Armat Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Detail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 The right leg is just amazing, have you seen the angle of the light on that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 (edited) BTW Den_ Feel free to include any of my brain stormings in your philosophical essays, as I do not place any intellectual properties on what I write. Haha.. well, I like to cite my sources, so I guess I will be citing you as "Domino from HyeForum." LOL!  But interesting points you made there. Hmm..  As for what you said about there being no proof that the earth was not flat in the past - well, it might not have been, but was there any proof or outside observation that it was flat? My point being, if they couldn't see earth from space, as we do right now, their assumptions cannot be used as proof, and the "fact" that the earth was flat should not have been used in further proofs. I don't know if I'm getting my point across... Edited February 21, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Haha.. well, I like to cite my sources, so I guess I will be citing you as "Domino from HyeForum." LOL!  But interesting points you made there. Hmm..  As for what you said about there being no proof that the earth was not flat in the past - well, it might not have been, but was there any proof or outside observation that it was flat? My point being, if they couldn't see earth from space, as we do right now, their assumptions cannot be used as proof, and the "fact" that the earth was flat should not have been used in further proofs. I don't know if I'm getting my point across... Yeh! But Den_, the observation from space of Earth supposes that you are observing Earth, which discredit the whole point of your argumentation, since only the fact that you place this "observation" as further evidence of the roundness of the Earth of the past, supposes that observation is the only bases for "evidences." Those in the past believed the flatness of Earth based on their own observations, they were there in the past, what makes their then observation any less credible than the observation of the present roundness of Earth to suppose what was there then Earth form? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Interesting discussioned that we've developed folks, and yet will never end in development, no different than the self. You can add 65 pages to this thread, yet there will be no proof of God, yet we will nonetheless believe. We all feel that there exists a God, even the most staunch atheists. They will dialectically claim that they are atheists, but ethically behave as a moral man. They will utter the phrase "There hath been no God", yet they will secret in the annals of their inner self yurn to be proven wrong. We despise organized religion, we flirt with philosophy, and we worship science, but in the process forget that one is hopelessly tied to another, and all go back to a first cause, an antecedent. The true religious filosofia of mortal man is thus not a system of creed, but an infinite search for approximation as the great Socrates would say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 (edited) Interesting discussioned that we've developed folks, and yet will never end in development, no different than the self. You can add 65 pages to this thread, yet there will be no proof of God, yet we will nonetheless believe. We all feel that there exists a God, even the most staunch atheists. They will dialectically claim that they are atheists, but ethically behave as a moral man. They will utter the phrase "There hath been no God", yet they will secret in the annals of their inner self yurn to be proven wrong. We despise organized religion, we flirt with philosophy, and we worship science, but in the process forget that one is hopelessly tied to another, and all go back to a first cause, an antecedent. The true religious filosofia of mortal man is thus not a system of creed, but an infinite search for approximation as the great Socrates would say. This is highly untrue. Atheists do exist, and they DO not believe in God, one does not need to believe in a God to be moral, and the best example of that are the Humanists which are for most part atheists. Here the whole point is about Faith, Faith in things, you may have Faith in the existance of a God, Faith on its non existance. And this is the most important of all, because what makes your universe, is what you believe in... that means, in what you have Faith in. As for "Proving God," the impossibility of "proving" God does not lie on the fact that a God is immaterial, but rather, nothing other than incertitutes existance could be proven. Proving means that you can not counter it with other evidences... nothing in science could really be proven(other than incertitute)... so asking to "prove" the existance of a God is a double standard. Edited February 21, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Those in the past believed the flatness of Earth based on their own observations, they were there in the past, what makes their then observation any less credible than the observation of the present roundness of Earth to suppose what was there then Earth form? Hmm, O.K, but how can you observe something from inside and be 100% right? Suppose you're put in a quadrangle room (square, rectangle,...), now if you're inside of it and haven't observed the room from outside, you will say that the room is square. But if you go outside, it might be circular shaped, and the square embedded in it. So your observation about earth being flat can be credible only as far as observing it from inside goes, because, well, if you look at the ground you're standing on, it's flat, right? But this observation is not credible (even if it were coincidentally right), because it was not viewed from outside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Hmm, O.K, but how can you observe something from inside and be 100% right? Suppose you're put in a quadrangle room (square, rectangle,...), now if you're inside of it and haven't observed the room from outside, you will say that the room is square. But if you go outside, it might be circular shaped, and the square embedded in it. So your observation about earth being flat can be credible only as far as observing it from inside goes, because, well, if you look at the ground you're standing on, it's flat, right? But this observation is not credible (even if it were coincidentally right), because it was not viewed from outside. Den_ You are falling right in my trap...  EXACTLY!!! Here is the point Den_, the flatness from this inside is not wrong, it is based on the limited perspective... now the roundness of this world is again based on a limited perspective, if you were to observe it in another way, or a better perspective, you may end up having a square as Earth...  I can simulate a Square Earth by adding a Fourth space dimention that would correct this "aberation" which may be considered as "circular." So, here comes the whole point, as every possibilities exist as possibilities, you take few ones, a limited number of those and build your entire universe from it... there is infinit possibilities, infinit ways of interpretations... you as the observer build your own reality out from them... and there is evidences for what I advance, in many scientifical discipline, and even in the medical field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Well, you're right, but, how do you know that another dimension or another way of viewing is possible? You can't base your proof on it. Just like people couldn't have based their proofs on the laws of gravitation BEFORE Newton discovered them. Â Domino, I am talking about what humans can perceive. There might be another universe out there, but that doesn't mean I can base my proofs on its probable existence. If I can't view it from the next thing that's outside of it, I cannot observe it, which means that I cannot have a full knowledge of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Well, you're right, but, how do you know that another dimension or another way of viewing is possible? You can't base your proof on it. Just like people couldn't have based their proofs on the laws of gravitation BEFORE Newton discovered them. Â Domino, I am talking about what humans can perceive. There might be another universe out there, but that doesn't mean I can base my proofs on its probable existence. If I can't view it from the next thing that's outside of it, I cannot observe it, which means that I cannot have a full knowledge of it. Den_ choose anything regarded as truth in science, and bring me the "prove" that it is a truth. Do that, and I will show you what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 This is highly untrue. Atheists do exist, and they DO not believe in God, one does not need to believe in a God to be moral, and the best example of that are the Humanists which are for most part atheists. Here the whole point is about Faith, Faith in things, you may have Faith in the existance of a God, Faith on its non existance. And this is the most important of all, because what makes your universe, is what you believe in... that means, in what you have Faith in. As for "Proving God," the impossibility of "proving" God does not lie on the fact that a God is immaterial, but rather, nothing other than incertitutes existance could be proven. Proving means that you can not counter it with other evidences... nothing in science could really be proven(other than incertitute)... so asking to "prove" the existance of a God is a double standard. You apparently forget that some people can be dialectically atheists yet ethically believers, just like there can be dialectic christians who behave ethically like unbelievers. As far as your point about faith, that is very much so, and very much real, as humans move about more by belief than by reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 I don't know, Domino, why don't you give me an example yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 I don't know, Domino, why don't you give me an example yourself? Den_ it will defeat the purpose, just about anything... gravity, relativity, etc... you can choose anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Den_ it will defeat the purpose, just about anything... gravity, relativity, etc... you can choose anything. O.K, well, I'm not well versed in Physics, so I will stick to discrete math... Just a small informal "proof": ! p =* p =* false Taking the left side (!p = p): If p is true, then ! p is false. So we have: false = true But false = true is false. * where = is the 3 bar equivalent.   But of course, you're going to say that there may be something else other than true and false. But I digress. We are talking about an example like this, here: Something is either 1 or not (which means that it's not 1, therefore, something else). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 That is a classic Den_, but you are cheating, I already told you that "prove" can exist in math. I do not consider math as a science, but the language of science. Now, another example please, and this time don't cheat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 LOL!!! Hmmmk.. I don't really know any proofs in Physics. Not well versed in it, I'm afraid. Maybe Anonymouse can help me out here? Â Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Physics isn't exactly my field, but I know there are two laws of physics - the ones we know, and the ones we don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 LOL!!! Hmmmk.. I don't really know any proofs in Physics. Not well versed in it, I'm afraid. Maybe Anonymouse can help me out here? Â Sorry. What about gravity then? So I made a choice for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 What about gravity then? So I made a choice for you. What about it? I really don't know how to make proofs about gravity. Ask me anything about discrete math, but I have no clue about Chemistry or Physics, although I've taken a course or two... (No, I'm not doing this to ruin the point you're trying to make.) But if anyone can go ahead with a proof in my place, go ahead. Can't wait to read your point, Domino. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 What about gravity then? So I made a choice for you. Well, what kind of proof you want for gravity.. cause i think saying "without gravity there will be absolutley no order to the univers" mostly explains itself..No>>>?? what you think Domino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 There is no proof for gravity. We believe in it just like we believe that the sun is the center of the galaxy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 What about it? I really don't know how to make proofs about gravity. Ask me anything about discrete math, but I have no clue about Chemistry or Physics, although I've taken a course or two... (No, I'm not doing this to ruin the point you're trying to make.) But if anyone can go ahead with a proof in my place, go ahead. Can't wait to read your point, Domino. OK! Sorry for my late reply, I am really sad that I could not share the fun I had on another board here. Well, in short, a Mr. Einstein tried to play his smart @ss by slandering me, Domino later decided to ignore that mothers big boy, my ignorance inflated Mr. Einsteins already big Ego, so he though that the reason I was ignoring him was because I am too dumb to answer(like if I learned something, because I already knew being dumb ) Mr. Domino nice guy then answered nicely with a polite 11 pages answer... what Mr. smart big boy answered me? He claimed that the English quality of my last reply was too perfect to have come from me... In all your studies in colleage Dan, in your courses of philosophy, and more particularly thoses where they teach you how to write essays, have you come accross such an anti-theses to reject ones theses ?That did not only made my day, but the whole week, now I can claim having a reserve of one week of laugher.  The guy then accused another member(guess the ethnicity of the member, of course must have been an Armenian right? Whom else would it be?) to have writen my analysis about him, the punk not only had all his slanders against my person debunked and destroyed one by one, was not only enough that he could not bring any valid evidences for any of his claims about my person, but now that was the best of all, he then after having his underwears exposed had to slander and bring in another member whom was not even involved in all this affair. Actually you would like to read it, as I have reffered to Socrates and the "funnel test" in it. Then of course it is expected that when I smash someone with the truth on his head, a Mr. Multiple Alias pop up, a new individual registering for the purposes to answer me. And guess what, the guy start posting at that other place what I wrote here in hyeforum, not only this, but that individual knows stuff about me that the large majority of the members here at hyeforum don't even know. I must have become some sort of celebrity for those Turks, for them to track my posts, and follow me like this for years hidding under mutiple aliases. I don't think, need to be said here, that I have responded this other punk accordingly.  Now, what all this stuff has anything to do with this thread. Right? I am reading my dear chap Den_ mind here...  Domino the Donkey medidated regarding the situation on the other place, and some way it was related to this thread, and it concerns what we call "prove." Den_ "prove" is something which can not be debated, what I mean, is that when I "prove" something this something become a "fact" something which could not be disproved, in science, there is no such thing... in science everything is debated, everything could be questioned, "prove" in fact, in its proper sense of the term is non existant in science. Now the exanple of gravity, "gravity" could be questioned, the attraction between objects could be rejections(I may come to that later in another post). Now, the whole thing regarding undeterminism I presented is very much related to your field. Why does philosophy exist? Philosophy exist because of the undeterminism. What is a philosophical question? A philosophical question is a question where you can find a theses and an anti-theses and defend them... you can defend one reality(the theses) over another(the anti-theses). Philosophy is the product of this world undeterminism. If there was such a thing as a "prove" "ultimate truth" philosophy won't have its place, it could even not exist. because a truth, an ultimate one, can not have an anti-theses. ... Do I continue here,... unfortunitly i have overcharged my brain, and i have to plug it back to charge it again, so you have to wait a little to have an answer... as I have wasted a charge on the other place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph parikian Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 (edited) JESUS PROFILEÂ Screen Name: Jesus316 Member Name: Jesus Christ Location: Paradise Birthdate: 12/25/00 Sex: Male Marital Status: Single Computers: This one on my desk Hobbies: carpentry, fishing Occupation: Messiah (No paychecks, though) Quote: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" Edited February 28, 2004 by joseph parikian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted August 26, 2004 Report Share Posted August 26, 2004 Who invented how to make bread? What a silly question!! :) Of course...!! Look at the Lord's Prayer; "Give us this day our daily bread....." "zHays mer hanapazor tur mez aysor"???  :) Silly!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.