The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Replies: 15   Last Post: Jan 9, 2014 9:31 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 34
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Posted: Jan 6, 2014 8:26 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2014 6:33 AM, kamerm wrote:
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> ...

>>> Through analytical reasoning it has been determined that both belief
>>> and disbelief are always incorrect even when their conclusions are
>>> true. Both belief and disbelief form definite conclusions on the
>>> basis of less than complete proof, so both of them are essentially
>>> liars.
>>> The above statement proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>>> meaning of its words. The only truth that can be completely relied
>>> upon is truth that can be completely verified entirely on the basis
>>> of the meaning of its words.

>> dynamical systems such as living humans by definition sequester
>> (hide) far mor information than they display.
>> If you are to act effectively in a world governed by dynamical
>> systems, as a dynamical system, and as part of dynamical systems,
>> then you must always act on the basis of knowledge insufficient for
>> certainty, or not act as all. However, if you continually fail to act,
>> then you surrender both your
>> capabilities as a dynamical system, and once misfortune comes your
>> way and you fail to act, your status as a dynamical system.
>> Note that this discusses action only as overt motion. Mystical
>> considerations relevant to the causes/non-causes of the overt action
>> per a.z & a.p.t are not intended in this statement.
>> -k

> I agree with everything you said.
> My purpose was to show that it is logically incorrect for humans to be
> so damn sure of themselves. Both atheists and believers commit this
> humongous error.
> My point was to show that it is an error in an absolute sense. In a
> sense independent of a point of view, or a fallible human opinion. My
> position on this matter completely proves itself entirely on the basis
> of the meaning of its words.
> Only positions that completely prove themselves true entirely on the
> basis of the meaning of their words can be completely relied upon.

then Truth is reduced to math, and more flexible words like "useful",
"timely", "appropriate", "suitable", "convenient" become the standard
outside of formal language. not a bad (or unique) notion, really :-)

in what way to you find notions of Deity/s useful or inappropriate?, and if
=> how are notions of Deity/s "appropriate" for discussions with atheists in
alt.atheism (who have apriori already declared Deity/s unsuitable), or folks
considering Truth (though "Validity" is more precise) in formal systems in
alt.logic or alt.math?

Note that for my own part, following convention, i prefer reserving "Valid"
for formal language, "Truth" for well demonstrated mappings of physical
phenomena onto formal systems, and "Useful" and its peers for all else.
However, this being alt.*, am happy to follow suit with anyone who gives
some indication of how their terms are being used at the moment ;-D


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.