h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

1 might be a coincidence, but 5? If we give the odds of it being a coincidence 80%, then the odds of all 5 being a coincidence drop to 33%. So the way I figure it, there's only ~ 1 in 3 chance of GSD *not* being deluded by the "devil"

Lovely picture, az!

Well put Noggin

Wow. I wonder what it's like living in a world populated by demons. Presumably there are also angels. Are there unicorns and dragons? Revelations tells us there are dragons, and leviathans. How about pixies? Leprechauns?

Some people just never get old enough to stop believing in Santa. Some people think it's cute. I think it's kinda sad.

<>

Wow. So much nonsense packed into so few words.

"Lord Jesus" speaks? What does he look like? How do we know it's really him? Do you have his cell phone number? Does he really tell you the truth, or is it just more verifiably false and self-contradictory nonsense like what's in the Bible? If we could arrange to have a H2G2 meet near you, could you invite him to stop by and chat?

I ask these questions because, surely, if this person is really speaking to you, then you can produce him, or some tangible revelation that would be in any way meaningful. I'm assuming you wouldn't make such wild claims without being prepared to back them up. I'm also granting you the benefit of the doubt that you're talking to a real person through a real dialogue, and not having that internal dialogue in which you congratulate yourself and tell yourself all the things you want to hear via an Eastern meditation technique typically referred to as "prayer."

Hi Blathers,

It seems that Sam is saying he is now on holiday in Italy and is happily spending his time there wildly insulting southern Italians who don't have the same superior fashion sense that he has. He also doesn't like that southern Italians don't seem to know how to shave properly. He also doesn't like that they are extremely laid back and happy people without even having rich parents to back them up.

So with all that to worry about I doubt he'll be answering your questions anytime soon, so don't hold yer breath . . .



az

Hi Gang

The purpose of the devil, demons and other 'evil' spirits is simple - to engender fear amongst the uneducated.

As if an eternity within the Lake of Fire was an insufficient threat the followers of Christianity propagate a belief in these terrible supernatural creatures.

This is a simple ploy and works quite well for it prevents the uneducated from straying towards other wisdoms. You only have to declare that "there be demons", and robert's your mother's brother, they are back in the fold.

The central tenet of modern christianity seems to be to maintain an atmosphere of fear so as to prevent the continuing decline of the christian churches. Well it isn't working is it?

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\

Oh, I noticed, az. That's the great thing about being a fundamentalist Christian... no matter where you travel, you're always surrounded by people you can feel superior to.

Math, do you think its accurate to also say that they're trying to put the genie of knowledge back in the bottle by going after science/education? Or is it just a funny coincidence?

If it was not so, the Bible would not have said so, and God is a liar.

Allow me to rewrite that statement more clearly:

"Premise 1: if the Bible is misleading, God is misleading (ie. the Bible is the word of God).
"Premise 2: the Bible is misleading.
"Conclusion: God is misleading (ie. God is a liar)."

(The predicate logic involved would be written:

1. P –> Q (premise)
2. P (premise)
3. Q (–>e 2, 1)

Where:
P = The Bible is misleading;
Q = God is misleading.

Since this is a valid proof, the conclusion holds; God would indeed be a liar, given these premises.)


The conclusion on line 3 is as inescapable and logically impervious as 2+2=4—unless, that is, one or more of our premises are false.

So far as I can see, your implied logic goes: if God is definitely NOT a liar, then the Bible is completely accurate. The logical proof uses a rule for implication-elimination called "modulus tollens"; again, using predicate logic:

1. P –> Q (premise)
2. ¬Q (premise)
3. ¬P (MT 1, 2)

All very well. HOWEVER, you will notice that there are two premises, and we have only examined the consequences of rejecting one of them. There is another possibility: that the second premise is incorrect (in English, that the Bible is not entirely the word of God). Our premises would be:

1. ¬(P –> Q) premise
2. P premise

And we can go no further, because according to the truth table for implication, if the antecedent is false, we can't say anything about the consequent. Therefore, the question of whether or not God is a liar is just as open as it was before.

The problem, of course, is that we cannot speak either way about either premise! Take the first: our only basis for this proposition is the Bible's own claim to being the word of God, and its further pronouncement that God is always truthful, which sets up a circular argument: P –> Q –> P –> Q... Accepting it on this basis is logically bankrupt, and unless more convincing proof is found it must be regarded as a matter of faith. The second premise is dubious; why would God bother lying? Does God exist, and can this be demonstrated except as an article of faith? And so, the argument that the Bible must be correct because, if it is not, God is necessarily a liar, is logically unfounded.

This is what comes of taking an assumption as a premise. It's a fallacy so obvious that I'm suprised anyone who got an offer from Trinity didn't spot it. Incidentally, so did I; why didn't you end up going?

- Jordan, who once spent half a particularly boring lecture proving that two and two make four.


PS: this can also be applied to the reasoning that, if the Pope is fallible, then the entire Catholic Church is wrong and will spontaneously collapse; of course it wouldn't, but it means that Catholics have to either scramble around proving that everything he says is right and true, or accept that the Pope was lying or misguided. This is a perfect example of why it is unwise to pin one's entire faith upon the inerrancy of a single object, be it man or book.

Ow, my head

*waves to Jordan*



az

Sorry to go all mathematical on you! It's just that I remembered another conversation in which he explained that "one cannot say evolution is a fact, since you cannot show it to me in the way you can show me 2 + 2 = 4."

Well, the proof of 2 + 2 = 4 involves a very large number of steps (22,607) and subtheorems (2,109), starting with the elementary axioms of predicate calculus and set theory. To get you started, here is the last section of the proof:

http://au.metamath.org/mpegif/2p2e4.html

This is actually only the final theorem, the root of the proof tree. To see the whole proof, one would need to click on each of the links to subtheorems on the side of the proof, and each of the links from these subtheorems, and so on until we reach the axioms (the leaves of the proof tree).

So, I would have toned down my proof, but since Sam should be an intelligent fellow (I like to imagine that anyone who could get into my hero's college-of-choice would have a good grasp of logic), and especially if he can follow a proof of 2+2=4, I thought he would appreciate a full-on demonstration of logical fact.

(Incidentally, we could attempt a higher-level proof through Peano's axioms:

succ(n) = n + 1;
2 = succ(1);
2 + 2 = (1 + 1) + (1 + 1);
4 = succ(3) = succ(succ(2)) = succ(succ(succ(1))) = 1 + (1 + (1 + 1))
(1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 1 + (1 + (1 + 1))) (associativity)
2 + 2 = 4 QED

However, this isn't so mathematically rigorous—not to mention interesting—as the cited proof.)

- Jordan

<>

I *can't* show you that 2+2=4.

I can only explain to you the meanings of the signs and symbols employed. Then you can see it for yourself.

Noggin

"I wonder what it's like living in a world populated by demons."

Take a look all around you! This world is full of the demonic. Thank God Jesus is coming soon to burn it.

Heeeessss Baaaack!!!!

Heeeessss Baaaack!!!!

And there was me thinking he'd been sectioned. No such luck.

Sure but it can be fun to have our resident pschopath about to amuse us

Yes!! He's back!!

>Thank God Jesus is coming soon to burn it.

And this will be claimed in 50, 100, 200 years time. Ad infinitum, ad absurmum.

You did seem to believe it would happen last may when Answers in Genesis claimed it would happen then.

What a depressing attitude to have about this world when all you think its good for is destruction.

I really pity you.

We shall see about that. The devil is everywhere. I, for one, shall be singing praises to my Lord and Saviour when He comes to burn down the institutions of government, pagan temples of sin, whorehouses, etc. What a wonderful day that shall be!