1) The 'uncaused cause' argument is actually strictly neutral as to the existance of god. It works exactly as well for the thiests as not. No-one should be trying to argue otherwise.
2) Arguments from probability are fundamentally flawed.
What any argument from probability does is say 'x is unlikely by chance, therefor x could not have happened by chance'.
However, unless we can run the experiment a near infinite number of times, we are unable to determine (a) if our odds are right (maybe x is actually very likely, and our maths is bad) or (b) if we just got lucky this time around.
Underling, I would say I exist as me by luck. The odds of my particular genetic makeup coming from my parents is, IIRC, several trillion to 1. The odds of each of theirs from their parents is several trillion to one.
So yes, coincidence. But meaningless. If, when my mother was pregnant, she had said
'I will have a son who will look like this and...etc'
she would have been either insane, lucky, or - vastly likely - wrong. So what? She knew she was going to have *a* child - just not which one,
Equally, there was going to be *a* universe; that it was the one we experience is largely a matter of chance.
"I have explained why I am not a theist and why I am not an atheist. Having said all that, I hasten to add that both the (philosophical) theist and the atheist have a point. That is, each has stressed or at least articulated a valuable insight which makes the major claim of each at least plausible, if not totally convincing. What is the valid point that each has stressed?
The theist has realized that the existance of the universe and certain of its features cry out for an explanation. In other words, it is a fact that there exists a universe--a universe which has certain remarkable properties: intricacy, orderliness, purposiveness, etc. So this leads to two questions which all theists have stressed, namely: (1) Why is there a universe at all, rather than nothing? (2) Why is there this particular sort of universe, with the above-mentioned properties, rather than some other sort? The cosmological argument (first-cause), in its many forms and variants, has been brought in to answer question (1). The various teleological arguments (purposeful, intelligent design) have been brought in to answer question (2).
Now I firmly believe that the two questions which the (philosophical) theist asks are valid ones and hence deserve our attention. Why, indeed, is there something (a universe) rahter than nothing> And why is there this particular something rather than some other one? These are tormenting questions for the intellect. So the theist deserves our gratitude for having asked them. But the mistake of the theist is assuming that we have satisfactorly answered the questions by inferring the existance of God (the god of traditional theism). But there is another possible view here regarding these questions, namely: They are unanswerable. We don't--and can't--know why anything exists, or why this sort of universe exists. It's not just that we don't know yet. Rather it seems that we can never know.
So much for the point stressed by the (philosophical) theist. I turn now to the one stressed by the (philosophical) atheist. The atheist has realized that the various reasons and arguments which theists have put forth may seem plausible, but in fact, all are gravely flawed. All of them are fallacious in many ways. I shall not rehash the fallacies here. I refer to Nagel's essay (Ernest Nagel, "The Case for Atheism"). By penetrating critique, the (philosophical) atheist has done us a service in showing that even if arguments may appear plausible or sound, in fact they are defective because of the fallacies they commit.
But the mistake of the atheist is in what he concludes from all this. His position essentially may be summed up as follows.
-- Here are all the arguments that have ever been put forth to prove the existance of a god.
-- All of them are fallacious--for such and such reasons.
-- Therefore the conclusion--"God exists"--does not follow from the premises of the arguments.
-- Therefore the conclusion is false (That is, God does not exist).
That is the atheist's main argument--whether he explicitily states it or not. But his final conclusion simply does not follow from his premises. That is, let us suppose that it is true that every argument that has ever been put forth for the conclusion ("God exists") is false. All that does follow is: The colclusion cannot be validly inferred to be true on the basis of those arguments. But the conclusion could still be true. Thus there may be some other argument, which no one has devised yet, which is not fallacious and from which the conclusion follows. Or even if there are no such arguments to be found, it still could be true that there is a god, but no one can ever know that there is one.
To sum up: The (philosophical) theist has had a valid insight but has used it to attempt to infer something that does not logically follow. The (philosophical) atheist has had a different valid insight and has used it to attempt to infer something else that does not logically follow. The two "somethings," of course are (T) "God exists" and (A) "God does not exist." I have tried to show that neither (T) nor (A) follows from the arguments put forth on behalf of them.
What this entails then is this:
(1) (T) could be true and (A) false.
(2) (A) could be true and (T) false.
Now which is true--(1) or (2)? (They can't both be true.) I submit: We don't know. And further there does not seem to be any way by which we ever could know which is true--(1) or (2). In short, we are in the same position as that of Protagoras way back in Ancient Greece: About a god, we are not able to know whether one exists or whether none exists. We may have hopes that one exists, or even reasons which seem to be plausible. But these do not entitle us to know that a god exists. Similarly, we may find that all of the proofs for a god are fallacious. But these do not entitle us to know that no god exists. There may be a god. Or there may not be a god. Which is true? We don't know, and it seems certain that we can never know which is true.
And that is why I am an agnostic
Wonderful essay if you ask me. It's quite spectacular that he's able to ruin a disjunctive sylogism. And please read that, I couldn't find a copy online so I had to copy it out of my textbook... I wouldn't put the effort in if it wasn't worth reading.
I have never found anyone that can prove God does not exist.
Innocent till proven guilty, it's up to the non-believers to prove he doesn't exist.
Woah. This seems like a blatantly dangerous misinterpretation of the meaning of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" that is at the root of (at the very least) the American legal system. The phrase presumes a lack of existence on the part of the crime that one is indicted on. With a lack of evidence otherwise, we should assume that nothing happened. Doing otherwise is patently unfair. It's unreasonable to assume something merely because it has not been proven to not be the case. The positive burden of proof is always on the accuser or proponent of a given viewpoint.
Accordingly, it is in fact by the philosophy you cite the burden of believers to demonstrate the existence of god. You say, "I have never found anyone that can prove God does not exist." A fair corrolary is, "I have never found anyone that can prove God does exist." With a lack of conclusive evidence to make either conclusion, it's unreasonable to make a positive assumption, and that's exactly what you've done. It's always the burden of those who assert existence to make a proof.
This is the convention for all forms of debate. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to assume that there are superintelligent aliens from Jupiter who are running the world for their own malignant ends, because heck, they're so smart that there's no conceivable way of detecting them and their mind control beams are undectable by present technology. Obviously such a conclusion is pure rubbish, but you can't prove me wrong because I can always offer a more convoluted explanation. Assuming anything and everything is the height of absurdity.
Logic "elegantly [and] convincingly" accounts for itself, which is precisely why logic is so elegant and convincing.
The rules of logic are tautological, they are true by their very definitions. It doesn't matter how the Universe is structured, or what the laws of physics are, formal logic remains exactly the same.
Perhaps the logical structure of our reality keeps us from imagining realities with differing logical rules? This argument fails on account of its assumption that logic has anything to do with reality. This fact is what we mean when we say that logical knowledge is a priori. It’s impossible for a reality to exist where the rules of logic do not “work.”
This should not be confused with the possibility of a reality that does not behave in a logical manner, for this is entirely possible.
The existence of logic as a tautological system is part of a logical disproof of the existence of an omnipotent being. I must warn you my formal logic is a little rusty, so I may edit this to make it a nice and proper proof when I get back to my textbooks in Colorado.
First, let us take as an axiom the existence of a tautological system T. This could be written like so:
AxTx
Next let us take as an axiom that there is a non-empty set of Universes U and that there does not exist a Universe that is not in U. In other words, U is the set of all Universes. This can be written formally like so:
-Ex(-Ux) or, equivalently: AxUx
We can deduce from these two assumptions that for all Universes, T is true. This could be written formally like so:
Ax(Ux^Tx)
Or equivalently that there does not exist a Universe where T is false or:
-Ex(Ux^-Tx)
Now let us assume the existence of a being x that is omnipotent. This could be written formally as
ExOx
We can then define the function O in the following manner: For any Universe x and any function F,
AFx(Ey-FOy->-EzUz^Fz)
You can read this as saying if there exists an omnipotent being for which a given function is false, then there does not exist a Universe for which that function is true. Note that “defining the function” in this context is the same as assuming the given sentence to be true along with
AxOx
From this we can deduce the contradiction thusly, we can replace the Universally quantified Fx with Tx to get:
Ey-TOy->-EzUz^Tz
From which we can deduce: (-EzUz^Tz)^Ax(Ux^Tx)
Or equivalently: Ax-(Ux^Tx)^Ax(Ux^Tx)
Which is a contradiction from which we can deduce
-ExOx or there does not exist an omnipotent being.
Note that this does not disprove the existence of God, just the existence of an all-powerful God. As God is incapable of altering that which is tautological and is therefore not "all-powerful."
It stands for "too long; didn't read." It's generally used when someone posts a confusing literary dreadnaught of a post which is, unfortunately, beyond the attention span of nearly all parties involved.
Which begs the question: is it my attention span that's to blame? Or is it your writing style? This is a question I leave up to you.
How about this instead:
1+1=2. This is immutable, even by God. No matter what the universe or how that universe is configured, this equation holds true. You can change the meaning of the word "one," but the concept signified by "one" is still the same. You can change the symbol 1 so that it doesn't identify the same concept anymore, but the concept previously signified by the numeral still means 1. In some sense, it's also true that 1+1=10; that's how it is in binary. However, the concepts signified by "1+1=10" in that example are still 1, 1, addition, equality, and 2. The only problem exists in communicating the idea; the idea itself is forever and immutably true.
