Do you believe in God?

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Could you give a very specific evidence rather than generalizing it?

The Ultra-Finitism of Edward Nelson is pretty specific.

He puts the ancient pythagoreans to shame.

But at least he doesn’t toss his fellow mathematicians into the drink for the sin of irrationality.

 

[George-ananda]

Considering how vague and amorphous the word "spiritual" is, I don't think your rephrasing makes things any more clear.

Actually, that's a good thing. I do not want the answer to be 'Yes/No' but include a short description of the person's beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not an example of a sound syllogism.

No, it is just an example of a premiss for which you need 2 and they need to be true in regards to sound. Then there is valid in regards to the conclusion. How do you understand sound?

 

[Polymath257]

Not sure I understand your point about the distribution of gas molecules. If probability is spread out evenly among all possible states, then any random distribution of molecules is equally probable.

Exactly. And the probability of any is very, very, low.

The 1 in 10^70 figure (it isn't mine and I wish I could remember where I came across it) would only apply, in your example, where an extremely special, low entropy state existed; such as all the gas molecules being gathered on one side of the room.

 

[firedragon]

No, it is just an example of a premiss for which you need 2 and they need to be true in regards to sound. Then there is valid in regards to the conclusion. How do you understand sound?

Sound? Here’s a simple example of a sound syllogism:

1. Premise 1: All humans are mortal. (True premise)
2. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. (True premise)
3. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Valid conclusion that follows logically from the premises)

 

[firedragon]

The Ultra-Finitism of Edward Nelson is pretty specific.

He puts the ancient pythagoreans to shame.

But at least he doesn’t toss his fellow mathematicians into the drink for the sin of irrationality.

Hmm. Could you prove that religion and logic are opposites as a whole?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Hmm. Could you prove that religion and logic are opposites as a whole?

I confine my proofs to math.

I’m continually amazed at how much others are able to prove about all sorts of stuff outside of math.

People even manage to prove the legitimacy of their wars using pure logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sound? Here’s a simple example of a sound syllogism:

1. Premise 1: All humans are mortal. (True premise)
2. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. (True premise)
3. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Valid conclusion that follows logically from the premises)

Well, for premise one that runs into in the induction problem. But yes, if you don't consider that relevant then it is true.

 

[firedragon]

Well, for premise one that runs into in the induction problem.

No it does not. It's a true premise. You are making a category error.

 

[firedragon]

I confine my proofs to math.

I’m continually amazed at how much others are able to prove about all sorts of stuff outside of math.

So you think logic is invalid?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

So you think logic is invalid?

I’m a mathematical logician by profession.

But I often have difficulty following the proofs of people who are smart enough to use pure logic to prove things about non-mathematical stuff.

Sometimes, it seems like there are missing steps that nobody is telling me about.

 

[firedragon]

I’m a mathematical logician by profession.

But I often have difficulty following the proofs of people who are smart enough to use pure logic to prove things about non-mathematical stuff.

Sometimes, it seems like there are missing steps that nobody is telling me about.

But that's a generalization of an unsound argument. People do make unsound arguments, but that's irrelevant to a sound argument. That's why what we assert should be specific, not a hand wave.

Hope you understand.

 

[Muffled]

I believe in God. I suspect it is a carryover from a previous life.

 

[SalixIncendium]

so you are an advaitha. Are you Advaitha vedantha or Advaitha?

What do you perceive to be the difference between the two? Also, why the 'h' in advaita and vedanta?

ETA: The answer to your question is beneath @George-ananda's name.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it does not. It's a true premise. You are making a category error.

So what do all correspond to?

 

[Muffled]

Why would I believe in God when I don’t believe in 600 pound ants, squirrels with 4 heads or invisible airplanes? Oh, and we can’t forget leprechauns, pixies, and fairies. Hahaha. Just kidding. I do believe in God. Without God and the one human God manifest, there is nothing imo.

I believe since you asked, God has more witnesses than those other things.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

But that's a generalization of an unsound argument. People do make unsound arguments, but that's irrelevant to a sound argument. That's why what we assert should be specific, not a hand wave.

Hope you understand.

You found Predicative Arithmetic to contain hand-waving?

Could you be more specific?

A page number at least?

 

[firedragon]

What do you perceive to be the difference between the two? Also, why the 'h' in advaita and vedanta?

The "h"? Mate. I don't know transliteration. I just write in English as it is pronounced in the language. If you wish to remove the h, remove it and understand what it says.

"Vedanta" means "end of the Vedas" or Veda+Antha. and refers to the philosophical teachings that come at the conclusion of the Vedic texts, specifically the Upanishads. So a specific school of Vedantic philosophy that's non-dualism.

Advaitha refers to the philosophical concept or principle of non-dualism, which asserts the fundamental oneness of reality. In a broader sense, Advaitha can be understood as the idea that there is no separation between the Atman and the Brahman.

At least that's how I understand it.

 

[firedragon]

So what do all correspond to?

Didn't you understand what a sound argument is? What is this correspondence you keep repeating? This is a strawman. And I will not engage with that any more Mikel. Thank you for the discussion. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

You found Predicative Arithmetic to contain hand-waving?

Nope. I explained it.

A page number at least?

This is a strawman.