hello

Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #60 - May 01, 2009, 10:35 AM

PeruvianSkies, heard of Godel's incompleteness theorems?

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #61 - May 01, 2009, 10:38 AM

Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 10:35 AM
PeruvianSkies, heard of Godel's incompleteness theorems?

no, why?

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #62 - May 01, 2009, 10:50 AM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 10:38 AM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 10:35 AM
PeruvianSkies, heard of Godel's incompleteness theorems?

no, why?

Read up on them.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is more so related to the fact that some abstract truths can never be shown to be true. This is all going back to the Galileo, Cantor, Turing ideas of infinity.

from wikipedia:
Quote
Stanley Jaki, followed much later by Stephen Hawking and others, argue that (an analogous argument to) G?del's theorem implies that even the most sophisticated formulation of physics will be incomplete, and that therefore there can never be an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles, known for certain as "final"

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #63 - May 01, 2009, 10:55 AM

Short version: you can't prove anything by pure logic because all systems of logic depend for their operation on the assumption of axioms which themselves cannot be proven within the confines of the system.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #64 - May 01, 2009, 10:58 AM

Faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith." In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other. Guillen writes: "In 1959 a disillusioned Russell lamented: I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than anywhere...But after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.'"

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #65 - May 01, 2009, 11:07 AM

I'm aware you cant prove anything hence why I recommended weak atheism. To me it is the only logical position in regards to a god. There is no reason to believe such an entity exists.

There are different levels of faith, faith in something using empirical evidence is more logical then faith in something because an ancient books says it exists.

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #66 - May 01, 2009, 11:16 AM

Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 10:58 AM
Faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith." In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other. Guillen writes: "In 1959 a disillusioned Russell lamented: I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than anywhere...But after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.'"

Where did you copy/paste that from? It's usual to credit your source.

Anyway Russell was old school. Twenty years before 1959 is roughly when Godel's work hit the headlines. Anyone who was around before then was probably still under the illusion that all things could ultimately be solved by logic, which is why Godel's work made such an impact. So Russell would have been brought up pre-Godel and retained some of the mindset from that period.

However Guillen's comment is rather ridiculous because it implies that religious belief is the only alternative, which is not the case at all. Take mathematics: although you cannot logically prove anything in mathematics without the initial use of axioms that does not mean that the application of mathematics relies on religious belief. Anyone who asserts that it does is an idiot or a liar.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #67 - May 01, 2009, 12:02 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 11:07 AM
I'm aware you cant prove anything hence why I recommended weak atheism. To me it is the only logical position in regards to a god. There is no reason to believe such an entity exists.

There are different levels of faith, faith in something using empirical evidence is more logical then faith in something because an ancient books says it exists.

But you can't really base it on logic, as your limiting it to a set of axioms. So you can't really say logically it is a better position, all logical theories can be expressed mathematically, but then we have the problem of incompleteness. So the best position would actually be to Agnostic atheism.

Quote
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."

- Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #68 - May 01, 2009, 12:04 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2009, 11:16 AM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 10:58 AM
Faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith." In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other. Guillen writes: "In 1959 a disillusioned Russell lamented: I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than anywhere...But after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.'"

Where did you copy/paste that from? It's usual to credit your source.

Anyway Russell was old school. Twenty years before 1959 is roughly when Godel's work hit the headlines. Anyone who was around before then was probably still under the illusion that all things could ultimately be solved by logic, which is why Godel's work made such an impact. So Russell would have been brought up pre-Godel and retained some of the mindset from that period.

However Guillen's comment is rather ridiculous because it implies that religious belief is the only alternative, which is not the case at all. Take mathematics: although you cannot logically prove anything in mathematics without the initial use of axioms that does not mean that the application of mathematics relies on religious belief. Anyone who asserts that it does is an idiot or a liar.

Godel's theorem: an incomplete guide to its use and abuse
By Torkel Franz?n
Published by A K Peters, Ltd., 2005
ISBN 1568812388, 9781568812380

I agree with you. But flint does not say, "religion" he says article of "faith" in other words, to take a position even a scientific one on the non-existence or existence of a god, is based on "faith" so I don't think he is wrong to state that.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #69 - May 01, 2009, 12:37 PM

Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:02 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 11:07 AM
I'm aware you cant prove anything hence why I recommended weak atheism. To me it is the only logical position in regards to a god. There is no reason to believe such an entity exists.

There are different levels of faith, faith in something using empirical evidence is more logical then faith in something because an ancient books says it exists.

But you can't really base it on logic, as your limiting it to a set of axioms. So you can't really say logically it is a better position, all logical theories can be expressed mathematically, but then we have the problem of incompleteness. So the best position would actually be to Agnostic atheism.

Quote
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."

- Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

Weak atheist is pretty much the same as agnostic atheism. I'm aware we can never know if god exists or not but then we can also never know if fairies exist or not. Therefore it is logical to say 'I do not believe in god or fairies until I find evidence that either of those do exist'.

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #70 - May 01, 2009, 12:59 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 12:37 PM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:02 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 11:07 AM
I'm aware you cant prove anything hence why I recommended weak atheism. To me it is the only logical position in regards to a god. There is no reason to believe such an entity exists.

There are different levels of faith, faith in something using empirical evidence is more logical then faith in something because an ancient books says it exists.

But you can't really base it on logic, as your limiting it to a set of axioms. So you can't really say logically it is a better position, all logical theories can be expressed mathematically, but then we have the problem of incompleteness. So the best position would actually be to Agnostic atheism.

Quote
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."

- Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

Weak atheist is pretty much the same as agnostic atheism. I'm aware we can never know if god exists or not but then we can also never know if fairies exist or not. Therefore it is logical to say 'I do not believe in god or fairies until I find evidence that either of those do exist'.

I think it would be better to throw it and confine the concept to religious scriptures not put yourself in a weaker position. I say I do not believe in a god defined by religious scriptures, as it carries internal contradictions. I prove the axiom is flawed, at the start. But I don't deny that a god defined outside of the religious scriptural definition could exist.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #71 - May 01, 2009, 02:35 PM

Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:59 PM
I think it would be better to throw it and confine the concept to religious scriptures not put yourself in a weaker position. I say I do not believe in a god defined by religious scriptures, as it carries internal contradictions. I prove the axiom is flawed, at the start. But I don't deny that a god defined outside of the religious scriptural definition could exist.

Couldnt have put it better myself

All Hail the arrival of the reformed intellectual dominatrix.

My Book
My Blog
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #72 - May 01, 2009, 02:36 PM

63298

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #73 - May 01, 2009, 03:09 PM

Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 02:36 PM
63298

?

My Book
My Blog
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #74 - May 01, 2009, 03:52 PM

Quote from: IsLame on May 01, 2009, 03:09 PM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 02:36 PM
63298

?

Its a random port number, I need it, didn't know where to save it.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #75 - May 01, 2009, 04:47 PM

Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:59 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 12:37 PM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:02 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 11:07 AM
I'm aware you cant prove anything hence why I recommended weak atheism. To me it is the only logical position in regards to a god. There is no reason to believe such an entity exists.

There are different levels of faith, faith in something using empirical evidence is more logical then faith in something because an ancient books says it exists.

But you can't really base it on logic, as your limiting it to a set of axioms. So you can't really say logically it is a better position, all logical theories can be expressed mathematically, but then we have the problem of incompleteness. So the best position would actually be to Agnostic atheism.

Quote
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."

- Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

Weak atheist is pretty much the same as agnostic atheism. I'm aware we can never know if god exists or not but then we can also never know if fairies exist or not. Therefore it is logical to say 'I do not believe in god or fairies until I find evidence that either of those do exist'.

I think it would be better to throw it and confine the concept to religious scriptures not put yourself in a weaker position. I say I do not believe in a god defined by religious scriptures, as it carries internal contradictions. I prove the axiom is flawed, at the start. But I don't deny that a god defined outside of the religious scriptural definition could exist.

I'm not denying anything, I just want evidence before I can contemplate it's existence. You may as well have said that you do not deny a fairy outside of mythical stories may exist, your sentence does not carry any more weight than that.

I will believe in god if I find out he exists, until then I personally feel his existence is no different from the existence of fairies, the invisible pink unicorn and the celestial teapot.

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #76 - May 01, 2009, 05:57 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 04:47 PM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:59 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 12:37 PM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:02 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 11:07 AM
I'm aware you cant prove anything hence why I recommended weak atheism. To me it is the only logical position in regards to a god. There is no reason to believe such an entity exists.

There are different levels of faith, faith in something using empirical evidence is more logical then faith in something because an ancient books says it exists.

But you can't really base it on logic, as your limiting it to a set of axioms. So you can't really say logically it is a better position, all logical theories can be expressed mathematically, but then we have the problem of incompleteness. So the best position would actually be to Agnostic atheism.

Quote
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."

- Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

Weak atheist is pretty much the same as agnostic atheism. I'm aware we can never know if god exists or not but then we can also never know if fairies exist or not. Therefore it is logical to say 'I do not believe in god or fairies until I find evidence that either of those do exist'.

I think it would be better to throw it and confine the concept to religious scriptures not put yourself in a weaker position. I say I do not believe in a god defined by religious scriptures, as it carries internal contradictions. I prove the axiom is flawed, at the start. But I don't deny that a god defined outside of the religious scriptural definition could exist.

I'm not denying anything, I just want evidence before I can contemplate it's existence. You may as well have said that you do not deny a fairy outside of mythical stories may exist, your sentence does not carry any more weight than that.

I will believe in god if I find out he exists, until then I personally feel his existence is no different from the existence of fairies, the invisible pink unicorn and the celestial teapot.

Realise that no matter how much one learns philosophy or science, it will eventually come down to a gut feeling.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #77 - May 01, 2009, 07:29 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 10:30 AM
Quote from: jamshed raja on April 29, 2009, 10:15 PM
Quote from: J4m3z on April 29, 2009, 10:20 AM
Just wanted to add... you say that you don't like introducing yourself as agnostic because you don't like the idea of being indecisive. I think alot of Muslims and other religious believers think this way too; they despise agnostics even more than atheists branding them as being cowardly.

I've noticed that a lot of Muslim values are hypocritical. This is one example. They condemn indecisiveness, but they have forgotten another attribute which they themselves emphasize A LOT in other areas of discussion, but they have missed it out in this one, for some unexplained reason. That is the attribute of patience.

You have to be patient when it comes to knowledge too. Grabbing hold of a particular belief system just for the sake of having a belief is impatience in knowledge. Like Hassan says, (I think it is Hassan... discussislam off youtube... I'm new here so I'm not too sure yet lol) don't pretend to know something, even if it is atheism.

Let us take an example of a Maths professor setting 2 of his students a problem to solve by the end of the day. Now the Maths professor knows this problem cannot be solved in a month, never mind by the end of the day. One of his students, desparate to banish the vice of indecisiveness out of his behaviour, may well cling on to the first possible solution that comes into his head. Before even testing it, he is already convinced by it, and for the rest of the day, he simply seeks to prove that it is the case (an error in philosophical method, since you should test with no bias in mind). By the end of the day, the 2 students come in front of the professor and the one above says that he knows the solution and presents pages of writing demonstrating his case. The other student has his hands empty, and admits he couldn't work it out in the time provided. Agreed, this student has made himself look pretty dopey at this point, but not when the professor looks over the first students work and tells him that he was nowhere near finding the right answer! The professor then commends the second student's patience in knowledge

well first of all thankyou for your responce.it should have ended with "and then they lived happily ever after".lol
i think your arguement in a nutshell is that "better be indecisive than being wrong"
well but there is one problem in your story which is that we know that the given problem takes month to solve and that it is impossible to get to the right conclusion in one day.but this is not the exact case with the religion and atheism is it?now being agnostic about religion only means that you are acknowledging the credibility of dogmas and if so then you really are not an ex muslim are you.plus religion is not some thing which is given to us to solve like in your mathmetic problem scenario.for religion you have to imagine the following situation.
say there is a judge and he is hearing a case of person X who is accusing person Y of murder .they both present their case bring their arguments and after a long discussion and debate the hearing ends and it is the time for judge to tell them his decission.but judge is unable to decide in favour of either of the parties and says "well umm you know erm aaaa i am kind a agnostic about it and cant really say who is right"
and the other problem with agnosticism i have got is that by saying that you are agnostic you are actually puting your weight in the side of brainwashed theistic morons.because in application forms, when filling out the section of religion, there is no such box as "agnostic" to tick in.

'Weak atheism' would fit you nicely I think. The majority of atheists (including myself) will only believe in god when we see good evidence for it but until then it makes sense to call ourselves atheists. It's like belief in fairies, do we remain agnostic about their existence? Or do we believe they don't exist until we are shown evidence of their existence?

Ofcourse you remain agnostic about fairies. How can you say "I know fairies don't exist." That is quite intellectually immodest.

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #78 - May 01, 2009, 07:35 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 12:37 PM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 12:02 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on May 01, 2009, 11:07 AM
I'm aware you cant prove anything hence why I recommended weak atheism. To me it is the only logical position in regards to a god. There is no reason to believe such an entity exists.

There are different levels of faith, faith in something using empirical evidence is more logical then faith in something because an ancient books says it exists.

