REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-05-2013, 03:54 PM   #76
I keep RS good
 
Ulic Qel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,361
Thanked 5,348 Times in 1,408 Posts
first of all, been busy, so... here's my long ass reply to make up for all those days of absence lol.



all you guys taking the side of science and dismissing religion are still ignoring the fundamental reason i'm bringing this argument up, skipping it and advancing onto more advanced arguments which are built on what i am trying to get you guys to open your eyes to.

you guys are still ignoring what GODEL has come up with.

remember... i'm not arguing about anything after step 1. im only targeting the core of which all beliefs and science are based on. don't deviate onto something more advance, stick with the core argument i'm bringing up

yes Godel's theorem is still a "theorem". but regardless, within my argument, there are only theorems. laws are just more solid theorems but still open ended when stripped away to the core.



Kurt godel (a mathematician) discovered something very profound. This discovery can be applied to all aspects, not just mathematics, but all of science, philosophy, logic, human knowledge etc. everything. THIS DISCOVERY IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS EINSTEIN's DISCOVERY.

scientists/mathematicians etc, have a hard on for proofs. we all know that, especially from the replies in this thread. but the thing is, scientists for the longest times were all fucked up cuz they couldn't prove things that they "knew" were true.

example being when you're in hs doing geometry, that shit is built on Eucild's five postulates. everyone believes these 5 postulates to be true, but for thousands of years, NO ONE has proved them to be true.
eucild's 5 posulates:
Spoiler!


so yeah, everyone "believes" that a straight line can be extended forever in both directions. but no one has been able to prove that. but we believe it regardless. we just rely on these axioms.

fast forward to early 1900's. mathematicians like bertand russell, david hilbert, ludwig wittgenstein type genius guys thought they were closing in on a "theorem of everything".

but kurt godel came up with the "incompleteness theorem", which proves that a single "theory of everything" IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Godel’s incompleteness theorem:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

for you sciency type guys that want that in formal language:

“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

back to the geometry example...
you can draw a circle around the geometry concepts you learnt. but those are built on the 5 axioms, which are believe to be "true" but cannot be proven. These 5 axioms are outside the circle which geometry resides in.

You can draw a circle around a Lamborghini, but the existence of the lambo relies on the factory that is outside the circle... the lambo CANNOT explain itself.

So godel proved that there are always more things that are true than you can prove. ANy system of logic or numbers or anything that scientists have EVER come up with will always rest on at least A FEW unprovable assumptions.

Godel's incompleteness theorem applies to everything. especially math and logic.
if the universe is mathematical and logical (again another assumption we cannot prove)... then the incompleteness also applies to the universe... logically.

an example is the liar's paradox:

“I am lying.”

“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false, and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.

Godel, basically converted the liar’s paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer.

No statement alone can completely prove itself true.

Godel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic.

Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Godel must surely be wrong.

BUT he wasn’t wrong. It's true. There are more things than are true than you can prove.

A “theory of everything” in math, or physics, or philosophy WILL NEVER BE FOUND. Because it is impossible.


BACK TO my main point from page 1:

Faith and Reason are not enemies. Like I said, they're brother and sister. One is necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.

ALL closed systems depend on something outside the system.

You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle is “deductive reasoning”.

deductive reasoning:
1. All men are mortal
2. Chuck norris is a man
3. Therefore chuck norris is mortal


Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle is “inductive reasoning”.

inductive reasoning:
1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal

inductive reasoning:
1. When I let go of stuff, they fall down.
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs falling objects

when you move from smaller circles to the larger circle, you HAVE TO make assumptions that you CANNOT PROVE.

For example:
you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times.
you can only observe that it is consistently true every time.
you cannot prove that the universe is rational.
you can only observe that formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to "perfectly" describe what the universe does.

ALMOST ALL SCIENTIFIC "LAWS" ARE BASED ON INDUCTIVE REASONING.

These laws rest on an assumption that the universe is logical and based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. You LITERALLY have to take it on faith.

Most people don't know this... but if you drew a circle around science... you know what lies outside that circle within the bigger circle? PHILOSOPHY.
(ever wonder what the phD stands for??? take a wild guess, doctor of... *drum rolllll* PHILOSOPHY).

science is based on philosophical assumptions. PERIOD. no argument against that.

The scientific method CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING, it can only INFER.

go back to the ORIGINS of science...
SCIENCE came from the BELIEF (faith) that "god" made an orderly universe, which obeys fixed discoverable laws.


Now draw the biggest circle you can imagine... around the whole universe. for those of you believe in the multiverse, then draw a big circle around all of that too.... basically draw a circle around ALL OF EXISTENCE. (tangible and non tangible... all realities, thoughts, dreams, physical realities etc. everything that exists).

There has to be something outside that circle. This is an assumption, we cannot prove that.
The universe as we "know it" is finite... like it's got finite matter/energy/space, and is about 14 billion years old.
As we know it, the universe is mathematical.

Applying godel's thereom:
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time etc etc.) cannot explain itself.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply godel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system! it's not anything otherwise we can draw a bigger circle around it. whatever it is.. it's indivisible right? it's an "uncaused cause". otherwise we'd just draw another circle right?

so we can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:

1. Sometime in history "information" was introduced. This information is called genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.

2. The information had to come from the outside, since "information" is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.

3. All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.

4. Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.

In other words when we add "information" (genetic code) to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also conscious.

so... doesn't that basically sound like the description of what "god/s" are? I am not targetting particular religions. I'm targetting all theologians and the CORE beliefs. strip away all the different stories and different takes. strip it to the core. and you get "god"... which lies outside of that circle.

Godel’s theorem indicates it is supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.


The person who proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t fucking understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge at all.


the following quote is what ALL ATHEISTS follow:
“Naturalism (as opposed to super-naturalism) is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

If you know godel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems MUST rely on something outside the system. So according to godels theorem... if the universe is logical, it has an outside cause.

Atheism violates the laws of reason and logic?

Godel’s thereom definitively proves that science can never fill its own gaps. We have no choice but to look OUTSIDE of science for answers.


DONT GET ME WRONG... Godel's theorem of The Incompleteness of the universe does NOT prove god/s exist.

BUT… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in "god" is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

now don't get all fucking offended now. your definition of god is probably not right. don't automatically think im saying you're a christian or whatever.

definition of "god" would be whatever is outside that BIGGEST circle we drew.
Remember, a system cannot explain itself.

hell, for the purposes of this discussion, god is outside that biggest circle we drew okay? you don't have to call it god. but that's what 80% of the world calls it. you can call it "unknown" but... it's not really unknown, we know we need it for any system of logic to work.

ok let's just call it "consciousness". some kind of entity, call it whatever you will. please don't connect the word entity, with a bodily being. it's just... an entity/entities... it's not just "nothing/void".


backkkkk to the start...

Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable.
god is not formally provable either.
But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a first Cause and a source of order right?

THEREFORE faith and science are not enemies, but brother and sister (allies if you will).
It’s been true for hundreds of years, but godel proved it.

I leave with these quotes:
“Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.”

-Leibniz

Godel and Einstein

(it cuts off at the bottom but they're actually holding hands, in rejoice of their discoveries)





-----------------------
back to one of my original little rants...
existence is fractal like, recursive and repeating. as soon as you realise one level above/below you, instantly another is created, and so on and so forth. it is infinitely recursive. inward and outward. inescapable.

you cannot capture it all with logic. you cannot capture it all in one jar. for the instant you do that, you can place that jar within a bigger jar.

existence is not just what you can see, smell, feel, and touch. that's but just the start. the most primitive form of existence.

the mind... consciousness is the highest form of existence we currently know. don't be so blind as to rely purely on your 5 senses. those are but what animals rely on.

you cannot be so blind as to believe only one or the other. they all stem from the same thing.

i understand that most of you cannot understand what the fuck im talking about. nor do you have the ability to conceptualize it.

it's not something the average person can just get. it takes years of deeper thinking.

the human language is very limited. i believe language can only describe not even 1% of the information we want to disseminate. and even when we find a more effective way to communicate... we have to figure out how to get each individual person to TAKE IN the information from the SAME PERSPECTIVE.

remember, one can only see their own level and below. you can never see above your own level. it is not possible.

the wise man can only recognize his own limits and pass the torch to someone else capable of more than he is.

much like passing the baton in a relay race, eventually it will circle around. like i said, recursive, circular, repetitive, forever. existence is a broken record permanently stuck on play.
Advertisement
__________________
nipples neways...wat is with those fuck'n asians! i mean you would think they've never seen a dentist in their life. are dentists really that rare over there in ricey ricey and? looks like they're star trek ferrengi rejects! fuck'n have broken glass for teeth! goddaymn! and the smell....did a rat crawl in there and shit itself then marinate in its own shit as it decayed?ewwwwwwwwww! i swear...if one of those ferrengi asian girls gave head...when u pull the dick out it looks like it went thru a meat grinder! prolly shaved off a few slices of meat! *shudder*
Greebo i t-boned some guy and killed their baby, it was funny
silvia i have a couple asian guy friends that do very well with the ladies. but guess what, they go to the gym, they dont have long hair, they dont wear orange pants, and they dont play counterstrike. its not the ethnicity that the girls dont like, its the style and personality.
450HP Supra I am about to use your eye sockets as a shoe rack for my nuts. ...something about chinks, j-bodys, I can't quite remember as I was drunk and looking for a girl to punch in the clit. Think of it as a digital urinal, and you are the mint, except, instead of actually smelling mint, you smell like mothballs, rotten kimchee and virginity. I'm about to start drinking heavily now and you better be gone before I get back or I swear to god I will break the internet over my knee and use the pieces to beat you in the deformed skull with, cock muffler.
Iceman-19 If your gf cooks and cleans, good, tell the guy to take a fucking hike. If she doesnt, fuck, that joker can have her. Lifes too short to cook your own meals and do your own laundry, thats what women are for!
http://ho316.tumblr.com

Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 04-05-2013 at 04:53 PM.
Ulic Qel-Droma is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-05-2013, 03:59 PM   #77
nuggets mod
 
freakshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: richmond
Posts: 6,706
Thanked 3,047 Times in 842 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
Goes back to the essence of science, assessing likelihood.
If you're relying on 'likelihood', I'm really surprised you're going back to evolution. I mean.. I'm not sure what your definition of 'likely' is, but evolution probably doesn't match..
__________________
I searched for truth, and all I found was You

'00 323i (Sold)
'01 Civic Si (Sold)
'95 240sx (Sold)
'02 LMB M5 (Sold)
'92 4Runner (Sold)
'92 Civic VX (Sold)
'03 SL500 (Sold)
'92 NSX
'99 M3 (Totalled)
'07 A4 2.0T (Sold)
'01 CB M5 (Sold)
'01 540i (Sold)
'11 535ix
freakshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 04:14 PM   #78
nuggets mod
 
freakshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: richmond
Posts: 6,706
Thanked 3,047 Times in 842 Posts
Quote:
No statement alone can completely prove itself true.
I hope Godel doesn't expect us to take his statements as true.. because that would be ironic.

/trollphilosophy
__________________
I searched for truth, and all I found was You

'00 323i (Sold)
'01 Civic Si (Sold)
'95 240sx (Sold)
'02 LMB M5 (Sold)
'92 4Runner (Sold)
'92 Civic VX (Sold)
'03 SL500 (Sold)
'92 NSX
'99 M3 (Totalled)
'07 A4 2.0T (Sold)
'01 CB M5 (Sold)
'01 540i (Sold)
'11 535ix
freakshow is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-05-2013, 04:17 PM   #79
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Essentially, science is all about chasing answers to questions, while religion is more about making us feel like someone else has all the answers.

It all boils down to systems of reassurance; just depends on whether you start with certainty (God) or uncertainty (science).
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-05-2013, 04:35 PM   #80
I keep RS good
 
Ulic Qel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,361
Thanked 5,348 Times in 1,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S View Post
Essentially, science is all about chasing answers to questions, while religion is more about making us feel like someone else has all the answers.

It all boils down to systems of reassurance; just depends on whether you start with certainty (God) or uncertainty (science).
no... more like.

science.. no matter how much knowledge you have. it is still microscopically minuscule to the "whole" truth.

no matter how much knowledge you acquire. every step you take forward, 100 branch out.

religion recognizes that, and just accepts it. where as science will endlessly chase, forever.

i should say faith. not religion.

extremist scientists believe there is an answer to all.

extremist religious believe someone else has the answer to all.

neither are correct. but neither are fully wrong either.

answers perpetuate from answers. you can never capture it wholly. it is impossible.

the word "all" is just a concept.

like i said, existence is recursive. you can walk around a circle all you want, but you'll never get to the end, and before you know it, you won't even remember where you began.


Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow View Post
I hope Godel doesn't expect us to take his statements as true.. because that would be ironic.

/trollphilosophy
in this case we are the observer
we are the circle outside the circle.
__________________
nipples neways...wat is with those fuck'n asians! i mean you would think they've never seen a dentist in their life. are dentists really that rare over there in ricey ricey and? looks like they're star trek ferrengi rejects! fuck'n have broken glass for teeth! goddaymn! and the smell....did a rat crawl in there and shit itself then marinate in its own shit as it decayed?ewwwwwwwwww! i swear...if one of those ferrengi asian girls gave head...when u pull the dick out it looks like it went thru a meat grinder! prolly shaved off a few slices of meat! *shudder*
Greebo i t-boned some guy and killed their baby, it was funny
silvia i have a couple asian guy friends that do very well with the ladies. but guess what, they go to the gym, they dont have long hair, they dont wear orange pants, and they dont play counterstrike. its not the ethnicity that the girls dont like, its the style and personality.
450HP Supra I am about to use your eye sockets as a shoe rack for my nuts. ...something about chinks, j-bodys, I can't quite remember as I was drunk and looking for a girl to punch in the clit. Think of it as a digital urinal, and you are the mint, except, instead of actually smelling mint, you smell like mothballs, rotten kimchee and virginity. I'm about to start drinking heavily now and you better be gone before I get back or I swear to god I will break the internet over my knee and use the pieces to beat you in the deformed skull with, cock muffler.
Iceman-19 If your gf cooks and cleans, good, tell the guy to take a fucking hike. If she doesnt, fuck, that joker can have her. Lifes too short to cook your own meals and do your own laundry, thats what women are for!
http://ho316.tumblr.com

Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 04-06-2013 at 04:35 AM.
Ulic Qel-Droma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 04:59 PM   #81
Where's my RS Christmas Lobster?!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 857
Thanked 1,067 Times in 228 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridlock View Post
Not to play devil's advocate here, but you will accept that it was created in an instant during a big bang? Just because the guy that tells you "this is a thing" is more credible to you because he wears a tweed jacket with suede elbows, instead of a robe at a pulpit?

Think about it: there are a lot of things in the bible that don't really ring as true, because we can't picture them in today's world. Noah's ark for me is my usual go to. A) I don't like the idea of having a god that smites me and my people, through mass drownings no less and B) it just does not fucking make sense.

BUT. The Big Bang THEORY. We're talking something so beyond our comprehension in the actual, "fuck me, its Big Bang 2.0...look at all the pretty lights!" its happening now scenario as a big flood. It rains. Sometimes it rains a lot. Floods happen. Can we comprehend a world wide flood that destoys everything? I can picture what it would look like(the animals smile when I do that..damned childrens books) I can actually picture that more than the actual Big Bang.

This is what turns me off on a lot of these conversations. As I said before, both sides have a tale to tell. They just get there a bit differently. For everyone who says, "here's what we consider proof" you can pull out another guy that says, "I have the word of a god on my side"

Automatic stalemate.
i understand what you're saying, and here's my take on the big bang theory.

is the idea that the universe originated from a giant explosion from who knows where crazy? yeah it is. is it hard to believe? yes.

but it's easier to believe than a supreme creator who made everything.

i'm not saying its 100% true, and i don't think anybody can, but i believe it's the best AVAILABLE theory to how this universe began. the reason why it is the best theory currently is because it is able to explain many of the phenomena that we CAN and ARE ABLE to observe with telescopes and all that crazy stuff.

things like cosmic microwave radiation that is present throughout the universe, and redshifts of galaxies (light from objects moving away from as appears more in the red spectrum), and how galaxies are scattered throughout the universe, are all explained by the big bang theory. as well as ties into general relativity by einstein quite well.

these reasons are why i think it is a better theory than a god who created it.

god is not a good answer to, well, pretty much anything. people used to believe lots of things were the work of god, like why the tide goes in and out, why the sun rises up from the east and set in the west, ect. but as the scientific method began to look at these things with scrutiny and apply skepticism and research they found models that explained these phenomena BETTER than simply there's a bearded man sitting in the sky causing these things.

and i believe it's the same thing with questions regarding the origin of the universe. using god as a theory is lazy, it's an 'i dunno', a simple way to explain things you don't understand.

right now i'm sure there probably are some discrepancies with the big bang theory and such, that it doesn't agree with some other physical theory or the math doesn't add up or something. but it's still a lot better than throwing god into it.

anyway a lot of my arguments i borrow liberally from the works of richard dawkins. so if you read his stuff before the things i say might sound familiar.
Shorn is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-05-2013, 06:45 PM   #82
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 976
Thanked 127 Times in 60 Posts
Likelihood

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow View Post
If you're relying on 'likelihood', I'm really surprised you're going back to evolution. I mean.. I'm not sure what your definition of 'likely' is, but evolution probably doesn't match..
Likelihood is actually not that hard to understand when comparing two odds; yes, evolutionism is far more likely than creationism.

Which is more likely, the opinions expressed by countless number of scientists from different countries throughout many years confirming with evidence and accepting (for now) this best theory that the world is billions of years old and we evolve, or is there a worldwide conspiracy having perfectly fake fossils sprinkled every where?

More likely than not that the theory is true, which is why even the Vatican is accepting evolution together with the Church of England.

Do you honestly believe creationism is more likely than evolution or the two are equally hard to accept in your mind?
observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 06:51 PM   #83
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Ulic I agree. I was simply saying science says "We don't know everything but we want to" versus religion that says "God knows everything and that's enough".
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 07:07 PM   #84
Prince of the Apes
 
bloodmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Abbotsford
Posts: 2,469
Thanked 3,046 Times in 672 Posts
To me, science = theories of things such as gravity and then proven with tests and what not. Religion = a book to obtain power through false knowledge or the bent truth. But, at the same time anything can be true or false its just all how we perceive it to be. I believe when we die, thats it. We get a false sense of moving on, but really we just disappear into nothingness like a ant being squashed under our shoe. We need something in our lives to keep us going and sometimes we choose to rely on things that make no sense at all, but who makes sense? A person confined in a box since birth could have the answer to all our questions.
__________________
There's times in life where I want a relationship, but then I cum.
Quote:
[23-08, 13:17] nabs i've gripped ice boy's shaft before
Quote:
[26-08, 13:50] Jesusjuice is this a sports car forum? why are there so many hondas?
bloodmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 07:11 PM   #85
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 976
Thanked 127 Times in 60 Posts
Skepticism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma View Post
in this case we are the observer
we are the circle outside the circle.
No, I'm the observer : ) and may I propose, we just don't know the number of circles.

When you had a dream as a butterfly, are you actually Ulic waking from a dream as a butterfly, or are you a butterfly entering into a dream of being Ulic?

It doesn't take Godel to understand the limitation of what can be proven or not, even Descartes pointed out the inherit problem years ago; similarly, by a different philosopher, Zhuangzi using the butterfly dream illustration above.

Poor Godel though, didn't he break down at the end of his life thinking that his wife was poisoning him and hence starved to death?

Last edited by observer; 04-05-2013 at 07:19 PM.
observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 07:37 PM   #86
rsx
Los Bastardo owned my ass at least once
 
rsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,223
Thanked 3,381 Times in 805 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
That's exactly the point: nobody knows exactly how it started. Some of ideas around the autonomous formation of life (and there are many) are just as wild and unfathomable as "God waved his hand and life appeared".
You can't possibly say that 10 years of research and data analysis is the same as "god waved his hand and life appeared." Even if they're incorrect, at least they are trying to find the answer to these important questions and not just saying "this is the answer, deal with it."

Science provides a shit load of cool theories and if they pan out, the implications are mind blasting. Imagine if they proved that life on Earth started through Panspermia!
rsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 08:28 PM   #87
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsx View Post
You can't possibly say that 10 years of research and data analysis is the same as "god waved his hand and life appeared." Even if they're incorrect, at least they are trying to find the answer to these important questions and not just saying "this is the answer, deal with it."

Science provides a shit load of cool theories and if they pan out, the implications are mind blasting. Imagine if they proved that life on Earth started through Panspermia!
But then we have to ask whether or not our perceptions are actually reality. I mean, we perceive time as static, right? But if we start going faster, time moves slower, according to our perceptions. Our data is only as specific as our measurements, and all of our measurements are relative to our own perceptions.

Obviously, we want to trust what we see and feel and perceive, but both Science and Faith say "there's not only more out there than you know, but there's more out there than you can know or ever will".

Writing something off simply because it doesn't jive with what you call a rational assessment through your own perceptual filters...that's a little unscientific, don't you think?
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 08:49 PM   #88
I keep RS good
 
Ulic Qel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,361
Thanked 5,348 Times in 1,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
No, I'm the observer : ) and may I propose, we just don't know the number of circles.

When you had a dream as a butterfly, are you actually Ulic waking from a dream as a butterfly, or are you a butterfly entering into a dream of being Ulic?

It doesn't take Godel to understand the limitation of what can be proven or not, even Descartes pointed out the inherit problem years ago; similarly, by a different philosopher, Zhuangzi using the butterfly dream illustration above.

yeah, but like i said, as soon as you discover a circle, another one will be beyond it. as soon as you make one realisation, another (or multiple), will take its place.
it is infinite. never ending. knowing what we will know 100 000 years from now, will still come to the same conclusion as now. There is still a bigger circle.
fractal universe, you can never zoom to the furthest point. everything is relative to another thing.

there are only scales, no absolutes.

as for the dream quote, I am very familiar with realities of dreaming and the butterfly quote.
but i will mention again, "“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false, and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true." the statement needs an external observer to verify.
much like a dream. if there are no external observers... you can take dreams as if they are real, as they are happening.

you only wake up into ignorance.

like schrodingers cat, if there is no external observer, the realities are one and the same.




in a dream, one can have a thought, after an event has happened, and the thought alone, manifests itself in the event that has already passed.
they are timeless and well... completely not linear. nothing is measurable. all possibilities can happen at any time in any order, regardless of what comes before or after it.
dreams are of quantum properties. which is why they seem strange and impossible.
"this" reality, is almost completely linear. everything is measurable. time only goes one direction. one thing before affects the next. things are predictable and measurable because of this etc.
basically everything that is conscious arises from the unconscious... freud and Nietzsche both say this.

people don't accept it or cannot believe it because they cannot measure/observe it. But the very nature of quantum mechanics (some aspects) is unobservable. lol... therefore people cannot measure it, therefore it's not "science". therefore we shouldn't look at it. science is very dogmatic like that. one cannot prove something that cannot be measured/observed. We haven't even begun understand a fraction of the whole puzzle.

sorry i shouldn't say all of science is like that. the normal scientists are. but they are just busy bee workers, like any busy bee worker in any sector, they only follow what has been dictated down to them.
the frontier leaders of science are the ones that don't need empirical proof to go forward. guys like einstein. you imagine it to be true, and you work backwards to prove it. not the other way around.
you imagine it first. then you prove it. otherwise you'd just be a dog sniffing around in the dark. you have to already KNOW what you are looking for, before you go out to look. and you can only know, by imagining and blind faith. not by proof.





The observer effect...There are some things that cannot be observed, the mere act of observing, changes the result. Like the double slit experiment. They don't exactly know exactly what happens in between the emittance of the particle and when the wave/particle hits the other end of the board.

Uncertainty principle: An object's location for example, no matter how small or large, can never be known exactly if you know even a little bit about how fast the particle is moving or what direction it's moving in. This also works the other way around: the more one knows about how fast the particle is going and the direction it is going, the less one knows about where it is right now. The statement: It is impossible to measure simultaneously both the position and velocity (or momentum) of a microscopic particle with absolute accuracy or certainty.

it is only uncertain from OUR perspective. it only states it is uncertain under certain circumstances. It is not uncertain to the particle itself. It's only uncertain to us. Just because we cannot predict it, doesn't mean there isn't a path that is laid out in some other format unknown to man. We only assume it is unpredictable based on what we can deduct.

Dreams are construct of the mind, and the mind is a part of the physical world... but what about consciousness?
The consciousness and what dreams are made of exhibit quantum properties. I am not the first one to come up with this idea.

mathematician Sir Roger Penrose at the University of Oxford and Stuart Hameroff, an anaesthesiologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, the latter arguing in New Scientist that dreams resemble quantum information with their "multiple coexisting possibilities, timelessness, hidden meaning and bizarre logic"

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...hy/1dMSoCnct-4 (scroll up and expand the first box for article)

"He points out that physicists trying to build quantum computers have found it difficult to maintain quantum states, as they
are quickly destroyed when they interact with their environment." (dream collapse?)

"In their scenario, consciousness arises from quantum computations carried out in protein assemblies called microtubules inside the brain's neurons. But unlike this and other previous models, Manousakis's is testable."

Isn't it obvious that our brains MIGHT POSSIBLY be quantum computers?

and to bring up schrodinger's cat again (and observers).... when we open the box, it forces the uncertainty to collapse into ONE or the other because we are observing it. but if you zoom out, who is viewing us viewing the box? and so on so forth forever....?

objective reality vs subjective reality...
people will always throw some example out and say that is "REAL"!!! it is OBJECTIVE! not subjective!!!
but what is the definition of real? if real is what you can see and touch...

subjectivity:
what is more "real?" Does a devout follower of (insert religion), see this reality the same as scientist?
do they experience the same world? they can both feel and touch and measure this world. Yet their perception of everything could be radically different (for a human). what about an alligator vs a monkey? or a tree vs robot? a martian vs a human? I'm pretty sure all the things listed above perceive reality very very differently. who is right? who is wrong?

what we see and experience in "this" reality, is an illusion of what reality REALLY is like. KANT argues in the critique of pure reason, reality is the way it is because of the way our brains are structured. if our brains were structured differently then we would perceive the world very differently. We can never know what reality is like apart from how it is presented to us through our senses and through our cognition. everything we experience is put through a filter, that filter is our genetic code, our receptors, our minds, OURSELVES...

objectivity:
Where as in a dream there is only one interpretation, yours. Hence, reality is subjective, dream is objective.
In a dream, you are the sole actor. You are the only "constant" (hell actually anyone that's gone deep into dream studies know, you are not even constant in dreams, in other words, you might not be you). What you see and experience is the objective reality. Whereas in "real life", what you see and experience is highly subjective to interpretation. Know what I mean?





it doesn't take godel to understand it, but it is CLEAR many people don't understand it, or haven't thought of it.
Godel takes it and turns it into pure logic and reasoning. it is no longer just some abstract philosophical idea. it is pure reasoning. scientists cannot argue that.
people here, cannot argue that. for if they do, their beliefs and stance are suddenly as fantastical as the religious zealots they point fingers at.



yeah a long ass kinda off topic rant, but it's not really off topic. it just reinforces the burden of proof and belief are all subjective and based on pure faith.
all ties in with dreams as well.

if i presented an ice cube, a cup of water, and a container of water vapor (gas) to an entity that has only ever seen one of these things, and has never lived long enough to see it change states. they would never believe me that they are the same thing. and they couldn't either, because they don't live long enough to observe the possible changes. the evidence they look for, is only evident in the period of time they are able to observe.

is it not possible that some things are not measurable/observable over a time length that is conceivable to humans? especially since time is highly subjective. some may argue it doesn't even exist.


like i said many times already... Perhaps it is all recursive, and we're all just describing different scales, stages and states of the same thing.
__________________
nipples neways...wat is with those fuck'n asians! i mean you would think they've never seen a dentist in their life. are dentists really that rare over there in ricey ricey and? looks like they're star trek ferrengi rejects! fuck'n have broken glass for teeth! goddaymn! and the smell....did a rat crawl in there and shit itself then marinate in its own shit as it decayed?ewwwwwwwwww! i swear...if one of those ferrengi asian girls gave head...when u pull the dick out it looks like it went thru a meat grinder! prolly shaved off a few slices of meat! *shudder*
Greebo i t-boned some guy and killed their baby, it was funny
silvia i have a couple asian guy friends that do very well with the ladies. but guess what, they go to the gym, they dont have long hair, they dont wear orange pants, and they dont play counterstrike. its not the ethnicity that the girls dont like, its the style and personality.
450HP Supra I am about to use your eye sockets as a shoe rack for my nuts. ...something about chinks, j-bodys, I can't quite remember as I was drunk and looking for a girl to punch in the clit. Think of it as a digital urinal, and you are the mint, except, instead of actually smelling mint, you smell like mothballs, rotten kimchee and virginity. I'm about to start drinking heavily now and you better be gone before I get back or I swear to god I will break the internet over my knee and use the pieces to beat you in the deformed skull with, cock muffler.
Iceman-19 If your gf cooks and cleans, good, tell the guy to take a fucking hike. If she doesnt, fuck, that joker can have her. Lifes too short to cook your own meals and do your own laundry, thats what women are for!
http://ho316.tumblr.com

Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 04-05-2013 at 09:20 PM.
Ulic Qel-Droma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 11:29 PM   #89
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 976
Thanked 127 Times in 60 Posts
But the assumption of "real life" or having an "external observer" is already cheating, injecting the irresponsible inference that there is anything beyond our present conscious state, and that we can be certain that there is something out there besides the impressions we receive empirically.

We could be in a dream, a brain in a jar attached with wires and it is impossible to proof otherwise. My point is, so what, we move on and continue to deal with whatever we need to. When faced with a situation such as understanding the age of the earth, we look at creationism and evolutionism and hear out their arguments and pick the more likely, more convincing side.

What is pure faith? Just because we don't understand the absolute nor can calculate the last digit of pi, we therefore cannot exercise reasonableness to assess propositions?

I suppose I see the situation as like micro and macro economics, in the macro sense, there is so much unknown, but in the micro sense, we take it a step at a time not to be discouraged and resort to losing our rationality.

Philosophy is great, I would see it as under the same umbrella as science. Religion, it belongs to the humanity and history section as far as I am concerned.
observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 11:51 PM   #90
rsx
Los Bastardo owned my ass at least once
 
rsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,223
Thanked 3,381 Times in 805 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S View Post
But then we have to ask whether or not our perceptions are actually reality. I mean, we perceive time as static, right? But if we start going faster, time moves slower, according to our perceptions. Our data is only as specific as our measurements, and all of our measurements are relative to our own perceptions.

Obviously, we want to trust what we see and feel and perceive, but both Science and Faith say "there's not only more out there than you know, but there's more out there than you can know or ever will".

Writing something off simply because it doesn't jive with what you call a rational assessment through your own perceptual filters...that's a little unscientific, don't you think?
Oh I totally agree. Our scientific knowledge is virtually in its infancy. Quantum theories, multiverse and string theory only goes to show how we're still in the dark about most things in the universe.

Let me clarify the difference between science and faith, imo, using the quote:

Science: "There's not only more out there than you know, but there's more out there than you can know or ever will (but let's try and figure it out anyway)

Religion: "There's not only more out there than you know, but there's more out there than you can know or ever will (so let's just trust in God and leave it at that, the answers will be in heaven).

Let me go a step further..
Religion is a like a Girl:
1. They're always jealous of other girls (other religions)
2. They speak in coded language and is never really clear about the simplest things
3. When you're right, you're still wrong
4. To get with her, you need to worship and love her eternally and show it all the time
5. She expects unflinching faith from you that she is loyal despite evidence suggesting otherwise
6. Loves money and ornate objects

Science is like a Guy:
1. Simple and logical
2. Accepts mistakes and listens to friends' advice and opinions

Last edited by rsx; 04-06-2013 at 12:02 AM.
rsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 03:18 AM   #91
I keep RS good
 
Ulic Qel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,361
Thanked 5,348 Times in 1,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
But the assumption of "real life" or having an "external observer" is already cheating, injecting the irresponsible inference that there is anything beyond our present conscious state, and that we can be certain that there is something out there besides the impressions we receive empirically.
you don't need empirical evidence of it to know it to be true from the deducted logic i typed out above.

i already gave examples dude:
schrodigners cat, and the double slit experiment (outside observer affects result).

it's not cheating at all. now you work backwards and try to lead science to find answers in that direction. you look for other clues that have the same pattern of activity or reactions.

your 5 senses are very limited and have been proven to be very easily manipulated and inaccurate.
if you had no sense of touch and temperature change, and you were blind, you would never believe wind was real.

empirical evidence is based on faith man. just because ants can't see us hovering over them, doesn't mean we don't exist. they don't have the sensors to tell we're there, until we decide to stomp down on them. we literally don't exist and they don't have anyway to prove it.

godel's theorem and his examples of drawing the circles, and the liar's paradox. you're not addressing the sound logic that hasn't been disproven since it's realisation. this realisation is the same realisation mathematicians, scientists, and other philosophers have had to live with whether they like it or not, because they cannot disprove the logic behind it. the logic is universally agreed as sound.

you're just attacking Christianity and the biblical stories, not addressing the main point of this entire thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
We could be in a dream, a brain in a jar attached with wires and it is impossible to proof otherwise. My point is, so what, we move on and continue to deal with whatever we need to. When faced with a situation such as understanding the age of the earth, we look at creationism and evolutionism and hear out their arguments and pick the more likely, more convincing side.
it's not impossible. they're getting closer to the simulated world theory.

we don't just move on and pick a more convincing side because you understand that, it is only more convincing to you.

if you actually UNDERSTAND and live and breathe the logic i stated, it would actually click and the significance of it would out weigh empirical evidence. you would know it to be true, yet unprovable.

you can't just ignore a realisation like that. and a lot of smart people have realised it.
you're not picking a more convincing side, you're picking the easier side for your mind to accept.

PLUS you're still referring to christianity. you didn't read my post. I said stop nit picking at specific religons and their tales written by man. strip it away to the most basic. what religion as a whole is based on. FAITH in a system, that you cannot prove. and everything else built from it is whatever.
same as science. strip it away. to the core. like i said in my post.

science was invented because it is based on faith, faith that "god" made an orderly and predictable world. they are based on the same faith.

don't give me the earth was created in 7 days. another religion can say something else.
they are all just interpretations of other stories passed down for who knows how long.

even if you do read it, you cant take it literally. 7 days? what's 7 days? 7 days for the sun? 7 galactic cycles? 7 big bangs/crunches? 7 god days?

you can't take the bible literally. and you can't look at man's translation of stories.
you have to look through the words, these aren't scientists writing these books. they're ancient people with limited knowledge. it's the only way they knew how to describe it.

if you asked a little kid to describe the sun, and they said it looked like an orange in the sky, a floating fruit. you gonna take that literally? the kid did describe it the best he could. does it make it accurate?
some ppl don't have the skill to explain things. anyway that's way off topic. just i cant believe people are still arguing about the bible and taking the little stories from religions as if those were wrong, the concept of religion is wrong.

picking at specific religions and their explanations/stories is like cutting a tree down from the smallest branch.
you're picking at the weakest point. it doesn't matter if those stories are wrong. they don't even matter in this argument. the story could say god created earth in "a long time", would you believe it more now? it's more accurate!!! it's just a story bro.

argue against godel's theorem. that's the threat to atheism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
What is pure faith? Just because we don't understand the absolute nor can calculate the last digit of pi, we therefore cannot exercise reasonableness to assess propositions?
of course you can assess propositions! but you have to accept all those propositions are built on top of axioms which are based on faith. so they only work within that system because they assume all things are true in the system!

do u not get what im saying?

if the axiom is false, then the whole structure is false.
so at the very core you are still putting faith in the fact that these axioms hold strong. if they are wrong, then a lot or everything you know is inaccurate or wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
I suppose I see the situation as like micro and macro economics, in the macro sense, there is so much unknown, but in the micro sense, we take it a step at a time not to be discouraged and resort to losing our rationality.
look at the big picture. big picture matters. it's what leads to the small picture.
when you plan something out, you always map it out first. you work from the outside toward the inside. the more big factors you know affecting your desires, the better you can control the outcome.

it's always been like that.
everyone knows macro economics is more important than micro!!!
you learn the basics of fighting before you learn the techniques.

it goes for anything. you learn the basic macro knowledge of math, before you learn the speciality stuff based on the macro knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
Philosophy is great, I would see it as under the same umbrella as science. Religion, it belongs to the humanity and history section as far as I am concerned.
dude this statement shows you really don't have the mind for philosophy. you really don't understand it. philosophy isn't great. it is the forefather of science and religion dude. philosophy are just ideas based on faith, that can stand the test of current logic/science.

science is a tree of philosophy buddy. everyone knows that already dude. i also already explained what phD means. it sounds like you didn't read any of my post dude lol. you're replying blindy. i've addressed all those points.
what i stated wasn't what i want to believe in, it's what has been found, discovered, realised by some of the greatest scientists and philosophers of the world.
this is the only reason im posting it. because it is logical evidence that has not been cracked since it's realisation.

people a lot smarter than you and i, cannot out think godel's theorem.
__________________
nipples neways...wat is with those fuck'n asians! i mean you would think they've never seen a dentist in their life. are dentists really that rare over there in ricey ricey and? looks like they're star trek ferrengi rejects! fuck'n have broken glass for teeth! goddaymn! and the smell....did a rat crawl in there and shit itself then marinate in its own shit as it decayed?ewwwwwwwwww! i swear...if one of those ferrengi asian girls gave head...when u pull the dick out it looks like it went thru a meat grinder! prolly shaved off a few slices of meat! *shudder*
Greebo i t-boned some guy and killed their baby, it was funny
silvia i have a couple asian guy friends that do very well with the ladies. but guess what, they go to the gym, they dont have long hair, they dont wear orange pants, and they dont play counterstrike. its not the ethnicity that the girls dont like, its the style and personality.
450HP Supra I am about to use your eye sockets as a shoe rack for my nuts. ...something about chinks, j-bodys, I can't quite remember as I was drunk and looking for a girl to punch in the clit. Think of it as a digital urinal, and you are the mint, except, instead of actually smelling mint, you smell like mothballs, rotten kimchee and virginity. I'm about to start drinking heavily now and you better be gone before I get back or I swear to god I will break the internet over my knee and use the pieces to beat you in the deformed skull with, cock muffler.
Iceman-19 If your gf cooks and cleans, good, tell the guy to take a fucking hike. If she doesnt, fuck, that joker can have her. Lifes too short to cook your own meals and do your own laundry, thats what women are for!
http://ho316.tumblr.com
Ulic Qel-Droma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 03:27 AM   #92
I keep RS good
 
Ulic Qel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,361
Thanked 5,348 Times in 1,408 Posts
ok for all of you that need a sort of analogy:




you can look at the definition of "god" in this thread as something like this:
AXIOMS ARE THE GODS OF SCIENCE.

they embody the idea, they are the manifested entities of the all axioms all of science rely on. they take on whichever form is necessary to support all those tests scientists do. scientists have faith in these axioms, they stand strong and hold true, they are the pillars that hold up their devotion to science.

if most scientists were injected with maximum spirituality or whatever you wanna call it, mathematicians that specialised in geometry would probably be praying to eucild's 5 posulates's every night. they would embody 5 gods.
you catch my drift?
whatever stories you attach to those gods and what they've done is just icing on the cake. THE CAKEEE.. dont focus on the icing.

the 5 gods, their main acting role would be to ensure the 5 posulates are always true.

little kids taught this would be using their wild imaginations and making up stories, which could later be translated into artists drawing their interpretations of the 5 axioms. sculptors could make physical tangible forms of what they think these 5 axioms would look like if they were manifested. most importantly, musicians and writers can write great exciting stories and songs (which were of the few forms of passing of information), about these axioms... which can then spew, be twisted and spread like wild fire from the help of the fact that we are social creatures (social culture), and like to share our ideas and promote things and get people to like us and follow us... which all are based on something we hold true, based on faith. and there you have a birth of a religion/perception of how the world works.



yeah? does that make more sense if i put it that way?

people like to give inanimate things character, attach stories and make it sound fancy and shit. and sell it, for greedy reasons, control or whatever. you have to see through all that.
in other words, religion has kinda slowly become science. and gods have slowly become axioms: the principles and "laws" of the universe, that are unseen and unprovable. yet we know they MUST exist. they make the world work as we "best" know it.

it's the SAME thing.

like i said before, the pyramid of faith. the peak of the pyramid is the most advance, but to get to the peak you need to build a base.
at the very base is faith, the next level is religion, the next level is science (what's next?). you take away one, you take away everything above it. they are based off the same father, faith. you cannot prove faith, yet you know it exists only because you feel it.
__________________
nipples neways...wat is with those fuck'n asians! i mean you would think they've never seen a dentist in their life. are dentists really that rare over there in ricey ricey and? looks like they're star trek ferrengi rejects! fuck'n have broken glass for teeth! goddaymn! and the smell....did a rat crawl in there and shit itself then marinate in its own shit as it decayed?ewwwwwwwwww! i swear...if one of those ferrengi asian girls gave head...when u pull the dick out it looks like it went thru a meat grinder! prolly shaved off a few slices of meat! *shudder*
Greebo i t-boned some guy and killed their baby, it was funny
silvia i have a couple asian guy friends that do very well with the ladies. but guess what, they go to the gym, they dont have long hair, they dont wear orange pants, and they dont play counterstrike. its not the ethnicity that the girls dont like, its the style and personality.
450HP Supra I am about to use your eye sockets as a shoe rack for my nuts. ...something about chinks, j-bodys, I can't quite remember as I was drunk and looking for a girl to punch in the clit. Think of it as a digital urinal, and you are the mint, except, instead of actually smelling mint, you smell like mothballs, rotten kimchee and virginity. I'm about to start drinking heavily now and you better be gone before I get back or I swear to god I will break the internet over my knee and use the pieces to beat you in the deformed skull with, cock muffler.
Iceman-19 If your gf cooks and cleans, good, tell the guy to take a fucking hike. If she doesnt, fuck, that joker can have her. Lifes too short to cook your own meals and do your own laundry, thats what women are for!
http://ho316.tumblr.com

Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 04-06-2013 at 03:40 AM.
Ulic Qel-Droma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 08:26 AM   #93
Ready to be Man handled by RS!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: burnaby
Posts: 89
Thanked 21 Times in 14 Posts
What's intrigued me is that circle example (e.g put a circle around lambo and outside would be a factory). This brought me to think about human intelligence. Wouldn't intelligence just simply mean how many "layers" outside you can think. For example 1+1= 2 , one level outside that statement is that one thing plus another thing equals two things, outside that statement is if you put x things with y things, it will equal z things. It goes on and on and on.
trix4kids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 01:56 PM   #94
NOOB, Not Quite a Regular!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: surrey
Posts: 41
Thanked 27 Times in 10 Posts
i am god therefore everyone's wrong
gary92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 03:06 PM   #95
resident Oil Guru
 
LiquidTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,716
Thanked 10,457 Times in 1,794 Posts
Hahah yes!!!
Posted via RS Mobile
LiquidTurbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 03:10 PM   #96
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 976
Thanked 127 Times in 60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma View Post
science was invented because it is based on faith, faith that "god" made an orderly and predictable world. they are based on the same faith.
Was science really invented? I see humans always try to figure things out, which to me, is what science is about.

Religion probably started off as a kind of science, with an important attempt to explain the uncertain world by our ancestors. Why was there thunder, flooding, fire, someone not happy up there?

Different religions were created by different groups all over the world, it is fascinating how similar many of the systems are. Death is something feared by all, thus there is always the common element that some part of us will never cease in all religions.

As we become wiser, we learn that many old beliefs were simply wrong, i.e. witches, sacrificing the young and innocent to appease the powerful, the sun evolving around the earth, etc. Some religions become static and lose popularity in time, while others more adaptive to the new discoveries continue to survive.

We continue to try to understand the world better, I'm not comfortable inserting the word or concept of faith to describe science. Let's not complicate things, science is simply about people figuring things out, in a fair and reasonable manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma View Post
don't give me the earth was created in 7 days. another religion can say something else.
they are all just interpretations of other stories passed down for who knows how long.

even if you do read it, you cant take it literally. 7 days? what's 7 days? 7 days for the sun? 7 galactic cycles? 7 big bangs/crunches? 7 god days?

you can't take the bible literally. and you can't look at man's translation of stories.
Maybe in a few hundred years, people will be saying, not only the bible, but one simply should not take religion literally?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma View Post
dude this statement shows you really don't have the mind for philosophy. you really don't understand it. philosophy isn't great. it is the forefather of science and religion dude. philosophy are just ideas based on faith, that can stand the test of current logic/science.

science is a tree of philosophy buddy. everyone knows that already dude. i also already explained what phD means. it sounds like you didn't read any of my post dude lol. you're replying blindy. i've addressed all those points.
what i stated wasn't what i want to believe in, it's what has been found, discovered, realised by some of the greatest scientists and philosophers of the world.
this is the only reason im posting it. because it is logical evidence that has not been cracked since it's realisation.

people a lot smarter than you and i, cannot out think godel's theorem.
Please, don't take it too personally, when I said "philosophy is great" I meant it's a wonderful subject to study, a great and important discipline which everyone should spend time on.

While we both agree on its relevance, I disagree that "philosophy are just ideas based on faith, that can stand the test of current logic/science."

Philosophy to me is the love of, and search for wisdom, knowledge, reality. I find it unjustifiable to put faith in the equation or definition.

Of course I have read your postings, my problem lies with your claim, that:

"axiom is belief in something without proof. is that not faith?"

Let's dumb it down.

If I set my axiom and define fast cars as those which can do 0-60 mph in less than 4 seconds, what does faith have to do with the statement? An axiom to me is more of an assumption, a premise.

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

My postings were not meant to stir up much disagreement with you, but since you doubt I have read what you put down, here is another part which I have difficulty with:

"SO in religion... god is the primary axiom in religion. religion is fairly simple as it does not have many layers (it's easy to see and to skip all the layers and just point fingers at the prime axiom... the belief that god exists)."

What about Buddhism or Taoism without the monolithic God? To make the study a little less provincial, I would say that the axiom in any religion is that if you do good things, you will be rewarded, and vice versa.

(And since it's hard for a religion to demonstrate the above, they all preach that the reward and punishment will come after death, how convenient).

Even with the monolithic God, it really is not that simple an assumption is it, logically, as self-creation or self-causation is not a concept we can easily comprehend.

Or can we understand it like the concept of infinity, there is no ending, thus God has no beginning? But then, it's a little different as we create the concept of infinity, whereas God is supposed to be there creating us. But what created God?

I fail to be convinced that Godel's theorem of completeness, regardless whether it is refuted or not, does move beyond logic and mathematics. And like many others much brighter than me, I completely disagree with his ontological proof of God.

Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But that is not the point, my point, what you call my "blind replies" is that if we cannot go very far beyond our own consciousness, we might as well just live and act rationally, based on reasonable assessment of likelihood.

Instead of having the same faith in science and religion, when you are sick, go seek proper medical help instead of relying on faith healing.

Somehow, I have much difficulty seeing science and religion under the same umbrella of faith.

Last edited by observer; 04-06-2013 at 04:02 PM.
observer is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-06-2013, 10:21 PM   #97
Hypa owned my ass at least once
 
Noir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Japan
Posts: 6,747
Thanked 1,314 Times in 540 Posts
*sigh. This is new.

Arguing pro-religion is now a battle of semantics rather than "this is our absolute truth vs. yours".
Noir is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-08-2013, 10:17 AM   #98
UFO
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Van, BC
Posts: 3,637
Thanked 706 Times in 422 Posts
This has been a great read, enlightening to say the least. Way more fun than studying I'll come out and say that I'm not well read in this area, but have a few thoughts I wanted to contribute.

To me it sounds like the conversation has gotten unnecessarily complex due to some trying to justify their own means of understanding, perceptions, and values, and not wanting to be lumped or connected with the 'other' side. The original idea here is that at its very root, science relies on faith (or assumptions) to some degree (for things that have not yet been proven, or are currently unproveable) before anything else can be built on top. You either accept this, or you do not.

The problem seems to come when we suggest that religion is also built upon faith, to explain things that cannot be proven. And this is where 'science' becomes uncomfortable with being lumped together with religion.

A lot of discussion has centered around god being a humanoid being with a beird up in the sky who gets mad and angry and does stuff. I can't tell if this idea is really what you guys think of religion, or you're just trying to make a point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorn View Post
but it's easier to believe than a supreme creator who made everything.
I don't think you can choose to believe in something because it's easier to believe than the alternative, that is also lazy no? Your belief (faith?) is based on currently available scientific information. The future truth can very well be based on something that is very difficult to currently understand, whatever it may be.

Quote:
god is not a good answer to, well, pretty much anything. people used to believe lots of things were the work of god, like why the tide goes in and out, why the sun rises up from the east and set in the west, ect. but as the scientific method began to look at these things with scrutiny and apply skepticism and research they found models that explained these phenomena BETTER than simply there's a bearded man sitting in the sky causing these things.

and i believe it's the same thing with questions regarding the origin of the universe. using god as a theory is lazy, it's an 'i dunno', a simple way to explain things you don't understand.
I feel like you're working based on a limited and finite definition of god/religion. Must it be mutually exclusive with science? Does belief in god automatically suggest that one cannot look to science for an explanation of HOW something happens? To me, it seems like many times the intent behind science is to disprove religion, and along the way maybe answer some questions about how our universe operates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
Likelihood is actually not that hard to understand when comparing two odds; yes, evolutionism is far more likely than creationism.

More likely than not that the theory is true, which is why even the Vatican is accepting evolution together with the Church of England.

Do you honestly believe creationism is more likely than evolution or the two are equally hard to accept in your mind?
Once again, must evolutionism and creationism be mutually exclusive? And creationism is only one of the 'other' proposed ideas. Can the truth not be somewhere in the middle, containing elements of evolution/creationism/intelligent design all at the same time? Are we using evolutionism to explain what actually happened, or are we using it to disprove the possibility of creationism and thereby discredit religion at the same time?

Quote:
or is there a worldwide conspiracy having perfectly fake fossils sprinkled every where?
I don't know if you really believe this is what creationists believe, or if you are just being facetious

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsx View Post
Even if they're incorrect, at least they are trying to find the answer to these important questions and not just saying "this is the answer, deal with it."
I have some difficulty with this idea/thought, because if the truth is what we are truly seeking, how hard you are trying is irrelevant. I don't think religion says "this is the answer, deal with it. [/closebook]" There is more to answering the how and why which requires further exploration with scientific theories. Maybe your definition of religion does, and its easier for you to accept this way.

Back to the idea of the axioms, if what one puts their underlying faith in proves to be wrong in the future, EVERYTHING built atop that axiom becomes irrelevant. All that time, effort, research, resources dedicated to, a waste. But hey, at least they tried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
I'm not comfortable inserting the word or concept of faith to describe science. Let's not complicate things, science is simply about people figuring things out, in a fair and reasonable manner.

Instead of having the same faith in science and religion, when you are sick, go seek proper medical help instead of relying on faith healing.

Somehow, I have much difficulty seeing science and religion under the same umbrella of faith.
To me, it feels like your unwilingness to acknowledge faith in science is due to the foundation of faith in religion. As a result we are making a conscious decision of accepting science or accepting religion. You seem to operate on a willingness to accept that which is higher in likelihood, which is perfectly reasonable. But would you say that everything you build upon that likelihood, relies on you to have faith that the likelihood is your truth? I don't believe faith is mutually exclusive to science or religion, nor do I believe that accepting science means I shun religion or vice versa.

Just my 0.02. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, as I'm no expert in any of this. Just wanted to point out some of my observations. For me anyways, you have to keep yourself open to all possibilities in order give each idea its respective credit. Discrediting any thought or idea forever based on our current level of comprehension seems completely counterintuitive
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-08-2013, 11:28 AM   #99
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Excelsis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lala land
Posts: 2,797
Thanked 3,545 Times in 692 Posts
lol

stop using the human brain to process things and you'll advance otherwise you're going to be constantly in this loop trying to figure it out
Excelsis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:24 PM   #100
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 976
Thanked 127 Times in 60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO View Post
Once again, must evolutionism and creationism be mutually exclusive? And creationism is only one of the 'other' proposed ideas. Can the truth not be somewhere in the middle, containing elements of evolution/creationism/intelligent design all at the same time? Are we using evolutionism to explain what actually happened, or are we using it to disprove the possibility of creationism and thereby discredit religion at the same time?
Anything is possible, but if we look at the evidence provided by creationists and evolutionists, it is very clear literally all specialists in this field completely reject the former.

In the western world, it is only in the southern US, where the powerful religious organizations have strong influence over the school board (in particular, the Texas school board on the content of textbooks) where there is such a fuss.

If we take time to learn more about the subject matter, creationism (that we are not evolved but are created in our present form) is simply not a stance people with any knowledge in paleontology, biogeograpy, developmental biology, morphology and genetics would accept.

Evolution is used to describe what happened in the billions of years to present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO View Post
I don't know if you really believe this is what creationists believe, or if you are just being facetious
I was only joking about fake fossils; sadly, creationists actually come up with theme parks where human and dinosaurs coexist all happily lining up to get onto Noah's ark.

It's fine for adult entertainment, but I feel for the misguided children.

It's really comes down to us trying to make a judgement call on which side of the story is more likely. Do I trust different professors all over the world in their field of research to tell me how life evolved, or the armchair investigators (mainly in the US) who attack evolutionism as it conflicts with their belief that the Bible should be taken literally? What evidence is offered on the creationist table besides asking us to accept creationism through faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO View Post
To me, it feels like your unwilingness to acknowledge faith in science is due to the foundation of faith in religion. As a result we are making a conscious decision of accepting science or accepting religion. You seem to operate on a willingness to accept that which is higher in likelihood, which is perfectly reasonable. But would you say that everything you build upon that likelihood, relies on you to have faith that the likelihood is your truth?

I don't believe faith is mutually exclusive to science or religion, nor do I believe that accepting science means I shun religion or vice versa.

Just my 0.02. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, as I'm no expert in any of this. Just wanted to point out some of my observations. For me anyways, you have to keep yourself open to all possibilities in order give each idea its respective credit. Discrediting any thought or idea forever based on our current level of comprehension seems completely counterintuitive
Your input is appreciated, neither am I an expert but it's nice to share thoughts.

I suppose my unwillingness to associate the word faith in science, is that I find it misleading and inaccurate to describe how science works. Faith in religion is quite different from assumptions and axioms in science.

faith
/fāTH/
Noun
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

People mistake that 1. is the essence of science. Science, like I poorly attempted to clarify many times, is not about the fixed set of knowledge; rather, it is a process, a method for us to find out how this world works. It's like peeling layers of onion trying to get to the bottom of things.

Back to your question, I certainly would not use the word faith to describe my concluded assessment of likelihood at any given time. All I can say is that it's the best bet at the moment, and that's it.

I'm not shooting down religion per se, but let's get the terminology right, faith is the most important element in any religious system, but before we draw the inference that the same applies to science, let's be more disciplined with our definitions?

It may be diplomatic to draw science and religion together, but ultimately, they are quite different. Science is about doubting, while religion is about believing without ever questioning (taught as a virtue in itself called faith, at least in the Abrahamic religions).

Instead of classifying our approach as scientific or religious, let's just call it our simple method of finding out how things work. How exactly should one go about learning more about the world? Based on trial and error, repeatable demonstrations, no? This is what is intuitive. Believing in ideas without ever questioning or looking for evidence is counterintuitive.

Yes, we may be wrong of course, but we hold on to what seems to make most sense to us for now, until a better explanation comes about. In the process, we continue to evaluate other possibilities and continue to search for a better answer.

Just because there are many things we do not know, and that we realize our comprehension may be limited, should not entail that we follow any proposed theory without evidence.

Last edited by observer; 04-08-2013 at 06:29 PM.
observer is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net