JonasM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]
Mathematics, to take a simple example, couldn't advance without proving that things don't exist.

ltweintz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by s2kpdx01
[B]That was exactly my point.

JonBoy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S2Kguy
[B]

This is an excellent statement.

magician

Some developed philosophies allow for two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive states for declarative statements: True and False. I recall from my reading in philosophy (a long while ago, so please accept my apology for the vagueness of the recollection) that some other developed philosophies allow for more than two states, some as many as seven. Similarly, some developed philosophies maintain that derived contradiction implies falsity, while others (Zen, I believe, is an example) allow for contradiction.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement as regards mathematics, and as regards those philosophies where True and False are exclusive and exhaustive. It seems that things are not so simple, however.

I do not know whether any of these competing philosophies is, in fact, correct; I suspect that nobody does. Which you accept will depend on a lot of factors and, ultimately, it should be a personal decision--accept the one which works the best for you. (I think this goes along with your assessment of honesty in religious people, though I didn't write it with the objective of agreeing with you.)

I have had experiences which convince me of the existence of God, of angels, of Satan, and of demons. However, you'll note that nowhere in this thread nor in the sister thread ("Under God") have I tried to convince anyone else of this. My objective, and I believe the objective of many of the contributors on both sides, is to keep an open mind, to observe the evidence, to analyze the evidence, and to formulate reasonable conclusions. I've said this before: if you're sincerely interested in knowing what I believe and why, I'll be happy to share it, and if you're not, I'll not share it.

Garyj

I missed the reference that would prove that an omniscient and omnipotent being can not exist. Where is that post?

Thanks,
garyj

Garyj

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonasM
[B]

... 'proofs' have been refuted a hundred times over, or those who haven't really thought the issues through, because of lack of training in critical thinking, or simply because they are afraid to. (The argument that reason and faith have different spheres of applicability feeds this 'willful ignorance').

Garyj

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]

Do you realize this is why many people are agnostic?

ltweintz

Before anyone points out my error....I meant proven not proved.

What can I say....it was early.

Gary - You are correct......this all is very interesting. Thanks everyone!

chroot

Itweintz,

OED says that 'proved' and 'proven' are equally acceptable.

- Warren

magician

Actually, your only error was saying that you'd made an error: "proved" is a proper past participle of "prove".