zorro

so you're not going to actually argue your point?

I did. The topic of this thread is: People who believe in God are "Not" broken. ...

People who believe in God must believe that He exists. Thus the debate I put forth is not God but what is "Broken" and who broke who.

"The underlying premise of this threat is that godavg is a theist and that God exists."

Nope, that's your assumption.

However, even if it were true, your posts ( and Leibniz's assertion) would still be a logical fallacy.

You would still be using the existence of God to prove the existence of God.

That's not logic, nor is it science. It's pointless and it just wastes time.

As I said, it makes you look silly.

Silly here is good and God exists. ..... /bye mate ....

His logic is plainly flawed

He's doing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

and so are you by saying "God does exist ".

 

Logical fallacies of that sort achieve nothing: they just make you look foolish.

The underlying premise of this threat is that godavg is a theist and that God exists. Logic needn't prove a given here. The topic relates to a madness supposed in folks who study "everything from nothing" and they are discriminated against by the mindless and careless as joeavg.

As far as I can tell, Zorro is citing Leibniz as an authority figure because he invented calculus.

That's not logical. Just because he was good at maths doesn't mean he was good at theology. (he may or may not have been but that's not the point)

Then he illogically uses Leibniz as an authority figure to set up another logical fallacy- that of "argument by authority".

 

So, he's brokenly (i.e. he's using an argument from authority) using broken logic (the begging the question quote I cited above) to explain why he's logically not broken.

 

There are neither sufficient palms not an adequate supply of faces in the world to express the wrongness of that in the traditional way for the internet.

I cite Leibniz because he was the epitome of “Universal Genius” and a Theist. He invented calculus and its proper notation, He was a genius in multiple abstract fields and then drummed down by the inane English Court with the “Broken” tactics.

His Logic is/was flawless and is a standard of today. Mine isn’t always. I use “broken” here in that it can and is done by sinister powers in these fields to gain undeserved prestige or a unwarranted Nobel prize. Social norms damage many who are gifted and Theists because they do not defend themselves at the bench of joeavg.

This is why I think that this is a chill on the topic of this thread.

Wouldn't a more logical / less broken approach be to first establish there even is a god or gods in the first place before you waste a bunch of time and energy trying to fathom how it thinks? You're begging the question... You assume god(s) exists and focus all of your attention on how they think or behave, instead of validating the starting presumption of existence.

I am taking the Theist view here as noted above. God does exist and shouldn't be treated as a chilled "Broken" .

In other words, Zorro (who is above defending the theist viewpoint) is using broken logic to do so and is himself a bit broken?

I am defending the Theist view on this thread. I am saying that "Broken" is in the eye of the beholder. To joeavg, godavg is Broken or weird; when the opposite connotation is the case in a historical sense. That "Universal Genius" as Theists are misunderstood. joeavg cannot fathom advance thinking of God or the Infinite or other abstracts, followed by critical thinking of your own positions.

Zorro, you have posted that twice.

Why?

 

iNow,

There's a lot about religion that reminds me of Orwell.

One thread is a old carryover to the other, confusing me. Take my post out of the old thread if you wish.

The first part of that is so difficult to follow that I stopped reading it.

 

Gottfried Leibniz, 1647-1716 became completely broken in 1716 and still broken? I think so.

 

the secons slice is full of assertions which beg the question and is thus a logical fallacy.

For example

"Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. "

is meaningless- it presupposes the existence of God in order to ascribe properties to Him- for example that He donated "reason" to us.

You can't use an axiom which includes God's existence to prove that he exists.

There are other similar issues with what's written.

No No He was not broken at all. He was a " universal genius " and a Theist.

http://history-computer.com/People/LeibnitzBio.html

Leibnitz died on the 14th of November, 1716, his closing years enfeebled by disease, harassed by controversy, embittered by neglect; but to the last he preserved the indomitable energy and power of work to which is largely due the position he holds as, more perhaps than any one in modern times, a man of almost universal attainments and almost universal genius. At Hanover, Eckhart, his secretary, was his only mourner; "he was buried", says an eyewitness, "more like a robber than what he really was, the ornament of his country."

In his latter years he became embroiled in the controversies surrounding the German and English courts which always stirred more spin than facts. His calculus and it's notation we still use today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_notation

Just to jump in .... sorry

TOPIC: People who believe in God are not broken.

Even though the topic has a sarcastic chill, the minds of those who believe in God (godavg ) is of some merit. … By broken in the since how the avg citizen view these things. To joeave, a God fearing person is crippled to do anything without the consideration of a God that does not exist. This in joeavg terms keeps godavg cleaved from interaction with society. This joeavg would call “Broken “. However from the standpoint of godave, believing in god is all consuming and societies norms are irrelevant. Godavg is eating lunch with God and spends this important time pondering life cycles, the infinite, the Cosmos, God’s purpose for mankind, philosophy and on and on. These ponderances are not in books, computers, Religion or TV and have yet to be resolved. That is what our brains do best that no other beings or robotics don’t even come close. To do this successfully, the brain of godave must step over the tipping point of experience, education and humanity and possibly into madness. Godavg in this world would go mad if God foundations and principals are there to catch him.

….. What is infinity ??? Even our largest computers and telescopes can’t find it. So we reach the tipping point that it is only a useless unreachable math concept. Godave then asks God for help with infinity and the reply is that He is before minus infinity and after infinity and also creates everything from nothing. With that, infinity is somehow bounded and the investigation must go forward. ….. Liebnitz / Newton invent the calculus and infinity is tamed forever. ….. It is said that Newton couldn’t safely operate the elevator and would be considered by joeavg as “Broken”. … so what.

Gottfried Leibniz, 1647-1716 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz

broken, I don't think so.

God and theodicy views.

Theodicy and optimism[edit source | editbeta]

(Note that the word "optimism" here is used in the classic sense of optimal, not in the mood-related sense, as being positively hopeful.)

The Theodicy^[43] tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. It must be the best possible and most balanced world, because it was created by an all powerful and all knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him or possible to exist. In effect, apparent flaws that can be identified in this world must exist in every possible world, because otherwise God would have chosen to create the world that excluded those flaws.

Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. The Theodicy is Leibniz's attempt to reconcile his personal philosophical system with his interpretation of the tenets of Christianity.^[44] This project was motivated in part by Leibniz's belief, shared by many conservative philosophers and theologians during theEnlightenment, in the rational and enlightened nature of the Christian religion, at least as this was defined in tendentious comparisons between Christian and non Western or "primitive" religious practices and beliefs. It was also shaped by Leibniz's belief in the perfectibility of human nature (if humanity relied on correct philosophy and religion as a guide), and by his belief that metaphysical necessity must have a rational or logical foundation, even if this metaphysical causality seemed inexplicable in terms of physical necessity (the natural laws identified by science).

Because reason and faith must be entirely reconciled, any tenet of faith which could not be defended by reason must be rejected. Leibniz then approached one of the central criticisms of Christian theism:^[45] if God is all good, all wise and all powerful, how did evil come into the world? The answer (according to Leibniz) is that, while God is indeed unlimited in wisdom and power, his human creations, as creations, are limited both in their wisdom and in their will (power to act). This predisposes humans to false beliefs, wrong decisions and ineffective actions in the exercise of their free will. God does not arbitrarily inflict pain and suffering on humans; rather he permits both moral evil (sin) and physical evil (pain and suffering) as the necessary consequences of metaphysical evil (imperfection), as a means by which humans can identify and correct their erroneous decisions, and as a contrast to true good.

Further, although human actions flow from prior causes that ultimately arise in God, and therefore are known as a metaphysical certainty to God, an individual's free will is exercised within natural laws, where choices are merely contingently necessary, to be decided in the event by a "wonderful spontaneity" that provides individuals an escape from rigorous predestination.

Further information about this theodicy, including its supporters and detractors, can be found in the article Best of all possible worlds.

Mellow tonight

Just to jump in .... sorry

TOPIC: People who believe in God are broke.

Even though the topic has a sarcastic chill, the minds of those who believe in God (godavg ) is of some merit. … By broken in the since how the avg citizen view these things. To joeave, a God fearing person is crippled to do anything without the consideration of a God that does not exist. This in joeavg terms keeps godavg cleaved from interaction with society. This joeavg would call “Broken “. However from the standpoint of godave, believing in god is all consuming and societies norms are irrelevant. Godavg is eating lunch with God and spends this important time pondering life cycles, the infinite, the Cosmos, God’s purpose for mankind, philosophy and on and on. These ponderances are not in books, computers, Religion or TV and have yet to be resolved. That is what our brains do best that no other beings or robotics don’t even come close. To do this successfully, the brain of godave must step over the tipping point of experience, education and humanity and possibly into madness. Godavg in this world would go mad if God foundations and principals are there to catch him.

