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 9, 2014 9:31 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 1/9/2014 6:46 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> 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.
Whatever, I really don't care. Have it your way.



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.