Im very pleased to meet you.

You may not like me, ID, but I'll forewarn you to be weary of the company you keep.

Oh, I call him Blank Man. I call him other names under my breath but you call him what ever you wish. ;-]

So long as you don't call me late to dinner, I'm OK with it.

I don't dislike you either. I harbor no ill will against you. I do my best to walk His path and do many times fall along the way. The Book says a good man will fall many times in a day. Im not even that good man. I do try.

Christ Himself kept the company of Hookers, tax collectors, leapers, and fishermen. Im not making any attempt to convert. Im here to learn and if He is willing--teach. I have learned much already and feel like I have given not much in return. I have much ground to gain.

You are welcome to my table at any time. :-)

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

This of course is "modus ponens" a valid form of argument. The premises however must be absolutely true in order for a conclusion to be valid.

Another valid argument form is modus tollendo tollens

If P then Q
not Q
-------
therefore not P

If you don't think that these are valid arguments then construct a truth table for each one and you will get your tautology. Another reason to believe that these are "True" is that computers (based on logic) work.

These two valid argument forms are related to the notion of "proof by contradiction". The if, then truth statements are often referred to as "The Broken Promise" which is especially relevant here in this discussion

If God exists then she is merciful, and compassionate
There is a lack of compassion and mercy in the world
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore God does not exist.

Or you could say that she does not intervene in the affairs of the world or maybe that she is not all merciful and compassionate--if so then why pray and beseech her for favors.

This follows, since the contrapositive of a valid argument is also valid and modus tollens is the contrapositive of modus ponens.

This is in essence "proof by denying" so see if the traits that you ascribe to your deity are evident in the world.

Logic underlies all of mathematics and is the basis for a Zermelo/Fraenkel set theory.

The fact that so many people believe in an anthropomorphic deity is testimony to their poor understanding of mathematics which speaks to their lack of ability when it comes to critical thinking.


There you have it, no God whatsoever, unless you deny that my premises are true. That is why i asked if people could describe the traits that their God must possess if she exists. So far no response so i ask again what are the capabilities of your god and how does she intervene in our lives. If you follow this line of reasoning you will find that your god actually possesses no discernible traits at all and therefore most likely does not exist.

When you are young and gullible you take a lot of solace in belief of such a deity; but at some time the mind must mature and critical thinking sets in and you are left with a very improbable proposition.

Another instructional rant by Daddio

Not everything you said do I disagree with.

GIGO? Perhaps you know of this? You already know what I think is G in the context of your post. Correct?

There is nothing wrong with my critical thinking. When you program the computer between your ears with G, the program will only spit out G.

Yet another instructional rant by Robert AKA I.D.
;-)

Much snipping, hope context kept.

Numbers should be thought of as being a general representation of something which could be something completely different (like patterns or voices).

Agreed. Numbers themselves are just made up as a counting system using whatever base is convenient. We have 10 fingers, so base 10 was the most convenient. Of course, not everything follows this level of simplicity.

Numbers are real things. The labels we call them by are just that labels. Obviously each language has a different label for each. That does not make one any less real. Perhaps an example. You have two chickens. I take one from you. I suspect you will feel that one is a real thing in that case and not a label.

Some numbers are small, other ones are large. We tend to favor the large numbers rather than the small numbers when it comes to the possibilities of E.T. trying to send us a signal or make its precence known

We tend to favor signals which are strong and are proven not to be from a terrestrial source - and it must be from the same point in the sky consistently.

Actually I think the algorithm does not care so much about the strength as it does the shape of the signal. Coming from space rather that the earth it should have a shape that matches the telescope beam sweeping by a transmitter. If the signal is strong we know we transmitted it, if almost at the level of the noise in the receiver then ET sent it. Distance squared is how the signal strength drops. Only if ET is already in our own solar system will the signal be strong. That seems very unlikely.

---

E=mc2 proof is in the pudding...

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-minister-to-atheist-a-story-of-losing-faith

This story really made me think of this thread.

---

#resist

I was thinking a bit about my last post on the intelligence of other species, and I wanted to add something. I indicated that perhaps dolphins and whales can be considedred very intelligent, but were adapted to a marine environment. Suppose people were dolphins, and were adapted to a marine environment instead of being decendants of tree dwellers. Regardless how intelligent we were, technology would be a difficult thing indeed. Imagine how difficult it would be to draw a picture on a cave wall passing information to others who were not around, or working with electricity, or a soldering iron, or making rocket fuel. Of course all of this must be done underwater, while being shaped like a torpedo. So clearly intelligence is not the only requirement for our success as a species. Emotions, memory, intelect and comprehension are most suited to develope technology for species living in a non-liquid environment with something versatile like hands. Without that regardless of how intelligent we were, doing anything other than eating, avoiding predators, reproducing, and even playing would be quite a challenge.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

In another elaberation suppose were were a different species, but still believed that a Designer made us in his/her image. That would work for many species. The dolphins would say, "We are so smart. We rule the oceans without fear of predators. We were created in Gods image". The wolves would say, "We work together to catch our food. We howl and can communicate over vast differences. Clearly we were created in Gods image." The elephants would say, " We are the largest land animals, and fear nothing. We remember things for a very long time. We must have been created in Gods image." Then we come to people as they are today and would say, "We are so intelligent. We kill one another, cut eachother off on the highways, and invent chemical and biological weapons. We teach our children tens of thousands of different religions. Surely we must be created in Gods image."

