Religious Thread [8] - CLOSED


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Religious Thread [8] - CLOSED

Previous · 1 . . . 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 . . . 52 · Next
Author Message
Profile Walla
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
United States
Message 434324 - Posted: 10 Oct 2006, 23:27:27 UTC

"He who tries to give intelligent advice to one who thinks he has intelligence, is wasting his time."
"Many who have not learnt Reason, nevertheless live according to reason."
"The hopes of right-thinking men are attainable, but those of the unintelligent are impossible."

Wise words of Democritus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus

Have a good day
____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,504,042
RAC: 1,595
United States
Message 434352 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 0:27:18 UTC - in response to Message 434317.

Walla,

"Oasis in Space" proves how the universe, the solar system, earth, and life leading to humans evolved without the need of a god.
"Cosmos" does the same thing.
"The Demon Haunted World" demonstrates how people can act without thinking about things at all. Basically the religious and the credulent. Or. as PT Barnum would have called them "the Sucker" born every minute.



I think that pretty much sums it all up right there. Nice post Chuck. I totally agree with you.


Then read my October 4 posting on proof.
____________
Don't be jealous that I look this good. I am just emulating your favorite right-leaning Ted Nugent. ;)

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 434428 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 4:42:49 UTC - in response to Message 434270.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2006, 5:13:40 UTC

Jews, Christians and Muslims all state that they have a very common tradition.
According to my Muslim friends, they do not believe Jesus was the son of God

According to the Qur'an Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel, Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, Jesus was confirmed with the holy spirit (where Christians get his divinity or son of God status), Jesus will be in high places on earth and in heaven (Muslims need to read the Gospels to understand what that verse means), Jesus the man was crucified on the cross, Jesus the spirit was taken up to heaven and is with God alive and well (resurrected)... None of this contradicts the Gospels...

Christians who think Jesus was more than he said he was need to read Jesus' parting prayer:

John 17:1-5 (rsv)
When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.

Jesus wasn't literally Gods son... God created him and then declared him as such:

Psalms 2:7 (rsv)
I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you.

Hebrews 1:5 (rsv)
For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?

Muslims who think Jesus was less than he was need to read the Gospels...

Jews just need to get with the program... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,504,042
RAC: 1,595
United States
Message 434443 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 5:41:41 UTC - in response to Message 434428.

According to the Qur'an Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel, Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, Jesus was confirmed with the holy spirit (where Christians get his divinity or son of God status), Jesus will be in high places on earth and in heaven (Muslims need to read the Gospels to understand what that verse means), Jesus the man was crucified on the cross, Jesus the spirit was taken up to heaven and is with God alive and well (resurrected)... None of this contradicts the Gospels...


I believe that is indeed what my Muslim friends told me regarding Mary, but one of them claimed God saved Jesus before the crucifixion and took Him up to heaven, if I understood him correctly. I think he suggested someone was crucified in his place.
____________
Don't be jealous that I look this good. I am just emulating your favorite right-leaning Ted Nugent. ;)

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 434450 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 6:15:09 UTC - in response to Message 434443.

one of them claimed God saved Jesus before the crucifixion and took Him up to heaven

Here are the verses in the Qur'an concerning the crucifixion:

4:156 That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:

4:158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;

4:159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;

The unbelievers thought that they killed Jesus, but the believers know that Jesus is alive and well... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 434665 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 18:22:01 UTC - in response to Message 434443.

I think he suggested someone was crucified in his place.

I know there are Muslims who think this, but it isn't correct...

After my post I thought I needed to explain things a little better:

Jesus the man was crucified on the cross and his blood was a sacrifice for the sins of all those who repent. The disbelievers said in boast that they crucified him because they are not seeing the spiritual aspect of what happened, only that Jesus the man had died on the cross... But Jesus did not 'die' on the cross as it appeared to them because God raised Jesus up to Himself resurrecting him, which was done for the benefit of the believers in that they saw Jesus was still alive following his death as stated in the final verse, which confirms Jesus' carnal death on the cross actually did happen...

All these verses are saying is that Jesus was crucified but he wasn't dead... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Chuck
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 511
Credit: 532,682
RAC: 0
Message 434673 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 18:55:52 UTC - in response to Message 430877.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2006, 19:00:20 UTC

Maybe you should read it sometime... ;)


I don't need to read it - I get enough quotes from you that offer no proof at all.

Like I already said, You'd just believe any malarkey that's written down by anyone and presented as ancient and true in your organized religion.

In the mathematical domain, a proof is what convinces one's audience.
.
That is utter baloney. proof is that which is demonstrably true. Demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. 'Whatever convinces your audience' is NOT proof. It is faith. It is the cornerstone of religion. You are either lying outright, or studying under some kind of agenda that wishes to turn you intoi a pseudo-science spouting moron.

Or, are you also beginning from a set of basic assumptions and providing evidence, however much and however valid, that still must rest on the how fitting your basis of assumptions are?


No. You cannot begin from assumptions. Assumptions are prone to error. You should know that if you are actually studying for a PhD. You build proof, one step at a time. You progress from addition to subtraction to division and you demonstrate it all. You don't assume it still works the same today as it did for you in grade school: you can always go back and re-prove it to yourself again if you wish. A PhD in maths NOT explaining this much better than I can, and immediately?!?
"I'll retire to bedlam."

Chuck feels that if science has presented no evidence for something, then it doesn't exist. If science can't show that it's there, then there is no proof at all.
Another error. I don't feel that way. That is the way things are. If something is not there, what proof do you have it exists? Is it not the same thing as not existing at all? Go read about the invisible dragon in "The Demon Haunted World" and you might then start making sense.

Then we have a diarrheic flow of dogma spouting out from jeffrey's keyboard. None of it with a shred of proof. If you want to go on making statements jeffrey, go ahead and spread your ignorance, but you should at least make the qualifying statement that it's a belief. You get into all kinds of trouble when you go stating it as being a fact, when you really have no clue what facts are, or are even interested in learning so, because you STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN AN ANSWER ABOUT THOSE PROOFS YOU WANTED:

OASIS IN SPACE
DEMON HAUNTED WORLD
COSMOS

But I fully expect you to ignore whatever doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.



____________
Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 434741 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 21:26:23 UTC - in response to Message 434673.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2006, 21:29:15 UTC

I don't need to read it - I get enough quotes from you that offer no proof at all.

My quotes are not intended to offer any kind of proof, well, other than the fact that a lot of people have a 'reading comprehension' problem... My quotes are to show that there aren't any faults or contradictions found in the Holy Books, leaving only one question that needs to be answered:

Do you believe them, or do you not believe them? Obviously I do and U don't... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 14
United States
Message 434813 - Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 23:50:34 UTC

I don't feel that way. That is the way things are.


Therefore, it's the way you feel...lol

" That is the way things are " indicates that you feel that statement to be true.
____________
Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained


Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Profile Cyrus255
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Oct 06
Posts: 23
Credit: 47
RAC: 0
United States
Message 434848 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 0:54:40 UTC
Last modified: 12 Oct 2006, 0:57:34 UTC

e=mc2. energy equals mass at the speed of light, therefore all mass is merely a state of energy. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, something from OUTSIDE our universe had to have put the ENERGY into this world.

(Haha I like the term, since the creator-force had to put effort, or "energy", into creation)

In my mind there's no refuting there's a creator, but there's no proof for WHICH one he is. I do think there's proof for which religions are good or evil, but not for the nature of god, in my mind he could be good or neutral. I tend to think he is an overwhelming love, myself.

Mainly because TRUE heaven is not a place where evil goes to hell and good goes to heaven. Revenge does not satisfy hurt. Only an overwhelming love that conquers all, would. Heck even in Christianity, Satan was once the most powerful and righteous angel.

Yet Satan CHANGED in heaven? So spiritual growth, even in christianity does not stop after death. Perhaps even Satan would be conquered by love. Haha, that's my ideal heaven... crazy, huh?

