What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Jez on 27 Mar 2005 19:08 jwk wrote: > 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? On a Windows system, damn right ! -- Jez 'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
From: Mike Oliver on 27 Mar 2005 19:48 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.logic, Mike Oliver > <mike_lists(a)verizon.net> >> 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. > Of course you're the one introducing the concept of "false > belief", which is basically an analysis of 'Bxg' No, that's not what I was identifying as a false belief. In the hypothesized case, where the Christian God is the same being as Allah (which makes sense only if he exists), then both Christians and Muslims are correct to believe that he exists (the belief I understand as your Bxg). The conclusion is that Christians, or Muslims, or both, must hold false beliefs *about* God/Allah, since their respective beliefs about him contradict one another. > (or, > if you prefer, a brand new concept -- true belief versus > false belief versus just plain old belief). I hardly think this is my invention. You believe a proposition; you're either right or wrong; if you're right, it's a true belief; if you're wrong, it's a false one. Is there anything further to explain here?
From: George Dance on 27 Mar 2005 20:08 The great philosopher-criminologist wrote: > What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? Usually, what's wrong with it is that it's used as an ad hoc hypothesis to make statements about God unfalsifiable. For example: C - "God loves people and is concerned for their welfare." A - "He does? Then why did he let so many die in the tsunami?" C - "He has His reasons. You and I wouldn't understand them. But all the same, He loves people and is concerned for their welfare." A - "Well, maybe he did have some reason for the tsunami. But he lets little babies die every day, and there's no reason for that." C - "Oh, He wouldn't let that happen without a reason, either. Again, I couldn't possibly try to explain what those reasons are. But all the same, He loves people and is concerned for their welfare." I hope you get the drift - all the evidence that there isn't a god that loves people and cares for their welfare can be dismissed with the 'Mysterious Ways' argument; "There's a God that loves people and cares for their welfare" is saved from being disproved, but at the cost of it actually meaning or implying anything (as it's being true is compatible with anything at all happening). As I see it, that's the point of the 'Mysterious Ways' argument, and probably why a version of it is attributed to God Himself in Job 38-40.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 27 Mar 2005 21:00 In sci.logic, Mike Oliver <mike_lists(a)verizon.net> wrote on Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:48:44 -0600 <3ap2jcF6c5tr6U1(a)individual.net>: > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> In sci.logic, Mike Oliver >> <mike_lists(a)verizon.net> >>> 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. >> Of course you're the one introducing the concept of "false >> belief", which is basically an analysis of 'Bxg' > > No, that's not what I was identifying as a false belief. > In the hypothesized case, where the Christian God is > the same being as Allah (which makes sense only if > he exists), then both Christians and Muslims are correct > to believe that he exists (the belief I understand as > your Bxg). The conclusion is that Christians, or > Muslims, or both, must hold false beliefs *about* > God/Allah, since their respective beliefs about > him contradict one another. It is logically possible for a single g to have as a property-list the intersection of all property-lists of all true beliefs (that is to say, all beliefs which are true as observed by others; all of one's own beliefs are true as observed by oneself) of those who hold the set of gods to be non-empty (i.e., no atheists please). This g is most likely to have a null property-list, which basically means all of them believe in a God that they cannot even begin to specify properly. And then there's the atheist with no deities at all, which basically means that for every entity in the set of deities in which the atheist believes (i.e., none) the property list needn't apply to this Grand Intersection. Now how does one approach this properly? As far as Christians and Muslims are concerned they believe in the One True God, but for all I know they could be both believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I certainly have no way of verifying that Jesus walks among us, for example (despite the many of that name who in fact do -- most of them immigrants from Spanish-speaking American countries, since Jesus is a fairly common name there), or that Allah is great (whatever that means specifically; Hitler was great, too -- and did great damage; Stalin was great and did even greater damage; the A-bomb was great and did great damage in Japan, and is probably not worth worshipping). > >> (or, >> if you prefer, a brand new concept -- true belief versus >> false belief versus just plain old belief). > > I hardly think this is my invention. You believe > a proposition; you're either right or wrong; if you're > right, it's a true belief; if you're wrong, it's a > false one. Is there anything further to explain here? Sorry if it wasn't clear; I meant in the context of this subthread. Of course it's a very old idea. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Gavan on 27 Mar 2005 21:07
"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<1111947810.734473.144260(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>... > Robibnikoff wrote: > > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> > wrote in > > message news:1111947083.810323.42640(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > Desertphile, American Patriot wrote: > > >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:49:52 GMT, MarkA <manthony(a)stopspam.net> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:09:53 -0800, The great > > > philosopher-criminologist > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > >> >> What is wrong with saying that God [sic] works in > > >> >> Mysterious [sic] ways? > > >> > > >> > It presupposes the existence of God [sic]. Any evidence of his > > >> > non-existence can be discounted as a "Mysterious way." > > >> > > >> The Easter Bunny did not leave any chocolate eggs for me this > > >> morning, but I'm sure many thousands of other kids and adults got > > >> left chocolate eggs today--- why didn't I? The answer is "The > > >> Easter Bunny works in mysterious ways." > > > > > > actually, the answer is that you are not one of his elect. > > > > > > He only cares about his elect and no one else. > > > > Then he's a jerk. > > Oh, come on! In medieval times, Kings only cared about those closest to > them. What exactly is the comparison you are trying to draw here? Are you saying that because greedy, despotic historical figures only catered for the chosen few we should accept that a fictitious rabbit didn't deliver chocolate eggs to all and sundry? And all based on the purported 'resurrection' of another historical figure????? Help me out here. |