Re: The logic of atheism

Ron Peterson wrote:

> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not a lie, a mathematical theory is a collection of
>>> definitions and axioms and has no need to correspond to a
>>> particular interpretation of reality.
>
>> If I'm understanding you correctly, you're proposing
>> constructing a non-Euclidean space and then drawing your
>> circular square in that space.
>
> I was posting a response to Mike's posting.

So? This is USENET. People jump in and out of conversations all
the time.

>> Which is exactly why I've been careful to include ``Euclidean
>> space'' in my more precise descriptions of the challenge.
>
> I was falling within the Euclidean space model, I was just using
> a different metric for distances.

In which case you're making up your own completely useless
definition for ``metric'' and / or ``distances.''

I can draw random scribbles on a page and say that
they're ``measuring'' the ``distances'' of ``circles'' and
``squares.'' But you'd be right to call me an idiot to think that
it had any bearing on reality.

>> The point isn't whether or not one can come up with creative
>> linguistic interpretations to solve or appear to solve various
>> challenges. The point is that there are true impossibilities,
>> even if informal language is imprecise enough to permit various
>> kinds of interpretive wiggle room.
>
> The point that I am making is that mathematical theories may
> have nothing to do with reality.

It would depend, of course, on the theory under question. Even
then, a startling number of truly obtuse mathematical concepts
have forced their way, with great regularity, into both physics
and engineering over the millennia.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything in the realm
of mathematics has an analog in the real world, to even hint that
math /isn't/ at the very foundation of the universe is...well,
either profoundly ignorant or simply idiotic.

>> Frankly, how do you expect to communicate with people if you
>> constantly reinvent the standard definitions?
>
> Definitions are just a convenience and I am not trying to argue
> definitions.

But that's exactly what you're doing by trying to re-define
``measure'' and ``distance'' so that you could somehow measure two
different distances and come up with the same number.

> I think that there is a difference in philosophical principles
> that needs to be resolved as well as a description of reality
> with regard to theisms.
>
> Philosophically, the cantegorization (see Kants analytic and
> synthetic categorization) of knowledge and the principle of
> causality need to be agree upon.
>
> I think that many theisms can easily be recognized, but what is
> their structure, why do they form, and why do they survive?

If /that's/ what you're really interested in, then math, logic,
and philosophy are next to useless to you. Instead, you need to be
using psychology, sociology...and, most especially, the dynamics
of power politics. *** Kant--it's Machiavelli and Sun Tzu you
need to be reading.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.