NationStates Jolt Archive

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.


You can disprove anything if you can show that it contradicts itself - people are just to ignorant to see that. There are lots of contradictions with the idea of the Christian god. Thus, the Christian god's existence can be disproved.

"No contradictions exist. If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."


Note: Notice I did not say any god. You can disprove a certain idea, but not necessarily something that can take many forms and definitions. i.e. You can't disprove a 'fluid' idea, only a concrete one: like anything written in the Bible - it doesn't change.

Your point?

If it's any consulation, I don't think you exist.

If it's any consulation, I don't think you exist.

Harsh. Try not to flamebait.

To paraphrase the Principia Discordia-"All things are true-even false things. Don't blame me, man-I didn't do it!"

Harsh. Try not to flamebait.

Well, there's no proof to his existance...

Well, there's no proof to his existance...

His account.

Someone, or something, is at work here. Much evil is afoot.

Harsh. Try not to flamebait.

What? for all I know you're a random string of code appearing on my monitor, which itself may not actually exist.

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.


Your argument is flawed.

In the case of the latter two points, you've merely stated a negative, not proved a non-existence. Stating that 3 is not 2 doesn't disprove the individual existence of either 2 or 3. Similarly, stating that the moon is not the earth doesn't disprove the existence of either.

Your first point has a different flaw; you've merely stated that a sphere doesn't take a certain form, not proved that the sphere itself doesn't exist.

"NEVER" does not exist, and 3 can be 2: if you multiply 3 with 2 you get 6, divide this with 3 and you get 2. therefore you can twist all the facts to create concrete evidence. but you still don't show how the existence of God is proven through non-existence, because the bible has become merely fiction over the millenniums as many of the contents have been removed or mis-translated to fit the issues of those times.
A sphere is also a space not necessarily a form, therefore it can be cubic or other.
The moon is not the earth, because we call it that way, but what is earth but a clomp of soil and stone and so is the moon ? maybe we are a moon to someone else in the galaxy ?
Don't deny controversy in opinion, it exists even though you deny it; we don't attack you for believing, don't attack us for not believing. I don't exist because I have died 3 times in my life, am I godlike ?, Jesus only came back once. I came back 3 times ! yet I still don't believe in a Godlike presence.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

Take a two-dimensional cut of the cube/sphere at the middle. The object can now be either a cube and a sphere and is, as long as you remain in two dimensions, both.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

I define 3 = 2.

The number 3 will now, whenever I use it, mean 2. As such: 1+2 = 2.

(With Addition modulus 2 and the set of numbers {1,2} I can get 3 to be equal to one. With the set of numbers {0,1,2} I can make it equal to 0. With the set of numbers {2} It can be equal to two)

So, using group theory (this is math btw, so remember what a theory is in math):
1+2 = 1 (first example)
1+2 = 0 (second example) (It's been a while since I did group theory, so this one may require addition modulus 3)
1+2 = undefined (third example)

The moon is not the earth.

Since this is naming, I can merely call earth the moon and the moon the earth. Hence, the moon is now the earth.

If there is an infinte number of parallel universes(string theory), then the likelihood of one of those universes posessing a being with the power to create universes approaches one. Thus science proves that God might exist. :)

If there is an infinte number of parallel universes(string theory), then the likelihood of one of those universes posessing a being with the power to create universes approaches one. Thus science proves that God might exist. :)

Good point. In any true infinity, all things must exist. Since humans can conceive of infinity, infinity exists, therefore God must exist.

Humans still created God and the concept of god though.

Good point. In any true infinity, all things must exist. Since humans can conceive of infinity, infinity exists, therefore God must exist.

Humans still created God and the concept of god though.

I think that if there is a being with the power to create universes, and if that being created this universe, then the chances of that being in any way resembling the Judeo-Christian God as we understand Him is pretty small.

How three is equal to one plus one, which is also equal to two.

You will all agree that 1 + 1 = 2, yes?

Now, take two pieces of string, each with a knot in them, and tie them together. You will have started with two knots, but you will end up with three knots. Since you have the same as what you started with - some string - it is quite clear that 2 = 3.

Thank you.

Ahh, but if you had to be exact (and I'm a pedant, so I will be) that should be:

1 string + 1 string = 2 strings

And

2 knots + 1 knot = 3 knots

So 2 strings = 3 knots ;)

Still, 2 = 3.

Edit: Yeargh! I jumped two posts back!

George Bush's brain?

How three is equal to one plus one, which is also equal to two.

You will all agree that 1 + 1 = 2, yes?

Now, take two pieces of string, each with a knot in them, and tie them together. You will have started with two knots, but you will end up with three knots. Since you have the same as what you started with - some string - it is quite clear that 2 = 3.

Thank you.

Given that the object whose existence you are testing is detectable, in principle you can always prove its nonexistence (worst case scenario is to just check every point in the universe simultaneously). Practical limitations are a different matter.

For the OP's arguments, try putting it as 'There does not exist a cube which is also a sphere', 'There does not exist a 2 that is also a 3' and 'There does not exist an earth that is also the moon'. Also use the commonly understood meaning rather than the literal meaning or alternative meaning, since it is clear what he intends to mean.

From there we have 2 easy proofs and one statement with overwhelming evidence.

Good point. In any true infinity, all things must exist. Since humans can conceive of infinity, infinity exists, therefore God must exist.

Humans still created God and the concept of god though.

My thoughts exactly; we created God!

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.


You can disprove anything if you can show that it contradicts itself
But you haven't done that. In the above examples, you've assigned for one two contradictory traits, and for two others have shown contrast to something else.

people are just to ignorant to see that. There are lots of contradictions with the idea of the Christian god. Thus, the Christian god's existence can be disproved.
More accurately, the contradictions "disprove" themselves according to the rule you quoted.

"No contradictions exist. If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

They actually do exist, within the context of the rule you quoted. (If they didn't, there would be no reason to check your premises.)

Harsh. Try not to flamebait.

It wasn't necessarilly "harsh." No-self actually the founding idea behind some religions, like Buddhism.

For the OP's arguments, try putting it as 'There does not exist a cube which is also a sphere', 'There does not exist a 2 that is also a 3' and 'There does not exist an earth that is also the moon'.
Right. The contradiction does not "exist," but as was pointed out earlier that says nothing about the existence of either cube or sphere, 2 or 3, earth or moon.

And it doesn't need to. You can try to show the nonexistence of any object you care to identify, in this case OP was not attempting to deny the existence of a cube, simply to deny the existence of a cube with certain properties, namely the properties that a sphere has. Give a sphere-cube a name and then you can just say a sphere-cube does not exist.

For the OP's arguments, try putting it as 'There does not exist a cube which is also a sphere', 'There does not exist a 2 that is also a 3' and 'There does not exist an earth that is also the moon'.

Even so, there still isn't a proven negative, merely some bold statements. At worst you have three hypotheses, waiting to be (dis)proven, and at best three axioms, which involve no proof at all.

Merely stating something doesn't prove it: I could say, "I am not a human", but it wouldn't be proof of anything.

Sadly this really only applies to argument formation, it doesn't give you anything useful in a search for reality. Knowing that something doesn't exist that fit two contradicting criteria isn't helpful even though it is verifiable.

Also your entire argument is tipped on its head when you add a few words to "nothing can be disproven." If you were to say, "nothing that is possible can be disproven" you get a statement that cannot lead to the same kind of internal contradiction and it becomes verifiably true once more, but still useless outside of the language system that it's built on.

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.
This is all sad.

The Earth could be the Moon. Those are made up names.
High level math is made the fuck up, I would bet some one could prove 3 = 2.

Otherwise, your example is crap because the difference between those and proving God's non-existence is there is concrete evidence of the converse which is why you can say you can prove those. Can some one at least not fail at logic?

Even so, there still isn't a proven negative, merely some bold statements. At worst you have three hypotheses, waiting to be (dis)proven, and at best three axioms, which involve no proof at all.

Merely stating something doesn't prove it: I could say, "I am not a human", but it wouldn't be proof of anything.

The proofs of the first two are very basic, to the extent that they don't really need to be given, since I doubt you will find anyone who will need the proof to believe that it is true. I don't claim that OP proved any of the three, but it is certainly possible, I could give a rough sketch if you still doubt it is possible.

The earth/moon thing is essentially unprovable since the universe is something we observe rather than construct, but the weight of evidence is overwhelming enough to satisfy the generally accepted meaning of 'proof' in terms of science, in my opinion.

The Earth could be the Moon. Those are made up names.
High level math is made the fuck up, I would bet some one could prove 3 = 2.


I think by claiming you can use any name for anything you are rather missing the point. The point is not to claim that something identified by the word earth is different to something identified by the word moon. The point is to claim that that object up there is different to this object down here. The fact that he uses 'earth' and 'moon' to identify them is moot. It is clear what he means by 'earth' and 'moon' so it is only fair to refer to these objects/concepts rather than the words used to make them understood.

And you cannot prove 2=3 without an inconsistent set of axioms, which is one of the things mathematicians work very hard to avoid.

What? for all I know you're a random string of code appearing on my monitor, which itself may not actually exist.

That means I exist as a random string of code.

The point is not to claim that something identified by the word earth is different to something identified by the word moon.
Actually it is not. Moon is a generic term for a planetoid satellite of a planet. The Earth could easily be a moon of Jupiter.

It is clear what he means by 'earth' and 'moon' so it is only fair to refer to these objects/concepts rather than the words used to make them understood.
Earth, not capitalized, means dirt. "Earth" is the name for our life supporting planet. It is a proper noun.

And you cannot prove 2=3 without an inconsistent set of axioms, which is one of the things mathematicians work very hard to avoid. If a set of axioms is inconsistent then it is basically worthless.
High level math is made the fuck up and I bet some one could prove 2 = 3.

Anyone else find the arrogance of the OP really galling? Almost as much so as the ignorance.

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.


You can disprove anything if you can show that it contradicts itself - people are just to ignorant to see that. There are lots of contradictions with the idea of the Christian god. Thus, the Christian god's existence can be disproved.

"No contradictions exist. If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."


Note: Notice I did not say any god. You can disprove a certain idea, but not necessarily something that can take many forms and definitions. i.e. You can't disprove a 'fluid' idea, only a concrete one: like anything written in the Bible - it doesn't change.
fail.

also that should be "too"

High level math is made the fuck up and I bet some one could prove 2 = 3.

Thank you for your tips on proper usage of the English Language. I will be sure to not repeat these mistakes. I believe my points stand if you remedy the errors for me.

However you are wrong. Given a consistent set of axioms and the fact that you can prove 2 is not equal to 3, proving 2 is equal to 3 is impossible. By definition of consistency.

Thank you for your tips on proper usage of the English Language. I will be sure to not repeat these mistakes. I believe my points stand if you remedy the errors for me.

However you are wrong. Given a consistent set of axioms and the fact that you can prove 2 is not equal to 3, proving 2 is equal to 3 is impossible. By definition of consistency.

This is not a sentence.

This is not a sentence.

I do not claim to use correct grammar or spelling all of the time, or even a majority of the time. However I would appreciate it if my posts would be criticised for their content and meaning rather than criticised for using incorrect sentence structure. Please?

Theorem: 4 = 5
Proof:
-20 = -20
16 - 36 = 25 - 45
4^2 - 9*4 = 5^2 - 9*5
4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4
(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2
4 - 9/2 = 5 - 9/2
4 = 5

Theorem: 4 = 5
Proof:
-20 = -20
16 - 36 = 25 - 45
4^2 - 9*4 = 5^2 - 9*5
4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4
(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2
4 - 9/2 = 5 - 9/2
4 = 5

Sixth line should read (4-9/2) or (-4+9/2) = (5-9/2) or (-5+9/2), due to each positive real having two square roots.
Simplifying to (-1/2) or (1/2) = (1/2) or (-1/2) , which is true.

An equivalent argument to the one quoted is:
3^2 = -3^2 therefore 3=-3. It makes the same error.

So????

Can God create an object so heavy that even he/she/it cant move it????

In other words. Can god create an irresistible force or an immovable object?

Its simply logic that this two things cant Coexist in the same universe, thus the existence of an all-mighty creature is self-contradictory and thus proven non-existant.

oh and dont bring me that multiverse superhero theory please. If you pretend to argue that it can exist and immovable object in a universe and a irresistible force in another, then you are accepting that God will be limited by the universe he/she/it is on...and thus NOT all-mighty.

Death for all!!!! :mp5::sniper::gundge:

So????

Can God create an object so heavy that even he/she/it cant move it????

In other words. Can god create an irresistible force or an immovable object?

Its simply logic that this two things cant Coexist in the same universe, thus the existence of an all-mighty creature is self-contradictory and thus proven non-existant.
Well, according to your "logic" the existence of the irresistable force that is the immovable object is what cannot exist. That says nothing about God's existence.

And it doesn't need to. You can try to show the nonexistence of any object you care to identify, in this case OP was not attempting to deny the existence of a cube, simply to deny the existence of a cube with certain properties, namely the properties that a sphere has. Give a sphere-cube a name and then you can just say a sphere-cube does not exist.

Grammar does count; I'm still not sure what point you're making. But I think you mean to say that assigning identity (a name like "sphere-cube") allows you to make a contradiction out of anything?

And you cannot prove 2=3 without an inconsistent set of axioms, which is one of the things mathematicians work very hard to avoid.

Yes you can, I already gave you the foundations for saying that 3 = 1.

It is honestly possible and entirely plausible to say that 2 = 3. It does not require an inconsistent set of axioms either.

However you are wrong. Given a consistent set of axioms and the fact that you can prove 2 is not equal to 3, proving 2 is equal to 3 is impossible. By definition of consistency.
An axiom, though, by definition, requires no "proof." It is something accepted as true without a line of reasoning to get to it.

It means that the existence of an all-mighty creature is impossible.

A universe will either have an irresistible force or an immovable object.

If we assume, like you seem to suggest, that God is an irresistible force and thus there is no immovable object in this universe, we immediately arrive to the conclusion that the irresistible force cannot create an immovable object. That is it cant limit itself. That means it is not all-mighty, as most religions claim about their respective gods.

What Im trying to say with all this is:

The idea of an all-mighty creature is self contradictory and thus can not exist.

The same as a cubic sphere. The properties of a cube make it impossible to be a sphere at the same time.

Sixth line should read (4-9/2) or (-4+9/2) = (5-9/2) or (-5+9/2), due to each positive real having two square roots.
Simplifying to (-1/2) or (1/2) = (1/2) or (-1/2) , which is true.

An equivalent argument to the one quoted is:
3^2 = -3^2 therefore 3=-3. It makes the same error.

All you've done there is change his result to +-4 = +-5

Not a whole lot better for your case.

It is honestly possible and entirely plausible to say that 2 = 3. It does not require an inconsistent set of axioms either.

Only if you redefine 2 and 3 from what they are commonly understood to mean (Peano's axioms are a good mechanism for this understanding, at a basic level), which was a point I tried to make earlier. I think it is better to take something on what the person intends it to mean rather than on what you can interpret it as meaning.

Grammar does count; I'm still not sure what point you're making. But I think you mean to say that assigning identity (a name like "sphere-cube") allows you to make a contradiction out of anything?

I think you said that my expansion of one of OP's points to 'there is not an object that is a sphere and a cube' was not identifying an 'object' that I could prove non-existence of. I was just trying to say that the concept of an object that is a sphere and a cube is fine for attempting to prove non-existence. Who is to say it doesn't exist without someone proving this at some point in the distant past?

Dragons don't exist...Magic doesn't exist......centaurs...I win!

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.


You can disprove anything if you can show that it contradicts itself - people are just to ignorant to see that. There are lots of contradictions with the idea of the Christian god. Thus, the Christian god's existence can be disproved.

"No contradictions exist. If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."


Note: Notice I did not say any god. You can disprove a certain idea, but not necessarily something that can take many forms and definitions. i.e. You can't disprove a 'fluid' idea, only a concrete one: like anything written in the Bible - it doesn't change.

If I say yellow is not red, I have not proven anything.... I have simply taken two definitions that exclude each orther... It is a matter of language and social construct rather than of physical fact....

All you've done there is change his result to +-4 = +-5

Not a whole lot better for your case.

Not quite. Its +/- (5-9/2) = +/- (4-9/2) rather than +/- 5 = +/- 4. The difference between the two is that the 9/2 also gets multiplied by +/- 1 so you can't just simplify by removing them. In this case it is in fact true that -(5-9/2) = 4-9/2. The problem is that you have added 9/2 to half of the cases (5-9/2 was sent to 5, 4-9/2 was sent to 4) and subtracted 9/2 from the other half (-5+9/2 was sent to -5, -4+9/2 was sent to -4), when you'd need to add to all or subtract from all instead. This is why they are no longer equal.

Only if you redefine 2 and 3 from what they are commonly understood to mean (Peano's axioms are a good mechanism for this understanding, at a basic level), which was a point I tried to make earlier. I think it is better to take something on what the person intends it to mean rather than on what you can interpret it as meaning.

No, you merely do not include 3 in the set and then, whenever you get three, you get 2 instead, so 3 = 2.

Or you use an axiom that says 3 = 2. It's still consistent.

No, you merely do not include 3 in the set and then, whenever you get three, you get 2 instead, so 3 = 2.

Or you use an axiom that says 3 = 2. It's still consistent.

Not including 3 in the set alters the common conception of the numbers as 1,2,3,4,5....., and so you're interpreting the meaning of the numbers in a different way to the way OP was attempting to express them. It is certainly true that you can define numbers in many different ways so 2=3, but this is not really useful when responding to someone who defined them in a particular way. It does not prove the initial claim wrong, even though it is itself correct.

If you use the axiom that 3=2 in addition to Peano arithmetic then you have 3=2 and can prove 3 is not =2, so you have (a) and not(a) and so you have a contradiction and so you have an inconsistent set of axioms.

