Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Reality Check!]

Explain Nepal.[/QUOTE
The afterlife the dead and the survivors enter would vastly outweigh the suffering they endured. You might say well why does God allow these things to happen, but this is not a valid question when it boils down to your personal feelings. You're right God is not considered accountable as does nature because he is the creator of all things including nature, and all our concepts of good and evil are merely a manifestation of the free will that was given to us.

By attempting to use empirical methods to debunk the existance of God, you will always falls short. It is using a human concept against a supernatural being, and all this so called objectivity is just a representation of what we perceive to be 'the eye of God'. If you have already taken the view that this is the best method of questioning the existance of a higher power, why even engage in debate in the first place? You have already considered yourself on the same level of perception as God.

 

[Pie eyed]

LOL.
What load of tripe.
Where have I tried to use empirical methods to measure anything but your level of indoctrination?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

What is the evidence to think that everything just magically happened out of coincidence? equations are not coincidences. If you are going to argue such sophistication in the nature is a coincidence, its a position of faith.

you miss understand his point, you can't calculate the possibility of a creator existing without evidence for a creator. before you could calculate probability first we need to establish what this creator is and how it functions, verse any other model and then you come up the equation.

you cannot calculate such a possibility without set parameters. for example if we were going the "created" route is it guided creation or say a failed experiment and we are the unwanted by product? was it half finished work of art? it could be any number of things, all these things would shift the out come of any equation. without actual parameters by which to govern the equation you may as well ask what is the possibility of purple. without a working model behind the label "creator" there are no parameters to work with.

the same as trying to workout is it a coincidence, what is your model referring to? in this case you've said "magic" what is this magic? how does it function? before we can assign a value we need to know what we are dealing with.

now as usual we need to get away from this idea there's creation vs evolution. The only people advocating this are a few lunatic fundamentalists. the vast majority of christians even in america accept evolution as the process that developed mankind. not space magic and certainly not some bloke making people out of clay, it is a straight out natural process which is only rejected by ignorant people.

whether LIFE itself began through one of the many proposed models collectively known as "abiogenesis" or through supernatural processes for example an incorporeal being using spoken incantations that cause matter to spontaneously form self replicating molecules AKA "magic" is another debate entirely.

 

[Total Power]

the same as trying to workout is it a coincidence, what is your model referring to? in this case you've said "magic" what is this magic? how does it function? before we can assign a value we need to know what we are dealing with.

now as usual we need to get away from this idea there's creation vs evolution. The only people advocating this are a few lunatic fundamentalists. the vast majority of christians even in america accept evolution as the process that developed mankind. not space magic and certainly not some bloke making people out of clay, it is a straight out natural process which is only rejected by ignorant people.

whether LIFE itself began through one of the many proposed models collectively known as "abiogenesis" or through supernatural processes for example an incorporeal being using spoken incantations that cause matter to spontaneously form self replicating molecules AKA "magic" is another debate entirely.

Its not a creation vs evolution debate, why cant both be true? can evolution be guided or just pure a coincidence? if it a coincidence then where is your evidence thats its a coincidence. I stated, there is no proof either way, hence debating is pointness.

As far as magic is concerned, what magic? you believe that numbers magically appeared out of nowhere and rearranged itself in perfect harmony to create the perfect equation (As Michio Kaku says). What is the probably of that happening? Dawkins states if you give a chimp an infinite amount of time he can type Shakespeare. But where he went wrong is that we dont have an infinite amount of time. We had 9 billion years and the probability of the perfect math is still close to zero.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Its not a creation vs evolution debate, why cant both be true? can evolution be guided or just pure a coincidence? if it a coincidence then where is your evidence thats its a coincidence. I stated, there is no proof either way, hence debating is pointness.

As far as magic is concerned, what magic? you believe that numbers magically appeared out of nowhere and rearranged itself in perfect harmony to create the perfect equation (As Michio Kaku says). What is the probably of that happening? Dawkins states if you give a chimp an infinite amount of time he can type Shakespeare. But where he went wrong is that we dont have an infinite amount of time. We had 9 billion years and the probability of the perfect math is still close to zero.

evolution is not a coincidence, in any way shape or form. why does this feel like deja vu? I'm not going back to this round table of stupidity.
where is your evidence? you're just plain making s**t up.

this is literally the argument we are having right now:
Me: i happen to side with the evidence that supports the notion evolution functions via entirely natural processes which is the accepted model.
you: Why can't it be something else!
Me: do you have any evidence of this "something else?"
you: YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC!
Me: facepalm.

If you can't even quantify, or explain the very thing you're arguing in favour of, Why should it be taken seriously?

As for believing math a human construct, a tool we use to understand things being perfect is near zero, is....... amusing. First you're assigning math a position higher then it actually occupies (you're not alone in this) second you're attempting to use math to discredit the possibility of math occupying this theoretical position.

you understand that math is not perfect yes? that mathematicians are constantly refining equations to make them more accurate yes? that countless mathematical concepts have been thrown out over time because they were wrong?

Math is nothing more then a language, a system of communication used by people to understand and explain certain concepts.

now as for you're attempts to assign my beliefs you've failed, first because i don't "believe" in abiogenesis, i think its a promising field of study, there's been several breakthroughs in experiments about the formation of complex organic compounds within a closed environment. But its not something i profess to be my personal accepted model. My answer as usual is: i don't know how life began, if you believe you KNOW the answer by all means present your evidence.

as for these numbers rearranging themselves, i assume you're referring to mutations caused within the genetic coding of an organism which are inherited with each generation. Yes i believe this can happen by within the internal mechanisms of the organism. In that it is actually an error in the process that produces DNA within the organism its not magi its not a coincidence we have observed this happening. (i can link videos to give you a better help you understanding of the process if you'd like) Again, if you don't believe this is possible, By all means present you're evidence.

now back to these "numbers" there's no "numbers" these are actual physical things we are talking about. We assign numbers to the proteins because we use the language of math to do what? say it with me: "to understand and explain the concepts we are observing." Math is based on observation, if the math doesn't work what do we do? we go back to our observations we verify we haven't made a mistake, If we haven't. Then we change or refine our equations. Sometimes we hurl the equations out the window and go "well * it!" and start over again. there is no perfect equation. Because Math is an entirely man made concept.

nobody came down a mountain with the concept of math engraved on some stone tablets.

 

[Total Power]

evolution is not a coincidence, in any way shape or form. why does this feel like deja vu? I'm not going back to this round table of stupidity.
where is your evidence? you're just plain making s**t up.

Theistic evolution, lot of scientists have arguments for it too, maybe you should read books by someone like Francis Collins instead of "handbook of atheism" only.

this is literally the argument we are having right now:
Me: i happen to side with the evidence that supports the notion evolution functions via entirely natural processes which is the accepted model.
you: Why can't it be something else!
Me: do you have any evidence of this "something else?"
you: YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC!
Me: facepalm.

Evidence of what? ToE doesnt state its not guided, it can be guided.
The problem is that nobodys natural intuitions are violated when someone says a melting ice cube “just happens.”

The evolution of complex living things being undirected and “just happening” runs into an intuitive mental block that other physical processes don’t encounter. A mental block that I don’t think is just the result of theistic indoctrination.

Its precisely because cumulative natural selection (and what it produces) is so counter-intuitive that the point about it being natural and undirected needs to be emphasized.

If you can't even quantify, or explain the very thing you're arguing in favour of, Why should it be taken seriously?

Why is string theory taken seriously? why is infinity taken seriously? whats the mathemtical definition of infinity? if it cannot be quantified why is it so often used then? does everything have to be quantified?

As for believing math a human construct, a tool we use to understand things being perfect is near zero, is....... amusing. First you're assigning math a position higher then it actually occupies (you're not alone in this) second you're attempting to use math to discredit the possibility of math occupying this theoretical position.

what? where have i done that? scientists use it all the time...read Micho Kaku, read Freeman Dyson etc etc. Math is also based on assumptions, so how can it be perfect. For example, strings are just strings floating around but what is it floating on? wheres the tension between your dark matter and whats the length and size of 11dimensional hyperspace? science needs faith too. However If only Einstein had realized that the C^2 in E=mc^2 stood for the variables of Space and Time, then perhaps he would have connected the Lorentz transformations with Mass-Energy Equivalence to form the base equation for the Theory of Everything (the Tuck-Einstein Equation).. I truly believe there is such an equation that explains everything. People used to believe that since apples fall straight down and celestial objects have circular trajectories, it is impossible to be governed by the same physical law.... but we eventually found out that the same one is responsible for both observations.

you understand that math is not perfect yes? that mathematicians are constantly refining equations to make them more accurate yes? that countless mathematical concepts have been thrown out over time because they were wrong?

Absolutely, agreed as i explained above. Its all down to our present understanding, who knows there might be something tomorrow that will challenge, gravitation as we know it. Our understanding is still at a very basic level, newton understood it, he said we are just picking pebbles in the ocean. He also said science doesn't explain what set the planets into motion, laws of physics etc etc. Now i used math as an example only. Lets talk about the laws of physics without the math. The sophistication that we see, around the world is just a result of random accident? how can inanimate thing turn into a conscious being without intervention?
Math is nothing more then a language, a system of communication used by people to understand and explain certain concepts.

As for the rest of the post goes, i dont have the time really, may i kindly request you if you keep your replies short it helps everyone

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Theistic evolution, lot of scientists have arguments for it too, maybe you should read books by someone like Francis Collins instead of "handbook of atheism" only.

and we're back to cowardly insults, an argument is not evidence there's countless musings by people all over the globe. No scientist worth a damn would argue in favour of a theistic models entering anywhere near a scientific theory because no theistic model is supported by any evidence. you see the difference here is i'm expressing my own position and understanding of the topic while you have fobbed me off to someone who's opinion you support rather then forming you're own. Oh this guy said this therefore. arguments from authority hold no weight with me, only evidence present it. What falsible evidence does your Mr Collins present?

Evidence of what? ToE doesnt state its not guided, it can be guided.
The problem is that nobodys natural intuitions are violated when someone says a melting ice cube “just happens.”

The evolution of complex living things being undirected and “just happening” runs into an intuitive mental block that other physical processes don’t encounter. A mental block that I don’t think is just the result of theistic indoctrination.

Its precisely because cumulative natural selection (and what it produces) is so counter-intuitive that the point about it being natural and undirected needs to be emphasized.

what part do you not understand, evolution is a natural process that develops overtime. it is not guided its all about adaption. for the 10th time If you have evidence that this isn't the case, that there's some mysterious hand driving it, Present. If not stop beating around the bush and simply state i have no evidence but i just have a feeling that theres something behind it. You're views are not scientific your rationalising goes against ALL the evidence we have which is that it is completely natural. What you have presented is nothing more then baseless musings.

Why is string theory taken seriously? why is infinity taken seriously? whats the mathemtical definition of infinity? if it cannot be quantified why is it so often used then? does everything have to be quantified?

and we're back shifting goal posts. I don't have a strong enough understanding of string theory to sit here and argue the topic with you, feel free to research the topic if you like. as for infinity the easiest mathematical answer i can give is quite simply a number that does not end. there's alot more involved but i'd have to be at home and really i'd just be reciting text books i haven't read for 6 years and then i'd be a hipocritc after i just told you to explain concepts yourself. it absolutely can be quantified in math its sort of a horizontal figure 8. the reason its quantified is so that it can be referenced so much. you can't reference something and account for it in models and experiments or any other practice without having at least an understand of the concept. for the reason i told you before in your hypothetical equation, you need to understand something before you enter it as modifier. ethereal concepts are ill defined and ill thought out. you can not make air fairy claims and expect to be taken seriously.

i say evolution was started by the bahgah, it means nothing and why? because i haven't even given any thought to what the bahgah is i just straight made that up. there's no evidence for what this bahgah is i can't define it i can't give you a detailed explanation of it. i mean if you pushed me i would say the bahgah is was i'd say it was a race of external machines from another plain of existence. now why should i be taken seriously?
this notion that you can simply invoke words like god or creator or whatever other term you want use and bypass having your claims scrutinised is pure rubbish.

If you want to be taken seriously the least you taken do is take you're own subject matter seriously, get a firm understanding of what you're proposing find actual evidence rather then just dogmatically repeating "oh there has to be something to it it can't possibly naturally occur" find you're evidence. Don't you understand This is what people WANT! they want the evidence, they want the answers if you believe its true you owe not only to society but to yourself to discover this great super being who made us. But you can't and you make no endeavour to so why should you be taken seriously?

what? where have i done that? scientists use it all the time...read Micho Kaku, read Freeman Dyson etc etc. Math is also based on assumptions, so how can it be perfect.

you've done it by invoking the words of other man and stating them as your position. Math is not based on assumptions Math is based on observation for i'm sure i just said this. now some equations that use math have to make assumptions in order to work and that is why things like your obsession with string theory are considered incomplete by scientists like Micho Kaku. the works not finished much like abiogenesis its a compelling field of study with a lot of positive gains, the difference, between string theory and your creator of course is string theory is actively being studied and has been supported by real world observations.

For example, strings are just strings floating around but what is it floating on? wheres the tension between your dark matter and whats the length and size of 11dimensional hyperspace? science needs faith too.

no science does not need faith, science cannot have faith, faith is having complete confidence in someone or something, science opposes this a fundamental level. If you bothered to properly understand the subject matter you'd understand why these things aren't taken on faith. you'd understand why Dr Kaku has done a talk could the one inch equation highlighting why string theory isn't accepted into models. there's things that are incomplete in theory, until its all sorted out until its all verified its not accepted.

I truly believe there is such an equation that explains everything. People used to believe that since apples fall straight down and celestial objects have circular trajectories, it is impossible to be governed by the same physical law.... but we eventually found out that the same one is responsible for both observations.

many people do believe that, some spend there lives trying to find out if there is. the difference between the ones looking and the ones who just accept the notion, is the ones looking for it are prepared to admit they could be wrong.

Absolutely, agreed as i explained above. Its all down to our present understanding, who knows there might be something tomorrow that will challenge, gravitation as we know it. Our understanding is still at a very basic level, newton understood it, he said we are just picking pebbles in the ocean. He also said science doesn't explain what set the planets into motion, laws of physics etc etc. Now i used math as an example only. Lets talk about the laws of physics without the math. The sophistication that we see, around the world is just a result of random accident? how can inanimate thing turn into a conscious being without intervention?

we're starting to get really repetitive here, science is based on evidence. If you propose that there has to be some creator you must present actual evidence we cannot hold preconceived notions. You're very question is wrong because you're making the assumption that there has to be some magic hand behind the curtain. The question is how did organic matter turn into life as we know it. You don't go with preconceived notions. You go only where the evidence leads you. You can't just say thats to sophisticated, oh must be god. Not unless you intend to prove your god exists in which case, i wait with baited breath. Take a lovely mountain vista with snow capped peaks. how could that be an accident how could that form without a creator? vs due thats a nice view i wonder how that happened?

Now what actually happened? it was shaped by erosion due to winds, rains, melting ice and snow, earthquakes, etc, etc. that is where the evidence lead us, to natural causes. well surely they are caused by god? no the evidence says the rotation of the earth and moon, plate tectonics, meteorological conditions cause these things. again natural causes.

we can keep going on and on like this, If there was some evidence of this puppeteer where is it? So far when we don't assume and just go where the evidence points us, we don't end up at a theistic point of view. the evidence continues to say these things naturally occur. It seems the only time God enters the room is when people make the assumption that one exists. Now when we apply unassuming logic to life and we simply ask "how did life begin" again don't end up with a creator insight, the evidence is again pointing us toward abiogenesis.

As for the rest of the post goes, i dont have the time really, may i kindly request you if you keep your replies short it helps everyone

I do try to keep them short, but if i feel something requires a longer answer in order to express my position correctly then i will give it.
I mean i was tempted to simply keep repeating where's you're evidence. but i felt i need to hammer home just how important having actual evidence is.
If you wouldn't send a person to prison without evidence. I don't know why you would not ask for evidence when people are explaining the most important questions we can think of.

 

[Total Power]

and we're back to cowardly insults, an argument is not evidence there's countless musings by people all over the globe. No scientist worth a damn would argue in favour of a theistic models entering anywhere near a scientific theory because no theistic model is supported by any evidence. you see the difference here is i'm expressing my own position and understanding of the topic while you have fobbed me off to someone who's opinion you support rather then forming you're own. Oh this guy said this therefore. arguments from authority hold no weight with me, only evidence present it. What falsible evidence does your Mr Collins present?

.

I am sorry but what insults? a true researcher would read both sides of the argument. I have thoroughly read Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Harris etc, what have you read about theist evolution if at all? yes nothing, you will now google and post your opinion.You referring to Collins as "Your Mr Collins" goes to show you have NFI on who he is. He is a world leading researcher in genetics and led the Human Genome Project. You might wanna read his side of the story first, i do not have the time to type 1,000 lines like you, however after you read it i am more than happy to discuss this with you.

And as far theistic evolution being unscientific goes:

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/6/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution

while most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

So say theist evolution is unscientific is BULL. As i said,

 

[Total Power]

you've done it by invoking the words of other man and stating them as your position. Math is not based on assumptions

what are the assumptions in tuck-einstein theory? are those assumptions testifiable? if not are those assumptions "general" position of faith? what are the assumptions in "M-theory". Are those testifiable? if not, does that make M-theory invalid?

Math is based on observation for i'm sure i just said this.


.

Um no. Your assumption is flawed, hence your whole argument is flawed. (sounds familiar? mathematical modelling also needs shitloads of assumpptions).Math is not based on observation. Math is strictly based on axioms.Lets give you an example ...like Matrix Algebra and Riemann Geometry, what uses do these have? nothing apparent. they waited patiently on the shelf until Physics and the physical world found uses for them, this is not observation this is human imagination. There is no such thing as a point, a line or a plane these are all constructs of the human mind that exists on an approximation only.



Its a defensive stance at the very worst to say that all of science is ultimately based upon empirical evdence -- if empirically determined facts about the Universe arent reliable, science in any shape that we know it wouldnt exist. However, math does not require empirical facts. In that sense, math is strictly outside of science (not meant in a disparaging way). Example: The concept of infinity,as i stated above, for example, is mathematically valid whether or not we can find any evidence that an infinite number of anything actually exists in the natural world.Now if you want to prove otherwise please provide your "observation" of infinity and i will be happy to learn about your observation of "infinity"

When in contradiction, neither mathematical reasoning nor empirical facts are obviously superior. Mathematics,, if you apply this to a scientific model etc, sometimes, requires assumptions to form a model and these assumptions are violateid and the empirical facts are correct. At the same time, empirically determined facts can be wrong because of problems with the experiment, either in the execution or thenterpretation.

This is perfectly evident in Dirac's equation

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

Let me also ask you ,if mathmatics relevant in philosophy? if yes, upon what "observations" are those models dependent?

