Economy is an attribute different from quality, and this is where engineering comes in. The engineer has to balance the various demands on quality against factors like cost, time to market, and customer demands. All your arguments are perfectly valid, and they are engineering decisions.
When all is said and done, the manufactured "code quality" debate doesn't make sense. You can't evaluate code in an abstract, applying a set of rules that are logically separated from purpose of the code. I won't say that there isn't merit to some of those things you claim are important, but the only truly valid measure for code quality is that it "works," and I'll add a clarification, and does what it is intended to do.
On a professional level, I dislike the sorts of books that claim to define code quality and tend to think the authors should shut up and do a decade more coding for a living, run some more projects, and be a CTO for a while.
Evaluating software, and engineers in general as well, is a harder than you try to make it seem. Engineering has artistic components in it where idealistic goals as defined by your "code quality" chart is attractive, but it is also a form of scientific grunt work where most of those things don't make sense. Sort of the difference between painting the mona lisa vs painting a house. Both are painting, both are valid and useful, but there is a lot more "house painting" in the industry than mono lisas.
The absolute worst part of critiques like yours is the ideas it gives pin headed MBAs who bungee jump into engineering departments, book in hand, with no practical experience. The ideas spouted by the book become the drive, not the product. It is an almost certainty the project will be dreadfully late or never finished.
I am past much of that in my career, and can easily dispense with such idiots, and that is why most of my projects the last decade have been mostly on time, on budget, without long days and weekends, and mostly without drama. The norm, however, in the industry is a tale of disaster and waste.
You can say that if the code is functional, reliable, usable, efficient, maintainable, and portable, then it is of high quality.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is too much concern over stuff that does not always matter.
I agree "functional" and "reliable" are absolutely important.
"efficient?" Only if efficiency is required or of any concern. How efficient is efficient? It is a balance of efficiency against economy.
"Maintainable?" Sure, most of the time, but not always. Sometimes we toss stuff on purpose. Some good code can be written that is near to impossible to maintain. Some code sacrifices maintainability for performance.
"Portable?" There is little sense in making some code portable. PIC software, for instance, can not be good "PIC" code and portable because the PIC is such an insane type of device.
I think your cute little chart is all well and good for a common segment of software development, but it is hardly an absolute and puts too much emphasis on an arbitrary set of criteria that don't reflect the purpose or economy of software code.
I don't consider any of the two examples quality code.
A philosophical point, if I may. What is the purpose of code?
I think the problem is that many engineers think that code should fit some form of aesthetic that is really irrelevant for the purpose. So far, the attributes that people use for judging software code quality and productivity have almost nothing to do with what the actual code does or how it works.
Algorithms are hard to quantify unless you know about algorithms. Code "hardness," or the ability to resist bogus input is hard to measure without testing, code flexibility -- the ability for it to be adapted to various tasks is impossible to measure without using it.
I submit to you that there is no valid test of code quality that can be done without "using" working code.
I may have been too terse and simplistic in my statement, "if it works - its good code," but that is a much better measure than anything else so far.
Sorry, I've been in the business for over 25 years and had to hear one pin head after another spout about code quality or productivity. Its all subjective at best.
The worst looking piece of spaghetti code could have fewer bugs, be more efficient, and be easier to maintain than the most modular object oriented code.
What is the "real" measure of quality or productivity? Is it LOC? No. Is it overall structure? no. Is it the number of "globals?" maybe not.
The only real measure of code is the pure and simple darwinian test of survival. If it lasts and works, its good code. If it is constantly being rewritten or is tossed, it is bad code.
I currently HATE (with a passion) the current interpretation of the bridge design pattern so popular these days. Yea, it means well, but it fails in implementation by making implementation harder and increasing the LOC benchmark. The core idea is correct, but it has been taken to absurd levels.
I have code that is over 15 years old, almost untouched, and still being used in programs today. Is it pretty? Not always. Is it "object oriented" conceptually, yes, but not necessarily. Think the "fopen,"fread," file operations. Conceptually, the FILE pointer is an object, but it is a pure C convention.
In summation: Code that works -- good. Code that does not -- bad.
Cheap laptops are a dime a dozen, but use them to make a statement.
Install Ubuntu or some other Linux system on them. Make sure they are configured and work. Try them out in several wifi sites like Starbucks or what ever.
Make SURE THEY WORK!!! Make sure they surf, can get email, word process, etc.
Make a small booklet of your configuration options and user passwords, etc. Make sure they have no personal data on them. Leave them, booklet, power supply, etc. in a public library with a note that says "Free and enjoy."
I find it tiring that when debating theists, it is always a tedious semantic debate trying to bend or extend the meanings of words and never a clear discussion of ideas, but wading through a field traps based on purposeful and/or willful disregard for the actual and intended meaning of what the other has said.
You've made the logical jump that god can change the rules at any moment. If god created the rules, is it necessarily true that god can change them?
This is that stupid debate, "can god create something so heavy he can't lift it?" One presumes that if there were such a thing as a god that created the universe that it would probably be able to change the rules by which it was created.
If you do not subscribe to the statement "I believe there is no god" then do you concede that god could exist? As to the question of existence, those two statements are the same.
Do you "believe that there is no easter bunny" or simply "do not believe in the easter bunny?" Let me help you out, any question pertaining to "god" can have the term "god" replaced with "easter bunny" and would make just as much logical sense.
A religious person is mentally ill? I think so, yes. It fits the bill. If a person were to fly a plane into a building for the "easter bunny," we'd call that person insane. If a person attended church services every week for the "easter bunny" we'd call that person insane.
Because god can not possibly be proved/disproved at this point Neither can the "easter bunny," and I don't see people killing over that.
any question as to its existence is a subjective one. Only in as much as the existence of the "easter bunny" is subjective.
Is evidence the same as proof? Evidence is part of proof and, no, I'm not going to debate the finer details of the semantics of it.
You still have not defined what exactly would constitute verifiable proof. LOL, real physical evidence that unambiguously proves existence. Oh, I don't know, show up in central park, NY, and smite some businessmen would be a good start. Show us a miracle or two. The water into wine trick would be helpful some nighs, certainly save some money. As long as its good wine, but, being good, one presumes he has good taste. Or how about this: Save some fucking people from the disasters he supposedly has control over RATHER than helping one guy named Je'sus beat the crap out of another guy named Je'sus in the boxing ring. Seriously, this is all nonsense.
Here is proof: God, kill me right now, before I can finish this post to prove you exist! If I finish this post, god does not exist. That's my proof.
To accept that something certainly does not exist, I need the same verifiable proof. OK, prove to me the easter bunny does not exist. Sorry, the burden of proof is to establish the existence of something.
BTW: I'm done and god didn't kill me. Thats proof that there is no god.
I live in new england, Massachusetts, the next town over from Boston. It gets below zero (F) in the winter, and gets above 100 (F) in the summer. It rains a lot. It has heat waves.
For all those people who live in places where the climates are warm all year round, this is what you get. In the north east, creatures that live here deserve to live here. Most foreign insects and alien species either die in the cold of the winter or in the heat of the summer. Drown in the spring rain or die from the dryness of summer.
Maybe we need to ensure that ships doc at ports with hostile environments to the last port of call. Ships coming from the Caribbean must doc in Maine. Ships coming from Norway must doc in Texas. This will ensure that the environment prevents them taking hold.
Evolution is an observable fact, no doubt. But why is it that often people dismiss intelligent design in light of evolution?
Evolution is a process which does not require a god or an overruling intelligence. The introduction of any such entity negates the functioning of the mechanism. The introduction of any god into a scientific process means that experimentation, knowledge, and the ability to understand the process is negated because "god" can change the rules at any moment. It therefor goes from "science" to "faith," and "faith" in a god is not science.
Use of the existence of evolution therefore can't be used as proof/disproof of a god.
This is true from the view point of the scientist, but not the theists. You require proof of a god before you will believe, but you believe there is no god without proof of such.
There is a subtle difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe in god." I do not believe in god for the same reasons I do not believe in mother goose, santa clause, the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.
How can you dismiss the feelings of a person who has had a religious experience based on 5 senses alone? What form of mental illness makes you stronger? Would you say that someone who devotes their life to believing in Zeus and doing his work is sane?
I am color blind, will you please explain to me what the color "green" looks like?
