pouët.net

unssi, it's so easy to point the finger and say "they did it", no? i call you shallow.

iblis, nice words. your posts have been a good read.

So, as a true lover of Science of Logic and Mathematics, I'd like to take a bite from the pie as well. I totally agree with the certain points elaborated by Optanes exception being the religious part. Not that I don't agree, but I'd like to keep it away from this text.

As for the aforementioned "mathematical proofs of God's existence": It's quite interesting to see each of them rise and ... fall. They have a very basic flaw, yes even the Gödel's world-renowned Ontological Proof has the very same flaw (among others). Firstly, all of them proves the existence of a "concept" X such that X possesses certain properties, which indeed is a very basic work of logic. But the problem is, they either never test against full properties suggested by the current religions for a God or their proofs are "to a certain extent" true (such as Gödel's) - which makes it impossible to claim an existence for a "Singleton Universal and Well-Defined God".

As an example, the one at Wikipedia on Gödel's proof is quite nice:
Ted Drange wrote a very nice article that shows why not "every positive property" can't be possessed by an instance of a certain concept. Just consider "mercy" and "justice", they both are morally positive for the "general populus" (which is another flaw by the way, what defined positive in the proofs?), but well they can clash each other.

One other mistake made by a lot of logician (or such enthusiasts like Perry Marshall) is the assumption of a basis. The concept of existence, understanding, knowledge and moral are all interpreted from a relative frame. One can't decide for a "zero-point" by analyzing relative definitions. Consider the following: Where in Universe the Earth resides? We can only define this relatively (such as X million light years from the Star Y). But can anyone define this as an absolute property? In fact, where "Universe" resides in the set of greater Universes (I'm referring to self-encapsulation if needed to be interpreted as such, the indefinite answer to the question won't change)?

Also, another flaw that somewhat ridiculates a theorem is an "assumption", for example reworkings of Gödel's proof replaced the 3rd axiom which was buggy, with an "assumption" that says (Pos(G(x)) which means, G(x) is always true. This is a very major flaw because it can be explained with Cantor's study on one-to-one correspondance. The axiom (Pos(G(x)) automatically limits the range of the function which is an infinite field of properties, though G(x)'s range is more numerous than Pos(G(x)) which boils down to the "infinity of infinities". In fact this was the very reason most of the Christianity followers (sophisticated ones like theologians) hated Cantor. Because he questioned the "infiniteness of God's properties".

These are mostly the general flaws that are encountered at almost all proofs that claim to have proven the existence of God. Let's not even mention that they are building on top of a relative existence already (knowledge... and a vocabulary).

So, a true proof of God's existence "in my very opinion", must prove the fact that what we interpret as "nothing" can sum upto something when added (in layman's terms). Thus a nihilistic approach would be the only really valid proof. And in fact that nihilistic proof must also obey the fact that one-to-one correspondance is always assured within the axioms and the infinities of the inifinite fields being dealt are defined to be ... well, infinite.

There goes my two cents :).
Oh and I feel so special now since I'm the part of a discussion like this on "pouët"... again "POUËT"!? Wow, I thought this was impossible.

No, whatever base you use, 18 isn't 19. You need two different bases (one of them would have to be 19 because it's prime), and that's like equating different words that happen to be the same in two different languages. You wouldn't be using maths.



Theory is explanation. And observing the effects of a thing is enough to call it a fact. You can't see gravity, for example. You can only measure its effects. You can't see or even intuitively grasp the empty space between atoms, but there's really no doubt that it's there, not anymore. We wouldn't get anywhere if we always needed direct observation to be certain (even if there was such a thing).



It certainly is. And more importantly, it's ad hoc. It's an understanding gained for the purpose of lending credibility to the Quran, made in light of discoveries made by non-believers in spite the previous interpretation of those same verses. Without prior knowledge of the Big Bang, nobody would interpret those verses like that, just as without the Big Crunch theory, nobody would interpret the "world in God's hand" to mean the universe would be reduced to the size of a fist. Yet many Islamic scholars have done just that, and now they look sort of stupid after Big Crunch was discredited. Cause it turns out the universe won't get smaller, it'll only grow faster and faster. But then, God must have infinitely huge hands, so there you go, the Quran was right again. You can't lose when God is on your side.



It's been around for a while, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that it's also sound science.



Well, throw enough random nonsense into a book and eventually someone will be able to interpret it to match something that seems unlikely. It is a wonder to behold, yes. ;)



That isn't evolution, though. You've been listening to Kent Hovind, haven't you. ;) Sounds more like panspermia and/or creation, as opposed to abiogenesis, which holds that life on Earth started out much simpler than a single cell (and is separate from evolution - the only reason evolutionary biologists even mention this is because they're always asked).



The same way you' prove that 18 = 19? You can't prove God, this is the whole agnosticism thing we were talking about earlier. God is alogical. Proof is logical. By definition, proof doesn't apply to God, just like 2.5 is neither odd nor even. Only integers have the odd/even property, and it's meaningless to try to apply it to non-integers.



No, evolutionary algorithms work. This is "directly observable" you know. Also, it's Proven (capital P, no quotation marks - also in the news tonight, 2+2=4).



A thousand monkeys won't, probably. An infinite number of monkeys will. Quite surprising that the guy behind Google ads doesn't understand basic maths.

Decipher: that post, now, on pouet?! I consider that logical proof that there is a god!

iblis is the guy behind google ads??

Wrong, within this definition, even a single monkey could write continous Shakespeare plays as the duration of the process isn't specified.

On the other hand, infinite amounts of monkeys can produce a Shakespeare in no longer than the specific writing time of a Shakespearean for that specific monkey who writes it (Amortized time).

Sxrebbel, excactly. Im not going to try to defend someone elses theory, all i said was that i find his line of thinking interresting, and i still do. I have yet to see any thinker or scientist present anything that cannot be questioned in its details. Apart from those things that are a fact, as defined as:



CC, you like most others that have answered my this post in this thread assign me some ulterior religious motive and it is unfair as none of you know how i deal with spirituality as part of my life. I think the words islam and muslim may be the proverbial red cloth. Im not questioning big bang as a possability, but its presented as a fact and nothing less and im questioning that. just like evolution is sold as the whole package in public explaining the big question, why are we all here and it matters little if it is linguistically correct. You are arguing semantics.



and then go



Am i the only one seeing it? you can prove an invisible force by measuring, and observing its effects....ok,ill take that one to heart mate. :)

Practical knowledge comes from theories that are predictive (and which can be disproven)

God, as a theory for explaining effects in the world cannot be disproven and is not predictive. It also is indefinitely alterable and imprecise as a concept.

It's also a harmless thing to believe in as long as it is done in private, which I am fine with. When it's used as an ideology and a tool of control, then I give a damn.

rather i think the new gist of things in the theological circles are that "chaos" explain just about zero nothing. And that the whole universe seems to function by rules so solid as to be impossible to break, mutation and adaption being one of them for organisms, gravity etc..
In this there seems to be order. And as we can observe,that as soon as you "random" anything it turns into shit unless youre an artist or a demoscener. The argument that says " just give it enough time" is the ultimate cop out, its even worse than theology if not a defacto theology. Ultimate belief in the unprovable.

"yeah jesus will come real soon", "just give it some more time and youll see monkey shakespeare"..pfff whatever, people and their religions

iblis: If God is an "invisible force" that can none the less be measured, that's fine. He just hasn't been measured yet (which in itself suggests a lot, at the very least that he doesn't want to be discovered). You could call something unexplained "God" but that God has a tendency to grow smaller and less important over time. He's certainly not a God you'd want to get too attached to.

The problem with proving God in the logical sense is that he's defined to be "beyond logic". You can't base an argument on formal rules and then fill in the blanks with a wildcard that doesn't follow those rules. This is what applying logic to God means. It's a worthless mode of reasoning that doesn't accomplish anything, because it makes the whole argument non-logical. It's like winning a chess game by inventing new moves for your own pieces. It doesn't make you a great chess player, it just means no one will want to play with you. ;)

Evolution works only on life, by definition. So life from non-life isn't an evolutionary process and isn't addressed by the theory of evolution. It's addressed by biology in general (and it's not as much of a mystery anymore as some would like to believe), and of course abiogenesis is of interest to people who work in evolutionary biology, and vice versa, but they're still separate things.

Maybe you could blame scientists for not explaining the importance of semantics and precise language well enough, but I'd rather blame the Discovery Channel and other polluting elements for the misconceptions and let the scientists focus on curing cancer.

