Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2016, 11:17 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 08:17 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  You're right, we are not "gods".

Speak for yourself sonny boy.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-10-2016, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 11:37 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 03:18 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  Hey atheists, maybe you can help me out again...

I'm planning on calling in to the Atheist Experience tonight and ask them the same question I asked here ("Do you believe no gods exist?"), but there is another gripe I have with them that I don't want to bring up if I don't have to. A couple months ago, I called in with a response to the "Who created God?" argument/question, and the segment concluded with Matt saying this:

----"If you are going to try to counter the first cause argument and give an argument for why God didn’t need a cause, the conclusion of that argument needs to be, 'Therefore, God does not require a cause'. The conclusion of that argument should not be 'God maybe requires a cause, maybe doesn’t.'"
For full context you can see the whole segment here. The quote is at 00:30:23.

Now, I think Matt may have misremembered the argument because the conclusion, in the Matt-redefined argument, was "Therefore, God may not be bound by time" or in other words, "God may not have a cause". My question is, isn't this the same thing as saying "God does not require a cause", such that the next step can be "Therefore, God does not require a cause"?

In trying to figure this out, I found this on the wikipedia page for modal logic:
----"It is not necessary that X" is logically equivalent to "It is possible that not X".
----"It is not possible that X" is logically equivalent to "It is necessary that not X".

It seems, then, that I can state my conclusion in the form, "It is possible that God does not have a cause (not X). Therefore, it is not necessary that God has a cause (X)". Am I mistaken?

Also, please don't bring up any other parts of the argument such as "How do you know God is outside of the universe?" until either you try to answer the above question or the question is resolved. I'm not going to respond to any such posts. Thanks!

Okay. I think I got it now.

P1) If there is a god then there is a cause and if there is a cause then there is a god.
P2) There is a god where there is no cause and/or there is a cause where there is no god.

P2 -> ~P1 = ~(a god if and only if a cause) = There is a god or there is a cause but not both. Q.E.D. sucker. :flasheslogicgangsign:

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 03:28 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
I still don't know what the three letter word pronounced "gawd" is supposed to mean.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 04:21 PM by Grasshopper.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I still don't know what the three letter word pronounced "gawd" is supposed to mean.

When a dog looks in the mirror, he sees god. That's what it means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 09:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's like saying f=ma imposes constraints on force,mass, and acceleration rather than just describing their observed interaction.

Not quite. The equation f=ma did come about to describe observed interaction. It is also wrong. What I mean is that there is some true set of relationships that governs what does happen, even if we haven't been able to discover it and even if we aren't capable of discovering it.

Quote:Further, which logic will you choose? There are many.

I think we're using logic in different ways. I'm using it very abstractly which is probably a bad idea. I'm not sure what distinctions you're trying to point to. However, I think I can generally say that what I mean by logic is whatever dictates the form of any logical system we create. It is what allows us to create logical systems in the first place. That probably doesn't make any sense to you if you believe we create math rather than it being intrinsic to the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2016, 02:42 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(20-10-2016 10:32 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 09:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's like saying f=ma imposes constraints on force,mass, and acceleration rather than just describing their observed interaction.

Not quite. The equation f=ma did come about to describe observed interaction. It is also wrong. What I mean is that there is some true set of relationships that governs what does happen, even if we haven't been able to discover it and even if we aren't capable of discovering it.

Quote:Further, which logic will you choose? There are many.

I think we're using logic in different ways. I'm using it very abstractly which is probably a bad idea. I'm not sure what distinctions you're trying to point to. However, I think I can generally say that what I mean by logic is whatever dictates the form of any logical system we create. It is what allows us to create logical systems in the first place. That probably doesn't make any sense to you if you believe we create math rather than it being intrinsic to the universe.

Wrong again, sonny.
There is nothing that "governs" anything. You might want to look up quantum uncertainty. There are only probabilities.

(I get that you suffer from low ambiguity tolerance and the need for cognitive closure ... it's very common in religionists).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2016, 02:59 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(20-10-2016 10:32 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 09:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's like saying f=ma imposes constraints on force,mass, and acceleration rather than just describing their observed interaction.

Not quite. The equation f=ma did come about to describe observed interaction. It is also wrong. What I mean is that there is some true set of relationships that governs what does happen, even if we haven't been able to discover it and even if we aren't capable of discovering it.

Seems you are suggesting "incomplete" implies "wrong". Yes? No?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(20-10-2016 10:32 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  Not quite. The equation f=ma did come about to describe observed interaction.

Dafuq?

"The three laws of motion were first compiled by Isaac Newton in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), first published in 1687.
Newton used them to explain and investigate the motion of many physical objects and systems.
For example, in the third volume of the text, Newton showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion."
-Wikipedia

Quote:It is also wrong.

Prove it. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-10-2016, 07:22 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(20-10-2016 02:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is nothing that "governs" anything. You might want to look up quantum uncertainty. There are only probabilities.

lol And you think you can talk down to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: