forufes

but then which one was god before the trinity was "invented"?

but why? you can drive your opponent crazy by treating every sentence of his as a statement then demanding proof for it.. sorry they all went over my head, couldn't understand how any of them work:embarass: yeah well proof itself is comprised of simple statements which don't require proof. but i think my statement wasn't simple enough, does that mean i should've put it in terms of A's and B's for it to be simple enough not to require proof? i thought proof is built UPON logic, you can't explain logic by proof that is understood and evaluated by (once again) by logic. well, unless some logic was explainable and some logic isn't, as in logic is built upon itself, and that should be explained by some sort of proof, but in the end, you've got no proof that if a=b and b=c then a=c, but the blockhead in front of you shouldn't even ask for it.

i say "our logic is based on our experience" my friend tells me to stop talking from my ass and prove it. i ask him to disprove it, he says the burden of proof is on me, cuz i'm making a claim. i pointed out that hes also making a claim by opposing me(that logic isn't based on experience), and that in reality proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim, and mine was simple common sense. he said that it's common sense for me, but i can't objectively state that. so, he kept demanding "proof". and while he's a total ass, and i should've ripped his bones apart, i just shut up since it's a fight of words. i even asked him to giv me an exampe of a logical statement, so that i show him that it's based on his experience, and that under different experiences, it won't be logical anymore, and he refused. the implication he was running away is that what is logical isn't necessary right, since our experience is not only different, it's also growing. so is there any proof? should there be proof for such simple statements? is proof the only was of proving the consistency of logic?

any proof of some sort?

why?

and rightly so. the way i see it, may it be us or some other species or entities, if the world they're in is too fragile to hold their existence yet is doing so, it makes sense to wonder about it. on the other hand: what is it here? it is a puddle, and if a puddle in our life had the ability to observe, it would observe that many "puddles" COexist no matter what their holes were like, as a matter of fact, if the puddle were to settle in a hole with different parameters, it would still maintain it's distinguishable self; a puddle. hence, the puddle would not marvel at it's hole's unique characteristics, as they're easily changable. i've got the feeling you think the puddle's consiousness would change when its parameters change. but, we humans, nope, say life forms. if we looked at our "hole" and looked into the possibilities of existing in another hole, na'a, we're doomed, we wouldn't be just puddles with different parameters, according to our knowledge, we wouldn't be puddles (life forms) at all(unless someone here thinks a bit bigger or smaller neutrons and protons flying around would pass as life forms) ------------------------------------ but then comes another idea(which is what i thik you had in mind); what if those slightly bigger or smaller neutrons and protons, even though they can no longer form atoms as we know them, form something totally different, and that totally different thing becomes the basic building block which builds some other intelligent beings, in a world with it's own equilibriums, those of which are actually violating our own equilibriums, and would spell doom for us, and they would wonder "what if neutrons and protons were a little bit bigger or smaller? wouldn't that end life as we know it?" ------- while that is an entertaining idea, and a basically theoretically possible one, we have no proof to even SUGGEST it, alas, such idea unroots science by the spine through the neck, it is not a leap of faith, but rather a fancy ride on faith's broomstick. cuz in such world, it is possible for light to be the slowest thing around, for energy to be created and destroyed, for 1+1 to equal 0. that my friends, is soo unscientific, it's possible, but not scientific, according to OUR science, the world is a sleeping elephant bouncing upside down on a ball pearched on the top of a ten deck house of cards while(the elephant) sews a sock with it's feet. but let's take some more serious analogies, ones we can work on, "the possibility of the world coming to existence due to randomness is the same possibility of the existence of a whole dictionary with arranged words and meanings due to a press machine exploding, and that is impossible" now i disagree with the author for two reasons; 1- it is technically possible, but extremely highly improbable. 2- as i said before, such happening goes from highly improbable to 100% must happen when you have an infinite number of presses, or one press that keeps blowing up time after time for infinity. in our world, as Mr.Skeptic pointed out, we may have both. another good analogy is the monkey on the typewriter producing one of Shakespeare's plays, same points apply. and a third one i think i read around here somewhere(think it was by the cap'n), finding a suit that fits you a 100% from a set of predesigned suits. now, i'll cut short to the point, the infinite press machines keep exploding for infinity, can they produce a finite book? yes. can they produce an infinite book, with infinite meanings, infinite words, infinite correlations between the contents? a book that is changing, expanding, even as the presses are exploding? same goes for the monkeys and the suit. if while you're searching for your suit, you're constantly growing, you find out about what you like and don't like every second spent searching, you get fatter and thinner, richer and poorer... would ever you find your perfect suit? how many are the secrets of life? how many are the odds life beat to come out? how many is it still beating to continue? how much do we learn of ourselves and surroundings every day? for how long will we keep learning new things about ourselves and the things around us? every new thing we learn, sets a new infinite plane of possibilities to happen, and a sub area interval on which things "SHOULD" happen, and yet another sub interval within of how things ARE happening. which infinity would swallow the other, how things are happening, or the extent to which things were allowed to happen? that's up for grabs:D and a canyon some take the faith express to cross. the comparision is a guess. the estimation on both sides(necessary conditions vs their likelihood), is imo, so far, a leap of faith, otherwise it would be demonstrated, or even scientifically properly estimated. what if you replace the first number with 1/google?? it's still cooking... or you could replace 1/google with 1/infinity. then you'd get zero possibility of life emerging in the constant big universe..

well, while i disagree, and i find time being infinite very unreasonable and flawed, i'll just pass on this one, we'll assume for the sake of argument that time IS infinite. lol, 12 mins? please demonstrate. and please make it scientific, i can say it takes a split second for the universe to exist. given the right conditions, them being; god exists:D good point...i'll think it through.. any number in a science book that when changed from a certain wide or narrow range would mean the end of life as we know it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged you're right..i'm uneducated.. so go on, show us what you learned in your statistics class..what's the statistics behind life being likely to exist?

omg i should have read this before replying in the other thread, my apologies:embarass: if it is seen better for my post to be transferred than so be it.

no, they would look at us and realize that life would emerge under not so strict possibilities. the puddle example also didn't portray the matter at hand well, cuz if the puddle changed the variables of its hole, it would find out that it would remain a puddle. but we explored the other possibilities, we, unlike puddles, study science, we know of the unlimited possibilities of how life can be destroyed(or just not exist), and it isn't undisputed that time isn't unlimited enough to equal them out. you don't know that:-) it's what you call "a leap of faith"... an atheistic one. you just believe that it is possible that we came out of sheer coincidence, without quite doing the math... but let's give it a try; us coming into existence by coincidence, means the conditions required for life would be met in the given time interval. aha, the argument is, no matter what humongous number of delicate balances are required to settle together in between a HUGE set of possibilities, as long as the time is infinite then they not only could meet, they actually MUST meet. couple points here: 1-who said time was infinite? how long has it been since the big bang? what if such time wasn't enough even for all the possibilities(equilibriums) to strike correctly from the first try? not enough time for our existence process to line up and happen? 2-there must be different and/or failed life forms due to the tryout process, none were found. 3- and most importantly... the variables required for our existence are not a big number... they're infinity themselves! so for [possibility of life emerging] =! [infinity time available]/[large but constant variables of life] = [infinity i.e life has to exist].. but rather (imo) = [infinity time available]/[infinity variables to be met for life to exist].. following so far?

