Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:55:50 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Atheism doesn't teach - it's merely lack of theism. Is Deism a form of Christianity, as some Christians maintain? No. Most Deists in colonial times held Christianity in contempt. It's merely "Nature's god created everything". Period. >>> And it's still, IMO, detestable. >> So don't marry a man. >-I- think it's detestable. You apparently don't. I don't think it's any of my business who loves whom if I'm not one of the parties involved. >Believe it or not, I am >allowed to have this belief of the "wrongness" of homosexuality (regardless >of whether or not it is religion-based)--and to vocalize that I don't want >the Law of the Land to advocate it. But you're not free to have such a law in the US. >As to "equality"--that law would not be equal. A law that would be equal >would be one that allows -any- couple to share the benefits of a civil >union Any consenting (which requires the mental ability to understand the consequences) adult (children aren't capable of informed consent) non-related (which is biologically bad) human couple. >or two very close friends who together want to see >their estates pass on to each other's heirs and be able to care for each >other when ill. No problem with that. >But, no, some people want SEXUAL ORIENTATION as part of the >determination of what should be just and fair. EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! They want sexual orientation to NOT be looked at, any more than skin color is looked at. No one asks whether the bride and groom are the same race - no one should ask if they're different genders. >What the homosexual >community is proposing is an agenda to justify certain groups' lifestyles. "The homosexual lifestyle" doesn't need to be justified any more than the heterosexual lifestyle does. >> Atheism doesn't motivate people to do things any more than not >> collecting stamps or not being birds motivates people to do things. >So what is your moral compass? I have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong the same way as I have the ability to distinguish between red and blue. I don't need to look in a book to know that grass isn't the same color as the sky. I don't need to look in a book to know that discriminating against gay people isn't as good as feeding a stray kitten. >Is it because something just "feels right?" >Or is it based on following the laws and mores dictated by society? Or >perhaps you do what you think is best for you or what you think is best for >society (as if you or anyone else was in a position to speak for everyone)? >Or maybe you just flip a coin every morning to decide whether to take a >shower or go outside and murder the mailman? How could a whale explain to you what a herring looks like in sonar? >At least religious nuts have a written doctrine--and a belief that they have >a "higher power" that they need to answer to. That's not morality, it's obedience. And if they think that their "higher power" tells them to fly a fully fueled jetliner into a densely occupied building, they won't question it - they'll kill people, claiming that it was the "moral" thing to do. Moral people won't make that mistake. They might still kill people, but they'll know that they're being immoral. >Consider: would you back a law that would allow free expression in all >public places -- even if that expression is a cross, or a menorah imprinted >with the 10 commandments, or a stile with the words Allahu Akbar min kuli >shay written on it? It would be an illegal law, so no. Would you advocate a law allowing killing, as long as there were no religious discrimination in who could kill or be killed? -- rukbat at optonline dot net "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26 (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 14 Dec 2006 22:11:52 -0800, "Geoffrey Lin" <geoflin@gmail.com> wrote: >Anyway, I believe that it should be a constitutional right, in the >United States (and even the world), that homosexuals should have >similar rights to heterosexuals. God said "love thy neighbor", and it's >not about Biblical values or anything, but it's about loving thy >neighbor - and letting people do whatever they wish to - whatever the >consequence. That would leave you unemployed, since nothing would be illegal. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Someone wrote: > > On 12/14/06 8:10 PM, in article 4g74o2l0ffg8nucjo928f09d9629i25jmr@4ax.com, > "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:01:17 -0800, Someone >> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: <snip> > I don't know what you would do--but I know atheists who would fight > tooth and nail to ensure no religious icons are ever placed in public > places and who would try to make that desire scribed into law... As > if the only allowable "free expression" are those devoid of a God. > Atheism does sometimes motivate people to do things. The atheists in my region are not fighting to ensure that no religious icons are ever placed in public places. They are just fighting for the recognition of their right to have their declarations of non-belief to be posted or distributed in the same public places where religious icons are allowed to be placed. The civil authorities are doing as they should and they are letting the atheists get their way in this regard. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/15/06 5:55 AM, in article ck95o2l03bsdmvcb1hk2k2g9u9n72o26r0@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:55:50 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > >> Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. > > Atheism doesn't teach - it's merely lack of theism. > > Is Deism a form of Christianity, as some Christians maintain? No. > Most Deists in colonial times held Christianity in contempt. It's > merely "Nature's god created everything". Period. >>>> And it's still, IMO, detestable. > These aren't my quotes, they are from the deist website (so your semantic arguments should be directed to them, not me). You argument regarding the writers of the Constitution (upon my assertion that they were religious) was that "no, they were deists." Well, I gave you references that shows that deism believes in a supreme being--hence refuting your argument; I never said that the Constitution was written by Christians. Read carefully. >>> So don't marry a man. > >> -I- think it's detestable. You apparently don't. > > I don't think it's any of my business who loves whom if I'm not one of > the parties involved. > But evidently you dislike Christians for being Christian. But I can't dislike homosexuals for being homosexuals? >> Believe it or not, I am >> allowed to have this belief of the "wrongness" of homosexuality (regardless >> of whether or not it is religion-based)--and to vocalize that I don't want >> the Law of the Land to advocate it. > > But you're not free to have such a law in the US. > Ah, for once we agree. If you recall, in context, I said neither homosexuals or Christians should get their amendments passed--the former because "sexual orientation" should be left out of the Constitution (I even proposed a non-sexually oriented measure that would address the homosexual grievances) and the latter because it infringes on free choice (after all, God supposedly didn't want robots so He gave Christians free choice to sin or not sin--and Christians want the Law of the Land to force people to adhere to their God's law?). There is a balance that addresses the needs of the people, but doesn't infringe on the rights or beliefs of others. >> As to "equality"--that law would not be equal. A law that would be equal >> would be one that allows -any- couple to share the benefits of a civil >> union > > Any consenting (which requires the mental ability to understand the > consequences) adult (children aren't capable of informed consent) > non-related (which is biologically bad) human couple. > Why not biologically related couple? The incest laws would still be in effect, we're talking about a union of convenience. Sex, unless it is illegal (i.e. Incest or rape) would still be free choice. .. .. <<SNIP>> .. > >> So what is your moral compass? > > I have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong the same way > as I have the ability to distinguish between red and blue. I don't > need to look in a book to know that grass isn't the same color as the > sky. I don't need to look in a book to know that discriminating > against gay people isn't as good as feeding a stray kitten. > >> Is it because something just "feels right?" >> Or is it based on following the laws and mores dictated by society? Or >> perhaps you do what you think is best for you or what you think is best for >> society (as if you or anyone else was in a position to speak for everyone)? >> Or maybe you just flip a coin every morning to decide whether to take a >> shower or go outside and murder the mailman? > > How could a whale explain to you what a herring looks like in sonar? > >> At least religious nuts have a written doctrine--and a belief that they have >> a "higher power" that they need to answer to. > > That's not morality, it's obedience. And if they think that their > "higher power" tells them to fly a fully fueled jetliner into a > densely occupied building, they won't question it - they'll kill > people, claiming that it was the "moral" thing to do. Moral people > won't make that mistake. They might still kill people, but they'll > know that they're being immoral. > Yes, and if an atheist's morality is to murder Russian Jews because "it feels right" they won't question it either (actually both types of fanatics probably do question their actions, they just overcome it by some form of justification). Immoral people will do immoral thing regardless of what banner they fly. >> Consider: would you back a law that would allow free expression in all >> public places -- even if that expression is a cross, or a menorah imprinted >> with the 10 commandments, or a stile with the words Allahu Akbar min kuli >> shay written on it? > > It would be an illegal law, so no. Would you advocate a law allowing > killing, as long as there were no religious discrimination in who > could kill or be killed? That's the problem. The Constitution doesn't say "don't allow religion" it says "make no laws respecting an establishment of a religion." Allowing existing religions to freely express themselves in a public place where everyone else may express themselves is not (a) making a law and (b) not establishing a religion. Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:16:54 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> >>> On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether >>>>> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted >>>>> as true without proof. >>>> >>>> That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. >> >> It is not an attempt at an argument. It is a statement of a >> rule of logic > > No it's not. Logic isn't anything you declare to be logic. > >> and it is the definition of a postulate. > > A postulate is something that those qualified to judge consider to be > true. Wrong. There is nothing in the definition of a postulate where it says that only those who are qualified to judge whether it is true should be allowed to accept or reject it as true. > Notice the "those qualified to judge" part - if your posts are > any example of what you call thinking, you aren't included in that > group. >>> It's the equivalent of "I claim X, and I claim that claims can't be >>> questioned because, by my claim, that's true. So you have to accept >>> X". > >> That is correct > > No, child, I was pointing out how ridiculous your claim is. And now you are demonstrating to everyone reading these newsgroups your ignorance of the definition of a postulate. >> One must accept X in order to believe as true a conclusion arrived >> at in an argument using X as one of its premises. > > Only id X is true. One can't make X true by assertion, which is what > you're doing. You should review your 10th grade geometry textbooks where you will see many proofs presented where X is made true by an unproven assertion called a postulate. >>> I guess the formal fallacy is "assuming the conclusion that assuming a >>> conclusion is valid", or something equally recursive. > >> If X is a postulate > > IF . An assertion doesn't become a postulate just because you claim > it is. Euclid asserts as a postulate that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. It is accepted as true without proof. A believer in God asserts that "God is the creator of the heavens and the earth." Such an assertion, or another one meaning the same, is accepted as true by all fellow believers in God just like all believers in Euclidian geometry accept the assertion that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. That God is the creator of the heavens and the earth is a concept that is just as easy to understand and comprehend and to accept as true as the assertion that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. Such assertions require no proof because they are postulates. >> You do not need to prove X because X is a postulate, which by >> definition is accepted as true. > > IF it's a postulate. Your assertion isn't one. It was you who proposed X as a postulate by describing X by language meaning that it is your claim that must be accepted as true. My not accepting as true your assertion that you present as a postulate would not make your assertion a non-postulate. Likewise, your not accepting as true my assertion that I present as a postulate does not make my assertion a non-postulate. A basic assumption presented as a postulate by anyone is one that, by definition, is accepted as true, even if it is accepted as true only by the person making the assumption. >> The beauty of logic is that you can use it to convince yourself of >> anything you want to believe. > > If you're stupid enough to believe that. Evidently you are. It seems that both you and I know that logic can be used to convince oneself of anything he wants to believe, but you appear to be in denial. You may scream and fuss all you want about your not appearing to be in denial, and I will still say that you appear to be in denial. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: > > > >On 12/14/06 6:03 PM, in article gf04o29sh8d6kskmhsc8art2suba65p2uj@4ax.com, >"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote: > >. >. <<SNIP>> >. >>> >>> No, in my circle of colleagues it's called "keeping an open mind." I try to >>> not discard an idea until there is proof to the contrary. The concept of >>> "God" being untestable (and in many respects, ahem, circular) defies >>> disproving Him... Hence, I still concede that He may exist. Just like, btw, >>> how I acknowledge that the next period I type will coincide with a massive >>> supernova of the sun. Well, I was wrong there, wasn't I? >> >> You are falling for an ad ignorantiam argument: "God is not disproved, >> therefore, God is possible and cannot be discounted." >> >> -- Jim07D6 > >I think it's only deceptively ad ignorantium--I am not drawing any >conclusions about God; if you want to state the argument, it should go as >"God is not disproved, therefore, the idea of a God is possible and should >not be discounted." That is an ad ig argument for the possibility of God. >I'm not saying that God exists or does not exist (that >would be a conclusion), the statement is simply saying that the idea should >still be open barring any proof (either way). Yes, in the absence of disproof of God, the idea that God is possible is not ruled out, but that same fact does not "rule in" the possibility of God. Rather, that fact justifies only silence, on the possibility of God. > >Ad ignorantium arguments would actually be: "God is not proven, therefore >God does not exist" or "God is not disproved, therefore God exists" both of >which I've read (in some form or another) in these groups. > > Those would be examples, too. But "God is possible" is a positive assertion. It does not follow from "I don't know God is not possible." -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:06:24 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >>> -I- think it's detestable. You apparently don't. >> I don't think it's any of my business who loves whom if I'm not one of >> the parties involved. >But evidently you dislike Christians for being Christian. I dislike some Christians for what they do that has a direct effect on me. >>> As to "equality"--that law would not be equal. A law that would be equal >>> would be one that allows -any- couple to share the benefits of a civil >>> union >> Any consenting (which requires the mental ability to understand the >> consequences) adult (children aren't capable of informed consent) >> non-related (which is biologically bad) human couple. >Why not biologically related couple? As long as the degree of relatedness isn't close enough to infix recessive genes neither I nor the law has a problem with that. First cousins have been allowed to marry in Massachusetts for decades. >The incest laws would still be in effect And they're the ones that define how close a degree of relatedness is allowed. >>> At least religious nuts have a written doctrine--and a belief that they have >>> a "higher power" that they need to answer to. >> That's not morality, it's obedience. And if they think that their >> "higher power" tells them to fly a fully fueled jetliner into a >> densely occupied building, they won't question it - they'll kill >> people, claiming that it was the "moral" thing to do. Moral people >> won't make that mistake. They might still kill people, but they'll >> know that they're being immoral. >Yes, and if an atheist's morality is to murder Russian Jews because "it >feels right" they won't question it either That would be the belief of an amoral atheist. Murder, because it "feels right", DOESN'T "feel right" to a moral person, any more than a plastic lure "looks like" a herring to a whale.. >>> Consider: would you back a law that would allow free expression in all >>> public places -- even if that expression is a cross, or a menorah imprinted >>> with the 10 commandments, or a stile with the words Allahu Akbar min kuli >>> shay written on it? >> It would be an illegal law, so no. Would you advocate a law allowing >> killing, as long as there were no religious discrimination in who >> could kill or be killed? >That's the problem. The Constitution doesn't say "don't allow religion" it >says "make no laws respecting an establishment of a religion." So making a law respecting the institution of religion would be making an illegal law. How would you make a law permitting religious displays without referencing religion in that law? >Allowing existing religions to freely express themselves in a public place where >everyone else may express themselves is not (a) making a law and (b) not >establishing a religion. Making a law allowing it certainly is making a law. And it's making a law with respect to the institution known as "religion" - what the Constitution prohibits. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "The Catholic Church a Jew's best friend!" - Tom Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:26:02 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:16:54 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >>> >>>> On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether >>>>>> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted >>>>>> as true without proof. >>>>> >>>>> That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. >>> >>> It is not an attempt at an argument. It is a statement of a >>> rule of logic >> >> No it's not. Logic isn't anything you declare to be logic. >> >>> and it is the definition of a postulate. >> >> A postulate is something that those qualified to judge consider to be >> true. > >Wrong. There is nothing in the definition of a postulate where it >says that only those who are qualified to judge whether it is true >should be allowed to accept or reject it as true. Logic says that the opinions of the unqualified are worthless. >> No, child, I was pointing out how ridiculous your claim is. > >And now you are demonstrating to everyone reading these newsgroups >your ignorance of the definition of a postulate. How does your ignorance point out anything about my level of knowledge? (Rhetorical question - it doesn't.) >>> If X is a postulate >> >> IF . An assertion doesn't become a postulate just because you claim >> it is. > >Euclid asserts as a postulate that a straight line is the shortest >distance between two points. It is accepted as true without proof. To (mis)quote someone you probably never heard of: "You, sir, are not Euclid". >A believer in God asserts that "God is the creator of the heavens >and the earth." Which is an assertion, not a mathematical postulate. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against abortionists is justifiable homocide ." - "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On 12/15/06 9:26 AM, in article Pine.NEB.4.62.0612151014330.5974@sdf.lonestar.org, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: .. .. <<SNIP>> .. > >> IF . An assertion doesn't become a postulate just because you claim >> it is. > > Euclid asserts as a postulate that a straight line is the shortest > distance between two points. It is accepted as true without proof. > Not that I disagree with what you're trying to say, but I wanted to nitpick. The postulate that a "straight line is the shortest distance between two points" HAS been proven in terms of the other four postulates. The only postulate that hasn't been proven was Euclid's fifth postulate--"parallel lines never meet." But that's beside the point--in Euclidean geometry, postulates are assumed to be true. OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this analogy, Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those Reimannian mathematicians into the same room. Quote
Guest Airyx Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 josh wrote: > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > > Please argue. Okay. You are basing your argument to your own limited perception of location and time. The concept behind God is that he exists outside of the dimensions that we use to define location, and outside of the dimension that we refer to as time. To Him, everything has/is/will occur at exactly the same time, and at the same point in space. Don't forget, location is always relative. We are pretty sure that there are many more dimensions then what we are able to percieve. There are several different versions of string theory, with the principle difference between them being the number of dimensions. All of them are supported to some degree through math, but not so convincingly experimentally (altough there is some promise in that area). Once the equations that support the various string theories were re-worked to include exactly eleven dimentions, they merged together into what is now known as membrane theory. Now we have a larger model (it still needs much refinement), that includes all sorts of universes and dimensions, some of which do not necessarily include time. For a fun look at this problem, you should read the book "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions (Dover Thrift Editions) by Edwin A. Abbott". It has nothing to do with religion, its a fictional story that makes it easy to understand the issues of perceiving multiple dimensions. Anyway, you're argument begins on the initial assumption that if God were to exist, he must exist within the dimensions of space and time. There is no reason why a omnipotent creative power would have to be constrained in such a way, so your argument doesn't stand. Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: >> >>> >>> Someone wrote: >>>> It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn >>>> how to do proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a >>>> statement that is assumed to be true. >>> >>> That's true, that's what a postulate is. But "God created the >>> universe" is not a postulate just because Samuel J Heywood says >>> it is. You're not going to get me to assume that that statement >>> is true. It's a hypothesis. >> >> It is not a hypothesis because the statement cannot be subjected >> to objective scientific testing. > > Disagree. God is a testable hypothesis because existence is > testable. There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective scientific methods of inquiry. > The only problem with your proposition is that you fail to provide any > evidence for it's existence. I do not need to provide any proof of God's existence. And Euclid does not need to provide any proof that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. One does not need to prove what is obvious. > Which makes your claim that god exists the > equivalent to my claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) exists. Correct. If you have come to know God as The Invisible Pink Unicorn then you should share your religious experience with others, just like John Lennon shared with millions of others his experience of knowing God as Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Lucy-in-the-Sky-with-Diamonds-lyrics-The-Beatles/268F467B6ECC8C7148256BC20013FDB3 THE BEATLES - LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS LYRICS > All you have done is provided an untestable hypothesis. It is not a hypothesis. It is a postulate. > I can prove > it's a hypothesis by not accepting it as a postulate. Any basic assumption one presents as a postulate is indeed a postulate because he says it is. > It may be a > postulate within the framework of Christianity, but it ain't no > postulate outside of it. It is a basic assumption accepted as true by all world religions that I am aware of. >> Anyone may make any kind of basic assumption and say that it is a >> postulate, and saying that it is one makes it one, even if nobody >> other than the person making the basic assumption accepts it as >> true. > > Well it isn't really a good argument that God exists then, is it? It is not an argument that God exists. It is a simple basic assumption accepted as true that God exists. A postulate requires no proof. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: <...> > >There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective >scientific methods of inquiry. What might they be, other than objects of thought? -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote: > On 12/15/06 9:26 AM, in article > Pine.NEB.4.62.0612151014330.5974@sdf.lonestar.org, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > <<SNIP>> > >> >>> IF . An assertion doesn't become a postulate just because you claim >>> it is. >> >> Euclid asserts as a postulate that a straight line is the shortest >> distance between two points. It is accepted as true without proof. > > Not that I disagree with what you're trying to say, but I wanted to > nitpick. The postulate that a "straight line is the shortest distance > between two points" HAS been proven in terms of the other four > postulates. > > The only postulate that hasn't been proven was Euclid's fifth > postulate--"parallel lines never meet." But that's beside the point--in > Euclidean geometry, postulates are assumed to be true. > > OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I > showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are > also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this > analogy, Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define > their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that > God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both > world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only > problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those > Reimannian mathematicians into the same room. Correct. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > > > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Someone wrote: > >>>> It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn > >>>> how to do proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a > >>>> statement that is assumed to be true. > >>> > >>> That's true, that's what a postulate is. But "God created the > >>> universe" is not a postulate just because Samuel J Heywood says > >>> it is. You're not going to get me to assume that that statement > >>> is true. It's a hypothesis. > >> > >> It is not a hypothesis because the statement cannot be subjected > >> to objective scientific testing. > > > > Disagree. God is a testable hypothesis because existence is > > testable. > > There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective > scientific methods of inquiry. > > > The only problem with your proposition is that you fail to provide any > > evidence for it's existence. > > I do not need to provide any proof of God's existence. Then I don't believe you that God exists. > And Euclid > does not need to provide any proof that the shortest distance between > two points is a straight line. One does not need to prove what is > obvious. Right. But God is not obvious. In fact, God is nowhere to be seen or heard. There is no sign of God. It's like he doesn't exist. If you're satisfied with that, then go ahead. Believe all you want. I think it's absurd. > > Which makes your claim that god exists the > > equivalent to my claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) exists. > > Correct. If you have come to know God as The Invisible Pink Unicorn > then you should share your religious experience with others, just like > John Lennon shared with millions of others his experience of knowing > God as Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Huh? Lennon was an atheist. And if you look at the initials of the title of the song, they form the word "LSD." Which is what the song is about. It is about drugs. You know, an acid trip. It is laughable that you would claim that, out of all the songs out there, as a tribute to your god. > http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Lucy-in-the-Sky-with-Diamonds-lyrics-The-Beatles/268F467B6ECC8C7148256BC20013FDB3 > THE BEATLES - LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS LYRICS > > > All you have done is provided an untestable hypothesis. > > It is not a hypothesis. It is a postulate. I don't accept it as a postulate. > > I can prove > > it's a hypothesis by not accepting it as a postulate. > > Any basic assumption one presents as a postulate is indeed a postulate > because he says it is. But only to the person postulating it, That postulate is not automatically a postulate for anyone else. So, I don't accept your proposal as a postulate. You are attempting one of the single most lame and dishonest proofs of God I've ever come across. God's existence is a postulate therefore God exists. Really? You ought to be embarrassed. > > It may be a > > postulate within the framework of Christianity, but it ain't no > > postulate outside of it. > > It is a basic assumption accepted as true by all world religions that > I am aware of. 1. How come different religions postulate different Gods? 2. Just because lots of people think something doesn't mean it's true. > >> Anyone may make any kind of basic assumption and say that it is a > >> postulate, and saying that it is one makes it one, even if nobody > >> other than the person making the basic assumption accepts it as > >> true. > > > > Well it isn't really a good argument that God exists then, is it? > > It is not an argument that God exists. It is a simple basic > assumption accepted as true that God exists. A postulate requires > no proof. I don't know how you manage to sleep at night. Quote
Guest Bill M Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>could exist, and that was the universe. > > Then what created the universe? Neither you are anyone else knows! > duke, American-American > > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:27:20 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote: - Refer: <0bv5o29jtbn4fc5gnelf8pntq3ou2mrh5g@4ax.com> >"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: > ><...> >> >>There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective >>scientific methods of inquiry. > >What might they be, other than objects of thought? Hiding in his crack-pipe, along with his gods... -- Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 On 12/15/06 4:25 PM, in article RhHgh.76$h_1.35@bignews6.bellsouth.net, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message > news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>> could exist, and that was the universe. >> >> Then what created the universe? > > Neither you are anyone else knows! > >> duke, American-American >> >> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." >> Pope Paul VI >> > > I know! But I'm not telling. So phhhhhtt! Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:26:02 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:16:54 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether >>>>>>> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted >>>>>>> as true without proof. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. >>>> >>>> It is not an attempt at an argument. It is a statement of a >>>> rule of logic >>> >>> No it's not. Logic isn't anything you declare to be logic. >>> >>>> and it is the definition of a postulate. >>> >>> A postulate is something that those qualified to judge consider to be >>> true. >> Wrong. There is nothing in the definition of a postulate where it >> says that only those who are qualified to judge whether it is true >> should be allowed to accept or reject it as true. > Logic says that the opinions of the unqualified are worthless. Can you show me where a highly qualified lexicographer has included in his definition of a postulate a clause saying anything to the effect that only those who who are qualified to judge whether it is true should be allowed to accept or reject it as true? Even if you can, I can show you some definitions of a postulate as presented by other highly qualified lexicographers where nothing to that effect is included in the definition. There is no need to include any such unneccessary verbiage in the defintion because it may be reasonably supposed that any normal and intelligent person like Bubba, when presented with a postulate concerning some subject which he knows nothing about, would not judge whether it is true. He would just say "duh . . . I dunno what you're talkin' about, and I don't wanna get into any of that kinda stuff tonight 'coz tonight I'm not wearin' my hip waders." If you approach him on a night when he is wearing his hip waders he is going to warn you that there is no way you can get on equal footing with him because you have two left feet and they don't match. He will tell you also that if you don't know that them's fightin' words, then you must be just a Yankee, and that around here, he shoots every third Yankee, and that the second one just left. Logic says that the opinions of Bubba are the ones that really count. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: > >Can you show me where a highly qualified lexicographer has included >in his definition of a postulate a clause saying anything to the >effect that only those who who are qualified to judge whether it is >true should be allowed to accept or reject it as true? > >Even if you can, I can show you some definitions of a postulate as >presented by other highly qualified lexicographers where nothing >to that effect is included in the definition. Sophism. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:20:32 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> Logic says that the opinions of the unqualified are worthless. >Can you show me where a highly qualified lexicographer has included >in his definition of a postulate a clause saying anything to the >effect that only those who who are qualified to judge whether it is >true should be allowed to accept or reject it as true? It's a logical truth, not a lexicographical truth. Not knowing that points up the fact that you aren't really qualified to form opinions about logic. >Even if you can, I can show you some definitions of a postulate Anyone can define anything to mean anything - that has nothing to do with reality. The opinion of a person who doesn't know what he's talking about ISN'T worth as much as someone who does know what he's talking about, and if that's not PC enough for you, that's too bad. Not all opinions are worth the same. >Logic says that the opinions of Bubba are the ones that really count. Only if Bubba actually knows the field he's forming opinions about. Hawking's opinions on Sumerian grammar probably aren't worth any more than mine, but I wouldn't argue cosmology with him. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: >Can you show me where a highly qualified lexicographer has included >in his definition of a postulate a clause saying anything to the >effect that only those who who are qualified to judge whether it is >true should be allowed to accept or reject it as true? There is no judgement on whether a postulate is "true", it is set to "true", but this has no bearing on whether the postulate corresponds to any fact about the world. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 "Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message > Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: > >> >>I think it's only deceptively ad ignorantium--I am not >>drawing any conclusions about God; if you want to state >>the argument, it should go as "God is not disproved, >>therefore, the idea of a God is possible and should >>not be discounted." > > That is an ad ig argument for the possibility of God. > >>I'm not saying that God exists or does not exist (that >>would be a conclusion), the statement is simply saying >>that the idea should still be open barring any proof (either >>way). > > Yes, in the absence of disproof of God, the idea that God > is possible is not ruled out, but that same fact does not "rule > in" the possibility of God. Rather, that fact justifies only > silence, on the possibility of God. In the absence of disprof of invisible minuature unicorns, the idea that an invisible minuature unicorn is standing next to me cannot be ruled out. No reasonable person would be criticized for not believing in invisible minuature unicorns. Why are atheists criticized for not believing in God, when the evidence for God is no better than the evidence for invisible minuature unicorns? --Wax Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> > > I do not need to provide any proof of God's existence. A seven year old child does not need proof that there is a monster under his bed. He knows that it is there. --Wax Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> said: > <...> >No reasonable person would be criticized for not believing in invisible >minuature unicorns. Why are atheists criticized for not believing in God, >when the evidence for God is no better than the evidence for invisible >minuature unicorns? Because the prevailing illusion is God? -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:20:17 GMT, in alt.atheism "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in <530hh.218986$Fi1.67674@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>: > >"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> >> >> I do not need to provide any proof of God's existence. > >A seven year old child does not need proof that there is a monster under his >bed. He knows that it is there. SNL had a great monster under the bed skit last week. It was real. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.