Christian missionaries in Cambodia
-
- I Fap to 440
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 4952
- Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:39 am
Kill them all & let THEIR God sort it out. Just an atheists point of view.
- Orichá
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 70
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:20 pm
- Location: unknown
eriksank wrote:Your argument sounds a bit like what Immanuel Kant wrote about the ideas of the "ancient Greeks" (Aristotle, of course) in his Critique of Pure Reason: time and space are just figments of the mind. This view was relatively popular until Einstein successfully proposed his general relativity theory (GR), in which in the field equations for gravity, the curvature of time-space appears. Nowadays, it is possible to test the GR with repeatable experiments in large particle accelerators. In other words, the concept of time-space is no longer something to be discussed in a merely philosophical debate. You now need to conduct repeatable experiments for statements about time-space, which others should be able to repeat and verify for counterexamples......... .........The claim that an actual infinite cannot exist, is a mathematical statement. In order to refute it, you need to provide a counterexample to David Hilbert's Grand Hotel paradox.Orichá wrote: Meaning simply that we presume the whole process of time, universe, space, what-have-you -- as being bounded and grounded by the "beginning of time"... It is not necessary to fall prey to such indelicate precepts... They are not principles, but merely PERceptions...
Have you ever wondered why, when you look in a mirror, that you are not seeing yourself as you actually are, but instead, are seeing the left as right and the right as left? Well, if nothing else, one might come to this very simple conclusion: that the factual existence of the reverse image in the mirror before your eyes, and the constituent physical explanation for the reversal, must prove that the external world is real: that it exists genuinely outside of your body. If, on the other hand, when you looked into the mirror, and saw, instead, the left as left and the right as right, you would not be able to prove or conclude that what you were seeing was genuinely "outside your imagination." (Now, I am proposing this while leaving out all of the niggling little details about explaining "how the mirror works" physcially, so to speak...) But here is my point: we can easily establish by physical/mechanical proof that we are individuated beings living in a very physical universe all around us. We know we are mid-sized organisms somewhere along the span between the micro and the macrocosmic scale... So, I do not think it fair to accuse me or Kant of solipsism. I personally do not believe anything in the universe is the figment of our imagination, God's imagination -- or any other embodied beings' imaginations. In fact, suggesting that I or Kant are solipsists may be revealing of your innate prejudice: that perhaps you may be suffering from the effects of being unable to solve a more profound philosophical quandry -- that you cannot fathom how I imagine that the universe, both living and inanimate, can be, seemingly without cause... As we know, Stephen Hawking recently shocked everyone by simply saying that there is nothing inconsistent if we propose an enigmatic answer to the creation of the universe, which was something to the effect: the moment before the big bang, there was nothing at all, and that the universe arose from nothingness. I would not want to agree with this, not because I cannot understand how it is physically or mathematically possible to demonstrate the mechanics of such a physical enigma, but because I do not think it possible for something to arrive from nothing. There ought to be some connection, mechanical -- ie, temporal, spatial, like a dimensional loophole that accounts for the sudden advent of a new universe, apparently, from nothing. At the same time, this sudden advent of a new universe need not be a causal event, but rather conceived of (or explained by) a continuous eventfulness that has no external break or connectivity to it... Like the snake eating its tail or the Slinky model I proposed above in an earlier post...
[BTW The "new" matter and energy that arises from each big bang gels (cools) into a particular distribution of elements (ie.: in our universe 's hydrogen 73.?%, helium 23.9%, 1% oxygen, 0.4 carbon etc, etc.... while here on Earth, the proportions we have are significantly different: oxygen comprises 47% of the earth's mass, silicon 28%, aluminum 8%, iron 5%, magnesium 2%, calcium 4%, sodium 3%, and potassium 3%; all remaining elements on Earth together make up less than 1%... Had there been a larger, or smaller, (hotter or colder) big bang, the distribution of elements and their abundance would have been different, and we would could possible have some interim middle weight elements, along with some additional heavier elements that do not exist in the manifestation of this particular universe.]
Anyway, I am not a solipsist: my concept of perceptions is that they correspond to real things in the external world. And that said, I do not think it inconsistent to propose that the universe must necessarily have a cause, and that it must necessarily be finite. Perhaps some intimate relationship exists between the non-causal nature of reality and its potentially infinite qualities, and that is what I may be interested to investigate further...
One question I would like to ask, since I see Erik that you are very knowledgeable about mathematics, and I am not: could you recommend any seminal work, or works, which discuss(es) the relationship, philosophically and mathematically, between the enmattered universe and our mathematical expressions (and discoveries) of that physical reality? Because... One of my greatest fascinations is about how the discovery of mathematics tended to mirror/parallel our understanding of physical reality. Obviously, while mathematics began as a purely intellectual operation, it also may be added that mathematics began as a spin-off from geometry, which obviously arose from perceptual intuitions about the external world around us... (ie.: draw a line in the sand; draw another line in the sand; make a cube from wood, etc...) Today, math is used in close correspondence with, and approximation to, the explanation/description of specific mechanical transformations and the constituent parts of physical reality, whether these be chemical or sub-atomic... Who has more to say on this topic? Thanks...
( Anyway, for now, I guess that I must begin with a study of the Grand Hotel paradox in order to examine or dismantle my own theory / presumptions, etc... )
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
...Hannah Arendt
...Hannah Arendt
- Orichá
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 70
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:20 pm
- Location: unknown
Please note, I corrected a few grammatical errors, Erik, a few minutes after the first posting...
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
...Hannah Arendt
...Hannah Arendt
In certain ways, that's all there is: the idea that the universe has a cause and is finite is non-contradictory. The universe arising from nothing is also non-contradictory. Some people will say: and therefore it is true. That would be one bridge too far, however.Orichá wrote:As we know, Stephen Hawking recently shocked everyone by simply saying that there is nothing inconsistent if we propose an enigmatic answer to the creation of the universe, which was something to the effect: the moment before the big bang, there was nothing at all, and that the universe arose from nothingness. At the same time, this sudden advent of a new universe need not be a causal event ... And that said, I do not think it inconsistent to propose that the universe must necessarily have a cause, and that it must necessarily be finite.
It is called the Theory of Everything. To cut a long story short, the ToE cannot possibly be developed. Gödel's incompleteness theorems make that impossible.Orichá wrote:Could you recommend any seminal work, or works, which discuss(es) the relationship, philosophically and mathematically, between the enmattered universe and our mathematical expressions (and discoveries) of that physical reality?
Freeman Dyson has stated that “Gödel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. [...] Because of Gödel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them.” Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable. “Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.
In fact, the problem posed by the ToE is the same as the one in David Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem. The answer is the Church-Turing thesis in which they prove, using Gödel's incompleteness theorems, that the problem is undecidable. In other words, there are mathematical limits to what we could ever know.
Firstly no one is suggesting that correlation implies causality, of course it doesn't, the study merely demonstrates an association and poses three possible reasons. No where does it claim that being religious is the cause of lower intelligence, or that higher intelligence causes one to become an atheist!eriksank wrote:Correlation does not imply causationMèo Đen wrote:The relation between intelligence and religiosity...means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs
This is part of a general problem with social "sciences". The general problem is that they are not science. You see, the scientific method mandates experiments in which one controls the inputs and then measures the outputs.
Secondly are you effectively telling me that epidemiology and biostats are not science, and that much of established medical research is not "science" as it investigates association. Of course once strong associations have been established the next step of investigating causality is much more complex and involves dealing with the "third variable"problem, finding and controlling for confounders, then using inferential statistics to demonstrate causality with a high degree of probability. One way is to design a prospective study as in the case demonstrating that smoking causes lung cancer.
Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors BMJ. 2004 Jun 26; 328(7455)
Objective To compare the hazards of cigarette smoking in men who formed their habits at different periods, and the extent of the reduction in risk when cigarette smoking is stopped at different ages.
Design Prospective study that has continued from 1951 to 2001.
Setting United Kingdom.
Participants 34 439 male British doctors. Information about their smoking habits was obtained in 1951, and periodically thereafter; cause specific mortality was monitored for 50 years.
Main outcome measures Overall mortality by smoking habit, considering separately men born in different periods.
Results The excess mortality associated with smoking chiefly involved vascular, neoplastic, and respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking. Men born in 1900-1930 who smoked only cigarettes and continued smoking died on average about 10 years younger than lifelong non-smokers. Cessation at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 years gained, respectively, about 3, 6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy. The excess mortality associated with cigarette smoking was less for men born in the 19th century and was greatest for men born in the 1920s. The cigarette smoker versus non-smoker probabilities of dying in middle age (35-69) were 42% ν 24% (a twofold death rate ratio) for those born in 1900-1909, but were 43% ν 15% (a threefold death rate ratio) for those born in the 1920s. At older ages, the cigarette smoker versus non-smoker probabilities of surviving from age 70 to 90 were 10% ν 12% at the death rates of the 1950s (that is, among men born around the 1870s) but were 7% ν 33% (again a threefold death rate ratio) at the death rates of the 1990s (that is, among men born around the 1910s).
Conclusion A substantial progressive decrease in the mortality rates among non-smokers over the past half century (due to prevention and improved treatment of disease) has been wholly outweighed, among cigarette smokers, by a progressive increase in the smoker ν non-smoker death rate ratio due to earlier and more intensive use of cigarettes. Among the men born around 1920, prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates, but cessation at age 50 halved the hazard, and cessation at age 30 avoided almost all of it.
- Orichá
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 70
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:20 pm
- Location: unknown
LET me edit my reply as below...
Anyway, it doesn't matter since we don't know enough about the extent and workings of the universe, or its history and future...
Sorry to be confusing, I will take a holiday now... See you next week...
