Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

Uh ok, then see the "if so" paragraph.

---

Examples of potential infinites.

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix,

This will sound harsh, but I see no value in a renewed discussion with yourself. Previously, I humored your claims/charges in this thread and suffered through a long and rather tedious series of posts that seemed to confuse verbosity with substance. The final result was the earlier claims were rescinded and the obvious was again recognized as obvious. Not long after this result, you stated in an exchange with Redleg you wouldn't post in this thread any longer. I think this was a prudent decision on your part. We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.

So as not to leave you totally high and dry as it were, I'll give you just a couple points for you to mull over for your personal study:

One, your simplified version has no logical entailment. It is incoherent. Also note: my proof makes no reference to a First Mover. It is not a First Mover proof. This means your references either do not relate to my stuff, or you do not understand.

Two, your more complex version contains some good things and some not so good things. There are actually some parallels to a rather famous logical argument, but it is intermixed with some vacuous and unrelated points. To my mind, this indicates either you had an idea on a thing, but do not recognize it for what it is, or are aping someone else's work. Regardless, the presentation is not anywhere near as strong, or as cleanly presented, as it could be which is unfortunate.

Again sorry for the harshness, but repetition of form is not interesting and given the multiple posters I have to respond to, unnecessary.

Points on a line, Angles, backroom debates... infinites?

No physical infinities.

Also can there be a universe that is infinite in size that is not infinite in smallness?

double post

edit: forget it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

I'm not attacking you or even really answering you directly, why don't you let my post stand without capping it off?

---

I am pointing out that you have given me examples of potential infinites. There is no "attack" (you are confusing it with the Mafia thread where things are different).

However, I am already aware of potential infinites and am asking for examples of actual infinites.

Try doing a search for "Hilbert's Hotel" and you will see what I mean...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Which is fine, until it starts applying itself to real world sets. Change the data in those sets and then they conclusions have to be re-examined.

All Animals Can Fly.
Pigs Are Animals.
Pigs therefore can fly.

In this universe that is untrue.

---

Logic doesn't turn on truth. It turns on validity. The above example is exhaustive. It has nothing to do with time, space, or any other factor. That this may not be amenable to science is not a factor. Under a deductive schema (where we go from big to little) any valid conclusion is 100% certain and unavoidable.This same degree of certainty cannot be held with inductive conclusions. Consider: (shifting from pigs to elephants for more flare)

Dumbo can fly
Dumbo is an elephant.
Therefore elephants can fly

Is the above compelling? Hopefully it is not (the above is an informal fallacy). What if we saw several Dumbos?

There are five Dumbos
These Dumbos are elephants
Therefore elephants can fly

One might be more confident about the conclusion the more flying Dumbos they met, but there is nothing in the schema itself that requires the conclusion. This is the point: comfortability is not the same as certainty/necessity. If the sky were littered with flying Dumbos (despite the damage such may do to one's car) the conclusion is not a guarantee.

Now, let me bring in the truth consideration for a moment. In the flying pig argument if the first two premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. There is no avoiding it given the deductive schema. In our flying Dumbo argument (an inductive argument) even if the two premises were true it doesn't require the conclusion be true. Induction always has an open space in the conclusions and thus truth remains always out of reach. This is what has befuddled science (which follows an inductive schema) and why fellows such a Popper then argued science was not about truth nor could it be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Whether the first premise is accepted or not, the argument is valid. This means the conclusion cannot not be. There is no uncertainty in the argument.

Quote:

---

Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Therefore Socrates is Mortal.

Incorrect, you only have certainty if you know that every man is mortal.

---

---

No, no, no. in the above example the conclusion is valid. That means its conclusion 100% certain. Whether a particular premise is true or not is another issue. An argument with true premises is called sound. Soundness is a separate consideration. See my comments above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

This is completely wrong though. Almost all of our science uses reductionism. Reductionism would say, for example, that the human is a collection of organs. Organs are a collection of tissue. Tissue is a collection of cells. Cells are a collection of molecules. I've skipped steps here, but you can see that a molecule is certainly as much of a thing itself as a human. Surely this is how we "typically" see things today. Matter and energy perhaps WERE seen as exclusively a property or characteristic of a thing before that philosophical notion gave way to another type of thought.

---

Hello,

My statement isn't completely wrong: matter/energy is typically seen as a characteristic. This has been the case from Aristotle forward. If we were to use Lockean language materiality would be a primary quality. This means it is a characteristic that is intrinsic to the object, but nonetheless a quality. Another example of a primary quality would be: mass, extension etc.

Now, science is reductionistic as you note, but our consideration here is not confined to science and hopefully more rigorous than simple science. Regardless the reduction: atom, quark etc. where one wants to posit a materiality, that materiality is but one quality of the thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

My point was that foo was incompatible...which is why god shouldn't be assumed.

---

The above doesn't follow. What you put forward was incoherent. This isn't the case with god.

Quote:

---

You haven't done more than asserted.

---

This is not correct my good man. I have nowhere simply asserted god exists.

Quote:

---

Are women objects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

yes.

Quote:

---

:bounce:

---

---

---

I thought you would like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Logic doesn't turn on truth. It turns on validity. The above example is exhaustive. It has nothing to do with time, space, or any other factor. That this may not be amenable to science is not a factor. Under a deductive schema (where we go from big to little) any valid conclusion is 100% certain and unavoidable.This same degree of certainty cannot be held with inductive conclusions. Consider: (shifting from pigs to elephants for more flare)

Dumbo can fly
Dumbo is an elephant.
Therefore elephants can fly

---

Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I am pointing out that you have given me examples of potential infinites. There is no "attack" (you are confusing it with the Mafia thread where things are different).

---

Hm, I don't appreciate your condescension. By saying "if so" I was trying to offer a more free-standing explanation, not a direct response to you. Maybe "attack" was the wrong word to use, but you dismissed my contribution as if I was addressing only you, which was very far from the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Now, science is reductionistic as you note, but our consideration here is not confined to science and hopefully more rigorous than simple science. Regardless the reduction: atom, quark etc. where one wants to posit a materiality, that materiality is but one quality of the thing.

---

Well then it's going to be difficult to argue if we have to abide by something other than science or logic.

I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?

---

No. As long as the argument remains inductive, no truth claim can be certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...

---

Gold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

Well then it's going to be difficult to argue if we have to abide by something other than science or logic.

---

That would be a bugger! I've not said anything against reason. My point was the discussion is not strictly confined to science, but moves along larger rational lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...

---

I think this would be an example of a truism. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No. As long as the argument remains inductive, no truth claim can be certain.

---

IFF Dumbo is all the elephants is it still inductive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

IFF Dumbo is all the elephants is it still inductive?

---

Yes, as long as one is using a particular to make a generalization (from an inductive schema you could never really be sure Dumbo is all the elephants unless all of reality could be verified at once).

Pindar, this will sound harsh, but I see no value in a renewed discussion with yourself. Previously, I humored your claims/charges in this thread and suffered through a long and rather tedious series of posts that seemed to confuse verbosity with substance. The final result was the earlier claims were rescinded and the obvious was again recognized as obvious.

We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.

So as not to leave you totally high and dry as it were, I'll give you just a couple points for you to mull over for your personal study:

One, your posts are incoherent, lack references to sources justifying your views, and directly contradict all sources I have provided against your points. Not only have you made claims going against the most basic definitions and rules of logic, but also made repeated claims that simple example textbook arguments are incorrect, or, when textbook examples of errors were presented, stated that they were correct arguments. The most funny thing is how you claim you have invented a proof of God, and think it would need no scrutiny at all, despite the fact that all previous attempts at proof of God have failed. You not only oppose all attempts at scrutinizing your argument with the laws of logic, but also try to hide behind redefining your words to hide subtle equivocations.

Your proof has no logical entailment. It is incoherent. Also note: your proof switches between making a reference to a First Mover, and between Anselm's (proven incorrect) Ontological argument.

Two, you mix up logical and metaphysical existence. Logical existence of x means "one or more x exists", this means that even if you had proven logical existence of a being with all properties of God, you would need to also prove that there is at most one, before you have proven the existence of God. Regardless, the presentation is not anywhere near as strong, or as cleanly presented, as it could be which is unfortunate.

Again sorry for the harshness, but your repeated insults and attempts to hide your argument in redefinitions of words and letting existence be part of your definitions, is not interesting, and given the multiple posters that have refuted your incoherent and invalid argumentation, the status of your argument should be quite clear.

Finally, your repeated statements "I thought you were going to stop posting in this thread" and trying to make me do so, are harsh insults. While perhaps allowed within the rules of the guild, they are harsh humiliations and that you have to resort to humiliation and personal attacks to hide your logical fallacies is quite telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?

---

If it is true that
- Dumbo is an elephant
- elephants can fly
- Dumbo is the only elephant in the universe
Then it is true that
- all elephants in the universe can fly

By Modus ponens, a conclusion is true if the argument leading to the conclusion is valid, and the assumptions made in the argument are true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

Modus ponens is used in all axiom systems, including physics, mathematics and many other fields. Basically the axioms are no better than assumptions, other than that we have by general consensus arrived at the conclusion that they are to be treated as truths (in religion, certain assumptions are given axiom status because they are mentioned in holy books, whereas in science, the justification for making something an axiom is if no statistical data known by those working with the subject contradict the axioms, and they also seem sound by some kind of gut feeling).

Modus ponens fails in a pure ontological philosophy where we try to make no assumptions at all, since without any assumptions made at all, we can't conclude anything to be true. In most cases therefore, people out of practical reasons choose some assumptions to be treated as truths, i.e. give them axiom status. This is done when logic is used - i.e. when we use logic we automatically assume that the rules of logic are true. Usually, the laws of logic alone can't prove anything of any value - for instance God's existence doesn't follow from the laws of logic alone. Most arguments therefore add even more axioms (i.e. decide to treat certain assumptions as absolute truths) or assumptions. To make it even more interesting, it has also been proven that no ontological system can justify its own existence. Because of this, all reasoning must rest of assumptions. The question of whether the assumptions are sound or not, becomes the key issue in argumentation, when most people (excluding Pindar) agree with and follow the laws of logic. The laws of logic are so exact, that machines can perform automated reasoning by applying the laws of logic - it would be interested to run Pindar's fallacious argument through an automated reasoning program, and see how it would reject it ~:), since he doesn't trust all the dozens of sources I have provided, and that he is repeatedly refusing modus ponens. Does anyone know if there is any online automated reasoning program available, so we can test Pindar's proof so he will realize he has lost and stops insulting all people in this thread who don't agree with his quite unorthodox views of logic?

Do you realize that in order to be a lawyer in the United States logic and philosphy happen to be part of the course of study? It seems in your response that you have failed to actually read what Pinder wrote. In fact some of your statements read exactly like Pinder's initial post.

Have you conducted the error of plagiarism? A more orginial rebuttal would have been interesting.

