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 7, 2014 8:35 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 1/7/2014 7:33 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote in
> news:SsydncGSq8BxX1bPnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com:
>

>> 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........?
>
>

All things that are written off as mere coincidence.



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.