Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

[Alexander]

You logically got wrong conclusion simply because you started with INCORRECT assumption (that ANYTHING that exists is not same as EVERYTHING that exists).

Sorry for correction.

 

[Royce]

Reread your own definitions.
Everything is the universal super set of everything that exits.
There can only be one such set. The only other possible set is everything that does not exist, but that would be an empty set and that is not allowed as empty set is mutually exclusive, an oxymoron.
The set Anything does not contain everything. Look at the definitions Anything does not equal everything. The definition contains modifiers, ie "any" thing "AT" ALL. Everying contains no modifiers, every thing that exist. No where will you find anybody to agree with you that the word 'any' and the word 'every' mean the same thing. They are not an identity.
I told you that the only way you could refute the conclusion is to try to change your definitions. I am not going to allow you to do that however in the way that you attemped to as it is meaningless and invalid.

 

[Alexander]

Wrong once again. You fail to realize that "everything" consists of ALL of "anythings" - look up their definitions.

Show me any "anything" which would not be a part of "everything", or "everything" which would NOT cover ALL of "anythings"?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Alexander
Wrong once again. You fail to realize that "everything" consists of ALL of "anythings" - look up their definitions.

Show me any "anything" which would not be a part of "everything", or "everything" which would NOT cover ALL of "anythings"?

No, Alexander I am not wrong.
Your fist statement is exactly what Theorem 1. says "The set Anything is a subset of the set Everything, ie Everything wholly contains all of Anythings. This concedes the truth of Theorem 1.
Your second statement is just a rewording of the first and again concedes the validity of the proof. the set Anything is a subset of the set Everything and wholly contained within the set Everything.
Your third statement is the definition of the universal super set Everything. The set Everything contains all things that exits wholly including all possible anythings.

The more you argue the more you support my position and the validity of my proof; and, the deeper the hole that you are digging for yourself. Try a different tack such as trying to find a different definition of matter that supports you position and underminds mine.
Or, heaven forbid, admit that I have proved my point and let's go on from there rather than argue in circles as we have been doing.

 

[Alexander]

Which point did you prove" That matter is NOT everything which exists? You have not proven that yet.

And you can't - simply because this is the DEFINITION of matter - every thing and any thing which exists around us is called matter. There is nothing you can do about definitions unless you want to abandon logic.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Which point did you prove" That matter is NOT everything which exists? You have not proven that yet.

And you can't - simply because this is the DEFINITION of matter - every thing and any thing which exists around us is called matter. There is nothing you can do about definitions unless you want to abandon logic.

Do you consider mathematics as matter?

 

[Royce]

Surely Alexander you know that photons and electromagnetic waves exist in this universe. They are not composed of matter and have no mass. This is the last I'm going to respond to on this subject. I am bored with belaboring a minor point with someone who will not or can accept the thoughts or logic of another as having any validity. You mind is made up and refuses to see any other possibility. You have a closed mind. That's a shame. It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration
Do you consider mathematics as matter?

Is mathematics a "thing" (object)?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce
Surely Alexander you know that photons and electromagnetic waves exist in this universe. They are not composed of matter and have no mass. This is the last I'm going to respond to on this subject. I am bored with belaboring a minor point with someone who will not or can accept the thoughts or logic of another as having any validity. You mind is made up and refuses to see any other possibility. You have a closed mind. That's a shame. It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye.

Don't you know that photons are MATTER? Being bosons they obey different statistics than fermions (electrons, protons), rather than that have same properties other particles have - they are wavy (as all particles), have spin, momentum, energy. What makes you think that photons are not matter?

By the way, if you place about 3x10³⁵ of green photons in a massless box, the box will acquire mass 1 kg. (Both inertial mass and gravitational mass).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Don't you know that photons are MATTER? Being bosons they obey different statistics than fermions (electrons, protons), rather than that have same properties other particles have - they are wavy (as all particles), have spin, momentum, energy. What makes you think that photons are not matter?

By the way, if you place about 3x10³⁵ of green photons in a massless box, the box will acquire mass 1 kg. (Both inertial mass and gravitational mass).

First, in all my physics books fields are not considered matter, nor is energy. (Though I'll acknowledge that a field results from material processes, and energy is intimately invovlved in materiality.)

