Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 25, 2017 at 8:14 am)Alex K Wrote: As a scientist and educator, I firmly believe that it is crucial that members of our society learn how to think about their place in the world as well as their true origins. The notion that we don't have to educate anyone who hasn't thought about the issue by themselves seems absurd to me.
I also disagree with your somewhat arbitrary criterion what is a nonexistent object. I understand that you got to study a bit of mathematics for your degree and encountered some concepts that seemed alien to you and therefore got the impression that you just then began to work with nonexistent objects, but you've been doing that all the time, and everyone is doing it. Numbers in general. Show me a 1.5 in Nature. Show me a clear-cut cause and effect. We all use tons of idealized abstractions to describe and deal with the world, complex numbers and the axioms of classical geometry are just new to you. They are one more abstract idea we can use to describe reality, e.g. the phase and amplitude of an alternating current. Electrical current is an idealization, it's a bunch of quantum waves whizzing down a crystal, meanwhile the energy is transferred through the electromagnetic field around the wire.
I do not understand the connection to Will, nor what your point is in general.
Should I have a point?
I just present what I have in mind before expecting from some others to share with me what they have in their mind too.
Me too, I seldom understand a new idea the time I hear it. And, not every idea presented to the world has to be included in my personal set of knowledge. So, naturally, I also expect that other human beings could be as I am in this respect in the least.
(June 25, 2017 at 8:14 am)Alex K Wrote: As a scientist and educator, I firmly believe that it is crucial that members of our society learn how to think about their place in the world as well as their true origins. The notion that we don't have to educate anyone who hasn't thought about the issue by themselves seems absurd to me.
I also disagree with your somewhat arbitrary criterion what is a nonexistent object. I understand that you got to study a bit of mathematics for your degree and encountered some concepts that seemed alien to you and therefore got the impression that you just then began to work with nonexistent objects, but you've been doing that all the time, and everyone is doing it. Numbers in general. Show me a 1.5 in Nature. Show me a clear-cut cause and effect. We all use tons of idealized abstractions to describe and deal with the world, complex numbers and the axioms of classical geometry are just new to you. They are one more abstract idea we can use to describe reality, e.g. the phase and amplitude of an alternating current. Electrical current is an idealization, it's a bunch of quantum waves whizzing down a crystal, meanwhile the energy is transferred through the electromagnetic field around the wire.
I do not understand the connection to Will, nor what your point is in general.
Should I have a point?
I just present what I have in mind before expecting from some others to share with me what they have in their mind too.
Me too, I seldom understand a new idea the time I hear it. And, not every idea presented to the world has to be included in my personal set of knowledge. So, naturally, I also expect that other human beings could be as I am in this respect in the least.
Yes, if you want to be taken seriously, not only should you have a point, you should have evidence to back up your point.
(June 25, 2017 at 8:14 am)Alex K Wrote: As a scientist and educator, I firmly believe that it is crucial that members of our society learn how to think about their place in the world as well as their true origins. The notion that we don't have to educate anyone who hasn't thought about the issue by themselves seems absurd to me.
I also disagree with your somewhat arbitrary criterion what is a nonexistent object. I understand that you got to study a bit of mathematics for your degree and encountered some concepts that seemed alien to you and therefore got the impression that you just then began to work with nonexistent objects, but you've been doing that all the time, and everyone is doing it. Numbers in general. Show me a 1.5 in Nature. Show me a clear-cut cause and effect. We all use tons of idealized abstractions to describe and deal with the world, complex numbers and the axioms of classical geometry are just new to you. They are one more abstract idea we can use to describe reality, e.g. the phase and amplitude of an alternating current. Electrical current is an idealization, it's a bunch of quantum waves whizzing down a crystal, meanwhile the energy is transferred through the electromagnetic field around the wire.
I do not understand the connection to Will, nor what your point is in general.
Should I have a point?
I just present what I have in mind before expecting from some others to share with me what they have in their mind too.
Me too, I seldom understand a new idea the time I hear it. And, not every idea presented to the world has to be included in my personal set of knowledge. So, naturally, I also expect that other human beings could be as I am in this respect in the least.
Were you making an equivocation between geometric dots and "Will/Power" or not?
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
(June 25, 2017 at 7:07 am)KerimF Wrote: To become a professional designer (in electronics) I had to accept notions of non-existing objects.
The geometrical dot is a simple example. By definition, it has no dimensions. But the entire Geometry is based on it; a non-existing object. Also in geometry, I didn’t mind accepting unreachable objects as well, as the intersection of two parallels at infinity. And, although the square root of the algebraic number (-1) doesn’t exit, it was given a name/symbol as (i) or (j) in order to use it and simply the solution of many existing real problems. But on the other hand, millions of people on earth live normally without the need to learn, for example, Math and accept (work with) its various definitions of non-existing and unreachable objects. So, obviously, if someone didn’t feel the need to know anything about the Will/Power behind his existence, it is better for him not to think about it in the first place; as all pre-programmed living things do. In fact, the instructions of the Will/Power which is behind the creation of the universe are embedded, since always, in every living cell (as DNA for example). In other words, those who are born of the flesh only can know, by themselves, how to serve the world as they are supposed to do. ...
Before I go on, I wish I can hear some serious negative comments because such replies help me update my personal set of knowledge, most of the time. Thank you in advance. Kerim
It never ceases to amaze me, and I have been online since 01, to see all the different word salad people come up with.
This made no sense at all. Maybe you should scrap the mental masturbation and pick up a science textbook and learn something real and factual.
Thank you for your care about me.
And I am glad you were able to pick up science textbooks and learn real and factual things more than I did.
(June 25, 2017 at 8:14 am)Brian37 Wrote: It never ceases to amaze me, and I have been online since 01, to see all the different word salad people come up with.
This made no sense at all. Maybe you should scrap the mental masturbation and pick up a science textbook and learn something real and factual.
Thank you for your care about me.
And I am glad you were able to pick up science textbooks and learn real and factual things more than I did.
I cant do a fraction to save my life. But, just like I can drive a car, even though I cant build one from scratch, if you told me cars run on pixy dust, I could safely say "bullshit".
I know nonsense when I see it.
Language is used to describe objects and or the behavior of objects.
"1" is an abstract word. But it can be assigned to denote the number of that object. IE "1 apple" "1 car" "1 mouse".
Nothing you said in your OP made sense.
"The car is going 55mph"....... 55mph is not the object itself, but the language we use to describe the speed of the car in motion. THAT MAKES SENSE.
Try making sense, people will understand you better.
June 25, 2017 at 9:46 am (This post was last modified: June 25, 2017 at 9:59 am by KerimF.)
(June 25, 2017 at 8:32 am)Brian37 Wrote:
(June 25, 2017 at 8:18 am)KerimF Wrote:
A human being is given the ability to play before others any role, we may imagine, including stupidity (see, for example, the famous great actors, known as politicians).
In a few years, I will be 70. But I never met a sane mature person who is real stupid. On the other hand, I personally met a few people who played very well the role of stupidity and insanity as well. They were doing it even better than the actors at Hollywood may do.
I mean, being an atheist or else has nothing to do with stupidity.
So I am sorry for disappointing you because I am sure you are as intelligent as I am.
But, being equally intelligent doesn't imply having the same priorities in life, hence following the same paths.
Where do you get the stupid idea "atheist" is about threats of "or else"?
Scientific method is not a club label, it is a universal tool. It is a neutral filter to weed out personal bias. It is a method of testing, falsification with control groups and peer review.
No atheist I consider sane makes threats of "or else". We do however question bad claims and bad logic. Some of us are more blunt in doing that than others.
If you want to go around claiming every single day, "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup" legally by law you are entitled to do so sure, but it would still be a bullshit claim and others would not be required to remain silent if you keep repeating that claim.
Quote:You either have FACTS to back up your claims or you don't. If you have FACTS then those FACTS don't need to be protected and can be subject to review, scrutiny, falsification and peer review.
You raised an interesting point.
I became a professional designer (in electronics) by experimenting, not by imagining things. In fact, I seldom take for grant what I may read on books, said scientific or else.
It happens that, in my life, the most important Device Under Test is my being. So the various aspects (characteristics) that I have discovered gradually about my being are facts to me. Should they be facts to everyone else? Should I deny them just because they are not facts to many people on earth, if not to all of them?
Even as an engineer in electronics I had the chance to find out, as an MS thesis (about 40 years ago), a solution in signal communication which is claimed non-existing (impossible to exist) in all universities in the world, till these days. I personally used its technic to secure, in the 80's, my private short range RF link (between home and office). Should I deny its existence just because it is a fact that no one is interested to check it seriously?
Although you may not believe me; all what I know is based on reason (scientific reasoning)... not faith.
But I am afraid if someone insists that his being (his Device Under Test) has to have the same characteristics as mine, he would likely think I am just imagining things; the things he cannot perceive personally for example.
(June 25, 2017 at 8:37 am)Alex K Wrote: You even tell me that you don't have a point. Fine, bye.
Thank you for being clear and sincere.
On the contrary, I didn't use hearing people who had a point and try to convince their audience about it.
I personally prefer talking to others as friends who are willing to share, as possible, their thoughts in order to have a pleasant time, once a while.
Where do you get the stupid idea "atheist" is about threats of "or else"?
Scientific method is not a club label, it is a universal tool. It is a neutral filter to weed out personal bias. It is a method of testing, falsification with control groups and peer review.
No atheist I consider sane makes threats of "or else". We do however question bad claims and bad logic. Some of us are more blunt in doing that than others.
If you want to go around claiming every single day, "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup" legally by law you are entitled to do so sure, but it would still be a bullshit claim and others would not be required to remain silent if you keep repeating that claim.
You raised an interesting point.
I became a professional designer (in electronics) by experimenting, not by imagining things. In fact, I seldom take for grant what I may read on books, said scientific or else.
It happens that, in my life, the most important Device Under Test is my being. So the various aspects (characteristics) that I have discovered gradually about my being are facts to me. Should they be facts to everyone else? Should I deny them just because they are not facts to many people on earth, if not to all of them?
Even as an engineer in electronics I had the chance to find out, as an MS thesis (about 40 years ago), a solution in signal communication which is claimed non-existing (impossible to exist) in all universities in the world, till these days. I personally used its technic to secure, in the 80's, my private short range RF link (between home and office). Should I deny its existence just because it is a fact that no one is interested to check it seriously?
Although you may not believe me; all what I know is based on reason (scientific reasoning)... not faith.
But I am afraid if someone insists that his being (his Device Under Test) has to have the same characteristics as mine, he would likely think I am just imagining things; the things he cannot perceive personally for example.
What does any of that elaborate tripe have to do with either "born of the flesh" or "will power"?
It sounds to me like you are trying to make an apology to argue that a God exists. Hate to burst your bubble but you are not the first and also not the only religion who tries this.
Nope sorry, you ARE basing it on "faith".
Neutral scientific method does not rely on faith. If a scientist has a hypothesis and solid method to plug their data into, it can be replicated by independent peers in the same field.
And if not, the errors will be found and corrected by those same peers.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