If you mean something like modular arithmetic, then in that case 3 is not equal to 2, it is equivalent to 2 or congruent to 2. They are in the same equivalence class.

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.


You can disprove anything if you can show that it contradicts itself - people are just to ignorant to see that. There are lots of contradictions with the idea of the Christian god. Thus, the Christian god's existence can be disproved.

"No contradictions exist. If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."


Note: Notice I did not say any god. You can disprove a certain idea, but not necessarily something that can take many forms and definitions. i.e. You can't disprove a 'fluid' idea, only a concrete one: like anything written in the Bible - it doesn't change.

So, you're basically posting to say you've found a contradiction within a piece of literature, and decided to shove a middle finger up at those who believe in the message the literature provides?

Congratulations, you've just targeted a flame-thrower at this thread, aimed, and fired. Now, as the flames launch off in a creative spiral of mal-content and irritated posters, you sit back revel in the chaos.

But your post is insufficient to pass along your point. If you look back toward earlier editions of the Bible, you'll notice that Jesus did indeed have a woman along with his travels with the apostles, there was mention of Lilith, the temptress of Hell (and the original succubus), among many other revisions and removals. Regardless, you prove that because in a book written and edited by man, that a God cannot exist. So, much in the same way, I can open up a book about an animal, find a contradiction about said animal somewhere in the editing, and thus prove this animal does not exist?

So, you're basically posting to say you've found a contradiction within a piece of literature, and decided to shove a middle finger up at those who believe in the message the literature provides?

Congratulations, you've just targeted a flame-thrower at this thread, aimed, and fired. Now, as the flames launch off in a creative spiral of mal-content and irritated posters, you sit back revel in the chaos.

But your post is insufficient to pass along your point. If you look back toward earlier editions of the Bible, you'll notice that Jesus did indeed have a woman along with his travels with the apostles, there was mention of Lilith, the temptress of Hell (and the original succubus), among many other revisions and removals. Regardless, you prove that because in a book written and edited by man, that a God cannot exist. So, much in the same way, I can open up a book about an animal, find a contradiction about said animal somewhere in the editing, and thus prove this animal does not exist?

BRAVO BRAVO!!!! you got the point.

THAT ANIMAL as described in THAT BOOK cannot EXIST.

IF the animal EXIST, it must be DIFFERENT than the one in THAT BOOK. Thus the book can be discarded. The nature of the animal remains to be discovered.

Death to all :mp5::sniper::gundge:

Not including 3 in the set alters the common conception of the numbers as 1,2,3,4,5....., and so you're interpreting the meaning of the numbers in a different way to the way OP was attempting to express them. It is certainly true that you can define numbers in many different ways so 2=3, but this is not really useful when responding to someone who defined them in a particular way. It does not prove the initial claim wrong, even though it is itself correct.

If you use the axiom that 3=2 in addition to Peano arithmetic then you have 3=2 and can prove 3 is not =2, so you have (a) and not(a) and so you have a contradiction and so you have an inconsistent set of axioms.

If you mean something like modular arithmetic, then in that case 3 is not equal to 2, it is equivalent to 2 or congruent to 2. They are in the same equivalence class.

Did you read the OP?

He claimed that 2 is never equal to 3.

This, however, is false. Under certain conditions, 2 is equal to 3.

You obviously haven't done maths in university, otherwise, you'd know that there are quite a few cases where numbers can be what you want them to be.

Death to all :mp5::sniper::gundge:

Honestly, you're not going to be taken seriously.


I've proven the non-existence of the original topic in this thread though. :)

Did you read the OP?

He claimed that 2 is never equal to 3.

This, however, is false. Under certain conditions, 2 is equal to 3.

You obviously haven't done maths in university, otherwise, you'd know that there are quite a few cases where numbers can be what you want them to be.

You are right in arguing that the example of 3 never being equal to 2 was poorly chosen. Since numbers depend entirely of the context they are being worked with.

But... 3 apples can never be 2 apples. Unless you eat one :p I believe thats what he was trying to say.

Honestly, you're not going to be taken seriously.


I've proven the non-existence of the original topic in this thread though. :)

NO you have not.

Hugs and kisses? :fluffle:

Did you read the OP?

He claimed that 2 is never equal to 3.

I believe that by '2 is never equal to 3' OP meant that by the standard definition of the natural numbers with normal operations (by the standard definition I mean the one taught to you first, probably many years before you are introduced to nonstandard meanings) 2 is never equal to 3. In my opinion this has a similar level of simplicity to the rest of his post. As I mentioned earlier I am trying to deal with the ideas I think the OP is referring to rather than his language used to convey those ideas, language which could equally mean several different things.

If he meant in any definition of 2 and 3 then he would be dead wrong, but in my opinion this is not what he meant.

You are false data.

I believe that by '2 is never equal to 3' OP meant that by the standard definition of the natural numbers with normal operations (by the standard definition I mean the one taught to you first, probably many years before you are introduced to nonstandard meanings) 2 is never equal to 3. In my opinion this has a similar level of simplicity to the rest of his post. As I mentioned earlier I am trying to deal with the ideas I think the OP is referring to rather than his language used to convey those ideas, language which could equally mean several different things.

If he meant in any definition of 2 and 3 then he would be dead wrong, but in my opinion this is not what he meant.

Still, saying that 2 is not equal to 3 says nothing about the existence of either 2 or 3.

Still, saying that 2 is not equal to 3 says nothing about the existence of either 2 or 3.

Right. But it says that 2 apples that are 3 apples at the same time CANNOT exist. Thus a creature, God in the OP, that is contradictory in nature, like the two apples that are three at the same time, CANNOT exist.

Thats the idea.

just one shoota... :mp5:

So, you're basically posting to say you've found a contradiction within a piece of literature, and decided to shove a middle finger up at those who believe in the message the literature provides?

Congratulations, you've just targeted a flame-thrower at this thread, aimed, and fired. Now, as the flames launch off in a creative spiral of mal-content and irritated posters, you sit back revel in the chaos.

But your post is insufficient to pass along your point. If you look back toward earlier editions of the Bible, you'll notice that Jesus did indeed have a woman along with his travels with the apostles, there was mention of Lilith, the temptress of Hell (and the original succubus), among many other revisions and removals. Regardless, you prove that because in a book written and edited by man, that a God cannot exist. So, much in the same way, I can open up a book about an animal, find a contradiction about said animal somewhere in the editing, and thus prove this animal does not exist?
You win a cookie for destroying his argument in the most eloquent way.

Still, saying that 2 is not equal to 3 says nothing about the existence of either 2 or 3.

Quite true, but it does say something about the existence of a 2 that is also a 3. In standard arithmetic there is not a 2 that is also a 3, in some arithmetic where 2=3, there is a 2 that is also a 3.

Right. But it says that 2 apples that are 3 apples at the same time CANNOT exist. Thus a creature, God in the OP, that is contradictory in nature, like the two apples that are three at the same time, CANNOT exist.

Thats the idea.
it's a flawed idea.

But it does say something about the existence of a 2 that is also a 3. In standard arithmetic there is not a 2 that is also a 3, in some arithmetic where 2=3, there is a 2 that is also a 3.

arithmetic is not a good way to prove the non-existence of a god, being as we all know the rules of arithmetic and can observe it and can apply logic to it and can make rules that suit what we observe. We cannot observe a god, we can't apply logic to one, we can't make rules, nor do we even know them.

arithmetic is not a good way to prove the non-existence of a god, being as we all know the rules of arithmetic and can observe it and can apply logic to it and can make rules that suit what we observe. We cannot observe a god, we can't apply logic to one, we can't make rules, nor do we even need them.

We do not try to disprove the idea of a god with arithmetic. We try to disprove the idea a text provides of a god using the contradictions in that text.

We do not try to disprove the idea of a god with arithmetic. We try to disprove the idea a text provides of a god using the contradictions in that text.

what contradictions?

what contradictions?


Mmmmm... Well. I already elaborated about the paradox that the idea of an all-mighty creature like the God proposed on the Bible represents.

I'm not sure what kind of contradictions the OP was referring to.

But there are many.

I find the idea of a God that knows it all and is all mighty enraging with his creations and sending a deluge to destroy them quite contradictory.

arithmetic is not a good way to prove the non-existence of a god, being as we all know the rules of arithmetic and can observe it and can apply logic to it and can make rules that suit what we observe. We cannot observe a god, we can't apply logic to one, we can't make rules, nor do we even know them.

Yes. I would not attempt to support OP's main argument, just the step about being able to prove negatives. The second half of his post does not follow from the first.

I was just trying to say that the concept of an object that is a sphere and a cube is fine for attempting to prove non-existence. Who is to say it doesn't exist without someone proving this at some point in the distant past?
Evidently... you.

Evidently... you.

Since somebody has, in the past, proved it. Had nobody proved it I would not be in a position to say it. This was my point.

Mmmmm... Well. I already elaborated about the paradox that the idea of an all-mighty creature like the God proposed on the Bible represents.
I must have missed that one.

I'm not sure what kind of contradictions the OP was referring to.

But there are many.
such as?

I find the idea of a God that knows it all and is all mighty enraging with his creations and sending a deluge to destroy them quite contradictory.

you find it contradictory that if you know something it might make you feel angry?:confused: do I not exist because I was once angry at my neighbors for shooting off fireworks during a burn ban?

also, how do these 'contradictions' disprove the Christian God for Christians who don't take the Bible literally?

Only if said object adheres to the law of non-contradictions. And there's absolutely no reason why everything can or should adhere to that law, especially considering that pretty much all of quantum theory violates it in one form or another.

Only if said object adheres to the law of non-contradictions. And there's absolutely no reason why everything can or should adhere to that law, especially considering that pretty much all of quantum theory violates it in one form or another.

shhh, they are talking about apples apparently. Don't try to confuse them with the fact that we may not know what we think we know.

I must have missed that one.


such as?



you find it contradictory that if you know something it might make you feel angry?:confused: do I not exist because I was once angry at my neighbors for shooting off fireworks during a burn ban?

also, how do these 'contradictions' disprove the Christian God for Christians who don't take the Bible literally?

No. I may have not explained myself correctly. Its not the anger of the Christian god what I find contradictory. Its the fact that he seems to be ignorant of what his creations will do.

Let me try to explain. God created all those people that would be killed during the destruction of Sodoma en Gomorra. He is all mighty and knows it all, so he knew before creating them what they would do and what would happen . Besides of being quite cruel to create someone just to punish them, he is portrayed as enraged while he does it. I find it contradictory with the idea of a God that is say to have infite love for his creations.

Now, if you don't take the Bible literally...well, then what you believe?

No. I may have not explained myself correctly. Its not the anger of the Christian god what I find contradictory. Its the fact that he seems to be ignorant of what his creations will do.

Let me try to explain. God created all those people that would be killed during the destruction of Sodoma en Gomorra. He is all mighty and knows it all, so he knew before creating them what they would do and what would happen . Besides of being quite cruel to create someone just to punish them, he is portrayed as enraged while he does it. I find it contradictory with the idea of a God that is say to have infite love for his creations.
-

Can God give you free will and then not let you do things that are contrary to His will?

Can God give you free will and then not let you do things that are contrary to His will?

Oh yes...thats the key point of the contradiction.

how can free will exist if an all mighty know it all god exists?

Only if said object adheres to the law of non-contradictions. And there's absolutely no reason why everything can or should adhere to that law, especially considering that pretty much all of quantum theory violates it in one form or another.

No it doesnt. Are you sure you know what Quantum Theory is about?

No it doesnt. Are you sure you know what Quantum Theory is about?

Schrodinger's Cat, the paradox that reflects the difference between the quantum world and the macro world, is a clear and absolute violation of the law of noncontradiction. Or, how about wave-particle duality, which in itself is a paradox that seemingly violates said law?

Even the uncertainty principle violates it in an epistemological sense; it is normally a contradiction for increased knowledge about one aspect of an object to result in decreased knowledge of another. That's completely untrue in the quantum world. As a result, attempting to use logical premises and laws on an object is fallacious unless you can demonstrate that it belongs to the set to which those laws apply. I've never seen a single sign or statement that shows the law of non-contradiction applies to God and is a precondition for existence.

Schrodinger's Cat, the paradox that reflects the difference between the quantum world and the macro world, is a clear and absolute violation of the law of noncontradiction. Or, how about wave-particle duality, which in itself is a paradox that seemingly violates said law?

Even the uncertainty principle violates it in an epistemological sense; it is normally a contradiction for increased knowledge about one aspect of an object to result in decreased knowledge of another. That's completely untrue in the quantum world.

puff... this takes the argument to a completely different level.

The so mentioned Cats paradox depends entirely on the role of the observer of such experiment.

The wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle are only probabilistic in nature. The fact that the subatomic world behaves completely different does not violates the law of non contradiction.

Now please dont bring the Gödels incompleteness theorems to the subject because my head is already starting to hurt with all this.

I do believe in the existance of a God. I just dont believe in religion.

just because God knows doesn't mean He controls and just because He can control doesn't mean he does.

I can kill bugs, sometimes I choose not to.

Of course. But... if God loves his creations, and he knows what they would do. Why does he creates creatures to send them to hell? How is that love?

How can God love me if he created me to send me to hell for not believing in him?

Oh yes...thats the key point of the contradiction.

how can free will exist if an all mighty know it all god exists?
just because God knows doesn't mean He controls and just because He can control doesn't mean he does.

I can kill bugs, sometimes I choose not to.

puff... this takes the argument to a completely different level.

The so mentioned Cats paradox depends entirely on the role of the observer of such experiment.

That is true, but the point is that it is possible for an object to violate the law of non-contradictions when it is not directly observed by a macro-scale observer. The presence of a macro-scale observer, of course, causes the state to be determined and the object will henceforth obey macro-scale laws.

The wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle are only probabilistic in nature. The fact that the subatomic world behaves completely different does not violates the law of non contradiction.

The fact that the sub-atomic world is probablistic is a major difference; it's completely different from the seemingly deterministic world we see every day. To make a long story short, quantum phenomena fall in to a different set than macro phenomena, with probability and the observer determining their behavior.

In other words, you can't use the LNC on God because it doesn't really work on quantum phenomena, which pretty clearly shows that said law only applies to our knowledge rather than as a general rule.

Now please dont bring the Gödels incompleteness theorems to the subject because my head is already starting to hurt with all this.

I won't, mainly because I am simply trying to make the point that epistemological claims like this are invalid because they make the assumption that God falls in to object sets that are subject to logical constraints like noncontradiction.

I do believe in the existance of a God. I just dont believe in religion.

Then we're on the same side...

I get really irritated at all of these people that say 'You can't prove something doesn't exist!' Namely in the case of god.

Yes, I can.

There is no such thing as a cubic sphere.

The number 3 is never equal to 2.

The moon is not the earth.


You can disprove anything if you can show that it contradicts itself - people are just to ignorant to see that. There are lots of contradictions with the idea of the Christian god. Thus, the Christian god's existence can be disproved.

"No contradictions exist. If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."


Note: Notice I did not say any god. You can disprove a certain idea, but not necessarily something that can take many forms and definitions. i.e. You can't disprove a 'fluid' idea, only a concrete one: like anything written in the Bible - it doesn't change.

Let me just bypass however many pages of discussion here has been to tell you that you are not a physicist, mathematician or an engineer.

In engineering there is such a thing as a cubic sphere, additionally in Math any sphere is technically cubic, being a cubed circle, and a cubed sphere exists in multi-dimensional geometry, and lets not even get into non-euclidean geometry where a line may be a cubic sphere.

In engineering and Physics, 2 may be equal to 3 for special values of 2 or 3, and that doesn't even get into quantum physics where a billion electrons can simultaneously be no electrons and also five electrons somewhere you didn't expect them to be. Or special relativity where 2 Gs can be 3 Gs all the while the clock is ticking backwards and sideways and frontways and inside-out-ways and is equally correct as long as you aren't looking at it from a removed frame of reference where even stranger things could be happening.

For certain values of Earth and Moon, the Moon was once Part of the Earth and is still made of the same stuff in the same proportions, Like saying 2=3, it can be equally true that Moon=Earth And Thats just semantics, I didn't even have to dip into even my high-school education (let alone my college one) where it turns out Terra and Luna are part of the same planetary system, when an astrophysicist says 'Earth' he means 'The Earth-Moon system' and since they're the sort of people who's job it is to decide that sort of thing, I'm not inclined to disagree.


Seriously, look it up, ask your middle school science teacher (*remembering middle school science* Actually, don't wait until at least sophmore year of highscool, everything I said was true under the currently understood laws of the universe, 2 can be 3, a sphere is and can be cubic and the Moon is the Earth.

The universe is a far stranger place than you or I could possibly imagine (I didn't even get into Heisenberg!), who knows, there may even be a divine being that inspired a holy book that was imperfectly recorded (Or hell, even perfectly recorded and we just don't get it yet, there's certainly plenty of that going around. Or, there may not be a divine being after-all, Who knows?)

So. Are you trying to suggest that, since our knowledge of the universe is flawed we cannot prove non-existence of something contradictory.

Thus we must accept all contradictions as possible, like for example that a god created the universe in seven days, even when there was no such thing as a day before humanity?

So. Are you trying to suggest that, since our knowledge of the universe is flawed we cannot prove non-existence of something contradictory.

Thus we must accept all contradictions as possible, like for example that a god created the universe in seven days, even when there was no such thing as a day before humanity?

No. I'm aying that our knowledge of the universe is flawed and we can't tell whether something is necessarily tell if something is contradictory or not, no matter how much it may seem that they are.

Also, there was no such thing a planck-instant before Max Planck, but the whole universe was created in one. Just because a measure of time wasn't defined doesn't mean an event can't have taken place over an equivalent period.