|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:36 am Post subject: 201 |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Who cares if logic does not hold for him, does that mean that logic does not exist? |
Exist? sure. But wouldn't that say that you can't prove things?
I'm not sure how much mathematical background you have, but there are many weird proof systems in the world, some of them contrary to logic (for instance, there are formal system where "a or not a" is not a tautology).
So, I don't think the idea itself ("God must exist because we can prove things") is a good idea, because we'd have to agree on what system we're proving things under, AND know we have the correct one. Personally I have no clue how to do that. Do you?
| Quote: |
| 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? |
That depends on how the said doctor proved it, I guess.
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that at the basis of your arguments lies an assumption that there exists an objective reality?
| Quote: |
| Suggest another way to phrase it and I will consider it. |
To phrase what? There should be three choices:
a) I believe in God.
b) I believe there is no God.
c) I don't believe there is a God.
What you currently have linked under c should link to b, and you should probably write something new to persuade people who don't believe in God why this belief is necessarily true, which is akin to the whole proof itself, when I think about it.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: 202 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Um computers weren't used to try to prove the contrary, they were used to try to prove the theorem. Nice try though. |
Computers were used to try to find integer solutions to x n + y n = z n with n>2 and x, y and z > 0. A single such solution would be proof of the contrary - proof that the theorem was false (as the theorem states there are no such solutions).
It is a trival task (a first semester programming exam question) to write a program to search for counterexamples - a program that is gauranteed to eventually find one if there is one, but which would never tell us anything if there are no counterexamples. You think nobody tried this?
Yes, computers were later used to verify the logical validity of the theorem. That's altogether different.
The point (you always miss points) is that merely stating "impossibility of the contrary", and pointing to the failures of others to demonstrate the contrary, does not constitute proof.
The point is that your claim to have a proof is, at this point, clearly dishonest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: 203 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| 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. |
You claim to have a proof, but you haven't and won't show it. I've made abundantly clear that you haven't, and I will continue to do so. You say I'm running away, but you are. Now you say that I should forget the website, forget everything (your claim of proof too?), and, in the same breath you say that, somehow, we'll settle this once and for all. I want to settle this. You want to drag it in other directions. You want to run away from defending your claim to a truth, and I'm going to demonstrate this clearly.
| 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.
|
No, that would be a complete diversion from your claim of proof. Your inability to imagine another "worldvew", completely contrary to your own, which makes perfect sense out of universal, abstract, invariant laws - that does not constitute a proof or a valid argument. That is well known as the "argument from ignorance", a clasic logical falacy, and it is easily demonstrated as a fallacy. Neither your inability to imagine other "worldviews" that account for such things, nor failure of others to present them to you, constitute proof.
The logical fallacies have names because they are popular, and they are popular because they are persuasive, yet they are fallacious. They are not logical. They are not valid arguments.
You claim to have proof, but not persuasion. It's truly absurd that it isn't sinking in yet.
It is you who are running away. I've pointed all this out countless times and you continue to avoid and divert attention away from your lack of proof. I make clear why what you offer is not a proof, but you don't address it.
Last night I posted a hypothetical counterexample, and pointed out the circular way you had dealt with it before. I also pointed out that it was a diversion. Here:
| extro...* wrote: |
You're looking for an offer of some alernative explanation so you can divert attention 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 again, if you address that, it's only a diversion.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| 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. |
Go ahead, prove that my God doesn't exist. How arrogant you are, to think you know whether my God is any different than yours.
I may well beleieve God is the cause of all the things you've questioned - I've said this much before. And I've said that my belief is not proof.
You say you have proof. Now you say forget it, let's settle this, this is a head to head whatever.
Just show the proof of the impossibility of the contrary, and we'll forget it or remember forever your glorious triumph, as you choose.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| 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. |
Where is the proof of you stated "impossibility of the contrary". I havent seen it yet. Has anyone? Saying it and proving it are two entirely diferent things.
Pointing to the act that nobody has disproved it is ONLY persuasion, or an attempt to persuade.
QUESTION: Is it your claim that merely stating "impossibility of the contrary of X", followed by failure of others to answer your challenge to prove otherwise, that this constitutes logical proof?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| All anybody has to do here is state a logical possibility for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God, and my proof is refuted. |
BUT, all one has to do is point out that you haven't proved the alleged impossibility of such a contrary possibility, and your proof is refuted. And that's been done (to death, I might add).
| Canuckfish wrote: |
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. |
It is glaringly obvious that you either have no grasp of simple logic and the concept of proof, or that your tactic to persuade is a dishonest bait-and-switch - claim to have proof of something, then when questioned on he gaping holes in your proof, attempt to divert your audience into proving the contrary.
Perhaps we don't have the same God. Mine does not require such dishonesty on His behalf.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| 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. |
Serious question: When you say "does nothing to refute the proof" do you truly believe there was a proof there?
Here: All my socks are white, by the impossibility of the contrary. You can't prove something that isn't true. So how much would you bet that indeed, all my socks are white?
How about:
If I had said, 'there are no integer solutions to x n + y n = z n with n>2 and x, y and z > 0, 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 satisfactory values for x , y, z and n however demolishes it.
You take that as a proof? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: 204 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Um computers weren't used to try to prove the contrary, they were used to try to prove the theorem. Nice try though. |
Computers were used to try to find integer solutions to x n + y n = z n with n>2 and x, y and z > 0. A single such solution would be proof of the contrary - proof that the theorem was false (as the theorem states there are no such solutions). |
Note that search for counterexamples - the attempt to prove the contrary - was only tried because the "theorem" hadn't been proved yet.
Wiles first presented his proof in 93, but there were mistakes pointed out, which made it invalid (i.e., not a proof). It took him two years to remedy those problems and construct a complete valid proof. He could have just said "show me a counterexample". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject: 205 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| 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. |
It does refute the proof. Merely claiming "impossibility of the contrary" is not a proof - you have to prove "impossibility of the contrary".
All panda livers are made of solid platinum, by the impossibility of the contrary. Do you suggest that is a proof, and that you would need to produce a non-platinum panda liver to refute it? Sure, that would suffice, but it isn't necessary. We can examine the structure of the proof to determine its validity. We don't need to rely on a counterexample to the conclusion to say the proof must be wrong.
(BTW, sorry about previous posts being typed on a laptop with a very faulty keyboard) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: 206 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| 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. |
It does refute the proof. Merely claiming "impossibility of the contrary" is not a proof - you have to prove "impossibility of the contrary". |
To be sure it's clear, refuting the proof does not refute the conclusion. It merely says that is not a proof of the conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: 207 |
|
|
Alright, you sure don't want to continue that argument. No sense arguing with only one mouth.
But perhaps I can show a "possibility of the contrary." Or more. You seem to want those.
-------------------
Possiblity of the Contrary #1
The universe caused itself.
This paradox can happen if the dimension of time is circular and not a straight line. An ultimate collasp can lead to the big bang and create the same universe as before.
Why could time be circular? Aren't the three dimensions straight?
That's you having trouble comprehending it.
For example, people used to believe that the world was flat, because we can only travel north, south, east, and west. However, we've learned that this plane is wrapped around a 3-dimensional sphere, but we're still limited to 2 dimensions: longitude and latitude. Because of the shape, if you kept moving in any direction you would eventually end up exactly where you started.
Similarly, there is the possiblity that space is wrapped around a 4-dimensional sphere. We can only move forwards, backwards, left, right, up, and down, but if we traveled in one direction, we would eventually return to our origin.
Then, time can be wrapped around a 2-dimensional sphere. We can only travel in one dimension, but we'll return to our origin eventually.
-------------------
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: 208 |
|
|
| No discussion of alternative explanations would be complete without at least mentioning the FSM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject: 209 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
To say that laws will be unchanging because they have been unchanging is to beg the question. |
Disagree. |
I think he (the "impossibility of the contrary" guy) might be right here.
The question is, what logical reason do we have to believe that there is some sort of temporal consistency to the universe whereby the observations we have made of it thus far will have any bearing on what it is like a minute, week or century from now?
We can't say that such a belief is justified by the fact that we have observed in the past that there has always been such a temporal consistency. This begs the very question of why our observation of that consistency will have any bearing on whether that consistency will exist a minute, week or century from now.
I think it is analagous to statistical sampling. And I think it is a working assumption we use, not necessarily logical, but it has worked thus far, and if it won't work tomorrow, we can't say we had a more logical working assumption we could have employed.
And as someone else pointed out, the perfectly plausible theory of evolution would suggest that animals would evolve to operate as if on the assumption that such a consistency is a fact - because so far, that way of operating would have worked well for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: 210 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
To say that laws will be unchanging because they have been unchanging is to beg the question. |
Disagree. |
|
Sorry, that should have been:
| Coyote wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
To say that laws will be unchanging because they have been unchanging is to beg the question. |
Disagree. |
That's what I get for not logging in. (could have fixed that) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject: 211 |
|
|
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but here's another interesting example, this one where a counterexample to a famous unproved theorem was eventually found. From here: http://www.simonsingh.net/FLT_the_whole_story.html
| Quote: |
The 17th century Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler claimed that there are no whole number solutions to an equation not dissimilar to Fermat’s equation:
Euler’s equation: x 4 + y 4 + z 4 = w 4
For two hundred years nobody could prove Euler’s conjecture, but on the other hand nobody could disprove it by finding a counter-example. First manual searches and then years of computer sifting failed to find a solution. Lack of a counter-example appeared to be strong evidence in favour of the conjecture. Then in 1988 Noam Elkies of Harvard University discovered the following solution:
2,682,440 4 + 15,365,639 4 + 18,796,760 4 = 20,615,673 4
Despite all the previous evidence, Euler’s conjecture turned out to be false. In fact Elkies proved that there are infinitely many solutions to the equation. The moral of the story is that you cannot use evidence from the first million numbers to prove absolutely a conjecture about all numbers.
|
And I would say to Canuckfish that you can't use evidence from the first million "worldviews" to prove absolutely a conjecture about all "worldviews" (and I doubt he's checked that many ... or checked even one with unbiased objectivity). So certainly asking for a few "worldviews" from people on this site won't prove your point.
| Quote: |
| For two hundred years nobody could prove Euler’s conjecture, but on the other hand nobody could disprove it by finding a counter-example. |
By Canuckfish's "logic", 200 years of hard won failure in finding an example contrary to Euler's conjecture would have constituted proof of the conjecture, by "impossibility of the contrary". But the conjecture is false. Thus Canuckfish's "logic" is invalid.
The only question is whether he'll realize his error and admit he has no proof (and really no good reason to believe there IS a proof), or simply move along to another web forum to see if he can find a more gullible audience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: 212 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| It's a head to head challenge to see whose worldview can make sense out of universal, abstract, invariant laws. |
Did I win yet? I want to go home now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: 213 |
|
|
extro...*:
I probably should have been a little more clear on that one. I was actually disagreeing with the statement right above the one you quoted:
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| More, if we don't accept that laws are unchanging, and then proceed with the expectation that they are unchanging we are being inconsistent. |
Also, my disagreement was meant in the context of the proof.
[edit] Speaking of conjectures, the Collatz conjecture has been tested for all integers up to 2.88*10 18 . It's still considered a conjecture. Any mathematician who tried to claim it had been proven by Impossibility of the Contrary would be considered a laughingstock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:34 am Post subject: 214 |
|
|
| HyToFry wrote: |
| Samadhi wrote: |
| I love #11 on the list of proofs. |
I'll bite. What's number eleven on the list of proofs? |
It's from that link that mudbuck posted at the beginning.
| Number 11 from that site wrote: |
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, aka ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists. |
_________________
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: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: 215 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| 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. |
Can anyone use this line of reasoning? I guess so, since logic is universal.
For millennia, the most brilliant minds produced by the human race have tried to settle the question of the existence of God. If there were proof of God's existence it would have been found long ago. Since not one of them has come up with one it's glaringly obvious that no such proof is possible. We know that your proof if flawed without even looking at it.
I should have thought of this before. It's a great timesaver.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
]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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack Crazyquilt
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: 216 |
|
|
Making up different worldviews sounds pretty cool. Maybe if we come up with a really good one we can make a religion out of it. Here's a few more (pretty basic) ones:
Possibility of the Contrary #2
There is only one Absolute Truth
Advantage: Gets around that rather silly 'absolutely true/false' test given at the beginning of the 'proof'
Disadvantage: Kind of a 'one trick pony'.
Possibility of the Contrary #3
Absolutely nothing is provable, unless you grant a few initial assumptions (which are themselves unprovable).
Advantage: It would be fun to come up with the initial assumptions.
Disadvantage: Actually, no it wouldn't. It would be a lot of hard work.
Possibility of the Contrary #4
It's impossible for the Laws of Nature to be anything but what they are.
Advantage: Simple, direct, to the point.
Disadvantage: We already have worldviews based on impossible things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kublai
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: 217 |
|
|
The problem with arguments about the search for proof of religion is that people without faith will never find a satisfactory logical argument and people with faith don't need them (the logical argument).
As an intellectual/mathematician/logical person, I have found it TREMENDOUSLY satisfying to have faith. Sometimes you just have to take that leap and believe things that are true even if you cannot ever prove them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:25 am Post subject: 218 |
|
|
You have to take that leap.....for comfort?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: 219 |
|
|
| kublai wrote: |
| The problem with arguments about the search for proof of religion is that people without faith will never find a satisfactory logical argument ... |
My only criticism of that statement is that it could be read as suggesting there is some relationship between whether one has faith, and whether one will find a logical proof of the existence of God. I believe that both people with faith and people without are capable of knowing what logical proof is, and neither should be more inclined to accept as logical proof something that isn't. And on both sides, there will be those who will accept as proof (of existence or nonexistence of God, as per their belief) something which is in no way proof.
btw, I was a little disappointed that our fishy Canadian friend bailed out on us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: 220 |
|
|
Well said, extro.
I'd like to expand on my "belief without proof" comment.
My real point is that when discussing faith with anyone I only find it productive if I listen to whom I'm talking to explain why they believe the way they do, and if they're inclined, I get to explain why I believe the way I do. "Proof" never enters into it, because it's....meh. I can't think of a good analogy.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack Crazyquilt
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: 221 |
|
|
I figured he was ready to bail, though I expected him to use the 'I pray you might come to wisdom' line as a parting shot.
Yeah, it was a little disappointing, but I can't say that I blame him. The thought of trying to defend an idea that didn't rest on rock-solid foundations against both extro and Chuck simultaneuosly terrifies me.
Against extro it woud be like trying to beat back a steamroller with a feather duster. Against Chuck it's more like being bludgeoned to death with a rapier.
Still, I wish the discussion could have gone on a little further. I think that transcendental argument had a few merits so long as it wasn't considered an ironclad proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: 222 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
btw, I was a little disappointed that our fishy Canadian friend bailed out on us. |
Um sorry, didn't bail. Just had my perforated appendix removed. The infection caused my heart to go into fibrillation which needed to be corrected with a cardioversion (shock). On the mend now, hope to return shortly.
Sye
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:00 am Post subject: 223 |
|
|
I'll pray for you. 
(sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously though, glad to hear you're OK after something like that. I hope you get better.)
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: 224 |
|
|
Déjŕ vu all over again.
It seems this argument still rages.
Here's something I posted 2 years ago.
| I wrote: |
What do you make of the following?
- Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.
- There cannot be an infinite series of causes of things that come into existence.
- Therefore, there must be a first cause that did not come into existence but has always existed.
- Therefore, God exists.
Either you have an infinite series of causes or something that always existed. Either way you must accept something "supernatural". |
This was not really meant as a proof, per-se, but rather it was intended to promote further discussion on the "belief-systems" of atheists. However the argument is expanded further on in the discussion, including a groovy flow-chart.
As usual, healthy discussion ensued. For further info please click on the link above.
From the same thread...
| Antrax wrote: |
| Sometimes I think some GL members really need a seminar in logic. |
It's nice to know that some things remain constant. 
Also from the same thread, this little gem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: 225 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: 226 |
|
|
| Celt wrote: |
| ... This was not really meant as a proof, per-se, but rather it was intended to promote further discussion on the "belief-systems" of atheists. However the argument is expanded further on in the discussion, including a groovy flow-chart. |
According to your flowchart, anything which existed forever is God, "by definition". This goes against most people's definition. I'd like to know yours.
Time has existed forever. Therefore time is God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: 227 |
|
|
Many of these issues were dealt with in the thread.
Antrax had a similar question...
| Antrax (here) wrote: |
| Why is everything that has existed forever (is that correct grammar?) "God by definition"? |
My response to his questions can be found here, but it really only makes sense as part of the thread.
Essentially, I don't define God, since I believe that to be too limiting. Rather I circumscribe God. I am quite happy to accept many definitions of God, even when they are mutually exclusive, so long as they are in accordance with my core beliefs.
Please remember that this "Proof" was not mine. It is known as the Cosmological Argument and I was just presenting it as part of a discussion on atheism. The flow-chart was part of that presentation. Essentially, I wanted to see how an atheist would deal with the apparent paradox presented by the above argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: 228 |
|
|
| Celt wrote: |
Many of these issues were dealt with in the thread.
Antrax had a similar question...
| Antrax (here) wrote: |
| Why is everything that has existed forever (is that correct grammar?) "God by definition"? |
My response to his questions can be found here, but it really only makes sense as part of the thread. |
Read what you linked to, but didn't see any answer to the question.