This R.W Hamming article explains it perfectly :https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html

Some quotes:

The idea that theorems follow from the postulates does not correspond to simple observation. If the Pythagorean theorem were found to not follow from the postulates, we would again search for a way to alter the postulates until it was true. Euclid's postulates came from the Pythagorean theorem, not the other way. For over thirty years I have been making the remark that if you came into my office and showed me a proof that Cauchy's theorem was false I would be very interested, but I believe that in the final analysis we would alter the assumptions until the theorem was true.

I am well aware that much of what I say, especially about the nature of mathematics, will annoy many mathematicians. My experimental approach is quite foreign to their mentality and preconceived beliefs

For a full research paper on this, see this: explains it in a nice way

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/belaxioms1.pdf


Your basic understanding of science is flawed, no doubt you will come back with another long essay, but your statement above shows you dont understand science

 

[Sydney Bloods]

what are the assumptions in tuck-einstein theory? are those assumptions testifiable? if not are those assumptions "general" position of faith? what are the assumptions in "M-theory". Are those testifiable? if not, does that make M-theory invalid?



Um no. Your assumption is flawed, hence your whole argument is flawed. (sounds familiar? mathematical modelling also needs shitloads of assumpptions).Math is not based on observation. Math is strictly based on axioms.Lets give you an example ...like Matrix Algebra and Riemann Geometry, what uses do these have? nothing apparent. they waited patiently on the shelf until Physics and the physical world found uses for them, this is not observation this is human imagination. There is no such thing as a point, a line or a plane these are all constructs of the human mind that exists on an approximation only.

and now you're talking rubbish, if a plane does not exist if a line does not exist how does one measure it? according to you it only occupies the human mind, why then do i have tools in my shed that measure these fabrications of the human brain?
and while you're at which isle in bunnings can i pick up the proof of a creator stick?

if Einstein's theory of relativity is not testable, why did it correspond with finding of experiments that fit it.

Its a defensive stance at the very worst to say that all of science is ultimately based upon empirical evdence -- if empirically determined facts about the Universe arent reliable, science in any shape that we know it wouldnt exist. However, math does not require empirical facts. In that sense, math is strictly outside of science (not meant in a disparaging way). Example: The concept of infinity,as i stated above, for example, is mathematically valid whether or not we can find any evidence that an infinite number of anything actually exists in the natural world.Now if you want to otherwise please provide your "observation" of infinity and i will be happy to listen

its like talking to child, observation for infinity, i'll help you calculate pie for me. the whole number if you don't mind........it's ok i can wait.
what you fail to understand is the difference between falsifiable evidence and empirical evidence, i would go through it and explain it too you but, lets face it you A wouldn't read it and B would just accuse me of writing essays.

When in contradiction, neither mathematical reasoning nor empirical facts are obviously superior. Mathematics,, if you apply this to a scientific model etc, sometimes, requires assumptions to form a model and these assumptions are violateid and the empirical facts are correct. At the same time, empirically determined facts can be wrong because of problems with the experiment, either in the execution or thenterpretation.

This is perfectly evident in Dirac's equation

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

are you kidding me? the dirac equation, the model that predicted the existence of anti-matter?
this is exactly an example of what i'm talking about, Dirac was not satisfied with the short comings of the existing math at the time which didn't account for certain aspects of atoms. He made a model which in order to work had to account for certain things. such as anti-matter when we found anti-matter bravo it proved him right. this was not an assumption, This which had to account for certain aspects of the world in order to work. in order for it to be correct we had to prove certain aspects of it. many experiments back up his findings.

this in no way means the evidence is at odds with it. what it means is other models used to describe classical functions are not as accurate as we once thought. hence the part about refining equations. just because something is based on observations doesn't mean its exacting.

its not something brewed up in a lab with relevance to the real world. if it weren't we couldn't have tested it. your attempts to scoff at a thoery that rewrote our understanding of physics is clumsy at best.

Let me also ask you ,if mathmatics relevant in philosophy? if yes, upon what "observations" are those models dependent?

This R.W Hamming article explains it perfectly :https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html

Some quotes:






For a full research paper on this, see this: explains it in a nice way

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/belaxioms1.pdf


Your basic understanding of science is flawed, no doubt you will come back with another long essay, but your statement above shows you dont understand science

another, philosopher at least he can admit science and math have no time for his prehistoric field. I shall enjoy reading his great big ball of w***ery i'm finding them amusing at this point. It seems the last bastion for the ignorant to flee to is an outdated field that is incapable of producing anything worthwhile in this century.

 

[Total Power]

and now you're talking rubbish, if a plane does not exist if a line does not exist how does one measure it? according to you it only occupies the human mind, why then do i have tools in my shed that measure these fabrications of the human brain?
and while you're at which isle in bunnings can i pick up the proof of a creator stick?

I assume you never heard of Differntial geometry? it exists but "in approximation" only. do you realise how dumb your statement sound? There is a reason why in Plane, point etc are called "undefined" in geometry, here, read up for educational purposes.

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/geometry/gg1/undefinedterms.htm

In Geometry, we define a point as a location and no size. A line is defined as something that extends infinitely in either direction but has no width and is one dimensional while a plane extends infinitely in two dimensions. .I really sound dumb explaining science 101 to you.A plane cannot be measure, neither can a point ,to measure a plane you have to use another approximation scale to it and compare their relative skewness

if Einstein's theory of relativity is not testable, why did it correspond with finding of experiments that fit it.

Where did i even mention relativity? you are picking and choosing as it suits now.I asked you, are the assumptions in M-theory testifiable? or not? if no, does it disprove M-theory?

its like talking to child, observation for infinity, i'll help you calculate pie for me. the whole number if you don't mind........it's ok i can wait.
what you fail to understand is the difference between falsifiable evidence and empirical evidence, i would go through it and explain it too you but, lets face it you A wouldn't read it and B would just accuse me of writing essays.

No need to be so defensive. You said math is based on observations, i said its NOT. Infinity is neither provable nor falsifiable. Infinity is simple an axiom used to prove the unprovable. In regular mathematics even with axioms and logic there is always some point that is taken for granted . mathematician name it presumptions and I call it the blind point of any Euclidian mathematics. .You said Math is based on observation.I said that is rubbish, you have never done mathematical modelling , i dont even think you understand the concept.

are you kidding me? the dirac equation, the model that predicted the existence of anti-matter?
this is exactly an example of what i'm talking about, Dirac was not satisfied with the short comings of the existing math at the time which didn't account for certain aspects of atoms. He made a model which in order to work had to account for certain things. such as anti-matter when we found anti-matter bravo it proved him right. this was not an assumption, This which had to account for certain aspects of the world in order to work. in order for it to be correct we had to prove certain aspects of it. many experiments back up his findings.

While writing his equation Dirac realized it had two possible roots. At that point, Dirac could have decided his equation was only an approximation of reality (there are plenty of those), or he could claim his equation accurately described nature, therefore nature allowed two different kinds of matter, with positive and negative signs. Dirac decided his equation described nature.

this in no way means the evidence is at odds with it. what it means is other models used to describe classical functions are not as accurate as we once thought. hence the part about refining equations. just because something is based on observations doesn't mean its exacting.

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems: Godel said that given any formal system there are true statements that are unprovable from within the system. It supports my position but I am forbidden from using it lol. Which set of axioms forms the true algebra (read on Godel’s incompleteness theorems)? Is the speed of light fixed (ensuring relativity is consistent) or not?

its not something brewed up in a lab with relevance to the real world. if it weren't we couldn't have tested it. your attempts to scoff at a thoery that rewrote our understanding of physGodel’s Incompleteness Theorems.”ics is clumsy at best.

Yes, faith is unprovable but so are assumptions/axioms/postulates. I think I said this on another post. If you didn’t have principles within the system that were not provable from within system, then all arguments within the system become circular and fall apart. Axioms cannot be proven - they are propositions that we assume are true. Commutativity of addition of natural numbers is not an axiom. It is proved from the definition of addition

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

another, philosopher at least he can admit science and math have no time for his prehistoric field. I shall enjoy reading his great big ball of ******y i'm finding them amusing at this point. It seems the last bastion for the ignorant to flee to is an outdated field that is incapable of producing anything worthwhile in this century.

Yes he is a philosopher, so lets discuss his argument, by that LeMaitre, Planck, Collins, etc etc are all gobshites right? what is your counter argument against his theory? you are willing to quote atheists (G.M Woerlee in the previous post) and expect people to take you seriously, and when i quote a philsopher you get your knickers in a knot? are you going to answer the quoted statement or just going to dismiss it caue he was a philosopher? his statement was not a philsophical statement, its a scientific statement, let me hear why do you disagree with him? oh wait[/QUOTE]

 

[Total Power]

Good talking to you SydneyBloods, after you understand the basic concepts of science and read up on Collins and a few other stuff, lets revisit it, till then i feel like banging my head against the brick wall.And honestly, i dont have the time to scroll through through drivel, you dont understand the basics of science and its quite apparent, lets leave it at that. Lol how do you measure a line again?

 

[Reality Check!]

LOL.
What load of tripe.
Where have I tried to use empirical methods to measure anything but your level of indoctrination?

Feel free to refute what I said any time.

 

[hardon]

hello Total Power,

...i said sophistication and mathematics is a good proof of existence of a higher intelligence.

what form does this proof take? or was your sentence 'the proof'? i look forward to hearing more of this proof.

You are saying, maths, laws of physics dont need any of these, it just magically arranged itself into harmony.

we made up the disciplines of maths and physics ourselves. we arranged them. why would this be akin to magic?

 

[Roylion]

Theistic evolution, lot of scientists have arguments for it too, maybe you should read books by someone like Francis Collins instead of "handbook of atheism" only.

