| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tom Moore" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2005 08:28:23 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
since we know 1 is not 2,
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
For 1 = 2 read something we know to be wrong.
Outside of Maths, absolute proofs are rare. One can prove that a computer
program that always detects if another is in an eternal loop, is
impossible, but many would say that is not far from Maths.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 08:38:57 PM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com .com> wrote in message
news:Xns969919290A9A2Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
since we know 1 is not 2,
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
For 1 = 2 read something we know to be wrong.
Outside of Maths, absolute proofs are rare. One can prove that a computer
program that always detects if another is in an eternal loop, is
impossible, but many would say that is not far from Maths.
You're getting lost in the mathematics.
You cannot prove that something does not exist - you can only prove the
existence of something.
The onus is upon the Christian to prove the existance of god.
s
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 11:35:29 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:3k5o9sFsqgn5U1@individual.net:
You cannot prove that something does not
exist - you can only prove the existence of something.
The Terminator computer program does not exist, and I can prove it.
The onus is upon the Christian to
prove the existence of god.
Neither true nor relevant.
The onus of proof normally falls on the proponent. If we apply the same to
God, it depends whether we regard the existence, or otherwise, of God, to
be apparent.
Christians tell me they can see God in the wonder of creation, the way the
flowers, and all the rest of it. WTF they're talking about, I don't know,
but does anyone have good reason for concluding that they're lying?
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 12:06:55 AM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969938E1CE3BEYouremail@127.0.0.1...
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:3k5o9sFsqgn5U1@individual.net:
You cannot prove that something does not
exist - you can only prove the existence of something.
The Terminator computer program does not exist, and I can prove it.
The onus is upon the Christian to
prove the existence of god.
Neither true nor relevant.
The onus of proof normally falls on the proponent. If we apply the same
to
God, it depends whether we regard the existence, or otherwise, of God, to
be apparent.
Christians tell me they can see God in the wonder of creation, the way the
flowers, and all the rest of it. WTF they're talking about, I don't know,
but does anyone have good reason for concluding that they're lying?
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
Again, just look at what you're saying. You're saying that the "onus of
proof *normally* falls on the proponent. Okay. But for some reason you
change your position when it comes to God. And why's that? Well, because
it depends on whether or not you regard the existence of God to be
"apparent." Could you explain that in plain English? And why wouldn't the
same criteria for proving the existence of anything else suddenly not
apply to God? Did he reveal a secret or two to you and then told you to
keep it secret from the rest of mankind or something? Face it, you don't
believe in your God because of any tangible evidence that he exists. Be
honest and admit it. Admit that you believe in your God simply because you
*want* to. End of story.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 10:27:43 PM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in
news:11drmvlqmimtl14@corp.supernews.com:
You're saying that the "onus of proof
*normally* falls on the proponent. Okay.
But for some reason you change your
position when it comes to God.
Because many claim the existence of God is Axiomatic. They claim "there
must be something more after life," and so on.
If you say the sky is blue, are you the proponent? The sky is not blue,
but shorter wavelength radio penetrates the atmosphere better, so the sky
appears blue, as blue light has the shorter wavelength.
Don't tell me it's not obvious that the sky is blue, because it is
obvious, and it is wrong as well.
Be honest and admit it. Admit that you believe in
your God simply because you *want* to. End of story.
I don't believe in any kind of god at all. My grasp on my own Atheism is
not so weak, as to need a head start in order to present the better case.
With the vast majority, many more intelligent and better read than I,
they can have the first and the last words, and I'll still thrash them.
A small minority of Theists, no more than 1%, can put up a decent case.
Last one I met was 4½ years ago.
You've been fooled. One reason I helped the Theists, a little, is they
need the help. You don't.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 11:40:20 PM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969A2D64A8030Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in
news:11drmvlqmimtl14@corp.supernews.com:
You're saying that the "onus of proof
*normally* falls on the proponent. Okay.
But for some reason you change your
position when it comes to God.
Because many claim the existence of God is Axiomatic. They claim "there
must be something more after life," and so on.
True. But you know as well as I, that "self-evidence" does not constitute
*real* proof.
If you say the sky is blue, are you the proponent? The sky is not blue,
but shorter wavelength radio penetrates the atmosphere better, so the sky
appears blue, as blue light has the shorter wavelength.
Virtually anyone looking up at the sky would say the sky is "blue." But if
some climactic conditions were to change, that same sky would appear "red"
to the viewer. The color of the sky would depend on the environmental
conditions relating to the sky at that particular time. So what's your
point?
Don't tell me it's not obvious that the sky is blue, because it is
obvious, and it is wrong as well.
And? Is the above supposed to mean something?
Be honest and admit it. Admit that you believe in
your God simply because you *want* to. End of story.
I don't believe in any kind of god at all. My grasp on my own Atheism is
not so weak, as to need a head start in order to present the better case.
Huh?
With the vast majority, many more intelligent and better read than I,
they can have the first and the last words, and I'll still thrash them.
Well let me tell you what cowboy, you sure as hell trashed me!
A small minority of Theists, no more than 1%, can put up a decent case.
Last one I met was 4½ years ago.
You've been fooled. One reason I helped the Theists, a little, is they
need the help. You don't.
Well thanks for the compliment. I appreciate that.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 03:15:00 AM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in
news:11du9ph5qqdl45@corp.supernews.com:
True. But you know as well as I, that
"self-evidence" does not constitute *real* proof.
It is a substantial part of determining which is the proposition, and
therefore where the onus of proof should fall (normally on the
proponent).
Virtually anyone looking up at the sky would say the sky is "blue."
So what's your point?
The sky is not blue. Does the onus of proof fall on me, defending a
negative, or does it fall on proponents of the belief that the sky
is blue?
And? Is the above supposed to mean something?
That sometimes, the onus of proof, does fall fairly on the person
defending a negative, that the sky is not blue, and perhaps that there is
no god. I need to explain how it has come about that the sky is not
blue, even though it obviously is, though all I am proposing is not
having faith in the 'sky is blue' theory.
My grasp on my own Atheism is not so weak, as to
need a head start in order to present the better case.
Huh?
My Atheism does not rest on Theists' inability to prove their case.
Does your Atheism rest on Christianity's inability to come up with
convincing evidence for its claims? Or can you take your case for not
believing biblical claims to Christianity, confident that Christians
will be unable to answer the majority of your points (we all make
mistakes)?
Put it another way, especially as you say you like it, you have no need
to determine for yourself if God exists. You can wait for a Christian to
approach you, and warn that Christian not to waste his or her time,
because you likely know his or her case better than s/he does, and can
deal with it, leaving him or her in serious difficulties with his or her
faith, while reading the Washington Post.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 10:11:52 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3k5o9sFsqgn5U1@individual.net:
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com .com> wrote in message
news:Xns969919290A9A2Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
since we know 1 is not 2,
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
For 1 = 2 read something we know to be wrong.
Outside of Maths, absolute proofs are rare. One can prove that a
computer program that always detects if another is in an eternal loop,
is impossible, but many would say that is not far from Maths.
You're getting lost in the mathematics.
You cannot prove that something does not exist - you can only prove the
existence of something.
The onus is upon the Christian to prove the existance of god.
s
Generally speaking, it is true that one cannot prove a negative. It is
interestng to note that there is at least one proof that god does not
exist. Not the god as commonly defined by most, if not all, christians.
The proof is like this. One cannot know the position and velocity of a
particle. One can know the probability that a given particle is at one
location and travelling at a particlar velocity in a particlar direction,
but one cannot be 100% certain. Not even god can know. God can know the
wave function that describes the possiblities regarding position and
velocity but that is all. So god, as defined by xtians, cannot exist.
Reference? Steven Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time" It is actually
a fairly good book and an easy read.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 11:49:23 PM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns9698E12099D3mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
One cannot know the position and velocity of a particle.
[ . . . ] So god, as defined by xtians, cannot exist.
Thanks.
Is this a reference to God's omniscience? Depends of whether you define
omniscient as all knowing or knowing everything that can be known.
Same with omnipotence. Unless you believe God can, for example, be in two
places at one time, while not being in two places at the same time, you
must accept some limits to God's omnipotence.
Probably a US dictionary, but definitions of the two help the Theisism:
omniscience: having infinite knowledge
omnipotent: having unlimited power
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 02:54:11 AM |
|
|
Tom Moore < email@spam.com > wrote in
news:Xns96993B3D09B62Youremail@127.0.0.1:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns9698E12099D3mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
One cannot know the position and velocity of a particle.
