YES YOU DO ...that is a convergent series.
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ..... etc leads to a whole number, 1 to be exact!
Interesting discussion can be had on what makes us believe, and it's bound not to end in that there actually IS something, but some sort of evolutionary adaption that casues us to create, or need, or require, religion.3/4 of survey respondents believing
YES YOU DO ...that is a convergent series.
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ..... etc leads to a whole number, 1 to be exact!
Source pleaseNo Spooly it converges on 1 - never actually gets there.
Source please
Try this experiment .... Punch yourself in the nose and see if it never actually gets there.
I said see......you said it would never quite get there.Ouch! Why did you tell me to do that???!!! That really hurt - I thought you said it would never get there.
Happy nowCouldnt you find a picture of the series without the 1 in it?
I said see......you said it would never quite get there.
Happy now
What's the last number in your series?
This is great! I love it when I get flagellated -
Excuse me? Did you say "facts" How interesting. Which facts would these be Jono? Why is it that your "facts" if they are so clear and decisive as to prove the existance of your imaginary friend are not believed by 2/3 rds of the rest of us. Or do we simply the lack your insight? Cough*indoctrination* cough.which is what you are doing, not what I am doing. So because I am trying to explain what facts point to there being a God even in the face of 3/4 of survey respondents believing otherwise, I am making myself look like a jerk??
Of course this is where we differ greatly. You think religion is a subjective topic and I think it is an absolute one. Subjective difference of opinion would be me saying that the market has bottomed and you saying no I think it still has more to go down. Absolute is me saying "The sky is blue" and you saying "No it's pink with purple spots." "Just look up it's blue" "No Sorry you're wrong, it's pink with purple spots I have the facts" "Look if you just examine the evidence in front of you and look up you can see I'm not making it up. the sky really is blue" "Pink and Purple!!" "Why don't you just look up?" "no no I'm happy staring at my belly button"I hope that ASFers don't think that people holding alternative opinions, beliefs, etc to them think that they are jerks. I certainly don't think you are a jerk, just that you think differently to me
I try not to leadeth you into temptationOk ok, turning your words around was a bit trite, but I couldn't help myself.
Fact? hey there's that word again without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Fact and belief are different. I may believe that an invisible pink Unicorn named Betsy skates around my house. My belief is independant of the facts. Now I'm sure you've heard your Mommy say something along these lines. "If 33% of the worlds population named johnny decided to jump off a bridge, do you think that is a good idea? Peer pressure as an argument? Ahuh yeah that's a convincing argument. Here have some heroin all the cool kids are doing it.Fact is there are plenty more people in the world that believe in a supernatural creator than that don't, so I'm not sure that I am projecting.
And if you say that 50 million times you'll REALLY believe it. Of course it could also mean that all those people believe something that is independant of the facts. But hey hand over the dessicated Tiger penis as a cure for a flagging libido will you. A Billion Chinese people can't be wrong, surely there must be something in it. **** now I did the trite thing.Surely there must be something in it. And no I'm not trying to convince myself here, just pointing out the stats.
No first cause is a gap and a logical trap. Because was was the cause of the first cause? Oh darn. What was the cause of the first cause that caused the first cause? Blast. Who caused the first cause that caused the first cause and caused the first cause? Damn I think I have too many causes there. If all that flew by a little fast, go think about it for a while, I mean seriously, how can a first cause just appear? DARN IT that damn trite thing again.And the infinite sequences thing was just pointing out that as you divide a sequence up into more and more pieces, eg the classic half way to the door scenario, you never quite get there. And yes, FIRST CAUSE is a valid argument - if there was a big bang, what caused it? And if you want to propose multiple universes, then where did the mechanism for creating the multiple universes appear from. I mean seriously, how can a universe just appear? How can one believe that it was simply "nature"? Or chance?
Wait so you read about ERV's and THAT was the question you came up with? Hmm, Well if you look at ALL viruses where do you think they come from? Surely a benevolent and loving imaginary friend wouldn't create Aid's right. I mean what a vindictive sod if he did right?Yeah I had a look at ERVs - very interesting. Where did the ERVs come from though?
So yep, I'm filling my gap with ... hang on... it starts with G... yep, God. Sorry if I've disappointed Sir O
No first cause is a gap and a logical trap. Because was was the cause of the first cause? Oh darn. What was the cause of the first cause that caused the first cause? Blast. Who caused the first cause that caused the first cause and caused the first cause? Damn I think I have too many causes there. If all that flew by a little fast, go think about it for a while, I mean seriously, how can a first cause just appear? DARN IT that damn trite thing again.
Damn that's good!! If it wasn't my anniversary and I didn't have to go and have dinner with my beautiful wife I would respond right now - as it is you'll have to wait.
Hang on, can't resist - I didn't say anything about proving the existence of God, just that facts point to there being a God, eg the existence of DNA. And don't tell me some ERV made DNA
jeez ..you want a postcard too?:
Short answer below.
My last post on this off topic discussion.
How about emergent?There are two possible modes of existence for any given entity...dependent (contingent or caused) or independent (non-contingent or uncaused).
Why?Not everything can be dependent.
Nice assumption. Of course as you've said...it's untestable, so why is there an absolute in that statement? An "entity" (which evokes a consciousness and directive intelligence) must exist? You sure? You ABSOLUTELY sure? Coz you'd need to prove that and how exactly were you planning on proving that when you can't test for it?The fact that even one dependent entity exists requires a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the set of all dependent entities. Ergo, some independent entity must exist.
That's some good babble their tradesim, but as I said to Jono... what caused the uncaused first cause? I mean what caused the cause of the uncaused first cause? Son-o-va-logical-trap.This need not imply a god. It simply recognizes that at the end of the chain exists an uncaused first cause that grounds the existence of all contingent entities.
It's much nicer all round when all sides admit that every worldview ultimately rests on untestable assumptions. The polemics are ugly and only exacerbate the problems of this world, rather than progressing solutions.
I'm sorry. I thought that if you considered yourself sufficiently versed to debate philosophy you'd know the language.Wow Tradesim did you swallow a dictionary?
It reduces to 'dependent' - prior conditions are necessary for an emergent state of affairs to come about.How about emergent?
Umm. Basic philosophy. If everything is dependent then no necessary and sufficient conditions exist to ground even one dependent entity let alone a vast set of them.Why?
A conclusion is not an assumption. A conclusion is true if the argument is logically sound and the premises true.Nice assumption. Of course as you've said...it's untestable,
Once again, I'm sorry, I thought you were versed in standard philosophical semantics given your absolute surety regarding your beliefs about first cause. An entity exists where some property obtains for a referent. Or, to put that a little more simply - Y exists because some positive property about Y exists. eg. "the apple" is an entity because all of the properties that belong to "apple-ness" belong to the object sitting on my bench. It does not imply consciousness or directive intelligence. Of course, if you believe the first cause must be intelligent that may go some distance in explaining why you so strenuously reject it.An "entity" (which evokes a consciousness and directive intelligence) must exist?
You seem confused about a number of things here. I said all worldviews rest ultimately on untestable assumptions. Try researching Descarte's demon or the brains-in-vats problem. Try thinking about the self-referential nature of logical first principles. Contemplate the inescapability of physical laws in this universe for minds that belong to this universe in order to externally examine this world. In short, do some study on epistemology.You sure? You ABSOLUTELY sure? Coz you'd need to prove that and how exactly were you planning on proving that when you can't test for it?
Ummm....think about what you've said. "What caused the uncaused first cause?"That's some good babble their tradesim, but as I said to Jono... what caused the uncaused first cause? I mean what caused the cause of the uncaused first cause? Son-o-va-logical-trap.
I admit nothing!! NOTHING!! I tells ya. I'm sure I can test the worldview of a young earth creationist just fine.
It's much nicer all round when all sides admit that every worldview ultimately rests on untestable assumptions. The polemics are ugly and only exacerbate the problems of this world, rather than progressing solutions.
No need to apologise!Sorry, but the series is infinite, therefore has no end.
I believe in God, not because God has stood in front of me, but because I believe it is correct based on what I read, feel, learn.
I dare say neither can be disproven and we can only prove it within ourselves.
PS. Sir Osisofliver, you seem to be making arguments without any real facts or knowledge of religion.
Don't worry on my part Tradesim. I can keep up OK, of course simplification and examples always help with communication rather than complexity and jargon.I'm sorry. I thought that if you considered yourself sufficiently versed to debate philosophy you'd know the language.
Wow sounds so simple and so logical. Of course if emergence were an intrinsic characteristic of energy, matter, dark matter and all the other wonderful bits that make up the universe yet to be found, does this remove the need for independence?It reduces to 'dependent' - prior conditions are necessary for an emergent state of affairs to come about.
Let me continue to challenge this tradesim. How can we make that statement with any surety? How do we know that conditions for emergence didn't exist? Define "Conditions" Is it matter, sub atomic particles exotic energy states or some form of energy we are currently unaware of perhaps? It's such a simple thing to say that before there was anything there was nothing. So some "thing" must be outside of "everything" to cause everything to happen. And yet where did this "thing" (call it an entity if you must) emerge from itself? How can it be "uncaused"? How did the entity emerge with no prior conditions for it's emergence? It's infinity +1 and to make any absolute statements along the lines of "before everything there was nothing and whatever entity caused everything" is flawed. This is the trap that the bible bashers and God Botherers leap onto and claim direction and intelligence for. I'm quite happy to say I don't know because it's the only true position to hold.Umm. Basic philosophy. If everything is dependent then no necessary and sufficient conditions exist to ground even one dependent entity let alone a vast set of them.
the assumption is that an entity must exist. You assume that before everything there was nothing and whatever caused everything.A conclusion is not an assumption. A conclusion is true if the argument is logically sound and the premises true.
No I challange the standard philosophical semantics and as for absolute surety... I'm absolutely sure I don't need an imaginary friend.Once again, I'm sorry, I thought you were versed in standard philosophical semantics given your absolute surety regarding your beliefs about first cause.
It's not that I believe first cause as you put it is intelligent, that's the BS that the God botherers propaganda machine puts out. Sorry I arced up about the use of the word entity, to me it still evokes a personalityAn entity exists where some property obtains for a referent. Or, to put that a little more simply - Y exists because some positive property about Y exists. eg. "the apple" is an entity because all of the properties that belong to "apple-ness" belong to the object sitting on my bench. It does not imply consciousness or directive intelligence. Of course, if you believe the first cause must be intelligent that may go some distance in explaining why you so strenuously reject it.
Heh I think it's funny that above, to paraphrase Descarte, I've asked you to throw out your barrel of apples and get go of your preconceived idea structure of "basic philosophy" eh?You seem confused about a number of things here. I said all worldviews rest ultimately on untestable assumptions. Try researching Descarte's demon or the brains-in-vats problem. Try thinking about the self-referential nature of logical first principles. Contemplate the inescapability of physical laws in this universe for minds that belong to this universe in order to externally examine this world. In short, do some study on epistemology.
yep i've thought about it..have you? infinity +1Ummm....think about what you've said. "What caused the uncaused first cause?"
No doubt you could. But you probably need to put a little more thought into some of your own views as well. Intellectual humility is called for on all our parts.
Untestable assumptions? Could you expand a little on this?(I have assumed'assumptions' and 'hypothesis' to carry the same meaning)
And on the polemics ( Googled it) of evolution, the theory did not evolve to dispute or disprove anything. It's simply a stand alone theory which explains the mechanics of direct empirical evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?