Second, you are the one who asserted that matter is everything; it is not up to us to disprove that, it is up to you to prove it. Can you prove consciousness, for example, is matter?

 

[Alexander]

Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c² kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c² kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Mass?

The 2000 edition of "Modern Physics" states plainly that a field is "immaterial."

And you didn't mention consciousness.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.

The reason you have me on "block" and still take potshots is because you are afraid to debate anyone who is going to call you on your arrogance, rudeness and failure to reason properly.

You've already demostrated you don't know much about physics with your comments on QM and GR. Do you think you understand fields? Consciousness? If so, then make your case LA, and stop prancing around saying things are so without feeling the slightest responsiblity to explain why. Or is it you think you are God, and we should all just accept your word?

Again I ask, what sort of science training have you had where you don't have to support your assertions with evidence? Speaking in absolutes as you do is no different than debating someone spouting religious dogma.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

...and I suggest you do the same. It makes this place much more purposefull!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c² kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Plus, since you appear to be talking about EM, I might point out that light isn't energy, but rather carries energy. You can measure light's energy, for example, by its frequency. As Integral made rigidly clear to me at the last PF, energy has no defining characteristics other than the capacity to do work. So all the traits you assigned to energy above belong to EM, and not to energy (which is immaterial!).

 

[FZ+]

Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.

Pedantic!

I agree with your view of what's material, and actually I think fields and energy are material-related even if they lack mass. But you must admit comrade Alexander starts the pedantic trend with his strict limiting of any discussion of reality to what math or physics can explain.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Mass?

Yes, m=E/c² kilos.

And you didn't mention consciousness.

You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K⁺ ions exchange with Na⁺ ions - what is special about this?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, m=E/c² kilos.



You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K⁺ ions exchange with Na⁺ ions - what is special about this?

Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about? Are there any truths left to uncover from your perspective? Or is everything already explained perfectly in your science book? If it is the latter,(and it does seem to be), then we can fire all scientists. We don't need them anymore. They have found all the answers! There's nothing left to do. It's all very simple! Just ask Alexander!

Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander!

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Alexander
- what is special about this?

YOU !

 

[pelastration]

JUST ASK ALEXANDER: Abstractons ... the state of principles?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pelastration
Do you consider mathematics as matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Alexander
Is mathematics a "thing" (object)?

Is this supposed to be an answer?
The old trick: answer with a question
So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?

As long as you don't answer seriously I will consider that your point of view is that mathematics don't exist because it's not 'matter'.

And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':

Originally posted by Alexander
It does. Look at the universe - it is quite math obedient. Very and very much. Why? Very simple. Because math is NOT a language. Math is just a logic of existence/ inexistence. That is why anything existing obeys math.

1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

Originally posted by Alexander
Obviousely math is valid without humans and with or without aliens from planet X. Math of all civilizations is the same (despite variety of notations used). Pithagorean theorem (sin2+cos2=1) is same with or without humans/aliens/robots, etc. Shredinger or Maxwell equations are same anywhere in universe, and their solution (say, a hydrogen atom, or mutual inductance of two coils) is same in any notations used.

Since 4. was anticipating on this answer I ask again:
"Are mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality ?"

In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).

6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!
So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?

I have more questions ... but I will be very pleased if you can answer already now the Questions 1 to 6 - point by point.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about?

Yes, there is some. For example, if a free-falling electron radiate (e/m radiation)? (Most physicists say yes (as it moves with acceleration), but I thing not because free falling system is indistinguishable from not moving with any acceleration system).

Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander!

I don't know.

May be, because I read textbooks?

 

[Zero]

I've made this same point on several threads over teh years, so stop me if you've heard this one:

The fact that most scientists are not deeply religious says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the validity of religion. It doesn't speak to the greater natural intelligence of scientists, or a lower level of intelligence of theists. All it really shows is that scientists, especially top ones, are focused on their method to answer questions. I would hazard a guess that they became scientists because 'magical' thinking didn't suit them, not that being a scientist made them abandon religious thinking.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration


So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?

Mathematics is a set of logical rules. It is NOT a "thing". Recall that we discuss objects (everyTHING, anyTHING), not concepts.

And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':




1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

1. Yes. 2. Because math governs physical reality, it is a (conceptual) part of it. 3. Yes, of course. 4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false. Axioms are just initial conditions from which theorems (=conclusions) derived. You can start with any initial condition(s) you want.

In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).

The difference is that math allows indistinguishable particles to bahave only 2 specific ways (only 2, because square root has only 2 values - positive and negative). The existence of two solutions for a square root makes two DIFFERENT statistics. One is called bosonian, another - fermionian. Nature just simply obeys that. Quoting second citation from above: "...the interchange symmetry DIFFERENCE makes fermions behave like matter and bosons behave like energy. The fact that no two fermions can be in the same state means they take up space, unlike bosons. It is also related to the fact that fermions can only be created in conjunction with anti-fermions. They must be made in pairs. Bosons can be made singly and are their own anti-particle as can be seen from any light."

6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!

You are very welcome. (I probably have to charge for educating people - then I will be rich. Well, what if I am already rich? Share with the poor? That is what I do.)

So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?

Where did you get this nonsense? Math is just a logic of existence.

 

[Hurkyl]

4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false.

Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

An axiom can ONLY be true. A false axiom is NOT an axiom. How one can make this mistake I don't know.

 

[plus]

Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within Newtonian gravity.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by plus
Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within Newtonian gravity.

False axiom /=/ axiom

Thus if you have a false axiom in your theory, you have NO axiom in your theory.

An axiom can be ONLY TRUE. NOT FALSE. If you have in your theory what you call an axiom, which is then disproven, you never had an axiom in your theory.

 

[Hurkyl]

And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false.

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false.

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)

Hurkyl. The definition of an axiom states it can't be false. End of story.

 

[Hurkyl]

(a) Mathematical logic cannot even formulate the assertion "Statement P cannot be false"; the closest it comes is to deduce "not P", to prove "P is true", or to prove "not P is false".

(b) There is no restriction on what logical statements may be taken as an axiom. Any collection of logical statements generates a logical theory for which those logical statements are considered axioms.

End of story.

(If you'll allow me also to abuse the phrase)

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Say what you will, you bring no proof. I do.

ax·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n. A self-evident or universally recognized truth

 

[Hurkyl]

And given that definition, pray tell how you deduce an axiom cannot be false, using just mathematical logic?

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...in math, axioms are usually absolute: 1+1=2. In real life, axioms are a bit more slippery, don't you think?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.

I would rather say that "true" and "false" can only apply to theorems (=logical derivatives from axioms) and other constructs, but can't be applied to such primitive logical object as axiom yet. Axioms are initial statements from which more complex structures are derived (and then those complex structures are compared with axioms to see if they are in agreement with them (=true) or if there was a logical mistake in derivation (false conclusion)). True and false are comparison operators, and when you have nothing to compare with, then these operators don't apply yet.

 

[Hurkyl]

But what might happen is that you can start with a system of axioms and then correctly deduce the negation of one of those axioms. ("correctly" means that the only premises you used are the given axioms and logical rules of inference)

By a typical definition of "true", the axioms of a theory are taken to be true, and all statements that logically follow from them are true (and nothing else). By a typical definition of "false", a statement is false if and only if its negation is true.

Since it may happen that the negation of an axiom can be deduced from the axioms, an axiom thus may be both true and false.


Of course, the usual procedure is to thus abandon that system of axioms and find a new system that appears to work better (such as when Cantor's set theory was replaced with Zermelo-Frankel set theory), but as Godel's theorem shows, we can never use the axioms of any reasonable theory to prove that we cannot derive the negation of one of the axioms; the spectre of potential inconsistency must alway loom over our head.


This is interesting because it means mathematical logic is incapable of the circular reasoning typically used in other domains to justify belief systems (i.e. religion, mysticism, and science).

Among other things, this means that any belief system professing to adhere completely to logic must not assert that it is a consistent belief system. This is why I find many atheistic fundamentalists' arguments comical; they love to assert that they are strictly logical while religion cannot adhere strictly to logic... but then they will turn right around and tell you that their belief system is consistent (of course, not in those exact words)

 

[Alexander]

Define "consistent".

Religion is full of internal inconsistensies. There are many lists of them around. Take a Bible, for example, http://www.quran.net/comp-std/cntrbibl.htm

 

[Hurkyl]

Consistency := ~(P and ~P)

Science is full of internal inconsistencies too. Why is it that when science has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to find a mistake in your understanding and refine it, but when religion has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to abandon religion?

 

[Alexander]

Because inconsistency is in brain.

(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).

 

[Hurkyl]

Because inconsistency is in brain.

That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?

(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).

The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!Before you respond, consider a bigger picture. You, as a scientist, are about to give a lecture on the reasons why some of these alledged inconsistencies are okay, and how the others represent a state of incomplete knowledge that science is striving to correct. Now, consider that Christian theists (and probably other religious theists) often respond to alledged inconsistencies in Religous thought by explaining how some of the inconsistencies aren't real inconsistencies, but stem from a misinterpretation, and respond to others as the state of an incomplete knowledge of God.

I presume also that you do not have an education in theism. You have, at best, an outsiders knowledge of the hot issues, heavily biased by your presumption from the outset that religion is idiocy. I also presume if you have seen the arguments of those educated in religion that you have dismissed them after a casual reading rather than taken them seriously and deeply considered if they could be right.

So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?

Sure. Religion is a brain product (imagination which is not based in facts nor logic), that is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: BigFootSanta created all toys we see around us). Same with misunderstanding science, or with layman view of it - inconsistensy is in layman brain only simply because layman brain does not know science.

The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!

There is no inconsistency here. Same as there is no inconsistency between round and flat Earth - every farmer, engineer, student, and almost every scientists successfully uses flat Earth math (just because small fraction of round is flat).

I presume also that you do not have an education in theism.

Correct, I did not waste time on santaclausology. Instead, I learned how nature works.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion? [/B]

From this web site: "Several hundred never before seen galaxies are visible in this "deepest-ever" view of the universe, called the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), made with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Besides the classical spiral and elliptical shaped galaxies, there is a bewildering variety of other galaxy shapes and colors that are important clues to understanding the evolution of the universe. Some of the galaxies may have formed less that one billion years after the Big Bang."

What is inconsistent here?

 

[Hurkyl]

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.
[/size]

Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.
[/size]

Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.

See - you claims are based on LACK of facts (equinoxal eggs, he he, Christianity, Bible, etc). Mine - on facts. Because a truth is defined as a compliance with fact, I am telling truth and you are telling false. Just logic, dude, logic.

Religion is untested view of primitive people - as someone here said.

You put yourself in a corner simply because you don't know the definition of truth. Read dictionary - criteria of truth is observed fact (Marx).

 

[Hurkyl]

Just logic, dude, logic.

Slight problem. Logic provides only rules of inference, and there isn't even universal agreement amongst mathematicians what the correct set of rules of inference is.

So how can you claim any fact whatosever from "just logic"?



And it would do wonders for your case if you could present an argument for someone who doesn't currently believe exactly what you believe.

 

[Alexander]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic. All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth. Say, many religion claims contradict to observable facts (say, 6000 year old Earth, or making Sun in 1 day, or making man out of clay, etc). Thus they are not true.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth.

The definition of "true" in formal logic is merely one of the two values in the range of a truth assignment, which is merely a function from a domain of formulas (a.k.a. elements of some mathematical language) into the set {true, false}.


Your post begs two questions:

(a) What do you mean by "fact"?
(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?

(a) What do you mean by "fact"?

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.


Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?

From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?

Well, if you don't derive any fact from logic, I'm speculating as to why you would believe a statement would be a fact.

You seem to have asserted previously that logic is the only valid form of proof.
You don't prove facts with logic.
I presume that you believe that statements you claim as fact are indeed fact.
Faith is belief without proof.

Conclusion: Any beliefs you have of the form "X is a fact" must be derived from faith.

Is this accurate, or am I missing something?

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

So, what is a real occurence, and how can we base knowledge or information upon it?

From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

Ok, so your definition bears little resemblance to the logical definition of truth. As such, it would be inappropriate to use your definition of truth in an alledged logical argument against Religion.

And if you're allowed to select your own definition of truth apart from the logical definition, can you give a reason why a religious person cannot select their own definition of truth and have their arguments just as valid as yours?