Evidence for God from Science

First Cause Argument:
Not so much breaking the "letter of the law", but the goal of the system.
You said: "It is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments." It defies that, because it is based on assumptions that are either unfalsifiable, or already falsified.

You said: "Our understanding of "infinity" is gradually getting to the point that "infinity" is probably just a "term" we use for convenience sake." this violates the first law. Infinity is infinity, not "like" (probably just a term for convenience sake) infinity, according to the first law. This is the common interpretation of the argument, and that interpretation breaks the first law. You're begging the question. Saying infinity probably doesn't exist, so it's okay to say infinity doesn't exist is asinine. Unless you're infinite, you have no way of accurately calculating the probability of infinity existing, never mind saying it actually doesn't.

If you can't prove infinity then it not existing is NOT breaking the Law of identity.
Logical Laws are applied to concrete things ( 1 is 1 because it is 1 and not 2 o any other number).
Infinity is not concrete, it is assumed.
Besides that, the first cause is not based on infinity not existing.
You are thinking that, if something is the first cause then what is the "firster cause" and the issue is that the first cause addresses what we know, that everything in THIS universe has a first cause or first mover.
We know this because of observations in THIS universe BUT we do NOT know id this applies to what was BEFORE this universe.
The only assumption being made is yours in the sense that you assume that what applies to this universe applies to what was before this universe came to be and there is no reason to believe that.

PaulSacramento wrote: If you can't prove infinity then it not existing is NOT breaking the Law of identity.
Logical Laws are applied to concrete things ( 1 is 1 because it is 1 and not 2 o any other number).
Infinity is not concrete, it is assumed.
Besides that, the first cause is not based on infinity not existing.
You are thinking that, if something is the first cause then what is the "firster cause" and the issue is that the first cause addresses what we know, that everything in THIS universe has a first cause or first mover.
We know this because of observations in THIS universe BUT we do NOT know id this applies to what was BEFORE this universe.
The only assumption being made is yours in the sense that you assume that what applies to this universe applies to what was before this universe came to be and there is no reason to believe that.

Paul, now you're trying to justify not following the logical laws. Numbers are not concrete, your example is terrible. You said "it is assumed", then you say the only assumption being made is mine. Get back to me when you are ready to follow the rules of logic, stop making blatantly false claims, and getting stuck in circular arguments. I'm done with this topic. Your post is a shining example of how utterly ridiculous this type of thinking is.

I am sorry you didn't understand my point but there is no excuse to be rude or condescending even more so with a moderator.
I suggest you be more open to other views and opinions and to work on your debating / discussion skills.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am sorry you didn't understand my point but there is no excuse to be rude or condescending even more so with a moderator.
I suggest you be more open to other views and opinions and to work on your debating / discussion skills.

I'm sorry you found that post rude or condescending. I find your previous post the same.

Lunalle wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am sorry you didn't understand my point but there is no excuse to be rude or condescending even more so with a moderator.
I suggest you be more open to other views and opinions and to work on your debating / discussion skills.

I'm sorry you found that post rude or condescending. I find your previous post the same.

Lunalle wrote: Numbers are not concrete, your example is terrible.

I want to see an example of when 1 is not 1 or 2 is not 2, when is it not concrete. You need to provide proof for your assertions.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”~ The late Christopher Hitchens

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Lunalle wrote: Numbers are not concrete, your example is terrible.

I want to see an example of when 1 is not 1 or 2 is not 2, when it it not concrete. You need to provide proof for your assertions.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”~ The late Christopher Hitchens

You guys are brutal. Again, you are incorrectly twisting things around. Christopher Hitchens is talking about positive assertions, not negative assertions. This is a basic concept of formal logic. Following formal logic, you can dismiss the original claim of numbers being concrete, because there is no supplied evidence for it.

However, let me make a positive claim, so I can demonstrate it: Numbers are conceptual. I have not heard of anyone who has interacted with a number using any of their 5 basic senses. Sure, you can interact with something which symbolizes the concept of a number, but not an actual number. There is no actual number, because a number is a concept. 1 is not 1, when it is anything else. For example, 1 is not really 1 when it is rounded from 1.25. (1.25 rounded is 1, but rounding is removing valid information). Similarly, 1 is 2 when it is 1.98 rounded (1.98 rounded is 2, but rounding is adding invalid information).

