16 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhile math always defines a work of art in it's physical attributes, artists are not necessarily mathematicians. My Danish buddy comes to mind. He just likes the way things look; he doesn't analyze or quantify. He's 100% right brained.
art cannot really function i think without mathematics. there are of course varying degrees. Art that is produced purely by mathematics, like fractals, or art that distorts mathematics by utilising creative perspective. Others like Cubism which seems to try to render three dimensions on a two dimensional plane. Again there are artists like Escher ...[text shortened]... eparable, although i would like to see someone attempt 'art', without recourse to mathematics.
16 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou patronizing jackass. You're lecturing me about what happened before the big bang and then telling me to stop quoting principles I don't understand? Roffles.
its not the same thing.
occam's razor is just a basic guideline. it applies in some cases. however as knowledge becomes more and more complex so does the theories.
occam's razor doesn't help you find the right answer. it only suggests that if you don't need a concept in your reasoning, eliminate it.
and yes, god is not "needed" in making the univ it.
try and use your reasoning and stop quoting principles you do not understand.
it is believed that nothing "before" the big bang exists to have triggered it.
That's not true. In the words of Stephen Hawking,
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=66
16 Feb 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhich in my view means discard anything you do not need in finding a solution
in this case i only have to define god as omnipotent. and while god may be infintely complex, he is the easiest solution to any problem conceivable.
why does it rain? god.
why are we alive? god.
why do we dream? god.
using god like that is very easy. it is also the end of science, progress and mostly everything that defines us as a curious race. ...[text shortened]... le. (well i guess you could say that if it is only solution, it is the most simple as well)
Exactly.
When Laplace showed Napoleon his treatise on celestial mechanics, Napoleon asked him what place God had in his theory. Laplace replied that he had no need for that hypothesis.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/religion.html
16 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThink about this sort of question:
why can't an omnipotent being without end or begininng explain everything? i don't have to prove this theory because occam's razor(in the form i find incorrect) doesn't require me to do that.
i add god to the table. and i end all debate. god is the ultimate answer. and is easier to say god makes the sun work rather than say x amount of presure, y amount of heat that allows for fusion to give z amount of energy.
Why do solids melt into liquids?
Because God makes them melt.
Is that going to help us understand why solid sodium chloride is not electrically conductive but molten sodium chloride is? No. It's not the simplest explanation for all that we have observed about melting. It doesn't explain why solids melt instead of turn into raccoons.
18 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungnope. but it is the easiest solutionš
Think about this sort of question:
Why do solids melt into liquids?
Because God makes them melt.
Is that going to help us understand why solid sodium chloride is not electrically conductive but molten sodium chloride is? No. It's not the simplest explanation for all that we have observed about melting. It doesn't explain why solids melt instead of turn into raccoons.
"It doesn't explain why solids melt instead of turn into raccoons"
sure it does. god wants them to melt and not turn into racoons.
18 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi know that story and i like it. it also demonstrates the use of occam's razor which i do agree with: if you don't need a concept, don't use it.
[b]which in my view means discard anything you do not need in finding a solution
Exactly.
When Laplace showed Napoleon his treatise on celestial mechanics, Napoleon asked him what place God had in his theory. Laplace replied that he had no need for that hypothesis.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/religion.html[/b]
that is why i took offence in your formulation:
Occam's razor tends to suggest the lack of gods.
it should be formulated: in following the principle of occam's razor, we do not need to use god in demonstrating any theory.
just because god isn't needed to formulate the theory of evolution or big bang doesn't mean he doesn't exist
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28027
19 Feb 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziExactly why I advocate research on the Martian problem!
i know that story and i like it. it also demonstrates the use of occam's razor which i do agree with: if you don't need a concept, don't use it.
that is why i took offence in your formulation:
Occam's razor tends to suggest the lack of gods.
it should be formulated: in following the principle of occam's razor, we do not need to use god in demonstra ...[text shortened]... 't needed to formulate the theory of evolution or big bang doesn't mean he doesn't exist
27 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's the same reasoning used by Zahlanzi above:
Why would anyone say that?
i add god to the table. and i end all debate. god is the ultimate answer. and is easier to say god makes the sun work rather than say x amount of presure, y amount of heat that allows for fusion to give z amount of energy.
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy not rather say 'the sun is an attribute of God'? That way the sun works the way we think we know it does, God doesn't have to intervene to be the occasion of its action, and God is saved for believers to believe in.
It's the same reasoning used by Zahlanzi above:
i add god to the table. and i end all debate. god is the ultimate answer. and is easier to say god makes the sun work rather than say x amount of presure, y amount of heat that allows for fusion to give z amount of energy.
28 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBecause then you raise questions such as:
Why not rather say 'the sun is an attribute of God'? That way the sun works the way we think we know it does, God doesn't have to intervene to be the occasion of its action, and God is saved for believers to believe in.
Does God exist where there is no star/sun?
Where exactly is that border between sun and not-sun?
How can this hypothesis help us create fusion power plants?
And most cripplingly...
Is this hypothesis falsifiable?
EDIT - And by Occam's Razor, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics is a better theory than Relativistic Quantum Mechanics Plus God.
28 Feb 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziI have no problem with this post. There are some semantic issues we could argue about, but I'd rather just say you're right - because you are.
i know that story and i like it. it also demonstrates the use of occam's razor which i do agree with: if you don't need a concept, don't use it.
that is why i took offence in your formulation:
Occam's razor tends to suggest the lack of gods.
it should be formulated: in following the principle of occam's razor, we do not need to use god in demonstra ...[text shortened]... 't needed to formulate the theory of evolution or big bang doesn't mean he doesn't exist