But you can't really base it on logic, as your limiting it to a set of axioms. So you can't really say logically it is a better position, all logical theories can be expressed mathematically, but then we have the problem of incompleteness. So the best position would actually be to Agnostic atheism.

Quote
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."

- Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

Weak atheist is pretty much the same as agnostic atheism. I'm aware we can never know if god exists or not but then we can also never know if fairies exist or not. Therefore it is logical to say 'I do not believe in god or fairies until I find evidence that either of those do exist'.

If you accept that belief is what you think you know, then you have just contradicted yourself.

You state that you are aware, or in other words, you believe that we can never know if god exists or not, and then you say that you believe, or in other words, you think you know that God doesn't exist...

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #79 - May 01, 2009, 08:05 PM

No, it doesn't. Lacking belief in something is not the same as "knowing" that it doesn't exist. Its just a default postition - till I'm shown evidence that God is there, I'll work on the assumption that he isn't. Just as in law we work on the default position that a person is innocent till proven guilty.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #80 - May 01, 2009, 08:09 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:05 PM
No, it doesn't. Lacking belief in something is not the same as "knowing" that it doesn't exist. Its just a default postition - till I'm shown evidence that God is there, I'll work on the assumption that he isn't. Just as in law we work on the default position that a person is innocent till proven guilty.

Your making an assumption he does not, that requires faith. You see Cheetah your assumption is on an axiom, see Godels theorems.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #81 - May 01, 2009, 08:14 PM

The law makes the assumption that everybody is innocent till proven guilty, that requires faith. You see, Tut your freedom is based on an assumption based on an axiom and Godel had his head up his ass.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #82 - May 01, 2009, 08:17 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:14 PM
The law makes the assumption that everybody is innocent till proven guilty, that requires faith. You see, Tut your freedom is based on an assumption based on an axiom and Godel had his head up his ass.

We can't know for sure... And please don't insult Godel he was far smarter then me, you or anyone on this forum for that matter. Simply we cannot know if god exits or not.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #83 - May 01, 2009, 08:20 PM

Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 08:17 PM
Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:14 PM
The law makes the assumption that everybody is innocent till proven guilty, that requires faith. You see, Tut your freedom is based on an assumption based on an axiom and Godel had his head up his ass.

We can't know for sure... And please don't insult Godel he was far smarter then me, you or anyone on this forum for that matter. Simply we cannot know if god exits or not.

Smart people frequently have their heads up their asses. We do not know whether or not God exists, that is not the same as saying we cannot know. According to believers, of course, one day we will all know.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #84 - May 01, 2009, 08:28 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:20 PM
Quote from: King Tut on May 01, 2009, 08:17 PM
Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:14 PM
The law makes the assumption that everybody is innocent till proven guilty, that requires faith. You see, Tut your freedom is based on an assumption based on an axiom and Godel had his head up his ass.

We can't know for sure... And please don't insult Godel he was far smarter then me, you or anyone on this forum for that matter. Simply we cannot know if god exits or not.

Smart people frequently have their heads up their asses. We do not know whether or not God exists, that is not the same as saying we cannot know. According to believers, of course, one day we will all know.

The whole point is we don't, and your not understanding Godel. I don't know what other way I can express this, simply you are ignorant, of the subject. We just cannot know, if we apply logic then the concept is only correct applied within that system but outside that system it may not, so if we apply logic to say god then we are conning the concept to a system based on axioms, something can be correct within a system (thus god is confined) within a system, but that concept might not be correct outside the system. A given system cannot prove its given definition of true is TRUE. Its simple really.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #85 - May 01, 2009, 08:33 PM

Listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIvPuwIG3N8&feature=related

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #86 - May 01, 2009, 08:34 PM

Quote
The whole point is we don't, and your not understanding Godel. I don't know what other way I can express this, simply you are ignorant, of the subject.

Stop appealing to Godel's authority and just explain the concept in your own words.

Quote
We just cannot know, if we apply logic then the concept is only correct applied within that system but outside that system it may not, so if we apply logic to say god then we are conning the concept to a system based on axioms, something can be correct within a system (thus god is confined) within a system, but that concept might not be correct outside the system. A given system cannot prove its given definition of proof is TRUE. Its simple really.

It sounds like bollocks to me. Unless you're just explaining it badly. If you're trying to say there's no absolute proof, well we all know that. Absolute proof doesn't exist outside mathematics. With everything else we weigh up the evidence for and against and go where that leads us. Those of us without our heads up our asses do anyway.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #87 - May 01, 2009, 08:45 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:34 PM
Quote
We just cannot know, if we apply logic then the concept is only correct applied within that system but outside that system it may not, so if we apply logic to say god then we are conning the concept to a system based on axioms, something can be correct within a system (thus god is confined) within a system, but that concept might not be correct outside the system. A given system cannot prove its given definition of proof is TRUE. Its simple really.

It sounds like bollocks to me. Unless you're just explaining it badly. If you're trying to say there's no absolute proof, well we all know that. Absolute proof doesn't exist outside mathematics. With everything else we weigh up the evidence for and against and go where that leads us. Those of us without our heads up our asses do anyway.

It isn't bollocks at all. You are missing the point. The bolded sentence is relevant here.

That sentence is technically correct but not in the way that you meant it. What I mean is that inside mathematics there is "ultimate proof", in that formal proofs of mathematical concepts can be written and they are consistent and taken as being conclusive. I say this as someone who is familiar with them (at least in their simpler manifestations). The results of these proofs can also be successfully used in practical applications which indicates that they are far more than just a hypothetical construct.

However the same concepts cannot be proven outside of mathematics and to prove them within mathematics requires using initial assumptions. This means that in a strict sense the logical proofs are not really logical proofs at all.

Godel did not have his head up his arse at all. Godel knew precisely what he was talking about and it was one of the major revolutions in twentieth century thought, up there on the same plane as quantum mechanics compared to classical physics.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #88 - May 01, 2009, 08:46 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:34 PM
Quote
The whole point is we don't, and your not understanding Godel. I don't know what other way I can express this, simply you are ignorant, of the subject.

Stop appealing to Godel's authority and just explain the concept in your own words.

Quote
We just cannot know, if we apply logic then the concept is only correct applied within that system but outside that system it may not, so if we apply logic to say god then we are conning the concept to a system based on axioms, something can be correct within a system (thus god is confined) within a system, but that concept might not be correct outside the system. A given system cannot prove its given definition of proof is TRUE. Its simple really.

It sounds like bollocks to me. Unless you're just explaining it badly. If you're trying to say there's no absolute proof, well we all know that. Absolute proof doesn't exist outside mathematics. With everything else we weigh up the evidence for and against and go where that leads us. Those of us without our heads up our asses do anyway.

We are not talking about "absolute proof" (I don't even know what that is), we are talking about systems built upon axioms, to be free contraction or to be complete. Consistency and Contradiction. A system based on axioms is either consistent or contradictory there is no "absolute proof". Its hard to explain in other words, but the whole point is, this is not for amateurs you have to have be educated enough to understand it. For example i can't talk to you about heavy mathematics if you don't understand basic mathematics. You'll just not understand what I am talking about, get some books out on logic. The thing is I have it all in my head but it is hard to express it.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello to fellow "murtadeen"
Reply #89 - May 01, 2009, 08:49 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2009, 08:45 PM
Quote from: Cheetah on May 01, 2009, 08:34 PM
Quote
We just cannot know, if we apply logic then the concept is only correct applied within that system but outside that system it may not, so if we apply logic to say god then we are conning the concept to a system based on axioms, something can be correct within a system (thus god is confined) within a system, but that concept might not be correct outside the system. A given system cannot prove its given definition of proof is TRUE. Its simple really.

It sounds like bollocks to me. Unless you're just explaining it badly. If you're trying to say there's no absolute proof, well we all know that. Absolute proof doesn't exist outside mathematics. With everything else we weigh up the evidence for and against and go where that leads us. Those of us without our heads up our asses do anyway.

It isn't bollocks at all. You are missing the point. The bolded sentence is relevant here.

That sentence is technically correct but not in the way that you meant it. What I mean is that inside mathematics there is "ultimate proof", in that formal proofs of mathematical concepts can be written and they are consistent and taken as being conclusive. I say this as someone who is familiar with them (at least in their simpler manifestations). The results of these proofs can also be successfully used in practical applications which indicates that they are far more than just a hypothetical construct.

However the same concepts cannot be proven outside of mathematics and to prove them within mathematics requires using initial assumptions. This means that in a strict sense the logical proofs are not really logical proofs at all.

Godel did not have his head up his arse at all. Godel knew precisely what he was talking about and it was one of the major revolutions in twentieth century thought, up there on the same plane as quantum mechanics compared to classical physics.

Finally someone who understands! Wow, I must say Osman I am slightly impressed.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »