, even though we cannot
>>excecute the infinite, as a sign of respect from GOD to us
>>human beings, we are capable of facing an infinite, and any
>>amount of questions/acts with a simple yes or no,
>
>Wait a second! Didn't you just say that our lifespan is
>finite? How are we gonna answer an infinite number of
>questions?
>

Our lifespan is finite, yet within our finite lifespan, we can face any type of situation, correct? Those situations are infinite as we interact with so many other life forms. I am not saying that we are going to answer an infinite amount of questions, but that we are able to interact with the infinite. We can play with it, just like how we can play with numbers.

>>thus,
>>making use of our free will, which reflects the infinite,
>>and thus GOD.
>>
>>Peace.
>
>There is, unfortuantely, a thin line between philosophy and
>spirituality. If your description presents an accurate
>picture of the Cartesian argument (and of that I'm not sure,
>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but note as you did
>that you omitted details to save space), then I can only
>consider this argument an act of faith, and not of logic.

Well, it may not be fully accurate as I clearly made some mistake, but this is not my leap of faith, it is simply a discussion of Descartes logic.

Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 09:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "arright, I've got some time"
In response to Reply # 18


          

>>First of all, this isn't really a "proof," it is merely an
>>argument. And despite Descartes's unquestionable greatness,
>>this particular argument has not aged well.
>>
>>>Possibly, the most logically sound proof I have encountered,
>>>as follows;
>>
>>Go read some Euclid. Or better yet, Hilbert or Bertrand
>>Russell. Just an aside.
>
>Can you say a little about it?

My point is that many branches of philosophy do not involve "proofs." The proof is a tool of pure logic, it is used only in pure logic, and its subfields, such as mathematics. In these fields, one states one's definitions and assumptions (axioms) at the very very beginning, and then derives results (theorems) which follow (strictly!) from these definitions and assumptions. One thereby attains absolute certainty in one's results, but it's not as profound as you might think. The result ONLY FOLLOWS FROM THE ASSUMPTIONS, nothing more. Thus the proof extends no further than the logician's mind.

If you really are interested in the structure of proofs in pure logic, I reccommend G.H. Hardy's little book "A Mathematician's Apology." He wrote it for the general audience, but he also walks through a few of the classic proofs of mathematics.

>>>First, Descartes must prove that he himself exists, and he
>>>does so through his famous statement, "I think therefore I
>>>am", as it is a clear and distinct statement that is self
>>>evident, no proof beyond the act of saying it is required.
>>
>>Well, that's a question of epistemology, not a tenet of
>>logic.
>>
>>>The reasoning behind this statement is as follows; if I am
>>>able to percieve my own existence from within, I must
>>>therefore exist.
>>
>>And that's not reasoning, it's just repetition.
>>
>
>Hmm, I disagree with you. Please explain how it is
>repetition and not reasoning.

I disagree right back. Read the two statements again. You didn't really state anything new, you just took the original statement and stretched it out. You inserted more words, the words don't serve a purpose, except to satiate those people who judge the value of a statement by the number of words. Some words are more valuable than others. (and I admit this in full knowledge of the fact that I've been known to write some very long posts)

>>>Next, Descartes will discuss the relationship between
>>>physical objects, and himself. He is not certain of physical
>>>objects in his environment, but of his relationship to them.
>>
>>And that much is very commendable. Descartes's
>>relationalism is probably his greatest achievement, though
>>it is still disputed today, in some quarters (I sit solidly
>>on his side, though).
>>
>>>In an experiment, Descartes takes a piece of wax, and allows
>>>it to melt. He then, observes what has changed, and what has
>>>not changed. Through his experiment, Descartes arrives at
>>>the conclusion that the wax, may melt in many different
>>>ways, or in inifinite ways. The state of change between a
>>>solid piece of wax and a melted piece of wax is infinite. A
>>>simple example of the infinite are numbers.
>>
>>And here's where the age of the argument really begins to
>>drag it down. In his time, it was natural to assume that
>>the number, N, of ways in which a block of wax could melt
>>is infinite. In fact, it is now known physically that N is
>>not infinite! It is an enormous number, but finite
>>nonetheless. This fact is a simple result of modern quantum
>>mechanics, and it underlies all of our understanding of
>>statistical thermodynamics. This is not to say that we
>>"know" N is finite. There are likely some errors in the
>>present formulation of quantum theory. Nonetheless, it is
>>far more reasonable for us to assume N is finite.
>
>You state that is it reasonable to assume that N is finite.

In fact more reasonable than assuming it is infinite! We must assume something somewhere.

>Also, if you do not like the wax block experiment, you could
>just think of numbers, and counting from 1, to infinity.
>Correct? Are you stating that even that is finite?