[ . . . ] So god, as defined by xtians, cannot exist.
Thanks.
Is this a reference to God's omniscience? Depends of whether you define
omniscient as all knowing or knowing everything that can be known.
Same with omnipotence. Unless you believe God can, for example, be in
two places at one time, while not being in two places at the same time,
you must accept some limits to God's omnipotence.
Probably a US dictionary, but definitions of the two help the Theisism:
omniscience: having infinite knowledge
omnipotent: having unlimited power
I was taught that god is everywhere, so if that is true then he is
simulataneously and forever occupying every point in the universe. I find
that hard to belive. If he is everywhere, then he certainly could help us
a little. I just want an end to hunger, murder, rape, killing and
torture. Maybe I am expecting too much. Just one of the previous will
do just fine. Peace might be nice. World peace would be really nice.
I was also taught that god knows everything that has happened and will
happen. The uncertainty principle certainly disproves that notion.
I was also taught that we have a free will. The poor retarded slob
doesn't have a will at all. He just does what people tell him to do. The
very existence of the poor slob disproves that.
I was taught that "God is love". If god is love then why does he condemn
souls to an eternity of torture? Buddy, if that is love, I don't want
anything to do with that god.
I was taught that god is perfect. His isn't therefore he cannot exist.
As far as I am concerned the universe was created by some rather bright
high school student. He took some energy, made it go bang, and now he and
his buddies are watching our universe drift off into the sky. After a
minute or two his buddies say "Wow! That was cool! Do it again!" That
certainly is a lot more plausible than "God made light...".
Sorry, god does not exist. Impossible. Besides, everyoe has it wrong.
Let's pretend god does exist. God is not a she. There is no god the
mother. Why? No woman could or would ***** things up this bad. Yes,
George Carlin said it first but it bears repeatng.
Here is another one for you. "Prayer works" *****! Prayer is just a
mechanism to help some people cope with the inevitable or uncontrollable.
Besides, do you think that god would help you with your exam if he won't
help thousands of people from being killed in a tsunami? The whole notion
of prayer is ridiculous. Thousands of people pray every day for small
things like a cure for cancer or to win the lottery. God couldn't care
less if you lived or died and as far as I am concerned he would prefer you
dead. All those prayers 24x7x365 pestering the crap out of him. If it
were me I would wipe out the planet just so I could get a lettle peace and
quiet. All day, every day "Lord grant me wisdom", "Lord save cousin Bill
from cancer" or "Lord, make that cute redhead at the quickie mart like
me". Yup, I would kill everyone.
God has a pretty shitty scorecard too. Lets look at his accomplishments
recently. Death, disease, destruction, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes,
flood, and pyroclastic flows. Nice job god! Why don't you just turn the
heat up and warm things up to say the temperature of the surface of the
sun as long as you are at it.
Here is another one. Current observations say that the universe is
expanding and the expansion is accelerating. What that means is the the
universe is going to be dead and very very cold one day. All of the stars
will go out, the distances between objets will be so far apart even if a
star was emitting heat and light, there would be no nearby planet to make
use of it. The future of the universe? It doesn't have one. Nice dead
end universe you made there god. WTF were you thinking? Were you just
practicing or was this universe just part of some pyrotechic show?
God doesn't exist. It is quite impossible. No way, never was, never will
be.
If he does exist, we are just as useful to him as the cloud of smoke that
one sees when a bottle rocket goes pop or in other words, not at all.
In short if god exists he hates us and is ignoring us. So why bother. If
he is ignoring us now, why do you think he will pay attention to us in the
future. No, god is overrated and a fallacy.
rj
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 12:50:54 AM |
|
|
In article <3k5o9sFsqgn5U1@individual.net>,
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com .com> wrote in message
news:Xns969919290A9A2Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
since we know 1 is not 2,
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
For 1 = 2 read something we know to be wrong.
Outside of Maths, absolute proofs are rare. One can prove that a computer
program that always detects if another is in an eternal loop, is
impossible, but many would say that is not far from Maths.
You're getting lost in the mathematics.
You cannot prove that something does not exist - you can only prove the
existence of something.
Euclid proved that no largest prime can exist.
One can prove the non-existence of certain definitions of gods on the
basis of their being self-contradictory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 03:23:32 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AB212A.23505419072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <3k5o9sFsqgn5U1@individual.net>,
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot prove that something does not exist - you can only prove
the
existence of something.
Euclid proved that no largest prime can exist.
That's not true; Euclid proved that the set of prime numbers is
infinite. You cannot prove that something does not exist (or cannot
exist) - you can only prove the existence of something. Proof is the
cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the process
of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other
statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
See www.m-w.com
proof
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve,
from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a
truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the
validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements
in accordance with principles of reasoning
Here is Euclid's proof of the existence of an infinite set, the prime
numbers:
Suppose that p1=2 < p2 = 3 < ... < pr are all of the primes. Let P =
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=1,
which is
impossible. So this prime p is still another prime, and p1, p2, ..., pr
would not be all of the primes.
One can prove the non-existence of certain definitions of gods on the
basis of their being self-contradictory.
That does not "prove non-existence," moron, it proves that it is
reasonable to say that the idea of such a thing is summarily rejected as
absurd due to the inherent logical contradiction it entails, a Russell
explains in "Why I Am Not A Christian"
The theist idea of God®, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for God®)
so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as
Bertrand Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 12:36:02 AM |
|
|
In article <MoadnRUQKMeyKUPfRVn-2w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AB212A.23505419072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <3k5o9sFsqgn5U1@individual.net>,
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot prove that something does not exist - you can only prove
the
existence of something.
Euclid proved that no largest prime can exist.
That's not true;
Then does Simple Septic claim that there can be a largest prime?
One can prove the non-existence of certain definitions of gods on the
basis of their being self-contradictory.
That does not "prove non-existence
So a proof of non-existence cannot be a proof of non-existence because
Simple Septic decalres that it is impossible?
But if such non-existence cannot be proved, how does Simple Septic prove
non-existence of such proofs?
Here is Simple Septic's problem: Simple Septic claims that one cannot
prove that something does not exist, so how can he prove that such
proofs cannot exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 03:21:19 AM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-D5B35B.23360220072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
Here is Simple Septic's problem: Simple Septic claims that
one cannot prove that something does not exist, so how can
he prove that such proofs cannot exist.
Wish I'd thought of that. It's an excellent point.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
22 Jul 2005 12:13:33 AM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AB212A.23505419072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <3k5o9sFsqgn5U1@individual.net>,
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot prove that something does not exist - you can only prove
the
existence of something.
Euclid proved that no largest prime can exist.
That's not true; Euclid proved that the set of prime numbers is
infinite.
Ummm... Same thing.
If the set of prime numbers is infinite, then any given prime number
will be smaller than some other prime number. If any given prime number
cannot be the largest, then NO prime number can be the largest.
And I hate to play devil's advocate and all, but if you cannot disprove
any given oxymoron, then you might as well donate yer brain to science,
cuz you don't use it anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 11:45:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:28:23 GMT, "Tom Moore" <email@spam.com .com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
since we know 1 is not 2,
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
For 1 = 2 read something we know to be wrong.
Outside of Maths, absolute proofs are rare. One can prove that a computer
program that always detects if another is in an eternal loop, is
impossible, but many would say that is not far from Maths.
Kurt Goedel showed that even the simplest mathematical "proofs" are no
such thing.
They must all rely on one or more "axioms", which are taken to be
self-evidently true.
In other words, taken as "faith".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 08:05:08 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in
news:hmlrd1hlasjjfs8a2ifvjli53bsch5f1rr@4ax.com:
Kurt Goedel showed that even the simplest
mathematical "proofs" are no such thing.
They must all rely on one or more "axioms",
which are taken to be self-evidently true.
It's true that they all rest upon unproven assumptions, called Axioms.
In other words, taken as "faith".
It's not faith, so much as language. 1 + 1 = 2 is not so much a
Mathematical result, as the definition of two. One can be defined, and so
can zero: it's what Margaret Thatcher had in common with St Francis of
Assisi.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 08:10:27 AM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2005 13:05:08 GMT in alt.atheism, Tom Moore (Tom Moore
<email@spam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in
news:hmlrd1hlasjjfs8a2ifvjli53bsch5f1rr@4ax.com:
Kurt Goedel showed that even the simplest
mathematical "proofs" are no such thing.
They must all rely on one or more "axioms",
which are taken to be self-evidently true.
It's true that they all rest upon unproven assumptions, called Axioms.
In other words, taken as "faith".
It's not faith, so much as language. 1 + 1 = 2 is not so much a
Mathematical result, as the definition of two. One can be defined, and so
can zero: it's what Margaret Thatcher had in common with St Francis of
Assisi.
Ouch.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 08:16:57 AM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2005 13:05:08 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
1 + 1 = 2 is not so much a
Mathematical result, as the definition of two.
Which can also be "defined" <snort> as 4 -2, 5-3, 3-1, 1.5 + .5, 0+2,
11-9, 6÷3, 10÷5, 258÷129, etc.
If it makes you feel better, replace "can also be defined <snort> as"
with
"is the mathematical result of the following."
<eye roll>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 08:26:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:16:57 -0700 in alt.atheism, maf 1029 (maf 1029
<guesswho@yahoo.nopsamnet>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On 21 Jul 2005 13:05:08 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
1 + 1 = 2 is not so much a
Mathematical result, as the definition of two.
Which can also be "defined" <snort> as 4 -2, 5-3, 3-1, 1.5 + .5, 0+2,
11-9, 6÷3, 10÷5, 258÷129, etc.
If it makes you feel better, replace "can also be defined <snort> as"
with "is the mathematical result of the following."
<eye roll>
Hummm....
I think the point Abbot, ah, about, Godel is that he showed that there
are some statements which cannot to be shown true or false in the
context of the axiomatic system one made those statements under.
I don't even halfway understand the implications of this.
But if I ever do
B E W A R E
ahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
Now excuse me while I find my white cat who just lost her diamond
collar. I would have taken over the world long ago were it not for the
cost of replacing these things....
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 01:08:12 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:28:23 GMT, "Tom Moore" <email@spam.com .com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
since we know 1 is not 2,
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
For 1 = 2 read something we know to be wrong.
Outside of Maths, absolute proofs are rare. One can prove that a computer
program that always detects if another is in an eternal loop, is
impossible, but many would say that is not far from Maths.
Kurt Goedel showed that even the simplest mathematical "proofs" are no
such thing.
Incorrect.
Dont go throwing Godels name about if you have no idea what he proved.
It makes you look a fool.
They must all rely on one or more "axioms", which are taken to be
self-evidently true.
Yes - but that isnt anything to do with Godel and doesnt say anything
about the validity of Proof.
In other words, taken as "faith".
That isnt what "faith" means either.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 04:15:26 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2005 23:08:12 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:28:23 GMT, "Tom Moore" <email@spam.com .com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
since we know 1 is not 2,
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
For 1 = 2 read something we know to be wrong.
Outside of Maths, absolute proofs are rare. One can prove that a computer
program that always detects if another is in an eternal loop, is
impossible, but many would say that is not far from Maths.
Kurt Goedel showed that even the simplest mathematical "proofs" are no
such thing.
Incorrect.
Dont go throwing Godels name about if you have no idea what he proved.
It makes you look a fool.
Wikipedia:
"Gödel's completeness theorem is a fundamental theorem in mathematical
logic proved by Kurt Gödel in 1929. It states, in its most familiar
form, that in first-order predicate calculus every universally valid
formula can be proved.
The word "proved" above means, in effect: proved by a method whose
validity can be checked algorithmically, for example, by a computer
(although no such machines existed in 1929).
A logical formula is called universally valid if it is true in every
possible domain and with every possible interpretation, inside that
domain, of non-constant symbols used in the formula. To say that it
can be proved means that there exists a formal proof of that formula
which USES ONLY THE LOGICAL AXIOMS and rules of inference adopted in
some particular formalisation of first-order predicate calculus.
The theorem can be seen as a justification of the logical axioms and
inference rules of first-order logic. The rules are "complete" in the
sense that they are strong enough to prove every universally valid
statement. A converse to completeness is the soundness theorem, i.e.,
the fact that only universally valid statements can be proven in
first-order logic. (In fact, the axioms of first-order logic are
chosen in such a way that SOUNDNESS IS MORE OR LESS OBVIOUS.)"
This clearly states that even complete proofs rely on basic axioms.
Q.E.D.
And:
"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is perhaps the most celebrated
result in mathematical logic. It basically says that
For any formal theory in which basic arithmetical facts are provable,
it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement which, if the
theory is consistent, is true but not provable or refutable in the
theory."
They must all rely on one or more "axioms", which are taken to be
self-evidently true.
Yes - but that isnt anything to do with Godel and doesnt say anything
about the validity of Proof.
It quite clearly has, and does.
In other words, taken as "faith".
That isnt what "faith" means either.
Perhaps not strictly.
But it effectively get the jist across, I feel.
What abstract noun would you use to describe something that is chosen
in such a way as to be "more or less obvious", and is not provable, by
defintion?
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 01:46:13 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
<snip>
Oh boy!
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel.html
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 04:29:14 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 23:46:13 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
<snip>
Oh boy!
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel.html
Mark.
You do not do your educational institution any favours by your
offensive and thoroughly abrasive approach to 'educating' other
posters.
You appear to be fully qualified in Sarcasm, but I wonder what your
qualifications in Math are?
The link provided does not outline where I have erred, as have you not
done yourself.
In fact, it does nothing to address the details of my previous post.
I provided full texts of my assertion, whereas you have given nothing
but rudeness and scorn.
Are you posting to educate, and supply knowledge, or merely as a form
of twisted personal sport?
You clearly represent the University of Tasmania, and act as an agent
of same, posting using an academic address belonging to them.
Show me the true spirit of an Educational Institution, and help me to
understand where I have gone wrong, in a civil manner.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 03:08:42 AM |
|
|
Tom Moore wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2kdDe.8101$TU.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Go back to school and take Logic !)!.
You can't logically PROVE a negative.
Others can. Many can prove the square root of 2 is not rational.
These proofs are of the form:
Allow me.
If X = true,
then 1 = 2,
1=2 does not follow just because x is true.
since we know 1 is not 2,
I would hope so.
we know the assumption is false,
so X = false.
Sorry, that's not going to work. We have to go back to:
If X = true
then 1 = 2
You've shown nothing to prove that if X is true then 1 = 2.
Therefore the rest of what you have to say is *****. Try again.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 07:10:41 AM |
|
|
nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:dbl0k3$vml$1@news.xmission.com:
Sorry, that's not going to work. We have to go back to:
If X = true
then 1 = 2
You've shown nothing to prove that if X is true then 1 = 2.
Therefore the rest of what you have
to say is *****. Try again.
It was an example of a negative proof, not itself a negative proof.
If X = {½ = 1} is true,
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore X and {½ = 1} is false.
Yes? If I call you a pedant, will you sue me for definition of character?
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 07:50:56 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 12:10:41 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:dbl0k3$vml$1@news.xmission.com:
Sorry, that's not going to work. We have to go back to:
If X = true
then 1 = 2
You've shown nothing to prove that if X is true then 1 = 2.
Therefore the rest of what you have
to say is *****. Try again.
It was an example of a negative proof, not itself a negative proof.
If X = {½ = 1} is true,
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore X and {½ = 1} is false.
Yes?
Uhm not a mathematimacal scholar here, but you forgot to show where
X=2 so that you could do that little sleight of hand/Sunday school
math.
Now, here's how it should go, IIRC:
X = 1 (axiom).
No, wait, it was your game to use the axiom as a conclusion from your
circular reasoning........
Ok,so we're going to abandon your scene, because my doctor told me to
cut down on cognitive dissonance before breakfast.
x = 4 - 3x (assertion)
x + 3x = 4
4x = 4
x = 1 (conclusion).
The conclusion is not the proof of a negative, rather the proof of an
assertion.
As a corollary, one might say that X != 2 because 2 is not one, IF you
skip the proof that 2 is not 1 and just accept it as an axiom.
Personally, I like to go with the "I have no oranges in my fridge"
analogy.
It goes like this:
I'm sitting on my couch. I get a jones for an orange. Then I remember,
"I have no oranges in my fridge." Or do I? Being the optimist that I
am, I dash to the fridge. I open the fridge.
Now, at this point, one might gloss over things and say that I simply
looked and saw no oranges. But that's not how it works in reality.
My eyes transmit information to my brain, and that information is
<drum roll> what I do have on hand -- milk, bread, soy sauce, Diet
Pepsi, cheese, eggs, potatoes, lettuce, carrots, strawberry jam, maple
syrup, and butter.
The conclusion is that I have the aforementioned items on hand.
As a corollary to the actual conclusion, I know I have no oranges.
I lack oranges, which makes me (temporarily) an a-orangist. (Note
atheist humor.)
So, it is perhaps somewhat inaccurate to say that a negative can not
be proved. Rather, a negative is neither a functional assertion nor
the direct conclusion of an assertion.
As far as atheism goes, atheism is the lack of belief in god(s), which
is a positive assertion. And that assertion of lack of belief is the
sole requirement.
That god(s) doesn't/don't exist is another matter entirely, involving
the orange analogy again (oranges = gods) and the fridge would be the
universe.
Of course, there are people who maintain that there are god(s),through
oblique assertions of "God said this," "God did it," "Jesus is my
co-pilot," but they usually forget to bring along their proof of this
assertion, instead demanding (quite mindlessly, of course) that the
person who is taking the neutral position (atheism) should do their
proof for them. Now,you and I know that's stupid, but there's a lot of
folks out there who imagine it so. <insert canned laughter here>
HTH --
maf and dog, aa #1954
EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist, Respectively
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 04:57:12 PM |
|
|
maf 1029 <guesswho@yahoo.nopsamnet> wrote in
news:lufsd1l270gcerjlb0l7520p012r7nqgmh@4ax.com:
If X = {½ = 1} is true,
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore X and {½ = 1} is false.
Uhm not a mathematimacal scholar here, but you forgot
to show where X=2 so that you could do that little
sleight of hand/Sunday school math.
X is a logical operator - X can only hold one of two values: true or
false.
You pushed me along those lines by saying I should make my proof more
precise. That original proof started "if X = true," so I could hardly
change the nature of X.
Try this:
If {½ = 1}, (shorthand for "if {½ = 1} is true")
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore {½ = 1} is false.
No, wait, it was your game to use the axiom
as a conclusion from your circular reasoning........
Not circular, but a very simple proof of a negative, that ½ is not 1.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 10:25:29 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 21:57:12 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
maf 1029 <guesswho@yahoo.nopsamnet> wrote in
news:lufsd1l270gcerjlb0l7520p012r7nqgmh@4ax.com:
If X = {½ = 1} is true,
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore X and {½ = 1} is false.
Uhm not a mathematimacal scholar here, but you forgot
to show where X=2 so that you could do that little
sleight of hand/Sunday school math.
X is a logical operator - X can only hold one of two values: true or
false.
You pushed me along those lines by saying I should make my proof more
precise. That original proof started "if X = true," so I could hardly
change the nature of X.
Try this:
If {½ = 1}, (shorthand for "if {½ = 1} is true")
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore {½ = 1} is false.
You forgot to prove that 1 != 2.
No, wait, it was your game to use the axiom
as a conclusion from your circular reasoning........
Not circular,
.... then stop the Linda Blair aerobics. <g>
but a very simple proof of a negative, that ½ is not 1.
And you still forgot to prove that 1 != 2.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 10:27:32 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 21:57:12 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
Oh, and you also forgot to notice that, as I pointed out in the
section which you dishonestly snipped out, you have only proved a
positive assertion (that X equals whosists, which is positive). The
rest of your conclusion is indirect -- a corollary.
maf 1029 <guesswho@yahoo.nopsamnet> wrote in
news:lufsd1l270gcerjlb0l7520p012r7nqgmh@4ax.com:
If X = {½ = 1} is true,
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore X and {½ = 1} is false.
Uhm not a mathematimacal scholar here, but you forgot
to show where X=2 so that you could do that little
sleight of hand/Sunday school math.
X is a logical operator - X can only hold one of two values: true or
false.
You pushed me along those lines by saying I should make my proof more
precise. That original proof started "if X = true," so I could hardly
change the nature of X.
Try this:
If {½ = 1}, (shorthand for "if {½ = 1} is true")
then 1 = 2;
but 1 is not 2;
therefore {½ = 1} is false.
No, wait, it was your game to use the axiom
as a conclusion from your circular reasoning........
Not circular, but a very simple proof of a negative, that ½ is not 1.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
