Evolution [ for those who care ;-) ]

Printable View

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

May 24th, 2000, 07:49 PM
Iain17

Gen-X

Back to Maths again;)

Okay, you have a point, i will have to rephrase my statement.

Maths can be used to prove or disprove a theory combined with our observations or experiments in the real world.

There has been no way of properly experimenting with gravity at a quantum level. Because the force is so weak the scale of the experiment we are talking about is ridiculously large. Apparently if we were to make an atom hold itself together through gravity, the atom would have to be the size of the universe.

Yet maths has proved many of the theories on gravity wrong. Admittedly we have to take into account our observations on how gravity works. You obviously know that most of the gravitational theories have produced infinite or zero results. This was calculated using maths. Then combined with the fact that we knew gravity did not function this way in the real world, we knew the theory to be wrong.

All

Higher Dimensions

I agree with you that a 2d being will not be able to interact with the 3d world. The energy needed to do this, as you stated, is the energy of creation. Which is why string theory is the closest theory we have to the theory of everything. It is also a theory on creation.

However if we intersected their 2d world with a pen they would see the effect of the 3d pen in their 2d world. This is why we still have hope that string theory may be proved one day, with out having to re-create a bit of the big bang. We may be able to detect "Shadows" of higher dimensions.

Physics has had its fair number of theories that were claimed could never be proved. In the 19th century they thought they would never be able to prove what the composition of a star is. The technology to reach a star and experiment on it was beyond them, and is still beyond us. Yet we can tell what makes up a star using spectroscopy, because each element has is own "fingerprint".

So our main hope at the minute is that we will be able to detect a "Fingerprint" from a higher dimension, because creating enough energy to probe a higher dimension is centuries ahead of us.

Kedaman

Quote:

1+1=2 <- Can you proove or disproove it? No, it's a logical operation.
E=mc² <- Can you proove or disproove it? Yes, it's a theory and it can be prooved or disprooved.

There is no difference between these two equations.

x+x = 2x

And the reverse for the other equation, i will turn it into a number equation.

m=0
0=0*300000*300000

What is the difference between the above and your first example?
May 25th, 2000, 10:58 AM
Gen-X

Iain

Thanks for refining but I still think it needs more

Quote:

Maths can be used to prove or disprove a theory combined with our observations or experiments in the real world

Can you show me somewhere that Maths has been used WITHOUT experiments to prove something?

Maths provides guidelines, and through maths it can "help". But Maths itself is NEVER a proof. Sceince states "If it doesn't agree with experiement then it isn't a theory".

It was through the use of Maths that Bohr came up with the latest periodic table... and even rearranged some of the elements into their correct order before they were found. he even predicted their properties mathematically.

But it didn't become "PROOF" until those elements were actually found and experiments ACTUALLY agreed. So the maths wasn't part of the proof, the maths actually became a method for being able to "predict" and to "calculate"... but it was never the proof.

Quote:

There has been no way of properly experimenting with gravity at a quantum level

Which is why they are working backwards on Super String Theory, because it is the first thing we haven't had the ability to experiment to prove. That in itself shows the ineffectiveness of Maths when dealing with the real world. Having the working formulae isn't enough, it doesn't PROVE anything until the evidence PROVES the maths.

Quote:

Yet maths has proved many of the theories on gravity wrong.Admittedly we have to take into account our observations on how gravity works. You obviously know that most of the gravitational theories have produced infinite or zero results. This was calculated using maths. Then combined with the fact that we knew gravity did not function this way in the real world, we knew the theory to be wrong.

So did maths DISPROVE these theories? Or was it the fact that the theories didn't match was we could observe that DISPROVED them?

"we knew gravity did not function this way". THIS is the reason the theory was wrong... not the fact that maths said something to the contrary.

Quote:

m=0
0=0*300000*300000

What is the difference between the above and your first example?

Try explaining that to Sam.

He thinks Z=3 is the same as 3 + 0i and that it is only using 1 dimension to describe a 3d space have a number equal to itself and nothing of an imaginary number.
May 25th, 2000, 08:09 PM
Iain17

Gen-X

Maths Yet Again!

Quote:

So did maths DISPROVE these theories? Or was it the fact that the theories didn't match was we could observe that DISPROVED them?

"we knew gravity did not function this way". THIS is the reason the theory was wrong... not the fact that maths said something to the contrary.

This i think shows where we differ in opinion. Some of theories on gravity have been quite plausible. The only reason they were proved wrong was because of maths, combined with our observations on how gravity works.

At first glance these theories explain quite well what we know about gravity. It is not until we use maths to work out what would happen under hypothetical conditions that we see the theories are flawed. These made up scenarios are physically impossible for us to experimentally test, but knowing what we know about gravity, we can use maths to work out the outcome. If the outcome conflicts with what we know, then the theory must be flawed.
May 26th, 2000, 08:17 AM
kedaman

Quote:

But I noticed you have now swung from talking about "mathematics" to talking about "models". They are 2 different things. Models are used to "explain" something that has already been studied and experimented and to some extent PROVED . It was not the maths that brought about this proof, but in fact the experimentation that confirmed the maths is correct.

yuck, Gen-x I don't like it when you use the word "proof" in that diffuse way. I have posted up the kedamanology thread for this purpose: to clean out the ambigous bugs in our language in refering to what is real or not.

Quote:

Maths CANNOT prove or disprove a theory or model. It is the other way around. It is experimentation results that prove or disprove a MATHEMATICALLY generated model.

I think you're wrong Gen-x. You cannot proove anything with observations. "Just because earth looks flat it must be flat"

Quote:

The only thing I would add to your statement is that there is a lot of theoretical maths at the moment which has nothing to do with physics... its just theoretical maths (although a lot of math theory DOES get used in physics it isn't ALL) and that the proof or disproof for the equasion lies in experimental results CONFIRMING that the equation holds true.

Theoretical math is theoretical math not classical math.

Quote:

Maths can be used to prove or disprove a theory combined with our observations or experiments in the real world.

Now Iain has a better suggestion but it still lacks the true concept of proof.

Quote:

And the reverse for the other equation, i will turn it into a number equation.

m=0
0=0*300000*300000

What is the difference between the above and your first example?

THe thing is that E refers to Energy not a variable you use in visualbasic. m is mass and c the speed of light. Now this works in reality we say, but you see that by observations, and that's NOT PROOF! Go look at kedamanology i've posted. I think we can solve out some big misunderstandings we always have in all our threads, right there.
May 27th, 2000, 06:03 AM

Quote:

I think you're wrong Gen-x. You cannot proove anything with observations. "Just because earth looks flat it must be
flat"

But you're looking at it from a Microscopic point of view. You must able to see the whole picture.
May 28th, 2000, 09:28 AM
Gen-X

Iain

Quote:

This i think shows where we differ in opinion. Some of theories on gravity have been quite plausible. The only reason they were proved wrong was because of maths,
combined with our observations on how gravity works

Yes you are right... this IS where our opinions differ and I still maintain that you are failing to see the relationship between mathematics and experimentation (NOT observation... EXPERIMENTATION)

Continue...

Quote:

At first glance these theories explain quite well what we know about gravity. It is not until we use maths to work out what would happen under hypothetical conditions that we see the theories are flawed. These made up scenarios are physically impossible for us to experimentally test, but knowing what we know about gravity, we can use maths to work out the outcome. If the outcome conflicts with what we know, then the theory must be flawed.

This is where I disagree with you completely... and here is why.

I am studying the transition of state of water from a liquid to a gas. Its the early 1900's.

I do some experiments and I work out that at 100 degrees celcius water transforms from a liquid to a gas.

Based on what you are saying above, if I did some mathematical theories that used "pressure" instead of "temperature" to calculate the boiling of water, and that figure came out at 70 degrees celcius if the altitude was 1000m then you would say "but knowing what we know about boiling water we can use maths to work out the outcome".

Your mathematical formula would therefor be WRONG because you didn't take into account the fact that pressure has an influence on the boiling point of water.

Until you actually DO experiments and realise that your MATHS is wrong ("Hang on, I calculated 100 degrees but its doing it at 70 and the differing factor is my altitude") you would be unaware of your theory.

So how do you know these theories of gravity are wrong?

You say they do not match was we "know" about gravity? How do you know that what we "know" about gravity doesn't differ because of some factor we didn't take into account? Like the pressure on water?

This is the fundamental proof that states maths cannot prove something... because the maths itself is based on us knowing all the variables (Sam even said this himself). So using maths will only prove the TRUTH of something we have already corroborated with scientific experiment.

Your whole point of view falls apart the second a NEW factor is discovered.

THIS related to what I have maintained since the beginning of my posts... "Science holds something to be TRUE until someone shows it to be FALSE. FACTS are considered those things we cannot provide ANY holes for".

Thus the Earth was flat... we discovered it wasn't... Thus the earth is a sphere... and nobody can prove otherwise so the theory stands.

Kedaman
I understand your theory of proof. I understand your personal believe that NOTHING can be proved because the only thing you know for a fact is your own existence.

Because you believe in this (and I nor most others here don't) there is no use even debating you on your own personal view. Your answer to everything is "You don't really know, it could be an illusion". Simply providing CONFUSION is not the answer.

That is the reason I am overlooking some of the things you write because they make no sense, no logic and no reason... they are based on a personal concept that simply states "nothing is real" and therefor makes all following discussion worthless.

Quote:

"Just because earth looks flat it must be flat"

Hang on.. Your theory is that its all illusion. So why isn't your point of view "The earth WAS flat until someone said it was a sphere... and then it BECAME a sphere"?

Quote:

but you see that by observations, and that's NOT PROOF

What Iain is saying is that we have experimented and gathered results on Energy. These results have been found to follow a pattern and that pattern can be explained using the mathematical equation (model) E = mc2

The difference is that the mathematical equation is based on the fact that the variables that go into the equation do not change, that no outside influence occurs and that nothing new is added. Under THOSE conditions it holds true... but if/when science discovers a NEW condition the maths is re-written to take it into account.

THAT is why maths doesn't provide proof, because it in itself cannot determine what those variables are... only experiment can....

Oh and "observation" is totally different to experiment because observation is relative to the person observing. Experiment uses multiple perspectives before making any conclusions.

Mega
Kedaman isn't looking microscopic.. he is looking personally. Anything that is not in front of his eyes does not exist... when he turns around it comes into existance.

THAT is his point.
May 31st, 2000, 07:55 AM
Gen-X

What a wonderful little story....

Its such a pity it has a FUNDAMENTAL flaw in it.

While I agree that the definition of the word "cold" means the abscence of heat... to apply this to terms like Good/Evil and Justice/Injustice shows the reason of an ignorant mind.

I shall explain :

Code:

Scale of Goodness : Good Abscence of Good | | +----------------------------------------------+ | | Help Person Don't help person

Now I am sure Kedaman and gugck are smiling at this saying "Yes, you got it right".

Now why not look at the COMPLETE scale.

Code:

Scale of Goodness : Good Abscence of Good Evil | | | +-----------------------+---------------------+ | | | Help Person Don't Help Person Kill that Person

Now you see the FULL picture instead of your ignorant and limited one.

Lets look at that in terms of an example seeing as nothing else gets through.

Premise
A Man is being bashed by another man.

The "GOOD" Person
Goes over to help the person being bashed.

The "ABSCENCE OF GOOD" Person
Does nothing while the person is bashed

The "EVIL" Person
Goes over and helps the other person BASH him some more

It is completely flawed to state that the abscence of Good is the term we use for evil... because it isn't. That is why 0 is neither POSITIVE or NEGATIVE... because it is the abscence of ANY influence in either direction.

Good/Evil is the same as Positive/Negative.

---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
I WANT YOU TO READ THIS KEDAMAN

Do you agree with this FLAW?

The answer will determine if I actually EVER bother
to reply to you again.

---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
May 31st, 2000, 08:56 AM
gugck

So what your are saying is that is ok to just let something bad happen to someone?

It is interesting how you are quick to change the rules to suit your needs. Fortunately for me and everyone else, you don't make the rules. I know if something bad was happening to me, I'd want help, and it would be just as wrong (or evil if you will) to do nothing as it would be to participate. To me, not helping is the same as approving, and approving is the same as participating.
May 31st, 2000, 10:10 AM
Gen-X

Quote:

So what your are saying is that is ok to just let something bad happen to someone?

No I'm not saying that... and you KNOW that is not what I am saying.

But there is a distinct difference between providing help (Addition, Good, Positive), Doing nothing at all (Null, Neutral, 0), and going over and kicking him as well (Subtraction, Evil, Negative).

Its all about "perspective"... but I get the impression you are incapable of using other perspectives.

Think about this situation :

--------------------------------------------
Person A
1. He is good
2. He would go over and help the person who is down

Person B
1. He is evil
2. He would go over and help kicking the downed person

Person C
1. He is neutral
2. He would not involve himself in the situation

What Person A thinks of Person C
1. He is 'evil' because he did not help.
(Why? because Person C did "LESS GOOD" Than Person A would have)

What Person B thinks of Person C
1. He is 'good' because he did not kick him.
(Why? Because Person C did "LESS EVIL" Person B would have)

What another Person C would think of Person C
1. He is 'neutral' because he did what I would have done
(Why? Because Person C did "THE SAME" as the other Person C)
--------------------------------------------

So what does that actually tell you? Person C didn't change his actions although he is considered EVIL by those who are GOOD and considered GOOD by those who are EVIL.

It is in the "perspective" that judgement calls of Good and Evil are made... NOT in the actual actions themselves.

Quote:

It is interesting how you are quick to change the rules to suit your needs. Fortunately for me and everyone else, you don't make the rules. I know if something bad was happening to me, I'd want help, and it would be just as wrong (or evil if you will) to do nothing as it would be to participate. To me, not helping is the same as approving, and approving is the same as participating.

Change what rules? I haven't changed any rules... Its people like Kedaman that changes the rules.

I have a question for you...

You say it is "evil" not to help.

What if "helping" this other person meant that the attacker would turn their attentions to your mother or girlfriend or wife? Would you STILL help the stricken person and leave your loved one open to being attacked?

Wouldn't you be considered EVIL for KNOWINGLY doing something that brought harm to someone you loved?

Or what if the person being kicked was a mass murderer and had just killed your entire family? Would you still go over there and stop him from being kicked?

Somehow I dont think you would go over there in EITHER of these cases... because your "perspective" has changed.

THAT is changing the rules... THAT is the weakness, its pure consequentialist while attempting to maintain a deontological visage.

PATHETIC
Jun 1st, 2000, 08:13 PM
gugck

quoting Gen-X:
> No I'm not saying that... and you KNOW that
> is not what I am saying.

Actually in the context in which you used it, it is precisely what you said. In fact, if that is not what you were saying, then why did you use the same illustration in the same exact way all over again in the same reply? When I replied to it, it is funny how you got my point. I stand my ground on what I said, which was (in the presented situation - not necessarily all situations) that doing nothing is the same as participating.

> But there is a distinct difference between
> providing help (Addition, Good, Positive),
> Doing nothing at all (Null, Neutral, 0),
> and going over and kicking him as well
> (Subtraction, Evil, Negative).

I noticed you used "0" in your "doing nothing at all." Good and bad are boolean in value, not numeric. Isn't 0 also consider False? And if something is "Null," or "Neutral," does it convert to a default? In the case of good versus evil, no result may default to good or evil depending on the actions that were committed.

> So what does that actually tell you? Person C
> didn't change his actions although he is
> considered EVIL by those who are GOOD and
> considered GOOD by those who are EVIL.
> It is in the "perspective" that judgement
> calls of Good and Evil are made... NOT in
> the actual actions themselves.

Sounds like to me that you are saying that good and evil is based on each individual's idea of what they think is good or evil. I noticed that you said person so and so "thinks" that or "considers" so and so is good or evil or neutral. Saying "thinks" or "considers" implies opinion, and I know that you, being like myself want the facts, and do not want to rely on opinion. The fact is that a person's opinion is irrelevant, but what is important is the ACTUAL RESULT - good or evil. Certainly a person can say "I am hot" or "I am cold," or "It is light out," or "It is dark out," but what is it ACTUALLY. Can we measure it? Can we know, without relying on opinions? Yes we can.

Notice also that your application is in the pronoun form of the state of a PERSON'S being, such as "good" person, "absence of good" person, or "evil" person. When we judge the RESULT of an action we are not interested in the state of the person. You, of all people, should know that a good person can do evil, and an evil person can do good. It is not the person that is in question, but the RESULT of their actions, which can only be good or evil. There is no neutral because if something IS neutral, then it is, by default, either good or bad depending on the situation. I will show you using your own examples.

"A person is being bashed by another person" and yet another person sees it but does nothing. This is all the information we have, and the result will change when more factors are involved.

1. If the person being bashed deserves it (maybe as a sentence for their crime) then it would be GOOD not to intervene, not neutral.

2. If the person being bashed does not deserve it, then it is EVIL to not intervene, not neutral.

Let me repeat myself one more time so that you do not get too confused. You think that there is a do nothing. But there is only do good or do evil (which, by the way, is a little different than BE good and BE evil). The "FLAW," as you would say, in your argument is that not doing anything is still doing something, and doing something always determines whether what was done is good or evil.

> What if "helping" this other person meant
> that the attacker would turn their attentions
> to your mother or girlfriend or wife? Would
> you STILL help the stricken person and leave
> your loved one open to being attacked?
> Wouldn't you be considered EVIL for KNOWINGLY
> doing something that brought harm to someone
> you loved?

I can't believe you think you are presenting a good argument. In this case, if a person does nothing (which again is doing something), knowing that the result would bring harm to their family, then the result is what? That's right - good.

What about if they do intervene? The result of their action will be either good or evil depending on how the situation turned out.

> Or what if the person being kicked was a mass
> murderer and had just killed your entire
> family? Would you still go over there and stop
> him from being kicked?

Interestingly, the basis for all your arguments are based on what a person WOULD do. I understand what you are trying to saying, but the answers to your questions cannot be based on what a person WOULD do, but rather on what they SHOULD do. What they SHOULD do is dependent on the situation, and each situation will dictate whether what was done is good or evil. In this case, to do nothing (which again is doing something) could be good or evil, but it will never be neutral. Let me give some examples.

1. If you stop him from being beaten it maybe that you live in the United States and according to it's laws, a person is consider innocent until PROVEN guilty. It would be GOOD to let the law serve justice.

2. If you do not stop him from being beaten (which is the same as helping him be beaten) it maybe that you are defending your family and yourself, and that is also GOOD.

In summary of this whole thing, each situation dictates whether what is being done, or not done, both actions, and the only two choice (no neutral because it defaults to one of the other), determines whether the action is good or evil.

> It's all about "perspective"... but I get
> the impression you are incapable of using
> other perspectives.

Be very careful about impressions. You've heard the saying, "Never judge a book by it's cover," yet though I've only responded to one thing that you've said, you are already judging me. You do not even know me.

I find it extremely interesting that you complain about people pushing their ideas or beliefs down your throat, claiming they do not know what they are talking about, when you yourself do they very same things. You say you are against religion and religious people, yet you are more religious than most religious people I know. A "religious person" is one who believes something and basis their whole life around it. They are guided by a set of rules they have determined for themselves. Will you deny that you do not do that? Furthermore, anyone who does not agree with your "perspective" is automatically "flawed." Who is it then that is saying their way is the only right way.

Friend, I know all about perspective. I myself was once like you in my dislike of religion, and religious matters. I too, like you, have a love for science and reason and logical explanation. I too hate the idea that someone would put their trust, or faith into something that they have not taken the time to understand. And like you, I hate the idea that someone would start talking about something they no nothing about. You talk about religion and God, but how such of it or Him have actually studied? Enough to understand the basic concepts (not necessarily it's every concept)? Religion is a very tricky matter, and one thing I have learned from it is that one must not trust everything, but still like putting together a great puzzle, search for each piece with an open mind, trying ALL the possibilities? I personally hope that the purpose of our debates is to learn from each other. From what I have read, you are quite knowledgeable, and are a great thinker. While I do not appreciate your thoughtless concern for others, through your trying to put them down when they don't agree with you, I do appreciate your thought provoking material.
Jun 1st, 2000, 08:22 PM
gugck

I would like to invite you to some interesting reading material. Check out http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/97q3faf/haste.html

You will probably be interested in check out some of the other articles you find there.
Jun 4th, 2000, 09:30 AM
Gen-X

gugck

Quote:

Actually in the context in which you used it, it is precisely what you said. In fact, if that is not what you were saying, then why did you use the same illustration in the same exact way all over again in the same reply? When I replied to it, it is funny how you got my point. I stand my ground on what I said, which was (in the presented situation - not necessarily all situations) that doing nothing is the same as participating.

Actually it is precisely NOT what I said. In your own opinion "doing nothing" is the same as "doing evil". Based on that PERSONAL understanding of yours it was what I said. I however believe DIFFERENTLY than you do. In which case I restate what I said based on my own personal opinion.

Don't take my words and apply your OWN opinion to them... that is just as bad as actually twisting them on purpose ;)

Quote:

I noticed you used "0" in your "doing nothing at all." Good and bad are boolean in value, not numeric. Isn't 0 also consider False? And if something is "Null," or "Neutral," does it convert to a default? In the case of good versus evil, no result may default to good or evil depending on the actions that were committed.

I said "0" in the context of Positve/Negative in relation to Good/Evil.

AGAIN, it is your personal belief that Good/Evil is a Boolean and NOT numeric. AGAIN I disagree.

My proof for this disagreement is that there are "DEGREES" (Numeric) of Good/Evil. I can choose to help the person to the point where I not only intervene but also take him to a doctor, stay with him till he is well and set out to punish his attacker... OR I could just simply get the person to stop hitting him.

In BOTH cases I have done "GOOD" (Net result is person has stopped being attacked... but the DEGREE of good that I did varies.

This refutes your postulation that Good/Evil is a BOOLEAN expression.

Quote:

Sounds like to me that you are saying that good and evil is based on each individual's idea of what they think is good or evil

And you dispute that?

When women were burnt at the stake in Salem for "witchcraft" what do you think the people doing the BURNING thought?

They thought they were doing "GOOD".

What do you think the poor people being burned alive thought?

They thought they were doing "EVIL".

Why can you not see this concept?

Quote:

Saying "thinks" or "considers" implies opinion, and I know that you, being like myself want the facts, and do not want to rely on opinion. The fact is that a person's opinion is irrelevant, but what is important is the ACTUAL RESULT - good or evil

My, my... What is Good if not the "REASON" behind doing something.

I set out to MURDER someone... I want to hack them to pieces in cold blood. I find out AFTERWARDS that this person was a mass murderer and was just about to kill some poor and innocent little girl. The "ACTUAL RESULT" is that I have done "GOOD" because I saved a little girls life....

But my INTENTION was bad.

The Bible talks SPECIFICALLY about this when "killing in the name of God" in saying that the act of KILLING is in itself NOT EVIL... it is the INTENT behind the killing. If you do it to protect another or in the name of God then you are NOT committing evil.

Again I am absolutely astounded you cannot see this simple fact.

Quote:

Notice also that your application is in the pronoun form of the state of a PERSON'S being, such as "good" person, "absence of good" person, or "evil" person. When we judge the RESULT of an action we are not interested in the state of the person

Then I shall correct myself. I meants "Person A Believes themselves to be a GOOD person" and "Person C commits an act that is GOOD".

Quote:

"A person is being bashed by another person" and yet another person sees it but does nothing. This is all the information we have, and the result will change when more factors are involved

Whats this??? Does this mean that the ACTUAL RESULT could change? And yet it was your whole determination of whether it was good or evil.

If that is all the information we have then by all means we would jump in there to save the poor man.

What happens then if we find out he was being punished for a crime he committed?

Did we commit an EVIL act because we stoped just punishment?

Quote:

1. If the person being bashed deserves it (maybe as a sentence for their crime) then it would be GOOD not to intervene, not neutral.

You find out afterwards the person was INNOCENT.

Does that mean you did Evil?

Secondly, You are in another country... You didn't even know the man was being punished.

So you didn't help him.... As you said "doing nothing" is not neutral its EVIL.

So that means when someone is being murdered EVERY OTHER SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET IS COMMITTING EVIL!!!! Because they did nothing to help.

Oh whats that you say? You mean they didn't know which means they cannot be evil...

But they didn't do GOOD either... because if they did Good they would help.

So here we have it... They didn't do GOOD and they certainly didn't do EVIL... Mmmmmm... I wonder then if they would be considered NEUTRAL!!!!

I guess that is the second point of evidence that refutes your postulation of Good/Evil being boolean.

Quote:

Let me repeat myself one more time so that you do not get too confused. You think that there is a do nothing. But there is only do good or do evil (which, by the way, is a little different than BE good and BE evil). The "FLAW," as you would say, in your argument is that not doing anything is still doing something, and doing something always determines whether what was done is good or evil.

I know there is a do nothing.. its called being in another country.

"doing nothing" is doing something you are right... but what it is doing is saying "It is not my position to determine if my action in intervening will produce GOOD or EVIL".

There are 4 possiblities here :

1. Intervene & Person deserved it : Net result EVIL
2. Don't intervene & Person was innocent : Net result EVIL
3. Intervene & Person was innocent : Net result GOOD
4. Don't intervene & Person deserved it : Net result GOOD

As you say "doing something always determines whether what was done is good or evil".

So by choosing EITHER intervention or NOT intervention I could actually be doing EVIL.

By what you are saying (and have repeatedly said) it matters not my intention... it matters not the thought in my head is "Help this person" or "Kill this person" or even "Its none of my business"... All that matters is the end result of my action when all is said and done, the accounts are drawn and we know if what we did was right or not.

Quote:

I can't believe you think you are presenting a good argument. In this case, if a person does nothing (which again is doing something), knowing that the result would bring harm to their family, then the result is what? That's right - good.

The net result is Good? So they let the other person die and that is Good? Oh of course... they were protecting their own... which means it was MORE good than saving the other person... Is that Numeric again???

Lets break this one down to your "BOOLEAN" objectives.

Code:

Booleans : A : Save Person (True = Good, False = Evil) B : Save famiily (True = Good, False = Evil) Actions : 1 : Try to save Person OR 2 : Do nothing If Take Action 1 Then A = True B = False Result = A and B = FALSE (Evil) End If If Take Action 2 Then A = False B = True Result = A and B = FALSE (Evil) End If

Fancy that... regardless WHICH action you take the answer is that you did EVIL because either the person died or your family died and after all the only thing that matters is the "ACTUAL RESULT".

Quote:

What about if they do intervene? The result of their action will be either good or evil depending on how the situation turned out.

I hope you realise your naivety by now

Quote:

What they SHOULD do is dependent on the situation, and each situation will dictate whether what was done is good or evil

This means that if I see a person being harmed and I know no additional information then I help. If I find out later that it was justice being served then "what was done" is now considered EVIL... So what I SHOULD have done was do nothing. Therefor my choice to DO SOMETHING was EVIL.

Quote:

1. If you stop him from being beaten it maybe that you live in the United States and according to it's laws, a person is consider innocent until PROVEN guilty. It would be GOOD to let the law serve justice.

Flaw 1 : If the law is an EVIL law then its EVIL to let the law serve justice. Who are you to determine if the law is Good or Evil?

Flaw 2 : People get wrongly convicted. Doing nothing would mean your action is EVIL because you didn't say a persons life regardless of whether the law says they deserve it or not.

Quote:

If you do not stop him from being beaten (which is the same as helping him be beaten)

Absolutely and totally NOT the same!!!!!!

If I "let" him get beaten he might get away with a few bruises and a cracked rib. If I "help" him get beaten he could die.

I have DOUBLED the amount of damage that person is taking and you are telling me they are the SAME!?!?!?!

If you convert everything that happens into your life as either GOOD or EVIL then I would DEARLY love to hear your "boolean" responses to the following :

1. Abortion : Good or Evil?
2. Euthenasia : Good or Evil?
3. Capital Punishment : Good or Evil?

Quote:

it maybe that you are defending your family and yourself, and that is also GOOD

Good for YOU maybe but it certainly isn't GOOD for the person being beaten. In fact as far as HE is concerned what you are doing is EVIL for not helping him.

Do I have to repeat myself in saying that Good/Evil are based on "PERSPECTIVE"?????

Is the man being beaten going to say "Thats ok, let me die, you are protecting your family which means you are being GOOD"

Quote:

In summary of this whole thing, each situation dictates whether what is being done, or not done, both actions, and the only two choice (no neutral because it defaults to one of the other), determines whether the action is good or evil

Actually its your "assessment" of the situation that determines if it is Good or Evil. I may assess that the person will get away with a mere beating and thus He lives, I live, my Family lives and Ultimate GOOD is done.

Its when I assess that someone will die, my family will NOT be harmed and I WILLINGLY did nothing to stop it that becomes EVIL... because my INTENTION was to allow harm to come to him for no good reason.

If however I say "I cannot determine WHICH action will bring about the most good" then why is that Evil by default?

1. Person may die if I try to help instead of just getting a beating : EVIL
2. My family may die if left unprotected : EVIL
3. I might be stopping justice from being served : EVIL
4. I can save him : GOOD

My "assessment" of the situation is that 3 possibilities bring about EVIL while only 1 possibility brings about GOOD.

In that case wouldn't the logical choice be the INTENT of choosing a path that presents itself with the HIGHEST opportunity for Good to occur?

Quote:

Be very careful about impressions. You've heard the saying, "Never judge a book by it's cover," yet though I've only responded to one thing that you've said, you are already judging me. You do not even know me.

Oh my... Rhetoric of the "religous" :(

Why is it that people who believe in God have so MAJORLY misunderstood the concept of "judgement"?

They spit it out like its a foul and dirty word and yet we ALL do it. Yes I have judged you... whats wrong with that? You have judged me... its what human beings do. Sometimes we guise it using words like "educated guess" or "estimate" or "I believe you meant"... but its STILL judgement.

Might I remind you of this comment?

Quote:

Sounds like to me that you are saying that good and evil is based on each individual's idea of what they think is good or evil

Have you "judged" that my opinion is as you stated? Or are you going to use some wonderful word that turns it from a judgement to a word you can actually stomach?

You DO judge a book by its cover... its all you see at first. What you DON'T do is refuse to open the book based on what you know about the cover. You accept that your "judgement" may be based on limited information and you endevour to open that book to find out if your original JUDGEMENT was correct or not.

Quote:

I find it extremely interesting that you complain about people pushing their ideas or beliefs down your throat, claiming they do not know what they are talking about, when you yourself do they very same things.

Again you state something as if I said I didn't do that... What do you think everyone does? We take our opinions and we tell them to other people.

The difference is in people having the option to listen or not. To put my comment about "pushing their ideas down my throat" into context I was refering at the time to people preaching on street corners. I don't go around telling everyone around me what I believe to be true, I dont force them to listen to me in a public place. In here people may choose to listen or not to.

If you are going to quote me please put it in the proper context...

Quote:

You say you are against religion and religious people, yet you are more religious than most religious people I know. A "religious person" is one who believes something and basis their whole life around it. They are guided by a set of rules they have determined for themselves. Will you deny that you do not do that?

Actually I will expand on it. If you look at the "cover" you will certainly draw similarities between myself and "religious people"... But as you get INSIDE the book you will discover one fundamental difference.

"relgious" people believe purely on faith and DO NOT QUESTION because it means they must not have faith.

Myself on the otherhand will CERTAINLY build my life around the rules I determined... but I will always question my rules and when presented with improvements to that rule I will happily accept them and CHANGE my belief to suit the new and improved version.

Can YOU tell me religious people ever CHANGE their belief in their deity to newer versions?

Quote:

Furthermore, anyone who does not agree with your "perspective" is automatically "flawed." Who is it then that is saying their way is the only right way

Actually they are not automatically flawed. They are only flawed if I can find reasonable, logical or sensible argumentation to that end. If I can find nothing whatsoever to dispute what they say then they are obviously not flawed.

I cannot "disprove" God's existance... But I also cannot accept other peoples "proof" of his existence because I see flaws in their statements. When someone asks I do not outrightly say "God does not exist" I state my reasons why and ask for people to find logical, reasonable or sensible arguments as to why my own personal reasons are flawed.

If they can do that successfully then I happily accept it and analyse it again to find a path that more closely resembles the truth.

Quote:

Friend, I know all about perspective

Then I hope you will understand Friend when I say that your words have strongly suggested to me (Ah, one of those "soft" words for judgement) that if you believe you know al about perspective you have overlooked something

Quote:

You talk about religion and God, but how such of it or Him have actually studied? Enough to understand the basic concepts (not necessarily it's every concept)?

I not only grew up in a religious environment but also married a religious person and spent several years in such a environment. Don't begin to think I am talking from lack of knowledge here. I asked these questions to those in relgious groups and as always the discussions ended in "I DON'T KNOW, WHY CAN'T YOU JUST BELIEVE?".

Quote:

Religion is a very tricky matter, and one thing I have learned from it is that one must not trust everything, but still like putting together a great puzzle, search for each piece with an open mind, trying ALL the possibilities?

Then I must ask you something.

1. Do you belive in God?
2. And if so, do you believe in the possibility that he does NOT exist?

This is where I get frustrated. Those who DO believe in God absolutely and totally refuse to even "consider" the possibility that he does NOT exist, which by your own definition shows they do NOT have an open mind.

I personally do NOT believe in him, though I do hold reservation about the possibility of his existence... its just that nobody has given me enough evidence to support that possibility.

Quote:

I personally hope that the purpose of our debates is to learn from each other

I wish that were so... but the only people who learn are those who are not blind, those who have absolute faith are blind because their faith prohibits them from even "considering" alternatives.

So the only people who are learning are those who do NOT have absolute faith... all the others simply refuse to even see reason.

Quote:

While I do not appreciate your thoughtless concern for others, through your trying to put them down when they don't agree with you, I do appreciate your thought provoking material

It is my bane, when I become frustrated I resort to sarcasm and derision. I spent many years being tolerant of people with these views, I calmly tried to open their minds to alternatives, I even took the time out to "step into their shoes" and see the world from their perspective.... and yet never would they try the opposite. Always they wer just simply right and no other alternative existed.

Iain once berated me for my sarcasm and then found himself doing exactly the same and now understands the fuel that ignites it.

If you read my posts you will find times where I agree, disagree and even stop to reconsider something I have said myself... I have stated when I was wrong, have apologised when I misunderstood someone and have even attempted at times to just "Agree to disagree" (which I am sure you can understand is the hardest thing for me to do)....

My biggest flaw in life is that I don't tolerate stupidity very well.... which on occasion makes me stupid ;)
Jun 4th, 2000, 10:25 PM
kedaman

My correction - Good and Evil is a boolean choise.

Quote:

My proof for this disagreement is that there are "DEGREES" (Numeric) of Good/Evil. I can choose to help the person to the point where I not only intervene but also take him to a doctor, stay with him till he is well and set out to punish his attacker... OR I could just simply get the person to stop hitting him.

In BOTH cases I have done "GOOD" (Net result is person has stopped being attacked... but the DEGREE of good that I did varies.

This refutes your postulation that Good/Evil is a BOOLEAN expression.

I disagree Gen-x, in this case you have two independent choises. 1-Boolean Choise to help person or not. 2- Boolean Choise to punish attacker or not. The other choises is not irrelevant, but if they were, they are all boolean choises. What you think is Evil is the degree of damage done in overall, that's definitely something else. Evil is the contrast to Good of a boolean switch and it is determined by your own mind. You will know when you do something wrong.

Quote:

Sounds like to me that you are saying that good and evil is based on each individual's idea of what they think is good or evil

So this is correct. You yourself determine if you have done right or wrong.

