06 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfAllow me to clarify what I was trying to say.
there is nothing wrong in wanting something more meaningful out of an axiom, because the axiom isn't what provides it - it is one's 'logic' that does.
mathematicians working with real or imaginary numbers certainly want something more than "there exists 0"
Mathematicians want this out of an axiom:
1. A proposition, whose terms may not be well-defined,
which they are going to treat as well-defined anyway,
for the purpose of performing logical operations.
2. A proposition whose truth is not subject to challenge,
and which serves as the standard for truth within a set
of statements. (If proposition P contradicts axiom A, then
we know that P is false.)
Now mathematicians will tell you that axioms are more
or less arbitrarily chosen, but chosen to be useful for
analyzing a particular problem at hand. In other words
"0 exists" is not an inherently better axiom than "Roses
are red," but it is more useful when addressing certain
problems.
What I meant when I said that those with faith expect
something more from their axioms is that they want
to hold those axioms up as being "special." That is,
they don't want to acknowledge that "God exists,"
"God does not exist," "0 exists," and "Roses are Red" are
all essentially the same beast. They want "God exists"
to be some kind of super-axiom that is "really true"
while all the others are just made up.
Further they hold their axiom up as being special, because
anyone who doesn't accept it is "wrong about reality."
Once somebody takes this position, then they are really no
longer operating under an axiom, because they are trying to
assert its truth to those who don't accept it. This is what I meant
before when I said that they don't admit that their belief
is an axiom, and it is what I mean when I say that they want
something out of their "axiom" that axioms don't provide -- namely,
a universal truth in all systems.
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsMan...
Allow me to clarify what I was trying to say.
Mathematicians want this out of an axiom:
1. A proposition, whose terms may not be well-defined,
which they are going to treat as well-defined anyway,
for the purpose of performing logical operations.
2. A proposition whose truth is not subject to challenge,
and which serves as the standard for truth with ...[text shortened]... xiom" that axioms don't provide -- namely,
a universal truth in all systems.
Dr. Cribs
I was preparing one long psycho-babbel on the causes of agression and violence within humans, with additional information on why it manifests itself in some instances and not in others.
Oh well...I'll wait patiently for the right thread to come along. It will. One day there will be a thread which will fit just fine.
A thread, much like an axiom. Where there is no place for off-topic discussions on God and the logic of opposites. For that thread will be void of such matters, as its reality is based not on them, but on behaviour.
Oh well....off back to the booze and drugs for me!
06 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Cribsyes i see what you mean now. thank you.
it is what I mean when I say that they want
something out of their "axiom" that axioms don't provide -- namely,
a universal truth in all systems.
i can understand though why 'god exists' would be considered to be in a special category (depending on what is meant by god, of course), since the existence of everything else supposedly stems from god, it perhaps becomes necessary to make that the super axiom.
granted, it can certainly lead to misuse.
for instance, creationism (which flows from the super axiom) is often put against evolution on an equal scientific basis even to the point of 'scientifically' trying to argue the dimensions and biological activities that would make the ark voyage a potentially valid one.
this sort of attempt is not necessary for religion to maintain its morality or integrity. creationism and evolution can co-exist, but not usurping each others terminology or territory.
when we want to know what makes the stars glow we consult a scientist.
and when we want to express gratefulness for being formed of that stardust, there is always someone listening.
in friendship,
prad
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsI took the liberty of changing a few words here and there.
Allow me to clarify what I was trying to say.
Mathematicians want this out of an axiom:
1. A proposition, whose terms may not be well-defined,
which they are going to treat as well-defined anyway,
for the purpose of performing logical operations.
2. A proposition whose truth is not subject to challenge,
and which serves as the standard for truth with ...[text shortened]... xiom" that axioms don't provide -- namely,
a universal truth in all systems.
Dr. Cribs
What I meant when I said that Freethinkers expect
something more from their axioms is that they want
to hold those axioms up as being "special." That is,
they don't want to acknowledge that "God does not exist,"
"God exists," "0 exists," and "Roses are Red" are
all essentially the same beast. They want "God does not exist"
to be some kind of super-axiom that is "really true"
while all the others are just made up.