Haha! No, I'm not stating that the set of positive integers is finite. But note that Descartes did not cite the positive integers as his example. He used wax for a reason. It's easy to argue that wax "exists," that is, that it is an artifact of the larger universe, and not of our imaginations; that it retains its reality regardless of whether people are considering its existence. The same is not true of the positive integers. Despite their name, the real numbers are an invention of the mathematician's mind. This might be hard to accept, since the real numbers are so familiar. But consider other number systems: the complex numbers, the quaternions, the octonions, the supernumbers. We have invented all sorts of number systems over the centuries. You want a number system, I'll give you one right now. The "integers mod 2." This consists of the set {0,1}, and the arithmetic DEFINED by:

0+0=0
0+1=1
1+0=1
1+1=0 (notice that one)

0*0=0
0*1=0
1*0=0
1*1=1

This number system is just as valid, philosophically, as the real number field. In fact, in recent decades, it has become exceedingly important, for an obvious reason. You will note, also, that it does not involve an infinite number of elements. There are only two.

>>But Descartes's argument is not about wax. It's about the
>>nature of infinity in the physical world. In fact many of
>>the quantities of the physical world, once assumed to be
>>infinite, have been rendered finite by the modern quantum
>>viewpoint. The extent of this is not yet completely clear.
>>Many quantum systems admit finite bases (that is, a finite
>>number of "states"). Many more admit "countable" bases
>>(that's a designation that might be considered "in between"
>>the standard definitions of finite and infinite), and some,
>>truly, uncountably infinite bases. In fact, most systems
>>admit more than one of the above, simultaneously. That is,
>>the question of how many states a system might take, depends
>>on how the observer chooses to differentiate them. And in
>>fact, in the most mathematically rigorous treatments of
>>quantum theory yet made, uncountably infinite bases are
>>avoided like the plague. The problem is that they usually
>>lead to logical inconsistencies, a sign that the "methods of
>>distinction" which lead to infinite bases are generally
>>unnatural, and amount to the philosopher forcing too much of
>>his own opinions upon the system.
>>
>
>You are using quantum theory to disprove infinity, ofcourse,
>within the bounds of quantum theory, which are clearly
>"finite", just like any study, you are going to find finite
>solutions. That is exactly the point Descartes is attempting
>to make. Human beings are incapable of the infinite. We are
>not discussing quantum theory here, we are discussing the
>infinite, the infinite is not subjected to quantum theory as
>it is just that, the infinite, and therefore you cannot
>possibly disprove it's existence. Also, if I understand you
>correctly, you mentioned that what was considered infinite
>is now proven to be finite. At one point in our world's
>history, we thought the world was flat. Do you see where I
>am going with this? Also, within the context of quantum
>theory, I see that there has been a great deal of assumption
>that is now beginning to be clarified. Your counter argument
>is irrelevant to this discussion, as it is subjected to a
>scientifical field of study. How can science possibly be
>infinite? It is the study of the finite is it not?
>Therefore, this only helps prove Descartes argument, that we
>are incapable of the infinite.

So what is it you are referring to when you describe the infinite? Descartes referred to wax, clearly a system bound by the laws of physics. You want to dismiss the scientific approach, apparently because it no longer supports your "worldview." It's quite disingenuous to cite the scientific viewpoint when it is convenient, but to summarily dismiss it when it becomes inconvenient.

So you use numbers instead. My contention is that number systems are human inventions. If you must cite numbers to argue that the infinite "exists", you are only arguing that the infinite exists in the mind of a mathematician, which seems to contradict your original thesis (that we are incapable of the infinite).

See, I'm saying you've got it all backwards! The physical world is finite. The imagination is infinite.

>>I doubt I'm making any sense. My point is that it now
>>appears unlikely that any physical phenomena permit truly
>>infinite variation. It seems more likely that the concept
>>of infinity is an invention of man, and is forced upon the
>>physical world now far too quickly.
>>
>
>You are making sense. You mentioned "physical phenomena", I
>am not speaking about physical phenomena, I am speaking
>about God.

Oh, okay. What the hell is that?

>Is God physical?

You tell me. I don't even know what you're talking about.

>I do not think infinity is an
>invention of man, as it is easy to disprove that by simply
>counting from 1 to infinity.

Hmmm . . . when I count in the integers mod 2, I get 0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1. We can see the pattern here. If you want me to, I can give a quick inductive proof that I'll never get anything else. I was done the first time I reached 1.

When I count in the complex number field, I get . . . I get . . . wait a second! There's no such thing as "counting" in the field of complex numbers! I can't count a damn thing until I restrict attention to a "denumerable subset." Let's just grab two elements, "A" and "B", I don't have time to play around here. Now we need to give them an arithmetic. I already wrote one down above, let's just use that one again, to save some space, for a change. Okay, now I can count: A,B,A,B,A,B . . . DAMMITALL! Now I'm all up on some isomorphic shit!


>>>I am not detailing each point of study as I want to arrive
>>>at the proof of God as quickly as possible for the sake of
>>>this conversation, so please excuse me for leaving
>>>information out if you have already studied Descartes.
>>>
>>>Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which
>>>may be percieved as something that is decieving to his
>>>senses and himself. In order to disprove the existence of
>>>the "Evil Genius", Descartes is faced with the challenge of
>>>proving God's existence. He does this as follows;
>>>
>>>Human beings are finite beings, meaning, our physical bodies
>>>will eventually die.
>>
>>Sure.
>>
>>>Also, as finite beings, we are
>>>incapable of the infinite, yet we can be certain the
>>>infinite exists by observing a melting a piece of wax.
>>
>>Again, that's not really true. We ASSUME the infinite
>>exists, or rather, Descartes did.
>>
>
>I'd like to hear your proof against the infinity when faced
>with simple counting.

Again, I don't doubt that infinity exists. I know it exists. We invented it!

By the way, I'm not just being snarky here. You cite the positive integers as an example of the infinite, and you are under the impression that this number system was somehow "God given." However, it is clear from any study of early math history that the invention of the positive integers was a long and tedious process of HUMAN logic. As far as we can tell, it was first completed in ancient mesopotamia. They seem to have invented the first number system which incorporates concepts of cardinality and "base." While our number system is base 10, theirs was base 60. That, by the way, is the reason there are 360 degrees in the circle. Back then, there were 12 signs of the zodiac, and each was subdivided into 60 parts.

>>>We
>>>can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable
>>>of it's excecution.
>>
>>That seems to me to be a sign that it was a figment of our
>>imagination all along.
>
>I disagree.
>
>>>If you feel otherwise, please state how
>>>as human beings, we can excecute the infinite. Descartes
>>>concludes that God is a supreme being capable of the
>>>infinite.
>>
>>And this is a HUGE leap! Even if we were to assume the
>>physical existence of the infinite, there is absolutely no
>>reason this requires a "being capable of the infinite."
>>
>
>It does not have to be a being, or "God". It can simply be a
>force of the infinite, and truly, that takes higher ground
>over human beings incapable of executing the infinite. The
>fact that Descartes called it God, is probably because he
>was brought up in a religious environment and took it upon
>himself to prove the existence of "GOD", which does not
>actually have to be labeled that.

Oh, so now you say Descartes was not arguing about the supernatural, but rather only about the existence of infinity. You can change the rules midgame if you like, but I'll point out again that the details of his arguments have been completely superseded by ensuing developments in mathematics and physics. Some form of the argument still stands, but now the only reasonable conclusion (if you insist on defining "God" by a command of the infinite) is that "Descartes is God." Now there's a conclusion I'm tempted to "believe!"


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 02:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "RE: arright, I've got some time"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          


>If you really are interested in the structure of proofs in
>pure logic, I reccommend G.H. Hardy's little book "A
>Mathematician's Apology." He wrote it for the general
>audience, but he also walks through a few of the classic
>proofs of mathematics.
>

This sounds really interesting.

>>>>First, Descartes must prove that he himself exists, and he
>>>>does so through his famous statement, "I think therefore I
>>>>am", as it is a clear and distinct statement that is self
>>>>evident, no proof beyond the act of saying it is required.
>>>
>>>Well, that's a question of epistemology, not a tenet of
>>>logic.
>>>
>>>>The reasoning behind this statement is as follows; if I am
>>>>able to percieve my own existence from within, I must
>>>>therefore exist.
>>>
>>>And that's not reasoning, it's just repetition.
>>>
>>
>>Hmm, I disagree with you. Please explain how it is
>>repetition and not reasoning.
>
>I disagree right back. Read the two statements again. You
>didn't really state anything new, you just took the original
>statement and stretched it out. You inserted more words,
>the words don't serve a purpose, except to satiate those
>people who judge the value of a statement by the number of
>words. Some words are more valuable than others. (and I
>admit this in full knowledge of the fact that I've been
>known to write some very long posts)

I wasn't attempting to state anything new. Hmm, I find your analysis of what I wrote very strange, as I don't see how I could have given that impression.

Stating this;
""I think therefore I
>>>>am", as it is a clear and distinct statement that is self
>>>>evident, no proof beyond the act of saying it is required."

and;

"The reasoning behind this statement is as follows; if I am
>>>>able to percieve my own existence from within, I must
>>>>therefore exist."

