Happy Atheist Forum

If God exists can he/she/it proved by Logic or not?
If God exists can he defies Logic?
Do we have an agreement on the Basis of Logic or not? can we formalized some rules regarding Logic?

Hi guys I'm an expert in Logic and would like to help every one here (Atheists/Theists) to find the truth

Please be honest in your search and don't just defend your faith/None?

*I'll not answer any offensive, off topic posts

It would depend on your deffinition of god and it"s noted powers and limitation.

Quote from: "Tanker"It would depend on your deffinition of god and it"s noted powers and limitation.

I mean just the basics that almost all theists will agree on

God is a being that created everything,

His power and limitation is off topic here, but most theists agree that he has infinite power and no limitations (except his will)

I assume your talking about the judeo-christian god then. Since many shamanistic and naturalistic, not to mention polytheistic religions, don't have the same qualifications for "god". Which is why I asked for the clarification. According to the Judeo-Christian deffinion of god you must belive with faith not reason or logic. In my own studies I haven't found much religious "logic" the wasen't inherently illogical. So no I don't personally believe the "faith" that most religions require, logical, nor do any powers or presumed godliness seem logical. Short anwer, no.

Quote from: "Messenger"I mean just the basics that almost all theists will agree on

God is a being that created everything,

His power and limitation is off topic here, but most theists agree that he has infinite power and no limitations (except his will)

1. A god is a being that has created everything.
2. A god exists.
3. Therefore a being exists that created itself.

The conclusion, while not in contradiction with any of the other premises, seems to contradict itself.
I guess we should define 'create' better to assess if 3 is indeed logically possible.

i thought the Christian god was supposed to always have existed thus had no need to create him/her self. I mean, the Nicene Creed says, refering to Jesus the "he was eternally begotten before all worlds. " If we take the words literally, then we have no problem with the logic I think -

1. A god is a being that has created everything.
2. A god always existed.
3. [strike:2dqfal3i]Therefore a being exists that created itself.[/strike:2dqfal3i]

Quote from: "wheels5894"i thought the Christian god was supposed to always have existed thus had no need to create him/her self. I mean, the Nicene Creed says, refering to Jesus the "he was eternally begotten before all worlds. " If we take the words literally, then we have no problem with the logic I think -

1. A god is a being that has created everything.
2. A god always existed.
3. [strike:2on4ey9w]Therefore a being exists that created itself.[/strike:2on4ey9w]

1. A god is a being that has created everything.
2. A god always existed.
3. Therefore a god is not part of everything
4. Therefore no god exists.
5. 4 and 2 contradict each other, at least one of our premises (1 or 2) must be false.
6. Therefore god is not a being that has created everything, or god has not always existed.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "wheels5894"i thought the Christian god was supposed to always have existed thus had no need to create him/her self. I mean, the Nicene Creed says, refering to Jesus the "he was eternally begotten before all worlds. " If we take the words literally, then we have no problem with the logic I think -

1. A god is a being that has created everything.
2. A god always existed.
3. [strike:3vtdg2lv]Therefore a being exists that created itself.[/strike:3vtdg2lv]

1. A god is a being that has created everything.
2. A god always existed.
3. Therefore a god is not part of everything
4. Therefore no god exists.
5. 4 and 2 contradict each other, at least one of our premises (1 or 2) must be false.
6. Therefore god is not a being that has created everything, or god has not always existed.

This should be obvious, everything means Everything except him

Too obvious statements are redundant to be posted among normal people

Quote from: "Tanker"I assume your talking about the judeo-christian god then. Since many shamanistic and naturalistic, not to mention polytheistic religions, don't have the same qualifications for "god". Which is why I asked for the clarification. According to the Judeo-Christian deffinion of god you must belive with faith not reason or logic. In my own studies I haven't found much religious "logic" the wasen't inherently illogical. So no I don't personally believe the "faith" that most religions require, logical, nor do any powers or presumed godliness seem logical. Short anwer, no.

I totally agree with you, if God can not be proven, there is no need to believe in him at all

If he exists and did not make any effort to allow us to prove him, then he is unfair and has no right to punish us for not believing in him

So I think that if God exists we should be able to prove him (and disprove every false God as well)
And this proof should not need too much knowledge or science to be understood (even more science and knowledge should lead more towards not away from him)

Quote from: "Messenger"This should be obvious, everything means Everything except him

Too obvious statements is redundant to be posted among normal people

Why should that be obvious? If you're going to use words to mean something they don't usually mean, you can't expect people to know this without telling them. I'd expect much more care for the definitons from a logician  

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"This should be obvious, everything means Everything except him

Too obvious statements is redundant to be posted among normal people

Why should that be obvious? If you're going to use words to mean something they don't usually mean, you can't expect people to know this without telling them. I'd expect much more care for the definitons from a logician  

Because nothing can creates itself!
Which brings us to LOGIC

What is Logic?
Can we have a formal definition of Logic that we can use to test any statement if it is logical or not; For example "God created himself"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Why should that be obvious? If you're going to use words to mean something they don't usually mean, you can't expect people to know this without telling them. I'd expect much more care for the definitons from a logician  :D

In order to determine the truth of a statement it must depend on premises whose truth is known.
Based on the premises you've given me so far, I don't think it is possible to logically prove that a god can or cannot exist.

That's exactly why I was trying to get his deffinion of god. Information even logicical information can't work in a void you must set parameters or it's all metal maturbation. What may seem logical to one person with one set of parameters is completly illogical to a person with a diffrent set of parameters. As an example 0x0=0 is perfectly logical while 6x0=0 may not seem as logical it might seem it should be 6x0=6. Unless you had the parameters that 0 x n is zero.

Quote from: "Tanker"That's exactly why I was trying to get his deffinion of god. Information even logicical information can't work in a void you must set parameters or it's all metal maturbation. What may seem logical to one person with one set of parameters is completly illogical to a person with a diffrent set of parameters. As an example 0x0=0 is perfectly logical while 6x0=0 may not seem as logical it might seem it should be 6x0=6. Unless you had the parameters that 0 x n is zero.

Yes, but notice that Logical does not mean Correct

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore""Nothing can create itself" is a premise that wasn't included. It may follow from the definition of 'to create' which is why I suggested we should look into that.

No, the statement "God created himself" fails by itself

QuoteWhat is logic? Odd question from a logician  

I know, I just want to know what is yours

QuoteIn order to determine the truth of a statement it must depend on premises whose truth is known.
Based on the premises you've given me so far, I don't think it is possible to logically prove that a god can or cannot exist.

We are not talking about truth or even does God exist or not!
We are talking about Logic and will it be possible to prove or disprove God using it

First we need to formalize Logic, then we have a common base to start with

Quote from: "Messenger"Yes, but notice that Logical does not means Correct

Why the capitalization of the words logic and correct? Just  wondering...

Perhaps I should address the OP a bit more clearly :

Quote from: "Messenger"f God exists can he/she/it proved by Logic or not?

That largely depends on what premises and definitions you start from.

Quote from: "Messenger"If God exists can he defies Logic?

As logic is a human-made formal system that tries to describe reality, it is possible that certain things lie outside that system.
In fact Gödel's incompleteness theorems guarantee that.

But since logic is so tightly coupled with our language it becomes very hard to describe or even meaningfully speak about things that defy logic.

Quote from: "Messenger"Do we have an agreement on the Basis of Logic or not? can we formalized some rules regarding Logic?

I think mathematics has already done it's fair share in this field. Logic is largely formalized. Just an example here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_classical_logic)

Quote from: "Messenger"Hi guys I'm an expert in Logic and would like to help every one here (Atheists/Theists) to find the truth

Are you for real? I know a little about logic myself, and so far I haven't seen any from your hand!
And if you really are an expert on logic: Why do you propose to know the truth???
Please...
And by the way isn't that an illogical claim, when you also claim this:

QuoteYes, but notice that Logical does not mean Correct

Come on... what are you really here to say? And why not fill out your worldview truthfully??? If you are a logician, then its your trade, not your worldview. It all appears a bit devious to me.

Quote from: "Messenger"No, the statement "God created himself" fails by itself

So you claim it's truth does not depend on the definitions of the words 'god' and 'to create' ?

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteWhat is logic? Odd question from a logician  

I know, I just want to know what is yours

I see no need to redefine it, so I'll just give you the wiki definition

"Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference."

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIn order to determine the truth of a statement it must depend on premises whose truth is known.
Based on the premises you've given me so far, I don't think it is possible to logically prove that a god can or cannot exist.

We are not talking about truth or even does God exist or not!
We are talking about Logic and will it be possible to prove or disprove God using it

Since logic merely describes what valid inference is, and does not dictate what your starting premises should be, I'd say everything can be proven or disproven, depending on your starting premises and definitions.

Quote from: "Messenger"First we need to formalize Logic, then we have a common base to start with

Luckily this basis has been laid out already.

Damn it I just wrote out a long piece on the poster needing to set the limits for the discussion and what logic is and how debate works and it diddn't post. I made some good points too. Well I'm not rewriting it Short verion you set the subect YOU set the limits of said dicussion or it totaly pointless.

I'm not sure what your world view is but this forum incourages all faiths, beliefs and denomanations. Not saying you're an undercover theist but your kinda coming off that way. If you belive in god fine, if you don't fine. but It's hard to discuss religion with you not knowing your beliefs. We do have theists on this forum Titan is a prolific poster and a christian.

Quote from: "Messenger"First we need to formalize Logic, then we have a common base to start with

As I said, I already know formal logic. So let's use the standard rules of inference for sentential logic and rules of inference for first-order logic. There... all done... I have formalized logic, you can begin   (I don't claim to be an "expert" though, I just took formal logic for a couple of terms.)

I believe logic is the only tool to bring a verdict on any affair, including the existence of a god. However, "De-Nile" ain't just a river in Egypt. Letting go of theism isn't easy for most.

Quote from: "Sophus"I believe logic is the only tool to bring a verdict on any affair, including the existence of a god. However, "De-Nile" ain't just a river in Egypt. Letting go of theism isn't easy for most.

Yeah, it was a long and hard road for me as well.  :lol:

Looks like Messenger vanished as soon as I adressed him. Too bad. Maybe he didn't want to show true colors yet.

QuoteHow about trial and error? Inductive reasoning, etc?

I like your thinking but I would say those both direct to logic as they are both systems of reasoning.

FWIW no ... outside of math I don't think logic alone can prove anything, I think it takes evidence to do that (and even that doesn't actually *prove* things simply changes the probability). It's the old deductive vs inductive reasoning argument.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"FWIW no ... outside of math I don't think logic alone can prove anything, I think it takes evidence to do that (and even that doesn't actually *prove* things simply changes the probability). It's the old deductive vs inductive reasoning argument.

Kyu

Yup. I agree. My point is that they are not opposed. They correlate eachother, which is also what Sophus ment I think. He just gave logic a higher status, than the others and I don't agree. I think they are equal, and mutually dependant.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Are you for real? I know a little about logic myself, and so far I haven't seen any from your hand!
And if you really are an expert on logic: Why do you propose to know the truth???

Because I can prove it!

QuoteCome on... what are you really here to say? And why not fill out your worldview truthfully??? If you are a logician, then its your trade, not your worldview. It all appears a bit devious to me.

Usually people oppose what they don't know, Logic can prove everything about religion
Science, mathematics, etc. can prove correctness of most things after that

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Messenger"First we need to formalize Logic, then we have a common base to start with

As I said, I already know formal logic. So let's use the standard rules of inference for sentential logic and rules of inference for first-order logic. There... all done... I have formalized logic, you can begin   (I don't claim to be an "expert" though, I just took formal logic for a couple of terms.)

What are you proposing is description for Logic or Logical rules not a definition
We are looking for a definition (A criteria) that we can use against any statement to test if it is logical or not

For example If we want to define a circle
A continuous line of a set of points that have a fixed distance (the radius) from a fixed point (the center).
then we can test any shape if it is a circle or not using this definition.

Can we do the same with Logic?

I'll give you some hints
S1- All apples are blue
S2- All apples are red, my apple is green
S3-USA area is 4 Million Km, Texas area is 5 Millions Km, Texas is part of USA
Which statements are logical and which are not?

Quote from: "Messenger"What are you proposing is description for Logic or Logical rules not a definition
We are looking for a definition (A criteria) that we can use against any statement to test if it is logical or not

This statement alone is enough indication that you haven't the foggiest.

Quote from: "Messenger"For example If we want to define a circle
A continuous line of a set of points that have a fixed distance (the radius) from a fixed point (the center).
then we can test any shape if it is a circle or not using this definition.

By itself this definition is not enough to do that. Some of the terms used in the definition require a definition of their own.

Quote from: "Messenger"Can we do the same with Logic?

I'll give you some hints
S1- All apples are blue
S2- All apples are red, my apple is green
S3-USA area is 4 Million Km, Texas area is 5 Millions Km, Texas is part of USA
Which statements are logical and which are not?

I'd really like to see where you're going with this.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"No, the statement "God created himself" fails by itself

So you claim it's truth does not depend on the definitions of the words 'god' and 'to create' ?

No, it is the opposite, I claim it is false regardless of the definition of God, but it relies somehow on the definition of "create"

QuoteI see no need to redefine it, so I'll just give you the wiki definition
"Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference."

We need a test criteria, not a description, can you try again?

QuoteIn order to determine the truth of a statement it must depend on premises whose truth is known.
Based on the premises you've given me so far, I don't think it is possible to logically prove that a god can or cannot exist.

Good start, but let's go step by step, first we define logic

QuoteSince logic merely describes what valid inference is, and does not dictate what your starting premises should be, I'd say everything can be proven or disproved, depending on your starting premises and definitions.

Absolutely correct, we need some FACT(s)+ LOGIC to prove/disprove anything
but sometimes we can disprove something without any fact; if it is illogical

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Are you for real? I know a little about logic myself, and so far I haven't seen any from your hand!
And if you really are an expert on logic: Why do you propose to know the truth???

Because I can prove it!

I hope you are aware of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteCome on... what are you really here to say? And why not fill out your worldview truthfully??? If you are a logician, then its your trade, not your worldview. It all appears a bit devious to me.

Usually people oppose what they don't know, Logic can prove everything about religion

Ironically the reverse is also true. Logic can disprove everything about religion.
It really is just a matter of which premises you start from.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"No, the statement "God created himself" fails by itself

So you claim it's truth does not depend on the definitions of the words 'god' and 'to create' ?

No, it is the opposite, I claim it is false regardless of the definition of God, but it relies somehow on the definition of "create"

Ok let me define "god":

A god is a being that has created itself.

This definition would make the statement "God created himself" a tautology.

So your claim that "it is false regardless of the definition of God" is false.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteI see no need to redefine it, so I'll just give you the wiki definition
"Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference."

We need a test criteria, not a description, can you try again?

It is a test criterion. Whatever is not "the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference" is not logic.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIn order to determine the truth of a statement it must depend on premises whose truth is known.
Based on the premises you've given me so far, I don't think it is possible to logically prove that a god can or cannot exist.

Good start, but let's go step by step, first we define logic

We have. You're just stalling.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteSince logic merely describes what valid inference is, and does not dictate what your starting premises should be, I'd say everything can be proven or disproved, depending on your starting premises and definitions.

Absolutely correct, we need some FACT(s)+ LOGIC to prove/disprove anything
but sometimes we can disprove something without any fact; if it is illogical

If you mean that a given set of premises can lead to a contradiction, then you are correct.

Quote from: "bowmore"

QuoteFor example If we want to define a circle
A continuous line of a set of points that have a fixed distance (the radius) from a fixed point (the center).
then we can test any shape if it is a circle or not using this definition.

By itself this definition is not enough to do that. Some of the terms used in the definition require a definition of their own.

That is obvious, Knowledge=Prior Knowledge + Logic X Observations  :D
S1 is Logical but not true
S2, S3 are illogical i.e. not true as well

Quote from: "bowmore"Ok let me define "god":A god is a being that has created itself.

This definition would make the statement "God created himself" a tautology.

So your claim that "it is false regardless of the definition of God" is false.

Very good, your definition is called a Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox), Paradoxes can be stated but they are impossible to exist
So we can prove by no doubt that your God is a false one, he does not exist for sure

QuoteIt is a test criterion. Whatever is not "the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference" is not logic.

Yes, but it is vague
You can not give this definition to a simple person and say to him use it to test a statement
We are looking for a much simpler definition that can be used
(I don't say that there is only one definition for logic, but logic is the only accepted fact between human with no doubt)

QuoteIf you mean that a given set of premises can lead to a contradiction, then you are correct.

We can use that to define logic  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"By itself this definition is not enough to do that. Some of the terms used in the definition require a definition of their own.

That is obvious, Knowledge=Prior Knowledge + Logic X Observations  :D
S1 is Logical but not true
S2, S3 are illogical i.e. not true as well

I think you are defining logical to mean what a logician would call consistent.

S2 is only inconsistent if apples can have only one colour.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Ok let me define "god":A god is a being that has created itself.

This definition would make the statement "God created himself" a tautology.

So your claim that "it is false regardless of the definition of God" is false.

Very good, your definition is called a Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox), Paradoxes can be stated but they are impossible to exist
So we can prove by no doubt that your God is a false one, he does not exist for sure

That still depends on the definition of 'to create'.

If 'to create something' would mean 'to see the reflection of something in a mirror' there is no paradox.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIt is a test criterion. Whatever is not "the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference" is not logic.

Yes, but it is vague
You can not give this definition to a simple person and say to him use it to test a statement

It is you that insisted that the definition of logic is something you can use to test statements. I disagree.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIf you mean that a given set of premises can lead to a contradiction, then you are correct.

We can use that to define logic  

Well it's silly to call it illogical, since within logic (the study of the rules of valid inference) we already have a word for it : 'inconsistent'.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"By itself this definition is not enough to do that. Some of the terms used in the definition require a definition of their own.

That is obvious, Knowledge=Prior Knowledge + Logic X Observations  
If you have a doubt about any thing you can ask?

Define : continuous, line and distance.

I'm not the man for that, you can search for their definitions (I just accepted their definitions)

QuoteI think you are defining logical to mean what a logician would call consistent.

Yes, this is very close

QuoteS2 is only inconsistent if apples can have only one color.

Yes, it is saying all Apples are red (it means all number apples and also the all/whole of each apple
The point is, a statement can be tested to be logical or not, without the need to test if it is correct or not

We can test those example without actually knowing apples at all

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Are you for real? I know a little about logic myself, and so far I haven't seen any from your hand!
And if you really are an expert on logic: Why do you propose to know the truth???

Because I can prove it!

Quote

QuoteCome on... what are you really here to say? And why not fill out your worldview truthfully??? If you are a logician, then its your trade, not your worldview. It all appears a bit devious to me.

Usually people oppose what they don't know, Logic can prove everything about religion
Science, mathematics, etc. can prove correctness of most things after that

First of all, you didn't answer the question you quoted, why even quote it if you are going to ignore it anyway?....
If that is your viewpoint ("logic can prove everything about religion")... Then why start this thread as a question????

Quote from: "Messenger"What are you proposing is description for Logic or Logical rules not a definition
We are looking for a definition (A criteria) that we can use against any statement to test if it is logical or not

You don't even now semantic logic, do you? That is exactly what we can do with it!
What you are saying is: Nono we cannot just go for a drive. We have to reinvent the internal combustion engine.  
And still no real logic... your 4 sentences are so primitive , I showed them to my 8 year old son. Even he could without problem discern the "logic" in those.

Quote from: "bowmore"

QuoteBecause I can prove it!

I hope you are aware of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

He can't be, since he makes such a preposterous claim. And which truth? (I might ad) Complying with which truth concept? (I might ad further, and I could go on... It's just so dumb that I won't.)

QuoteLogic can disprove everything about religion.
It really is just a matter of which premises you start from.

Doesn't that make this thread absurd then?
You can prove/disprove anything with logic, that is why your basic premises are so important.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"And still no real logic... your 4 sentences are so primitive , I showed them to my 8 year old son. Even he could without problem discern the "logic" in those.

That is the point, primitive logic can prove/disprove God  

We can use a criteria like: Logic is: Identifying things consistently
Or in other words, every thing that has no contradiction is logical
Or Paradoxes are impossible to exist

To prove correctness, we need to start from some facts then deduce from it (Using Logic) conclusion(s)

To test this definition we can apply it to any statement
If we can not bring a logical statement that violates it, or an illogical one that conforms with it, then it is valid

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"And still no real logic... your 4 sentences are so primitive , I showed them to my 8 year old son. Even he could without problem discern the "logic" in those.

That is the point, primitive logic can prove/disprove God  

We can use a criteria like: Logic is: Identifying things consistently
Or in other words, every thing that has no contradiction is logical
Or Paradoxes are impossible to exist

To prove correctness, we need to start from some facts then deduce from it (Using Logic) conclusion(s)

To test this definition we can apply it to any statement
If we can not bring a logical statement that violates it, or an illogical one that conforms with it, then it is valid

I'll restate my most important question, since you are so selective with what you answer. (Actually you did not even answer one):

You don't even now semantic logic, do you?
Or do you think that religious issues are not an area that appears within semantics, but mathematics instead?

Quote from: "Zarathustra"You don't even now semantic logic, do you?

I think you mean using logic in semantic, because the term semantic logic is not scientific (At least in my studies)

QuoteOr do you think that religious issues are not an area that appears within semantics, but mathematics instead?

Both can apply
My point is that; very basic common sense (call it Logic or Consistency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency_proof) can be used to make a sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) proof about God)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"You don't even now semantic logic, do you?

I think you mean using logic in semantic, because the term semantic logic is not scientific (At least in my studies)

No I don't mean that. So the answer to my question is apparently: NO! You obviously don't know this. The term semantic logic is indeed scientific. (Within linguistics, sociology and philosophy, to name a few.)

Quote

QuoteOr do you think that religious issues are not an area that appears within semantics, but mathematics instead?

Both can apply
My point is that; very basic common sense (call it Logic or Consistency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency_proof) can be used to make a sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) proof about God)

Well then you don't really have a point, do you... How can mathematics apply to this field??? And you don't have link to wiki definitions. As I wrote, a know a lot about logic. (And apparently within this field a lot more than you.)That you continously put your assumptions in bold, is not convincing - but goes against the forum rules.

But thanks for answering my question. Next unanswered question was:
If that is your viewpoint ("logic can prove everything about religion")... Then why start this thread as a question???

I just realised: Maybe this thread could be productive after all  :pop:
2. The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is false, he does not exist for sure. http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2223&start=0 :lol:  Who wants to help out?
 :pop:

Anyone...?

Quote from: "Messenger"To prove correctness, we need to start from some facts then deduce from it (Using Logic) conclusion(s)

To test this definition we can apply it to any statement
If we can not bring a logical statement that violates it, or an illogical one that conforms with it, then it is valid

So all you've been doing all along is trying to tell us that if we can deduct a contradiction from a given set of premises, then at least one premise must be false.
Apparently you also seem to think this is what logic is all about...

More importantly, you haven't even begun to arrive at your claim : that logic can prove anything about religion.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"To prove correctness, we need to start from some facts then deduce from it (Using Logic) conclusion(s)

To test this definition we can apply it to any statement
If we can not bring a logical statement that violates it, or an illogical one that conforms with it, then it is valid

So all you've been doing all along is trying to tell us that if we can deduct a contradiction from a given set of premises, then at least one premise must be false.
Apparently you also seem to think this is what logic is all about...

I did not say that!
What I'm saying is Logic (As consistency in identifying things) is the formal term for common sense
Anything logical can be true, anything illogical must be imaginary

QuoteMore importantly, you haven't even begun to arrive at your claim : that logic can prove anything about religion.

Be patient, do you think that the most important issue in your life does not worse to be discussed thoroughly

Quote from: "Zarathustra"I just realised: Maybe this thread could be productive after all  :pop:
2. The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is false, he does not exist for sure. http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2223&start=0 :lol:  Who wants to help out?
  Here is one:
The greek gods are immortal, and always the same age. How did the children of zeus grow up then, and how did he grow old? That is also a paradox--- and vupti:

3. The greek gods are false, they do not exist for sure .

Don't jump conclusions, we will come to this later
But we can say that "Paradoxes are impossible to exist" (Even by any God)

Quote from: "Zarathustra"No I don't mean that. So the answer to my question is apparently: NO! You obviously don't know this. The term semantic logic is indeed scientific. (Within linguistics, sociology and philosophy, to name a few.)

Please, give a reference?

QuoteWell then you don't really have a point, do you... How can mathematics apply to this field???

Wait and see  :hail: , then what do you think about my definition?
i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

QuoteIf that is your viewpoint ("logic can prove everything about religion")... Then why start this thread as a question???

Because I want you to lead yourself from start to conclusion, it will be your proof not mine

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteMore importantly, you haven't even begun to arrive at your claim : that logic can prove anything about religion.

Be patient, do you think that the most important issue in your life does not worse to be discussed thoroughly

I'll be the judge of what is most important in my life, thank you.

Quote from: "Messenger"i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

Consider the set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves, we'll call it S.

Apply your criterion to : "S contains itself".

Quote from: "bowmore"I'll be the judge of what is most important in my life, thank you.

If it is proved, it is not a matter of judgment or choice any more, it will be a FACT

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

Consider the set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves, we'll call it S.
Apply your criterion to : "S contains itself".

The answer is S does/can not exist

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"I'll be the judge of what is most important in my life, thank you.

If it is proved, it is not a matter of judgment or choice any more, it will be a FACT

I'm eagerly awaiting you to demonstrate this.
The socratic method will not make your argument any more valid.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

Consider the set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves, we'll call it S.
Apply your criterion to : "S contains itself".

The answer is S does/can not exist

Em.. the question was if the statement

"S contains itself" is logical.

Quote from: "bowmore"Em.. the question was if the statement
"S contains itself" is logical.

No, it is not
It is the same like my old statements S2, S3
All apples are red, my apple is green

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Em.. the question was if the statement
"S contains itself" is logical.

No, it is not

Wrong.

If it is not logical (by your assertion) it must be false. But if it is false, it should be true, and if it is true it must be logical...

This is an example for Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

Another one would be : "This statement is false".

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Em.. the question was if the statement
"S contains itself" is logical.

No, it is not

Wrong.
If it is not logical (by your assertion) it must be false. But if it is false, it should be true, and if it is true it must be logical...
This is an example for Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
Another one would be : "This statement is false".

Then try to apply my rule again
My rule is about consistency in defining things
Your definition of S is contradicting with itself, which make it illogical (According to my rule)

When I said "false" I did not mean the opposite of true, I meant its existence is false, i.e. can not exist

So let me restate it again!  "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist"

as for the statement "This statement is false", it is logical and it exists
Questioning if it is true or false is out of topic, it is neither true nor false

Quote from: "Messenger"So let me restate it again!  "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist"

So your criterion is only appicable to statements that claim something exists...

And while I would agree with "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist" it is only of value if you believe logic accurately describes reality. I've met theists who insist that logic doesn't apply to their god, and they would certainly not agree with you.

Quote from: "bowmore"So your criterion is only appicable to statements that claim something exists...
And while I would agree with "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist" it is only of value if you believe logic accurately describes reality.

If God exists then the only way to prove himself is by logic (common sense)
Because if he used any other way; It will not be available or even agreed to all people, i.e. not fair
And if God claims that he is just, it will be a paradox which mean he does not exist   :brick:

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"I just realised: Maybe this thread could be productive after all  :pop:
2. The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is false, he does not exist for sure. http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2223&start=0 :lol:  Who wants to help out?
 :pop:

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting. I'll sit back and have a laugh.  

Are you afraid?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"So your criterion is only appicable to statements that claim something exists...
And while I would agree with "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist" it is only of value if you believe logic accurately describes reality.

If God exists then the only way to prove himself is by logic (common sense)

I wouldn't call common sense the same as logic though.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteI've met theists who insist that logic doesn't apply to their god, and they would certainly not agree with you.

Regarding any matter (except God) we call a person who is not using logic INSANE

Any theist (or atheist) who claims that illogical can exist is hopeless in discussing anything with him, nothing can be proved/disproved to him  

Personally I value logic highly. But I find that ultimately logic is only validated through induction. Epistemologically we then end up with Hume's problem of induction. There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

To those atheists that maintain logic doesn't apply to god, I just insist that they've just shot themselves in the foot, as the burden of proof lies with them, and they've just robbed themselves of the one tool that could prove god.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

QuoteIf that is your viewpoint ("logic can prove everything about religion")... Then why start this thread as a question???

Because I want you to lead yourself from start to conclusion, it will be your proof not mine

Do you consider this a logical answer, Bowmore?

Messenger is obviously just applying the socratic method. I find it condescending, and it really stretches the thread to become much longer than need be.

I'm very interested how he will demonstrate his point though.

Quote from: "bowmore"There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

We don't need to consider all Logic, we can use only this rule X<>Not(X)
or in words "A real thing can not have contradictions"

QuoteTo those atheists that maintain logic doesn't apply to god, I just insist that they've just shot themselves in the foot, as the burden of proof lies with them, and they've just robbed themselves of the one tool that could prove god.

It applies to both theists and atheists as well, they are delusional

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting. I'll sit back and have a laugh.  :beer:

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting.

So, do you agree or disagree that "Contradictions can not exist"?
For example a "Circle square shape"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting.

So, do you agree or disagree that "Contradictions can not exist"?
For example a "Circle square shape"

Quit stalling! Read this book: "Modern Logic - A Text in Elementary Symbolic Logic" by Graeme Forbes, Oxford University Press, 1994 - as I recommended. Or another textbook on logic. Then come back and I'll be happy to debate you.
Until then have fun with Bowmore (or rather vice versa   )

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

We don't need to consider all Logic, we can use only this rule X<>Not(X)
or in words "A real thing can not have contradictions"

Yet that rule is a rule of logic. You cannot use it to prove logic's own validity, that would be circular reasoning.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

We don't need to consider all Logic, we can use only this rule X<>Not(X)
or in words "A real thing can not have contradictions"

Yet that rule is a rule of logic. You cannot use it to prove logic's own validity, that would be circular reasoning.

It is just a formalization of how people describe things

When I describe a shape as a circle it means by default that it is not a square
This rule does not depend by any mean on the object itself, it depends on "my" definition of the words "Circle" and "Square"

If someone refers to a shape as a circle, then in another statement refers to it as a square, he is illogical (Inconsistent) or this shape does not exist for real
This rule is the basis of all our knowledge and how our brain works
A child cries for his mother, stops when she takes him, because he knows that with her <> without her  i.e. X<> not(X)
Even animals know that as well

It is amazing that many Theists/Atheists don't know/accept that as a fact

Quote from: "Messenger"It is amazing that many Theists/Atheists don't know/accept that as a fact

I'll accept it on a pragmatical basis.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"It is amazing that many Theists/Atheists don't know/accept that as a fact

I'll accept it on a pragmatical basis.

Then we can move to proving/disproving god

A proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof) is a sequence of valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) inferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference) that start from a set of facts and Axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) to a conclusion

If that sequence hold a Logical consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence) then the conclusion becomes a fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)

Now I am as scared as Lance Armstrong challenged by a kid on a tricycle.  :cool:

Quote from: "Messenger"A proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof) is a sequence of valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) inferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference) that start from a set of facts and Axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) to a conclusion

If that sequence hold a Logical consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence) then the conclusion becomes a fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)

Nothing new for me there.

Quote from: "Messenger""A real thing can not have contradictions"

Thread ended.  The Bible has just been disproven.

Next?  

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Within mathematics, yes I agree, you describe that conclusion as a "fact". Within any other scientific field - including logic - no. Then the conclusion becomes a hypothesis

Mathematics is nothing more than logic using some symbols
I can make the logical proof using mathematical symbols as well

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"A proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof) is a sequence of valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) inferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference) that start from a set of facts and Axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) to a conclusion

If that sequence hold a Logical consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence) then the conclusion becomes a fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)

Nothing new for me there.

Yes, this is just to put basis for our discussion

Let's start
Fact 1
X<> Not(X)

Fact 2
S(t)<> Not(S(t))   (State at a specific time t)

S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change
Which means that if the state of anything changed, an action must have happened to change that state
and something must did that action to happen
In other words "Nothing comes from Nothing"

Quote from: "Messenger"Let's start

He says at page 6

Quote from: "Messenger"Fact 1
X<> Not(X)

Axiom of non contradiction. check.

Quote from: "Messenger"Fact 2
S(t)<> Not(S(t))   (State at a specific time t)

Applied to S(t)... still fine

Quote from: "Messenger"S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change

How do you arrive at this?

you change t to t1 and t2 without explanation, and the unless phrase is added without explanation as well.
Note that S(t1) is not necessarily Not(Not(S(t2)). This statement is a non sequitur.

Furthermore the statement is obviously false as even without an agent S(t1) can differ from S(t2).

Imagine a falling brick. It will be at different heights at moment t1 and t2 without the need of an agent intervening.

Quote from: "Messenger"Which means that if the state of anything changed, an action must have happened to change that state
and something must did that action to happen
In other words "Nothing comes from Nothing"

You are definitely using some hidden premises, or you just assumed your conclusion. Either way the argument as it is formulated here is invalid.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change

How do you arrive at this?

As time is just a frame of reference not an agent of change
S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN)
Using Fact 1, different values are not equal
If a state changed it is not the initial state and time is not an agent another agent is the cause of that change

QuoteImagine a falling brick. It will be at different heights at moment t1 and t2 without the need of an agent intervening.

No, Earth and Gravity are agents of change
If No earth and no gravity the brick will not fall!

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change

How do you arrive at this?

As time is just a frame of reference not an agent of change
S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN)
Using Fact 1, different values are not equal

Fact 1 is the axiom of non contradiction, which states that a statement and it's opposite cannot be both be true.
It doesn't say "Different values are not equal"

So by no means can you conclude that S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN) from S(t) <> Not(S(t))

Quote from: "Messenger"If a state changed it is not the initial state and time is not an agent another agent is the cause of that change

This would only follow if "changes need an agent to cause them". Since you did not include that as a premise, your current argument is invalid.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteImagine a falling brick. It will be at different heights at moment t1 and t2 without the need of an agent intervening.

No, Earth and Gravity are agents of change
If No earth and no gravity the brick will not fall!

Point taken, I'll give a better example. Imagine a brick moving through space at a speed greater than zero m/s, without any forces acting upon it.

Since Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Within mathematics, yes I agree, you describe that conclusion as a "fact". Within any other scientific field - including logic - no. Then the conclusion becomes a hypothesis

Mathematics is nothing more than logic using some symbols
I can make the logical proof using mathematical symbols as well

Yes, mathematics is more than logic, it is a tool to describe quantity. I think you mean, that you can make a mathematical proof using mathematical symbols, that adhere with logic.
The point is, that it is a rule you assume based on your background in mathematics. - It is not a rule which is agreed upon in the area you are in right now - which is not mathematics. You can't call it a fact, but a hypothesis. "Correct" is another word that applies, "fact" just isn't.
By the way, when explaining the sudden value change:

QuoteAs time is just a frame of reference not an agent of change

Could you please persuade the cells in my body this "fact". I wouldn't mind staying young and fit forever.  :pop:

Quote from: "bowmore"Fact 1 is the axiom of non contradiction, which states that a statement and it's opposite cannot be both be true.
It doesn't say "Different values are not equal"

So by no means can you conclude that S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN) from S(t) <> Not(S(t))

It does with a little analysis
for example if we assume that an apple can be red, green or yellow
If we say it is red, it means that it is not (G nor Y)

QuoteSince Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

But its movement needs a cause!

Quote from: "Zarathustra"It is not a rule which is agreed upon in the area you are in right now - which is not mathematics. You can't call it a fact, but a hypothesis. "Correct" is another word that applies, "fact" just isn't.

It think there is no difference, Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

QuoteCould you please persuade the cells in my body this "fact". I wouldn't mind staying young and fit forever.

Even cells or decay or radiation have a cause, it is not time it is an attribute of the object itself
If time is the agent then why non-living things don't die  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"It is not a rule which is agreed upon in the area you are in right now - which is not mathematics. You can't call it a fact, but a hypothesis. "Correct" is another word that applies, "fact" just isn't.

It think there is no difference, Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

Where you kicked out of school? Is that why you stopped your ph.d?
If you really where a "logician", you would know that I didn't adress the law of the excluded middle. I agree that it stands as one of our few axioms.
What I was clearly referring to was these assumptions:

Quote from: "Messenger"A proof is a sequence of valid inferences that start from a set of facts and Axioms to a conclusion

If that sequence hold a Logical consequence then the conclusion becomes a fact

Assumption 1 is correct. What you quoted me for, was a response to assumption 2. You should know that, and be able to respond to it if you were really a logician... :lol:[/quote]Do you really think that non-living things do not deteriorate over time?  

Anyway: Your answer for bowmore was a load of crap. Respond to his questions or get out of this forum.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"the law of the excluded middle. I agree that it stands as one of our few axioms.

Very good that you believe in some facts

What I was clearly referring to was these assumptions:

Quote from: "Messenger"A proof is a sequence of valid inferences that start from a set of facts and Axioms to a conclusion

QuoteDo you really think that non-living things do not deteriorate over time?

NO, they but each object has its own attributes, then don't behave the same
Even deterioration has a cause (Particle emitting for example)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"What I was clearly referring to was these assumptions:

Quote from: "Messenger"A proof is a sequence of valid inferences that start from a set of facts and Axioms to a conclusion

QuoteDo you really think that non-living things do not deteriorate over time?

NO, they but each object has its own attributes, then don't behave the same
Even deterioration has a cause (Particle emitting for example)

Damn. You really ARE an expert...!
- In misquoting out of context. You are not half bad at not answering anything either.  :pop:

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Fact 1 is the axiom of non contradiction, which states that a statement and it's opposite cannot be both be true.
It doesn't say "Different values are not equal"

So by no means can you conclude that S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN) from S(t) <> Not(S(t))

It does with a little analysis
for example if we assume that an apple can be red, green or yellow
If we say it is red, it means that it is not (G nor Y)

I assume you mean "not (G or Y)" which means "not(G) and not(Y) whereas "not(G nor Y)" would be equal to "not(G and not(Y))" and thus "not(G) or Y"

So assuming A(c) means "The Apple is c" where c is a colour from {red(R), green(G), yellow(Y) }

You say you can arrive at

A(R)=A(G)=A(Y)

from

A(R) <> Not(A(R)) ?

I'd like to see you produce this step by step.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteSince Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

But its movement needs a cause!

There is no logical law that says so.
I'm also told that certain events at the quantum level are not caused (but I'm no quantum mechanics specialist).
So that every change needs a cause is your assertion, not a logical necessity, and not an observed fact.

At any rate you didn't include it in your argument, and I'd already warned you for audiatur et altera pars.

Quote from: "Messenger"Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

A chess board is both black and white  

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

A chess board is both black and white  :D

That is how my proof will work

Quote from: "Messenger"That is how my proof will work

I'm more interested in how you'll make your proof for "nothing comes from nothing" work.

You haven't addressed any of the issues I pointed out with it.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"That is how my proof will work

I'm more interested in how you'll make your proof for "nothing comes from nothing" work.

You haven't addressed any of the issues I pointed out with it.

I'll think in a way, but any way we can say that it is a proof for people who believe that "Nothing comes from nothing"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"That is how my proof will work

I'm more interested in how you'll make your proof for "nothing comes from nothing" work.

You haven't addressed any of the issues I pointed out with it.

I'll think in a way, but any way we can say that it is a proof for people who believe that "Nothing comes from nothing"

That didn't make sense.

As we accepted that X <> not X
then Existence <> non existence
Existence(T) <> no existence(T)

and Existence(T) <> no existence(T+t)  as t goes to zero

So for something to exist at any time T+t, another existence must exist at T
Which means "Nothing comes from nothing"

 

Quote from: "Messenger"As we accepted that X <> not X
then Existence <> non existence
Existence(T) <> no existence(T)

and Existence(T) <> no existence(T+t)  as t goes to zero

So for something to exist at any time T+t, another existence must exist at T
Which means "Nothing comes from nothing"

the formulation "as t goes to zero" presupposes that existence(x) is a continuous function around T, and that you can calculate a limit for it. Considering that the possible values of this function would be {true, false} that is not very likely.

Apart from the fact that you now start mingling calculus terminology into boolean algebra, it still seems you just presuppose that which you want to prove. All you've done is dress up "Nothing comes from nothing" as the assumption that existence(x) is continuous around T.

In other words : this argument is circulus in demonstrando.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"As we accepted that X <> not X
then Existence <> non existence
Existence(T) <> no existence(T)

and Existence(T) <> no existence(T+t)  as t goes to zero

So for something to exist at any time T+t, another existence must exist at T
Which means "Nothing comes from nothing"

the formulation "as t goes to zero" presupposes that existence(x) is a continuous function around T, and that you can calculate a limit for it. Considering that the possible values of this function would be {true, false} that is not very likely.

Apart from the fact that you now start mingling calculus terminology into boolean algebra, it still seems you just presuppose that which you want to prove. All you've done is dress up "Nothing comes from nothing" as the assumption that existence(x) is continuous around T.

In other words : this argument is circulus in demonstrando.

Existence is our perception to it at time t
being true or false means it is continuous or not
So there is no difference between being continuous or be true or false over time

Yes, I know that I did not start the proof yet, this is the 2 facts that I'll use in the proof
1-Contradictions does not exist  x <> not x
2-Nothing comes from nothing

Quote from: "Messenger"Existence is our perception to it at time t

This definition is circular.

Quote from: "Messenger"being true or false means it is continuous or not

This does not logically follow.

Quote from: "Messenger"So there is no difference between being continuous or be true or false over time

If it is not continuous then "Nothing comes from nothing" cannot be inferred from "existence(T) <> not existence(T)".

Quote from: "Messenger"Yes, I know that I did not start the proof yet, this is the 2 facts that I'll use in the proof
1-Contradictions does not exist  x <> not x
2-Nothing comes from nothing

The first is an axiom, not a fact.
The second is a premise, not a fact, as it's truth hasn't been established.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Existence is our perception to it at time t

This definition is circular.

Then define  your own "Existence"?

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"being true or false means it is continuous or not

This does not logically follow.

No, it is
Continuous means it applies (evaluate) over time
If we assume that it can evaluate to false then it is continuous

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"Yes, I know that I did not start the proof yet, this is the 2 facts that I'll use in the proof
1-Contradictions does not exist  x <> not x
2-Nothing comes from nothing

The first is an axiom, not a fact.

Agreed

QuoteThe second is a premise, not a fact, as it's truth hasn't been established.

See above?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"being true or false means it is continuous or not

This does not logically follow.

No, it is
Continuous means it applies (evaluate) over time
If we assume that it can evaluate to false then it is continuous

That's not the meaning of continuous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function) I'm talking about.

Let me perhaps explain what I mean a bit more clearly. (I'll abbreviate Existence(t) to E(t))

You posit that E(t) <> not E(t + dt) where dt is very small.
In other words that
E(t) = E(t + dt)

Yet there is no justification for this assertion. The truth of a statement can change over very short periods of time.
Take for instance "The sun is in the zenith" it may be true at time t, but false at time t+dt. You have not shown that this cannot be the case for E(t), you have merely assumed it. Which is why I said you just assumed what you set out to show.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteThe second is a premise, not a fact, as it's truth hasn't been established.

See above?

Perhaps you understand my objection better now.

Quote from: "bowmore"You posit that E(t) <> not E(t + dt) where dt is very small.
In other words that
E(t) = E(t + dt)

Yet there is no justification for this assertion. The truth of a statement can change over very short periods of time.

That is the point when you said over very short period of time
take a less time than you just said, it won't change (As you said)
This is the concept of limits as t goes to Zero

The change needs a cause

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"You posit that E(t) <> not E(t + dt) where dt is very small.
In other words that
E(t) = E(t + dt)

Yet there is no justification for this assertion. The truth of a statement can change over very short periods of time.

That is the point when you said over very short period of time
take a less time than you just said, it won't change (As you said)
This is the concept of limits as t goes to Zero

Then at the very best you've shown that the limit of E(x) for x approaching t is E(t),
but not that E(t) = E(t+dt)

I'll give another example to show what I mean : Take this statement "x = 5".
It is true for x = 5, but for every x+dx it is false when dx is very small but not zero.
Any change in x, no matter how small, will result in the statement being false.

Quote from: "Messenger"The change needs a cause

This is a total non sequitur. A cause and how it relates to change is not even defined properly.
You could just as well have said : The change needs a towel.

But what's worse is that your first step is to try and prove that change cannot occur, to then conclude that changes need causes.
But if changes need causes, and changes cannot occur, than nothing is caused.
At any rate you're trying to prove things which contradict observation.

Quote from: "bowmore"Then at the very best you've shown that the limit of E(x) for x approaching t is E(t),
but not that E(t) = E(t+dt)

I'll give another example to show what I mean : Take this statement "x = 5".
It is true for x = 5, but for every x+dx it is false when dx is very small but not zero.
Any change in x, no matter how small, will result in the statement being false.

X=5 now and after small time t, till you change x
For example when you observe something, from that time till you know (inside your brain) what it is, it did not change

QuoteBut what's worse is that your first step is to try and prove that change cannot occur, to then conclude that changes need causes.
But if changes need causes, and changes cannot occur, than nothing is caused.
At any rate you're trying to prove things which contradict observation.

Yes, changes can not occur (by itself), you just said that; any function f(X) can not change till you change x
Your problem is that you are mixing real objects with time
Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"I'll give another example to show what I mean : Take this statement "x = 5".
It is true for x = 5, but for every x+dx it is false when dx is very small but not zero.
Any change in x, no matter how small, will result in the statement being false.

X=5 now and after small time t, till you change x
For example when you observe something, from that time till you know (inside your brain) what it is, it did not change

You don't get it do you. My "x=5" example isn't about time.

E(t) = "Something exists at time t" the variable here is time
"x = 5" the variable here isn't time, but a number.

I was merely pointing out that small changes in the variable can lead to a statement switching from true to false. No matter how small the change. So it is by no means a given that small changes in a time variable cannot have that same result. In fact "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is exactly such a statement, for which a change in the time variable, no matter how small can shift the statement from true to false or vice versa.

Therefore if you claim that sufficiently small changes in the time variable for E(t) will never result in such a shift you do so without proof. In other words you assume what you want to prove, that "nothing comes from nothing".

My conclusion is that "nothing comes from nothing" is an unproven premise, not a fact.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteBut what's worse is that your first step is to try and prove that change cannot occur, to then conclude that changes need causes.
But if changes need causes, and changes cannot occur, than nothing is caused.
At any rate you're trying to prove things which contradict observation.

Yes, changes can not occur (by itself),

Whoops! You did it again.
We observe that changes can occur. and you assume without proof that they cannot occur by themselves.

Quote from: "Messenger"you just said that; any function f(X) can not change till you change x

Don't twist my words. Changing x does not change the function. Note that a function is merely a set, not something dynamic.
I continuously get the strong feeling that your knowledge of math and logic isn't what you claim it to be, I cannot otherwise explain why you misinterpret what I'm saying.

Quote from: "Messenger"Your problem is that you are mixing real objects with time

I don't mix those. I'm merely pointing to the flaw in your argument : You assume what you set out to prove.

Quote from: "Messenger"Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

This is all the more reason to assume that we cannot deduce facts about reality if we start from such a framework. Of course logic itself is also such a framework.

Quote from: "bowmore"You don't get it do you. My "x=5" example isn't about time..

So is existence
Existence at time t does not change when t changes by a very small amount
And as larger amounts consists of many small dt
t does not affect the function by itself
E(T)=E(T+t)

QuoteIn fact "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is exactly such a statement, for which a change in the time variable, no matter how small can shift the statement from true to false or vice versa.

Yes, but the sun location changes due to other causes beside time
Can you bring just one example of a function that changes over time due to no other parameter?

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

This is all the more reason to assume that we cannot deduce facts about reality if we start from such a framework. Of course logic itself is also such a framework

It is like inventing another frame of reference called zime
We can add z to any function (for example car weight over zime)
z does not affect the car weight by definition (so is time) because both are hypothetical parameters not real
Only real parameters can do the change (for example number of wheels, engine type, etc.)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"You don't get it do you. My "x=5" example isn't about time..

So is existence
Existence at time t does not change when t changes by a very small amount
And as larger amounts consists of many small dt
t does not affect the function by itself
E(T)=E(T+t)

I've bolded your assumption. You provide no proof for this.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIn fact "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is exactly such a statement, for which a change in the time variable, no matter how small can shift the statement from true to false or vice versa.

Yes, but the sun location changes due to other causes beside time
Can you bring just one example of a function that changes over time due to no other parameter?

Note that in reality it's the Earth's location that changes.  
I've also not claimed that it is time that causes the change, merely that for different values for t the truth of "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is different, even if those different values for t are really close together.

I've given another example already.

Quote from: "bowmore"Imagine a brick moving through space at a speed greater than zero m/s, without any forces acting upon it.

Since Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

This is all the more reason to assume that we cannot deduce facts about reality if we start from such a framework. Of course logic itself is also such a framework

It is like inventing another frame of reference called zime
We can add z to any function (for example car weight over zime)
z does not affect the car weight by definition (so is time) because both are hypothetical parameters not real
Only real parameters can do the change (for example number of wheels, engine type, etc.)

The difference being of course that logic and time as frameworks are backed by observations of real phenomena. Whereas 'zime' is just a figment of your imagination, and nothing more.
Observation tells us that changes do occur over time. Trying to prove they don't is futile, and if you'd succeed in doing so, you'd only establish that the framework you use to model reality is wrong.

Quote from: "bowmore"The difference being of course that logic and time as frameworks are backed by observations of real phenomena. Whereas 'zime' is just a figment of your imagination, and nothing more.

Logic is different than time
Logic is our definition of words or how to explain things
Time is just our invention as (my zime) time is not tangible and does not affect any thing, it is the opposite (we measure changes by time)

QuoteObservation tells us that changes do occur over time. Trying to prove they don't is futile, and if you'd succeed in doing so, you'd only establish that the framework you use to model reality is wrong.

Time is our observation, not observation leads to time

if everything is static, time does and can not exist or be observed at all
So we can conclude that time does not change any thing, i.e. f(t1) = f(t2) if no parameter (other than time) change
This parameter we call it "A cause"

Quote from: "Messenger"Logic is different than time
Logic is our definition of words or how to explain things

Exactly, and no matter what names and definitions we come up with, they don't change reality.

Quote from: "Messenger"if everything is static, time does and can not exist or be observed at all

So not everything is static.

Quote from: "Messenger"So we can conclude that time does not change any thing, i.e. f(t1) = f(t2) if no parameter (other than time) change
This parameter we call it "A cause"[/b]

I've never said that time is the cause.
Change occurs, we measure this with time, therefore it is possible that f(t1) <> f(t2).
You only assume that the change needs a cause. It doesn't follow from observing time or change in itself.

Quote from: "bowmore"Exactly, and no matter what names and definitions we come up with, they don't change reality.
So not everything is static.

Agreed

QuoteI've never said that time is the cause.
Change occurs, we measure this with time, therefore it is possible that f(t1) <> f(t2).
You only assume that the change needs a cause. It doesn't follow from observing time or change in itself.

Your definition of function violates this, a function does not change by itself, it needs an effective parameter in it to do the change
And as you only put t, I assumed that you mean time does the change, do you mean that nothing did the change in your called function  

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteI've never said that time is the cause.
Change occurs, we measure this with time, therefore it is possible that f(t1) <> f(t2).
You only assume that the change needs a cause. It doesn't follow from observing time or change in itself.

Your definition of function violates this, a function does not change by itself, it needs an effective parameter in it to do the change

Functions are not dynamic, they are static sets. If you "change" the parameter, all you're doing is looking at another element of the set.

Look at this function : g()={(1, false),(2,false),(3,true)}. It's a set.
I can describe this set by means of a variable.

g(x) = "x = 3" and x is in {1,2,3}

Changing the value of x does not change the function.

Quote from: "Messenger"And as you only put t, I assumed that you mean time does the change, do you mean that nothing did the change in your called function  

That is because you insist that change needs a cause. All I'm saying is that you provide no proof for this assertion.

Quote from: "bowmore"Functions are not dynamic, they are static sets. If you "change" the parameter, all you're doing is looking at another element of the set.

Look at this function : g()={(1, false),(2,false),(3,true)}. It's a set.
I can describe this set by means of a variable.
g(x) = "x = 3" and x is in {1,2,3}

Changing the value of x does not change the function.

sorry you are mistaken, you must map your discussion to reality not mathematics
Bring a real function example
Mathematics is just approximation/formalization to reality

QuoteThat is because you insist that change needs a cause. All I'm saying is that you provide no proof for this assertion.

You even violated your own rules, when you selected a certain value for x, you did change (which x we are looking to)

Quote from: "Messenger"sorry you are mistaken, you must map your discussion to reality not mathematics
Bring a real function example
Mathematics is just approximation/formalization to reality

Logic is a part of mathematics. if we throw out maths, your argument self destructs.

After all it isn't I, who started with mathematical abstractions. You brought functions up.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteThat is because you insist that change needs a cause. All I'm saying is that you provide no proof for this assertion.

You even violated your own rules, when you selected a certain value for x, you did change (which x we are looking to)

Changing what moment in time we look at doesn't change reality, which is the mistake I've been trying to point out to you.
If I say
"The sun is in the zenith at 11:59 am"
and then
"The sun is in the zenith at 12:00 pm"
and conclude that the first is false and the second is true, have I changed reality? No. I've just looked at different parts of reality.
I can gather a lot of these observations in a set :
e.g. {(11:58 am, false),(11:59 am, false),(12:00 pm, true),(12:01 pm, false),...}
I can then conclude this set has the properties of a function, and describe it with the help of a variable.
At no point have I changed reality.

I really can't put it any clearer than this.

Quote from: "bowmore"Logic is a part of mathematics. if we throw out maths, your argument self destructs.
After all it isn't I, who started with mathematical abstractions. You brought functions up.

We can only use mathematics in discussing reality
Hypothetical mathematics does not apply in reality (they are just approximations)

QuoteChanging what moment in time we look at doesn't change reality, which is the mistake I've been trying to point out to you.
If I say
"The sun is in the zenith at 11:59 am"
and then
"The sun is in the zenith at 12:00 pm"
and conclude that the first is false and the second is true, have I changed reality? No. I've just looked at different parts of reality.
I can gather a lot of these observations in a set :
e.g. {(11:58 am, false),(11:59 am, false),(12:00 pm, true),(12:01 pm, false),...}
I can then conclude this set has the properties of a function, and describe it with the help of a variable.
At no point have I changed reality.

Go back to the subject, we are discussing existence which is a real function
This real function must have a parameter to change it
Your example reflects real changes in reality with a real cause, so what is your point?

You could not bring a real function (or even mathematical one) that can change from nothing

Quote from: "Messenger"We can only use mathematics in discussing reality
Hypothetical mathematics does not apply in reality (they are just approximations)

There is no such thing as 'hypothetical' mathematics. You're grasping at straws.

Quote from: "Messenger"Go back to the subject, we are discussing existence which is a real function

How is it any more real than the example I gave? They both make statements about reality. Both can be formulated with time as a parameter.
I feel you're just deliberately wasting my time. Instead of solving the problem with your argument you have me reformulate it over and over again. It's time you step up to the challenge and provide the proof I've asked, or admit you cannot prove "Nothing comes from nothing" as a fact.

Quote from: "Messenger"This real function must have a parameter to change it

Nope.

Quote from: "Messenger"Your example reflects real changes in reality with a real cause, so what is your point?

What cause?

Quote from: "Messenger"You could not bring a real function (or even mathematical one) that can change from nothing

Once again : functions do not change, reality does.

Frustrating, isn't it bowmore?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Frustrating, isn't it bowmore?

What do you mean  :banna:

Quote from: "bowmore"There is no such thing as 'hypothetical' mathematics. You're grasping at straws.

Can you bring me a real -Number line -X, Y axis -Infinity?

QuoteHow is it any more real than the example I gave? They both make statements about reality. Both can be formulated with time as a parameter.
I feel you're just deliberately wasting my time. Instead of solving the problem with your argument you have me reformulate it over and over again. It's time you step up to the challenge and provide the proof I've asked, or admit you cannot prove "Nothing comes from nothing" as a fact.

I already did
You agree that time does not affect a function (real or mathematical)
and you follow the function definition which needs a parameter to change value, if the function is real it will need a real parameter to change its value
This is called a proof, to refute it you have only 2 options 1-bring an example that violates it 2-Prove that the proof itself is illogical or does not map reality

Quotefunctions do not change, reality does.

It makes no difference, you just explained it in a way to look like that

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"There is no such thing as 'hypothetical' mathematics. You're grasping at straws.

Can you bring me a real -Number line -X, Y axis -Infinity?

You make the mistake in assuming that I assert the opposite of your claim. I don't. I don't have to prove the opposite of your claim to invalidate your argument.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteHow is it any more real than the example I gave? They both make statements about reality. Both can be formulated with time as a parameter.
I feel you're just deliberately wasting my time. Instead of solving the problem with your argument you have me reformulate it over and over again. It's time you step up to the challenge and provide the proof I've asked, or admit you cannot prove "Nothing comes from nothing" as a fact.

I already did
You agree that time does not affect a function (real or mathematical)
and you follow the function definition which needs a parameter to change value, if the function is real it will need a real parameter to change its value

I disagree with the notion that a function prescribes what reality is. It describes what reality is.
I have shown you how any function can be expressed without a parameter at all. (This really is basic calculus)
The values of the function are the result of observing reality, and reality is not the outcome of a function being fed a certain parameter.

Quote from: "Messenger"This is called a proof, to refute it you have only 2 options 1-bring an example that violates it 2-Prove that the proof itself is illogical or does not map reality

The proof is illogical because it uses unstated premises.
Either state them as premises, or prove them to be necessarily true.

Quote from: "bowmore"I disagree with the notion that a function prescribes what reality is. It describes what reality is.
I have shown you how any function can be expressed without a parameter at all. (This really is basic calculus)
The values of the function are the result of observing reality, and reality is not the outcome of a function being fed a certain parameter.

1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

Quote from: "Messenger"1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

Do you now admit we know things that have no cause?

How did you arrive at that probability? Do you have any source for it?

Quote from: "Messenger"2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

A change in status.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

Do you now admit we know things that have no cause?
How did you arrive at that probability? Do you have any source for it?

I'm just talking from your point of view, Every thing you/and me know has a cause!
If you don't accept that, give an example?

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

A change in status.

Very good
As we agree on X<> not X (it is almost the only thing that we agree on)
1-f(t1)=Status1 <> f(t2)=Status 2
as no object can have 2 statuses at the same time, and as
2- Time does not change anything
Status1(t1)=Status1(t2)

Which means that the status of any object can not change by itself, it needs a doer,i.e. a cause to do the change

Inside our Universe we observe Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause), outside the universe we are not sure if it works or not, but we are sure that every event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(philosophy)) had a cause (as the prove is based on logic)

This is how our brain, science, logic works, we search for a doer for any event then try to study it to make benefits or replicate the event

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"1- If we use statistics (almost everything we know has a cause) then the probability of something we don't know has a cause is 0.999999999999999

Do you now admit we know things that have no cause?
How did you arrive at that probability? Do you have any source for it?

I'm just talking from your point of view, Every thing you/and me know has a cause!
If you don't accept that, give an example?

Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"2-Define what you consider as an event so I can prove that it has a cause?

A change in status.

Very good
As we agree on X<> not X (it is almost the only thing that we agree on)
1-f(t1)=Status1 <> f(t2)=Status 2
as no object can have 2 statuses at the same time, and as
2- Time does not change anything
Status1(t1)=Status1(t2)

You just repeat your non sequitur in 2. You presuppose change needs a cause in order to prove it.
An event means :

Status(t1) <> Status(t2)

Somehow you think that the function's parameter is responsible for the change. It isn't.

Quote from: "Messenger"Which means that the status of any object can not change by itself, it needs a doer,i.e. a cause to do the change

Still you arrive at this conclusion through an invalid argument. What's more it is contrary to current observations.

Quote from: "Messenger"Inside our Universe we observe Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause),

Nope we don't.

Quote from: "Messenger"outside the universe we are not sure if it works or not,

We're not even sure there is such a thing as 'outside our universe'

Quote from: "Messenger"but we are sure that every event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(philosophy)) had a cause (as the prove is based on logic)

Nope, it is based on your assumption every event needs a cause as I've shown you over and over again.

You cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

Quote from: "bowmore"Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

QuoteStatus(t1) <> Status(t2)
Somehow you think that the function's parameter is responsible for the change. It isn't.

I did not say that the function parameter do the change, we map reality as a function and when a (real) factor change we change (or select) another value for the parameter
If you don't agree, bring a scientific proof or at least a reference to backup your ridiculous claim?

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"Inside our Universe we observe Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause),

Nope we don't.

Read the reference?

QuoteWe're not even sure there is such a thing as 'outside our universe'

Irrelevant, iff it is there, we are not sure if our natural laws applies or not

QuoteYou cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect
For example if I'll refer to events with another frame called MyCoffe which is the number of coffee cups I take
For example I'm writing this post on MyCoffe 2 i.e. after drinking 2 cups of coffee
Then your post will be at 3
If I drink coffee more often or less, it does not affect my post or your post at all

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

Then please show the cause of quantum level events.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteStatus(t1) <> Status(t2)
Somehow you think that the function's parameter is responsible for the change. It isn't.

I did not say that the function parameter do the change, we map reality as a function and when a (real) factor change we change (or select) another value for the parameter
If you don't agree, bring a scientific proof or at least a reference to backup your ridiculous claim?

The claim that "Status(t1) <> Status(t2)" ?

Simple observation of reality teaches you that status changes constantly.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"Inside our Universe we observe Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause),

Nope we don't.

Read the reference?

Yes. It explains what causality is (although I already knew what it was).
It doesn't claim it to be true though. It even points out :

QuoteWhereas David Hume argued that causes are inferred from non-causal observations, Immanuel Kant claimed that people have innate assumptions about causes.

Which is what I've been trying to tell you when I referred to Hume earlier.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteWe're not even sure there is such a thing as 'outside our universe'

Irrelevant, iff it is there, we are not sure if our natural laws applies or not

Such as the law of causation you assert to be valid within our universe?

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteYou cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect

Only if you assume the need for an 'affector'.

Quote from: "Messenger"For example if I'll refer to events with another frame called MyCoffe which is the number of coffee cups I take
For example I'm writing this post on MyCoffe 2 i.e. after drinking 2 cups of coffee
Then your post will be at 3
If I drink coffee more often or less, it does not affect my post or your post at all

All you've shown is that MyCoffe at time t1 (your post) can have a different status at time t2 (my post).
Hence MyCoffe(t1) <> Mycoffe(t2)
even though time did not affect the status.

Quote from: "bowmore"Then please show the cause of quantum level events.

It is not only one, there are many some we know some we don't
This means that we can not predict with certainity if we apply event e1,e2 that the outcome will be R1
Because there are en, em that we don't know, we can only predict with a probability that the outcome will be R1
Read in QM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics) the part labeled Relativity and quantum mechanics
Actually all QM science is based on the ability to reproduce causes of events (but they are still not very accurate in doing that)

QuoteSimple observation of reality teaches you that status changes constantly.

Thanks for bringing this example and simple observations also teaches you that there is a cause
Not only that we can repeat the cause (in most cases) to reproduce the results

Quote

QuoteWhereas David Hume argued that causes are inferred from non-causal observations, Immanuel Kant claimed that people have innate assumptions about causes.

I already disproved that

QuoteSuch as the law of causation you assert to be valid within our universe?

You did not bring an example yet?

QuoteAll you've shown is that MyCoffe at time t1 (your post) can have a different status at time t2 (my post).
Hence MyCoffe(t1) <> Mycoffe(t2)
even though time did not affect the status.

MyCoffee is not the event it is the ref.
The even is writing my post or yours (at this context you must forget about time and use only Coffee   )

Quote from: "Messenger"It is not only one, there are many some we know some we don't

If we don't know the cause, how can we assert there is one? Until such causes can be shown to exist, we can regard these events as uncaused.

Quote from: "Messenger"Read in QM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics) the part labeled Relativity and quantum mechanics

In general relativity it is postulated that information cannot travel faster than light, or it would give rise to causal paradoxes.
The one experiment laid out in the section you quoted in QM seemed to contradict this assertion from GR, which is why

Quote from: "wiki"he did not accept the more philosophical consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality

It was later proved that the experiments relating to the EPR paradox did not actually transfer information faster than light, hence preserving causality in general relativity.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteSimple observation of reality teaches you that status changes constantly.

Thanks for bringing this example and simple observations also teaches you that there is a cause
Not only that we can repeat the cause (in most cases) to reproduce the results

I must reject this, since you have not been able to show conclusively that all quantum events are caused.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote

QuoteWhereas David Hume argued that causes are inferred from non-causal observations, Immanuel Kant claimed that people have innate assumptions about causes.

I already disproved that

No you just claimed Hume didn't have anything to say on the subject.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteSuch as the law of causation you assert to be valid within our universe?

You did not bring an example yet?

You're dodging my objection. Even if there were a law of causality wthin our universe, it needn't necessarily apply outside of it.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteAll you've shown is that MyCoffe at time t1 (your post) can have a different status at time t2 (my post).
Hence MyCoffe(t1) <> Mycoffe(t2)
even though time did not affect the status.

MyCoffee is not the event it is the ref.
The even is writing my post or yours (at this context you must forget about time and use only Coffee   )

Still we can only conclude that MyCoffe(yourPost) <> MyCoffe(myPost).

Finally I notice you didn't address

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteYou cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect

Only if you assume the need for an 'affector'.

Which is my basic logical refutation of your logical proof. If you are unable or unwilling to fix this, I'll not spend any more time on you, and conclude you cannot logically prove or disprove god.

Quote from: "bowmore"If we don't know the cause, how can we assert there is one? Until such causes can be shown to exist, we can regard these events as uncaused.

We can prove a cause but we can not specify it fully
You have a problem in this issue (regarding God or any other)
For example if we put a matter in higher temperature, we can observe quantum changes but we can not reproduce the same resutls with the same change in temperature
So we can prove that temperature do "changes" but as there are other uncontrolled factors (on the Q level) we can reproduce the exact results
There are big difference between proving the existence of something and knowing details about it

QuoteIt was later proved that the experiments relating to the EPR paradox did not actually transfer information faster than light, hence preserving causality in general relativity.

So do you agree the causality is preserved, thanks for clearing this matter  :(

QuoteYou're dodging my objection. Even if there were a law of causality wthin our universe, it needn't necessarily apply outside of it.

Yes, I agree with that, as causality is a universal law (i.e. observed in the universe) it does not necessarily work outside
Just the existence of a doer applies as it is logic

QuoteStill we can only conclude that MyCoffe(yourPost) <> MyCoffe(myPost).

Not necessarily as they could happen at the same cup
which means that the reference frame does not affect events by itself

Finally I notice you didn't address

QuoteYou cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect

Only if you assume the need for an 'affector'.

Which is my basic logical refutation of your logical proof. If you are unable or unwilling to fix this, I'll not spend any more time on you, and conclude you cannot logically prove or disprove god.[/quote]I did not assume any effectors, I proved that by contradictions
i.e. nothing change until you make a change

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIt was later proved that the experiments relating to the EPR paradox did not actually transfer information faster than light, hence preserving causality in general relativity.

So do you agree the causality is preserved, thanks for clearing this matter  :(

Fine. We can then move on with your argument, with a law of causality in effect within the universe, as a premise.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteYou're dodging my objection. Even if there were a law of causality wthin our universe, it needn't necessarily apply outside of it.

Yes, I agree with that, as causality is a universal law (i.e. observed in the universe) it does not necessarily work outside
Just the existence of a doer applies as it is logic

You have not been able to establish that last bit.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteStill we can only conclude that MyCoffe(yourPost) <> MyCoffe(myPost).

Not necessarily as they could happen at the same cup
which means that the reference frame does not affect events by itself

I've never claimed the reference frame affects anything. (why do you keep returning to this?)
All the reference frame does is allow us to note there was in fact a change.

Quote from: "Messenger"I did not assume any effectors, I proved that by contradictions
i.e. nothing change until you make a change

I have amply shown that your logical argument that tried to establish that is circular.

Quote from: "bowmore"Fine. We can then move on with your argument, with a law of causality in effect within the universe, as a premise.

Yes, this is the next step
If we agree that every effect has a doer, then we need only to prove that the Universe is not eternal
If it is not eternal them something must created it, or initiated it or made it as it is (in its beginning)

QuoteI have amply shown that your logical argument that tried to establish that is circular.

Your answer was: that math or Boolean algebra does not represent reality
So how I can communicate with your if you ignore the result of all human intelligence  

OK, forgive me for jumping right in, I haven't read a whole lot of this thread but meh, I can do that while I'm waiting for replies.

Quote from: "Messenger"Yes, this is the next step
If we agree that every effect has a doer, then we need only to prove that the Universe is not eternal
If it is not eternal them something must created it, or initiated it or [strike:1q04p4fr]made it as it is (in its beginning)[/strike:1q04p4fr] (created it)

False dichotomy, probably begging the question (I'd actually have to go back and read, but you know if you're begging it . . .), and it's going to lead to a case of special pleading if you throw a creator into the mix to solve the problem.  The false dichotomy exists in that even I can name at least one more possibility, that being that some yet-undiscovered anthropic law demands that something exist, period, and for the moment, we're it, that existing thing.  I don't believe this is the case at all, it's actually laughable, but no more so than "God did it."  If any gods did do it, then they too are part of the cause/effect system, meaning to ask them not to require their own cause is special pleading.
 

Quote from: "Messenger"So how I can communicate with your if you ignore the result of all human intelligence  

Without going back to address the logic, I will say that no logic one liner is going to disprove any gods (they are quite easy to isolate from reality) or prove them, as far better men have thought on these things for far longer and to no avail.  Not saying information exchange isn't beneficial, but this is probably one of the only areas in which it is unproductive as both sides struggle desperately for a stalemate which they consider a win.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

Thought I would jump in here, quantum effects have no causes, they are completley random, Bell's theorem rules out the possability of hidden variables that could be causing quantum effects.

Since this seems an interlude in which non-participants in this dialog have chosen to add comments, I will join them.   I've read all the posts previous to this, and have gotten a few chuckles.  

I'm certainly no logician.  I have however, been able to discern what seem to be problems with some of Messenger's logic, which should not happen if I'm reading the work of a true logician.  He seems to believe that he will eventually be able to prove the existence of gods using logic.  Good luck with that; the only way to do it seems to depend on starting with premises that only  those who already subscribe to a religious belief system will agree with.  It's quite possible a non-logician such as myself  might make the mistake of agreeing with some of those premises, but probably not all of them.  Either way, I'm not part of this interesting discussion, but appreciate it, none the less. I thank the participants.
 
A side note:  It's my understanding that current Big Bang theory says that the universe started as a singularity; in other words, in the quantum realm.  <~~My lousy 2¢

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

Thought I would jump in here, quantum effects have no causes, they are completley random, Bell's theorem rules out the possability of hidden variables that could be causing quantum effects.

Thank you! (for educating me a little)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Fine. We can then move on with your argument, with a law of causality in effect within the universe, as a premise.

Yes, this is the next step
If we agree that every effect has a doer, then we need only to prove that the Universe is not eternal
If it is not eternal them something must created it, or initiated it or made it as it is (in its beginning)

Please define : universe.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteI have amply shown that your logical argument that tried to establish that is circular.

Your answer was: that math or Boolean algebra does not represent reality
So how I can communicate with your if you ignore the result of all human intelligence  

So you actually don't read my posts, then. Or do you intentionally misrepresent my objection?

I'm sorry, but this actually made me reconsider.

I'll reject the premise that nothing comes from nothing/everything needs a cause, until you've been able to 1: understand my objection, 2: fix your argument accordingly.

Quote from: "bowmore"Please define : universe.

Every thing that science can know/prove to exist

QuoteI'll reject the premise that nothing comes from nothing/everything needs a cause, until you've been able to 1: understand my objection, 2: fix your argument accordingly

Maybe I don't understand what do you mean
But I proved that, your objection was "Mathematics does not depict reality"
Then sorry my proof is not for you, my proof is for people who accept logic and can use mathematics to depict realty and even logical imaginations as well

Quote from: "Messenger"Every thing that science can know/prove to exist

(Buzzer) Wrong. That's not even how science defines it. Why does everyone assume our universe is the only thing in existence?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Messenger"Every thing that science can know/prove to exist

(Buzzer) Wrong. That's not even how science defines it. Why does everyone assume our universe is the only thing in existence?

This is my definition, not what science agree on

Inside my proof, I can refer to things my way, as long as it is consistent, there is no problem
If you don't like it, I can change my proof to refer to it as U1 instead of the Universe U

And thanks about that comment, I don't assume that the Universe is the only thing in existence, I'll prove that it isn't

E=U+G  (i.e. Existence = The Observed Universe + an arbitrary variable I'll call it G for now)
I'll prove that G must exist (it does not have to be God)
Then I'll prove that G must be God

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteI'll reject the premise that nothing comes from nothing/everything needs a cause, until you've been able to 1: understand my objection, 2: fix your argument accordingly

Maybe I don't understand what do you mean
But I proved that, your objection was "Mathematics does not depict reality"
Then sorry my proof is not for you, my proof is for people who accept logic and can use mathematics to depict realty and even logical imaginations as well

Nope that was not my objection. (if that was my objection you could not fix your argument)

BTW : I do accept logic and mathematics to describe reality, although I would never claim this yields absolute knowledge.

Quote from: "bowmore"Nope that was not my objection. (if that was my objection you could not fix your argument)

So what are your objections? and on what?

QuoteBTW : I do accept logic and mathematics to describe reality, although I would never claim this yields absolute knowledge.

Logic can prove many things!

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Nope that was not my objection. (if that was my objection you could not fix your argument)

So what are your objections? and on what?

That's just it. If you'd have read my posts and tried to understand what I was saying, instead of declaring your 'truth', you'd know by now.

I am not going to repeat myself all over again. I invite you to read what I have posted so far, and prove you at least understand my main objection.

Until that time, progress is impossible.

This doesn't seem to be using any actual mathematical logic.  Logic is typically well established with proposition statements and truths, none of the original posts seem to be following any logical pattern that would lead to any answer.

Quote from: "VanReal"This doesn't seem to be using any actual mathematical logic.  Logic is typically well established with proposition statements and truths, none of the original posts seem to be following any logical pattern that would lead to any answer.

At least, I can address people who accept a cause for every event

For others, too bad that they loose every chance to escape from Hell

Quote from: "Messenger"Logic can prove many things!

No ... math excepted logic alone cannot prove anything and, considering  scientific methodology, nothing is accepted as absolute.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"Logic can prove many things!

No ... math excepted logic alone cannot prove anything and, considering  scientific methodology, nothing is accepted as absolute.

Kyu

Then read the proof and try to refute it?

If you choose to deny a cause for every action, then discuss it here, or better to say then the proof does not work for you
It works only for sane people who accept this fact  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"Logic can prove many things!

No ... math excepted logic alone cannot prove anything and, considering  scientific methodology, nothing is accepted as absolute.

Kyu

Then read the proof and try to refute it?

If you choose to deny a cause for every action, then discuss it here, or better to say then the proof does not work for you
It works only for sane people who accept this fact  

Says he who doesn't the (or can't) answer the posts I put up to him ... HYPOCRITE!!!!!

The fact remains that math is abstract, alone it is based on assumption but to be useful to be real it must be applicable in the real world and none of sh*** is. Even Einstein who practised pure math had his stuff tested in the real world.

Proof That Girls Are Evil
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wayodd.com%2Ffunny-pictures2%2Ffunny-pictures-proof-that-girls-are-evil-0Id.jpg&hash=6e8e25e800871aee2e6851682e41284732d9c4c8)
http://www.wayodd.com/funny-pictures2/funny-pictures-proof-that-girls-are-evil-0Id.jpg (in case image won 't display)
That was humour but it brings up the point I am making ... are girls actually evil?

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"Then read the proof and try to refute it?

I have. We are still waiting for your answer (or have you given up on your proof that everything needs a cause?).

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Then read the proof and try to refute it?

I have. We are still waiting for your answer (or have you given up on your proof that everything needs a cause?).

I already proved that!

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Then read the proof and try to refute it?

I have. We are still waiting for your answer (or have you given up on your proof that everything needs a cause?).

I already proved that!

You've managed to prove what others have not been able to? I'm impressed ... oh wait a minute, I'm not ... you're just BS'ing as usual aren't you?

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Then read the proof and try to refute it?

I have. We are still waiting for your answer (or have you given up on your proof that everything needs a cause?).

I already proved that!

No, you gave your proof, I formulated my refutation, you have not addressed my refutation.
In fact you've shown you don't even have a clue what my refutation was. I'm still waiting for you to find out (by actually reading my posts) and then address my refutation.
Until you do, you cannot claim you have proved it.