StarCraft® II

Prove my logic wrong

Posts: 1,342
im not claiming my irrational position is rational i'm just saying it COULD be rational because we dont know what happened

i can't prove that my theory is true but you also cant prove ur theory that my irrational idea is impossible

i will say my irrational idea is irrational it is counter-intuitive but just because it is unlikly doesnt mean it is immposible to be true
Posts: 149
01/23/2012 02:48 PMPosted by CptHavoc
i can't prove that my theory is true but you also cant prove ur theory that my irrational idea is impossible


The difference is, whether you believe it or not, there is solid evidence for the "big bang".

Your only evidence is that we can't definitively prove you wrong.
Posts: 1,342
there is also evidence for many of the "stories" if you will of the bible

such as the flood for one. not to mention all the prophecies that were later fulfilled in jesus and have yet to be fulfilled in the final days
Posts: 149
there is also evidence for many of the "stories" if you will of the bible

such as the flood for one. not to mention all the prophecies that were later fulfilled in jesus and have yet to be fulfilled in the final days


Nearly every culture on earth has a story similar to that of Noah and the great flood. Few, if any, of the stories or concepts in the bible are unique. This probably has more to do with the concept of psychic unity than anything else.

As far as prophecies go... There's a reason prophets are always hazy on the details. If you make enough predictions, you're bound to get something right eventually, and people rarely remember the failures.
Posts: 334

The only thing I take issue with is trying to claim that an irrational position is rational.


This is what I take offense to. God is more than a rational option, until science can prove it's statement true, that all things happen for a reason.

You said earlier that random can occur and not break down science. That is false, science is based upon being able to repeat something, thus explaining why it works. Science has hit a road block with gravity, we can't explain it, but we can define it. We have reached our scientific potential to understand gravity. Does that mean God? Not necessarily, but it could mean humans aren't capable of furthering science beyond that point.

Quantum theory is an incomplete science. Spontaneous is contradictory to science because of what I mentioned, without an explanation, it's no longer science. If you believe quantum theory is complete, you have your God right there. Random acts beyond the laws of the universe. Just because you have now proved random exist, doesn't mean you have explain why.

I won't revisit this thread as you are a troll. I only revisited to see if they deleted my post, and having read your responses to the other guy, I felt pity on you to rebuttal your illogical approach to science.
Edited by GTNSX on 1/23/2012 11:32 PM PST
Posts: 1,342
thanks GTNSX =)
Posts: 1,342
there is also evidence for many of the "stories" if you will of the bible

such as the flood for one. not to mention all the prophecies that were later fulfilled in jesus and have yet to be fulfilled in the final days


Nearly every culture on earth has a story similar to that of Noah and the great flood. Few, if any, of the stories or concepts in the bible are unique. This probably has more to do with the concept of psychic unity than anything else.

As far as prophecies go... There's a reason prophets are always hazy on the details. If you make enough predictions, you're bound to get something right eventually, and people rarely remember the failures.


i would not call the biblical prophecies vague in any sense, many of them are very specific so much so that Jesus is the only one that has fulfilled them all. also, the bible was a document written over many hundreds of years, it is not just one author like so many other religions (besides God i meant the human authors) such as Moses, Paul, and Luke, and so many others, and yet it never contradicts itself with 2 or more different doctrines, it is all one story (Gods plan for redemption) over a very long time

EDIT: on a side note how long before either i or this thread get banned/deleted?
Edited by CptHavoc on 1/24/2012 5:04 AM PST
Posts: 334
An option is not rational just because an exact explanation has not been developed. But kudos for wading in without reading prior responses.


Spock said it best in Startrek, that "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Science is trying to do just that, eliminate all the impossible, and if that happens to be infinite, you are essentially a horse chasing a carrot on a stick. Science is a promise, God, if you have faith, is just accepted. You can accept gravity without explanation, why would accepting God be any different? I've spoken at length about this in another thread, come read it if you want. I think it will do you well to read it.

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3941896220


Roll a dice. Randomness does not break down science. There aren't dice-faeries who decide which side ends up facing up.


Dice rolling is not random, it depends on how the dice is thrown, at what angle, how much force, and so on. It has many factors, possibly humanly immeasurable, but that doesn't mean that if you did know all the variables that you can't predict the outcome. If you knew all there is to know, you'd know the outcome.


Also; 'we have reached our scientific potential to understand gravity' is one of the most laughably, ludicrously ignorant statements I've ever read.


It's postulated, meaning we just assume...so laugh away. Cause I'm crying for you because of how ignorant you are and how clueless you are of it.


Hahahah

Classic.

"I make my claims, then WON'T RETURN MWAHAHAHA. That'll show you!"

Incredibly dishonest - and that just says to me you want to shout out some bad arguments and run because you're afraid of having your ridiculous statements challenged.


Intellectually expressed, well done. As repugnant as you are, do you really question why one would rather leave your presence than argue?

About the Bible, I will not defend it because it's not something I believe to be factual. I don't think they were lying when they wrote it, I just don't think they fully understand what we understand today, so it may seem of a higher order. And yes, I've read a few chapters of the Bible, that's why I don't argue in favor the Bible, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of God, or that I don't like the bible, it does have redeeming qualities, which is why it is so popular.
Edited by GTNSX on 1/24/2012 9:30 AM PST
Posts: 149
01/24/2012 05:03 AMPosted by CptHavoc
EDIT: on a side note how long before either i or this thread get banned/deleted?


I don't see any reason why they'd ban you, though Astrai is toeing the line for sure. Leave the ad hominems at the door sir.

01/24/2012 09:23 AMPosted by GTNSX
It's postulated, meaning we just assume...so laugh away. Cause I'm crying for you because of how ignorant you are and how clueless you are of it.



Read David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity regarding the reach of human ideas. There will never be an end to problems, but neither is there a problem which we can't solve. Eventually we will explain gravity, though I doubt that will satisfy our desire for explanations.
Posts: 1,342
01/24/2012 02:05 PMPosted by capnpufnstuf
I don't see any reason why they'd ban you, though Astrai is toeing the line for sure. Leave the ad hominems at the door sir.


thanks for the reassurance =)
Posts: 95
01/24/2012 09:23 AMPosted by GTNSX
Dice rolling is not random, it depends on how the dice is thrown, at what angle, how much force, and so on. It has many factors, possibly humanly immeasurable, but that doesn't mean that if you did know all the variables that you can't predict the outcome. If you knew all there is to know, you'd know the outcome.

...and if it is impossible to know the variables doesn't that make it unpredictable?
Posts: 149
01/25/2012 09:56 AMPosted by AbslomDaak
...and if it is impossible to know the variables doesn't that make it unpredictable?


No, that simply means we have incomplete information, not that the event is truly random. The only place where we see what appears to be true randomness is quantum mechanics, where even if we know the variables we can't always predict the outcome.
Posts: 95
01/25/2012 12:32 PMPosted by capnpufnstuf
...and if it is impossible to know the variables doesn't that make it unpredictable?


No, that simply means we have incomplete information, not that the event is truly random. The only place where we see what appears to be true randomness is quantum mechanics, where even if we know the variables we can't always predict the outcome.

I don't think we are actually disagreeing - but anyways - what I'm assuming you're referring to is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Is that correct?
Posts: 149
01/25/2012 01:56 PMPosted by AbslomDaak
I don't think we are actually disagreeing - but anyways - what I'm assuming you're referring to is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Is that correct?


Not exactly. The uncertainty pricnciple says that we can't know the variables (or at least, that the variables are very difficult to know), not that the event is random. I was thinking more along the lines of hawking radiation and spontaenous generation/anhilation of quantum particles. I'm simply an overly-enthusiastic layman, however, so I might be wrong in assuming there is any true randomness invovled there either.
Posts: 95
01/25/2012 03:28 PMPosted by capnpufnstuf
Not exactly. The uncertainty pricnciple says that we can't know the variables (or at least, that the variables are very difficult to know), not that the event is random.

The uncertainty principle puts limitations on precision. Which can make some situations impossible to predict with better odds than chance at the outcome of a system. Which fits the normal definition of "random".
I was thinking more along the lines of hawking radiation and spontaenous generation/anhilation of quantum particles. I'm simply an overly-enthusiastic layman, however, so I might be wrong in assuming there is any true randomness invovled there either.

Hawking radiation is the result of the uncertainty principle.

If by "true randomness" you mean something that you can't predict even if you know all the variables involved. Then your definition is unfalsifiable - after all what...other than the outcomes would you use to determine predictability. If you couldn't predict the outcomes of some particular system. How could you differentiate between it being a system where you knew all the variables and one where you didn't? In other words how could you know that the unpredictability wasn't the result of a variable that you don't know about.

Why would you want to make a distinction that you can't ever validate.
Edited by AbslomDaak on 1/25/2012 3:58 PM PST
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]