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.independent

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 ]
Free Lunch

Posts: 247
Registered: 1/6/08
Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Posted: Jan 6, 2014 9:07 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:42:56 -0600, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>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.

You've repeated that several times. As stated it's meaningless.



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.