(January 3, 2013 at 11:50 am)Faith No More Wrote:

Mark 13:13 Wrote:before we can proceed beyond the natural numbers in mathematics we have to presuppose nothing exists...

What are you talking about?

The term "natural number" refers either to a member of the set of positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... (Sloane's A000027) or to the set of nonnegative integers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (Sloane's A001477; e.g., Bourbaki 1968, Halmos 1974). Regrettably, there seems to be no general agreement about whether to include 0 in the set of natural numbers. In fact, Ribenboim (1996) states "Let P be a set of natural numbers; whenever convenient, it may be assumed that 0 belongs to P ."

so I,m working on the basis of not assuming 0 belongs to the set.

and as I said someone on the forum challenged something I said on the basis that "nothing" cannot exist in the universe so the idea that we even need to even consider how something can come out of nothing was irrelevant.

(January 3, 2013 at 12:29 am)naimless Wrote: It's a fair argument. Once I realised the universe had no inherent morality to it, or I had an insignificant effect to its 13.7 billion years, it did and still does make me question if "good" or "bad" actually exists.

Just because the universe has no inherent morality to it does not mean that humankind cannot assign what it has deemed to be good or bad to certain actions. Rape may not be inherently bad, but that does not lessen the negative attributes that we as humans have attributed to it. Simply put, the lack of a god telling us something is good or bad does not mean that all actions are neutral.

(January 3, 2013 at 12:29 am)naimless Wrote: A classic case is a parent thinking they are doing a good action by providing everything for their kids. It doesn't really work like that though, it could also effect their lives negatively.

Are you trying to imply that because we cannot be certain of the effects of our actions we should simply give up trying to assign any sort of good or bad attributes to them?

(January 3, 2013 at 12:29 am)naimless Wrote: I'm not saying if I rape or kill someone it will be good, but I don't know if it will be bad either.

Well, would you think it would be bad if someone raped you? Would it cause you harm? Obviously, this is not the end all to determining what is and isn't wrong, but it is a very good place to start.

---

(January 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: The term "natural number" refers either to a member of the set of positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... (Sloane's A000027) or to the set of nonnegative integers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (Sloane's A001477; e.g., Bourbaki 1968, Halmos 1974). Regrettably, there seems to be no general agreement about whether to include 0 in the set of natural numbers. In fact, Ribenboim (1996) states "Let P be a set of natural numbers; whenever convenient, it may be assumed that 0 belongs to P ."

so I,m working on the basis of not assuming 0 belongs to the set.

and as I said someone on the forum challenged something I said on the basis that "nothing" cannot exist in the universe so the idea that we even need to even consider how something can come out of nothing was irrelevant.

I'm still not sure how this is relevant to anything in this thread...

Faith No More Wrote:I'm still not sure how this is relevant to anything in this thread..

.

sry my fault see post #48

Tobie Wrote:Except there is no god conclusion. It's a starting point, it always has been. There has been no accepted line of thought that has started with axioms of maths or a scientific model that concludes with god - all theories that apparently prove the existence of god presuppose one exists, which is logically invalid. It's like assuming 1+1=8 and concluding the same.

(January 3, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

Faith No More Wrote:I'm still not sure how this is relevant to anything in this thread..

.

sry my fault see post #48

Tobie Wrote:Except there is no god conclusion. It's a starting point, it always has been. There has been no accepted line of thought that has started with axioms of maths or a scientific model that concludes with god - all theories that apparently prove the existence of god presuppose one exists, which is logically invalid. It's like assuming 1+1=8 and concluding the same.

I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to Lion IRC. As for having to presuppose 0 existing, the Greeks managed to do a lot of maths despite not having any understanding of zero.

(January 3, 2013 at 12:28 pm)Tobie Wrote:

(January 3, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: .

sry my fault see post #48

I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to Lion IRC. As for having to presuppose 0 existing, the Greeks managed to do a lot of maths despite not having any understanding of zero.

yet you would deny us the presupposition GOD. as for the Greeks statement mmh how about Many Atheist scientists manage do a lot of exploration of the mysteries of creation despite not having any understanding of GOD.

(January 3, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

Faith No More Wrote:I'm still not sure how this is relevant to anything in this thread..

.

sry my fault see post #48

Tobie Wrote:Except there is no god conclusion. It's a starting point, it always has been. There has been no accepted line of thought that has started with axioms of maths or a scientific model that concludes with god - all theories that apparently prove the existence of god presuppose one exists, which is logically invalid. It's like assuming 1+1=8 and concluding the same.

Just the opposite, that is what god believers do.

Snarfwidget(assumption)<=1+potato

Good logic works like this.

1. Collect data through established standards
2. Plug data into established formulas through established methods.
3. Compare data to control groups to insure quality of data.
4. Hand data over to independent peer review to have your work verified or rejected. If verified, build upon it. If rejected, start over and discard bad data and or method.

Deity belief does not have that rigid standard.

Make shit up<=retrofit to suit your personal desires

Funny how none of the fans of any invisible pet deity have managed to beat everyone to the patent office or win a Nobel Prize in science with their "invisible sky daddy theory".

"god/s/deities/sky daddies" are a gibberish childish fantasy. It was when the Ancient Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a god, and you are not doing anything differently than they did in falling for your mental placebo.

It made sense that people made up gods when they didn't know better. But when people do that today it's like someone believing in Santa when they are 70 years old. You look silly to us. Just like it was silly for the Egyptians to believe the sun was a thinking deity. They had an excuse because they didn't know better, you have no excuse.

(January 3, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 3, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: .

sry my fault see post #48

Just the opposite, that is what god believers do.

Snarfwidget(assumption)<=1+potato

Good logic works like this.

1. Collect data through established standards
2. Plug data into established formulas through established methods.
3. Compare data to control groups to insure quality of data.
4. Hand data over to independent peer review to have your work verified or rejected. If verified, build upon it. If rejected, start over and discard bad data and or method.

Deity belief does not have that rigid standard.

Make shit up<=retrofit to suit your personal desires

Funny how none of the fans of any invisible pet deity have managed to beat everyone to the patent office or win a Nobel Prize in science with their "invisible sky daddy theory".

"god/s/deities/sky daddies" are a gibberish childish fantasy. It was when the Ancient Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a god, and you are not doing anything differently than they did in falling for your mental placebo.

It made sense that people made up gods when they didn't know better. But when people do that today it's like someone believing in Santa when they are 70 years old. You look silly to us. Just like it was silly for the Egyptians to believe the sun was a thinking deity. They had an excuse because they didn't know better, you have no excuse.

you got to "Deity belief does not have that rigid standard." and then your medication ran out but I will respond to your points till then. Yes the scientific method works very well when applied to the tangible universe but not applicable in the field of philosophy which deals with intangible things (religion is a philosophy).

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." Cor 1:25

Mark 13:13 Wrote:you got to "Deity belief does not have that rigid standard." and then your medication ran out...

That's so funny that I had to give you kudos.

oh dear.... he's reverted to the trend of finishing posts with verses from scripture.

(January 3, 2013 at 12:58 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 3, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Just the opposite, that is what god believers do.

Snarfwidget(assumption)<=1+potato

Good logic works like this.

1. Collect data through established standards
2. Plug data into established formulas through established methods.
3. Compare data to control groups to insure quality of data.
4. Hand data over to independent peer review to have your work verified or rejected. If verified, build upon it. If rejected, start over and discard bad data and or method.

Deity belief does not have that rigid standard.

Make shit up<=retrofit to suit your personal desires

Funny how none of the fans of any invisible pet deity have managed to beat everyone to the patent office or win a Nobel Prize in science with their "invisible sky daddy theory".

"god/s/deities/sky daddies" are a gibberish childish fantasy. It was when the Ancient Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a god, and you are not doing anything differently than they did in falling for your mental placebo.

It made sense that people made up gods when they didn't know better. But when people do that today it's like someone believing in Santa when they are 70 years old. You look silly to us. Just like it was silly for the Egyptians to believe the sun was a thinking deity. They had an excuse because they didn't know better, you have no excuse.

you got to "Deity belief does not have that rigid standard." and then your medication ran out but I will respond to your points till then. Yes the scientific method works very well when applied to the tangible universe but not applicable in the field of philosophy which deals with intangible things (religion is a philosophy).

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." Cor 1:25

Philosophy is dead, it is mere mental masterbation. There is no need for philosophy when you have REAL tools to measure the world around us.

"intangible" is just you trying to usurp the fact that god belief is merely a childish reflection of wishful thinking. The Egyptians wished the sun was a god, but it was not. "intangible" is merely your excuse to cling to your personal predilections rather than examine them.

"The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger and "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins go into scientific detail why humans make up bs and falsely believe that bs to be credible.

You don't use a Kaleidoscope to look into deep space, you use a REAL telescope.