silverxing

阿mememe老兄﹐好心你喇﹗等人地justin_lun老兄病左走埋你先出聲﹗我頭先先睇完你地以前D post。老弟我係讀哲學既﹐真係覺得你D邏輯麻麻﹐邊度有人好似你咁用A=B=C架﹗阿justin_lun老兄冇錯到﹐要A=B=C就一定要B=A同C=A先得架﹗唔信你搵翻D Form 5數學書喇﹐有講架﹗

我睇你地兩個講作咁耐﹐鑊鑊都係你出D Thorem卑人地justin_lun老兄駁翻轉頭﹐宿命論係咁﹐你D比喻又係咁。由其係你個機械人比喻﹐我睇來睇去都係人地justin_lun老兄有point過你﹐我真係唔覺你講得有道理嘛﹗反而真係好似你同人地基督徒講聖經﹐又要D唔要D﹐睇你D論點硬係覺得有D唔多妥咁。

有樣野我真係唔係好睇得過眼﹐明明係你自己D point黎架嘛﹐仲乜硬係要人地幫你覆述呢﹖你話懷疑人地唔知你講乜﹐但係人地又真係駁得你有紋有路﹐你仲拗唔過人地嘛﹗就算阿bengrace50老兄係佛教徒﹐有時見到阿justin_lun老兄講得有point﹐都會話佢惦﹐話服佢講D野架﹗點解你又唔得呢﹖我真係想問﹐老兄你又係咪明白哂justin_lun老兄D point先﹐不如你覆述一次佢D point俾我地聽下﹐若果你真係得又冇錯既﹐先叫人地覆述喇﹗若果你自己都做唔到﹐點叫人地做呢﹖

silverxing

阿mememe，阿justin_lun病左系两个礼拜前既事，你一定系睇漏左个post所以唔知。睇你讲番阿justin_lun D point就知道你自己都唔明得哂人地讲乜。尤其系自由意志既由来，旧论坛（从旧约圣经看耶和华真面目）就已经讲左系为左人能够成功成为世界既管家，自由意志同全知唔系“可以并存”，系同时存在，有分别架！你睇，要人复述D point根本就做唔到，你自己复述几句都搞到乱哂大笼，我净系睇番阿justin_lun D point都可以驳番你转头，你点叫人地复述你D point呀！

我净系读哲学，又唔似阿justin_lun有心机时间答你D宗教问题，阿mememe你要揾人坳就揾第二个啦！我净系讲下你D哲学漏洞，帮你补下课，等你下次唔使俾人驳到出唔到声：

你第一个逻辑推论：
A = 神；B = 全知；C = 不會警告人不能吃禁果
1）聖經真確，神係全知 ( Assume all A = B)；
2）全知既話就不會警告人不能吃禁果 (Observe that all B = C)
3）聖經記載: 神警告人不能吃禁果(All A =\= C)
我唔使多讲，话左A=B=C既理论系数学理论，要B=A同C=B先成立，无论你用既系乜符号都一样，唔警告人食禁果既唔一定系神，所以2）不能成立。

第二个：
A 係 "神"； B 係 "全知既物體"； C 係 "會警告亞當唔好食果果"
1) All As are B (神係全知)
2) No Cs are B (全知既物體唔會警告亞當唔好食果果)
3) Therefore no Cs are As (所以神唔會警告亞當唔好食果果)
1）其实已经有问题，实际上只可以话B is part of meaning of A，睇你地D post就知全知只系神既一种特质，并唔系全部，1）既讲法就好似话All women are mother一样，只系部分正确，应该用->符号A->B，哲学上既讲法 All A are B同All A=B系一样架！最大既问题系2），“全知既物體唔會警告亞當唔好食禁果”既推论系未确定架！你地一路都坳紧E个point，唔可以用来做逻辑推论。

silverxing

第三个：
A 係 "神"； B 係 "全善既物體"； C 係 "早知人必定吃禁果而不去阻止"
1) All As are B (神係全善)
2) No Cs are B (全善既物體唔會早知人必定吃禁果而不去阻止)
3) Therefore no Cs are As (所以神唔會早知人必定吃禁果而不去阻止)
其实同第二个一模一样，2）系未确定既论点，唔知真定假，唔可以用来做逻辑推论既证据。

你既逻辑本来唔错，可惜就系唔睇清楚D证据、符号用得适唔适合，误导人又误导自己，尤其系文字同符号既互相对调更加弱，逻辑推论既符号代表一定既文字意思，唔系话你唔用符号改用文字就得，反而会错得仲离谱D，等如你话“意志上不能选择”，其实就已经否定左自由意志，唔会话你唔用“自由意志”个term就唔否定。你自己睇清楚啦！

silverxing

唉。。。我唔系一早就同你讲过话我唔系同你坳宗教问题啦咩？你叫我复述你D point有鬼用咩！我又唔够料同你讲宗教问题！我净系话番你知你叫人复述你D point有几唔妥，同埋你D逻辑出左咩问题。要揾人复述你D point，你等阿justin_lun番来同你讲啦！不过我几乎可以肯定阿justin_lun都唔会甘做。

首先，我唔系话你既睇法错，而系话你复述错误呀！你根本就讲唔出阿justin_lun讲既野系咩意思，净系讲你既理解。阿justin_lun讲既根本就系“點解神要俾自由意志人類”，你就当左系人地讲紧“人点解要有自由意志”；而"并存"同"同时存在"既分別，明明就系你明白唔到阿justin_lun讲既野，所以你先觉得唔紧要。我唔系话你讲既野错，系话你根本做唔到复述阿justin_lun D point呀！就算我当阿justin_lun D point系错，你都讲唔番人地错既观点。我长气再讲多次，你自己都做唔到复述人地D point，点叫人地复述呀！

到逻辑推论，你话神系全知可以用All As are B代表，本身就演变错误。就好似我话“silverxing系聋既”（silverxing is deaf)，变成逻辑语言既话，一定唔会变左All silverxing are deaf！因为silverxing系专有名词，E句话入面讲既silverxing只有一个，用all必须要系所有silverxing都系聋先得！你用All A are B代表神系全知既话，就代表任何人一改自己个名做“神”都会变成全知！用A ∈ B反而可以，但系就即刻变成特定个案，意思完全唔同。

至于“全知既物體唔會警告亞當唔好食禁果”，连我E个唔多睇圣经既人都知圣经话全知既神警告左亚当唔好食禁果啦！白纸黑字写明架！你E个No C are B点讲都唔会成立。

到你既全知Vs自由意志，等你同阿justin_lun坳啦！我自问唔识答，费事乱讲。但系“意志上不能选择”又点会有自由意志呀！始终唔明你个机械人比喻点可以成立。

silverxing

First, I need to justify one thing. Even though you said, "I can easily find a couple of evidence to support my point of view," you have provide no evidence whatsoever. You're just as guilty as me in the matter of not providing evidence.

Now let me show you the "evidence" you need. In the old forum called "See the true God from Old Testament", justin_lun already said the following words in the very first few posts, "God created us to be servant and take care of this world." He even provide Bible verse for support, and if you read page 5 of this forum carefully, shinge1233 ask justin_lun the usage of freedom of will, justin_lun answered, "God give us free will to let us take care of this world more efficiently." He's talking about "why God give us free will", not "why human have free will". And as Christian, justin_lun only answer of "why human have free will" is "because God give it to us".

For your so-called evidence, the analogy of tomatoes, justin_lun reply, "there're way too many unknown reason for why the tomatoes can't grow, there's no such thing as given certain resource and the outcome will be unchanged." What justin_lun is talking here is why Fatalism is wrong, it has NOTHING to do with free will. You evidence doesn't even match the topic.

For the difference of "exist as the same time" and "co-existence", justin_lun once said the following, "God's power to know all is an ability, while free will is a promise. God can choose whether to use his ability or not, but he must keep his promise. Thus God need to give free will higher priority than knowing everything." Despite it is correct or not, we can see here free will and knowing everything is 2 unrelated things. The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one. Thus we will say man and women "co-exist" together in this world, but we won't say human and snake co-exist in this world. Man and woman need each other to exist, but man and snake don't need each other. For the power to know all and free will, they simply exist as part of what God is, but they're unrelated, thus have no neccessity of one another for each one of their existence. It's importance because we'll need to clarify the property of both characteristic of God.

As I say, you've misinterprete each and all of justin_lun points of view, thus asking others to repeat your own point of view is unreasonable. Even in the court of law, each lawyer only need to provide their own side of view, asking another side to clarify your own point is unthinkable.

silverxing

Now I'll show you the flaw in your logic. You're saying it's unreasonable to decline your usage of "All God are omniscient." and "No God that know all will warn Adam to see the fruit of knowledge."

Fist, NOT all God are omniscient! In Greek mythology, Egypt, and other religions and countries who has more than one God in their believes, most of their Gods are NOT omniscient! It's wrong in basic concept to say all God are omniscient.

Second, in what way you can prove "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? Every basic information for logical analysis need to be completely true to start with. You can't provide even one bit of support for "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge", while the bible clearly stated otherwise. It's the same as you can't use "No God ever exist" in an logical analysis, cuz no one ever prove that correct!

Last but not least, for A ∈ B, YOU are the one whose using it. Doesn't you need to know how it use? I'm only pointing out what you use wrong. Do you mean now I am responsible to explain everything in philosophy to you? and for what? to "prove I'm really know philosophy"? From what we have so far, you're the one making all the logical mistake here, what makes you qualify to judge how good my philosophy is? When you want to learn something from someone, the proper and decent way to do is ask NICELY!

[ Last edited by silverxing on 2005-8-23 at 05:08 AM ]

silverxing

take your time, I won't be here everyday neither.

silverxing

You can go ahead to ask the admin, cuz from the beginning. What I'm saying has NOTHING to do about what you argue. Let me say it one more time:

1. I'm only stating you cannot correctly repeat justin_lun's point. What you have do so far is keep saying I cannot repeat YOUR point, which has nothing to do with what I intended from the beginning. If you still can't listen, I'll say it again. I'm statine you cannot correctly repeat JUSTIN_LUN point, not YOUR point. Get it?

2. From the beginning, I already stated, "I HAVE NO INTENTION TO ARGUE RELIGIOUS PROBLEM WITH YOU, MY INTENTION IS TO STATE WHY IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO ASK OTHERS TO REPEAT YOUR POINT."  By your own words, you're doubting JUSTIN_LUN can't understand your point, that's why you ask JUSTIN_LUN to repeat your point. It has nothing to do with me. Let me say it again: IT'S JUSTIN_LUN YOU WANT TO REPEATING YOUR POINT, NOT ME, SILVERXING. I ONLY WANT TO TELL YOU IT'S WRONG TO REPEAT OTHERS POINT, NOT TO ARGUE RELIGIOUS PROBLEM WITH YOU. Understand?

3. I'M ONLY SAYING WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR LOGIC ANALSYIS, NOT TELLING YOU EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT PHILOSOPHY. From my reply, I already told you what's wrong in your analysis. Finding a philosophy website and posting a link has nothing to do whether you know philosophy or not. Even a highschool student who know nothing about philosophy can find those links. But from your application of the logical analysis, you're using them incorrectly. Even yourself admit that, and note that I'm the one applying the correct analysis technique to point out your mistake. YOU POST THE CORRECT WEBSITE BUT USING IT WRONG WHILE I POST NO WEBSITE BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE. Who's the one know better about philosophy here?

silverxing

4. EVIDENCE. I've translate justin_lun reply on your tomato analogy and by his own words, "FATALISM IS NOT CORRECT" is the reply he made. In the view of the whole filter-004ion, the freedom of will is related with whether fatalism is correct or not, but the thing is, THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL. That's the evidence you've made so far. No words from justin_lun himself, not a footnote of his post, yet you said you're correctly repeating his point of view. I've backed up my point of view with justin_lun's word, but you input nothing but your own thought. In other words, I'M THE ONE ACTUALLY GIVING EVIDENCE HERE WHILE YOU ONLY REPEATING YOUR OWN VIEW WITH NONE OF HIS WORDS AT ALL. Let me say it another time, "I'M STATING YOU CANNOT CORRECTLY REPEAT JUSTIN_LUN POINT OF VIEW, AND I'M GIVING EVIDENCE. YOUR EVIDENCE? IT'S YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW, NOT JUSTIN_LUN'S."

5.  ALL GOD ARE OMNISCIENT. This is where you've made another logic analysis mistake. When you use "All", you mean all. Example, If I said, "All apple is red." It means not only Fuju Apple is red, it means all apple is red! When you said "All God is omniscient", you include every one and all of the God in history in your filter-004ion. You can't just say, "Oh, I just mean Christian God, the other are exclude." It's NOT how it works in logical analysis. As long as one can find an exception in the example, you CANNOT use the word "all"! You doubting me not knowing philosophy? Should I post a link here about the use of the word "all" here to prove what I said is correct?

6. NO OMNISCIENT GOD WILL EVER WARN ADAM NOT TO EAT THE FRUIT OF KNOWLEDGE. Yet another fatal mistake you've made in your logical analysis. I'll make it more detailed this time.
a) Double negative is NOT allow in logical analysis. I don't think you know, so I'll make it clear. One of the most basic rule of logical analysis. When you see 2 or more "no" in a sentence of logical analysis. That sentence is simply WRONG and need to rephase!
b) A logical analysis with the word "no" or "all" need to be universal, which means it need to apply in every situation and no exception at all. Now at least I find one exception, in bible say, "The God warn Adam not to eat the fruite of knowledge, for the day you eat you'll die." Now, should I again post a philosophy website to prove the previous rule are correct? Or do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.

7. Last but not least, you said I've posted evidence that justin_lun talking with others and not related to you? Now... what are we talking here? We're talking what justin_lun saying, not what mememe saying, right? "Repeating justin_lun point of view correctly" is the topic, right? so.... should I say it again? "YOU CANNOT REPEAT JUSTIN_LUN POINT OF VIEW CORRECTLY, CUZ YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S SAYING. YET YOU WANT JUSTIN_LUN TO REPEAT YOUR OWN POINT." I rest my case.

If you still think I'm unreasonable, feel free to "report" me to admin. In fact, I'm looking forward to it.

silverxing

1. Repeating justin_lun point: The first thing you've stated is that "I(mememe) have repeated justin_lun point of view correctly. It's not as hard as you(silverxing) have stated." Yet, you said the following in your last post: 呢0的咪叫主觀咯...(Just to save space, not repeating the whole phase)....你依家知道乜嘢係本末倒置啦?
And why did you have such response? It's to reply my post as follow: In the view of......THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL.(Just see you own post, not wasting too much space here.)

Do you see the problem? You intention is to aruge whether my post is correct or not. But what I do is simply REPEATING JUSTIN_LUN WORDS AND WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POST. So, the siutation is: I(silverxing) said, "justin_lun said fatalism is wrong." Then you(mememe) said, "you(silverxing) cannot said Fatalism is wrong, because of .....(what you said)". I'M NOT SAYING FATALISM IS WRONG. I'M REPEATING WHAT JUSTIN_LUN SAID IN HIS POST. You're treating justin_lun word as my(silverxing) word and now you want to argue with me about Fatalism.

You said you know well about what justin_lun said? For just 4-5 posts I've made, you already mix up what I said!!!! And in those 4-5 posts, I keep repeating and repeating and repeating, "I'm not here to argue religious problem! That's not what I intend to do here!!!" Yet, you keep asking me to repeat your point, stating what you've said is correct, and arguing about religious problem. You already mistaken MY(SILVERXING) point of view. What did I said in the very first post again? I said, "It's almost impossible to repeat others' point of view. If you(mememe) really want others to do it, how about you do it first and show everyone it is possible?" But now and here, for just 4-5 posts I've made, you've already mix up my point of view. Do you still think it's possible to repeat others' point of view?

2. Co-existence. Here, I need to confess. I've made a trap in this argument, to simply trick you! Once I've said co-exist and exist in the same time is different. You've put a lot of evidences, links, and more to support you point, that both thing is the same thing. So that you can stand strong at the argument, "justin_lun think Freedom of will and omniscience coexist and exist the same time, because it's the same thing."
Now let me tell you something, with justin_lun own words. In justin_lun argument, he once said, "Omniscience is an ability, Freedom of will is a promise. In God's view, promise is more important than ability. God can choose whether to use an ability or not, but God need to keep his promise no matter what. So when it comes to priority, FREEDOM OF WILL ALWAYS COMES FIRST, OMNISCIENCE NEED TO PUT INTO SECOND PRIORITY." So what justin_lun mean is THERE IS SITUATION THAT FREEDOM OF WILL CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH OMNISCIENCE!!! No matter it's exist at the same time or co-exist, both are NOT what justin_lun said!!!! The difference between "co-exist" and "exist the same time"? I simply make it up, just to make you stand strong on the argument "justin_lun think Freedom of will and Omniscience exist the same time". Becuase justin_lun said just the opposite!!!!
This time, I match up all your requirement, using justin_lun's word (That's the evidence), using the argument he argued with you, not other people. Yet, you CANNOT REPEAT HIS POINT OF VIEW, BUT SAYING JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID.

3. Philosophy/Logical Analysis. "All form of Christian Gods are omniscient." All A ∈ B, now that's correct. But may I add a footnote. It's totally different from "all Gods are omniscient." Please don't think they're the same, because they're not.

Now about double negative. Who's 隻手遮天? The site you've provided, just take a clear look at the one about "double negative elimination". You'll see that you need to "eliminate" double negative before you ever start an logical analysis. The proper term is called "The Law of Dobule Negation". You don't even know what the site you've provided talking about! If you still don't believe, check out the following site. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

And now with your "All A ∈ B" correct, your "No C ∈ B" are still wrong!!! You've said I ignore the argument about coexistence? How did you explain your ignoration of the fault on "No Omnicient being will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? There's only one document ever mention about the relationship of "Omnicient being", "Adam" and "the fruit of knowledge". That document is call Bible. What did the bible said? It said, "The All mightly God warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge. Just OPPOSITE from what you state. There's no evidence AT ALL to support your "No C ∈ B". Enough evidence for you?