User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 97

  1. #71
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    In Hancock Library there is a whole library of books of mathematics.

    And in this whole mathematics library there is not one equation that contains the variable God.

    If God created everything, you would think that God would be mentioned in many equations. But God is not mentioned even in one equation out of the millions of equations here.

    We are told metaphorically that mathematics is the language of God. But it is a language that knows not God.
    Sorry missed this one.

    Mathematics and God are both theories. One does encroach upon the other but at a distance to place many more blockages in the path of them meeting. To place maths next to God you'd have to run one hell of a hurdle race... probably for several lifetimes too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    No. I'm off the camp that religion and science exist in exclusive intellectual spheres and are therefore of negligible consequence to the former.
    So they don't meet? Ever?

    Sorry, I don't think that holds water or gravity!
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Oh, and I do not concede that you made that point. As the point was not contextually available to make, you cannot offer it, post cogito.

    There. Eat Latin.
    I prefer Italian but I'll give it a go... just as long as it's not that "I think therefore " bunch of tosh. Now that's a perfect example of taking an idea too far.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Sure. They all begin from the same primordial goo, but take distinct pathways along the way. It's the road they take - not their birthright - that defines them as individual philosophies.

    Haven't you ever heard of black sheep?
    Black sheep are sheep, individual philosophies are philosophies... all points which further my point. You can't arbitrarily separate religion and science based on some fripperous point that one claims objectivity. Otherwise all the other has to do is claim objectivity and whamo you're back to square one.

    Intelligent design anyone?
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Because they allow for progress. And your scale is wonky. There are degrees of accuracy you're (conveniently) glossing over to assert your point.
    I'm glossing over the jargon, the assumed walls of definition in an attempt to bridge gaps which were put in place to keep things defined. Definition is necessary only to our understanding and not to the thing being defined. The universe does not care that you have divided the periods of light and dark into section and measure them. It has no concept of time.

    Now if I err in my bridging then please do correct it's span but by saying that the bridge cannot be built is akin to saying we cannot know how to classify light because it's too difficult. Tosh says I!
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #72
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post

    So they don't meet? Ever?

    Sorry, I don't think that holds water or gravity!
    No - I said 'negligible', which means they are mostly inconsequential unless acted upon by an external (intellectually confused) force. Read: Creationists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I prefer Italian but I'll give it a go... just as long as it's not that "I think therefore " bunch of tosh. Now that's a perfect example of taking an idea too far.
    Hey!

    Don't badmouth the dead. Descartes was a handful. Don't be confused by his quasi-effeminate first name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Black sheep are sheep, individual philosophies are philosophies... all points which further my point. You can't arbitrarily separate religion and science based on some fripperous point that one claims objectivity. Otherwise all the other has to do is claim objectivity and whamo you're back to square one.

    Intelligent design anyone?
    Intelligent design? Absolutely not. You're confusing science quackery with science fact, Xander.

    Claiming objectivity and striving for it are distinct ideologies. Credibility is the currency we seek here, Xander. Of course absolute objectivity is never possible -- surely you agree that this impossibility doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it?

    Why bother with any knowledge, then? By your hand, we ought to simply relax in our immutable ignorance as true progress isn't ever possible!

    Back to square one, indeed!


    (Oh, and I'm surprised you've never heard of Black Sheep -- you are English, aren't you? )

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I'm glossing over the jargon, the assumed walls of definition in an attempt to bridge gaps which were put in place to keep things defined. Definition is necessary only to our understanding and not to the thing being defined. The universe does not care that you have divided the periods of light and dark into section and measure them. It has no concept of time.

    Now if I err in my bridging then please do correct it's span but by saying that the bridge cannot be built is akin to saying we cannot know how to classify light because it's too difficult. Tosh says I!
    How do you know what the universe wants?

    Not that it matters, as what is truly relevant is that which is defined within the context of our shared intellectual heritage. Science is our best guess, Xander. It's not perfect, but requires delineation for it to breath and expand into new territories. Why must we arbitrarily extinguish definition as to avoid the likelihood that we might be moving in non-objective rhythms? Progress and precision are forever suspended in a balancing act, anyway. Why not do whatever we can do reduce bias?

    No way around this. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take the chance. New knowledge is ever more succulent than old anxiety.

  3. #73
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Mathematics and God are both theories
    Quite right. But one is consistent and the other is is not.

    Then you could add that there's a difference between a logically consistent theory and wishful thinking.

    Bad science is debunkable because it falls victim to its own logic - a problem that religion does not share.

    Pay more attention to Victor.

  4. #74
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    No - I said 'negligible', which means they are mostly inconsequential unless acted upon by an external (intellectually confused) force. Read: Creationists.
    "Negligible" is what I'd call a value based judgement. Hardly scientific but quite religious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Hey!

    Don't badmouth the dead. Descartes was a handful. Don't be confused by his quasi-effeminate first name.
    I read Descartes and I've decided not to bad mouth his name. I shall now call him Discarded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Intelligent design? Absolutely not. You're confusing science quackery with science fact, Xander.
    Precisely. Ergo don't base the delineation between the two on something assumed and unverifiable. That's how the whole mess starts.

    You can't claim superiority on your own terms and then complain when someone else claims superiority on their terms. Until the terms are levelled there can be no comparison and at present there's as much a case for an intelligent hand in the development of life as there is against, if you ignore all the indoctrination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Claiming objectivity and striving for it are distinct ideologies. Credibility is the currency we seek here, Xander. Of course absolute objectivity is never possible -- surely you agree that this impossibility doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it?

    Why bother with any knowledge, then? By your hand, we ought to simply relax in our immutable ignorance as true progress isn't ever possible!

    Back to square one, indeed!
    A wise man knows that he knows nothing.

    The point is not to not strive but to recognise our own failings and our own assumptions. The guys who made a pattern making program for what I assume was a telescope and then proceeded to map the universe claimed that because there was holes in the pattern it was proof of another dimension. That's foolish because the first assumption to be tested would have to be "are you missing something?". My initial assessment would have been that their program was insufficient or their understanding of the universe was insufficient to write a sufficient program.

    Without questioning what we take for granted we only manage to assure ourselves that we're already right instead of risking it and entertaining the idea that maybe we've got a lot of it all wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    (Oh, and I'm surprised you've never heard of Black Sheep -- you are English, aren't you? )
    Black sheep, the odd one out, the unspoken of member of the family, often related to someone being dodgy in terms of breaking the law. I turned it around to underline that it is still a sheep even if it is divergent from the other sheep. I would have thought ewe would have got that one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    How do you know what the universe wants?
    I asked. Don't be stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Not that it matters, as what is truly relevant is that which is defined within the context of our shared intellectual heritage. Science is our best guess, Xander. It's not perfect, but requires delineation for it to breath and expand into new territories. Why must we arbitrarily extinguish definition as to avoid the likelihood that we might be moving in non-objective rhythms? Progress and precision are forever suspended in a balancing act, anyway. Why not do whatever we can do reduce bias?

    No way around this. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take the chance. New knowledge is ever more succulent than old anxiety.
    New knowledge is okay but if it's based upon faulty foundations then isn't it another flat earth society? Of all the institutions upon which we pledge our lives should not science receive one of the most intense, no boundary respected kind of scrutinies we can muster?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #75
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Pay more attention to Victor.
    Sure, pay attention.

    We live in the attention economy you are my paymaster.

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Deracinated means to be cut off from your roots.

    And the fact that you call your patrimony brain washing shows not only are you deracinated but you deny it as well. And why not, it would be too painful to face - it would mean facing a permanent cultural impoverishment.

    Fair better to call your rightful inheritance brain washing. It also has the advantage of being part of deracinated popular culture.
    I'm aware of its meaning... one only has to play enough warcraft 3 to know that

    I'm not sure what your point is are you trying to say something about my mother or father or god?

  7. #77
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unique View Post
    I'm aware of its meaning... one only has to play enough warcraft 3 to know that

    I'm not sure what your point is are you trying to say something about my mother or father or god?
    I rather like the word deracinated. I only recently found out its meaning and I have been looking for an opportunity to show it off.

    But you have the advantage - I have never even seen warcraft 1 or 2, never mind 3.

    But what I was trying to say that almost all are given their religion in the trance of childhood well before they have developed their critical mind.

    Of course you are entitled to call this brain washing but anything you teach a child will be accepted uncritically in exactly the same way a child accepts their parents.

    In fact it is quite like learning our native language. We learn our native language quite unconsciously without any engagement of the critical mind.

    So we learn our language unconsciously. We learn our religion unconsciously. And we accept our parents unconsciously. This is our inheritance. It is only later, usually in tertiary education, that we come to criticize our inheritance.

    And of course not to have part of this inheritance is described by that lovely word, deracinated.

  8. #78
    Senior Member Argus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Ah, I'm so far behind on this thread! I just can't take a day off.
    You can call me Charles.

  9. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I rather like the word deracinated. I only recently found out its meaning and I have been looking for an opportunity to show it off.

    But you have the advantage - I have never even seen warcraft 1 or 2, never mind 3.

    But what I was trying to say that almost all are given their religion in the trance of childhood well before they have developed their critical mind.

    Of course you are entitled to call this brain washing but anything you teach a child will be accepted uncritically in exactly the same way a child accepts their parents.

    In fact it is quite like learning our native language. We learn our native language quite unconsciously without any engagement of the critical mind.

    So we learn our language unconsciously. We learn our religion unconsciously. And we accept our parents unconsciously. This is our inheritance. It is only later, usually in tertiary education, that we come to criticize our inheritance.

    And of course not to have part of this inheritance is described by that lovely word, deracinated.
    Ah yes, I understand now

    Interesting, though I don't think it would of made a difference if the Christian religion was given to me as a child. Why?

    Well because my mother is Buddhist and I was taught all about it I however chose to respect it but not embrace it as my religion and this was a choice I made as a child

    Now the reason I say "brain washing" is because the only way religion would of effected me as a child is by not giving me a choice which essentially is brain washing, the fact that I was not having my hand forced is the reason for my chosen preference

    That being said, it would be more like "holding a gun" to my head even in childhood, I've always been a curious person with way too many questions so there is no way I would truly 100% believe in something even if I said so

    At an early age I was thinking deeply about the meaning of life and for someone to tell me something "is a certain way" I would always be skeptical of people

    I payed little attention in school as a child too as I found most of it irrelevant even being so young, the questions the other children were asking were of no interest to me

    I've been this way as long as I can remember, I can remember playing in the sand pit by myself with the gears in my head turning already, going over ideas

    There was no "trance of childhood" for me as I was vastly different from other children

    Funny you mention language I remember as a child discussing that very concept with my mother I was questioning it already

    I disagree that I learn any of the things you stated unconsciously, do you have proof of this?

    If what you are saying is true than so is children believing in santa. Most children simply found out santa wasn't real through others I however demanded the truth from my mother and was obviously devastated

    Hypothetically if I was born into a highly religious family there is no doubt in my mind that I would be skeptical and unlikely to take what they say as absolute truth even as a child

    I was born with a critical mind, it wasn't developed

  10. #80
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post

    If God does exist, then he has no causal relationship to the physical universe, meaning he essentially doesn't exist.
    I've never understood that argument.

    Why couldn't God have a causal relationship to the physical universe?
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Quote Thread: Express your feelings or thoughts with a quote
    By Sparrow in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 412
    Last Post: 12-03-2017, 12:20 AM
  2. What is Your Spiritual Belief System?
    By lightsun in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-29-2017, 09:59 AM
  3. Famous/INfamous people you wish didn't share your type
    By Sahara in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 12:43 PM
  4. Share your spiritual beliefs
    By Night in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 12:53 AM
  5. Knowing Me, Knowing God: Exploring Your Spirituality with Myers-Briggs
    By Usehername in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 03:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO