Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
To Be Or Not To Be, That Is The Question

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on April 14, 2002 10:46:11 UTC

But Harv:

Aurino: "That is, without logic there is no proof of anything!***" Aurino is right here, and Harv agreed.

But near the end Harv says: "the following may actually be the case: ...."

He said "may actually BE"; note this word "BE".
As soon as you apply the verb "to BE": you have lost the case. LNC applies whenever the verb "to be" applies.

Harv: "Nothing prevents (I*) from being true."
"BEING true"? Whatever pattern-matching (e.g. Tarski pattern matching) you use to give the relationship that is your meaning of "truth";
what prevents (I*) from being true is that (I*) is prohibited from BEING anything.

As (I*) negates BEING, (I*) cannot BE true, or BE at all. (I*) is (I*), isolated from all that exists in its non-existence, you might say.

-dolphin




Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins