Jump to content

jimmydasaint

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    950
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by jimmydasaint


  1. I don't know.  Of course I see the advantages, but how far do we go?  Do we then get to the point where people can pay extra to have their babies engineered to have superb muscles or desirable features or to have super-learning abilities. How far before economic decisions affect the children we have.  Will Western people then start a savings account for college and another for genetically engineering their children? I am in two minds here.


  2. 3 hours ago, iNow said:

    So, your position is that so long as I claim that invisible dragon sitting right now below your chair offers you an infinite reward (just like god), then the smarter choice here is to accept the truth of the existence of that invisible dragon? That seems odd to me. How is the magnitude of the claim relevant to its internal logic? 

    As long as the dragon has provided scriptural exegesis in the form of three or more books revealed by the messengers of the dragon to three or four unusual individuals and which serves to give peace to one quarter of the world's population and offers a story to why humans are on Earth and provides them with a purpose and moral parameters - yes. If the dragon also states that love of others, mercy and forgiveness are the order of the day and that the dragon's personal qualities of mercy and generosity are to be reflected by its creations-yes.  If the dragon offers a way to true peace on Earth with a promise of the essence of a soul reaching an eternal reward- yes. You cannot just posit an invisible dragon and then assign no personal qualities to it.  The acceptance of the dragon is contingent on its absolute, and not relative qualities.


  3. 24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    There's only ever two choices to a gamble, win or lose... Time is irrelevant. 

    Agreed, IMO, he thought that belief had an infinite reward whilst  the opposite had a negative effect.  

    42 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Likewise on the well wishes, Jimmy. It’s been a while and it’s nice seeing you online. 

    Here’s a slightly longer video which digs deeper into the very criticisms you make. It’s only 7 minutes long:

    I have just watched the video iNow and have had a quick scan of Stanford encyclopedia

    The video makes certain criticisms which are generally repeated. For example:

    1. Alternative religions exist.  There are other cultures who have gods and goddesses who have an equal right to be considered in the same way as the Christian god. 2. The theory ignores other heavens and hells;  3. Belief involves a personal cost and sacrifice; it is not easy. 4. God can be fooled by false faith.  

    Most of these are good arguments.  However, IMO the main points that Pascal made were contingent upon a wager where there would be infinite reward contrasted with finite loss, based upon the Christian religion and exegesis. Point 4 above can be easily dismissed by the omniscience of God.  In the end,  hearty atheists, like  the vast majority of people on the Science Forum, would be untouched and undaunted by Pascal's arguments.  Perhaps some arguments are bound to their own times. 

     


  4. 4 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I’d posit no. It most certainly does not.

    Hi there iNow, hope you and the family are well. 

    The wager suggests this all-loving and all-powerful god is so petty and insecure that it’d rather a person lie and pretend to believe in it than to instead be honest, authentic, and sincere about their stance... that it’s better to be a liar who says what they say only as a gamble than to be an honest person who openly acknowledges the true feelings of their heart and mind even in the face of potential eternal punishment. 

    I think that Pascal thought that an initial appearance of faith would be later replaced by real faith which would be the money ticket. In any case, real faith supersedes fake faith.   I am assuming here that Pascal would have reasoned that an omniscient God would see through the fakes. I am not sure though - I will have to read a bit more on this...

    Further, the wager suggests we are mere slaves or serfs, and that our blind obedience is more important than our willingness to be honest.

    IMO, the point was that people should look to the signs of God in the Earth, e..g the birth of a child from a single fertilised egg, would be enough for people to believe.  Obviously the rise of humanism and the Enlightenment had a different dialectic. 

    A 3rd problem, is that the same wager could equally be applied to anything. Why not believe there’s an invisible dragon below your chair who will char you to a crisp if you don’t believe it’s there? Why not believe that leprechauns control your wealth or that unicorns protect the health of your children... and you’ll lose all health and wealth unless you accept them as true assertions. The logic is the same, after all, and it’s clearly nonsense. 

    Pascal's wager is based on an endpoint, although I agree that the logic is deductive but it is based on achieving Heaven as an end.  Whereas your assertions don't take this as an endpoint.

     

     

     


  5. 1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

    If, the essence of a bet, but why wouldn't we follow a moral/ethical code if it didn't lead to heaven? 

    I agree, you could lead a superb life for the sake of it and it would be rewarding as well.

     

    However, and I am hoping I do not misquote Pascal here, you would need faith in God, real or not, to get to Heaven. But I suspect that you are going to answer that a version of Heaven and peace can be attained in this existence and I would respect your belief, if this is the case. 


  6. On 7/22/2019 at 1:30 PM, dimreepr said:

    Why should I tolerate their intolerance and hatred when I can get them back, for what they've done...

    On the face of it, such a seductive argument... So why, or, is it wrong?

    There are some real scumbags on my estate. One of these stole my Carrera bike from my back door.  Initially, I wanted to throw a brick through the suspect's window but I rationalised that if I did not take the higher moral and rational ground, I would have become a scumbag as well. And I could not have that on my conscience.


  7. I will have to refer to the OP, before we go off on to a tangent:

    Quote

     If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist, we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss. If one weighs the options, clearly the rational choice to live as if God exists is the better of the possible choices. 

    If God does not exist and we follow a moral code, which, in the West, is based on the old Christian moral code, we then live a moral existence before the end of our existence.  We, as moral characters of action have had a positive effect on society.  


  8. Quote

    The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven. If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist, we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss. If one weighs the options, clearly the rational choice to live as if God exists is the better of the possible choices. Pascal even suggested that some may not, at the time, have the ability to believe in God. In such a case, one should live as if he had faith anyway. Perhaps living as if one had faith may lead one to actually come to faith.

    Now there have been criticisms over the years from various camps. For example, there is the argument from inconsistent revelations. This argument critiques Pascal's Wager on the basis that there is no reason to limit the choices to the Christian God. Since there have been many religions throughout human history, there can be many potential gods. Another critique comes from atheist circles. Richard Dawkins postulated the possibility of a god that might reward honest disbelief and punish blind or feigned faith.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/Pascals-wager.html

    So you may or may not believe in God. However, rationality or reason cannot take us all the way to pure belief.  Disbelief may not be 100% either.  does Pascal give us a reasonable way to live, with eternity in the afterlife to follow?


  9. I think you read it correctly but these are biopolymer machines. They could be used to make sensory robots but degrade after 2 cycles of growth.  It is a superb and nnovative use of the replicating properties of DNA but very much in its infancy IMO.


  10. Hi all out there,

    I am writing a short summary article on biological molecules etc... for my school and perhaps for the wider community.  I want to make my article exciting by incorporating scientific images. I want to make it more exciting and include images of amino acids etc... but showing each individual atom. Is there animation/image software available for science education purposes? Alternatively, is there low cost software that can help me to bring my article to life?

    for example, something like this:

     

    Thanks, in advanceImage result for carbon reacting to become carbon dioxide atom images


  11. On 3/1/2019 at 6:58 PM, Vexen said:

    I was wondering when was the soul imparted into humans during the course of evolution?

    This is more appropriate for a religion forum.  If you have a scientific version of this question, please make the enquiry.  However, IMHO most people on this forum do not agree that humans have souls. (I do but I am in the minority).  Also, IMO, most people on this forum believe that chemical reactions in neurons cause our feeling of "self". 

    Some of the replies were hilarious, you have to admit it....


  12. As far as I recall, the evidence for subatomic particles and most molecular biological phenomena is indirect. However, at least the electromagnetic spectrum interacts with all matter and we can "see" a pellet of DNA at the bottom of an Eppendorf. How on Earth do you have conclusive proof where the whole of the electromagnetic spectrum does not allow access to it.   I could hypothesise that God has ordered the angels to push apart galaxies and expand space and I can use the same evidence that you have used.  Where there are galaxies with apparent less dark matter, there are just fewer angels.


  13. I'lll be honest and say that I don't know much about this subject.  However, what would be conclusive is the actual measurement and characterisation of dark matter otherwise we might as speculate that leprechauns or unicorns cause the expansion of space/galaxies from each other.

    So, IMHO, dark matter is a hypothesis that fits in with the current data but we cannot say more about it yet but speculate. Even the authors are being cautious. 

     

    Quote

    The origin of these large, faint galaxies with an excess of luminous globular clusters and an apparent lack of dark matter is, at present, not understood.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92/meta


  14. Hi Charon Y,

    I do  try to keep with literature for my Yr 12 and 13 (A level) classes. I also try to incorporate information from papers in these lessons if it is not available in textbooks.  I was not aware that live interactions between organelles have been "seen" for such a long tie.  I did use fluorescent imaging and observed shedding of fluorescent proteins using a confocal light microscope many moons ago.  However, I could not discern the smaller organelles (Golgi apparatus, RER etc...). I realise that parts of narratives that are incomplete are not helpful to students.  However, these can be made available to bright students who are keen for extra extension to the dogma that we teach them and who can accommodate uncertainties. I agree with the misuse of titles to make each scientific discovery into a sensation. 

    Thank you for your reply.  I will look up the latest microscopy techniques if you could point me in the correct direction.

     


  15. This is news to me.  I have been teaching the textbook version for 21 years.  It is about time that the textbooks are now changed. It amazes me that the new science is not incorporated into textbooks sooner. Great find and I will re-read this information. Electron microscopy has been such a useful tool to provide a snapshot of what goes on in cells but the fact that light microscopes have been developed which can provide intercellular interactions "live" is  a most welcome innovation to cell biology. 


  16. Interesting find. I did not believe it at first but then read these quotes:

    Quote

    he researchers’ setup resembled the French team’s, but an attached microscope allowed them to track the bacteria’s behavior. Sure enough, when the E. coli cocktail reached 10 to 20 percent bacteria by volume, swirls formed. As bacteria plowed through the water, which feels honey-thick at their microscopic scale, they produced shockwaves that buffeted their companions both near and far.

    “It’s a bit like if you have a lot of stars in a galaxy and they can affect each other,” Dunkel said. Those forces encouraged local groups of swimming E. coli to align their pill-shaped bodies.

    Then the motion of the plates makes that local behavior global. Dragging the top plate sends shearing forces rippling through the fluid, which in effect organize and orient the swarms.

    “Without shear, the direction of swarming is random,” Cheng said. “Under shear, you get the tendency to have all the bacteria lining up in certain directions.”

    Once the influence of the plates helps the bacteria settle into an average alignment, their swimming pushes on the water and generates local flows that transform the solution’s large-scale properties.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/swarming-bacteria-create-an-impossible-superfluid-20180726/

    There is also a model stated here:

    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.018001

    As for having a motor driven by bacteria, that need warmth and a continuous flow of suitable nutrients - dream on!

×
×
  • 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.