Quote:

When women were burnt at the stake in Salem for "witchcraft" what do you think the people doing the BURNING thought?

They thought they were doing "GOOD".

What do you think the poor people being burned alive thought?

They thought they were doing "EVIL".

Gen-x, can you make this more clear: Who is "they" in all four cases? As i see this
1. People doing the burning must think either they are doing right or wrong, depend on how much they think it is correct to burn witches.
2. People burned must think they have done wrong, if they have done it to be called witches OR, right, if they have been missunderstood in some way.

Quote:

Saying "thinks" or "considers" implies opinion, and I know that you, being like myself want the facts, and do not want to rely on opinion. The fact is that a person's opinion is irrelevant, but what is important is the ACTUAL RESULT - good or evil

This is in my opinion wrong, gugck. The ACTUAL RESULT shows nothing of how a human thinks. The thought behind it, the good or evil behind it, is what counts. I have to Agree Gen-x is right about this.

Although there is a huge problem with this:

Quote:

The Bible talks SPECIFICALLY about this when "killing in the name of God" in saying that the act of KILLING is in itself NOT EVIL... it is the INTENT behind the killing. If you do it to protect another or in the name of God then you are NOT committing evil.

because this is what religion causes, massmurder and wars. On this basis. If there is something correct in the bible it must be the law "Do not kill"

Quote:

So here we have it... They didn't do GOOD and they certainly didn't do EVIL... Mmmmmm... I wonder then if they would be considered NEUTRAL!!!!

I guess that is the second point of evidence that refutes your postulation of Good/Evil being boolean.

NO, here is what you don't understand Gen-x. consider those not involved in this case to not have a choise at all. To act evil or good, you need a choise. Instead they have to consider other choises.

Quote:

There are 4 possiblities here :

1. Intervene & Person deserved it : Net result EVIL
2. Don't intervene & Person was innocent : Net result EVIL
3. Intervene & Person was innocent : Net result GOOD
4. Don't intervene & Person deserved it : Net result GOOD

As you say "doing something always determines whether what was done is good or evil".

So by choosing EITHER intervention or NOT intervention I could actually be doing EVIL.

So the only thing that possibly could solve this is your own perspective. If it is a hard choise, it's probably because there isn't any good or evil in the act at all. YOu are probably doing good in both cases because you will know the other will only result in evil.

Quote:

I cannot "disprove" God's existance... But I also cannot accept other peoples "proof" of his existence because I see flaws in their statements. When someone asks I do not outrightly say "God does not exist" I state my reasons why and ask for people to find logical, reasonable or sensible arguments as to why my own personal reasons are flawed.

You haven't seen a flaw in my proof of god yet, so it still stands true...
Jun 5th, 2000, 03:07 AM
gugck

Reply to previous postings

> You are telling me that the simplest
> answer to our existence in the universe
> is that a sentient extra-universal
> entity made the decision to create
> an entire universe and "PROGRAM" every
> single physical law, chemical reaction,
> sub-atomic interaction, intellectual
> thought, pre-destined eventuality and
> sentient inhabitant????

You are telling me that all that happened by sheer coincidence? You said you would entertain the thought that God could exist, yet here you aren't entertaining anything. Just saying that it is not possible. Did you actually sit down and think about how it could be possible, and then say, it can't be? Why is it so hard to comprehend the idea of consciousness creating?

> We are NOT natural... that has been proved
> by the fact that we no longer abide by the
> laws of nature. We don't die when we were
> meant to, we change our own genetics, we
> live in environments that are not hospitable.
> Everything nature defines for everything
> else we ignore.

You said, "we no longer abide by the laws of nature." What do mean abide by? You said, "we don't die when we were meant to." What do you mean "meant to?" You say, "Everything NATURE DEFINES for everything else we ignore?" Are you implying purpose? According to your arguments, we have no purpose, yet these statements you present imply this.

If the universe created itself, then why can't it re-create itself. According to your thinking that the universe just is, why does it have to obey it's own laws? You say "we change our genetics" and claim it is not normal, but if the universe creates itself, and I am part of the universe, then I can re-create myself if I want to. Please be careful about contradicting yourself, because it makes you out to be a liar.

> If you went to a psychologist and
> described ALL of the things you
> believe in... but said it was a
> Rabbit you were talking about and
> NOT God they would lock you up
> and throw away the key.

We know for sure a rabbit exists, and we know what rabbit is. We know all the qualities of a rabbit as it relates to us. Furthermore, we can run tests to find the answer. However, God we do not know exists, and cannot run a tests, like we could with a rabbit. The psychologist has no right to lock up someone for simply believing. If I say, "God talks to me." Can you disprove it!? If you can then lock me up.

> I find it completely offensive that
> anybody tells me I was created by
> some higher power, I find it offensive
> that I am TOLD the universe I live
> in was constructed.

I find it completely offensive that anybody would tell me I am related to ape or a one-cell organism. What is so wrong with being the offspring of an entity that knows all the properties of the universe and can manipulate time/space? That not only knows these things, but actually created them from it's own thought process.

I do have a question. Did you create yourself, or was it another force greater than yourself (not necessarily referring to my God)? Now you contradict reality.

> 1. If GOD is so omniscient why create us?
> 2. If he exists outside of our space/time why create it?
> 3. If the "rules" don't apply to him why make them apply to us?

You ask "why" three times. If you do not believe you have a purpose, then why never gets answered. In fact, any reason a person gives, you will just say, I disagree because we have no purpose. Since you asked though, let's see if I can make it real simple.

1. Why do we programmers write programs? We can live without them. If we are self-sufficient without it, then "why" create it? We create it because we want it to do something for us, whether it is entertain us, or allow us to interact with each other easier and more quickly, or whatever. Do we need a reason to create it? No. We can create it just because we want to.

2. Again as a programmer, do you exist outside your program? Yes. Why create it?

3. Again as a programmer, do the rules of your program apply to you? Like God, they do while you are interacting with it, but if you want you can change the programming logic so that it does what you want. As the programmer, are you limited to what you programmed into it, or can you re-program it whenever you want it to do something different?

> a. Why were we created in his image?
> b. Why is his image that of a planet
> walking, air breathing biped?

You again ask "why?" And your questions are irrelevant. If there is no purpose, then the question is irrelevant. The question can be answered by looking in the place you got the original concept of "created in his image." In order for you to understand, you must first understand other concepts, which the Bible presents. Ultimately, and in simplest terms, "created in his image," means that we are His offspring. Does it mean he has a physical body, like our own? No. Our bodies and the whole of creation is merely a symbolic representation of a true reality - my opinion.

> Surely you would WANT to create something
> equal to yourself in order to be
> entertained/kept company or whatever...
> but you wouldn't set out to make something
> that was completely and totally inferior
> to yourself and then control everything
> that happened inside it.

Why not? We do it every day. You have a computer, and the computer does everything you program it to do. Is the computer "equal to you?" Your misconception is that God is actually making people do EVERYTHING they do, when according the Bible (which is what you keep referring to), He only defined the parameters of operation, and gave it all the data it needed to figure itself out. Your programming logic does the same thing. When you are writing a program, don't you create all parameters of it's operation and then afterward give it all the data it needs to do the calculations?

> Oh and one last thing. If God is responsible
> for everything and can micromanage everything
> then he is responsible for MY disbelieving in him.

> So God is actually disbelieving in himself...
> therefore he doesn't even think HE exists...
> so why would we?

Just like the programmer, He can tell you that if parameter so and thus is set, then the result will be… He has given you a "free-will" so that you can choose, but he knows every possible choice you could make, and the outcome of each choice. He is able to make a program understand itself, and allow it to decide even if it wants to work properly. Even we can do some of these things with our own programming models.

> There is no need to think that something
> ELSE is responsible for us or our world.
> What is it going to take to convince people
> that there is no such thing as God and even
> if there is he certainly doesn't give a
> rats arse if we live or die.

Is any of your statement based on fact? Can you "prove" your statement beyond a shadow of a doubt? You are lying because "something else" (again not necessarily my God) IS responsible for us and our world. Let me ask. Are you responsible for your existence and your world? As far as "convincing" people, we are like you. We need unrefutable answers. You can't "convince" anyone of something you cannot prove. You already told me in the last post that you cannot prove God does not exist. Furthermore, you said, "if He does exist He certainly…" How do you know what He thinks? Have you talked to Him? Are you now like us?

> As for religion. It isn't human nature to "believe"..

Oh yeah!? Is that what you believe? :)

> If there is one thing I hate.. its ignorance,
> I find it the most VILE failure of the human
> species to wallow in the middle ages just
> because it doesn't fit what YOU want to be
> the truth.

Truth is truth regardless of what one believes. You get angry at others because they hold on to what they believe until someone proves them wrong, but isn't that what you are doing.

> We used to think that God created plagues and
> swarms, turned water into wine and did all these miracles...

You say, "used to" and "now we haven't seen those kinds of things in 2000 years." Who is we? We who believe in God see these kinds of things all the time. Let me share with you.

My son, who is now, 8 was born with an irreversible heart condition. Upon his arrival, the doctors noted he was having trouble, so they monitored him, examined him, and eventually conclude based on FACTS that they know that he had a problem with his heart. To verify the condition, he was sent to a special heart doctor. This doctor also came to the same conclusion. He in fact told us that our son's heart would never be right without surgery, and that they should monitor him to see how it affects him. They determined that if his heart caused him trouble they would perform surgery to correct it when he was old enough. He was examined regularly as to his condition, and with each visit it reconfirmed the condition and it's affect on him. Now, this went on over a period of years, and during that time, I prayed to God for God to correct his problematic heart. The facts, according to the doctors, say that no one has ever grown out of this condition, it has NEVER occurred before, and in most cases required heart surgery. Oddly enough, the 3rd year, the doctor went to examine him, and found a perfect heart. The doctor was so perplexed that he did not know what to do. He even went back and re-examined all the past data to make sure no mistakes were made. He found no mistakes. He himself, said, "Wow! That has never happened before." You will probably just say, "oh, he just grew out of it." But my question is this, what are the chances that someone would just happened to beat the odds that just happened to have someone praying for him?

Let's try this one. A man is sitting in church and begins to have problems. Someone in the congregation calls the paramedics, and they come and do all they can for him only to end up pronouncing him dead. The paramedics cover him and are ready to take him away, but the congregation speaks up and says, "we do not accept this, please let us pray." They begin praying, and 15 minutes after they began the man sits up. He is alive to this day. He and members of the congregation will tell you and they all agree. The paramedics, who were not necessarily "religious" people (I dunno that), have legal documents showing the time of death. Did they all imagine he died? Did he actually die? The fact, which is all we have, say he did.

Let's break it down. Person A died. Paramedic person B and C verified, and documented it. Person D-etc. witnessed the whole thing, and also prayed. Person A lives on. Each one is an indisputable fact.

Again, it is sure such a coincidence that these things just happened to occur the same time we prayed. If God is not real, then no one can pray to Him. If no one can pray to Him, then prayer doesn't work. Why did it work in these two cases? These are only two of the MANY verifications of the power of prayer to a real and living God just within my own experience. Shall I go and find all the different accounts that are documented within our lifetime, even by people like yourself? Miracles do happen today. If you do not hear about them it is because you are not looking in the right places, or talking to the right people.
Jun 5th, 2000, 09:18 AM
Gen-X

Whoah!

Information overload. I will try to get through things as simply as I can, I will be short but hopefully get the main points.

Kedaman

Quote:

Gen-x, can you make this more clear: Who is "they" in all four cases? As i see this
1. People doing the burning must think either they are doing right or wrong, depend on how much they think it is correct to burn witches.
2. People burned must think they have done wrong, if they have done it to be called witches OR, right, if they have been missunderstood in some way.

*sigh*
"they" refers to the people just mentioned.

1. The BurnERS thought the act of burning was GOOD because it rid the world of what they "perceived" as EVIL

2. The BurnEES thought the act of being burned was EVIL because they knew they were decent people and that the people burning them were IGNORANT

This shows that one side felt the act was "GOOD" while the other side felt it was "EVIL". I think you agree with me on this (based on what I have read here) that Good/Evil is based on your own perception of the event.

Quote:

NO, here is what you don't understand Gen-x. consider those not involved in this case to not have a choise at all. To act evil or good, you need a choise. Instead they have to consider other choises

So if your variable only has Good(True) and Evil(False) then if I tried to create this variable for a perosn who wasn't there (ie you said he has "not have a choice at all") then which value would you assign it? Good or Evil?

But I heard you say... "He wasn't THERE... you can't assign him EITHER value!!!"

And that my friend means that he is NULL.

Quote:

You haven't seen a flaw in my proof of god yet, so it still stands true...

I have seen many flaws in your proof but instead of actually debating them you simply say "your wrong" or "bullshit" or "I didn't see you mention any flaws" and carry on as if blinded.

You once said the only 2 things you believe are real are :

1. Yourself
2. What you "see" or what created the illusion

If you "see" then it is an extention of "yourself" and what creates the illusion can also be "yourself".

You also said that perhaps it was your own mind that created the world around you, that you are the only consciousness and the only thing that truely existed and that you could have made me up in you mind to talk to you.

If you believe that, and considering you believe YOURSELF to be one of the only real things then your belief in God means you created him within this "consciousness" you talk about. In that event as you are the creator of God then YOU are in fact God.

Another flaw in your proof was the scientific proof you postulated from your uncle. Everyone picked holes in it immediately showing the flaw of your already EXISTING belief in God for jumping to wild conclusions without fact.... yet you STILL believe they are wrong in saying that.

What more proof do you need?

Quote:

I agree that we perceive "degrees of" good or evil. But how much good or evil do we have to do before it is considered good or evil?

Exactly my point!!!

1. I Steal an apple (Its wrong, its bad.. but its not much)
2. I hit a person (Now its a bit worse, its definately bad)
3. I kill a person (Ooooo... now I am bordering on Evil)
4. I spend my entire life murdering people (Pure Evil)

Are you trying to tell me that all 4 of these are "BOOLEAN" and that Stealing an apple is "just as evil" as spending my entire life murdering people?????

[ANSWER REQUIRED]

Quote:

That is all the CPU really understands on it's most basic level. As for us, we do the same. Consider it this way, our bodies are the hardware that receive the data, and our reason or logic is the processor. As we receive data from outside ourselves, we convert it down to 1 or 0 - True or False.

You see this is where you are being ignorant (meant sincerely).

Human beings DON'T do it the same way. Have you ever studied the human brain? Unlike a CPU which can only count in 0's and 1's the neural transmitters of the human brain are ANALOG. This means that we receive "shades" of signals. Neurons are triggered based on a complex chemical reactions only when the threshhold is breached. This is the WHOLE reason why we struggle to make interfaces between Man and Machine... because WE ARE NOT DIGITAL (ie run on 0's and 1's)

Now if you want to start talking Quantum Physics we could probably find at a sub-atomic level a reaction either DOES or DOES NOT happen (Boolean) but if you know anything at all bout QM is that the sub-atomic world and our own are so vastly different relating one to the other is ignorance.

Quote:

If what you think is good is opposite of what I think is good, what is our basis for agreement on judging something else good or evil? If we go to court, how do we come to a correct or truthful conclusion to it's actual condition?

Ok. So its time for definitions :)

Good = Fair, Just, Equal, Unbias, Unselfish.... etc, etc

But I have to ask... what does that have to do with the courts? I have found that they rarely rely on being fair or just... some of the laws I believe are actually OPPOSITE and yet we must follow them if we want to live in our society.

We will NEVER be able to reach a "truthful" conclusion... only the TRUTH that we want to be known. I once believed as I think you do now that despite what anyone says there is a "TRUTH" which is always right and always behind everything... and that bringing it to light means everyone can see it... I discovered over the years that followed this wasn't the case.

I realise now that TRUTH is what a person believes it to be. Sure we share common truths... but the difference between RIGHT/WRONG and GOOD/EVIL is totally dependant on which side of the fence you are sitting on.

EVIL : Man steals food from a grocer
GOOD : Man stole it to feed his family

To his family he is "GOOD" but to the grocer he is "EVIL". If there is an ABSOLUTE truth to it all then what is it?

A: He is GOOD because he fed his family? Why didn't he "talk" to the grocer instead and ask?

B: He is EVIL because he stole? But he was prepared to do anything to see his family well. Is that Evil?

Quote:

You have a window. It is created good, and perfect i.e. no scratches, no warps, no defects in any way. A person comes along and puts a crack in it. Now that is has a crack in it, it is defective. Does it matter the "degree" of the crack? It may a one-inch long crack or it may cover the whole window, but what difference does that make? Either way it is still defective, and depending on how much defectiveness we can tolerate, we determine if it needs to be fixed or replaced

Did you realise your contradiction here? You say it doesn't matter the "degree" of the crack and yet you say depending on that "degree" you will determine if it is to be fixed or replaced.

Quote:

My argument was never that "doing nothing" = "Evil."

Really? Perhaps you should go back up and read your exact words which state "If you do not stop him from being beaten (which is the same as helping him be beaten) "

Can you now tell me that was never your argument?

Quote:

I am not trying to be ignorant, but like you I have questions

Perhaps this will help then. In order for me to evaluate something someone says I place myself in their shoes.

You tell me Good/Evil are BOOLEAN. So I "entertain" this fact. I take it to be true and then think of all the consequences of that belief. I then find myself wondering "If it is boolean then I MUST apply a value to EVERYONE I meet. I see fred, fred hit me yesterday... that was EVIL. I see john, john helped me out on the weekend... that was GOOD. I see mary, I dont know mary from a bar of soap, we have never spoken nor had any contact. Mmmmm... I cannot designate her recent actions as Good because it did not effect me... I cannot even designate her actions as Evil because again it didn't effect me... So I am left with no choice but to designate her actions (NULL) or 0 or benign"

This is why I refuse the belief that Good/Evil are Boolean.

How about you place yourself in my shoes. Consider Good/Evil to be a numeric value where 0 is the abscence of Good AND Evil. 0 is where the Animals live... they neither help nor harm... they simply do what they must to survive.

Now tell me a flaw in my system while looking at it from the inside?

Quote:

Since one person thinks one thing is good and the other person thinks the same thing is evil, how do they ever know for sure which of them is right unless something outside of us defines it?

Why MUST one of them be right????

Imagine this :

2 men fighting for a loaf of bread. BOTH of them are trying to feed their families. BOTH of them are starving. If they shared the loaf EVENLY between them then BOTH families would die from starvation.

Who is EVIL and who is GOOD? One family would say they are GOOD if they get the loaf and the other is EVIL for trying to take it from them... That is the way of life... I am Good, THEY are evil.

Its the whole reason why people and countries can stand to commit war on each other... because they JUSTIFY themselves and CONDEMN their enemy.

I remember a religious person once explaining to me that the reason a Soldier isn't considered to be committing MURDER during a time of war was because they were doing GOOD and not evil. I wonder if they ever asked the family of the people he killed if he was Good or Evil?

Quote:

I will be the first to agree with you that the majority of people like me are as you judge them, but hopefully, after we get to know one another a little better, you will not think that of me

Well I shall admit that you are showing classic symptoms of what I categorize as a person of blind religious belief... but you also show a few symptoms of being able to see beyond that... As yet I cannot tell if you truely believe them or simply entertain them to be seen as "open minded". I will keep myself open to either possibility.

Quote:

Truth, our goal. Evaluate all statements to be True or False

Statement : 1.0000001 is close to 1

Answer : TRUE

But is it? What is your definition of "close"? What is mine? Is there an ULTIMATE definition of "close"?

This is why there is no such thing as ULTIMATE truths

"Logic" is not just the breakdown of data to 0's and 1's. Logic is also the "natural flow" of things. Like water trickles down the side of a mountain by finding the path of least resistance... This is another point of Logic.

Quote:

My first question. Do you know all religious people?

I should provide you with some additional information.

When I make statements like "All people" I actually mean "The majority of people whom I have had some interaction with so far". I am so surprised when people do not understand that generalizations like this are always based on the experience of the person themselves.

If I were to say the statment to you "All planets revolve around our sun" you would say "TRUE". But they have discovered other planets in other galaxies. But you didn't think of that.. because what you consider to be "All planets" are those that you know of.

Do you see my point?

Quote:

I do not believe PURELY on faith because I question all the data I receive that says it is True. Your statement is now False again

Then what irrefutable PROOF do you have for God's existance that does not rely on the fact you ALREADY believe in his existance?

Quote:

Yes, they can and they do

So today they believe Jesus was the son of God and tomorrow they believe he was just a prophet???

Of course not you say... That is a CORE belief.. that does not change.

That is like saying "Of course the world is not round. It is a CORE belief that it is flat".

"In general" religious people will never totally change their belief and "remain" religious people. Only those who believe in science will do that.

As you say... We use the facts to determine TRUE/FALSE and when new facts are presented we CHANGE that.

World is flat = TRUE
Someone went around the world = Change to FALSE

Religous people "in general" believe the existence of God based on conclusions they draw themselves about things that happen... without any solid proof... and yet ask them how you could change their belief about the existence of God and they say it is impossible... show us FACTS.

I find it enourmously strange they don't need FACTS (or those facts are VERY dodgy) to believe but they want ABSOLUTE PROOF to disbelieve. This to me is a clear deliniation as to the "nature" of their belief not being founded in factual determination but in personal belief which probably started from childhood when their parents "TOLD" them God existed... and the rest is history.

Quote:

I really like the way you word it, "more closely resembles." It shows me that you are willing to have some faith.

Tell me... do you believe ABSOLUTE faith blinds people?

Quote:

My answer is yes to both. However, for me, the possibility of God not existing, will mean that my own ability to perceive a thing is "flawed." And in this case, your statement about my "mental deficiency" is then true.

This is where I question your difference from other religious people. You say that you DO accept the possiblity that he does NOT exist... but qualify it by saying if that is the case you are completely insane!!!

Does that mean you TRUELY accept this possibility or was that just a very fancy way of being able to say "YES" but really meaning "NO"?

Quote:

I am one of those who believe in God, and I do not refuse to "consider the possibilities."

I question the qualification of insanity as being directly equal to "refusing" to accept an alternative.

You haven't convinced me you TRUELY accept the possibility he does NOT exist.

Quote:

This is the problem I have. How much evidence is "enough evidence?" Ultimately you determine that factor

EXACTLY And those people who are already pre-disposed to believe in the existance of God will need LITTLE TO NO evidence to accept it... but they require an infinate amount of evidence to DENY it.

Can you not see this philosophy running through ALL people of religious belief??????

Quote:

and you will begin to see that not all religious people are as you suppose.

To be honest... what I am learning lately is that "some" religious people are more devious than others. Most will wave their ignorance around with pride believing it to show themselves as pious while others know how to "play the heathen game" while still reserving their own beliefs.

Lets hope I get a surprise... people only grow through surprises ;)

gugck

Quote:

You are telling me that all that happened by sheer coincidence?

No I am not telling you that. I am telling you that it happened. "coincidence" would imply purpose in things. Is it a "coincidence" that all forms of life are composed of the element CARBON? No, because CARBON is the element that bonds the easiest to other elements such as HYDROGEN and OXYGEN which form complex nucleids, proteins and amino acids

Quote:

You said you would entertain the thought that God could exist, yet here you aren't entertaining anything. Just saying that it is not possible. Did you actually sit down and think about how it could be possible, and then say, it can't be? Why is it so hard to comprehend the idea of consciousness creating?

I did sit down and think of it would be possible. I imagined a being that was sentient, that had the ability to control our universe. I then thought about how our universe has laws and how those laws are NEVER broken.

GRAVITY works... it always works, there has never been a documented case where it has NOT worked.

That is where I came to the realisation that God did not exist... because a being that is "SENTIENT" makes its own purpose and it moves "OUTSIDE" of the natural environment that is around it. Because of that its MOVEMENT is then evident.

Why are rocks not sentient? Because they will always follow the principles of the universe. They will not move of their own volition, they will not show "PURPOSE".

If God is sentient then we would see UNDISPUTABLE evidence of his purpose. Gravity would stop when it served his purpose, Physical laws would "temporarily halt" to serve his purpose..... But so far the only thing people of a religious nature can ever bring forth to explain God's ACTUAL work in this world is minute, mystical, almost unperceivable... They banter words like "If you believed then you would see" which only prove even more that they are ficticiously creating evidence... that is like saying "If you were insane you would see".

I can quite easily accept the existance of a divine entity... IF I CAN SEE SOMETHING OCCUR THAT DEFIES A KNOWN AND REPETITIOUSLY PROVEN NATURAL LAW THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY AN AS YET UNQUANTIFIED FORCE.

We have come to know of only **4** forces in our universe. Every single element of matter IN this universe is described by those 4 forces. They each occur as a response to the motion that was started with the Big Bang. If you can show me a force OUTSIDE of this, or one where one of these 4 forces are started WITHOUT an existing and pre-determined force...

THEN I will start to listen.... Until then everything you say comes across as the blind leading the blind.

Quote:

You said, "we no longer abide by the laws of nature." What do mean abide by? You said, "we don't die when we were meant to." What do you mean "meant to?" You say, "Everything NATURE DEFINES for everything else we ignore?" Are you implying purpose? According to your arguments, we have no purpose, yet these statements you present imply this.

Yes I am implying purpose... As I have said and frustratingly have to RESTATE... "Sentience HAS Purpose". That is the whole reason why I dispute Animals as being "sentient"... They are Alive certainly but I disagree they are sentient because they ABIDE by the laws of nature.

As for us "humans" we do NOT abide by the laws of nature. We are the only species known to have defied nature and become sentient... In doing this we give ourselves PURPOSE. Whether that purpose be survival, the persuit of happiness, the accumulation of wealth or to just have a good time.

Where in any of that does it imply there must be a divine entity on top of it all?

In fact the existance of our ability to give ourselves purpose was the reason God was created in the first place... We wanted an ULTIMATE purpose and people chose to construct a "creator" to give us that purpose... well, to keep it shrouded in mystery and tell us we will find it just on the other side of death so that we can happily live our lives without fear of being listless and living for no good reason.

Quote:

If the universe created itself, then why can't it re-create itself

What the hell do you think is going to happen when the gravity of the universal mass starts falling back in on itself and the whole thing comes screaming into the centre and explodes into ANOTHER big bang?????

Sarcastic or not... You are being just plain IGNORANT.

Quote:

According to your thinking that the universe just is, why does it have to obey it's own laws?

The word "obey" implies choice. The universe doesn't have a CHOICE... the universe IS.

Quote:

You say "we change our genetics" and claim it is not normal, but if the universe creates itself, and I am part of the universe, then I can re-create myself if I want to. Please be careful about contradicting yourself, because it makes you out to be a liar.

And as I have said... WE have surpassed nature. WE have overcome "some" of the universal boundaries set out for us.

There isn't a single word I have said that has contradicted myself.

The problem here is that you have this belief that says "If I am created then something created me, and something created it and something created it..."

That is why you said that if "I can re-create myself" and the "universe created me" therefor "the universe re-creates itself"..... One does NOT lead to the other because the FIRST is a "sentient" life while the second is NOT.

When are you going to understand this? I feel like I am explaining to a child why 1 + 1 = 2 because they just dont have an understanding of things enough to see the connection

I am sure you feel the same way about me but at least at no time do I have to resort to "Oooo... its some mystical unknown purpose, something we cannot see and cannot touch but its there if you just let yourself believe"

Quote:

> If you went to a psychologist and
> described ALL of the things you
> believe in... but said it was a
> Rabbit you were talking about and
> NOT God they would lock you up
> and throw away the key.

We know for sure a rabbit exists

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!

I was not talking about a rabbit you can "SEE". I was talking about telling a psychologist about this "rabbit" that is with you all the time, its in the room with you now and the psychologist cannot SEE a rabbit there.

Quote:

If I say, "God talks to me." Can you disprove it!? If you can then lock me up.

Can you PROVE it? No? Well then if you are unable to prove it I guess YOU are the liar

Based on what you say then I could say "God IS talking to me and he tells me that he is a fake and that everyone who believes in him is completely insane. He wanted me to pass that on to everyone who was stupid enough to believe in him". Now you cannot DISPROVE that God told me that... So are you going to accept this as true???

Quote:

I find it completely offensive that anybody would tell me I am related to ape or a one-cell organism.

Of course you are... because your egotistical. You think the universe was created for you and that this divine entity made absolutely EVERYTHING in it for you to play with

With that as the foundation of your existence of course you find it offensive

Quote:

What is so wrong with being the offspring of an entity that knows all the properties of the universe and can manipulate time/space? That not only knows these things, but actually created them from it's own thought process

Who ever said it was "wrong"? I just said its misguided, self-supported and born from a need to have a purpose in order to function in the world.

Sheesh! I need a coffee in the morning in order to function in the world... Each to their own... but at least I don't try and tell everyone that THEY need a coffee in the morning

Quote:

I do have a question. Did you create yourself, or was it another force greater than yourself (not necessarily referring to my God)? Now you contradict reality.

"Greater"? And what determines "Greater"? Larger? More powerful? More noble? Faster? Stronger? Harder?

I was created by a chemical reaction between a series of deoxyrhibonucleic acid molecules during a process called reproduction between members of my own species.

The force wasn't GREATER and it wasn't LESSER because there is no need to apply such a term... You would only even USE the word greater if you already had a pre-disposition to believing the existance of a God or God-like entity.

So what reality am I contradicting? The one you have in your head? The one that actually is?

REALITY is the universe... and I was born in the universe so there is no contradiction.

But here is an interesting thought.

You used the word "CREATED". This implies to "make out of nothing". In this sense I was NOT "created", I was formed from a re-organisation of DNA, proteins and amino acids that were broken down from the sperm and ova cell structures of my parents during intercourse. Nothing NEW was brought into existence, nothing was made out of nothing, the chemical process simply reorganised what was already there and set up a series of chemical processes that had the ability to ABSORB surrounding molecules in order to reshape them as my body needed.

So under those conditions I even dispute your use and definition of the word CREATED

Quote:

You ask "why" three times. If you do not believe you have a purpose, then why never gets answered

Mmmm... perhaps you need to look up the word "why" in the dictionary. It basically means "please explain to me the reasons behind", and considering YOU are the one who believes and I was asking YOU "why" then surely it is evident I was asking for your reasons that explain the question I posed.

Quote:

In fact, any reason a person gives, you will just say, I disagree because we have no purpose

Guess that shows how little you know because I believe we DO have a purpose... and it is whatever we have CHOSEN that purpose to me. My purpose in life is to gain knowledge and understanding, to increase my awareness and perspicacity and to see things for what they really are.

>1. Why do we programmers write programs?

Because our boss told us to. Does that mean God has a boss?

>We can live without them. If we are self-sufficient without it, then "why" create it?

But we cannot live without them. Without the program that runs the sewerage system we would die. The program that runs the water system and the electricity system are vital.

Oh!!! But you mean those superfluous and meaningless programs that we sometimes write and then discard? Throw away because they only kept our interest for a few moments?

Now I think I see what you are saying :D

We create it because we want it to do something for us, whether it is entertain us, or allow us to interact with each other easier and more quickly, or whatever.

So we are SLAVES of God? Where does "free will" fit in there? If our purpose is to entertain HIM then doesn't that make the Bible a load of rubbish?

Do we need a reason to create it? No. We can create it just because we want to.

So you are saying there wasn't any Noble reason for God creating the universe and Us... it was just out of his boredom?

2. Again as a programmer, do you exist outside your program? Yes. Why create it?

No I don't exist outside of my program. My program requires "time" to run and so do I. I can only change it as fast as the environment which I exist in AND the program exists in can allow. If the program were to exist in ANOTHER place then I would be unable to program it at all.

In order for me to have created it I must have abided by ALL the laws that go into Programming in the first place (I need a keyboard, computer, fingers, a language that ALREADY EXISTS to write it in, time, food)

3. Again as a programmer, do the rules of your program apply to you? Like God, they do while you are interacting with it,

So you are saying that unless God is "interacting" with us then he is in a different plane of existence? But when he wants to perform a miracle he has to become "human" to do so? (ie he is effected by time/fatigue/hunger etc?)

but if you want you can change the programming logic so that it does what you want. As the programmer, are you limited to what you programmed into it, or can you re-program it whenever you want it to do something different?

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh now this one takes the Cake and PROVES beyond any doubt why God doesn't exist USING YOUR OWN WORDS

Yes, we CAN change the program whenever we want to do something different. When was the last time you saw the universe CHANGE?????

Imagine life from the Programs point of view. It knows the "laws" (ie code) that it must abide by... All of a sudden those "laws" change and it has NEW laws. It therfor understands that something is changing those laws.

Now do you see the laws of our universe changing? Has it ever just suddenly gone "Hello, I'm Version 1.2 of Gravity"?

No it hasn't.... which means there isn't a "programmer" for this universe.

You said it.. not me.

Quote:

Our bodies and the whole of creation is merely a symbolic representation of a true reality - my opinion.

There is that nasty word again... Symbolic. Whenever people cannot explain a glaring fault with the Bible they whip out the worn out rhetoric... "Its Symbolic... I know it says HACK HIS FRIKKEN HEAD OFF!!! But it is Symbolic for Love thy Neighbour".

Why must you state FACT when you want to but resort to SYMBOLISM when FACT completely fails to explain it?

Quote:

Why not? We do it every day. You have a computer, and the computer does everything you program it to do. Is the computer "equal to you?"

No, thats when I call my "friends" to get some company from people LIKE ME. The program is a small and insignificant part of my life. It is a TOOL that I use and throw away as I see fit.

But of course God is the ONLY God, the ONLY one of his level and therefor has no friends.........

Quote:

Your misconception is that God is actually making people do EVERYTHING they do, when according the Bible (which is what you keep referring to), He only defined the parameters of operation, and gave it all the data it needed to figure itself out. Your programming logic does the same thing. When you are writing a program, don't you create all parameters of it's operation and then afterward give it all the data it needs to do the calculations?

I like that "figure itself out". If I write a program I give it the code. That codes tells it the ONLY directions it can go...

This means it can give me the answer TRUE or the answer FALSE. it cannot turn around and say to me "I don't feel like answering your question".

Would you say then that the program has "free will"? or is it only as FREE as the cage that keeps it??????????

What you are saying is that God gave us "free will" to only do those things he PROGRAMMED us to be able to do.

That isn't free will at all... that is delusional slavery.

Quote:

Just like the programmer, He can tell you that if parameter so and thus is set, then the result will be… He has given you a "free-will" so that you can choose

That isn't free will!!!!!!

IF THIS IS SET THEN YOU MUST DO THIS

Where is the freedom in that? Where is the choice in that? In your eyes God has already programmed every single possibility that exists leaving us with PRE-DEFINED choices. A values doesn't simply say "I AM TRUE" just because it wants to be... it is SET to true and the RULES are defined that tell it how to change. There is no FREEDOM in that.

So I hear you say... "Ah yes but we can set our program to pick a RANDOM number... THERE is your freedom". Random numbers are generated by taking the number of seconds passed midnight and applying it to a complex algorithm to generate a number that is only as random as the time you sat down to your computer...

And if the time we sit down at our computer was "ALREADY KNOWN" to God then we haven't done anything with free will at all.

Quote:

Is any of your statement based on fact? Can you "prove" your statement beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Can you? Can you prove even to within a "reasonable" half doubt that God exists???????

Quote:

Are you responsible for your existence and your world?

Nobody is responsible for my existence in the world other than my parents decision to have a child.

If you say they had the "free will" to make that decision then THEY chose to create me NOT GOD. If you say that "God knew you were going to be born" then my parents had NO FREE WILL.

So which is it? Did my parents have free will or not????

Quote:

Truth is truth regardless of what one believes

And that is the fundamental flaw from which you are unable to see anything else.

TRUTH is relative. It changes the more information you add to it and we will never know enough information.

It was considered the TRUTH that the earth was flat until they discovered otherwise. now it is TRUTH that the world is round. You say it is TRUTH that God exists... perhaps upon your death that TRUTH will also be altered... and then again perhaps MY TRUTH will be altered at that time as well.

The point is that ULTIMATE TRUTH is a fallacy.

Quote:

You get angry at others because they hold on to what they believe until someone proves them wrong, but isn't that what you are doing.

Notice the word I highlighted. That is the difference. I believe what I do until someone provides factual, reasonable or logical evidence to suggest otherwise... While "they" HOLD ON... clinging to it DESPITE evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

You say, "used to" and "now we haven't seen those kinds of things in 2000 years." Who is we? We who believe in God see these kinds of things all the time. Let me share with you.

Oh I like this... You compare the parting of an entire sea to a single boy and a single man who were surrounded by no more than a FEW people?!?!?!

Quote:

My son, who is now, 8 was born with an irreversible heart condition

Well I guess "irreversible" was wrong then wasn't it. You just PROVED IT. Don't confuse a LACK of understanding with a miracle from God.

People used to Boil water at 100 degrees celsius for hundreds of years and they decided that was the temperature required. Then someone boiled water on Mt Everest and it boiled at 70 degrees celsius. He didn't suddenly go "That has never happened before... ITS A MIRACLE!!!!!!". He realised that the understanding of how water boils was WRONG up until that point and adjusted accordingly.

Quote:

Let's try this one. A man is sitting in church and begins to have problems

How many faults do you want?

1. He was surrounded by people in the church. Subjegation was possible

2. We don't know the paramedics backgrounds. Were they good ones?

3. There have been cases of people "coming back to life" without need of praying.

4. If he REMAINED DEAD, would they have even mentioned it ever again that they prayed and FAILED???

Its a wonderful story and I am sure it has done the rounds of the churches... it wonderfully props up the crutch people need to believe in... but it is hardly evidence.

Quote:

Again, it is sure such a coincidence that these things just happened to occur the same time we prayed

You only hear about the successful prayers... NEVER the failures. Funny that.

If he didn't survive you say "God had a reason", "He has a purpose", "He is in a better place"... If it works you say "See!!! God heard us". You have an answer based not on the EVENT but on the OUTCOME.

Quote:

If no one can pray to Him, then prayer doesn't work

Go read up on Psycho-Sematics. We don't fully understand the human being or its ability to influence its OWN being yet... it doesn't mean PRAYER was the answer.

Quote:

Why did it work in these two cases?

And why did it fail miserably in 100,000 other cases?

Quote:

If you do not hear about them it is because you are not looking in the right places, or talking to the right people

Read that line again. Not looking in the right place... Does that mean that I am not seeing them? Or that I am reading into things that are not there.

Again you have chosen the OUTCOME to make the decision. "IF YOU DO NOT HEAR ABOUT THEM" You obviously were NOT talking to the right people or looking in the right places.

The OUTCOME predicts whether the EVENT was real or not.

You don't see this blindness do you!?!?
Jun 5th, 2000, 09:41 PM
gugck

Last reply for now.

> Are you trying to tell me that all 4
> of these are "BOOLEAN" and that Stealing
> an apple is "just as evil" as spending
> my entire life murdering people?????

The answer is Yes. If perfection means no defect, then it doesn't matter how imperfect something is. So to be perfectly good, you have to have no "degree" evil.

> Have you ever studied the human brain?

I am not referring to the human brain according to it's physical limitations, but only to it's ability to produce truth. I could care less how it works, but what is important is that it is logical.

> Did you realize your contradiction here?
> You say it doesn't matter the "degree"
> of the crack and yet you say depending
> on that "degree" you will determine if
> it is to be fixed or replaced.

It doesn't matter in the fact that the window is defective and we WANTED perfect window. So what I am saying is that even though we want it to be perfect, WE decide the degree of imperfection that WE will tolerate. If the degree is 0 defect then it doesn't matter.

> I cannot even designate her actions as
> Evil because again it didn't effect me...
> So I am left with no choice but to
> designate her actions (NULL) or 0 or benign.

That is using your laws, not mine. I said that if there was no effect, then it defaults either to good or evil. Isn't "no effect" good?

We do not need to debate this issue further.

> the Animals live... they neither
> help nor harm... they simply do
> what they must to survive.

I hope you do not really believe that. You should really be a closer observer of nature. Furthermore, are we separate from nature?

> I am so surprised when people do not
> understand that generalizations like
> this are always based on the experience
> of the person themselves.

>Do you see my point?

I saw your point to begin with and, if you read it, you will see that I said you were making a general statement. I went on the reduce it down to say that you are lying because even if every person you met was as you say, you would never have enough information to about all of us to make a correct determination. It would always remain within what you know to be true.

> "In general" religious people will never
> totally change their belief and "remain"
> religious people. Only those who believe
> in science will do that.

"Those who believe in science" are, by your own statement, just like religious people. Do unbelieving science people ever change their belief that God does not exist? Do they ever change their belief that they must have proof?

> Religious people "in general" believe the
> existence of God based on conclusions
> they draw themselves...

And science does not do this also? Let me ask? Are you separate from the universe that you test, or part of it?

> ...personal belief [about God] started from
> childhood when their parents "TOLD" them
> God existed...

Actually, my mother tried to teach me that God existed, but at that time I did not accept because my father, who does not believe in God, taught me that He doesn't exists. Later, I came to my own conclusions.

> Tell me... do you believe ABSOLUTE faith
> blinds people?

Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see. So, sure ABSOLUTE faith can, but that doesn't mean it does. The thing you are missing, is that you operate on faith as much as anyone. Is it possible you are also blind. You are so SURE that you are right even when you only have a little evidence. Many of the things you believe in are only theories, not fact, but you take them on faith "until they proven wrong."

> Does that mean you TRUELY accept this
> possibility or was that just a very
> fancy way of being able to say "YES"
> but really meaning "NO"?

I am agreeing with you that if God does not exist, I am mentally deficient because while I have faith that He exist, I am also see how COULD exist, and the two are in agreement.

> If you can show me a force OUTSIDE of this...

Take a look at a dream. What is a dream? Is not the mind imagining something? Can an imagination be a force that affects this world? Is their a limitation in the imagination? Can you do ANYTHING you want there? Think about the implications for just a second. I will try to expound upon this later. For now, think about it.

> ...keep it shrouded in mystery and tell
> us we will find it just on the other
> side of death...

Do you limit your studies? Do you know there are people studying death, what it is, and what occurs? Both believers and non-believers are studying this, and it appears both are coming up with the same conclusions. There is something (life, death, heaven, hell), something after death. I only mention this, but let's not debate over it. I have other things I wish to discuss.

> What the hell do you think is going
> to happen when the gravity of the
> universal mass starts falling back
> in on itself and the whole thing
> comes screaming into the center
> and explodes into ANOTHER big bang?????

Do you realize that I wasn't saying this was my argument? I used your argument. You said first said that the universe created itself, "it just is," then you say we humans, who are part of the universe, can't break it's laws. If what you say is true, then humans can do whatever they want, because the universe defines itself, it's own laws. Be as sarcastic as you like, I only used your logic to try to understand you.

> I have to resort to "Oooo... its some
> mystical unknown purpose, something we
> cannot see and cannot touch but its
> there if you just let yourself believe."

First, can you please show me where I said that? I never ever said any such thing. In fact, I will say the opposite. It is not mystical, and you can touch and see it. Unfortunately, you have limited your touching and seeing abilities. Furthermore, do you actually touch and see an atom or sub-atomic particle or any such thing? Sure you have instruments to measure them, but what makes you so sure?

And, for that matter, since you know ALL properties of the universe, will you please explain them all to me? You are saying the same things to me that I am saying you? Just believe me. Have you been to the outer limits of the universe? No you say? How do you KNOW it is there? You say, "the evidence says," "the evidence says," but the only evidence you have is what you know. What you know will never be everything, because there is always more to know, so then how do you know for sure?

> Based on what you say then I could say
> "God IS talking to me and he tells me
> that he is a fake and that everyone who
> believes in him is completely insane. He
> wanted me to pass that on to everyone
> who was stupid enough to believe in him".
> Now you cannot DISPROVE that God told
> me that... So are you going to accept
> this as true???

"Now you cannot DISPROVE that God told me..." Sure I can. If I walked over to you and said, "I was talking to myself the other day, and I want you to know that I am not real, and that everyone who thinks I am real is completely insane. I want you to pass that on to everyone who was stupid enough to know me." Am I speaking a truth or a lie? And who will be seen as insane?

You do not even realize yet that everything you say must agree with The Truth, or it is not true - it is a lie.

> Of course you are... because your egotistical.
> You think the universe was created for you and
> that this divine entity made absolutely
> EVERYTHING in it for you to play with.

> With that as the foundation of your existence
> of course you find it offensive.

Actually, I only used that to try to show you how egotistical your statement was, because you are offended that you could be fabricated. You think you made you when you do not even know how you work.

I myself on the other hand never, ever said I thought the universe was created for me. I will say it was created for God, by God, and He created for His purposes the same as you create something for yours.

> You used the word "CREATED". This implies
> to "make out of nothing".

Let me ask you this. When you get to the smallest thing there is what is there? Is it possibly - nothing? Furthermore, it may imply "out of nothing," but it really means to make something unknown out of something known. Back again to imagination. If God is a known and the universe unknown, did he, by definition, create?

> But we cannot live without them. Without
> the program that runs the sewerage system
> we would die. The program that runs the
> water system and the electricity system
> are vital.

"we cannot live without them." Them refers to OUR system, but I keep telling you it is not OUR system that matters. It is the truth, the true system that matters. If our system dies, we do not die, we make new systems, or live within the original system. If I wanted I could go live in a jungle, without the use of a computer, or any sewer system, I could because nature itself (an existing system) would then support my life.

My only argument was that we create systems for ourselves for whatever reason we want to. Why couldn't it be the same for God?

> So you are saying there wasn't any Noble
> reason for God creating the universe and
> Us... it was just out of his boredom?

I am saying that if you can create your own truth, then why can't God do the same. I am also saying that reason is irrelevant to us. Whether we know it, or understand it, is irrelevant.

> In order for me to have created the program
> I must have abided by ALL the laws that go
> into Programming in the first place (I need
> a keyboard, computer, fingers, a language
> that ALREADY EXISTS).

The program, the keyboard, the computer, everything is created by a person. To the computer and it's program the person (or persons - collectively) are God.

> Why must you state FACT when you want
> to but resort to SYMBOLISM when FACT
> completely fails to explain it?

I was in referring to a computer program. Let me ask it this way. You have a picture of you on your computer. Is the picture you, or is it a bunch of 0's and 1's that represent (symbolize) you? The picture is only symbolic, but is it real? Can you see it? Can you measure?

> TRUTH is relative.

How do you know? That is your truth. Not mine. I can't believe that you cannot see the flaw in your logic. You yourself said, that gravity was unchanging. Therefore it must be what's that? Truth? No matter what YOU BELIEVE about gravity, it still remains gravity that continues to work as it always has.

Someone once said, "there is no such thing as absolute truth." The statement itself is absolute, therefore the statement is incorrect - a lie.

The TRUTH is that YOUR TRUTH is relative. Every REAL truth that I believe is fixed, and unmovable because that is what truth is. Truth is known by itself. It can withstand every test, and always remain true.

> Well I guess "irreversible" was wrong
> then wasn't it. You just PROVED IT. Don't
> confuse a LACK of understanding with a
> miracle from God.

Let me rephrase it since that was the doctor's words and not mine. The heart condition was never known before then or after then to have been corrected without surgery. It interesting that like the magician you direct the reader to an irrelevant point. The fact remains, the heart was defective, I prayed for it become whole, in spite of FACT that it never happened before, it did. Bottom line.

> You only hear about the successful
> prayers... NEVER the failures. Funny that.

Who said? I hear about failures all the time, but that does not mean it does not work. If I say to you go and put a certain coin in that machine and you will get a soda, and you put the certain coin in, but get no soda, does that mean I was a liar? Does it mean that now I can never trust the machine to give me a soda when I put a coin in? Of coarse, you may try to say, "see the machine failed, therefore prayer will fail." I will say True, but the machine and the prayer are both coming from man, who is quite a frail creature and makes many mistakes.

> And why did it fail miserably
> in 100,000 other cases?

What do I care about someone else's results? If almost every time I pray, my prayer is answered, then prayer must be real. You will say but there's that "almost" and it has to work every time. If you say that then I will say, you yourself, "when you have ENOUGH evidence." If a test worked 99 times out of a 100 what does that tell us? Something was different the 1 time. Should we then say our test was inaccurate, or should we explore why the test failed? With prayer, we will almost always find that it was the fault of the person praying, and not the power of prayer that was at fault.

> The OUTCOME predicts whether the
> EVENT was real or not.

And it is different with you? You run a test and the results (outcome) show you the validity of what you believe to be true.

> Then what irrefutable PROOF do you have
> for God's existance that does not rely
> on the fact you ALREADY believe in his
> existance?

This is forth coming - if I ever get the chance. I hope to make this my last reply in our existing debate in order that I might get a chance to put down to words my argument. Being very busy, it may be awhile. Either way, I think we understand enough of each other's OPINIONS that we need not debate further over things said (you may reply if you wish). Furthermore, if you really believe that truth is relative to what one BELIEVES, then you and I have no ground on which to stand, for we will never reach a conclusion.
Jun 6th, 2000, 07:17 AM
Gen-X

I have but one thing to say...

If you don't believe we have any need to discuss what we already have then why did your reply include questions?

But you are correct... we have no foundation for discussion because you have indicated to me that your persuition is such that you do not wish to see anything other than that which you personally believe to me true.

I am sure you will say the same of me but that is simply because we talk 2 different languages.

I talk the language of reason, logic and FACT as shown by observation while you talk about faith, acceptance and the denial of anything that doesn't suit your purpose.

With that being the case we really wont get anywhere.

I believe you are wrong, you believe I am wrong. Enjoy your belief... regardless whether right or wrong I hope they make you happy.
Jun 10th, 2000, 06:04 PM
kedaman

Quote:

But I heard you say... "He wasn't THERE... you can't assign him EITHER value!!!"

And that my friend means that he is NULL.

No Gen-x You can't asign a not declared variable.

Quote:

If you "see" then it is an extention of "yourself" and what creates the illusion can also be "yourself".

You're right, and then i'm universe.

Quote:

If you believe that, and considering you believe YOURSELF to be one of the only real things then your belief in God means you created him within this "consciousness" you talk about. In that event as you are the creator of God then YOU are in fact God.

FLAW: Case1: I am universe, and what i see is part of me. Case2: I am part of universe. In both cases I am component of universe, not the creator.

Quote:

Another flaw in your proof was the scientific proof you postulated from your uncle. Everyone picked holes in it immediately showing the flaw of your already EXISTING belief in God for jumping to wild conclusions without fact.... yet you STILL believe they are wrong in saying that.

What more proof do you need?

Since we haven't agreed science is not a reliable yet, i can't state all "showed flaws" are flawed. On the other hand i know they are.

Quote:

Quote:

I agree that we perceive "degrees of" good or evil. But how much good or evil do we have to do before it is considered good or evil?

Exactly my point!!!

I think that was postulated by gugck

Quote:

1. I Steal an apple (Its wrong, its bad.. but its not much)
2. I hit a person (Now its a bit worse, its definately bad)
3. I kill a person (Ooooo... now I am bordering on Evil)
4. I spend my entire life murdering people (Pure Evil)

Are you trying to tell me that all 4 of these are "BOOLEAN" and that Stealing an apple is "just as evil" as spending my entire life murdering people?????

No i do not. Those can all be split up in millions of aspect each a boolean good/evil. You may count and calculate these boolean switches percentage in your brain, and you get a scale between evil and good but it won't flaw my argument as evil and good is a boolean concept, whatever it can be applied on.

Hmm, i think you have anwered all gugcks post, not mine, well I think i'm going to reply anyway on some of them:

Quote:

Unlike a CPU which can only count in 0's and 1's the neural transmitters of the human brain are ANALOG

Human brains are definitely not analog, it's digital complexity, analog is a mathematical concept.

Quote:

... So I am left with no choice but to designate her actions (NULL) or 0 or benign"

Good/Evil Implies a choise, It implies you have a value to asign, a boolean. No choise means no value.

Quote:

2 men fighting for a loaf of bread. BOTH of them are trying to feed their families. BOTH of them are starving. If they shared the loaf EVENLY between them then BOTH families would die from starvation.

There are a bunch of boolean choises, one of them may be the choose to fight or not, and it's a boolean choise.

Quote:

Statement : 1.0000001 is close to 1

Answer : TRUE

MAthematical concepts

Quote:

I talk the language of reason, logic and FACT as shown by observation while you talk about faith, acceptance and the denial of anything that doesn't suit your purpose.

You talk the language of science, not FACT, Gen-x. And I think science and religion is both the same language, the language of faith, and it's the faith that differs.
Jun 11th, 2000, 02:16 AM
gugck

quote Kedaman:
> You talk the language of
> science, not FACT, Gen-x.
> And I think science and
> religion is both the same
> language, the language of
> faith, and it's the faith
> that differs.

Bravo!! A man of true understanding. This has been my entire argument. People continually complain about "people of faith" beleiving "blindly," not realizing that we believe in something the same way they do.

Unfortunately, instead of accepting in the slightest evidence we present, they say we are only delusion, or mentally defecient, or anything that will keep them from accepting the possibility that what we have seen and know is in fact as real as the evidence they have found to "believe" what they "believe."

I think you said it before, "belief is essential to man's existence." Without we would have none of the technologies we have today. Even greater still is the fact that all that we do (any person) is based on faith. Could I even lie on my own bed to sleep at night without it? You may say something like, "I know I will rest and rise again tomorrow." But do you know that for sure? Such things are said by "faith."

BTW Kedaman - Since you believe God is real, it may just be that much of what was said between me and Gen-x may actually be for you. That is, as a confirmation of what you believe. God uses every man, the believer and the unbeliever, for His purposes. God sent me to the board, and I responded at His request. Normally I do not involve myself with such debates because the Bible warns that arguments are useless, and should be avoided. But the Lord Jesus has something in mind for someone on the board. Though I thought it was Gen-X, it may be you. It may be yet still someone else. Even if no one else (which I doubt), I know my own belief in God has been further solidified by the arguments. The Lord DID speak to me (not my own imagination because several others confirmed what was said - and that without my asking of them). He is trying to reveal himself to those who refuse to see him but their hearts are very hard and they want to live their lives without having to be accountable. Yet, every day their own heart convicts them, and they know it. They do see what we see, but they are not interested in believing (only arguing, and justifying themselves). I myself have said all that I was given to say, and I can say no more. I only encourage to listen to God, and obey Him as He leds you, for He IS teaching you and seeking to reveal Himself to you!

G-day mate!
Jun 12th, 2000, 06:08 AM
Gen-X

When will you two open your eyes?

I have to state this very simply and I am sure even then you will fail to see the difference.

SCIENCE

I have done an experiment. I believe something to be true. Please come and have a look at it.

[Other person looks at the experiment, repeats it and comes up with the same conclusion]

I write a book on it and publish it

[People all over the world do the SAME experiment and come up with the same conclusion]

Seeing as everyone who does the experiment comes up with the same conclusion, and nobody has been able to provide evidence that would suggest we are wrong then my original theory is considered "FACT"

RELIGION

God just spoke to me. I believe something to be true. Please come and listen to me tell you about it.

[Other person listens to him, but has to take him at his word because he cannot "test" in any way, he cannot support it, he doesn't hear it himself... the only piece of evidence he has is the word of the man]

I write a book on it

[People all over the world read it but again none of them hear the exact same words, none of them get the same results]

Seeing as not one SINGLE other person can verify or confirm exactly what the first person heard, validate it wasn't either a lie, fake, day dreaming or anything else...

There is NO conclusion to draw... NO fact to make.

If I said God told me to tell you that you were being evil then you would "validate" what I said based on whether you believed you WERE being evil or not. If you believed you WERE being evil you would say "Oh my, he was being truthful". If however you DONT believe you were being evil you would say "He is lying, he didn't speak to God".

Your "personal" definition was used to validate another's.

CONCLUSION

Religion is PERSONAL
Science is GLOBAL

Kedaman

The fact you cannot even accept the brain is analog and that you say analog is a mathematical concept is enough for me to ignore the garbage you just wrote.
Jun 12th, 2000, 11:56 PM
kedaman

Gen-x

Quote:

CONCLUSION

Religion is PERSONAL
Science is GLOBAL

So, gen-x you wan't it this way, that's ok, but i have to give you the whole picture:

Religion and Science have both Global and Personal Aspects

Global Science - Common accepted science
Personal Science - What you know and accept as science

Global Religion - Common accepted religion
Personal Religion - What you know and accept as religion

So Science and Religion is actually the same language still, although I agree science is has a very strong global part since scientists tries to remove personal science.

But what you're wrong about is the reliability - everything has a equal chance of being an illusion.

Quote:

Kedaman

The fact you cannot even accept the brain is analog and that you say analog is a mathematical concept is enough for me to ignore the garbage you just wrote.

So you IGNORE? I thought you hated ignorance! You don't even know what analog actually means, I'm sure you have a diffuse perception of it, but you don't know what it means. Analog IS a mathematical concept:

- Mathematically "Analog" means "Irrational Scale", which implies that values cannot be splitted up in rational values or even irrational constants factorized with rational values.

IF you try to dig up the nonmathematical definition, i'll point out that you used it for a mathematical purpose:

Quote:

Unlike a CPU which can only count in 0's and 1's the neural transmitters of the human brain are ANALOG.

gugck

Quote:

Bravo!! A man of true understanding. This has been my entire argument. People continually complain about "people of faith" beleiving "blindly," not realizing that we believe in something the same way they do.

Yes, i'm understanding, I understand both you and Gen-x, because I don't believe in neither, still my vision is that both are be accurate.

Quote:

Unfortunately, instead of accepting in the slightest evidence we present, they say we are only delusion, or mentally defecient, or anything that will keep them from accepting the possibility that what we have seen and know is in fact as real as the evidence they have found to "believe" what they "believe."

Thats correct, there's a little difference between science and religion, that is that religion can accept science, but science can not accept religion, due to failure to actually understand that science is faith. Still many scientists believe in a religion, which makes it obvious: They cannot admit that science is faith.
Jun 13th, 2000, 06:59 AM
Gen-X

Kedaman... My ignorant little friend.

Maths as Sam so elloquently put it is the explaination and description of "the world around us" through models.

Therefor "analog" is describing something in the REAL WORLD and is not purely mathematical.

In fact "analog" was first used in electronics and NOT mathematics....

If you cannot understand this basic concept then I am not going to respond to your next post... HECK, I shouldn't have responded to this one because your perception of reality is so different from mine that communication is not possible.
Jun 13th, 2000, 07:16 AM
Sam Finch

Quote:

Maths as Sam so elloquently put it is the explaination and description of "the world around us" through models.

Therefor "analog" is describing something in the REAL WORLD and is not purely mathematical.

In fact "analog" was first used in electronics and NOT mathematics....

hate to pick you up on stuff like this but analog is more mathematical than real world, analog is an electronics term meaning not quantized, obviously charge is quantized (electrons etc.) it's only in the mathematical part of electronics that it isn't quantised at all.

Just an observation, I havn't really read the whole thread in detail so I don't know where it all aplied to the existance of god but doubtless it doesn't proove it either way.
Jun 13th, 2000, 04:32 PM
kedaman

In fact is has nothing to do with God, Gen-x likes to hang up on small details, in this case the mathematical definition of analog.
Jan 6th, 2007, 09:51 PM
dclamp

Re: Evolution [ for those who care ;-) ]

bump

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page