Which religion do you follow?

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Squisher
I don't believe that they think that acceptance into heaven requires perfection.

I think they believe perfection is what they'll achieve once they enter heaven.

Well, we're here on Earth right now, so answer the question.

Not sure what your point is. I mean, I have an idea of what you're trying to say but I think you're just being an ass.

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to be the catalyst into making a choice.

Making choices is what life is all about.

 

[esun]

Shouldn't this thread be more like "I'm _religion_"? If everyone just did that, we'd avoid the inevitable (and unresolvable) conflict.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Squisher
I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to be the catalyst into making a choice.

Making choices is what life is all about.

Making concrete choices about petty philosophy is pretty pointless, I just sort of enjoy having these debates on ATOT.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Garth
No, not that either. I was simply using a common example of reductio put into practice to substantiate the fact that negative propositions can be logically proven. The example, FYI, was the proof of Euclid's 2nd Theorem.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsTheorems.html

I still don't quite follow you. I'm really too tired to read that now, but I'll retract my statement about "proving a negative" being impossible, if only for my lack of knowledge. Instead I'll simply say that I see no logical way to disprove the existance of a God when no scientific reason is given for the existance of a God in the first place.

Let me try something more simple:


Prove: "There is no smallest rational number greater than zero"

1.) Assume that there *is* such a number, call it s.
2.) Then let x = s/2
3.) Then x must be rational, yet 0 < x < s
4.) This contradicts the assumption in (1), so it cannot be true that there is a smallest rational number greater than zero.

QED

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Squisher
I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to be the catalyst into making a choice.

Making choices is what life is all about.

Making concrete choices about petty philosophy is pretty pointless, I just sort of enjoy having these debates on ATOT.

What else defines us?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Garth

Like moving a box consecutively towards a wall half as far as it was moved the previous time? I see what you mean, but that does assume the existance of infinity, which in my mind is unprovable. It seems at the very least that one makes an extremely safe assumption that infinity exists.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Squisher
What else defines us?

I don't waste my time trying to define myself, I just do whatever. Some people (I'm guessing like you) need to find deep meaning in everything for your life to be worth living.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Garth
No, not that either. I was simply using a common example of reductio put into practice to substantiate the fact that negative propositions can be logically proven. The example, FYI, was the proof of Euclid's 2nd Theorem.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsTheorems.html

I still don't quite follow you. I'm really too tired to read that now, but I'll retract my statement about "proving a negative" being impossible, if only for my lack of knowledge. Instead I'll simply say that I see no logical way to disprove the existance of a God when no scientific reason is given for the existance of a God in the first place.

Let me try something more simple:


Prove: "There is no smallest rational number greater than zero"

1.) Assume that there *is* such a number, call it s.
2.) Then let x = s/2
3.) Then x must be rational, yet 0 < x < s
4.) This contradicts the assumption in (1), so it cannot be true that there is a smallest rational number greater than zero.

QED

Your proof only works within the mathmatical system as we understand it. Can you prove there is an actual relationship between our "revealed" mathmatics, and what actually exists in the universe, to the exclusion of all other possibilities ?

If not, you haven't actually "proved" anything, in an absolute sense.

 

[xcript]

Pastafarian.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Squisher
What else defines us?

I don't waste my time trying to define myself, I just do whatever. Some people (I'm guessing like you) need to find deep meaning in everything for your life to be worth living.

Ha, ha, ha. Yeah that's me..............Not.

No, but I know who I am and what I am. It may not be pretty, but that's me.

It makes the rest of life easy when you know who you are.

 

[wallsfd949]

You left off Baptist

no.. Baptist is not a 'denomination' and we don't fall under Protestants -> we never protested anything and didn't come out of the Roman Catholic church

Baptist for me.

 

[Pepsi90919]

tom cruisian

 

[Martin]

Greek Orthodox

Sorry, but I just had to nitpick - there are many different kinds of orthodox christianity and greek is simply one amongst many. "eastern orthodox christian" would be the blanket term for them.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Tom
Your proof only works within the mathmatical system as we understand it.

All proofs only work in language. Mine is no different than any other.

Can you prove there is an actual relationship between our "revealed" mathmatics, and what actually exists in the universe, to the exclusion of all other possibilities ?

Of course not, but now you're moving the goalposts with irrational expectations. I never set out to prove anything about external reality, because things in external reality are not "proven" or "disproven." Only propositions are subject to proof or disproof.

Also, incidentally, mathematics, like all languages, are defined, not "revealed."

If not, you haven't actually "proved" anything, in an absolute sense.

Yes, I have, in that I have proven the proposition as much as anything can be proven. You just think that "proof" is capable of more than it really is.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: wallsfd949
You left off Baptist

no.. Baptist is not a 'denomination' and we don't fall under Protestants -> we never protested anything and didn't come out of the Roman Catholic church

Baptist for me.

Baptist is a "denomination" and is "protestant" as it was a seperatist movement that grew out of the Churh of England.............................of course claiming to be based on a much earlier "sect" which practices "true christianity".........

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Garth

Like moving a box consecutively towards a wall half as far as it was moved the previous time? I see what you mean, but that does assume the existance of infinity, which in my mind is unprovable. It seems at the very least that one makes an extremely safe assumption that infinity exists.

One does not "assume the existence of infinity" in mathematics. Infinity is defined, and infinite quantities can be proven to exist. I can prove that the number of points on a line segment is infinite, for example. In fact, it's basically the same proof I already gave. In essence the proof proves that for any rational number n there is an infinite number of rational numbers less than n and greater than zero. That's not an assumption. That's a proof.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Garth

Like moving a box consecutively towards a wall half as far as it was moved the previous time? I see what you mean, but that does assume the existance of infinity, which in my mind is unprovable. It seems at the very least that one makes an extremely safe assumption that infinity exists.

One does not "assume the existence of infinity" in mathematics. Infinity is defined, and infinite quantities can be proven to exist. I can prove that the number of points on a line segment is infinite, for example. In fact, it's basically the same proof I already gave. In essence the proof proves that for any rational number n there is an infinite number of rational numbers less than n and greater than zero. That's not an assumption. That's a proof.

It's an assumption because nobody has every moved that box an "infinite" number of times to find out if it will ever hit the wall. They just make a safe assumption that it never will based on conventional mathematical theory. But until you've actually done such an experiment you do not know for a fact that the wall will never be hit.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Garth

Like moving a box consecutively towards a wall half as far as it was moved the previous time? I see what you mean, but that does assume the existance of infinity, which in my mind is unprovable. It seems at the very least that one makes an extremely safe assumption that infinity exists.

One does not "assume the existence of infinity" in mathematics. Infinity is defined, and infinite quantities can be proven to exist. I can prove that the number of points on a line segment is infinite, for example. In fact, it's basically the same proof I al

You can't prove that. You assume that it will be infinite. Until you find each point on the line it does not exist................neither does infinity

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: kogase

It's an assumption because nobody has every moved that box an "infinite" number of times to find out if it will ever hit the wall.

One doesn't need to. We're dealling with numbers, and mathematics is all that is necessary.

{snip}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RCN

You can't prove that.

Acutally, I already did.

You assume that it will be infinite.

Rather, I proved that it is contradictory to assert that the number is finite.

Until you find each point on the line it does not exist................neither does infinity

I suggest in the future you refrain from pontificating about subjects that you do not understand thoroughly.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RCN

You can't prove that.

Acutally, I already did.

You assume that it will be infinite.

Rather, I proved that it is contradictory to assert that the number is finite. I completely understand what you think you have proven.

Until you find each point on the line it does not exist................neither does infinity

I suggest in the future you refrain from pontificating about subjects that you do not understand thoroughly.

:laugh:
Your mathematics is based on the "idea" of infinity. You didn't prove anything........

I was really just fvcking with you, although I don't believe in infinity, but before you say I don't understand you should research constructivism.

 

[Howard]

Technically I should say I'm agnostic, but most days I simply can't believe there's a higher being.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: kogase

It's an assumption because nobody has every moved that box an "infinite" number of times to find out if it will ever hit the wall.

One doesn't need to. We're dealling with numbers, and mathematics is all that is necessary.

{snip}

Limit the scope, you limit the findings. I think my point still stands even in the realm of mathematics though. Although it is convenient to use the theory of infinity in practical mathematics, I still don't think that it has been "proved".

 

[erub]

Judaism..conservative

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RCN

You can't prove that.

Acutally, I already did.

You assume that it will be infinite.

Rather, I proved that it is contradictory to assert that the number is finite.

Until you find each point on the line it does not exist................neither does infinity

I suggest in the future you refrain from pontificating about subjects that you do not understand thoroughly.

:laugh:
Your mathematics is based on the "idea" of infinity. You didn't prove anything........

I was really just fvcking with you, although I don't believe in infinity, but before you say I don't understand you should research constructivism.

Okay, and I therefore apologize for insinuating you were ignorant of the subtleties involved. Regardless, in order to deny my proof, you'd need to deny the law of the excluded middle, which is problematic, IMHO. If a set is not finite and it is not infinite, what is it?