This is a subjective question. You can even theorize that green looks differently to other people based on how their brain processes the signals. The point it that "green light" has physical properties that can be tested. It is not metaphysical.
There is supposedly a place called Antarctica. Have you seen, smelled, touched, tasted or heard it first hand?
There could be a place called antarctica, I've seen satellite pictures of it. I've seen maps drawn of it. There is proof of it. Do I believe it exists? I'm pretty confident of the verifiable proof that it exists, I'll accept that it does. If it turns out that there is proof that it does not exist I will evaluate the evidence and draw my own conclusions. There is no verifiable proof of god. There is no logical argument that can be put forth that any one god is any more likely than any other god. I'll accept there is a god when there is verifiable proof, not one second sooner.
Hopefully I've made my point. God may or may not exist or be needed. No one knows with certainty. No, you haven't made the point. You have taken a number of misconceptions and failed analogies to try to interject some sort of "reasonable doubt" where there is none.
To accept that anything exists, you need verifiable proof. Period.
Do not confuse "truth" with "fact." 1 + 1 = 2 (where one is an integer in a numbering system greater than or equal to base 3) is a fact. To some, 42 is a truth.
I do not care for this type of willful parroting of propaganda. There is so much false information being spread by the christians that it is disgraceful. I will not debate the "false authority" fallacy.
The "Intelligent Design" nonsense just pisses me off too, bogus logic and willfully constructed nonsense intended to sound reasonable unless you carefully deconstruct the lie. The "swiss watch" is a perfect example and perhaps a useful analogy. It is an example of the shortcomings of ID and their methods of obscuring evolution.
Do you think that the first clock maker envisioned your swiss watch? Do you think the maker of the first "pocket watch" envisioned your swiss watch? Do you think there was any sort of overriding intelligence that guided the watches development?
No, of course not, each step was one small improvement over the last. From sun dial to swiss watch, time keeping evolved much like creatures do. A random improvement that works and is kept, one that doesn't and is lost. There was no design plan to go from sun dial to swiss watch.
Looking at a switch watch today, it is a miraculous invention and hard to believe it came from lesser forms. Using knowledge of history and mechanics, metallurgy, manufacturing processes, etc. you can easily trace the progress from sun dial to watch and understand the progression. It didn't just show up on the beach in one step. It took centuries to get to that point.
Same goes for evolution. Small little creatures fighting to survive. Normal variation and random mutation create changes, some die quickly, some don't have what is needed to survive and reproduce. Some changes don't make a difference, some do. Changes that aid in survival and/or reproduction, get carried on to the next generation. For thousands (millions) of years the game is played. Species roam, separate, drift genetically, some recombine, some separate entirely, and so on and so on.
Having been married twice and the parent of two children, I assure you that "love" is not a "thing" that exists like a rock or a blade of grass that can be proved. The feeling of love is a an emotion, as produced by various glands within your body. The "act" of physical love is another hormonal drive that alters your brain chemistry and pushes you to the act of procreation. The long term love of a parent or partner is work and dedication based on many mutual needs and goals.
There is no proof that "love" exists because it doesn't in a physical sense, it is merely a convenient definition that we use to describe "real" behavioral phenomenon.
You didn't prove that you have love for other people like I asked.
You didn't define what love is. It is a pretty subjective topic and varies from one person to another.
You can prove some types of love that are based on the involuntary biological responses, and you can use a CAT scan to verify that the response are coming from the correct portions of the brain and not being faked. So there, one can prove love within a limited definition of word.
I asked you to prove that your mother loves you.
LOL, I can't. and insofar as historical precedent does not guarantee future behavior, who knows. It is a foolish strawman anyway. It assumes that "love" is something metaphysical, like religion, and it is not. Personal liaisons are a evolutionary sociological necessity that have allowed the species to thrive. Humans are a pack species.
If you could "prove" romantic love and if you had some way to verify that it would last beyond the initial biochemical stage, you would put divorce lawyers out of business.
Having been married twice and the parent of two children, I assure you that "love" is not a "thing" that exists like a rock or a blade of grass. The feeling of love is a an emotion, as produced by various glands within your body. The "act" of physical love is another hormonal drive that alters your brain chemistry and pushes you to the act of procreation. The long term love of a parent or partner is work and dedication based on many mutual needs and goals.
Any argument I or anybody else brings up as to the existence of God will not be provable externally.
Prove "Love." that's actually a pretty easy discussion to have. There are a few types of love:
(1) The biochemical attraction, easily provable, and observable. (2) There is the sociological affinity that people feel for one another. Also provable by the way people behave around one and another. (3) Long term love of a parent or committed spouse/partner, easily provable based on behavior.
Your learning in your first few years of college has made you the jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none.
Faith based assumptions about who I am or what I've done? I can assure you, almost every part of that sentence contains factual errors.
Your problem is that your set of senses and feelings are currently not tuned to detect things which are hoped for but not seen. I don't think this makes you irrational, but it still makes you ignorant.
I will admit, I am ignorant of those things which can not be proved or not based in fact. I purposefully ignore them because they are nonsene, i.e. not real.
I'm not going to quote your post because it can be summed up by two things, first was: were "great thinkers" who were religious wrong?
Well, you lose on that one as Einstein was not religious and he personally refuted anyone who tries to assert his religiousness in an argument. This leads me to believe you are only parroting those things you have been told without verifying their factual accuracy.
The second is the spontaneous watch nonsense. Standing on one end of a random occurrence or the result of untold random occurrences, or in the case of evolution, untold random occurrences with the feedback of Darwinian survival of the fittest, it is easy to say "someone must have created this." But god is an unnecessary component and manufactured by ignorance.
Teacher presents evolution as truth. Child/student/whoever seems skeptical. Child/student/whoever is made out to be an idiot for not accepting the "truth."
Correction: the process of evolution is a fact. It has been observed and documented.
Did man evolve from a lesser life form? The current and overwhelmingly researched and documented scientific evidence is yes.
On the balance:
(1) Man evolving to what he is today, very well documented and fits all the available facts and observable world around us.
(2) Man created by an unproved deity or intelligence that goes against facts and observable world around us.
Umm, I choose #1, thank you very much. Do I "believe" it? No, I accept it as the most plausible interpretation of the facts and which has yet to be proved incorrect by any other theory or experimentation.
I find myself astonished that since I happen to be a practicing Christian, I am therefore weak and stupid.
As a person who is supposed to be educated, let me ask you a question:
Why is the christian god any more of a real god than the greek god Zeus? Why is the "flying spaghetti monster" any less omnipotent than Je'sus?
When you can answer the questions definitively with accurate facts, I will consider you less silly and less weak.
Nonsensical magic thinking is the last barrier to the advancement of mankind. If we allow ourselves to succumb to it, yet again, we will never survive the "wink of an eye" existence that we have enjoyed. The earth will just be a macrocosm of easter island where warring factions destroyed their environment fighting over the validity of their myths.
God, the easter bunny, santa clause, zeus, et. al. have historical significance, but that does not mean that they are fact.
Why Jesus? Why not Zeus? Zeus was a "real" god longer than Jesus was. Why not Oedin? Why not Thor? Why not Appolo?
lol. It is foolish to believe one myth over another.
Give me a reason why one god is more real than another, until that time I leave you with a quote:
"I submit that we are all atheists, I just believe in in one fewer gods than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."
I just inferred that your over-hyped five senses aren't going to do you a lot of good.
How so?
don't think you're horizons are as open as you pretend them to be.
Typical. Accuse someone who demands proof and reason as being closed minded. Its funny, really. I am open to any and all reasonable arguments, but I require the facts to be accurate and the conclusions based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Economy is an attribute different from quality, and this is where engineering comes in. The engineer has to balance the various demands on quality against factors like cost, time to market, and customer demands. All your arguments are perfectly valid, and they are engineering decisions.
When all is said and done, the manufactured "code quality" debate doesn't make sense. You can't evaluate code in an abstract, applying a set of rules that are logically separated from purpose of the code. I won't say that there isn't merit to some of those things you claim are important, but the only truly valid measure for code quality is that it "works," and I'll add a clarification, and does what it is intended to do.
On a professional level, I dislike the sorts of books that claim to define code quality and tend to think the authors should shut up and do a decade more coding for a living, run some more projects, and be a CTO for a while.
Evaluating software, and engineers in general as well, is a harder than you try to make it seem. Engineering has artistic components in it where idealistic goals as defined by your "code quality" chart is attractive, but it is also a form of scientific grunt work where most of those things don't make sense. Sort of the difference between painting the mona lisa vs painting a house. Both are painting, both are valid and useful, but there is a lot more "house painting" in the industry than mono lisas.
The absolute worst part of critiques like yours is the ideas it gives pin headed MBAs who bungee jump into engineering departments, book in hand, with no practical experience. The ideas spouted by the book become the drive, not the product. It is an almost certainty the project will be dreadfully late or never finished.
I am past much of that in my career, and can easily dispense with such idiots, and that is why most of my projects the last decade have been mostly on time, on budget, without long days and weekends, and mostly without drama. The norm, however, in the industry is a tale of disaster and waste.
You can say that if the code is functional, reliable, usable, efficient, maintainable, and portable, then it is of high quality.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is too much concern over stuff that does not always matter.
I agree "functional" and "reliable" are absolutely important.
"efficient?" Only if efficiency is required or of any concern. How efficient is efficient? It is a balance of efficiency against economy.
"Maintainable?" Sure, most of the time, but not always. Sometimes we toss stuff on purpose. Some good code can be written that is near to impossible to maintain. Some code sacrifices maintainability for performance.
"Portable?" There is little sense in making some code portable. PIC software, for instance, can not be good "PIC" code and portable because the PIC is such an insane type of device.
I think your cute little chart is all well and good for a common segment of software development, but it is hardly an absolute and puts too much emphasis on an arbitrary set of criteria that don't reflect the purpose or economy of software code.
I don't consider any of the two examples quality code.
A philosophical point, if I may. What is the purpose of code?
I think the problem is that many engineers think that code should fit some form of aesthetic that is really irrelevant for the purpose. So far, the attributes that people use for judging software code quality and productivity have almost nothing to do with what the actual code does or how it works.
Algorithms are hard to quantify unless you know about algorithms. Code "hardness," or the ability to resist bogus input is hard to measure without testing, code flexibility -- the ability for it to be adapted to various tasks is impossible to measure without using it.
I submit to you that there is no valid test of code quality that can be done without "using" working code.
I may have been too terse and simplistic in my statement, "if it works - its good code," but that is a much better measure than anything else so far.
Is it good code simply as function of its survival and (sort of) working?
"sort" of working is not "working."
exists a 6000 line SQL statement that no one understands
This is "bad" code because it needs to be fixed and no one can do it.
Surely you wouldn't define good architecture as "a building that remains standing,"
I'm pretty sure that is one of the prime criterion for a good building.
Your post ignores the "works" aspect of the rule. "Works" is subtly different than "functions." "Works" implies more than merely functioning.
Sorry, I've been in the business for over 25 years and had to hear one pin head after another spout about code quality or productivity. Its all subjective at best.
The worst looking piece of spaghetti code could have fewer bugs, be more efficient, and be easier to maintain than the most modular object oriented code.
What is the "real" measure of quality or productivity? Is it LOC? No. Is it overall structure? no. Is it the number of "globals?" maybe not.
The only real measure of code is the pure and simple darwinian test of survival. If it lasts and works, its good code. If it is constantly being rewritten or is tossed, it is bad code.
I currently HATE (with a passion) the current interpretation of the bridge design pattern so popular these days. Yea, it means well, but it fails in implementation by making implementation harder and increasing the LOC benchmark. The core idea is correct, but it has been taken to absurd levels.
I have code that is over 15 years old, almost untouched, and still being used in programs today. Is it pretty? Not always. Is it "object oriented" conceptually, yes, but not necessarily. Think the "fopen,"fread," file operations. Conceptually, the FILE pointer is an object, but it is a pure C convention.
In summation:
Code that works -- good.
Code that does not -- bad.
Cheap laptops are a dime a dozen, but use them to make a statement.
Install Ubuntu or some other Linux system on them. Make sure they are configured and work. Try them out in several wifi sites like Starbucks or what ever.
Make SURE THEY WORK!!! Make sure they surf, can get email, word process, etc.
Make a small booklet of your configuration options and user passwords, etc. Make sure they have no personal data on them. Leave them, booklet, power supply, etc. in a public library with a note that says "Free and enjoy."
Sorry, Negroponte you've sold your soul. You've sold out your once inspiring dream.
Sorry, this is the pure outrage: You fucking suck.
We believed, we helped, YOU SUCK.
I find it tiring that when debating theists, it is always a tedious semantic debate trying to bend or extend the meanings of words and never a clear discussion of ideas, but wading through a field traps based on purposeful and/or willful disregard for the actual and intended meaning of what the other has said.
You've made the logical jump that god can change the rules at any moment. If god created the rules, is it necessarily true that god can change them?
This is that stupid debate, "can god create something so heavy he can't lift it?" One presumes that if there were such a thing as a god that created the universe that it would probably be able to change the rules by which it was created.
If you do not subscribe to the statement "I believe there is no god" then do you concede that god could exist? As to the question of existence, those two statements are the same.
Do you "believe that there is no easter bunny" or simply "do not believe in the easter bunny?" Let me help you out, any question pertaining to "god" can have the term "god" replaced with "easter bunny" and would make just as much logical sense.
A religious person is mentally ill?
I think so, yes. It fits the bill. If a person were to fly a plane into a building for the "easter bunny," we'd call that person insane. If a person attended church services every week for the "easter bunny" we'd call that person insane.
Because god can not possibly be proved/disproved at this point
Neither can the "easter bunny," and I don't see people killing over that.
any question as to its existence is a subjective one.
Only in as much as the existence of the "easter bunny" is subjective.
Is evidence the same as proof?
Evidence is part of proof and, no, I'm not going to debate the finer details of the semantics of it.
You still have not defined what exactly would constitute verifiable proof.
LOL, real physical evidence that unambiguously proves existence. Oh, I don't know, show up in central park, NY, and smite some businessmen would be a good start. Show us a miracle or two. The water into wine trick would be helpful some nighs, certainly save some money. As long as its good wine, but, being good, one presumes he has good taste. Or how about this: Save some fucking people from the disasters he supposedly has control over RATHER than helping one guy named Je'sus beat the crap out of another guy named Je'sus in the boxing ring. Seriously, this is all nonsense.
Here is proof: God, kill me right now, before I can finish this post to prove you exist! If I finish this post, god does not exist. That's my proof.
To accept that something certainly does not exist, I need the same verifiable proof.
OK, prove to me the easter bunny does not exist. Sorry, the burden of proof is to establish the existence of something.
BTW: I'm done and god didn't kill me. Thats proof that there is no god.
Really? Modded down? Are you kidding me?
Here we have a perfectly reasonable proposal that would help a whole segment of the industry and it has a snow balls chance in hell.
The UNIX wars never stopped, BTW, it is just that major components under Linux have been independently developed.
The flow of dialog was more specification
"New England" -> Massachusetts -> the next town over from Boston.
I live in new england, Massachusetts, the next town over from Boston. It gets below zero (F) in the winter, and gets above 100 (F) in the summer. It rains a lot. It has heat waves.
For all those people who live in places where the climates are warm all year round, this is what you get. In the north east, creatures that live here deserve to live here. Most foreign insects and alien species either die in the cold of the winter or in the heat of the summer. Drown in the spring rain or die from the dryness of summer.
Maybe we need to ensure that ships doc at ports with hostile environments to the last port of call. Ships coming from the Caribbean must doc in Maine. Ships coming from Norway must doc in Texas. This will ensure that the environment prevents them taking hold.
Evolution is an observable fact, no doubt. But why is it that often people dismiss intelligent design in light of evolution?
Evolution is a process which does not require a god or an overruling intelligence. The introduction of any such entity negates the functioning of the mechanism. The introduction of any god into a scientific process means that experimentation, knowledge, and the ability to understand the process is negated because "god" can change the rules at any moment. It therefor goes from "science" to "faith," and "faith" in a god is not science.
Use of the existence of evolution therefore can't be used as proof/disproof of a god.
This is true from the view point of the scientist, but not the theists.
You require proof of a god before you will believe, but you believe there is no god without proof of such.
There is a subtle difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe in god." I do not believe in god for the same reasons I do not believe in mother goose, santa clause, the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.
How can you dismiss the feelings of a person who has had a religious experience based on 5 senses alone?
What form of mental illness makes you stronger? Would you say that someone who devotes their life to believing in Zeus and doing his work is sane?
I am color blind, will you please explain to me what the color "green" looks like?
This is a subjective question. You can even theorize that green looks differently to other people based on how their brain processes the signals. The point it that "green light" has physical properties that can be tested. It is not metaphysical.
There is supposedly a place called Antarctica. Have you seen, smelled, touched, tasted or heard it first hand?
There could be a place called antarctica, I've seen satellite pictures of it. I've seen maps drawn of it. There is proof of it. Do I believe it exists? I'm pretty confident of the verifiable proof that it exists, I'll accept that it does. If it turns out that there is proof that it does not exist I will evaluate the evidence and draw my own conclusions. There is no verifiable proof of god. There is no logical argument that can be put forth that any one god is any more likely than any other god. I'll accept there is a god when there is verifiable proof, not one second sooner.
Hopefully I've made my point. God may or may not exist or be needed. No one knows with certainty.
No, you haven't made the point. You have taken a number of misconceptions and failed analogies to try to interject some sort of "reasonable doubt" where there is none.
To accept that anything exists, you need verifiable proof. Period.
Truth is by definition (I believe) universal.
Do not confuse "truth" with "fact." 1 + 1 = 2 (where one is an integer in a numbering system greater than or equal to base 3) is a fact. To some, 42 is a truth.
I concede on Einstein.
I do not care for this type of willful parroting of propaganda. There is so much false information being spread by the christians that it is disgraceful. I will not debate the "false authority" fallacy.
The "Intelligent Design" nonsense just pisses me off too, bogus logic and willfully constructed nonsense intended to sound reasonable unless you carefully deconstruct the lie. The "swiss watch" is a perfect example and perhaps a useful analogy. It is an example of the shortcomings of ID and their methods of obscuring evolution.
Do you think that the first clock maker envisioned your swiss watch? Do you think the maker of the first "pocket watch" envisioned your swiss watch? Do you think there was any sort of overriding intelligence that guided the watches development?
No, of course not, each step was one small improvement over the last. From sun dial to swiss watch, time keeping evolved much like creatures do. A random improvement that works and is kept, one that doesn't and is lost. There was no design plan to go from sun dial to swiss watch.
Looking at a switch watch today, it is a miraculous invention and hard to believe it came from lesser forms. Using knowledge of history and mechanics, metallurgy, manufacturing processes, etc. you can easily trace the progress from sun dial to watch and understand the progression. It didn't just show up on the beach in one step. It took centuries to get to that point.
Same goes for evolution. Small little creatures fighting to survive. Normal variation and random mutation create changes, some die quickly, some don't have what is needed to survive and reproduce. Some changes don't make a difference, some do. Changes that aid in survival and/or reproduction, get carried on to the next generation. For thousands (millions) of years the game is played. Species roam, separate, drift genetically, some recombine, some separate entirely, and so on and so on.
No god is needed.
Wow -- can you read English?
Yes.
Let me translate for you: I did not say there would not be proof. In other words there will be proof
So far, so good.
he goes on to say that it might not be proof that you could experience with your five senses
Then that isn't really proof now is it?
If, of course, you can believe your senses.
The "matrix" argument is a strawman.
You've described love, but not proved it.
Having been married twice and the parent of two children, I assure you that "love" is not a "thing" that exists like a rock or a blade of grass that can be proved. The feeling of love is a an emotion, as produced by various glands within your body. The "act" of physical love is another hormonal drive that alters your brain chemistry and pushes you to the act of procreation. The long term love of a parent or partner is work and dedication based on many mutual needs and goals.
There is no proof that "love" exists because it doesn't in a physical sense, it is merely a convenient definition that we use to describe "real" behavioral phenomenon.
You didn't prove that you have love for other people like I asked.
You didn't define what love is. It is a pretty subjective topic and varies from one person to another.
You can prove some types of love that are based on the involuntary biological responses, and you can use a CAT scan to verify that the response are coming from the correct portions of the brain and not being faked. So there, one can prove love within a limited definition of word.
I asked you to prove that your mother loves you.
LOL, I can't. and insofar as historical precedent does not guarantee future behavior, who knows. It is a foolish strawman anyway. It assumes that "love" is something metaphysical, like religion, and it is not. Personal liaisons are a evolutionary sociological necessity that have allowed the species to thrive. Humans are a pack species.
If you could "prove" romantic love and if you had some way to verify that it would last beyond the initial biochemical stage, you would put divorce lawyers out of business.
Having been married twice and the parent of two children, I assure you that "love" is not a "thing" that exists like a rock or a blade of grass. The feeling of love is a an emotion, as produced by various glands within your body. The "act" of physical love is another hormonal drive that alters your brain chemistry and pushes you to the act of procreation. The long term love of a parent or partner is work and dedication based on many mutual needs and goals.
Any argument I or anybody else brings up as to the existence of God will not be provable externally.
Then it isn't an argument, it is a myth.
Prove "Love." that's actually a pretty easy discussion to have. There are a few types of love:
(1) The biochemical attraction, easily provable, and observable.
(2) There is the sociological affinity that people feel for one another. Also provable by the way people behave around one and another.
(3) Long term love of a parent or committed spouse/partner, easily provable based on behavior.
Your learning in your first few years of college has made you the jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none.
Faith based assumptions about who I am or what I've done? I can assure you, almost every part of that sentence contains factual errors.
Your problem is that your set of senses and feelings are currently not tuned to detect things which are hoped for but not seen. I don't think this makes you irrational, but it still makes you ignorant.
I will admit, I am ignorant of those things which can not be proved or not based in fact. I purposefully ignore them because they are nonsene, i.e. not real.
I'm not going to quote your post because it can be summed up by two things, first was: were "great thinkers" who were religious wrong?
Well, you lose on that one as Einstein was not religious and he personally refuted anyone who tries to assert his religiousness in an argument. This leads me to believe you are only parroting those things you have been told without verifying their factual accuracy.
The second is the spontaneous watch nonsense. Standing on one end of a random occurrence or the result of untold random occurrences, or in the case of evolution, untold random occurrences with the feedback of Darwinian survival of the fittest, it is easy to say "someone must have created this." But god is an unnecessary component and manufactured by ignorance.
Teacher presents evolution as truth. Child/student/whoever seems skeptical. Child/student/whoever is made out to be an idiot for not accepting the "truth."
Correction: the process of evolution is a fact. It has been observed and documented.
Did man evolve from a lesser life form? The current and overwhelmingly researched and documented scientific evidence is yes.
On the balance:
(1) Man evolving to what he is today, very well documented and fits all the available facts and observable world around us.
(2) Man created by an unproved deity or intelligence that goes against facts and observable world around us.
Umm, I choose #1, thank you very much. Do I "believe" it? No, I accept it as the most plausible interpretation of the facts and which has yet to be proved incorrect by any other theory or experimentation.
I find myself astonished that since I happen to be a practicing Christian, I am therefore weak and stupid.
As a person who is supposed to be educated, let me ask you a question:
Why is the christian god any more of a real god than the greek god Zeus? Why is the "flying spaghetti monster" any less omnipotent than Je'sus?
When you can answer the questions definitively with accurate facts, I will consider you less silly and less weak.
Nonsensical magic thinking is the last barrier to the advancement of mankind. If we allow ourselves to succumb to it, yet again, we will never survive the "wink of an eye" existence that we have enjoyed. The earth will just be a macrocosm of easter island where warring factions destroyed their environment fighting over the validity of their myths.
God, the easter bunny, santa clause, zeus, et. al. have historical significance, but that does not mean that they are fact.
Why Jesus? Why not Zeus? Zeus was a "real" god longer than Jesus was. Why not Oedin? Why not Thor? Why not Appolo?
lol. It is foolish to believe one myth over another.
Give me a reason why one god is more real than another, until that time I leave you with a quote:
"I submit that we are all atheists, I just believe in in one fewer gods than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."
I didn't say there wouldn't be proof.
Then I don't need to believe. Cool.
I just inferred that your over-hyped five senses aren't going to do you a lot of good.
How so?
don't think you're horizons are as open as you pretend them to be.
Typical. Accuse someone who demands proof and reason as being closed minded. Its funny, really. I am open to any and all reasonable arguments, but I require the facts to be accurate and the conclusions based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts.
"God" does not fit the criteria.