The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jamison20000e unless you keep passing the point

So, now there is a "you", and no longer just the circle. You have stopped talking about the circle as the object in question, and are now using the circle simply as a constraint for your path. Fundamental logic error.

Since we are now talking about YOU, then even if you were a non-entropic entity, with infinite energy (i.e. a perpetual-motion machine), you would STILL have to START somewhere on the circle - therefore, again, not infinite. You would have to have been "walking the circle" since eternity past, not starting today, to be infinite.

To reiterate, we have these concepts of eternity and infinity, without any analogous counterpart in our (material) reality. So, either something exists outside our material world with these attributes, and has somehow given us knowledge of them, or we have to explain how these concepts, not based in (material) reality, can exist.

Infinity exists beyond "us" like a number of gods and as "proof" for "anything" but reality exists too.

Fact is "you" is just a word and logic can go in circles but mythology must or dissolve on its own merit$... "hope!"

Words and gods\hells* are something from nothing (well sound or text) but reality is still reality, blind to them or not.

Good news is we can agree universally on say a thing called "elbow grease?"

You mean an appropriate amount of base aggression?

I have to say that seems to be reasonable for any human / animal generally.

You can also call it straightforwardness, veracity, ability to define, delimit and defend yourself, abilty to offer critisism.

An interesting amandment is the point to 'not defend yourself against evil, but to overcome evil with good' But that is hardly human and surely not animal-like, that is transcendental.

I would frankly say that Genesis-1 is a much more creative creation-myth than either "Evolution(ist)" or "'Big Bang' Science(ism)."

Y'know, I think that we should dust-off the term, "mythology," and make it respectable again ... because, it is a respectable and descriptive word. All three of these things (yes, including Genesis-1), are properly classified as "myths."

(Yes, OregonJim, you choose to believe prima facie that one of them is Truth. Acknowledged ...)

My trouble is, "scientist(ist)s" proclaim the other two things to be "(scientific) Truth," too. And, not only do they "teach it in schools," but they disparage other myths – such as Genesis-1 – as being "un-scientific," or "falsehood," in comparison to ... their ... myth.

They don't want the word, "Genesis," uttered in public schools ... even though kids are surrounded by religion every day outside of that building. And, they want their (I think) "hair-brained theories" presented as immutable, incontestable fact. Uh uh. "Can't have your cake and teach eat it, too."

"Mythology" is what we use to describe and talk about things that are beyond our scope of knowledge, such as "The Big Kahuna Question.™" So, let's dust-off that term and bring it back, and let's not call it "false."

Let's also not, ipso facto, call it "Truth." Let's say, "we believe that ... this is true, and we do so 'on faith.'" Because, in all three(!) cases, I believe, that's what we're actually doing. There are plenty of reasons to doubt every one of these scenarios. (Unless, again acknowledged, "you choose not to doubt.")

We should allow for those doubts, and talk about them, when we talk about any of these mythologies. And, we should not disparage mythology itself. It's an important and legitimate part of our life. Let's just be careful to call it ... in all three(!) cases ... what (I think) it truly is.

I think that we should also teach these things in those same terms. Teach young people about how people grapple with things that are "beyond observability." Teach them, as they once were taught, "the philosophy of (science)." Whatever happened to a formal study of philosophy?

("Philosophy" === "thinking about 'thinking.'") We need to teach people (how) to "think about 'thinking.'" We need to teach them about uncertainty and how to deal with it. We need to teach them that, yes, uncertainty exists all around us.

Originally Posted by OregonJim No. Humans don't create anything. They only transform already created materials from one form into another.

That's not so obvious to a human who hasn't established that conservation of matter is a thing.

Originally Posted by OregonJim One can define a point anywhere on a circle and call it both the beginning and the end.

Yes, you could ignore manifestations of infinity.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And, they want their (I think) "hair-brained theories" presented as immutable, incontestable fact.

I think we can all agree that whoever presents scientific knowledge as immutable and/or incontestable is Doing It Wrong™.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Y'know, I think that we should dust-off the term, "mythology," and make it respectable again ... because, it is a respectable and descriptive word. All three of these things (yes, including Genesis-1), are properly classified as "myths."

The problem is that 'myth' is so universally identified as 'falsehood' that you would have to explain the term every time you use it.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs We need to teach people (how) to "think about 'thinking.'"

Agreed. Times ten. However, I have lost hope in the indoctrination system we call education. It has become so blatantly and deeply agendized that we are seeing the fruits of it with a vengeance (even in this thread). Mindless parroting, little thinking, inability to recognize irrationality, words redefined subjectively, fear of challenge, and offense at the drop of a hat.

Originally Posted by ntubski Yes, you could ignore manifestations of infinity.

A circle is not a manifestation of infinity, nor is the path described by one, hence the explanation.

Originally Posted by ntubski That's not so obvious to a human who hasn't established that conservation of matter is a thing.

Sure it is. No (rational) human being has ever believed that they created something out of nothing. We don't have the ability to 'think' or 'speak' something into being. We just co-opt the WORD 'create' as a synonym for 'make'.

Originally Posted by keefaz You intrigue me. A negative thing is negative from what? Same question for the positive...

In the simplest terms the answer is of course, zero, which is exactly why the concept is so important. There can be no modern Math without it. However it is also fair to say that the difference between say, +15 and +10 is -5 while the difference between +10 and +15 is +5. This refers to "rates of change" fundamental to Calculus. It is also applicable in some kinds of graphs.

But ultimately whether a hard number or a null set, zero refers to a lack of quantity. It can neither be positive nor negative or it, by definition, would no longer be zero.

As we so-patiently teach our database students, NULL is not "zero." It is: "the absence of a value."

Zero is just as precise, and just as known, a quantity as is any other digit.

@sundialsvcs - I think you have a misconception about Science and possibly scientists. Mathematicians have "proofs" but scientists do not. No reputable scientist considers anything immutable. There are only degrees of certainty that never reach 100% though who wouldn't bet on 99.999% odds? or in real life terms, even 80%?

The reason "genesis" is forbidden in school is exactly because it is, as of yet and for the foreseeable future, a meaningless term. What good can come from speculating on something unknowable? For that each individual is left with the choice of Faith. It seems possible that one either has it or one does not, although considering the early programming, it is exceedingly difficult to test whether that is empirically true anymore or just Legacy. It is possible to reject Faith as a meaningful exercise but no rational person "doesn't listen" since it is impossible to ignore that, in general, Life is easier with Faith, at the very least in getting along in Society, since The Faithful are clearly in the majority. Even Galileo recognized this and only muttered under his breath, "and yet it moves".

TLDR - Scientists consider The Standard Model to simply have the best odds, currently, of being closest to Truth while fully recognizing it's problems and limitations.... hardly "immutable".

Originally Posted by OregonJim The problem is that 'myth' is so universally identified as 'falsehood' that you would have to explain the term every time you use it.

Yep, so let's get started.

There is a richness in mythology that must be loved so that it will never, ever be lost. Even our "modern, scientific," mythologies have their proper place. (Although, a curious sterility. I guess they like them that way.) But, let us call them for what they are. And, be proud of them.

Agreed. Times ten. However, I have lost hope in the indoctrination system we call education. It has become so blatantly and deeply agendized that we are seeing the fruits of it with a vengeance (even in this thread). Mindless parroting, little thinking, inability to recognize irrationality, words redefined subjectively, fear of challenge, and offense at the drop of a hat.

And teachers that aren't allowed to teach, aren't allowed to enforce discipline, and "if Johnny can't read" (and he can't ...), fire the teacher.

All that I can say, really, is that I'm long done with the educational system; that I graduated from it before any of these things happened to it. And, having no children of my own, only watched what it did to my nephews, from a (un-)comfortable distance. (All of them can read ... probably thanks to home-schooling.)

In so many things and in so many ways, we have "horrifically short-changed" the present generation of young people. We did not give them, even what (little ...) we ourselves had.

We don't have the ability to 'think' or 'speak' something into being. We just co-opt the WORD 'create' as a synonym for 'make'.

And, whether you believe it as literal truth or not, it is a beautiful image. "Let there be."

Here is a YouTube presentation of Genesis 1 being sung. (It is a poem ...) Close your eyes and listen. Even if you do not speak the language, you can easily envision people down through the so-many ages, patiently teaching this song to their sons and daughters, painstakingly working with them until the exact words were imprinted in their minds, to be passed down in time to the next generation. You know that you are enjoying the use of modern technology to hear, and thus to participate in, an ancient (and holy) tradition . . .

Originally Posted by enorbet The reason "genesis" is forbidden in school is exactly because it is, as of yet and for the foreseeable future, a meaningless term. What good can come from speculating on something unknowable?

EXACTLY the same argument can be made for big bang and evolution! Yet your bias blinds you to the equivalence.

Originally Posted by enorbet For that each individual is left with the choice of Faith.

And again, you confirm the very thing that I asserted in the beginning, and yet, I presume, you still deny it for YOUR view.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs As we so-patiently teach our database students, NULL is not "zero." It is: "the absence of a value." Zero is just as precise, and just as known, a quantity as is any other digit.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with branches of mathematics in which zero is the absence of value as well, and not as well a known quantity except within each branch. Much like any other language much can be lost or unspeakable in translation. It and "Infinity" are closely related in this since "Infinity" includes "the infinitessimal" or "infinitely small" but not quite zero, This is the basis of Calculus as a whole and especially some branches which are all about limits.

On History of Zero we find the subheading

History of zero How humans have tried to represent the absence of value

The point is that both Zero and Infinity can be used in different ways within different branches of Math. Infinity is far more problematic and some scientists think it should be discarded as a hard concept but I doubt mathematicians will ever agree, as it does have it's valid uses.

Dividing by zero OTOH is an error in any branch I know of, including computer code.

Zero can, indeed, have negative and positive attributes in applied mathematics. The key is in where you place the reference point. If your reference is -500, then zero is positive. So is -499. If your reference is 500, then zero is negative. So is +499. Only the reference point has no polarity, and the reference point is not always zero.

Of course, every one of us in this discussion of "zero" is guilty of the error of equivocation - debating a word that represents multiple shades of concept without sticking to an "agreed upon" flavor of the meaning.

Originally Posted by alberich You mean an appropriate amount of base aggression? I have to say that seems to be reasonable for any human / animal generally. You can also call it straightforwardness, veracity, ability to define, delimit and defend yourself, abilty to offer critisism. An interesting amandment is the point to 'not defend yourself against evil, but to overcome evil with good' But that is hardly human and surely not animal-like, that is transcendental.

I may have missed a line here so if not on elbow grease, sorry?

Again (as words:) interpretations and opinions I was thinking we need to get some work done on this rock.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs ... ("Philosophy" === "thinking about 'thinking.'") We need to teach people (how) to "think about 'thinking.'" We need to teach them about uncertainty and how to deal with it. We need to teach them that, yes, uncertainty exists all around us.

Philosophy branches way out there, it is included in basic psychology (a good spot for it's basics.)

Originally Posted by OregonJim ... Agreed. Times ten. However, I have lost hope in the indoctrination system we call education. It has become so blatantly and deeply agendized that we are seeing the fruits of it with a vengeance (even in this thread). Mindless parroting, little thinking, inability to recognize irrationality, words redefined subjectively, fear of challenge, and offense at the drop of a hat. ...

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5555262

Sometime opinions maybe right, sometimes.