|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Samadhi
+1
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:13 am Post subject: 161 |
 |
|
See, that's why Coyote was the better choice. If you'd chosen me and after I'd rendered my decision you had dismissed my judgement as casually as you did Coyote, I probably would have said go fudge yourself.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:16 am Post subject: 162 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
I have theories, but none that can't be changed if they become inconvenient. Why should I presuppose something that might not be true?
For purposes of proof of God's existence I'm willing to accept that logic is universal and unchanging. That's not much of a concession since I suspect that that's the case anyway. I don't see how it necessarily follows that God must exist. That's why I'm waiting for your proof. It will help me to reach a final world view. |
Yes, you have a worldview, but you want to find a 'final' one. This makes more sense.
Do you admit that the laws of logic are abstract entities as well and not material in nature? |
Actually while I do believe that absolute moral laws exist, I may eliminate that step from the site, since sooooo many people get hung up on it and it is not essential to the proof.
Okay Chuck, you believe that universal, abstract, invariant laws exist, so now examine the major worldviews and determine which one can make sense of these laws and remain internally consistent.
For instance, Professed Atheists normally state that the universe is random, and material. So any atheistic worldview can immediatley not account for abstract invariants. Bye Bye Atheism.
Now check the main worldviews like Islaam, Buddhism, etc and see if they can make sense out of universal, abstract, invariant laws. I have included some worldviews in the website and hope to include more as I study them.
Of course as a Christian I firmly believe that as the Bible states, 'everyone knows God and those who deny Him are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.'
No one can become a Christian on their own terms, but it is my hope that you are sincere in your quest to find a worldview which makes sense out of life. If you are, God is already calling you by name.
Blessings,
Sye |
|
Even with universal logic, the problems with other popular world views don't prove that all alternate world views will have problems. Even if a suitably defined God can consistently solve all world view problems, it doesn't mean that that God exists. The fact that anything at all can be attributed to such a being seems to weaken the case that He exists. Settling for such an explanation seems like giving up the quest. There may be another explanation that no one has thought of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:42 am Post subject: 163 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
In re. Post #141
I note that you left off the phrase after the semicolon when you quoted my verdict. Allow me to restate it in full:
| Quote: |
| Final verdict: In light of the fact that I had to do a couple of google searches to even recognize the possibility that an (extremely condensed) proof was offered, I'll have to decide in favor of extro...*; the proof has not been made sufficiently clear. |
Please don't attempt to change the meaning of my statements by snipping bits and pieces from them. |
Hmmm, I did not attempt to change the meaning, I thought that the clarity of the proof was irrelevant as I only said that I included the proof not the explanation thereof.
When I read:
| Coyote wrote: |
| I'm just passing through at the moment and I've used what little time I had available in rendering the decision. |
I had unfortunately assumed that you had used what little time you had and had not taken 'great pains to enure that your decision was fair.'
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I too thought it was petty and that is why it was straightened out a few posts ago (don't know how you missed that).
Thanks for helpin' out.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: 164 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| See, that's why Coyote was the better choice. If you'd chosen me and after I'd rendered my decision you had dismissed my judgement as casually as you did Coyote, I probably would have said go fudge yourself. |
Now I'm seeing the attitudes I've come to know so well 
I did not dismiss his judgement, I questioned it and asked for clarification. I was still prepared to abide by it.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: 165 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
Even with universal logic, the problems with other popular world views don't prove that all alternate world views will have problems. Even if a suitably defined God can consistently solve all world view problems, it doesn't mean that that God exists. The fact that anything at all can be attributed to such a being seems to weaken the case that He exists. Settling for such an explanation seems like giving up the quest. There may be another explanation that no one has thought of. |
And I am sure you are still looking for more answers to what does 2 + 2 equal. Maybe you are looking for an answer no one else has thought of.
Settling for '4' seems like giving up the quest.
Puhlease.
You are free to continue living in the blind faith that someday another rational explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws will be found, but you will also be accountable for denying the One you know to be true.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:07 am Post subject: 166 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
1+1=3. Proof: "the impossibility of the contrary". There you have it folks. I don't need to prove the impossibility of the contrary. The impossibility of the contrary is the proof, and there it is, above. Here it is again, in case you missed it: "the impossibility of the contrary".
|
Um, 1 + 1 = 2. Now show why that answer is impossible, or your proof is invalid. You claim the impossiblity of the contrary, I posit a contrary which you must now invalidate.
|
Do you mean it is not enough for me to merely claim "impossibility of the contrary"? I wold have to prove the impossibility of the contrary? But have you proved your claim of imposibility of the contrary? No.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| That's all I ask, posit your own explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws that invalidate my proof. |
I was following that sentence until the end - the "my proof" part. Again, where is your proof for impossibility of the contrary? You haven't provided one - you've merely made the claim, and my or anyone's failure to provide an alternate explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws in no way makes your assertion of "impossibility of the contrary" proved or a proof of something itself. You have to prove impossibility of the contrary.
By the way, I can offer an alternate explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws, but I want to stress that logically, there is no need to - it would be totally irrelevant. You need to learn this simple lesson in logic. Claiming something, without proof, then challenging others to prove you wrong ... that does not constitute a proof. Claiming no other possible explanation, without proving it, does not make a proof, and failure of others to answer your challenge for an alternate explanation makes it no more a proof.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| If I can't show why your proof is logically invalid, you win. Simple. If you can't provide a logically valid alternative, I win. Simple. |
Again, argument from ignorance. I'm not making that term up.
| Quote: |
| I'm not asking for much, honest. You use universal, abstract, invariant laws. Account for them please. |
You claim to have a proof. I'm waiting to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:11 am Post subject: 167 |
|
|
| 2 + 2 equaling 4 is useful to me, just like a hammer, air conditioner, or computer. If someone someday comes up with a more useful answer then I'll switch to it, just as I will would with a better hammer, air conditioner, or computer. Believing that God exists just for the sake of believing isn't really useful. If someone were to prove that God exists then I'd switch beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:26 am Post subject: 168 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
You claim to have a proof. I'm waiting to hear it. |
I find it fascinating how the people here run from the questions they cannot answer.
The proof for the existence of God, as is plainly stated on the website, is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This type of proof is known in logic as the impossiblility of the contrary. I have offered the proof. It would be extremely simple to invalidate it if you had a contrary, but rather than present even one other rational explanation, you attack the premise.
Don't worry, I know there are no contraries. I also know that you attack the premise in order to try to conceal the fact that you have no logical explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God.
Anyone reading this thread can see that none have been offered. I would suggest that if anyone is waiting for another explanation...not to hold your breath.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: 169 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| 2 + 2 equaling 4 is useful to me, just like a hammer, air conditioner, or computer. If someone someday comes up with a more useful answer then I'll switch to it, just as I will would with a better hammer, air conditioner, or computer. Believing that God exists just for the sake of believing isn't really useful. If someone were to prove that God exists then I'd switch beliefs. |
I don't think believing in God just for the sake of believing in Him is useful either.
I do think though, that denying Him when He makes your life possible is a grave error. At least you won't be able to use the excuse that you weren't warned.
Take care.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:46 am Post subject: 170 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Samadhi wrote: |
| See, that's why Coyote was the better choice. If you'd chosen me and after I'd rendered my decision you had dismissed my judgement as casually as you did Coyote, I probably would have said go fudge yourself. |
Now I'm seeing the attitudes I've come to know so well
I did not dismiss his judgement, I questioned it and asked for clarification. I was still prepared to abide by it. |
But you did dismiss his judgement. Here's what you originally said.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| I think Coyote or Samadhi have shown impartiality, although they disagree with my worldview. You may choose which of them you wish to settle this difference (if they would be so kind as to comply). If the arbitrator determines that I am wrong, I will apologize and resume responding to your posts. |
(emphasis mine)
But after extro ceded the choice to you, and you chose Coyote, and he decided in favor of extro…..you dismiss his judgement and your promise. Instead of being willing to compromise, you decide it is necessary to argue with the arbiter that YOU chose.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:00 am Post subject: 171 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| 2 + 2 equaling 4 is useful to me, just like a hammer, air conditioner, or computer. If someone someday comes up with a more useful answer then I'll switch to it, just as I will would with a better hammer, air conditioner, or computer. Believing that God exists just for the sake of believing isn't really useful. If someone were to prove that God exists then I'd switch beliefs. |
I don't think believing in God just for the sake of believing in Him is useful either.
I do think though, that denying Him when He makes your life possible is a grave error. At least you won't be able to use the excuse that you weren't warned.
Take care. |
But I have no reason to believe that He makes my life possible. That's why proof of His existence would be useful. Any number of people will warn me of a great many things. Far more than I can even listen to, let alone believe. Why should I believe your warning? That would be a great use of your proof.
Why are you asking people for alternate world views. I don't think anyone has a complete explanation for everything. Insisting on something that doesn't exist won't support your case. Our lack of information doesn't prove that you're right. It just mean that there are things that we don't know. It's not going to help you beat an experienced debater who's faced this tactic in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:02 am Post subject: 172 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
1. What does 'right' mean in your worldview?
2. If right means 'what the majority says,' why is the majority not 'right' when it comes to math?
3. For something to 'work', it must have a proper function. What is the proper function of the majority stipulating morality and how do you know this? |
1. "Right" is following what people involved believe in, but also respecting the nation as well.
2. Because all this time I have been showing you why there is no absolute right or wrong. I have not argued about the "Laws of Math and Science and Logic," since those are based on completely different principles. Do not drag those in.
3. Democracy exists, therefore it works. |
1. Your answer to number 1 is as expected. (unsupportable as we see with #2, but as expected)
2. Just because you do not have an answer to question 2 does not mean you can simply skip it. I ask it in order to point out the blatant inconsistency in your worldview. Try again. If right means 'what the majority says,' why is the majority not 'right' when it comes to math?
3. Your answer to number 3 is completely incoherent.
I asked what the proper function of the majority stipulating morality was and how you knew this. Your answer was 'Democracy exists.' The existence of something does not equal a proper function? Who says that democracy is 'right?' |
2. Morality is a belief; math is fact. Must I remind you? I told you that math has definite answers. All this time I've been showing how morality has more than one answer. It is no different from believing you are Superman then jumping off the Empire State Building. But, we cannot test our beliefs. We cannot experiment and get results. In it we can only guess. (And, I repeat, you cannot say that God shows us this, because at this step you haven't proved it yet. You must have a different way to show absolute morality.)
3. Alright, I'll elaborate. It is in human nature that people want their own voices heard. We all want this at the same time, too. Democracy, then, is "right" because it is believed to be fair. It is itself a moral, too, and we practice it, widely. There are dictators, yes, and in a sense they use force to act bigger than the rest of the population. It is a common practice of power, too. Yet, those are their own personal morals, their own personal beliefs. In short, life is only what we make of it. Everyone views the world differently, and that is fact. What I have been saying are not only what I think, but what I view in the minds of others.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:10 am Post subject: 173 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
You claim to have a proof. I'm waiting to hear it. |
I find it fascinating how the people here run from the questions they cannot answer. |
Because you ask the questions dishonestly, to avoid dealing with your false claim of a proof.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| The proof for the existence of God, as is plainly stated on the website, is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. |
PROVE that without Him you couldn't prove anything. You have to PROVE that is true - not merely state it, and not merely ask others to prove otherwise. And if you dont know that, you need a very basic course in logic and reasoning.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
This type of proof is known in logic as the impossiblility of the contrary. I have offered the proof. |
You have to PROVE the contrary is impossible!
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| It would be extremely simple to invalidate it if you had a contrary, ... |
I don't need to invalidate it. It would be extremely simple to present your proof of impossibility of the contrary if you had such a proof. My failure to invalidate it is not the same as you proving it, as you claim you can.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| ... but rather than present even one other rational explanation, you attack the premise. |
That premise is practically equivalent to your conclusion. You need to prove the alleged impossibility of the contrary.
| Quote: |
| Don't worry, I know there are no contraries. I also know that you attack the premise in order to try to conceal the fact that you have no logical explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God. |
No, I'm attacking your blatant lies about being abe to prove something because they reveal an arrogance that doesn't reflect well on Christianity.
| Quote: |
| Anyone reading this thread can see that none have been offered. I would suggest that if anyone is waiting for another explanation...not to hold your breath. |
Your looking for an offer of some alernatie explanation so you can divert attentio from your complete lack of a proof you've boldy claimed to have.
I've offered an alternative. It was tongue-in-cheek, but you couldn't refute it except by appealing to what the Bible says, which again proves nothing unless you prove the Bible is correct.
From post #26:
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Hypothetically, Satan is responsible. Satan being an evil, omnipotent being, who always existed (there is no God), and who created us to torture in the afterlife for his amusement. I don't have to believe this. But you can't prove your version more likely than mine. |
What is the justification for your version? A hypothetical being cannot do anything. |
If you're going to make claims of a proof for God, I think you need to show why God is any less hypothetical than the Satan I have described.
|
You replied in post #34:
| Quote: |
| Because the Bible tells us that God is not hypothetical. |
But Satan, the great deceiver, put that in the Bible.
But you see, the problem is that you will now have something to debate while continuing to avoid providing the proof you so arrogantly claimed to have. You've won, because you've let me let you completely miss the point, which is that my failure to provide you with an alternatie explanation for something does not amount to you having a proof of the impossibility of an alternative explanation. Few in anyone else here miss that ver simple and obvious point. If without God, one can prove nothing, you might want to wonder why you can prove nothing. Perhaps God does not like your fucking arrogance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:43 am Post subject: 174 |
|
|
Fermat's Last Theorem is the claim that the equation x n + y n = z n has no integer solutions for n>2 and x, y and z > 0.
It was called his Last Theorem because he is said to have written in the margin of one of his notebooks that he had "discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain".
For 350 years the greatest mathematical minds tried unsuccessfully to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. And, computers were used too, to try to prove the contrary - that there might be a solution. No contrary solution was ever found, yet the theorem remained unproved until 1995, when Andrew Wiles finished his proof after seven years of work. All things taken into acount, his proof was extremely long and complicated, and used many mathematical discoveries that came long after Fermat's time.
People still wonder whether Fermat knew of a simple proof. Wonder no more. There is one. You geussed it: impossibility of the contrary. Go ahead - prove me wrong. Show me a contrary - an integer solution to x n + y n = z n with n>2 and x, y and z > 0. You can't invalidate my proof, can you?
To think of all the great minds that missed that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: 175 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
2. Morality is a belief; math is fact. |
Says who? Isn't that what we are trying to establish. You are begging the question again.
| mudbuck wrote: |
Must I remind you? I told you that math has definite answers.
|
Um, so does morality. Denying the definite answers does not mean they don't exist. i.e. Child molestation is definitely wrong.
| mudbuck wrote: |
All this time I've been showing how morality has more than one answer. |
So does math. But only one 'right' answer. If math had only one answer, everyone would always get %100 on their math tests.
| mudbuck wrote: |
(And, I repeat, you cannot say that God shows us this, because at this step you haven't proved it yet. You must have a different way to show absolute morality.) |
I'm sorry, I missed where you proved that the human reason you are attempting to use is valid.
| mudbuck wrote: |
3. Alright, I'll elaborate. It is in human nature that people want their own voices heard. |
You know this how? Is having your voice heard right? How do you know?
| mudbuck wrote: |
Democracy, then, is "right" because it is believed to be fair. |
Is 'being fair' right? If so, how do you know?
| mudbuck wrote: |
It is itself a moral, too, and we practice it, widely. |
Democracy is a moral?!? A right moral or a wrong moral? Now practicing something widely makes it right?
| mudbuck wrote: |
There are dictators, yes, and in a sense they use force to act bigger than the rest of the population. |
Is this wrong? How do you know?
| mudbuck wrote: |
Everyone views the world differently, and that is fact. What I have been saying are not only what I think, but what I view in the minds of others. |
You can view in the minds of others?!?!? Wow Kreskin!!!
Yawn.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: 176 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
You have to PROVE the contrary is impossible! |
Tell you what extro...* Forget the website, forget everything. Let's settle this once and for all. Tell me how YOU account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and I will show you how your version is impossible.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:57 am Post subject: 177 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Tell me how YOU account for universal, abstract, invariant laws |
Could you rephrase why he has to?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:04 am Post subject: 178 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
Fermat's Last Theorem is the claim that the equation x n + y n = z n has no integer solutions for n>2 and x, y and z > 0.
It was called his Last Theorem because he is said to have written in the margin of one of his notebooks that he had "discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain".
For 350 years the greatest mathematical minds tried unsuccessfully to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. And, computers were used too, to try to prove the contrary - that there might be a solution. No contrary solution was ever found, yet the theorem remained unproved until 1995, when Andrew Wiles finished his proof after seven years of work. All things taken into acount, his proof was extremely long and complicated, and used many mathematical discoveries that came long after Fermat's time.
People still wonder whether Fermat knew of a simple proof. Wonder no more. There is one. You geussed it: impossibility of the contrary. Go ahead - prove me wrong. Show me a contrary - an integer solution to x n + y n = z n with n>2 and x, y and z > 0. You can't invalidate my proof, can you?
To think of all the great minds that missed that one. |
Um computers weren't used to try to prove the contrary, they were used to try to prove the theorem. Nice try though.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:08 am Post subject: 179 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Tell me how YOU account for universal, abstract, invariant laws |
Could you rephrase why he has to? |
He doesn't have to. It's a head to head challenge to see whose worldview can make sense out of universal, abstract, invariant laws.
He can choose to run away if he likes.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:13 am Post subject: 180 |
|
|
| Quote: |
Tell you what extro...* Forget the website, forget everything. Let's settle this once and for all. Tell me how YOU account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and I will show you how your version is impossible.
|
i don't get why you would want him to...judging from his earlier posts you would be attempting to show that God doesn't exist.
| extro...* wrote: |
| Understand that I believe in God. |
| extro...* wrote: |
| I have often marvelled, though, at how the universe has randomness within it at a microscopic level that affects things on a grand scale. If God wanted to create a universe with life in it, and with conscious intelligent beings such as ourselves, but didn't want there to be proof of his existence, evolution, determined by barely observeable microscopic events which appear random, would be an ideal way to do it. He could affect random events through His will, and there would be no proof that he did so. It's interesting that we have this randomness - room for a God to exercise his will and affect things on a grand scale, without leaving proof (scientific proof) that he did so. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:28 am Post subject: 181 |
|
|
| worm wrote: |
| Quote: |
Tell you what extro...* Forget the website, forget everything. Let's settle this once and for all. Tell me how YOU account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and I will show you how your version is impossible.
|
i don't get why you would want him to...judging from his earlier posts you would be attempting to show that God doesn't exist. |
His God anyway.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: 182 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Tell me how YOU account for universal, abstract, invariant laws |
Could you rephrase why he has to? |
He doesn't have to. It's a head to head challenge to see whose worldview can make sense out of universal, abstract, invariant laws.
He can choose to run away if he likes. |
You may have come to think of it as a head to head challenge, but it's not. You are the one that started a website claiming proof of God. And I commend you for sticking with the discussion for so long. But head to head is not accurate. The ONLY point of view under discussion is YOURS. If you can prove it, there is no need to denigrate other points of view. And if you can't prove it, obviously you shouldn't denigrate them either.
