Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jun 2005 10:07:21 AM |
|
|
Virgil, you seem to have some fascination for Deep Thought. He can
hardly post anything without having you stuck to his ***** ;-)
His arguments must sting you somehow, otherwise you wouldn't stalk him
like this. Maybe you're not that sure of your own position... ?
Regards,
Talence
P.S. I edited out rec.photo.digital from the cross-post line... it's
polite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Altared Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jun 2005 10:17:39 AM |
|
|
What about John 16:3?? Where it says that only circumcised gerbils may
enter the rectum of a believer??
http://ratzingerblog.blog.co.uk/main/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 04:42:32 PM |
|
|
Johnny boy... I looked at that yahoo search link you provided and
almost all those links say in the first line that it's about
mathematics.
Read this part from one of the pages you linked:
"According to the philosophical viewpoint of constructivism,
nonconstructive proofs constitute a different kind of proof from
constructive proofs. Supporters of this view consider nonconstructive
existence to be a weaker form of existence than its constructive
counterpart. Some constructivists deny the validity of nonconstructive
proof altogether."
Remember that you can always invoke 2 Cor 6:14 as a final escape ;-)
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 07:02:36 PM |
|
|
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118958152.745714.227390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Johnny boy... I looked at that yahoo search link you provided and
almost all those links say in the first line that it's about
mathematics.
Read this part from one of the pages you linked:
"According to the philosophical viewpoint of constructivism,
nonconstructive proofs constitute a different kind of proof from
constructive proofs. Supporters of this view consider nonconstructive
existence to be a weaker form of existence than its constructive
counterpart. Some constructivists deny the validity of nonconstructive
proof altogether."
Remember that you can always invoke 2 Cor 6:14 as a final escape ;-)
Here, let's save him the trouble of looking it up:
2 Corinthians 6:14
14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and
wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%206:14&version=31
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 09:58:35 PM |
|
|
In article <WPSdnYTuB9CJji_fRVn-2Q@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Remember that you can always invoke 2 Cor 6:14 as a final escape ;-)
Here, let's save him the trouble of looking it up:
2 Corinthians 6:14
14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and
wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
Simple Septic as biblical scholar? It is to laugh!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 03:58:38 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:02:36 -0400, Deep Thought wrote
(in message <WPSdnYTuB9CJji_fRVn-2Q@comcast.com>):
2 Corinthians 6:14
14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and
wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these things."(Isaiah 45:7)
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 10:01:32 PM |
|
|
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118958152.745714.227390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Johnny boy... I looked at that yahoo search link you provided and
almost all those links say in the first line that it's about
mathematics.
Read this part from one of the pages you linked:
"According to the philosophical viewpoint of constructivism,
nonconstructive proofs constitute a different kind of proof from
constructive proofs. Supporters of this view consider nonconstructive
existence to be a weaker form of existence than its constructive
counterpart. Some constructivists deny the validity of nonconstructive
proof altogether."
I do not purport that non-existence can not be proven because I know it can
be proven.
Remember that you can always invoke 2 Cor 6:14 as a final escape ;-)
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 06:14:36 AM |
|
|
Nothing from what you presented negates the fact that non-existence
has been proven already in some cases.
Johnny... no one is denying this. The claim "non-existence can be
proven in some cases" is already accepted. I accept it and others
accept it. Anyone who claims the opposite (i.e. non-existence cannot be
proven in ANY case) is mistaken as we can - like you did - point out
that such proof is used very often in the field of Mathematics.
The core of this debate is about whether "in some cases" applies to
hypothetical beings too or not.
My point is that it's not possible to prove one way or the other the
existence of an entity for which no clear definitions exists... or
worse.. the entity intentionally hides from us.
It would be so much easier for us if this entity were to just show
itself.
As it stands, I will agree that this figure *does* exist in the minds
of the people and in human culture. Since it "shows" itself through the
minds and actions of people, its existence can be explained in
naturalistic terms.
Following that route, if we have phenomena that can be explained both
with naturalistic reasoning and a supernatural being, the question
becomes: which one are we going to go with?
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 03:08:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:40:40 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <tukse.93806$lQ3.57026@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=proof+of+non+existence&tab=Web&fr=my-vert-we
b-top&btn=Yahoo%21+Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=proof+that+johnny+commits+insurance+fraud&prs
sweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&fl=0&x=wrt
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 05:46:54 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:46 GMT,
i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain Laskey) let us all know that:
In article <sD4re.82830$lQ3.49826@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com (Johnny) wrote:
*****.
I already told you it is possible to prove non-existence.
Would you like to explain how?
Pf by contradiction.
Done all the time in math.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
For instance, we can clearly show that the largest prime
number does not exist.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 07:10:01 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:s704b15u5lurpk1ds3j1jmrljfjk2orspd@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:46 GMT,
i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain Laskey) let us all know that:
In article <sD4re.82830$lQ3.49826@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com (Johnny) wrote:
*****.
I already told you it is possible to prove non-existence.
Would you like to explain how?
Pf by contradiction.
Done all the time in math.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
For instance, we can clearly show that the largest prime
number does not exist.
That's equivocation on the term, 'exist'. We were discussing existential
propositions like Johnny's proposition that there might actually be a God
entity, nothing to do with numbers at all.
And anyway, one does not "show that the largest number does not exist," one
cites the axiom of mathematics that for any number, n, one can always add 1,
resulting in n + 1, which is always greater than n.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 09:43:02 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:10:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:s704b15u5lurpk1ds3j1jmrljfjk2orspd@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:46 GMT,
i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain Laskey) let us all know that:
In article <sD4re.82830$lQ3.49826@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com (Johnny) wrote:
*****.
I already told you it is possible to prove non-existence.
Would you like to explain how?
Pf by contradiction.
Done all the time in math.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
For instance, we can clearly show that the largest prime
number does not exist.
That's equivocation on the term, 'exist'.
No it's not, fuckwit. Notice how I covered that above:
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
Learn. To. Read.
And anyway, one does not "show that the largest number does not exist,"
Largest PRIME number.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 01:07:01 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:q3e4b19c1k94k7dvbj6grslo1uagrapm4n@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:10:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:s704b15u5lurpk1ds3j1jmrljfjk2orspd@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:46 GMT,
i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain Laskey) let us all know that:
In article <sD4re.82830$lQ3.49826@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com (Johnny) wrote:
*****.
I already told you it is possible to prove non-existence.
Would you like to explain how?
Pf by contradiction.
Done all the time in math.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
For instance, we can clearly show that the largest prime
number does not exist.
That's equivocation on the term, 'exist'.
No it's not, fuckwit.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you sir, it's logical fallacy. Why don't
you just go soak your head, settle down and stick to the issue?
What you are doing is equivocating on the term, 'exist'. Numbers do not
exist in the same sense that the hypothetical God entity is imagined to. We
were discussing existential propositions like Johnny's proposition that
there might actually be a God entity, nothing to do with numbers at all, so
you are appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument
supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do
with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
And anyway, one does not "show that the largest number does not exist," one
cites the axiom of mathematics that for any number, n, one can always add 1,
resulting in n + 1, which is always greater than n.
[Hint: that means that, by extrapolation, for the set of primes the boundary
conditions are that there is no upper bound in evidence (just as there are
no gods in evidence, by the way). So the only reasonable default presumption
is that there is no such thing. Now, you wouldn't dare try to shift the
burden of proof to the negative, would you sir?]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 09:48:21 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:07:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:q3e4b19c1k94k7dvbj6grslo1uagrapm4n@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:10:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:s704b15u5lurpk1ds3j1jmrljfjk2orspd@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:46 GMT,
i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain Laskey) let us all know that:
In article <sD4re.82830$lQ3.49826@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com (Johnny) wrote:
*****.
I already told you it is possible to prove non-existence.
Would you like to explain how?
Pf by contradiction.
Done all the time in math.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
For instance, we can clearly show that the largest prime
number does not exist.
That's equivocation on the term, 'exist'.
No it's not, fuckwit.
Argument _ad hominem_
Wasn't the case. You should learn the difference between an
insult and the fallacy. Especially for one so wont to quote the
definitions of fallacies, you sure as ***** don't know how to ident
them.
What you are doing is equivocating on the term, 'exist'.
No, I was not, as I clearly stated:
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
Learn. To. Read.
And anyway, one does not "show that the largest number does not exist,"
Largest PRIME, idiot. Learn. To. Read.
[Hint: that means that, by extrapolation,
Hint: you can't just add 1 to the largest prime.
Why don't you actually take some higher-level math courses and
get back to me.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 12:04:23 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:ego5b111dn955eipdcc99i8mijj02198hl@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:07:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:q3e4b19c1k94k7dvbj6grslo1uagrapm4n@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:10:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:s704b15u5lurpk1ds3j1jmrljfjk2orspd@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:46 GMT,
i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain Laskey) let us all know that:
In article <sD4re.82830$lQ3.49826@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com (Johnny) wrote:
*****.
I already told you it is possible to prove non-existence.
Would you like to explain how?
Pf by contradiction.
Done all the time in math.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
For instance, we can clearly show that the largest prime
number does not exist.
That's equivocation on the term, 'exist'.
No it's not, fuckwit.
Argument _ad hominem_
Wasn't the case.
Calling someone who, on reasonable grounds, questions or denies an argument
you make, 'fuckwit' is argument _ad hominem_ in anybody's book, sir. I
suggest you look it up.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you sir, it's logical fallacy. Why don't
you just go soak your head, settle down and stick to the issue?
What you are doing is equivocating on the term, 'exist'. Numbers do not
exist in the same sense that the hypothetical God entity is imagined to. We
were discussing existential propositions like Johnny's proposition that
there might actually be a God entity, nothing to do with numbers at all, so
you are appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument
supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do
with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
And anyway, one does not "show that the largest number does not exist," one
cites the axiom of mathematics that for any number, n, one can always add 1,
resulting in n + 1, which is always greater than n.
[Hint: that means that, by extrapolation, for the set of primes the boundary
conditions are that there is no upper bound in evidence (just as there are
no gods in evidence, by the way). So the only reasonable default presumption
is that there is no such thing. Now, you wouldn't dare try to shift the
burden of proof to the negative, would you sir?]
Hint: you can't just add 1 to the largest prime.
In all the university math classes I attended nothing prevented us from
adding 1 to any number imaginable. So the only reasonable default
presumption is that there is no such thing as the 'greatest' anything in
numbers. Now, you wouldn't dare try to shift the burden of proof to the
negative, would you sir? Anyway, Euclid proved over 2,300 years ago that
the number of primes is infinite.
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html
Why don't you actually take some higher-level math courses
Been there, done that, got the T shirt.
Why don't you try to remember that argument _ad hominem_ like that is
logical fallacy, sir?
Over 2,300 years ago Euclid proved that the number of primes is infinite.
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 01:11:54 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:04:23 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:ego5b111dn955eipdcc99i8mijj02198hl@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:07:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:q3e4b19c1k94k7dvbj6grslo1uagrapm4n@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:10:01 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:s704b15u5lurpk1ds3j1jmrljfjk2orspd@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:46 GMT,
i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain Laskey) let us all know that:
In article <sD4re.82830$lQ3.49826@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com (Johnny) wrote:
*****.
I already told you it is possible to prove non-existence.
Would you like to explain how?
Pf by contradiction.
Done all the time in math.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
For instance, we can clearly show that the largest prime
number does not exist.
That's equivocation on the term, 'exist'.
No it's not, fuckwit.
Argument _ad hominem_
Wasn't the case.
Calling
...someone a fuckwit isn't the ad hominem fallacy. If I had
said "You're a fuckwit, therefore you believe X" it would have been.
What you are doing is equivocating on the term, 'exist'.
And you keep lying, *****.
Note: there was no qualifier on "non-existence", so that can
include the "objectively real" and the "conceptual".
I'll keep posting that every time you lie.
And anyway, one does not "show that the largest number does not exist,"
Largest PRIME.
Hint: you can't just add 1 to the prime.
Hint: you can't just add 1 to the largest prime.
In
...all the university math classes you attended, you should
have learned that.
Why don't you actually take some higher-level math courses
Been there, done that,
Liar.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 01:58:13 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch"
<snip> <groups list trimmed>
Don, lets not get into a pissing contest as to who can come up with the
cleverest ad hominem. That's not productive. Shall we just try to stay calm
and stick to the issue for a change, sir?
I don't think that it helps the situation for us to agree with Johnny by
stipulating that we can "prove that the largest prime number does not
exist."
