0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by Non_BelieverAnnoyed? So you're telling me you got offended by a harmless post? Seriously. How old do you have to be to not get offended by something on the internet? Which in turn, you don't have to read, but do anyways. How mature of an adult, perhaps? That in itself is a form of ignorance. To get offended by something you don't have to read, but chose to read. Yes, emotional feelings are hard to control on your own, but you still chose to read my post even further, to make yourself even more annoyed. It's like reading a book on opinions, and then throwing it away because it annoyed you and you thought it was garbage of a book but kept on reading it when it still flustered you. It is something stupid to get annoyed over, and let your emotions fluster over something so small.
quote:Originally posted by Non_BelieverMaybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
quote:And I'm not much like other people, you have proven me wrong in many places (yes, being proved wrong is good for me, lets me learn even more), but still realize, I'm just a teenager with an opinion.
quote:My English teacher is an idiot to a major degree, and I have many people who will agree to that. But no I can have a normal discussion without being insulting. I do come off insulting because of how I feel about the ideas of God, religion, and science. Most people can't take something without getting offended. And I can much agree with you on the Florida School System, I have not fully lived this school system, but many others. I'm pretty sure as an American yourself, you are in the same damn basket of idiots as we're all in. This whole country is full of ignorance, and it drips with it. We know nothing about respect, and I've grown up never getting respect, so I barely give any respect back to anyone who asks for it.But as this is the internet, I have ALL rights to say what I want, and how I feel about something, wether I get nasty about it or not.
quote:I'll mistreat the use of the internet, I'll abuse the hell out of it. For my own purpose. You and everyone else on this forum, I can give less care for. Your opinions (some great at that) don't matter to me. No one that I don't know that isn't close to me is just an itch on the arm to me. Forums of this such don't matter, you people don't matter.
quote:Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
quote:Originally posted by Carolynquote:And I'm not much like other people, you have proven me wrong in many places (yes, being proved wrong is good for me, lets me learn even more), but still realize, I'm just a teenager with an opinion.Steven - I sincerely apologise to you. I didn't mean to be so harsh, I was just trying to make a point. Nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as we learn from them. Saying that you are just a teenager implies that you aren't, for lack of a better word, valuable. You are valuable and your opinion matters, whether I agree with you or not. quote:My English teacher is an idiot to a major degree, and I have many people who will agree to that. But no I can have a normal discussion without being insulting. I do come off insulting because of how I feel about the ideas of God, religion, and science. Most people can't take something without getting offended. And I can much agree with you on the Florida School System, I have not fully lived this school system, but many others. I'm pretty sure as an American yourself, you are in the same damn basket of idiots as we're all in. This whole country is full of ignorance, and it drips with it. We know nothing about respect, and I've grown up never getting respect, so I barely give any respect back to anyone who asks for it.But as this is the internet, I have ALL rights to say what I want, and how I feel about something, wether I get nasty about it or not.This just made me laugh. I get the feeling you have a wonderful sense of humor, I just missed it. Sorry I didn't see it. I also live in Florida, and have one child in the FL school system, and one that's graduated and is off in college. It is a challenge making sure my kids don't get behind the 8 ball when it comes to an education in Florida. You mentioned that you went to school outside of Florida too? Have you had to take that awful FCAT yet? If so, I hope you did well. If not, good luck.Steven - I'm sorry you haven't been shown respect. I hope that changes for you very soon.quote:I'll mistreat the use of the internet, I'll abuse the hell out of it. For my own purpose. You and everyone else on this forum, I can give less care for. Your opinions (some great at that) don't matter to me. No one that I don't know that isn't close to me is just an itch on the arm to me. Forums of this such don't matter, you people don't matter. Yes, these forums do matter. I've learned alot here and have made some good friends. And although I've disagreed and argued with you, you should know that you and your opinion matter. Hope you stick around and check out some other topics.quote:Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.Something we can agree on. George is more intelligent than most of us.Carolyn
quote:Originally posted by ROBERT The center is one of a small but growing number of practices around the country that tailor the care they provide to the religious beliefs of their doctorshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14576677/
quote:Originally posted by MjhavokSolipsism is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. If you take solipsisms into account then you can prove nothing.
quote:Originally posted by bostjanI think solipsism is such an extreme philosophy, that it attracts a lot of attention. From a purist's standpoint, however, you must define something as reality in order to even talk about reality clearly, thus solipsism, upon it's assumption that reality cannot be seen nor sensed in any way, leaves reality undefined, and cannot speak clearly of reality, which is the very thing it intends to make us aware of. Therefore, in my opinion, by this argument, it is useless to any form of science.
quote:God, can be argued along the same lines. If we define god such that god exists everywhere, yet cannot be sensed, thewn the very idea of god is merely a plaything with no basis on any logical or scientific process. If you define god in a way that has something to do with logic or science, then there would be some way to find god. But as long as we are uncertain in our terms of what we are looking for, there will be no means of finding. In the cases where gods have been defined as something tangible, evidence has always disproved their existence.
quote:Originally posted by bostjanSorry to speak frankly, but there is very little logical about god. He is argued to be every opposing extreme in monotheistic religion as well as pantheistic religions, which cover most modern religions.
quote:Solipsism is essentially the philosophical scepticism of science. I'm taking much liberty to paraphrase it as such, but the belief that what we measure and observe is not to be trusted is the same to me.The extremism of infinity is absolutely different from how i mean the term to describe a philosophy or rhetoric. Perhaps 'radical' would be a more fitting term. The way it claims that we cannot claim anything about the outside world is taking a simple fact that observations are tainted by the observer- to the maximum tangible level.
quote:Ok, back to the logical issues with debating god- a logical implication A implies B may be true if A is false or if both A and B are true - and if the truth of A actually tells you about the truth of B, yet in theological arguments, people often try to use this to prove B, which is unprovable by use of A that is simply true but has nothing to do with B. I.E.- Look at how beautiful a butterfly is! The beauty of the butterfly must mean there is a god! or The bullet just barely missed me so there must be a god!
quote:Originally posted by bostjanI have yet to see one logical explanation that even comes close to proving the existance of any spirit (non-material) being.
quote:but to say there is some personified creature that rules the universe is really non sequitor, as far as I'm concerned. It just doesn't make any sense. Why does there have to be someone ruling the universe? What exactly do they do to execute this rule? What exactly does the existance of this person explain?There does not have to be. The rules of nature govern the behaviour of the universe. Nothing. The existance of god does not explain anything. As a scientist, I have no interest in theories that raise more unanswerable questions and explain nothing observable. If I was a philosopher, I would probably be intrigued…
quote:Originally posted by roarerI tell you...I ONLY use the words "soul mode" and "body mode" NOT because I am religious..but because there are NO other words I can think of to distinguish between the two. I suppose I can define those "states"..is that the right word?.....like "death"...and "life"..or something similiar. But I bet that even if I used these words....they would be challenged.Now to the defintion of death. What does medical science define the state where the heart stops and the brain is starved of oxygen..if it is NOT death? Is there a medical or scientific definition of this and if so what is it called?
quote:Originally posted by bostjanI always thought engineers were curious about how things worked and physicists in why they worked, but this is immaterial.
quote:What logical model relies on the existance of god?
quote:Originally posted by bostjan'Act of God' is a phrase with no pure logical motives.
quote:I don't see how we can be in disagreement as to how a word with no specified meaning has anything to do with logic. Logic is cut and dried.Logic: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning," "something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason"See my point? From what do you infer or demonstrate the existance of god? Notice the word 'science in the dictionary definition of 'logic?'
quote:Originally posted by bostjanMathematics is a branch of science as much as chemistry is. Physics is also a tool used in chemistry, does that make it not a branch of science?
quote:BTW, physics is the study of the physical environment as we percieve it. Science is merely the study of the nature of things, including life (biology), the earth (geology), chemicals (chemistry), and numbers (mathematics) and much more.
quote:And there is nothing logical about making up a person to put blame onto for a misadventure. Just read what you said 'generic substitute for human.' There is no logic in making a wild assumption to make up for circumstances you cannot explain. Logic would require starting with something and deducing a result with a sound explaination, not just pulling something out of the blue.
quote:Anyway, I do not see 'God' being endicted for any of these judicial decisions. Does the court get a priest to take a deposition from the Bible to get 'God's' testimony? Or do they consult a Rabbi about the Torah? Perhaps an Imam for the Koran, or get all three together and see how much agreement you get. As I said, there is no pure logical motive behind the phrase 'Act of God,' it's merely a poorly worded phrase with a vague meaning.
quote:Originally posted by bostjanFirst off, Chemists who ignore the laws of physics will never go anywhere, since a reaction is determined by entropy and energy.
quote:Second, imaginary number have a vast logical motive behind them. They are well defined and their behaviour is completely predictable. 'God,' on the other hand, is poorly defined and is completely unpredictable.
quote:Third, it is easy and plausible to test theories in mathematics. Simplest example: 2+2=4, take two rocks and throw them in with two more rocks and count how many rocks there are.
quote:Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is perhaps the most celebrated result in mathematical logic. It states thatFor any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. Gödel's second incompleteness theorem can be stated as follows:For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
quote:Let M be "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members". Formally: A is an element of M if and only if A is not an element of A. Nothing in the system of Frege's Grundgesetze rules out M being a well-defined set. If M contains itself, M is not a member of M according to the definition. If M does not contain itself, then M has to be a member of M, again by the very definition of M. The statements "M is a member of M" and "M is not a member of M" cannot both be true, thus the contradiction
quote:DefinitionDefine the adjectives "autological" and "heterological" as follows:An adjective is autological if and only if it describes itself. For example "short" is autological, since the word "short" is short. "Sophisticated" and "pentasyllabic" are also autological. An adjective is heterological if and only if it does not describe itself. Hence "long" is a heterological word, as is "monosyllabic". All adjectives, it would seem, must be either autological or heterological, for each adjective either describes itself, or it doesn't. The Grelling-Nelson paradox arises when we consider the adjective "heterological".To test if the word 'foo' is autological you can ask: Is 'foo' a foo word? If the answer is 'yes', 'foo' is autological. If the answer is 'no', 'foo' is heterological.Is 'heterological' a heterological word? If the answer is 'yes', 'heterological' is autological (leading to a contradiction). If the answer is 'no', 'heterological' is heterological (again leading to a contradiction).There is no consistent answer to the question: Is the word "heterological" heterological? On the one hand, if the word "heterological" is heterological, then it does not describe itself. Since the fact of it not describing itself does, in fact, describe it, it is autological, which means it isn't heterological. On the other hand, if the word "heterological" is not heterological, then it must be autological, which means it describes itself, and therefore it must be heterological. Either case leads to the contradiction that the word "heterological" is both heterological and not heterological, which is impossible.AnalysisThe Grelling-Nelson paradox can be translated into Bertrand Russell's famous paradox in the following way: identify each adjective with the set of objects to which that adjective applies. So, for example, the adjective "red" is equated with the set of all red objects. In this way, the adjective "pronounceable" is equated with the set of all pronounceable things, one of which is the word "pronounceable" itself. Thus, an autological word is understood as a set, one of whose elements is the set itself. The question of whether the word "heterological" is heterological becomes the question of whether the set of all sets not containing themselves contains itself as an element.
quote:Originally posted by bostjanCertainly, most of the details of string theory have not been tested at all, but it is a very new theory in comparison with theological theories such as Judaism and Christianity.
quote:Last, I appreciate the long explainations, but have to disagree with many points you make. I fail to see how there is any reasonable ammount of logic involved in any concept of god, and I still have yet to see any logical deduction using god that makes the least ammount of sense.
quote:Originally posted by bostjanWhether you calculate the energy of each electron, which no one does for realistic molecules anyway, mind you, or you measure it with a calorimeter, you are measuring the energy and using thermodynamics, which is a branch of physics. Even as you use these measurements to predict whether a reaction will go or not, depends on the laws of thermodynamics. As a double major in chemistry and physics, I could tell you that nearly every branch of chemistry is concerned with the laws of physics.
quote:Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, I only used the example I did for simplicity. If I can show one counterexample to the assumption that there are no experimental tests for mathematics, I prove that assumption false.
quote:Claiming to know something in the set of unknown things is, itself, a paradox, so if god is in the set of unknown things, there cannot exist such a thing as theology, as it is the knowledge of an unknown thing.Surely these are things you cannot disagree with outright.
quote:Explaininig set theory to a person who has taken two courses at the upper undergraduate level in set theory is going to convince them neither that mathematics is not a science nor that the notion of god is a logically based axiom.
One cannot conceive of experimental mathematics, and one does not seek to verify mathematical theory by observation of the natural world.
quote:Originally posted by another_someonequote:Originally posted by MjhavokSolipsism is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. If you take solipsisms into account then you can prove nothing.Solipsism is far from mumbo jumbo, but it is a philosophical issue rather than a scientific one.Ofcourse, if one takes solipsism into account, one can prove nothing beyond one's own conceptual existence (and technically, one can also argue that everything else also conceptually exists, only one cannot prove the physical existence of anything beyond oneself, and while one may reasonably assume one's own physical existence, one cannot prove anything about the nature of that existence).You are right that taking solipsism into account highlights the limitations of what may be proven absolutely, and thus highlights that no matter what science one tries to perform, one must make some assumptions. This does not invalidate science, it merely places some limits on science, and limits upon knowledge in any form.George
quote:Originally posted by RMorty What I am saying is that maybe it isn't what we perceive, as not being real. Maybe you would need to look at it as reality not being real, but we still have a reality, so therefore the sun and earth are real.
quote:Originally posted by bostjanroman catholics were not the 'original' christian religion. that'd be the twelve disciples. the coptic christians are much closer than roman catholics to the practices of the disciples.but yeah, that's a great point! what if only jehovah's witnesses are right?
quote:However, you have explained you simply meant reality is only what it is toeach of us differently. kinda? It is a very confusing concept. i got cross eyes reading If what you are saying is that we need to define an arbitrary reality as being an arbitrary absolute starting point, I have no problem with this. All I was trying to say is that you cannot state any reality as being guaranteed to be the only possible reality; but that does not stop you from selecting a reality as something that you choose (out of expediency) as being real (assuming you actually exist ).
quote:Originally posted by another_someonequote:Originally posted by bostjanroman catholics were not the 'original' christian religion. that'd be the twelve disciples. the coptic christians are much closer than roman catholics to the practices of the disciples.but yeah, that's a great point! what if only jehovah's witnesses are right?Technically, the twelve disciples were Jews, not Christians. Exactly where one draws the historic line between early Christianity and Judaism is difficult. Clearly, by the time the Roman Empire adopted Christianity (and not Judaism) they were separate, but what the Roman Empire adopted was what we now regard as the Greek Orthodox form of Christianity, but by the time that was adopted there were already many different variants of Christianity (in fact, since there was not prior to Christianity becoming the State religion of the Roman Empire and standardising body for Christianity, there would have been no standard Christianity).George