Basically, noone here is trying to prove anything except you. Focus on that, and we'll respect you.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:47 am Post subject: 183 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
2. Morality is a belief; math is fact. |
Says who? Isn't that what we are trying to establish. You are begging the question again. |
Says definition of a belief. And because it's a belief it cannot be absolute. If it were it would be a fact.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Must I remind you? I told you that math has definite answers.
|
Um, so does morality. Denying the definite answers does not mean they don't exist. i.e. Child molestation is definitely wrong.
|
That's YOUR opinion. Your opinion does not make it definitely wrong.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
All this time I've been showing how morality has more than one answer. |
So does math. But only one 'right' answer. If math had only one answer, everyone would always get %100 on their math tests.
|
People misunderstand and make mistakes. Humans ARE NOT PERFECT. Otherwise, we would be Gods ourselfs.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
(And, I repeat, you cannot say that God shows us this, because at this step you haven't proved it yet. You must have a different way to show absolute morality.) |
I'm sorry, I missed where you proved that the human reason you are attempting to use is valid. |
Laws of Logic, hypocrite. You cannot use what you are trying to prove to prove it. That proves nothing, as true logic says. It's in your "proof."
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
3. Alright, I'll elaborate. It is in human nature that people want their own voices heard. |
You know this how? Is having your voice heard right? How do you know? |
Observations of psychology. It does not matter whether it is right or wrong, because it is what everyone wants. No one wants to be wrong. That's why we have faith, and atheism for those who think that faith is wrong. And it is because of this we voice ourselves, so that people think we are correct and agree. This is from psychology.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Democracy, then, is "right" because it is believed to be fair. |
Is 'being fair' right? If so, how do you know? |
Is it right? That's what people think, but that does not make it true. When I use right, I respect the people, not myself. None of these are personal.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
It is itself a moral, too, and we practice it, widely. |
Democracy is a moral?!? A right moral or a wrong moral? Now practicing something widely makes it right? |
It does not matter if it is right or wrong, nor does practicing it make it right or wrong. As I said, it is a belief. Life is what we make it to be.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
There are dictators, yes, and in a sense they use force to act bigger than the rest of the population. |
Is this wrong? How do you know? |
I never say that it is wrong, ever. There are people who belief that is wrong, but does that make it absolutely wrong? Never.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Everyone views the world differently, and that is fact. What I have been saying are not only what I think, but what I view in the minds of others. |
You can view in the minds of others?!?!? Wow Kreskin!!! |
I didn't mean that literally. I just subject myself to the views of others so I can observe the people. It's psychology.
That is quite insulting. You're acting like an ass, flaming me outright.
I could say the same about your arguments, but I respect them. It's just that I find error in them, and you are not grasping the point. This is part of your psychology: you flag me as inferior to show that you are "right." You call it superiority, but I call it despiration.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:57 am Post subject: 184 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
Basically, noone here is trying to prove anything except you. Focus on that, and we'll respect you. |
That is where you are mistaken my friend. I am not trying to prove anything. I have proved it. Anyone here is free to try to disprove it.
(which no one has even attempted to do)(for obvious reasons)(read - they can't).
Don't forget, proof does not equal persuasion. A doctor could prove to you that you have cancer, denying the proof does not make it any less true.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:02 am Post subject: 185 |
|
|
Claim: You haven't proved it.
Prove me wrong.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: 186 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
2. Morality is a belief; math is fact. |
Says who? Isn't that what we are trying to establish. You are begging the question again. |
Says definition of a belief. And because it's a belief it cannot be absolute. If it were it would be a fact. |
Morality is a belief, says the definition of a belief and because it's a belief it cannot be absolute.
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE I don't have time for this nonsense.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:23 am Post subject: 187 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
Claim: You haven't proved it.
Prove me wrong. |
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/proof.php
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: 188 |
|
|
I disagree.
Prove me wrong.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: 189 |
|
|
Actually I should have said:
[This thread disagrees with you]
Prove us wrong.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: 190 |
|
|
| Quote: |
That is where you are mistaken my friend. I am not trying to prove anything. I have proved it. Anyone here is free to try to disprove it.
(which no one has even attempted to do)(for obvious reasons)(read - they can't). |
Oh, please. You haven't even begun to touch my objections, and from glancing at your posts they contain some serious factual errors about the workings of logic. You started out really good, don't ruin the image by attempting to condescend.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:32 am Post subject: 191 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
I disagree.
Prove me wrong. |
When are you going to start saying nya nya nya nya nya?
What are you - 2?
Like I said, it's proof, not persuasion.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: 192 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
That is where you are mistaken my friend. I am not trying to prove anything. I have proved it. Anyone here is free to try to disprove it.
(which no one has even attempted to do)(for obvious reasons)(read - they can't). |
Oh, please. You haven't even begun to touch my objections, and from glancing at your posts they contain some serious factual errors about the workings of logic. You started out really good, don't ruin the image by attempting to condescend. |
All anybody has to do here is state a logical possibility for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God, and my proof is refuted.
If there is one, don't you think someone would have positted it already?
It is glaringly obvious why no on has taken up the challenge.
If I had said, 'all elephants are grey, by the impossibility of the contrary,' don't you see how claiming that I haven't proved anything does nothing to refute the proof. Producing a pink elephant however demolishes it.
All you people are doing is saying "You haven't proven there are no blue elephants, you haven't proven there are no yellow elephants...etc etc.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HyToFry
Drama queen
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:54 am Post subject: 193 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| I love #11 on the list of proofs. |
I'll bite. What's number eleven on the list of proofs?
_________________
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." Hi ho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: 194 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| All anybody has to do here is state a logical possibility for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God, and my proof is refuted. |
Of course. Also, one can show that the existence of laws, or God, or the universe or whatever is impossible, and that also refutes your proof. Myself, I don't really see why there have to be laws at all, variant or invariant, abstract or corporeal, universal or personal.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HyToFry
Drama queen
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: 195 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/proof.php |
Do you think that site is a bunch of bologna?
Yes or Exit
_________________
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." Hi ho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: 196 |
|
|
By the way, I started reading the proof site (had no time until now), and there are some things troubling me:
| Quote: |
| The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. |
I don't agree that's proof to God's existence. It's possible we really can't prove anything, for instance my hypothetical argument from before about someone who doesn't accept the law of contradiction, and thus nothing can be proved to him as logic doesn't hold for him.
Then I clicked on "I do not believe God exists". The site scolds me and tells me denying God is self-deception. Which is cool, except I'm not denying God. All I said is that I don't believe he exists, I never said I deny he exists or that I believe he doesn't exist.
He really should phrase himself more carefully, it's very difficult to read a proof when it keeps making leaps like that. And yes, I am serious, I'm not just being contrary.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: 197 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| All anybody has to do here is state a logical possibility for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God, and my proof is refuted. |
Of course. Also, one can show that the existence of laws, or God, or the universe or whatever is impossible, and that also refutes your proof. Myself, I don't really see why there have to be laws at all, variant or invariant, abstract or corporeal, universal or personal. |
That's the point - there don't have to be universal, abstract, invariant laws, yet there are.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: 198 |
|
|
Oh. How do you know that for sure? (if you've already explained that, post numbers will do)
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: 199 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
Okay. I really need to get a little sleep right now, but let's see if I can pick out some of the main points for later discussion.
In order for the world to function in any sort of meaningful way, natural laws must be uniform and unchanging. |
Yes |
Qualified agreement. I can't say for sure that a chaotic universe wouldn't be meaningful, after its own fashion. It would obviously be meaningless to me. No need to nitpick.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| If they're uniform and unchanging, there must be a reason they are. |
This is not the argument. The argument is that one must provide a worldview with which can make sense of these laws being universal, abstract, and invariant. (for instance most atheists claim that the universe is random and material). |
Part of the reason I included this statement is that I was trying to pin down what you meant by 'account for'. It's clearly an important part of your argument, but I've never been quite sure what you meant by it. If your response here shows a rewording of the term, that helps me out a bit. Let's forge ahead--we can always return to this if you think the term needs further clarification.
I don't think I'm in agreement with you here. Is it really necessary that a worldview 'makes sense' of these laws? Is it not sufficient to note that they do in fact exist? Laws of nature behave the same even in the deepest wilderness, where there's no one around to make sense of them, don't they?
