Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Puck · 03-03-2003, 12:15 PM

Perhaps GT is under the impression we are fish in a barrel? A pot shot here and there is sure to hit one or two?

Trouble is GT, your ammo consists of nothingness woven in the air by an infertile imagination.

Sigh.

Godless Dave · 03-03-2003, 04:51 PM

"That about wraps it up for God." - Oolon Colluphid.

Gemma Therese · 03-03-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David M. Payne
Gemma Therese (GT) is a drive by poster these days. She isn't able to argue her position with anything approaching logic, but she has some sort of compelling personal reason to try and get us to see her light.
I think what drives her are these two questions and the mythology that has arisen from them.
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?

I think that these two questions are at the roots of the belief in the Abrahamic God of GT and most religions for that matter. Nice of you to drive by and shoot us with one of your quotes Gemma, see you on your next drive by. And you can quote me on that GT.

David

"God, and religion, the oldest scam in history, and it still sucks them in today.

You wouldn't have stood a chance arguing with Thomas Aquinas.

So, you are denying that there exists the greatest of all Truth? If this was so, then all things are equally true -- and obviously, that cannot be.

Gemma Therese

The Cromwell Institute · 03-03-2003, 06:45 PM

"My cat's breath smells like cat food!"

-Ralph Wiggum

Sorry, did you say something, Gemma? All I could hear was the sound of brain-cells being ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted.

Edited to add: 250th post! Wooo! And it only took me about two and half years, too.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-03-2003, 06:46 PM

Quote:

So, you are denying that there exists the greatest of all Truth? If this was so, then all things are equally true -- and obviously, that cannot be.

...because......??????

Oh wait I forgot who I was talkin' to. Reason(s) cannot be expected from good ole Gemma.

*slaps self*

"Oh, it be". ~ L. Gilberte' Davi

Muad'Dib · 03-03-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
You wouldn't have stood a chance arguing with Thomas Aquinas.

So, you are denying that there exists the greatest of all Truth? If this was so, then all things are equally true -- and obviously, that cannot be.

Gemma Therese

Thomas of Aquinas was a unquestionably brilliant man, but he had the misfortune to live before the notion of bounded infinite sets. The set of real numbers [0, 1) -- all real numbers between zero and one, including zero but excluding one--has no greatest element, yet obviously not all elements are equal.

Therefore, claiming that the lack of a supremum necessarily implies no ordering on the set is a philosophical non sequitur.

Gemma Therese · 03-03-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Muad'Dib
Thomas of Aquinas was a unquestionably brilliant man, but he had the misfortune to live before the notion of bounded infinite sets. The set of real numbers [0, 1) -- all real numbers between zero and one, including zero but excluding one--has no greatest element, yet obviously not all elements are equal.

Thus claiming that the lack of a supremum implies no ordering on the set is a philosophical non sequitur.

That is a good point ... but even so, Truth is not comparable with numbers.

Gemma Therese

Muad'Dib · 03-03-2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
That is a good point ... but even so, Truth is not comparable with numbers.

Gemma Therese

In many respects I agree, but hopefully they share some qualities. I would not want truth to be inconsistent, for example, just so it can differ from mathematics!

My point is that the claim that no greatest truth implies no truth at all must demonstrate that truth does not share the "infinite but bounded" property of some mathematical sets. After all, if truth is completely incomparable with mathematical sets, it is useless to speak of a "greatest" truth at all.

Gemma Therese · 03-03-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Muad'Dib
In many respects I agree, but hopefully they share some qualities. I would not want truth to be inconsistent, for example, just so it can differ from mathematics!

My point is that the claim that no greatest truth implies no truth at all must demonstrate that truth does not share the "infinite but unbounded" property of some mathematical sets. After all, if truth is completely incomparable with mathematical sets, it is useless to speak of a "greatest" truth at all.

Point taken.

Gemma Therese

Muad'Dib · 03-03-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Point taken.

Gemma Therese

Even after I goofed and said "unbounded" when I meant "bounded"! Thanks for understanding.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2003, 12:15 PM	#21
Puck Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: A middle aged body. Posts: 3,459	Perhaps GT is under the impression we are fish in a barrel? A pot shot here and there is sure to hit one or two? Trouble is GT, your ammo consists of nothingness woven in the air by an infertile imagination. Sigh.

03-03-2003, 04:51 PM	#22
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	"That about wraps it up for God." - Oolon Colluphid.

03-03-2003, 06:45 PM	#24
The Cromwell Institute Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 766	"My cat's breath smells like cat food!" -Ralph Wiggum Sorry, did you say something, Gemma? All I could hear was the sound of brain-cells being ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted. Edited to add: 250th post! Wooo! And it only took me about two and half years, too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.