Lawyers read classical logic and are most concerned with natural language arguments. Natural language arguments are inexact, and belong to before the 18th century or possibly even further back in history. Verbal logic has been largely abandoned because of its inexactness, and the tendencies of making equivocation fallacies when using it. The modern formal logic as developed by among others Peano, Bertrand Russel, Kurt Gödel and George Boole has mostly replaced the natural language oriented logic used over two thousand years ago, because of its exactness, its ability to spot fallacies, and the fact that it is, unlike ad hoc natural language arguments, possible to construct automated reasoning computer programs from. I doubt a lawyer in the USA studies more logic than Computer Engineers, whose education consist to nearly 80% of logic - formal logic. It is also possible to pass through education consisting of a single small course on logic without very good grades or good knowledge on the subject, but more difficult to pass a complete master's degree and 5 years of studies without getting a grasp of what 80% about the education is about. What is most interesting is however the fact that Pindar openly refutes quotes coming right out of typical logic textbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Lawyers read classical logic and are most concerned with verbal arguments. Verbal arguments are inexact, and belong to before the 18th century, possibly even further back in history. Verbal logic has been largely abandoned because of its inexactness, and the tendencies of making equivocation fallacies repeatedly. The modern formal logic as developed by among others Peano, Bertrand Russel, Kurt Gödel and George Boole has mostly replaced the natural language oriented logic used over two thousand years ago. I doubt a lawyer in the USA studies more logic than Computer Engineers, whose education consist to nearly 80% of logic - formal logic.

---

Yep you just disprove your own response to Pinder with this answer. I wonder if you realize the fallacy of your own arguement. In regrads to this statement taken from the previous post and your response here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legio

We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.

---

I have again been rather amused about the attacks on logic presented by both of you. It seems that you want to dismiss one form of logic because it does not suit your premise. Now Pinder could also be guilty of such a stance - but I find yours more amusing especially given your claim of superior knowledge on logicial arguements, in a discussion using verbal arguements concerning logic. It really is a rather hypocritical stance on your part, you yourself are using a verbal arguement in this discussion.

The proof is in the pudding and so far I'd have to say Pindar's is the one without cat hair in it.

I copied parts of his post, since I'm bad at thinking up personal attacks myself, and his personal attacks were apparently allowed since he still has his signature. It saves me boring work and lets me concentrate on the logical aspects of the situation, rather than a quite ridiculous exchange of humiliations. It would seem like lawyers read more about how to make personal attacks and fallacious arguments with well hidden fallacies, than they read about logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

The proof is in the pudding and so far I'd have to say Pindar's is the one without cat hair in it.

---

That's probably because Pinder is using skim milk. Cat's hate skim milk.:laugh4: :laugh4: That and cats don't like lawyers either. There too much alike. Sneaky little things that like to screw with your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

I copied parts of his post, since I'm bad at thinking up personal attacks myself, and his personal attacks were apparently allowed since he still has his signature. It saves me boring work and lets me concentrate on the logical aspects of the situation, rather than a quite ridiculous exchange of humiliations. It would seem like lawyers read more about how to make personal attacks and fallacious arguments with well hidden fallacies, than they read about logic.

---

So are you claiming that your plagiarism stems from boredom?

Your responses are getting even more amusing for me, I am rather enjoying my reading today.:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

True, however my statement is probalby invalid because I expressed the sum of my logic through language and the perspective of the knower.

Now if only I could weave a construct whereby all knowers using said construct could only embrace the knowledge I set as true then I can remove the known and the knower and we can just praise my construct and the inevitable knowledge as superior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So are you claiming that your plagiarism stems from boredom?

Your responses are getting even more amusing for me, I am rather enjoying my reading today.:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

---

I will probably have to plagiarize you if you continue these pointless off-topic posts. This was once a thread about the impossibility of proving God's existence, now it is a thread about two ******** ********* (Redleg and ShadesHonestus) cheering on someone (Pindar) who tries to prove that God must exist because something that must exist must exist, and only God is something that must exist, therefore nothing else can be the something that must exist that must exist", while Papewaio, Sasaki Kojiro, Reenk Roink and myself keep trying to demonstrate the basics of logic.

As I said, it would be interesting to feed this so called proof into an automated reasoning system, or send it to someone who is logician by profession. Apparently a near-logician isn't trustworthy enough for a laywer's fantastic knowledge on the subject of logic. Would be interesting to have Bertrand Russel, Peano, George Boole and the others here witnessing this spectacle.