Wiegraf's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Wiegraf's Profile › Wiegraf's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 (of 162 pages)
Mr_Anony: You have very little understanding as well as a very low regard for religion and that is the reason why you find it absurd.That's fair since I know little of the process. It is hard to accept a child could be an authority on say morality, but I'll leave that for now. My morality need not be yours. As long as we're not infringing on each other's rights, it's very much live and let live. Who am I to tell you you're wrong? Etc |
Mr_Anony: Ok, but you do realize that if you really hold that we can know nothing, then we really cannot learn anything and knowledge becomes flawed.First, it is highly impractical to hold that view, yes. So for practical reasons I let it go. I apply that kind of thinking to lots of things, but that's just my personal philosophy thingie Second, what you describe is the observer effect. That is different, the popular example being measuring tire pressure. You have to lose it first, altering the tires pressure, thus you've actually changed it's state already. Observer effect does muddle quantum calculations, obviously. Actually it should disturb any measurement, just extremely neglibly for some. Uncertainty is different. Again, I'm no physicist, but it seems to indicate some truly random behaviour. Whether or not you interfere or not, there are probabilities involved. Probabilities would indicate, possibly, particles being influenced by nothing. So far a few hidden variables have been introduced, they've all failed. I'm not sure how bell's inequalities work, but that supposedly shows components of this jazz via math, and has been verified by experiments. It involves particles borrowing energy from - I'm no scientist!! Need to be fully sure, so pls verify.Now assuming I am wrong, your postulates may be correct... For now... I'd still not be sure that something can't come from nothing... Numbers... Third, with the black hole, you stated earlier that if there were a supernatural universe that birthed ours, it would be able to interact with ours but not necessarily the other way. I point out that not strictly true, black holes demonstrate this to a degree, we can't get any information from beyond their event horizon. Or the supernatural universe may have been destroyed while birthing ours, etc. Last, that is correct, that is why I add in the edit much earlier (just after I posted it actually) that it doesn't really affect casuality per say. I realized it only affects the sequence, events still need to be caused (if you move faster than c cause and effect would still hold in a sense, just you'd probably wipe the cause out from history, enter multiverse, etc fans). But I still used it as a way to demonstrate what I meant by stuff not being 'intuitive'. Again, considering uncertainty, I'm not sure how casuality works on the quantum level This osts are getting longer... I'm working on how to make them shorter... I get time sef... Need to get to work |
CrazyMan: You atheists on this forum should know that It’s hard to move forward when you don’t know where you’re headed or why.Actually all you're displaying, albeit probably unknowingly, is close-mindedness. A general example, in sciences when someone brings up some hypothesis and backs it up with evidence, we all now have a verified theory. The scientific community (or companies using their work) will probably use it to give us nice things like our pc's, etc. However note, the theory might be incomplete and later expanded on, or wrongly interpreted etc. Now here's the key, even for a well established theory, supposing you bring an alternative solution that invalidates said popular theory and back it up with even better evidence than the older theory's, the scientific community will gladly take up your theory and dispose of the older one. Basically, science keeps an open mind. In speaking about what happens after death, the evidence and science is pretty clear: nothing. So we are now just basically speculating, perhaps to make ourselves feel good because the concept of death is not pleasing to a lot of us. While making all these speculations, you have settled on the christian one as a favorite of yours. For whatever reasons you prefer it, and trust me when I say most of us are actually (EDIT: oops, NOT) interested in changing your preference. Now, you've chosen this option for subjective reasons, you do not have any evidence, yet you shoot down all other options as well. Some might even plausibly have more evidence to support them (like reincarnation, or the dream stuff, both veeeeeeerrrrrryyyyy unlikely) but you still shoot them down simply because they personally don't appeal to you, not because you have evidence to the contrary. That is being close-minded. Atheists looking for other solutions are simply being open-minded. Who knows, maybe someday they figure out a way to contact the dead (heh heh, not likely), now that would be useful to those looking to achieve that, no? |
@anony Your point is noted, but doesn't the nature of the subject count? Most sciences, especially math/physics, if the kid is wrong he can be shown to be wrong conclusively by other scientists. With religion we have people arguing over whether the death sentence is apt for eating shellfish, with no one being either right or wrong. In academia it's usually science wunderkinds that get love and attention, other fields with a subjective bent? Not so much (except maybe visual arts, music - which is usually compared to math actually, stuff like that, not say philosophy, or even literaure). Also, peer reviewing, etc, brings a little objectivity even in topics like philosophy. With religion, all I'd need is a clean suit and an endorsement from any of the wise bro's with joshua, or l ron hubbard etc, and I'm boss. Next I'm an authority on morality. To stroke your ego a bit, not everyone can discern bs from info worth having as well as you, and even then you could still make mistakes easily. Leaving this issues to a kid that is likely to be low on emotional maturity, which is not as easily verified as say IQ, borders on being irresponsible |
How did I miss this? I was thinking you were going to actually go to church or something similar for the 36 hours... |
CrazyMan: @All the atheist...No. There's no conclusive evidence for such. Though some people look at reincarnation I believe. Or some sort of dream (like those from the movie 'inception'), among many other options. Random: I sort of subscribe to the belief that being conscious at any point in time makes you immortal in a way. But that's just me, and it's not supposed to make sense. How could you interrupt your debate? Though I'm not sure of etiquette here. |
Mr_Anony: Lol, you may as well say that we cannot possibly know anything.I do actually But my 'practical' philosophy has me accepting some initial, or foundational if you will, parameters on a variety of issues.Mr_Anony: Notice in my argument, I am not using "supernatural" as a place holder to explain what I don't know. All I have said is that if spacetime originates from something, then that thing cannot be subject to spacetime. if this is true, then a realm not subject to spacetime must exist. For naming purposes, I have called it "supernatural" if you like, we can call it the anti-spacetime realm since you don't seem to take kindly to the word supernatural.I get how you use supernatural, I can accept the word though it could give many the wrong impression. Let's go back to something originating from nothing. With uncertainty, there are truly random values that show up. What determines the exact value of these numbers? For the most part from what I understand, nothing. It's not about the particle has to exist first before you can start to measure these numbers, it's that nothing determines these numbers exactly. They just more or else arbitrarily show up. Luckily the odds of particles showing up on the moon from say here are astronomical. The whole wave thing implies that reality is more or else constantly fine-tuning itself as well, but maybe that has nothing to do with 'something originating from nothing". So, unless my understanding of my topic is flawed (which is possible), we cannot conclusively say something must come from nothing. Again, I am no physicist though. Mr_Anony: What about black holes?You mentioned the parent realm (let's bolt into fantasy at full speed) can influence the child realm. That is not necessarily true. Black holes demonstrate this to a degree. Parent realm could also have been annihilated as well, etc Mr_Anony: Now this is what you may call speculation. If you could overcome c, you wouldn't have simultaneous events in one frame rather you would have fast-forwarded events at best as the value of c tends to infinity. The sequence will still apply. If you eliminate c, then you must define another means of communication else you wouldn't be describing our universe at all and that's where the real speculation begins.Cause and effect would apply, true, however, and I just culled this, maybe I get a better example soon: "The example tells the story of two presidents of warring nations, traveling on a train. None of them want's to sign the peace treaty before the other, so they set up a light bulb, in the center of a table. During this signing, they are on a train. When the light bulb flashes, each president signs the treaty. Everyone on the train sees that the photons of light took an equal amount of time to reach both presidents, therefore, the light reached them simultaneously, which is good, because both president's signed at the same time. However, stationary observers on a platform observe that the president facing the direction that the train is moving received the light beams before the president facing away from the direction of the train. I can understand that this is a result of the constant velocity of the speed of light. Notice the conflicting viewpoints. Those on the train say that the presidents received the light at the exact same time. However, those on the platform say that the president facing the direction of the train's motion received the light before the other president facing the opposite direction." (And I thought they'd observe whichever frame had more mass in slow motion? Dunno honestly. Irrelevant anyways) And this is just an example of things not working 'intuitively'. Just as you'd expect one could accelerate past c where it not for physics showing otherwise, or that matter and energy were not related, etc. Cause and effect need not be intuitive in another universe if indeed there were others ie. I'm not even sure they do in this universe... |
Avicenna: I'm surprised you bothered.I have no idea as to what i was thinking . My badEdit: i guess i have to be less naive. i keep falling for trolls as well *smh* |
vislabraye: To all the atheist in the house. I'll ask you a questio: How did the world come to be? I'm sure u would quote Charles Darwin evolution theory: ![]() You said absolutely nothing of value here. It was more or else: christianity is good enough for me therefore it is good enough for everyone else. Then you called us lazy because rather than relying on some text which you acknowledge is ancient we actually get off our butts and try to figure how things work. To be fair, you show clearly why I avoid discussions with most theists. |
Mr_Anony: If you notice, so far we have only agreed that a supernatural must exist and it must not be subject to natural laws and spacetime. The second thing we have talked about is that in such a realm, an eternal being can very well exist i.e a being i.e. infinite with regards to space and time. Also, we have demonstrated that if a supernatural cause brought about the cosmos, then it follows that elements from the supernatural can affect the natural though not necessarily vice-versa for now.I do not agree with the notion that a supernatural most exist. Uncertainty is mind boggling. Until we fully understand it, believe or not, we cannot say for certain that something cannot come from nothing. Imo existence is a trick of numbers, the only concept that must exist, but this is now pseudo-science. Next, elements from the parent universe need not be able to influence the child. Simple example, black holes. I was using that to explain 'intuition' as well. Casuality still applies on the macroscopic level, yes. But the sequence of events, if you could overcome c and observe from another frame, will not work intuitively. While an event may appear simultaneous in one frame, for an observer on a different reference plane moving at high speeds in relation to the event's frame the event would not actually be simultaneous. That is counter intuitive, as you'd expect the event to be simultaneous to all observers. As for cause and effect, my first paragraph. |
Mr_Anony: Why not? ![]() |
Mr_Anony: If the universe has a 'supernatural' cause, then it means that the supernatural can influence the natural.What if the supernatural cause only existed at that point. It's also possible it could only affect our universe at that point, ie, at conception. From then on out it becomes impossible for either side to access each other. Anyways this is redundant because @avi already points these out, as well as points out it's all speculation (which you do as well). A few would say impractical even as another universe probably mean we can't access it, if we could than we'd be part of said universe (assuming it's a super set). It may have different laws and such. Who knows, you might be bigger than this entire universe. There might be no such thing as small even, it probably is silly to even compare sizes, it may not support matter etc... By intuitive I mean what would come to one's mind first because of his day to day observations. For instance, you'd expect a cause to always occur before an effect. I'm not entirely sure this is always the case. Even special relativity puts a dent on that(edit: nothing major, just events taking place at different times/speed depending on your frame of reference), but the limit of information being able to travel only at c makes it all good for us. |
Mr_Anony: Oh yes I didLol. What should the default be when people agree to disagree? |
Mr_Anony: A realm beyond the naturalDoes this mean it is unreachable to us, thus all we could do is speculate? If we can reach it or it can influence us etc, is there any evidence of this? Does this mean it's rules have to be different as far as physics is concerned? Bear in mind I don't think cause and effect have to work intuitively, even in this universe |
Mr_Anony: Jesus Christ: His life, His death, His resurrectionOh no you didn't ![]() |
@mr anony, what does supernatural mean in this context? @avi, ![]() |
mkmyers45: Referring to wave/particle paradox or the uncertainty principle?Yeah. That stuff seems to be rather random, putting a dent on determinism and cause and effect by extension. Scary part is experiments verify their predictions. I would have thought proponents of freewill and ID would be fans actually. The arguments would still be tenuous, but better than nothing. It would still qualify as 'god of the gaps' to me though, as the model is not complete. Also, as of now, it can be interpreted in many ways and still be valid. But there might be hope for determinism yet. Edit: my bad, didn't read that well. Both are jazz, but I refer to uncertainty in particular |
@Crazyman it's ok, still @Dorox I like the post, but all most of us with other beliefs ask for is respect. You most certainly don't have the answers, for the most part no one does, though the scientific method has been undeniably more successful than other philosophies as far as attaining knowledge is concerned. So when some religious person comes around claiming superiority while sometimes doing very questionable things because of his religious faith, well, imagine how that looks. @anony, I actually disagree as to the cause issue because of uncertainty, but I'm sketchy on the details. Where do particles borrow energy from to produce their magical feats? Anyone know? |
No crazyman, you did not reply my second post, which was related to the first. If you weren't going to you should not have asked. At least you brought mr anony out to play |
Me too! Me too! Answer mine oga |
![]() |
CrazyMan: Satan like I explained earlier is a being that God uses to test the loyalty of his people.Ok, so why does he need to test people's faith? You acknowledge he does not like certain things like disobedience, if he were omnipotent why doesn't he just make the things that annoy him disappear. Accommodating freewill is not an excuse. If I, or just about any other human, were writing a program which featured some sort sentient ai's that could feel pain/emotions and then made said world rather treacherous I'd be classified as sadistic and evil. What's worse would be if I actually wrote in how the program would end, giving them no option of changing their actions, then decided to put them in my 'hell' program forever, suffering for my incompetence or pleasure. Again, they can feel pain, emotion and were all following the instructions I coded into them. Civilized people don't treat dogs that way, let alone other people. This said do you think that an omnibenovelant, omnipotent god exists? |
CrazyMan: Actually I didn't quite get your question that's why I answered it with biblical quotes. Now I think I quite get you.I've already addressed most of these points though "Its not God's wish that his children should suffer" If he were omnipotent, and it weren't his wish that his children suffer, than why does he let it happen. I cannot see how this can be reconciled with omniscience and being omnibenovelence. If he were really kind he could have given us the ability to make our choices (freewill) and still provide a world where thousands don't die daily because they can't afford to eat. He also created Satan, why? Was that really neccesarry? Ahh, I am out of time, I'll add a bit more soon, I'm not done yet. |
Actually what I wanted was a resolution to the problem of evil, more or else. In case you don't know what I'm on about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil Basically, if you claim god is benevolent, kind, omnipotent, and also all knowing, then why is there evil/suffering in this world. Omnipotent means he could have built one without thousands of kids dying tonight from hunger. Even if you invoke freewill, omnipotent would mean he could give us freewill and still give us nice things, like children who don't starve to death, or prevent genocide. Let's not even delve yet into how omnipotent or omniscient is not possible yet. The above though, if you could supply an answer (preferably without quotes, that condition was one of the reasons I bothered posting, but as we've already begun I'll just have to overlook it I guess. But also it's a waste of your time really, as it doesn't add much to the debate and I wouldn't want you doing something needless on account of me), that would suffice. Thanks |
"Now from this passage, we can simply say that God sees disobedience as an act of evil before his sight. You and I are in the state we find ourselves because Adam disobeyed God." Ok, I couldn't really digest that so I hope I'm not taking this out of context. If the above is true, do you consider that just? If yes, can you tell me why? |
^^^^ You said no quotes, lol. I never read quotes, but I'll give it a spin... |
CrazyMan: God existsYou're abusing the word 'science' Lots of people talk about santa, that doesn't make him real. In fact, so much talk without anyone ever meeting him could imply a hoax, like the yeti or tupac Lots of things in nature are complex, even things you take for granted like the weather. I'm no biologist but I can see the other great apes becoming self-aware if we actually tried to breed them for such, no need to mess with dna etc (except perhaps to give them language tools). And if nature is not capable of coming up with something as complex as our brains, how did god come about? He/she/it was just there all complex from the beginning? The problem of evil, address it if you will good sir crazyman. random: I give you mandelbrot sets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set Simple to complex. I'm no mathematician though Edit: or better yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal |
Which God are you speaking about? The christian one? |
@martian Do virtual particles need to be caused? Thanks Edit: never mind, I see you culled that |
CrazyMan: You still didn't prove to me that God doesn't exist.True, and since you aren't making any claims (to me at least) there's no need to invoke 'the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim', so you're free to go ![]() |
fellis: Got it. I was going to make a comment about the bolded but then I read the last sentence.Eh, but I'm only rambling. I pick INFJ as the topic because I want to no so subtly implant the idea in @avi's head that he might be one. He certainly seems to feel strongly about these things. Not that we INTx don't, we obviously do, but our approaches are different. There seems to be raw emotion fueling him. Now @avi, before you take my head off, remember Gandhi, Jesus (d legend as described, I know, he probably never existed or was like any of the stories say), Tolstoy, Jung himself, maybe Jefferson. All stand up dudes, paradigm shift progenitors even. With INTP and INFJ it's rather easy to mix the two. INFJ are usually regarded as the most disorganized Js actually. Perfectionist much is a problem for many INFJ, so they can come across as P'ish. For instance Jung and Jefferson may have been INTP, they certainly aren't clear cut INFJ. Young Toltsoy would easily be mistaken for INTP, as he grew older he showed undoubted INFJ. Then again you also have Yahweh, Hitler and Bin laden ![]() Oh yes, @fellis, I'm only rambling, pick on any aspect you want to discuss. You don't agree? You have reasonable arguments/comments? Don't hold out on me, feed me! And obviously take your time on the response, there or here. This is just a semi-coherent ramble anyways, I'm not actually expecting replies. Except maybe you fall for the trolls |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 (of 162 pages)
- I'm no scientist!! Need to be fully sure, so pls verify.
But my 'practical' philosophy has me accepting some initial, or foundational if you will, parameters on a variety of issues.