No, we don’t have any difficulty with processing Polycarp’s comments. We simply state that his conclusion is unjustified and leave it at that.
A very good question. It would certainly need to be more than a jewish carpenter in a beard and sandals knocking on the door and performing a few parlor tricks.
Now, if I saw him actually walk through a wall, that might be a different story.
It seems to me there are a great many things that I would accept as proof, should God decide to pay me a personal visit. And no, dreams and visions don’t count…
Roundguy
When dealing with proof of God with logic and probability, you have to make assumptions. There are things in math that are taken for granted without any proof, but it doesn’t make them any less valid. For instance, Euclid’s axiom is that things equal to the same thing are eual to each other. Either we study every single thing, or we believe that the truth is obvious, or we accept it as is. Even in 1+1 you are starting with a basic amount of beliefs, and rightly so. But if I say 1 bunch of nothing plus 1 bunch of nothing gives you 2 bunches of nothing, is it still correct? And if 1 bunch of nothing is equal to 2 bunches of nothing, is it then safe to say 1=2?
My anti-troll device must be working. All I saw was, “bleep farp roodle doodle doo.” Yes!
So you want him to:
- look like a man
- have legs
- be small enough to fit into your house
Well let’s hope that God never chooses to appear to you as a twenty foot one-legged chicken. 
When you refer to parlour tricks, I presume you mean that a simple raising from the dead, curing of leprosy, or conversion of water into wine wouldn’t suffice.
Actually I was hoping you’d elaborate :D, thank you for doing so.
While I still do not understand why we are talking about “mathematical proof” when dealing with the existence of God, I’ll play along for a moment.
Please explain why this is an “abstract” concept, as opposed to a concrete one.
The truth of the notation to Euclid’s Axiom[s] is obvious, isn’t it? Why is that abstract?
Abstract beliefs? Like what?
Please, Svt4Him. Can you show me this “bunch of nothing”? If you can show me your “bunch of nothing”, and then show me another “bunch of nothing”, then I will agree that you have 2 bunches of nothing. And then I will also show you how 1 is not equal to 2.
This is much like the argument for the existence of God. You’re starting out with a “bunch of nothing”.
I started out believing you had no idea what you were talking about, and you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.
.
Careful, son. You don’t want to do this, even in jest.
We could make that work, too.
Well, rarely do I have dead bodies or lepers in my home, so that would be tough to accomplish. As for water to wine, no, that would not suffice.
“Son”?
Well, agree or no, TVAA is clearly trolling elsewhere, and IMO here also. But yes I guess my method of conveying this view was a little rude. My apologies, TVAA.
Under controlled laboratory conditions?
Nothing negates a bunch; it’s a contradiction of terms.
JZ
You are not allowed to “convey this view” at all. You have now done so twice. Please read the rules of the board.
one bunch of nothing plus one bunch of nothing would translate as 0+0=0 in my mathbook.
Rude does not enter into it; it’s against the rulesto accuse someone of being a troll. From “FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB”:
Arnold Winkelried
Administrator
Ah.
I am a dope.
That’s three threads now that I’ve publically made mistakes in. I think I shall go home.
If there were concrete rules-of-physics type proof of God, “God” would cease to be subject matter for religion and would be a facet of the natural world, leaving other things not easily reduced to the attention of empirical data and quantifiable observation to constitute “religion”.
The SDMB offers a pretty steep learning curve for new posters, and the Great Debates forum is certainly one of the steepest.
I don’t see that you’ve committed any mortal atrocities yet, but you should probably get a feel for the depth of the waters before jumping in head first.
Point taken.
RoundGuy,
Sure I can show you a bunch of nothing. If you’ll look in my out box, you’ll see I have a whole bunch of nothing, and my done box has an equal amount of nothing in it. But here is a great site for Mathematic Logic and it’s basis. Now I can go into it in more detail, but I was under the assumption that when you said you were not a mathematician, then the technical jargon wouldn’t be apropos. Now my experience with math is that it was going to be my major. I still may minor in it, after I finish my accounting, but I had a bad experience with a math prof, and it turned me off for a while…oh about six years already. (had to do with a major assignment due and a murder in my apartment that we were witnesses to, and not being able to get an extension for the report…) But I don’t consider myself an expert, but I do try and understand as best I can.
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/03-XX.html
All mathematical operations (plus, minus, multiplication, etc) are defined in terms of logical systems. All of the number systems and counting we use are defined in terms of logic. Everything. Logic is the grand unification of, and the foundation of, all mathematics.
Scott McMahan
…logic has become more mathematical and mathematics has become more logical. The consequence is that it has now become wholly impossible to draw a line between the two ; in fact the two are one. …
Bertrand Russell, from “Mathematics and Logic”,
ch. 18 of Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy
As for 1+1, you are basing the conclusion on a truth table that you probably learnt in school. That doesn’t go into the mathematical logic of why 1+1 is 2. Now that said, I think my post said that to prove the existence of God with mathematical logic can’t be done, which goes back to what kind of proof do you need. Is the only way to prove my son exists is if he shows up at your house? There are different ways to prove something. Now some would say that there are birth records that prove my son exists, but if the records are destroyed, does he still exist?
No, you cannot show me “a bunch of nothing”. You are simply showing me they are empty, and contain no existing data or items. How can that be a “bunch”?
This discussion started with your assertion that “mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract”, and, given your credentials, I am even more confused as to why you would continue to attempt to defend this position.
My definition of “abstract” is – difficult to understand, insufficiently factual, theoretical. As opposed to “concrete” – real, factual, provable.
Are we using different definitions?
No, I’m basing it on the concrete fact that if I have one apple, add another apple, then I have two apples.
If there is no other evidence to support your assertion, then yes, that is the only way to prove it.
How, other than empirically?
No, Svt4Him is correct. An empty set is a set, as distinguishable from the absence of any sets. We have zeros for necessary and sufficient reasons. “100” is able to replace the Roman “C” due to the decimal system’s ability to reference the tens and the units to the right of the hundreds, even when those sets are empty.
And yes, mathematics depends on some starting points, some postulated “givens” that are accepted as true rather than being derived, demonstrated, or proven from other elements within the system. As Gödel rather famously pointed out, the system (any such system) is inherently capable of generating statements which are true yet which cannot be proven to be true within the confines of the system’s own rules.
It is my experience that the number of things God would need to do in order to prove Himself as God (and not just David Baline) is almost always n+1, n being the number of things he’s already done.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS AN ANALOGY TO BETTER SHOW A POINT . IT IS NOT INTENDED TO OFFEND ANYONE.
A similar thing happens with Holocaust-deniers. No matter how much proof you show them they’ll never believe because they don’t want to, not because they can’t understand the facts.
END ANALOGY