Scientific proof that God exists? - page 401.

cooldgamer

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1003

We are the champions of the night

Quote from: foggyb on November 06, 2014, 07:01:01 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc

Scientific evidence presented by Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D., that humans walked with dinosaurs, and evidence disproving geologic column theory that evolution is based on.

Quote from: talkorigins

Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or "Ph.D. candidacy") in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia.[33] However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. [34] When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.[35]

However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools.[36] When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away."[37] Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, "PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff....Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent."[38]

With surprising boldness, Carl Baugh recently appeared on a radio talk show in Texas claiming the same degrees discussed above, plus a new "Ph.D. candidacy in paleoanthropology from Pacific College." Baugh complained that critics were now attacking his credentials and those of other fine creationists, including "Dr. Don Patton."[39]

Just another guy trying to convince people that his bad science is real and evolution is a lie

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 03:45:06 PM

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Quote

For all x, if x is a microstate of existence and f(x) is a mezostate of existence then x is defined to be another name for f(x).

Let me mull this one over a bit. And thanks for the link.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc

Scientific evidence presented by Dr. Don Patton, ~~Ph.D~~.?, that humans walked with dinosaurs, and evidence disproving geologic column theory that evolution is based on.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 03:54:34 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 03:45:06 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 11:51:04 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 11:27:04 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 10:12:51 PM

. . .

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.

In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent. And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity? Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 03:38:55 PM

. . .

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Code:

∀x Microstate-of(x, Existence) ∧ Mezostate-of(f(x), Existence) ⇒ x ≔ f(x)

Yeah. I need to learn more about notation. Any way you could take that mathematical statement and phrase it in English? I should be able to reverse model it back to your notation.

It's predicate logic.

Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 03:45:06 PM

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Quote

For all x, if x is a microstate of existence and f(x) is a mezostate of existence then x is defined to be another name for f(x).

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 03:45:06 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 11:51:04 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 11:27:04 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 10:12:51 PM

. . .

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.

In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent. And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity? Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 03:38:55 PM

. . .

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Code:

∀x∀y[microstate(x, existence) ∧ mezostate(y, existence) ∧ x ∈ y ⇒ x ≔ y]

Yeah. I need to learn more about notation. Any way you could take that mathematical statement and phrase it in English? I should be able to reverse model it back to your notation.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 11:51:04 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 11:27:04 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 10:12:51 PM

. . .

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.

In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent. And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity? Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 03:38:55 PM

. . .

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Code:

∀x Microstate-of(x, Existence) ∧ Mezostate-of(f(x), Existence) ⇒ x ≔ f(x)

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Piston Honda on November 06, 2014, 03:24:37 PM

Nope nope and nope.

No God, sorry to break it to you.

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which states any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from each other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?

Piston Honda

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1068

Juicin' crypto

Nope nope and nope.

No God, sorry to break it to you.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Vod on November 05, 2014, 07:57:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 05, 2014, 07:55:47 PM

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

No one can understand everything about God.

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense. I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.

http://www.venganza.org/

Indeed it does not. I always asked myself why we (well in my classes in the past) learned some stuff that people said BC, or even in the Bible when science in the meantime proved them wrong.
Why should I read/believe what people said when they believed in magic, witches and similar things.
I'd rather join that Church than read the Bible Cheesy

.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on November 06, 2014, 02:06:03 PM

Non-existance is conciousnous. (the thought that grew in the abyss)

I'm a current believer of the following:

God:Universe :: Man:Thoughts

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Non-existance is conciousnous. (the thought that grew in the abyss)

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 11:27:04 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 10:12:51 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:55:05 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:20:54 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:03:31 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:59:46 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:22 PM

. . .

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense. Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.

In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent. And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity? Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 10:12:51 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:55:05 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:20:54 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:03:31 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:59:46 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:22 PM

. . .

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense. Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.

In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: nikkoy on November 05, 2014, 10:36:51 PM

Quote from: Vod on November 05, 2014, 07:57:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 05, 2014, 07:55:47 PM

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

No one can understand everything about God.

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense. I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.

http://www.venganza.org/

hhaha. this is a new religion and its funny. xD

Luckily, God (aka FSM) allows you to laugh and even mock it with no consequences! Earth has been free to evolve for billions of years and it sees no reason to start interfering now.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 10:12:51 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:55:05 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:20:54 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:03:31 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:59:46 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:22 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:17:12 PM

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true. For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time." If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level. And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution. If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data. I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced. If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing. Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical. A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct. All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs. [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.] All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this: Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time. So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument. I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts. Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense. Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?

nikkoy

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Vod on November 05, 2014, 07:57:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 05, 2014, 07:55:47 PM

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

No one can understand everything about God.

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense. I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.

http://www.venganza.org/

hhaha. this is a new religion and its funny. xD

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:55:05 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:20:54 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:03:31 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:59:46 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:22 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:17:12 PM

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true. For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time." If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level. And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution. If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data. I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced. If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing. Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical. A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct. All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs. [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.] All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this: Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time. So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument. I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts. Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense. Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:20:54 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:03:31 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:59:46 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:22 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:17:12 PM

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true. For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time." If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level. And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution. If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data. I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced. If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing. Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical. A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct. All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs. [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.] All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this: Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time. So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument. I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts. Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense. Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 09:20:54 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:03:31 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:59:46 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:22 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:17:12 PM

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true. For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time." If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level. And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution. If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data. I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced. If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing. Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical. A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct. All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs. [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.] All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this: Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time. So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument. I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts. Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 09:03:31 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:59:46 PM

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 08:34:22 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 08:17:12 PM

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true. For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time." If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level. And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution. If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data. I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced. If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing. Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical. A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct. All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs. [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.] All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this: Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time. So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument. I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts. Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 401. (Read 845809 times)