ID is officially dead.

Mark Quayle · Jun 8, 2021

Frank Robert said:
For atheists who lack belief in gods and for agnostics who believe that nothing can be known of the existence or nature of gods the question is mute.

Moot. Agreed. I intended the question for loveofourlord, who claims to be a Christian.

ViaCrucis · Jun 8, 2021

JAL said:
What's "made up" here? If the biblical God - the Logos (the divine Word) - is a material being, how could the Incarnation be other than what I described? Here's what the 1st chapter of John says about the divine Word (the Logos):

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

To begin with, this verse alone proves that God is a material being. How so? Suppose I ate a sandwich. My digestive system converted it to protoplasm/flesh. It became flesh. Now consider the traditional position - the assumption that God is a spirit/immateriality. Could an immaterial sandwich become flesh?

Let's say God is this sandwich, and I eat this sandwich, and if we multiply the results by the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, then, and only then will it be made clear that this parrot is dead. It is no more. It is deceased. Ceased to exist. This is an ex-parrot.

How else could it be not that it is not is?

-CryptoLutheran

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

sjastro said:
Your non answer by deflection is an answer in itself.
The equation which is fundamental in non Euclidean geometry is beyond your level of understanding.
When one derives the equation from first principles instead of rote learning, non Euclidean geometry makes perfect sense.

Hence your comment about non Euclidean geometry sounding gibberish is based on the argument from personal incredulity fallacy; like your comments in general in this thread.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say non Euclidean geometry is gibberish, and I CERTAINLY didn't say its equations were gibberish. In fact I expressed some confidence in its equations. What I said was I'm skeptical it would ever mirror reality in the sense of two straight parallel lines eventually curving. THAT sounded like it MIGHT be gibberish. That's all I said. I was quite consistent in the sense that I try not to rush to judgment, I try to form opinions only if the components are FAMILAR to me. YOU are the one who deflected by ignoring MY question which only serves to CONFIRM my points about scientific gibberish.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

Yttrium said:
W
Not knowing the answer yet doesn't make it magic. By the way, don't you believe it happened by magic, thanks to God? Are you claiming that Christianity is gibberish?.

No magic. I entered this thread at post 375. Since then I've been explaining that the Bible is 100% material dynamics, nothing supernatural/magical, contrary to what the theologians have been saying about it. Basically I believe in one main principle confirmed by every day experience - free will moves bodies. Everything supposedly "supernatural" in the Bible, including creation, can be understood as that principle.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

Yttrium said:
... Sort of. Gravity can be described as a force or a curve in spacetime. Doesn't really seem to me to be gibberish if we can demonstrate it.

You can't demonstrate a conclusion incoherent to the human mind. You may have demonstrated SOMETHING, but probably not precisely what you THINK. It's like saying we've demonstrated the existence of square circles.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

Yttrium said:
It's weird, but it's not gibberish. Pretty straightforward to describe, actually. And we have numerous ways to demonstrate it happening.

Taking light as the one exception to relative speeds is a violation of our own logic and common sense, and it is special pleading. MAYBE there is a remote possibility that the hand of God might be involved to make light SEEM that way, for His own purposes unknown to me. But to claim that it's logically coherent/consistent with our own premises is too farfetched to be accepted without faith. Moreover I gave some links to some physics experts who found themselves having difficulty taking it literally.

Time & Light: A Basic Rational Objection to Special Relativity
Millennium Relativity

VirOptimus · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
Taking light as the one exception to relative speeds is a violation of our own logic and common sense, and it is special pleading. MAYBE there is a remote possibility that the hand of God might be involved to make light SEEM that way, for His own purposes unknown to me. But to claim that it's logically coherent/consistent with our own premises is too farfetched to be accepted without faith. Moreover I gave some links to some physics experts who found themselves having difficulty taking it literally.

Time & Light: A Basic Rational Objection to Special Relativity
Millennium Relativity

The physics of relativity is well understood and confirmed by experiments.

Btw, "common sense" is just another way of writing "what I think".

VirOptimus · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
Evaluating someone's logic as incoherent is necessarily putting words in their mouth? Non-sequitur.

Logic is not the same as physics (or science in general). Formal logic is philosophy.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

VirOptimus said:
Btw, "common sense" is just another way of writing "what I think".

I agree that common sense CAN be too subjective, but probably even the simplest math depends on it. Can we really prove that 1 plus 1 = 2? Ultimately, I don't believe so, I think we rely on common sense. You could argue, "I can prove it by counting two objects" but the counting system is accepted on the basis of common sense.

Even the meanings of the words "one plus one equals two" cannot be accepted without common sense. As one of my philosophy professors pointed out, how do we we ascertain the meaning of a word? We look it up in the dictionary. Do we find there the meaning of the word? No, what's called a "definition" isn't the MEANING of the word but rather a list of OTHER words for us to look up. It's an endless circle. At some point we MUST rely on common sense to feel confidence of our convictions. Even though common sense is dangerously subjective, it seems to be an inescapable component of epistemology.

VirOptimus · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
I agree that common sense CAN be too subjective, but probably even the simplest math depends on it. Can we really prove that 1 plus 1 = 2? Ultimately, I don't believe so, I think we rely on common sense. You could argue, "I can prove it by counting two objects" but the counting system is accepted on the basis of common sense.

Even the meanings of the words "one plus one equals two" cannot be accepted without common sense. As one of my philosophy professors pointed out, how do we we ascertain the meaning of a word? We look it up in the dictionary. Do we find there the meaning of the word? No, what's called a "definition" isn't the MEANING of the word but rather a list of OTHER words for us to look up. It's an endless circle. At some point we MUST rely on common sense to feel confidence of our convictions. Even though common sense is dangerously subjective, it seems to be an inescapable component of epistemology.

No, thats not how math works as math is a formal logical system.

You dont understand math, logic, philosophy or science.

SelfSim · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say non Euclidean geometry is gibberish, and I CERTAINLY didn't say its equations were gibberish. In fact I expressed some confidence in its equations. What I said was I'm skeptical it would ever mirror reality in the sense of two straight parallel lines eventually curving. THAT sounded like it MIGHT be gibberish. That's all I said. I was quite consistent in the sense that I try not to rush to judgment, I try to form opinions only if the components are FAMILAR to me. YOU are the one who deflected by ignoring MY question which only serves to CONFIRM my points about scientific gibberish.

Post#727:

JAL said:
pitabread said:

Is the context having difficulty wrapping one's head around concepts in physics? But dismissing things because you don't understand things at a conceptual level doesn't necessarily make it "gibberish".

Click to expand...

I dismiss curved space at a conceptual level (i.e,. taking it LITERALLY) for the same reason that you dismiss square circles at a conceptual level. It's incoherent, AKA gibberish.

Dismissing curved space(time?) at a conceptual level, requires demonstrating the reasons for doing that within the context of non Euclidean geometry. Its up to you demonstrate this.

Even if you were to attempt to actually put in the effort, I'm pretty sure you'd fail even on the simpler analogy you gave of 'square circles'. Eg: One might argue that a square has four sides and four vertices, whereas a circle has either no sides and no vertices or an infinite number of both, depending on a typically the context of that discussion.

Thus far, the only context you have given in this entire thread, appears to be your own personal, rather ill-informed notions of what appeals to you (eg: 'what reality is')?

SelfSim · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
As one of my philosophy professors pointed out, how do we we ascertain the meaning of a word? We look it up in the dictionary. Do we find there the meaning of the word? No, what's called a "definition" isn't the MEANING of the word but rather a list of OTHER words for us to look up. It's an endless circle. At some point we MUST rely on common sense to feel confidence of our convictions. Even though common sense is dangerously subjective, it seems to be an inescapable component of epistemology.

You came close (but gave up because your narrowly confined reliance on 'common sense'). The difference there in meaning, depends on the context in which that word is being used.

In science, its an objective context. Which is easily distinguished by the dissimilar processes used in coming up with 'common sense' meanings (which depend largely on an individual's experiences) and the scientific process (method) of building upon tested/measured/observed fundamentals, which can be tested/replicated by anyone who tries it.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

SelfSim said:
You came close (but gave up because your narrowly confined reliance on 'common sense'). The difference there in meaning, depends on the context in which that word is being used.

In science, its an objective context. Which is easily distinguished by the dissimilar processes used in coming up with 'common sense' meanings (which depend largely on an individual's experiences) and the scientific process (method) of building upon tested/measured/observed fundamentals, which can be tested/replicated by anyone who tries it.

I don't think you carefully read my post. Even 1 + 1 =2 is in some sense subjective, even if everyone agrees with it. Consensus is not in itself proof. Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean there's no gibberish. We really have to look a little harder than that.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

VirOptimus said:
No, thats not how math works as math is a formal logical system.

You dont understand math, logic, philosophy or science.

Math involves common sense. I just demonstrated it. Saying "I'm right, you're wrong", as you just did, is not a demonstration.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

SelfSim said:
Post#727:
Dismissing curved space(time?) at a conceptual level, requires demonstrating the reasons for doing that within the context of non Euclidean geometry. Its up to you demonstrate this.

Even if you were to attempt to actually put in the effort, I'm pretty sure you'd fail even on the simpler analogy you gave of 'square circles'. Eg: One might argue that a square has four sides and four vertices, whereas a circle has either no sides and no vertices or an infinite number of both, depending on a typically the context of that discussion.

Thus far, the only context you have given in this entire thread, appears to be your own personal, rather ill-informed notions of what appeals to you (eg: 'what reality is')?

If you draw a straight line connecting one point to another, that line is not curved. Oh I forgot, Einstein says it's curved, so I'm supposed to believe him on blind faith. Gotcha.

SelfSim · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
Consensus is not in itself proof. Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean there's no gibberish. We really have to look a little harder than that.

Yes you need another reference model .. which is Science's concept of Objective Reality.
We are in a Physical Sciences forum.

Normally that's enough to set the context (or at least expectations) for scientifically thinking discussions.

Because of the abundance of counter-intuitive findings worked out by following the scientific method, 'common sense' has been found to lead to inconsistencies when compared with that .. which is mostly what scientists are amazed by, when they make their announcements .. (they are humans with common sense too y'know)?

Science isn't perfect .. but its better than the other way .. (ie: assuming personal beliefs as being 'true').

sjastro · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say non Euclidean geometry is gibberish, and I CERTAINLY didn't say its equations were gibberish. In fact I expressed some confidence in its equations. What I said was I'm skeptical it would ever mirror reality in the sense of two straight parallel lines eventually curving. THAT sounded like it MIGHT be gibberish. That's all I said. I was quite consistent in the sense that I try not to rush to judgment, I try to form opinions only if the components are FAMILAR to me. YOU are the one who deflected by ignoring MY question which only serves to CONFIRM my points about scientific gibberish.

What a confusing post.
On one hand you claim non Euclidean geometry is not gibberish and express “confidence” in its equations yet in the same paragraph the idea of two straight lines eventually curving “MIGHT be gibberish”.
Sorry to rain on your parade but the violation of this idea is the very foundation on which non Euclidean geometry is based on.

The facts are you wouldn’t know the difference between being slapped in the face by a wet fish or a Ricci tensor so cut out the nonsense of expressing confidence in its equations.
Your argument is based purely on personal incredulity; furthermore I did not answer your question because @SelfSim had provided an answer which evidently went over your head.

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

Look, the discrepancy be

SelfSim said:
Yes you need another reference model .. which is Science's concept of Objective Reality.
We are in a Physical Sciences forum.

Normally that's enough to set the context (or at least expectations) for scientifically thinking discussions.

Because of the abundance of counter-intuitive findings worked out by following the scientific method, 'common sense' has been found to lead to inconsistencies when compared with that .. which is mostly what scientists are amazed by, when they make their announcements .. (they are humans with common sense too y'know)?

I'm not disputing the fact that Einstein's propositions work quite well in applied science. That success isn't ABSOLUTE PROOF that reality reflects them LITERALLY. I'm pretty sure that space is flat rather than curved. I personally suspect the curvature-notion stems from the possibly non-intuitive ways that the hand of God applies pressure ("gravity") to particles. Obviously this claim doesn't help advance science, but it's not intended to. Scientists should do whatever WORKS. But this doesn't mean that it's fully rational for the rest of us to take it literally, especially when it involves accepting a slew of statements that sound like outright gibberish. Sorry, I don't have that much faith, and there's not much you can do about it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

VirOptimus · Jun 9, 2021

JAL said:
Math involves common sense. I just demonstrated it. Saying "I'm right, you're wrong", as you just did, is not a demonstration.

Math does not involve "common sense". Do you know what a formal logical system entails?

JAL · Jun 9, 2021

sjastro said:
What a confusing post.
On one hand you claim non Euclidean geometry is not gibberish and express “confidence” in its equations yet in the same paragraph the idea of two straight lines eventually curving “MIGHT be gibberish”.
Sorry to rain on your parade but the violation of this idea is the very foundation on which non Euclidean geometry is based on.

This criticism seems silly. I have some degree of confidence in the equations of imaginary numbers, but that doesn't prove that they LITERALLY reflect reality. One must look a bit deeper than that.

ID is officially dead.

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Confessional Lutheran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

A nihilist who cares.

A nihilist who cares.

Veteran

A nihilist who cares.

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Veteran

A nihilist who cares.

Veteran

Similar threads