Rhythm Wrote:Wouldn't it be simpler and more reliable to do away with belief entirely, instead throwing our chips in with things that could at least theoretically meet that "other component" requirement?
If you limit the definition of intervention to something which isn't devastating to your position, sure, that would imply - therefor. Let me ask this another way, why have you decided that a plausible god does not intervene? Is it the mucking about you take issue with, or only recent mucking about? If the mucking about occurred in some distant (bonus points if currently unfalsifiable) point in the past are you okay to propose that particular mucking about as plausible? Why?
Everytime we talk about creation I'm placing myself at the beginning of the universe. So, yes I would have a problem with mucking about in a distant point because it's no different to mucking about now. I thought I was implying all of this whenever I talked about just before and just after creation occurred.
Quote:What I'm suggesting is not that the scale "doesn't work like that" but that it doesn't work -at all-.
It allows you to construct unfalsifiable propositions which you then label gods. It pays to be precise. However, as long as you stick to the creator requirement this gods unfalsifiability is severely suspect.
I'm starting to get the feeling that you want me to 'admit' that I do want a plausible god to potentially exist. That way you can play the 'unfalsifiable' card on it which pretty much means game over. And, because I have to stay honest with myself at all times, I would have to agree that it would be game over and this is the very reason why I'm not proposing anymore that they would have to be real eventually, because that's a fallacy of some sort and therefore irrational. That is definitely not me. I stick to reasons for thinking something is at all times.
Quote:Two parallell lines of defined length are actually quite easy to demonstrate..I don';t know why you believe otherwise...
-----
-----
(it;s the infinite bit that had to be inserted to get so confused, of course it would be difficult to check an infinite anything, but we find it to be a useful concept)
By your definition
\
/
These two of defined length are parallel as well. Clearly that's ridiculous and how do we know it is? Because if you extend them you will show me that they're not parallel. Well...
----
----
please extend them to infinity so that you can show me for certain that they will never intersect. Otherwise we're assuming they are parallel just like I assumed
\
/
this extreme case was parallel.
So as you can see, 'the infinite bit' must be included for the concept to even stand on its own two feet.
Quote:4 rocks is 4 rocks, the number is descriptive with regards to any defined set (rocks), it is only a "thing" in the context of the concept of numbers for their own sake.
It amazes me btw, how many times I've had this conversation since joining these forums. Math or numbers (nor logic) are "things" floating around bending the cosmos to their whims. They are descriptive terms and systems we have formed in order to communicate some observation or concept. I could call a "4" a "splurge" nd it would still return the same results when multiplied by itself, i would merely have a different name for those results. That -is- what 4 "is".
I think I agree with some parts. Basically what I was saying is that you can't show me '4' (or whatever you want to label it as). It's a concept. A very useful concept, sure, but you can't ever show me what 4 is.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
