What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: jwk on 27 Mar 2005 18:34 The great philosopher-criminologist wrote: > Milan wrote: > > > 5. "Mysterious" should be lower case. > > The computer made that mistake. So the computer works in mysterious ways? jwk
From: The great philosopher-criminologist on 27 Mar 2005 18:43 Gavan wrote: > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<1111880705.429415.226920(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>... > > Denis Loubet wrote: > > > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> > > wrote in > > > message news:1111874993.415822.226320(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > > > > > Well, if it said to excuse the supposed actions of a god, then the > > one > > > saying it is stating that they don't actually care what the god they > > believe > > > in does, or what its motives are, they'll just worship it anyway. > > > > > > It's a big denial of personal responsibility. It's like saying "I'll > > follow > > > that Hitler guy anywhere. I know he kills Jews, but I'm sure he has > > our best > > > interests at heart." > > > > Well, for some people, as long as they are comforted, that is all that > > matters. > > How hypocritical that someone who espouses the virtues of an > organisation that proclaims peace and love for all would now say that > one's own comfort is all that matters. This is just in response to those that ask, "Why did God help you with your success while he lets someone else in another part of the world starve.?" I am just saying that some people say that if God wants to work like that, then that is okay with them.
From: marvin on 27 Mar 2005 18:48 Gavan writes: How hypocritical that someone who espouses the virtues of an organisation that proclaims peace and love for all would now say that one's own comfort is all that matters. Should we perhaps give Ted Bundy and Martin Bryant official pardon's because they were comforted by murdering dozens of innocent people? I wish people like you would realise that you only need one commandment and it goes like this, "Thou shalt not be an arsehole." It's quite a simple concept to grasp and doesn't require a series of 2000 year old convoluted rantings to appreciate. LOL! I like your commandment, but I can't help wondering whether if such a "religion" could ever take hold, would today's theists sit on the sidelines demanding an exact and fully integrated deffinition of arsehole? Marvin
From: Gavan on 27 Mar 2005 18:51 "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<1111930127.712142.61570(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... > kathryn wrote: > > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> > wrote in > > message news:1111874993.415822.226320(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > > > > > There is no god > > Something that doesn't exist cannot work in anyway let alone > mysteriously > > Well, this God has been credited with the success of certain people in > this world. A comic I went to see once said "Do you ever notice that the winner of the 100mts at the Olympics always thanks god and yet you never hear any of the others blame him for losing." If god (I refuse to capitalise that word), in his omnipotence, causes good things to happen, we therefore have to assume that he also causes the suffering inflicted upon this world and if that's the case he's been a little nasty of late hasn't he? If I was to believe in any god, and I don't, it certainly wouldn't be a god that finds it necessary to inflict diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis upon anyone especially those who have never committed 'sin' of any kind (I don't know how a newborn baby could commit 'sin'). Your god is a little too random for my liking.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 27 Mar 2005 19:00
In sci.logic, Mike Oliver <mike_lists(a)verizon.net> wrote on Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:48:16 -0600 <3aokgfF69hofbU1(a)individual.net>: > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > >> One could formulate >> it in one of the following manners: >> >> [1] There is One True God that everyone believes in. >> >> (Eg)(Ax)(Gg . (Px => Bxg) . (Ag')(Bxg' => (g=g'))) [+] >> >> This is demonstrably false > > Perhaps, but not according to the line of argument > you've taken here, where you attempt (for example) > to demonstrate that Allah and the Christian God are > not the same being, by showing that Muslims and > Christians hold beliefs that would be mutually > incompatible if they *were* the same being. > > All that shows is that (if the Christian God is > in fact the same being as Allah) then Christians, > or Muslims, or both, hold some false beliefs. > > This is similar to an error committed by many > in sci.logic of identifying an object with > the properties of that object--for example, > when some speak of a proposition being "true > in ZFC". I'm not quite sure what to make of this subpoint but it is an interesting one. Of course, one can dissect this various ways: [1] A: "I believe in Jesus." B: "So do I. What a coincidence." A: "Jesus is sitting next to the Father." B: "No he's not, he walks among us." A: "Heretic!" B: "Infidel!" A: "I'll have your head for that one!" B: "Bring it on, scum". and so on. [2] A: "I believe in Jesus." B: "I believe in the almighty Allah." A: "Well Jesus believers all believe in Heaven." B: "So do believers in Allah." A: "Well Jesus believers all believe in prayer." B: "So do believers in Allah. Do you think they're the same deity, then?" A: "Egads! That's brilliant!" [3] A: "I believe in Jesus." B: "Oh please. I'm an atheist." A: "What?" B: "You heard me. I don't believe in your Jesus." A: "Well you must worship something right?" B: "Wrong." A: "Well, OK, but you still worship money, right?" B: "Worship? I might use it on occasion to pay my bills and to buy snacks and such. Does that count?" A: "Well, OK, you must worship the devil then you sinner!" B: "Yeah, right. You've been smoking the Holy Incense again, haven't you?" In [1] the entity has the same name but not the same property sublist. In [2] there are two entities with the same sublists (but A and B will discover as they expand the sublists that they will eventually diverge). In [3] the atheist isn't exactly convinced with the theist's logic that there has to be a god in the atheist's life. [1] could be a variant of converse accident/hasty generalization. I'm not sure regarding the other two, beyond the obvious ad hominems near the end of the arguments. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html Of course you're the one introducing the concept of "false belief", which is basically an analysis of 'Bxg' (or, if you prefer, a brand new concept -- true belief versus false belief versus just plain old belief). I'll admit I'm not sure *what* belief is at this point, although it's not necessarily connected to truth or observable fact. At this point pure logic may have to yield to semantics. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |