a challenge to those who feel intelligent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler

perhaps a new form of math will be invented to reveal this. we're long overdue for one.

---

Yes perhaps. Perhaps all sorts of things. Perhaps in 5 mins Jesus will appear on this forum and bitch slap all the atheists. (Remember Mr "fuck you guys I know what's right" ? )

But the current mathematics says its not possible. We know how to evaluate any digit of PI's dec seq. The problem is that there are an infinite number of digits and we can evaluate them all unless we have an infinite number of people doing it or we have infinite time. And if we do find a way to visit them all where would we store this knowledge - even in its most efficient encoding it would require and infinitely large storehouse. And suppose we could do that - does that mean we "know" the sequence as human beings - I did ask what you mean by "know". And when you are done with the digits of PI there still remains an uncountably infinite number of such sequences . Most of them have no name we just call them irrational numbers - (no these are not numbers that believe in Jesus - these are numbers that cant be written as the ratio of two integers)

I am not sure what you mean about being overdue for a new math? The 20th century was an explosion of mathematical ideas. Many call it the Golden Age of Mathematics - IMO thats premature , like you say there is more to come - but we surely havent been slacking. I can read all the mathematics upto the beginning of the 20th century. I can read most of what was written before ww2 - after that - well I walk into the math section of a university library and many of the math books are completely unintelligible to me. Even though math is my business.

So I ask again what does it mean when we say we "know something" does it mean one person knows it? A small community knows it? Everyone knows it?

We now know that Fermats Last "Theorem" (conjecture actually) is proved. This means I can use this result in my work and build other proof on it. But man I cant read the paper by Weil. Only a handful of people on the planet can. Starting from here I estimate about 5 years of hard study before I can think about reading that proof. That may be optimistic. I have a high opinion of myself. And frankly for much of the human race, its just plain impossible - they dont have the intellectual equipment - so what do they "know?"

[QUOTE=altagid]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue

I did quote my source. Look harder at my last post ;) [/quote}

And so you did! I am fucking blind. I apologize.



I dont buy that. Who says God is good? Perhaps he is cruel? Perhaps the good in the world is just here to make the evil more painful? Even if God is good, he might be using evil for good purposes. Sort of "tough love" . And then perhaps he doesnt care about us at all. If God exists why should he necessarily be concerned with our existence. Perhaps our status in the universe is on a par with cockroaches? A sort of pest that is hard to suppress completely. Perhaps God just created the universe, as a science experiment and then left it to run its course.

It does seem improbable to me that a Good and caring God could have created the harsh, cruel world we live in - but improbability is only evidence against Gods existence not proof and, before any one jumps on me, this was presented as a proof. :)

This is another Bifurcation Fallacy.

---

i believe he was referring specifically to the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic (and maybe rastafari, not sure about those guys) scriptures. if was all these things, he would be able to accomplish all of these goals without evil or suffering. both good and evil are unnecessary, but if god was good he would use only good and not create evil. therefore, if god exists, he is neither all good nor all evil, but finds pleasure in both to some degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

Yes perhaps. Perhaps all sorts of things. Perhaps in 5 mins Jesus will appear on this forum and bitch slap all the atheists. (Remember Mr "fuck you guys I know what's right" ? )

But the current mathematics says its not possible. We know how to evaluate any digit of PI's dec seq. The problem is that there are an infinite number of digits and we can evaluate them all unless we have an infinite number of people doing it or we have infinite time. And if we do find a way to visit them all where would we store this knowledge - even in its most efficient encoding it would require and infinitely large storehouse. And suppose we could do that - does that mean we "know" the sequence as human beings - I did ask what you mean by "know". And when you are done with the digits of PI there still remains an uncountably infinite number of such sequences . Most of them have no name we just call them irrational numbers - (no these are not numbers that believe in Jesus - these are numbers that cant be written as the ratio of two integers)

I am not sure what you mean about being overdue for a new math? The 20th century was an explosion of mathematical ideas. Many call it the Golden Age of Mathematics - IMO thats premature , like you say there is more to come - but we surely havent been slacking. I can read all the mathematics upto the beginning of the 20th century. I can read most of what was written before ww2 - after that - well I walk into the math section of a university library and many of the math books are completely unintelligible to me. Even though math is my business.

So I ask again what does it mean when we say we "know something" does it mean one person knows it? A small community knows it? Everyone knows it?

We now know that Fermats Last "Theorem" (conjecture actually) is proved. This means I can use this result in my work and build other proof on it. But man I cant read the paper by Weil. Only a handful of people on the planet can. Starting from here I estimate about 5 years of hard study before I can think about reading that proof. That may be optimistic. I have a high opinion of myself. And frankly for much of the human race, its just plain impossible - they dont have the intellectual equipment - so what do they "know?"

---

you'll have to forgive my ignorance, i'm only 16 after all. what i meant by a new "kind" of math is like geometry, algebra, calculus. that may not be how math works so feel free to correct me if that's the case. what i meant by "know" is that society will know it. we know the world is round, though some tribes in Pacific islands don't know that the world isn't all oceans and islands. you are, however, forgetting that even humans will evolve into another species, and that species into another, presumably smarter with each new one. if they inherit all of our knowledge, and their successors inherit everything from the races before them, there's no telling where it could lead. possibly to the calculation of infinity. they won't be the same genetically, but they will have built upon us directly, so they will be a continuation of us IMO. i've even formulated my own theory of infinity (which will probably be discredited in the future, but i was 14 and high, and it still sounds pretty cool): if we assume that there is a smallest possible unit of time and a smallest possible unit of length, the either the number of moments from the beginning to the end of time or the number of points in the universe is equal to the highest number possible. not infinity by definition but by practice. what would be really sweet is if these numbers were exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler

i believe he was referring specifically to the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic (and maybe rastafari, not sure about those guys) scriptures..

---

Yeah. I knew that but firstly its too big a step, just the existence of a Creator is a very big step - if you can do that then you can start to tackle his nature or qualities. Secondly its just too easy a target. The Omini God that you refer to leads immediately to logical contradictions as you have pointed out somewhere here - and any statement that does that is false - no ifs buts or ands - it false foo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler

..... therefore, if god exists, he is neither all good nor all evil, but finds pleasure in both to some degree.

---

Yeah but dont you suspect he finds a lot more pleasure in evil than in good? I know I do ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

Yeah but dont you suspect he finds a lot more pleasure in evil than in good? I know I do ;)

---

yes, after seeing the movie "catwoman" and wondering what sort of twisted freak would allow something so atrocious to come into existance.

well i got tired of reading after the 4th page so i don't know realy what's been said alllltogether.

here's a quote
"you are saying that you have faith that smoking weed will bring you pleasure.. "

well not to be rude but, that's as stupid as saying "you have faith if you try hard in school you'll do good" NO, if youtry hard in school you'll do good, fuck faith. you don't need FAITH to know smoking weed will bring youp leasure cuz you KNOW it will. so why put FAITH into religions... there's a starwars religion, lord of the rings religion, believing god puts you on the same level as those gullible people. think about it...

look at the human race from a 3rd person, alien-perspective. and look at all these arguments, look at the belief of god. look at all the otehr beliefs. drugs will make you see things like "visions", and those drugs that DO, have been around wayyyy back, past before the bible was written. now how do you know some ancient people ate mushrooms, and had those "visions" of god and so on, then wrote it down. well all these anti-drug people could very well be believing in drug-influenced thoughts. not saying that IS it. but it's just as possible as anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TipTIP

well i got tired of reading after the 4th page so i don't know realy what's been said alllltogether.

---

there's only five pages

well...duh. meaning i didn't read the rest of the 4th page and the 5th page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TipTIP

here's a quote
"you are saying that you have faith that smoking weed will bring you pleasure.. "

well not to be rude but, that's as stupid as saying "you have faith if you try hard in school you'll do good" NO, if youtry hard in school you'll do good, fuck faith. you don't need FAITH to know smoking weed will bring youp leasure cuz you KNOW it will. so why put FAITH into religions... there's a starwars religion, lord of the rings religion, believing god puts you on the same level as those gullible people. think about it...

---

You guys in this thread are all such fucking hardliners. Religion is the opiate of the masses (Marx) but I guess personally I fail to see the difference between pouring your faith into religion, or science, or causality, or belief in my own existence, etc

The form of logic is that if the premises are true then the conclusion is inescapable. Just remember that we assume all our premises.
Of course you assume smoking weed will have certain effects, you should read something by David Hume.

Structured forms build categorical systems on a floating foundation...

we can philosophize all day long about meanings of words and historical examples, but for all intents and purposes, science deals with fact. religion doesn't yielded anything for society. science (and math, her lesbian partner) has yielded, amond other things, computers, lighters, hydroponics, pornography, lasers, space shuttles, can openers, and flight.