From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 12:20:26 MDT
Steve Stuttered;
>
>
> > God IS, or isn't. Using the law of the Excluded Middle, if a defect
> > can be found in one side's arguments, the other is necessarily true.
> > Defects can be found in the "God isn't" position; therefore, God is.
> ---------------------
> Defects can be found in the "God is" position; therefore God isn't.
> Conclusion - God's presence or absence is unknowable. A matter of faith
> only.
Barbara Blithers;
Oh Steve! The Law of the Excluded Middle only applies to mathematical
Logic, and then only to consistent systems where only X and Not-X can
exist as mutually exclusive states (EG binary logic where if a Bit is
not 0 then it must be 1 and vice versa) IE mathematical systems where no
middle state exists. The law's greatest use these days is in computer
programming, cybernetics, and AI development. It only applies in
restricted circumstances and it doesn't even apply to most mathematical
"logics". It is inappropriate to apply it to rhetoric or semantics where
its use is described as a logical fallacy.(Q: Are fallacies so called
because they're only resorted to by pricks?).
The Law, correctly stated is "In a system where only True and False are
permitted as states if a state is found to be not-false it must be
true." The hilarious line (well, it had *me* ROTFL anyway); "if a defect
can be found in one side's arguments, the other is necessarily true."
just isn't the way, or the circumstances under which, the EM law works.
A case of reducto ad absurdum, or perhaps, rectum ergo sum?
> Also, how do we know there's an excluded middle?
Normally, God Botherers present all the "logical" and empirical proofs
traditionally used to convince the gullible that there is evidence for
and proof of an uber-god first before attempting to misapply the EM law,
but our troll skipped this stage. Pity really, because it can be quite
fun, when cornered by JWs and the like, to accept all the proofs as true
and then point out that the proofs can be used to support the existence
of any uber-god (Wotan, Allah, Jehovah, Amon-Ra, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda,
Khrishna, ad infinitum, ad nauseum) and then watch them squirm as you
challenge them to prove that the "proofs" apply exclusively to their
god. Anyone who tries to apply proofs to articles of faith deserves all
they get: the early squirm gets the void.
> Maybe God is only around part time (e.g. when there's someone to believe in
> him/her/it)?
> Maybe God knocks off for the weekend, or doesn't take prayers when not at
> the office.
Indeed, any "maybe" excludes absolutes and excludes the excluded middle.
QED.
> Waste of time arguing with a troll. I know.
One dosn't (apart from anything else it is somewhat unsporting to enter
a battle of wits with the unarmed) rahter one ignites them with facts
(to paraphrase Domminar Rigel XVI "even a moron should know a frelling
fact when it hits them in the face") until STC occurs ;-)
Barbara
-- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 12:29:33 MDT