“There is no God.”
Millions of people believe this. Millions, in fact, hold this to be utterly true. Millions have many supporting facts and arguments about this belief.
Therefore there is “at least the smallest grain of truth in their supporting facts and arguments”.
Ergo, if there is the smallest grain of truth that there is no God.
Either there is one, or there isn’t one. Yet there is the smallest grain of truth that there is none.
Ergo, there is no God.
Thanks!
I realised this; that is why they needed to be punished. They are quiet now, and… restful.
But I can still yell at the TV while watching hockey, right?
If I said it or not, I kindof meant that many of us would recognize something new by viewing our hands, not all of us. There are some people who spend their life examining hands, and would have learned nothing from my exercise.
By the insides of my fingers…i mean like the inside side. Like, you know your finger sort of has the palm side and the backhand side? I couldn’t find a better word.
But even what people may consider “facts” (like the 1 + 1 = 2) are, essentially opinions, because there is more than one answer to the statement. There are more than one way of looking at 1 + 1, and there are many different answers that people may or may not agree upon.
But what about the case in which “there is at least the smallest grain of truth” about the fact that there IS a god? Does that mean that ergo, there is a God?
How is 1 + 1 = 2 an opinion? I think what you’re trying to say it that it’s only true if you accept certain conditions - it isn’t ‘objectively true’ - but that’s not the same thing at all. That’s the first incompleteness theorem. 1 + 1 = 4 isn’t an opinion, it’s a change in the values of 1.
You need to wash your hands more often and wash your brain less often 
I’m not sure what you mean by “incompleteness theorem”, but to me, an opinion is something that people may disagree about, right? If there is enough ignorance in a heated situation, people could easily disagree about what 1 + 1 equals. Some people might think that is equals 2. Some people might think that it equals 4. Again, I am not saying that this is likely to happen. Rather it is something that could happen.
Why can’t people disagree about facts? What’s “true” and what’s “proof” anyway?
If I tried to explain the Incompleteness Theorem, I would probably fail. I’m not a mathematician. So I suggest you just look it up. I think I did convey the basic idea, though.
Yes, people can disagree about anything, but you haven’t explained why anybody should care. Sometimes people are just wrong.
I can fly.
I don’t mean this in any tricky way, by redefining the meaning of ‘fly’ or involving machines or anything that was not mentioned in the original sentence. I mean I can jump out of a tall building and fly my heavy ass anywhere I desire to go.
Now, look at those above paragraphs. They could be classified as opinions, but they’re opinions reality will not allow a person to hold very deeply and keep living. It is more useful to think of them as being false. They contradict true statements which can be verified independently and, indeed, are constantly verified every moment of every day. They contain no ‘deeper truth’ or ‘hidden meaning’. They are simply false. It doesn’t matter how many people began to believe them: If one million people woke up believing they could fly tomorrow, by tomorrow afternoon we’d have one million dead or wounded. Disagreement with reality does not matter.
Now, someone could come to conclusions about the kind of person who would sincerely state things like that. But those conclusions are not attached to the statements themselves. They are attached to a much larger cultural and medical context.
Here! Here! I see so many combinations of the above egregiously insane statements so often, it is hard for me to keep silent. I have resolved to ignore any such outrageous statements as being a waste of time trying to convert the source of said outrageousness. As well as a hazard to my sanity.
Yes, people can disagree about facts. People can disagree about opinions. My point is, that just about any fact can be disagreed about. And just about every opinion can be disagreed about. I’m not too concerned about the difference between fact and opinion. That is not something I’m trying to bring up here.
People shoud care, because there are always people out there that believe that they are right, no matter what the circumstances are. In other words, people who believe in undebatable absolutes. Some people never even consider the other options, opinions, or facts, because they beleive they are right, no matter what.
Everything is connected to our culture. The statement “I can fly” can never only simply mean what you meant it to mean. You’re saying that its practically false for humans to fly via jumping off buildings via superman skills. That already is a sort of context that is attached to the statement “I can fly”. We, Americans, take flying to generally mean Superman if it involves humans flying. But of course there are many ways of flying, in which that statement would be true. Planes, jetpacks, air-gliding, etc.
