Faith Freedom International :: View topic - Desertdweller's Challange

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Desertdweller's Challange
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mehdi_t

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Location: France

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:10 pm Post subject:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

How do you prove the truth of the axioms ?

You are obsfucating. By definition, logical axioms are already proven. I have said that logical axioms are proven constructs using previously proven logical axioms and the processes of induction and deduction.

Mehdi_t wrote:

Here are intelligible objects : table, computer, car, house, cake, bicycle, ... Prove that these objets can existe without creator. If you can prove it, I'll be wrong.

I suggest you get the definition right first. What do you mean by intelligible?

By the way, you have chosen all man-made objects - which by definition are man-made. What kind of setup question is that?

It is like asking ... prove that an ace-of-spade, jack-of-spade, king-of-spade aren't spades. Wow! Ask intelligent questions if you want an intelligent answer!

For something to be a logical axiom, it has to be true for all models. To prove it false, you have to prove at least one instance of falseness. Just by showing a number of instances where it is true does not mean anything. Showing me a list of man-made objects does not prove anything.

How did you get to this supposed axiom when we were discussing mathematical axioms? Are table, chairs, computers etc mathematical? Is "all intelligible things have a creator" a mathematical axiom?

mehdi_t wrote:

You didn't understand my question.

It looks increasingly certain that you don't understand your own questions yourself.

I'm frankly sick of you not answering any questions. I've asked you this countless times already. I'll ask it once more.

How does someone proving 1>0, prove/disprove God?
How does someone unable to prove 1>0, prove/disprove God?

Regards
R

One says that some assertion is an axiom when every body is convinced that it's true. We needn't prove any thing. I never tell you that the objects I had cited are man made ones. It can exist a priori by chance.
About proving 1>0 I mean that it is a question of intuition. To prove the existence of God we need intuition as well.

T_ID

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 1207
Location: Holland

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:17 pm Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

God is a source of enegy for the universe.

what sort of energy then? must be some sort we haven't discovered yet, since we can explain a lot by looking at stars and the heat and radiation they create.
_________________
production of a decent signature quote is in progress

Righteous

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 3728
Location: Through the looking glass.

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:27 pm Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

One says that some assertion is an axiom when every body is convinced that it's true. We needn't prove any thing.

What bulldust. You need to prove that it is the truth. Because you can't tell that "everybody" will be convinced it is the truth, simply because you can't ask everyone.

Think why we need prove things in mathematics. You can't simply escape by claiming that "everybody is convinced that it's true."

I quote you from a definition;http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Axiom

Quote:

Logical axioms
These are formulas which are valid, i.e., formulas that are satisfied by every model (a.k.a. structure) under every variable assignment function. More colloquially, these are statements that are true in any possible universe, under any possible interpretation and with any assignment of values.

Now, in order to claim that something is a logical axiom, we must know that it is indeed valid. That is, it might be necessary to offer a proof of its validity (truth) in every model. This might challenge the very classical notion of axiom; this is at least one of the reasons why axioms are not regarded as obviously true or self-evident statements.

In mathematics:

need to be proven.
are not regarded as obviously true or self-evident statements.

mehdi_t wrote:

I never tell you that the objects I had cited are man made ones. It can exist a priori by chance.

Not all intelligible objects are man-made. You haven't proven it. Just by picking a few objects that are man-made does not make an assertion true. It is like asserting that all integers are positive, and then offering the ones greater than 0 as proof that they are. To prove that an assertion is true, you need to prove that it is true for all cases.

By the way, your "axiom" is not a mathematical axiom. Please stick to the point of the discussion. Lets stick to mathematics.

Why don't you provide me with the definition of "intelligible" as I asked? I am tired of answering your questions when you obviously are uninterested in progressing any debates, and not answering mine.

mehdi_t wrote:

About proving 1>0 I mean that it is a question of intuition. To prove the existence of God we need intuition as well.

