Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

 

 

This post should put this argument to rest.

First, the reason I bring up moral failure is because morality is the area where religious teachings can have an advantage, so the place where it will be correct is likely along those line.

 

Now to the main point:

 

 

“I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of questions that run the other way, where we once had a religious answer and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by science, and by moral progress, and by secular progress generally. And I think that’s not an accident.”  - Sam Harris

 

You can define science in a restrictive way and say that eugenics was never science. That is completely valid. But it is also completely valid to use the word science in a broader way and say that something is science if at the time it was considered science.

 

READ THE BELOW TEN TIMES.

 

THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT IS THAT IT WAS MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. (see below in green).

 

That author felt you can use science in a broader sense the same way I am using it. You might not agree with it, but I at least brought evidence for my position.

 

So we once had a "scientific" answer, and now we have a religious one. So in the broader sense I was completely correct. It makes no difference that science corrected itself, because religion beat it to it, so it and not science gets the credit.

 

Now just admit already.

 

The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area.

 

 

See the whole article here

 

http://personal.uncc...s/eugenics.html

 

 

Yes, you have cited a source that agrees with you.  Bravo!    Can you show that the reason we reject eugenics is due to religion?

 

“I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of questions that run the other way, where we once had a religious answer and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by science, and by moral progress, and by secular progress generally. And I think that’s not an accident.”  - Sam Harris

 

You see science rejects eugenics for not following the scientific method.

 

Even though science corrected itself, it does not get the credit of having the right answer when religion had the right answer before that correction. I am sure that many people are against eugenics because of current science and others because of religion. It has no bearing on the credit for the right answer.

 

Also, the point I was making is that it can be a psudo science and yet be called a past science in the broader sense since that is what they thought it was then. So even if most scholars say it is pseudo, that does not mean that the broader use of the word science is invalid. 

[Guest nat]

 

 

This post should put this argument to rest.

First, the reason I bring up moral failure is because morality is the area where religious teachings can have an advantage, so the place where it will be correct is likely along those line.

 

Now to the main point:

 

 

“I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of questions that run the other way, where we once had a religious answer and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by science, and by moral progress, and by secular progress generally. And I think that’s not an accident.”  - Sam Harris

 

You can define science in a restrictive way and say that eugenics was never science. That is completely valid. But it is also completely valid to use the word science in a broader way and say that something is science if at the time it was considered science.

 

READ THE BELOW TEN TIMES.

 

THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT IS THAT IT WAS MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. (see below in green).

 

That author felt you can use science in a broader sense the same way I am using it. You might not agree with it, but I at least brought evidence for my position.

 

So we once had a "scientific" answer, and now we have a religious one. So in the broader sense I was completely correct. It makes no difference that science corrected itself, because religion beat it to it, so it and not science gets the credit.

 

Now just admit already.

 

The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area.

 

 

See the whole article here

 

http://personal.uncc...s/eugenics.html

 

 

Read it, and that's one quote from one person. The vast majority of material on the subject does not agree [we've cited several sources published by major Universities]. One person's opinion does not prove your point, and the article does make the distinction that the scientific method was not properly applied and mentions several who spoke against it. You keep posting this because it's the only thing outside of unacceptable sources such as wikipedia, the so called 'Discovery Institute' [Christian Creationist fundamentalists], and dictionary definitions, that supports your claim. It's not enough to counter or outweigh the evidence we provided.

 

Give it up. I made a valid argument. Debate is not black and white win or lose. I took a position and defended it.  Who is moving the goal post?

[Guest nat]

 

Bhim,

 

I was talking about the indeterminate forms as they are used in math. They are used with limits. In this framework, the indeterminate form of infinity *0 is equal to and converted to 0/0.

 

Agree now?

It's not even that your statement is simply wrong. The problem here is that it doesn't even make sense. An indeterminate form is a certain class of limits that can be encountered. It doesn't even make sense to say that two different types of indeterminate forms can be equal. As you yourself said: multiplication can be expressed in terms of division, and vice versa. By your logic, why do we even have a mathematical term for "division?" Why not simply have multiplication? And since multiplication is just repeated addition, why not just have addition and nothing else? Even my analogy doesn't quite capture how nonsensical your statement is, since you're manipulating functions without understanding that the operations don't hold when you set the pertinent variable(s) equal to zero.

 

Let's forget about actually dividing by 0. I have a right to not accept conventional math. But expressing it that way in this forum was stupid. That is why I clarified the math in its acceptable form, and at least one person agreed to it.

 

If you want to forget about dividing by zero, why are you still claiming that infinity times zero equals anything, as you did here?

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56318-mathematical-proof-of-god/?p=862272

 

Sure you have a right not to accept conventional math, in the same sense that I have the right to not accept conventional geology, and instead posit that the earth is flat.  In the same way, Christians have the right to not accept the correct, rabbinic interpretation of the Torah and instead say that Deuteronomy 18 is about Jesus.  However I don't think this is what you meant.  No one here is disputing your right to free expression.

 

If you're talking about the right to be accepted by mathematicians, then no you do not have the right to reject conventional math.  The claim of stupidity are your words, not mine.  If I thought you were stupid we wouldn't be having this conversation.  As I said before, I think that what you are saying is utterly false.  That's a different statement altogether, and I hope you appreciate the difference.  To me this isn't about personal assessments or attacks.  I'm judging your argument based on its logical merit.  And it has none.

 

About reformulating your math in its acceptable form, if you're still talking about your 6/3 argument or the algebraic manipulation of infinities, the former is irrelevant and the latter is wrong because infinity isn't a number.  I'm not sure who agreed with your argument, but this also is not relevant.  Go post your argument on Christian Forums and you'll get hundreds of people to agree with you.  Sure, they'll think you're going to hell unless you "complete" your Jewish faith by becoming a Christian, but since you're a Jew rather than a heathen Hindu like me, they'll lap up your infinity argument as a defense of Judeo-Christian theism.  I cite this as an example of why gaining acceptance, even widespread acceptance, isn't evidence that you are correct.  You might as well be getting advice on keeping kosher from me.

 

I think we also agree on the indeterminate forms can equal anything. I did not mean that they always equal anything. I said they can equal anything. sometimes it equals this and sometimes it equals that and sometimes it is unclear what it equals.

 

analogy:

 

When you hit a ball it can go anywhere. It doesn't always go anywhere. Sometimes it goes here and sometimes it goes there and sometimes it is unclear where it will go.

 

It should be clear that when people help me clarify what I am trying to get across, there is much agreement.

 

If you said that indeterminate forms can converge to anything your statement would at least be mathematically accurate.  It would also be philosophically meaningless.  The function f(x) = x can also be equal to anything, and it doesn't contain any infinities.  It doesn't take much sophistry for me to thus conclude, on this basis, that mortal men can be anything, and therefore the Mormons were correct all along (good for you, since they don't think Jews are going to hell).

 

The ball/bat analogy (I assume you're hitting it with a bat) is not appropriate here.  The only reason the ball's fate is unpredictable is because of a lack of information.  The laws of classical physics govern the motion of the ball with great accuracy, and in principle can be used to predict its exact location.  The problem is that between air resistance, the ball's initial trajectory, and imperfections in the bat, there are too many variables to solve the problem in closed form.  Physicists actually solve this type of problem with the use of Monte Carlo simulations.  If I were writing an algorithm to simulate a ball being hit by a bat, I wouldn't allow the ball to go "anywhere."  I'd draw it's location from each hit using a predefined probability density function.  "Unclear" doesn't mean "anything."  I really don't see what's so profound about this.

 

Bhim,

 

Whether or not there are Torah verses you or anyone else finds objectionable, that particular verse is as clear as you can get in disapproving of eugenics.

 

Think about it. You love this wife. She is pretty and talented, has all the good breeding traits. Then there is this other wife. You can't stand her. She has everything you want to get away from. What does eugenics say? It says to engineer the good breed. Make him special and carry on his traits. What does the Torah say?

 

It says no!

 

Clear as day. Straight from the Torah.

 

Here's an example of why it's not as clear as you suggest.  Consider Ezra 10:11.

 

And now, confess to the Lord, the God of your forefathers, and do His will, and separate from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.

 

This passage from the Ketuvim suggests that eugenics (i.e. selective breeding) is the will of God.

 

I think the true worth of Judaism comes from the fact that your rabbis have the common sense to derive human ethics independent of the Bible, and then impose that line of thinking on the Bible, rather than letting the Bible inform their personal views.  Whatever the case, it doesn't seem to me that you can simply read a passage of the Bible and divine its meaning.  Orthodox Jews seem to be on board with this.  This is why they use commentary from the Talmud and other rabbis.  Perhaps you should consult the Rashi commentary and get back to us on the interpretation of the Torah verse you cited.