….. What is infinity ??? Even our largest computers and telescopes can’t find it. So we reach the tipping point that it is only a useless unreachable math concept. Godave then asks God for help with infinity and the reply is that He is before minus infinity and after infinity and also creates everything from nothing. With that, infinity is somehow bounded and the investigation must go forward. ….. Liebnitz / Newton invent the calculus and infinity is tamed forever. ….. It is said that Newton couldn’t safely operate the elevator and would be considered by joeavg as “Broken”. … so what.

Gottfried Leibniz, 1647-1716 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz

broken, I don't think so.

God and theodicy views.

Theodicy and optimism[edit source | editbeta]

(Note that the word "optimism" here is used in the classic sense of optimal, not in the mood-related sense, as being positively hopeful.)

The Theodicy^[43] tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. It must be the best possible and most balanced world, because it was created by an all powerful and all knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him or possible to exist. In effect, apparent flaws that can be identified in this world must exist in every possible world, because otherwise God would have chosen to create the world that excluded those flaws.

Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. The Theodicy is Leibniz's attempt to reconcile his personal philosophical system with his interpretation of the tenets of Christianity.^[44] This project was motivated in part by Leibniz's belief, shared by many conservative philosophers and theologians during theEnlightenment, in the rational and enlightened nature of the Christian religion, at least as this was defined in tendentious comparisons between Christian and non Western or "primitive" religious practices and beliefs. It was also shaped by Leibniz's belief in the perfectibility of human nature (if humanity relied on correct philosophy and religion as a guide), and by his belief that metaphysical necessity must have a rational or logical foundation, even if this metaphysical causality seemed inexplicable in terms of physical necessity (the natural laws identified by science).

Because reason and faith must be entirely reconciled, any tenet of faith which could not be defended by reason must be rejected. Leibniz then approached one of the central criticisms of Christian theism:^[45] if God is all good, all wise and all powerful, how did evil come into the world? The answer (according to Leibniz) is that, while God is indeed unlimited in wisdom and power, his human creations, as creations, are limited both in their wisdom and in their will (power to act). This predisposes humans to false beliefs, wrong decisions and ineffective actions in the exercise of their free will. God does not arbitrarily inflict pain and suffering on humans; rather he permits both moral evil (sin) and physical evil (pain and suffering) as the necessary consequences of metaphysical evil (imperfection), as a means by which humans can identify and correct their erroneous decisions, and as a contrast to true good.

Further, although human actions flow from prior causes that ultimately arise in God, and therefore are known as a metaphysical certainty to God, an individual's free will is exercised within natural laws, where choices are merely contingently necessary, to be decided in the event by a "wonderful spontaneity" that provides individuals an escape from rigorous predestination.

Further information about this theodicy, including its supporters and detractors, can be found in the article Best of all possible worlds.

I REM dream about once a month depending how much mental stressers have built up. Stressers either mental, academic, physical, sexual ... that don't get resolved by day rationalizations are put in the dream basket for REM sleep dreams to resolve or relieve.

Infinitesimal increment.

And what do those "light fields" travel through to before they get to me?

Other fields and dark matter. On to the eye cones / rods. The space is near negligible and not observable.

Zorro,

You should get more recent reports than the Limits To Growth; it's data is old and does not include data for global warming. I don't know what books are latest. There is data to suggest population growth is under control from a Ted Talk by Hans Rosling: Religions and Babies. Another interesting Ted Talk is by Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change. Two Elon Musk companies are working to help climate change, Solar City and TeslaX. Windmills are popping up all over the place. The number of solar farms is increasing. Many companies are saving money by reducing their energy bills. The Elio three wheeler will be sold soon; it gets 80+ mpg, can go 100 mph, has air condition, power windows, and appears that it will be a good commuter car scooter.

 

The down side is glaciers and northern permafrost are melting at astonishing rates, among other things. Whether the advancements will overcome the detriments soon enough to prevent catastrophe is unknown. I hope they will.

 

If the US had spent money on renewable energy sources that it spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have a green economy and taxpayers would already be getting billions of dollars from green jobs and not spending as much money to buy foreign oil. Oops.

 

It would be nice if we always knew how to do the right thing. It would be nice if congress could do something right.

Much of the new stuff is politically oriented especially global warming trash science so I work with Pre GW and basic research.

Don't count on Congress or Industry.

Clean Fusion ( <> Iron ) is needed ASAP!!

Lead by example, if you want to inject what you perceive as science feel free. As far as I'm concerned what we are discussing is science. Discussing "how to view" the universe could be argued as the most fundamental nature of science. Observe, seek to understand, that's how it works. I observe that everything around me is capable of being moved, or is in active motion. I don't however see time. But then we don't see gravity either we only see it's effects on matter as I drop the ever famous apple. Some chose to attach that motion through space as an example of time passing. I chose to view the motion of that apple through space as nothing but motion. At which point do you fail to see science happening?

 

 

I would argue the reverse. Time is not observable, but both space and matter are. For example, if I place an apple on a table, and take 5 steps back then I am observing two things.

 

1) there is an apple on the table.

2) there is space between myself and the apple

 

I do not however see time.

 

I also know through astronomy thanks to my telescope, that the same rules apply within a vacuum. While I've not been to space myself I take it as an item of faith that it is a vacuum except for trace amounts of dust, (the following image serves no purpose I just think it's cool yes it is space dust )

So my conclusion is that because I can see Saturn quite clearly (I posted it on youtube yay) visible even at it's massive distance, thus providing the same apple and 5 steps demonstration, using a planet and my position on earth. That the only thing separating us is space, therefore space is observable via distances between objects.

 

So again, I would state that the only factor that can not be observed is mysterious time force thingie. I can see motion, but I don't see motion being a consequence of time.

No No. In your Saturn/apple example, you see light fields not space . Again , space is not observable.

As in GPS, only time differences are observable . Distance and elevation are computed. Saturn's distance is a table look up and only observable from a reflected beam. Time is the observable again.

Yes, I love Sheldon, he both makes me want to strangle him and discuss physics with him at the same time.

Hello Zorro

 

I would counter that, by saying. What would time be without space? Time by itself is not observable, so without matter to affect, and indeed matter to make up our moral forms, what would be the point in time? Then again, one may ask the question in the exact reverse. What would matter, and space be without time.

 

Space is not observable but time is. By definition Space is a volume minus it's Cosmos Boundaries . The boundaries are observable not the space between.

Daniel hello again:

Space is not relevant to time. Space is a component between the elements and fields of the cosmos weather the element is a Galactic assemblage or the God particle. Space ends when all fields end then Nothing begins.

btw: The "Big Bang Theory" is my favorite TV show and Sheldon (Jim Parsons) is superb.

I think that time is a measure of events in the Cosmos.

It has a beginning at the "Big Bang" and It is related to speed and to hit a singularity at the speed of light because light brings the Cosmos to us. It contorts along with the properties of light, (bending in a gravitational field, frequency disturbances, visual receptors, doppler effects .... ) Time is associated and transmitted beyond light as well as light speed with other frequencies than light and ends when space ends.

hello EdEarl: thanx for your responces

Action, Action, Action, ....... like Real Estate, is the top priority.

Construct Clean Fusion Energy reactors, Recycling all Waste, Reduced Petroleum Production, Electric cars and more Trains, improved renewables.

Government and Industry are tied up into their own graft factions so the Action needs to come from the middle classes and financed by conversion of the Lotteries and drug trafficking away from the Crime Industries into regulated money farms controlled by the middle classes in a new NASDAC with a Cap and Trade subsidiary.

I have "Limits to Growth" and the Population Bomb (I am a '50's Soul). I need to get them out again.

Zorro, I think you are too optimistic.

Yes but; ..... we must start from somewhere and put population (driven consumption) into the equations.

With current politicos I speculate:

Coal + Petro (stopped by enviro damages) till 2,200 AD

Bio - Trash recyclables 2,500

Wind and renewables 2,700

Efficiencies and regulated energy markets 2,900

Population Bomb of 15 Billion with energy market Chaos 3,000

Population reductions retuning Dark ages to 2 Billion population to balance energy avail 3,300

Renaissance to clean safe Fusion reactors maintaining 3 Billion population till food / resources runs out 5,000 AD

Desert Tortoise and insects take over the earth

 

Suely it is the other way round. The length of the second is fixed (some number of blah blah cesium blah) and the length of the day and year are varied to keep instep with nature (leap seconds, leap years, etc).

 

Not really, .... the Cesium and other precise instruments are adjusted to Mother Earth. Otherwise if we set your cesium iMAC under Pharaoh your MAC would take 50 +/- milliseconds from your coffee break. ...... or maybe 50 milliseconds off when the farmer is supposed to plow.

 

see : http://novan.com/earth.htm

..... The Sub-bureau for Rapid Service and Predictions of Earth Orientation Parameters of the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS), located at the US Naval Observatory, monitors the Earth's rotation. Part of its mission involves the determination of a time scale based on the current rate of the rotation of the Earth.

 

They estimate that the Earth's rotation is slowing at about 1.4 milliseconds per solar day per century which roughly agrees with the rate of rotation of the Earth has actually slowed down since 1820. Tracing these tiny milliseconds back for 4.5 billion years adds up to a very significant amount of time for a solar day. I have determined that the day/night rotation was 63,000 seconds shorter than the present 86,400 seconds it is today. This would put the Earth's rotation at about 6.5 hours per day/night cycle, when it was created, 4.5 billion years ago. (This is a much faster rate of rotation than the Cassini-Huygens mission (2003 to 2004) determined Saturn's present 10.5 hours rotation period to be.)

e Sub-bureau for Rapid Service and Predictions of Earth Orientation Parameters of the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS), located at the US Naval Observatory, monitors the Earth's rotation. Part of its mission involves the determination of a time scale based on the current rate of the rotation of the Earth.

 

They estimate that the Earth's rotation is slowing at about 1.4 milliseconds per solar day per century which roughly agrees with the rate of rotation of the Earth has actually slowed down since 1820. Tracing these tiny milliseconds back for 4.5 billion years adds up to a very significant amount of time for a solar day. I have determined that the day/night rotation was 63,000 seconds shorter than the present 86,400 seconds it is today. This would put the Earth's rotation at about 6.5 hours per day/night cycle, when it was created, 4.5 billion years ago. (This is a much faster rate of rotation than the Cassini-Huygens mission (2003 to 2004) determined Saturn's present 10.5 hours rotation period to be.) .....

 

The adjustment is done by convention, not because of any inherent property of time being a measure of the earth's revolution and rotation.

 

The adjustment is done by convention, not because of any inherent property of time being a measure of the earth's revolution and rotation.

Cyber clocks and other time pieces are adjusted on the definition of a time convention being a proportion of the earths motions : 60 sec/min, 60min/hr ..... /day. Wherein a day is from solar noon to solar noon and slowing; and the earth's slowing elliptical path around the sun.

Time measurement (Seconds) are adjusted to the cosmos to serve mankind and not the other way around.

Ask for Fred F

How does this jive with an analysis of the optical spectrum of the sun which suggests that it is almost completely hydrogen & helium?

It is true that the sun atmosphere is mostly Hydrogen and Helium. However most models of the Sun (Star) show layering of the Radiation zones to be Fusing Silicon, Nickel, and Iron.

Per http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/644

Composition of the Sun

The Sun is mostly made up of hydrogen (about 92.1% of the number of atoms, 75% of the mass) and Helium (7.8% of the number of atoms and 25% of the mass). The other 0.1% is made up of heavier elements, mainly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon and iron.

In : http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/papers/thesis/frontmatter.pdf

....... populations is what makes the LTE approximation so attractive.

Using these techniques to calculate ionisation fractions and populations for

Iron, it can be seen that the Fe I population is strongly dependent on height in the

photosphere. The population is affected by both the temperature and the electron

concentration, which in turn depends on the ionisation levels of other elements. (See

figure 2-5 below.) .....

FE I and FE II, are statistically there in the Photosphere.

Since the Photosphere is a mere 100 km thick to the suns Diameter of 14,000,000 km, a thin layer of elements other than Hydrogen and Helium are there in concentrations to give the Photosphere it's distinct properties shown below.