Search results

Those people probably have a job, a wife, and a mortgage now

I'm pretty sure people back in those days were very primitive

Just noting so I can return to this later (and maybe it is useful to others) You can reduce the problem into finding: \[2; 1, c_2, c_3, c_4, \dots \] \\ \\ c_n = \begin{cases} \frac{2^n}{\binom{n}{n/2}} \ n \ $is even$ \\ n \cdot\frac{\binom{n-1}{(n-1)/2}}{2^{n-1}} \ n \ $is odd$ \end{cases}

1. Everything that is contingent requires a cause 2. The Universe is contingent 3. Therefore the Universe is caused After this proof I'd give a long defense on why the cause of the Universe is what we know as "God" Expanded upon by al-Ghazali in his book, al-Iqtisad fi al-I'tiqad or in...

Then I do think there are proofs for the existence of God in that I think there are proofs that are demonstrative, not that they are probabilistic, but I think that some proofs in particular are demonstrative worst = those that are illogical The fact that you are decidedly picking those...

I didn't mean to imply that Kant thought so, I really just meant the time period I'm also not saying that since Aristotle thought he proved the existence of God, doesn't mean we should take it, just illustrating that "proof of the existence of God" is not really a foreign concept

Ah ok thank you! I asked this because I was trying to solve an induction question like this, and thought if it was logically valid

Right, so I would perhaps characterise what I'm saying like this: \\ ( S_1(1) \land (\forall n\in \mathbb{N})((S_1(n) \land S_2(n)) \Rightarrow S_1(n+1)) ) \land (S_2(1) \land (\forall n \in \mathbb{N})((S_2(n) \land S_1(n) )\Rightarrow S_2(n+1)) \Rightarrow (\forall n \in \mathbb{N})(S_1(n)...

By attacking the ideas behind religion, you are attacking religion. Anyway this sentence is completely irrelevant, what you're attacking does not refute my refutations against you, I have, with pretty much every sentence said exactly where you are wrong, and unfortunately, (and pretty much...

I thought this was an interesting post: http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/uniform-probabilities-and-borel-paradox.html More on Borel paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borel%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_paradox

As a preface, you should understand that you have very little idea about what you are talking about This requires proof This requires proof Do you have evidence for this claim? If not, then we should reject it, according to your own statement Extraordinary is ill-defined, to some people...

You obviously don't know what a no true scotsman is. You can call a no true scotsman if I denied him being a Muslim with weak or no evidence, but the evidence I do have is very strong as I said, he claims to be a master of astrology and black magic which is clear shirk and kufr Most Muslim...

Considering this guy said that he was a "master of astrology", most Muslim scholars would declare anathema on him, and say that this person was non-Muslim Just an interesting point I think

Yes we do have proof for the existence of God, everyone who believes in God must have proof for the existence of God, whether that proof is self-authenticating (i.e. you experience God, or it just seems obvious to you), or it is a rational proof is a different story

If you don't understand any form of the cosmological argument, and resort to objections worthy of drunken apes, read this as an introduction http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html or forever remain a

From my brief knowledge of infinities, there is also an \aleph_0 = |\mathbb{N}| Is the infinity that you say is: "the notion of a limit on the extended reals need not satisfy all of the properties of taking limits on the reals." The same as \aleph_0 ? I always thought \infty to be simply...

Yeah, people call it the Gambler's Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy People think the probabilities should "balance out", so that after the first 2 blacks, the probability should balance out or something But really, each roll of the roulette is independent so it is...

Well I was thinking of how one can write \infty as though it is a number If it were a number, we could do a numerous things that would give us contradictions For example \lim_{x \to \infty} x = \infty \frac{1}{2} \lim_{x \to \infty} x = \frac{\infty}{2} \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{x}{2} =...

\\ $Comment on the following statement$ \\ \lim_{x \to \infty} x = \infty

The town may of been lucky enough to get that 1% chance, likewise, if the weatherman made the same forecast for 1000 days and on all days they did not rain, that is not enough to say that the weatherman was wrong. ------------------- In a game of roulette, the ball falls on black the first...