Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-5 Poor

About recursion

  • Rank
  1. Logic is logic, there's no distinction of different types of logic, only subcategories. Logic is pure and perfect, when done correctly, and forms the foundation of science. What do you define as "meat?" Consider when you logically deduce that there is a high probability that after the day it will be night, as you have seen it repeatedly follow that pattern and through your understanding of the basic probabilities implied by consistently repeated phenomena, you make that deduction. There is no salad in that, I use words very accurately, and without any fluff. If there is the perception of
  2. No, the nature of science is to understand information found through observation, understanding, and perfect logic. When a true scientists says "the earth is over 6,000 years old," he knowingly is saying, at a deeper level, "the evidence that we have been presented or found suggests that the earth is over 6,000 years old," which on a personal level, I don't disagree with -- it certainly seems like it's over 6,000 years old, however just as it's really easy to build and destroy a pile of dirt, machine automation could easily fool our surprisingly egotistical and short-sighted society, both of w
  3. There is a lot of excitement in those theories and they are certainly not considered to be highly plausible with the social scientific consensus. In complete truth, they are spawned from desire to do what we have been trying to do for a long time, and in the excitement that the theorist carries, they miss some very important logical arguments, similar to what Aristotle did upon the theory of spontaneous generation (although technically it wasn't completely untrue, if you actually read what was being suggested). No, nothing physical can come from nothing, there is absolutely no way around that
  4. It's only a paradox in a matter-based existence. There is another valid possibility that still abides by the scientific idea of repeatability of specific events without variance. While much of science is concerned with tests, if there are events that happen without human evocation, then those, too, can be observed in the same way testable phenomena can be observed. Thus, understanding the fundamental principles of existence, which is primarily logic (and more often associated with computer science and engineering, as logic and intelligence as of the same topic), is also of the scientific metho
  5. Your first statement is a bit erroneous to what I had said and in no way has God been defined in this discussion as "an invisible friend," although intelligence itself is invisible (of a system, not a specific material). If you'd like to define "friend" and "God," we can adjust the understood definition of "God" and discuss from there. I think we are referring to "God" as in an intelligent creator of what we know to exist. Remember to stay level in conversation -- anything else indicates personal unfounded bias, often through emotion and not through logic or error-free thinking. For the t
  6. I apologize if I did not. I think I checked before I wrote that, however it might have been a different forum. The point remains that language is used to communicate understanding, not usually semantics. Thus, I can make a sound representing something I understand and if you perceive the same understanding, then language has been effective. Two people will often read a slightly different word with the same word as it's understood differently. Suppose the answer to how existence exists is referred to as "God." What I'm saying is similar to if x+2 = 5, then x=3, as in if God created th
  7. See above for the answer. I'd like to ignore it though, it's a bit of a distraction from the conversation. Perhaps I'm just a bit over-reactive. I think you may have skimmed too quickly. Please reference the referenced material in the same greater quote box and let me know if there is any ambiguity. Thanks. (By "Jesus manifest had the effect that you see today," I'm referring to the historical effect of his person.)
  8. I don't look daft at all. However, I suppose it does depend on your perspective. If you seriously doubt the ability of the human species to master what is just a complicated lego set, then perhaps I see your perspective. Also, you may be unfamiliar with modern technological intelligence, of whom who aren't, do perceive the solution to what amounts to a set of mathematical equations is just a matter of time. I suppose in that case, you are the daft one to suggest such an extreme level of incompetence for the human race.
  9. If you are talking some possible discovery in the future. I really don't know if what you think possible could happen. I could be pessimistic and say I doubt if humans would be able to achieve this. You seem to have strong religious views and this as well. What sort of philosophy is that? Well, usually we can keep something burning forever with the right materials. That statement didn't have to do with religion, but rather intelligent capability and concurrently physical ability (aided by intelligent creations). It is certainly a reasonable (and commonly understood) possibly that machin
  10. I think we can allow the Earth to be sustained indefinitely. The sun is a fairly understood being, and it's certainly possible to allow it to live indefinitely, so long as the possible collapse (or other theoretical catastrophe such as the thinning of matter or something) can be prevented (it seems at the rate we evolve, we will certainly be able to do nearly anything in the future, so it's not unlikely this universe may never die and the sun is able to be sustained for the entirety of the existence our ability). I'm, in part, a musician and I can count without too much difficulty a tent
  11. Let's be 100% accurate. Science sees a connected story that suggests, with what we have observed, various things about the world. But, as you must understand, if you accept that as ultimate fact, you are the fool. In a hundred to a thousand years, we could very well leave the planet and change the apparent history and no monkey would be able to differentiate as we will have gone through that process already. So while science suggests something, we must always understand later evidence may revoke that suggestion. It's been some time. I'll have to find the evolutionary rate and diversit
  12. Please don't ignore sentences and then take the others out of context. As I would have required pages of material to fully explain what I stated, I made sure to announce that "Here's an explanation that skips a few pages of explanation, so hold on to your head, lol." It would certainly take a few pages, but all of my logic is founded on strict logic without error (you are certainly welcome to accurate criticism but defamation or personal attacks is not a congenial way -- I have no beliefs which I hold without the strictest logical foundation, although upon the perception of its developed state
  13. You did not read everything except for that one sentence apparently. I said, when you read, you do not understand the words written but instead you think about it and through your mind you come to an understanding. So yes, in your statement I see it is true that you are cynical and insulting, and thus I read what is true. In a better example, to consider that "God" created to universe, you'll have to equate the definition of what created the universe with God. If something created the universe, then that would be God, if nothing created the universe, then that would also be God. Reading throug
  14. In reference to my statement that I believe things objectively, it is certainly true, at least to the point of maximal intention (human error aside). Let's first understand the definition of evidence. Without looking it up, we understand that evidence is a form of clear objective support for a possibility to be true. This includes logic, as all appraisals are founded on error-free logic. Thus, to claim "there is no evidence" would be to suggest that with the entire capability of all human thought, no evidence can be found. A more accurate statement would be, "I have not perceived con
  15. I also do not think that "fear of damnation" is the most significant contribution to the support of religion. However, considering the permanence of things and the likely tracibility of all matter, energy, and actions with the plethora of reference points we have (to track past events with, even at a sub-atomic level), it is a component of wisdom to be thoughtful of future judgement. As a reply to the second point, I think a great flaw in popular "scientific" thought is that science provides any explanation whatsoever to the initial creation of the universe. It is literally a paradox -- t
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.