Creationist survey

[pgrmdave]

In what way does using a zero make the "mathmatic equation" "NOT TRUE"? The answer is in fact TRUE for the variables used.

 

sqrt(x^2) < 2(sqrt((x^2)) Insert zero and it's false

[Freethinker]

No, but you'll draw a line through my post and only quote part of the thought I was expressing. If you like to quote my posts, please don't do so out of context.

OK, "context". I do not intend to waste everyone's (esp Tormod's) bandwidth by quoting an entire other post. By including small parts the surface context is maintianed and anyone that want's the full post can use the partial quote to find it. This is the correct approach in these discussion forums.

 

And the "context" is just fine. You made a comment and I agreed with it.

[Freethinker]

Like what? You could prove that somebody acted in a certain manner, but to prove an emotion...how?

There is much research on the physiology of emotions. areas activity in the brain, various chemicals in the brain, heart rate, skin resistance, ....

 

Love and Neurobiology: Not So Strange Bedfellows

Melissa Hoegler

 

Recent research by two British neurologists concludes that love is linked to certain brain activities. By conducting tests using a magnetic resonance imager, the scientists measured brain activity in 17 people while they were viewing a picture of their loved one, and while they were viewing a photo of a friend of the same sex as their lover. When the individuals see the picture of the person they love, clear activity occurs in four regions of the brain that were not active when the image of the friend was present. The media insula, which is responsible for instinctual feelings, and the anterior cingulate, which acts in response to euphoria-inducing drugs, such as cocaine, are the two areas of the cortex stimulated by pictures of a lover. The striatum, that is activated when we are rewarded and the prefrontal cortex also increase their activity when shown the same picture.

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Hoegler.html#1

 

Further, as with other things that we "prove", other's input can provide factual support. I can offer any number of references that would provide PROOF of my love for my S.O. or children.

[pgrmdave]

Thank you, the web site is very informative. I suspected that there would be neurological implications of emotions, but I was unaware of where to find the research.

[Freethinker]

Which part of the sun is spherical?

Oh ya, now you are obviously being tedious and obtuse.

 

So that even you can deal with it, from:

 

Kid's Cosmos

 

Explore the Sun

Facts About Our Closest Star

 

A Source of Light and heat, the sun is a giant ball of glowing gas. It is about 100 times the diameter of the Earth.

 

http://www.kidscosmos.org/kid-stuff/sun-facts.html

 

Up a few levels:

 

From NASA/ JPL

 

Solar System Exploration

 

We now know that the Sun is a huge, bright sphere

 

http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=OverviewLong

 

All of this obfuscation just so you do not have to admit to yourself (and the rest of us here) that you were wrong.

[Freethinker]

Well surely we're not the only atheists around here? :)

No, but I was getting a kick out of reading your post as it sounded so much like mine. I am not used to that. Even around here.

[Freethinker]

Now you're talking about entities which exist in the world of quantum mechanics. They probably have no "shape" per se, they are more like waves. But they do have structure.

Actually the original discussion wa about "form". And the def of "form" is specifically regarding the SHAPE of an object, NOT it's matter/ substance.

 

But pgrm just wants to argue and do anything to stop from admitting error.

 

We've had this discussion before, how beleivers will do anything they can to stop from admitting error. While us non-believers are always ready to admit error and change our minds.

 

Poor believers, stuck trying to justify fallacies in order to stop cognitive dissonance.

[Freethinker]

FT, I have already posted mathmatical equations which are only true most of the time, but the posting here has been so fast, that they may have been lost in the swarm of replies, I think they are on page 6.

Nope, you failed in those. But you probably have not gotten to that part yet either.

[Freethinker]

Faith is entirely a different issue. That is why I'm a little suspect of talking about God on a scientific forum. It was however brought up as a topic of disscussion, and being a believer, I am here to testify of my faith. I don't really believe however that we should be talking about faith in the same breath with proof of any kind, weather scientific or anything else.

Believers never want to subject their personal philosophys to the same level of review as a non-believer will subject their personal philosophy. Excuses are always given as to why they can't or minimally should not. Yet non-believers never seem to have that failing or fear.

 

A non-believer will apply the same level of logic and reason to everything while a believer will draw that arbitrarly line in the sand and cry foul when expected to live up to a non-believers level of logic and reasoning.

 

Don't blame us that you can not support the philosophy you base your lifes work on. We are not the ones with that problem. And don;t expect us to acccept excuses either. We don;t need them, why should we accept others excuses?

 

All you are doing is showing us why belief is so empty.

[Tormod]

Well surely we're not the only atheists around here? :)

It's just that not all of us have it printed on a t-shirt. :)

[Freethinker]

A large part of it is the culture in which one is raised in. Most people raised in Christian households will be Christian, Muslims will be Muslims. New religions rarely occur.

It is more a question of the force applied to that local culture. Christianity had a much stronger hold when it could just outright kill "other"-believers. Yes when the culture is such that non-compliance is punished, generations tend to follow along. But now that religions are losing their political power, non-belief is skyrocketing. It's gone from small single digit % to the 3rd largest "personal philosophy" (religion survey results) after Catholic and Baptist in the US in just a couple decades.

 

Obviously the old chestnut you mention is no longer fully applicable.

[Freethinker]

OK, a second warning:

 

This thread has gone completely off topic and is turning into a flame war. I'll shut it down in 24 hours.

Awe, we're having too much fun daddy! Just a little while longer! PPPLLEEAASSEE! :-)

[Freethinker]

Interesting that you quote yourself to reply to me rather than me.

I don't know everything there is to know about god,

But that does not stop you from making absolute claims about it. Including any even possible existence of one. From your complete lack of proof for the existence of one, perhaps it is more accurate to say you don't know ANYTHING about god. As that is the proof you have provided so far.

I believe that god is omnipotent, but I cannot be sure.

If "he" is NOT, then being just another falable entity would make it a god how?

Assuming that he was, my point was that his intellect would be furthur beyond ours than ours is beyond a young child's.

Irrelevant to what he could or could not do being omnipotent. Omnipotence is not scalable. It either is or is not.

As for god's limitations, even contemplating the possibility of an allpowerful being brings up difficulties.

OMNIPOTENCE. ALL POWERFUL. at what point do you lose the concept? What part of EVERYTHING are you not able to contemplate?

 

Try this, fill in the blank

 

"Is something omnipotent if it can not _____ ?"

 

And the answer every time is:

 

NO! A thing is NOT omnipotent if there is ANYTHING it can not do.

Can he create a boulder so big that he cannot move it?

That is actually another thread here.

If he communicates with beings of a lower intellect, he has to bring himself down to that intellectual level, he cannot bring them up to his.

"Is something omnipotent if it can not ( bring them up to his)?"

 

Now stop trying to change the subject and actually answer the questions instead. Your delays are way too obvious.

[Freethinker]

Let's talk a little about evidence here. In a court of law, an eye witness is considered to be good evidence are they not?

Less and less. And spectral evidence was outlawed in the US in 1692. Then there was the whole recovered memories fiasco of the '80's.

 

As for science, eyewitness is seldom acceptable, often outright rejected.

I could talk about events in my own life as an eye witness to Gods power.

And you would be exposing your lack of a reasoned, rational approach.

But sadly, in this court, nothing I could ever say would change any minds, because you were not there in person to witness it yourself. If you had been, you might have a different view about this question.

I flew a plain old throw rug once. I was there, prove me wrong!

 

Yes you follow the standard process. Lots of claims, attempts to drag the subject away when pushed for proof and finally crying that your factual knowledge is being rejected out of hand!

 

The only stage that sometimes follows from this is being told I will burn in hell, or at least wish I had believed when I die...

 

Been here, done this, many times....

[Freethinker]

Religion is inherently a personal experiance,

Excuses. It is either real or it is not. ACCEPTANCE is a person choice. PERCEPTION is personal based on level of understanding of biases. But religion(s) makes claims and either they are factually real or not.

and cannot completely be explained to others,

Just another trick you use to keep yourself convinced. A crutch you need to keep your cognitive dissonance under control.

hence the personal evidence cannot change minds, but it is such a powerful personal experiance that it is difficult for empirical evidence to sway a believer's mind.

Like I said, a crutch you need to keep your cognitive dissonance under control.

I agree with nearly all of your arguments, FT, but I could never deny what I feel, it is too important, even if it is illogical.

Ad my canned reply is that everyone must decide how important, how much value each person puts on their own life and their life's work. If you personally choose to accept an illogical approach, that is the value you assign to your life. It is your choice to make.

 

I personally choose to put in the extra effort to make myself deny irrantional illogical warm fuzzies. And I have never regretted it.

[pgrmdave]

Okay, you win. I cannot back up any of my arguments with research or facts, merely with feeling. As much as I try to translate my instincts into a coherent, cohesive argument, I fail miserably, you are right and I must change my views...the sun is spherical, there, I said it, now I can never go back.

 

 

But I still believe in god :)

[infamous]

When offering up topics for discussion that are logically not proveable, how absurdly cruel to wrongly criticize others for speculating about alternative views by telling them that they have no proof.