Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
Peter Olcott

Posts: 272
Registered: 6/16/12
Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Posted: Jan 6, 2014 8:42 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 1/6/2014 7:40 PM, kamerm wrote:
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2014 7:26 AM, kamerm wrote:
>>> 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 "useful",
>>> => 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 -k
>>>
>>>

>> In order to mathematically optimize existence the basis must be truth.
>
> by definition
>
> but we can make plenty good progress by successive approximations, while
> we're waiting for the ultimate truth and accompanying theorems and protocols
> on how to parse and apply it to show up ;-)
>
> -k
>
>

All all of reality is entirely different that most people are aware.



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.