It is time for us athiests to stand up for ourselves.

[Dywyddyr]

What change? I stated from my very first reply to your point that undecidable was only possible according to a particular system of justification, but not absolutely inhernet to any proposition.

Also a lie: you stated "inherently undecidable" did not exist, now you're claiming you said "according to a particular system".

Not to mention, your favorite website says the same. If you don't want to agree with me, than you can at least agree with your beloved source.

You have no idea what my favourite website is. Leave the attempts at ad-homs out of it.
As so many people here do I use Wiki simply because it usually provides an acceptable start for a topic.

I've never changed my position on the matter:
1. Only according to a particular system of justification can a proposition be undecidable.

Was not stated at the start.

2. It is impossible for a proposition to be inherently undecidable.

Is incorrect;

Inherent:
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

If the undecidability isn't a property of the thing then it wouldn't show up under ANY system.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inherent

 

[-ND-]

God wants hell to be over-flowin wit humans... thats why he created us in such a way that falure was inevitable.!!!

LOL. I haven't failed. I have earned a castle and a kingdom. God made me into a King. Not in this life but in the next. His light shines out of me. It is not inevitable. It takes time and effort, just like everything else. It takes dedication. Why do you think Muslims fast for 30 days? I do it. It teaches you to not be tempted easily and to give in easily into the devil. Speak for yourself, hope is not lost.

PS
When you except that God is a monster all the pieces will fall into place... then you will actualy be able to answr questons insted of blowin smok-screens of bible quotes... lol.!!!
A-Man.TTT

LOL. Why would I answer when God can answer for me with his Wisdom of infinity? All those quotes state why people go to heaven and why people go to hell. They state who is in control of that destination as well. I think that is suffice to answer your questions.

That is funny lol, because God told me the samething about people that would say such nonesense. Here is a quote that goes perfect with your little situation you have.

"Those who do not believe in God's signs are merely inventing a lie; such men are liars. Anyone who disbelieves in God after having once made his profession of faith except for someone who is compelled to while his heart is unwavering in its faith-but anyone who lays (his) breast wide open to disbelief will have wrath from God [descend] on him. They have awful torment! That is because they cherish worldly life rather the Hereafter. God does not guide disbelieving folk."-Quran

 

[codanblad]

LOL. I haven't failed. I have earned a castle and a kingdom. God made me into a King. Not in this life but in the next. His light shines out of me. It is not inevitable. It takes time and effort, just like everything else. It takes dedication. Why do you think Muslims fast for 30 days? I do it. It teaches you to not be tempted easily and to give in easily into the devil. Speak for yourself, hope is not lost.

oh dear.

That is funny lol, because God told me the samething about people that would say such nonesense. Here is a quote that goes perfect with your little situation you have.

"Those who do not believe in God's signs are merely inventing a lie; such men are liars. Anyone who disbelieves in God after having once made his profession of faith except for someone who is compelled to while his heart is unwavering in its faith-but anyone who lays (his) breast wide open to disbelief will have wrath from God [descend] on him. They have awful torment! That is because they cherish worldly life rather the Hereafter. God does not guide disbelieving folk."-Quran

oh dear. well if the people who told you about god also wrote in a book, it must be true.

 

[lixluke]

Was not stated at the start.

Of course it was. I even provided a quote to what I said at the start including a link to the post in which I said it.

Is incorrect;

If the undecidability isn't a property of the thing then it wouldn't show up under ANY system.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inherent

Wrong. WTF? If undecidability were inherent in the proposition, then the proposition would be undecidable according to every particular system of justification. As stated, whether or not a proposition is undecidable is wholly dependent on the system of justification being used to determine its validity. Thus, it is impossible for a proposition to be inherently undecidable for all systems of the justification in use.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Of course it was. I even provided a quote to what I said at the start including a link to the post in which I said it.

My apologies*. You did in post #232 which I didn't see, but you didn't in post #252 which was the one I responded to.
However you still haven't explained the change of tack from "undecidable" to "absolutely undecidable" (or your misrepresentation of the quote).

Wrong. WTF? If undecidability were inherent in the proposition, then the proposition would be undecidable according to every particular system of justification.

Really?
So the combustibility of hydrogen isn't a property of hydrogen?
Yet in a purely hydrogen atmosphere it won't burn.
The affinity for oxygen in metals isn't a property?
Yet it doesn't show up when there's no oxygen around.

* Note that I at least have the grace to apologise for missing a post of yours: I'm still waiting for you to explain why you lied in your posts.

 

[lixluke]

My apologies*. You did in post #232 which I didn't see, but you didn't in post #252 which was the one I responded to.
However you still haven't explained the change of tack from "undecidable" to "absolutely undecidable" (or your misrepresentation of the quote).


Really?
So the combustibility of hydrogen isn't a property of hydrogen?
Yet in a purely hydrogen atmosphere it won't burn.
The affinity for oxygen in metals isn't a property?
Yet it doesn't show up when there's no oxygen around.

* Note that I at least have the grace to apologise for missing a post of yours: I'm still waiting for you to explain why you lied in your posts.

What are you talking about? I didn't lie. I made it clear from the first response that propositions aren't inherently undecidable. The word usage of 'absolutely' doesn't change what I said.

Research on the behavior of elements and molecules are far far away from conclusive. There are so many properies and circumstances regarding molecular behavior that are yet inexplicable.

Regarding propositions, within the parameters of logic, there is no such thing as a proposition that is inherently undecidable (independent of any system of justification).

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
God wants hell to be over-flowin wit humans... thats why he created us in such a way that falure was inevitable.!!!

LOL. I haven't failed.

O no... not you... but hell is still gonna be quite crowded wit Gods children who did fale.!!!

You see... God is all-knowin an has free-will... an befor he even put the creaton plan he chose into use... he knew esactly who woud wind up in hell... so the instent God desided on that creaton plan... the fate of all humans was sealed... yep... befor they was even borned God knew who woud wind up in hell... so thers nuthin any human can do to change Gods plan.!!!

If God didnt want so many people to wind up in hell... he woud have created us wit beter character an we woud make beter choises an mor of us woud wind up in heaven.!!!

But its oK... i mean... do you thank God woud create in such a way that woudnt please him... lol.!!!

You are not free to use you'r own words to esplane... or even contimplate such thangs as the pupos of eternal punishment... yep... thats the kind of fear that keeps cults in bidness :crazy:

 

[Dywyddyr]

What are you talking about? I didn't lie.

Post #270
You claimed:

Logically speaking, absolutely undecidable statements (propositions that are inherently undecidable) do not exist.

And used this quote to support it:

Undecidability only implies that the particular deductive system being considered does not prove the truth or falsity of the statement. Whether there exist so-called "absolutely undecidable" statements, whose truth value can never be known or is ill-specified, is a controversial point in the philosophy of mathematics.

Which, as I pointed out, does NOT say they don't exist.

The word usage of 'absolutely' doesn't change what I said.

Wrong.
There's a difference between "undecidable" and "absolutely undecidable", as shown in that same quote:

Undecidability only implies that the particular deductive system being considered does not prove the truth or falsity of the statement. Whether there exist so-called "absolutely undecidable" statements, whose truth value can never be known or is ill-specified, is a controversial point in the philosophy of mathematics.

Much the same as in physics between "rest" and "absolute rest".

Research on the behavior of elements and molecules are far far away from conclusive. There are so many properies and circumstances regarding molecular behavior that are yet inexplicable.

So what? As far as we are concerned combustibility is an inherent property of hydrogen and rusting is an inherent property of oxidisable metals.

Regarding propositions, within the parameters of logic, there is no such thing as a proposition that is inherently undecidable (independent of any system of justification).

Which is NOT what I stated. You're deliberately obfuscating the issue - more dishonesty.
I at no point claimed "independent of any system of justification".
You're back to dishonesty and changing your argument again.

 

[lixluke]

Post #270
You claimed:

And used this quote to support it:

The quote said it was contraversial. The quote was meant to support the points I was making. I never lied about anything. I'm still making the same points I was making from the start.

You stated that inherently undecidable propositions exist.

There are things that are inherently undecidable: i.e. neither provable nor refutable.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2454875&postcount=226

Which I refuted by stating that inherently undecidable propositions don't exist. That propositions can only be undecidable in accordance with the system of justification in use.

There is no such thing as a proposition that is inherently 'neither true or false'. You can consider a particular system of justification, and state that there are certain propositions that cannot be proven with that particular method of justification

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2454896&postcount=232

There's a difference between "undecidable" and "absolutely undecidable"

Right. Which is the exact same thing I stated in my first reply with different wording. All I did was adjust my wording to accommodate the Wikipedia quote. Which was basically only one word considering the rest of the wording happened to coincide with the wording I used in the first place. Regardless of word usage, the point is still the same.

 

[Michael]

You have a link that shows that the Japanese are less fearful than Americans?

No, I read and at one time linked a study that found millions of Americans no longer identify themselves with being religious.

It's my experence that yes Japanese are much more social conscious compared with Americans. I wouldn't say they are "fearful" but they're more likely to try not to stick out. They like the word "We". They don't hug their parents and don't like to make new friends as that may entail a LOT of responsibly - they take "friendship" very seriously. Usually cemented over an onsen.

Back to the point -the authors of the study concluded that the shift in Americans towards atheism was probably due to feeling security.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The quote said it was contraversial. The quote was meant to support the points I was making. I never lied about anything.

How does a quote saying their existence is controversial support your statement that they

do not exist

I'm still making the same points I was making from the start.

I.e. they do NOT exist.

You stated that inherently undecidable propositions exist.

But they do.

Which I refuted by stating that inherently undecidable propositions don't exist. That propositions can only be undecidable in accordance with the system of justification in use.

And as shown they do exist.

Right. Which is the exact same thing I stated in my first reply with different wording. All I did was adjust my wording to accommodate the Wikipedia quote. Which was basically only one word considering the rest of the wording happened to coincide with the wording I used in the first place. Regardless of word usage, the point is still the same.

Nope, absolute undecidability is not the same as undecidability.
And your "point" is incorrect.
Undecidability is an inherent property (like oxidisability in metals) and, if absolute undecidability is controversial then claiming it does not exist is also incorrect - if it's controversial then it isn't settled.

 

[lixluke]

How does a quote saying their existence is controversial support your statement that they

It doesn't. Nor does it refute it. I simply says that the matter is controversial. There are alot of matters all over that a controlversial.

if it's controversial then it isn't settled.

Who cares?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It doesn't. Nor does it refute it. I simply says that the matter is controversial. There are alot of matters all over that a controlversial.

Exactly: so your claim that absolutely undecidable problems do not exist was false.
Yet you keep repeating that same claim.

 

[lixluke]

Exactly: so your claim that absolutely undecidable problems do not exist was false.
Yet you keep repeating that same claim.

No. Basically you're doing the same typical thing.
Assertion: There is no proposition that is absolutely undecidable.
Wikipedia: Whether or not there is a proposition that is absolutely undecidable is controlversial.
You: Wikipedia says that it is controversial, therefore the assertion is false.

Unfortunately there are many things that are very controversial. Doesn't make a difference to the facts.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No. Basically you're doing the same typical thing.
Assertion: There is no proposition that is absolutely undecidable.
Wikipedia: Whether or not there is a proposition that is absolutely undecidable is controlversial.
You: Wikipedia says that it is controversial, therefore the assertion is false.

Yet another misrepresentation on your part.
It wasn't my assertion that an absolutely undecidable proposition exists, I said undecidable ones do.

 

[lixluke]

Yet another misrepresentation on your part.
It wasn't my assertion that an absolutely undecidable proposition exists, I said undecidable ones do.

What are you talking about?

Gödel proved it.
There are things that are inherently undecidable: i.e. neither provable nor refutable.

You clearly stated that Godel 'proved' that inherently undecidable propositions exist. They don't.

Not sure what you mean by 'the facts presented', but these statements are neither true nor false.

You're providing examples under the same exact dilemma that has been historically repeated over and over again that lead idiots nowhere. The violation of the first rule of knowledge. This is the whole reason why we have the rules of knowledge. The rules of knowledge are absolute and incontrolvertible.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You clearly stated that Godel 'proved' that inherently undecidable propositions exist. They don't.

Yet again you repeat the lie.

Let me repeat it slowly:
Undecidable problems have been proven to exist. Which I stated.
The existence of absolutely undecidable problems are controversial. Which you stated do not exist.
Your claim of "fact" that they don't exist is merely your opinion, and an unsupported one at that.

 

[lixluke]

Yet again you repeat the lie.

Let me repeat it slowly:
Undecidable problems have been proven to exist. Which I stated.
The existence of absolutely undecidable problems are controversial. Which you stated do not exist.
Your claim of "fact" that they don't exist is merely your opinion, and an unsupported one at that.

Anytime anybody's claims a fact, it is there opinion/belief. You or anybody else states what they consider to be true or false. Fact or fiction. I have demonstrated the fact in question as well as why it is a fact. All you're doing is saying that it isn't a fact unless Wikipedia says it is.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Anytime anybody's claims a fact, it is there opinion/belief.

Maybe you should read your own comments regarding knowledge in the relevant thread: a fact is something known to be true.

You or anybody else states what they consider to be true or false. Fact or fiction. I have demonstrated the fact in question as well as why it is a fact.

Also wrong: you claim that absolutely undecidable propositions do not exist. Without evidence. You have demonstrated nothing.

All you're doing is saying that it isn't a fact unless Wikipedia says it is.

Specious ad hom.
And as previously stated I merely link to Wiki since it's a reasonable start point.
With further references: try reading Gödel for a start...

 

[Doreen]

You're providing examples under the same exact dilemma that has been historically repeated over and over again that lead idiots nowhere.

This was unnecessary and rude.

The violation of the first rule of knowledge. This is the whole reason why we have the rules of knowledge. The rules of knowledge are absolute and incontrolvertible.

Your posts, for the most part, present series of assertions as if these were arguments. They do not work in the other person's writing to show the flaws, they merely label and assert.

I will ignore your posts from here on out.