To prove 1>0 does not need intuition as I have shown already.
To prove God exists, well that needs faith.
_________________
"The harsh truth is that science and Islam parted ways many centuries ago." - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear and High-Energy Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

mehdi_t

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Location: France

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:32 pm Post subject:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

One says that some assertion is an axiom when every body is convinced that it's true. We needn't prove any thing.

Quote:

In mathematics:

need to be proven.
are not regarded as obviously true or self-evident statements.

mehdi_t wrote:

I never tell you that the objects I had cited are man made ones. It can exist a priori by chance.

mehdi_t wrote:

About proving 1>0 I mean that it is a question of intuition. To prove the existence of God we need intuition as well.

To prove 1>0 does not need intuition as I have shown already.
To prove God exists, well that needs faith.

Axiom : -generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctionned by experience.
- logic, math. : a statement of formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning.

Source : "Collins English dictionnary".

The science needs faith as well.

Righteous

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 3728
Location: Through the looking glass.

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:54 pm Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

Yeah sure. Quote from a hardcopy so that nobody without one can check.

That's the definition of a non-logical axiom also called a postulate or assumption. They are used in a "chain of reasoning" to prove or disprove the postulate. Once proven, they are regarded as true. Otherwise they are rejected as false. Even your own dictionary entry contradicts your statement. The "chain of reasoning" defies your "intuition".

Try harder next time.

No wonder Muslims are so backward in science. If they think like mehdi_t, they think science relies on "intuition" and faith.
_________________
"The harsh truth is that science and Islam parted ways many centuries ago." - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear and High-Energy Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject:

Righteous wrote:

No wonder Muslims are so backward in science. If they think like mehdi_t, they think science relies on "intuition" and faith.

They have their own logic. It's called Islamic Logic.
They have their own science. It's called Islamic Science.
But never confuse them with real logic and science, they're not at all related.
_________________
‌

mehdi_t

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Location: France

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:00 am Post subject:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

About the inexistence of God, is it an axiom ? or a faith ?

Righteous

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 3728
Location: Through the looking glass.

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:02 am Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

About the inexistence of God, is it an axiom ? or a faith ?

Is it mathematical?
_________________
"The harsh truth is that science and Islam parted ways many centuries ago." - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear and High-Energy Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

mehdi_t

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Location: France

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:32 am Post subject:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

About the inexistence of God, is it an axiom ? or a faith ?

Is it mathematical?

It is logic.

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:37 am Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

About the inexistence of God, is it an axiom ? or a faith ?

Is it mathematical?

It is logic.

No, it's Islamic Logic.
Read my post above.
_________________
‌

Righteous

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 3728
Location: Through the looking glass.

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:40 am Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

About the inexistence of God, is it an axiom ? or a faith ?

Is it mathematical?

It is logic.

What logic? You have been arguing intuition all along?

Remember intuition: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.

as opposed to logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

Have you suddenly switched camps?
_________________
"The harsh truth is that science and Islam parted ways many centuries ago." - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear and High-Energy Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

mehdi_t

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Location: France

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:51 am Post subject:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

Righteous wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

About the inexistence of God, is it an axiom ? or a faith ?

Is it mathematical?

It is logic.

I have used logical reasoning to prove the existence of God, but you didn't understand my reasoning.

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:55 am Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

I have used logical reasoning to prove the existence of God, but you didn't understand my reasoning.

Dear Righteous, doesn't this sound like something you would hear in a mental asylum?

_________________
‌

Hector

Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 7144
Location: Astroistan

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:40 am Post subject:

If 1> 0 "logically proves" the existence of God, what does 2 > 1 prove? _________________ What sort of man would f*ck a sweet little prepubescent nine-year-old child who liked playing with dolls and swings? Mo the demon Pedophile.

Righteous

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 3728
Location: Through the looking glass.

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:46 am Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

I have used logical reasoning to prove the existence of God, but you didn't understand my reasoning.

Does your "logical reasoning" involve any intuition?
_________________
"The harsh truth is that science and Islam parted ways many centuries ago." - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear and High-Energy Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18 Next
Page 17 of 18

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum