Churchwork,
This will be my shortest post yet, because I honestly dont think I can say anymore.
Essentially, in all of your short little posts, you werent able to answer my questions. Instead, of answering my questions, you said I worshipped Satan, which is a non-answer.
When I asked my questions specifically dealing with your calculation of sin, you didnt provide any maths at all, only asserted more boldly "its exponential progression", without understanding that exponential progression does not necessarily yield infinity. You objected that I was talking about math, but you were talking about causes and effects, which you then apparently tried to imply that I was changing the subject and not arguing about your step 1 at all... but I dont know why you say that, although I suspect you're disagreeing with me only for the sake of disagreeing with me, while being completely oblivious to the fact that your previous posts make remarks like "as calculus teaches ... approximation of infinity = infinity", you are actually talking about math! I explained that the mathematical concepts you thought supported your assertion werent what they seemed, because they dont always tend toward infinity; so I asked to see your math, but you wouldnt show it.
The closest you came to showing your calculation was this exchange:
Originally Posted by Churchwork
Thats it. You just suggested putting a one in front of 1/3, but you didnt explain why you prefer that number above mine, apart from the fact that it just happens to fit your claim; you didnt show your math or justify the numbers you chose, so your equation is arbitrary.The above formula does not represent the reality of what we see every day. Put a 1 in front of that 1/3, and that represents more of what I am talking about. What we see millennia after millennia is substantial change in conscience so that it has an exponential flavor to it and it is comparable to our scientific development somewhat to help you get a grasp.
[i]You tried to justify your numbers rhetorically, but not rigorously when you stated "In 1000 years from now, murder rates per capita will be even less than they are now. Now they are even less than what they were 1000 years prior. These are very quantifiable numbers, and you will be able to see the exponetialness of it all by collecting this data.". Alright, they are quantifiable numbers, I agree with that much, because I earn a living working with calculus and statistics everyday... but once again, you dont state the equation you used, you only stated the numbers were quantifiable.
This amounts to nothing. I cant even grant you the benefit of the doubt of pullling your numbers out of thin air, because there arent any numbers at all, just a pathetic rhetoric.
Seriously, let me just take one statement, "it trivial that the murder rate per capita is going down at an exponential rate even inspite of the major wars of the 20th century!". So its going down at an exponential rate... what rate precisely? I dont think you even know how to answer that question, because as I said from the very beginning, you just dont know math very well...
... but of course, theres something else you never even anticipated: an error function. Yes, you can determine precisely the exponential rate at which murder is decreasing, and you can extrapolate that to make predictions about the future, but all statistical models like that have an error that increases (exponentially in fact) with time. Taking data collected today and extrapolating it to infinity is hysterically amateurish, an error you wouldnt even expect from Statistics 101 students. Show me how you calculate your error from your exponential equation, using real numbers with real mathematics, not just rhetoric... wait, why would I bother asking that, I know for a fact that you either wont or cant do it. You'll instead dismiss my question by saying I worship the devil. You're guilty of what you accuse me of, "your scope is too small. You can't just pick pockets of time, for that is too small a sample".
Absent an equation for modeling sin, an error function for approximating future values, and where you have picked your non-existent numbers from apparently nowhere, you are still guilty of cherry picking your data to fit your needs; on the one hand, you point out that murder has decreased, yet you dismiss the fact that abortions are at an all time high, there are more homosexuals than ever, and there have been an increase in atheism in the US, UK, and Australia at a faster rate than theres ever been! Those things never existed in such numbers 100 years ago, they are a very recent phenomena, but you conveniently ignore them for some unspoken reason. I've never seen such a severe case of selection bias in my life.
All you have are self-proclomations, but when asked to explain them, you just dont. I think its because you just dont know what you're talking about; you're just one of a dime-a-dozen people who have their own crackpot theories of mind / science / theology / whatever, but you dont understand them at all. I've seen this so many times its not even funny, it puts you in the same boat with people who say "quantum consciousness explains telepathy!!"; that is, a boat full of crackpots.
Crackpots have a habit of contradicting themselves, especially when they dont understand what they talk about, for example "The cause (of free will actions) is the very fact that it is made in God's image! Just like in quantum mechanics we often can only speak of probabilities, so it is with man's free-will, still ultimately caused. Just because something has a probability does not mean it is without a cause of being afforded the free-choice and to employ its own processes and receive from God or not." To say that God causes us to freely do anything is incoherent because free will and determinism are incoherent. You dont know what you're talking about. "no free-choice is undetermined", you dont have a clue what you're saying.
And now a numbers game again, "I only state that since the odds are against you by a margin at least less than 1 in a trillion, you would be the worse gambler that ever lived." At least this time I can see a statistic, but I also see you pulled the number out of thin air, simply because you dont understand that that there is no theory that has unified GR and QM. In addition, you state "Because on the electron level, we don't know how it works exactly and thus can not predicted with certainty, does not mean there isn't real deterministic things going on there." as if the uncertainty principle is just a verbal argument... you've probably never even seen the math behind it; you've heard of it in pop culture, but otherwise you dont know what you're talking about. If you could disprove uncertainty principle, I guarantee you'll win the next 10 Nobel prizes; but you'll only win those prizes when you can show the error in the math, math you've never seen and probably arent aware even exists.
And again, "The energy that gives rise to any so-called virtual particles has itself a cause of some other energy and so on and so forth.", not an shred of proof, just rhetoric. All you have is rhetoric, but that means nothing in the face of math. These things are quirks math, but their existence is confirmed experimentally. Seriously, look at these equations, look at the diagrams (for the love of God, please dont say "but that links to an article on the casimir effect, not virtual particles, idiot"), stop being arrogant and actually take a look at what you're trying to argue against. Just for fun, look at the article titled The Casimir Effect: a force from nothing.
Remember what I said about intuition? In the world your used to seeing everyday, cause-and-effect are commonplace, but a lot of those rules arent true in the quantum level. Rules like the inverse square law break down, rules defining quantum entanglement are a reality in the quantum world but do not exist in the macroworld, causality breaks down. To put it simply, the rules of quantum physics, while mathematically proven and empirically verified, look nothing like the rules in world you're used to seeing everyday. You just dont know what you're talking about, and dismissing my comments with your ignorant rhetoric does not amount to a defense of your proof, but a public display of ignorance.
And finally, "The rules of math are necessarily true. Like all things in nature, math is itself a law of nature and has its cause. Since they can not be the ultimate cause, therefore, the uncreated creator caused them. Understand you have just self-declared mindlessly math is the creator. Math caused the first event. Don't you feel embarrassed by such a ridiculous comment? Can you feel all the scientists in the world laughing at you?" Math causes every event, the whole universe is a complicated interacting mesh of equations; nothing in the universe is unbounded by math. And no, I dont feel ridiculous, because your comments are a word game, essentially linking two unrelated ideas together because they have a word in common; unlike gods, math does not exist concretely, it doesnt "will" anything, it doesnt "think" about anything, it has no properties in common with any conception of God.
The comment that its an "uncreated creator" is so misleading its hard to know whether you're being serious or not. Just for fun, we might say that the property "having a shape" is an intrinsic and necessary property of cubes, so that the rule "having a shape" actually creates cubes... but that doesnt make sense to say. The property "having a shape" is purely descriptive, it describes the nature of cubes. All of the rules of logic are necessary as well, but they dont "create" truths, they are a definition of the nature of truths.
Of course, this isnt the first time you linked two unrelated ideas by a similar word: you stated that being created from star dust and the use of "dust" in Genesis actually confirms the truth of Genesis, when the concept of interstellar "dust" would have been completly alien to the authors of Genesis in the first place. The bible's use means that humans were literally molded from clay, then animated with life by God; and definitely that description of dust doesnt match any astronomers definition of dust.
*sigh* You say that the argument is ridiculous and boring because you dont define omnipotence to include bringing about impossible states of affairs... wait for it... wait for it... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS PROVING! Its stated verbatim in the article itself:This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain. The sense described of omnipotence is false. Omnipotence is "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". It does not ever mean bringing about impossible state of affairs. This renders the whole argument ridiculous and boring.
I said above that you're disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreement, and the above example proves it: you called an argument ridiculous and boring inspite of the fact that it agrees with you 100%, verbatim, down to the letter. You disagreed with the argument because I was the one who posted it, not because you actually understood what it said.
Rhetoric without math again. Prove your statement and then claim your Nobel prize, then get back to me.
I know for a fact that is false. You've never been where I am, because I have a post-college education, I actually know calculus, I've read more philosophy and more on the historical Christ than you have (certainly more than a single fundamentalists' book of apologetics). In a nutshell, and this is going to sound incredibly arrogant and elitist, but I'm just a better informed person than you are, you've never been at my level.
On the contrary, I used to be at your level. Many years ago when USENET was all the rage, I used to post on the religious newsgroups some very ignorant things, ignorant enough things that would be reposted on the website I dare not mention if they were ever discovered. I disagreed with people only if they were atheists, but a lot of times atheists would make arguments supporting my side, but I'd still disagree with them because they were atheists... basically, I was like you. I wasnt as rude and condescending as you, but I was stubbornly ignorant for the longest time, until I actually learned a little about math, science, and philosophy.
However, even though this is going to be hard for you to accept, because you have a severe cognitive dissonance against anyone and anything that doesnt agree with you, I want you to understand that from an academic point of view, your proof is laughably awful. Usually, apologists of your caliber can only convince the already convinced that Christianity is true, but I dont even think a Christian would call your argument good. There are dozens of theists who I've seen who make better arguments for Christianity, a lot better than Habermas, CS Lewis, McDowell and Wilson, Griesler, and other dime-a-dozen apologists ever could; at least one, William Lane Craig, comes to mind as a very good theologian, but I doubt you've even heard of that name.
Essentially, as you have demonstrated by your own replies, your entire defense of your 4-step proof is reduced down to name calling and belittling me. I've never been damned to hell, accused of following Satan, and told I was a sinner so many times in my life. The crux of all of your rebuttals have nothing to do with the logical veracity of your proof, but has everything to do with saying that you're better than me for being a Christian. You didnt answer any of my most important questions, like how you deduced your calculations; in fact, not a single math equation exists anywhere in your entire 4-Step proof at all. Math concepts like a limit exist, but you very obviously dont have a good understanding of it turn that or any other math concept into an argument for God. Wheres the exponential equation for moral progress? Wheres the error function? Nowhere to be found, because you dont understand those concepts on an academic level, so you cannot possibly provide them.
I've repeatedly pointed out places where you need to explain your argument better, where you beg the question, where you use elementary logical errors... did you go back to fix or clarify even one thing? No, you didnt. However, every other rational person who looks at your proof is going to find the same mistakes I did, and you'll complain about having to hear the same thing over and over again. Believe me, nobody gets an argument right the first time, especially not an argument as long as yours, yet you stated in almost every post that your 4-step proof has remained the same from the beginning... thats right, it is the same from the beginning, and it retains all of the elementary errors that it had from the start.
You leave too much unexplained, you justify too many things rhetorically but not rigorously, you, you beg too many questions, you talk about concepts that you very obviously dont understand, you disagree with your opponents no matter if they are actually arguing for or against your positin, you wont answer directly questions about your methodology, your rebuttals are composed of largely venomous attacks against your opponents character and not your opponents actual arguments, etc etc etc. The problems with your proof and your defense go on and on, and that is why your proof is the worst one I've ever read, and thats why it will never convince anyone to become a Christian.
You are just a crackpot pretending to be a philosopher, not much different from Gene Ray or David Icke, and its painfully evident to every rational person on the planet. In the end, you proof is reduced down to something so anti-academic that it couldnt even be called an apologetic, simply because you dont know what you're talking about.
I will admit, your amateurish style of argumentation irritates the life out of me, and I only hope I've reciprocated appropriately, but otherwise I've enjoyed this discussion, because I've never seen anyone else reply to all of my lengthy posts in full. I may or may not get to the historical accuracy of the Bible. I usually have a night off from work, but I was asked to come in and work an extra day, so I'll try to get back to you ASAP. That is, if you havent already banned me for belligrency. If you ban me, we can pick up on this discussion on some forum where I make the rules ;)
(I had promised to keep this reply shorter than the others, and... well... I'll admit, I'm verbose ;) And my posts in this forum are childsplay compared to the posts I've written on other unmentionable forums.)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks