Is Atheism a crutch for people who don’t understand the complexity of God?

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

Ok, now you have a name for it.
Lets start by defining some structures for your model, and then we can see if they are axiomatizable.

I hope you know formal languages and predicate logic - it really helps.

No, I don't really like to define it. I just make it up as I go. Its not efficient. It doesn't make sense. Anyways it says 2+2=5, can you prove me wrong?

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from andrasnm:

I will give you two 2 dollar bills and you will give me a fiver, deal?
I'll do it all year long.....now are you convinced?

Sure. But you should know something, those little bronze coins? I call those fivers. When can we start?

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from jonbig04:

No, I don't really like to define it. I just make it up as I go. Its not efficient. It doesn't make sense. Anyways it says 2+2=5, can you prove me wrong?

OK.
You have a name for "it" - jonbigism and a statement "2+2=5". That is not sufficient for completeness and it is not valid - therefore it is not true within your system, which in fact is just nonsensical as most everything you have said in this thread.
There... that is an informal quick proof.

Happy?


Oh, by the way - about your other nonsense - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

However, if you knew something about logics, you could probably be a little more convincing. I doubt you even know that Aristotelian logic (term logic, or propositional logic) even is.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

OK.
You have a name for "it" - jonbigism and a statement "2+2=5". That is not sufficient for completeness and it is not valid
herefore it is not true within your system..There... that is an informal quick proof.

Yep its complete.Tell me why its wrong? What rules are you basing its lack of validity on? Not your rules I hope, because I make up my own.


which in fact is just nonsensical as most everything you have said in this thread.


"nonsensical" implies that you are basing your assertions on some kind of "sense". Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? 2+2=5 does doest not make sense. I agree. Because "sense" is based on what we have learned and what we have been taught to be true...however the fact that mos people think a certain way doesn't make that the only right way, its just the most commonly accepted.

For example, I could replace the number 4 with the number 5 for the rest of my life. 1, 2, 3, 5 ,4, 6, and be completely fine. The problem would only arise when someone held up all the fingers on their right had except for one and I said "oh, that's 5". Then we would be confused much the same as I would be confused if a chinese person told me how to say "4" in their language. However when it came to building a bridge, or balancing my check book 4 and 5 being switched around wouldn't make a difference.

Truth. Fact. Morality. Justice. Logic. Reason. What you do no understand, and what you would have figured out if you really had done your homework is all subjective. We all think in a general way because it makes working, living, and interacting with each other easier. This is true of everything. You may think its odd that tribesmen in Africa file their teeth to sharp points, or that they drink the blood of an animal. However is that any different that having a doctor in hollywood shave the bone in your nose, or place silicone in the breasts of women?

Its is ALL subjective.

Oh and I wouldnt talk in the negative about the things I've said in this thread. How many questions of yours have I left unanswered? How man times did I state things that weren't true when you pressed me for proof? How many times did I insult you. Since you're an analytical guy count the number of times I did those things, then count the number of times you did those things. You know what the result will be.

 

[Gringinho]

jonbig04,

for you to have a valid statement - it must lie within a system which has some "integrity" and can be used to prove anything - i.e a link between the semantic and syntactic structure towards being a model. If not, you are just playing nonsensical games.

That is what model theory and Gödel's completeness theorem is about.

Now, if you at least defined a formal grammar, then you could see if you would start making any sense...
You can "recode" numbers like you alluded to, but it must have a sensible structure, or else no one would ever understand what you actually were meaning, since it would not be consistent.

Look into completeness, soundness and model theory - I'm really not in the mood to be your personal tutor if you have such special needs that you are unable to look up and learn anything about logic.


It would be much easier for yourself, if you tried to just stay within philosophy, because I doubt you have the mathematical background to comprehend what I am talking about.

You also fling out nonsense and questions that would take a whole day answering, and still you would say it was not relevant - like you did before when I answered your questions. Frankly, I see no answers from you - just nonsense. You show no structure in your argumentation, so there is little to "communicate" in your posts dealing with your "philosophical viewpoints". If you know what epistemology is - then start using some of this knowledge to structure your position. As it stands now, you are just jumbling together statements and claims without any coherent viewpoint or support for your position... and would me asking you 40 questions even things out for you? What would be the point, frankly? All nonsense. You show that you can master nonsense - and bravo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

jonbig04,

for you to have a valid statement - it must lie within a system which has some "integrity" and can be used to prove anything -


Ok Gring, you said my statement of 2+2=5 was "not valid". Those were your words. As it turns out jonbigism is exactly the same as standard math, except that 4 is in the place of 5 and vice-versa. Thats it. Does it lack integrity? jonbigism can be used to do anything that your math can do.

