What is a proof?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2014, 02:52 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(27-08-2014 01:49 PM)Muslim Wrote:  
Quote:....and if you so strongly believe in logic then the metaphysics I am describing is extremely powerful precisely because it relies on the laws of identity and contradiction as fundamental axioms.
Metaphysics simply means adherence to Logic because it searches for explanations and causes

Quote:.......and what does the Quran have ?
Incoherence.(there are contradictions, creation Ex-Nihilo for one)
You need to debate this in a different thread

You seem to need constant reminding that you don't make the rules here. Drinking Beverage

Quote:
Quote:No Foundation. (well, flimsy foundation as we are supposed to believe whatever Mohammed said)
No Explanatory power.(God did it ! - that's not explanatory power, for real explanatory power see the lecture by David Deutsch)
No Empirical Evidence.(well, extremely limited here say)
No Rational or logical Evidence. (at best weak and speculative)
This can be refuted easily

If it's so easy, do so. Dodgy

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
27-08-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(27-08-2014 02:36 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 01:49 PM)Muslim Wrote:  logic is a characteristic of the Universe

No it isn't.

There is absolutely no reason to think that.

Do you think you could try explaining that to ol' Lumi?

He hasn't listened when anyone else has tried...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 09:19 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(19-08-2014 07:01 AM)Muslim Wrote:  This is an educational thread where we read, link and discuss acceptable theories and concepts regarding Logic, Proofs and science

What is intelligence?
What is logic?
What are the types of proofs?
Scientific Vs. Logical proofs


If I remember correctly I have a webpage with your proof, and the resulting debate which was 62 pages long after you posted it.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-17781.html

This was the thread where you claimed the quran was wrongly translated when it said god created everything, he didn't create everything he just manipulated water which was already there, but it was special water not like we know of that is totally static.
I wrote
Quote:But what you are saying is that god did not create everything he just manipulated what was already there which was static and made it variable.
You wrote.
Quote:This is what Logic mandates!

But then you could provide no Islamic texts in the quran or otherwise that said god created everything out of water.
I provided you with many translations of the quran which said god created several things out of nothing which you already said violates logic.
I also provided you with several quotes from the quran which say god is the originator everything and the creator which for whatever reason you don't believe is true which is odd because you're supposed to believe the quran.

The only verse from a hadith you gave me which you said was a verse showing how god made everything from water was a verse not even talking about the creation of the universe.....

Quote:If you were to remain in that state after you parted me, the angels would visit you in your homes. And if you did not sin, God would bring forth a new creation in order to sin (and repent) so that He would forgive them.”

He (the person asking) then said, “Messenger of God, what was the creation made of?” He (the Prophet) replied, “Water.”

You either ignorantly or dishonestly only gave me the part which is in bold here, but I researched the full hadith and it's clearly not talking about the creation of the universe it's talking about god creating another man in order for that man to sin for whatever reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PaulPablo's post
28-08-2014, 05:50 AM
RE: What is a proof?
Muslim,

What would it take to make you stop believing in a god? What standard of proof would you require?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
28-08-2014, 06:34 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 06:56 AM by phil.a.)
RE: What is a proof?
Muslim:

If this is your proof of god, I actually find it quite interesting.

Regarding your discussion of "time" in part 1, had it occurred to you that (a) since the universe only exists as "change" and (b) that since all time is just relative change measured against relative change, that ( c) time is therefore relative to time, and therefore time in its deepest essence has no units?

What I am saying here is - there is no time, time is an illusion caused by looking at reality from a relative perspective (e.g. a human mind). I agree that the illusion of time started at some point, so yes there was a "start" of time, but actually - it never really happened because it's an illusion.

Consider what a human mind is - it's an emergent product of reality existing as part of reality. It lacks a privileged perspective from which to analyse reality so it's always looking at it's own looking.

You've got to factor that out.

Regarding this claim:

Quote:Any religion that claims an image for God is a false religion by default

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is ISLAM

Please study the Buddhist concept of Sunyata. If you take the time to study it, you'll discover it's talking about something that's beyond naming or "conceptual image", so it's talking about "god" in islam-friendly terms.

Likewise Taoism
"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao"

(In other words, no conceptual image of the Tao, or "god", is possible).

Islam isn't a privileged religion - all of it's insights can be framed in terms of the teachings of all other religions.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 08:01 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: What is a proof?
That's his proof?

Well, then.
I.1. This may match reality, depending on what you are looking at. Note that a single quantum bit does not necessarily have this property - the state U(t) may equal U(t+1).
I.2. This axiom plays pretty loose and free given that in relativity events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous for another reference frame, and time itself bends.
I.4. Set 1 contains all statuses. Set 2 is the null set. Compare to the set of integers. The subset of Integers that are a finite distance away from 0 is equal to the set of Integers. The subset of integers that are an infinite distance away from 0 is the null set. The set of Integers extends infinitely in both the positive and negative direction but each integer in the set is a finite distance from zero (edited this sentence, thanks Chas). If you think I am wrong you can prove it to me: Show me an Integer whose absolute value is infinite.
I conclusion: That is not necessarily true, and if it is true it seems likely to be equally true for a god. You might claim that a god is never-changing and therefore escapes your reasoning so far, however if it responds to stimuli it is changing. You would have to present a coherent model for how an unchanging god could operate and interact with the world performing creation and miracles and the like to avoid special pleading, and regardless your proof of I is incorrect.
II. So here having attempted to prove that the universe has a temporal edge you claim to prove the necessity for a creator. However the proof itself merely assumes a creator and proves that if one exists it must be dynamic, and therefore if your proof to date were correct the creator would fall under I. p becomes the temporal context for god. This appears to be a flat out case of special pleading now. Going back to the steps in this section though, we have: You say that U(0) can be constant, but under I U(1) does not equal U(0). Your proof seems clear that assuming U(0) exists at all no external hand is needed to move it to U(1). The question is - is anything needed to bring about U(0)? Your proof does not address that question.
III. So having failed to prove the universe is finite, and assumed without proof the existence of a god, you now move onto your third failed proof. This "proof" consists of nothing but bare assertion.

So well done grasping at straws, specially pleading, and then insisting that your god is the true god. Again I bring you Sagan:




Here's how this problem space really looks:
* The universe may have existed for an infinite time in some form before reaching its current form. Arguably under a theistic model the creator god can in some sense the original form of the universe where the moment of creation can be described as G -> G' + U(0). But there is no reason to assume a god is present. It could be a mindless multiverse that resulted in the U(0) state of our universe: M -> M' + U(0). Likewise the universe itself may have no U(0) in any necessary sense, ie U(n) may extend backwards infinitely. We don't have good data to base a choice between these options on.
* The universe may have a temporal edge with no temporal cause for U(0) because time itself begins with that state.
We just don't know which of these is correct.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
28-08-2014, 07:40 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(28-08-2014 07:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The subset of Integers that are a finite distance away from 0 is equal to the set of Integers.

True.

Quote:The subset of integers that are an infinite distance away from 0 is the null set.

True.

Quote:The set of Integers extends finitely in both the positive and negative direction.

False.

Quote:If you think I am wrong you can prove it to me: Show me an Integer whose absolute value is infinite.

Non sequitur.
There is no largest integer s since s + 1 is an integer and s + 1 > s, therefore the set is infinite.

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
28-08-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: What is a proof?
Sorry, I meant to say the the set of integers extends infinitely in both the positive and negative direction.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: What is a proof?
It sounds to me that "muslim" is in so much doubt that he is in his death throws as a believer. He is ignoring truths and manipulating almost everything in order to fit his faith. All because he fears death and punishment and longs for eternal life in paradise. Fear is a powerful tool isn't it?

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(28-08-2014 08:00 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Sorry, I meant to say the the set of integers extends infinitely in both the positive and negative direction.

Well, that's a relief. Big Grin

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: