Been a long time. I agree with you entirely. Kind of like Methos in the Highlander series, the fight just goes out of someone when they keep having to whack heads off people who don't use them. But its interesting there is usualy a whole new set of freedom fighters waiting for their turn at the job. Such is the progression of Slashdot.
Glad to see your still around... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
And in line with Katz. He complained a bit about being censored on slashdot. He came back a once or twice under different versions of his name, and some people started pretending to be him. They had a hard time matching his wit and intelect behind the exestential bantering. A few months ago he made another appearance, it was the old MEEPT to be sure. Complete with a Geek Chorus complaining that they couldn't run Decent on their Apple ][. The Gnulix hero suggests they run it with the ascii libraries and then sed'ing for the enemy. It was always a classic blend of the current discussions, and making fun of the geeks around him. Like a St Lious Cardinals fan shouting obesenities about the Chicaco Cubs, in Chicago, in the home section. He was truely a master of his form. Chapter one should be "BoReDAtWoRk with a cluestick". That guy was the show then. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I agree with you entirely. It is interesting to note that it sounds all to familiar. It sounds like someone talking about Microsofts contributions to the world. Just food for thought...
Thats funny. I wrote it seriously at the time, but then again any time one 'explains' Debian freedom so that people outside debian can understand it Debian people get offended. Go figure. Maybe instead of just moderating you could tell me where I am wrong or "flamebaiting"?
Or does flaimbaiting mean something else in Debian terms, maybe 'something out of the regular authorized mantra.'
I do however ammend a little bit to the definition of stable. They don't want to change it anymore, but they will for security or other emergencies. But they are still rather tired of it and would rather not touch it any more. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Ahh now I see more what you mean by local realism. Definately undetermined states are a really cool phenomenon, and something I think makes sence.
But doesn't such an example simply show that things are determined by influences we may never have a way of knowing? After all, as you point out if they don't both know what to look for the very act of probing for the information interferes with the experiment redering it useless. And unfortunately we to often don't know what to look for.
Anyway, thanks for the info. This is what I like slashdot for, the information from the community. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~ ^~~^~
QM does nothing to disprove relativity. (That is the frustration.)
Einstein did accept Qm as a way of expressing those laws, but beleived strongly that there was a better way of deterministicaly describing them.
The flatness of the Earth is based on ignorance, and so is the belief that behind the curtain of laws we see is mere randomness. QM provides a way to deal with the things we observe but can't explain, and it is proven useful in doing so.
I believe in QM, as I believe in Natural selection and other theories as being useful ways to describe the world around us. But the philosophies that rest on them many times are just wrong.
I'm really not expressing that QM is false, just the notion people have, the philosophy that God does play dice with the universe (and sometimes he throws them where he can't see them.)
Einstein had occasion to argue against mathmaticians (one who invented the mathematics he was using to describe E=mc2 if I remember right) who showed him the mathematical flaws in his proofs. However time and physics did show him right.
As another public service anouncement QM is fascinating, and does manifest and explain very true and deterministic laws also. I have nothing against it and actively want to learn it better. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~ ^~
Very interesting. And yeah I don't know why they are attached to reality either.
I rember Feinman (My other favorite Scientist) imagioning he was a fly on a pool (this was from a PBS Nova episode.) He wondered if he was that fly, could he tell everything that was going on in the pool by the waves he rode on.
It seems this is a manifestation of Quantum Mechanics, where you could say that two different events could produce the same results, and then you can only statisticaly guess which of those two events occured. But then maybe you could gather the information fast enough to be able to distinguish between two said events. But then could you really account for the measurements effecting the pool enough to hide the information in noise?
I don't mean to bore you with a common example. But that is how I've understood it since, since I only took one class on it in college. How do they test for the existance of unknown variables again? That seems interesting. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~ ~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
That dog story is cool. That is an attempt to lie. Cool. We'll wait for Fido to create something still.
The marriage deal I assume you are accusing me of overly constraining the behavior. I don't think that is what I did, all it requires is forming contracts with a third party that isn't a being. Contracts are very basic.
my definition of Morality is not acting for a common good. Computer robots can do that. But can they -discover- that. In fact, many humans do not, but no one disputes that they can. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm, I see your point. I have made some pre-emptive strikes that may have been unjustified.
For one, I did not accuse you in particular of using circular logic. I mearly stated that I have seen people discredit evidence I make and eventualy it comes down to that kind of argument. I agree you never made such an argument. But then I have never seen any evidence that even remotely suggests there is not a God.
I wish to also in the spirit of rationality express that I only offer evidence. That is what we are talking about isn't it? Not proof. Evidence, I have and have shared in part. I don't suggest it as proof, and I definatley don't suggest it as "look we can't explain it so it must be God." When I look at a good piece of Art I appreciate its creator. That is the same as how I see the universe through Science. I don't see it as drawing back the curtain to find there is no God, but I do see a real appreciation for the creator of it all. That appreciation comes from seeing the evidences of the genius at work.
I also appreciate your discussion of light. I have found light to be more than mere luminosity, but that is really immaterial. Blindness comes from not seeing what is there. In that way they are blind and freely admit it (for they cannot evangelize that there is no God, they will never have proof of that. Nor do I see them presenting any evidence.)
I'm sorry for lumping you in that catagory.
And what I assume you say in jest I can say is true. I wrote something a long time ago on slashdot about how the pursuit of God is an avenue to discover the Universe and its Laws. That is true. Some people inherantly wonder why the universe exists. What is the purpose? Well whether or not one believes in a purpose to the Universe, you can't argue that for there to be a purpose to the universe there has to be an intelligence for there to be a purpose.
Some figure that they should get in contact with that intelligence to gain a more direct access to the information as to the purpose of their existance. You can't blame them, the progress of thought is only logical. It fits in Occam's Razor very neatly.
But to reach out to that intelligence requires faith. Now faith is not imagination, and definately does not need to be conjered up in this case. It is taking an extrapolation of data at hand. I exist, and when I make something I have a purpose. Therefore for me to exist I must be created, and there must be a purpose. Where there is pupose there is intelligence. Since we both have intelligence there should be a way to communicate. If we can communicate then I should be able to learn about the Universe from this intelligence that created it.
This forming of a hypothesis does not require a floating cross. Sure there are leaps of faith in it, where you are extrapolating with Occam's Razor a hypothesis. But this hypothesis is provable, and personaly so.
Yet many do not even try, or if they do they expect the universe to bow to their will if they are going to make such an investment of faith. They seek a direct sign. This is not the nature of the Universe, you know that and I do. Laws are discovered by seeing them in action. If you recieve laws (information of them) from a divine source, and indeed you find that obedience to them does make your life (not your neighbors or your uncle in slovenia) better then you must have recieved true information. The formulae works, it must be true.
This is the same way we investigate scientific laws. But we find that we need to learn moral laws before we learn scientific ones or we can destroy ourselves. I say this to point out that if one of Adam and Eve's children asked about Nuclear Power but didn't know about self restraint and controlling temper then they could have made a mess of the whole earth very early in the game.
Self Restraint and Temper are moral laws we learn from Religion and can see evidence of it scientificaly. Nuclear laws are found out scientificaly, and even show evidence or a correspondance (abstractly) with moral laws.
There is a need for both is what I'm saying. The Grand Intelligence in the Universe who you mock does have lines of information open. Science is one of them, and religion is one of them but they both require personal discovery and faith.
I appreciate your more even handed responce and I appologize again for jumping the gun. I'm home from work now and have calmed down somewhat. I hope you accept my appologies and find this responce more in the same friendship you sent the last one.
Sure we have all trodden these paths before, and have come up with cute labels for each turn we anticipate the other to take. (much like martial arts.) But seriously when it comes down to it we are both just people and what we say will only survive as long as the slashdot server.
It won't mean much in the world perspective. But individualy, it means more and that is the battleground where we get to make the best descisions we can, and hope for the best. We are all looking for truth, and it is childish to mock what others know rather than live and let live.
I would appreciate if you did have any truth that I can live by that will aid me to be happier. I haven't seen any yet, but you don't seem unhappy so you must have some. (I'm not mocking I'm serious.) If you have better truth, don't keep it to yourself. You'll find it more effective in pursuading me than simply holding up judgement to what I know is true. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
Look, I realize believing in God puts me in a different universe than you, or in other words we have extrapolated different universes from the evidences around us. I don't expect to enforce my way of thinking on you, nor do I want to.
In reality we all live in the same universe and are welcome to explore it to find the truth. I even like to hear you tell me the truth you've found. (I'm waiting...)
In the mean time there is evidence around us, all around us. I point to that evidence as my support. All I see in the way of disproving the world around us is what amounts to "There is no God, therefore that is not evidence."
For instance, I see that ecosystems are built to destroy life when it challenges the survivability of the ecosystem. Look at lemmings, sardines, etc... They have built in deficiencies that keep them from overrunning their environment even though they could easily still be classed as fit as the only species in the environment. In deed close relatives do not suffer from such quircks. Such "curiosities" are just one of many evidences of a design greater than the "every species out for itself" theory of evolution.
Now the argument against it looks like "but there is no grand design or designer so you can't say there is. There are just laws at work that science is still discovering!" Or maybe you can quote some theory from a dusty college text book that is even more unsupported that promises to resolve such a fundamental flaw.
Nevertheless it is evidence. Your presumtions that I have no evidence is probably just hopeful that I'm bluffing. I repectfuly counter that you are the one with blinders on, and you can't see evidence you refuse to see. But that is your choice. Asking others to accept your blindness may be your choice, but not mine.
Believing that there is no God is not only blindness it is the belief of blindness. Essentialy it is unprovable (yet presumes itself scientific). Therefore you blindly believe there is no God and are forced to if that was the truth.
You can believe what you want to believe, and I can declare what I know is true. And in the end it doesn't matter becuase the slashdot readers and every other individual that wathces such discussion is welcome to find out the truth for themself. Who realy cares who is right, we only care about what is right.
Thanks those were the exact quotes I was looking for to make my point.
And when did we ever make this into a war on religion? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
And some think they are funny too.
Seriously, if animals are a just a catagory of life that doesn't photosynthesize you are right. Go find a conversation where that is what they are talking about. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
oh shucks. You did ask.
Here's a few questions to ask...
Do Animals Create? One person once said that everything that makes humans different from animals can be summed up in a human's ability to tell a lie. To lie you have to be able to create a universe based on evidence and know that it isn't true. You have to be able to communicate the untruth. You have to have the selfish interests to want to relay the untruth. Lying isn't a magnificent inclenation but the investigation and exploration of evidence, the creation of new universes (even if they are only personal universes), and the communication of it is something that animals have not demonstrated.
Do Animals Marry? Marraige is not just a choosing a life long mate, or contracting between the two people. Marriage (even old secular marraiges) involved the contracting with a third party to provide the neccisary environment to raise kids to survive and be harmonious with that third party.
Do Aminals have Morality? Morality is not an imposing of harsh laws by the inergalactic boss. Morality is the realization of a connection we all share where my happiness is somehow related to your happiness. A realization that we all have a connection that is impericaly felt but not measurable (very sensitive to the Heisenburg principle this is). Morality is a force, it drives and influences even nature and matter. (After all, when your girlfriend is mad doesn't that influence your body to go to the store and pick up flowers? Thats matter manipulation through Morality.) In fact morality is expressed by harmonizing our personal universes with the laws of the universe around us.
Sorry I can't write more or explain it better, the boss is coming
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
Gold was an analogy for the evidence of God.
I didn't quite follow where you went. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I read most assertively those that boast that Einstein met his match with Quantum Physics. It brought down his relativity and showed the random froth that the universe is made up of.
However Einstein is still correct, Quantum Physics relies on statistics (randomness) as a patch or glue to express the universe where the laws are not known (or as Heisenburg pointed out cannot be known in classical scientific ways of measurement.)
Einstien spent many years trying to see those laws and fought that they have to be there. He wished for a series of mathmatics that could express the world without having to resort to statistics.
Now like ancient days before Columbus, science simply believes that there is nothing there beyond what it can see. Whether the world is flat or the Universe random both are based on ideas of what the unseeable relm must be like. And just as maps were easier to express the world as flat, so are these theories easier to represent statistcaly.
Time and science will yet prove Einstein right. God does not play dice with the universe. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
hahahah you are like a Homer looking for Lincon's Gold. You look everywhere and when you find it, you read it is a note that the gold is in the hearts of every American. Dejected you walk away angrily, cursing Lincon as a fraud.
The evidence you look for is all around you, especialy in physics. The line of extrapolation clearly points to God. But since you don't have the gold you are looking for you turn away cursing those that are enjoying the treasure.
The very existance of everything around us, and the magnificent inclenations in humans that are not found in any animal are great evidences. Well becuase you dismiss it doesn't mean I don't see it. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
In short, the explanation of Einsteins belief in God is not accurate. He did believe in a God manifested as the higher laws of the universe. Not as a metaphor of such. While he clearly mentions he does not believe in a personal God, he did in quotes clearly indicate he believed in God. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Happiness is the design of our existance...
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
...so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here... I shall continue to believe otherwise.
Truth is one thing, belief is another. Randomness is not even part of the other two.
Maybe you would agree that we can create our own purpose, our own reason for being. I believe that is true.
Maybe you believe that the more your purpose coincides with the laws of the universe, the less likely your purpose meets with destruction. That is physicaly proven, and is indeed the method of physical proof and the scientific method, where a hypothesis is the purpose of the experiment. I believe it to be true also.
But that only makes the pursuit of the question of "is there a God" more important, if you are seeking to bring harmony with your purpose and the laws of the Universe. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
My friend, klthekiten and I are actualy starting a company in about a year based almost entirely on this product. Some of the options have been mentioned, voice mail, email, etc... Different attributes would show up in different folders (directories) in the filesystem. There would be a voice mail directory, with checked and unchecked directories.
Also a revision control system much like Clear Case, and document tracking. The perl extentions would make these things easy and fun, and customizable to a companies basic information flow needs. The beauty of the scheme, and hopefully there will be room in the design for this, is that managers can be given a database app to help them handle the manipulation of data also.
So in three different areas of useability, the same information looks like three different things. To the programer, they see API, a manager sees an application and a user sees a very caged and secure filesystem.
This is the stuff.... Sorry if I typed it to fast to be legible. It makes me giddy as a bubble maker... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~
"beloved and white" in the previous post is obviouly a satirical remark for those who would mistakenly believe that is actualy the case. You could better inser the word "supposedly" at the begining of that remark to get the right tone. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
From these quotes I see something interesting. The first sentance of the first quote "There is a reason why..."[emphasis added]. No one presumes to say that is 'the' reason, and in fact anyone who says it is 'the' reason is out of the bounds of this quote and Church Doctrine. It is very wrong to hold up a black person and becuase of the color of the skin judge them of any wrong doing. Very wrong and not Church Doctrine in any way.
The second quote says nothing of a curse that is becuase of disobedience in heaven. In fact what would be considered a curse is only "seemingly" a curse.
Allow me to remind the Slashdot audience that servitude is a historical fact, not able to be unwriten. And was something Joseph, even one of God's beloved and white children even endured in Egypt. In fact Jewish law made provision for slaves to be released every seven (or seventy) years.
But it is interesting to note that some servents who loved their masters could have their ears nailed to the wall as a symbol that they will always be a part of that house as a servant. Some may even reference this to Christ being nailed to his Cross as a simular sign.
In short we are all servants when it gets down to it.
Nor does the quote mention that Brigham Young was an abolitionist. He adamently promoted the freedom of slaves. Utah was after all a free state. He and Joseph Smith both have recorded instances where they purchased the freedom of slaves running from their masters.
I hope that sheds some understanding. I'll go look up the quotes myself a little later. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
sealed? That book is presently on sale. And you say there are parts of mormon history that are being hidden away and dismissed like some X-Files conspiracy?
I see the argument coming.
Ms. Conception:"They have hidden these records so we won't find them"
Chorus: "How do we know you are telling the truth?"
Slashdot Mirror
Bored,
Been a long time. I agree with you entirely. Kind of like Methos in the Highlander series, the fight just goes out of someone when they keep having to whack heads off people who don't use them. But its interesting there is usualy a whole new set of freedom fighters waiting for their turn at the job. Such is the progression of Slashdot.
Glad to see your still around...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
And in line with Katz. He complained a bit about being censored on slashdot. He came back a once or twice under different versions of his name, and some people started pretending to be him. They had a hard time matching his wit and intelect behind the exestential bantering. A few months ago he made another appearance, it was the old MEEPT to be sure. Complete with a Geek Chorus complaining that they couldn't run Decent on their Apple ][. The Gnulix hero suggests they run it with the ascii libraries and then sed'ing for the enemy. It was always a classic blend of the current discussions, and making fun of the geeks around him. Like a St Lious Cardinals fan shouting obesenities about the Chicaco Cubs, in Chicago, in the home section. He was truely a master of his form. Chapter one should be "BoReDAtWoRk with a cluestick". That guy was the show then.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I agree with you entirely. It is interesting to note that it sounds all to familiar. It sounds like someone talking about Microsofts contributions to the world. Just food for thought...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
Thats funny. I wrote it seriously at the time, but then again any time one 'explains' Debian freedom so that people outside debian can understand it Debian people get offended. Go figure. Maybe instead of just moderating you could tell me where I am wrong or "flamebaiting"?
Or does flaimbaiting mean something else in Debian terms, maybe 'something out of the regular authorized mantra.'
I do however ammend a little bit to the definition of stable. They don't want to change it anymore, but they will for security or other emergencies. But they are still rather tired of it and would rather not touch it any more.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Ahh now I see more what you mean by local realism. Definately undetermined states are a really cool phenomenon, and something I think makes sence.
~ ^~~^~
But doesn't such an example simply show that things are determined by influences we may never have a way of knowing? After all, as you point out if they don't both know what to look for the very act of probing for the information interferes with the experiment redering it useless. And unfortunately we to often don't know what to look for.
Anyway, thanks for the info. This is what I like slashdot for, the information from the community.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
yep I'm with you on this. I was at work before, you can understand my more aggressive stance
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Your right,
~ ^~
QM does nothing to disprove relativity. (That is the frustration.)
Einstein did accept Qm as a way of expressing those laws, but beleived strongly that there was a better way of deterministicaly describing them.
The flatness of the Earth is based on ignorance, and so is the belief that behind the curtain of laws we see is mere randomness. QM provides a way to deal with the things we observe but can't explain, and it is proven useful in doing so.
I believe in QM, as I believe in Natural selection and other theories as being useful ways to describe the world around us. But the philosophies that rest on them many times are just wrong.
I'm really not expressing that QM is false, just the notion people have, the philosophy that God does play dice with the universe (and sometimes he throws them where he can't see them.)
Einstein had occasion to argue against mathmaticians (one who invented the mathematics he was using to describe E=mc2 if I remember right) who showed him the mathematical flaws in his proofs. However time and physics did show him right.
As another public service anouncement QM is fascinating, and does manifest and explain very true and deterministic laws also. I have nothing against it and actively want to learn it better.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
Very interesting. And yeah I don't know why they are attached to reality either.
I rember Feinman (My other favorite Scientist) imagioning he was a fly on a pool (this was from a PBS Nova episode.) He wondered if he was that fly, could he tell everything that was going on in the pool by the waves he rode on.
It seems this is a manifestation of Quantum Mechanics, where you could say that two different events could produce the same results, and then you can only statisticaly guess which of those two events occured. But then maybe you could gather the information fast enough to be able to distinguish between two said events. But then could you really account for the measurements effecting the pool enough to hide the information in noise?
I don't mean to bore you with a common example. But that is how I've understood it since, since I only took one class on it in college. How do they test for the existance of unknown variables again? That seems interesting.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^
That dog story is cool. That is an attempt to lie. Cool. We'll wait for Fido to create something still.
The marriage deal I assume you are accusing me of overly constraining the behavior. I don't think that is what I did, all it requires is forming contracts with a third party that isn't a being. Contracts are very basic.
my definition of Morality is not acting for a common good. Computer robots can do that. But can they -discover- that. In fact, many humans do not, but no one disputes that they can.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Hmmm, I see your point. I have made some pre-emptive strikes that may have been unjustified.
For one, I did not accuse you in particular of using circular logic. I mearly stated that I have seen people discredit evidence I make and eventualy it comes down to that kind of argument. I agree you never made such an argument. But then I have never seen any evidence that even remotely suggests there is not a God.
I wish to also in the spirit of rationality express that I only offer evidence. That is what we are talking about isn't it? Not proof. Evidence, I have and have shared in part. I don't suggest it as proof, and I definatley don't suggest it as "look we can't explain it so it must be God." When I look at a good piece of Art I appreciate its creator. That is the same as how I see the universe through Science. I don't see it as drawing back the curtain to find there is no God, but I do see a real appreciation for the creator of it all. That appreciation comes from seeing the evidences of the genius at work.
I also appreciate your discussion of light. I have found light to be more than mere luminosity, but that is really immaterial. Blindness comes from not seeing what is there. In that way they are blind and freely admit it (for they cannot evangelize that there is no God, they will never have proof of that. Nor do I see them presenting any evidence.)
I'm sorry for lumping you in that catagory.
And what I assume you say in jest I can say is true. I wrote something a long time ago on slashdot about how the pursuit of God is an avenue to discover the Universe and its Laws. That is true. Some people inherantly wonder why the universe exists. What is the purpose? Well whether or not one believes in a purpose to the Universe, you can't argue that for there to be a purpose to the universe there has to be an intelligence for there to be a purpose.
Some figure that they should get in contact with that intelligence to gain a more direct access to the information as to the purpose of their existance. You can't blame them, the progress of thought is only logical. It fits in Occam's Razor very neatly.
But to reach out to that intelligence requires faith. Now faith is not imagination, and definately does not need to be conjered up in this case. It is taking an extrapolation of data at hand. I exist, and when I make something I have a purpose. Therefore for me to exist I must be created, and there must be a purpose. Where there is pupose there is intelligence. Since we both have intelligence there should be a way to communicate. If we can communicate then I should be able to learn about the Universe from this intelligence that created it.
This forming of a hypothesis does not require a floating cross. Sure there are leaps of faith in it, where you are extrapolating with Occam's Razor a hypothesis. But this hypothesis is provable, and personaly so.
Yet many do not even try, or if they do they expect the universe to bow to their will if they are going to make such an investment of faith. They seek a direct sign. This is not the nature of the Universe, you know that and I do. Laws are discovered by seeing them in action. If you recieve laws (information of them) from a divine source, and indeed you find that obedience to them does make your life (not your neighbors or your uncle in slovenia) better then you must have recieved true information. The formulae works, it must be true.
This is the same way we investigate scientific laws. But we find that we need to learn moral laws before we learn scientific ones or we can destroy ourselves. I say this to point out that if one of Adam and Eve's children asked about Nuclear Power but didn't know about self restraint and controlling temper then they could have made a mess of the whole earth very early in the game.
Self Restraint and Temper are moral laws we learn from Religion and can see evidence of it scientificaly. Nuclear laws are found out scientificaly, and even show evidence or a correspondance (abstractly) with moral laws.
There is a need for both is what I'm saying. The Grand Intelligence in the Universe who you mock does have lines of information open. Science is one of them, and religion is one of them but they both require personal discovery and faith.
I appreciate your more even handed responce and I appologize again for jumping the gun. I'm home from work now and have calmed down somewhat. I hope you accept my appologies and find this responce more in the same friendship you sent the last one.
Sure we have all trodden these paths before, and have come up with cute labels for each turn we anticipate the other to take. (much like martial arts.) But seriously when it comes down to it we are both just people and what we say will only survive as long as the slashdot server.
It won't mean much in the world perspective. But individualy, it means more and that is the battleground where we get to make the best descisions we can, and hope for the best. We are all looking for truth, and it is childish to mock what others know rather than live and let live.
I would appreciate if you did have any truth that I can live by that will aid me to be happier. I haven't seen any yet, but you don't seem unhappy so you must have some. (I'm not mocking I'm serious.) If you have better truth, don't keep it to yourself. You'll find it more effective in pursuading me than simply holding up judgement to what I know is true.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Look, I realize believing in God puts me in a different universe than you, or in other words we have extrapolated different universes from the evidences around us. I don't expect to enforce my way of thinking on you, nor do I want to.
In reality we all live in the same universe and are welcome to explore it to find the truth. I even like to hear you tell me the truth you've found. (I'm waiting...)
In the mean time there is evidence around us, all around us. I point to that evidence as my support. All I see in the way of disproving the world around us is what amounts to "There is no God, therefore that is not evidence."
For instance, I see that ecosystems are built to destroy life when it challenges the survivability of the ecosystem. Look at lemmings, sardines, etc... They have built in deficiencies that keep them from overrunning their environment even though they could easily still be classed as fit as the only species in the environment. In deed close relatives do not suffer from such quircks. Such "curiosities" are just one of many evidences of a design greater than the "every species out for itself" theory of evolution.
Now the argument against it looks like "but there is no grand design or designer so you can't say there is. There are just laws at work that science is still discovering!" Or maybe you can quote some theory from a dusty college text book that is even more unsupported that promises to resolve such a fundamental flaw.
Nevertheless it is evidence. Your presumtions that I have no evidence is probably just hopeful that I'm bluffing. I repectfuly counter that you are the one with blinders on, and you can't see evidence you refuse to see. But that is your choice. Asking others to accept your blindness may be your choice, but not mine.
Believing that there is no God is not only blindness it is the belief of blindness. Essentialy it is unprovable (yet presumes itself scientific). Therefore you blindly believe there is no God and are forced to if that was the truth.
You can believe what you want to believe, and I can declare what I know is true. And in the end it doesn't matter becuase the slashdot readers and every other individual that wathces such discussion is welcome to find out the truth for themself. Who realy cares who is right, we only care about what is right.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Thanks those were the exact quotes I was looking for to make my point.
And when did we ever make this into a war on religion?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
And some think they are funny too.
^ ~
Seriously, if animals are a just a catagory of life that doesn't photosynthesize you are right. Go find a conversation where that is what they are talking about.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
oh shucks. You did ask.
Here's a few questions to ask...
Do Animals Create? One person once said that everything that makes humans different from animals can be summed up in a human's ability to tell a lie. To lie you have to be able to create a universe based on evidence and know that it isn't true. You have to be able to communicate the untruth. You have to have the selfish interests to want to relay the untruth. Lying isn't a magnificent inclenation but the investigation and exploration of evidence, the creation of new universes (even if they are only personal universes), and the communication of it is something that animals have not demonstrated.
Do Animals Marry? Marraige is not just a choosing a life long mate, or contracting between the two people. Marriage (even old secular marraiges) involved the contracting with a third party to provide the neccisary environment to raise kids to survive and be harmonious with that third party.
Do Aminals have Morality? Morality is not an imposing of harsh laws by the inergalactic boss. Morality is the realization of a connection we all share where my happiness is somehow related to your happiness. A realization that we all have a connection that is impericaly felt but not measurable (very sensitive to the Heisenburg principle this is). Morality is a force, it drives and influences even nature and matter. (After all, when your girlfriend is mad doesn't that influence your body to go to the store and pick up flowers? Thats matter manipulation through Morality.) In fact morality is expressed by harmonizing our personal universes with the laws of the universe around us.
Sorry I can't write more or explain it better, the boss is coming
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Gold was an analogy for the evidence of God.
~
I didn't quite follow where you went.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
I read most assertively those that boast that Einstein met his match with Quantum Physics. It brought down his relativity and showed the random froth that the universe is made up of.
However Einstein is still correct, Quantum Physics relies on statistics (randomness) as a patch or glue to express the universe where the laws are not known (or as Heisenburg pointed out cannot be known in classical scientific ways of measurement.)
Einstien spent many years trying to see those laws and fought that they have to be there. He wished for a series of mathmatics that could express the world without having to resort to statistics.
Now like ancient days before Columbus, science simply believes that there is nothing there beyond what it can see. Whether the world is flat or the Universe random both are based on ideas of what the unseeable relm must be like. And just as maps were easier to express the world as flat, so are these theories easier to represent statistcaly.
Time and science will yet prove Einstein right. God does not play dice with the universe.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
hahahah you are like a Homer looking for Lincon's Gold. You look everywhere and when you find it, you read it is a note that the gold is in the hearts of every American. Dejected you walk away angrily, cursing Lincon as a fraud.
The evidence you look for is all around you, especialy in physics. The line of extrapolation clearly points to God. But since you don't have the gold you are looking for you turn away cursing those that are enjoying the treasure.
The very existance of everything around us, and the magnificent inclenations in humans that are not found in any animal are great evidences. Well becuase you dismiss it doesn't mean I don't see it.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
In short, the explanation of Einsteins belief in God is not accurate. He did believe in a God manifested as the higher laws of the universe. Not as a metaphor of such. While he clearly mentions he does not believe in a personal God, he did in quotes clearly indicate he believed in God.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
...so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here ... I shall continue to believe otherwise.
^ ~~^~
Truth is one thing, belief is another. Randomness is not even part of the other two.
Maybe you would agree that we can create our own purpose, our own reason for being. I believe that is true.
Maybe you believe that the more your purpose coincides with the laws of the universe, the less likely your purpose meets with destruction. That is physicaly proven, and is indeed the method of physical proof and the scientific method, where a hypothesis is the purpose of the experiment. I believe it to be true also.
But that only makes the pursuit of the question of "is there a God" more important, if you are seeking to bring harmony with your purpose and the laws of the Universe.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
Like the ones you can hunt in South East United States?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Ha, you've found us out.
~ ~^~
My friend, klthekiten and I are actualy starting a company in about a year based almost entirely on this product. Some of the options have been mentioned, voice mail, email, etc... Different attributes would show up in different folders (directories) in the filesystem. There would be a voice mail directory, with checked and unchecked directories.
Also a revision control system much like Clear Case, and document tracking. The perl extentions would make these things easy and fun, and customizable to a companies basic information flow needs. The beauty of the scheme, and hopefully there will be room in the design for this, is that managers can be given a database app to help them handle the manipulation of data also.
So in three different areas of useability, the same information looks like three different things. To the programer, they see API, a manager sees an application and a user sees a very caged and secure filesystem.
This is the stuff.... Sorry if I typed it to fast to be legible. It makes me giddy as a bubble maker...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
"beloved and white" in the previous post is obviouly a satirical remark for those who would mistakenly believe that is actualy the case. You could better inser the word "supposedly" at the begining of that remark to get the right tone.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Wow, I've been looking for those quotes thanks.
^ ~
From these quotes I see something interesting. The first sentance of the first quote "There is a reason why..."[emphasis added]. No one presumes to say that is 'the' reason, and in fact anyone who says it is 'the' reason is out of the bounds of this quote and Church Doctrine. It is very wrong to hold up a black person and becuase of the color of the skin judge them of any wrong doing. Very wrong and not Church Doctrine in any way.
The second quote says nothing of a curse that is becuase of disobedience in heaven. In fact what would be considered a curse is only "seemingly" a curse.
Allow me to remind the Slashdot audience that servitude is a historical fact, not able to be unwriten. And was something Joseph, even one of God's beloved and white children even endured in Egypt. In fact Jewish law made provision for slaves to be released every seven (or seventy) years.
But it is interesting to note that some servents who loved their masters could have their ears nailed to the wall as a symbol that they will always be a part of that house as a servant. Some may even reference this to Christ being nailed to his Cross as a simular sign.
In short we are all servants when it gets down to it.
Nor does the quote mention that Brigham Young was an abolitionist. He adamently promoted the freedom of slaves. Utah was after all a free state. He and Joseph Smith both have recorded instances where they purchased the freedom of slaves running from their masters.
I hope that sheds some understanding. I'll go look up the quotes myself a little later.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
sealed? That book is presently on sale. And you say there are parts of mormon history that are being hidden away and dismissed like some X-Files conspiracy?
I see the argument coming.
Ms. Conception:"They have hidden these records so we won't find them"
Chorus: "How do we know you are telling the truth?"
Ms. Conception:"Becuase we do not see them!"
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
isn't that what I just said?~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^