God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[numinus]

Of course, it's predicate logic.



Now, if we're going to ascribe it to you, we have to know whether we're talking about first-order logic, second-order logic, many-sorted logic or infinitary logic. So, which one is it that is based on empty space again? Most of them appear to be based on mathematics.

From your own source:

In informal usage, the term "predicate logic" occasionally refers to first-order logic. Some authors consider the predicate calculus to be an axiomatized form of predicate logic, and the predicate logic to be derived from an informal, more intuitive development.

Just because mathematics is based on fopl doesn't mean fopl need to be expressed exclusively in mathematical symbols, now, does it?

Or that mathematical and set theoretic operations need be exactly the same? We already know that they are not necessarily the same, although they are 'analogous' according to the 'equivalence' principle.

Duh?

 

[top gun]

Quite right. And I intend to say that a stupid idea is indeed, stupid.

Duh?

First off... it takes away from you calling someone stupid when you end your own statement with the less than Masters Degree phrase... Duh! And you are of course able to belive the world is flat if you like.

Regular logic??? There are various forms of logic, fyi, none of which is anything similar to your 'agnostic' nonsense. I'm not even sure if it is at all fair to call your nonsense agnosticism.

Duh?

There's that Duh again! You seem to be very threatened & antagonized by the word agnostic. I'm not big into labels. I tried to portray a word to you that is closest to my research of this topic both as a practicing Christian for years weighed with schooling and science. I'm open to there being a God but have never seen anything to prove one exists is as close as I can get.

You want people to jump on the witchcraft train I realize that. That is unprovable and would make your case. I'm just not aboard.

We already know how time and space curves. You are free to ask aliens for help regarding that, if you wish.

Duh?

WOW... yet again with a brilliant DUH! I'm sure aliens could explain it as well as God. But I've received no correspondence from either.

I'm quite sure alien 'genesis' has already been discarded for various scientific reasons.

Unlike the Fairy Godfather I presume?

No need to google. I know what it means. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you.

Duh?

When Duh is all ya got I guess that's what ya use.

Nothing in the political theory of john locke (which is the basis of the american government) has anything to do with empirical truth.

Unless, of course, you have some empirical evidence as to the 'equality of men', or the 'inalienability of certain rights', or perhaps the absolute nature of the body politic.

Duh?

None of this has anything to do with anything. People through trial and error, learned intelligence and combined with the effect on feelings have created and evolved right & wrong. The fact that some attach that to some higher power doesn't prove anything.

Not at all. It is quite evident you are not using your head. Might you be using another part of your anatomy in lieu of critical thought, one may wonder?

I'd go back to Duh... childish insults only make your silliness sillier.

I'm breaking this into 2 post because you are rambling and I can't resist reading some more Duh's!...

 

[top gun]

numinus;81155]
Correct. Anyone may or may not have a different interpretation of the same immutable truth. What is common to ALL religions is the belief in the existence of a power, both immanent and emminent.

Duh?

There... another Duh... good job! But those "higher powers are not the same or even a singular "God". It's quite natural for people to invent sorcery for things they cannot yet understand or try to project some voodoo like power to protect themselves from the unknown... doesn't make any of it true though.

Excluding scientology, all religions believe in some sort of a first cause that is beyond the real, common-sense, material world. They all got that right, now, didn't they?

Why exclude Scientology, it's just as possible? And furthermore because Satanists believe Satan is really a higher power than God should we blindly flock to that as well? No... because it's all BS.

Picking and choosing just parts out of a religion only tends to make your case that much more absurd. If we believe in part then we should equally believe in all... like Centeotl the Corn God.. Hopi the Wind God... Thor the Thunder God... and on & on...

It was a perfect analogy. Human subjectivity attaches different meanings to the exact same thing.

Ink blots are nothing specific. Ink blot testing allows someone (and here's the word of the day for ya) to PROJECT what they want it to mean... not what it is. For what it is... is nothing.

Survival?

The highest manifestation of religion is when one subverts his own life in the pursuit of a higher goal outside himself -- which contradicts 'survival'.