I personally think god created religion itself, and FAVORS certain ones, even though they aren't necessarily correct. I view this world as like a video game, and you can be a cool crusader, or a 20th century marine, or a crazy jihadist muslim that wants to kill everyone. God himself is not neutral and probably favors good over evil, but the specific historical accuracies are probably not reflective of him.

The whole POINT is that you don't know 100%, that way you can have TRUE glory in sacrifice. If I jump to take a bullet for a friend, but know 100% that I will be rewarded, it's just an investment.

Anyways, just play on, friends! The creator-force is watching!

Oh and as for those who would say there is no Good vs Evil, pretend for a moment there is: only evil would say there is no good vs evil.

____________
The truth is out there. Or in here. Who left the door open? (my dog comes running back in) There's the truth!

Matchmaking

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,504,042
RAC: 1,595
United States
Message 434917 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 2:19:25 UTC

Chuck,

It is unfortunate that you question whether I am indeed working on the Ph.D. as I stated. If I had more time, I might respond to your comments on a deeper level. However, I do not have the time for another long post, because I really am working on a Ph.D.
Would you like me to locate for you some journal articles or books on the nature of mathematical proof? I am sure I can list plenty and, though some might have an agenda, several would not.
You might want to read about the open conjectures and the million dollar prizes that are being offered for the solutions to some of these. Without a doubt, mathematicians have reasoned from shaky ground. They have shown deductively that, if one assumes something they hope can be shown true at another time, then we get another nice result. Or, they have shown something they hope to be true is logically equivalent to another proposition. They may have more hope of showing the thing true by showing what is logically equivalent to it is true. It might be easier.
But, to be a bit more blunt: look up "axiom" in several dictionaries. Then check several textbooks ... traditional AND reform ... from the high school, undergraduate and graduate school levels. Are you seriously going to tell me that the definition of axiom deviates so far from what I suggested and that mathematicians do not APPLY deductive reasoning ***WITHIN*** an axiomatic system?
Guess that's why the mathematical community spent about two millenia thinking Euclid's Fifth could be proved instead of needing to state it a postulate. No need for that pesky non-Euclidean geometry worked about Bolyai, Lobechevsky and (the great) Gauss.

'Nuff said for now.

Sarge
____________
Don't be jealous that I look this good. I am just emulating your favorite right-leaning Ted Nugent. ;)

Profile Michael Buckingham
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4508
Credit: 2,676,597
RAC: 0
United States
Message 434925 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 2:27:21 UTC

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

Prove there is a sentient God.
____________


http://www.mikesbawx.org/photo/

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,504,042
RAC: 1,595
United States
Message 434926 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 2:30:21 UTC - in response to Message 434925.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.


Yes, they do.

Prove there is a sentient God.


That may be Chuck's request/demand, but I am simply discussing the nature of proof from one of the few domains of knowledge where proof is systematized.
____________
Don't be jealous that I look this good. I am just emulating your favorite right-leaning Ted Nugent. ;)

Profile BillHyland
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 04
Posts: 907
Credit: 5,764,172
RAC: 0
United States
Message 434933 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 2:41:55 UTC - in response to Message 434925.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

Prove there is a sentient God.

Proof is not possible. This is why a religious conviction is called a "faith".

Faith is not confined to religious conviction. Look up the word on Dictionary.com and you find that the top definition is:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Followed by:

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

It is not until you get to the third tier definition that you read:

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

In every case there is, either explicit or implied, the absence of specific proof.

Profile Walla
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
United States
Message 434935 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 2:43:46 UTC - in response to Message 434848.
Last modified: 12 Oct 2006, 2:44:57 UTC


In my mind there's no refuting there's a creator


Let me ask you this then, What created the creator? Saying there is a creator doesnt solve the problem. So why don't we just simplify things and say there is no creator and that the universe has just always existed.

Theres a way to understand everything without the need of gods. There are forces and laws of nature that we use can use to explain everything. All the events that have happened in the past are a result of matter interacting with other matter. Just because we don't understand something doesnt mean we have to resort to supernatural explainations.
____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,504,042
RAC: 1,595
United States
Message 434956 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 3:57:59 UTC - in response to Message 434933.

Proof is not possible. This is why a religious conviction is called a "faith".

Faith is not confined to religious conviction. Look up the word on Dictionary.com and you find that the top definition is:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Followed by:

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

It is not until you get to the third tier definition that you read:

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

In every case there is, either explicit or implied, the absence of specific proof.


Thank you for clarifying the term "faith" for us. It is a nice complement to what I have been saying about proof.

Let me ask you this then, What created the creator? Saying there is a creator doesnt solve the problem. So why don't we just simplify things and say there is no creator and that the universe has just always existed.


That would fly in the face of the Big Bang theory. Much evidence points to the universe being of finite age ... in the billions of years, correct? Then there is the membrane theory, which I only read about once in Discover magazine a few years ago.

Theres a way to understand everything without the need of gods.


Everything is a too strong a term. There is still much we do not understand in this universe, even here on Earth, even when the scientific method of inquiry is brought to bear upon it. Better to say "many things."

On a related note, Chuck, you should consider the evolution of scientific thought. Certainly we have better understandings about many physical phenomena than we did 2000-3000 years ago, or even 100-200 years ago. Why? Because the current theories fit the data better and make better predictions. Perhaps some deductive reasoning was applied to derive the theories, but I sincerely doubt that the method of deductive proof within an axiomatic system has been applied. the theories are not proven ... they fit the data better. Hence, use of words like theorY rather than theorEM.
____________
Don't be jealous that I look this good. I am just emulating your favorite right-leaning Ted Nugent. ;)

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 434995 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 5:29:27 UTC - in response to Message 434673.
Last modified: 12 Oct 2006, 5:57:40 UTC

But I fully expect you to ignore whatever doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.

You want proof? Here's your proof...

GOD said that the Qur'an was His book:
4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.


GOD said that YOU aren't smart enough to create a book like it:
10:37 This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book − wherein there is no doubt − from the Lord of the worlds.


GOD challenged YOU to create a book like it:
10:38 Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"


GOD said that YOU can't create a book like it no matter how much help you get:
17:88 Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.


For almost 2,000 years people have tried to create a book like it but they have all failed. Are YOU up for the challenge? I'd sure like to see it! Don't forget to include the poetry and mathematical correlations... And when you're finished, you can write the Torah and the Gospels too... And make sure that you use the proper languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, I guess you'll have to learn them first... Hey, if someone could do it 2,000 years ago, then surely YOU can do it today using all our modern technology... Come on, show us that YOU can do something, anything, other than being a complete and total !@#$%&*... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile BillHyland
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 04
Posts: 907
Credit: 5,764,172
RAC: 0
United States
Message 435008 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 6:50:00 UTC - in response to Message 434995.

But I fully expect you to ignore whatever doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.

You want proof? Here's your proof...


Jeffery, you are not providing proof, you are providing a circular argument that states that the Koran is proof of God because the Koran says it is proof of God.

I do not tell you this because I do not have faith, I say it because you are making a false argument. You have faith in the existence of God, you have faith that the Koran is holy scripture and both are admirable. But you cannot proove the existence of God to someone who does not accept the framework within which you present your argument. What you can do is offer the fact of your faith and, if questioned, present the reasons for your faith.

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,504,042
RAC: 1,595
United States
Message 435011 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 7:01:34 UTC - in response to Message 434917.

You might want to read about the open conjectures and the million dollar prizes that are being offered for the solutions to some of these.


From Wolfram MathWorld on Goldbach's conjecture: "Pogorzelski (1977) claimed to have proven the Goldbach conjecture, but his proof is not generally accepted (Shanks 1993)."

Wait a minute! It doesn't suggest that a flaw has been found in the proof! Maybe there is one, maybe not. So why the phrase "not generally accepted"? What does it leave, if no one has found a flaw? One possibility is that they are not convinced.

How about this?

Appel and Haken published a computer-generated proof of the Four Color Problem, which is often cited in the recent debates over the status of deductive mathematical proof. The proof was broken down into 1482 cases. Some in the mathematics community raised objections to calling Appel and Haken’s result a proof, for several reasons. These include: (1) computer hardware and software are fallible; (2) the programs used were not published so as to be examined and scrutinized by the mathematics community; (3) the proof did not explain. Such objections carried over to other similarly proved results, like the classification of all finite simple groups in abstract algebra (Hanna, 1995; Hersh, 1993; Kleiner, 1991; Otte, 1994). (A network is a collection of vertices and a collection of edges connecting pairs of vertices, and is planar if it can be drawn without edges crossing. The Four Color Problem states that only four colors are necessary to color a planar map so that two regions sharing a border do not share the same color.)

What's this about "some in the mathematical community"? Some are convinced by the computer-generated proof and others are not.

Want more precise details on my citations ... what journals (issue, page numbers) the following can be found in? (Hanna, 1995; Hersh, 1993; Kleiner, 1991; Otte, 1994)

But, to be a bit more blunt: look up "axiom" in several dictionaries ... .


From Merriam-Webster online (with my comments in bold)

Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit (not proved)
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1 (accepted, not proved --- built upon to form statements that can be proved deductively from the basis of the assumptions)
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth ([b]established rule might be construed to mean proved --- this is not the case in mathematics and we no longer take axioms to be self-evident truths for the last 100-200 years ... look into the 2000 yearlong struggle with Euclid's fifth postulate and the subsequent development of non-Euclidean geometry).
____________
Don't be jealous that I look this good. I am just emulating your favorite right-leaning Ted Nugent. ;)

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,504,042
RAC: 1,595
United States
Message 435014 - Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 7:20:46 UTC - in response to Message 434673.
Last modified: 12 Oct 2006, 7:22:16 UTC

No. You cannot begin from assumptions. Assumptions are prone to error. You should know that if you are actually studying for a PhD. You build proof, one step at a time. You progress from addition to subtraction to division and you demonstrate it all. You don't assume it still works the same today as it did for you in grade school: you can always go back and re-prove it to yourself again if you wish. A PhD in maths NOT explaining this much better than I can, and immediately?!?
"I'll retire to bedlam."


An axiom of both Euclidean and (hyperbolic) non-Euclidean geometry is that between two points, there is a unique line segment. To most of us, that means something straight. Define straight for me. If you really think about it, you will find it more difficult than you initially thought it would be.

In Euclidean geometry, another axiom (assumption) is that any point not on a line has a unique second line through the point not parallel to the first line. In hyperbolic geometry, the assumption is that there is more than one. (Infinitely many, in fact!) As a result, some of the results deductively proved from the set of axioms in each is the same (the intersection of same results is referred to as neutral geometry), but there are several different and stunning results when comparing the two sets of geometry. Both sets of axioms, and the geometries resulting from them, have been shown to be logically consistent, etc. ... . Can you demonstrate to me hyperbolic geometry is "false"? Why are some the best minds in our world trying to determine whether the geometry of space is Euclidean, hyperbolic or ... yet another ... elliptic?

Do you want to go into the 2 + 2 = 4 bit? We all know it's true! You can "demonstrate" it to a child by taking two sets of objects with two elements in each set, count up the total and get 4. Is that a proof? Would it surprise you to learn that mathematicians 100-200 years ago felt a need to axiomatize counting and arithmetic, and in fact did so? If you want more details on how they did it, I'll have to get back to you. I've only seen a little bit of it and it is more in the realm of set theory, of which I have only needed to use portions and have not studied as a content area in its own right.
____________
Don't be jealous that I look this good. I am just emulating your favorite right-leaning Ted Nugent. ;)

Previous · 1 . . . 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 . . . 52 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Religious Thread [8] - CLOSED

Copyright © 2014 University of California