A Theology Question

Doc Dutch said:
Agreed.

Not naming names, but some people think that because they can draw a graph that they can prove the existence or non-existence of supernatural forces. That strikes me as irrational since the two things are completely different.
Click to expand...

This morning I read an exchange of letters between Einstein and an Indian Hindu philosopher. They exchanged ideas on religion, the nature of truth, and the nature of knowledge.

And Einstein wasn't using graphs. He was engaged in the traditional dialectic.
 
Cypress said:
This morning I read an exchange of letters between Einstein and an Indian Hindu philosopher. They exchanged ideas on religion, the nature of truth, and the nature of knowledge.

And Einstein wasn't using graphs. He was engaged in the traditional dialectic.
Click to expand...

It’s irrational to believe one can use reason to understand the irrational….and everything outside the Universe is probably irrational. Also irrational is anyone who believes the Scientific Method works outside the Universe.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is no way I can know...but apparently you think you KNOW.

How do you KNOW, MM? How do you know some god came searching for them...rather than that they found this god because of searching.

I suspect (not KNOW) that if a person is will to search hard enough for Zeus...he/she will make contact with him.
Click to expand...

You miss the point! Your POV Only works if someone Was searching!
If they weren't searching but called,they know,that they weren't searching ,quite the opposite
 
Cypress said:
This morning I read an exchange of letters between Einstein and an Indian Hindu philosopher. They exchanged ideas on religion, the nature of truth, and the nature of knowledge.

And Einstein wasn't using graphs. He was engaged in the traditional dialectic.
Click to expand...

But you keep ignoring the POINT. The reason I use a graph is because it is a simple PICTURE that explains the concept.

Is there really a slope there? The answer is NO. Why? Because I started with the null hypothesis "THe slope = 0" and tested against that. The details of the test are immaterial.

The same can be said for the null hypothesis "There is no God" and testing against that.

Why are you so hung up on the "graph" rather than the underlying concept. You said you were familiar with R and have used it, so surely you are familiar with the concept of testing against the null hypothesis.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAPHS PER SE. GRAPHS ARE JUST A SIMPLE PICTURE TO MAKE THE POINT.

Again, I am not running Tests on God in the God-a-lizer, or getting a God Spectrum....I'm simply looking at the world around me and seeing if I see any evidence that God exists. I fail to find sufficient evidence that God exists....therefore I FAIL TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.

I cannot make it any more simple than that. If you really have used R and are familiar with statistics you get the point.
 
Quincunx said:
But you keep ignoring the POINT. The reason I use a graph is because it is a simple PICTURE that explains the concept.

Is there really a slope there? The answer is NO. Why? Because I started with the null hypothesis "THe slope = 0" and tested against that. The details of the test are immaterial.

The same can be said for the null hypothesis "There is no God" and testing against that.

Why are you so hung up on the "graph" rather than the underlying concept. You said you were familiar with R and have used it, so surely you are familiar with the concept of testing against the null hypothesis.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAPHS PER SE. GRAPHS ARE JUST A SIMPLE PICTURE TO MAKE THE POINT.

Again, I am not running Tests on God in the God-a-lizer, or getting a God Spectrum....I'm simply looking at the world around me and seeing if I see any evidence that God exists. I fail to find sufficient evidence that God exists....therefore I FAIL TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.

I cannot make it any more simple than that. If you really have used R and are familiar with statistics you get the point.
Click to expand...
I don't see the point or relevance in using graphs and statistics to confirm or refute metaphysical questions.

Statistics are a powerful tool, but they aren't neccessary for all scientific inquiry, they don't speak to causation, and they don't demonstrate truth.

I don't think Einstein used statistics to derive general relativity. My recollection is that he used Reimann geometry. String theory famously is derived from higher theoretical mathmatics, not statistical correlation tests.
 
Cypress said:
I don't see the point or relevance in using graphs and statistics to confirm or refute metaphysical questions.

Statistics are a powerful tool, but they aren't neccessary for all scientific inquiry, they don't speak to causation, and they don't demonstrate truth.

I don't think Einstein used statistics to derive general relativity. My recollection is that he used Reimann geometry. String theory famously is derived from higher theoretical mathmatics, not statistical correlation tests.
Click to expand...

Me neither since it’s irrational to equate science with the supernatural.

Agreed stats are powerful tools, but only one of many and not always applicable.
 
Concart said:
You are clueless. Of course science looks back
Click to expand...
I see you take great pride in being a moron. At least now, when you are mocked and ridiculed, you'll know why.

I just explained to you why science cannot say anything about the unobserved past and you were apparently too stupid to understand. So instead of seeking clarification from someone who knows much more than you do, you feigned indignance and decided to remain a scientifically illiterate moron.

After your previous post, I had two choices:

1. Mock the shit out of you for the stupid things you write, or
2. try to help you with some good info.

I chose the latter. You were quick to show me the error of my ways. I won't make that mistake again. I'll just go with option A.

Concart said:
how fucking stupid are you to think it doesn't.
Click to expand...
How fucking stupid are you to think it does? Wait, I'll answer that for you. You were told to believe that ... and you OBEYED. You have no idea what science even is. You just go around believing whatever your thought-masters tell you to believe and you push back on anyone who tries to help you.

That's really smart.

Concart said:
We have determined the age of the first fossil record of life.
Click to expand...
Nope. Nothing about the unobserved past has been "determined" or "established.". You have to be stupid and gullible to believe that, especially when you know that it is all merely speculation that changes completely every year dependening on whose speculation is in vogue at the moment.

Wait a moment... do you even realize that the speculative timeline constantly changes? Wait, that's right, you think that it is science that was mathematically calculated and bam, they were done, right?

Too funny.

Hey, why don't you explain to JPP how you believe science establishes the unobserved past. I'm sure it will be informative.

Concart said:
And we know the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is nobody who knows this. There are only people who speculate this. I happen to be one of them. However, nobody has ever travelled through time and verified the age of the earth. That is an absolute requirement for science. Everything is mere speculation until verified.
 
Manfred Mason said:
Timeline! You assume I was searching, that's as far a way from the situation! In fact just the opposite! I was upset that I was being bothered,because I wasn't searching!
Click to expand...

We'll go back to that question, but first another question:

What on Earth makes you assume I was assuming you were searching?
 
Frank Apisa said:
We'll go back to that question, but first another question:

What on Earth makes you assume I was assuming you were searching?
Click to expand...

Because you keep repeating "How do you know you're not deluding yourself"?
Because I wasn't looking for anything! I was minding my own business fucking up my life,when God butted in and took over my life .
 
Manfred Mason said:
You miss the point! Your POV Only works if someone Was searching!
If they weren't searching but called,they know,that they weren't searching ,quite the opposite
Click to expand...

They would KNOW?

Simply because they were not searching (or at least thought they were not searching)...that means they cannot be deluding themselves because they suppose they have been "called?"

C'mon.

My first question is a sort of trick question, MM. The question, "How do you know you are not deluding yourself?" in this context...is, essentially, a rhetorical one.

If you are deluding yourself...by definition you do not know you are. You cannot know, because if you do...you are NOT deluding yourself.

Anyway...if you want to suppose you have been chosen by the creator of this universe filled with trillions of galaxies...each filled with billions of suns...

...have a ball.

It costs me (actually costs no one else) anything. And if the thought makes you happy...I delight in your good fortune.

It must seem strange to you that of all the untold quadrillions of sentient beings that may inhabit the universe...you were so fortunate.

I wonder how I would deal with that. I wonder if I would just come to a relatively lightly-used Internet forum to speak of it. Or would I consider it so monumental, that I would devote every moment of my life from the moment of my "epiphany"...to spreading the word in some way.

I wonder.
 
Manfred Mason said:
Because you keep repeating "How do you know you're not deluding yourself"?
Because I wasn't looking for anything! I was minding my own business fucking up my life,when God butted in and took over my life .
Click to expand...

How does my asking "how do you know you are not deluding yourself" lead to I was assuming you were searching?

I grant that the association can more easily be made if one was searching...but that is not something that must be. All of us are subjected to all sorts of pressures in our lives that might lead to what you call your "epiphany."

A person could not be searching for a god...and suddenly be subjected to an event that might cause such an "epiphany." Have a doctor checking someone's heart and saying, "Oh, my, my" might easily cause such an "epiphany." Having a pilot say, "Ladies and Gentlemen, please fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a VERY HARD LANDING...might do it. Having someone point a gun at your face while standing in a line in a bank...might do the job.

So...?
 
Frank Apisa said:
They would KNOW?

Simply because they were not searching (or at least thought they were not searching)...that means they cannot be deluding themselves because they suppose they have been "called?"

C'mon.

My first question is a sort of trick question, MM. The question, "How do you know you are not deluding yourself?" in this context...is, essentially, a rhetorical one.

If you are deluding yourself...by definition you do not know you are. You cannot know, because if you do...you are NOT deluding yourself.

Anyway...if you want to suppose you have been chosen by the creator of this universe filled with trillions of galaxies...each filled with billions of suns...

...have a ball.

It costs me (actually costs no one else) anything. And if the thought makes you happy...I delight in your good fortune.

It must seem strange to you that of all the untold quadrillions of sentient beings that may inhabit the universe...you were so fortunate.

I wonder how I would deal with that. I wonder if I would just come to a relatively lightly-used Internet forum to speak of it. Or would I consider it so monumental, that I would devote every moment of my life from the moment of my "epiphany"...to spreading the word in some way.

I wonder.
Click to expand...

You're looking for every possible way to not believe me! Bye
 
Doc Dutch said:
The Universe was created and has clear rules for operation.
Click to expand...
Sure, Terry, the laws of nature are just so obvious that we don't know what all of them are. You are so wise, Terry. You are synapses beyond any average brain stem.

Doc Dutch said:
We all must live within those rules.
Click to expand...
... or die within them, right Terry? Those laws of nature are extremely hostile to us humans, nay, to all terrestrial life. There just isn't any animal life that would last three minutes in deep space, or within close proximity to a star, or far from any star, ... basically more than 99.99999999999999999999999% of the universe, right Terry?

Those are some killer rules there that the universe has! (did you see what I did there, Terry?)
 
Manfred Mason said:
You're looking for every possible way to not believe me! Bye
Click to expand...
Someone should have warned you, Frank Apisa is not rational, nor is he honest. He will enter into a gross contradiction before admitting that he is wrong about something. I'm sorry that you had to find out the hard way.
 
Quincunx said:
The same can be said for the null hypothesis "There is no God" and testing against that.
Click to expand...
Nope. That's a problem. An hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be tested. "There is no God" is not falsifiable. It cannot be tested. The scientific method cannot be applied.

Quincunx said:
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAPHS PER SE. GRAPHS ARE JUST A SIMPLE PICTURE TO MAKE THE POINT.
Click to expand...
You are totally correct on this. Visualizations are the gold standard for communicating models and tests thereof. Have you heard of UML?

Quincunx said:
I'm simply looking at the world around me and seeing if I see any evidence that God exists.
Click to expand...
That's a problem. Science doesn't use supporting evidence. The scientific method only uses falsifying evidence to show a model/theory/hypothesis false. You need to be searching for evidence that falsifies the theory that there is a god/God. This is where you run into your problem of the hypothesis not being falsifiable.
 
Quincunx said:
This is 100% incorrect. The entire field of geology is proof against this.
Click to expand...
Your bizarre belief that geologists are somehow omniscient is a 100% testament to your gullibility. Why would any rational adult believe that a "geologist" somehow knows the unobserved past?

The problem is you. I'm not the one claiming to have faith in an omniscient clergy.

Manfred Mason said:
As is forensic science of any sort.
Click to expand...
Too funny! Quincunx believes that the past is shaped by what people believe in the present. When forensics convinces a jury, reality shifts to make the prosecutor's case the absolute truth.

Brilliant!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top