Duh?

I new ya had another Duh in ya! A higher goal outside of yourself has nothing to do with learned survivor skills and you know it.

Over and over and over to the point of absurdity. If you cannot understand what science is saying, what makes you so sure it is true? Oh, I forgot, you're agnostic.

Duh?

Need I even say it... you really have nothing do ya.

You might want to get off it yourself. And you might want to take your stupid friend dawks with you.

What doesn't Dawks deserve a Duh?

The first cause isn't contingent on something else. That is why it is said to be necessary. It cannot NOT EXIST. That is why it is infinite. Otherwise, it would have come from nothing, or it wouldn't be the first -- which is what your space-time singularity suggests.

Duh?

Until Dawks uses Duh every other word... ya really need not point any fingers.

And I'm fine with your "first cause" theory. It's just as provable then that the "infinite" in the equation is an invisible magic rock named Zoltan!

Of course it is open. In fact, it is so open, air passes through it at will.

I don't really see how cracking on yourself helps your case... but hey it's better than Duh!

Oh, it doesn't matter if you use little or big words. The truth is independent of your comprehension of it. The fact that you use little words only demonstrates the state of your comprehension.

Maybe if I said it in the form of a chant or mystical reading I could sneak it through to ya... I don't know...

I'm certainly not a part of your pretend-agnostic group, if that's what you mean.

Spoken as the true Grand Puba of pretend that's very high praise indeed...

 

[PLC1]

From your own source:

In informal usage, the term "predicate logic" occasionally refers to first-order logic. Some authors consider the predicate calculus to be an axiomatized form of predicate logic, and the predicate logic to be derived from an informal, more intuitive development.

Just because mathematics is based on fopl doesn't mean fopl need to be expressed exclusively in mathematical symbols, now, does it?

Or that mathematical and set theoretic operations need be exactly the same? We already know that they are not necessarily the same, although they are 'analogous' according to the 'equivalence' principle.

Duh?

Occasionally.

Can you write us a mathematical equation to explain this one?

I have explained this a number of times. Apparently, you are just to dumb to understand it.

We know that there is a relationship between cause and effect -- hence causation.

We know that the relationship between cause and effect is defined within the dynamics of deterministic natural law and the undeterministic principle of volition or will. Some people do things simply because they WILL them -- often despite rational principles. So do animals. In fact, even sub-atomic particles are deterministic only up to a certain limit called heisenberg's uncertainty. Beyond that, the probability field of its motion simply becomes indeterminate.

That, in a nutshell, is how the REAL, COMMON-SENSE, MATERIAL WORLD works.

So, going back to your stupid question, where in this dichotomy do we find the cause of sin? It comes from the principle of volition or WILL.

Understand? I very much doubt it but I'm still obliged to ask.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Occasionally.

And in numerous OCCASIONS, I have been using predicate logic outside the domain of mathematics. Even if I wanted to, the menu of this site doesn't have the necessary mathematical symbols.

Capice?

Can you write us a mathematical equation to explain this one?

What exactly do you want me to explain using math? You want the derivation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle -- the limits by which the position and momentum becomes indeterminate?

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg's_uncertainty_principle

 

[PLC1]

And in numerous OCCASIONS, I have been using predicate logic outside the domain of mathematics. Even if I wanted to, the menu of this site doesn't have the necessary mathematical symbols.

Capice?

Excellent obfuscation. Bravo, bravo.

What exactly do you want me to explain using math? You want the derivation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle -- the limits by which the position and momentum becomes indeterminate?

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg's_uncertainty_principle

Sure. Why don't you apply the derivation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle to your next argument. Maybe you can use it to demonstrate why god is or is not responsible for all of the bad stuff that happens, or perhaps prove the existence or non existence of god mathematically, or show us what gravity really is by applying the derivation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[numinus]

Excellent obfuscation. Bravo, bravo.

You're welcome.

