I hold a 50% conviction that it is true. That is not the same as a belief. — Devans99
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? — Devans99
Why is that strange?
Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you. — Frank Apisa
It is not, please explain. — Devans99
Which math is a belief and which is not a belief? — Christoffer
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
An excert from a paper I'm working on: — Devans99
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
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.