Can Anything Truly Be Proven?

[Gale]

Proven...

Can anything really be proven... i mean that's sort of the purpose of logic and all... to prove or disprove that... but i dunno... I'm not sure if anything can be proven... or at least... can you prove something to someone else...

 

[chroot]

Given a set of axioms, yes, many things can be proven. The axioms themselves, however, cannot be proven and must be assumed.

- Warren

 

[Gale]

right... so proofs are only to believed if their axioms are... and if you can't prove an axiom true... well i mean, you can't cause its an axiom, but like... i dunno... it just seems sort of unnverving to me. What's true? i dunno... i guess really, the whole concept of logic doens't make sense to me...

 

[photon]

Oh ya. I know this one. If you want to hear it, scroll down and read. But I'm warning you, make sure you're ready for the truth.














Answer: chroot's right.

EDIT: That's kinda what I mean when I say we have a lot of information but very little base to put it on.

 

[Gale]

yeah yeah warren's right... proove it! i mean, if we need to assume certaing things in order to prove something... i dunno, that seems a but off... i don't question that it works or anything... i mean that's like the whole scientific method... but i don't know... is there some other way to do it?

 

[photon]

Oh ya, I know the other way too. Go without sleep for six days straight eating very little if not nothing. At about 1AM of the last day, superior beings from another universe come and tell you everything there is to know about everything. Trust me on this one. It's happened to me.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Gale, when you prove theorems from a good set of axioms, what you have is a set of ideas that are guaranteed to hang together logically. That may not sound like much but it's a darn sight more than all the people who spout about liberty this and humanism that, and have no control over whether their words mean the same thing or not.

Trouble is, a good set of axioms is hard to find. Euclid found one 2300 years ago, and with a few added pieces, we're still using it. People have tried to axiomatize quantum mechanics, and a few things have been learned, but it's a hard slog; been going on for like 50 years now and still not complete.

When somebody tells you he's axiomatized human society, stay away from him. He's crazy and might be violent.

 

[photon]

Ya the superior beings told me all that.

Any one who is trying to axiomatize society is destined to be a dictator.

 

[Iacchus32]

The only way you can prove anything is to prove it to yourself. It's like how do you know 1 + 1 = 2 if you can't see (and hence prove) it for yourself?

 

[Mentat]

Gale,
The very idea of "proof" is based on an axiom: that there is such a thing as truth.

If there is no truth then there is no need of proof, since validity may be established without ever actually "proving" something.

And, since the existence of "truth" cannot be found logically, neither can the ability to "prove" something.

 

[Njorl]

All proofs are dependent upon some axiomatic definitions.

Let's assume the opposite. There is some idea that can be proved without making any assumptions. How do you prove it? With words? You are assuming definitions of the words, and assuming the audience has the same definition. Any symbolic communication will make these assumptions.

The most very fundamental axioms are the agreements of a common symbolic language. Interestingly, as many of the arguments on this board show, the assumtion of a common language is not always correct. - even from people born and raised in the same country. There are theories that eventually, the precision and consistancy of language can be a limiting factor of knowledge.

Njorl

 

[wasteofo2]

I think, therefore I am.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Logic makes perfect sense



Without logic, there would not be progress. Perhaps you are a kid, and you really arent in the real world, so naturally your ill developed mind can not possibly comprehend the strides that have been made medically speaking as a result of a relentless application of logical thought, and analysis. [I advise you to watch the movie "Master and Commander." It will give you an appreciation for medicine. Again, another product that has resulted from logical thinking, as opposed to superstiteous mumble jumble.]

People who generally war against logic are generally people who are themselves deficient in it, hence their resentment of it. Christians seem to come to mind. They hate anything remotely suggesting rational thought processes of any kind, for if they for a second adhered to the rules of correct thinking, they would be forced to forfeit some of their most cherished tenets. Hence, religion is always based on manipulation of one's fears, and ignorance of what is on the other side of death. I don't honestly think, i have ever met a truly logical "Theist" of any kind.

Sure, many well, supposedly educated Theologians dip their toes in the pond of secular thought, and take what they find somehow instrumental to their system of abstractions, but they fail to truly understand what they steal from the world of the Devil. Saint Augustine, and Thomas Aquinus, for example, all stole from Plato, and Aristotle, and they all worked what they stole into their system of thought so as to reduce the amount of obvious stupidity in their overall structure of abstractions.

Even in modern day fundamentalism, you see this tendency to dip in the pond of Satan, in the pond of the world, in the waters of secular thought, and incorporate what they steal into their agenda of political rhetoric, and propaganda. Anything to keep the masses in ignorance. Hence their double dealing between the temporal, and secular realms, as if they were of one kingdom. Logic/reason, is the eternal enemy of Faith. Period.

Logic is not always without a fact. Some premises are based on facts, hence the soundness of the conclusion is only gauranteed if it is the case that the whole fabric of your "arguement" has all the necessary facts to warrant the conclusion that arises as a result.

For example, if you accept the what the symbol "2," and "+" stand for, then you should in theory accept the following expression as an unquestionable fact: "2+2=4." This is pure logic. If however disagreement arises, it is only because there is a misunderstanding of what any of the terms mean in an equation.

What makes the use of logic often times a rather esotaric application is the fact that the mind is dominated more by ignorance than knowledge, hence there are many gaps in our over-all system of rational perspective. We are limited. We do not know the absolute boundaries of many things, hence it often times difficult to disprove, or prove certain things, like whether or not space can ever be seperate, or to say the least understood, apart from matter. There are many questions that are not resolved, and i suppose logically speaking, many questions will never be resolved due to the nature of life, and of how the mind processes thought in general. For example, will we ever know how much space there is in the Universe? Do we have a soul? If so, what is the nature of the soul? Is there a GOD? If so, then what is the Nature of GOD? Is GOD knowable? Or he/she an eternal mystery?

Overall, logic is the only real tool man has. Deprive a human being from the chance, and ability, to apply logical thinking to life, and you end up with a helpless animal that has noththing but emotions to guide them in their decision making goals. Science would have been an impossibility without logic.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

I forgot a piece



It seems like in my attempt to give a rebuttal, i forgot to specify the object of my rebuttal. This being the case, i will repost to the following thoughts:

right... so proofs are only to believed if their axioms are... and if you can't prove an axiom true... well i mean, you can't cause its an axiom, but like... i dunno... it just seems sort of unnverving to me. What's true? i dunno... i guess really, the whole concept of logic doens't make sense to me...

Without logic, there would not be progress. Perhaps you are a kid, and you really arent in the real world, so naturally your ill developed mind can not possibly comprehend the strides that have been made medically speaking as a result of a relentless application of logical thought, and analysis. [I advise you to watch the movie "Master and Commander." It will give you an appreciation for medicine. Again, another product that has resulted from logical thinking, as opposed to superstiteous mumble jumble.]

People who generally war against logic are generally people who are themselves deficient in it, hence their resentment of it. Christians seem to come to mind. They hate anything remotely suggesting rational thought processes of any kind, for if they for a second adhered to the rules of correct thinking, they would be forced to forfeit some of their most cherished tenets. Hence, religion is always based on manipulation of one's fears, and ignorance of what is on the other side of death. I don't honestly think, i have ever met a truly logical "Theist" of any kind.

Sure, many well, supposedly educated Theologians dip their toes in the pond of secular thought, and take what they find somehow instrumental to their system of abstractions, but they fail to truly understand what they steal from the world of the Devil. Saint Augustine, and Thomas Aquinus, for example, all stole from Plato, and Aristotle, and they all worked what they stole into their system of thought so as to reduce the amount of obvious stupidity in their overall structure of abstractions.

Even in modern day fundamentalism, you see this tendency to dip in the pond of Satan, in the pond of the world, in the waters of secular thought, and incorporate what they steal into their agenda of political rhetoric, and propaganda. Anything to keep the masses in ignorance. Hence their double dealing between the temporal, and secular realms, as if they were of one kingdom. Logic/reason, is the eternal enemy of Faith. Period.

Logic is not always without a fact. Some premises are based on facts, hence the soundness of the conclusion is only gauranteed if it is the case that the whole fabric of your "arguement" has all the necessary facts to warrant the conclusion that arises as a result.

For example, if you accept the what the symbol "2," and "+" stand for, then you should in theory accept the following expression as an unquestionable fact: "2+2=4." This is pure logic. If however disagreement arises, it is only because there is a misunderstanding of what any of the terms mean in an equation.

What makes the use of logic often times a rather esotaric application is the fact that the mind is dominated more by ignorance than knowledge, hence there are many gaps in our over-all system of rational perspective. We are limited. We do not know the absolute boundaries of many things, hence it often times difficult to disprove, or prove certain things, like whether or not space can ever be seperate, or to say the least understood, apart from matter. There are many questions that are not resolved, and i suppose logically speaking, many questions will never be resolved due to the nature of life, and of how the mind processes thought in general. For example, will we ever know how much space there is in the Universe? Do we have a soul? If so, what is the nature of the soul? Is there a GOD? If so, then what is the Nature of GOD? Is GOD knowable? Or he/she an eternal mystery?

Overall, logic is the only real tool man has. Deprive a human being from the chance, and ability, to apply logical thinking to life, and you end up with a helpless animal that has noththing but emotions to guide them in their decision making goals. Science would have been an impossibility without logic.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire


I don't honestly think, i have ever met a truly logical "Theist" of any kind.

But have you ever met LogicalAthiest?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire

People who generally war against logic are generally people who are themselves deficient in it, hence their resentment of it. Christians seem to come to mind. They hate anything remotely suggesting rational thought processes of any kind, for if they for a second adhered to the rules of correct thinking, they would be forced to forfeit some of their most cherished tenets. Hence, religion is always based on manipulation of one's fears, and ignorance of what is on the other side of death. I don't honestly think, i have ever met a truly logical "Theist" of any kind.

For such a proponent of logical thought, you surely seemed to forfeit those ideas when arriving to such a conclusion; indeed, the above reads more like a diatribe than anything else. You were somehow able to conclude that all Christians are irrational and illogical in their thought processes, and they can't adhere to the "rules" of "correct thinking."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
I think, therefore I am.

This statement will always present itself as true to the person who says it, but it needn't mean a thing to the people s/he says it to (I started a thread on that statement some time ago...well, it lasted over 20 pages IIRC).

 

[chroot]

Some people hold that there are exactly three irrefutable statements:

1) I exist.
2) I am conscious.
3) Whatever exists has the characteristics that it has.

To refute any of these three statements, you'd first have to assume them true. If you say "I do not exist", who is speaking? If you say "I am not conscious", how can you speak? (Of anything?) If you say that a thing is not itself, then what are you speaking of?

- Warren

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire


Without logic, there would not be progress.

Is that really relevant, HeavensWarFire? Logic exists, and no one has denied it. Truth, OTOH, is based on belief, and cannot logically be shown to exist.

Christians seem to come to mind. They hate anything remotely suggesting rational thought processes of any kind, for if they for a second adhered to the rules of correct thinking, they would be forced to forfeit some of their most cherished tenets. Hence, religion is always based on manipulation of one's fears, and ignorance of what is on the other side of death. I don't honestly think, i have ever met a truly logical "Theist" of any kind.

Would you consider me "logical", after having read my posts?

Logic/reason, is the eternal enemy of Faith. Period.

Logic/reason is the eternal enemy of credulity. I do not approve of people using the word "faith" when they don't know what it means.

Logic is not always without a fact. Some premises are based on facts, hence the soundness of the conclusion is only gauranteed if it is the case that the whole fabric of your "arguement" has all the necessary facts to warrant the conclusion that arises as a result.

Prove to me that "facts" exist in the first place, and then we can discuss what comes from them.

For example, if you accept the what the symbol "2," and "+" stand for, then you should in theory accept the following expression as an unquestionable fact: "2+2=4." This is pure logic. If however disagreement arises, it is only because there is a misunderstanding of what any of the terms mean in an equation.

Not necessarily. What if you were talking to someone who happened to think only in terms of Quantum Mechanics (this is a thought experiment, not a real possibility in practice)? This person could tell you that 2 particles + 2 more particles could easily yield 5 or more particles.

Overall, logic is the only real tool man has.

Do you believe this?

If so, do you believe you can do this without using logic?

If not, are you sure your complete credulity in logic isn't hindering you in some way? Is this not the very "blind faith" that you so despise?


Oh, and I saved this one for last, because it's what predisposed me to a negative view of you (aside from the constant cut-downs on religion):

Perhaps you are a kid, and you really arent in the real world, so naturally your ill developed mind can not possibly comprehend the strides that have been made medically speaking as a result of a relentless application of logical thought, and analysis.

I'm 15 years old, and am indeed versed in many of the applications of logic and science throughout history. Gale17 is also unusually intelligent, so I would be careful of judging someone because of their age...

Especially in a Forum where personal remarks are not very well accepted.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm 15 years old, and am indeed versed in many of the applications of logic and science throughout history. Gale17 is also unusually intelligent, so I would be careful of judging someone because of their age...

Especially in a Forum where personal remarks are not very well accepted.

You're only 15? Yet more reason to feel antiquated at 23.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by chroot
Some people hold that there are exactly three irrefutable statements:

1) I exist.
2) I am conscious.
3) Whatever exists has the characteristics that it has.

To refute any of these three statements, you'd first have to assume them true. If you say "I do not exist", who is speaking? If you say "I am not conscious", how can you speak? (Of anything?) If you say that a thing is not itself, then what are you speaking of?

- Warren

I tend to agree with you, Warren. However, there were some comments on an earlier thread that leave some question of that first one, and maybe even the second one:

1) If you cannot fully define existence (relative to that which can be referred to but yet doesn't exist), then how can you say that you do exist?

2) If you cannot fully define consciousness (relative to that which is unconscious, or conscious at one level but not at others) then how can you be positive that you are (this one is not nearly as strong, but it's been mentioned anyway, so I figured I'd mention it).


Anyway, I can already think of ways around these objections, and so I guess you are right, Warren.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Descartes
You're only 15? Yet more reason to feel antiquated at 23.

"Antiquated"? At only 23? Hmm...well, I guess you have a right to, even though most of the people I know would tell you that "you've got your whole life ahead of you yet".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But have you ever met LogicalAthiest?

LOL!

Man, I hope not, for his sake [b(] .

 

[Gale]

OOOOOOK...

Well HeavensWarFire... I guess you can say its because I'm a kid... though really i think its irrelevant. My "ill developed" mind is just unable to comprehend logic...

Right... so, i wasn't refuting logic, or denying it or anything like that. I just wanted to make some more sense of it. Again, i don't doubt logic at all... it works. But it just seems like... i dunno... shakey. I wasn't implying anything about religions at all... Though, now that i think of it... there's an interesting angle there. Would say, an omnipotent being have logic? or use logic or whatever?

But basically my only issue with like "proving things true" or what have you... is maybe actually the nature of axioms... It seems like so... human..? i don't know what I'm trying to say actually... but assure you it has nothing to do with my being some underdeveloped immature kid.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Oh boy




Nice to know there's young minds living in the confines of a sheltered environment.

I hadnt expected an actual dealing with so many ill-prepared posts. But, the such is the nature of humanity, no?

To start off, i will make a reference to the actual of object of my commentary:

For such a proponent of logical thought, you surely seemed to forfeit those ideas when arriving to such a conclusion; indeed, the above reads more like a diatribe than anything else. You were somehow able to conclude that all Christians are irrational and illogical in their thought processes, and they can't adhere to the "rules" of "correct thinking."

First off, when you make a claim, follow it up with what is called "reasons." This is a part of what is called "having an intelligent conversation." If you can not give "reasons" for anything that you are so inclined to lay down, then in what way should anyone respect you?

