Religion

[gauchecritic]

Because the "all places" doesn't mean "infinity", unless you're using some strange definition of "all" that equates to "infinity". Again, I'd be delighted to know where you're getting that.

Again with the 'because I said'. Where are you getting that?

ALL
1Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity
2Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole.
3Being the utmost possible of

INFINITE
1Having no boundaries or limits.
2Immeasurably great or large;

Where is the difference?

Infinity doesn't contain the universe. The universe is infinite.

... but have you ever actually taken Logic before?

No. But... (see this is why we hate Americans, and you're not even American.)




I made you look, I made you stare, I made you cut the barber's hair. You cut it long, you cut it short, you cut it with a knife and fork.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

I made you look, I made you stare, I made you cut the barber's hair. You cut it long, you cut it short, you cut it with a knife and fork.

I can't explain it, but this made me laugh and feel really good.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

*still chuckling*

Me, too!

 

[Guest]

Ditto. It's about the only thing I've understood from the last couple of pages of this thread!

Lou

P.S. I'm in awe of some of the stuff that comes out of some people's heads. I have enough trouble working out the logical route to the shops, let alone embark on a debate like this.

 

[mismused]

Oh, God, uh, forgive me, I didn't mean that.

As there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god of any kind, it is an easy step for one to acknowledge that observation as a workable premise upon which to proceed.

There is also no evidence supporting the existence of any form of intelligent life outside the earth.

Which is also sufficient ground upon which to formulatee a workable premise.

Therefore, no creator, no other life in the universe.

What then is the purpose of life?

What is life?

What is the purpose of the universe?

Just for the sake of a discussion beginning with a common foundation, that is to say, no creator, no other life in the universe; how does begin to think about existence and purpose?

It is any different if your beginning point is no creator, no other life?

If not, why not?

amicus the curious...

======================

Yes I did, but first,

Greetings again, ami cus

May I say without punning that you tempt me so much? I did try to stay away from this thread, but . . .

You said:

"There is also no evidence supporting the existence of any form of intelligent life outside the earth."

Of course there is -- I think.

The red giant stars don't select where their atoms get exploded to, nor do the atoms die once they are expelled. Even holding them captive in the belly of the whale, so to speak, doesn't necessarily obliterate them.

Who can say that intelligent life is not elsewhere, or that it can't be. It took billions of years for it to materialize as we know it on earth, and only in the last few million years have we seen it come to the fruition we now have, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Is that not so?

Now, mon ami cus, may I add another question?

You said:

"Therefore, no creator, no other life in the universe.

What then is the purpose of life?

What is life?"

Maybe what dies is the better question. What are we? A congregation of atoms, it seems, highly indebted to, what, is it the electomagnetic field that keeps them together? I think that's the force responsible, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Whatever it is, when we die, they say, and I can't prove this is so myself, especially since I've never observed me dying in any previous incarnation, that the atoms depart our bodies.

Hmm! Is that so? Well, they say it is, and further, that atoms such as that live on. Live on?

Uh, if the atoms live on, then what is it that lived? Were we living hosts to aliens by the billions, or maybe trillions?

Oh, uh, if atoms "live" after our death, are they "intelligent" atoms, or just smart "me too's" programmed to seek new live bodies to inhabit?

Okay, remember, photons have been known to "talk" to each other, though much faster than we can know that we see what we see. IOW, they have "simultaneous" knowledge of each other, no matter how far apart they might be.

Who knows, if we don't blow ourselves up, maybe someday we'll learn how to communicate with all those little rascals that "live" on after we die.

Did you possibly breathe of the last breath that Caesar took?

Sorry, my friend, I couldn't resist that. Please forgive me.

mismused

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, the God and Godess and all the rest love you all.

I'm not too keen on several of you.

 

[amicus]

Dear Mismused....

you said, "Yes I did, but first,

Greetings again, ami cus

May I say without punning that you tempt me so much? I did try to stay away from this thread, but . . .

You said:

"There is also no evidence supporting the existence of any form of intelligent life outside the earth."

Of course there is -- I think. "



Perhaps the small problem could be alleviated if I added 'sentient' to my assertion: "There is also no evidence supporting the existence of any form of 'sentient' intelligent life outside the earth."

I think that also deals with the second part of your post about atoms, and curious photons...and Ceasars last breath, although I would have preferred Cleopatra's...

Stiil...tempting you or not...the question I posed remains....namely, that we 'know' things by observing the evidence that a 'thing' exists.....

If there is not evidence that something exists...such as a supreme being, or other 'sentient' intelligent life...then, as rational, logical peeps, who function in a 'real' world of evidentiary things...we can only conclude that, (until proven otherwise) that those things...do not exist....

Okay?

That being the given...thus...and then...how do we proceed to query our existence?

In a logical and rational manner, of course....smiles...

Assuming of course, that you do acknowledge your own existence to be an absolute.


amicus the temptable ami cussible miscreant

 

[mismused]

Dear Mismused....

you said, "Yes I did, but first,

Greetings again, ami cus

May I say without punning that you tempt me so much? I did try to stay away from this thread, but . . .

You said:

"There is also no evidence supporting the existence of any form of intelligent life outside the earth."

Of course there is -- I think. "



Perhaps the small problem could be alleviated if I added 'sentient' to my assertion: "There is also no evidence supporting the existence of any form of 'sentient' intelligent life outside the earth."

I think that also deals with the second part of your post about atoms, and curious photons...and Ceasars last breath, although I would have preferred Cleopatra's...

Stiil...tempting you or not...the question I posed remains....namely, that we 'know' things by observing the evidence that a 'thing' exists.....

If there is not evidence that something exists...such as a supreme being, or other 'sentient' intelligent life...then, as rational, logical peeps, who function in a 'real' world of evidentiary things...we can only conclude that, (until proven otherwise) that those things...do not exist....

Okay?

That being the given...thus...and then...how do we proceed to query our existence?

In a logical and rational manner, of course....smiles...

Assuming of course, that you do acknowledge your own existence to be an absolute.


amicus the temptable ami cussible miscreant

======================

Yes, you are very ami cussible, as I've seen that some have already.

However, for this thread, I could belabor some points, but I fear I would be taking it far away from its intended purpose.

So, I bow out for now lest I hijack this thread, if I haven't already. If so, I hope I will be forgiven. Now I go try to consult with the atoms that constitute my physicality.

mismused, still

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Well, good then- what are we arguing about? I think your wrong too I think that you are too literal minded and to overly dependant on logic, and possibly too educated and definatly too smug. With all due respect, if you could just suspend your anamotronic mindset once in a while, you'd be an alright guy.

The difference being that I think you're wrong for very solid and rational reasons. You seem to think I'm wrong for preference. Which, hey, you're allowed to do. No harm there. I prefer having several opinions over several more rational ones on certain issues... but I don't expect myself to be able to (and don't) defend those opinions using reason.

I may be entirely wrong, there, but it seems to be most accurate.

When people theorize, it is under the bounds of reason--its the nature of how ideas relate. Over-relying? Its /essential/.

I have no idea what that means

Means that when people say "A vote for Bush is a vote for peace", an alternative, rational counterpoint provided to shed some light on what is /true/ and what is merely /preferred/ is a great kindness, I should think. Very much like someone saying "Everyone is going to hell that isn't Christian" should always be accompanied--when possible--with "possibly, but that's not necessarily true"... so people aren't led to false ideas.

Saying "I believe that my religion is true, and that yours is true as well" when they directly contradict and calling that a "spiritual truth" is not a safe idea. Firstly, its not a truth at all--but a belief statement. Secondly, its an impossible belief statement right up there with "I believe I am a bachelor, and also that I'm married".

The "democratic response" is a kind thing. Gives full sides to a potentially one-sided issue.

addendum: I mean, perhaps I ought have asked really... I just assumed that this was sort of a free-for-all of discussables. If we are to censor ourselves to only agreement, that's good to know. If we're to censor ourselves to only agreement and non-logical disagreement, that's also good to know.

I confess, I never asked what the rules were.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
Again with the 'because I said'. Where are you getting that?

ALL
1Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity
2Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole.
3Being the utmost possible of

INFINITE
1Having no boundaries or limits.
2Immeasurably great or large;

Where is the difference?

Infinity doesn't contain the universe. The universe is infinite.

Firstly, if the utmost possible number of ping-pong balls that fits in my pocket is 10, then "utmost possible" is 10. If the utmost possible number of stops my bus makes along its normal route is 20, then "utmost possible" is 20. If utmost possible "places in the universe" is finite. Then its not infinite. And God wouldn't be infinite by virtue of His presence were he in the finite universe. That is perfectly logically true.

"Utmost possible" is not synonymous with "infinity", no moreso than "all" is... both reference the possibility of limitation--as such, you can't prove God's infinite-ness based strictly on them (because a finite universe remains possible that satisfies "utmost possible").

As such "If God is omnipresent, God may or may not be infinite based on presence (pending the infinite or finite nature of the universe)". Much as I have been saying.

 

[amicus]

Aren't youse guys ever gonna tell this poor little shit that you are toying with him? C'mon, enuf is enuf.

Christ, even Liberals are know to have shown mercy, occasionally, aka, Billy Clinton....

 

[Guest]

*grin*

Christ, even Liberals are know to have shown mercy -

Liberals? Mercy?

Certainly not!

We don't care about the environment or education or families or healthcare or minorities or . . .

(You must be thinking of those compassionate conservatives.)

 

[amicus]

sweetsubsarah...they don't make casts for an injured tongue, thus your cheek must be suffering....


The unfortunate thing about the compassionate liberal mentality is that they shed tears in general for the unwashed masses, but remain sterile and unproductive in specific and thus don't have a clue about life outside the cafe'.

amicus the unrepentant....

 

[Pure]

Question to the theologians,
"What the fuck is an infinite being'?"

or "What makes something/someone an infinite being?" [do not say 'being infinite']

Out of curiousity, how many 'infinite beings' are there? How many (logically) could there be? (For instance there are lots of 'infinite series': 1+2+3.... AND 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8....). Give reasons for your answer.

(Usually 'an' suggests there is a class --more than one, as in "A Macintosh is an apple." or "Fido is a dog." "The first number example above is an infinite series." )

To me the term seems like "a polygonal emotion" or "a specious bowl of jello." Does not compute.

=====

 

[Guest]

sweetsubsarah...they don't make casts for an injured tongue, thus your cheek must be suffering....


The unfortunate thing about the compassionate liberal mentality is that they shed tears in general for the unwashed masses, but remain sterile and unproductive in specific and thus don't have a clue about life outside the cafe'.

amicus the unrepentant....

Age doesn't always bring wisdom, ami. Sometimes age comes alone.

 

[cantdog]

Question to the theologians,
"What the fuck is an infinite being'?"

or "What makes something/someone an infinite being?" [do not say 'being infinite']

Out of curiousity, how many 'infinite beings' are there? How many (logically) could there be? (For instance there are lots of 'infinite series': 1+2+3.... AND 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8....). Give reasons for your answer.

(Usually 'an' suggests there is a class --more than one, as in "A Macintosh is an apple." or "Fido is a dog." "The first number example above is an infinite series." )

To me the term seems like "a polygonal emotion" or "a specious bowl of jello." Does not compute.

=====

And another thing!

How many points (places to be) lie in a line a foot long? Isn't the answer "an infinite number of points"? So if we confine the old girl to just a foot long line in her omnipresence, what keeps her from being infinite?

Whatever that means, in the end.


cantdog

 

[Guest]

Whatever that means, in the end.

cantdog

I like it in the end.



P.S. And I have, as can quite easily be seen, lost patience with this thread about seven pages ago.

 

[cantdog]

I do love hearing that said...

 

[Guest]

Sometimes age comes alone.

Sarahh, that is one of the most profound statements I've read here, worth this entire thread.

sincerely, Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
I like it in the end.



P.S. And I have, as can quite easily be seen, lost patience with this thread about seven pages ago.

Shit, I lost patience with this after my first response.

 

[Pure]

cant said,

And another thing!

How many points (places to be) lie in a line a foot long? Isn't the answer "an infinite number of points"?

Joe seems not versed in math, or he would know that even a finite line has an uncountable infinity of points (=places). The same holds fo even my dog's rubber ball. "Everywhere" on the line = all places[points] on the line=all locations on the line.

Joe thinks of places as discrete, as like pingpong balls in the pocket, or like the towns on a map (i.e., as in 'places to go while you're in Wales'). He thinks you can count them. Well 'places' [colloquial] like gin joints ARE countable and there's a finite number of them between his town and mine, but these are NOT the 'places' we're talking about.

Further, as you suggest, if I create a small weak electromagnetic force field in (and around) my dog's ball, then that field is "at" all places, all locations, in the ball, an uncountable infinity of points.

"Places" in geometry--and hence physics-- are simply specified by coordinates, which is to say, an ordered n-tuple of real numbers. [e.g., (2.3, 4.2, 6.1); <- that is one "place" in a cube in the positive octant of a 3 dimensional Cartesian space, with a corner at the origin and side equal to 7 units.]

Since the real number are uncountably infinite, so is the number of n-tuples, where, say, each value(entry) must be less than a certain positive number and greater than 0. Which is to say a finite space (like a cube [empty]).

 

[Pure]

Jeez, the theologians are certainly shy--gauche and Joe. After their extensive and complex dialogue about 'an infinite being', no one can even say what the term might mean!

Is that why the exchange did not lead to any resolution?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe seems not versed in math, or he would know that even a finite line has an uncountable infinity of points (=places). The same holds fo even my dog's rubber ball. "Everywhere" on the line = all places[points] on the line=all locations on the line.

Joe thinks of places as discrete, as like pingpong balls in the pocket, or like the towns on a map (i.e., as in 'places to go while you're in Wales'). He thinks you can count them. Well 'places' [colloquial] like gin joints ARE countable and there's a finite number of them between his town and mine, but these are NOT the 'places' we're talking about.

Further, as you suggest, if I create a small weak electromagnetic force field in (and around) my dog's ball, then that field is "at" all places, all locations, in the ball, an uncountable infinity of points.

"Places" in geometry--and hence physics-- are simply specified by coordinates, which is to say, an ordered n-tuple of real numbers. [e.g., (2.3, 4.2, 6.1); <- that is one "place" in a cube in the positive octant of a 3 dimensional Cartesian space, with a corner at the origin and side equal to 7 units.]

Since the real number are uncountably infinite, so is the number of n-tuples, where, say, each value(entry) must be less than a certain positive number and greater than 0. Which is to say a finite space (like a cube [empty]). [/B]

Well, that brings up several problems:

1) Despite the theoretical model that is some geometry and mathematics (that which gives us our purely analytical framework of an infinite number of points in a line), we actually don't know that the universe is actually composed of infinite numbers of points.

2) If there are infinite numbers of points (we'll consider those "places" for our purposes), then everything from coins to tractors to people is "infinite". I would be "infinite". If everything is "infinite", I'm not sure it has much meaning to say "God is infinite", because God would be just like absolutely everyone and everything else. Hell, I would be an "infinite being", but I can see that I am clearly not over there... it forces a revision of what we consider infinite to mean.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Jeez, the theologians are certainly shy--gauche and Joe. After their extensive and complex dialogue about 'an infinite being', no one can even say what the term might mean!

Is that why the exchange did not lead to any resolution?

Well, the term might mean a lot of things. Infinite based on presence was the notion we were dealing with. Infinite based on knowledge is another. Infinite based on power. Infinite based on goodness (or evilness, I suppose). Infinite based on X.

I consider the exchange as having been resolved. Ultimately, my clearly marked points were confronted--at the end--with a series of false fallacies. If we mean "why didn't we agree"? Dunno.

 

[cantdog]

Well, that brings up several problems:

1) Despite the theoretical model that is some geometry and mathematics (that which gives us our purely analytical framework of an infinite number of points in a line), we actually don't know that the universe is actually composed of infinite numbers of points.

2) If there are infinite numbers of points (we'll consider those "places" for our purposes), then everything from coins to tractors to people is "infinite". I would be "infinite". If everything is "infinite", I'm not sure it has much meaning to say "God is infinite", because God would be just like absolutely everyone and everything else. Hell, I would be an "infinite being", but I can see that I am clearly not over there... it forces a revision of what we consider infinite to mean.

Nonsense. You make no claim to omnipresence. You are content to be where you are. Only impossible constructs like gods need to be everywhere. I liked the idea that god existed omnipresently, which would put him In and Out of the limited universe in which we crab.

Our bubble of space time in with all the rest, sitting in another four dimensional space with god being in all of it. We would then be a buble in His champagne glass, our whole universe.

The math for string theory requires nine dimensions and we have no use for a lot of them.