Not a problem WK. I've always believed that regardless of how many religions out in the wild, one's belief is one's own.

The way I.D. consistently posts, leads me to believe that he's my twin: -

I'm the sarcasm king & he's the "wind-up" king. Nothing he says "gells".

---

Quick question Intelligent Design, You keep saying you are a Catholic and believe in a designer, but the church rejects Intelligent Design, so what are you?

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican Observatory director says

Quick answer, what makes you think that one man can tell me what to believe and not believe?

The Pope?

So you profess to be a catholic, and yet you choose not to follow the teachings of the Pope.

In case you missed it, or as usual failed to read the link, the last Pope said, in this quote from the article.

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Pope John Paul II

I have in THIS VERY THREAD said that Intelligent Design does not reject the ToE. It rejects just one part of it, chance.

You are treading on my Faith. You are going places that YOU do not belong. YOU are making statements that YOU have no right to make. YOU do not have the right to tell me that I am not following my Faith.

One of the rules here is NOT to do what you have just done. I have NOT red x'ed any of your posts here as of this date and time. I will do so if you DO NOT take my advise.

Your hypothesis that I do not know my own Faith is incorrect.

Quick question Intelligent Design, You keep saying you are a Catholic and believe in a designer, but the church rejects Intelligent Design, so what are you?

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican Observatory director says

Quick answer, what makes you think that one man can tell me what to believe and not believe?

The Pope?

So you profess to be a catholic, and yet you choose not to follow the teachings of the Pope.

In case you missed it, or as usual failed to read the link, the last Pope said, in this quote from the article.

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Pope John Paul II

I have in THIS VERY THREAD said that Intelligent Design does not reject the ToE. It rejects just one part of it, chance.

You are treading on my Faith. You are going places that YOU do not belong. YOU are making statements that YOU have no right to make. YOU do not have the right to tell me that I am not following my Faith.

One of the rules here is NOT to do what you have just done. I have NOT red x'ed any of your posts here as of this date and time. I will do so if you DO NOT take my advise.

Your hypothesis that I do not know my own Faith is incorrect.

Intelligent Design rejects chance, which is a fundamental component of the theory of Evolution. The Pope made no such caveat when he accepted the theory. QED the ID Hypothesis is in contradiction with the teachings of the Pope (and thus the Catholic Church).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I am a Practicing Catholic. I have said this and more at this site.

Stop waisting my time bobby. You are ignored...

Certain things have more than one possible outcome, such as flipping a coin. Sample space = {Heads, Tails}.
We cannot predict in advance of a coin toss which side it will land on. "We do not believe in clairvoyance." [smile]. ;-)
However, though we cannot predict the individual outcomes of these random events, in the long run, patterns of regularity emerge.
1 / 10^(10^128) is a calculation of a chance ... a probability. Such numbers should not be referred to by those who have rejected chance. (But, of course, such people have also rejected clairvoyance, and are now in an awfully muddy circle.)

I am a Practicing Catholic. I have said this and more at this site.

If the Roman Catholic church were to reject Intelligent Design, will you follow the leaders of your church or will you join a sect that cannot see the truth?

Stop waisting my time bobby. You are ignored...

Clearly :-). Shame that you have not responded to 1288590, it would be nice to know which question it is you think has not been answered.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Stop waisting my time bobby. You are ignored...

Clearly :-). Shame that you have not responded to 1288590, it would be nice to know which question it is you think has not been answered.

True...And TRY to Stay ON TOPIC!

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

In addition, keep it civil.

---

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

There's been quite a lot said in here but I haven't been offered a satisfying answer.
The only response that sort of tried was to state God exists outside our time frame. Still most disappointing.

Who cares if God exists outside our time frame? What was he doing where ever he was?

The followers of religious beliefs like to insert religion as an explanation when science admits that it has no answer at this time. An admission such as this doesn't mean that there truly is no answer, it just means that science hasn't found it yet.
Here was a golden opportunity for the Godists to show their stuff, and they have failed, again.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

There's been quite a lot said in here but I haven't been offered a satisfying answer.
The only response that sort of tried was to state God exists outside our time frame. Still most disappointing.

Who cares if God exists outside our time frame? What was he doing where ever he was?

The followers of religious beliefs like to insert religion as an explanation when science admits that it has no answer at this time. An admission such as this doesn't mean that there truly is no answer, it just means that science hasn't found it yet.
Here was a golden opportunity for the Godists to show their stuff, and they have failed, again.

Robert,
You were given both religious answers to your question and you were given scientific answers to your question. Robert you chose not to accept any of the answers because you didn't like the answers. You don't believe the scientific answers and you don't believe the religious answers.

You have been given the truth Robert. Your question was answered by many people here with very different opinions.

John.

---

There's been quite a lot said in here but I haven't been offered a satisfying answer.
The only response that sort of tried was to state God exists outside our time frame. Still most disappointing.

Who cares if God exists outside our time frame? What was he doing where ever he was?

The followers of religious beliefs like to insert religion as an explanation when science admits that it has no answer at this time. An admission such as this doesn't mean that there truly is no answer, it just means that science hasn't found it yet.
Here was a golden opportunity for the Godists to show their stuff, and they have failed, again.

One thing I must remind people of is that, no, science will not at some point be able to answer everything. See Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. (This is not a comment on anything but what I've said.)

Godel simply stated that in our system of Algebra we cannot prove every provable hypothesis or theorem. We must appeal to outside thinking to do so. I don't think that that implies that there are things that we can't eventually figure out--at least in terms of how we abstract our view of reality.

Frankly, I have had a hard time convincing myself that Godel didn't just prove that you can't prove a contradiction. I have had a formal course in Logic but I still wonder.

Godel simply stated that in our system of Algebra we cannot prove every provable hypothesis or theorem. We must appeal to outside thinking to do so. I don't think that that implies that there are things that we can't eventually figure out--at least in terms of how we abstract our view of reality.

Frankly, I have had a hard time convincing myself that Godel didn't just prove that you can't prove a contradiction. I have had a formal course in Logic but I still wonder.

As I have said multiple times, the natural sciences rely on mathematics, and are therefore bound by it ... its use of axiomatic reasoning ... the fact that there are indeed axioms, on the one end, and at the other, that there will always be a set of statements which cannot be a determination of truth or falsehood. (I am not sure William if your first line is a typo or the source of your difficulty. Nonetheless, yes, it would be worthwhile to reexamine his proof.)

We could devise an algebra and system of arithmetic where Godel's hypothesis does not hold. (that is: all truths of this new system could be proven within an axiomatic system--assuming the axioms were true) . One could argue that this new algebra or set theory may not completely represent reality as to what we think we observe in the "real" world.

I would argue that maybe our current Zermelo/Frankel logic, axioms and algebra don't always either. Maybe we have problems at the very small and by reciprocity at the very large.--hence the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics, and the putative existence of dark matter. I think that Calculus and our theory of Numbers may not be adequate, and that is currently limiting our ability to understand certain things fully.

I don't think that this set of affairs and Godel's work prohibit us from ultimately understanding anything at all. You are right we are bound by Math but Math evolves and we will find better Math and thereby better Physics.

I have had to give up my study of the Hyper-reals since I have a heavy teaching load and I am trying to survive financially. Though I didn't expect to make any contribution to the field, I did hope to get a hint if Infinitesimals might better explain Calculus and possibly Quantum Mechanics.

I have had to give up my study of the Hyper-reals since I have a heavy teaching load and I am trying to survive financially. Though I didn't expect to make any contribution to the field, I did hope to get a hint if Infinitesimals might better explain Calculus and possibly Quantum Mechanics.

Daddio,
Quantum Mechanics is not difficult to learn. What is difficult is finding someone that teaches it properly. If you find the right person to teach it to you, you will learn it very quickly. I learned the essence of quantum mechanics in about 2 months.

If you want some direction to help clarify your understanding of quantum mechanics, PM me and i will give you some excellent video tutorials.

John.

---

So is it because the Universe is thought to be "Quantum theory based" that we are unable to explain the exact workings of things as we really should?

Time is not a constant. It slows down in strong gravitational fields when large amounts of mass is present within a specific area like a neutron star or a black hole. Energy and mass are proportionally equal to each other by means of Einstein's e=mc2 equation.

The number 2 is thought to be 2.0000 (or 2,0000 if you prefer the comma). The 0's go on forever. Same goes with 1/3 (or 0.3333...). But multiply 0.3333 with 3 and you are supposed to end up with 1 (or is it rather 1.0000 or 1,0000)?

I guess we never may agree here or reach any final conclusion regarding this point.

In order for 3 times .3333333.... to be equal to 1.000000.... the two numbers would have to agree in a very large number of instances. These agree in none whatsoever.

Thank you Johnnie, my son,. I do have the best course on Quantum Mechanics from The Teaching Company, and I also have the video's from Berkeley. So, I can probably understand it as well as any other person whom has taught advanced Math and Physics.

It's the observations and the claimed puzzlements that I think point to a lack of understanding with our conventional math and methods of analysis.