Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Something for all you Europeans
Laukev7:
quote: But was Einstein trying to avoid having children with his cousin or was he giving it his best? Did they even *have* decent protection back then?
--- End quote ---
Elsa already had children, so I don't think Einstein actually wanted to children with her.
Alright, flap, I admit it's NOT wrong to have sex with a relative if both consent. Just don't advertise too much, OK? Please? :D
quote: Basically you _cannot_ use science to argue against the "God issue" as it is inherently fallible.
--- End quote ---
Science itself is not going to solve the God issue. Pure logics, though, is not inherently infallible like science. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be disproved outside of an Orwellian world, so logics can debunk many misconcepetions, whether it's contradictions, inconsistencies and so on.
quote: No knowledge that your body exists, no knowledge that the sky is blue, no knowledge that god does / does not exist, no knowledge that there is not a powerful demon attempting to fool you, no knowledge that you do not live inside a "matrix." We know _nothing_.
--- End quote ---
Then, by your own reasoning, you imply that you don't know yourself whether god exists or not. In fact, it destroys your argument that science cannot prove god, because you don't even know whether he really *is* perfect, if he exists in the first place. It might very well be some alien kid who decided to make an experiment, and created an explosion. That 'God' might even have its own God itself. If all our creator did was make an explosion, and everything just evolved from that, then whether God exists or not doesn't even matter. Or, in mathematical words, they cancel out. ;)
Faust:
quote:
Yup but what do you do when you have CRAZY (French) cults like the those solar temple guys that kill each other, or top themself???
--- End quote ---
Hey provided everyone joins of their own free will, doesnt hurt anyone else and is of sound mind they can do what they want. Will certainly reduce the number of people in the world, and that means more stuff for me.
Weren't the Templars accused of Demon worshipping? (specifically satan in his half goat form I think - in that form his name started with "B" I think. Wasn't Beelz'bub though...) Man joining them guys would be so freaking cool... Get a big suit of armour, some black and white cloths and then you get to beat the crap out of people with a sword... *sigh* /faust starts staring into the distance wistfully...
quote:
Pure logics, though, is not inherently infallible like science. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be disproved outside of an Orwellian world,
--- End quote ---
Assuming infallible was meant to be fallible up there...
Actually it is. You could be insane and imagining all this. Anyway you still havent shown that 2 + 2 = 4 for all 2 and all 4. You are taking as evidence that 2 + 2 = 4 the fact that every single time you have put two objects next to two objects before you have ended up with 4 - but if I were to roll a dice and get 2 twenty times in a row I could make a claim as to that dice only being capable of rolling a 2, when it may just be a coincidence. My next roll may be a 6, I just dont know. Also be wary of using logic to prove a point - in the Real World it almost always falls to experimental evidence - eg the Greeks belief that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects was based in logic. ie:
Heavy objects fall.
Light objects often dont (feathers, leaves etc)
Ipso facto heavier objects fall faster than light ones.
It wasnt until some dude (Aristotle?) (allegedly) dropped two differently weighted masses off a very tall tower that that theory was debunked - logic fell to experiment.
quote:
so logics can debunk many misconcepetions
--- End quote ---
Logical arguments must still rest on axioms - and axioms by their nature cannot be proven to be true.
quote:
Then, by your own reasoning, you imply that you don't know yourself whether god exists or not. In fact, it destroys your argument that science cannot prove god, because you don't even know whether he really *is* perfect, if he exists in the first place. It might very well be some alien kid who decided to make an experiment, and created an explosion. That 'God' might even have its own God itself. If all our creator did was make an explosion, and everything just evolved from that, then whether God exists or not doesn't even matter. Or, in mathematical words, they cancel out
--- End quote ---
No I cant prove it, thats the beatiful part. But neither can you disprove it. Neither of us knows anything concrete, all we have is conjecture and assumptions. In fact I cant even know for sure that I dont know anything for sure but at this stage my head starts to hurt. :D
quote:
it destroys your argument that science cannot prove god, because you don't even know whether he really *is* perfect, if he exists in the first place.
--- End quote ---
1)god is supposedly perfect
2)i know nothing for sure
from 2: 3)i dont know whether god is perfect
from 1 and 3: 4)i cannot be sure as to the god issue
5) science can prove that god does/nt exist.
5 does not appear to follow from your premises, and premise 1 contains a supposedly - rendering it useless for the argument. You have shown that I do not know what i am talking about but you havent shown that science does know what its talking about.
I agree with you that its not an important question to how we live our lives - we are very illogical creatures after all. But it is still *interesting* in the same way that knowing whether a meson has component particles is useless, but kinda fun to try and find out. The world is jsut more fun when you ask lots of stupid questions.
quote:
That 'God' might even have its own God itself.
--- End quote ---
Recursive Gods stretching into infinity. You'll make a fine programmer some day. ;)
quote:
Question: What will the French try and ban next?
--- End quote ---
Personally I have an urge to travel to france and hit on all the cute french girls (gotta love that beatiful accent) to see if they ban me.
psyjax:
Science does know what it is talking about.
Concider, we as humans are subject to our perception of the world. Unless we can understand something in our terms, it's out of our reech.
Science is the tool which allows us to mold the abstract phisical realm around us to our perception. It is a tool, it isn't truth, it provides a practical aplicable methodology.
Weather the suppositions, axioms, etc. we start out with to prove a scientific theory are actually true or not is irelevent. we simply use those as tools fo our perception.
Alot of real, accurate, chemestry was created by the alchemists back in their day, yet the common notions (primal elements of Earth, Air, Water, Fire, Quintescence, lead to gold, etc.) were totaly false.
It dosn't matter, weather it's true or not, because it seems to me that truth is ultimately subjective.
Laukev7:
quote: You are taking as evidence that 2 + 2 = 4 the fact that every single time you have put two objects next to two objects before you have ended up with 4
--- End quote ---
No. I am talking about pure concept here, not an experimental process. While experiments are subject to unknown forces of nature, mere concepts and identities cannot be modified, with only one possible exception that I will explain later. We have invented a system of numbers in order to apply it in practice, not the opposite. So, we decided that we use a decimal system to count, and we gave names to numbers. Therefore, we decided to call one carrot next to another carrots two carrots, and so on. So, if we reduce everything to abstract, we have 1 and we have 2. It has been arbitrarily decided that 2 comes after 1. So, if there is only one unit missing before 1, then 1 + 1 must equal two.
Of course, the number after 1 could have been defined as 3. Or 4. In which case, 1 + 1 would equal 3, or 4, and the equation would be true. But only if one of the definitions has been changed. Ad if we use a binary system instead, 1 + 1 = 10, not 2, since 2 DNE.
quote: logic fell to experiment.
--- End quote ---
Not quite. Logic failed only because part of the equation was missing. Greeks were not aware that inertia applied downwards as well as sideways and upwards. It was not logic itself that failed in that case.
However, it can come in useful to solve more abstract problems, like 'Is future predetermined or not?'. For example, 'If future is already written, and cannot be changed, and you are somehow aware of it, it means that it is written that you are aware of it. Therefore, it makes no difference whether it is written or not'. This is just an example, and my thought process is MUCH more complex than that.
If God only created the Big Bang, then what's the point of believing in Him at all? If you believe any religion, you'll go to hell somehow in another religion. Prayers and ceremonies are useless, one way or another.
quote: Recursive Gods stretching into infinity. You'll make a fine programmer some day.
--- End quote ---
I'm getting to that. ;) I just don't know where to start, or what kind of program to write.
Faust:
quote:
I'm getting to that. I just don't know where to start, or what kind of program to write.
--- End quote ---
I started with simple maths programs in Tbasic (graphics calculator language.) After that I went on to basic shell scripts, and then Eiffel (which I _love_, then C++ and I am going to be doing some SPARC assembly (!) next year. Just start small and work up. Courses are a good bet though - having someone read through a program explaining concepts (not actual code) to you makes it so much easier. Also If you're going to learn from a book, choose one with interesting examples. I tried to learn C++ from "sams teach yourself C++ in 21 days" and it was _torture_ trying to stay motivated with the really boring examples they had.
And you still havent established your sanity.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version