 

Bhim,

 

I can't believe that we can't agree. The whole idea of limits is in order to use infinity and division by 0 by actually avoiding 0 and infinity itself. In this context when dealing with the undetermined forms of infinity *0 and 0/0, they are converted from one to the other because they are equal. you cant use the argument that infinity is not a number or division by 0 is not possible because limits avoids those problems.

 

You ask me why I still say infinity times 0 can equal anything and even when going away from division by 0?

 

Hello?

 

Infinity *0 does not involve division by 0.

 

Aside from that, math has it's own way of getting around the problems. it is called limits. And i am talking in that framework.

 

Similarly, math with limits says in that framework that the indeterminate form of infinity *0 can be anything, or if you want to nitpick, can converge to anything,  sometimes this, sometimes that depending on speed. Just like the bat and the ball. It depends on speed. Not the numbers themselves, just the speed.

 

Foreign wives has no connection to eugenics at all. The issue is that they are not jewish and jewish law says that the children will not be jewish. That is purely a religious issue, not a racial one. If the very same person becomes Jewish, she can marry a Jew. This has no relationship with eugenics which is not a religious issue but an issue that has to do with better features and talents. I hope you can admit to that.

[Ravenstar]

hahahahahahaha.... well, it's interesting to see how a topic on science and mathematics and it's correlation to theology went completely sideways from (a very incorrect) distraction on morality... which quickly DEVOLVED - because you certainly can not defend morality based on the Torah or the Bible, and then WAAAAYYY over to left field into eugenics... a very twisted and long road to the logical fallacy of...

 

OMG HITLER!!!!!

 

bwahahahahahahahahaha

 

and the rumour is that Nat is now a Mod (snicker)

 

I've enjoyed the last 10 pages..  

 

 

I wanted to add a bit on morality, because psychology and sociology are kinda pet interests of mine.

 

Okay... morality isn't anything that humans thought up, or was given by a deity. Sheesh! If you know anything about evolution it's obvious that morality is a natural progression of social survival skills.. with the more complex animals having more complex social organization. Humans, being the most complex of the (social) mammals have the most complex social organization.. morality is an expression of that. It doesn't make sense, in an evolutionary way, for social animals to harm the members of their own tribe... cooperation is the watchword for social animals... it ensures the survival of the species.. or if you really want to get biological about it.. the genes.

 

All social animals have this thing called morality... even insects - though theirs seems to be driven by pheromones (as are a lot of ours) It's basically biochemical in nature at the root (oxytocin is a big one) and behavioral peripherally.

 

Humans are extremely complex psychologically and we are also a species that have evolved the ability to communicate not so much chemically, but by sharing stories, analogies, metaphors... it's how we pass knowledge to each other.. if you really think about it it becomes obvious that this can complicate the ORIGINS of the behaviors we value. The any doesn't contemplate WHY it doesn't eat it's sister... the chemicals tell it not to.. WE on the other hand need to convey this information through concepts and abstractions... but the end result is the same (though I think sometimes the insects are superior here) and NATURE really only cares about outcomes, not so much processes.

 

and that's morality folks... in a nutshell.. fascinating, complicated.. but not really mysterious.

 

The PROBLEM with humans is that because we are very complicated things with a weird information delivery system... there's more room for error. Like machines.. the more parts, the more things can go wrong.

 

Thanks for listening      carry on

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

Mainstream scientists got it wrong with Eugenics and my religion had it right that eugenics is wrong. 

 

 

 

Nat, you edited this.  Originally you wrote "Mainstream scientists got it wrong with Eugenics and my religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong."

 

Now I don't mind that you edit your posts.  But you are trying to make it look like I was dishonest when I addressed your original.  I'm not the one backpedaling.  If you edit your posts then admit that the part you changed was or could have been wrong.  Your claim that your religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong is what prompted me to ask you to prove it.  Being dishonest is no substitute for a valid argument.  Now if you want to correct your original and admit you got carried away you can change "always" to "ever since eugenics came along".  But don't try to pin this on me.

 

I edited it because people always tell me not to use the word always. That was all.

 

What I pinned on you is two things.

 

1. You said that I said that the Torah mentioned eugenics. Never true. edit or not, I did not say the Torah mentioned it.

 

2. Keep in the word always. No problem. You asked me to bring a source. No problem. Completely valid.

 

Your fail was that you afterward criticized me for bringing a verse from the Torah when you YOURSELF asked me to do so.

 

Quote

 

Your Torah is not a good example of morality.  In looking for the moral failure of scientists you cite a book that calls for racism, genocide, war, the death penalty for thought crime, the death penalty for witchcraft and so on.

 

You ask for a source from the Torah and then criticize me for bringing a source from the Torah????????????????????

 

Hello????????

 

Is anyone home?????????????????

 

That is a complete and enormous fail fail fail

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

Note:

 

The site is calling me an authentic christian believer. I am not!!!

I am a proud Jew!!!

 

Infinity and zero are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, the eternal versus the void. Mathematically, infinity and zero have unusual qualities. Unlike standard numbers, zero times or divided by any number is still zero, and infinity times or divided by any number is still infinity.

What happens when you divide by zero? The closer the denominator gets to zero, the bigger the result. Division by 0 seems to produce infinity. Conventional mathematics says that division by zero is undefined. Infinity, likewise, cannot be defined, so undefined and equals infinity may actually be the same thing. There is more of a consensus, though, that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Since 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, it is logical that any number/infinity=0 and any number/0=infinity.

There is an exception to the 0*x=0 and infinity*x=infinity rule. Since any number/infinity=0, and any number/0=infinity, it follows that infinity*0=any number. And since any number*0=0 and any number*infinity=infinity, it follows that 0/0 and infinity/infinity=any number. Conventional mathematics indeed considers these to be undetermined, meaning that it could be anything.

What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.

 

And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you.

Does the whole mathamatical equation you propose in the begining rest on this formulation about god.

 

(What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.)

 

Because if it does I see serious problems with it. Not with the maths but with the correlation to god.

 

A correlation is

1. mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.: Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients. 2. the act of correlating or state of being correlated 3. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

 

But god is an unknown variable to us at this present time, so finding a correlation between our current knowledge and something currently unquantifiable is an insult to logic.

 

However a correlation does exist if you want to accept this formula, idea or belief of god you have presented to this thread.

 

But I don't and I am sure that some others don't either

I just want to add that god as a formula at this current time will always return to 0% this is due to ambiguousness of the subject and god being wholly unquantifiable. Any attempt to quantify him will return him to 0% even if that quantity is but a small fraction positive or negative.

 

Why is this? Its because at the moment to us, god is always an unknown element and any attempt to add quantity to him only serves to create a contradiction in the in the probability of knowing what god is in any real sense and this is what faith in god is rather than fact about god. Faith is, well, nothing (well only something vague in the mind of the believer) but if god was any fact at all even at .1% it would be enough to go on to create a correlation.

No, not just 0. 0 and infinity.

I said the maths was fine I found it interesting, but right up to the point you make a correlation of infinity to the bible god. You state:

 

(And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you)

 

Is it ? Why don't you run all the way to stephen hawkins house and tell him you have the mathematical proof to god and not just any god the god of the bible and maybe he would say, "but you can use that same mathematical formula for any god"

 

But its not proof its it, really, your just taking a known mathematical anomaly and trying to make a correlation to a antiquated religious system that is known to be fallible in all areas.

 

R3,

 

I backed away from the accuracy of the original post. I said this many times along this long thread. I don't blame you for not seeing it. The original post was done unassumingly. I did not realize the coming storm and did not carefully analyze its accuracy.

 

I clarified that I can only prove an original source with an infinite past, and the proof in this regard has nothing to do with the math, just plain logic.

 

I further clarified that the math was a correlation to how we got here based on the opposite forces of something infinite and nothingness.

 

I also said that the infinite source to me is God, but others can relate to it how they see fit.

 

I also said that the infinite source God kabbalisticly called Ein Sof (which means no end) is not the same thing as the God in the Bible. The God of the bible according to kabbalah is the manifestation of ein sof, but not ein sof itself.

 

You seem very nice. I wish you were around for the whole thread. 

[Guest nat]

 

Bhim,

 

Whether or not there are Torah verses you or anyone else finds objectionable, that particular verse is as clear as you can get in disapproving of eugenics.

 

Think about it. You love this wife. She is pretty and talented, has all the good breeding traits. Then there is this other wife. You can't stand her. She has everything you want to get away from. What does eugenics say? It says to engineer the good breed. Make him special and carry on his traits. What does the Torah say?

 

It says no!

 

Clear as day. Straight from the Torah.

 

Nat are you trying to say that you didn't write this?  Don't accuse me of having the problem.  It's giving me a headache looking through over 40 pages to find the stuff you deny writing.  Quit being so slippery and dishonest.  If you made a mistake take responsibility for it.

 

Exactly where did I say that the Torah MENTIONS eugenics. I did not. 

 

I said it disapproves of eugenics and i explained that this is because its teachings of respect for the poor and sick and its anti breeding policy is the opposite of what eugenics stands for.

 

Did I say that the Torah actually mentions eugenics. NO

 

You can't admit. I didn't say what you said I said. 

[Guest nat]

Let us all admit that this is the hottest thread on this forum. 

 

Admit it or not I think everyone is enjoying it.

 

I actually think Contra and mymistake (who cause me no end of grief) are very smart. They or I can still be wrong though.

 

You don't often get around here someone with a completely different world view, who can defend their arguments and stand up to all the pressure.

 

This thread has covered a lot of great topics. I might give a whole grammar lesson soon. I taught my self grammar to a fairly high level. I don't always use it though. No time to correct every typing mistake like i.

 

I wish that the tone was different. Even if you defend or win an argument, don't ridicule the opponent. Be gracious. 

 

Debate and argue but respect each other. Don't put anyone down. 

 

I also used much ridicule on some, because i can't take being cut up and ridiculed and not answer back in kind.

 

That is a flaw of mine. Sorry.

 

Can we call a truce on the ridicule?

[Guest nat]

Thanks Nat!

 

I hope you'll find this of interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 It [empty space] has 3 dimensions.

 I would think that science, too, would consider it [empty space] something because of its 3 dimensions but it might still consider it nothing because it is empty.

 

 

 

Ok then, I've snipped out everything that isn't directly relevant to the point I'd like to address.  Where I take issue with you Nat, is the way you've described... empty space as being 3 dimensional.  In my opinion that's an adequate, but not entirely accurate description of it.  One that doesn't do full justice to our current understanding of the dimensionality of the space-time continuum. 

 

1.

I am confining myself only to a scientific description of space, so none of this applies outside of the discipline of science.  Therefore, nothing I write here relates to any kind of philosophical or conceptual notion of space.  I'm not taking issue with your argument, but only with the way you've described space in this thread, ok?

 

2.

Now, it's generally accepted that we humans exist in what's known as a 3+1 space.  That's three spatial dimensions (height, width and depth) and one temporal dimension.  When you wrote that space was three dimensional Nat, you were simply describing it's spatial dimensions... yes?  So, there's no need for us to disagree about that.  Nor is there any further need to talk about the dimension of time.  From now on, unless I say otherwise, I'll be treating the word dimension to mean spatial dimension.

 

3.

The mass or density of matter in a given region of space isn't relevant to this discussion.

That's because you've been very specific and written only about the dimensionality of empty space.  I'm sure you know about extemely dense objects like White Dwarf stars, Neutron stars, Pulsars and Magnetars.  Also Black Holes, which don't only warp and deform the 3-D structure of space, but go on to destroy it completely!  None of these objects are relevant because the space they occupy isn't... empty. 

 

4.

Scientists theorize that there is no such thing as totally 'empty' space. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

It's possible that the 3-D structure of empty space breaks down at the quantum scale - into a boiling, frothing ocean of dimensionless, unstable energy.  However, this is a highly controversial idea that's not very well supported with evidence.  Therefore, I won't press this point and ask that you revise your description of space to take this into account.

 

5.

Nat, this is where I think you should revise what you say about 3 dimensional space.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

The relevant points are as follows;

 * Conventional Spacetime is described as 3+1 (three spatial dimensions and one temporal one)

 * M-theory (the unification of all other String theories) predicts a fundamental 10+1 domain

 * We cannot currently detect these extra spatial dimensions (see Compact Dimensions)

 * However, String theory makes a number of cosmological predictions (see Testability & Experimental Predictions)

 

Please click on the link to Eternal Inflation, in that section.  It was Andrei Linde's model of Chaotic Eternal Inflation that was found to be the best fit for the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation data, recently released by the Planck satellite. 

 

Therefore, since we are now close to having the first, preliminary confirmations of String Theory, it seems to me to be prudent to factor the extra spatial dimensions of String Theory into any description of the dimensionality of space.

 

So Nat, would you be prepared to revise what you say about space being 3-dimensional?

Would you be prepared to rephrase your description of it to read like this...

"Empty space can usually be considered as having three spatial dimensions, except at very smallest scales (the String Theory scale), where compactified extra spatial dimensions may well exist"  ...?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

BAA,

 

You are by far the smartest among any of us on this forum. Admittedly, I can't speak with the accuracy that your level of knowledge would demand. I am ready to accept any correction you advise concerning empty space, space-time, or whatever. I hope, though, that even on your level of intelligence you can discern what I am trying to get across and the conceptual arguments I am trying to make. I wish, though, that you would come to my defense, if not on an argument, at least that I should not be ridiculed and that I am not stupid or full of ****. Your words, attitude, intelligence, and complete civility carry a lot of weight. Maybe you don't realize what you can accomplish.

[mymistake]

Nat you did say that your religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong.  What is the oldest book in your religion?  Your false claims are what had you up against the wall.  Don't try to throw that back at me.  I can go through the thread and find the exact spot where you made the claim but really?  Why should I have to go through such a headache?  Take responsibility for your words and don't try to push it on others for noticing that your religion had nothing to say about eugenics until modern times.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Even though science corrected itself, it does not get the credit of having the right answer when religion had the right answer before that correction.

 

 

 

You are trying to change the criteria of the Sam Harris challenge.  However it's too bad that you don't have a religion that had the right answer before the correction.  

[Guest nat]

By the way, BAA, I have heard that the 10 +1 dimensions correlate tho the kabbalistic 10 +1 sephirot. There are 10 regular sephirot. The extra one would be daa't which is among the sephirot but not exactly one of them, or perhaps it is ein sof. 

Just sayin

[Guest nat]

Nat you did say that your religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong.  What is the oldest book in your religion?  Your false claims are what had you up against the wall.  Don't try to throw that back at me.  I can go through the thread and find the exact spot where you made the claim but really?  Why should I have to go through such a headache?  Take responsibility for your words and don't try to push it on others for noticing that your religion had nothing to say about eugenics until modern times.

We disagree on the criteria of the Torah being against something. You take a narrow approach to it. I don't . If the Torah respects the poor, sick, and feeble among us, and it says not to favor the son of the loved wife, this is good enough reason to say that the Torah is against Eugenics, which does favor the better stock.

 

You can't admit to the clearest error. You said I said that the Torah mentions eugenics. That is patently wrong and you can't admit it. Even if my criteria is incorrect (which it is not, but even if), I still did not say that the Torah actually mentions eugenics. 

 

And you still can't admit it. Why?

 

Secondly, I showed you your complete and utter fail of asking me to show a Torah proof and then criticizing me for doing such.

 

You just can't admit. What is so hard. 

 

You are very smart, but like me, you also make mistakes. I take you to task because you were not generous with me.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

Even though science corrected itself, it does not get the credit of having the right answer when religion had the right answer before that correction.

 

 

 

You are trying to change the criteria of the Sam Harris challenge.  However it's too bad that you don't have a religion that had the right answer before the correction.  

 

Changing the goal post. How very sad. I defended the whole science issue, so you move on to something else. 

 

I already showed you that science can be more broadly defined. In the same way, the Torah's stand against eugenics can also be more broadly defined, without actually mentioning eugenics by name. Good grief. Besides, the Jewish religion at the time was against eugenics, so religion did come before science Torah or not.

 

Keep trying though.

[ContraBardus]

Sigh. Sorry Nat, but at this point your arguments have degraded to the debate equivalent of this:

 

 

There's no point to debate because you'll just claim victory or pretend that you make sense no matter how much fail your assertions are full of, irregardless of how illogical they become, or how much credibly verifiable evidence is stacked against your rather hollow claims. Your desperate clinging to a single rather self contradictory article by one person that only sort of agrees with you about Eugenics because one line is similar to your claims in the face of several from far more credible sources that flat out prove you wrong just proves this is the case. You believe your assertions to be Nigh-invulnerable, when it's obvious that it's your ego that is too dense to penetrate.

 

I'm going back to lurking for a while, maybe I'll comment again later if something else comes up that catches my interest. Attempting to debate seems kind of like trying to knock over a brick wall with a squirt gun at this point. Right now, Duke Nukem is more interesting and has more of my attention. At least when I'm playing that I can actually make some progress for my efforts.

[mymistake]

 

Nat you did say that your religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong.  What is the oldest book in your religion?  Your false claims are what had you up against the wall.  Don't try to throw that back at me.  I can go through the thread and find the exact spot where you made the claim but really?  Why should I have to go through such a headache?  Take responsibility for your words and don't try to push it on others for noticing that your religion had nothing to say about eugenics until modern times.

We disagree on the criteria of the Torah being against something. You take a narrow approach to it. I don't . If the Torah respects the poor, sick, and feeble among us, and it says not to favor the son of the loved wife, this is good enough reason to say that the Torah is against Eugenics, which does favor the better stock.

 

You can't admit to the clearest error. You said I said that the Torah mentions eugenics. That is patently wrong and you can't admit it. Even if my criteria is incorrect (which it is not, but even if), I still did not say that the Torah actually mentions eugenics. 

 

And you still can't admit it. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's all in your head.  It's a delusion.  It's interesting to see that the Jewish religion does the same kind of harm to the mind as the Christian religion.  I haven't had much experience with Judaism so I am grateful for his opportunity you gave me to study the problem.

[Guest nat]

 

 

Nat you did say that your religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong.  What is the oldest book in your religion?  Your false claims are what had you up against the wall.  Don't try to throw that back at me.  I can go through the thread and find the exact spot where you made the claim but really?  Why should I have to go through such a headache?  Take responsibility for your words and don't try to push it on others for noticing that your religion had nothing to say about eugenics until modern times.

We disagree on the criteria of the Torah being against something. You take a narrow approach to it. I don't . If the Torah respects the poor, sick, and feeble among us, and it says not to favor the son of the loved wife, this is good enough reason to say that the Torah is against Eugenics, which does favor the better stock.

 

You can't admit to the clearest error. You said I said that the Torah mentions eugenics. That is patently wrong and you can't admit it. Even if my criteria is incorrect (which it is not, but even if), I still did not say that the Torah actually mentions eugenics. 

 

And you still can't admit it. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's all in your head.  It's a delusion.  It's interesting to see that the Jewish religion does the same kind of harm to the mind as the Christian religion.  I haven't had much experience with Judaism so I am grateful for his opportunity you gave me to study the problem.

 

Wow! The depths you go to when you can't admit something as black and white of you saying I said the Torah mentions eugenics and I did not.

 

Sheesh!!!

[Guest nat]

Contra,

 

it was not self contradictory. The whole point is that it is pseudo science now, but still science (in the broader sense) then only because they thought it was science. Some people are black and white. i see things from both sides. In the narrow sense it was pseudo science back then too. In the broader sense not.

 

i can never have a valid argument with you.  I defended my position. That is all. I am not saying your position is not legitimate. I am just saying that mine is as well.

 

All you do is constantly discredit my arguments, even though others have agreed here and there. You are just making unfair claims. 

 

Why the nasty tone? 

 

We have a different world view and different opinions. Enjoy the debate. I don't care if you believe as I do. Debates can be fun and interesting and gainful without tearing each other apart.

 

Try it.

[Guest r3alchild]

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

[mymistake]

 

 

Wow! The depths you go to when you can't admit something as black and white of you saying I said the Torah mentions eugenics and I did not.

 

Sheesh!!!

 

 

 

 

I went back through the thread and pin pointed the exact spot where you made the claim that your religion had always opposed eugenics.  I also discovered that you edited your post to remove the word "always".  Editing isn't bad in itself but making false accusations regarding the part you edited is wrong.  Now it takes a lot of work for me to sift through hundreds of posts and it takes no work at all for you to lie so why should we continue?  If you are not going to be honest then this is pointless. 

 

On page 37 post 739 you most certainly did write:

"Bhim,

 

Whether or not there are Torah verses you or anyone else finds objectionable, that particular verse is as clear as you can get in disapproving of eugenics.

 

Think about it. You love this wife. She is pretty and talented, has all the good breeding traits. Then there is this other wife. You can't stand her. She has everything you want to get away from. What does eugenics say? It says to engineer the good breed. Make him special and carry on his traits. What does the Torah say?

 

It says no!

 

Clear as day. Straight from the Torah."

 

Underlining added to trap you in your lies.  These were your words so stop trying to paint me as a bad guy.  

[ContraBardus]

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

 

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

[BlackCat]

Contra, I was struck with righteous indignation on behalf of 'Christianity'.    I'll comment in red. You said:

 

 

The rights of Jewish women were much greater than they were in the rest of Western civilization until this century.  Women had the right to buy, sell, and own

Men do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a notable contrast to Christian laws that existed until a few hundred years ago. 

 

Aren't you doing what you accuse Nat of doing regarding confusing 'Science' with the 'scientists'?  Where are these 'laws' you mention written in the NT  that are supported by Yeshua or his early disciples?  Is it not the case that people calling themselves 'Christians' are not reflecting what Yeshua taught?  I have a really interesting book called 'Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes' by Kenneth Bailey, and that book explains how radical Yeshua's treatment of women, compared to the Jewish traditions of his time, was.  An example being, when he was found talking to the Samaritan woman at the well.  A 'respectable' Jewish man would not lower himself to talk to a Samaritan or to a woman who was alone.  That is a minor example.  The NT does not contain any reference to ill treating women, so these 'laws' that you mention should not be attributed to the original teachings of the 'Christians'. 

 

 

 

Christianity on the other hand...well, that's another thread that we've all seen before I think.

 

So when you say 'Christianity' I do not understand the first followers of Yeshua who came to be called 'Christians' as included in what you understand 'Christianity' to be.  Yes, the religion we call 'Christianity' that has evolved over the last two thousand years is a very different and distorted image of what I understand the early 'church' or group of followers that usually met at the local synagogue or in people's houses,  to be. 

I just had to get that off my chest, as I don't like to see something misrepresented.  Cheers. 

 

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

[ContraBardus]

 

Contra, I was struck with righteous indignation on behalf of 'Christianity'.    I'll comment in red. You said:

 

 

The rights of Jewish women were much greater than they were in the rest of Western civilization until this century.  Women had the right to buy, sell, and own

Men do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a notable contrast to Christian laws that existed until a few hundred years ago. 

 

Aren't you doing what you accuse Nat of doing regarding confusing 'Science' with the 'scientists'?  Where are these 'laws' you mention written in the NT  that are supported by Yeshua or his early disciples?  Is it not the case that people calling themselves 'Christians' are not reflecting what Yeshua taught?  I have a really interesting book called 'Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes' by Kenneth Bailey, and that book explains how radical Yeshua's treatment of women, compared to the Jewish traditions of his time, was.  An example being, when he was found talking to the Samaritan woman at the well.  A 'respectable' Jewish man would not lower himself to talk to a Samaritan or to a woman who was alone.  That is a minor example.  The NT does not contain any reference to ill treating women, so these 'laws' that you mention should not be attributed to the original teachings of the 'Christians'. 

 

 

 

Christianity on the other hand...well, that's another thread that we've all seen before I think.

 

So when you say 'Christianity' I do not understand the first followers of Yeshua who came to be called 'Christians' as included in what you understand 'Christianity' to be.  Yes, the religion we call 'Christianity' that has evolved over the last two thousand years is a very different and distorted image of what I understand the early 'church' or group of followers that usually met at the local synagogue or in people's houses,  to be. 

I just had to get that off my chest, as I don't like to see something misrepresented.  Cheers. 

 

 

 

Err, the same Jesus who called a woman Dog, and made her beg before he helped her rid her son of a demon?

 

He was being kind of a dick, but I suppose since it was just the one time it's just evidence of his 'humanity' so to speak.

 

At any rate, yes, Jesus himself was very good about women with one notable exception, and he did end up helping her anyway, his followers were not. Most of the stories in the NT where Jesus interacts with women start out with his 'buddies' being dickholes. There is no evidence they ever learned any better that I am aware of. So no, I don't see the first followers of Jesus being any more awesome than anyone else at the time. They probably held views similar if not exactly the same as the Jews of the period, which makes sense if you think about it, and their time with Jesus did not appear to change that.

 

Then Paul came along...

 

Put simply, the views of Christians concerning women were probably no better than anyone else in the region at the time, and did not improve with time, but rather degraded, where as the Jews actually improved in that area and were pretty much better about it than pretty much anyone else in the world consistently.

 

I did make mention that there -were- problems with Judaism's views on women, particularly non Jewish women, who did not have the same rights and protections under Jewish Law. Though, they weren't that bad off either comparatively speaking. At the time, the Jews were the best about it than pretty much any other culture, and remained consistently better about it over the centuries, they also improved over time. Not even some modern western societies are as good about the treatment of women as the Jews are. We're catching up, but they've been ahead of the curve on that one for centuries. As treatment of women in various religions go, Jewish women have it better than the women of just about every other faith and have had it better for a very long time.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

 

 

No. There are some concepts similar to infinity, but nothing like mathematical infinity or direct mention of the concept of infinity. Some things to the effect of God being eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but no mention of actual infinity that I can recall, certainly not mathematical infinity at the least.