So now that I've explained my system to you, I want you to explain to me why 2+2=5 (using jonbigism) is as you said "not valid".

I didnt address the rst of your post because it was really kind of pointless, and I want you to answer the above and nothing else.

 

[I am...]

Gringinho wrote:

That is the best intellectual post I've ever read on EliteTrader in the context of religion, and you have gained some respect from me with this - unlike your other posts in debates we have had earlier. It is clear that you have a deeper understanding of the philosophical aspects of Abrahamic religion, unlike most other people.

Thank you. What would you call the process of separating out truth from illusion? I call it religion. But as you have noticed, there seems to be a dark, imposter process which masquerades as religion. It is most noticable among the Abrahamic traditions. But these are symbolic of an imposter process masquerading at a much more grandios scope.

"The universe" is an imposter universe; illusion masquerading as reality. "The universe" is a lie spinning itself off as "truth". "The universe" is a web of deciet intent upon snaring the mind that thinks about it, looks upon it, or focuses its attention on its complexity of detail. It usurps absolute truth with its own version of "absolute truth", forcing itself on the beguiled mind by every means imaginable. "The universe" spins lies around one mind, cocooning it within bodies, the better to force the mind to accept the "reality" of its "laws". Eyeballs are lies, designed to see only lies, seeing nothing as something. Ears decieve, hearing what they want to hear. And the isolated "individual" feels what is false, feeling guilt and fear and unworthiness. Now the individual can be sold a solution that plays off of fear and guilt, swallowing a camel of confusion.

It is this that true religion discerns, exposes, untangles and resolves. Religion separates the *wheat* from what imitates wheat, *sheep* from what masquerades as sheep, *truth* from what poses as truth, and *truth-seeking processes* from what appear to be truth-seeking processes. In such a universe, it is quiet possible that a truth-seeking process be imposed to subvert actual truth-seeking, serving merely to distract attention away from what is essential. It is a co-op between deceiver and decieved.

Jesus

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from jonbig04:

Quote from Gringinho:

jonbig04,

for you to have a valid statement - it must lie within a system which has some "integrity" and can be used to prove anything -


Ok Gring, you said my statement of 2+2=5 was "not valid". Those were your words. As it turns out jonbigism is exactly the same as standard math, except that 4 is in the place of 5 and vice-versa. Thats it. Does it lack integrity? jonbigism can be used to do anything that your math can do.

So now that I've explained my system to you, I want you to explain to me why 2+2=5 (using jonbigism) is as you said "not valid".

I didnt address the rst of your post because it was really kind of pointless, and I want you to answer the above and nothing else.

Yes, you were being nonsensical ...
And you know absolutely nothing about mathematical philosophy... see ZFC.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

You also fling out nonsense and questions that would take a whole day answering, and still you would say it was not relevant - like you did before when I answered your questions. Frankly, I see no answers from you - just nonsense. You show no structure in your argumentation, so there is little to "communicate" in your posts dealing with your "philosophical viewpoints". If you know what epistemology is - then start using some of this knowledge to structure your position. As it stands now, you are just jumbling together statements and claims without any coherent viewpoint or support for your position... and would me asking you 40 questions even things out for you? What would be the point, frankly? All nonsense. You show that you can master nonsense - and bravo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

My questions to you haven't changed. The one from yesterday was "Can you prove to me that a supreme being does not exist" you decided not to touch that one, so I threw you a bone and asked "can you prove that God as described by the bible did no create man" You attempted to answer that one, but you never could. You said you had evidence and i asked for it. Im not asking "nonsensical" questions, Im just asking for the same things over and over because you CANNOT ANSWER THEM. Besides you know you got your ass handed to you yesterday, any one reading our correspondence would know, who are you trying to fool?

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

Yes, you were being nonsensical ...
And you know absolutely nothing about mathematical philosophy... see ZFC.

Once AGAIN you did not answer me. You said it was invalid, and I simply want to know why? I'm not asking you nonsensical questions. Just one. Answer the question gring.