Lunalle wrote:You guys are brutal. Again, you are incorrectly twisting things around. Christopher Hitchens is talking about positive assertions, not negative assertions. This is a basic concept of formal logic. Following formal logic, you can dismiss the original claim of numbers being concrete, because there is no supplied evidence for it.

Yea there is evidence, I will show you. 1 + 1 always = 2 and not 3. Please give an example of 1+1 not = 2.

The quote is applicable as you made a positive claim that numbers are not concrete, if I said the sun does not exist according to your definition of a positive claim I wouldn't need to provide evidence.

For someone who doesn't like to play semantics, definition and linguistic games you sure do them a lot.

However, let me make a positive claim, so I can demonstrate it: Numbers are conceptual. I have not heard of anyone who has interacted with a number using any of their 5 basic senses.

So........... what does being conceptual have to do with numbers being concrete. Is having 1 apple conceptual or is 1 apple a real and tangible thing? What if I add another apple, does it become two apples or is it only conceptual? I am pretty sure there would be two real and tangible apples in my possession.

Sure, you can interact with something which symbolizes the concept of a number, but not an actual number. There is no actual number, because a number is a concept. 1 is not 1, when it is anything else. For example, 1 is not really 1 when it is rounded from 1.25. (1.25 rounded is 1, but rounding is removing valid information). Similarly, 1 is 2 when it is 1.98 rounded (1.98 rounded is 2, but rounding is adding invalid information).

No this is not true, all you have done is change the value with simple addition and subtraction which actually proves my point, you are right that the .25 is still valid information because in a real world application it would still exist hence why numbers are concrete. Lets use a real world example, if you have taken a bite from an apple and you are left with .98 of an apple and you round it up to 1 apple because you want to sell it, but won't you still only have .98 apple? see it remains concrete, please tell me how the apple would be 100% because you rounded it up. Another example is if you have 1.5 cookies but you round it down to one cookie to sell, does that mean there is only one cookie? To me it seems that there would still be 1.5 cookies. 1+1 always = 2 and you have not proven that it doesn't, well at least not yet, I am waiting.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Lunalle wrote:You guys are brutal. Again, you are incorrectly twisting things around. Christopher Hitchens is talking about positive assertions, not negative assertions. This is a basic concept of formal logic. Following formal logic, you can dismiss the original claim of numbers being concrete, because there is no supplied evidence for it.

Yea there is evidence, I will show you. 1 + 1 always = 2 and not 3. Please give an example of 1+1 not = 2.

Sure...
1+1=3 (Note, I'm not showing decimal places, if I were it would be 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.0), they are simply left out to save on space.
1+1=2.00... ONLY when 1 is exactly 1.00... (the ellipses signifies an infinite string of 0s)

Danieltwotwenty wrote:The quote is applicable as you made a positive claim that numbers are not concrete, if I said the sun does not exist according to your definition of a positive claim I would need to provide no evidence.

Right, if you are using formal logic, and you don't think there is sufficient justification to say "the sun exists", you are under no obligation to say, or believe it. Feel free to say the sun does not exist.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:For someone who doesn't like to play semantics, definition and linguistic games you sure do them a lot.

Right, well when I'm using formal logic, I stick to the laws (and purpose) of formal logic. What I don't like is re-translating words to give them a different meaning, and using words to mean something they aren't defined to mean. There is a difference between mathematics, formal logic, rhetoric, slang, and literate dishonesty.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

However, let me make a positive claim, so I can demonstrate it: Numbers are conceptual. I have not heard of anyone who has interacted with a number using any of their 5 basic senses.

So........... what does being conceptual have to do with numbers being concrete. Is having 1 apple conceptual or is 1 apple a real and tangible thing? What if I add another apple, does it become two apples or is it only conceptual? I am pretty sure there would be two real and tangible apples in my possession.

"Concrete" is an antonym (opposite) of "concept". While they're not direct logical negations (formal logic) they are opposite (rhetorical negation). I was using formal logic when I said they are not concrete (direct logical negation), and rhetoric when I said they are conceptual (rhetorical negation).

Back to formal logic:
1 is abstract
2 is abstract
Apple(s) is not abstract

You have apple(s), you do not have 1 or 2.
How many apples you have, is a concept to explain quantity in a universally understandable way.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Sure, you can interact with something which symbolizes the concept of a number, but not an actual number. There is no actual number, because a number is a concept. 1 is not 1, when it is anything else. For example, 1 is not really 1 when it is rounded from 1.25. (1.25 rounded is 1, but rounding is removing valid information). Similarly, 1 is 2 when it is 1.98 rounded (1.98 rounded is 2, but rounding is adding invalid information).

No this is not true all you have done is change the value. Lets use a real world example, if you have taken a bite from an apple and you are left with .98 of an apple and you round it up to 1 apple because you want to sell it, but you still only have .98 apple so it remains concrete, please tell me how the apple would be 100% because you rounded it up. Another example is if you have 1.5 cookies but you round it down to one cookie to sell, does that mean there is only one cookie?

Here's the important bit:
Yes, rounding is changing the value, inaccurately. That's what rounding is. I mean, you wouldn't say "oh no, I only have 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of a cookie, because a crumb fell off when you picked it up, you would round it up and say you have 1 cookie.

In my 1+1=3 example, I have increased the accuracy of the value from 0 decimal places to 1 decimal place. You probably assumed that when I wrote 1, the value was actually 1.0..., which it was not, it was 1.50... This is a matter of accuracy vs. simplicity of display.

Generally speaking, with low numbers, we value accuracy higher than simplicity, and with high numbers we value simplicity higher than accuracy. For example, if I sold you 1 apple which had a worm in it, which ate a bit of that 1 apple, you'd probably be pretty upset. However, if I sold you a barrel containing 250 apples, and 1 apple had a worm in it, which ate a bit of that 1 apple, so you accurately had 249.98 apples, you'd probably chuck the apple with the worm in it, and be happy you have 249 good apples, even though you were technically cheated out of 0.02 of an apple (and chose to give up 0.98 of an apple).

Hopefully this is clear as mud.

Lunalle wrote: 1+1=3 (Note, I'm not showing decimal places, if I were it would be 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.0), they are simply left out to save on space.

Just because you don't show the decimal numbers does not mean they don't exist, like the real world example 1apple is 1 apple not 1.5 apple.

1+1=2.00... ONLY when 1 is exactly 1.00... (the ellipses signifies an infinite string of 0s)

Exactly, finally your getting it. 1 is always 1. If you hide the decimal numbers then it is not really 1 anymore. So if 1 can never be anything else other than 1 unless you leave out information like you have, then it is fact and unchanging.

Right, if you are using formal logic, and you don't think there is sufficient justification to say "the sun exists", you are under no obligation to say, or believe it. Feel free to say the sun does not exist.

Yes but you said

Following formal logic, you can dismiss the original claim of numbers being concrete, because there is no supplied evidence for it.

and evidence was provided.

Right, well when I'm using formal logic, I stick to the laws (and purpose) of formal logic.

No you don't, we supplied evidence and you didn't back the claim.

What I don't like is re-translating words to give them a different meaning, and using words to mean something they aren't defined to mean. There is a difference between mathematics, formal logic, rhetoric, slang, and literate dishonesty.

Which you seem to do a lot, why do something you don't like.

You have apple(s), you do not have 1 or 2.
How many apples you have, is a concept to explain quantity in a universally understandable way.

The word or concept of 1 may signify the amount but the amount remains whether it is said or conceived of or not. If there are two rocks in a desert and there is no one there to perceive them, there are still two rock regardless. The two rocks exist independent of any mind and it's not just rocks, it's two rocks. According to that your theory a rock will stop being a rock just because the word hasn't been conceived of yet.

Here's the important bit:
Yes, rounding is changing the value, inaccurately. That's what rounding is. I mean, you wouldn't say "oh no, I only have 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of a cookie, because a crumb fell off when you picked it up, you would round it up and say you have 1 cookie.

No if a bit fell off it will always remain less than the original, you could redefine it but the facts would remain the same.

In my 1+1=3 example, I have increased the accuracy of the value from 0 decimal places to 1 decimal place. You probably assumed that when I wrote 1, the value was actually 1.0..., which it was not, it was 1.50... This is a matter of accuracy vs. simplicity of display.

I think I covered this at the start.

Hopefully this is clear as mud.

Not at all.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Lunalle wrote: 1+1=3 (Note, I'm not showing decimal places, if I were it would be 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.0), they are simply left out to save on space.

Just because you don't show the decimal numbers does not mean they don't exist, like the real world example 1apple is 1 apple not 1.5 apple.

If I don't show the decimal numbers, then you have no way of knowing what they are, so they effectively don't exist to you. You asked me to show 1+1=3, and I did, by providing additional information.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

1+1=2.00... ONLY when 1 is exactly 1.00... (the ellipses signifies an infinite string of 0s)

Exactly, finally your getting it. 1 is always 1. If you hide the decimal numbers then it is not really 1 anymore. So if 1 can never be anything else other than 1 unless you leave out information like you have, then it is concrete and unchanging.

I'm trying to show that accuracy is dependent on clarity and precision. In formal logic:

1+1=2 is invalid, because there is not enough information displayed to define the scenario.
1.00...+1.00...=2.00... is valid (and true), because the scenario is exactly (to infinity) defined.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Right, if you are using formal logic, and you don't think there is sufficient justification to say "the sun exists", you are under no obligation to say, or believe it. Feel free to say the sun does not exist.

Yes but you said

Following formal logic, you can dismiss the original claim of numbers being concrete, because there is no supplied evidence for it.

and evidence was provided.

I apologize, I was unclear to the point of being inaccurate. I should have said: You can dismiss the original claim of numbers being concrete, because there is no valid evidence for it. (Saying 1 = 1 to prove 1 = 1 is against the rules of formal logic, it's called the fallacy of begging the question, among other things.)

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Right, well when I'm using formal logic, I stick to the laws (and purpose) of formal logic.

No you don't, we supplied evidence and you didn't back the claim.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here... which positive claim didn't I back?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

What I don't like is re-translating words to give them a different meaning, and using words to mean something they aren't defined to mean. There is a difference between mathematics, formal logic, rhetoric, slang, and literate dishonesty.

Which you seem to do a lot, why do something you don't like.

I'm sorry, I'm not aware that I have done this. Please point this out to me when it happens, so I can improve.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

You have apple(s), you do not have 1 or 2.
How many apples you have, is a concept to explain quantity in a universally understandable way.

The word or concept of 1 may signify the amount but the amount remains whether it is said or conceived of or not. If there are two rocks in a desert and there is no one there to perceive them, there are still two rock regardless. The two rocks exist independent of any mind and it not just rocks. According to you a rock will stop being a rock just because the word hasn't been conceived of yet.

"Rocks" exist independent of a mind, the concept rock, and the concept of quantity of rocks does not. If there's no mind, there are still "rocks", but there's no quantity, because there is nothing can comprehend quantity. When a mind comes along, it then applies the concept of rock and the concept of quantity, and counts 2 rocks.

Yes, a rock will stop being a rock when there is no mind to comprehend the word "rock". It will still be whatever it is though (usually a grouping of basic elements such as oxygen, magnesium aluminum, silicon calcium, sodium potassium, iron, or whatever).

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Here's the important bit:
Yes, rounding is changing the value, inaccurately. That's what rounding is. I mean, you wouldn't say "oh no, I only have 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of a cookie, because a crumb fell off when you picked it up, you would round it up and say you have 1 cookie.

No if a bit fell off it will always remain less than the original, you could redefine it but the facts would remain the same.

Right, rounding is simple, but inaccurate.

I guess were at an impasse, I believe numbers are real and exist outside of human experience, all we have done is discover them.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I guess were at an impasse, I believe numbers are real and exist outside of human experience, all we have done is discover them.

Uh, well yeah... I don't believe in objective truth, and you do, but not only that, you believe it is possible for you to know it, through your subjective experience... somehow... uh... well... *shrug* I can't stop you from believing such things, I can only point out they're not logically valid.

Lunalle wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I guess were at an impasse, I believe numbers are real and exist outside of human experience, all we have done is discover them.

Uh, well yeah... I don't believe in objective truth, and you do, but not only that, you believe it is possible for you to know it, through your subjective experience... somehow... uh... well... *shrug* I can't stop you from believing such things, I can only point out they're not logically valid.

Not logically valid in your subjective opinion ugggh!

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Lunalle wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I guess were at an impasse, I believe numbers are real and exist outside of human experience, all we have done is discover them.

Uh, well yeah... I don't believe in objective truth, and you do, but not only that, you believe it is possible for you to know it, through your subjective experience... somehow... uh... well... *shrug* I can't stop you from believing such things, I can only point out they're not logically valid.

Not logically valid in your subjective opinion ugggh!

Of course!