Superstition
-
I took it to mean that he worked in a special education centre, not that he was on the recieving end of it. I assumed special ed meant education for people who are disabled.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
God is omniscient IMHO.
FTFY
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
because of certain "magic numbers," so to speak. The ratio between mass and gravitational attraction, the speed of light, and so on. If these fundamental constants were different, the universe would be a very different place.
There's some working going on in physics trying to determine whether these numbers, in fact, are constant. Not that they're wildly variable but whether their exact value is a local phenomena or whether they've slowly changed over time.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Hmm, I'd love to see the results of that... I've thought for a while that there was something very fundamental about the universe that we hadn't discovered yet, and that things like "string theory" and "dark matter" are just our way of fitting the facts to the laws instead of fitting the laws to the facts. String theory, general relativity, time dilation... They may be correct, but to me, they seem too convoluted... The basic laws of nature are usually pretty simple... I think there's something really fundamental that we're just missing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Gee, there are passages in the bible that support my world view? You mean the irrational, inconistent, and contradictory ones?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, there are passages in the bible that support my world view? You mean the irrational, inconistent, and contradictory ones?
[scratches head] Well, no. I meant your well thought out world view. But if all you have is an irrational, inconsistent and contradictory one, you should still work with what you got. Go forward. Move ahead. It's not too late. To whip it. Whip it good.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, there are passages in the bible that support my world view? You mean the irrational, inconistent, and contradictory ones?
[scratches head] Well, no. I meant your well thought out world view. But if all you have is an irrational, inconsistent and contradictory one, you should still work with what you got. Go forward. Move ahead. It's not too late. To whip it. Whip it good.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
*grabs a flower pot and dances around*
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
I took it to mean that he worked in a special education centre, not that he was on the recieving end of it. I assumed special ed meant education for people who are disabled.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
He's 14, I doubt he works at all...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Disabled - could be. More likely, in the case of Ravel, "gifted". You must look at both ends of this spectrum called "special education"
Yes, I believe he's referring to the gifted end of the spectrum, it's just that in Australia, referring to that as "Special Ed" is not the norm...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Tim Craig wrote:
anyone who disagrees is irrational. ... live in a glass house ... Get over it.
"From the mouths of babes"
Tim Craig wrote:
nut case
Did you hear the one about the communist calling the liberal 'Pinko'? I don't know if you pee in your own Wheaties, but calm down there, cupcake. You walk in, crapping and screaming about how much CG is pissing and moaning. Before you take the mote from your brother's eye, take the log from your own.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I think we have a new winner for the greatest percentage of platitudes in a single post!! :laugh:
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The universe came to be, and exists, as a result of natural laws. I merely contend that God is behind them.
Now that's an interesting point... Let me come at this one from a different angle... We know these natural laws exist... That much is pretty much proven by science, though obviously we don't KNOW all of the laws yet (See string theory, general relativity, etc). The point is that the laws are there. Now, I don't know how much of a sci-fi reader you are, but in Fredrik Pohl's "Heechee" saga, he made a subtle but interesting point about how life exists the way it does because of certain "magic numbers," so to speak. The ratio between mass and gravitational attraction, the speed of light, and so on. If these fundamental constants were different, the universe would be a very different place. I won't go into the details, in case someone plans on reading the series, but one of the conflicts has to do with a certain entity trying to change these values to better suit them. So the reliance on these constants raises the all-too-familiar question... Why? Why are these numbers what they are? By your argument, I would assume (And correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe "god" set them that way. I would conjecture that we simply don't know, and have no way of knowing (yet?), so in this instance, attributing it to an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is just a way of filling in the blanks, not actually providing any answers. Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
By your argument, I would assume (And correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe "god" set them that way. I would conjecture that we simply don't know, and have no way of knowing (yet?), so in this instance, attributing it to an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is just a way of filling in the blanks, not actually providing any answers.
A problem with life is that there is no experimentation. Do all the different things you want, try them many different ways. Repeat until tired and old. Unfortunately, you have no control group, each datum is not independent of the others. Others may try to replicate your results, but they start out with their own histories, their data points interrelate differently from yours. The way my data points have arrived, the inter-dependencies, correlations and perceived causality lead me to a hypothesis that there is a god. The correlations with the Bible lead me to believe the god is The God. The Bible says that, in history, some saw proof and did not believe, and some didn't see, but believed. I believe we are in a phase where direct proof is not offered, so I can't prove to you that God exists, and I can't prove to you He does not. I can look at the data I've gathered, and extrapolate, hypothesize. I could give you a data dump, so you can analyze it yourself. Christians call that 'testimony'.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
*grabs a flower pot and dances around*
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
He's 14, I doubt he works at all...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
Well, I've never heard a school for the gifted referred to as 'special education', and I'm sure he doesn't have a disability. I knew he was 14, I was just struggling to piece it all together.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
anyone who disagrees is irrational. ... live in a glass house ... Get over it.
"From the mouths of babes"
Tim Craig wrote:
nut case
Did you hear the one about the communist calling the liberal 'Pinko'? I don't know if you pee in your own Wheaties, but calm down there, cupcake. You walk in, crapping and screaming about how much CG is pissing and moaning. Before you take the mote from your brother's eye, take the log from your own.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
To be fair, he's responding the way he is because of a past history. Although, I must admit that it's a history mostly of him acting exactly the same as he has in this thread. The difference is now that I expect it.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I think we have a new winner for the greatest percentage of platitudes in a single post!! :laugh:
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
To be fair, he's responding the way he is because of a past history. Although, I must admit that it's a history mostly of him acting exactly the same as he has in this thread. The difference is now that I expect it.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, I've never heard a school for the gifted referred to as 'special education', and I'm sure he doesn't have a disability. I knew he was 14, I was just struggling to piece it all together.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yes, I agree with that (the special ed bit). That's the point I made in the other post...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
By your argument, I would assume (And correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe "god" set them that way. I would conjecture that we simply don't know, and have no way of knowing (yet?), so in this instance, attributing it to an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is just a way of filling in the blanks, not actually providing any answers.
A problem with life is that there is no experimentation. Do all the different things you want, try them many different ways. Repeat until tired and old. Unfortunately, you have no control group, each datum is not independent of the others. Others may try to replicate your results, but they start out with their own histories, their data points interrelate differently from yours. The way my data points have arrived, the inter-dependencies, correlations and perceived causality lead me to a hypothesis that there is a god. The correlations with the Bible lead me to believe the god is The God. The Bible says that, in history, some saw proof and did not believe, and some didn't see, but believed. I believe we are in a phase where direct proof is not offered, so I can't prove to you that God exists, and I can't prove to you He does not. I can look at the data I've gathered, and extrapolate, hypothesize. I could give you a data dump, so you can analyze it yourself. Christians call that 'testimony'.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I could give you a data dump, so you can analyze it yourself. Christians call that 'testimony'.
Well see, that's what separates religion from science. With a scientific theory, a valid "data dump" can be used to duplicate an experiment and verify the theory (Or alternatively, can be used to disprove a flawed theory). With religion, all you have is hearsay and 2000-year-old literature... No evidence. But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Christian Graus wrote:
The universe came to be, and exists, as a result of natural laws. I merely contend that God is behind them.
Now that's an interesting point... Let me come at this one from a different angle... We know these natural laws exist... That much is pretty much proven by science, though obviously we don't KNOW all of the laws yet (See string theory, general relativity, etc). The point is that the laws are there. Now, I don't know how much of a sci-fi reader you are, but in Fredrik Pohl's "Heechee" saga, he made a subtle but interesting point about how life exists the way it does because of certain "magic numbers," so to speak. The ratio between mass and gravitational attraction, the speed of light, and so on. If these fundamental constants were different, the universe would be a very different place. I won't go into the details, in case someone plans on reading the series, but one of the conflicts has to do with a certain entity trying to change these values to better suit them. So the reliance on these constants raises the all-too-familiar question... Why? Why are these numbers what they are? By your argument, I would assume (And correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe "god" set them that way. I would conjecture that we simply don't know, and have no way of knowing (yet?), so in this instance, attributing it to an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is just a way of filling in the blanks, not actually providing any answers. Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
And there you have the history of superstition / religion. As more things became known people needed less gods. We're so close, only got one to go!
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I could give you a data dump, so you can analyze it yourself. Christians call that 'testimony'.
Well see, that's what separates religion from science. With a scientific theory, a valid "data dump" can be used to duplicate an experiment and verify the theory (Or alternatively, can be used to disprove a flawed theory). With religion, all you have is hearsay and 2000-year-old literature... No evidence. But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well see, that's what separates religion from science.
Well see, that's what separates a good response from a bad one. I was saying 'life' is not 'science'. There are no 'life' controls, no one can repeat a 'life' experiment, things are different. All observational data of 'life' are anecdotal. Nothing is repeatable. In all cases, your millage may vary. I'm sorry you did not see the irony in calling testimony a data dump. Maybe you should get out more and lighten up? Based on anecdotal observations I have made, I have come to conclusions that are different from yours. That doesn't make me better and smarter than you. I am better and smarter, but it is not because I come to different conclusions. Even when I come up with the same conclusions, it is because I am better and smarter. :laugh:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them. On the contrary, God made all the rules, not me. God does not change, so I can't change the rules to invalidate opposing theorem. I haven't argued religion with you, so your claims I change the rules is based on no data. Let me guess, you based it on faith? You have created a theory from your rich life's experience? From this data point should I believe anyone who argues with me has an anal-cranial inversion? But sock (your theor)em to me, I am always interested in truth, and I know I don't know it all. Better explanations are better. Different explanations may or may not be. Heckling, with no evidence or analysis, like your post? Well, you decide.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well see, that's what separates religion from science.
Well see, that's what separates a good response from a bad one. I was saying 'life' is not 'science'. There are no 'life' controls, no one can repeat a 'life' experiment, things are different. All observational data of 'life' are anecdotal. Nothing is repeatable. In all cases, your millage may vary. I'm sorry you did not see the irony in calling testimony a data dump. Maybe you should get out more and lighten up? Based on anecdotal observations I have made, I have come to conclusions that are different from yours. That doesn't make me better and smarter than you. I am better and smarter, but it is not because I come to different conclusions. Even when I come up with the same conclusions, it is because I am better and smarter. :laugh:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them. On the contrary, God made all the rules, not me. God does not change, so I can't change the rules to invalidate opposing theorem. I haven't argued religion with you, so your claims I change the rules is based on no data. Let me guess, you based it on faith? You have created a theory from your rich life's experience? From this data point should I believe anyone who argues with me has an anal-cranial inversion? But sock (your theor)em to me, I am always interested in truth, and I know I don't know it all. Better explanations are better. Different explanations may or may not be. Heckling, with no evidence or analysis, like your post? Well, you decide.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You're taking this a bit personally...
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them.
I actually meant "you" in the general sense, not specifically you. Sorry if I misled... As in, that's generally how it seems to work. Take the creationist "theory," for example (I'm not saying you believe in this, as I understand even many religious types consider it nonsense)... The whole "Earth was created 6000 years ago." Others respond with "Look, these fossils are X million years old"... The nutty crowd responds with "No they're not. God put them there to trick you." You can't argue with that, because it's designed to be impossible to disprove. Yeah, that's an overused example, but I've seen this argument go back and forth... The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence. "Evolution is a myth" "Look at all this evidence to the contrary" "Ok, evolution is real, but God caused it"... I'm just kind of babbling here, so I don't know if I'm actually making a point here... But it's kind of interesting when you look at the trends... In the distant past, just about everything was attributed to a god of some sort... I mean, just look at the Greek and Roman pantheon for a classic example... The gods change the seasons, the gods control the weather, the gods move the sun across the sky. Over the years, science has disproved one thing after another, finding logical basis behind each... Now, all that's left are the "big" questions like the creation of the universe. Maybe someday we'll figure out a definitive answer to that, and "god" will retreat to the next "unknown." The way I see it, "god" is just another word for "unknown"... Who/what created the universe? Unknown. Funny thing is, I'm sure this isn't original, but it just popped into my head... We're all creationists. Theists believe that god created man... My fellow atheists believe that man created god. :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
You're taking this a bit personally...
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them.
I actually meant "you" in the general sense, not specifically you. Sorry if I misled... As in, that's generally how it seems to work. Take the creationist "theory," for example (I'm not saying you believe in this, as I understand even many religious types consider it nonsense)... The whole "Earth was created 6000 years ago." Others respond with "Look, these fossils are X million years old"... The nutty crowd responds with "No they're not. God put them there to trick you." You can't argue with that, because it's designed to be impossible to disprove. Yeah, that's an overused example, but I've seen this argument go back and forth... The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence. "Evolution is a myth" "Look at all this evidence to the contrary" "Ok, evolution is real, but God caused it"... I'm just kind of babbling here, so I don't know if I'm actually making a point here... But it's kind of interesting when you look at the trends... In the distant past, just about everything was attributed to a god of some sort... I mean, just look at the Greek and Roman pantheon for a classic example... The gods change the seasons, the gods control the weather, the gods move the sun across the sky. Over the years, science has disproved one thing after another, finding logical basis behind each... Now, all that's left are the "big" questions like the creation of the universe. Maybe someday we'll figure out a definitive answer to that, and "god" will retreat to the next "unknown." The way I see it, "god" is just another word for "unknown"... Who/what created the universe? Unknown. Funny thing is, I'm sure this isn't original, but it just popped into my head... We're all creationists. Theists believe that god created man... My fellow atheists believe that man created god. :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)If I don't take it personal, how can we get a good flame war going? How can we get a good flame war going if I don't take it personal? [pink floyd reference] I did the same thing last week ;P I wish english had a 'das man' equivalent, other than 'you'. I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith. that does not mean that I beat facts into submission, and it has not meant that I beat the Bible into submission. They are two ways that God exposes Himself to us, and I have not found them to be contradictory. I have found them to be fuzzy,on both ends, in different places. Genesis uses how many thousands of words to describe EVERYTHING up to 4-6 k years ago. How non-allegorical can it be? And the only conflict with what I know of science, is that plants were created before it seems right. But we could learn that life started under some conditions off planet, and landed here, and it could be accurate, so I call that fuzzy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence.
I agree that there are people who do that, but there are two sides to that coin. If you have a theory, and the facts do not fit the theory, shouldn't you change the theory to match the facts? I know I'm being nice to a lot of the people you are talking about, but let me flip it around. The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses. Science changed to match Christianity. Science changed to match the facts. Science can't make up it's mind. It is all in how you spin it. I know I'm simplifying, but do you know how long my posts would be if I didn't? :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.