That is misleading in a discussion of the question, "Is it even possible to
prove Johnny's God does not exist?"
To avoid being misleading, I would suggest simply pointing out that over
2,300 years ago Euclid proved that the number of primes is infinite
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html and because numbers
are purely conceptual, and do not exist in the same way Johnny's God is
imagined to, this kind or fact concerning numbers has absolutely nothing to
do with the issue of the theist argument that if there were no deity, then
atheists would certainly be able to prove it.
After all, they will argue, even Don Kresh agrees with theists that it is
possible for atheists to prove things do not exist.
See the problem? I can't join you, because if I were to associate myself
with your remarks, then I would feel like I would be giving aid and comfort
to theists like Johnny.
Any question on this point sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 03:07:34 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:58:13 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch"
<snip> <groups list trimmed>
Don, lets not get into a pissing contest as to who can come up with the
cleverest ad hominem.
Fine. As long as you stop lying and start actually reading
those fucking Logic 101 books you like to quote, we'll be copacetic.
I don't think that it helps the situation for us to agree with Johnny by
stipulating that we can "prove that the largest prime number does not
exist."
Why not? There are cases where you can prove a negative, and
prove something doesn't exist. Johnny is saying that atheists deny
that this is possible in toto. Clearly, we must show that Johnny is
lying by pointing out that we do agree that we can do such thing in
certain situations.
That is misleading in a discussion of the question, "Is it even possible to
prove Johnny's God does not exist?"
The salient point at this time was Johnny's libel of atheists.
To avoid being misleading, I would suggest simply pointing out that over
2,300 years ago Euclid proved that the number of primes is infinite
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html and because numbers
are purely conceptual, and do not exist in the same way Johnny's God is
imagined to, this kind or fact concerning numbers has absolutely nothing to
do with the issue of the theist argument that if there were no deity, then
atheists would certainly be able to prove it.
After all, they will argue, even Don Kresh agrees with theists that it is
possible for atheists to prove things do not exist.
See the problem?
No. There is no problem.
Any question on this point sir?
Yes. Why do you feel that there is a problem?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 03:42:17 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:66b6b119ctm5lt7nhsqnivfuv4sonl2nse@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:58:13 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch"
<snip> <groups list trimmed>
Don, lets not get into a pissing contest as to who can come up with the
cleverest ad hominem.
Fine. As long as you stop lying and start actually reading
those fucking Logic 101 books you like to quote, we'll be copacetic.
I don't think that it helps the situation for us to agree with Johnny by
stipulating that we can "prove that the largest prime number does not
exist."
Why not? There are cases where you can prove a negative, and
prove something doesn't exist. Johnny is saying that atheists deny
that this is possible in toto. Clearly, we must show that Johnny is
lying by pointing out that we do agree that we can do such thing in
certain situations.
That is misleading in a discussion of the question, "Is it even possible
to
prove Johnny's God does not exist?"
The salient point at this time was Johnny's libel of atheists.
To avoid being misleading, I would suggest simply pointing out that over
2,300 years ago Euclid proved that the number of primes is infinite
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html and because
numbers
are purely conceptual, and do not exist in the same way Johnny's God is
imagined to, this kind or fact concerning numbers has absolutely nothing
to
do with the issue of the theist argument that if there were no deity, then
atheists would certainly be able to prove it.
After all, they will argue, even Don Kresh agrees with theists that it is
possible for atheists to prove things do not exist.
See the problem?
No. There is no problem.
There is for me. As I said, if I were to associate myself with your remarks,
then I would feel like I would be giving aid and comfort to theists like
Johnny, because you have not made it clear the big difference between Euclid
proving an affirmative proposition, that the number of primes is infinite
and proving the negative, that Johnny's hypothetical invisible God does not
exist.
Any question on this point sir?
Yes. Why do you feel that there is a problem?
Don
As I said, and you snipped, Don:
After all, they will argue, even Don Kresh agrees with theists that it is
possible for atheists to prove things do not exist. I can't join you,
because if I were to associate myself with your remarks, then I would feel
like I would be giving aid and comfort to theists like Johnny.
See, there is a big difference between Euclid proving 2,300 yars ago an
affirmative proposition, that the number of primes is infinite, and proving
the negative, that Johnny's God does not exist.
You know the difference between an affirmative and a negative, don't you,
Don?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 05:59:17 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:42:17 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:66b6b119ctm5lt7nhsqnivfuv4sonl2nse@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:58:13 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch"
<snip> <groups list trimmed>
Don, lets not get into a pissing contest as to who can come up with the
cleverest ad hominem.
Fine. As long as you stop lying and start actually reading
those fucking Logic 101 books you like to quote, we'll be copacetic.
I don't think that it helps the situation for us to agree with Johnny by
stipulating that we can "prove that the largest prime number does not
exist."
Why not? There are cases where you can prove a negative, and
prove something doesn't exist. Johnny is saying that atheists deny
that this is possible in toto. Clearly, we must show that Johnny is
lying by pointing out that we do agree that we can do such thing in
certain situations.
That is misleading in a discussion of the question, "Is it even possible
to
prove Johnny's God does not exist?"
The salient point at this time was Johnny's libel of atheists.
To avoid being misleading, I would suggest simply pointing out that over
2,300 years ago Euclid proved that the number of primes is infinite
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html and because
numbers
are purely conceptual, and do not exist in the same way Johnny's God is
imagined to, this kind or fact concerning numbers has absolutely nothing
to
do with the issue of the theist argument that if there were no deity, then
atheists would certainly be able to prove it.
After all, they will argue, even Don Kresh agrees with theists that it is
possible for atheists to prove things do not exist.
See the problem?
No. There is no problem.
There is for me. As I said, if I were to associate myself with your remarks,
then I would feel like I would be giving aid and comfort to theists like
Johnny,
That's YOUR problem, not mine.
because you have not made it clear the big difference
Yes, I have, liar.
Any question on this point sir?
Yes. Why do you feel that there is a problem?
Don
As I said, and you snipped, Don:
Why do you feel there is a problem?
IOW: your pseudo-explanation wasn't good enough. Try again.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 06:27:54 PM |
|
|
Will you give it a rest? Can we talk like grown men? I'm not going to bite
you, I just want to ask you a couple of questions about how you see things.
First question: 2,300 years ago Euclid proved an affirmative proposition,
right, that the number of primes is infinite
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html ?
Second question: Why would any reasonable person see that as being anything
similar to proving a negative like proving Johnny's invisible God does not
exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 09:40:28 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:27:54 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
Will you give it a rest?
Depends. Will you be honest?
First question: 2,300 years ago Euclid proved an affirmative proposition,
right, that the number of primes is infinite
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html ?
It's a negative proposition: there is no largest prime number.
Second question: Why would any reasonable person see that as being anything
similar to proving a negative like proving Johnny's invisible God does not
exist?
Yes.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jun 2005 01:12:14 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C573F6.94CB07D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message =
news:2b27b1p4117natifcvt9u4u61fet3cjjio@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:27:54 -0700, "Deep Thought"
<dt@algia.org> let us all know that:
=20
Will you give it a rest?=20
=20
Depends. Will you be honest?
=20
=20
First question: 2,300 years ago Euclid proved an affirmative =
proposition,=20
right, that the number of primes is infinite
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html ?
=20
It's a negative proposition: there is no largest prime number.
You are mistaken, Euclid proved an affirmative proposition, "There are =
infinitely many primes." =
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html=20
Theorem.=20
There are infinitely many primes.=20
Proof.=20
Suppose that p1=3D2 < p2 =3D 3 < ... < pr are all of the primes. Let P =
=3D p1p2...pr+1 and let p be a prime dividing P; then p can not be any =
of p1, p2, ..., pr, otherwise p would divide the difference =
P-p1p2...pr=3D1, which is impossible. So this prime p is still another =
prime, and p1, p2, ..., pr would not be all of the primes.=20
This has logically nothing to do with proving the negative of an =
existential proposition like the non-existence of Johnny's hypothetical =
God thingy.
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C573F6.94CB07D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Don Kresch" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote=20
in message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:2b27b1p4117natifcvt9u4u61fet3cjjio@4ax.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:2b27b1p4117natifcvt9u4u61fet3cjjio@4ax.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 =
16:27:54=20
-0700, "Deep Thought"<BR>> <</FONT><A =
href=3D"mailto:dt@algia.org"><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>dt@algia.org</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> let u | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
