DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Christians Vs. Religious(other) - Evidence & Proof
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 350, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/06/2015 05:02:05 PM · #101
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I agree with your second statement and was just giving Lanndon an example. And you are right: 3/3= 0.9999... as well as 3/3=1 Therefore, 0.9999...=1 I'm not sure that's the formal proof, but it's helpful to grasp a non-intuitive truth.


Nothing like the formal proof. Just in case anyone is interested in the mental gymnastics needed to come to this conclusion.
02/06/2015 05:25:50 PM · #102
mathematical proofs are examples of observation, experimentation, and testing.
02/06/2015 05:30:06 PM · #103
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

mathematical proofs are examples of observation, experimentation, and testing.


You can keep saying this Lanndon, but it's not true. Mathematical proofs are examples of logical conclusions based on a set of axiomatic statements. But you can show me wrong by showing how the above statement with the 0.999 can be shown through observation, experimentation, and testing. Outline the process for me.

Message edited by author 2015-02-06 17:30:56.
02/06/2015 05:32:05 PM · #104
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

mathematical proofs are examples of observation, experimentation, and testing.


You can keep saying this Lanndon, but it's not true. Mathematical proofs are examples of logical conclusions based on a set of axiomatic statements.


This seems like a semantic argument. You quoted the dictionary when you got your definition of "scientific method". In your own words, how would you define the scientific method? Are you trying to argue that only things grounded in the physical realm can be analyzed with the scientific method?
02/06/2015 05:35:23 PM · #105
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

mathematical proofs are examples of observation, experimentation, and testing.


You can keep saying this Lanndon, but it's not true. Mathematical proofs are examples of logical conclusions based on a set of axiomatic statements.


This seems like a semantic argument. You quoted the dictionary when you got your definition of "scientific method". In your own words, how would you define the scientific method? Are you trying to argue that only things grounded in the physical realm can be analyzed with the scientific method?


re-reading your definition from oxford, you must think this, because your definition applies specifically to the natural sciences. I believe the definition of science has long evolved past when it dealt exclusively with natural sciences.

Message edited by author 2015-02-06 17:35:58.
02/06/2015 05:42:09 PM · #106
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

mathematical proofs are examples of observation, experimentation, and testing.


You can keep saying this Lanndon, but it's not true. Mathematical proofs are examples of logical conclusions based on a set of axiomatic statements.


This seems like a semantic argument. You quoted the dictionary when you got your definition of "scientific method". In your own words, how would you define the scientific method? Are you trying to argue that only things grounded in the physical realm can be analyzed with the scientific method?


re-reading your definition from oxford, you must think this, because your definition applies specifically to the natural sciences. I believe the definition of science has long evolved past when it dealt exclusively with natural sciences.


I certainly think that the dominant paradigm is post-positivist. Even in the natural sciences, the necessary ambiguity that comes from the ramifications of quantum mechanics means that no one really believes that all variables can be controlled for at high fidelity data levels.
02/06/2015 05:55:43 PM · #107
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I agree with your second statement and was just giving Lanndon an example. And you are right: 3/3= 0.9999... as well as 3/3=1 Therefore, 0.9999...=1 I'm not sure that's the formal proof, but it's helpful to grasp a non-intuitive truth.

Nothing like the formal proof. Just in case anyone is interested in the mental gymnastics needed to come to this conclusion.

The following two quotes are taken from Cory's referenced proofs of the statement "0.9999...=1". Interesting, huh? And it just supports, underlines really, how mathematics are built upon axioms, articles of faith as it were.

"Note: Technically, the above proof requires that some fairly advanced concepts be taken on faith. If you study "foundations" or mathematical philosophy (way after calculus), you may encounter the requisite theoretical constructs."

"Note regarding all of the above: To a certain extent, each of these arguments depends on a basic foundational doctrine of mathematics called "The Axiom of Choice". A discussion of the Axiom of Choice is well beyond anything we could cover here, and is something that most mathematicians simply take on faith."
02/06/2015 05:58:50 PM · #108
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

mathematical proofs are examples of observation, experimentation, and testing.


You can keep saying this Lanndon, but it's not true. Mathematical proofs are examples of logical conclusions based on a set of axiomatic statements.


This seems like a semantic argument. You quoted the dictionary when you got your definition of "scientific method". In your own words, how would you define the scientific method? Are you trying to argue that only things grounded in the physical realm can be analyzed with the scientific method?


re-reading your definition from oxford, you must think this, because your definition applies specifically to the natural sciences. I believe the definition of science has long evolved past when it dealt exclusively with natural sciences.


You know, actually I think the term is actually narrowing over time. Theology used to be one of the sciences along with philosophy. Anyway, if you want to use a broad definition for science then that's fine. If all knowledge gathering that uses rational processes fall under the rubric of science, then we're all good and we all use science pretty well all the time. I'm good with that as long as my rational thinking qualifies just as much as yours. :)
02/06/2015 06:02:21 PM · #109
THe word "science" originally referred to a "body of knowledge", and still does so in applications such as "computer science" and "library science"...
02/06/2015 07:35:27 PM · #110
Originally posted by nygold:

Cory lots of people say "Oh my God"


I too have noticed that. Makes me think that my missus used to be a lot more religious when we were younger. Back then she used to say "OH MY GOD!!! at lot, particularly at night.

Now, not so much. :O)

Ray
02/06/2015 07:57:02 PM · #111
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by nygold:

Cory lots of people say "Oh my God"


I too have noticed that. Makes me think that my missus used to be a lot more religious when we were younger. Back then she used to say "OH MY GOD!!! at lot, particularly at night.

Now, not so much. :O)

Ray


They have a pill for that, it may not go over with the missus but at least you won't roll out of bed.:)

Message edited by Bear_Music - fixed the quotes.
02/06/2015 10:27:52 PM · #112
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by dtremain:


Why is it so important to you to prove Christianity is false?

Because I believe that such a failed epistemology is almost certain to eventually lead to the destruction of our entire species. Good enough reason?

Um. Not buying it. You may believe your answer, but our species is doomed.
The Bible declares that God will destroy this present earth by fire, and replace it with a new heaven and new earth.
The evolutionary scientist proclaims millions and billions of years, and unless our species is one of the exceptional few that seem to be immune from change over the eons we will join the mastodon and the dodo bird on the species reject pile. Can we say Neanderthal?
02/06/2015 11:27:18 PM · #113
Originally posted by dtremain:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by dtremain:


Why is it so important to you to prove Christianity is false?

Because I believe that such a failed epistemology is almost certain to eventually lead to the destruction of our entire species. Good enough reason?

Um. Not buying it. You may believe your answer, but our species is doomed.
The Bible declares that God will destroy this present earth by fire, and replace it with a new heaven and new earth.
The evolutionary scientist proclaims millions and billions of years, and unless our species is one of the exceptional few that seem to be immune from change over the eons we will join the mastodon and the dodo bird on the species reject pile. Can we say Neanderthal?


Exactly. The problem is that I would very much like to wait for the millions of years it should take for us to disappear, those who believe in the rapture and those who think the afterlife will be better than life seem to be somewhat hell-bent on speeding this up.
02/06/2015 11:29:43 PM · #114
Originally posted by Cory:

So basically, we're left with a fellow who is a serious narcissistic psychopath and a guy who followed that psychopath for a bit before bailing out. I'm honestly not sure how anyone can read the bible and not come away thinking "Geez, that God fellow is pretty awful, and while he talks a good game about love, actions speak louder than words"..

The first two facts of the universe:
God is good.
God wants to have a relationship with me.

You would never think of walking up to a new mother and telling her that her baby was ugly. But you (generic athiest, not Cory specifically) have absolutely no problem with telling people of faith that one of the most precious, positive, good things in their entire human experience is not only ugly, but unredeemabley evil. Yet you have the hubris to deem yourself fit to judge God's actions as evil.

Unless you have significant problems with putting to death the terrorists that burned the Jordanian pilot to death, you have no credibility in condemning God for killing the wicked. And if you have significant problems with killing the terrorists, how good are you if you do not do everything in your power to stop them?

Would you invite them to your next family reunion? Or maybe offer your daughter to them in marriage?

Proof of God? Try this on for size. Scientific study. Should thrill ya'll.
Hypothesis: The curse is real. (Gen. 3:17-19) - or you can do it negative, not real
Methodology: using any non-trivial sample size of earth humans from any culture, religion (or none), ethnicity - given any non-trivial task, individuals or groups are to plan out the best plan they can conceive and execute the task.
Analysis: what is the ratio of the tasks that went according to plan, vs. those that encountered difficulties that had to be overcome in order to successfully complete the task?
Criteria for support of hypothesis: a skewed curve towards difficulties encountered in performing the task. A normal bell curve would indicate randomness of results and not support the hypothesis.
Non scientific data points. Tooth extraction today. Live tooth came out ok, as expected, except for one small part that broke off and then was difficult to pull.
Pacemaker implant - had to invert typical wire route.
Maybe it is just me.

I do not claim to be the brightest of people. I know myself well enough to not claim being good or better than anyone else. I only know what I've experienced and that I'm not all that sure about.

God knows me, loves me, and wants the very best for me. Even better than that, He knows what it takes to achieve that. I may not enjoy the process, but I trust in the one who loved me first.

I believe God wants the same for everyone.
02/06/2015 11:48:13 PM · #115
Originally posted by dtremain:

Originally posted by Cory:

So basically, we're left with a fellow who is a serious narcissistic psychopath and a guy who followed that psychopath for a bit before bailing out. I'm honestly not sure how anyone can read the bible and not come away thinking "Geez, that God fellow is pretty awful, and while he talks a good game about love, actions speak louder than words"..

The first two facts of the universe:
God is good.
God wants to have a relationship with me.

You would never think of walking up to a new mother and telling her that her baby was ugly. But you (generic athiest, not Cory specifically) have absolutely no problem with telling people of faith that one of the most precious, positive, good things in their entire human experience is not only ugly, but unredeemabley evil. Yet you have the hubris to deem yourself fit to judge God's actions as evil.

Unless you have significant problems with putting to death the terrorists that burned the Jordanian pilot to death, you have no credibility in condemning God for killing the wicked. And if you have significant problems with killing the terrorists, how good are you if you do not do everything in your power to stop them?

Would you invite them to your next family reunion? Or maybe offer your daughter to them in marriage?

Proof of God? Try this on for size. Scientific study. Should thrill ya'll.
Hypothesis: The curse is real. (Gen. 3:17-19) - or you can do it negative, not real
Methodology: using any non-trivial sample size of earth humans from any culture, religion (or none), ethnicity - given any non-trivial task, individuals or groups are to plan out the best plan they can conceive and execute the task.
Analysis: what is the ratio of the tasks that went according to plan, vs. those that encountered difficulties that had to be overcome in order to successfully complete the task?
Criteria for support of hypothesis: a skewed curve towards difficulties encountered in performing the task. A normal bell curve would indicate randomness of results and not support the hypothesis.
Non scientific data points. Tooth extraction today. Live tooth came out ok, as expected, except for one small part that broke off and then was difficult to pull.
Pacemaker implant - had to invert typical wire route.
Maybe it is just me.

I do not claim to be the brightest of people. I know myself well enough to not claim being good or better than anyone else. I only know what I've experienced and that I'm not all that sure about.

God knows me, loves me, and wants the very best for me. Even better than that, He knows what it takes to achieve that. I may not enjoy the process, but I trust in the one who loved me first.

I believe God wants the same for everyone.


fact
fakt
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case


..

You seem to be using a different dictionary than I am. Can you please refer me to the version which defines fact as "Whatever you think is true"...

Yep, you got me, and I'll also tell a mother her baby is not attractive enough for free photo sessions. Honesty is a bitch isn't it?

As for the claim that God only killed the wicked, I think you need to re-read the book. There are TONS of innocents he killed, for example EVERY FIRST BORN SON IN EGYPT!

I'd shoot them on site, they are the 'ideal' religion in my opinion, not a single religion of which I am aware is more violent, nor do they possess a stronger indoctrination program.

Well, I must thank you for posting the first testable hypothesis. Now, let's talk about what that's exactly the sort of thing I totally reject:

You cannot say that God must be real, simply because things have more ways to go wrong than right. This is simple to explain, let's imagine a man walking in a city, heading to a very specific manhole cover. Now, how long would you say he needs to wander around the city randomly to find that manhole cover? Obviously the odds of this happening randomly are not good. But, I know you'll say "Wait, he gets to make choices" Ok, good! Let's let him make choices, but we are not going to give him the information he needs to make effective choices. Still, probably going to work out a little better, but there are SO many ways this can go wrong, and only one way it can go right. But, what if we give him the information he needs, like a street name where the manhole cover is located? It still might take a little time, but he'll get there fairly quick.

My point is this: Unless you have really good instructions, or expertise, the chances of getting something right on the first try are VERY low, simply because there is usually only one right way to do things like the stuff you mention, (I am confused about that BTW: Are you claiming you did a live tooth extraction today, and did a pacemaker implant??!?) leaving a huge number of ways to botch the thing.

I don't claim to be better than anyone else, but I do often claim that my approach to knowing is superior - not something that Christians themselves haven't been loudly screaming for over a millenium.

I would beat on you for claiming that you know God knows you, loves you and wants the very best for you - but I already know you are operating off a very borked definition of "fact", so I'll just chalk it up to that and move on.

Seriously though, you have a good heart, but you'd impress me more if you didn't try to redefine words to suit your agenda.

02/07/2015 12:27:02 AM · #116
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I agree with your second statement and was just giving Lanndon an example. And you are right: 3/3= 0.9999... as well as 3/3=1 Therefore, 0.9999...=1 I'm not sure that's the formal proof, but it's helpful to grasp a non-intuitive truth.

Nothing like the formal proof. Just in case anyone is interested in the mental gymnastics needed to come to this conclusion.

The following two quotes are taken from Cory's referenced proofs of the statement "0.9999...=1". Interesting, huh? And it just supports, underlines really, how mathematics are built upon axioms, articles of faith as it were.

"Note: Technically, the above proof requires that some fairly advanced concepts be taken on faith. If you study "foundations" or mathematical philosophy (way after calculus), you may encounter the requisite theoretical constructs."

"Note regarding all of the above: To a certain extent, each of these arguments depends on a basic foundational doctrine of mathematics called "The Axiom of Choice". A discussion of the Axiom of Choice is well beyond anything we could cover here, and is something that most mathematicians simply take on faith."


These quotes don't support that mathematics are "built on faith"
02/07/2015 12:35:24 AM · #117
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

These quotes don't support that mathematics are "built on faith"

Puts a bit of a shadow on the discussion though, doesn't it?

Look, everything about math derives from axioms. Axioms aren't provable; that's why they're called axioms. So to that extent math IS faith-based, and it's an interesting point. I don't mean to make too big a deal of it, though, since the thing about math is, once you accept the axioms and "do the math", the results are generally testable in the real world, and they do prove out. But when you get on the outher fringes, this isn't quite so true.
02/07/2015 12:51:45 AM · #118
Originally posted by dtremain:


You would never think of walking up to a new mother and telling her that her baby was ugly. But you (generic athiest, not Cory specifically) have absolutely no problem with telling people of faith that one of the most precious, positive, good things in their entire human experience is not only ugly, but unredeemabley evil. Yet you have the hubris to deem yourself fit to judge God's actions as evil.


1) The baby is real
2) There is no reason to hurt the feelings of the mother to make such a statement. Look, even athiests have morals and ethics.
3) An athiest doesn't deem themselves fit to judge the actions of what they believe to be the figment of others imagination, no more than one would deem themselves fit to judge Voldemort.
4) The 'evil' remark is simply general categorization of any being that has been responsible for the innumerable deaths of others without what would generally be considered an acceptable reason. Those numbers being derived from the same book that the faithful use as proof of existence of said god. This is obviously an attempt to point out a contradiction in the faithfuls beliefs, god is good, but yet god has killed millions. It's simply a logical point the may make someone question their beliefs. An athiest doesn't actually think god is evil, or good, any more than any other fictional character in any other book.

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 00:54:51.
02/07/2015 01:15:43 AM · #119
Originally posted by Neat:

waste of time.


Rant is a waste of time. I'm here by choice. You came here accidentally??????
Otherwise you chose too.....
02/07/2015 01:28:25 AM · #120
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

These quotes don't support that mathematics are "built on faith"

Puts a bit of a shadow on the discussion though, doesn't it?

Look, everything about math derives from axioms. Axioms aren't provable; that's why they're called axioms. So to that extent math IS faith-based, and it's an interesting point. I don't mean to make too big a deal of it, though, since the thing about math is, once you accept the axioms and "do the math", the results are generally testable in the real world, and they do prove out. But when you get on the outher fringes, this isn't quite so true.


do you want to know what math is? Math is a human-made technique. It's a useful set of tools that we can use for a bunch of things; solving practical problems, sure, but we can also use it to goof around with logic, which really might be a uniquely human trait (for example, a lot of nature is logical, but a lot of it probably isn't, especially when you get into things like quantum mechanics).

I still don't understand your argument about math being "faith-based". The whole point of math is basically to organize things we call numbers in a logical way. Humans invented the rules for math, based on our need for a numbers organization system, so it would make no sense for humans to suddenly break the rules by saying something like "2+2=4 just BECAUSE, guysss. i have faith :)". Obviously in the example you cited, math can get very complicated, especially for airheads like myself; I will never claim to understand the basis of the proof Cory brought to this post. But SOMEBODY developed (and rigorously so) the solution to that problem, and it perfectly follows the rules that we accept as being mathematically sound. But since the whole point of math is to organize numbers, to make numbers useful and to be efficient, we don't need to prove things each time we work on a problem. Once geniuses do the hard part, we can integrate the techniques they discovered and allow math to really be useful to all of us.

The only faith that I can interpret out of this is that you need the faith that the geniuses worked out the problems correctly. But come on, dude-- there's a lot of smart people in the world. If there were shenanigans going on in Newton's private study, they'd be unearthed by now.

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 13:10:32.
02/07/2015 01:35:41 AM · #121
Originally posted by Cory:


1. What proof is there that Mohammad was not a prophet of God? (Islam)
2. What evidence is there that you won't go to hell for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp? (Judaism)
3. What proof is there that there aren't MANY gods? (Roman Mythology)
4. What convinced you that Amon Ra was not God? (Egyptian Mythology)
5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)

ADDENDUM: What evidence would convince you that you were mistaken in your beliefs as a Christians and Muslims are correct?



You might want to re-write this, as a capitalized God is considered different than a lower-case god. :)

Bacon-wrapped shrimp! Hmmmmmm Mmmmmmmm NomNomNomNomNomNom (religious chant)

My mind is compartmentalized with respect to many things, especially with religion and God. I believe in Christian God via the Methodist Church dogma because I was trained in childhood by my parents and community. I realize the concept of God makes no sense logically and can never be proven. But.... I've read many texts about DNA/RNA over the last 30 years. I personally find it illogical that this planets carbon-based genetic system came about all by itself. This means it must have been created. I also believe that life did not originate on planet Earth. It fills all the universe. Panspermia Any being that can create a system of life that can move through space and colonize varied places is at least a lower-case god to me. Maybe an upper-case God. :)

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 01:37:11.
02/07/2015 01:36:46 AM · #122
by the way, the rules we made are not set in stone- they can change any time if that change makes the whole tool suddenly more useful. in the 1800s if you said a value can both be 1 and 0 at the same time, you'd have a real hard time getting home from the Equestrian Club that evening in one piece. Now we get to enjoy the delights of quantum superposition.
02/07/2015 01:38:51 AM · #123
Originally posted by Erastus:

Originally posted by Cory:


1. What proof is there that Mohammad was not a prophet of God? (Islam)
2. What evidence is there that you won't go to hell for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp? (Judaism)
3. What proof is there that there aren't MANY gods? (Roman Mythology)
4. What convinced you that Amon Ra was not God? (Egyptian Mythology)
5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)

ADDENDUM: What evidence would convince you that you were mistaken in your beliefs as a Christians and Muslims are correct?



You might want to re-write this, as a capitalized God is considered different than a lower-case god. :)

Bacon-wrapped shrimp! Hmmmmmm Mmmmmmmm NomNomNomNomNomNom (religious chant)

My mind is compartmentalized with respect to many things, especially with religion and God. I believe in Christian God via the Methodist Church dogma because I was trained in childhood by my parents and community. I realize the concept of God makes no sense logically and can never be proven. But.... I've read many texts about DNA/RNA over the last 30 years. I personally find it illogical that this planets carbon-based genetic system came about all by itself. This means it must have been created. I also believe that life did not originate on planet Earth. It fills all the universe. Panspermia Any being that can create a system of life that can move through space and colonize varied places is at least a lower-case god to me. Maybe an upper-case God. :)


The funny thing is that my capitalization choices were very deliberate and meaningful, I really did mean God when I said God, and I meant god when I said god. :)

While we're nitpicking grammar, you probably should have said planet's, not planets. ;-)

And just because you personally find something illogical does not immediately allow you to jump to the conclusion "God did it" Of course, you didn't quite say that, but it was implied I think.. Even just saying "it was created because I think the idea of abiogenesis is illogical" is opening the door to some really fun questions, like, ok, if life (as we know it) was created, who was the creator. Can we call the universe's laws of physics a creator? Or do we have to have intelligence in that creator? In which case I'd suggest Alpha Centaurians. Of course, you can still choose Ewah if you wish, but I don't see why you would do so with confidence in your choice.

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 01:44:25.
02/07/2015 01:40:58 AM · #124
Yes I figured you were doing it with intent. A fellow shit-stirrer can recognize the signature of another stick. :)
02/07/2015 01:45:35 AM · #125
Originally posted by Erastus:

Yes I figured you were doing it with intent. A fellow shit-stirrer can recognize the signature of another stick. :)


Where the hell is the like button?!

(FYI - I added a bit to the post, didn't mean to post just that first line, but did...)
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/21/2019 07:10:30 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/21/2019 07:10:30 AM EDT.