|
True. Including that logic itself is valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
I guarantee that you won't be disappointed when your days are counted. You won't be anything.
|
|
|
|
|
I told you to leave me alone. I don't need a commie who argues about pics of children talking to me. Go away. I don't associate with evil. Have enough self-respect to stop. And go be the miserable person we all know you really are.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy:
I have to remind you of UDHR Article 19.
Please note that my posts are directed to every reader of this forum. Others may care for what I write, even if it was triggered by something you wrote. You have no right to censor what other people read, written by others than yourself, certainly not on the grounds that it is triggered by what you wrote. You have no god-given right to have the last word in a conversation. That is a right I might give you, by not answering to your last word, but that is my choice.
|
|
|
|
|
I AM NOT READING YOUR REPLY. TAKE A HINT! I DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU. GO AWAY!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
So how can you be so angry? And so eager on censorship?
You really should read UDHR-19.
|
|
|
|
|
if a God exists who is he she it ? he she it presumably is an entity being "person" . why that particular entity being "person" is God and not another . how did he she it get the job ?
|
|
|
|
|
Let's assume one can't see past the personification of God with questions like that... Assuming neither of us are color blind, how do we know when you see the color green it's in fact the same color I see when I see green?
The atheist would say, "oh we have the same color receptors in the eye, blah blah". But, how do we know for sure?
In the context of this discussion one might also say, "we don't, so that proves my doubt". But, we trust that we do as system of understanding of existence for a concept none of us barely understand. Saying we understand because we know what green means to us is a shallow misrepresentation of the point and only demonstrates a person cannot think deep enough.
That's same with God. If you equate God with the likes of Santa, then you're doing it wrong buddy.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
If you take the entire set of laws of nature, both those that we know well and those we do not yet fully understand, and call it "god", that is OK with me. I call them laws of nature.
If you say that some entity can tell nature and its laws to bug off, set aside the laws, then I am not with you. Like setting aside math: 1 + 1 is no longer 2. Or logic: true OR false is not necessarily true.
If you dead serious present an entity that can cancel math, logic and laws of nature, then you make me stall. (Well, not actually - to me it is so far out that I do not care to spend the effort of stalling). If math, logic and laws of nature are absolute, then there is no need for an entity that cannot set them aside.
If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable, in ways that left no doubt. Like math: If I got this many: *** and this many: ** and add them together, I obviously have this many: *****. Noone in their right senses would argue that. If someone says: I've got a god that can make *** + ** to be **** or ******! then I consider that person not to be in his right senses, even if he refers to something he calls 'god'. As long as that god is not willing to really show his ability to set my addition aside (without stealing one * away, or let an extra one roll out of his sleeve), then I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature even on my dying day, no matter what you "know".
(Jeremy: Don't forget UDHR Article 19 this time!)
|
|
|
|
|
I AM NOT READING YOUR REPLY. TAKE A HINT! I DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU. GO AWAY!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to be completely unfamiliar with UDHR-19.
On the other hand, you seem to be very eager on censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Good thing.
You may succeed in having CP respect your right to silence people who disagrees with your opinions, the way you demand. Maybe they don't. Maybe they will even find your attacks against me more harassing than the follow ups I have made in discussion threads where you have participated.
I expect CP to make contact with me to explain what makes it a harassment to refer to UDHR-19.
Alternately: When you try to unconditionally silence me, why it makes it a 'harassment' when I continue exercising my right to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
LEAVE ME ALONE! YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED! GO BACK TO YOUR MISERABLE LIFE AND LEAVE ME ALONE.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Are you willing to share with us exactly what you reported me for? Which specific statements?
Or did you just report that "This guy is not shutting up when I tell him to - he continues making statements that I disagree with"?
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Or did you just report that "This guy is not shutting up when I tell him to
If he did so as with me then he claimed that you are 'following' him and responding to his posts specifically to annoy him.
For myself I did not even realize he existed, since I respond to posts not people, until he started going off about this.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Like setting aside math:
You can believe that of course.
But logically it is not true given a general description/definition of 'God' (judeo-christian.)
That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition.
Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition. One can only accept it or refuse it (or as I suggested elsewhere just ignore the question entirely.)
trønderen wrote: If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible.
How do I refute your general proof? By the very definition of 'God' (all knowing, seeing, powerful.) Any way in which you could 'notice' him would have or could have been already accounted for because of the very attributes that the definition provides.
trønderen wrote: I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
Certainly one can hold that as a belief. But proving it is quite a bit different.
trønderen wrote: I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature
Noting of course that all of those do require belief. Excluding of course the hypocrisy of humans and example would be that someone could just dismiss logic itself. You cannot prove the logic itself exists. Not even if you accept logic. It can only be 'believed' in (to some matter of degree.)
Same applies to the others that you mentioned.
Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition.
Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition.
Well ... "Outside the universe" relates it to the universe, which has its own definition which precludes anything "outside". Claiming something "outside" implies that you reject the definition of the universe. Similarly, you cannot define a god that existed "before Big Bang", because time itself started at BB. There cannot be any "before BB", not even for a god.
To make it easier to grasp: Think of speed. You are driving your car, braking, and it stops. It stands completely still. It cannot be more still than completely still. You can make some definition of an entity that says that stands more than than still. It is far below zero on the scale of absolute speed. Defining something to stand 100 km/h more still than absolute still makes no sense in the mathematical apparatus defining speeds. Such a definition just isn't valid.
That is like claiming anything like "before BB" or "outside the universe". They make no sense in the "standard model" (the BB model commonly accepted by cosmologists today). You may of course make definitions in other concepts, unrelated to the standard model, but then they do not relate to those concepts of space and time; you cannot talk about "outside the universe" or "before BB".
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: "Outside the universe" relates it to the universe, which has its own definition which precludes anything "outside".
Good try, but no.
Again humans are hypocrites. They can believe contradictory things.
And the definition of the universe it wrapped up in science. Science itself is a specific system which is always based on beliefs (for example that one can measure something multiple times and get the same result.)
trønderen wrote: because time itself started at BB. There cannot be any "before BB"
Which is something that I myself stated in another thread. But that requires that one only and exclusively believes in science. But by doing that you are, by definition, denying the possibility of God. You are certainly not proving it.
You cannot prove science. You can only accept it and believe in it.
trønderen wrote: To make it easier to grasp:
Sorry but no I do not need you to explain the concept to me. I already understand it and even referred to exactly that recently in another thread.
trønderen wrote: They make no sense in the "standard model"
What you seem to be failing to understand is that very concept is one that belongs to science.
Science is not logic. Science is not Christianity (or all of the other deity/spiritual variants.)
Logically (not scientifically) if I start with the standard general definition of God then I can make any claim that I want.
For example I can state that the entire universe was created yesterday. Every atom, sub-atomic particle, their position and speed exactly specified. Pulsars, stars, my mind and yours all created yesterday.
Logically you can refute that in a number of ways
- The assumption of God is invalid or the attributes are wrong.
- It was not created yesterday but instead 6,000 or 14 billion years ago.
- God didn't create it but rather something else did and it happened last week.
- You could claim you only speak spanish or klingon and thus we cannot communicate.
But you cannot prove it wrong. Not with science and not with logic.
And you cannot prove it right either.
You can however believe that you can do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, I am talking science. Math and logic. The Universe and Time, in a scientific sense.
You are talking about non-science. Fine with me, but then I would prefer that you stay outside the realm of science. If you talk about "outside the universe", you relate it to the universe, which is a concept of science. If you talk about "before time", you relate it to time, which is a concept of science.
I am perfectly fine with you creating your own world of concepts, completely unrelated to science. To me, it is like astrology: I might want to see what kind of constructions they have made, but only at an intellectual level. I know that it doesn't relate to the scientific, physical world.
The physical, real world that you can touch and hear and see, is the scientific world: Science grew out of a desire to describe it. Today's advanced science is an extension of thousand years and more of observing and describing the real, physical world. Breaking science away from the real, physical world is impossible.
So you have a different set of concepts, like the astrologists. Fine. But if you want me to study them, I will view them as mental constructions completely unrelated to scientific concepts. "Outside the Universe" or "Before Big Bang" are meaningless references, as these religious mental constructions have no relationships to neither the universe nor to physical time.
I see science as a description, not as the real world. I find it a reasonably good, reliable description. Yet it is not something that I 'believe in', in a religious sense. If someone finds a better description, I am happy with that. Einstein found a better description than Newton; I know that the world remains unchanged, but he made a better description. Acknowledging that has nothing to do with religious beliefs; it is just realizing that it matches observations of the real world better. The currently best scientific model, often called the 'Standard Model', makes both 'outside the universe' and 'before big bang' impossible concepts. Claiming anything outside the universe and/or before big bang is a complete rejection of the Standard Model. Then you have to come up with something that describes the real, physical world just as well, yet allows for those 'outside' and 'before'. If even better descriptions of the real world comes up, I will of course acknowledge them.
If we are to stick to the Standard Model, your concepts must describe something else than the real, physical world (given that your concepts are not related to the real world). You can show to me that they are close descriptions of "something". You may even be right, yet they may have no importance to me. There is a story from a church meeting, one of those regular meetings of the very tops of the Catholic church, it must have been in the middle ages, when there was a big argument about how many angels can dance at the tip of a needle at the same time. I sure would like to know how that argument got started! Yet: My interest for counting dancing angles on the tip of a needle lies far down on my back! You may bring up issues from your set of concepts that are similarly (non)interesting to me. Maybe I'd cast a glance on them, buy don't expect too much.
The real world is much more important to me.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Sure, I am talking science. Math and logic.
No you are talking about science and only that.
The big bang does not exist in logic. It does not exist in math. Both of those are used in science but science is not a superset of those.
trønderen wrote: I would prefer that you stay outside the realm of science.
I don't understand that statement. The general logical assumption about God is specifically about God being outside the universe.
Feel free to deny that the assumption is valid. But you are going to need to spend a lot more time and do a lot more formal work to prove that the assumption is invalid.
To be clear I would certainly like to see such a proof. But claims to science, in any way, do not work because logic and science are not the same.
trønderen wrote: Breaking science away from the real, physical world is impossible.
Which has nothing to do with anything that I have stated.
trønderen wrote: I see science as a description,
At this point it is not clear to me that you have a clear understanding of the difference between logic and science.
Not even clear to me that you even understand that they are different.
But I can only go with what you have stated in these few posts.
Perhaps you are just unclear that my comments have nothing to do with science?
Or perhaps you think that I talking about religious belief? That however is not true.
Perhaps by making a somewhat limited formal proof would help.
I am NOT attempting to prove God exists. I am merely providing a logical (not scientific) proof for discussion.
First be clear that logically assumptions are little more than definitions. They do NOT need to be accepted as fact nor even based on prior proofs. But even so they can be used in a logical proof.
So a simple logical proof (again NOT scientific.)
1. Assume God exists
2. Assume God, by definition, is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing.
3. Assume God created the entire universe yesterday. Or 6,000 years ago.
4. Assume God does not want a any human ever to be sure that God exists.
5. Conclusion: This means that there is not and cannot ever be any evidence in any form of any type in the entire universe that either prove or disprove God.
Now how does one invalidate that as a proof?
1. One could dispute the meaning of 4. Perhaps by asking 'why'. That however is not a valid way to refute this because it is outside the scope of this specific proof. Doesn't mean it isn't a valid question but it is not valid for this proof.
2. One could state that 1 is false. Then, logically, the rest of the proof is invalid (pointless.) Note that one doesn't need to prove 1 is false. It is sufficient to just say 'it is false'.
3. One could argue that 5 does not follow. But it does because 2 insures that in any way conceivable now or in the future that any such evidence was discovered that God would have already known about that and prevented it. (The movie "I, Origins" ignores that when presenting its story. In that movie God must have made a mistake or in fact 4 in the above does not hold.)
There are other ways to invalidate the above proof.
modified 21-Dec-23 9:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
(I frequently accidentally hit some key that cause what I have written to be posted before I have completed it. So maybe it is better taking it piece by piece  )
jschell wrote: trønderen wrote:If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible.
I do not need to neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god. All I say is that throughout my life, this god hasn't shown up.
I meet a few people whose null hypothesis is 'if it cannot be disproved, God exists'. My null hypothesis is that any sort of god resembling the god of Abraham does not exist. It takes reliable evidence for me to accept another conclusion. Not having seen any trace of reliable evidence for my entire lifetime, until now, makes me suspect that there won't come up much evidence for the rest of my life, either.
Remember that if you go a couple hundred years, it was sufficient to show the existence of irrational numbers to conclude "Ergo Deus Est!" Further back, thunderstorms was a proof of the existence of Thor. Today, it takes a lot more. You can't just say "Look, all animals have four legs! That shows that there must be a god, creating them with four legs. Ergo Deus Est!" ... Sorry. Camera people use tripods, not quadropods, for a good reason. So what was proved?
I see no more "real" evidence than I see from astrologers. Expecting me to bow to Abraham's god on my dying day is like expecting me to bow to astrologers.
|
|
|
|
|
(Third partial reply to compensate for my uncontrolled fingers posting before it was intended )
jschell wrote: Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
Sure, if you go into the philosophical parts of science theory, there is very little we can know - even that 1 + 1 = 2. (I am serious; that is not a joke.) Very little is 100,000% certain and absolute.
So I admit that in my world, I consider 1 + 1 = 2 to be a fact. Some argue about numeric representation and numeric abstractions, and I have to explain it as so many: *, and so many: *, makes so many: **. Philosophers may argue that I cannot be sure of that, but I must say that I feel quite certain.
I guess lots of us seniors must admit that things we held up as truths in our youth are no longer as certain as they used to be. For me, a lot of what I thought might be at least evidence, although not necessarily proof, of something supernatural - all that has crumbled over the years. It takes more than pointing to irrational numbers to convince me "ergo deus est".
If there is an almighty god, he can use his almight to save my soul. If his almight is incomplete so that he needs my help to succeed, he must convince me, and he hasn't been very successful at that yet. If he really is almighty, then I assume that he can handle it without my assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Adams wrote: Oolon Colluphid is the author of the "trilogy of philosophical blockbusters" entitled Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is this God Person Anyway?. He later used the Babel Fish argument as the basis for a fourth book, entitled Well, That About Wraps It Up For God.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
William Shakespeare Wrote: Hell is empty, and all the devils are here
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
