Re: objections answered -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:10:31 04/11/04 Sun
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: c-24-10-199-136.client.comcast.net / 24.10.199.136
Subject: Re: objections answered
In reply to: David 's message, "Re: Logical Proof of God?" on 18:23:07 12/27/03 Sat

"The first part comes in #2: He states that histories end is in the present. He then assumes that history is infinite. Since if history is infinite, it cannot end and therefore we have a contradiction. (I know this was generalizing his statement but what really matters is what he says after the contradiction). He then states that since we have a contradiction history cannot be infinite. What he does not mention is another assumption that could be false. That is that history ends in the present."

This assumption is illogical. History must end in the present. By definition the past is history, but the present cannot be the past by definition. Ergo, history ends in the present. It's pretty simple.

"It is just as easy to think of history starting at the present and working its way backwards."

This would be backward-causality then. History only flows one way: from past to present to future, never reverse. That doesn't make any sense.

"In fact, it makes sense given his definition of history, is based on it being before the present time."

It doesn't make any sense at all, no offense. Look at it this way. You say that history can be considered to begin with the present and flow in the opposite direction. What was the first "present"? It started with the Big Bang. Now trace history backward. Oops!

"Therefore history can be infinite. Since he has not proven that histroy is not infinite he cannot use it in his proof."

I think I presented a strong enough case to conclude that history cannot be infinite. Infinity never stops. Ergo, we would never arrive at the present.

"#3 is another fallacy comming from the ommitance of an assumption. He states that if the universe is infinite the world would be filled with light, because there are an infinite number of stars. Contradiction. Therefore, he states the universe cannot be infinite. My question is this: surely it is possible to have an infinite universe with only a finite number of stars. You would just have a lot of nothing. So it is possible to have an infinite universe, without having the sky completely convered in starlight."

Okay, point taken and it would seem that you properly identified a fallacy, as I may have omitted a certain assumption. However, this is easily omitted by the scientific claim that the universe is uniform. If you count a billion starts in one section of the observable sky, you can conclude there is a billion more in other sections and if there were an infinite number of sections then we should see the sky bathed in starlight, but we do not. QED

"in #5, even though I am not a mathmetician I must object to the use of Godels proof. Not because I am inherently agnostic, but because it is misused. Godels proof deals not with logical systems in general, but with the logical system of arithmetic."

You are flat out and wholly wrong. Godel's proof deals with ANY formalized system. His proof is not limited to math simply because the proof was in the form of math. How then was it possible for Godel to prove his proof if he could only use the postulates of math!? You beautifully make Godel's point!

"In fact he doesn't even prove that a proof of consistency cannot be given. Merely that it is impossible to create a finite proof of the consistancy ofthe integers that can be mirrored in the arithmetic."

No, it's the other way around, my friend. Godel wasn't dealing with "integers" so there was nothing to map onto the integers. Godel numbers weren't real numbers. They were representations of a set of rules that mirror the formalization (which includes the integers). I suggest you learn more before you try to tell us what the proof is dealing with.

"Some nonfinite proofs have been given of consitency of the integeres, but they do not satisfy Hilbert's requirements (see the book Godel's Proof, just type it into Google)."

You want ME to see the book? *snickers*

"It is also possible to have a logical system that is consistent. So again we have no way of knowing if 5 is a true statement."

Uh, yeah we do. Godel proved it.
:)

"Finally in #8, Patrick uses the fallacy of composition. We cannot know that infinity +1 is the same thing as infinity, or even that 1+infinity is the same as 1+infinity. For instance if we create numbers using the surreal systems we have that omega (or infinity) = {1,2,...| } and omega+1 = {1,2,..., omega| }. (see On Numbers and Games by Conway or The Book of Numbers by Conway)"

Sorry, but telling me to see some book isn't going to make you right. It is an elementary fact in math that infinity plus one is the same thing as infinity. If you don't understand this, I suggest you see a basic math book.
:)

"Again, I'm not saying that this proof is necesarrily false. What I am saying is that this proof does not proove anything because it uses assumptions that are either true or false."

Announcing that I use nothing but assumptions is inherently fallacious and doesn't seem very fair.

"In order for it to be a true proof it must be based on assumptions that are entirely true. For instance I could create a proof of the nonexistance of God based on a assumptions that were either true or false."

No, you could not. Your "proof" for God's nonexistence would be invalid because assumptions that are false are invalid (which falsifies your "either true or false"). You commit the fallacy of tautology. I could say that either it will rain tomorrow or not and say I proved something. This doesn't hold water (no offense). Moreover, a proof, by nature, cannot be based on assumptions. Hence, you cannot disprove it based on assumption of your own.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]