Douglas J. Bender

Goliath,


My apologies for being late in my reply - I had it written out by 10 p.m. my time last night, but was very tired and set my alarm for an hour and a half later, but I didn't wake up until late this morning, and I only just had time to get ready for work. So, here's my delinquent response.

Now, before we go any further, we need to get our understanding of "proof" in the context of this discussion clarified. You seem to be requiring a slightly more "rigorous" type of "proof" than is generally accepted in biology or the physical sciences. For example, you say:
If this is how you view all potential "evidence" (and thus, all inferences from such "evidence"), then you apparently would also claim that Darwinian evolution is based merely on "wishy-washy evidence", and you would assert that Darwinists should "concede the fact" that all their supposed "facts" in support of macro-evolution "prove nothing whatsoever" other than that those supposed "facts" exist.

Furthermore, I've never claimed that my argument regarding the Biblical Equations "proved" anything in a "mathematically rigorous" way, but that at the level of considering evidence and reasoning therefrom, they "prove" that your points numbered 3, 4, 5, and 6 hold, and they indicate strongly the fact that Jesus is the God/Man (your point #7). I can form the argument in a "symbolic logic" manner, but we would likely debate the strength or validity of some of the premises (whereas in mathematics, the axioms are accepted as given).

If you accept strong, valid inferences from evidence as "proof", then I can continue, and provide said "proof". If not, then you have formulated your requirement so that there is no possible way that any sort of "evidence" could "prove" anything - even if every cell was found to have "Christ Jesus is Lord and God" somehow inscribed somewhere on it, this would not qualify as a "mathematically rigorous proof" for Jesus being the Messiah, Lord, and God, since one could argue that it was just a freak coincidence of Nature, or that ancient prankster aliens seeded all cells (?) with "Christ Jesus is Lord and God" as a joke (eventually concocting the whole [in this scenario] "Christian myth"]).


In Christ,

Douglas

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Goliath

Douglas,

No problem. I've found that I have to have two alarm clocks (each on the other end of the room from my bed), one set a bit before the other, so that I don't accidentally sleep through an alarm.

Correct. I am talking about a logically rigorous proof. You may use all of the accepted axioms of mathematics (ie the principle of the excluded middle, et al) as well as conditions 1. and 2.

I never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth, Douglas.

You said that you had a proof of your god's existence that arose from your biblical equations. I merely want to see part of this proof.

I make no such claims. This is because biological scientists do not claim to have a rigorous, logical proof that evolution occurs.

So, you concede that you have no proof that conditions 1 and 2 imply conditions 3 through 7?

Again, the only axioms that you are allowed to use are the accepted axioms of mathematics (ie the principle of the excluded middle, the axiom of choice, et al), as well as conditions 1. and 2. We agree on what the axioms are. So, are you able to form a logical argument that draws the implications 1. and 2. ==&gt; 3.-7.?

You seem to be waffling a bit on whether or not you are capable of providing a proof.

No, by proof, I mean a mathematically rigorous proof. Nothing less.

Correct. Again, I do not care about evidence. When it comes to your claim of having a proof of your god's existence (or any supernatural claim, for that matter), evidence is irrelevant. Proof is what is required.

If you cannot provide a proof, Douglas, then I have but one request of you: Don't ever dare to present your biblical equations as a logical argument for your god's existence ever again.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Douglas J. Bender

Yes, but I didn't say that I had a "mathematically rigorous" proof, in the sense of standard mathematical formulations which do not use "evidence". Stop misreading what I've said, please.

And neither did, nor do, I regarding the Biblical Equations. Yet you require this of me, or you say that I should concede that the Biblical Equations "prove" nothing more than that they "exist". And, actually, biological scientists DO claim to have "proven" that evolution (micro or macro, as they almost exclusively do not make any real distinction between the two) occurs - in fact, just go ask scigirl if science has "proven" that evolution occurs beyond any doubt. And what about all those biological scientists who claim that evolution is a "Fact, fact, FACT!"? Sounds to me that they consider evolution to have been absolutely "proven". If they do not have an actual "rigorous, logical proof" that it occurs, I would assume that you would not accuse them of lacking any rigorous logic in their proofs, nor that their "proofs" could not actually be considered "reason beyond doubt"?

Again, you are requiring of me something I never claimed regarding the Biblical Equations (a "rigorous, mathematical proof", using no "evidence"), and something which would effectively preclude any "proof" from the realm of natural observation, if applied to "science". However, if you accept standard scientific evidence and valid "inferences" as "proof", then I can argue that the Biblical Equations constitute a "proof" of this type.

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Rather strong wording - you couldn't have just said, "Don't use your Biblical equations as a logical argument for your God's existence"? Put down the white glove, and let's discuss this....

And, could you please answer if you would consider finding "Christ Jesus is Lord and God" somehow "inscribed" on all cells to be "proof" of the existence of God and of Jesus as the Messiah? If you wouldn't, please give your logical reasons for not considering it to effectively be proof of those things.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

luvluv

Can anyone link the original thread in which Mr. Bender made his claims?

Principia

luvluv,

Read the first post on this <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000386&p=13" target="_blank">thread</a>.

Principia

Maybe someone should explain to DJB the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.

Douglas J. Bender

Scientiae,


Maybe not, since I know what the difference is. Or, perhaps you could politely explain the difference, and how that difference affects my points to Goliath.


In Christ,

Douglas

Synaesthesia

Hey Douglas,

Since with a few simple mathematical manipulations or search algorithms we can find “Jesus molests small children” in every cell of my body and every book at the local library, I would take “Christ Jesus is Lord and God” with a grain or three of salt.

Regards
Synaesthesia
“Any statement can be held to be true, come what may, if sufficient changes are made elsewhere in the system.” - W.V. Quine

Goliath

Douglas,

First of all, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Between teaching a Calculus class (an exam for which I've been grading over the weekend), as well as studying for a prelim in August, I've been swamped.

Then either you weren't making yourself clear, or I misread something. Very well, then. If you cannot prove that your god exists, then please concede the fact that the argument based upon your equations is a non-argument.

Correct. This is because you are making a claim about the supernatural.

Really? Biological scientists have found a logical, rigorous proof that evolution occurs?

Well, I guess such a proof exists for microevolution, since we have seen it occur.

I am a layman of biology, and even I can see that this is patently false. I know the difference between micro and macro evolution. Do you know the difference, Douglas?

Scigirl, if you have found any mathematical proof of evolution, please cite a peer-reviewed journal.

Of course, I woulnd't expect such a proof to exist, since full-bore proof is the domain of mathematics, not science.

Also note that I'm not trying to devalue the scientific method in any way, shape, or form. In fact, since science has nothing to do with the supernatural, the scientific method is not only an acceptable method to find out things about the world, but a very powerful method at that.

Since biological scientists do not use evolution to make any claims about the supernatural, evidence gathering is appropriate.

Not for supernatural claims, I don't.

Well, is it fair to say that you have failed my challenge, Douglas?

What a pity. I was expecting a challenge. Oh well, C'est la Vie.

Sincerely,

Goliath