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 ]
Peter Olcott

Posts: 272
Registered: 6/16/12
Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Posted: Jan 7, 2014 4:03 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 1/6/2014 8:07 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> 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.
Proof of God is available from carefully studying the cause-and-effect
relationships in reality.



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.