Further they hold their axiom up as being special, because
anyone who doesn't accept it is "wrong about reality."
Once somebody takes this position, then they are really no
longer operating under an axiom, because they are trying to
assert its truth to those who don't accept it. This is what I meant
before when I said that they don't admit that their belief
is an axiom, and it is what I mean when I say that they want
something out of their "axiom" that axioms don't provide -- namely,
a universal truth in all systems.
Dr. Ivanhoe.
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeDr. Ivanhoe, or Dr. Frankenstein? 😉
I took the liberty of changing a few words here and there.
What I meant when I said that Freethinkers expect
something more from their axioms is that they want
to hold those axioms up as being "special." That is,
they don't want to acknowledge that "God does not exist,"
"God exists," "0 exists," and "Roses are Red" are
all essentially t ...[text shortened]... iom" that axioms don't provide -- namely,
a universal truth in all systems.
Dr. Ivanhoe.
06 Aug 04
4 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour substitution is irrelevant because
I took the liberty of changing a few words here and there.
What I meant when I said that Freethinkers expect
something more from their axioms is that they want
to hold those axioms up as being "special." That is,
they don't want ...[text shortened]... de -- namely,
a universal truth in all systems.
Dr. Ivanhoe.
athiests don't hold their belief as axiomatic.
They have said numerous times here that
if shown evidence in support of God, their
belief would be revised. Thus their belief
cannot be axiomatic in the true sense of the
word, because its truth is subject to challenge
and revision.
Religious types often try to hold up their beliefs
as axioms, because they use them, rather
than reality, as the standard of truth. This
is the exact opposite of the atheists above.
By the way, I don't necessarily think that
religious belief in God is axiomatic. That
was prad that said that, and I agreed that
one could adopt that as an axiom, but
most religious types don't, in the true sense
of the word, just like atheists don't.
Dr. Cribs
07 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfRC's claim does not contradict mine, either before or after you
ok what's going on here?
is there an atheist in the house?
in friendship,
prad
chopped it in half. A belief that is yielded by axiomatic reasoning
is not an axiom. For example, I know that a 10x10 square has
an area of 100. That is a belief yielded by axiomatic reasoning,
but it is not an axiom itself.
When an atheist says "God does not exist," that is not an axiom,
because it is a conclusion that has been reasoned to using empirical
evidence about reality, which you conveniently discarded from RC's
statement, and also because it is not the ultimate standard of truth
within the belief system.
Dr. Cribs
08 Aug 04
2 edits
Originally posted by Cribsplease don't get yourself in a knot about this. i'm not trying to trip up the atheists - i happen to be one myself - well, actually an agnostic because i like huxley. i chopped things off simply so you or rc could explain just what each of you mean by axiomatic - it was more to emphasize 'axiomatic' for the purposes of clarification, rather than deceive.
RC's claim does not contradict mine, either before or after you
chopped it in half. A belief that is yielded by axiomatic reasoning
is not an axiom. For example, I know that a 10x10 square has
an area of 100. That is a belief yielded b ...[text shortened]... ultimate standard of truth
within the belief system.
Dr. Cribs
who said anything about axioms anyway?
rc said that "atheism is based on a mixture of axiomatic reasoning"
you said that "athiests don't hold their belief as axiomatic"
what that sounds like is that rc is saying the atheist rationale stems from axiomatic reasoning, but you are saying that it isn't because " ... truth is subject to challenge". so i suppose what you mean by axiomatic is that "god doesn't exist" is not an axiom, rather than what i guess rc means which is that axiomatic reasoning goes into the formation of this belief.
so i think i've clarified what you mean - though correct it if i don't have it right - but then i'm not sure what rc means by axiomatic reasoning in this situation, in that case. surely, you must believe that if there is no contradiction, then atheists beliefs stem from some axioms, so that axiomatic reasoning can take place?
in friendship,
prad