...

Evolution is fueled by random variation, but driven by non-random selection. The end result is not random, and scientists don't take it to be random. It's taken to be the exact opposite of random.

The processes currently thought to be behind the origin of life aren't random either, but rather chemical reactions that are inevitable under the right circumstances.

Whether things like physical constants are randomly shuffled together, and if so, whether it's an "experiment" that's repeated across an infinite number of possible universes, or if not, how it is that the laws and constants in this the only universe work so well, if in fact they do work well, that's all unknown, and no theoretical physicist would claim otherwise.

The infinite number of monkeys is a theoretical tool used to illustrate how even an extremely improbable outcome will occur, given enough attempts. You can't argue with multiplication.

Science isn't the crazy religion you imagine it to be. It's all firmly based in reason, and it's intellectually honest.

i thought about it and i have to admit whoever complained at sony is right - who would want to be associated with a game whose protagonist is called SACKboy...

its incredible how each and every joe schmoe on this planet believes that just his profession and company is beyond corruption of
special interrests. His sports team does never cheat, his house does not get robbed, his children does not get mugged and his wife would never cheat.

It is not like each and every researcher have the time to go over all the work done in the past to verify each claim themself, especially if we are talking about untangible theoretical models. It is not exactly unheard of in science that things that were utterly and entirely wrong survived as gospel and holy teaching for an extended period in which further reasonable rationalizations was build upon it to draw new, entirely wrong, conclusions, because of "professional pride" and sometimes just because interrests with a lot of gold backing wanted it so. Could you look me into the eyes and tell me that this is untrue?

somehow science, a methodology, has become something so pure and blessed as to be selfevident in its whole. And by its whole is impled everything that tags itself a science, which then become -per definition- free of err (or atleat untill proven otherwise). If some mathematical model says so, it is so.

completely disregarding that several such models came and went
before it. I have no beef with "science" when it builds me a computer.
the theoretical model worked, im in, ill buy. I love the fact that i have electricity in my house to run it with, alltho that in part has more to do
with an exentric nut and a thieving inventor than established "Science".
(as understood differently from the scientific method)

now that i think of it, a lot of great, even high tech inventions did not
come out of a faculty but rather a shed or someones garage, and
some of the most brilliant revered thinkers were mere artists, and intellectuals but were people who did science, but not as we now understand...*dramatic pause* [thundering voice]SCIENCE![/thundering voice]
That.. requires that you are licensed to know jack shit, or to think
anything if you want to share it up for debate on any real level atleast.

Anyway i think science is absolutely fucking ace, discovery is ace philosophy (where many to be discoveries are thought up), its all wonderful especially when it leads to something tangible. Something that makes our life better, our world a better place to be, expands our horizon.

But one should leave the realm of the unknown, the unprovable, that which requires models that include concepts like "infinite amount of time"for them to work, to theological scholars were they belong and stop presenting them as proven just because some new model dicttates it, or anymore correct than the last model or theory that came by and went away again. If the best the models can provide is "given infinite amount of time" then it is in no way a better explanation than a designer God regardles of all the arcane jargon and internally consistent mathematical models and it should be treated with an equal amount of respect or disdain depending on how you feel about theories that cant be proven on the same level that gravity can. ironically all that is proven about gravity as far as i understand it, is that its there and we understand how it behaves. what it is is anybodys guess.

and that is the problem i have with evolution and big bang theory. It has got nothing to do with any vested religious/emotional interrest i might have in them being right or wrong. In fact, i dont give a shit either way, it makes zero no difference to my life. Id just rather stay open and see what comes along as we discover rather than settle on "the truth" everytime it comes by proving itself impirically..by model....apparently

gargaj@ who would want to care about being associated with a computer game other than Jack Thompson and well..Yassir.

science does not explain one unknown -> science is bogus, it's another religion.
religion expains one known -> religion is divine, it's the only science.

optanes, do you think, perhaps, that you could get over yourself? Is that an option?



this is not what i said, i didnt need you to explain what i said.