This is not repetition. The second statement is the explanation of the first statement. To me, the first statement alone does not say; "if i am able to percieve my own existence from WITHIN, i must therefore exist", the first statement is a reference to "clear and distinct" which is a concept created by descartes to descibe statements which are statemenuts that you can trust, that is why i said they are self evident. I didn't even make any reference to existence in the first statement. I merely provided the process, and in the second statement, I provided the point of thought or study, which is existence.

I think your analysis is incorrect.

>
>>>>Next, Descartes will discuss the relationship between
>>>>physical objects, and himself. He is not certain of physical
>>>>objects in his environment, but of his relationship to them.
>>>
>>>And that much is very commendable. Descartes's
>>>relationalism is probably his greatest achievement, though
>>>it is still disputed today, in some quarters (I sit solidly
>>>on his side, though).
>>>
>>>>In an experiment, Descartes takes a piece of wax, and allows
>>>>it to melt. He then, observes what has changed, and what has
>>>>not changed. Through his experiment, Descartes arrives at
>>>>the conclusion that the wax, may melt in many different
>>>>ways, or in inifinite ways. The state of change between a
>>>>solid piece of wax and a melted piece of wax is infinite. A
>>>>simple example of the infinite are numbers.
>>>
>>>And here's where the age of the argument really begins to
>>>drag it down. In his time, it was natural to assume that
>>>the number, N, of ways in which a block of wax could melt
>>>is infinite. In fact, it is now known physically that N is
>>>not infinite! It is an enormous number, but finite
>>>nonetheless. This fact is a simple result of modern quantum
>>>mechanics, and it underlies all of our understanding of
>>>statistical thermodynamics. This is not to say that we
>>>"know" N is finite. There are likely some errors in the
>>>present formulation of quantum theory. Nonetheless, it is
>>>far more reasonable for us to assume N is finite.
>>
>>You state that is it reasonable to assume that N is finite.
>
>In fact more reasonable than assuming it is infinite! We
>must assume something somewhere.
>
>>Also, if you do not like the wax block experiment, you could
>>just think of numbers, and counting from 1, to infinity.
>>Correct? Are you stating that even that is finite?
>
>Haha! No, I'm not stating that the set of positive integers
>is finite. But note that Descartes did not cite the
>positive integers as his example. He used wax for a reason.
> It's easy to argue that wax "exists," that is, that it is
>an artifact of the larger universe, and not of our
>imaginations; that it retains its reality regardless of
>whether people are considering its existence. The same is
>not true of the positive integers. Despite their name, the
>real numbers are an invention of the mathematician's mind.
>This might be hard to accept, since the real numbers are so
>familiar. But consider other number systems: the complex
>numbers, the quaternions, the octonions, the supernumbers.
>We have invented all sorts of number systems over the
>centuries. You want a number system, I'll give you one
>right now. The "integers mod 2." This consists of the set
>{0,1}, and the arithmetic DEFINED by:
>
>0+0=0
>0+1=1
>1+0=1
>1+1=0 (notice that one)
>
>0*0=0
>0*1=0
>1*0=0
>1*1=1
>
>This number system is just as valid, philosophically, as the
>real number field. In fact, in recent decades, it has
>become exceedingly important, for an obvious reason. You
>will note, also, that it does not involve an infinite number
>of elements. There are only two.

I see your point. I am curious, why is:
">1+1=0 (notice that one) " philosophically valid?


>
>>>But Descartes's argument is not about wax. It's about the
>>>nature of infinity in the physical world. In fact many of
>>>the quantities of the physical world, once assumed to be
>>>infinite, have been rendered finite by the modern quantum
>>>viewpoint. The extent of this is not yet completely clear.
>>>Many quantum systems admit finite bases (that is, a finite
>>>number of "states"). Many more admit "countable" bases
>>>(that's a designation that might be considered "in between"
>>>the standard definitions of finite and infinite), and some,
>>>truly, uncountably infinite bases. In fact, most systems
>>>admit more than one of the above, simultaneously. That is,
>>>the question of how many states a system might take, depends
>>>on how the observer chooses to differentiate them. And in
>>>fact, in the most mathematically rigorous treatments of
>>>quantum theory yet made, uncountably infinite bases are
>>>avoided like the plague. The problem is that they usually
>>>lead to logical inconsistencies, a sign that the "methods of
>>>distinction" which lead to infinite bases are generally
>>>unnatural, and amount to the philosopher forcing too much of
>>>his own opinions upon the system.
>>>
>>
>>You are using quantum theory to disprove infinity, ofcourse,
>>within the bounds of quantum theory, which are clearly
>>"finite", just like any study, you are going to find finite
>>solutions. That is exactly the point Descartes is attempting
>>to make. Human beings are incapable of the infinite. We are
>>not discussing quantum theory here, we are discussing the
>>infinite, the infinite is not subjected to quantum theory as
>>it is just that, the infinite, and therefore you cannot
>>possibly disprove it's existence. Also, if I understand you
>>correctly, you mentioned that what was considered infinite
>>is now proven to be finite. At one point in our world's
>>history, we thought the world was flat. Do you see where I
>>am going with this? Also, within the context of quantum
>>theory, I see that there has been a great deal of assumption
>>that is now beginning to be clarified. Your counter argument
>>is irrelevant to this discussion, as it is subjected to a
>>scientifical field of study. How can science possibly be
>>infinite? It is the study of the finite is it not?
>>Therefore, this only helps prove Descartes argument, that we
>>are incapable of the infinite.
>
>So what is it you are referring to when you describe the
>infinite? Descartes referred to wax, clearly a system bound
>by the laws of physics. You want to dismiss the scientific
>approach, apparently because it no longer supports your
>"worldview." It's quite disingenuous to cite the scientific
>viewpoint when it is convenient, but to summarily dismiss it
>when it becomes inconvenient.
>
>So you use numbers instead. My contention is that number
>systems are human inventions. If you must cite numbers to
>argue that the infinite "exists", you are only arguing that
>the infinite exists in the mind of a mathematician, which
>seems to contradict your original thesis (that we are
>incapable of the infinite).
>
>See, I'm saying you've got it all backwards! The physical
>world is finite. The imagination is infinite.

I understand much better now. Thanks.

>
>>>I doubt I'm making any sense. My point is that it now
>>>appears unlikely that any physical phenomena permit truly
>>>infinite variation. It seems more likely that the concept
>>>of infinity is an invention of man, and is forced upon the
>>>physical world now far too quickly.
>>>
>>
>>You are making sense. You mentioned "physical phenomena", I
>>am not speaking about physical phenomena, I am speaking
>>about God.
>
>Oh, okay. What the hell is that?
>
>>Is God physical?
>
>You tell me. I don't even know what you're talking about.

If God exists? is it a physical phenomena? how do you define physical?


>
>>I do not think infinity is an
>>invention of man, as it is easy to disprove that by simply
>>counting from 1 to infinity.
>
>Hmmm . . . when I count in the integers mod 2, I get
>0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1. We can see the pattern here. If you want
>me to, I can give a quick inductive proof that I'll never
>get anything else. I was done the first time I reached 1.
>
>When I count in the complex number field, I get . . . I get
>. . . wait a second! There's no such thing as "counting" in
>the field of complex numbers! I can't count a damn thing
>until I restrict attention to a "denumerable subset." Let's
>just grab two elements, "A" and "B", I don't have time to
>play around here. Now we need to give them an arithmetic.
>I already wrote one down above, let's just use that one
>again, to save some space, for a change. Okay, now I can
>count: A,B,A,B,A,B . . . DAMMITALL! Now I'm all up on some
>isomorphic shit!
>
>

lol. That was funny, I don't blame you for writing it, it was humerous and I see where my error was in using integers as proof, I agree it is created by the imagination.

Okay, I want to ask you a question. How do you feel about Mathematics as a divine language? In a philosophical statement, Saukrates asks a slave boy, to draw a triangle, and the boy was able to, without knowing the formula for it as he did not have an education. Or, pythagoream theory in showflakes. What do you see mathematics as? And, is it logical to say that math itself is infinite, as it is possible to do anything with it? Not in the sense that it has a finite number in it's calcuation, but the calculation itself?


>>>>I am not detailing each point of study as I want to arrive
>>>>at the proof of God as quickly as possible for the sake of
>>>>this conversation, so please excuse me for leaving
>>>>information out if you have already studied Descartes.
>>>>
>>>>Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which
>>>>may be percieved as something that is decieving to his
>>>>senses and himself. In order to disprove the existence of
>>>>the "Evil Genius", Descartes is faced with the challenge of
>>>>proving God's existence. He does this as follows;
>>>>
>>>>Human beings are finite beings, meaning, our physical bodies
>>>>will eventually die.
>>>
>>>Sure.
>>>
>>>>Also, as finite beings, we are
>>>>incapable of the infinite, yet we can be certain the
>>>>infinite exists by observing a melting a piece of wax.
>>>
>>>Again, that's not really true. We ASSUME the infinite
>>>exists, or rather, Descartes did.
>>>
>>
>>I'd like to hear your proof against the infinity when faced
>>with simple counting.
>
>Again, I don't doubt that infinity exists. I know it
>exists. We invented it!
>
>By the way, I'm not just being snarky here. You cite the
>positive integers as an example of the infinite, and you are
>under the impression that this number system was somehow
>"God given." However, it is clear from any study of early
>math history that the invention of the positive integers was
>a long and tedious process of HUMAN logic. As far as we can
>tell, it was first completed in ancient mesopotamia. They
>seem to have invented the first number system which
>incorporates concepts of cardinality and "base." While our
>number system is base 10, theirs was base 60. That, by the
>way, is the reason there are 360 degrees in the circle.
>Back then, there were 12 signs of the zodiac, and each was
>subdivided into 60 parts.
>

Very interesting, I understand.

>>>>We
>>>>can grasp the concept of the infinite, but we are incapable
>>>>of it's excecution.
>>>
>>>That seems to me to be a sign that it was a figment of our
>>>imagination all along.
>>
>>I disagree.
>>
>>>>If you feel otherwise, please state how
>>>>as human beings, we can excecute the infinite. Descartes
>>>>concludes that God is a supreme being capable of the
>>>>infinite.
>>>
>>>And this is a HUGE leap! Even if we were to assume the
>>>physical existence of the infinite, there is absolutely no
>>>reason this requires a "being capable of the infinite."
>>>
>>
>>It does not have to be a being, or "God". It can simply be a
>>force of the infinite, and truly, that takes higher ground
>>over human beings incapable of executing the infinite. The
>>fact that Descartes called it God, is probably because he
>>was brought up in a religious environment and took it upon
>>himself to prove the existence of "GOD", which does not
>>actually have to be labeled that.
>
>Oh, so now you say Descartes was not arguing about the
>supernatural, but rather only about the existence of
>infinity. You can change the rules midgame if you like, but
>I'll point out again that the details of his arguments have
>been completely superseded by ensuing developments in
>mathematics and physics. Some form of the argument still
>stands, but now the only reasonable conclusion (if you
>insist on defining "God" by a command of the infinite) is
>that "Descartes is God." Now there's a conclusion I'm
>tempted to "believe!"

lol, Peace, thanks for taking the time to respond. Looking forward to see your thoughts on what I asked. Have a good one, peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 03:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "RE: arright, I've got some time"
In response to Reply # 46


          

>>>>>First, Descartes must prove that he himself exists, and he
>>>>>does so through his famous statement, "I think therefore I
>>>>>am", as it is a clear and distinct statement that is self
>>>>>evident, no proof beyond the act of saying it is required.
>>>>
>>>>Well, that's a question of epistemology, not a tenet of
>>>>logic.
>>>>
>>>>>The reasoning behind this statement is as follows; if I am
>>>>>able to percieve my own existence from within, I must
>>>>>therefore exist.
>>>>
>>>>And that's not reasoning, it's just repetition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm, I disagree with you. Please explain how it is
>>>repetition and not reasoning.
>>
>>I disagree right back. Read the two statements again. You
>>didn't really state anything new, you just took the original
>>statement and stretched it out. You inserted more words,
>>the words don't serve a purpose, except to satiate those
>>people who judge the value of a statement by the number of
>>words. Some words are more valuable than others. (and I
>>admit this in full knowledge of the fact that I've been
>>known to write some very long posts)
>
>I wasn't attempting to state anything new. Hmm, I find your
>analysis of what I wrote very strange, as I don't see how I
>could have given that impression.

Hmm. Okay. You and I seem to have different standards for "explanation." You merely meant to state your interpretation of his statement, whereas I thought you were trying to justify it. I propose a truce on this part of the argument. I think we were just misunderstanding each other.



>>>Also, if you do not like the wax block experiment, you could
>>>just think of numbers, and counting from 1, to infinity.
>>>Correct? Are you stating that even that is finite?
>>
>>Haha! No, I'm not stating that the set of positive integers
>>is finite. But note that Descartes did not cite the
>>positive integers as his example. He used wax for a reason.
>> It's easy to argue that wax "exists," that is, that it is
>>an artifact of the larger universe, and not of our
>>imaginations; that it retains its reality regardless of
>>whether people are considering its existence. The same is
>>not true of the positive integers. Despite their name, the
>>real numbers are an invention of the mathematician's mind.
>>This might be hard to accept, since the real numbers are so
>>familiar. But consider other number systems: the complex
>>numbers, the quaternions, the octonions, the supernumbers.
>>We have invented all sorts of number systems over the
>>centuries. You want a number system, I'll give you one
>>right now. The "integers mod 2." This consists of the set
>>{0,1}, and the arithmetic DEFINED by:
>>
>>0+0=0
>>0+1=1
>>1+0=1
>>1+1=0 (notice that one)
>>
>>0*0=0
>>0*1=0
>>1*0=0
>>1*1=1
>>
>>This number system is just as valid, philosophically, as the
>>real number field. In fact, in recent decades, it has
>>become exceedingly important, for an obvious reason. You
>>will note, also, that it does not involve an infinite number
>>of elements. There are only two.
>
>I see your point. I am curious, why is:
>">1+1=0 (notice that one) " philosophically valid?

