|
1 registered members (1 invisible),
672
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: ICEman]
#66705
03/15/06 18:26
03/15/06 18:26
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
AndersA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
I think what he is saying is that, assuming that God(s) exist as the given for this discussion (which means that you will have a hard time stomaching this discussion and an even harder time contributing if you dont believe in one at all)
You may be right and you probably are, but in that case it's strange that he wants this discussion to from the point of view of science and/or logic.
I have given him a perfectly reasonable logic answer and natural science is simply not about religion of any kind so I really don't see why he isn't happy with my answer  
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: AndersA]
#66706
03/15/06 18:58
03/15/06 18:58
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
It's not that I'm unhappy with your answer; its just that it's not an answer at all!!  Quote:
Your "proof" is based on god being an object, but that is a way to strong conclusion to draw from the axiom "god exists".
I don't know what you are driving at, but I have offered no "proof", merely an axiomatic beginning for people to start their proofs.
Furthermore, if something exists, then yes, it is an object. It is exactly this foundation that I want people to build upon "Assume god exists and thus is an object; can you prove that only one god-object exists?"
Quote:
A reasonable interpretation of your axiom is that there is a predicate R(x) = "x has the property good" and that there exists at least one x for which R(x)
Reasonable only to you. I have made no moral statements in this thread. Therefore, whether x= good or evil is irrelevant.
Unless this is a syntax error and you meant "x has the property god"…
Quote:
(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y
This is nonsense; worse, nonsense wrapped in logical symbols. Assuming that R(x) is the property of "good" and R(y) is the property of another "good" (assuming no syntax error and that you mean that different gods do different goods), then how do you propose that the boolean AND combination leads to both goods being the same (x=y) and what does this have to do with god.
Assuming a syntax error, then it’s the same: how does a Boolean AND lead to x=y? You are doing the same thing you did in your first proof and offering no concrete evidence that x=y.
Tell you what, how about we stick to my original post and rely on scientific proof based on that axiom from now on, shall we?
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: jcl]
#66707
03/15/06 19:01
03/15/06 19:01
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
although I would suppose that the definition of omnipotence excludes the possibility that more than one God exists.
If each god is only omnipotent within their own realm, this would not be so.
Consider if you will Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics... each is inviolate in their respective realms (low v: newton; high v: relativity) but irrelevant in the other realm (newton doesn't apply at v~c and relativity doesn't apply at V<<c)
Quote:
It's a very weak argument, but I think the inability to create with concensus on the design rules out multiple creators..and had the reached a concensus, it wouldve been redundant to use multiple Gods with the same level of power to make the agreed upon design.
Again, one could envision a "team" of gods, each responsible for their own realm and nothing more. Polytheistic religions do this all the time ascribing one god to one effect (lightning rain earth moon, etc)
Quote:
It's entirely possible that there is only half a God
now that's just messed up! 
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66708
03/15/06 20:56
03/15/06 20:56
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
relativity doesn't apply at V<<c
It doesn't ? I was thinking about Lorentz-Transformations where your term approaches 0 when v<<c. But nevertheless special relativity would still apply, only it would be hard to measure.
Quote:
It's a very weak argument, but I think the inability to create with concensus on the design rules out multiple creators..and had the reached a concensus, it wouldve been redundant to use multiple Gods with the same level of power to make the agreed upon design.
I think airplanes are very well designed given dozens if not hundreds of designers involved in the process. You are saying that a consensus would make other gods redundant- true, but that does not make them less likely.
@fastlane: for this to make any sense whatsoever, could you please give your complete definition of "god" ?
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66710
03/15/06 22:51
03/15/06 22:51
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
AndersA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
It's not that I'm unhappy with your answer; its just that it's not an answer at all!!
It is an answer, but obviously you don't appreciate it.
Quote:
Quote:
(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y)
This is nonsense; worse, nonsense wrapped in logical symbols.
It makes perfectly sense if you understand logic. (x)(y) stands for "for all x and for all y".
Quote:
Assuming a syntax error, then it’s the same: how does a Boolean AND lead to x=y? You are doing the same thing you did in your first proof and offering no concrete evidence that x=y.
Of course I don't. As I have told you, this is my axiom. From my axiom together with yours, it is simple to prove that there is one and only one god. As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory. Why is that?
Quote:
Tell you what, how about we stick to my original post and rely on scientific proof based on that axiom from now on, shall we?
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science doesn't do proofs; logic and math do proofs, but in order to have something meaningful to prove you need more than your "god exists" axiom. You may like it or not, but this is the case anyway.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66711
03/15/06 23:00
03/15/06 23:00
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
AndersA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
Consider if you will Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics... each is inviolate in their respective realms (low v: newton; high v: relativity) but irrelevant in the other realm (newton doesn't apply at v~c and relativity doesn't apply at V<<c)
This is not true. Classical physics is indeed less accurate the higher the v, but relativity is always more accurate than classical physics no matter what v you've got.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#66712
03/15/06 23:32
03/15/06 23:32
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
It doesn't ? I was thinking about Lorentz-Transformations where your term approaches 0 when v<<c. But nevertheless special relativity would still apply, only it would be hard to measure.
Consider the limit to this statement... relativity doesn't apply to an object at REST with it's environment yet Newtonian Physics does. An object at rest with it's environment would experience neither time dialation nor length contraction, the hallmarks of relativity.
Quote:
fastlane: for this to make any sense whatsoever, could you please give your complete definition of "god" ?
Jeesh, no tall order there.
Let's take a minimialist approach: God is a being more powerful than any human that cannot be seen by conventional means (ie EM radiation) and has a lifetime on the order of the lifetime of the universe.
Can we work with that?
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: AndersA]
#66713
03/15/06 23:43
03/15/06 23:43
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory. Why is that?
Because if you read my original thread, I'm asking for scientific style proofs, not meta-physical logical proofs.
Quote:
From my axiom together with yours, it is simple to prove that there is one and only one god.
I still don't see how this is anything but circular logic: starting with the premise that there is only one god, I can prove that there is only one god. Let's expand your axiom
(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y)
For all x and y, where x is " the property of being god" and y is "the property of being another god". We then create the Predicates R(x) and R(y) such that this is true in at least one case and now, combining both properties R(x) and R(y) with a boolean AND, we show that x=y.
How is this anything but circular logic? I'm asking seriously; my last logic course was ages ago.
Quote:
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science doesn't do proofs; logic and math do proofs
ROFL. You're a mathematician, aren't you?
We have a "different" way of proving things than philosophers and mathematicians: it's called the scientific method. And it has successfully "proven" many things.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66714
03/16/06 00:42
03/16/06 00:42
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
Like I said, I really can't come up with a good argument to refute the possiblity of multiple gods. I think I've actually been stumped :/.
My only possible argument is that.. creative differences might've stifled the universe's creation as a normal, logical universe.. just like they do when we develop games.. but then it's not impossible for agreements to be reached as to how the game should be.. so I suppose the same is true of any creative team project including our universe.
I don't believe in "Gods"...that is I don't think that anything which violates the physical universe can exist.. I don't believe in magic, or magical things.. but I do believe someone or several someones are responsible for creating the universe that is.
I guess there really is no concrete way to be sure.. this does sort of get me to thinking.. ponderance wise.. (I dont really depend on a God to live my life or to feed me what is right and wrong to do..but it IS interesting food for thought.)
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
|