well who did it then? the pixies ? at least what i know, bunch of bearded guys living in the cave and warring with the usa did the 9/11 last time i checked. anyway, if you want to continue this at email just tell ;D

you are all dumbasses and too much lead by the media to think independently about the islam. especially eebliss who is ex muslim. tell me this: why should i tolerate intolerance? why should i tolerate people who bully and demand rights because their religion ? doesn't freedom of speech matter anything to any of you? don't you want to see your kids to grow in the land which doesn't oppress women and have equal rights for everyone ? and if you say "no unssi you suck, you don't deserve freedom of speech" lol. because freedom of speech i'm allowed to speak like this...

because otherwise youre intollerant nice catch22 isnt it?.



and Yassir is free to speak like he does, and sony is free to think yassir has a good point, and what the rest of us think is the story about assholes, everyone has one. And unssi? youre a dumbass and you are paranoid just my oppinion.

lol, so i need to show muslims that i'm superior in tolerance and tolerate their hatespeech ? let me have a moment, i need to roll on floor and laugh. do you know what ? eeblis if you want to know truth about the islam, read robert spencer books and watch his lectures at the youtube. and there are many others too...

look we live in the europe last time i checked not yassir backward country. in europe we have this thing called freedom of speech which allows us to do own creative artistic context. if yassir and his fellows who think that all non muslim women are whores go crazy over some speech sample of some game track i would tell yassir to fuck off and go eat camel nuts and choke on them, because in here, we don't follow what yassir thinks is right and cool. we live in the europe which is not backward camelfucker country. but still many people go like "c'mon man you should not criticize muslims or islam" "you should not draw pictures of mohammed" "you should not do this and do that" "you should be sensitivie to muslims" ... like i care ? when was last time when muslim was sensitive to me ? you just told me that i'm dumbass, you are really sensitive and tolerant. but we should continue this at email ok ?

Right, sooo, I have learned that I will thumb up anything by decipher after his post here because if I dont like it, I shall assume its me who is wrong. In other words: wow decipher, what a firkin post.

Though talk of camelnuts has never helped anyone win an argument, I share unseens frustration at the way being politically correct and "liberal" forces us to accept a minorities intolerant views. Its not fair to say ah but thats intolerance. It would be if I couldn't stay in a room and hear them out, its not intolerance to insist that their views cannot be forced on me though. Its different.

I was in a muslim country recently and teh people were kind and welcoming, in the main. I stayed and chatted with many, sharing photos of family, cups of tea and so on. Yet the experience was scary. The thinking of what was right and fair to women was astonishing, the depth to which religious leaders affected their thinking and the blind acceptance of non-facts as reality were truly astonishing. I suspect I would have a similar experience in some parts of the Christian world.

Which brings me full circle. Unseen has a point. Tolerate others views, accept them even, but once they threaten your way of life, "tolerance" is a dangerous luxury that can come back to bite.

I was discussing a 4k with pohar the other day. In it I want to burn an american flag as part of the theme of the 4k. To me its a powerful image and part of the theme and makes sense in the artistic context of the intro. Pohar was worried it would cause offence. So now the "burning" question is, do it or no?

Ignore me, I should be working, you know how it is.

Robert spencer, are you kidding me? That bum turns out bullshit faster than a newborn calf, he supports preconceived notions through selection bias, and have little understanding of the difference between hadith and the Quran even in traditional "Islamic" interpretation tradition. To offer him up as an authority on Islam is laughable at best.

And yes, you have to demonstrate that you are better if you feel you are, nobody is going to take your word for, ever heard the expression; "walk the walk"?



free speech
n.
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.

e-mail? no, just admit to yourself atleas,t that youre but a another petty illinformed hater trying to rationalize his misplaced anger and hatred.

either you believe in freedom, that including freedom for those you loathe for whatever reason, or you do not believe in it at all. it really is that simple. We have laws that deals with people who make threats (any kind thereof) allready, and they should be used a lot more.

eeblis: about robert spencer: select crazy jihadist lieing about the mohammed life or robert spencer own research. i chose his research which is better than your crazy jihadist bullshit.
and c'mon don't shit me. if i go like "ooh sorry that we offended mighty allah by saying that he is pedophile cocksucker", muslims just see "oh those europeans, we only respect power, now we have the strings we can pull" and they pull it until somebody figures out what the fuck they have done by giving up the freedom of speech.
and you can admit that you are brainwashed believer of the leftist/muslim propaganda which tells you that "islam is truly tolerent/peaceful religion". why the fuck it has been at the war since it was created 1300 years ago? sounds really peaceful and tolerant.