|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Nov 13, 2010 3:31:27 GMT
So essentially what you are saying is that thousands of years of research by hundreds to thousands of people is wrong, and you are right, because you don't understand the basic concept behind the theories?
I mean Kurai, not SM.
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Nov 13, 2010 5:45:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Nov 13, 2010 6:02:09 GMT
Ah, Google! While we're at it we should check Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 13, 2010 20:40:23 GMT
So essentially what you are saying is that thousands of years of research by hundreds to thousands of people is wrong, and you are right, because you don't understand the basic concept behind the theories? I mean Kurai, not SM. First, the only variables O in thousands of years that remain a focal point in science are at least 200 years old. Now, at the risk appeal to novelty being presented, I'd say me discrediting old theories from Charles Darwin and others (Such as the Big bang theorists) is no less fallacious than saying that God is discredited as the idea is old. Second, 95% of the Earth, by approximation, believes in one or more deities. Saying that 95% of Earth is deluded, mad, or ignorant is fallacious, by The Horse Laugh fallacy. The reason why? Because saying that things adhering to N ignore O, whereas it is actually that N satisfies O from their standpoint, are of unsound mind. Since mental illness is not self-inflicted, and cannot be, delusion by choice is knowledge of the other side of an argument and nonetheless choosing their "delusion" anyway, and ignorance when presented by alternative is ignorance with knowledge, the idea of unsound logic based off of adherence to O = 1 iff O= VRP, and N= O = Cr v is flawed, as it implies adherence to such equation is possible only by self-inflicted unsound state of mind. Third, SM, you used the idea of Argument from fallacy, stating fallacy = false. Fourth, Qwerty, you used the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You stated I directly stated that all that science was wrong, whereas I actually stated that the equation O = 1 iff O= VRP, and N= O = Cr v meant that if no logical, viable, reasonable, realistic, or possible O could be presented, N cannot be replaced. N serves as the most logical explanation as it states the idea of something being able to do the four things necessary to create the universe: Create, Define, Redefine, and Destroy. Creation allows materialization of atoms, overcoming the law of matter conservation. Definition allows the assigning of a purpose, meaning, and a definitive and concrete definition. Redefinition allows for the editing of atoms, and redefining things such as life, the laws of physics, and possibility. Destruction allows for removal of atoms, overcoming the law of matter conservation. Those four things hold in every aspect of multi-planear existence, and it's possible next state. Combining these things allows existence to be explained in a logical, viable, reasonable, realistic, and possible way. Therefore, unless some O can surpass the logistics, viability, reasonability, realism, and possibility of N, N = O and must do so to explain existence in any form. The reasons for trying to replace N are obvious. They are not as much scientific as they are... ethical. Humans, naturally having the desire to embrace free will, don't want anything telling them what is right or wrong, and generally abhorr the idea of the idea of what we call a conscience. It is a simple biological reflex, as we generally loathe the idea of limitations. Unfortunately: N = O, and on a multi dimensional plane, ʃʃʃʃ Uk dx dy dz dϗ [U k, E k] = (k MPEk/IFXXXIII) = 1
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 14, 2010 2:50:23 GMT
Are you belgiuming joking?Are you belgiuming joking?Could you care to restate this? Replacing [terminology] with [variable represented by a single letter] makes you no more a mathematician than breathing makes me a meteorologist. Yes, I did didn't I? I suppose I should have asserted that I do not stand by the claim that there does not exist a god or gods, but I do believe ardently that your attempt to prove his existence is absolutely useless because of its very fallacious nature. Sure, he or they could exist, but you have done nothing to show this. You keep using "equations." I do not think it means what you think it means. Also, I believe I sense a little bit of ontological arguing there. Only all of these things have been empirically and theoretically proven and accepted. Don't ever mention thermodynamics and the like until you have taken a class on it in some Physics course. *Ahem*You're still using an argument for least resistance. What the belgium is the 'E' word doing here? Ethics have no part in this. You're saying that the universe runs on a single solitary moral value which shapes the universe to cater to our existence, and then you threw in a triple integral to make yourself look intelligent, without: A: Explaining how the triple-integral does shit in this case B: Citing a goddamned source. CONCLUSION: What the belgium are you snorting?
|
|
|
Post by Buggy793 on Nov 14, 2010 5:07:50 GMT
I actually would tend to agree with Sandmaster on his last comment, except for that overlying "you're an imbecile" attitude and that "there is no god" part. ...And the "I'm so smart for getting around the censor" swearing. That part, too. Kuri, please at least explain what the variables mean. Give some background information, explain what you mean by a "multi-planear existence." Do...something. ...What's with the triple integral? Unless I'm mistaken, that means nothing. Sandmaster, the language only makes you look dumb, which you aren't.
Gaahh... No, sandmaster. He never said that God exists purely to cater to us. He would if he wanted us all to go to hell. It would be like only eating power bars and protein shakes while all you do is sit on the couch and watch TV. It would be totally pointless unless you got up and went for a run or even a walk every once in a while. Your faith would never tested. Take C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters. It's from the viewpoint of a demon trying to get a man to go to hell. Literally. It claims(and I would agree to this) that there are three ways to get into hell. Either believe in God and choose against him and choose hate, be totally ignorant or apathetic- just a slow happy decline into hell, or choose against him and don't believe in him. Either way, you end up with what the bible describes as eternal death and psychological torment, right next to where the rest of god's enemies are being tortured. The demons do not run hell, they want you to have just as bad an end as they have.
No, I'm not putting any science into this post. I'm just leaving this as is, because I would have to be just as wicked as those demons to not warn you and leave you as the ignorant, uncaring type to not warn you of what's coming. Think of me as an ignorant, biased bigot if you will. But unless I meet someone in person there's no way to show them truth and make them come to the light. The light came into the darkness but the darkness did not understand it. Light will always beat darkness. Darkness is all that will meet you if you open your eyes too late. I consider that a fair warning.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 14, 2010 7:01:06 GMT
I was trying to avoid stating that God doesn't exist. I've now moved that little idea into whatever may constitute my opinions and it is no longer, according to me, a fact. His argument, on the other hand, is attacking some pretty well-defined and evident phenomena which I do regard as fact.
I had to have some excuse to use that awesome scripted F.
I don't really get what this is saying, but I probably don't disagree.
Sorry, I should clarify: God is not catering to us. His argument was that the Universe was created by God specifically so that we may exist, and he did not even consider the idea that, whether a god wanted us to exist or not, we existed as a result of the universal constants and not the other way around. Imagine that gravity was a little higher. Obviously evolution dictates that it will be more likely, though not necessarily so, that we will have thicker legs, a more powerful heart, and no neck. Would we then consider the outrageous idea of creatures with necks to exist? No, we would think the universe was made for neckless people.
There is really no logical statement against this because you're just talking about the afterlife, so, while I disagree with the idea that there exists and afterlife of some sort, I will ignore it for now (there is nothing to say, so I choose not to inject opinion into this).
This does kind of annoy me. I think that trying to teach people about the right kind of religion is wrong. It's already questionable enough to indoctrinate children (even if you clearly tell them "there is no God," it's still your doctrine, so don't think I'm trying to bias my way out of it). While adults can make their own decisions, they've already 'imprinted' their ideology and I think trying to change it would be messing with their very subconscious, which I don't think is justifiable.
Every story I've heard of a turn away from religion (specifically Christianity simply because everyone keeps talking about Hell) is that everyone was scared out of their belgiuming (not lack of script F) minds by the idea of Hell. Fear is never a good way to teach a positive ideal because they'll reflect this fear onto others. If you try to bribe them instead of threaten them, you might appear more benevolent as a church, but I have seen little of this because of the confirmation bias I and everyone around me keeps being oblivious to.
EDIT: Even so, hey Buggy! I haven't seen you in like two years! Didn't you quit or something?
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Nov 14, 2010 13:48:26 GMT
So essentially what you are saying is that thousands of years of research by hundreds to thousands of people is wrong, and you are right, because you don't understand the basic concept behind the theories? I mean Kurai, not SM. Instead of writing a Wall Of Text, i will just say something stupid that would mean the same: O=4 meaning O-5 so SM is wrong. Uk dx dy dz dϗ [U k, E k] = (k MPEk/IFXXXIII) = 1 At least that's what i understand.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 14, 2010 16:38:02 GMT
Honestly I have no idea why he thought it meant anything but isn't the triple-integral limited to three dimensional areas? General Veers is so far the only person I trust to answer that question.
Also take note that all of the variables in the final equation were never introduced elsewhere, so they make as much sense in context than out of it.
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Nov 14, 2010 16:58:27 GMT
Calm to belgium down. You cannot prove God is real or not. If you pray and he doesn't answer. He may be busy... bowling. Besides
Religion and Science don't mix...
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Nov 14, 2010 18:33:24 GMT
Religion and Science don't mix... Ahem. Only some religions don't mix with science. >.>
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 14, 2010 18:38:19 GMT
Yeah, I am not arguing here. The moment people start dropping F-bombs and flaming is the point at which I realize people have gone all Pathos > Logos > Ethos. Therefore, I'm not going to get into Sandmaster's flamewar.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 14, 2010 18:56:39 GMT
People, let's see if we can avoid profanities for an entire page.
As for triple integrals, they aren't just limited to three dimensions, but for reducing any triple-derivative down to its original function. For example, the triple-integral of jerk with respect to time would be displacement with respect to time. But yes, triple integrals can be used to find volumes, to find surface areas of orientable surfaces (i.e. not a Mobius strip or Klein bottle), and so on...
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 14, 2010 19:00:15 GMT
Actually, I used a quad integral. And Buggy, "Multi-planear existence" means multi-dimensional planes making a layered existence.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 14, 2010 19:46:44 GMT
People, let's see if we can avoid profanities for an entire page. As for triple integrals, they aren't just limited to three dimensions, but for reducing any triple-derivative down to its original function. For example, the triple-integral of jerk with respect to time would be displacement with respect to time. But yes, triple integrals can be used to find volumes, to find surface areas of orientable surfaces (i.e. not a Mobius strip or Klein bottle), and so on... Okay, that clarifies it. It still doesn't solve for n-dimensional objects, though, for large enough values of n? Just wondering. I know his is Chatango anyways but math is interesting nonetheless. Actually, I used a quad integral. And Buggy, "Multi-planear existence" means multi-dimensional planes making a layered existence. ಠ_ಠReligion and Science don't mix... Ahem. Only some religions don't mix with science. >.> [Citation needed] Yeah, I am not arguing here. The moment people start dropping F-bombs and flaming is the point at which I realize people have gone all Pathos > Logos > Ethos. Therefore, I'm not going to get into Sandmaster's flamewar. I'm not flaming. Using curse words does not make an argument a flame war. An ad hominem attack would make it a flame war. My only remark directed at you was in a conclusion which represented my opinion and nothing more. You're just being a crappy troll. EDIT: Thanks GV for tossing out the script F's in the previous. I should have probably left them as they were and let the censor do its job. EDIT EDIT: Kurikaiba, by denying to debate me on account of my now-defunct pseudo-insult, you have therefore dropped out of the argument without responding to the rebuttals. This excessive cherry picking is a sort of 'I-don't-have-counterpoints-so-I'm-getting-the-hell-out-of-here' response nobody should ever have in a debate of any sort. I do believe that this is the last shred of respectability you may have had on this board.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Nov 14, 2010 21:35:00 GMT
I'm glad to see Buggy, but not to see how this debate is working out in either direction. As such I will stay out of it and merely say I am rooting for Sandmaster.
|
|
|
Post by DISTURBED on Nov 14, 2010 21:38:12 GMT
I don't really want to get into this debate, but I do not believe in one defined god. I believe that there is some higher power, but I don't think it is a single being.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 14, 2010 23:10:53 GMT
I believe you have to make up your mind about what band you are, Mr. My-sig-and-username-conflict.
Also, did kuri or buggy try to show that there exists only one god? Because that issue is often overlooked, whether god exists or not.
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Nov 14, 2010 23:19:53 GMT
AHEM
Saying that 1=1 iff AQE=2/ZXZ+(Whether God Exists or Not), or whatever, doesn't mean its true.
Saying that N=God exists and O=Matter falls, and that N=>O, even if true, even if O is true, doesn't mean that N is true.
Saying that O = 1 iff O= VRP, and N= O = Cr is meaningless if no one knows what O, VRP, N, and Cr is.
What a load of Technobabble.
What a load of the fallacy Appeal to Ridicule in this post.
Actually, I can't find any logic in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by disabled on Nov 14, 2010 23:29:46 GMT
Well count me out of this discussion. The last page of posts consists mostly of mindless babble...
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Nov 14, 2010 23:32:49 GMT
I can't talk about this anymore either.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 15, 2010 0:10:00 GMT
Actually, I can't find any logic in this thread. Yeah usually God debates end up that way. I thought my logic was sound, albeit unproductive (countering points without actually stating my own, status quo seems to remain unchanged), though.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Nov 15, 2010 4:32:12 GMT
Same here... Meh. If only I still had my aggression.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 15, 2010 11:13:24 GMT
Yeah, we all could use sandmaster's slightly aggressive tactics at times... However, it's fair to say that I will NOT overexplain my rather simple points and repeat the exact same thing over and over again. It's no fun if people don't understand...
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Nov 15, 2010 14:36:22 GMT
True, but if they don't get it the first time sometimes rephrasing it works better.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 15, 2010 20:51:57 GMT
Still, it's pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 15, 2010 23:01:46 GMT
If a point was good to begin with, adding warrants shouldn't detract from the point: indeed, the opposite effect will take place... Polar coordinates work well with circular equations. Ergo, one should not try to evaluate the integral from -α to α of the square root of the difference of α2 and x2 with respect to x. I have a supporting detail, and I have my conclusion, but it would seem like a non sequitor to most people. Why shouldn't people call me an idiot or a witch? Polar coordinates work well with circular equations. The square root of the difference of α2 and x2 describes half a circle, making it a circular equation. Polar coordinates work well with that function. Polar integrals use polar coordinates. Polar integrals work well with that function. The rectangular integral of that function is not easy to solve. The polar integral of that function is easy to solve. One should not try to evaluate that integral in rectangular form. Now it should make much more sense to people in general why they should not evaluate the rectangular integral, although the fallacy of parts of my argument ergo make my argument open to discussion...
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 15, 2010 23:51:10 GMT
Lemme just say I've only read to page 4 ;)
I am very surprised with you Qwerty. I would have thought you would be the one to say this. Maybe i didn't read your posts correctly or maybe your beleifs (which i haven't gotten the chance to read much into sadly) state something otherwise, but technically there was nothing before the big bang. If i remember correctly, wasn't there supposedly no time before the before the big bang (as there were no dimensions) ergo nothing before it. Therefore there wasn't something here forever ago, because there was no forever ago. I hope that i'm not terribly mistaken, as i'm just going off memory here.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 15, 2010 23:55:02 GMT
Micro Farad, the thing i hate most about this god thing is that nobody ever asks, "Was it God that trapped him under the ice in the first place?" Well obviously that was the working of Satan trying to crush his spirit :P
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 15, 2010 23:55:08 GMT
Hey, GGoodie!
|
|
|