Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

Belz,

It's like me asking you how you define yourself and you answering: tanned, dark hair, brown eyes, 175 cm, 86 kg.....

I still quit though.

 

[BillyJoe]

The following contains not only arguments from incredulity (which I don't dispute) but also very clear arguments from ignorance:

The confusing matter is of course that the ignorance is not specifically BillyJoe's. BillyJoe is constructing an argument based on what the entire human race is currently still ignorant of - such an argument is a classic 'god of the gaps' argument.

Despite your slagging off at me at every opportunity, I have a grudging respect for you, Mobyseven, because, unlike Belz, you at least put your head on the block.

I'm just disappointed you're not clever enough to see that your head has been chopped off.

I have actually, myself, described the deistic god as the god of the ultimate gap.
That gap has not been encroached on by science in over 200 years.
And you always seem to forget: I am not proving god. I am not for god. I am saying you cannot disprove god, and that he cannot be dismissed like the tooth faerie.

You misconstrue my arguments because you misapply their intention.
It's a bit like a bait (me) and switch (you).


Enough though.

 

[cyborg]

I am saying you cannot disprove god, and that he cannot be dismissed like the tooth faerie.

Which is wrong of course.

'God' and 'tooth faerie' are just labels - until you hang those labels on phenomena they are both as easily dismissed as arbitrary collections of meaningless symbolic phoneme representations.

That's what the fallacy of special pleading is all about: MY label has intrinsic significance... because.

I have actually, myself, described the deistic god as the god of the ultimate gap.

Ah, the last refuge of theology:

The god of synonyms.

 

[Mobyseven]

God doesn't have gaps in any classic sense.

...huh?

Despite your slagging off at me at every opportunity, I have a grudging respect for you, Mobyseven, because, unlike Belz, you at least put your head on the block.

For my (occasional) short temper, I must say that I don't actually dislike you - I too have a sort of respect for you, frustrating as this conversation has been.

I'm just disappointed you're not clever enough to see that your head has been chopped off.

"Hey, kettle! Noir!"

I have actually, myself, described the deistic god as the god of the ultimate gap.

Which makes your argument the argument of the god of the gaps, and thus a fallacious argument - end of story.

That gap has not been encroached on by science in over 200 years.

And would you believe that before Darwin, the god that created the life of the world had not been encroached upon for...well, ever!

And you always seem to forget: I am not proving god. I am not for god. I am saying you cannot disprove god, and that he cannot be dismissed like the tooth faerie.

But I am also saying that you cannot disprove god. I cannot disprove the existence of anything, no matter how weird or bizarre, and neither can anyone else. It is a logical impossibility. I cannot disprove the tooth fairy, but in the absence of any evidence I feel comfortable in saying that the tooth fairy does not exist. Similarly, I cannot dismiss god, but in the absence of any evidence I feel comfortable in saying that god does not exist.

In fact, to generalise - I cannot disprove 'x' but in the absence of any evidence I feel comfortable in saying that 'x' does not exist.

Regardless of what 'x' is, that statement works. To change the rules for one entity is (as cyborg mentioned) a case of special pleading.

You misconstrue my arguments because you misapply their intention.
It's a bit like a bait (me) and switch (you).

I don't misconstrue your arguments, I understand them well. I would however suggest that you have not fully thought through the implications of your own arguments.

Enough though.

If you wish.

 

[my_wan]

That's nice.

Care to elaborate or why I'm wrong ?



So, why am I getting the laughing dog, now ?

Care to explain ?

Or am I supposed to take your guys' word for it that this is wrong, for some reason (the bolded part, that is) ?

It wasn't laughing at you. It was was a joke about wiki in general. Your argument still essentially stands without that particular reference that I found so funny. The particular point about the reality of space being independent of matter it is a purely ontological argument. I would take your side on it, though for reasons entirely independent of that reference.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, serves me right for quoting Wikipedia.

 

[Belz...]

Belz,

It's like me asking you how you define yourself and you answering: tanned, dark hair, brown eyes, 175 cm, 86 kg.....

I still quit though.

Fair enough. It's unfortunate we couldn't reach an agreement on the falsifiability argment.

I hope Herz can link to (or at least give me some keywords I can look for) space-time-matter interdependency stuff. I wouldn't mind learning something new, today.

 

[Robin]

The answer to my question is one of logic,

something from nothing or time without beginning

It logically has to be one or the other.
Either some thing started from nothing (something from nothing), or some thing was always there (time without beginning).

If you have a third option I would be pleased to hear it.

I am always happy to say something that somebody will be pleased to hear:

1. Something from nothing or 2. time without beginning or....

3. Something from something else.

 

[Herzblut]

I hope Herz can link to (or at least give me some keywords I can look for) space-time-matter interdependency stuff. I wouldn't mind learning something new, today.

I mentioned the keyword and will repeat it once again: General Relativity.

Herzblut

 

[Belz...]

Very well, Herz. It seems you are completely unwilling to make your point and, in the process, educate me.

I'll try, eventually, to find anything that pertains to your claim. But since "general relativity" is mighty vague, it might be a while.

I'll remember that next time YOU ask me a question. I don't know why you philosopher-types are so incapable of producing any form of knowledge.

 

[edge]

Paulhoff says, No Jesus-No God, I get it now its meaning was minutia.
He meant Know Jesus-Know God.

 

[Paulhoff]

Paulhoff says, No Jesus-No God, I get it now its meaning was minutia.
He meant Know Jesus-Know God.

No Jesus that was the son of a so-called god edge, none, none at all. Very easy to understand, should be for you, open you brain edge, open your brain.

Paul

 

[Mobyseven]

Paulhoff says, No Jesus-No God, I get it now its meaning was minutia.
He meant Know Jesus-Know God.

That has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read on these forums. And I organise the Stundies.

 

[edge]

That has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read on these forums. And I organise the Stundies.

I thought it was cute.
What does Stundies mean stumbiling block is all I can come up with...
Is this what you meant?
Or studies.

 

[Mobyseven]

Warning: May induce headaches in people not used to high-level doses of conspiracy theories.

 

[Robin]

Using formal predicate logic express the following mathematical formula: dy/dx = x^3 - x^2.

Then use mathematical notation to express the following argument:

If I play tennis I will get fit.
I play tennis.
Therefore, I will get fit.

Once you have done that, feel free to come back here and tell me how they are the same damn thing.

Formal predicate logic is mathematics. So if I used formal predicate logic to express your argument then I would be expressing it in mathematical notation.

Because format predicate logic is mathematical notation.

Any mathematics, including the snippet you quote depends on proofs. Proofs are the heart of mathematics. And you can't have a proof without formal logic.

Here is the definition of Logic from Wolfram's Mathworld site:

"Logic: The formal mathematical study of the methods, structure, and validity of mathematical deduction and proof."

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Logic.html

Now come back and tell me that formal logic and mathematics are incompatible...

 

[Mobyseven]

Formal predicate logic is mathematics. So if I used formal predicate logic to express your argument then I would be expressing it in mathematical notation.

Because format predicate logic is mathematical notation.

Any mathematics, including the snippet you quote depends on proofs. Proofs are the heart of mathematics. And you can't have a proof without formal logic.

Here is the definition of Logic from Wolfram's Mathworld site:

"Logic: The formal mathematical study of the methods, structure, and validity of mathematical deduction and proof."

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Logic.html

Now come back and tell me that formal logic and mathematics are incompatible...

Evasion noted. I set out the following challenge:

Using formal predicate logic express the following mathematical formula: dy/dx = x^3 - x^2.

Then use mathematical notation to express the following argument:

If I play tennis I will get fit.
I play tennis.
Therefore, I will get fit.

Once you have done that, feel free to come back here and tell me how they are the same damn thing.

If they are the same thing, then it should be simple for you to perform such a task, yes?

Honestly, I don't see how we can even be having this argument - no one is disputing that maths is logical and that predicate logic logical. But arguing that the are the same thing, and that they are entirely compatible is the same as saying that because calculus and statistics are both maths they are entirely compatible and we should be able to solve a statistical problem using calculus.

Moreover, maths is not an empirical science. By definition, it is impossible to empirically observe a mathematical proof - such proofs are set in stone by definition, and as such mathematics cannot provide a counter-example to the claim, "You cannot prove a negative."

 

[Robin]

Evasion noted. I set out the following challenge:

I am interested, are you saying that the Mathworld site has got it wrong when they say logic is a branch of mathematics?

Saying express "dy/dx = x^3 - x^2" as predicate logic is the same as saying express "I play tennis" as predicate logic.

Ok, to your second task, I have found that the mathematical logic symbols don't display consistently in this forum, so it is a little difficult but:

forall (x) : playtennis(x)->getfit(x)
playtennis(a)
getfit(a)

Would be putting your argument in mathematical notation if you substitute the universal quantifier and the implications symbol.

But since you wont accept that predicate logic is mathematics then I suppose this is no use.

Moreover, maths is not an empirical science.

And the same can be said for any branch of mathematics, including predicate logic, so I am not sure what your point is.

By definition, it is impossible to empirically observe a mathematical proof - such proofs are set in stone by definition, and as such mathematics cannot provide a counter-example to the claim, "You cannot prove a negative."

If you think that is it possible to prove something using empirical observations I would be highly interested to hear of it.

In fact, in the sense you mean, if you cannot prove an existential negative then you also cannot prove an existential positive.

 

[Robin]

Mobyseven,

I have started a new topic in the Maths and Science section about logic and mathematics.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2856523#post2856523

 

[Mobyseven]

I am interested, are you saying that the Mathworld site has got it wrong when they say logic is a branch of mathematics?

Saying express "dy/dx = x^3 - x^2" as predicate logic is the same as saying express "I play tennis" as predicate logic.

Ok, to your second task, I have found that the mathematical logic symbols don't display consistently in this forum, so it is a little difficult but:

forall (x) : playtennis(x)->getfit(x)
playtennis(a)
getfit(a)

Would be putting your argument in mathematical notation if you substitute the universal quantifier and the implications symbol.

But since you wont accept that predicate logic is mathematics then I suppose this is no use.

And the same can be said for any branch of mathematics, including predicate logic, so I am not sure what your point is.

If you think that is it possible to prove something using empirical observations I would be highly interested to hear of it.

In fact, in the sense you mean, if you cannot prove an existential negative then you also cannot prove an existential positive.

I'll take it to the other thread, except for the point of empiricism: Empirical observation and experimentation can certainly prove a positive, as all that is required is one observation for a positive claim to be true (just as only one observation is required for a negative claim to be falsified).