If you hear someone yell from the top of a building, “I can fly!!” And then attempt to jump off the building, looking like he’s wearing nothing but an office suit…do you automatically assume that there’s no way he’s speaking the truth? Do you assume that theres no way he’s gonna be able to fly, and that he’s is gonna hit the pavement and die?
If what you’re saying is that it’s good to keep an open mind to possible weaknesses in your ideas, I agree. I think everybody here would agree with that. But I don’t agree with the way you’re expressing or arguing it.
Are you criticizing that assumption? Without evidence to the contrary, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who has jumped off a building is going to hit the pavement and die.
Call me narrow-minded and unimaginative if you like, but yes. Yes I do. I’ve developed quite a bit of faith in gravity over my years on this planet.
Hahaha, thanks for the laugh. That was great!
Yes; I am not trying to be perfect in any way with my theories or beliefs or anything. The idea of perfection brings me to another point, but I think I’ll try to explain that later.
Sure, he is nearly 100% likely to hit the pavement and die. But there is always a chance that he won’t hit the pavement and die.
With this, you may still practically assume that he will hit the pavement and die. If the chance was 99.9999999% for example. But what if the chance was 99.9%? 90%? 80%? 60%? At what point do you seriously consider that he won’t hit the pavement and die? What if he had a backpack on him? What if he was only on top of a 3 story building? What if there was a tornado coming?
In other words, in every one of these situations, there is a chance that he will hit the pavement and die, and there is a chance that he won’t. It doesn’t matter what these chances are, because we can never calculate them or know them. But I say…it is never at 100%.
Yup.
When I see him start flapping his arms? 
Look, if you have to keep changing your scenario to try to prove your point, you are obviously not making a good argument. Even a guy with a parachute on top of a three-story building will eventually reach the ground and probably be injured, since I don’t think that’s enough time for the parachute to deploy and slow his fall. Are there circumstances in which I would not assjume that someone jumping off a building is going to die? Yes; I already said so. (A tornado isn’t one of them. A guy who gets picked up by a tornado is probably toast.) All other things being equal, the guy will fall and be killed.
This is a classic case of keeping your mind so open that your brain falls out. You’re not saying anything, heckxx.
Wait a minute! So God both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time?
We’ve just proven that God is actually Schrodinger’s Cat! Cool!
Lol, I’ve never heard that brain falls out thing before. I wasn’t aware it was a problem if my mind was too open…
Anyways, I keep changing the scenario because the specifics of the scenario aren’t relevant. There always is that chance (that he won’t hit the pavement and die), and thats just basically my point. We never can fully understand the situation that we see in front of us, as we are always ignorant of whats around us, to some extent. Hey, there’s no way we know everything. Ignorance makes it hard, if not, impossible to know the truth of what will happen to that man. Maybe that man on top of the buiding is a magician, and in his mind, there is a nearly zero chance that he will hit the pavement and die. But you, on the ground, don’t realize that, and conclude that there is a nearly 100% chance that he will hit the pavement and die.
So who is “right”, the magician or you, watching from the ground? And what if the magician messes up his trick, and hits the pavement and breaks his leg, who is right then?
I guess my point here is, there is no “right” answer to a question. Or “right” guess to the outcome of a situation. Or “right” choice of an important decision.
I’m not sure if that addresses you, specifically, Marley…I think i got carried away with a side tangent. I dont keep track of this stuff.
When there’s no pavement. Then I assume that he’ll hit the grass/ground/sand/rocks (or whatever surface is there) and die.
Or, if he’s got a hang glider.
If you’re ignoring reality to make room for minute possibilities of ignorance, I’d say it’s a problem.
Your point is pretty clear. What’s not clear is, like I said, why we’re supposed to care. We are agreed that you can’t know every fact about any real-world situation. So we judge based on what we know. If you want to pick up actual knowledge, it’s much easier to calculate those things based on reality and be wrong once in a while than to try to think of every reason why everything you know might be wrong in any given situation. That way madness lies. Without reason to suspect the guy is a magician, I don’t care how closed-minded you think I am, I’m not going to be very concerned about the possibility.
If we can’t be right, why do we need to worry about being wrong?