Because it is logically self-consistent. You can do all the mathematics you want with that *definition* of the addition operation (people do it all the time in signal processing), and you will never end up with a contradiction. That is, no amount of math built on the above arithmetic will ever lead to a result like "1=0."



>>>You are making sense. You mentioned "physical phenomena", I
>>>am not speaking about physical phenomena, I am speaking
>>>about God.
>>
>>Oh, okay. What the hell is that?
>>
>>>Is God physical?
>>
>>You tell me. I don't even know what you're talking about.
>
>If God exists? is it a physical phenomena? how do you define
>physical?

Tricky question, so I'll just toss it back. How do you define God?

I mean, to define physics is really to define science. All other "branches" of science are really just applied physics. Biology, chemistry, astronomy; not math, by the way, that's a branch of pure logic and is therefore removed from any relationship with inferred experience.

So I think experience is one of the defining factors. Science is the study of those experiences which we do not believe we are merely imagining. We define "not merely imagining" by assuming we can interact honestly with a community. Community consensus then separates imagination from fact.

You might now point out that world consensus holds that God indeed exists, and ask me if that forces me to admit His existence as fact. However the consensus is not nearly universal among those people who think deeply about the problem, and such essentially universal acceptance is, I believe, necessary to promote an idea to scientific fact.

Also, and more importantly, the people who claim God exists generally do so not by citing specific experiences, but rather by citing "faith." They are faithful despite a lack of experience. I am not trying to criticize this stand, merely pointing out that it removes the "God consensus" from the jurisdiction of science.

Now there are also a few people who do cite "experience" with God. However, such experiences are not testable. That is, nobody has yet designed an experiment by which one can conjure up God at will. The existence of repeatable experiments is another defining requirement of science. That's what enforces the honesty in the scientific community.


Now, I'm happy to admit that the assumption or repeatable testability may be too restrictive in removing experiences from the "imagined" category. There could very well be experiences which are not imagined yet are also not repeatably testable. The assumed completeness of testable reality shows a certain degree of unjustified hubris on the part of some scientists.

I do not believe that everything which is not imagined is repeatably testable. I simply assume that all those things which are not repeatably testable are either imagined or are unnecessary. I see no practical reason to assume God exists, rather I actually see a long history of such beliefs being used to drum up support for despicable political acts.


>Okay, I want to ask you a question. How do you feel about
>Mathematics as a divine language?

I cringe at the idea.

>In a philosophical
>statement, Saukrates asks a slave boy, to draw a triangle,
>and the boy was able to, without knowing the formula for it
>as he did not have an education.

Well, I could have drawn a triangle before I had an education as well. The word is so broad that anything with three sides (or three angles) would satisfy the request. If a child is asked to draw a euclidean isosceles triangle, he would fail if he has not studied geometry.

>Or, pythagoream theory in
>showflakes. What do you see mathematics as?

Mathematics is a work of art. It was built by an enormous number of artists, but they have all worked together to force it to conform to a consistent (if complex) set of fundamental principles. It is that collection of principles which forms the soul of mathematics. Those principles are so popular that we are tempted to use them to model experience, as we have done, with some success, in science, but I don't believe the principles come from anywhere other than us.

>And, is it
>logical to say that math itself is infinite, as it is
>possible to do anything with it? Not in the sense that it
>has a finite number in it's calcuation, but the calculation
>itself?

Well, yes, but again only in the same sense that a work of art is infinite. There is no limit, in principle, to the insights I can gain from studying a Rothko canvas. But for this I thank Rothko, not God.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ovBismarck
Charter member
1868 posts
Mon Jan-24-05 10:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "RE: Descartes proof for the existence of God,"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

The First Law of Philosophy

For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy

They're both wrong.

-------------
A seal walks into a club.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
17. "ease up on the clich"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          


Nice nonsense.

It doesn't hold up to well in light of of the law of non-contradiction, huh?

I mean, it's a cliche. What if we were logical instead of cliche-laden?

ps - You're quote in your sig is DOOM from the Madvillain cd, now? Why does it say "Happyhero"? If it's not DOOM, the lines are crazy-similar if not identical. Weird. Am I just ignorant of some Doom alias? What gives.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 09:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "ease up on the bullshit"
In response to Reply # 17
Wed Jan-26-05 09:44 AM

          

"the law of non-contradiction" !

!

That's some comedy, man!

I'm not just trying to attack you on this, I actually enjoy our runins. But I'll advise you, when you take the intellectual route, don't just start making stuff up.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 03:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "tell me..."
In response to Reply # 26


  

          


what am I just "making up"?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
ovBismarck
Charter member
1868 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 10:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "RE: ease up on the clich"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

>
>Nice nonsense.
>
>It doesn't hold up to well in light of of the law of
>non-contradiction, huh?

All the logic in the world is only going to get you to a little place called nowhere with regard to either the existence or non-existence of god.

>I mean, it's a cliche. What if we were logical instead of
>cliche-laden?

Would you care to know where I took that little ditty from?
http://www.miami.edu/phi/misc/jokes.htm
It says jokes. I know you have a vested interest in "proving" the existence of god, but lighten the eff up.


>ps - You're quote in your sig is DOOM from the Madvillain
>cd, now? Why does it say "Happyhero"? If it's not DOOM,
>the lines are crazy-similar if not identical. Weird. Am I
>just ignorant of some Doom alias? What gives.

The opposite of mad is happy, the opposite of villain is hero. Thus, an attempt at being clever.

-------------
A seal walks into a club.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 03:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
30. "oh man I'm an idiot...."
In response to Reply # 27


  

          


I don't know how I could have not seen that. Madvillain --> Happyhero. Gotcha.

Is that not the SICKEST beat you've ever heard in your life?
I listen to that song once a day. Mandetory.

peace.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Stringer Bell
Member since Mar 15th 2004
3175 posts
Tue Jan-25-05 05:28 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "excuse me, but how can a candle melt in infinite ways?"
In response to Reply # 0
Tue Jan-25-05 05:29 AM

          

could it melt up, for example, with the melted liquid wax falling away from the center of the earth? seems to me that if you can exclude a possibility then you are at most talking about infinity - 1.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:35 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: think of it,"
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

as a melting piece of wax, that is able to take any form or shape. it will never melt quite the same twice. do you agree? Those shapes and forms are infinite are they not?

Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 07:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "RE: think of it,"
In response to Reply # 19


          

"Those shapes and forms are infinite are they not?"

No, it's a very high number but it isn't infinite.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 04:15 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "invents?"
In response to Reply # 0


          


>Next, Descartes invents the idea of the "Evil Genius" which
>may be percieved as something that is decieving to his
>senses and himself.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Thu Jan-27-05 02:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "You are not Descartes."
In response to Reply # 0


          

Post his proof so the translated ambiguities are taken out.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
thoughtremedy
Charter member
1415 posts
Sat Jan-29-05 02:50 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "RE: I know,"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

I am learning too, so I apologize for any confusion. Peace.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Mon Jan-31-05 12:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "No, dude, that's not what I'm saying..."
In response to Reply # 47


          

I appreciate your post very much--it raises the most important life question.

But I would seriously rather have I Descartes transcript cut and pasted than hear it summarized by your or me or anyone else besides Descartes. This way, no one is discredited. peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Sun Jan-30-05 07:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
57. "What am I (God)?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

that is the question, because there is different kinds
of depictions of Allah amongst religious and crazy people.
Peace.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Sun Jan-30-05 09:14 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "Your just a bunch of memories"
In response to Reply # 57


          

that's it.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Sun Jan-30-05 07:37 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "you being one of them"
In response to Reply # 57


  

          

>that is the question, because there is different kinds
>of depictions of Allah amongst religious and crazy people.
>Peace.

... the latter, of course.

--------------------
The People's Champ


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Nettrice
Charter member
61747 posts
Tue Feb-01-05 04:35 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. ""I feel therefore I exist""
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

According to David Harvey, Rousseau's quote/idea replaced "I think therefore I exist." because "he signalled a radical shift from a rational and instrumentalist to a more consciously aesthetic strategy for realizing Enlightenment aims."

From my perspective, Rousseau's statement touches on something that is less man-centered and more ethereal. God exists because of faith.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Delete me
Member since Aug 27th 2002
8611 posts
Tue Feb-01-05 04:59 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
71. "This is a romanticist's worldview!!!"
In response to Reply # 70


          

*waiting for "thinkers" aka men to tear you apart"

*waits"

*seeks shelter under mom's skirt*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Nettrice
Charter member
61747 posts
Tue Feb-01-05 06:10 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "So be it"
In response to Reply # 71


  

          

>*waiting for "thinkers" aka men to tear you apart"

I am a thinker too but the future belongs to the right-brainers!

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

chrisdefendorf
Member since Dec 27th 2004
1731 posts
Mon Feb-07-05 05:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
85. "hematite, bitche!!!! and the animal & mineral kingdom, jahlove7"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

NIGHTLY REPORTS ON MY
REALITY EXPLORATION/CREATION on
my
blog (updated during the day, and
then finished at 11PM EST)

PEACE,
Christopher (the name means
"chris... Dear Friend") Defendorf (the
name mean
"Raspberry" nahmean)

http://profiles.myspace.com/users/
10450673

you don't need to know my sig, because you know my steez. I have left okayplayer and

and and and

you don't need to know.

myspace.com/raspberry

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #26534 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com