The rules of logic are similarly immutable, for they are the same domain. It's no coincidence that the study of computational methods for determining the results of complicated AND and OR arguments is called "Bolean algebra." The other laws of logic are similarly mathematical in their execution.
I think we should establish this before we get into the really complicated crap. Let's not argue too many things at once.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
sigh. You should've seen my draft, it was way, way longer than that. It's a problem, once I get going on a topic I start trying to cover all my bases and before I know it I've got four or five pages on the topic and have to go through and delete the whole thing. I didn't even post my responses to Furor's other points.
Quote from furor »
arguement for beauty, rage, piety, etc
I'd refer you to another of my... um... "literary dreadnaughts" [HREF=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=4317&page=6&pp=15](post #84)[/href] where I provide the beginings of what I think is a more than adequate explanation of those things in athiestic terms....
Put [url*]your link[/url*] without the asterics. Now, about what you said... well, it looks like a level of math I haven't taken yet, and if it isn't math, then I'm really lost. I think most people will agree with me here. Do you, well, have a plain english version? Even if it's longer?
For example, maybe you can clearly see that this is a contradiction: Ax-(Ux^Tx)^Ax(Ux^Tx), but all I clearly see is a group of unrealated letters and symbols.
There are prophecies made in the Old Testament about the coming of the Son of God. Jesus Christ fulfills these prophecies in the New Testament
Name one, and tell me the chapter and sentence. I have a copy of the Old Testament in my room, and there is nothing within it about a Son of God. A messiah, certainly. Can you give me the chapter and sentence of them? I'm just curious.
Quote from cookie »
god, or an almighty omnipitent being has appeared in many forms throughout many cultures, however it is believed that these gods were creaded to be idealised so people would aspire to be more closer and more like them, while also creating a figure they can be ruled by, thus bringing order to the community, even if there is no higher being there is however a need for religion in society, for example inner city britain, where it has all but died out, there are yobs, or "chavs" as we refer to them as, running amok and ruining our communities, we can never be sure if there is a god, as billy connoly once said "prophets, all a loads of b***ocks, moses spent 40 days and 40 nights in the desert and starts talking to a burning bushand comes back with the ten commandments! any witnesses? NO! Joseph smith is in the mountains and finds the angel moroni, who gives him gold plates in an unknown language, which he goes homes and unexplainably translates into the book of mormon, and then gives them back, any witnesses? NO! prophets are just a loads of weirdo, you spend 40 days and 40 nights in a desert and i garauntee you'll be talking to f***ing elvis!, prophets wot a loads of b***ocks!"
That was really over the top. Please speak respectfully, and at least bother to give more coherent arguments. Anyway, there were witnesses to the Ten Commandments- the entire nation witnessed thunder, lightning, fire, and the noise of a rams horn, and the burning bush was far before. Read the book of Exodus before you start criticizing it.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
What you perceive to be simple is often extremely complicated, impossible, or pure illusion.
The universe is near infinite, so nearly everything exists. Therefore, an omnipotent being exists somewhere.
This is a little flawed. According to your logic, it's more along the lines of "a nearly omnipotent being exists somewhere." For all we know, we could be those beings.
Time splits at every choice, so there are infinite different choice-universes. Again, infinte theory. One must have something that can reach between universes.
Not necessarily true. That's why they call them parallel universes. They never intersect.
The rules of logic are tautological, they are true by their very definitions.
This is clearly not true. How do you reconcile the differences between, say, classical and intuitionistic/constructivist logic? Both are logical system, and both disagree on extremely important laws (i.e. law of the excluded middle). Logic is not a tautological system; it's not even a unified one.
Okay, here's something you need to know, al_the_mighty (and others), aethiest to aethiest, dont make an ass of your self. Just because you dont beleive in god, doesnt mean you should annoy those that do. Its perfectly fine that your an aethiest, but dont ask christians to prove there is a god, because they cant. you cant prove it, their religion is based on that. Its called faith and there is nothing wrong with it. And for that matter, we aethiest cant prove the big bang theroy, or evolution for that matter. We're all pretty lost here, and dont need people like you causing more trouble.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"HEY! Lets all go sacrifice sheep to add to our mana pool!"
:fingers:
Okay, here's something you need to know, al_the_mighty (and others), aethiest to aethiest, dont make an ass of your self. Just because you dont beleive in god, doesnt mean you should annoy those that do. Its perfectly fine that your an aethiest, but dont ask christians to prove there is a god, because they cant. you cant prove it, their religion is based on that. Its called faith and there is nothing wrong with it. And for that matter, we aethiest cant prove the big bang theroy, or evolution for that matter. We're all pretty lost here, and dont need people like you causing more trouble.
Look at the forum title; "Debate Politics, Religion, and Philosophy". No one has to come here and debate (sometimes argue) about what they believe if they don't want to.
As far as atheists having to prove the big bang, or evolution or whatever, that's totally irrelevant. Mythology provides answers to questions about the origin of the universe and mankind. That doesn't mean it's the right answer, and it doesn't mean you have to provide your own answer in order to disbelieve their answer.
Look at the forum title; "Debate Politics, Religion, and Philosophy". No one has to come here and debate (sometimes argue) about what they believe if they don't want to.
As far as atheists having to prove the big bang, or evolution or whatever, that's totally irrelevant. Mythology provides answers to questions about the origin of the universe and mankind. That doesn't mean it's the right answer, and it doesn't mean you have to provide your own answer in order to disbelieve their answer.
First of all, Al didnt intend to debate, or argue, he intended to piss people off, and maybe even get known as an uber cool troll (common among n00bs). And my statement wasnt pointless, as it was an answer to Al's question. I was telling him that it cant be proven. And to make sure he didnt continue to go off on various other theroys to further piss off the christians on the fourms, I pointed out that those theroys cant be proven either. And when, exactly, did I say mythology was right? Furthermore, when did I "disbelieve" Al's answer, when he in fact, didnt have an answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"HEY! Lets all go sacrifice sheep to add to our mana pool!"
:fingers:
First of all, Al didnt intend to debate, or argue, he intended to piss people off, and maybe even get known as an uber cool troll (common among n00bs). And my statement wasnt pointless, as it was an answer to Al's question. I was telling him that it cant be proven. And to make sure he didnt continue to go off on various other theroys to further piss off the christians on the fourms, I pointed out that those theroys cant be proven either. And when, exactly, did I say mythology was right? Furthermore, when did I "disbelieve" Al's answer, when he in fact, didnt have an answer.
Well, all I can say is let the mods do their job and decide who's trolling and who's actually trying to start a discussion.
You are mistaking the rules of logic with propositions that may be derived from them. The only rules of logic are the boolean definitions of the three operators AND, OR and NOT along with the Universal Quantifier and the Existential Quantifier.
AND can be defined as follows:
A | B | A AND B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | FALSE
TRUE | FALSE | FALSE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
You can see this is the obvious definition of the word AND. A AND B are true if and only if A is TRUE and B is TRUE. This sort of "no sh*t sherlock" statement is what you get when you start talking about tautological statements.
OR can be defined as follows:
A | B | A OR B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
Note that the sentence (A AND B) AND (A OR B) can be true. This is why the OR operator is called an "inclusive OR" as opposed to an "exclusive OR" (also pronounced "x-or"). The x-or operator is defined like this:
A | B | A XOR B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | TRUE | FALSE
The NOT operator can be defined like this:
A | NOT A
FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE
Thus NOT A is TRUE if and only if A is FALSE.
From the OR operator and the NOT operator you can deduce another, commonly used operator IF/THEN, which can be defined as follows:
A | B | IF A THEN B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | FALSE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
This is equivilant to (A AND B) OR ((NOT A) AND B) and you can see that it essentially says nothing more than this: If A is TRUE, then B must be TRUE. You may have noticed that I've been using the term "if and only if" this is also a logical operator that is written IFF and is defined as (IF A THEN B) AND (IF B THEN A).
The Universal Quanitifier is written AxS where S is a formal sentence with the variable x. It means that for all instances of x, the sentence S is TRUE.
The Exestential Quantifier is written ExS where S is a formal sentence with the variable x. It means that there exists at least one instance of x for which the sentence S is TRUE.
From these axioms about which there is no dispute and the twin assumptions that there is a tautological system (T) and that there is at least one reality that exists we can deduce that there does not exist an omnipotent being. Here's the deduction in English:
A tautological system is true in all possible Universes.
Omnipotence is defined as being able to change anything about any Universe.
This would mean that an omnipotent being would be capable of creating a Universe in which the tautological system is false.
This is a logical contradiction. Therefore an omnipotent being cannot exist, because it would be incapable of performing at least one thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
@BenGreen, damn man
Quite frankly, I didnt understand any of that. Well, I understood what you were doing, but just the stuff inbetween... perhaps when I'm older...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"HEY! Lets all go sacrifice sheep to add to our mana pool!"
:fingers:
I started this debate because on other posts some of the religious members of this forum would say nothing but provide evidence that there is no god. So after many people not just myself listed evidence ect that contradicts the fact there is an omnipotent being.
They would say things like satan put the evidence here, god made the world to look old and even if the bible contradicts itself and parts are not real then the parts that have not been proven wrong must be real.
This is a thread for religous debate if this was a christian forum then I would be trolling but it is not it is a religous debate foum.
I started this debate because on other posts some of the religious members of this forum would say nothing but provide evidence that there is no god. So after many people not just myself listed evidence ect that contradicts the fact there is an omnipotent being.
They would say things like satan put the evidence here, god made the world to look old and even if the bible contradicts itself and parts are not real then the parts that have not been proven wrong must be real.
This is a thread for religous debate if this was a christian forum then I would be trolling but it is not it is a religous debate foum.
So, in other words, you're just looking for evidence to confirm your preconceived theories?
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
You are mistaking the rules of logic with propositions that may be derived from them. The only rules of logic are the boolean definitions of the three operators AND, OR and NOT along with the Universal Quantifier and the Existential Quantifier.
AND can be defined as follows:
A | B | A AND B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | FALSE
TRUE | FALSE | FALSE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
You can see this is the obvious definition of the word AND. A AND B are true if and only if A is TRUE and B is TRUE. This sort of "no sh*t sherlock" statement is what you get when you start talking about tautological statements.
OR can be defined as follows:
A | B | A OR B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
Note that the sentence (A AND B) AND (A OR B) can be true. This is why the OR operator is called an "inclusive OR" as opposed to an "exclusive OR" (also pronounced "x-or"). The x-or operator is defined like this:
A | B | A XOR B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | TRUE | FALSE
The NOT operator can be defined like this:
A | NOT A
FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE
Thus NOT A is TRUE if and only if A is FALSE.
From the OR operator and the NOT operator you can deduce another, commonly used operator IF/THEN, which can be defined as follows:
A | B | IF A THEN B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | FALSE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
This is equivilant to (A AND B) OR ((NOT A) AND B) and you can see that it essentially says nothing more than this: If A is TRUE, then B must be TRUE. You may have noticed that I've been using the term "if and only if" this is also a logical operator that is written IFF and is defined as (IF A THEN B) AND (IF B THEN A).
The Universal Quanitifier is written AxS where S is a formal sentence with the variable x. It means that for all instances of x, the sentence S is TRUE.
The Exestential Quantifier is written ExS where S is a formal sentence with the variable x. It means that there exists at least one instance of x for which the sentence S is TRUE.
From these axioms about which there is no dispute and the twin assumptions that there is a tautological system (T) and that there is at least one reality that exists we can deduce that there does not exist an omnipotent being. Here's the deduction in English:
A tautological system is true in all possible Universes.
Omnipotence is defined as being able to change anything about any Universe.
This would mean that an omnipotent being would be capable of creating a Universe in which the tautological system is false.
This is a logical contradiction. Therefore an omnipotent being cannot exist, because it would be incapable of performing at least one thing.
The rules of logic you mention do not comprise a system - they are simply definitions from which actual systems are derived. A system is usually at least a somewhat complex entity - I would like to see an example of non-vacuous tautological system. Keep in mind that a set of axioms is not a system. Neither is a set of definitions.
Additionally, many theologians define omnipotence as the ability to do that which is logically possible. You could consider this limiting, but it nicely avoids arguments such as these and the question, "can God make a rock so heavy he could not lift it?".
system 2 : an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole <the Newtonian system of mechanics>
Complexity has nothing to do with the definition of a system. Besides aren't tautologies sort of vacuous by their very nature? How can something that's true by definition be anything but "vacuous?"
But to contradict myself, it seems awfully ironic that you're using a computer, one of the most powerful and complex inventions in human history, to say that the system on which it is built is vacuous and simplistic. Those rules are nothing less then the foundation of mathematics and rational thought. I don't think you're giving them enough credit.
Besides which the logical proof does not require a non-vacuous tautology, any one will do.
R@sputin: Yes, theologians like to say 'but god CAN lift a rock so heavy god cannot lift it!!1!!' but that is a load of rubbish.
It's also not the point. A virtually omnipotent being (IE one who can do anything which does not limit their own power) is still rather a lot more potent than you or I.
On this:
Quote: The universe is near infinite, so nearly everything exists. Therefore, an omnipotent being exists somewhere. Um, Hell no!
First off, the universe is not 'nearly infinite'.
Something is infinite or it isn't. You can't get 'a bit infinite' or any similar stupidity.
Anything of finite size is, by definition, infinitely smaller than infinite.
Secondly, just because you have an infinite system doesn't mean it contains every possible thing.
I have infinite apples. Do I have any pears? No. Pears are not one of the things-of-the-kind-of-my-infinite-system.
If I have infinite fruit, I still have no Bananna's, as they are not fruit.
Similarly, if the universe were of infinite size, then an omnipotent being would be within it if and only if omnipotent beings were of the kind of thing that the universe could contain. That is by no means obvious.
BenGreen: I think that your reasoning is pretty solid, but it must still be acknowledged that logical systems are still axiomatic and really just formalizations of the world we observe. Although it it tautological in our universe, it may not be coherent in a universe in which statements can have truth values beyond "true" and "false." Even in our universe, quantum physics illustrates the concept that things can be in more than one state simultaneously. First-order logic relies on the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, which may not apply in some other universe.
system 2 : an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole <the Newtonian system of mechanics>
Complexity has nothing to do with the definition of a system. Besides aren't tautologies sort of vacuous by their very nature? How can something that's true by definition be anything but "vacuous?"
But to contradict myself, it seems awfully ironic that you're using a computer, one of the most powerful and complex inventions in human history, to say that the system on which it is built is vacuous and simplistic. Those rules are nothing less then the foundation of mathematics and rational thought. I don't think you're giving them enough credit.
Yeah, tautologies are vacuous. That's why I'm having trouble understanding your simultaneous assertions that logic is both a tautological system and is incredibly powerful. I'm a math major, I don't underappreciate logic.
Anyway, the point of all this is that your first proof relies on an incorrect assumption, namely the absolute validity of logic. If you grant that logic is the base system from which other systems are derived, then you have conceded that any system of logic cannot be proven to be consistent, by Godel's second incompleteness theorem. Therefore, not only can you NOT label logic as tautological, you also cannot claim that it is necessarily true in every possible universe.
edit:
Quote from Verbal »
R@sputin: Yes, theologians like to say 'but god CAN lift a rock so heavy god cannot lift it!!1!!' but that is a load of rubbish.
It's also not the point. A virtually omnipotent being (IE one who can do anything which does not limit their own power) is still rather a lot more potent than you or I.
Agreed, only I haven't really heard any theologians respond like that.
1) The 'uncaused cause' argument is actually strictly neutral as to the existance of god. It works exactly as well for the thiests as not. No-one should be trying to argue otherwise.
2) Arguments from probability are fundamentally flawed.
What any argument from probability does is say 'x is unlikely by chance, therefor x could not have happened by chance'.
However, unless we can run the experiment a near infinite number of times, we are unable to determine (a) if our odds are right (maybe x is actually very likely, and our maths is bad) or (b) if we just got lucky this time around.
Underling, I would say I exist as me by luck. The odds of my particular genetic makeup coming from my parents is, IIRC, several trillion to 1. The odds of each of theirs from their parents is several trillion to one.
So yes, coincidence. But meaningless. If, when my mother was pregnant, she had said
'I will have a son who will look like this and...etc'
she would have been either insane, lucky, or - vastly likely - wrong. So what? She knew she was going to have *a* child - just not which one,
Equally, there was going to be *a* universe; that it was the one we experience is largely a matter of chance.
Wonderful essay if you ask me. It's quite spectacular that he's able to ruin a disjunctive sylogism. And please read that, I couldn't find a copy online so I had to copy it out of my textbook... I wouldn't put the effort in if it wasn't worth reading.
Accordingly, it is in fact by the philosophy you cite the burden of believers to demonstrate the existence of god. You say, "I have never found anyone that can prove God does not exist." A fair corrolary is, "I have never found anyone that can prove God does exist." With a lack of conclusive evidence to make either conclusion, it's unreasonable to make a positive assumption, and that's exactly what you've done. It's always the burden of those who assert existence to make a proof.
This is the convention for all forms of debate. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to assume that there are superintelligent aliens from Jupiter who are running the world for their own malignant ends, because heck, they're so smart that there's no conceivable way of detecting them and their mind control beams are undectable by present technology. Obviously such a conclusion is pure rubbish, but you can't prove me wrong because I can always offer a more convoluted explanation. Assuming anything and everything is the height of absurdity.
The rules of logic are tautological, they are true by their very definitions. It doesn't matter how the Universe is structured, or what the laws of physics are, formal logic remains exactly the same.
Perhaps the logical structure of our reality keeps us from imagining realities with differing logical rules? This argument fails on account of its assumption that logic has anything to do with reality. This fact is what we mean when we say that logical knowledge is a priori. It’s impossible for a reality to exist where the rules of logic do not “work.”
This should not be confused with the possibility of a reality that does not behave in a logical manner, for this is entirely possible.
The existence of logic as a tautological system is part of a logical disproof of the existence of an omnipotent being. I must warn you my formal logic is a little rusty, so I may edit this to make it a nice and proper proof when I get back to my textbooks in Colorado.
First, let us take as an axiom the existence of a tautological system T. This could be written like so:
AxTx
Next let us take as an axiom that there is a non-empty set of Universes U and that there does not exist a Universe that is not in U. In other words, U is the set of all Universes. This can be written formally like so:
-Ex(-Ux) or, equivalently: AxUx
We can deduce from these two assumptions that for all Universes, T is true. This could be written formally like so:
Ax(Ux^Tx)
Or equivalently that there does not exist a Universe where T is false or:
-Ex(Ux^-Tx)
Now let us assume the existence of a being x that is omnipotent. This could be written formally as
ExOx
We can then define the function O in the following manner: For any Universe x and any function F,
AFx(Ey-FOy->-EzUz^Fz)
You can read this as saying if there exists an omnipotent being for which a given function is false, then there does not exist a Universe for which that function is true. Note that “defining the function” in this context is the same as assuming the given sentence to be true along with
AxOx
From this we can deduce the contradiction thusly, we can replace the Universally quantified Fx with Tx to get:
Ey-TOy->-EzUz^Tz
From which we can deduce: (-EzUz^Tz)^Ax(Ux^Tx)
Or equivalently: Ax-(Ux^Tx)^Ax(Ux^Tx)
Which is a contradiction from which we can deduce
-ExOx or there does not exist an omnipotent being.
Note that this does not disprove the existence of God, just the existence of an all-powerful God. As God is incapable of altering that which is tautological and is therefore not "all-powerful."
More later.
tl;dr
It stands for "too long; didn't read." It's generally used when someone posts a confusing literary dreadnaught of a post which is, unfortunately, beyond the attention span of nearly all parties involved.
Which begs the question: is it my attention span that's to blame? Or is it your writing style? This is a question I leave up to you.
How about this instead:
1+1=2. This is immutable, even by God. No matter what the universe or how that universe is configured, this equation holds true. You can change the meaning of the word "one," but the concept signified by "one" is still the same. You can change the symbol 1 so that it doesn't identify the same concept anymore, but the concept previously signified by the numeral still means 1. In some sense, it's also true that 1+1=10; that's how it is in binary. However, the concepts signified by "1+1=10" in that example are still 1, 1, addition, equality, and 2. The only problem exists in communicating the idea; the idea itself is forever and immutably true.
The rules of logic are similarly immutable, for they are the same domain. It's no coincidence that the study of computational methods for determining the results of complicated AND and OR arguments is called "Bolean algebra." The other laws of logic are similarly mathematical in their execution.
I think we should establish this before we get into the really complicated crap. Let's not argue too many things at once.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
I'd refer you to another of my... um... "literary dreadnaughts" [HREF=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=4317&page=6&pp=15](post #84)[/href] where I provide the beginings of what I think is a more than adequate explanation of those things in athiestic terms....
How the hell do you make links yo?
For example, maybe you can clearly see that this is a contradiction: Ax-(Ux^Tx)^Ax(Ux^Tx), but all I clearly see is a group of unrealated letters and symbols.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Name one, and tell me the chapter and sentence. I have a copy of the Old Testament in my room, and there is nothing within it about a Son of God. A messiah, certainly. Can you give me the chapter and sentence of them? I'm just curious.
That was really over the top. Please speak respectfully, and at least bother to give more coherent arguments. Anyway, there were witnesses to the Ten Commandments- the entire nation witnessed thunder, lightning, fire, and the noise of a rams horn, and the burning bush was far before. Read the book of Exodus before you start criticizing it.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
What you perceive to be simple is often extremely complicated, impossible, or pure illusion.
This is a little flawed. According to your logic, it's more along the lines of "a nearly omnipotent being exists somewhere." For all we know, we could be those beings.
Not necessarily true. That's why they call them parallel universes. They never intersect.
This is clearly not true. How do you reconcile the differences between, say, classical and intuitionistic/constructivist logic? Both are logical system, and both disagree on extremely important laws (i.e. law of the excluded middle). Logic is not a tautological system; it's not even a unified one.
:fingers:
Look at the forum title; "Debate Politics, Religion, and Philosophy". No one has to come here and debate (sometimes argue) about what they believe if they don't want to.
As far as atheists having to prove the big bang, or evolution or whatever, that's totally irrelevant. Mythology provides answers to questions about the origin of the universe and mankind. That doesn't mean it's the right answer, and it doesn't mean you have to provide your own answer in order to disbelieve their answer.
First of all, Al didnt intend to debate, or argue, he intended to piss people off, and maybe even get known as an uber cool troll (common among n00bs). And my statement wasnt pointless, as it was an answer to Al's question. I was telling him that it cant be proven. And to make sure he didnt continue to go off on various other theroys to further piss off the christians on the fourms, I pointed out that those theroys cant be proven either. And when, exactly, did I say mythology was right? Furthermore, when did I "disbelieve" Al's answer, when he in fact, didnt have an answer.
:fingers:
Well, all I can say is let the mods do their job and decide who's trolling and who's actually trying to start a discussion.
It doesnt take a mod to decide who's trolling. In fact, anyone with a brain can probobly do that.
:fingers:
AND can be defined as follows:
A | B | A AND B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | FALSE
TRUE | FALSE | FALSE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
You can see this is the obvious definition of the word AND. A AND B are true if and only if A is TRUE and B is TRUE. This sort of "no sh*t sherlock" statement is what you get when you start talking about tautological statements.
OR can be defined as follows:
A | B | A OR B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
Note that the sentence (A AND B) AND (A OR B) can be true. This is why the OR operator is called an "inclusive OR" as opposed to an "exclusive OR" (also pronounced "x-or"). The x-or operator is defined like this:
A | B | A XOR B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | TRUE | FALSE
The NOT operator can be defined like this:
A | NOT A
FALSE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE
Thus NOT A is TRUE if and only if A is FALSE.
From the OR operator and the NOT operator you can deduce another, commonly used operator IF/THEN, which can be defined as follows:
A | B | IF A THEN B
FALSE | FALSE | FALSE
FALSE | TRUE | TRUE
TRUE | FALSE | FALSE
TRUE | TRUE | TRUE
This is equivilant to (A AND B) OR ((NOT A) AND B) and you can see that it essentially says nothing more than this: If A is TRUE, then B must be TRUE. You may have noticed that I've been using the term "if and only if" this is also a logical operator that is written IFF and is defined as (IF A THEN B) AND (IF B THEN A).
The Universal Quanitifier is written AxS where S is a formal sentence with the variable x. It means that for all instances of x, the sentence S is TRUE.
The Exestential Quantifier is written ExS where S is a formal sentence with the variable x. It means that there exists at least one instance of x for which the sentence S is TRUE.
From these axioms about which there is no dispute and the twin assumptions that there is a tautological system (T) and that there is at least one reality that exists we can deduce that there does not exist an omnipotent being. Here's the deduction in English:
A tautological system is true in all possible Universes.
Omnipotence is defined as being able to change anything about any Universe.
This would mean that an omnipotent being would be capable of creating a Universe in which the tautological system is false.
This is a logical contradiction. Therefore an omnipotent being cannot exist, because it would be incapable of performing at least one thing.
Quite frankly, I didnt understand any of that. Well, I understood what you were doing, but just the stuff inbetween... perhaps when I'm older...
:fingers:
They would say things like satan put the evidence here, god made the world to look old and even if the bible contradicts itself and parts are not real then the parts that have not been proven wrong must be real.
This is a thread for religous debate if this was a christian forum then I would be trolling but it is not it is a religous debate foum.
So, in other words, you're just looking for evidence to confirm your preconceived theories?
How hypocritical.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
The rules of logic you mention do not comprise a system - they are simply definitions from which actual systems are derived. A system is usually at least a somewhat complex entity - I would like to see an example of non-vacuous tautological system. Keep in mind that a set of axioms is not a system. Neither is a set of definitions.
Additionally, many theologians define omnipotence as the ability to do that which is logically possible. You could consider this limiting, but it nicely avoids arguments such as these and the question, "can God make a rock so heavy he could not lift it?".
Complexity has nothing to do with the definition of a system. Besides aren't tautologies sort of vacuous by their very nature? How can something that's true by definition be anything but "vacuous?"
But to contradict myself, it seems awfully ironic that you're using a computer, one of the most powerful and complex inventions in human history, to say that the system on which it is built is vacuous and simplistic. Those rules are nothing less then the foundation of mathematics and rational thought. I don't think you're giving them enough credit.
Besides which the logical proof does not require a non-vacuous tautology, any one will do.
It's also not the point. A virtually omnipotent being (IE one who can do anything which does not limit their own power) is still rather a lot more potent than you or I.
On this:
Quote:
The universe is near infinite, so nearly everything exists. Therefore, an omnipotent being exists somewhere. Um, Hell no!
First off, the universe is not 'nearly infinite'.
Something is infinite or it isn't. You can't get 'a bit infinite' or any similar stupidity.
Anything of finite size is, by definition, infinitely smaller than infinite.
Secondly, just because you have an infinite system doesn't mean it contains every possible thing.
I have infinite apples. Do I have any pears? No. Pears are not one of the things-of-the-kind-of-my-infinite-system.
If I have infinite fruit, I still have no Bananna's, as they are not fruit.
Similarly, if the universe were of infinite size, then an omnipotent being would be within it if and only if omnipotent beings were of the kind of thing that the universe could contain. That is by no means obvious.
Yeah, tautologies are vacuous. That's why I'm having trouble understanding your simultaneous assertions that logic is both a tautological system and is incredibly powerful. I'm a math major, I don't underappreciate logic.
Anyway, the point of all this is that your first proof relies on an incorrect assumption, namely the absolute validity of logic. If you grant that logic is the base system from which other systems are derived, then you have conceded that any system of logic cannot be proven to be consistent, by Godel's second incompleteness theorem. Therefore, not only can you NOT label logic as tautological, you also cannot claim that it is necessarily true in every possible universe.
edit:
Agreed, only I haven't really heard any theologians respond like that.