Support NeoGAF

[rdrr gnr]

No, it's not. There are tons of mathematical conjectures where the first counterexample is a big number.

ie: Pólya conjecture

You're a mathematician? Or just happened to be familiar with the conjecture?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Another example. the proportion of integers for which π(x) > li(x) is about .00000026 , although no number from 0 to 100,000,000,000,000 satisfies this property.

 

[GaimeGuy]

You're a mathematician? Or just happened to be familiar with the conjecture?

I have a math minor. Anyone who has done a proofs class has been taught a few famous conjectures which seemed true but have been disproven through counterexamples (or otherwise, and a large counterexample was later found)

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOn7DInBWK4&feature=related

Forget Kirk Cameron's dumbassery. Who's that hot chick on the panel?

 

[Dead Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOn7DInBWK4&feature=related

Scientists have rewound 65 million years of evolutionary history by tweaking chicken DNA to create embryos that grow alligator-like snouts rather than beaks.

Chickens and other birds are thought to have descended from dinosaurs through a series of genetic changes.

But by altering the DNA of chicken embryos in the early stages of their development, scientists are able to undo the progress made by evolution and give them qualities they lost millions of years ago.

Ethical regulations prevent the eggs from being hatched but Arhat Abzhanov, an evolutionary biologist based at Harvard University in America, said he hopes to one day to complete his work by turning chickens into Maniraptora, small dinosaurs believed to have spawned 10,000 species of birds.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Scientists have rewound 65 million years of evolutionary history by tweaking chicken DNA to create embryos that grow alligator-like snouts rather than beaks.

I see your present, and raise you one past.

 

[Dead Man]

I see your present, and raise you one past.

Outstanding.

 

[Cyan]

No, it's not. There are tons of mathematical conjectures where the first counterexample is a big number.

ie: Pólya conjecture

Ok, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea what this has to do with what I was saying. Maybe I'm saying it poorly or something. I'm really just talking about Bayes' theorem.

Edit:
Just to expand a little, since I'm apparently being unclear:

Let's say I'm at a park with lots of swans, and I'm wondering if any of them are black. I take a look around the park, and see no black swans.

There is an absence of any evidence for black swans. Thus, I update my estimated probability for there being any black swans, in the downward direction. That is, the absence of evidence for black swans is (Bayesian) evidence that there are none. Or, as Pete said on the last page, it now seems less probable that there are any black swans at the park.

 

[Gorgon]

Georgia

Kinda makes it even more strange considering the anti-religious background that influenced this region. Though from her stories she also seems to be quite superstitious. e.g. she honestly believes that some fire magically sparks out of nothing every Eastern in her (big) city/church whatever...
Orthodox btw, but she doesn't like the rules of religions (well, of Catholics to be more specific)

I don't find that strange. I've been in Russia and one of my best friends is russian and they are as religious as anybody else in the western world. Their past means nothing in that department.

But how a person like that ends up in that kind of career...THAT's strange.

 

[Amir0x]

Amir IDK how you do it. Dealing with idiots on a daily basis.

It's more because of my experience with my parents and immediate family, all who are intensely religious, that I guess I enjoy the back and forth. I mean, i know my family is just doing it from a position of extreme ignorance and what they think is love, it's not malicious. Therefore, I don't get angry about it. I am an aggressive atheist, but that's not the same as an angry atheist.

Still, particularly when it comes to molesting the world of science with fucked up fairy tale ideas, I can't let it stand.

 

[Naked Snake]

Scientists have rewound 65 million years of evolutionary history by tweaking chicken DNA to create embryos that grow alligator-like snouts rather than beaks.

This is a fun TED talk about this: Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken

 

[Pixel Pete]

On what Ami said about enjoying the back and forth, there is merit in that. It shows a certain level of respect for a person that you are willing to argue with them. Being proactive in that sense isn't necessarily a negative thing.

And on the flipside, there is a very curious way to look at religious people who prosthelytize.
Penn Jilette offers a way of looking at such people in a way that is hard to refute, logically.
He doesn't have respect for those who DON'T prosthelytize, which is mostly the opposite of many peoples position. Most people don't like it, or don't personally want to prosthelytize because it very likely creates social awkwardness.
Penn argues that if you really, with all your hearts certainty know that there is an afterlife through knowledge of God, then how much must you hate a person not to try and get them into heaven/paradise?

Here's an example: I know. I KNOW, I can FEEL it through my life's force with all certainty and a clarity I've never felt before in my life, that if you cross that street there, you will be hit by a bus and die. But right now, I can't see any buses, or even vehicles at all. But I still KNOW and FEEL with such force that all I can tell myself is that it is certainty.
How much must I hate you NOT to tell you this, even if I look a bit silly with there being no vehicles around? A lot, is the answer. But I don't hate you, I just don't want to look silly.

Now the whole trail of thought seems strangely logical, but not entirely lining up with reality. These people don't hate me just because they aren't prosthelytizing.
And surely they don't want me to rot in hell for eternity?
So why don't they prosthelytize, knowing what they know?
Are they...uncertain?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Scientists have rewound 65 million years of evolutionary history by tweaking chicken DNA to create embryos that grow alligator-like snouts rather than beaks.

OMFG hahahahahahahahaha. OWNED

 

[Veezy]

Scientists have rewound 65 million years of evolutionary history by tweaking chicken DNA to create embryos that grow alligator-like snouts rather than beaks.

I said gat damnnnnnn.

Real talk, I'd keep one of those little dino things as a pet. Ya know, to chase down the sock gnomes.

 

[Speevy]

The crockoducks shall devour us all.

 

[F#A#Oo]

On what Ami said about enjoying the back and forth, there is merit in that. It shows a certain level of respect for a person that you are willing to argue with them. Being proactive in that sense isn't necessarily a negative thing.

And on the flipside, there is a very curious way to look at religious people who prosthelytize.
Penn Jilette offers a way of looking at such people in a way that is hard to refute, logically.
He doesn't have respect for those who DON'T prosthelytize, which is mostly the opposite of many peoples position. Most people don't like it, or don't personally want to prosthelytize because it very likely creates social awkwardness.
Penn argues that if you really, with all your hearts certainty know that there is an afterlife through knowledge of God, then how much must you hate a person not to try and get them into heaven/paradise?

Here's an example: I know. I KNOW, I can FEEL it through my life's force with all certainty and a clarity I've never felt before in my life, that if you cross that street there, you will be hit by a bus and die. But right now, I can't see any buses, or even vehicles at all. But I still KNOW and FEEL with such force that all I can tell myself is that it is certainty.
How much must I hate you NOT to tell you this, even if I look a bit silly with there being no vehicles around? A lot, is the answer. But I don't hate you, I just don't want to look silly.

Now the whole trail of thought seems strangely logical, but not entirely lining up with reality. These people don't hate me just because they aren't prosthelytizing.
And surely they don't want me to rot in hell for eternity?
So why don't they prosthelytize, knowing what they know?
Are they...uncertain?

I cannot speak for Christianity but in Islam when one prosthelytize it is a passing of knowledge and information. We don't believe that we are capable of converting anyone. As the idiom goes; "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"...

Once people have heard the Message without obstruction or hindrance and the proof has been established upon them, then the duty of the Muslim is done. Those who wish to believe are free to do so and those who prefer to disbelieve are likewise free to do so.

Atleast that is the way it's suppose to be...it isn't always the case and people do forcibly try unfortunetly which is wrong and utterly pointless anyways.

 

[Pixel Pete]

That's good to know.
For me, anyway, I'm not going around telling religious people they must hate me because they aren't preaching, I just find the line of thought to be interesting. Certainly an interesting take on being preached to.

 

[Raist]

This, and your previous post, are where I was about to take the discussion.

One time, I shit you not, I put socks in the dryer. However, when I pulled my clothing from the dryer, a sock was missing. I only have two things I can think here, either I simply dropped the sock or it was stolen by sock gnomes. You can't prove empirically that magic gnomes don't teleport from dryer to dryer stealing socks for their demonic currency.

Most people who say "Veezy, you so crazy." However, this event occurred to me. I could not explain it. Therefore, you should entertain the idea that it could have happened. Right?

Holy shit, I did laundry today and one of my socks disappeared too

 

[Dead Man]

Already posted?

 

[Gr1mLock]

Already posted?

I am amuse

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm tempted to say we can't prove these types of things empirically now, and even if that were demonstrably false, then I must ask myself why bother in the first place? There are an infinite number of possible things we could imagine to exist logically, but cannot prove empirically. We wouldn't get anything done if we gave any of them credence without evidence.

The "sophisticated" theological argument, as espoused by William Lane Craig, etc., usually attempts to hijack modern science in order to prove that god is the only possible first cause, which, however flawed it might be, at least attempts to rescue theology from the Russell's teapot problem of placing the burden of proof on unprovable assertions. That doesn't mean, however, that it's a very good argument (see this for a brilliant takedown).

 

[F#A#Oo]

The "sophisticated" theological argument, as espoused by William Lane Craig, etc., usually attempts to hijack modern science in order to prove that god is the only possible first cause, which, however flawed it might be, at least attempts to rescue theology from the Russell's teapot problem of placing the burden of proof on unprovable assertions. That doesn't mean, however, that it's a very good argument (see this for a brilliant takedown).

It's hard to concentrate on what she says with her cleavage directly staring at me...

 

[Pixel Pete]

Even if WLC managed to prove that the only available logical answer is God, that doesn't mean it's true.
It's OK to deliberate and wait while the evidence comes in, and that applies to anything.

 

[soul creator]

That's good to know.
For me, anyway, I'm not going around telling religious people they must hate me because they aren't preaching, I just find the line of thought to be interesting. Certainly an interesting take on being preached to.

on a somewhat related note, I always like to say that if there really was a god, or a certain religion really was true, then of course it should influence politics. God could offer us some very useful knowledge, so if it was really possible to directly talk to him, that should be factored in, just like any other fact about the world.

I don't inherently have beef with god/religion influencing politics. I only have beef with it, because it's so often hilariously wrong and inaccurate when it comes to connecting it to any sort of real-world issue, and there's no evidence that any of its claims are true.

So it actually kind of amuses me when "liberal" religious folks support separation of church and state. If they really believed god cared about human beings, had special insights, and had a big effect on our world...that seems like something that should play a huge role in what we do, and the decisions they make. So when they say "I'm not like those fundamentalists, I purely keep it to myself as a personal thing", it's almost like they're basically admitting that yes, it's a completely made-up concept that only exists in the minds of human beings, and isn't any sort of real thing.

 

[JGS]

on a somewhat related note, I always like to say that if there really was a god, or a certain religion really was true, then of course it should influence politics. God could offer us some very useful knowledge, so if it was really possible to directly talk to him, that should be factored in, just like any other fact about the world.

I don't inherently have beef with god/religion influencing politics. I only have beef with it, because it's so often hilariously wrong and inaccurate when it comes to connecting it to any sort of real-world issue, and there's no evidence that any of its claims are true.

So it actually kind of amuses me when "liberal" religious folks support separation of church and state. If they really believed god cared about human beings, had special insights, and had a big effect on our world...that seems like something that should play a huge role in what we do, and the decisions they make. So when they say "I'm not like those fundamentalists, I purely keep it to myself as a personal thing", it's almost like they're basically admitting that yes, it's a completely made-up concept that only exists in the minds of human beings, and isn't any sort of real thing.

It's actually the opposite. Christians aren't supposed to care one lick about what the planet does regardless of politics- reason being that no matter how hard we try, no country will ever really be run Christian like. From your perspective, It would be un-Christian to think God is backing any particular country's political view enough to affect change in it.

We pay Caesar's things to Caesar's and as long as the country in question doesn't hinder worship, Christians adapt to whatever their environment is - which is why we're everywhere.

In democracies we "liberal" Christians (Not my label), like everyone else, simply vote based on the candidates views on issues that concern us rather than a conversion policy. I don't vote based primarily on issues considered sinful because my focus is on making sure I & my family are as sinless as possible. So although I believe abortion is definitely killing a pre-kid, if that's what the rest of the country wants, why would I care since they don't?

I do agree that it's hypocritical to cheerlead agendas that are contrary to religious belief, but that's quite a bit different from just being fine with allowing it.

 

[Canadian Psycho]

Can Richard Dawkins shut the fuck up already?

No, of course he can't.

+1

 

[Qwomo]

+1

Great post.

 

[Mario]

It's actually the opposite. Christians aren't supposed to care one lick about what the planet does regardless of politics- reason being that no matter how hard we try, no country will ever really be run Christian like. From your perspective, It would be un-Christian to think God is backing any particular country's political view enough to affect change in it.

We pay Caesar's things to Caesar's things to Caesar and as long as the country in question doesn't hinder worship, Christians adapt to whatever ther environment is - which is why we're everywhere.

In democracies we "liberal" Christians (Not my label), like everyone else, simply vote based on the candidates views on issues that concern us rather than a conversion policy. I don't vote based primarily on issues considered sinful because my focus is on making sure I & my family are as sinless as possible. So although I believe abortion is definitely killing a pre-kid, if that's what the rest of the country wants, why would I care since they don't?

What are your views on candidates like Perry and Bachmann who openly talk about bringing their religion into politics, and whom have both been accused of a Christian Dominionist agenda?

I'm guessing from the above, you'd tend to back a conservative yet more privately religious candidate?

 

[JGS]

What are your views on candidates like Perry and Bachmann who openly talk about bringing their religion into politics, and whom have both been accused of a Christian Dominionist agenda?

I'm guessing from the above, you'd tend to back a conservative yet more privately religious candidate?

I am unable to back a presidential candidate. It is almost always a lesser of two evils vote if i vote at all. My views:

I don't vote based on the abortion issue since it's never going away anyway. It's a distraction platform.
I think people kill people with guns and there should be massive regulation of them
I oppose the death penalty because the justice system isn't built for it
I'm for free speech and freedom of religion because they both protect my beliefs
If we are sticking with the current tax code, then the rich should pay more
I'm not patriotic and have very little faith in the idea that God is actually blessing America
Pro-environment
Pro-public healthcare option

Nothin in that list is contrary to my beliefs. I don't consider myself a part of a political party, but overall the list leans heavier toward more liberal causes.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Great post.

In a thread of fascinating debate, it certainly went above and beyond. Bravo, Canadian Psycho.

 

[Mario]

I don't consider myself a part of a political party, but overall the list leans heavier toward more liberal causes.

Thanks for the detailed response.

 

[F#A#Oo]

on a somewhat related note, I always like to say that if there really was a god, or a certain religion really was true, then of course it should influence politics. God could offer us some very useful knowledge, so if it was really possible to directly talk to him, that should be factored in, just like any other fact about the world.

I don't inherently have beef with god/religion influencing politics. I only have beef with it, because it's so often hilariously wrong and inaccurate when it comes to connecting it to any sort of real-world issue, and there's no evidence that any of its claims are true.

So it actually kind of amuses me when "liberal" religious folks support separation of church and state. If they really believed god cared about human beings, had special insights, and had a big effect on our world...that seems like something that should play a huge role in what we do, and the decisions they make. So when they say "I'm not like those fundamentalists, I purely keep it to myself as a personal thing", it's almost like they're basically admitting that yes, it's a completely made-up concept that only exists in the minds of human beings, and isn't any sort of real thing.

Islam does influence politics and other area within the state...thus the existence of Sharia Law working at different levels which imposes itself on; Economics, Politics, Martial, Sexual, Criminal, Etiquette and Theological laws.

 

[jaxword]

+1

dIEHARD is a coward who ran off when his claims were challenged. Most people ignore him and his ilk unless they're similar people.

 

[soul creator]

Islam does influence politics and other area within the state...thus the existence of Sharia Law working at different levels which imposes itself on; Economics, Politics, Martial, Sexual, Criminal, Etiquette and Theological laws.

Yes, and that would totally be fine! Except for the whole lack of evidence for god and the claims made in various holy books that are supposedly his "words".

 

[F#A#Oo]

Yes, and that would totally be fine! Except for the whole lack of evidence for god and the claims made in various holy books that are supposedly his "words".

Ok. So what would be a valid way for god to convey his existence to you?

 

[Hylian7]

Ok. So what would be a valid way for god to convey his existence to you?

Saying something. I mean actually saying something, not using a hurricane or earthquake to.

 

[neorej]

Ok. So what would be a valid way for god to convey his existence to you?

I dunno, physically appearing would be a start. We can work from there.

 

[Gorgon]

I am unable to back a presidential candidate. It is almost always a lesser of two evils vote if i vote at all. My views:

I don't vote based on the abortion issue since it's never going away anyway. It's a distraction platform.
I think people kill people with guns and there should be massive regulation of them
I oppose the death penalty because the justice system isn't built for it
I'm for free speech and freedom of religion because they both protect my beliefs
If we are sticking with the current tax code, then the rich should pay more
I'm not patriotic and have very little faith in the idea that God is actually blessing America
Pro-environment
Pro-public healthcare option

Nothin in that list is contrary to my beliefs. I don't consider myself a part of a political party, but overall the list leans heavier toward more liberal causes.

I like this guy, although I do vote for the lesser evil and I'm pro-abortion in general.

Even if WLC managed to prove that the only available logical answer is God, that doesn't mean it's true.
It's OK to deliberate and wait while the evidence comes in, and that applies to anything.

Exactely. The problem with "logic" is that it doesn't answer anything. It doesn't attribute probabilities to possibilities. Science works because it predicts, that is, it puts probabilities on logical possibilities. If Philosophy did, we could just stick with Philosophy and ditch Science.

The second point is that not having an answer doesn't do anything when it comes to prove God (or Gods). There are questions that most probably will never be abble to be answered by Science, the main one beyng the ultimate cause "why is there Something instead of Nothing?" The problem is, not having an answer doesn't prove God(s) existence. That will just be a personal choice, to believe or not to believe. Personaly, I'd stick with the fact that things are just the way they are and there's nothing you can do to know "why" because it is pointless to do do so. There is no need even to assume that there is an ultimate cause to begin with. As far as the Universe is concerned, it's a meaningless question. It's just that our thought processes are used to function in a cause-effect framework. Quantum Mechanics, at least at present, should have have made this clear.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Saying something. I mean actually saying something, not using a hurricane or earthquake to.

Well that (hearing and seeing god) is the main reward one gets in paradise...

We spend our whole life praying, fasting and doing other things in his name without seeing or hearing god only because we hope to hear and see god in paradise...

 

[Hylian7]

Well that (hearing and seeing god) is the main reward one gets in paradise...

We spend our whole life praying, fasting and doing other things in his name without seeing or hearing god only because we hope to hear and see god in paradise...

So we just have to assume he exists until we die? No thanks then.

 

[Gorgon]

Well that (hearing and seeing god) is the main reward one gets in paradise...

We spend our whole life praying, fasting and doing other things in his name without seeing or hearing god only because we hope to hear and see god in paradise...

But that doesn't exactely fits the bill regarding what he said, does it?

 

[F#A#Oo]

So we just have to assume he exists until we die? No thanks then.

lol...ok.

But that doesn't exactely fits the bill regarding what he said, does it?

What do you mean?

 

[Hylian7]

lol...ok.



What do you mean?

You asked what would be enough evidence for God, and then you basically said "NO SILLY, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AFTER YOU DIE!"

 

[F#A#Oo]

You asked what would be enough evidence for God, and then you basically said "NO SILLY, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AFTER YOU DIE!"

Yes...exactly.

 

[crazy monkey]

Definition of is wrong in so many people's head. God is not a human being or a thing. I am out of this debate any ways.

 

[Hylian7]

Yes...exactly.

That's the point a lot of Atheists in this thread have been trying to make. We have a hard time believing something exists we have no proof of and aren't supposed to have proof of until we are already dead. It would be like someone saying "There's a purple firebreathing dragon that's in the corner of the room and invisible. It will kill you unless you give me all your money."

 

[F#A#Oo]

That's the point a lot of Atheists in this thread have been trying to make. We have a hard time believing something exists we have no proof of and aren't supposed to have proof of until we are already dead. It would be like someone saying "There's a purple firebreathing dragon that's in the corner of the room and invisible. It will kill you unless you give me all your money."

That is a perfectly fine position to take. That is not a problem. If you don't want to believe...don't believe. As long as you are happy with your rational behind your thinking and belief.

 

[jaxword]

That is a perfectly fine position to take. That is not a problem. If you don't want to believe...don't believe. As long as you are happy with your rational behind your thinking and belief.

If only more Muslims thought like you, we would have a much less volatile political/religious worldwide conflict.

 

[zomaha]

I'm trying to figure out if a creationist talking about holes in evolution is ironic.

 

[ghst]

+1

evangelism ain't what it used to be.