Is time God or not? Time has existed forever (by definition).
| Quote: |
| Please remember that this "Proof" was not mine. ... Essentially, I wanted to see how an atheist would deal with the apparent paradox presented by the above argument. |
What paradox? And what does it matter whether one is atheist or not when presented with an irrational argument?
I don't think you actually believe time is God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:35 am Post subject: 229 |
|
|
Well, my way of dealing with it would be to admit it's a paradox. But the theist is not really in any better position than I am. Lets look at your flow-chart box that asks "Is there something which has existed forever?"
Your response to the 'No' option was simply to say 'does not compute'. To which I would say, Time came into existence at the same point that Matter did, neither of them existed until that point, and neither had a cause when they came into being.
Now you may say that that's not logical, and in fact paradoxical, but I submit that your alternative doesn't fare any better. I deal with the paradox by simply stopping it at the beginning of the universe and admitting it's a paradox. You deal with it by simply pushing it ever further back in time until it's an infinite distance away. But it's still a paradox. And dealing with it in that way simply brings up more paradoxical questions. What was God doing an infinite amount of time ago? Why did he wait an infinite amount of time before he created this universe which you've already claimed did not exist forever? And if he's truly eternal and unchanging, how could he have ever have brought such a change as the creation of the Universe? Furthermore, if he was able to bring about such a change, what surety do we have that he might not change things again at some point in the infinite future? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject: 230 |
|
|
| The flow chart seems to say that the universe was created by some unknown process. We'll name that process God and use the creation of the universe as proof that God exists. It doesn't say much about the properties of this process other than it created the universe. It could be a naturally occuring process with no intelligence or awareness. Naming something doesn't provide any enlightenment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: 231 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| Your response to the 'No' option was simply to say 'does not compute'. |
Actually it says, "Does not compute. Please explain logic".
You then went on to explain your logic and that was my intention when posting the chart (i.e. To find out how an atheist deals with the apparent paradox).
| extro...* wrote: |
Read what you linked to, but didn't see any answer to the question.
Is time God or not? Time has existed forever (by definition). |
The flow-chart is overly simplified.
The text subsequent to it, in the various posts, fleshed it out a little more.
My personal belief/feeling is that time is a physical manifestation of God and not God per se.
| Chuck wrote: |
| The flow chart seems to say that the universe was created by some unknown process. We'll name that process God and use the creation of the universe as proof that God exists. It doesn't say much about the properties of this process other than it created the universe. It could be a naturally occuring process with no intelligence or awareness. Naming something doesn't provide any enlightenment. |
I totally agree. I also do not consider it a valid proof of God's existence.
However, while it provides no enlightenment, it does raise a question/paradox which should be explored.
Such exploration might provide a personal enlightenment, even if it is only to solidify already held beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: 232 |
|
|
I assumed the flow chart was a joke. You're serious?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack Handey*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: 233 |
|
|
Deep Thought:
What if, after all, it turned out that God was the offspring of a homosexual relationship he had with himself? Boy I bet those gay-bashing right-wingers would feel awkward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: 234 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| I assumed the flow chart was a joke. You're serious? |
Just fishing - I never considered the proof to be valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject: 235 |
|
|
| Still, it seems you assumed atheists would respond differently to your bait than non-atheists. I wonder why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:31 am Post subject: 236 |
|
|
Clearly because atheists are inherently less susceptible to illogic.
_________________
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: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:52 am Post subject: 237 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: 238 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Clearly because atheists are inherently less susceptible to illogic. |
Someting like that.
I knew that an atheist would have to think a little harder on the problem and not stop at "Divine Cause". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: 239 |
|
|
Here's my version of the Cosmological Argument
1. Some things exist, some things probably don't.
2. However, some things that haven't existed before are known to become an existance while some things that had existed have become unexistant over the course of time.
3. Even though most of the time when a thing becomes existant or non-existant it is because of influence from other existant things, there are some things that do not need existing things to exist. (for example, in the vaccuum of space it has been observed that occasionally a particle of matter and antimatter appear out of nothing, accelerate in opposite directions, then turn back inward only to collide and return to nonexistance.)
4. Because some things do not need preexisting things to exist, these things could also exist before any other thing could exist.
5. These uncaused but existant things could also cause other things to exist, which then cause other things to exist, and so forth, up to present.
Q.E.D.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: 240 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| in the vaccuum of space it has been observed that occasionally a particle of matter and antimatter appear out of nothing |
A vacuum is not nothing.
It's full of space. |
|
| 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 6 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
