The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

When will Jesus come back ? Options
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 2:06:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,292
Neurons: 49,587
Kirill Vorobyov,

So do I understand you correctly to say that you think there must have been a creator to design atomic structure with positive and negative charges, quarks, etc., in such a way that they can combine to form more complicated structures; that this could not have happened on its own?



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 2:44:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I've already responded to this more than once... The answer is very simple, and it's been before our very eyes all along.

You’ll have to forgive me, this is the first time for me personally.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I am in a good mood today, so let me make one more try.

Your philosophy appears to have no basis in current scientific understanding, and appears to be scientifically untestable… like most other personal philosophies, I don’t really know what I’m supposed to do with it. I don’t have much interest or time for fantasy – Kelly Brook and a tub of banana yogurt notwithstanding. Shhh

I’m fairly up to date on current thinking in theoretical physics, leading candidates for a ‘Theory of Everything’, particularly the basics of String Theory and M Theory, extra dimensions, Calabi–Yau manifolds etc… nothing in your post makes any sense scientifically, from your rather odd musings on 2-dimensional Euclidean space to the bastardization of thermodynamics.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
by design the physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. So no illusions about "evolution". When left without attendance, the physical matter only degrades into less organized chaotic forms…

Matter frequently and quite demonstrably develops from simple forms into more organized forms, if it didn’t literally nothing would exist. The physical law that you are so spectacularly misunderstanding is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In short, your phrase “left without attendance” completely ignores the constant input (and transfer) of energy into the system – in this instance from our Sun into the Earth, our existence, evolution and every darn thing you experience. You are overlooking, or don't understand, the within a closed system caveat of the 2nd law.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
So it looks quite a ridiculous idea (to me, anyway) that such unbelievably complex structures as a human body, for example, could have somehow imerged from "raw matter" without a creative process involved. Such an idea contradicts all our experince.

Yet apparently you have no problem with imagining a god – that would logically need to be even more unbelievably complex than the complex universe it creates – somehow emerging without a creative process involved. Infinite regression; turtles all the way down.

Before you say ‘But God doesn’t...’, can I point out that special pleading is a logical fallacy.

My point was that Big Bang Theory – or any current scientific theory of merit – does not state that the universe “somehow originated itself from nothing”, but, apparently, that is the exact premise from which your personal philosophy springs: An unbelievably complex God must have sprung from nothing to create our complex universe, because complex things can’t possibly spring from nothing.

And still nothing in your answer explains why these miraculous gods – somehow able to circumvent the paradox of infinite regress – should be so intimately and prescriptively interested in the foreskins of infants or who is eating shellfish… and all the other nonsense in the seemingly endless stream of religious doctrine – always conveniently revealed via mere mortals.


.

Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:44:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

Your philosophy appears to have no basis in current scientific understanding, and appears to be scientifically untestable… like most other personal philosophies, I don’t really know what I’m supposed to do with it.


You are not supposed to do anything with it.Boo hoo!

will wrote:

from your rather odd musings on 2-dimensional Euclidean space to the bastardization of thermodynamics.


I can only suggest you might want to read these "musings" more carefully and give it a better thought. That's really the key point. It's key to all the rest.

(I mentioned the Euclidian space only as an example - one of myriads - so people whose knowledge of math is limited to a course of geometry in school can picture that example and better see the point. You can take out the reference to that particular space if you like. The argument holds).

Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 7:10:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
FounDit wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov,

So do I understand you correctly to say that you think there must have been a creator to design atomic structure with positive and negative charges, quarks, etc., in such a way that they can combine to form more complicated structures; that this could not have happened on its own?



I have no idea about a creator.

What I say are these two things:

(i) There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it. It is before our eyes. With my background I can best demonstrate it with the example of mathematical abstractions. Other people with different education and background may suggest other examples.

And this understanding opens up a whole range of possibilities regarding what might be there in that "bigger world", including what people call God or gods, if you like, but this remains a pure speculation. The very existance of that bigger reality - that is the crucial point that has to be realized before anything else can be contemplated and discussed.

(ii) In the beginning was the word...
A word is not a physical object, it's a piece of information, an ideal object. In my explanations I use the term "ideal image" instead of "word", but I mean the same thing - in the process of creation the ideal image (the "word" in Biblical terms) comes before the physical encaranation of that idea.

The only way matter can be shaped into more organized forms (e.g. a building can be built from stones and other raw materials) is through the process of creation, whereby the ideal image of what you want to achieve comes first, and encarnation of that idea into matter comes second. The matter itself governed by laws of physics is only a "raw stuff" from which creative beings can make things. When it is left alone it degrades, not develops itself. An abandonned building left without maintenance will gradually morph into dust and sand, and never the other way around.

And since biological beings are arguably the most advanced physical systems that we know, far more advanced than anything humans themselves are able of doing at this point, I think it reasonably follows that yes, probably we are a creation. And the physical universe itself may be a creation, too. Easily. Nothing in this contradicts science.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 12:14:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,292
Neurons: 49,587
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov,

So do I understand you correctly to say that you think there must have been a creator to design atomic structure with positive and negative charges, quarks, etc., in such a way that they can combine to form more complicated structures; that this could not have happened on its own?



I have no idea about a creator.

What I say are these two things:

(i) There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it. It is before our eyes. With my background I can best demonstrate it with the example of mathematical abstractions. Other people with different education and background may suggest other examples.

And this understanding opens up a whole range of possibilities regarding what might be there in that "bigger world", including what people call God or gods, if you like, but this remains a pure speculation. The very existance of that bigger reality - that is the crucial point that has to be realized before anything else can be contemplated and discussed.

(ii) In the beginning was the word...
A word is not a physical object, it's a piece of information, an ideal object. In my explanations I use the term "ideal image" instead of "word", but I mean the same thing - in the process of creation the ideal image (the "word" in Biblical terms) comes before the physical encaranation of that idea.

The only way matter can be shaped into more organized forms (e.g. a building can be built from stones and other raw materials) is through the process of creation, whereby the ideal image of what you want to achieve comes first, and encarnation of that idea into matter comes second. The matter itself governed by laws of physics is only a "raw stuff" from which creative beings can make things. When it is left alone it degrades, not develops itself. An abandonned building left without maintenance will gradually morph into dust and sand, and never the other way around.

And since biological beings are arguably the most advanced physical systems that we know, far more advanced than anything humans themselves are able of doing at this point, I think it reasonably follows that yes, probably we are a creation. And the physical universe itself may be a creation, too. Easily. Nothing in this contradicts science.

Ah, okay. That's fine. I just wanted to be sure I understood correctly.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 4:17:57 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
You are not supposed to do anything with it

Odd then that you should bring it up, apparently repeatedly, on a public discussion forum? And why later insist “There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it”?.. I’ll come back to this later.

Your refusal to address the problem of infinite regress, that is catastrophic to your whole argument, is duly noted.

Likewise, the fact that you chose to ignore my challenge of your misunderstanding of Thermodynamics (but chose to repeat the same bastardized version in your reply to FounDit) has also been noted.

Science isn’t like theism, you can’t just pick and chose the bits that seem to fit the conclusions you’ve already formed. If you want the credibility of science by pretending you understand entropy you should at least give the pretence of a scientifically enquiring mind.
Put a bowl of salt water on a sunny window sill, leave it for a week, and then tell me if you still believe that “physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms”. The decrease in entropy so clearly observed in the resulting crystals should be enough to make you reassess your flawed hypothesis (like a true scientist). Or you could consider the formation of snowflakes, or lightening, or tornados, weather in general; or wave formations; or fractals (this should be obvious to a mathematician like yourself); or the formation of stars from random clouds of hydrogen gas; or the rings of Saturn, or the natural grading of pebbles on a beach; or photosynthesis, reproduction and, of course, evolution.

Or you could even take a quick look the current apologetics spewing from leading creationist websites such as Answers in Genesis. Even they now accept that this ludicrous argument is untenable and have put it on their list of arguments to avoid – as if knowledge is a battle of words, rather than the collective discovery of truths. d'oh!

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I can only suggest you might want to read these "musings" more carefully and give it a better thought. That's really the key point. It's key to all the rest.

As I said, I don’t really have any patience for fantasy and that includes pseudo-intellectual gibberish, arbitrary assumptions and bluff. But you’ve talked about logic and mathematics, and tried to put a scientific spin on your philosophy, so I’m happy to have another look. Let’s go from the very first line of the example you chose:

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Say, in mathematics you define a space. To make it simple, let's talk about 2-dimensional Euclidian space. The definition consists of only few simple statements.

And this simple definition immediately gives rise to an indefinite number of properties of an indefinite number of all possible objects in that space.

No it doesn’t. Possibilities might be exceedingly large – depending on however much you’re going to twist standard definitions – but not indefinite.

Indefinite
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits
c. Uncertain; undecided

Euclidean geometry is very clearly defined, has very precise limits, and is clearly understood (and has been for thousands of years). Your premise is flawed; until you clear that up, there’s little point continuing.

But I will anyway.

Observations of reality cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Contrary to your assertion, it is too limited and too narrowly defined. Riemann, among others, gave us more accurate mathematical descriptions of reality. Einstein put the final nail in the coffin of Euclidian space (as an accurate mathematical description of reality). And it’s well understood that even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has clearly defined limits. This is why I mentioned String and M Theory, Calabi–Yau manifolds etc.

Your argument doesn’t hold, not even with the example you chose, nor any other.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it.

The physical universe comprises everything material, tangible and empirically observable; all natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences -- in contrast to any spiritual or supernatural essence.

If your assertion of a reality ‘beyond the physical universe and time’ were a fact it wouldn’t, by definition, be ‘beyond’ the physical universe. It would be part of the physical universe, like every other empirical fact. Falsifiable facts are not just ‘realized’.

You should have led with this assertion of ‘supernatural fact’ (an oxymoron) and insisted that others just simply take your word for it and saved us all a lot of time. This is personal Faith, nothing more. You could have left out the pseudo-intellectual waffle and flawed science.


.


Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 5:37:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Sorry, by "indefinite" I meant "infinite". That's a linguistic mistake, but I admit it does confuse.

I am not sure I can edit my post at this stage, let me see.

I would expect a knowledgeable person to be able to recognize that mistake though.

P.S. No, I can't edit that post, so this is what it should read like:

The key to understanding this is to realize that the time itself only aplies to the physical universe. It is part of its design. But there is other reality where time does not exist and does not apply to.

Say, in mathematics you define a space. To make it simple, let's talk about 2-dimensional Euclidian space. The definition consists of only few simple statements.

And this simple definition immediately gives rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space.

All those properties derive from the definition via formal logic. There is no time lag between the cause (definition) and the consequnce (the infinite number of properties). There is no time in that space. It is eternal. It is just there, ideally accurate and timeless. And yet it is real. Mathematicians can operate with that reality, contemplate its various objects and properties, and while doing this they all are somehow talking about the same thing. There is only one accuarate answer to any specific question. And that accurate answer, once it is found, is identical for all the human beings considering the issue. So the accurate solution (say, some object's property) exists as a stand-alone reality, existing independently of humans who think about it.

Other definitions automatically result in other infinite arrays of objects and their properties... That Great Ideal Reality encompasses all possible definitions and all the infinite mass of facts that result from those. That ideal Reality is firm and timeless. Such "earthly" concepts as "creation", "origin", "beginning and end" do not apply there. Such concepts only seem necessary to us bacause we are used to percieving time as indespensible part of existance. But this is simply not true, as demonstrated above.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 6:17:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Will,

To what extent Euclidian space or any other mathematical model accurately describes the physical reality is another issue.

The Euclidian space, once it is defined, exists regardless and independently of that. That's the key and fairly simple idea that, however, somehow doesn't seem to get across.

And math is only an example. Other ideas are, of course, there, too. Myriads of them. It is only that since math deals with the most basic building blocks of that ideal world, mathematical objects can be directly compared and analysed. Whereas such complex ideas as, for example, "good" or "evil" or other such things represent complex compounds. Which, unlike math objects, can also differ from person to person. And humans are usually unable to consciously decompose those complex ideas into basic elements, so they cannot be analysed and/or compared.
will
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:08:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Sorry, by "indefinite" I meant "infinite". That's a linguistic mistake, but I admit it does confuse.

I would expect a knowledgeable person to be able to recognize that mistake though.

Yikes!
At best ‘indefinite’ and ‘infinite’ are near synonyms and your mistake changes nothing. In actuality changing it to infinite is far worse; while indefinite implies a vague but bounded unknown, infinite means having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.

2-dimensional Euclidean space, the example you chose to illustrate your argument, most certainly does NOT ‘immediately give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space’.

What you seem to be saying is that if one defines things as broadly as one wishes, an infinite number of possibilities can be imagined to be true – conveniently including your desire for a particular supernatural deity.
Well, yes, in a way you are correct… but what a fantastically jaded philosophy that is. And again, you could have said as much without all the bluff. It’s just the same vacuous theistic argument that states that because God is supernatural – by definition beyond the physical world – material laws of nature and reasoning don’t apply when trying to prove His existence. It’s usually followed by the fallacious demand that the onus is on the disbeliever to use material laws of nature and reasoning to prove the negative.

Your problem here is that the same ‘logic’ must also apply to absolutely anything supernatural that one might care to imagine. Your personal supernatural belief is as equally logical (i.e. not at all) as the universe existing only as a fantasy of a rainbow coloured unicorn.

This ‘logic’ of assuming that anything supernatural should be considered fact, because it can’t be disproved, is clearly flawed. It follows that any reasonable qualitative definition causes the supernatural to be qualitatively assessable and therefore introduces an increased possibility of potentially being materially disproved. Following this tortured ‘logic’ the more unimaginable, most supernatural and totally unquantifiable would have a firmer basis for belief than things for which there is a huge body of supporting material evidence – being more qualitatively defined and open to more scrutiny. That’s clearly bollocks.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
To what extent Euclidian space or any other mathematical model accurately describes the physical reality is another issue.

That’s a cop out. You introduced math, you can't now pretend it has no bearing on the discussion of reality. The issue is very much that your belief in your personal God (justified with an appeal to the authority of Euclid) exists as part of our shared physical reality, as does your insistence that god is an inevitable fact (stemmed from a flawed premise), as is your strawman distortion of Thermodynamics and rejection of scientific knowledge that accurately describes reality (and incidently finds absolutely no evidence for the existence of yours or any other gods)

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
The Euclidian space, once it is defined, exists regardless and independently of that.

What? Euclidean space, once it is defined, exists regardless and independently of physical reality? I don’t think so Speak to the hand

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
That's the key and fairly simple idea...

That you’ve expressed in a very complicated manner, by trying to hijack the credibility of science, mathematics and formal logic.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
...that, however, somehow doesn't seem to get across.

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem you have getting this ‘simple idea’ across is because it doesn’t make any sense? Think

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
And math is only an example. Other ideas are, of course, there, too. Myriads of them. It is only that since math deals with the most basic building blocks of that ideal world, mathematical objects can be directly compared and analysed. Whereas such complex ideas as, for example, "good" or "evil" or other such things represent complex compounds. Which, unlike math objects, can also differ from person to person. And humans are usually unable to consciously decompose those complex ideas into basic elements, so they cannot be analysed and/or compared.

Case in point.


.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2018 8:14:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

2-dimensional Euclidean space, the example you chose to illustrate your argument, most certainly does NOT ‘immediately give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space’.


Oops... Certainly the definition does give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space!

I don't believe you don't understand this. You sound as a very well educated person. You wouldn't have been able to make it to your first degree if you didn't.


will wrote:

What you seem to be saying is that if one defines things as broadly as one wishes, an infinite number of possibilities can be imagined to be true ...


d'oh! What?
"Possibilities"... "Imagine"... What are you even talking about?

You define the space. From that definition it follows by formal logic that two lines perpendical to a third one must be parallel to each other. There is no "chance" or "possibility" to come up with a different result, no matter how many times you try and which way you approach this problem Angel This is what math is about. It's a strict world. Ideally accurate and static.

Some of the properties of objects in Euclidian space have already been discovered by humans. Others are yet to be found. But the space and all that's in it is there anyway regardless of what humans do.
will
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2018 4:24:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
So having jettisoned every other element of your original argument, you still want to persist with this? d'oh!

The two sections that make up the bulk of your last post directly contradict each other.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
the definition does give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space!


Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
You define the space. From that definition it follows by formal logic that two lines perpendical [sic] to a third one must be parallel to each other. There is no "chance" or "possibility" to come up with a different result, no matter how many times you try and which way you approach this problem This is what math is about. It's a strict world. Ideally accurate and static.

So non- parallel lines, perpendicular to a third, is one example of a property that is NOT possible within your defined space, and a sphere is an example of an object that is NOT possible within your defined space. Just those two examples, those two exceptions, make the number of properties and number of possible objects finite.

Two exceptions is enough to disprove the rule; but one could actually include pretty much all of reality from quantum mechanics to the entire mass of the universe, most of which falls outside of the very clearly defined and very precise limits of Euclidean geometry.

These clearly defined and very precise limits are why non-Euclidean geometry has existed since the early 1800’s. These clearly defined and very precise limits are why we need Einstein's theory of general relativity, that, despite being one of the most accurate mathematical tools we currently possess, still has clear limits.

I wrote:
What you seem to be saying is that if one defines things as broadly as one wishes, an infinite number of possibilities can be imagined to be true ...

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
What?
"Possibilities"... "Imagine"... What are you even talking about?

I’m talking about your original hypothesis. At this stage I can understand why you might want to discuss something different, but the fact remains that you stated, in various ways that defining things leads to infinite / indefinite possibilities. For example:

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Other definitions automatically result in other indefinite arrays of objects and their properties... That Great Ideal Reality encompasses all possible definitions and all the indefinite mass of facts that result from those

Emphasis added.
From this you somehow extrapolated that “we must realize the the physical universe is not all.” and “There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact”, and of course the existence of supernatural entities. There is no objective, empirical evidence for any of these assertions, they are products of subjective imagination.

I’m getting bored of this, I’ve called your bluff, you need to offer something new if you plan to continue with your extraordinary claims.


.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 12:26:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,063
Neurons: 46,371
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Wiil wrote: Yet apparently you have no problem with imagining a god – that would logically need to be even more unbelievably complex than the complex universe it creates – somehow emerging without a creative process involved. Infinite regression; turtles all the way down.

Before you say ‘But God doesn’t...’, can I point out that special pleading is a logical fallacy.

My point was that Big Bang Theory – or any current scientific theory of merit – does not state that the universe “somehow originated itself from nothing”, but, apparently, that is the exact premise from which your personal philosophy springs: An unbelievably complex God must have sprung from nothing to create our complex universe, because complex things can’t possibly spring from nothing.

And still nothing in your answer explains why these miraculous gods – somehow able to circumvent the paradox of infinite regress – should be so intimately and prescriptively interested in the foreskins of infants or who is eating shellfish… and all the other nonsense in the seemingly endless stream of religious doctrine – always conveniently revealed via mere mortals.



Exactly. Who created God?

Jesus may have been a good man who lived, or a compilation of what they thought a good man should be. But the only proof that he was the son of a god, came to mortals in dreams. Yeah, that's right. Dreams!

Any god that allows what happens on this earth cannot be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, AND benevolent. It's impossible.

Besides, when certain people are not shrivelled up in a bolt of lightning, it makes belief in a god very strenuous. Whistle

Edited - the actual quote is: It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. -Bill Watterson, comic strip artist


It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. - Bill Watterson
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:01:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

The two sections that make up the bulk of your last post directly contradict each other.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
the definition does give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space!


Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
You define the space. From that definition it follows by formal logic that two lines perpendical [sic] to a third one must be parallel to each other. There is no "chance" or "possibility" to come up with a different result, no matter how many times you try and which way you approach this problem This is what math is about. It's a strict world. Ideally accurate and static.

So non- parallel lines, perpendicular to a third, is one example of a property that is NOT possible within your defined space, and a sphere is an example of an object that is NOT possible within your defined space. Just those two examples, those two exceptions, make the number of properties and number of possible objects finite.


What a nonsense.

There exist infinite number of prime integers. But this does not mean that any integer is a prime one.

There exist infinite number of objects in the Euclidian space and infinite number of their properties. But, of course, only right ones are there, not just any statement you make up.

I am getting bored, too. By this time I am pretty sure you must be getting it quite alright, but for some reason you choose to troll the idea. And a terrible suspicion has stiken me that maybe the policy of deliberate lies about physical life has now been extended to lying to people about math, too. Because the truth is near. One or two more efforts, and humans will find accuarte answers to many questions that have historically been puzzling and dividing people. And of course this is what this plague of liars and conflict instigators is rightly afraid of to death.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:04:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 951
Neurons: 460,717
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
One or two more efforts, and humans will find accuarte answers to many questions that have historically been puzzling and dividing people. And of course this is what this plague of liars and conflict instigators is rightly afraid of to death.


You could even say our knowledge and understanding of it all is evolving.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 7:09:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,405
Neurons: 26,728
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
The question has been answered.

"Matthew 16:28
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
"


Either Jesus came and went, or Matthew is a lying sack of shit.


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Absinthius
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 4:25:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
leonAzul wrote:


Either Jesus came and went, or Matthew is a lying sack of shit.

That is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma.

A third option is much more likely: The book is made up, making both other options equally irrelevant.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
will
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 11:24:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
What a nonsense.

There exist infinite number of prime integers. But this does not mean that any integer is a prime one.

Or to put it another way...

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
There exist infinite number of objects in the Euclidian space and infinite number of their properties. But, of course, only right ones are there, not just any statement you make up.

Ah! So the two examples I gave (and the countless others) are the just the ‘wrong type’ of properties and objects and are not part of the ‘infinite number of...’, but of course, supernatural beings and the ‘known fact’ of ‘a reality beyond the physical universe and time’ are objects and properties that are logically part of the infinite number of possibilities that stem from your example. Think

Now I see, that makes perfect sense. My bad. Anxious

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I am getting bored, too. By this time I am pretty sure you must be getting it quite alright, but for some reason you choose to troll the idea. And a terrible suspicion has stiken me that maybe the policy of deliberate lies about physical life has now been extended to lying to people about math, too. Because the truth is near. One or two more efforts, and humans will find accuarte answers to many questions that have historically been puzzling and dividing people. And of course this is what this plague of liars and conflict instigators is rightly afraid of to death.

Wow!.. Just wow.

I gave you several opportunities to discuss your hypothesis, philosophy, mathematics or science like a grown up. You chose this route. Shame on you


.
will
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 11:30:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
The above demonstrates just how dangerous Faith is as a methodology. On the surface it’s often benign and genial enough, with talk of logic, reasoning and even a hint of empiricism. But one only need scratch the surface to expose the illusion; what remains is nothing but assertion, wishful thinking and even the rejection of whole chunks of collective human knowledge – in this case our collective explanation of reality is apparently a conspiracy perpetrated by a ‘plague of liars and conflict instigators’. This is exactly the same methodology that motives extremists, regardless of religious creed.

leonAzul wrote:
Either Jesus came and went, or Matthew is a lying sack of shit.

If Jesus did ‘return’, would it even matter?
Fact is there have been numerous prophets and divine messengers over the last two thousand years – from Muhammad to Joseph Smith – and theists routinely just pick and chose as theologically expedient. Even if God were to reveal Herself to the entirety of humanity, I reckon most theists would still chose, conditioned as they are, to stick with their own personal ‘truth’. Especially if She came with a message of equality, peace and tolerance, thus depriving them their doomsday fantasies and their status (and salvation) as the ‘chosen few’. Pray


It’s like the old story about two friends who find a box. The first friend, a non-theist, looks inside the box and says “It’s a jigsaw puzzle. Let’s put it together to see what it is.”

Immediately the other friend, a theist, replies “There’s no need. My parents have a jigsaw, so I already know what it is. It’s a ginger kitten, playing with a ball of purple wool, in front of a cosy log fire.”

The non-theist, who has emptied the pieces onto the table, says “I don’t think it is. These bits are clearly sky and these look like they might be a river.”

“No,” the theist insists, “the blue bits are designed that way to test your faith and the other bits are an evil trick to deceive you. Just take my word for it. It’s a kitten.”

This goes back and forth, while the non-theist continues to put piece after piece together. Finally the puzzle is complete, apart from one missing piece, and the non-theist concludes “There, it’s The Hay Wain by John Constable.”

Unmoved, the theist replies “Nope. It’s definitely a kitten. And unless you can find that missing piece, you can’t prove it’s not.” and walks off victoriously.


.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:51:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,063
Neurons: 46,371
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Love the kitten story, Will. So apropos.

Edited - thought I should add an admonishment Whistle She/He to be equal. Whistle Whistle

It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. - Bill Watterson
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 2:50:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,292
Neurons: 49,587
As I said, "Each person should be free to make up their own minds, with the understanding that there will always be people who will choose to believe in gods and religions."


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 4:07:04 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
The freedom to ones personal beliefs is not the issue. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, but no one is entitled to their own personal facts.

.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 4:37:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,292
Neurons: 49,587
will wrote:
The freedom to ones personal beliefs is not the issue. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, but no one is entitled to their own personal facts.

.


I think that depends on one's perspective. Kirill stated that "There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time...".

There can be no doubt that the Universe is expanding into ... something, even if that something is an empty space — an empty space that exists somewhere — and an empty space that we have no knowledge of as to its extent, or properties, such as boundaries if any, or what may lie on the other side of any such boundaries.

So I think that fact is what was being proposed. However, how that space came to be, or any other aspects of it remain in the realm of pure faith, i.e., belief in the face of no evidence. I asked if he believed in a Creator, and as I read it, he affirmed that belief. For him, the facts he sees justifies his faith. So it is with all believers. That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results. The facts lead you and me to one conclusion, and to others, a different conclusion. There really is no need to become enemies over a difference in opinion.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:07:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 4,437
FounDit wrote:
I think that depends on one's perspective. Kirill stated that "There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time...".

There can be no doubt that the Universe is expanding into ... something, even if that something is an empty space — an empty space that exists somewhere — and an empty space that we have no knowledge of as to its extent, or properties, such as boundaries if any, or what may lie on the other side of any such boundaries.

I’ve covered this fairly extensively already. It makes no sense to say the universe is expanding into ‘something’. The universe, by definition, includes everything. If the universe were expanding into ‘something’, that ‘something’ would be part of the universe. It’s simply not accurate to think of the universe as having an edge or boundary. I can’t be bothered to go over it again, but here is a simple explanation.

Likewise, if Kirill Vorobyov’s assertion of ‘a reality beyond the physical universe and time’ were a known fact, as he claimed, it wouldn’t by definition be beyond the physical universe. It would be part of the physical universe, like every other empirical fact. There is currently absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion.

FounDit wrote:
So I think that fact is what was being proposed. However, how that space came to be, or any other aspects of it remain in the realm of pure faith, i.e., belief in the face of no evidence. I asked if he believed in a Creator, and as I read it, he affirmed that belief. For him, the facts he sees justifies his faith. So it is with all believers.

There is a vast difference between science stating it has no facts about things for which there is no evidence and theism claiming lack of evidence gives carte blanche to state any supernatural claim as incontrovertible fact.

There are several hypotheses regarding the true nature of the universe; only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) claims to ‘know’ with absolute certitude: theism.
And only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) uses that certitude to demand the divine right to impose specific forms of morality on the wider society, but that’s perhaps a discussion for another time.

Over the millennia the exact same ‘god of the gaps’ argument has been applied to any unknown at the limit of understanding: gods have variously resided ‘beyond the mountain’, ‘above the clouds’, ‘across the seas’, ‘beyond the stars’… humanity has just about run out of gaps. The entirety of human existence is littered with failed god hypotheses, that have become untenable in the light of the constantly improving collective understanding of reality. The only difference between Gods and myths is time.

FounDit wrote:
That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe that we should not push scientific advancement for fear of offending people’s supernatural beliefs. Although many theists claim that two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, I doubt any would actually be prepared to give up the scientific advances that affords them their current standard of life.

FounDit wrote:
The facts lead you and me to one conclusion, and to others, a different conclusion. There really is no need to become enemies over a difference in opinion.

Firstly, facts are not purely subjective and not all opinions are equal. I'm aware from other discussions with you that this is something of a sticking point, but most often it's very clear. When, for example, Kirill Vorobyov claims thermodynamics disproves evolution he is simply wrong; it is not an equally valid conclusion.

Secondly, I’m not an enemy of Kirill Vorobyov – even though my basic understanding of science apparently makes me part of a plague of liars Shhh . He is perfectly welcome to his personal beliefs. But if he (or anyone) wants to use the credibility of science, mathematics and logic, to support a claim in a public forum, then they are required to conform to a higher, more rigorous, standard than Faith.

It is naive to think that personal supernatural beliefs (different conclusions to empirical observations) do not filter through society and have a profound effect on us all. We don’t simply except the different conclusions of extremists, why should we accept the same methodology for the more moderate?


.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:02:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,292
Neurons: 49,587
will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
I think that depends on one's perspective. Kirill stated that "There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time...".

There can be no doubt that the Universe is expanding into ... something, even if that something is an empty space — an empty space that exists somewhere — and an empty space that we have no knowledge of as to its extent, or properties, such as boundaries if any, or what may lie on the other side of any such boundaries.

I’ve covered this fairly extensively already. It makes no sense to say the universe is expanding into ‘something’. The universe, by definition, includes everything. If the universe were expanding into ‘something’, that ‘something’ would be part of the universe. It’s simply not accurate to think of the universe as having an edge or boundary. I can’t be bothered to go over it again, but here is a simple explanation.
Now we're just playing word games. My definition of Universe is "All spacetime, matter, and energy, including the solar system, all stars and galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. (TFD)"

That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc. Your Youtube video does the same word play by using ants, balloons and raisin bread, but doesn't deal with the "outside" all of those are expanding into.

Likewise, if Kirill Vorobyov’s assertion of ‘a reality beyond the physical universe and time’ were a known fact, as he claimed, it wouldn’t by definition be beyond the physical universe. It would be part of the physical universe, like every other empirical fact. There is currently absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion.
Again a matter of definition. If my Universe is all the stuff contained in the TFD definition, then there is an "outside" that it is expanding into. If, however, one includes the area into which the Universe is expanding and calls all of it the Universe, then nothing can be known about it except what we already can see and test. An ameoba, if it could know science and testing, would have an idea of its Universe and what it contains, but could have no idea of what exists "outside" of it's knowledge sphere, even though we know there is an "outside".

FounDit wrote:
So I think that fact is what was being proposed. However, how that space came to be, or any other aspects of it remain in the realm of pure faith, i.e., belief in the face of no evidence. I asked if he believed in a Creator, and as I read it, he affirmed that belief. For him, the facts he sees justifies his faith. So it is with all believers.

There is a vast difference between science stating it has no facts about things for which there is no evidence and theism claiming lack of evidence gives carte blanche to state any supernatural claim as incontrovertible fact.
True, but that is precisely the nature of faith, and it is at that point that all arguments must end. Those who wish to believe will continue to do so, because that is what faith is, belief without evidence.

There are several hypotheses regarding the true nature of the universe; only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) claims to ‘know’ with absolute certitude: theism.
And only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) uses that certitude to demand the divine right to impose specific forms of morality on the wider society, but that’s perhaps a discussion for another time.

Over the millennia the exact same ‘god of the gaps’ argument has been applied to any unknown at the limit of understanding: gods have variously resided ‘beyond the mountain’, ‘above the clouds’, ‘across the seas’, ‘beyond the stars’… humanity has just about run out of gaps. The entirety of human existence is littered with failed god hypotheses, that have become untenable in the light of the constantly improving collective understanding of reality. The only difference between Gods and myths is time.

FounDit wrote:
That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe that we should not push scientific advancement for fear of offending people’s supernatural beliefs.
I know of no one who advocates such a position; even believers do not insist on that. Although many theists claim that two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, I doubt any would actually be prepared to give up the scientific advances that affords them their current standard of life.
I agree, but the strategy should be to avoid excesses, as I mentioned earlier, and that by both sides. If it was wrong to claim two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, it is just as wrong to claim that today's current state of scientific ignorance and knowledge should take precedence over all else also. In a free society, both schools of thought must be permitted to exist.

FounDit wrote:
The facts lead you and me to one conclusion, and to others, a different conclusion. There really is no need to become enemies over a difference in opinion.

Firstly, facts are not purely subjective and not all opinions are equal. I'm aware from other discussions with you that this is something of a sticking point, but most often it's very clear. Then you have misunderstood me. I do not say all opinions are equal. I say all people have a right to hold a different opinion, and simply because it is different, doesn't make it a wrong, or invalid, opinion.When, for example, Kirill Vorobyov claims thermodynamics disproves evolution he is simply wrong; it is not an equally valid conclusion.

Secondly, I’m not an enemy of Kirill Vorobyov – even though my basic understanding of science apparently makes me part of a plague of liars Shhh . He is perfectly welcome to his personal beliefs. But if he (or anyone) wants to use the credibility of science, mathematics and logic, to support a claim in a public forum, then they are required to conform to a higher, more rigorous, standard than Faith.
Not so. Since none of us know for a fact how the Universe came into being, and none of us know what, if anything, lies "outside" of it, or even if there is and "outside", we are all still learning. Some choose to believe without evidence in a creator. Others choose not to believe such. He may not argue scientific facts, but he certainly can choose to believe.

It is naive to think that personal supernatural beliefs (different conclusions to empirical observations) do not filter through society and have a profound effect on us all. We don’t simply except the different conclusions of extremists, why should we accept the same methodology for the more moderate?
Because that is the standard for living in a free society.

.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.