It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 13
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: mOjOm

The axioms can be ripped apart!

skepticsplay.blogspot.co.nz...

A thought experiment is a poor way to do science, you need to get your hands dirty, and make measurements and observations, and then let someone else repeat them ... peer review. Otherwise it is intellectual masturbation


Just had a look at that link and I'm not impressed. Let's take Axiom 1 for example:

If property A is positive, and if property A entails property B, then B is positive.

This means that the set defined as having 'property A' contains a smaller sub-set defined as also having 'property B'. Becuse the sub-set is entirely contained within Set A, it must also have A's property. Think of a big circle surrounding the set of 'property A' and, entirely within it, a smaller circle that surrounds 'property B'. This means that all items with 'property B' are contained within the larger set of those containing 'property A'. So, in this case, all items with 'property B' must also have 'property A'. In the specific of the axiom, If A is "positive" then B must also be "positive".

The link that you posted assumes that A is somehow a subset of B, the very opposite of the axiom. It doesn't get it right and then draws an invalid conclusion from the error.

The only issue arises if A is an empty set (contains no members) and you try and include a B which isn't an empty set. Of course the axiom itself cannot be taken to describe any such nonsensical and impossible scenario and so the alleged refutation, as posed in the linked article, is frivolous.

edit on 2/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

That is just one of many places deconstructing it. Simply it is not proof.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

That is just one of many places deconstructing it. Simply it is not proof.


Nothing ever is.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ending it early isn't "making it count."

Sometimes it's the most reasonable course of action. If you're reasonably sure that what remains of your life is going to be nothing much more than extreme pain or confusion and terror ending in death, then there's no reason to stick around for that crap.


Well I guess that's fair, but I was talking about most situations. Mostly you aren't going to faced with a future of extreme pain where euthanasia would be a preferable options.
edit on 2-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I would like to see you explain it so that I may understand your understanding of it. Fair enough, surely?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

I would counter with mathematical proofs of the attributes of a God like being such as Godels Ontological proof, many philosophical arguments such as; 'Anslem's', or 'First Cause', or the 'Cosmological Argument from Contingency', or that consciousness itself indicates the possibility of the existence of immaterial beings, or the 'Design Argument' not to mention the many subjective evidences of God.



The weakness of "greatness" opens up the argument to further refutations. What happens if two people disagree on what makes something "great"? If a sociopath comes up and says, "maximally great includes maximal hatred for conscious life", what argument can be presented for that not being an actual quality of greatness? In fact, what argument at all is put forward for how we determine what is greatness? Consider the claim: "something that is maximally great cannot be denied." The argument suddenly becomes a reductio ad absurdum with the simple addition of that and "I deny god."
If this is supposed to follow from the definition of "maximally great being," then that definition needs substantial defense. Otherwise it is question-begging. It suffers from the same problem as St. Anselm's: existence is not a real predicate. A being that exists in every possible world is not greater than a being who does not exist in every possible world.

Perhaps the simplest objection to this argument, which works when it is used to justify a particular monotheistic religion, is that, even ignoring any problems with the axiomatic system required for its soundness, it proves nothing whatsoever about any properties of God beyond existence and "maximal greatness" - whether the one true god is YHVH, Allah, Satan, Ahura Mazda, Mahavishnu, Sithrak the Blind Gibberer or J. R. "Bob" Dobbs is as open a question as it has ever been. This makes it rather useless in apologetics specific to any particular religion.

The argument can be completely made laughable simply by changing "God" to "The Most Perfect Island" (or something similar). The argument remains structurally valid (that is, nothing in the symbolic formulation of the argument is incorrect), however, we come to the laughable conclusion that "The Most Perfect Island" must exist. Similarly, you could replace "God" with "Unicorns" and define "Unicorns" as "that than which no greater horse can be conceived". We now have an argument for the existence of unicorns, another mythological creature.

Another objection to the argument is also quite simple: one could change the possibility premise, and flip the argument on its head:

- A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
- A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
- It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
- Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
- Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
- Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.


interesting how the ontological argument doubles as its own rebuttal. honestly, it feels like the ontological argument tries to rationalize assumption by convincing the audience that "war is actually peace". absence of evidence is actually proof if you tilt your head and squint.

rationalwiki.org...


originally posted by: chr0naut

It also removes "first cause" as argument for, and about, these gods because they are dependent upon a prexistent 'environment of the gods' and each other (explanantion needs to be made to expain where each of the gods 'came from').

In the case of a monotheistic God, the is no need to explain a preexistent environment as heaven and the physical realms are created by, and existent after, God. God becomes the only uncaused cause of all else. God simply is, and all other is created.

A monotheistic God does not need to arise from environment nor be given birth, by other gods or processes.


i dont see how the explanation for where god or gods come from is resolved between polytheism and monotheism. its almost like you just junked the question along with 95% of theology. thats called being intellectually lazy. if you dont have the resources to properly resolve the mystery, there is no shame in admitting it.


I don't believe that science can make any determination on the existence of God or otherwise, it is just the wrong tool for the job. Many seem to assume that because science is about knowledge, that it can tell us everything. It simply cannot. For instance, one of the principles of science is that a theory must be falsifiable to be able to test it against its alternate. In many areas of knowledge, such is not the case.


examples? please and thank you.


I actually don't think it is a particularly strong argument. Its axioms assume, perhaps, too much and it hasn't also been fully investigated and fully 'proven' yet. However, acceptance of the axioms of the argument does not allow for non-existence of God. There is neccesarily ONLY the existence of a being with all attributes of "goodness" and no attributes of the opposite ('badness'?). The case of there not being such a "good" God is not logically possible, neither is a "bad" God possible (within the constraints of the argument).


well, according to the traditional narrative, evil and pain and suffering didnt exist BEFORE this god person showed up, only after.

just sayin'.



originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

That's cheating.

Long answer please. If you claim Godel's ontological proof is valid, you should understand it well enough to give us your own account of it.


OK, but you should perhaps request it in long form, stating the parts of the argument to which you disagree with and why.

Also, explain why you feel that the summary posted in Wikipedia is not sufficient an answer.

... and for what purpose would you require a more thorough long form answer?

Please provide your request in 500 words or more with full formal referencing of supporting quotes and conformant with standard academic style guidelines. Marks will be out of 100. Deadline is 12:00 PM before next Tuesday's lecture.




one does not necessarily have to understand what they are copying and pasting in order to copy and paste. "huh, this selection from the top three returns on my google search results looks like it vaguely supports my position and certainly excuses me from manually formulating an insightful reply". that sort of thing does happen around here, as i am sure you have noticed.

does it bother you to, as they say, ''show your work'?
edit on 2-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I guess that's fair, but I was talking about most situations. Mostly you aren't going to faced with a future of extreme pain where euthanasia would be a preferable options.

Hopefully. That's why I always say that I hope that I never find myself in a position where I'm not in enough control of my life to end it if I think it's the best option. I don't want to be too weak, or too lost in my own mind.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I guess that's fair, but I was talking about most situations. Mostly you aren't going to faced with a future of extreme pain where euthanasia would be a preferable options.

Hopefully. That's why I always say that I hope that I never find myself in a position where I'm not in enough control of my life to end it if I think it's the best option. I don't want to be too weak, or too lost in my own mind.


this is what i imagine goes through the mind of someone who is unable to perish. someone...divine, perhaps. especially when suicide is literally the one tool missing from their arsenal of resources.

edit on 2-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

I would like to see you explain it so that I may understand your understanding of it. Fair enough, surely?


Not fair enough.

My understanding of Godels Ontological argument is immaterial to its application in this topic thread. If the argument presents a cogent case in the topic, surely that must be addressed rather than a side issue?

The implication that I would present something without an understanding of it, is clearly an ad-hominem attack - which I must take as an indication that you have no actual valid rebuttal (until you provide one).

But, if you give me some time, I'm sure I could put together a simplification of Godels Ontological argument that even you might understand (see, I can do this too, it takes no mental effort) - nah, I won't.



It would be a great waste of my time to re-state the obvious. You'll have to satisfy yourself with Wikipedia and the many analyses of the argument. My understanding of the argument can remain forever a mystery to you.



edit on 2/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0nautI would counter with mathematical proofs of the attributes of a God like being such as Godels Ontological proof, many philosophical arguments such as; 'Anslem's', or 'First Cause', or the 'Cosmological Argument from Contingency', or that consciousness itself indicates the possibility of the existence of immaterial beings, or the 'Design Argument' not to mention the many subjective evidences of God.


interesting how the ontological argument doubles as its own rebuttal. honestly, it feels like the ontological argument tries to rationalize assumption by convincing the audience that "war is actually peace". absence of evidence is actually proof if you tilt your head and squint.
rationalwiki.org...


I starred your post because you are the first one to provide a proper and error free rebuttal to Godels Ontological argument (even if it was a cut & paste from RationalWiki).




originally posted by: chr0naut
i dont see how the explanation for where god or gods come from is resolved between polytheism and monotheism. its almost like you just junked the question along with 95% of theology. thats called being intellectually lazy. if you dont have the resources to properly resolve the mystery, there is no shame in admitting it.


Put simply, a monotheistic God can be uncaused or atemporal. In the case of a polytheism, the gods are dependent upon a 'realm of the gods' and this leaves the question of first cause unresolved. How could the 'realm' itself come about, as it must have existed prior to the gods who might possibly be its creator/s?



...


well, according to the traditional narrative, evil and pain and suffering didnt exist BEFORE this god person showed up, only after.

just sayin'.



The traditional narratives describe an eternally existent, and not temporally constrained, God, so there was no "BEFORE this God person showed up".

Here is a Wikipedia article on God. The article is from a monotheistic standpoint and incorporates many traditional coneptions but is not limited to any particular religion. It clearly outlines several attributes of God which seem to be absent in what I percieve to be your conception of God.




originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanaxa reply to: chr0nautThat's cheating.
Long answer please. If you claim Godel's ontological proof is valid, you should understand it well enough to give us your own account of it.
OK, but you should perhaps request it in long form, stating the parts of the argument to which you disagree with and why.Also, explain why you feel that the summary posted in Wikipedia is not sufficient an answer.
... and for what purpose would you require a more thorough long form answer? Please provide your request in 500 words or more with full formal referencing of supporting quotes and conformant with standard academic style guidelines. Marks will be out of 100. Deadline is 12:00 PM before next Tuesday's lecture.
one does not necessarily have to understand what they are copying and pasting in order to copy and paste. "huh, this selection from the top three returns on my google search results looks like it vaguely supports my position and certainly excuses me from manually formulating an insightful reply". that sort of thing does happen around here, as i am sure you have noticed.

does it bother you to, as they say, ''show your work'?


You copied and pasted from RationalWiki for yor refutation of Godels Ontological argument. It was sufficient enough for you. "Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander..."

Please also read my previous response to Astynax, which is relevant to your last question.

edit on 2/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


My understanding of Godels Ontological argument is immaterial to its application in this topic thread.

Hardly immaterial, since it was you — and only you — who applied it.


It would be a great waste of my time to re-state the obvious.

I am not asking you to explain Gödel’s argument to me. I am asking you to state your understanding of it. You are doubtless aware that Gödel’s original proof was written in German. Many different writers have translated it into English, and their formulations of it are not the same. I should like to see your version. That is all.


The implication that I would present something without an understanding of it, is clearly an ad-hominem attack

Perhaps you have forgotten what an ad hominem ‘attack’ (I think you mean argument) is. Allow me to remind you: it is a way of casting doubt on a proposition by casting doubt on the character or competence of the person who brought it forward. I am not doing anything like that.

I am merely asking what it is about Gödel’s Ontological Proof that makes you believe it counts as evidence for the existence of God. Because it is not ‘evidence’ of anything; it is a logical argument.

All ontological ‘proofs’, including Gödel’s, are attempts to prove the necessary existence of God, not from physical evidence, but from reason alone. In other words, they attempt to prove that God exists because He must exist — not in order to make the world or any part of it exist, not in order that there might be a distinction between good and evil, not in order to to secure for mortal humans the promise of an afterlife, but simply because a being of the type we call God has to exist, in and of itself.

Your invocation of the proof on this thread appears to gloss over this vital distinction. You confuse proof with evidence, stating that Godel ‘proves’ God through ‘rigorous mathematics’. So I should like to see how, in your view, a set of axioms and theorems counts as evidence for anything.

When I was in secondary school I studied the geometry of Euclid, in which I learned to prove that the area of a triangle was half the product of its base and height, that the relationship between a circle and its radius was given by a constant irrational number, and so on. None of this, however, gave evidence for the objective existence of triangles, circles and straight lines in, and in fact none of these objects exists in nature.

Thence my scepticism regarding mathematical ‘proofs’ of all kinds.


But, if you give me some time, I'm sure I could put together a simplification of Godels Ontological argument that even you might understand (see, I can do this too, it takes no mental effort).

Indeed. But what I asked of you does take some. I shall leave other readers of this post to draw the appropriate conclusions.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Are you familiar with the Fibonacci spiral? This is an example of both triangles and circles appearing in nature. Melchizedek has written a lot of interesting stuff



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


Are you familiar with the Fibonacci spiral?

Yes, of course. The point is that all forms and quantities in nature are imperfect, asymmetric, etc, and this applies to nautilus shells, sunflower seed arrangements and all the rest. Even planetary orbits are not regular ellipses. Therefore Euclid’s pure forms, though mathematically proven, do not exist in coarse reality. Likewise ontological proofs.

I don’t know who Melchizedek is, but a quick search of the internet brought up this. I’m no mathematician but I did study physics and the acoustics of music, and the author’s points 3,4, 5 and 6 are valid.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I mean... The OP isn't preaching any beliefs onto others. Its basically what it is. We cum "come" from something (nothing). Whether or not its (nothing), it ends up to be something, then ends up being a (nothing). There is no reason to debate. Stop bashing.
edit on 3-9-2016 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

This really depends on the form the math takes though and why it sometimes fails when applied as simple logic to solve problems in the real world...

lets turn your circle and sets into something else... the larger circle the body it contains blood type A and you start pumping blood type B into it, Both A type and B type will be in the set but doing that can be negative on the body not positive positive as blood type A is the positive in regard to the body's functioning and type B negative to it.

So the math you gave is correct and yet not correct and why math is still only a theory, differentiation and entropy or change sees that it stays that way. The possible combination of all things existing from atomic scale blended with the forms already present the possible combinations and reactions? We haven't even scratched the surface of technology... yet we've scratched some off the list due to the math of statistical likelihood instead of all possible applications or environments in which they can be tested? Madness.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Objectivity that never ends... people seem to want to stop short on a subject when no experience is ever the same twice ever aside from being at a different time there's countless processes and cell changes occuring atomic differences so vast even two DVD's are not even the same... they may appear the same play the same but are not cannot and will not ever be the same... not even if it is the same DVD when you pick it up to play it again, not only will you be different in body, mood, or even posture or location perhaps even in different company but it has picked up particulate the player has too, nothing is ever the same it all is impermance which means impermanence is the only permanence there is existant.

No matter how we peg life down in limited views and argue about them it will always fall short... it may seem to matter but that's just the ego because of all these conditions and rules we've subjected ourselves and others too as to what life and reality is or must be which is a limitation not a progression yet it is always a progression, the ego illusion or delusion says it isn't that this is concrete this is fact... no thats being subject to to things in observation only concrete is concrete yet concrete is just a label of a form that cannot be found we could call it moomar and that would not change the object in any way shape or form other than the label of that conglomerate of particles... and even the properties we say it has are empty depending on what perspective we take when looking at it it seems solid yet it is constantly moving on the atomic scale but solid enough at the frequency in which we exist of vibration to experience this particle mass and call it a label of solid.

Objectivity... pure naked awareness unclothed of any grasping just acceptance and awe as it is continually arising from infinity to infinity..
edit on 3-9-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Just dropping this link to a podcast interview with a guy who made a film that has got some attention . It seems that there is this knowledge within the scientific community of this thing they call the Axis of Evil . Well that was the name they called it but it has started taking on another name as of late . The author also points out that this sudden surge in the flat earth movement may have been a cyops to group the main point of his film with the nut bar flat earthers .

It was a good listen as he seems to be a intelligent guy and easy to listen to the way he makes his case .

Under Copernicus, the earth is just another small rock floating in the vastness of space. This has lead to philosophical dispositions that reject human purpose. The idea that the earth is at the center of the universe (geocentric earth), and that man is center stage in this cosmic drama, is one that makes science uncomfortable because it points to a Creator. Rejecting a Creator and with it, a geocentric model, leads to alarming conclusions. As Krauss admits in THE PRINCIPLE, the main tenants of the modern cosmological theory says that “We are more insignificant than we thought before…and the future is miserable.” This nihilistic conclusion is only natural for a physicist who puts materialism at the heart of his philosophy of science. But such a conclusion is not only unnecessary, but more importantly, untrue! Axis of Evil? The film features, among many intelligent folks, Max Tegmark, a professor at MIT who discovered what’s been labelled the “Axis of Evil.” While the name sounds haunting, in reality, the “Axis of Evil” is a pattern of spherical harmonics found in the background radiation of the universe. It shows that galaxies seem to cluster at 250 light year intervals, outward from the earth. While the scientific community has tried to say that this was a product of some kind of algorithmic or data gathering error, the multiple level tests conducted searching for the “Axis of Evil” have undeniably confirmed its existence. But this would imply something very unusual that Max Tegmark, admits is bizarre and astonishing. The concentric spheres spreads out in uniform with the earth at the center. In other words, the pattern only works given earth is in the middle. It would mean that the earth is at the center of the universe!
CCR 110: The Geocentric Principle with Rick DeLano www.canarycryradio.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

The premise interesting however there is a problem... no mention of the same calculations being made for any other planetary body in the universe. Perhaps it is a where you are there you are in realtion to everything else as far as location and relativity goes in time and space that every single thing revolves around every other single thing and every single particle due to this energy at the center of the universe every single particle being the center from it's own respective point in realitive space egos not included.
edit on 3-9-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Sure :>)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: chr0naut

This really depends on the form the math takes though and why it sometimes fails when applied as simple logic to solve problems in the real world...

lets turn your circle and sets into something else... the larger circle the body it contains blood type A and you start pumping blood type B into it, Both A type and B type will be in the set but doing that can be negative on the body not positive positive as blood type A is the positive in regard to the body's functioning and type B negative to it.

So the math you gave is correct and yet not correct and why math is still only a theory, differentiation and entropy or change sees that it stays that way. The possible combination of all things existing from atomic scale blended with the forms already present the possible combinations and reactions? We haven't even scratched the surface of technology... yet we've scratched some off the list due to the math of statistical likelihood instead of all possible applications or environments in which they can be tested? Madness.



The example given, of various sets, is a mathematical abstraction. It does not have any other attributes like objects in the real world. Beyond it's singular meaning in mathematical terms, one cannot confer complex attributes of real world objects upon the model. This is the purity of mathematical description, stripped as it is, of the extraneous.

The point was that the particular refutation of Godel's Ontological argument that was linked to in a previous post, made an error in the interpretation of Axiom 1 and therefore its conclusion, for that axiom, was poorly based.

I did point out that the counter argument (not the one presented) suggests that in the condition that 'Set A' was an empty set (zero members) one might imagine a contained subset B which did have memebrs which would invalidate the inference of of 'A's attributes being descriptive of 'B'. If such were possible, the refutation would stand, but if B is a subset of A, then A MUST have members (those in set B). So the logical refutation is of a condition that is impossible and therefore irrelevant as argument.

edit on 4/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join