Post Reply
Page 40 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
2 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 11:48PM #391
CaliberCadillac
Posts: 2,625

Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:53AM, amcolph wrote:


Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:37AM, Jiwe wrote:


The number two is not an abstraction. It's a number. Reference to it is semantically but not ontologically dependent on whatever particular example of twoness one may choose. Your steadfast confusion on this point is a reflection of your level of education. Not of the faults of mathematical realism.



I will happily plead guilty to that--if someone will explain to me in clear terms what mathematical Realism is, instead of what it is not.  I have not been much exposed to Realism nor in any way that makes it seem to be either sensible or necessary.  That could well  be a fault of my education.




No problem! Mathematical Realism is the very real “F” you got on your report card because you never were very good at factoring polynomials and you kept forgetting to rationalize your denominators.  And I agree, it is the fault of your education and more specifically--your math professor!


Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:53AM, amcolph wrote:


We may certainly agree that there is an objective reality external to the self.  My opinion is that it is not directly knowable.  Your opinion appears to be that it is directly knowable and that it is mathematics.




To say objective reality is not directly knowable is to make a knowledgeable statement about the very thing you just said was unknowable!


Now, how many rabbits do you see?


 

"Sometimes you gotta step into the ring and throw a few punches for what you believe in."

--Ernest Hemingway--
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2011 - 9:54AM #392
amcolph
Posts: 16,280

Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:48PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


 


No problem! Mathematical Realism is the very real “F” you got on your report card because you never were very good at factoring polynomials and you kept forgetting to rationalize your denominators.  And I agree, it is the fault of your education and more specifically--your math professor!



LOL!  If you want to argue in that fashion, then Mathematical Realism is the very real Bachelor's degree in math I got with relatively decent grades.



To say objective reality is not directly knowable is to make a knowledgeable statement about the very thing you just said was unknowable!


Now, how many rabbits do you see?


 




You are very humorous this morning, Caliber.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2011 - 1:20PM #393
CaliberCadillac
Posts: 2,625

Dec 15, 2011 -- 9:54AM, amcolph wrote:


Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:48PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


 


No problem! Mathematical Realism is the very real “F” you got on your report card because you never were very good at factoring polynomials and you kept forgetting to rationalize your denominators.  And I agree, it is the fault of your education and more specifically--your math professor!



LOL!  If you want to argue in that fashion, then Mathematical Realism is the very real Bachelor's degree in math I got with relatively decent grades.



To say objective reality is not directly knowable is to make a knowledgeable statement about the very thing you just said was unknowable!


Now, how many rabbits do you see?


 




You are very humorous this morning, Caliber.




Thanks Amcolph,


Glad to know you have a sense of humor :)


After all, 'tis the season to be jolly.


Cal

"Sometimes you gotta step into the ring and throw a few punches for what you believe in."

--Ernest Hemingway--
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2011 - 8:55PM #394
TransJ
Posts: 732

Hi LilWabbit,


A Logical Proof of the Existence of God, By William S. Hathcer.


(page 39) D.0 A phenomenon B is without a cause if, for no A, does A->B hold.


(page 40) P.1 (POSR) Every phenomenon B is either caused or uncaused (and never both).


(page 41) P.1 implies that no phenomenon B can exist without a cause, be that cause either wholly within B or (partly or wholly) outside of B. In other words, the situation described by D.0 cannot occur. Either D.1 or D.2 must occur, for any given phenomenon B.


Correct me if I am wrong here but A is a non-entity in relationship to B as D.0.  Conditions is a non-entity which can allow but not necessarly cause B. Every phenomenon B is either caused or uncaused (if conditions allow). In other words, the situation described by D.0 must occur. For either D.1 or D.2 to occur or for a given phenomenon B.


Kind regards


TransJ.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 12:35AM #395
MAXTECH
Posts: 106

First of all, it is said that..."All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer. Thus if proof of the existence of God is presented, a significant time period must pass before such a presentation is finally accepted as truth, via stage 3.


For instance. What if you had cracked the True Bible Code language? Well tough luck for you. Tough luck for you because some time ago a False Bible Code format, or code language, was tossed out the window after being rejected via a statistical analysis of its validity. This was immediately followed by the presentation of the overall conclusion that "Bible Codes" were just a farce, just coincidental, just plain bogus, instead of the presentation of the fact that it was just ONE specific code language alone had been identified as being a false code format.


Meanwhile, a sane mind says that NOT ALL POSSIBLE BIBLE CODE LANGUAGES are being identified here as false Bible codes, since it obvious to a sane mind that ONE, is less than, the ALL.


Thus by examining just one possible Bible Code Language, which turned out to be a false code language, it was said by the statistical analysis experts that "False Bible Codes" can and do exist, but "True Bible Codes" can not and do not exist. In turn what they have said is no different than saying that down can exist, but up simply can not exist.


Getting back to the True Bible Codes?, ...


if via code you asked the Bible who is THE FATHER, and the answer was GOD, would that be just a coincidence?


if via code you asked the Bible who is THE LORD, and the answer was CHRIST, would that be just a coincidence?


if via code you asked the Bible who is THE FATHER, THE SON, and THE HOLY SPIRIT, and the answer was both GOD and CHRIST, would that be just a coincidence?


if via code you asked the Bible what is THE MARK OF GOD, and the answer was both GOD and CHRIST, would that be just a coincidence?


if via code you asked the Bible what is THE MARK OF JESUS CHRIST AND GOD, and the answer was CHRIST, would that be just a coincidence?


if via code you asked the Bible what is THE MARK OF PROPHET JESUS CHRIST, and the answer was the CHRIST, would that be just a coincidence?


if via code you asked the Bible what is THE MARK OF GOD AND PROPHET CHRIST, and the answer was JESUS CHRIST, would that be just a coincidence?


if via code you asked the Bible what is THE MARK OF GOD AND JESUS CHRIST, and the answer was the ONE JESUS CHRIST, would that be just a coincidence?


SEE www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.ht...


Possibly a hundred years will pass before the True Bible Codes will be seen as self evident truths.












Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 1:46AM #396
Blü
Posts: 23,981

Maxtech


if proof of the existence of God is presented


No such thing, so far.  No one has given a satisfactory demonstration of a supernatural being with objective existence.


What if you had cracked the True Bible Code language?


The languages of the bible are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. No cypher has ever been credibly shown to exist in the text.


if via code you asked the Bible who is THE FATHER, and the answer was GOD, would that be just a coincidence?


What if the secret to the Bible Code is, wherever you find "God", you should read "Donald Duck"?

Please show me how you'd prove that's not the True Code.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 4:42AM #397
MAXTECH
Posts: 106

What can I say....sometimes the post falls in idaho.


You are speaking of the past.


You see not the present.


You change the subject.


The "You" unfortunately is the majority of the people of today.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 5:44AM #398
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

No one on this thread has given a satisfactory counter-argument to Hatcher's proof. A resident atheist Jiwe, a logician like Hatcher, agrees. He too may not find Hatcher's proof "satisfying", but we're not here to talk about our feelings. He agrees that Hatcher's logic is sound.


If something objectively exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). Since it is logically impossible that a composite entity be self-caused (principle of limitation), something non-composite within it must be self-caused while being the cause of all the non-self-caused components of that composite entity. In other words, if we can accept the above 'ifs', then there must be G (or alternatively a committee of g's) that is the cause of all existence while remaining itself self-caused. Atheism is simply not on the plate.


If we do not accept one or several of the above ifs, we must offer a logical alternative to the 'if' in question which is more plausible. So far I haven't heard of any.


(And please no more ignorant appeals to radioactive decay or virtual particles since quantum vacuum, according to experimental physics, is everything but absolute nothingness. Virtual particles pop out of vacuum energy by borrowing that energy. They do not pop out of absolute non-existence. Neither is radioactive decay uncaused. It is stochastic, meaning unpredictable. Unpredictable does not mean uncaused.)


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 10:14AM #399
Blü
Posts: 23,981

Lilwabbit


No one on this thread has given a satisfactory counter-argument to Hatcher's proof.


Don't be silly.


The thread collapsed because the heat on you increased and you left the kitchen without answering what was then quite a string of questions.


You may wish now to assert that your departure forestalled an imminent counter-argument, but that will not be true.  You left because you saw it coming.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 10:40AM #400
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Blü,


Once more you failed to offer a substantive and logically precise counter-argument. We have seen it before on this thread.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 40 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook