2+2=5: A Case for Agnostic-Atheism

Caspian · #11 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

I have already showed this to be false, and the methoed I used was to show that it is a question of better knowledge. In maths this is a correct asumption to make(and assumjption because you say this yet do not show it to be logicaly true). However the question may also be posed as a non mathimatical riddle, which the computer will give a maths answer to due to the programing of it.

I still fail to see the logic behind your proof. I came to you with an argument based on logic and you used an illogical joke to disprove? At best, even if you contend that you are right I wouldn't go so far as saying the computer was wrong. Your contradiction of the computer's answer is the very definition of "illogical" it is akin to my example of God telling the Humans that 5 is the answer for 2+2. If you want to pursue this point any further, give me a new example in which u can contradict a computer's "right" answer and still be right? Lets move away from your joke.

Quote:

Logicaly speaking once an anolgy is made it needs to be 'like for like' for it to work. To procliam that if this is true for humans and their creation computers, then it must also be true for God and Gods creation humans, is not like for like and is also total assumption unless you can show us how."

My analogy depends not on the hierarchy of creator and creation (computers > humans > god). But rather depends on the nature of logic. I think logic applies equally to god as it does to anything below it, I think that because if it doesnt—then god becomes illogical.

Quote:

have you ever been in love? in my opinion, falling in love is 1+1=a gazillion...its all encompassing...its beyond logic but by no means is it pointless...

Your taking a mathematical problem, removing it from its mathematical context and providing an unmathamatical answer. If you've read my thread carefully, I wouldn't say that this kind of example is "pointless" I would say its "beyond logical" (illogical). So we agree.

Wikipedia "Qualia" for my take on the definition of "Love" I dont have enough time to go over it here :P.

Quote:

Let's take a look at the thread title. Is anyone else bothered as I am by the way in which language is used. Not the first time BTW on this forum and others that terms like atheism and agnosticism are re-invented by participants in the discussion. Reinvented until they migrate completely away from a normal range of meanings or definitions found in dictionaries and encyclopedias.

It hasnt been re-invented its been corrected IMO :P. Dictionaries are not great sources for defining terms in debate as Lee went on to expand upon. A dictionary definition for either side of the debate leaves out important information. For example, I once had a christian argue that Homosexuality cannot be genetic because genetic traits must be passed on from parents to childern and then she used a "Dictionary definition" to support her claim. In which case I had to provide her with example of Down Syndrome for her to truly understand the scope of "Genetic"

Quote:

In your own words, please explain to me how aetheism = agnosticism or vice versa in a way that will not lead a discussion into hopeless confusion?

Woah.. i didnt say atheism = agnosticism :P they are non-comparable terms in my mind.

I lifted my defintion of "Agnostic-Atheism" from this video. Check it out.

YouTube- The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship

Quote:

But are you at all interested in using logic to reach illogical conclusions...have you ever tried that?

I believe thats exactly what I have done. I used logic to show god is illogical?

Quote:

I

Quote:

rrational numbers (like square root 2, sqrt{2}) exist yet are beyond definitive knowledge and comprehension and are considered reductio ad absurdum. Where { sqrt(2)= 1/cos (pie/4)=1/sin(pie/4)}… (other irrationals include e, sqrt(61), and Pi,etc.)

Thats great! I completely agree they exist and are illogical! And I'm not saying god doesnt exist—throughout my entire argument i said ther may be a possibility of God existing. But given his characterisitics, if he does exist, then he is illogical—ORRRRR like you have shown

he can be an irrational number

. I fail to see how this conflicts with my argument? If anything its added support for the existance of an illogical entity. The problem i dealt with in my argument is the belief that god IS LOGICAL. I dont mind if he exists but im showing you that his existance is irrational. He is not logical.

Quote:

The existence of paradoxes within logic are not uncommon. I will give you a simple one…Zeno's Paradox of motion...i posted it on this website not to long ago...you can look it up.

Zeno's paradox had been solved by the "Calculas" concept of Limit. And I have read your entire post, a good chunk of it depends on the concept of Infinity. Which is a useful concept in math, as are many irrational numbers and such. But I dont think there can truly be an infinite amount of anything :P (I believe, even this universe is finite). But my views on infinity are for a different post perhaps?

Quote:

First and foremost, for you to join Abrahamical religions with Sikhi is illogical- using your own words. This shows that either you do not know what Sikhi is or you have no idea what 3 Semitic religions are?

My argument has nothing to do with abrahmic religions or sikhism but rather has to do with the concept of God. I will agree though, that the sikh god is alittle different then the abrahamic gods (i only recently learned of that via the "Nirgun-Sargun" concept). So this is more of a proof for the irrationality of abrahamic god's and there characteristics— However, the sikh concept of "Nirgun-Sargun" is consistant with irrationality and is illogical as well. Theres a discussion on that somewhere on this site too.

Im saying, by all means believe in god. He can exist. But he exists as an illogical entity. Thats all im saying.

Tejwant Singh · #12 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

My argument has nothing to do with abrahmic religions or sikhism but rather has to do with the concept of God. I will agree though, that the sikh god is alittle different then the abrahamic gods (i only recently learned of that via the "Nirgun-Sargun" concept). So this is more of a proof for the irrationality of abrahamic god's and there characteristics— However, the sikh concept of "Nirgun-Sargun" is consistant with irrationality and is illogical as well. Theres a discussion on that somewhere on this site too.

Im saying, by all means believe in god. He can exist. But he exists as an illogical entity. Thats all im saying.

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Quote:

Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. With characteristics like that, I can only deduce that you (along with Christians, Jews and Sikhs) believe in a God that can make 2+2=5 if he wanted to.

Quote:

Therefore, I cannot believe God, as describes in the Qu'ran, Bible, Torrah or Guru Granth Sahib, can exist.

These above quotes from you show that you have bundled them all together and now you are going back on your words that you have done in your post above, which is illogical. It is, in your own words, 2+2=5 for you.

Whenever you want to interact with others to state your logic and reason in the right manner, make sure that you do not change it when challenged. That would be illogical.

Have you studied Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? According to your statement above, one can assume that you have for sure. You claim to have studied the scriptures of all 3 Semitic religions and also the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, otherwise your above statement is either false or illogical or both.

Please share the verses from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that prove your point. This is the only logical thing for me to ask and for you to do.

Please do not give any one liners but the whole Shabads, also give your own interpretations if you copy & paste the literal translations from the net.

Waiting for them.

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh

Narayanjot Kaur · #13 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 09:19 AM

Yes, Caspian ji
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/29347-2-2-5-case-agnostic-atheism.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

I copied you incorrectly. Yes I should have written that I have problems with the notion of "agnostic-atheism." That does not in any way change my complaint. I corrected my statement and added this.

The phrase should be "agnostic-atheism" as if one was a condition, qualifier, characteristic of the other. This makes no more sense than the term "jumbo shrimp." Both are oxymorons.

"Agnostic-atheism" is a mismanagement of the English language. Agnosticism and atheism are categorically different.

Taranjeet singh · #14 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 09:54 AM

I think this thread has also become to show off the writing/language skills.

You cannot beat the ultimate reality that 2+2=5. It shall always remain so till one is inclined to prove it through the language. This kind of approach will end only when the 'I' factor gets diluted by adopting at least some faith in the One who created this creation.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Till that is done 2+2=5 , is better than 2+2=4.

We should look into the perspective of the authors/posters as well. If logic is illogical then every illogical thing will look logical and that is what is happening here.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Is 1>1? or
Infinity =Infinity?

One can have scores of permutations and combinations. Leverage will always with the one who is better equipped to prove that illogic is >Logic.

Tejwant Singh · #15 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taranjeet singh

I think this thread has also become to show off the writing/language skills.

You cannot beat the ultimate reality that 2+2=5. It shall always remain so till one is inclined to prove it through the language. This kind of approach will end only when the 'I' factor gets diluted by adopting at least some faith in the One who created this creation.

Till that is done 2+2=5 , is better than 2+2=4.

We should look into the perspective of the authors/posters as well. If logic is illogical then every illogical thing will look logical and that is what is happening here.

Is 1>1? or
Infinity =Infinity?

One can have scores of permutations and combinations. Leverage will always with the one who is better equipped to prove that illogic is >Logic.

Taranjeet ji,

Guru fateh.

Very well said. No one could have put it better, otherwise it would be logically illlogical.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh · #16 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narayanjot Kaur

Yes, Caspian ji

I copied you incorrectly. Yes I should have written that I have problems with the notion of "agnostic-atheism." That does not in any way change my complaint. I corrected my statement and added this.

The phrase should be "agnostic-atheism" as if one was a condition, qualifier, characteristic of the other. This makes no more sense than the term "jumbo shrimp." Both are oximorons.

Agnostic-atheism is a mismanagement of the English language. Agnosticism and atheism are categorically different.

I love Jumbo Shrimps.

