Staredit Network

Exactly my point Cheeze! haha I think it's funny how you're ALWAYS the first one to reply to me, whether or not i'm talking directly to you.

Occam's razor isn't flawed, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

As for me responding to you, it's purely coincidential. I just got done watch NOVA so blah.

Infinity, Oh Infinity

Have fun!

Occam's razor does not suggest infinite time. It doesn't suggest anything except to try to have the simplest form that works.

Ah! I understand. Man, I am so horrible at words. You are right that simplifying nature is a good law, BUT only if it works. (just as you said) The reason I said "Pascal's Wager has as much effect as Occam's Razor" was because I meant Occam's Wager in the sense Ginnungagap's signature uses it; proof to say the earth always existed.

Thank you for noticing that I was over-specific in my words by saying that all of Occam's Razor is wrong.

My signature doesn't say the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time.

What makes you think rules that God made apply to God himself as well?

Because that's an ad hoc.

Similarly, how do you know God isn't bound to logic?

Does he have the power to make 2+2 not 4? (don't be a smart-ass)

Basically, can he make a rock so large even he could not lift?

You see, no matter what happens, God will still be bound by logic.

Have you ever imagined there can be something that human brain can't think? Beyond our intelligence. Something like 999 Dimensional world.

It's still an ad hoc fallacy.

Whether or not I can do it is irrelevant.

Assuming that other person can, are you saying you can bend the laws of logic? Can you make add 2 and 2 and not get 4?

No matter how smart you are, no matter how much power you have, you cannot do that. 2+2 remains an idea. A constant idea. It cannot be changed. Therefore, no matter what, this "higher power" is still bound by logic.

Numbers aren't an idea; it's a counting system! God could make 2+2=3 easy peasy. He's made ni + ni = yon, and dos + dos = quatro, so he could easily make 2+2=3.

Yes I'm being a smart-allic cheeze; I admit it. But the point is numbers is nothing more than pointing out the obvious, not an actual concept. Let me put it another way: "God" supposedly made these objects, and then humans made these "mathmatical concepts" around these objects.

It's called inference. "The Universe just exists." That presupposes that either a)the universe always exists, or b) the universe came from nothing.

A is impossible, and B is worse burden of proof than some Christians do; at least Christians abide by the rule of logic that spontaneous generation does not exist!

Exactly, so the universe "just exists". Prove it doesn't exist.



EDIT: I'm taking out my argument against this, because I know you're making ad hoc + smartass on purpose.

....and ni + ni = yon... and dos + dos = quatro.... you seem to forget that.

Edit from his edit: I never make ad hocs when using logic. I only use ad hoc when i'm showing the opponent's own ad hoc.

Then you aren't using logic so stop being an idiot on purpose.

Lolz.

Are you going to deny my invisible pink unicorn's power to change 2+2 =3?

Because I have numerous texts claiming it has the power to do so. What is that power? Oh.. omnipotence.. omniscience... and just about everything else.

What's stopping me from making such a ridiculous claim?

Oh right, occam's razor, burden of proof and logic.

Occams razor doesn't slit wrists, it slits your brain.

Yes CheeZe! I'm denying your invisible pink unicorn's power to change 2 + 2 = 4 to 2 + 2 = 3. You know why? Not because of occams razor burden of proof and logic, but because the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes sure 2 + 2 = 4 and FSM > invisible pink unicorn.

Some things can't be proven: logic, math, etc.

1)Omni-potence for one doesn't mean "can do anything". Secondly, even if you interperet it that way, it still doesn't matter because his other "infinities" limit his own power. If he's all-good, then half his power is already bound!

2) Sure God and the Unicorn can make 2+2=3; just do your counting: moo, 2, spoon, 3. Don't you know your math?
____________
o-o
1-1
1-2

o-o-o
1-1-1
1-2--
-----1
1-2-3

What a lack of concept; I'm pointing out the obvious!

I explicitly stated not to do something like this. Pointing out "obvious" errors. Right. Tell me, in base 10, where is the obvious error of 2+2 not equaling 4?

If it is 4, then a higher power will be bound by these laws. Therefore, you are producing an ad hoc fallacy. I am the one making them to show you the fallacious statements you're making.

Pathetic. You might have the only thing that I appreciate from people: logic.

Let me explain my argument: You are a vaospoas (volse-pulse). I named you that. Now, can God do anything in his "omnipower" to change make you not a vaospoas? Afraid not; no matter what you are turned into, I will still call you a vaospoas. Does that mean that this "God" is not omnipowerful? No, it's just that his other infinities limits his power. For example, his love for us denies himself the right to take advantage of our "free will" as what people call it. God did not call you a vaospoas; I did. I made a CHOICE to make it a fact in language that you are a vaospoas.

In the same way, man created numbers. God did not say "Ok here's the laws of mathematics..". Man went "Oh look! thingies! Let's make words to show that there is a thingy AND a thingy!" I think you can follow my logic from there.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Yes he can, you just don't have an example of when he has.

You didn't make the choice either, he just let you make the choice. If god wanted he could make you not make the choice, change your mind, or do whatever.

*cough*inference*cough*

*cough* ad hoc *cough*

I also believe inferences are based on facts, correct me if I'm wrong. It just seems that this inference, and your last one about my signature are false.

Let's straighten out this argument, because this has changed from one thing to another.

What I am arguing is that 2 + 2 = 4 and that 2 + 2 does not = 3. The idea behind 2 + 2 = 4 is always constant no matter what number representation you have. We use decimal so that is why 2 + 2 = 4 is a representation of the idea and is always true. I don't care if it's dos + dos = quatro, because the idea is always the same, you just give it a different representation. Therefore I find the argument overall to be stupid. You cannot change the concept/idea at the base of 2 + 2 = 4. It's always been there, humans just discovered it, then incorporated it into our number system.

Now then I see the other seperate argument as god could change it to 2 + 2 = 3, and I take that as god can change the actual concept/idea behind it. This I am not arguing, and never was, because it's based on the assumption that god exists, and also all this omnipotent and god's ability to do anything crap. I'm not going to argue whether or not a hypothetical god has to follow the rules of logic and whatever. Now this argument I find is even more stupid than the previous one.

ADDITION:

God, I'm just going to respond to everything you've said before to clarify things.


First of all there's an obvious misconception/miscommunication of what we are referring to when we say "numbers". The way you speak of it I'm now going to assume you are referring to the labels/representation/words MAN CREATED to represent the IDEA. So now then, when you say God could make 2 + 2 = 3, I am assuming you are referring to the IDEA represented by 2 + 2 = 4. However, god cannot change that idea. He hasn't made ni + ni = yon or dos + dos = quatro either, man created that.

Now then for your next post:

First of all for 1), I can't really reply to that because I don't know whether you are talking about god's ability to change the IDEA behind 2 + 2 = 4 to make it 2 + 2 = 3 or the just the representation man gives it, so "turning" 3 into 4.

Now then for your 2), I have no idea what you are trying to say. I think it has something to do with you trying to point out how the representation of 2 + 2 = 4 can be changed based on a different number system, but it doesn't matter, because the idea is constant. This I believe was addressed by CheeZe's response where he asks you to point out where 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 in BASE 10:



Ugh so then this post of yours:


Now first I would like to say that I believe the root of this problem, and your point is the confusion of the representation and concept of numbers.

So, in this post from what you have said I believe you are referring to what the number representations, not the ideas/concepts behind the numbers. Now already that is irrelevant to what I believe CheeZe is saying about god changing the actual idea/concept behind the numbers in the post you replied to about his pink unicorn.

Anyway, so you draw the conclusion that god didn't make us create the representation of the idea, however, that just leaves me saying so what? I find that point you try to argue irrelevant to what the previous arguments are about. As I've said before that is the misconception thing, we created the number system to represent the idea/concept behind it. We can change what we mean at will.

However, all the comments I made with god being able to make 2 + 2 = 3 was referring to the IDEA, not the label, which I think he can make us change, but then you are arguing that whole omnipotent crap and limiting abilities so whatever. So it seems like there's two things going on here. It seems like your replies and points are about a different thing and not actually addressing the post you reply to.

Okay, so then the last thing I want to address is what you mean by *cough*inference*cough*, that confuses me because you are basing your argument on a whole bunch of assumptions about god, and then trying to apply logic to that. I don't bother to argue about what god and can't do so I don't really care, so that's why I don't understand what you seem to be talking about with this omnipotence and his infinities limiting him.

Yea so, basically I think this whole thing needs more clarification and discussion.

This should really be in the Math: Discovery or Invention topic, and I believe it's already been discussed.

Good job gin. You saved me about 30 min worth of bullblam typing. I point out one simple religious flaw, come back the next day and, BAM! Religious argument.

I know a lot of people already know this, just out to remind people:

It all comes down to this: People's primary concern is not what is correct or incorrect. Their primary concern is to be happy in some way. And religion is a great way to be happy for some people. Don't try to take their happiness away. Cause I actually admire, and envy them. I wish I had the ability to trick myself into believing something like this. But sadly enough, I don't.

Well I pity them. Some of them are so blinded by religion* that they say the darndest things!

*Reference of Starcraft too! Look what happened to them.