Search results

Some replies to the points you have made: - Whether or not something is trendy has little, if any, bearing on whether or not it is true. - Speaking about darwin you confuse biological meaning with more personal social meanings. Biologically we may have the function of propogating our...

If you tend towards "I've come to know what I perceive to be god" then I have no qualms. If you choose to pit hope and love against reason in order to oppose infinite resignation then all I can say is that I respect your ability to take that position (that of the 'knight of faith' it would...

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be externally agnostic whilst internally holding the conception of god close to your heart as a source of love and comfort. You say you "know god" but then you say that the existence of god is external to, which I take to mean independent...

I'm going to assume that you're coming from the angle of Kierkegaard but I feel I should ask: what do you mean by the phrase 'infinite resignation'?

You say that the only true application of the rule 'something is true when I believe it to be so' is in the statement 'cogito, ergo sum'. However you say that "Through intuitive belief I claim to know God". This is an application of that rule. It is only through the strength of your intuitive...

You're arriving at contradiction. You claim to adhere to logic, but at the same time you admit that which flies in the face of conventional logic (you're not adhering to logic if you require a logical proof of the validity of logic). I'm not sure that you can have your cake and eat it too when...

That seems similar to requiring algebraic proof for the validity of algebra. If you don't adhere to logic in the first place, why would a logical proof of logic carry any weight for you?

Mu.

I think the basic precepts of classical logic are too ingrained in the way our mind operates for us to reject it. We use basic logic everyday in order to make inferences about the world (in particular 'If A then B'... 'A is true'...'therefore B'). I believe that we make use of this kind of basic...

You miss part of the issue by looking at the level of countries/economies - we have an earth that we all share and it would appear that it is unable to support our population the way we are living and growing. A declining population is a good thing, for the environment, anywhere in the world...

Certainly, I agree that scientific theories can't be conclusively established. However, I do think that we can, with relative confidence, provisionally accept those which consistantly make correct predictions and yield significant results. When you refer to Geneva I assume you're talking...

I take it you've given up on the other argument then? I think it's a mistake to dismiss quantum mechanics as a load of crap. It makes succesful predictions with what is quite possibly an unprecedented degree of accuracy. It has been used succesfully to create and explain things like the electron...

Given the relatively low amount of folate in vegemite (about 20 micrograms/gram) and assuming that the American vegemite market isn't very large I can't see why it should be such a big deal. Some of the potential risks which seem to concern the US department of health are outlined here (under...

Another Quote: "In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called...

Food for thought (quote I dug up): There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they...

You are essentially correct in your first paragraph but you miss the point in the second. IF my other four assumptions are correct then god cannot exist. I make no claim to to tune of 'god does not exist, not matter what'. All I say is that you can't accept my premises and at the same time...

A couple things: 1. A lack of proof for some proposition 'X' does not imply 'not X'. In fact, you could prove that it is impossible to construct a proof of god's existence and you still would not have proven that god does not exist. This is not too distant from Godel's Incompletness Theorem...

On Pascal's Wager: He doesn't seem to take into account enough of the possible negative outcomes of religious belief (I posted a while go on the danger of false belief). However, I suppose one could argue that on average the value gained from belief is greater. In any case, I simply can't agree...

Yes you can, it's called proof by contradiction. You assume 'P' and then show that P leads to contradiction, making P false. I take the assumption that 'there exists a creator' and show how it leads to a contradiction, implying that a creator cannot exist. My proof (if you can call it that... it...

I reckon you can, however the axioms are likely to be somewhat controversial. Suppose I broke down a previous post of mine (where I put forth a 'god does not exist' argument) into psuedo-axioms: Ax. 1 If something is the creator then initially it must have been all that existed. (Cx -> Ax)...