Steve

Edit: I wonder what a tyranosaurus would say?

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

E=mc2 proof is in the pudding...

Evidence that supports a consequence of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.

Of note is the following comment towards the end of the mass-energy equivalence paper:

Einstein wrote:

It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.

A prediction, and a test, in other words a demonstration that the theory is falsifiable. This shows the reader that Einstein's work is science based.

What are the predictions and tests of the Intelligent Design hypothesis?

---

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

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Before concluding that Einstein was faithful you need to read up on Spinoza, it's likely that his view of "God" is very different to the one you appear to believe in.

---

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

Dr. Einstein believe in a God. He did not believe in chance. Spent his last moments on earth in a attempt to disprove that very thing called chance.

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

Pretty much a late life change of heart -- but in any event, I suspect his version of God and yours differed quite a lot. I'm guessing his version and mine are quite a bit more in sync. (Said as a moderately observant Jew).

Dr. Einstein believe in a God. He did not believe in chance. Spent his last moments on earth in a attempt to disprove that very thing called chance.

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

Suppose people were dolphins, and were adapted to a marine environment

The Creatures in the movie Abyss were adapted to A Marine Environment.

And when they produced Mile High Waves on the coasts all along The World To Warn Humankind, well, that was The Best Warning since 1951s Day The Earth Stood Still, "into a Burnt Out Cinder".

Yeah. Marine Environment. Ass Kickers Fo Sho.

AbyssmalDullNanDo

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

So which view does one support?

The determinist view, from the 19th and early 20th century, where God does not throw dice.

Or the late 20th century view, where quantum mechanics says, God does throw dice, but hides at least one of them, from our view.

Dr. Einstein believe in a God. He did not believe in chance. Spent his last moments on earth in a attempt to disprove that very thing called chance.

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

Agreed, Einstein did make many attempts to show the Copenhagen interpretation was incorrect, he failed. His attempts to show the Copenhagen interpretation was incorrect did not stop him from contributing to the theories of quantum mechanics, indeed he was a co-founder of the theories, using Plank's notion of energy quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. This observation lead to wave-particle duality theories that have been tested and not yet falsified many thousands (perhaps millions) of times. Wave-particle duality produces some non-intuitive results, for instance a photon's probability wave travels along two paths simultaneously in the double-slit experiment, while the photon's position is non-deterministic between the emitter and the detector.

It certainly is a bit more complicated than "Einstein believed in Spinoza's God". One thing that can be taken from Einstein's belief in Spinoza's God, if he were alive today, he would almost certainly be in opposition to the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

Glad to see that you're back to responding to my posts, any chance you'll provide an answer to my question on the Drake equation?

---

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

So which view does one support?

The determinist view, from the 19th and early 20th century, where God does not throw dice.

Or the late 20th century view, where quantum mechanics says, God does throw dice, but hides at least one of them, from our view.

The Copenhagen interpretation ("dice") was arrived at during the mid 1920s. It's been considered the best current approximation pretty much since then. Whether an individual supports this view is irrelevant to the science, the science requires a better approximation to change its view.

---

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

In this case Bobby it doent matter what YOU believe. We are talking about Dr. Einstein. He worked to his last moment on earth to DISprove, not prove chance.

This is a fact, bottom line.

In this case Bobby it doent matter what YOU believe. We are talking about Dr. Einstein. He worked to his last moment on earth to DISprove, not prove chance.

This is a fact, bottom line.

The bottom line is that he failed.

---

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

In this case Bobby it doent matter what YOU believe. We are talking about Dr. Einstein. He worked to his last moment on earth to DISprove, not prove chance.

This is a fact, bottom line.

The bottom line is that he failed.

+1

---

Perhaps he did? Then again he might have been looking in the wrong place? But, nevertheless he belived in a God. +1

The Orders of Magnitude Gag
During the US government's "Strategic Defense Initiative" program,also known as "Star Wars", head cheese scientists were asked to report their progress to the Minister of Defense. So they gathered their data and offered a presentation. They discovered that the problem of shooting down a nuclear missile at a great distance was a very tricky problem indeed. They intended to explain to the minister what an impossible problem it was -- well beyond the capabilities of current technology. During the course of their presentation, the following exchange took place.

SCIENTIST: ...and so you can see, Mr Minister, that in order to achieve an acceptable hit-rate against the missiles, our instruments need to be accurate to one part in ten to the ninth. So far, the best we have been able to achieve is one part in ten to the fifth.

MINISTER: That's tremendous! We're over half way there!

"Monkey Claims Copyright on Hamlet: News at Noon."

AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare