Religious Thread [8]  CLOSED 

log in 
Message boards : Politics : Religious Thread [8]  CLOSED
Previous · 1 . . . 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 . . . 52 · Next
Author  Message 

Demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. Then again, you should have been more specific. Right now my clock says it is 3:36. 13 hours from now, it will read 4:36. So, 3 + 13 = 4 (modulo 12). Similarly, 2 + 2 = 0 (mod 4). The set of integers {0, 1, ..., n  1} form a group under addition modulo n. Refer to my previous post about group theory. Again, it has been shown that the set of axioms for group theory are logically consistent, etc. ... . Plus, in some cases, group theory is demonstrably applicable to "reallife" situations, like my clock arithmetic example. I didn't create this and the people who did had little to no agenda except to abstract upon the familiar in order to expand the body of mathematical knowledge. ____________ Account ...  
ID: 435015 ·  
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. Good point! This is something I was thinking about adding in the discussion of proof. (Bear with me folks ... I know it is the religious thread, but since some request/demand proof from others, we have to consider what proof really is! As a mathematician, I offer insight from that area b/c it is one of the few areas where proof has been systematized.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as obvious or as an initial necessary consensus for the theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other truths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system In mathematics, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems. Properties An axiomatic system is said to be consistent if it lacks contradiction, i.e. the ability to derive both a statement and its negation from the system's axioms. In an axiomatic system, an axiom is called independent if it is not a theorem that can be derived from other axioms in the system. A system will be called independent if each of its underlying axioms is independent. Axiomatic method The axiomatic method is often discussed as if it were a unitary approach, or uniform procedure. With the example of Euclid to appeal to, it was indeed treated that way for many centuries: up until the beginning of the nineteenth century it was generally assumed, in European mathematics and philosophy (for example in Spinoza's work) that the heritage of Greek mathematics represented the highest standard of intellectual finish (development more geometrico, in the style of the geometers). This traditional approach, in which axioms were supposed to be selfevident and so indisputable, was swept away during the course of the nineteenth century, by the development of NonEuclidean geometry, the foundations of real analysis, Cantor's set theory and Frege's work on foundations, and Hilbert's 'new' use of axiomatic method as a research tool. For example, group theory was first put on an axiomatic basis towards the end of that century. Once the axioms were clarified (that inverse elements should be required, for example), the subject could proceed autonomously, without reference to the transformation group origins of those studies. Therefore, there are at least three 'modes' of axiomatic method current in mathematics, and in the fields it influences. In caricature, possible attitudes are: 1. Accept my axioms and you must accept their consequences; 2. I reject one of your axioms and accept extra models; 3. My set of axioms defines a research programme. The first case is the classic deductive method. The second goes by the slogan be wise, generalise; it may go along with the assumption that concepts can or should be expressed at some intrinsic 'natural level of generality'. The third was very prominent in the mathematics of the twentieth century, in particular in subjects based around homological algebra. It is easy to see that the axiomatic method has limitations outside mathematics. For example, in political philosophy axioms that lead to unacceptable conclusions are likely to be rejected wholesale; so that no one really assents to version 1 above. ================================================================================ There you have it! We begin with a small set of undefined terms, then define as many terms as we like, followed by a small set of assumptions (axioms) and then derive everything else ... formalizing the results deductively. Again, the reason for the undefined terms is because mathematicians will not accept circular reasoning. To attempt to define everything and similarly prove everything about the terms we've defined leads to circular reasoning. Note: the examples I have provided here and in other posts are also not proofs. I am providing several examples. Talk to any mathematician, or pick up a textbook of any flavor from the secondary level on. They'll back me up. And that is still not proof. Whether you like it or not, it is a convention that mathematicians have agreed upon as the best way to safely proceed in deriving results. P.S.  Assumptions are prone to error. Again, in mathematics, there is no selfevidence of assumptions, there may be no immediately applicable situation in the physical world perceive, and the main things we care about are consistency (not having a set axioms that lead to contradictory results within ONE PARTICULAR axiomatic system) and independence (keep the set of assumptions small ... do not have an axiom that can be deductively proved using other axioms). ____________ Account ...  
ID: 435017 ·  
But I fully expect you to ignore whatever doesn't fit into your little fantasy world. I don't know Jeffrey, I've read quite a few books that are better than the Bible or Quran...and with out all the continuity errors either. ____________ "Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it."  Gloria Steinem  
ID: 435031 ·  
Don't we have to wonder why religion exists in the fIrst place? What particular need was served by the worship of whichever god or gods, (notice the lower case!) Control of the weather, hunting, fire etc., etc., etc. The list is endless, WE invented god, we have such a fear of nonbeing that we have to have something to explain our existence  OK guys, we either die and go on to our great reward, or we we just die! Who came back (exclusive of jesus) and said there was a beter place to go to! Proof please! Are some religious b/c of fear? Have some religious leaders played on that fear? Yes. But, can you prove that to me? What is proof? What is fear? Can you prove to me any emotion exists? That mental processes exist? You would not be able to convince a behavioral psychologist. ____________ Account ...  
ID: 435100 ·  
Jeffery, you are not providing proof While what I've stated was a basis for my beliefs and is proof enough for me, I was really just trying to make a point in a humorous kinda way... Which was: Until it can be duplicated by man, It must have come from God... ;) ____________ It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .  
ID: 435127 ·  
there aren't any faults or contradictions found in the Holy Books Here we go again. As if myself and others haven't proven this wrong dozens of times already. And jeffrey just goes on ignoring the proof. I won't bother cutting and pasting the same proofs yet again, I'll just forward to a link that demonstrates the ignorance, stupidity, and utterly WRONG conclusions in the bible (for one). http://www.bettybowers.com/newtest.html Your "errorfree" 'truth'. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/sciencequiz.html This is my favorite. It shows the utterly WRONG 'facts' that people in this modern day and age still believe. Just because it's written in their 'holy' book. And for sure, almost any book at all is far better than either the bible, or the koran. Oasis in Space for one. COsmos for another. Demon Haunted World for a third, jeffo. Read them yet? You asked for the proof. But of course, Jeffery, you are not providing proof, you are providing a circular argumentand we go around and around and around again, with jeffrey never learning at all. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either. You can't understand anything that doesn't fit into your little world either. I told you I don't feel things are right or wrong. I am lead to a conclusion by FACTS. NOT by feelings, estimations, or what I think should be right. Facts speak for themselves. They don't need anyone subjectively judging them. It simply shows you cannot understand this, although it's very easy to demonstrate that feeling 2+2=4 is right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that (insert simple child tone here) when you have 2 apples, and I give you 2 more apples, you have FOUR apples!!! Maybe if you go slam your head against a wall a few times you *might* understand. Reading hasn't helped you. Sarge 2 sure has posted alot for someone who hasn't got the time  regardless, I had looked up axiom on Wikipedia the other day. I was staggered that the mathematical community bases anything at all on an assumption. I had a Calculus professor, Novotny, in College who made it a point that he couldn't present us with any equation at all without working it out from the barest of principles to proove it correct. Nothing he gave us was possibly full of merde! It all fit into the real world and was provable so far as I understood it. (I could have been mistaken). Perhaps the axiom you might be talking about is the set of modifications you make to the math you are using? In other words, the 'clock arithmetic' you present is under a different set of rules than the basic 'apples for children'. We should not need to qualify the basic one, but we do need to qualify the clock one, otherwise, we run under a different set of assumptions about how the math is carried out. If this is the case (As I am NOT anywhere near a doctorate in Maths), then I will accept that operational definition of 'assumption'. btw, I immediately saw that Define straight for me.is easily defined and can be PROVEN: the shortest distance between two points. If you want to try and prove me wrong by modifying or bending the surface you're talking about, realize that you're pulling a philosopher's stunts just to be a smartass: if you want to change the realworld conditions, then we have to reanswer for that new special case. We should all realize that proof is demonstrably consistent evidence. A yahoo would go around claiming that one day, somehwere, an apple might fall UP into the sky, so nothing can really be prooven. (This is different from the inane moron who goes on to claim that since Christ walked on water, gravity is therefore disproven.  He is making the error of assumption that a common myth is actually the truth.) If we make the same observation over and over, indeed the particular facet we are examining is not prooven in a strict theoretical sense  but only idiots insist on that. Science is the practice of everrefining answers. We can be pretty confident that gravity will go on to pull down apples all over the universe until the physics changes for whatever reason. That is proof enough. Only an idiot is utterly suprised to find that a pencil makes a mark on a paper today just as it did yesterday. (Douglas Addams' "ruler of the universe"). Science will one day have an answer for everything. Come back in a few thousand years and see. One would hope that by then, there will be no religious idiots left to retard human growth and evolution. I was born far, far too early. ____________ Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.  
ID: 435135 ·  
Until it can be duplicated by man, It must have come from God... ;) OOOOhhhhhh, my stars (which ARE real), why do we even waste our time with an abysmally stupid person like this?!? ____________ Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.  
ID: 435137 ·  
But I fully expect you to ignore whatever doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.I I suggest that you read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If it weren't so sarcastic and they wrote it like that on purpose then I say it could easily rival the bible. As for Sarge I got a news flash for you. There was no big bang. The theory is entirely wrong. Look more into it and you'll see what I am talking about. ____________  
ID: 435164 ·  
I think we should all worship the stars. I am not even joking. I was thinking about this. What has God given you?? Nothing. I have already proved that there is no need for a creator. Now what have the stars given you? Everything. The atoms in your body came from stars, our star keeps you from freezing to death. It feeds you. It allows you to drive your car and power your house everyday. There are countless things which the stars do for you everyday. I shall call my new religion Cosmoanity.  
ID: 435169 ·  
Why I believe there is a God and why he is likely to be an Extraterrestrial...  
ID: 435185 ·  
I have no clue where you get that conclusion. More later?!? You mean you have more entirely unreal nonsequitors???  
ID: 435217 ·  
I have no clue Hmm... ;) ____________ It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .  
ID: 435268 ·  
As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either. Because you simply can't resist my charm and wit?? LOL ____________ Air Cold, the blade stops; from silent stone, Death is preordained Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome  
ID: 435303 ·  
As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either. ____________  
ID: 435312 ·  
Yahweh did not want his people, the Israelites, to intermarry with the Gentiles. He wanted to keep his people special and separate. They were seen as better than their Gentile counterparts, who were only the products of natural evolution. But the Israelites were not. They were designed by a scientist who was the champion of all geneticists everywhere. Yahweh wanted his people to rule the earth. And he wanted them to destroy the Gentile populations, who were genetically inferior in Yahweh's eyes.  
ID: 435320 ·  
I'm gonna post some quotes too since Jeffrey seems to be doing it alot.  
ID: 435330 ·  
As for Knightmare, I don't know why I bother answering you, either. What'd I ever do to you??? LOL ____________ Air Cold, the blade stops; from silent stone, Death is preordained Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome  
ID: 435333 ·  
There is one thing which I think we should all agree upon. Whether god exists or not it is not going to affect the way I live my life. I will still help others whenever I can, I am always nice and caring towards others and I have good morals.  
ID: 435340 ·  
Let me ask you this then, What created the creator? The creator CREATED the whole concept of creation you speak of. In order for our universe to exist there must be a universe without decay. Read up on Plato. I'm not religious, just a spiritual, neoplatonic monist. ____________ The truth is out there. Or in here. Who left the door open? (my dog comes running back in) There's the truth! Matchmaking  
ID: 435350 ·  
Let me ask you this then, What created the creator? I am probably wrong on this, but I think I just read that there is a Catholic ceremony to "re virginize" a person. not joking, serious question ____________  
ID: 435370 ·  
Message boards : Politics : Religious Thread [8]  CLOSED
Copyright © 2014 University of California 