Incidentally, I find your parenthetical comment a bit curious. Do most atheists really say this? Certainly there's a great deal of randomness and material matter in the universe, but--completely random and completely material? I can't fathom anyone actually making such a claim--I certainly wouldn't.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
The only possible reason is that they're the reflection of a perfect, unchanging God. |
I do not discuss the reason why these laws are that way, but I would probably agree with this. The argument however is that the Christian worldview alone can consistenly account for universal. abstract, invariant laws. |
Actually, we need to establish that there's a God in the first place before we can take the extra step of claiming it's the Christian God. In any case, I'm obviously in disagreement here, since I don't accept that it's necessary to account for them. Even if it were, I don't believe it's been proven that God is in fact the only possible means of doing this.
Yes, yes, I know--'Impossibility of the Contrary'. Stating something is an impossibility is not the same as proving it's an impossibility.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
If there was not a perfect, unchanging God, natural laws could change at any moment. |
Well I would argue that if God did not exist, nothing would exist. Again the argument is however that one cannot make sense of the invariance of natural laws without God. What I have often heard from professed atheists is "They are just that way." That however is not an argument. No one would be satisfied if I said, God exists because "It is just that way." |
Well then, I won't say that. But you raise an interesting point. How do you know that natural laws won't change in the next moment? Note the subtle difference between this and the misleading choice you offered back on Step 7. The choice is not really between 'unchanging' and 'are changing', it's between 'may change' and 'won't change'. And now you're in a bit of a spot--since you deny the atheist the option of choosing the latter, you also may not choose it until you've proven God exists. But your proof depends on the invariance of natural laws! So tell me--I know it would be terribly inconvenient if the laws changed tomorrow--but how do you know they won't?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| If we don't accept the existence of a perfect, unchanging God, we must base all our actions on the assumption that natural laws could change at any moment, regardless of how uniform and unchanging they had been in the past. |
More, if we don't accept that laws are unchanging, and then proceed with the expectation that they are unchanging we are being inconsistent.
To say that laws will be unchanging because they have been unchanging is to beg the question. |
Disagree. Again, the distinction between 'are changing' and 'may change' is important. It's entirely consistent to behave as if the laws are unchanging so long as they don't change. It's even entirely consistent to behave with the expectation that they won't change, since those expectations won't need to change until the laws change. This would be true even if we were certain the laws would eventually change. By way of analogy, each day I plan my activities around the assumption that I will live to see another sunrise. This is because every day of my life so far, I have in fact seen that sunrise. I'm well aware that there will inevitably come a day when that isn't the case. And yet, I don't believe I'm being inconsistent in my actions when I buy a week's worth of groceries, or pay my rent for the next month, because those actions are valid so long as conditions don't change. I assure you, as soon as they do change, I'll make it a point to stop buying groceries. 
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| If we don't base our actions in such a way, we're being inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. |
Yes. |
I guess I already addressed this one. Sorry about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: 200 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
By the way, I started reading the proof site (had no time until now), and there are some things troubling me:
| Quote: |
| The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. |
I don't agree that's proof to God's existence. It's possible we really can't prove anything, for instance my hypothetical argument from before about someone who doesn't accept the law of contradiction, and thus nothing can be proved to him as logic doesn't hold for him. |
Who cares if logic does not hold for him, does that mean that logic does not exist? If a doctor proved to this person that he had cancer, and he denied it, would that make the fact that he has cancer any less true?
| Antrax wrote: |
Then I clicked on "I do not believe God exists". The site scolds me and tells me denying God is self-deception. Which is cool, except I'm not denying God. All I said is that I don't believe he exists, I never said I deny he exists or that I believe he doesn't exist.
He really should phrase himself more carefully, it's very difficult to read a proof when it keeps making leaps like that. And yes, I am serious, I'm not just being contrary. |
Suggest another way to phrase it and I will consider it.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index
-> Science, Art, and Culture |
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Page 5 of 9 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
