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 ]
Mitchell Holman

Posts: 17
Registered: 1/4/14
Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Posted: Jan 7, 2014 8:33 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote in

> 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.

Such as........?

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.