What arguments and evidence does Francis Collins present in support of the idea that evolution was set in motion by God?

 

[not a warmonger]

What arguments and evidence does Francis Collins present in support of the idea that evolution was set in motion by God?

none. he has faith however

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I assume you never heard of Differntial geometry? it exists but "in approximation" only. do you realise how dumb your statement sound? There is a reason why in Plane, point etc are called "undefined" in geometry, here, read up for educational purposes.

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/geometry/gg1/undefinedterms.htm

In Geometry, we define a point as a location and no size. A line is defined as something that extends infinitely in either direction but has no width and is one dimensional while a plane extends infinitely in two dimensions. .I really sound dumb explaining science 101 to you.A plane cannot be measure, neither can a point ,to measure a plane you have to use another approximation scale to it and compare their relative skewness

an assumption and an approximation are two different things, what are you not getting? the tools we use in math are our best approximation of our observations. for the millionth time its based on observations.

Where did i even mention relativity? you are picking and choosing as it suits now.I asked you, are the assumptions in M-theory testifiable? or not? if no, does it disprove M-theory?

now you're being annoying as ive already stated this, it doesn't disprove nor does it need to, in order for M-theory to become the go to answer it has the onus to prove it is true. this is why many physicists joke that String theory is "promising and always will be promising" anyone who walks around telling you any string theories are accepted models you can tell them to * right off, there's a reason we still use Einsteins equivalence principle. its because there's no evidence for the violations of the Equivalence principal. Until its testable you should not believe it. of course right now there's an scientists dedicated to coming up with ways to test such theories. which is what i'm asking you to do, if you want to be counted thats all you need to do produce evidence to be tested.

it's mind numbing how you cannot possibly understand that if you want to pretend there's something more to our creator other then just emotion if you truly believe this has substance and can explain everything then you need to understand it. theoretical physicists aim is to do just that with the position they hold, they don't claim it is a fact they say well this seems to explain lets work this out.

No need to be so defensive. You said math is based on observations, i said its NOT. Infinity is neither provable nor falsifiable. Infinity is simple an axiom used to prove the unprovable. In regular mathematics even with axioms and logic there is always some point that is taken for granted . mathematician name it presumptions and I call it the blind point of any Euclidian mathematics. .You said Math is based on observation.I said that is rubbish, you have never done mathematical modelling , i dont even think you understand the concept.

of course there has to be things taken for granted its required because otherwise figures would be impossible to calculate, you just described the role infinity plays in a plane, its also used in entropy and countless other models. you can call the required work arounds in math anything you like. your just being a dick in a hopeless attempt to prove your point and your failing.

While writing his equation Dirac realized it had two possible roots. At that point, Dirac could have decided his equation was only an approximation of reality (there are plenty of those), or he could claim his equation accurately described nature, therefore nature allowed two different kinds of matter, with positive and negative signs. Dirac decided his equation described nature.

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems: Godel said that given any formal system there are true statements that are unprovable from within the system. It supports my position but I am forbidden from using it lol. Which set of axioms forms the true algebra (read on Godel’s incompleteness theorems)? Is the speed of light fixed (ensuring relativity is consistent) or not?

and when matter was found with negative signs what did that tell us about Dirac's equation? was it the considered correct or did it disprove his model?
which if we took Godels theorem. this leads us to state that antimatter is lumped into the complete category. which is what? falsifiable evidence. are you getting the picture yet? no because you continue to focus on the few things that must be taken for granted within the model in order for the model to work. your position does not exist.

Yes, faith is unprovable but so are assumptions/axioms/postulates. I think I said this on another post. If you didn’t have principles within the system that were not provable from within system, then all arguments within the system become circular and fall apart. Axioms cannot be proven - they are propositions that we assume are true. Commutativity of addition of natural numbers is not an axiom. It is proved from the definition of addition

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

and what is the key difference we find here? faith is nothing more then a feeling. an axiom however is a proposition, this is what you glossed over and i suspect knowingly glossed over. whether an axiom is true is frankly irrelevant to models themselves, what matter is if it is true what happens? and this is why accepted theories must be testable because we use axioms. because we've declared the result is X if something contradicts with X then something has gone wrong. nothing must be at odds with what we observe. why you all resort to hiding you're gods in the unknown. cowardice. at least the religious understand why they need to define and provide evidence for god, if your simple using god as an axiom what point is there? lets take your ridiculous idea that we just assume there was a creator, so what? if god is simply the axiom a simply "truth" we must use to support a wider theory whats the wider theory? in religion the assumption of god being real if to prove their statement that god loves us and wants to save us and be perfect and s**t.
you haven't provided anything.

Yes he is a philosopher, so lets discuss his argument, by that LeMaitre, Planck, Collins, etc etc are all gobshites right? what is your counter argument against his theory? you are willing to quote atheists (G.M Woerlee in the previous post) and expect people to take you seriously, and when i quote a philsopher you get your knickers in a knot? are you going to answer the quoted statement or just going to dismiss it caue he was a philosopher? his statement was not a philsophical statement, its a scientific statement, let me hear why do you disagree with him? oh wait

we covered this in the very first reply math works because we have constantly set about refining it and developing it. its based on describing the world, the fact that a language used to communicate the very concepts of the universe developed by countless people and refined time and time again with the sole function of trying to provide the best possible answer. To me that sounds, That sounds like it simply achieved its aims.

I'd ask Hamming the same thing i asked you, where the * did you get god from?
how the hell do you go from looking at math for what it is, a language and tracking its evolution to going well it was god.

why did he jump to that ridiculous notion?
because he assumes god exists in the first place. its circular logic, god exists and math meets up with our observations so therefore god made the world using math.

and you ask why i don't take philosophy seriously? thats his entire musings broken down in one sentence.

sub out every time he says god with aliens and you realise just how pointless the argument is.

 

[Total Power]

an assumption and an approximation are two different things, what are you not getting? the tools we use in math are our best approximation of our observations. for the millionth time its based on observations.

.

And after all this effort you still dont get the point lol i will leave it at that.

 

[Total Power]

none. he has faith however

Theistic evolution is not intelligent design. You are confused, have you read his book? if not, i suggest you read it instead of googling.I hate nothing more than people offering opinions without having an idea on what his theory is.

 

[not a warmonger]

Feel free to refute what I said any time.

reality check you say thete ate good reasons to believe in the bible. what are they?

 

[not a warmonger]

Theistic evolution is not intelligent design. You are confused, have you read his book? if not, i suggest you read it instead of googling.I hate nothing more than people offering opinions without having an idea on what his theory is.

you need to have a chat with evolutionary biologists

 

[Roylion]

Theistic evolution is not intelligent design.

What arguments and evidence does Francis Collins present in support of the idea that evolution was set in motion by God? Doesn't Collins argue that once evolution was underway that no special supernatural intervention was required? So wouldn't that mean that God was involved in the initial creation of life and therefore set evolution in motion?

 

[not a warmonger]

What arguments and evidence does Francis Collins present in support of the idea that evolution was set in motion by God? Doesn't Collins argue that once evolution was underway that no special supernatural intervention was required? So wouldn't that mean that God was involved in the initial creation of life and therefore set evolution in motion?

did you hear how he became a christian??
he saw a frozen waterfall. i kid you not.

 

[Total Power]

What arguments and evidence does Francis Collins present in support of the idea that evolution was set in motion by God? Doesn't Collins argue that once evolution was underway that no special supernatural intervention was required? So wouldn't that mean that God was involved in the initial creation of life and therefore set evolution in motion?

Many people get theistic evolution and intelligent design mixed up. Its not accurate to portray theistic evolutionists as supporters of the intelligent design movement, nor is it accurate to portray ID advocates as those who completely accept evolution.

Both believe that there is design in nature, that God created the universe. However, it is only ID advocates which claim that there's some sort of scientific basis for this belief. A theistic evolutionist would say that while design in nature can be inferred, it can not be scientifically established.

The ID movement is an attempt to undermine science by saying that natural processes are not sufficient to produce what we see in nature, i.e. supernatural miracles are required (or aliens, or some other intelligent interference). They may hold up "irreducibly complex" systems as evidence that some sort of interference or help was needed along the way. Theistic evolutionists accept that natural processes are sufficient (though they may believe God could intervene in a more direct manner if he wanted to) and that irreducibly complex systems do have a natural explanation.
ID advocates seem to think that either something is naturally designed, or intelligently designed, and they seem to set it up in such a way that both can't be true. The ID movement, as promoted by many Christians, basically says "I don't know how this could have happened naturally, so God did it." This is an argument from incredulity, and puts God into gaps that will inevitably be filled one day.

TE believe that God can work through nature to exert His will in a situation. While nature is believed to be created, natural processes are a sufficient tool for that creation, or at least the primary one.

The most major difference between ID advocates and theistic evolutionists are their views on public school education. ID advocates have been going to court to get their beliefs taught as science in science classrooms. Most theistic evolutionists would be opposed to this happening.

Creationists often take well to ID style arguments, while they reject theistic evolution as being false. One can be a creationist and an ID advocate at the same time, while a theistic evolutionist always accepts evolution.

did you hear how he became a christian??
he saw a frozen waterfall. i kid you not.

Yes he is stupid, thats why he heads the Human Genome Project. My point is that people like Collins (and you) possess a rational confidence in the scientific method, which the intelligent design people lack. Unlike Collins, they have no expectation that science will yield answers to difficult questions in biology. They harbor an irrational skepticism about the scientific method. But Collins is the sort of person who (normally) doesnnt give up on a scientific puzzle just because its bloody hard.

 

[RightorKhan]

Why are people still arguing creationism in this day and age?