Sinister · #17 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

I believe thats exactly what I have done. I used logic to show god is illogical?

it's a shame Epicurus and spn beat you to it in a much simpler manner.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interf...-evil-god.html

and i have shown the difference between logic and rationality. a word that you use interchangeably which is illogical. you also use agnostic-atheist in the same breath which i also disagree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

Thats great! I completely agree they exist and are illogical! And I'm not saying god doesnt exist—throughout my entire argument i said ther may be a possibility of God existing. But given his characterisitics, if he does exist, then he is illogical—ORRRRR like you have shown

he can be an irrational number

.

god is not a number. i was merely trying to show you the limits of logic and the difference between rationality and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

I fail to see how this conflicts with my argument?

it doesn't ;P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

If anything its added support for the existance of an illogical entity.

It has? i dont think it has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

The problem i dealt with in my argument is the belief that god IS LOGICAL. I dont mind if he exists but im showing you that his existance is irrational. He is not logical.

you used the words irrational with illogical. they are not the same (as i stated in my earlier post).

god can be illogical but irrationality is much more subjective in my opinion and based upon a holistic assesment of environment.

as I explained in my last post.

god's existence (if he exists) may be illogical (beyond logical analysis) but his existence itself could be rational and be shown to be capacitated by nature itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

Zeno's paradox had been solved by the "Calculas" concept of Limit.

nope...not to my knowledge...a paradox cannot be solved it can expressed but not solved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

And I have read your entire post, a good chunk of it depends on the concept of Infinity. Which is a useful concept in math, as are many irrational numbers and such. But I dont think there can truly be an infinite amount of anything :P (I believe, even this universe is finite). But my views on infinity are for a different post perhaps?

perhaps

Navdeep88 · #18 (**permalink**) 27-Feb-2010, 12:36 PM

ਜਿਨ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੀਓ ਤਿਨ ਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਪਾਇਓ ॥੯॥੨੯॥
Only the one who is absorbed in True Love shall attain the Lord.

Lee · #19 (**permalink**) 01-Mar-2010, 17:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narayanjot Kaur

Lee ji

In your own words, please explain to me how aetheism = agnosticism or vice versa in a way that will not lead a discussion into hopeless confusion?

My correction. The phrase should be agnostic-atheism as if agnostic can be a condition, qualifier, characteristic of atheism. This makes no more sense than "jumbo shrimp." Both are oxymorons.

And,

If agreed up definitions are out of alignment with what most of the established meanings in literature on the subjects of agnosticism and atheism contend -- then how do we avoid looking like naifs or fools in the eyes of informed readers?

Narayanjot ji,

Agnostic-Atheisim, means to me that the athiest takes atheisim as the default because as an agnostic she realises that we have no objective evidance one way or the other and so 'no God' is the most likely, so they belive.

I have had this thing out many times with Athiests, and many of them would tell you that Atheism is either:

A) A non belife in a creator God.
B) A belife that a creator God does not exist.

A types are more likely to proclaim themselves Agnostic - Athiests.

Lee · #20 (**permalink**) 01-Mar-2010, 17:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

I still fail to see the logic behind your proof. I came to you with an argument based on logic and you used an illogical joke to disprove? At best, even if you contend that you are right I wouldn't go so far as saying the computer was wrong. Your contradiction of the computer's answer is the very definition of "illogical" it is akin to my example of God telling the Humans that 5 is the answer for 2+2. If you want to pursue this point any further, give me a new example in which u can contradict a computer's "right" answer and still be right? Lets move away from your joke.

Heh once again I'll explain that my joke, or riddle if you like was just to highlight the fact that the computers 'output, is dependant on the computers 'knowledge' which is of course programed by the 'creator'(Humans).

Bearing that in mind then the example shows that the 'output' of the computer can always give a logicaly incorrect answer depedendant on how the question is posed. The creator can read the question 'what is 1 and 1?' and figure out that it is not a purely mathimatical question but a riddle and thus give the correct answer. The computer unless otherwise programed (lack of knowledge) will read the question as a purly mathimatical one and give in this instane an incorrect answer.

This is what I have been saying my freind, it is not a case of any lack of logic and more a case of a lack of understanding. Remember too that 'logic' does not come in but on flavour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caspian

My analogy depends not on the hierarchy of creator and creation (computers > humans > god). But rather depends on the nature of logic. I think logic applies equally to god as it does to anything below it, I think that because if it doesnt—then god becomes illogical.

And I have already addressed this one too. In essance it comes down to two things. So God is illogical so what? I have said I have no problems with this, and further I have claimed that what this means is that humanity can simply not fully comprehend God, and so as the computer we lack the knowledge to do so.

Now answer this one, you think that logic must apply to God can you let me know why you think such a thing?