Sure. Why don't you apply the derivation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle to your next argument. Maybe you can use it to demonstrate why god is or is not responsible for all of the bad stuff that happens, or perhaps prove the existence or non existence of god mathematically, or show us what gravity really is by applying the derivation of heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I'm looking forward to it.

Certainly.

What do you suppose happens when the probability field of a certain occurence becomes horizontal, straight line flat, hmmm?

Isn't that the point of non-determinism -- the point at which no physical principle or law applies -- a state that is associated with the principle of volition or will?

 

[top gun]

What do you suppose happens when the probability field of a certain occurence becomes horizontal, straight line flat, hmmm?

Isn't that the point of non-determinism -- the point at which no physical principle or law applies -- a state that is associated with the principle of volition or will?

Them's there are a lot of big old words sayins the same thang........... unproved VOODOO!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What do you suppose happens when the probability field of a certain occurence becomes horizontal, straight line flat, hmmm?
Isn't that the point of non-determinism -- the point at which no physical principle or law applies -- a state that is associated with the principle of volition or will?

There is no associated principle of volition, if you're flatlined yo' dead! Geez, even you oughta know that, Nums.

 

[numinus]

Them's there are a lot of big old words sayins the same thang........... unproved VOODOO!

Spoken like a true redneck cowboy! Hee haw!

 

[numinus]

There is no associated principle of volition, if you're flatlined yo' dead! Geez, even you oughta know that, Nums.

And somebody should have told you to stick to gay topics. At least there, you have a comparatively better understanding of the issues -- painfully little, but comparatively better.

The principle of volition, or will, or the ability to make an absolutely free choice, is associated with an equal probability everywhere.

If you will graph this condition as a functional relationship, it IS horizontal line. It has nothing to do with being alive or dead.

Duh?

 

[Dr.Who]

Spoken like a true redneck cowboy! Hee haw!

It seems to me he said a lot more plainly what you were just describing when Godel (sp?) said it.

 

[top gun]

Spoken like a true redneck cowboy! Hee haw!

Then you appreciated my efforts to get down to someone's now famous "Duh" level...

The obvious conclusion to the topic is that either all good & bad God is responsible for. Or none of the good & bad God is responsible for. Or there is no God.

But to say for instance that God strikes out with the Katrina Hurricane to punish ALL THE PEOPLE in New Orleans because there was going to be a Gay Pride Parade the following week...

but when a trailer park full of devoted born again Christians is wiped out in a twister that's just coincidence... is silly.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And somebody should have told you to stick to gay topics. At least there, you have a comparatively better understanding of the issues -- painfully little, but comparatively better.

The principle of volition, or will, or the ability to make an absolutely free choice, is associated with an equal probability everywhere.

If you will graph this condition as a functional relationship, it IS horizontal line. It has nothing to do with being alive or dead.

Duh?

What has flat-lined is your sense of humor, Duh, and you can't be a real cowboy until you know that it's not "Hee Haw!", it's "Yee Haw!"

 

[numinus]

Then you appreciated my efforts to get down to someone's now famous "Duh" level...

The obvious conclusion to the topic is that either all good & bad God is responsible for. Or none of the good & bad God is responsible for. Or there is no God.

But to say for instance that God strikes out with the Katrina Hurricane to punish ALL THE PEOPLE in New Orleans because there was going to be a Gay Pride Parade the following week...

but when a trailer park full of devoted born again Christians is wiped out in a twister that's just coincidence... is silly.

Sigh.

Logic fit only for cattle excrement -- which is no more than one can expect, really, coming from you.

Foreknowledge of x of the actions of y doesn't make the action less free. The only way it becomes less free is if x coerces y towards that action. And only in redneck logic is foreknowledge equated to coersion.

And here, I am not even talking of divine foreknowledge. People gain foreknowledge all the time. In fact, you cannot even play chess effectively without such skill -- something I do not expect from you, given your aversion to anything intellectual or contemplative.

And yes, you are free to imagine the metaphysical meaning of 'duh?'. It has as much meaning as your posts anyway. I guess there is no chance of you hurting yourself in that exercise.