Jump to content

Greg H.

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Greg H.

  1. I have one disagreement. Science has been explaining more and more, so it probably will continue to explain more. But it only follows that science will eventually explain everything that it can explain. If the underlined part is removed from my previous statement, its logic becomes flawed.

     

    I'll concede that. It's a valid point - eventually our understanding of the natural world could become so advanced we have nothing left to uncover through science as we know it today.

     

     

    "[T]he argument that something cannot be explained naturally leads nowhere because one can only prove the absence of natural explanations for some event by discovering every natural concept there is to discover. So we can really only make progress by finding natural explanations, not by asserting the absence of them."

     

    By the way, does anybody know the correct grammatical format for my only/not statements such as the one in the second blue sentence?

     

    It seems fine to me. Am I missing something?

  2. Everybody behaves religiously, but it is not too much of a problem if people are honest and acknowledge it; as the expression goes "the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool". The worst of religions are science, secularism and atheism; because their believers seem so convinced that these things are part of the one true faith, that they are completely unable to accept them as religions at all. Therefore they feel a religious duty to incite hatred against unbelievers; and in the case of the secular religious extremists in western governments, a religious duty to jail for blasphemy, people who criticise those policies which are destroying the world and turning humans back into savages.

     

    You seem to be going out of your way to be offensive and incite some kind of angry response with your ranting, so I will simply say this:

     

    All people, regardless of their espoused religious belief, or lack thereof, have the capacity to do the things you just described. Implying that all members of a particular group behave in such a manner is both a logical fallacy (since I have never sought to incite hatred of anyone nor do I possess the power to jail anyone), and down right insulting.

     

    Also, secular religious extremists seems a bit of an oxymoron to me, since secular is, by definition, non-religious in nature.

     

     

     

  3. One thing to keep in mind is that cults don't have to be religious. They often are, but technically, a cult is simply the veneration of a person, ideology, or object. If fifty people sat in a circle around me all chanting about how I'm a super cool guy, and everyone should join the circle and idolize me, I'd have my own cult.

     

    I don't, for the record. I wouldn't know what to do with fifty brainwashed idiots anyway.

  4. Mondays Assignment: Die,

     

    While I agree with your direction here, there is an implication I draw that you may not have drawn. If you lack vital information about a thing, and you are a scientist, believing in the scientific method, you have faith that the "natural" explanation exists, and can be found, can be understood, that there IS a real explanation. And this belief in an unknown natural explanation requires a belief in a greater reality, that nature consists of, that you are part of, and cogniscient of. AND this complete, huge beyond belief, old beyond comprehension, consistent, wonderful thing that you are exploring and learning about, and wondering about MUST be the same one Religious people are looking at. Because there is but one of these realities that all us humans share.

     

    Regards, TAR2

     

    Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't need to have faith that a natural explanation exists - if one exists, science will, eventually, uncover it once our understanding and our technology catch up to the challenge the problem exhibits. This conclusion isn't based on faith, it's based on previous experience with scientific inquiry over centuries of human beings trying to figure out how the universe works.

     

    The only belief, if you want to call it that, is that the universe isn't obfuscated. It doesn't hide its nature, or operate under the arbitrary whim of some guiding influence. It runs under the guidance of laws that can be determined through observation and experimentation. But that belief isn't based on faith. It's based on the available evidence.

  5. Since I don't agree with a blanket statement that division by zero is unavailable I showed how to do it in certain circumstances.

     

    So I invite all the naysayers to disprove this.

     

    morgsboi has point even if only a partial one.

     

    I don't disagree that it's available in certain circumstances. I even posted a link that showed where it has a practical application.

     

    However, that doesn't mean that it's generally available for use in all math, and outside of those proper contexts, writing anything in a div-zero format is going to get you some funny looks at best.

  6. I deleted a line too many.

    And I see where you are coming from but algebraically I put it a number of different ways which should work. Since I showed where your one went wrong, please show where mine has gone wrong.

     

     

    I knew mine was wrong before we started - I was using it to illustrate the reason division by zero is considered undefined. The fact that you didn't grasp the point behind my example leads me to two possible conclusions.

     

    A) You're being deliberately obstinate.

    B) You really don't understand what we're telling you.

     

    While I hope the answer is B, your continued refusal to accept even simple examples that you're incorrect leads me to believe my hope is in vain.

  7. Where is your evidence??? You can't expect it just to be that without evidence!

     

     

    First, use the quote function properly. It's annoying when you don't.

     

    Second, I am glad you were able to spot the flaw in the math problem. Did you understand the point I was trying to make? (I'm guessing not, but hope is a virtue, even when it chances to be misplaced.)

     

     

     

  8. Please.... tell me why.

     

    If x = 0:

    x/x = 1

    2x/x = 2

    3x/ x = 3

    x/0 = infinity

    x/-x = -1

    2x/-x = -2

    3x/-x = -3

    x/-0 = -infinity

     

    In pure mathematics, because it gives you nonsense answers, such as the following:

     

    947fc392e1843e655a04e4ccedbf8146.png

    04ae6e1f708633c55b0f2910229c8218.png

    0da776c891aae2ddcea10de4168e80d7.png

    f3ab9270d9c7c080e69391947e4d9f0a.png

    8e629bc66a8fd064dadff7e31fb9ab0d.png

    dac22e850802fe51e4e3c55b41a1cbc8.png

    37d0811a86406b970245d48f50015ec0.png

    8f747d1e8bf6521547fe9fe7f8a5d45a.png

     

    It's only useful is certain applications in computer languages to handle, as I pointed out before, floating point math correctly.

     

    Youc an read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy

  9. Define The Law; because, barring a completely atypical definition, "there would be no manifest reality without The Law" is nonsense.

     

     

    Imatfaal,

    Athena defines this concept of The Law in another thread to which I have been replying. The definition is less than satisfying, but I will include it here for you.

     

    Our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment, because our understanding of morals laws comes from many sources, and they are tied to The Law, our best understanding of how the universe works.

     

    Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works. This is not religion, because it is not the word of the God. It is our own observations and what we infer about God and how things work, and that is philosophy. This understanding is vitally important to our democracy and liberty. Before 1958 everyone was taught this, and since the 1958 National Defense Education Act, we have announced a national youth crisis, a crisis in our jail and prison system, a welfare crisis, a banking crisis, political crisis. Sure we had crisis before 1958, but we understood they are the result of not correctly know The Laws that regulate our lives. Today the crisis is, denial of any laws except the ones we make. We are smart by not wise, and will not resolve our problems as long as we deny the ancient Greek understanding of moral- to know The Law and good manners.

     

    from http://www.sciencefo...ge__pid__679327

  10. our understanding of morals laws comes from many sources, and they are tied to The Law, our best understanding of how the universe works.

     

    Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works.

     

    I disagree with part of what you're saying here. I agree that our understanding of morals can come from many sources. But morals are not necessarily laws, nor are all laws necessarily moral (just as an example, the Jim Crow laws of the post slavery period in the United States). Laws, in and of themselves, are a man-made construct which are only as moral as the people who write them.

     

    Morals, on the other hand, are an underlying framework of beliefs espoused by individuals (or societies) that, in theory join them together and make them function in a unified fashion. However, there is nothing to suggest (or at least nothing I have yet seen) that indicates that morals are in any way universal.

     

    Also, this idea that our best understanding of how the universe works can only come from a moral understanding of how god (or some other supernatural entity) works (I'll accept your premise that you're not discuss the God of the Bible - for now at least) is hard for me to swallow. The idea that we need to look for a supernatural source to understand the natural world presupposes the idea that scientific inquiry is doomed to failure unless it invokes this first cause that is both outside the realm of what we can observe and leaves behind no physical evidence of it's impact.

     

    It may not be a specific religion you're discussing, but it still sounds a lot like religious faith to me. And as far as I can tell, such faith is required neither to live a moral life nor to understand the workings of the universe, mysterious as they may be.

  11. lol dude no offence, i will start by saying when i say literature i mean peer reviewed scientific literature ( I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING ) i dont mean some mainstream media story. that said i loosely understand what venter did and yes while it is remarkable it has nothing to do with the question i asked. i would be interested to read the actual literature of what he did though... (i think i know what he did but i wont comment until i read the literature)........

     

    And dude, no offense, do your own research. I gave you a starting point - nothing more.

     

    Experience ≠ faith. If you have been a car before and the brakes have always worked before then the belief that the brakes will work next time is based on your experience, not faith. Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof, there's plenty of proof that brakes work.

     

    And the theory of why they work is firmly grounded in science backed up with experimental (and practical) evidence. (Conversion of energy, etc).

  12. especially, not restricted to....i will research this more though thank you... i will say though has a single element or a bunch of elements ever been observed to transform itself into "life"? if the answer is "yes" well lol...please cite some literature...if it is "no".......you have a faith based belief.....thank you for your input

     

    Ask and ye shall receive.

     

    Wired Magazine

     

    Craig Venter

     

     

    This is one of the reasons that non-Creationists find arguing with Creationists so tiring. We get very tired of doing your research for you. This took me about 5 seconds to find using Google. A more in depth search (which I am not inclined to do for you) would most likely locate the published material.

  13. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang" or "stellar nucleo synthesis" or "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" or "aliens seeded us here" or "allah made us" , if the answer to this question is "yes" well...i would be interested in your response lol...if it is no.....well you have a religous belief.... thank you for your time etc etc lol just throwing a spanner in the works so to speak lool haha just bored...

     

     

    dictionary.com

    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

     

    Emphasis of the important bits added. And then let's add in the parts you decided to ignore:

     

    re·li·gion

       [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

    noun

    1.a

    set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creationof a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involvingdevotional and ritual observances, and often containing amoral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generallyagreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

    3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefsand practices: a world council of religions.

    4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

    5.the practice of

    religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

     

    Semantic sophistry is the weakest form of argument.

  14. i presume this is to short for a mutation to arise and a new generation to come forth

     

    Science is not based on presumptions. It's based on predictions which are then tested to confirm or deny their accuracy.

     

    "To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. "

     

    hay yes thats what im saying they fail as "scientific evidence" (no im not claiming i have a better model/nor that the bible nor any other religion creation story is "scientific")

     

    The scientific community disagrees with you. And frankly, I'm just a smidge more inclined to believe folks who have been looking into this for years or decades than someone who only decided two weeks ago that mainstream science was wrong without coming up with a model that

    A) explains what we see in nature, and

    B) provides testable, falsifiable predictions for things we should see and haven't found yet.

     

    "Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history."

     

    no but we cant claim with certainty that just because we observe something acting in a certain way today it has always been acting that way... ie - i see my friend mowing his lawn one day at 3pm, i then claim that every day in the past he has been mowing his lawn at 3pm based on that one observation..science??imo not...

     

    Do you even understand how the scientific method works?

     

     

  15. Dividing by zero is not defined.

     

     

    Actually, despite all those math classes we all took, in floating point calculations (based on the IEEE 754 standard) division by 0 is only undefined for [math]\frac{\pm0}{\pm0}[/math] and [math]\frac{\pm\infty}{\pm\infty}[/math] . It also (apparently) has some applications statistical math.

     

    You can read more at:

    Signed Zero (Wikipedia)

     

     

    Some of the salient bits:

    The IEEE 754 standard for floating point arithmetic (presently used by most computers and programming languages that support floating point numbers) requires both +0 and −0. The zeroes can be considered as a variant of the extended real number line such that 1/−0 = − and 1/+0 = +∞,division by zero is only undefined for ±0/±0 and ±∞/±∞.

     

    Negatively signed zero echoes the mathematical analysis concept of approaching 0 from below as a one-sided limit, which may be denoted by x → 0, x → 0−, or x → ↑0. The notation "−0" may be used informally to denote a small negative number that has been rounded to zero. The concept of negative zero also has some theoretical applications in statistical mechanics and other disciplines.

     

    It is claimed that the inclusion of signed zero in IEEE 754 makes it much easier to achieve numerical accuracy in some critical problems,[1] in particular when computing with complex elementary functions.[2] On the other hand, the concept of signed zero runs contrary to the general assumption made in most mathematical fields (and in most mathematics courses) that negative zero is the same thing as zero. Representations that allow negative zero can be a source of errors in programs, as software developers do not realize (or may forget) that, while the two zero representations behave as equal under numeric comparisons, they are different bit patterns and yield different results in some operations.

     

  16. No disagreement. Nice argument.

     

    The criticism was how you had previously diparaged religion without making much of a case.

     

    Had you made this argument the first time I would have had no issue, and I suspect Villian wouldn't have made the comment he did.

     

    No worries. I've always had a problem with condensing my arguments too far and leaving out salient bits that I assume people will understand to be included. My math teachers used to hate me because I rarely showed all of my work, just the parts I didn't do in my head.

     

    I will make a renewed effort to be more clear in the future. biggrin.gif

  17. Oh come on. You disparaged all of organized religion because there is a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of one passage.

     

    I could just as easily dismiss all of science since in every theory you can find people who have differences of opinion regarding interpretation of data.

     

    Of course had I dismissed science with such a flimsy reason I would have received negative rep points, not positive.

     

    I found the criticism of your post to be reasonable.

     

    I was merely pointing out that passage as one of the many issues in translation and interpretation of the bible - not the only one. And yes, I did disparage all of organized religion. I find it to be of little value in living my life, and so I do my best to avoid it. That's a personal opinion, however, and I'm not presuming to speak for anyone else here.

     

    Unlike the Bible, it's pretty simple (relatively) to determine which of a group of competing theories is the correct one. You test them, and see which one validates itself with empirical evidence. And while yes, you may find differences of opinion in the interpretation of the data for a given experiment, the fact is, the experiments are repeatable, by any group of scientists who chooses to test the theory. You can come up with your own methods to test those theories. Eventually those differences of interpretation can be resolved. The differences of interpretation of the bible have lasted for hundreds of years. That's a lot of biblical scholars, philosophers and theologians all looking at the same "data" and they still can't come to a consensus on what large portions of a relatively short book actually mean.

     

    I think my criticism of religion was reasonable on that basis. Feel free to disagree. Many people will.

  18. If you're interested, read the text and read some opposing views and come to your own conclusion. If not, just carry on with making a noise, it's much easier than doing something constructive.

     

    I thought my conclusions were fairly clear. Maybe if you read my posts a little more deeply they'll become self-evident.

     

    With the sarcasm out of the way, let me be clear. I was raised in a Methodist family. I went to church, I went to Sunday school, I was baptized, and I did the youth group and church camp thing. I did spend the time reading the scripture, but as I got older, and spent more time studying science and math, I started to recognize the contradictions and outright disagreements in the biblical texts.

     

    What you dismiss as "making a noise" I refer to as living an examined life.

  19. 1. ...

     

    Secondly there are different translations/interpretations of the passage that you have quoted, one being that he killed her as a sacrifice, the other being that she was given to the service of the Lord and remained a virgin.

     

     

    That's a pretty big difference in translation there. So basically this girl is like Schrödinger's Cat. Neither dead nor alive until you decide which iteration of the Bible you believe.

     

    And yet people still wonder why there are those of us who are wary of organized religion.

  20. I read it to mean they are broken, meaning that some flaw leads them to follow this belief. I don't necessarily think religious individuals are any more or less broken than the rest of us, but I cannot fathom the depth of religious conviction given the contradictions of the published material, the inability of the faithful to agree on basic matters of doctrine and faith, and the general lack of physical evidence.

     

    But then, I suppose, that is why they call it faith.

×
×
  • 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.