Comments

  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    Your game only proves my point. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Granted.
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    Your position is dogmatic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Automatic, dogmatic, same difference.

    Another whiff from the past. It was a button in the era when people wore large buttons on their shirts, attached by a pin in the back of the button. This one showed a car speeding away from the carcass of a dog, with tire marks across him. The inscription said, "My Karma just ran over your Dogma."
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    ↪TonesInDeepFreeze

    Let's play a little, simple game. For money, $5 a turn. Who can name the higher number (finite positive integer).

    You go first in each turn.

    Sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful. At all. It is just that this thread put me in a giddy mood.

    (Reminds me of a scene in an animated TV show. Two robots sit down to a chess set, set up on the board. They both think very hard, for a long time. Finally, one says, without either of them having moved a piece, "White checkmates black in 325 moves." The guy who plays black, pipes up, "Awww... you always win!")
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    So 2 is infinityish? — TonesInDeepFreeze

    First time in my life I was able to count from one to infinity and then back. Thanks.

    And it did not take forever, either.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    Proofs don't exist in the realm of empirical observations.

    Truth (proven truth) exists in a priori considerations.

    And in a priori considerations all three are acceptable. To my knowledge, at least two are acceptable.

    If Peter is taller than Fred and Fred is taller than Paul then Peter is taller than Paul.

    This is true, no matter whether there is indeed a Peter or a Fred or a Paul.

    Yes, this is circular, and yet it is true.

    Or take the other one. Axiom: the order of terms in a summation of numbers is immaterial.
    Therefore it is true that the sum of 5+2+7 equals the sum of 7+2+5.

    Yes, it is based on axioms, yet it is true.

    Agrippa's trilemma fails in the realm of a priori proofs; yet it is irrelevant in the realm of empirical observations, because in that realm there are no axioms, and there is no circular logic. In fact, if you ask Hume, there is a chance that there is no causality in the empirical world, altogether.
  • All That Exists
    It follows from the powerset axiom that there'd exist a powerset of E, P(E). Recall that from Cantor's theorem, the cardinality of a powerset is strictly larger than its set. — Kuro

    What does the power set axiom state precisely? What IS a powerset?

    My refutation of the argument does not need the knowledge of the above, it is strictly for my curiosity that I asked the two questions.

    It is the CARDINALITY of the power set that is larger than its set. It is not larger than itself. You make this out as if it were true that the cardinality of the set makes it bigger than itself. That is not true. (Maybe. I am going out on a limb here, because I don't know set theory.) But no theorem will say that something is bigger than itself. It is not itself, that is bigger than its set, but its CARDINALITY. Which is not the set itself.

    So yes, there could be a set that has everything in it.
  • Ego/Immortality/Multiverse/Timelines
    What are the chances of all the people living right now to be here right now? — Persain
    The chances are 100 percent.

    What you wanted to ask was "what are the chances that 100 years ago someone would have known all the people that are alive now?" If you asked that, then the chances would be very slim.

    A lot of people (even philosophers) mix these concepts up. What are the chances of something happening that has happened, and what are the chances of someone knowing ahead of time that that event would happen.

    Common mistake.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    To be fair, the kudos of wisdom go to Banno, not to me. My wisdom in this case lay merely in understanding plain sentences.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    Sophia (wisdom)? — Agent Smith

    I don't know what you are talking about. You are saying I am stupid compared to Agrippa? If you read my one previous post, you will see that it's quite the other way around. It was HE who dug himself in a logical contradiction, not me.

    So... according to you Wisdom is to commit logical faults in arguments? (Rhetorical question. Just please don't assume I am stupider than any of the philosophers I criticize. I may or may not be, but just don't assume that. Aside from that insult, you are also committing an appeal to authority fallacy, when you say, "yes, GMBA, you seem to be right, but this other guy I quoted is wise, and you are not.")
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    A. there are only 3 possibilities

    1. Infinite regress (every premise requires an argument; every premise of that argument requires a separate argument; so on ad infinitum)

    2. Axiomatic arguments (assume a specific set of premises)

    3. Circularity (the argument's conclusion is just a restated premise)

    B. None of the three (1, 2, and 3) are satisfactory     — Agent Smith

    Doesn't it seem odd to you that the trilemma lists three ways to prove something then concludes that proof is impossible?

    All three work.     — Banno

    Agent Smith, you read more carefully, please.

    Agrippa called them three possibilities of proofs. PROOFS. So they are not just a walk-in-the-park, or dancing in the rain, or having a sandwitch at Mrs. Yashinski's tea party. They are PROOFS.

    There is no such thing as a proof that does not work. If it does not work, it is not a proof.

    Agrippa called them Proofs. So it is given already, that they work, and do the job.

    Then agrippa says it, quite inappropriately, that they are not satisfactory.

    How can he say that? When he had already agreed that they are satisfactory, when he called them proofs.

    There is no such thing as an unsatisfactory proof. In that case it's not a proof.

    So... Agrippa commits a self-contradiction.

    Seeing that is how you arrive at the truth.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    All three work — Banno

    Sorry, I did not see this. You beat me to it.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    3, according to Agrippa, unsatisfactory, options. — Agent Smith

    So...according to Agrippa. His word against mine.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    To say none of the three are satisfactory is an arbitrary, personal judgment. So is the sentence or claim "all three are satisfactory, any one of them individually and any two in combination or all three."

    This can't be decided by logic. This can only be decided by an arbitrary personal call which you hold true: B or B1.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    B. None of the three (1, 2, and 3) are satisfactory

    Ergo,

    C. Nothing can be proven     — Agent Smith

    Merci, but where's the argument ... that proves/suggests reason is our go-to-person if our objective is to find the truth? — Agent Smith

    I think the error in Agrippa's theorem is in Point B. He said, "none of the three are satisfactory."

    The solution to the problem, or the refutation of the trilemma is ridiculously simple. Substitute B with B1, where B1 says "all three are satisfactory, any one of them individually and any two in combination or all three."
  • Should Philosophies Be Evaluated on the Basis of Accuracy of Knowledge or on Potential Effects?
    Jack Cummings: With regard to your original post, this is why most theoretical philosophy textbooks on university campusses come with warning labels (if warranted).
    Plato: first degree red alert.
    Marx: third degree red alert.
    Noam Chomski: First degree "safe" green badge.
    Hume: yellow badge. (Off the grid.)
    Nietzsche: burns the finger of the student who touches it to pick it up for purchase.
  • Question: Faith vs Intelligence
    By "someone" I did not mean some particular someone. — Fooloso4

    Too late. Compliment already taken, even if it had been unintended. No harem done, you only made my day, that's all. Is that so wrong? :-)
  • Interested in mentoring a finitist?
    Damn. — john27
    :rofl:
  • Interested in mentoring a finitist?
    In a quantum reality we can only talk about it's velocity when measurements were made — keystone

    we were talking in terms of Calculus, and that is a very integral and important circumstance to my question. Perhaps I should have pointed that out.
  • Question: Faith vs Intelligence
    James' theory is actually a combination of doxastic determinism and doxastic voluntarism. Absolute doxastic voluntarism would mean that one could choose believe anything, simply by whimsical choice. — baker

    Okay, I read it ten times and I think I have a pretty good grip on this. Doxastic - relating to belief, to dogma. It's all clear now.
  • Question: Faith vs Intelligence
    Perhaps whether or not it occurs to someone that it is a matter of choice is a matter of intelligence. — Fooloso4

    Flattery will get you everywhere. :-)
  • Interested in mentoring a finitist?
    ↪jgill
    I see you point. Calculus uses points to approach; infinity is not a point. You can't approach infinity, as you will never stop. There is no point in a continuum into infinity that you can call "this is the point of infinity".

    The following is philosophy, not mathematics. Please treat it as such. I only have an undergraduate degree in math and at the university where I got the degree calculus was just a wee bit tougher than high school calculus. On the whole, the whole thing had been 40 years ago, I haven't used any of it since then, and my memory is not perfect; I don't remember much math.

    What about approaching something infinitely small? dividing a given integer by a larger and larger integer in succession. Until the ratio almost becomes zero.

    f(x)=sin(x)/x. It can't be evaluated at zero. Yet calculus succeeds in doing so. It does by using smaller and smaller numbers for x, and not actually using zero, but yet it gets an evaluation at zero, which means that it accepts that there is such a thing as an infinitely small number. It does have an end point, which can be only achieved by having an end point in the denominator of the fraction in the previous example. The end point in the denominator approaches infinity for x to approach 0; yet it's not a point. Yet, the actual value of sin(x)/x given by calculus is a real number, and that can only happen if Calculus does use infinity as a mathematical point. If infinity were not a mathematical point in calculus, sin(x)/x could not be evaluated at zero. yet it is evaluated at zero. So infinity, despite itself not being a point, does act as a mathematical point in calculus.
  • Question: Faith vs Intelligence
    Faith is a matter of choice. Intelligence is not. — Fooloso4

    I agree that intelligence is not a matter of choice. But faith? I define faith as belief in the supernatural force's conducting changes in the physical world.

    I am still out on that. I don't know. Child-age indoctrination certainly plays a huge role in the faith of a person. Yet, people have reversed their faiths. Atheists becoming faithful, and vice versa.

    I dunno. It is largely NOT a matter of choice, but with a lot of effort, perseverance, and thinking, it just may be in certain select individuals.
  • Question: Faith vs Intelligence
    James' theory is actually a combination of doxastic determinism and doxastic voluntarism. Absolute doxastic voluntarism would mean that one could choose believe anything, simply by whimsical choice. — baker

    Can you say this in laymen's terms? I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
  • Question: Faith vs Intelligence
    Chris: You fail to accept Christianity because you lack faith.

    Alex: You fail to reject Christianity because you lack intelligence.     — Art48

    What Alex says about Chris has been empirically proven. The IQ of the average Christian is below the IQ of the average non-believer.

    What Chis says about Alex is also true (I don't know however, if studies had been conducted to show this to be true with statistics.) Alex does not have faith because he does not need it. He gets along much better with knowledge and intelligence, than Chris does with his faith. Obviously when you want to be prosperous, healthy, happy and successful, being intelligent and smart and knowledgeable is much more helpful to achieve your life's goals than praying and believing in god.
  • Interested in mentoring a finitist?
    Once again, calculus is about LIMITS, — jgill

    True, but in many a calculus problem and theorem the limit IS infinity.
  • Interested in mentoring a finitist?
    Once again, calculus is about LIMITS, as my mathematical genealogical ancestor, Karl Weierstrass would have explained. — jgill

    Okay. Try this:

    An object is at rest. It is not moving.

    Now the object is moving at a velocity V.

    How many different velocities did the object move at, to get from zero velocity to V velocity?

    If your answer is not "infinite" then you don't deserve the name "mathematician". Because calculus presupposes that there are infinite velocities there.

    Get off your high horse.
  • Which are your thoughts about the polynomic system of value?
    Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force — Amity

    Okay. Try this:

    Go to any person (ten times, ten different times with different persons, who are most likely strangers to you and strangers to each other) in an English-speaking country, and tell them two things:

    "We are having a nice day."
    "That's some kalokagathós dog shit on the sidewalk."

    Then ask them which expression has more force to them.

    What I am trying to make you understand is that you can't say one expression in conversation is more forceful than another, if one is not in the language either conversation partner understands.

    Which is more forceful to you:
    "I'll buy some carp tomorrow."
    "The rain from the skies jon valoszinuleg lefele, nem folfele, in the northern hemisphere."
  • Interested in mentoring a finitist?
    That can't be true. Calculus is all about infinity — T Clark

    I was thinking the same thing.
  • Which are your thoughts about the polynomic system of value?
    Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force, perhaps reflecting the word's origin: — Amity

    kalokagathia (καλοκαγαθία) is the derived noun, is a phrase used by classical Greek writers to describe an ideal of gentlemanly personal conduct, especially in a military context. — Wiki: Kalos kagathos

    You obviously hain't never seen the shit of a well-fed, athletic, giant killing machine of a soldier of aristocratic descent.

    I repeat, to disseminate useful knowledge:

    "Nice shit! Beautiful shit, good shit."
  • Which are your thoughts about the polynomic system of value?
    Non intellego — Agent Smith

    The ideas involved were demonstrated with examples, which in turn described the next ideas, which in turn were made clearer, then demonstrated.
    The ideas were numbered, enclosed by brackets.
    The demonstrative examples were numbered by the corresponding number, enclosed by stars.

    Not each sentence was necessarily fully explanatory, or fully examples of demonstrations.

    Sorry to have invoked the demons so often in this post.
  • Which are your thoughts about the polynomic system of value?
    ↪Agent Smith
    Broken English is typified by more than grammar failures. It uses words inappropriately, where their meaning makes the sentence nonsensical(1). It uses descriptions for concepts or words that the speaker does not know in English, and the descriptions or circumcisions*1* are incomprehensible(2). They use the thing that attaches to the end of the other words.*2* They use foreign words which are not meaningful(3) in English. Yes, no, no, no, verily, hulyeseg, feleseg, pravotsnikov, pesenkau*3* pisma Tat'ani.
  • Which are your thoughts about the polynomic system of value?
    With regard to kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good." I think the English language also has a word for "Beautiful AND Good": Nice. As in "She's a nice girl", meaning, good girl, beautiful girl. "That's some nice shit", meaning "good shit" and "beautiful shit", both at the same time.
  • Does Virtue = Wisdom ?
    I think the lines are kind of blurry here. Knowledge, no matter the definition given, definitely still is related in a very significant way to behavior. — Hello Human

    Not blurry at all. There are no lines here either. Two things that are related are not each other, they are not one and the same thing. And that is the crux of the matter which you so adamantly don't want to see.

    Some examples: Physics is related to chemistry, but physics is not the same as chemistry.

    Soccer is related to rugby, but they are not the same thing.

    Marriage is related to prostitution, but they are not the same thing.

    Jesus is related to Zeus, but they are not the same gods.

    Stupidity is related to ignorance, but they are not the same thing.

    Knowledge is related to behaviour, but they are not the same thing.

    Virtue is related to wisdom, but they are not the same thing.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    ↪apokrisis
    My logic has not said anything how to mitigate the changes. Your logic is taking into consideration things you imagine I said but I did not say.

    I really, but really wish you guys would not use logical fallacies.

    Here's my claim again, and please DO NOT READ INTO IT ANYTHIING THAT IS NOT THERE. I ask you because this is a philosophy forum, and we have to stick to the rules of philosophy.

    My claim: Global warming is happening. Climate change is happening. These changes are not entirely due to human-created causes.
    End of my claim.

    Understood? Please don't put words in my mouth I have not said. Please don't assume things I MUST think according to your fantasy life, and then claim that your fantasy is reality.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    In light of the above facts: the heat retention of the atmosphere is not due to an increase in carbon dioxide concentration. Whoever came up with that needs to be questioned.

    But the increase in average temperature of the globe's atmosphere is undeniable.

    Therefore, since the cause is not carbon dioxide increase, the cause must be something else.

    Which I have advocated from the first minute.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases:

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
    specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.

    https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
    specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units.

    If under constant pressure the specific heat of air is higher than the specific heat of co2, then the increase of CO2 concentration will drive the specific heat of air DOWN, not UP.

    Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming.

    If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims.

    No matter what Xtrix claims, I am NOT DENYING climate change or global warming.

    The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

    Therefore the CO2 increase and the global aveage temperature increase are coincidental, not causally related.

    No arguments.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    ↪Xtrix


    You are being unnatural. I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity.

    There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No.

    You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow.

    At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke for bubble baths? Diet or regular? — Bitter Crank

    I prefer to make my own bubbles. Sorry.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    When you heat up coke/pepsi, the CO2 bubbles out! — Agent Smith

    Things happen in a bathtub, too.
  • Post Your Personal Mystical or Neurotic-Psychotic Experiences Here
    You don't need gods to be a mystic, and you don't need gods to have a mystical experience. — Deletedmemberzc

    True. You also don't need mystical experience to be a god, and you don't need mystics in histrionic hysterics that predicts the edicts of deitics.
Home » god must be atheist

god must be atheist

Start FollowingSend a Message