DHA's Wager

jar Omigod not Adminjar!? Do you suppose he heard us? LOLYou are right of course about going off topic. I do want to further explore the issue concerning time and the use of temporal terms within the context of god and the bible.Bye for now young'un.This message has been edited by sidelined, Thu, 2005-03-17 09:32 PM

kongstad writes:

quote:

---

Secondly it is impssible to prove a universal negative.

---

Incorrect. It is quite easy to prove a universal negative. You just need a good definition of what it is you are trying to prove.F'rinstance, I shall now prove that there is no largest prime number.Assume there is a largest prime number p_n. This means we can generate a list of all possible prime numbers p₁, p₂, ..., p_n-2, p_n-1, p_n (Sieve of Eratosthenes will do.)Construct q as follows:q = p₁ * p₂ * ... * p_n-2 * p_n-1 * p_n + 1Clearly, q > p_nToo, q is not divisible by any of the primes in the list. There is always a remainder of 1. Therefore, either q is prime itself or there is a number between q and p_n that is prime.Thus, there is no largest prime number.Similarly, we can show that there is no way to construct a square of equal area as a given circle using only a straightedge and compass, that there is no integral solution to xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ for integral n > 2, and a whole host of other things that we know don't exist.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Let's give it a try sometime. I know it is an area where I have great difficulty find adequate ways to express what I believe. Mayhaps, as is so often the case, when discussing something you'll help me find a way.Thank you sir for your time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

add one {A} to one {A} ... do you need to know what {A} is to know that you get two {A}'s?

---

Yes.Add one sandpile to another sandpile. Do you have two sandpiles or just one big sandpile? There are some things in the world for which there is no such thing as "more than one."It is impossible to talk about something without having some sort of definition of what it is. If you cannot define it, what on earth is there to make us consider the possibility that it might exist?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

The validity of the logical construct does not depend on what {A} is, it rests on the logical structure alone.

---

Incorrect. You cannot make a logical statement about anything without a definition of what the object you're making the statement about is in the first place.In another example to your {A} + {A} = 2{A}, just try that with infinities. {A} + {A} = {A}. Until you define what {A} is, you cannot know how it will behave under addition.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Huh? What do you mean "missing"? The fossil record is replete with transitionals.

---

​

The point is that if you claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that you do not get to choose which absence you use as evidence of absence, but must apply the same principle to all arguments.

---

I know, but if you can't even define what it is you are talking about, how on earth can you even make a claim for any sort of presence? There isn't even "absence of evidence" because we don't even know what "evidence" would look like to be able to determine it was absent.

quote:

---

The argument is about logic.

---

Yes.And if you think you can do any logic without a definition, then you don't know enough about logic.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

I am aware of the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

---

Incorrect. It depends upon the definition of the object you are dealing with. If the definition of what you are looking for requires the presence of a certain type of evidence under a given set of circumstances, then if you achieve those circumstances and find that the evidence is absent, you have proven that object you were dealing with does not exist.This is how we did away with the "luminiferous ether." If there is such a thing through which photons travel, then we should be able to detect it as the earth moves through it. The Michelson-Morley experiment would have shown a difference in the motion of photons due to the interaction of the earth with the ether. But since there was no difference, since the evidence was absent, the only conclusion was that there was no luminiferous ether.Absence of evidence was evidence of absence.That's why you have to know what you're talking about before you can even begin to consider the possibility of something existing or not. How can you know what evidence ought to be if you don't even know what it is that you're looking for and thus what evidence ought to look like?

quote:

---

one {A} plus one {A} equals two {A}

---

Nope. One sandpile plus one sandpile equals one sandpile.You can't say anything about {A} until you have a definition of what {A} is.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

God is the creator of the universe and all that is in it.

---

How is this definition functionally distinct from physics?No fair changing the defintion. If you meant something else, you should have said something.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

"Secondly it is impssible to prove a universal negative."

​

And that is why the scientific, logical answer is always uncertainty when such a circumstance is encountered. Rather than this being a problem for my argument, it reinforces it: the only logical conclusion is uncertainty, that "we--don't--know" the answer, and either assumption that we do is erroneous from a logical basis.

---

OK - then please address my point. By your reasoning the truth of the statement "RAZD currently has a goat sitting on his left shoulder" cannot be known!Lets put it through your logic shall we?Is there any evidence of a goat on your shoulder - lets assume NO.
Is there any evidence of a goat not being on your shoulder - well if you cannot see a goat on your shoulder - then there is no evidence of a goat not being on your shoulder - so again its a NOSo the only logical conclusion would be to be agnostic to there being a goat on your shoulder!what are you saying - do you consider the fact that you can neither see nor feel a goat on your left shoulder evidence for there not being a goat? - well sorry - that would be ABSENCE of evidence since there really is nothing to se or feel, so you cannot logically conclude anything from this! Besides perhaps this goat cannot be seen or felt - but that is another queation altogether.Besides cheap point with dinosaurs - but please replace dinosaurs with T. Rex in my original post if that would help you better! But you obviusly think we cannot logically hold the oppinion that there are no more living T.Rex, or that your left shoulder is not presently adorned with a sitting goat?But in that case then please accept a small change to the definition of the word Atheist to the effect that the atheist does not believe in the existense of gods in exactly the same way he/she does not believe in the fact that all of humanity is born with a goat sitting on the left shoulder - and find both concepts equally substantiated!/Soren

The proposition "RAZD currently has a goat sitting on his left shoulder" is neither negative nor universal.

Is an invisible cosmic goat. The Invisible Sepia Goat, arch-nemesis of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.And of course, we can only be agnostic about the existance of the ISG on RAZD's left shoulder, in competition with the IPU on his right.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-18-2005 06:30 AM

quote:

---

I must do no such thing. I could, but I must not.

---

Yes, you must, or concede your position is illogical.

quote:

---

Actually, Captain Kirk and I are having a discussion about bending space (LOL). You know for absolutely certain who your examples are and are not.

---

No I don't; I have the same degree of evidence for Greath Cthulhu as for god - someone wrote a book. Can you PROVE that Great Cthulhu doesn;t exist? If not, then you must concede, it is logical to treat Great Cthulhu as existing. Thats your argument.So, how long have you been a worshipper of the Great Old Ones, George?

quote:

---

Then there are those who say there is a god and there will never be proof, for the god and man relationship is based on faith, proof would destroy that base, and that will never happen.

---

Which is only to say "Deep down I know it is a lie, but I am desperately trying not to admit it".

It has always eluded me how a unicorn can be invisible AND pink.

quote:

---

It has always eluded me how a unicorn can be invisible AND pink.

---

When Frodo wears the One Ring, he does not lose all colour, he becomes invisible. So he simultaneously has colour, and cannot be seen. Thus the unicorn is in fact pink, but also invisible.

Couldn't the luminiferous ether have had some other unknown properties that would have canceled the expected effect? I don't think that the absence of the luminiferous ether was the only possible conclusion. The simplest, maybe, but not the only one.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

PecosGeorge

​

And an astronomer said.......'Master, what of time? And he answered.....'You would measure time, the measureless and immeasurable?' (Gibran)

​

An unfortunate quote since we do indeed measure time as I outline in post #99

---

When did you begin measuring time? When it became necessary for science to function mathematically. Science has always existed, with knowledge increasing, methods to conform it to need became a must have. Harness time, harness elements. For this, we need containers.Gibran, the philosopher, is correct.