Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115668 Jun 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
But for brain diseased funditarted godbots, we would still live in caves in fear of lightening .
Enlightenment and divinity are on a curve, they curve away from each other.
I'd rather be that then a closed minded, angry, dingbat like you who is afraid of what other people believe.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115669 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, it wasn't a proposition that Z is the largest number, it was the definition.
<quoted text>
It is a proposed definition (unless you found it sprouting somewhere in the universe naturally).
polymath257 wrote:
Not only logic. I tis *one* criterion, but not the only. You still need information for the logic to work upon.
<quoted text>
Any input will do: X, God, Almighty, Poly....

When you say "information" you make it sound as if it has to have regularity and structure; however, all it requires is a single input of whatever nature.

It makes no difference whether you say:

If the spaghetti monster can be eaten by human beings; it will be afraid to tour the streets of China.
OR

If asghasd jghasdgidsjhgsdafnsdajifne can be aiusdfgeauigaeu; it will be asfkjdsaff to ahfbf the asdklfhdsf of akjfhsejfbweuf.
polymath257 wrote:
yes, in fact, it does. In fact, it is the falsity of that conclusion that is one way of showing no such Z exists.
<quoted text>

Ok.

Obviously Z cannot be less than nor greater than Z; Z will always equal Z, or else it cannot equal anything else.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"]
The 'Truth' is not a single statement. Since only statements can be proven or disproven, there is no way to prove 'the Truth'. On the other hand, if we start with true statements and use logic, we will obtain true statements.
Oh yeah?

But truth is a single concept; wanna guess what it is?

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#115670 Jun 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> WRONG!
God if any , gave man the ability to formulate his science, you see science is man's invention and it is his own.. Do not and it really pisses me off when you try to credit god
FOR OUR ACHIEVEMENTS. Man created science by his ability alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =r6w2M50_XdkXX&feature=kp
WRONG??? Really!!!! So all the laws of the universe, all the elements etc etc that are used in science are man made? Didn't think so!!!!!! God (so to speak)made all that and mans brain(even though yours seems tiny) along with the ability to learn and in doing so He made science possible. Everything for science has always been there, it just took man time to figure it out.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115671 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No I dont.
Thats where your understanding falls short.
If X causes green-ness in Y, green Ys contain X.
Then the implication is that WHENEVER or WHEREVER or AT THE POINT WHERE, Y causes green-ness in X, Ys WILL contain X.
THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY DEMONSTRATES TRANSCENDENCE.
Therefore it is possible to arrive at accuracy by direct equation or by directly equating.
But it doesnt seem that equity is on your street, so it doesnt surprise me if you dont know about it.
You make a couple of basic logical errors here.

First, you assume that *only* X causes green-ness in Y. If other things can also cause green-ness in Y, then it is possible that green Y's don't have X, but do have one of those other things.

Second, if the conclusion you want to draw is that there is *actually* X in green Y, then you need to prove the assertion that X does, in fact, cause green-ness in Y.

Third, even the limited claim statement that 'if X causes green-ness of Y, then that green Y will contain X' is also false. For example, it is quite possible that exposure to carbon dioxide will cause Y to change colors and become green and yet that green Y's do not have any carbon dioxide (because it was used up in the reaction causing the green-ness).

So at each and every logical step, you make a basic mistake in logic.

Finally, in your 'conclusion'(which was not proved) that the principle of equality proves transcendence, you have the problem that it only proves something under another unproven assumption. You cannot actually conclude that green Y's contain X, only that *if* X is the only cause of green Y's, then any green Y will have an X as a cause. But that it a tautology and is useless to actually conclude the existence of an X, even if there is a green Y. You still need to prove the causality statement.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115672 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that the tendency of things to go towards an equilibrium supports the claim that there is something in control over everything? Exactly how does that follow logically?
Yes.

Logically:

1. the very first thing would have be eternal;
2. that which is eternal must demonstrate equality at all points (never changing) as it is equality which determines continuity.
3. The first thing, the eternal would either been the cause of all other things after it, or it would allow all things to come after it.

4. All things that exist along with the eternal MUST conform to equality, the primary attribute of the eternal since it caused them and/or allowed them (they cannot be contrary to its nature and coexist with it).
5. Logic is determined by equality of thought.

Hence it can be concluded logically that equality, the tendency of all things to move towards equilibrium; is evidence or demonstrates or suggests the existence of an almighty.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115673 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
A lie for a lie and a truth for a truth.
If I am suggesting that God is creator and god possesses almighty power/potential; then how the Sam Hill could he suggest that God is electricity?!!!!???!!
I wish I told him... electricity is really the manifestation of a supernatural.
IF YOU WANT TO ASK OR TELL ME SOMETHING, DO IT DIRECTLY: DO NOT INVOLVE YOURSELF WHEN I AM NOT ADDRESSING YOU DIRECTLY.
Deal with it. Putting a fan in front of you so the smoke blows back in your face.
Are you suggesting to me that you are not seeing a direct relationship between "creator" and "almighty"?
No, neither necessarily implies the other. For example, a creator, even of the universe, need not be *all* powerful (or almighty), just powerful enough to create a universe. There may be specifics about the universe that are beyond control or other things besides creating universes that can't be done by the creator.

Conversely, being almighty doesn't imply being the creator of the universe. it is possible that an almighty being delegated the responsibility to a lesser being who did the actual creating.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So the definition that people have of God which convinces or ALLOWS YOU TO BELIEVE in God (under that definition) is void of logic?
<quoted text>
Oh.
In that case I am not surprised.
LOL!
Would you say that defining God to be an apple on my table is void of logic?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115674 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Logically:
1. the very first thing would have be eternal;
Two aspects:
a) prove there was a first thing.
b) prove it must be eternal.
Neither claim has been shown.
2. that which is eternal must demonstrate equality at all points (never changing) as it is equality which determines continuity.
Not sure why you think that equality determines continuity, or what that has to do with whether something is eternal. Seems to me that something *could* potentially be eternal and continuously changing (and hence not equal at any point).
3. The first thing, the eternal would either been the cause of all other things after it, or it would allow all things to come after it.
Only if you mean 'allow' in the sense of 'not preventing'.
4. All things that exist along with the eternal MUST conform to equality, the primary attribute of the eternal since it caused them and/or allowed them (they cannot be contrary to its nature and coexist with it).
The phrase 'conform to equality' is meaningless as far as I can see. Also, to be 'contrary to its nature' means simply 'having different properties' and that does NOT contradict coexistence.
5. Logic is determined by equality of thought.
Nope. Logic is determined by whether the conclusions follow from the assumptions via formal rules. Specifically, the formal rules of logic.
Hence it can be concluded logically that equality, the tendency of all things to move towards equilibrium; is evidence or demonstrates or suggests the existence of an almighty.
Flapdoodle. Nothing you have said follows necessarily from anything else. Plus you have no proof that there *was* a 'first thing', that it had to be 'eternal'(please define what you mean here--if time is finite, is time still eternal?), or that an eternal thing has to be unchanging, or that even if you assume an unchanging, eternal, first thing, that it had to be 'in control' of everything.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115675 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_the Hand of God wrote:

If X causes green-ness in Y, green Ys contain X.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...First, you assume that *ONLY* X causes green-ness in Y.
Liar!

And even if I did, the implication could be that I am speculating or proposing THAT AT THE POINT WHERE ONLY X CAUSES GREEN-NESS...
polymath257 wrote:
If other things can also cause green-ness in Y, then it is possible that green Y's don't have X, but do have one of those other things.
Duh.
polymath257 wrote:
Second, if the conclusion you want to draw is that there is *actually* X in green Y, then you need to prove the assertion that X does, in fact, cause green-ness in Y.
NO.

I dont need to prove it any more than I need to prove that X=M or 1+2=3.
polymath257 wrote:
Third, even the limited claim statement that 'if X causes green-ness of Y, then that green Y will contain X' is also false. For example, it is quite possible that exposure to carbon dioxide will cause Y to change colors and become green and yet that green Y's do not have any carbon dioxide (because it was used up in the reaction causing the green-ness).
That is superfluous the the reasoning!

The concern is WHENEVER X causes green-ness in Y.

THAT IS WHY *YOOOOUR* LOGIC IS UNRELIABLE; YOU ASSUME WHERE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ASSUME.
polymath257 wrote:
So at each and every logical step, you make a basic mistake in logic.
Finally, in your 'conclusion'(which was not proved) that the principle of equality proves transcendence, you have the problem that it only proves something under another unproven assumption. You cannot actually conclude that green Y's contain X, only that *if* X is the only cause of green Y's, then any green Y will have an X as a cause. But that it a tautology and is useless to actually conclude the existence of an X, even if there is a green Y. You still need to prove the causality statement.
And what happened when you awoke from that dream?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115676 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
1. the very first thing would have be eternal;
I'd like to state that I specifically deny this implication.
2. that which is eternal must demonstrate equality at all points (never changing) as it is equality which determines continuity.
As well as this one: for exmaple soemthing that cycles could be eternal but changing.
3. The first thing, the eternal would either been the cause of all other things after it, or it would allow all things to come after it.
How do you know there was only one 'first thing'(as opposed to many things appearing at the same time?).
4. All things that exist along with the eternal MUST conform to equality, the primary attribute of the eternal since it caused them and/or allowed them (they cannot be contrary to its nature and coexist with it).
This is where you fall off the deep end. The previous was wrong, but this is simply non-sense.
5. Logic is determined by equality of thought.
Clearly wrong.
Hence it can be concluded logically that equality, the tendency of all things to move towards equilibrium; is evidence or demonstrates or suggests the existence of an almighty.
Failure at every step.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115677 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Logically:
1. the very first thing would have be eternal;
2. that which is eternal must demonstrate equality at all points (never changing) as it is equality which determines continuity.
3. The first thing, the eternal would either been the cause of all other things after it, or it would allow all things to come after it.
4. All things that exist along with the eternal MUST conform to equality, the primary attribute of the eternal since it caused them and/or allowed them (they cannot be contrary to its nature and coexist with it).
5. Logic is determined by equality of thought.
Hence it can be concluded logically that equality, the tendency of all things to move towards equilibrium; is evidence or demonstrates or suggests the existence of an almighty.
Five (+) baseless assertions on your part, that d NOT equal the existence of a Supernatural Deity.

That being said, there is no objective evidence either FOR or AGAINST the possibility of such a Being. If it is your personal contention that God (in whatever description you assign Him/Her/It) DOES exist, it is not my place to contest your belief.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115678 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...No, neither necessarily implies the other. For example, a creator, even of the universe, need not be *all* powerful (or almighty), just powerful enough to create a universe.
Even in that case, would that creator not demonstrate "total control" (almighty power) over the universe, since it determined what the universe is and is not..?
polymath257 wrote:
There may be specifics about the universe that are beyond control or other things besides creating universes that can't be done by the creator.
Then at that point, he/it wouldnt be the TRUE creator would he/it?

Wouldnt the true creator more likely to be the one who is on charge of that limited creator and all he/it has created?
polymath257 wrote:
Conversely, being almighty doesn't imply being the creator of the universe. it is possible that an almighty being delegated the responsibility to a lesser being who did the actual creating.
<quoted text>
So at that point, who is the true creator?
polymath257 wrote:
Would you say that defining God to be an apple on my table is void of logic?
Define "apple".

LOL!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115679 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
HOG_the Hand of God wrote:
If X causes green-ness in Y, green Ys contain X.
<quoted text>
Liar!
And even if I did, the implication could be that I am speculating or proposing THAT AT THE POINT WHERE ONLY X CAUSES GREEN-NESS...
<quoted text>
Duh.
<quoted text>
NO.
I dont need to prove it any more than I need to prove that X=M or 1+2=3.
yes, you do if you wan tto prove the existence of X.
<quoted text>
That is superfluous the the reasoning!
The concern is WHENEVER X causes green-ness in Y.
THAT IS WHY *YOOOOUR* LOGIC IS UNRELIABLE; YOU ASSUME WHERE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ASSUME.
Let's do a bit of formal logic, shall we?

Let P(X,Y,Z) be the statement 'X causes Z in Y'.

Let Q(X,Y) be the statement that 'X is contained in Y'.

Let R(Y,Z) be the statement that 'Y has property Z'.

When you say 'whenever X causes Z in Y, then X is contained in Y with property Z', you are making the claim:

For all X, Y, and Z, if P(X,Y,Z)==>(R(Y,Z)==>Q(X ,Y)).

This is equivalent to

For all X, Y, Z, if P(X,Y,Z) & R(Y,Z)==>Q(X,Y).

Now, you want to prove

For all Y, Z, R(Y,Z)==> there exists X such that Q(X,Y).

But this is a failed conclusion from your assertion. It simply does not follow logically.
And what happened when you awoke from that dream?
Sorry, but that is how *actual* logic works.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115680 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
..
a) prove there was a first thing...
Ok.

This is what leads me to smoke and swear and all kinds of... etc etc.

Prove that you are rational, after asking that question.

If there was no first thing; did all of this, the universe always exist?

And if it always existed, wouldnt it be eternal?

Is the eternal something which was never created nor destroyed (i.e. never changes)?

And if the universe is eternal, WOULDNT IT, THE UNIVERSE BE THE FIRST THING?

I expect better from you, though I'm not sure why.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115681 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to state that I specifically deny this implication.
<quoted text>
Duh.

You would have to think logically to find it acceptable.
polymath257 wrote:
As well as this one: for exmaple soemthing that cycles could be eternal but changing.
<quoted text>
But since a cycle returns to where it began, the change is confined, and thus it is meaningless to identify it a true change.
polymath257 wrote:
How do you know there was only one 'first thing'(as opposed to many things appearing at the same time?).
<quoted text>
The reasoning is concerned with THE POINT WHERE there is only one first thing.
Hence that question is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if there are more than one first thing, it wouldnt be possible to distinguish between them

Because they are equally connected by the equality inherent in that which is eternal.
polymath257 wrote:
This is where you fall off the deep end. The previous was wrong, but this is simply non-sense.
<quoted text>
If you based that conclusion on the assumption that the previous was wrong; the conclusion is false.
polymath257 wrote:
Clearly wrong.
<quoted text>
Failure at every step.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#115682 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No I dont.
Thats where your understanding falls short.
If X causes green-ness in Y, green Ys contain X.
Then the implication is that WHENEVER or WHEREVER or AT THE POINT WHERE, Y causes green-ness in X, Ys WILL contain X.
THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY DEMONSTRATES TRANSCENDENCE.
Therefore it is possible to arrive at accuracy by direct equation or by directly equating.
But it doesnt seem that equity is on your street, so it doesnt surprise me if you dont know about it.
That's what I love about Christards, they can talk themselves into believing anything.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115683 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, you do if you wan tto prove the existence of X.
<quoted text>
Let's do a bit of formal logic, shall we?
Let P(X,Y,Z) be the statement 'X causes Z in Y'.
Let Q(X,Y) be the statement that 'X is contained in Y'.
Let R(Y,Z) be the statement that 'Y has property Z'.
When you say 'whenever X causes Z in Y, then X is contained in Y with property Z', you are making the claim:
For all X, Y, and Z, if P(X,Y,Z)==>(R(Y,Z)==>Q(X ,Y)).
This is equivalent to
For all X, Y, Z, if P(X,Y,Z) & R(Y,Z)==>Q(X,Y).
Now, you want to prove
For all Y, Z, R(Y,Z)==> there exists X such that Q(X,Y).
But this is a failed conclusion from your assertion. It simply does not follow logically.
<quoted text>
Sorry, but that is how *actual* logic works.
NO!

Thats how polyogic works.

Firstly in reasoning and logic:

We never multiply entities without necessity.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

...Let P(X,Y,Z) be the statement 'X causes Z in Y'.
Let Q(X,Y) be the statement that 'X is contained in Y'.
Let R(Y,Z) be the statement that 'Y has property Z'....
There is no need for ME to go beyond if X casues Y, then Z.

It is ONLY a direct relationship defined by a direct equality that man can be absolutely confident.

So I keep it short and simple, because truth is most simple.

It is what it is.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#115685 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So if you dont know what "God" is; how will you know whether or not the evidence I present to you is relevant or valid?
<quoted text>
So in other words you have no clue whatsoever?
And you are merely resisting because... you like it?
The main reason we don't know whether your evidence is relevant or valid is that you have offered none.

I can't imagine someone of your apparent ability would come up with evidence so radical and earth shaking that it couldn't be recognized for what it is.

*unzips fly and puts out Hog's smoke*

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#115686 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
What would be the LOGICAL implications of that?
Oh, I forgot, it is evidence you are concerned with; not logic nor reason.
But the conclusion or fact which has no logic or is unreasonable has no value; regardless of the evidence presented.
<quoted text>
You have effectively demonstrated it.
Good job.
Evidence, logic and reason would all be great. When do you think you will be providing any of those?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#115687 Jun 24, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd rather be that then a closed minded, angry, dingbat like you who is afraid of what other people believe.
I'm only angry when you say god gave me what I alone worked real hard to achieve. But don't mistake this as personal, I get angry because you believe it wasn't your own success, but a gift from an imaginary deity. You deserve the dredit for what you worked for, it wasn't a gift. You can thank god for life, but what you did with it , and I mean in it's entirety .....is entirely credited to you.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#115688 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You decide.
Dont you have access to a dictionary?
Cant you read?
Sure he can. We all can. We can read your posts bereft of logic, reason and evidence. You go around in circles faster than Jeff Gordon.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 min -Kevin- 20,493
Topix is boring (Jun '13) 7 min Petal Power 31
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Times are a Changing 147,184
Goodbye Princess Hey 12 min Petal Power 53
the good old days ..... 13 min Crazy Jae 21
last word - first (Jun '12) 15 min pedal prowess 6,944
I Like..... (Mar '14) 15 min ms_Sweeter 323
What's your tip for the day? 3 hr liam cul8r 1,062
Plunging into Crocodile Pond: Thai-Style Suicide 3 hr Spotted Girl 6
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 hr SimplyLoveYou 36,489
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••