|
Are you willing to share with us exactly what you reported me for? Which specific statements?
Or did you just report that "This guy is not shutting up when I tell him to - he continues making statements that I disagree with"?
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Or did you just report that "This guy is not shutting up when I tell him to
If he did so as with me then he claimed that you are 'following' him and responding to his posts specifically to annoy him.
For myself I did not even realize he existed, since I respond to posts not people, until he started going off about this.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Like setting aside math:
You can believe that of course.
But logically it is not true given a general description/definition of 'God' (judeo-christian.)
That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition.
Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition. One can only accept it or refuse it (or as I suggested elsewhere just ignore the question entirely.)
trønderen wrote: If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible.
How do I refute your general proof? By the very definition of 'God' (all knowing, seeing, powerful.) Any way in which you could 'notice' him would have or could have been already accounted for because of the very attributes that the definition provides.
trønderen wrote: I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
Certainly one can hold that as a belief. But proving it is quite a bit different.
trønderen wrote: I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature
Noting of course that all of those do require belief. Excluding of course the hypocrisy of humans and example would be that someone could just dismiss logic itself. You cannot prove the logic itself exists. Not even if you accept logic. It can only be 'believed' in (to some matter of degree.)
Same applies to the others that you mentioned.
Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition.
Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition.
Well ... "Outside the universe" relates it to the universe, which has its own definition which precludes anything "outside". Claiming something "outside" implies that you reject the definition of the universe. Similarly, you cannot define a god that existed "before Big Bang", because time itself started at BB. There cannot be any "before BB", not even for a god.
To make it easier to grasp: Think of speed. You are driving your car, braking, and it stops. It stands completely still. It cannot be more still than completely still. You can make some definition of an entity that says that stands more than than still. It is far below zero on the scale of absolute speed. Defining something to stand 100 km/h more still than absolute still makes no sense in the mathematical apparatus defining speeds. Such a definition just isn't valid.
That is like claiming anything like "before BB" or "outside the universe". They make no sense in the "standard model" (the BB model commonly accepted by cosmologists today). You may of course make definitions in other concepts, unrelated to the standard model, but then they do not relate to those concepts of space and time; you cannot talk about "outside the universe" or "before BB".
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: "Outside the universe" relates it to the universe, which has its own definition which precludes anything "outside".
Good try, but no.
Again humans are hypocrites. They can believe contradictory things.
And the definition of the universe it wrapped up in science. Science itself is a specific system which is always based on beliefs (for example that one can measure something multiple times and get the same result.)
trønderen wrote: because time itself started at BB. There cannot be any "before BB"
Which is something that I myself stated in another thread. But that requires that one only and exclusively believes in science. But by doing that you are, by definition, denying the possibility of God. You are certainly not proving it.
You cannot prove science. You can only accept it and believe in it.
trønderen wrote: To make it easier to grasp:
Sorry but no I do not need you to explain the concept to me. I already understand it and even referred to exactly that recently in another thread.
trønderen wrote: They make no sense in the "standard model"
What you seem to be failing to understand is that very concept is one that belongs to science.
Science is not logic. Science is not Christianity (or all of the other deity/spiritual variants.)
Logically (not scientifically) if I start with the standard general definition of God then I can make any claim that I want.
For example I can state that the entire universe was created yesterday. Every atom, sub-atomic particle, their position and speed exactly specified. Pulsars, stars, my mind and yours all created yesterday.
Logically you can refute that in a number of ways
- The assumption of God is invalid or the attributes are wrong.
- It was not created yesterday but instead 6,000 or 14 billion years ago.
- God didn't create it but rather something else did and it happened last week.
- You could claim you only speak spanish or klingon and thus we cannot communicate.
But you cannot prove it wrong. Not with science and not with logic.
And you cannot prove it right either.
You can however believe that you can do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, I am talking science. Math and logic. The Universe and Time, in a scientific sense.
You are talking about non-science. Fine with me, but then I would prefer that you stay outside the realm of science. If you talk about "outside the universe", you relate it to the universe, which is a concept of science. If you talk about "before time", you relate it to time, which is a concept of science.
I am perfectly fine with you creating your own world of concepts, completely unrelated to science. To me, it is like astrology: I might want to see what kind of constructions they have made, but only at an intellectual level. I know that it doesn't relate to the scientific, physical world.
The physical, real world that you can touch and hear and see, is the scientific world: Science grew out of a desire to describe it. Today's advanced science is an extension of thousand years and more of observing and describing the real, physical world. Breaking science away from the real, physical world is impossible.
So you have a different set of concepts, like the astrologists. Fine. But if you want me to study them, I will view them as mental constructions completely unrelated to scientific concepts. "Outside the Universe" or "Before Big Bang" are meaningless references, as these religious mental constructions have no relationships to neither the universe nor to physical time.
I see science as a description, not as the real world. I find it a reasonably good, reliable description. Yet it is not something that I 'believe in', in a religious sense. If someone finds a better description, I am happy with that. Einstein found a better description than Newton; I know that the world remains unchanged, but he made a better description. Acknowledging that has nothing to do with religious beliefs; it is just realizing that it matches observations of the real world better. The currently best scientific model, often called the 'Standard Model', makes both 'outside the universe' and 'before big bang' impossible concepts. Claiming anything outside the universe and/or before big bang is a complete rejection of the Standard Model. Then you have to come up with something that describes the real, physical world just as well, yet allows for those 'outside' and 'before'. If even better descriptions of the real world comes up, I will of course acknowledge them.
If we are to stick to the Standard Model, your concepts must describe something else than the real, physical world (given that your concepts are not related to the real world). You can show to me that they are close descriptions of "something". You may even be right, yet they may have no importance to me. There is a story from a church meeting, one of those regular meetings of the very tops of the Catholic church, it must have been in the middle ages, when there was a big argument about how many angels can dance at the tip of a needle at the same time. I sure would like to know how that argument got started! Yet: My interest for counting dancing angles on the tip of a needle lies far down on my back! You may bring up issues from your set of concepts that are similarly (non)interesting to me. Maybe I'd cast a glance on them, buy don't expect too much.
The real world is much more important to me.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Sure, I am talking science. Math and logic.
No you are talking about science and only that.
The big bang does not exist in logic. It does not exist in math. Both of those are used in science but science is not a superset of those.
trønderen wrote: I would prefer that you stay outside the realm of science.
I don't understand that statement. The general logical assumption about God is specifically about God being outside the universe.
Feel free to deny that the assumption is valid. But you are going to need to spend a lot more time and do a lot more formal work to prove that the assumption is invalid.
To be clear I would certainly like to see such a proof. But claims to science, in any way, do not work because logic and science are not the same.
trønderen wrote: Breaking science away from the real, physical world is impossible.
Which has nothing to do with anything that I have stated.
trønderen wrote: I see science as a description,
At this point it is not clear to me that you have a clear understanding of the difference between logic and science.
Not even clear to me that you even understand that they are different.
But I can only go with what you have stated in these few posts.
Perhaps you are just unclear that my comments have nothing to do with science?
Or perhaps you think that I talking about religious belief? That however is not true.
Perhaps by making a somewhat limited formal proof would help.
I am NOT attempting to prove God exists. I am merely providing a logical (not scientific) proof for discussion.
First be clear that logically assumptions are little more than definitions. They do NOT need to be accepted as fact nor even based on prior proofs. But even so they can be used in a logical proof.
So a simple logical proof (again NOT scientific.)
1. Assume God exists
2. Assume God, by definition, is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing.
3. Assume God created the entire universe yesterday. Or 6,000 years ago.
4. Assume God does not want a any human ever to be sure that God exists.
5. Conclusion: This means that there is not and cannot ever be any evidence in any form of any type in the entire universe that either prove or disprove God.
Now how does one invalidate that as a proof?
1. One could dispute the meaning of 4. Perhaps by asking 'why'. That however is not a valid way to refute this because it is outside the scope of this specific proof. Doesn't mean it isn't a valid question but it is not valid for this proof.
2. One could state that 1 is false. Then, logically, the rest of the proof is invalid (pointless.) Note that one doesn't need to prove 1 is false. It is sufficient to just say 'it is false'.
3. One could argue that 5 does not follow. But it does because 2 insures that in any way conceivable now or in the future that any such evidence was discovered that God would have already known about that and prevented it. (The movie "I, Origins" ignores that when presenting its story. In that movie God must have made a mistake or in fact 4 in the above does not hold.)
There are other ways to invalidate the above proof.
modified 21-Dec-23 9:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
(I frequently accidentally hit some key that cause what I have written to be posted before I have completed it. So maybe it is better taking it piece by piece  )
jschell wrote: trønderen wrote:If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible.
I do not need to neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god. All I say is that throughout my life, this god hasn't shown up.
I meet a few people whose null hypothesis is 'if it cannot be disproved, God exists'. My null hypothesis is that any sort of god resembling the god of Abraham does not exist. It takes reliable evidence for me to accept another conclusion. Not having seen any trace of reliable evidence for my entire lifetime, until now, makes me suspect that there won't come up much evidence for the rest of my life, either.
Remember that if you go a couple hundred years, it was sufficient to show the existence of irrational numbers to conclude "Ergo Deus Est!" Further back, thunderstorms was a proof of the existence of Thor. Today, it takes a lot more. You can't just say "Look, all animals have four legs! That shows that there must be a god, creating them with four legs. Ergo Deus Est!" ... Sorry. Camera people use tripods, not quadropods, for a good reason. So what was proved?
I see no more "real" evidence than I see from astrologers. Expecting me to bow to Abraham's god on my dying day is like expecting me to bow to astrologers.
|
|
|
|
|
(Third partial reply to compensate for my uncontrolled fingers posting before it was intended )
jschell wrote: Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
Sure, if you go into the philosophical parts of science theory, there is very little we can know - even that 1 + 1 = 2. (I am serious; that is not a joke.) Very little is 100,000% certain and absolute.
So I admit that in my world, I consider 1 + 1 = 2 to be a fact. Some argue about numeric representation and numeric abstractions, and I have to explain it as so many: *, and so many: *, makes so many: **. Philosophers may argue that I cannot be sure of that, but I must say that I feel quite certain.
I guess lots of us seniors must admit that things we held up as truths in our youth are no longer as certain as they used to be. For me, a lot of what I thought might be at least evidence, although not necessarily proof, of something supernatural - all that has crumbled over the years. It takes more than pointing to irrational numbers to convince me "ergo deus est".
If there is an almighty god, he can use his almight to save my soul. If his almight is incomplete so that he needs my help to succeed, he must convince me, and he hasn't been very successful at that yet. If he really is almighty, then I assume that he can handle it without my assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Adams wrote: Oolon Colluphid is the author of the "trilogy of philosophical blockbusters" entitled Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is this God Person Anyway?. He later used the Babel Fish argument as the basis for a fourth book, entitled Well, That About Wraps It Up For God.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
William Shakespeare Wrote: Hell is empty, and all the devils are here
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Just because someone writes a play doesn't make them the arbiter of truth. Also, my statement doesn't necessarily mean there's a hell, insofar as the common understanding of it. Granted, I can see the inference given its popularity. But anyway, I'd not use a playwriter as a gauge to determine anything of substance without first doing my own thinking.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yet, just because someone wrote a book claiming they didn't - some other 'god' entity really wrote it for them - you think that is a good reason for setting aside laws of nature, common logic and math when it it fits the goals of your religion and yourself.
You think that it gives you the right to declare about everybody else that "I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life" - displaying an extreme disrespect for the integrity of everybody else.
And you demand the right to censor everybody who does not unconditionally accept every word in that book someone wrote long ago - or rather: The way you interpret those words, which may be quite different from the literal words.
In spite of your readings, you apparently still haven't gotten around to read UDHR-19.
|
|
|
|
|
I DO NO ASSOCIATE WITH EVIL. LEAVE ME ALONE.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
As you have a couple of times declared that you do not read my responses, I do not consider that a problem.
I will upheld my right to speak, based on UDHR-19, but even setting that aside, it would be outright silly to be silenced by someone who doesn't even read what I am writing.
My posts go to other readers of this forum. They are available to you as well, and your choice to not read them is yours alone. What I do not understand is why something that you don't read can upset you so badly!
|
|
|
|
|
LEAVE ME ALONE. I'M NOT READING YOUR POSTS. YOU'RE WASTING MY TIME.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently you DO read my posts.
If you do not, you are threatening with reporting me to the admins for something that you haven't read. That is strange.
Now that you do not read my posts, there is nothing more I can do to save your precious time for you.
The one most obvious thing would be for you not to waste time trying to censor and silence me, through a series of censor-demanding, trump case posts. Especially making these outbursts without having read the statements you are trying to suppress sounds like a real waste of time and energy.
But as you are not reading my posts, you unfortunately will not see this little piece of advice.
|
|
|
|
|
YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
With moderate success so far, it seems.
References to UDHR-19 as a response to cries for censorship seems to be within the acceptable for CP.
|
|
|
|
|
LEAVE ME ALONE
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a mirror for you:
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I guess that makes me an 1/8 theist.
What makes up the other 7/8?
I consider myself to be a Transient Agnostic Misotheist who isn't quite sure if he's also a Dysthiest.
I might be Polythiestic, but I might be Monotheistic. I can't figure that out because I'm Agnostic.
If God does exist, he's severely bipolar. One minute, he's flooding the entire Earth to kill everything. The next minute he creates a rainbow as a symbol showing that he will never flood the Earth ever again. That's nice and all, but we all know the next time he kills everything on Earth, he'll use fire. I think He may be a few tacos short of a combination plate.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Raw wrote: One minute, he's flooding the entire Earth to kill everything. The next minute he creates a rainbow as a symbol showing that he will never flood the Earth ever again. That's nice and all, but we all know the next time he kills everything on Earth, he'll use fire.
The rainbow (Genesis 9, 12-15) is a promise that God will not destroy the world again by flood. But a few verses earlier (Genesis 8, 22) God promises that the laws of nature will not change. That seems to preclude universal floods, fires, etc.
Of course God said nothing about us doing it to ourselves. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" - Woody Allen
|
|
|
|
|
the C++ file stream behavior wrt openmode is not intuitive at least not to me . so my code was not behaving properly . as a result i tested its behavior with every combination of openmode values . ChatGBT was nice enough to write the combination generating code for me . so i now have a compendium of results to rely on and can now find the correct openmode values required for any situation .
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
