Re: Praying man let his daughter die

On Aug 6, 2:35 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:38 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6 Aug, 01:07, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 5, 6:43 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Aug 5, 3:46 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 5, 8:36 pm, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And I will not be dragged into your black and white view of the world
which is not only  all to familiar to the more unpleasant religions,
but also hampering scientific inquiry,
bullshit liar. scientific inquiry is based on the idea that there *is*
some answer out there that we can get. your bullshit thinking is
nothing more than a pitiful justification to keep superstition around.
So you do not consider mathematics science, even though it deals with
objects that exists in ways different from tables? I would say taht
this does indeed hamper scientific inquiry. As did the people who
objected against Newton that his invisible force able to act over vast
distances was "occult" and introducing illegitimate objects onto
science
if you can *demonstrate* it, then its science. so when are you going
to *demonstrate* that any gods exist? come on, im waiting.
And where did I claim that it is scientific?
if its not scientific, then stop claiming god created the universe.
I claimed that where exactly?

that is what theists claim. werent you paying attention? francis
collins certainly claims it.

So I'm Francis Collins in your opinion? (See "you" in your statement)
And_all_theists claim this? That woudl come as a surprise to many
outside Christianity

what exactly *is* god responsible for, if not creating the universe?
the second you answer the question, you have jumped into the domain of
science. and *all* theists do answer the question.


how the universe formed is a matter for science to decide.
yes?

if its not scientific, then stop letting francis collins assert that a
virgin gave birth due to a deity's power.
Shoudl I also burn the witch, or is ripping out the tongue so that he
can't assert it any loger enough?

you could vocally state that he is not fit to lead the NIH.

Sure, as  soon as I burned some other evil theistsfor what they
personally think. Its keeping em so busy these days

who said anything about burning? see, there you go again, with your
bullshit comparisons to violence that none of the "new atheists" ever
calls for. YOU are the one talking about hurting people. WE just want
our science leaders to be committed to science.


whether or not virgins give> birth is a matter for science to decide.

whether or not a specific virgin that you can scientifically test gave
birth is indeed a mater for science

wrong! ALL virgins are natural objects.

Sure. And nontheless limitations on out available methods restrict us to
make statements on the range of natural things tat exist.

then why do theists make statements beyond this? why are you not
telling them to stop? why are you not telling them how irrational they
are behaving? why are you not pointing out that when they do this,
they are being anti-scientific, and should not be put in charge of
scientific administrations?




stop trying to have it both ways here. if god is merely some silly
opinion, then he didnt create the universe or perform any miracles. if
he did create the universe or does perform miracles, then it is not
the distant theological concept you keep referring to, but a very real
being accessible to science.
Rather a false dichotomy it seems to me

and yet you cant present a third option. if god acts in detectable
ways, then science has something to say about him. if he doesnt, then
virtually all theists are full of shit and overstepping their bounds.

no answer.. have you given up your claim of a false dichotomy?


 where e.g.  the question "do
numbers exists and what does this mean for doing set theory" is quite
relevant and interesting.
no, they are neither, and nobody "studies" these topics.
Ah, the argument from ignorance. You mean: I don't know anybody who
does. Not quite the same.
you can try for starters:
Harty Field: "Which Undecidable Mathematical Sentences Have
Determinate Truth Values?", in H. Garth Dales and Gianluigi Oliveri,
ed., Truth in Mathematics (Oxford University Press 1998), pp. 291-310
not an example of what you said.
It is a study of whether numbers exists,
no liar, it isnt.
Well, last time I spoke with him about it, he seemed to think so, but
that is some time ago. Maybe you'd like to give your take on it? The
way the paper is normally discussed is like this: if a mathematical
sentence is undecidable, then you can prove that it depends on the
choice of axioms if you can derive them or not. So if they have
nonetheless a determinate truth value, that seems to indicate that
numbers exit independently from their axiomatic characterization, a
conclusion, Cantor, Goedel, Maddy and Blau are indeed drawing. Field,
in a very subtle and interesting way, disagrees.

undecidability of a theorem has nothing to do with whether or not
numbers "exist."

You have read the paper, haven't you? It asks if a theorem can _both_ be
undecidable _and_ have a determinate truth value. The title is sort of a
giveaway. Now for many, like Brouwer, the answer is  no because numbers
do not exist, or at least not exists independently fromtheir axiomatic
characterisation.  For those like Goedel and Cantor, who argued that
numbers do exist, the answer is equally clearly yes - since numbers
exist, it does not matter if our knowledge about them (the theorems we
can prove about them) has limitations. Field says: "well, actually, it
depends on the theorem" which is quite interesting and depends on his
idea, developed in the other book tat I cited, what numbers really are
(and hence what it means ot say that they "exists")

in other words, none of this has dick-all to do with how
mathematicians do math, just like i said. this paper hasnt studied the
existence of numbers at all, but rather what people thought about
them. and those people didnt study the matter either - they made up an
answer because it felt good to them.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Praying man let his daughter die
    ... but also hampering scientific inquiry, ... So you do not consider mathematics science, ... then stop claiming god created the universe. ... Determinate Truth Values?", in H. Garth Dales and Gianluigi Oliveri, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Praying man let his daughter die
    ... but also hampering scientific inquiry, ... So you do not consider mathematics science, ... then stop claiming god created the universe. ... Determinate Truth Values?", in H. Garth Dales and Gianluigi Oliveri, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Praying man let his daughter die
    ... but also hampering scientific inquiry, ... So you do not consider mathematics science, ... ed., Truth in Mathematics, pp. 291-310 ... is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Praying man let his daughter die
    ... but also hampering scientific inquiry, ... So you do not consider mathematics science, ... ed., Truth in Mathematics, pp. 291-310 ... is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Imagination is the Most Important Scientific Instrument!
    ... Your attempts to merge science, mathematics, and religion are ... 'emergent system properties. ... Restating that definition in terms of ....life, the universe ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)