Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You said that non-A equals non-A. Let A be a tree. Then the sun is non-A. Also, the moon is non-A. According to your statement, the sun and the moon are the same thing. You messed up. Also, nothing is not a thing, so how it is "equal to itself"? It doesn't have a self, it is not a thing. It is nothing. Moving on, please explain the problem here:
Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."
Is there nothing?
Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.
No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.
You said that non-A equals non-A. Let A be a tree. Then the sun is non-A. Also, the moon is non-A. According to your statement, the sun and the moon are the same thing. You messed up.
Also, nothing is not a thing, so how it is "equal to itself"? It doesn't have a self, it is not a thing. It is nothing. Moving on, please explain the problem here:
Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."
Is there nothing?
Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.
No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.
"We don't know" never occurred to you? Nothing is far more alien to us than some other planet or other species ever could be.
My position is that I don't know. Hopefully you're done stating what my position is for me. Maybe at some point you could state what your own position is on this.
It's never "the" answer, in any case. That is, unless you insist on appeal to ignorance as a rational form of argumentation. You can never claim an indeterminate = a determinate.
The dilemma is still in-effect! Mere hand-waving won't make it go away: You either concede the rational maxim that "nothing comes from nothing," or "something comes from nothing." You can't propose a rational 3rd option.
You said that non-A equals non-A. You're wrong. Let A=0. Then both positive numbers and negative numbers are non-A. Positive numbers and negative numbers do not exist in time. They both have the same relationship to zero in that they are not zero. So in the same "time" and in the same relationship, you imply that -1=1, that -5=27, and any positive number equals any negative number. Taking it further, a spider is non-A. The Koran is non-A. Literally everything is non-A except 0. You're stating nonsense, please admit it.
It's never "the" answer, in any case. That is, unless you insist on appeal to ignorance as a rational form of argumentation. You can never claim an indeterminate = a determinate.
The dilemma is still in-effect! Mere hand-waving won't make it go away: You either concede the rational maxim that "nothing comes from nothing," or "something comes from nothing." You can't propose a rational 3rd option.
Do you know everything? No, you don't. I don't claim to know everything. There are some things I don't know. Why would I claim to have knowledge I don't have?
Before you jump to a conclusion, explain the problem with my statement.
You said that non-A equals non-A. You're wrong. Let A=0. Then both positive numbers and negative numbers are non-A. Positive numbers and negative numbers do not exist in time. They both have the same relationship to zero in that they are not zero. So in the same "time" and in the same relationship, you imply that -1=1, that -5=27, and any positive number equals any negative number. Taking it further, a spider is non-A. The Koran is non-A. Literally everything is non-A except 0. You're stating nonsense, please admit it.
You gonna lose sleep over losing one petty "gotcha?"
I'm not claiming that "Spider" is equal to "Koran." You cannot propose two completely different forms of "non-A" and try to sneak them past as equivalent.
Do you know everything? No, you don't. I don't claim to know everything. There are some things I don't know. Why would I claim to have knowledge I don't have?
Before you jump to a conclusion, explain the problem with my statement.
Simple. An indeterminate is not equal to a determinate.
"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan
In other words, you can't draw any conclusions either way, regardless. "I don't know" is never a rational answer.
If A has a unique inverse, then yes, the inverse of A equals the inverse of A. But non-A is not unique, no matter what A is. This is basically the vertical line test with functions. If f(2)=7, but f(2)=9 also, then f is not a function because f(2)=f(2) and this would mean that 7=9. This is why each input has to map to one unique output. Your "non" function maps to many, many different things (because non(A)=tree is true and non(A)=rock is true if A=dirt), and as a function it violates the vertical line test, and that is why there is a comedy of errors I've paraded before you.
Simple. An indeterminate is not equal to a determinate.
Relevance? Where am I equating two things in my statement?
"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan
I'm not the one appealing to ignorance. You're trying to force me to do that. Here's my statement again:
Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."
Is there nothing?
Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.
No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.
The statement does NOT conclude that things can come from nothing. Who knows, maybe that can happen, maybe it can't. Maybe it's simply the case that nothing cannot be, and that there is always something.
I think you're committing the appeal to consequences fallacy. You don't like the conclusion that you get from inspecting my statement. Sorry, but the facts don't care about your feelings. All of your responses have been totally irrelevant to my statement. You jam words into my mouth I never said and you whine about the consequcenes. Can you just deal with the statement itself, please? Where, SPECIFICALLY, am I wrong? Which line, which sentence, which string of words?
In other words, you can't draw any conclusions either way, regardless. "I don't know" is never a rational answer.
Wrong again. Even if you and I had obtained all knowledge that is possible to obtain within this universe (assuming this is even a sensible notion), there are still undecidable propositions in mathematics. For example, does there exist a set X such that |N|<|X|<|R|? We don't know, and we can't know. This is undecidable. Gödel proved that any nontrivial system (do you know what a system is?) MUST either have mutually contradictory axioms or have statements which are true within the system but cannot be proven logically within the system.
The proof takes a bit of explaining. Here's a watered down version:
Recall that anything follows from a contradiction. In other words, if a contradiction is taken as true, then anything can be proven as true. In a casual sense,
"Contradictions exist in the system" if and only if "You can prove every statement in the system."
Negate both sides of the biconditional:
"No contradictions exist in the system" if and only if "There is at least one statement in the system that cannot be proven."
Google Gödel to see the full proof if you like. But you're wrong. "I don't know" is a rational answer. Please look this up and concede you're wrong. Thanks!
If A has a unique inverse, then yes, the inverse of A equals the inverse of A. But non-A is not unique, no matter what A is. This is basically the vertical line test with functions. If f(2)=7, but f(2)=9 also, then f is not a function because f(2)=f(2) and this would mean that 7=9. This is why each input has to map to one unique output. Your "non" function maps to many, many different things (because non(A)=tree is true and non(A)=rock is true if A=dirt), and as a function it violates the vertical line test, and that is why there is a comedy of errors I've paraded before you.
But you're still saying they're equivalent inverse relationships to one another. You created an inconsistency in an equivalent inverse relationship yourself, and then try to blame me for it.
You are forced to draw that conclusion, or abandon your argument. You think that after 2000+ years of this maxim that someone else didn't come up with this "killer argument" before you did? Seriously?
Whoa. When did you establish it as a fact? It's merely descriptive, remember? Why are you suddenly behaving as-if it objectively applies to someone outside of yourself alone?
Wrong again. Even if you and I had obtained all knowledge that is possible to obtain within this universe (assuming this is even a sensible notion), there are still undecidable propositions in mathematics.
Google Gödel to see the full proof if you like. But you're wrong. "I don't know" is a rational answer. Please look this up and concede you're wrong. Thanks!
Quote: ". . .it is either assumed that Gödel provided an absolutely unprovable sentence, or that Gödel’s theorems imply Platonism, or anti-mechanism, or both."
But you're still saying they're equivalent inverse relationships to one another. You created an inconsistency in an equivalent inverse relationship yourself, and then try to blame me for it.
You are forced to draw that conclusion, or abandon your argument. You think that after 2000+ years of this maxim that someone else didn't come up with this "killer argument" before you did? Seriously?
Yeah, seriously. Show the me the refutation. Why do you continue to stall?
Whoa. When did you establish it as a fact? It's merely descriptive, remember? Why are you suddenly behaving as-if it objectively applies to someone outside of yourself alone?
But facts don't care about what you want either. Assuming you're right, then you have to deal with the fallout.
Which are themselves indeterminate. They don't magically become determinate outcomes, or even substitutes for what hasn't been decided yet.
And I see you've redacted large portions of my response where I got into the theory of knowledge and I explained in excruciating detail why there are things we can't know.
I've asked you repeatedly to show me where I'm wrong. Apparently I'm wrong because you haven't seen my argument before? Is that the new one now? Well take your time, sit down, and come up with a response. Where am I wrong?
Pay attention. You're claiming you're the one who actually disproved "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." Take it on the road. I'm sure ACA would love to hear about this.
And I see you've redacted large portions of my response where I got into the theory of knowledge and I explained in excruciating detail why there are things we can't know.
No, I've encountered other atheist mathematicians who strictly warned me not to take Gödel's incompleteness theorems as refutations of anything determinate and that I'm being played if anyone did. I trust those atheists.
You can never-ever claim that an indeterminate (even a strong one) is an excuse to throw up your hands and quit the pursuit of knowledge.
Still looking, but I don't see anywhere where the maxim was ever objectively refuted in past history. So I suppose you claim you're the first! Congratulations!
Regardless, you are forced to conclude as a result that, rationally speaking, something can come from nothing. That part is inescapable.