Here's an example of "irrational dialogue" for all of you wishing to be rational creatures:

A man steps into a bar, and he sits next to a guy, and the first thing out of his mouth is, "The Earth is a stationary box."

To this utterance, the second guy says, "Oh really? And on what grounds do you base that on?"

The guy that just steps in, he just counters by saying, "The Earth is a stationary box."

This is not rational dialogue. Even in a court of law, if you are going to accuse a person of a crime, you give what is called evidance. You don't just drag a person into a court room, and say, "he is guilty" without then giving the jury, and the Judge reasons for you making that accusation.

The point here kiddies, is that you must then follow up any claim with a set of reasons.

For this reason, it helps, if you can back this up:

For such a proponent of logical thought, you surely seemed to forfeit those ideas when arriving to such a conclusion; indeed, the above reads more like a diatribe than anything else. You were somehow able to conclude that all Christians are irrational and illogical in their thought processes, and they can't adhere to the "rules" of "correct thinking."

All i see, from your above, is a set of claims without a basis.

Faith, is irrational. There is no rationality for a belief, hence by default, Christians are irrational since they have a Faith in something that is not at all like Science. If Faith was based on pure logic, on pure science, then why have Faith? Why not just prove something, rather than just accepting something, and hoping you are right when you die? Isn't this kinda like gambling where you just put yur chips on a certain color marker, and hope you win? How logical is that? You might as well believe, and have Faith, that the Earth is a box.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Yes

But have you ever met LogicalAthiest?

I have known many logical Atheists. As a general rule, Atheists are logical, hence their stance. A true Atheist is one who uses there reasoning skills for the arrival of their stance. If a person hasnt thoroughly thought an issue that they could make a choice on, then how can they be said to be logical?

You can randomly choose something, or you can choose something based on some kind of time invested in that which you could make a choice upon. Hence, a true Atheist by default is one who has used there reason to arrive at their position.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Logic makes perfect sense




This goes to MenTat:

Is that really relevant, HeavensWarFire? Logic exists, and no one has denied it. Truth, OTOH, is based on belief, and cannot logically be shown to exist.

Is it relevant? To speak of a "truth," is to speak of that which is the opposite of a falsehood. Hence, if all things are an issue of belief, then where do you draw the line between a fiction, and a fact? That there arent any facts of any kind that you can refer to, think about, or even prove?

If you think all is belief, then believe you can fly without any devises, and believe that money grows on trees.

Would you consider me "logical", after having read my posts?

No. I think you are a young mind wishing to be logical, but you lack depth of thought to truly demonstrate that your thoughts are even at all logical to the degree that commands respect. You have moments of being logical, but you are not logical as a whole.

Logic/reason is the eternal enemy of credulity. I do not approve of people using the word "faith" when they don't know what it means.

Whether you approve of something or not, is no real consequence to me. I can always say, "Why should anyone listen to you?" You may dislike what i have to say, but i do not have to care if you like what i say. It goes both ways.

You know exactly what i know, and what i don't know? You think, i have no clue as to what the term Faith means? I suppose there aren't dictionaries where you live? You think, i don't know how to communicate? You think i haven't seen a dictionary, and looked at different kinds of words? You really think no one knows what they are talking about when they throw commentaries on a word like Faith?

Prove to me that "facts" exist in the first place, and then we can discuss what comes from them.

Not necessarily. What if you were talking to someone who happened to think only in terms of Quantum Mechanics (this is a thought experiment, not a real possibility in practice)? This person could tell you that 2 particles + 2 more particles could easily yield 5 or more particles.

Ok, then prove to me that "2+2" is not "4." Also prove to me that everyone else on this planet is wrong, that you alone is correct in everything you think about. What this means is, that if you believe in GOD, then prove to an Atheist that there is such a thing as a GOD.

Do you believe this?

If so, do you believe you can do this without using logic?

Do what without logic?

If not, are you sure your complete credulity in logic isn't hindering you in some way? Is this not the very "blind faith" that you so despise?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Logic justifies its ownself. To try to prove the worthyness of logic requires that you use logic in the first place, hence, itself circulatory, and hince not a hinderance, since i am working within that which is its own justification. If i did not try to use logic, then i would be doing things illogical always, unexceptionally, and hence have no need for wisdom, or prudancy of any kind.

I'm 15 years old, and am indeed versed in many of the applications of logic and science throughout history. Gale17 is also unusually intelligent, so I would be careful of judging someone because of their age...

Especially in a Forum where personal remarks are not very well accepted.

As for the age thing, yes, age makes a huge difference in whether or not someone should be respected as someone who is a PH.D in something, like mathematics, or for that matter, Engineering. There is a reason why we have laws in this country that classify young minds as being minors. So nice try with that bs on not looking at your age as a relevant factor.

Once more, whether or not you like my thoughts is of no concern to me. This is a debate forum, so the real goal is to try to sound like you are at least competent enough to engage in intelligent dialogue.



"You are lucky, i didnt call you an idiot."

FROM THE MENTOR: COMMENTS LIKE THIS SEND YOU ON YOUR WAY TO BEING BANNED. IN THIS FORUM, YOUNG PEOPLE ARE ENCOURAGED TO SHARE THEIR IDEAS, THEY DO NOT COME HERE TO BE INSULTED AND DEGRADED. IF THESE COMMENTS HAPPEN AGAIN, I WILL REQUEST FOR YOU TO BE BANNED.

 

[Mentat]

HWF, you think you could drop the arrogance and condescension for a second and actually say something meaninful? I've been trying to talk peacably, but you insulted Gale with the first post, and you couldn't stop there. Stating claims without basis is not the only thing that ruins rational debate; arrogance does a fine job of it too.

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
The point here kiddies, is that you must then follow up any claim with a set of reasons.

For this reason, it helps, if you can back this up:



All i see, from your above, is a set of claims without a basis.

And yet, what example do you set for us "kiddies", when this is what you write next...

Faith, is irrational. There is no rationality for a belief, hence by default, Christians are irrational since they have a Faith in something that is not at all like Science. If Faith was based on pure logic, on pure science, then why have Faith? Why not just prove something, rather than just accepting something, and hoping you are right when you die? Isn't this kinda like gambling where you just put yur chips on a certain color marker, and hope you win? How logical is that? You might as well believe, and have Faith, that the Earth is a box.

?

And yet, you have faith in all of the claims that you've been making, don't you?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
I can not honestly believe that i am actually going to entertain your words.

Ditto.

Is it relevant? Dude, do you smoke crack? Is it relevant? You have a mind for a reason, so obviously the mind has some relevance to life at large. This is rather absurd question. Is it relevant?

Answer the question, "dude". Is it relevant to the discussion of whether things can be proven or not that logic is behind our progress?

To speak of a "truth," is to speak of that which is the opposite of a falsehood. Hence, if all things are an issue of belief, then where do you draw the line between a fiction, and a fact? You honestly think all is an issue of belief? That there arent any facts of any kind that you can refer to, think about, or even prove?

If you think all is belief, then believe you can fly without any devises, and believe that money grows on trees.

I didn't say that all is belief. I said that anything one can call a "truth" is based on belief. I may be simply the belief that past experience holds some truth about that which will occur in the future (this is called Inductive reasoning), but it remains a belief (except perhaps for a few examples that chroot posted).

Whether you approve of something or not, is no real consequence to me. I can always say, "Why should anyone listen to you?" You may dislike what i have to say, but i do not have to care if you like what i say. It goes both ways.

Secondly, are you GOD? You know exactly what i know, and what i don't know? You think, i have no clue as to what the term Faith means? I suppose there aren't dictionaries where you live? You think, i don't know how to communicate? You think i haven't seen a dictionary, and looked at different kinds of words? You really think no one knows what they are talking about when they throw commentaries on a word like Faith?

People are constantly misguided on the meaning of the word "Faith", because they turn to dictionaries for the common-usage forms of the word. A dictionary would have you believe that "faith" = "credulity". But this is not the case. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration (through testing and proof), though not beheld.

This is blatantly stupid. Even a 5 year knows that there are certain facts in life, like the fact they have a TV in their living rooms.

And yet quantum physics would dictate that their TV has a probability (however negligible) of not being in their living room (since it is composed of particles, and particles fall under the Uncertainty principle). It's basic Quantum Mechanics. Heard of it?

But ok, since your willing to play the game, i will give you a fact: "2+2=4." There. Thats a fact. Now trying proving that it isn't a fact.

I already told you: In the quantum realm there can be two particles, and two more particles, and in the end you may yield 5 or just 2 or none (if the new particles were the antiparticles of the previous). Logic does not equal "common sense"; you are not being logical, but are instead relying (far too much) on common sense, and that will not help you in the world of science and philosophy today (since most of the new theories for describing reality are rather counter-intuitive).

Also prove to me that everyone else on this planet is wrong, that you alone is correct in everything you think about. What this means is, that if you believe in GOD, then prove to an Atheist that there is such a thing as a GOD.

Whether I believe in God or not is completely irrelevant. I am certainly not right about everything and never claimed to be. You, on the other hand, have the (very irritating) tendency of stating everything you say as though it were the final word on the matter.

Do what without logic?

I was asking if you can prove that logic is useful without using logic.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Logic justifies its ownself.

Ever heard of Godel? His theorem dictates that nothing can "justify its ownself". In fact, his theorem is logical, and thus Logic has been used to show that logic cannot validate itself.

If i did not try to use logic, then i would be doing things illogical always, unexceptionally, and hence have no need for wisdom, or prudancy of any kind.

Your absurdity in asking the questions that you are asking is like asking a man to speak without using language, or there mouths. This is just flat out primative thinking.

Or it is challenging the "shelter" that you (and not us "kiddies") are living in. You are just too comfortable in your assurety, and thus cannot take my questions.

If you are so "well versed" in logical hobbies, or projects, then why is it that you can't so much as understand like basic English? Maybe you ought to put away your Nintendo, and try picking up a dictionary, so that you can communicate.

As for the age thing, yes, age makes a huge difference in whether or not someone should be respected as someone who is a PH.D in something, like mathematics, or for that matter, Engineering. There is a reason why we have laws in this country that classify young minds as being minors. So nice try with that bs on not looking at your age as a relevant factor.

Cute. And yet which one of us is posting immaturely? Ask anyone else who's read this thread. In my opinion, maturity, and not age, should be the measure of someone's merit.

Dont whine if you can't handle what others have to say about various subjects. Hide yourself away if you don't want to listen to anyone else but your own thoughts.

And yet which one of us is the one that snaps every time his precious personal paradigm is threatened. I assure you it wasn't me, since I've been asking constructive questions, while you've been insulting and "snapping". Don't whine if you can't handle what I have to say.

You are lucky, i didnt call you an idiot.

I believe you just did. Don't worry, I don't care about your opinion any more than you care about mine, but at least I've stayed within the paramters of rational discussion.

 

[Gale]

OOOk... well...


Metat... you do bring up quantum phyics and its nature to contradict things we thought we knew. Like that tv exaple. And i guess, that's sort of what I've been considering... Logic says there's a tv in our room... but there still may not be...

and with godel... So, logic can't justify itself? so, would that make this whole thread obsolete? i suppose i feel i need a little justification... but how else can i get that without logic? sooo, i dunno...

Either way, HeavensWarFire, it'd be greatly appreciated if you could refrain from posting in this thread. I'd hope for more constructive responses that stay on topic from everyone.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Gale17
HeavensWarFire, it'd be greatly appreciated if you could refrain from posting in this thread.

Don't worry, he'll refrain.

- Warren

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Gale17
OOOOOOK...

Well HeavensWarFire... I guess you can say its because I'm a kid... though really i think its irrelevant. My "ill developed" mind is just unable to comprehend logic...

Right... so, i wasn't refuting logic, or denying it or anything like that. I just wanted to make some more sense of it. Again, i don't doubt logic at all... it works. But it just seems like... i dunno... shakey. I wasn't implying anything about religions at all... Though, now that i think of it... there's an interesting angle there. Would say, an omnipotent being have logic? or use logic or whatever?

But basically my only issue with like "proving things true" or what have you... is maybe actually the nature of axioms... It seems like so... human..? i don't know what I'm trying to say actually... but assure you it has nothing to do with my being some underdeveloped immature kid.

Gale, Perhaps this is something you've already understood, but I get the feeling you are uncomfortable with the need for the axiomatic, in logic.

It doesn't seem to make sense, at least to those of us that do not rely on faith, to accept something such as an axiom, as true.

The reason axioms are required by logic is that logic always starts at the known and proceeds, thru reasoning, to a conclusion. The problem is, no matter what you take as the starting point, it is required to be shown or proven, then what was used as the starting point of that reasoning has to be proven, ad-infinitum.

To avoid the absurdity of such an infinite recurse, an axiom or axioms have to be chosen.

Mentat,
You being 15 is quite a surprise. I'm know there are those two and three times your age, on this forum, that do not have the clarity of thought or maturity you do. You have a good head on your shoulders. Perhaps there is hope for the future [as I wave my cain from my front porch rocking chair].

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by radagast
Mentat,
You being 15 is quite a surprise. I'm know there are those two and three times your age, on this forum, that do not have the clarity of thought or maturity you do.

I agree entirely! Mentat, I suppose you're around on pf as much as you are because you get a lot of intellectual stimulation here that you don't get elsewhere? So maybe we here at pf are all helping to mold you into a terrible monst... er... a well-rounded intellectual. I'm curious, as a mentor and educator -- how much do you think you've gained from pf? Either way, remember us little people when you walk across that stage in Stockholm.

p.s. I remember Mentat's parents punished him once by limiting his access to pf!

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
Some people hold that there are exactly three irrefutable statements:

1) I exist.
2) I am conscious.
3) Whatever exists has the characteristics that it has.

To refute any of these three statements, you'd first have to assume them true. If you say "I do not exist", who is speaking? If you say "I am not conscious", how can you speak? (Of anything?) If you say that a thing is not itself, then what are you speaking of?

- Warren

Thats pretty cool - hadn't seen them before.

p.s. I remember Mentat's parents punished him once by limiting his access to pf!

So... we're like TV and soda?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Gale17
OOOk... well...


Mentat... you do bring up quantum phyics and its nature to contradict things we thought we knew. Like that tv exaple. And i guess, that's sort of what I've been considering... Logic says there's a tv in our room... but there still may not be...

Well, quantum physics wouldn't deny that it is there, it just denies that it isn't there. IOW, the TV isn't either there or not, it's both. This doesn't really contradict logic, but it does contradict common sense, and requires an open-mind (and even then, it's rather inconceivable).

and with godel... So, logic can't justify itself? so, would that make this whole thread obsolete? i suppose i feel i need a little justification... but how else can i get that without logic? sooo, i dunno...

Godel showed (IIRC) that no logical system could be used to justify itself. But, to use some simple reasoning, instead of Godel, one can still see that using mathematics (for example) to justify that mathematics is complete is non-sensical since you must first assume that mathematics is right before using it to "prove" something.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by chroot
I agree entirely! Mentat, I suppose you're around on pf as much as you are because you get a lot of intellectual stimulation here that you don't get elsewhere? So maybe we here at pf are all helping to mold you into a terrible monst... er... a well-rounded intellectual. I'm curious, as a mentor and educator -- how much do you think you've gained from pf?

I've gained tremendously, IMO. Not only does this site provide intellectual stimulation, and lots of education on very difficult topics, it also provides lots of external resources so that I know what to read to learn more about what I'm interested in.

p.s. I remember Mentat's parents punished him once by limiting his access to pf!

- Warren

Yeah, now they know that this is the worst punishment they can possibly give me (except, perhaps, taking away reading altogether )...well, I've been a good kid at home ever since .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So... we're like TV and soda?

I don't drink soda and rarely watch TV...but, yeah, I guess you're right...this is my recreation, my fun.