ouch man... i know. now what exactly are you saying? entropy is decreasing on earth, that can't happen UNLESS it was an open system(which it is). now albeit it being an open system that is reducing entropy and absorbing energy(heat), there has to be a balancing entropy increase in the rest of the cosmos, i'm asking about the forms such increase may take, if any were observed, theorized or anything. i can't quite understand an answer if it's given or properly ask it till i grasp the concept or definition of entropy more, i'm gaining progress, and i'll be back with better phrasing for this whole thing (i hope:embarass:)

wow, you summed it up brilliantly, nothing less expected i might add.. well put. the aversion normal people have to hurting others is only for direct unreasonable pain, like sadism, to kill someone because you enjoy it, or fire an employee or make a student fail just for the heck of it, there i agree... but take the term "it's strictly business", when and where is it used? when a bank lends a needy man some money just to take it away from him doubled in some time, isn't that hurting him? but then again the bank doesn't want to hurt itself either, and it was the guy's choice to take the loan, so the bank can say they're clear, but where's their empathy? is it bigger for themselves, or for others? would "the right thing" be more right for you or others? and what's either's share of it? selflessness and selfishness, where in between does "best for everybody" stand? empathy IS a wavy and blurry line, pretty subjective, and one's bordering of "good" in it may be within the "bad" of somebody else. you have two issues here, the first is the same one with empathy, one's standards of worth could be sheer force, survival of the fittest, if you can't survive, you're not worth surviving, and would hold himself to that same standard. again, it's a blurry line, if not a very wide strip. second, some people don't care for self worth, they just don't have it, either they're not given it, and external ethical laws bound those from going savage, or those who decided they don't need it, because it's rubbish, personally i might be one of those. when you reach the conclusion of the meaningless of life, when you face your mortality, idk, you just decide, in a determined way, that it's just not going to matter, like a breakdown, this world becomes like....... lol it becomes like scienceforums IRC, you go in, you know it's gonna end whether you want it to or not, it's all about if you'll enjoy hanging around for that unknown period of time or not, if it's going to be a total waste of time or not.(don't know if that was a good example) imo that's the only one that'll work, it's the only logically consistent reason, the only one that makes sense. according to some variables; can i cheat-endure-escape its penalty? if not, do i care for its penalty? is the penalty bad enough to nullify my gain? by taking the answers of these two questions to an extreme, you seal your ethical code. there are many conscious moral choices. AND those that are done automatically are base on those which are done cosciously(well thought). you can say that your ethical code shapes or gets embedded into your general behavior, and you then decide in trivial moral situations without consciously employing your ethical code and choosing, but it's there, and it's all built upon each other.

trolling. couldn't find a free online copy, not even on scribd, but not so bad reviews here and here. i'll get one if i find it, it's either an enlightenment to a flaw in a past conception, or a validation and strengthening of it.

so let's take a look at possible answers; -the religious one was given. -cuz i simply don't want to. i do what i want and don't do what i don't want, you gotta a beef with that? nope, but you shouldn't have a beef with those who have a different taste regarding what "they want". if getting away with it doesn't include people not being aware of it -because most benefits i get from harming people are weighted out by me being rejected by people, and people's acceptance is one of the most valued benefits i have in my life. this is very strong, one may even argue that it's the ONLY driving force of any actions we carry out that aren't necessary for us to stay alive(IOW everything we do other than eating and shitting, is done to be recognized by others) what of those who aren't recognized by others to from the first place? those social dropouts? those already rejected by their society? if getting away with it includes people not being aware of it -because harming others decreases my sense of self worth. i measure others' worth with a scale of how beneficial they can be to others, if i harm others, i'm making myself worthless by my own standards. BUT, i can be self centered, this is a one time life ride. BUT, if it's a one time life ride, i want to achieve the highest self worth in it(illusion that leads to/explains sacrificial behavior) -evolution ended up shaping us into a social species, which survives as a society, and such selfish behavior would damage and maybe destroy our society and hence our whole race, what would happen to our accumulated knowledge and technology, our heritage and civilization, our children and the memories they will hold of us? trashed, why will you give a damn anyway? it'll all be gone once you die, so why bother with a doom that as far as you'll be concerned isn't-won't-didn't happen? -because due to the technological and scientific advancements humans have achieved, it is impossible to get away with it. our science-driven ethical system came up with ways/methods/discoveries/inventions to make people self surrender when they do something wrong or able to detect guilt or can mind read or has cameras everywhere or has fool proof forensic capabilities or has altered our genes to be unable to do evil etc etc... sigh, while i can point out MAJOR flaws specific for each one of the previous, not to mention general ones like privacy violation and all being part of the future...; me just says: if a man was smart enough to create it, another man is smart enough to find a way(s) around it. what is YOUR answer to that question?

so the theistic moral code never existed in the first place? stop trying to bend what i said. my rant is because he started with his conclusion (god isn't needed) and offerred close to nothing as a proof or alternative. we can measure the pleasure one feels under certain conditions. we can try and list those conditions whcih contribute to the human's well being. ...... then what? eh inow? where's good and evil? our modern scientific gear can measure that pedos enjoy raping children, and that children do not, so should we make children enjoy rape or kill the pesos sex drive? and i (along with those who asked the quetions in the end) showed lots and lots of loop holes in his attempt, even if what he offered isn't solid enough to even contain loop holes, so if you really want to support his case, reply to the raised points in my "rant":eyebrow: yeees.. your idea is to try to abandon and oppose religion wherever it is, i'm sure that's pretty established.. but i'm not letting you do it in an exrtemely unscientific way here on a science forum. here, answer this question(you or any other atheist or otherwise): if i can benefit myself by harming others and can get way with it, why should i not? religion successfully answers "cuz god'll screw you up" and science? ehhhh??? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged so let's take a look at possible answers; -the religious one was given. -cuz i simply don't want to. i do what i want and don't do what i don't want, you gotta a beef with that? nope, but you shouldn't have a beef with those who have a different taste regarding what "they want to do". if getting away with it doesn't include people not being aware of it -because most benefits i get from harming people are weighted out by me being rejected by people, and people's acceptance is one of the most valued benefits i have in my life. this is very strong, one may even argue that it's the ONLY driving force of any actions we carry out that don't keep us alive(IOW everything we do other than eating and shitting, is done to be recognized by others) what of those who aren't recognized by others to from the first place? those social dropouts? those already rejected by their society? if getting away with it includes people not being aware of it -because harming others decreases my sense of self worth. i measure others' worth with a scale of how beneficial they can be to others, if i harm others, i'm making myself worthless by my own standards. BUT, i can be self centered, this is a one time life ride. BUT, if it's a one time life ride, i want to achieve the highest self worth in it(illusion that leads to/explains sacrificial behavior) -evolution ended up shaping us into a social species, which survives as a society, and such selfish behavior would damage and maybe destroy our society and hence our whole race, what would happen to our accumulated knowledge and technology, our heritage and civilization, our children and the memories they will hold of us? trashed, why will you give a damn anyway? it'll all be gone once you die, so why bother with a doom that as far as you'll be concerned isn't-won't-didn't happen? -because due to the technological and scientific advancements humans have achieved, it is impossible to get away with it. our science-driven ethical system came up with ways/methods/discoveries/inventions to make people self surrender when they do something wrong or able to detect guilt or can mind read or has cameras everywhere or has fool proof forensic capabilities or has altered our genes to be unable to do evil etc etc... sigh, while i can point out MAJOR flaws specific for each one of the previous, not to mention general ones like privacy violation and all being part of the future...; me just says: if a man was smart enough to create it, another man is smart enough to find a way(s) around it.

so he replaced the moral code that is downed from god by a newly discovered one called "well being", and that is the core of all which is behind any moral dilemma, how is he going to maximize the "well being" of people? he doesn't know? how can he replace religion with "well being", when the goal of the former is the latter? when the former is a path TO the latter, devised by the perfect source, and hence out-betters all other possible paths by definition, which are subjective ones suitable in some aspects and not others, hence not being agreed upon by everybody. science measuring "well being" of "some" known building blocks of ethical dilemmas changes NOTHING, i really can't find a difference caused by all that neurological stuff, if you can assign values to some building building blocks and then be unable to give the best arrangement of those building blocks you have(not to mention all those you don't know about and thus can't measure), what good did you do? what DID you do? you defined a human flourishing function to be the scale on which the subjective goals of morality can be objectively put and measured. so, go on, plug moral systems in it, show us how high they'll go... don't just stand there, operate it! also, he says (in a way) that we shouldn't be tolerant of intolerance, we shouldn't be tolerant of violent intolerance. and i wonder how violent he's willing to be in his intolerance of violent intolerance. also two very important points separating scientific measurements from reaching objective morality; 1- if something is going towards the well being of humans when applied now. how about a hundred years from now when the whole world might be suffering because of our moral choice for it not to suffer? like saving a kid the suffering of studying and instead offering him the "flourishing" of a game console instead? do humans have the foresight to take morality to their own hands? to claim they can reach an objective one?(when even subjective ones backlash sometimes) 2-if something is morally wrong based on the knowledge we currently have, may it not be moral after obtaining more knowledge? like finding out that in a certain village gouging out the eyes of third children pushes most couples not to have third children and so reducing competition on the already scarce resources of the village and preventing inner strafes and cannibalism within the village have couples bred as they liked? putting the village on the top of flourishing hill in his proposed landscape? hah, add to that if the villagers were asked directly not to over breed they wouldn't comply and they would challenge the wisdom of the leader or prefer to breed as they like and fight others to feed their kin rather than restrict themselves... while when presented religiously, all went well?? do humans have(at any certain point) the knowledge required to deduce what is affecting their well being and what APPEARS to be affecting their well being? if god doesn't exist, using him as the only viable source for a moral code still is the only acceptable answer for perfect objective morality. also, he can understand a jihadist finding it morally good to blow himself up and going to heaven, and acknowledges that as one view of human flourishing... but can't see the same thing about removing the eyeballs of every third child? i find it weird of him.. i'm seriously doubting the extent to which he knows what he's talking about. and my vocabulary isn't that wide, and i don't need a brain scanner to tell me the difference between humiliation and embarrassment. bottom line, i find that guy talking considerably a lot to end up saying very little, the best thing i came out of that one hour something video was the chess analogy for right and wrong decisions.

you enjoyed him running away from the bulls eye question and instead beating religion down? how typical, no wonder they like him;). and they do, look at the "captains of industry":-( i didn't think of that before, and i can't quite see it's significance. we are selfish, yet we became social....meaning:confused: i really don't see what you're trying to say.

..... sorry, couldn't resist it:embarass:.. the object fact of the matter is, science frees us from morals, dak sated it well in #24 and later, but scientifically speaking, why would i enjoy my one life ride any less for the sake of somebody else's one life ride? when the individual reaches that conclusion, he screws humanity, and if he's lucky, he'll enjoy it(i know i would:D) wanting to be nice, being nice to others, appreciation and admiration are things we like as well, that's why people sacrifice themselves for others, even animals, because those feelings are worth for you the pain you'll take. that's how good (naive) people think, which is very constructive for society. but not all people think that way, one may say not even most of them, and it takes a handful of them for humans to be no more. if you tell a person "helping others is good" and he asks "why?" and you say "does it feel good when someone helps you?" and they say "yes" and you smile.... and they say "so??"..... ....and science can't say a thing.lol.

which seems not to be enough, considering this; i'm sorry, i couldn't interpret that sentence to be right in any way, if you can enlighten me, please do. are you saying that the earth of rocks and seas only a million million years back had less disorder(entropy) than today's world? i didn't say they weren't, but the simple fact is entropy cannot decrease in a closed system isn't contradicted by cells, as they are NOT closed systems. IF cells were closed systems, IF earth was a closed system, they would both die, in other words, dear ol'entropy will increase. since they are alive, growing, ravishing, prospering, advancing in complexity and order, they are decreasing entropy, that's no big deal, as the sun gets energy through to earth, which is thermodynamically viable... BUT.. zoom out, and take the universe as the closed system(that's how it's taken scientifically, no?), within this huge closed system, entropy should remain constant, the localized decrease in entropy in earth must be balanced by an increase of entropy in other areas. my question is;"such as?" i thought black holes and stars exploding, but hey, they form into stars as well. in the milky way, the sun is dying, it is "giving its life" to earth, if i explain life by energy, then yeah, it's equivalent trade, but entropy wise, it sure isn't equivalent(i could be wrong here). is the rate at which systems in the universe die(and increase entropy) what balances out the decrease in earth? is there another earth somewhere dying and we're living off of it:D? what scientific theories explore the compensation of decreased entropy on earth, for the closed system "the universe"? now, it seems very crucial for me to grasp the concept of evolution clearly, which i can't seem to be able to do, i've done some research, and they seem to try and explain it with one of the following: (broadly speaking): 1-entropy is the increase of heat emissions like ice melting(wiki) or our bodies radiating heat in a room, both increasing the entropy of a room (as in, having ice cubes in an warm isolated room, is more "ordered" than having melted ice in a slightly warmer room, you can't inverse the heat from the water to the air to go back to state one(ice cubes) unless you supply work) 2-entropy is simply old fashioned order. like if i have two rooms with a door between them, one is full of gas the other vacuum, that's state one, when i open the door gas will fill the other room that's state two, the two rooms are isolated, there was no heat or work transfer, energy of state one is energy of state two... yet, entropy has increased:eek: displayed in that you can't take it back to state one unless you violate it being a closed system and supply work. 3-entropy is inevitable energy loss, due to practical inefficiency in any process in real life. efficiency of any engine or process can never be 100%, but thermodynamics has given inventors the benefit of the doubt by allowing entropy to remain constant(if efficiency ever DID reach 100%), and mostly increasing depending on how inefficient a process is. it has also allowed isentropic(constant entropy) processes to join the heavenly "ideal" bunch of concepts, to make life easier for students in their calculations, and to set an example for the rest of the concepts:D. so which is closest to be correct?

because i think it's funny, to take computer games which you play between you and yourself, seriously enough to label playing them a certain way WRONG.. besides, they way you offered the way you think games should be played didn't exactly leave some marginal space of acknowledgment of others' ways of playing, i made it clear my view was subjective, am not sure i can say the same about you:eyebrow: at any rate, chillax man, no need to go throwing the word "hypocrit" around..

entropy is chaos, disorder. in a closed system, entropy should remain the same or increase. if we take the universe as our closed system, entropy should be the same or increasing... however, entropy on earth has decreased by the evolution of living organisms. that should be balanced off by more disorder in other parts of the closed system, i.e, the universe. have such decrease in order been observed? any theories?

lol, omg... i'd say no to all four, cheat codes are part of the game, they're part of playing it. part of the fun. which games are for, especially in SP.. it's like asking if you can be selfish when masturbating:eyebrow:.. even tweaking and hacking the game are part of the fun, even if they're a game of their own, in the end you just enjoy yourself. saves and loads are tools to be used tactically, walkthroughs are money\time savers and nerve soothers... it's really up to the way YOU think a game should be played.

i definitely agree with toastywombel, i like scienceforums without religion better, people DO come to science forums for science. however, as yodaPs pointed out, if religion was really scientific or could be inspected scientifically (which is the case), then what's stopping it from being posted in its respective subforas? do we need a religion subfora to make predictions about a global flood and test them? if religion is scientific, it can be discussed in the science sections. opening a religion section opens the door for unscientific religious debates to take place. all IMHO.

the thing is, while i'm definitely with the affirmative action..it's very prone to abuse. if you want a coal miner you'd definitely go for a male, no body'd debate that, but open the door for that and you'd have talented females rejected because they're "women".. if you can persue the affirmative action while being clear that you're only recognizing DIFFERENCES between the genders, and you're not for the "alpha male" males are just better agenda, and people would actually understand it that way, then go for it. treating the different equally is unfair, treating the different fairly is to treat them differently. equal =! fair (not always)

hard to accept (ugly) truths. in other words; ego candy :-D

or thermodynamically(flow energy) using mass rate and energy rate(where the input plus the work should equal the output )..