What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: SOB) on 12 Apr 2005 10:13 On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:35:35 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: >> The fact that you do suffer from ignorance shows that your wish came >> true. >I am man enough to recognize my ignorance. Only to the extent that it conveniences you. >I don't pretend to believe >fantasies to compensate for my lack of knowledge. Then you do not believe that "nothing" caused the Universe to exist. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw
From: Jan Burse on 12 Apr 2005 12:32 Hi Simple proof that things can exist without a start is contained in the Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem, at least a special proof of it(*). The theorem says if A<B and B<A then A=B. Where A<B means there is an injective function f from A to B. And where B<A means there is an injective function g from B to A. And where B=A means there is a bijective function h from A to B. Take B\range(f), then you have elements in B which have no A-predecessor but an infinite chain of successors. Or A\range(g), then you have elements in A which have no B-predecessor but an infinite chain of successors. These are your A- or B-Gods(**). But there can also be elements which have always an A- and then a B-predecessor. There can be infinite chains of predecessors. The search for a start point, big bang, etc.. has to do with the inability of many human beings of conceptualizing infinity in the backward direction. It is as if you cannot conceptualize Z, the positive and negative integers. Note: I am indifferent of what is the truth, I only point out that an universe without a start point should be possible. Bye (*) Dont know whether this is the same proof: http://au.metamath.org/mpegif/sbth.html (**) You can take for A chickens and for B eggs. Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:32:11 -0400, "Dan Listermann" > <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: > > >>Who made the maker of the "real thing?" > > > Who said the maker of the real thing needs a maker? > > The Supreme Being does not need a cause for Existence. The Essence of > the Supreme Being is Existence. > > Either "something" made the Universe or "nothing" made the Universe. > > If you claim that "nothing" made the Universe, then you are going to > have to prove that you exist to the satisfaction of others. > >
From: Scotmc on 12 Apr 2005 13:28 "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote in message news:115lr6us2224g33(a)corp.supernews.com... > Who made the maker of the "real thing?" The "real thing" is made by the Coca Cola Company. (Just following Bob's lead in giving crappy answers).
From: Hector Plasmic on 12 Apr 2005 15:08 > The Supreme Being does not need a cause for Existence. Why would anything need a "cause for Existence" [sic]? > Either "something" made the Universe or "nothing" made > the Universe. First, you're equivocating here. Something being made is not equivalent to something existing. Making something is not equivalent to holding it in existence (causing its existence). Second, the universe need not have been "made" by something or by nothing. The universe is where and when wheres, whens and things exist. It's where and when things get made. Where and when do you propose the universe was made? Third, we know what made your "Supreme Being [sic]": human imagination. No other maker is required to explain your gods. In other words, your assertion above is one big NOP -- no information imparted. > If you claim that "nothing" made the Universe, then you > are going to have to prove that you exist to the > satisfaction of others. Rubbish. You may go right along your merry way thinking that I don't exist, and still the universe wouldn't appear to have been "made."
From: Tom on 12 Apr 2005 16:30
> > "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote in message > news:115lr6us2224g33(a)corp.supernews.com... > >> Who made the maker of the "real thing?" > > The "real thing" is made by the Coca Cola Company. > > (Just following Bob's lead in giving crappy answers). Yeah, you're following his lead but you'll never surpass him :-). |