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: 240
Registered: 1/6/08
Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Posted: Jan 9, 2014 7:46 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 06:57:16 -0600, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On 1/7/2014 6:27 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 03:03:40 -0600, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote in
>> alt.atheism:
>>

>>> 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.

>>
>> Your claim is not defensible.
>>

>
>I have no idea what you mean by defensible, I simply let reality speak
>for itself. In this case it it becomes a verifiable fact. Why bother to
>verify any facts though, your mind is already made up.


You allege that, but have no valid reason to make those claims.



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.