Let us just DELETE that last sentence in red above, shall we? (Because it confuses my own opinion -- which is in sympathy with a non-causal, infinite universe...) ...Because although I think it could be true that "the idea that the universe has a cause and is finite is non-contradictory," as you write, I do not think there is a necessary cause or finitude; and ultimately, I don't believe that this could be true: "The universe arising from nothing is also non-contradictory."eriksank wrote:Orichá wrote:As we know, Stephen Hawking recently shocked everyone by simply saying that there is nothing inconsistent if we propose an enigmatic answer to the creation of the universe, which was something to the effect: the moment before the big bang, there was nothing at all, and that the universe arose from nothingness. At the same time, this sudden advent of a new universe need not be a causal event ... And that said, I do not think it inconsistent to propose that the universe must necessarily have a cause, and that it must necessarily be finite.
Anyway, it doesn't matter since we don't know enough about the extent and workings of the universe, or its history and future...
Sorry to be confusing, I will take a holiday now... See you next week...
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
...Hannah Arendt
...Hannah Arendt
They know that they have to conduct clinical trials or come up with similar experimental setups. Otherwise, their report with "associations" will be rejected. If they cannot reasonably demonstrate that they can control the input variable -- allegedly causing variations in the output variable -- it is not science. Since it is very much possible to control the smoking input variable and verify what it does in terms of the lung cancer output variable, obtaining scientific results in that field is indeed not necessarily excluded.Mèo Đen wrote:Secondly are you effectively telling me that epidemiology and biostats are not science, and that much of established medical research is not "science" as it investigates association. Of course once strong associations have been established the next step of investigating causality is much more complex and involves dealing with the "third variable"problem, finding and controlling for confounders, then using inferential statistics to demonstrate causality with a high degree of probability. One way is to design a prospective study as in the case demonstrating that smoking causes lung cancer.
But the phrAse "son of God" in Hebrew or Aramaic does not refer to a biological relationship at all. In the absence of adjectives it is means of stating the essence of something ie it is the same as saying "X is divine" . Which of course is what Jesus' hearers understood him to mean and what enraged them so much. In the same way the phrase "son of man" means "human". Eriksank obviously knows nothing of language to try and interpret a Semitic idiom as though it were an English phrase.
There is nothing more Australian than spending time in somebody else's country
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
ErikSank is a tedious reductionist.
Science is evolving, in a remarkable self-parallel. The Big Data revolution has already changed much of the old paradigm. Now we find statistical relationships via having access to enormous volumes of information and then try to understand why that's the case rather than the old hypothesis-proof-repeat method he keeps droning on about, for example. But do keep telling us about how things used to be. And, of course, eschew brevity in favour of bloviating bullshit as we are just SO impressed by your ability to obfuscate through blather.
Science is evolving, in a remarkable self-parallel. The Big Data revolution has already changed much of the old paradigm. Now we find statistical relationships via having access to enormous volumes of information and then try to understand why that's the case rather than the old hypothesis-proof-repeat method he keeps droning on about, for example. But do keep telling us about how things used to be. And, of course, eschew brevity in favour of bloviating bullshit as we are just SO impressed by your ability to obfuscate through blather.
A man cannot be divine. Only God, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth is divine. The phrase "son of God" simply constitutes abuse of terminology. Therefore, I stick to the same conclusion as in Koran, Surat Al-'An`ām, 6:101, [God is] the Creator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He has no wife?Spad wrote:But the phrAse "son of God" in Hebrew or Aramaic does not refer to a biological relationship at all. In the absence of adjectives it is means of stating the essence of something ie it is the same as saying "X is divine" . Which of course is what Jesus' hearers understood him to mean and what enraged them so much. In the same way the phrase "son of man" means "human". Eriksank obviously knows nothing of language to try and interpret a Semitic idiom as though it were an English phrase.
Staring at things and then conjecturing about them, has indeed never been and will never be science. Correlation is not causation. You cannot discover causality by merely staring at things. That is why the existing anti-alchemy policies in science forbid classifying correlation as science. No matter how often people like you request exemptions from the existing rules, such exemptions will NEVER be granted.Jacked Camry wrote:Now we find statistical relationships via having access to enormous volumes of information and then try to understand why that's the case ...
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Cambodian Buddhist-Christian delegation meets pope
by Bong Burgundy » Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:54 am » in Cambodia News - 1 Replies
- 397 Views
-
Last post by ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ
Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:24 am
-
-
-
Immigration checks, Cambodia begins using "Foreigner Presence in Cambodia" system to track foreigners
by Bong Burgundy » Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:11 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 13 Replies
- 16044 Views
-
Last post by telescopic
Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:21 am
-
-
- 97 Replies
- 24568 Views
-
Last post by ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ
Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:07 pm
-
- 52 Replies
- 16953 Views
-
Last post by TheRaven
Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:58 pm
-
-
How many of you are still in Cambodia?
by MarkinAston » Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:02 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 29 Replies
- 9753 Views
-
Last post by MarkinAston
Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:09 pm
-