I hold a 50% conviction that it is true. That is not the same as a belief. — Devans99

Yes it is. You believe it to be 50% true, you have no foundation for those numbers in anything but your own opinion and belief. How you mix together your belief with probability math and deduce it to not be belief is self-delusional.

Read that sentence again. You only believe completely in logic? With probability attached but the some of the maths are not part of logic and probability so you don't believe completely in some of the rest of the math? — Christoffer

Some of the axioms of math I do not believe, so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. Why is that strange?

Some of the axioms of math I do not believe, so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. Why is that strange? — Devans99

"Some of the axioms of math I do not believe"
"so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. "

Why is that strange?

I think it's self-explanatory.

I think it's self-explanatory. — Christoffer

It is not, please explain.

I agree that his wording wasn't great, but I don't think he meant to tie himself up in logical problems. One could probably get more sense out of it and avoid those problems with a charitable interpretation.

Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you. — Frank Apisa

And you ignore the rest because of the semantics, not the linguistic pragmatics of it. Daniel Cox didn't have a problem understanding what I wrote, why would you?

It is not, please explain. — Devans99

You believe some parts of math and therefore you classify some parts as not belief. What parts are beliefs whatsoever in math? You essentially choose parts of math that conclude your logic to be true because you deem other parts of math to be beliefs and therefore ignore actual math logic in favor of your own personal math logic.

Which math is a belief and which is not a belief?

Which math is a belief and which is not a belief? — Christoffer

Sounds funny, doesn't it? Like asking which religion is a fruit and which religion is not a fruit.

You essentially choose parts of math that conclude your logic to be true because you deem other parts of math to be beliefs and therefore ignore actual math logic in favor of your own personal math logic. — Christoffer

Hardly, there is logic behind it, I look at the axioms and say 'do I think that axiom applies to real life?' - if yes then the parts of maths depending upon that axiom become part of my belief set.

An excert from a paper I'm working on:

Vapourware: The Axiom Of Infinity

The treatment of actual infinity in mathematics is purely axiomatic. Actual infinity (hereon after referred to just as infinity) is merely declared to exist; it is not proved that infinity exists.

The axiom of infinity merely asserts the existence of an infinite set I.

Traditionally, axioms are chosen because they are inductively very likely to be true. We have strong reasons for believing in our axioms. The problem with axiomatically defining infinity to exist is that it is not clear that infinity exists:

- We have no examples from nature of infinity
- Constructing anything infinity large is impossible; not enough time
- Constructing something infinity small is impossible; one would never finish chopping
- Infinity is clearly not a number. If it were, it would be a number X greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X

Bearing in mind the above doubts, is the assumption of the existence of infinity a good axiom? A house rests upon its foundations. Set theory rests upon the decidedly shaky foundation of the axiom of infinity.


A Polymorphic Discord In Set Theory

The definition of a set is polymorphic:

- A finite set may be specified as a list of items
- A infinite set maybe specified by selection criteria such as ‘all real numbers’

However, this is not a valid polymorphism. An infinite set is not a-kind-of finite set and vice-versa. The two object types have very different properties:

- An infinite set clearly does not have a cardinality property. Cardinality or size implies the ability to measure something. Infinity is by definition unmeasurable so it has no size.

- A finite set has a completely defined list of members. An infinite set does not.

These are very different types of objects; to try to treat them the same is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. An infinite set is just a partial description of a set - it is the selection criteria for the set: ‘all natural numbers’ does not completely define a set, it just describes what type of objects go in the set. Contrast that to a finite set, which is fully described and defined.

It is never possible to fully define an infinite set - there is not enough paper in the world - so when working with infinite sets we are always working with a partly defined IE UNDEFINED objects. This is why so many paradoxes occur with infinite sets - they are not fully defined logical entities.

What has been done in set theory is an abomination to the principles of sound design; instead of treating finite and infinite sets as different objects each having different operations and properties, Cantor simply made up fictitious numbers (the transfinite) to represent the nonexistent cardinality property of infinite sets.

There Is No Basis In Logic For Transfinite Arithmetic

- aleph-naught - is defined as the cardinality of set of natural numbers.

The rules of transfinite arithmetic assert that:

∞+1=∞

on the basis that the set {1} is already a member of the natural numbers so the cardinality of is unchanged.

This assertion is a contradiction. In english, it says:

’There exists something that when changed, does not change’

This is deeply illogical - there is no sound basis in logic for transfinite arithmetic.

a paper I'm working on — Devans99

:grimace:

An excert from a paper I'm working on: — Devans99

That doesn't mean anything. I'm working on paper as well, but it's not truth, both because I'm working on it and because it hasn't gone through falsification methods and cross-examinations through argumentative dialectics. I cannot conclude anything without falsifying my own ideas, before that, they are just ideas, maybe interesting, maybe flawed, but I would never conclude them deductively just because I want them to be true.

...and I wouldn't, ever, start a follow-up paper/argument assuming my, not finished, previous argument's conclusion to be true.

cannot conclude anything without falsifying my own ideas, before that, they are just ideas, maybe interesting, maybe flawed, but I would never conclude them deductively just because I want them to be true. — Christoffer

I have not concluded anything to be deductively true; my ideas remain ideas, they have had a limited amount of cross examination and survived. So for the basis of the probability analysis, I went with 50% likelihood eternalism is true.

I do not believe it should be so controversial. Most physicists think eternalism is correct. Most ordinary people believe in presentism. Why not split the difference at 50%?

Christoffer
443

Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you. — Frank Apisa


And you ignore the rest because of the semantics, not the linguistic pragmatics of it. Daniel Cox didn't have a problem understanding what I wrote, why would you? — Christoffer

Think about that!

In any case, since I found legitimate fault with the first sentence...why are you assuming I did not find lots of fault with the rest, because "the rest" had your first thoughts as a predicate.

In any case, since I found legitimate fault with the first sentence...why are you assuming I did not find lots of fault with the rest, because "the rest" had your first thoughts as a predicate. — Frank Apisa

Because you haven't put forth any real argument against what I wrote about, you stopped at a semantical error and are just spamming posts about things already addressed. Move on to the definitions given in my answer to Daniel Cox, that's the latest point in the discussion. What you are doing right now is going back to the bullying mentality of previous posts you've made and I couldn't care less.

Christoffer
445

In any case, since I found legitimate fault with the first sentence...why are you assuming I did not find lots of fault with the rest, because "the rest" had your first thoughts as a predicate. — Frank Apisa


Because you haven't put forth any real argument against what I wrote about, you stopped at a semantical error and are just spamming posts about things already addressed. Move on to the definitions given in my answer to Daniel Cox, that's the latest point in the discussion. What you are doing right now is going back to the bullying mentality of previous posts you've made and I couldn't care less. — Christoffer

You are being a jerk on this...so...as I said, we can just leave it be.

Your notions on the word "atheist" are all wet.

Your notions on the word "believe" are all wet also.

And while that may seem trivial...those two things are more important to real discussion of the topics at hand here than any of the other bullshit that is thrown around.

As for the language you have so much trouble with...stop making it be the word "bullshit", for instance...and pay more attention to words like "atheist" and "believe."

The sound "cuff" is acceptable...but turn it around and make the sound "fuck"...and people like you go ape. Of all the conventions of humans...that particular one is the most childish.

I would rather read your paper. Seems more promising. The author seems better qualified. Superior critical thinking skills, and a better writer. At least judging from what's on display here.

Hi,

Yes, maybe, I don't think so, but hey, the guy said, "We are done." No, I'm not. He tagged me to try and diminish my value.

How are you this fine Easter morning?

I'm not an adherent to modern - analytic philosophy. So, I can't help you there.

I was referring to begging the question. A person who claims anything "atheism, theism, analytic or intentional logic/philosophy" should hold it in the first-person and refrain from holding it in the second-.

"What's gone wrong here is that the support offered for the conclusion is something nobody would accept unless they already accepted the conclusion itself. I have begged the question if I support a conclusion with reasons that would not be accepted in the context by anyone who did not already accept the conclusion. With a little reminding, this is a judgment we can often make." Larry Wright Ph.D. UCR (Riverside) Critical Thinking. Some college student left the textbook in the dumpster area. I live in Riverside!

Tim was begging the question with me about "being held in existence." If someone doesn't understand that then they need a lot more help than the smartest person in the world could manage. Being held in existence is not some special revelation of mine.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing, and I've been absent for 24 hours. I'm having to go up and down the page and I'm not copying and pasting your comments to me, I'm merely answering them via my facetious book, The World According to Dan Cox (Cox - Christ - Servant hehehe).

"I'm not sure how this relates to Russel's Teapot? The example I gave is an extension of his analogy, showing different points of view from theists, agnostics, and atheists, in order to exemplify a more defined overview of atheism."

Those are all unnecessary platonic ideas. The word "atheism" is incoherent. I agree with Frank on this point, "People who claim the word 'atheism' morph its meaning depending on the circumstance." Atheism is the denial of the deity claim and we're all born "atheists" and then when it's shown that babies don't deny deity claims the claimed adherent then claims, "I'm not making claims, it's a proven scientific fact that babies lack belief of gods." What the hell happened to the part about denying deity claims?

Those are all unnecessary platonic ideas. The word "atheism" is incoherent. I agree with Frank on this point, "People who claim the word 'atheism' morph its meaning depending on the circumstance." Atheism is the denial of the deity claim and we're all born "atheists" and then when it's shown that babies don't deny deity claims the claimed adherent then claims, "I'm not making claims, it's a proven scientific fact that babies lack belief of gods." What the hell happened to the part about denying deity claims? — Daniel Cox

Your own definition of atheism is still in line with what I described. The concept of a God or Gods does not exist for a baby, but is learned. If the baby had the tools of critical thinking and not just accepting the ideas put forth by parents and the environment around them, they would question the validity of the claims they learn. This means that pure logical and rational reasoning, which babies lack, is a standard ideal within atheism. Compare that to agnosticism which accept the belief that a God or Gods might exist, only that we don't know. Atheism does not even accept the belief in the first place, it's a tabula rasa of concepts about existence, it focuses on what is, not what might be or what is believed.

The core of what I'm saying is that if you are to define atheism you need to specifically draw the line between the different fields; theism, agnosticism, and atheism. If theism is belief without actual proof and agnosticism is a belief that you cannot know either (which accepts a belief in each direction), then atheism cannot be about a belief in anything, it is the lack of belief altogether. That would essentially boil down to atheism relying on what is, not what is believed, i.e the definition I previously gave.

The thing I can see is that the concept and methodology of thinking without belief is so alien to theists and agnostics that it's hard to actually explain this kind of perspective. Essentially, it seems that to be able to truly explain atheism, you need to be an atheist. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that, but I find it common that atheism is a hard perspective for many to grasp. It's like the difference between asking someone to imagine something specific and to ask someone to imagine nothing. To imagine something is easy, to imagine nothing is a concept hard even through philosophy. To grasp theism is easier than to grasp the absence of belief in god and the ascent of god.

So how do I view things as an atheist? I reject belief of any kind that doesn't have support. Belief in my eyes is only valid as a hypothesis, which means it has rational support as educated guesses. If I believe something, I do it because of having some data in support of it. If I encounter something in which I don't know anything, I cannot have a belief in anything about it, since any unsupported belief becomes a concept of fantasy for me. I know where the line is between fantasy and conviction. This means that if we look at Russel's teapot, I cannot accept the concept of a teapot in space to be anything other than a fantasy. I don't even believe there to be no teapot in space, because a belief of non-existence is a belief accepting the possibility of the opposite. There is no belief, i.e there is nothing before data of a possibility of it being there. If someone recorded a blurry image of something resembling a teapot in space and interpretations of historical data suggest that it might be a teapot because we have records of historical events that might show a teapot have been ejected into space at some point in history. No one can know for certain, but the hypothesis is sound. In that case, the hypothesis about a teapot in space can exist as a concept for an atheist but never accepted as truth before proven beyond doubt. This is why I used a form of extension of Russel's teapot for this reasoning in order to exemplify the difference between the three positions. This is why I can't define atheism within any concept o belief. Belief is non-existent in any form within atheism.

Hi, thank you for writing.

Let's reason together. Essence: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.
"conflict is the essence of drama"
synonyms:
quintessence · soul · spirit · ethos · nature · life · lifeblood · core · heart · center · crux · nub · nucleus · kernel · marrow · meat · pith · gist · substance · principle · central part · fundamental quality · basic quality · essential part · intrinsic nature · sum and substance · reality · actuality · quiddity · esse · nitty-gritty

Without looking up the word "tabularasa" it appears to me as if people who claim "atheism" are claiming they exist as "atheists" before they are operational. For me reality entails the essence of a thing as the specification of its acts, that existence is the ability to act. The word "atheism" and other words being used here in our discussion, have never formed representations of themselves in my brain or mind. I don't really do concepts in the 2nd- & 3rd-person perspective.

For me, people who claim they exist as something connected to concepts they adhere to is dubious at best and what I would describe as a phantasm. Let's just call people "fantasists" whose claimed commitments are at odds with reality. Reading again your first paragraph, we might again be on the same page.

I don't see the field. I'm not experiencing "atheism," not in any way it's described. I've left my body and met God in His Shekinah Glory, a couple of times. Once wasn't out of body, but then on those grounds I only attended churches where God's Shekinah Glory was in operation. I just can't get any traction into God hater arguments. I experience God haters, people hating/denying God to me, their use of the word "atheism" is incidental to their essence (God haters).

One guy kept claiming "atheism is doxastic." That's circular.

"I reject belief of any kind that doesn't have support." That's a religious tautology of your personal view of what has and has not support. I direct my awareness, the word "atheism" falsified.

Be blessed my Friend, I'm out the door, be back on tomorrow! Hope to see you then.
Daniel Eugene Cox (the Christ) 144 The Ancient of Days.