Automotive Fish Wars

[Howard]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Holy Post-of-the-frickin-year, Batman!

I think at least half of the world's problems could be solved if everybody would just sit down and resolve their philosophical and ideological differences.

Good luck with that.

 

[MikeMike]

there is a local car dealer near my house who used to put their logo inside a fish... no meaning at all othre than that was their logo...

now there is THIS??

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Holy Post-of-the-frickin-year, Batman!

I think at least half of the world's problems could be solved if everybody would just sit down and resolve their philosophical and ideological differences.

Good luck with that.

Do you think that you'll ever be able to do something difficult if you don't believe in your ability to do it? Half way through you'll quit, and where does that get you? It gets you guaranteed failure and a bunch of wasted effort.

Even if you don't believe you can do something, the very importance of something can motivate you to keep trying despite overwhelming evidence that you'll fail. Imagine if a locked car rolled down a hill into a lake with a baby inside. Don't you think that a mother would try to get the child out, regardless whether she thinks it's possible?

I feel the same way about this world, trapped in a car of various lunacies, rolling down to its destruction. I need to do what I can. We all should.

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
With all the fish on the back of people's cars, I was beginning to wonder... are there any fish that support INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

That would be the Christian fish...

That doesn't specifically support intelligent design. Many people with those on their cars support creationism, which is an entirely different theory.

I believe that the Big Bang happened with evolution and all that stuff, but unlike many atheist scientists, I believe it all happened for a reason and with a plan.

Interesting. Most creationist are also intelligent design...most, not all....

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I love how you use Occam's Razor to prove that God doesn't exist. Didn't you know that William of Ockham was a friar? He was in the Order of Friars Minor to be exact. (I've met a lot of Franciscans myself.) You might have been better off calling it the Law of Parsimony, which is the more accepted term among atheists for trying to disprove God. (I've met plenty of you.)

The theory was not created to serve a purpose. It's just that God-fearing people see things that atheists don't. People are more than just machines with five senses. If you accept that, you'll see why. You won't see the evidence until you start to believe it. It's funny like that. You have emotions, and you draw conclusions from things that are only BASED on the five senses, yet you deny the existence of a universal LOGIC that you use every day to base your scientific observations. Logic is only a remnant of an intelligent creator... the ashes of the fires of Creation.

What is a circle? What is a square? These things don't exist in the world. Numbers don't exist in the world. These "mathematicals" (as Plato called them) are the halfway point between the material and the eternal. Are you going to tell me that circles don't exist, even though they can't be observed with the five senses? (Be careful here: you can see objects that are SHAPED like circles, but nothing is truly a circle in and of itself. All objects have mass and volume, but a circle is a locus of points, and a circle has no volume.)

i see another post might have tempered your hostility, but just in case... my post was by no means an attack on the existance of God. i'm not "one of those athiests" as you assumed. i was merely pointing out that ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a scientific discussion.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Intelligent design has no conflict with the standard evolutionary account of the world. It only goes one step further to say that God intended the whole thing to happen. While I can't prove this to you, you can't prove it wrong.

No. The problem with ID is that the theory was created to serve a purpose - to implant God in biological discussion. A true scientific theory would collect data without bias and form a hypothesis to fit the data. Inserting God into the equation violates Occam's Razor.

I love how you use Occam's Razor to prove that God doesn't exist. Didn't you know that William of Ockham was a friar? He was in the Order of Friars Minor to be exact. (I've met a lot of Franciscans myself.) You might have been better off calling it the Law of Parsimony, which is the more accepted term among atheists for trying to disprove God. (I've met plenty of you.)

The theory was not created to serve a purpose. It's just that God-fearing people see things that atheists don't. People are more than just machines with five senses. If you accept that, you'll see why. You won't see the evidence until you start to believe it. It's funny like that. You have emotions, and you draw conclusions from things that are only BASED on the five senses, yet you deny the existence of a universal LOGIC that you use every day to base your scientific observations. Logic is only a remnant of an intelligent creator... the ashes of the fires of Creation.

What is a circle? What is a square? These things don't exist in the world. Numbers don't exist in the world. These "mathematicals" (as Plato called them) are the halfway point between the material and the eternal. Are you going to tell me that circles don't exist, even though they can't be observed with the five senses? (Be careful here: you can see objects that are SHAPED like circles, but nothing is truly a circle in and of itself. All objects have mass and volume, but a circle is a locus of points, and a circle has no volume.)

?I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.?

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I love how you use Occam's Razor to prove that God doesn't exist. Didn't you know that William of Ockham was a friar? He was in the Order of Friars Minor to be exact. (I've met a lot of Franciscans myself.) You might have been better off calling it the Law of Parsimony, which is the more accepted term among atheists for trying to disprove God. (I've met plenty of you.)

The theory was not created to serve a purpose. It's just that God-fearing people see things that atheists don't. People are more than just machines with five senses. If you accept that, you'll see why. You won't see the evidence until you start to believe it. It's funny like that. You have emotions, and you draw conclusions from things that are only BASED on the five senses, yet you deny the existence of a universal LOGIC that you use every day to base your scientific observations. Logic is only a remnant of an intelligent creator... the ashes of the fires of Creation.

What is a circle? What is a square? These things don't exist in the world. Numbers don't exist in the world. These "mathematicals" (as Plato called them) are the halfway point between the material and the eternal. Are you going to tell me that circles don't exist, even though they can't be observed with the five senses? (Be careful here: you can see objects that are SHAPED like circles, but nothing is truly a circle in and of itself. All objects have mass and volume, but a circle is a locus of points, and a circle has no volume.)

i see another post might have tempered your hostility, but just in case... my post was by no means an attack on the existance of God. i'm not "one of those athiests" as you assumed. i was merely pointing out that ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a scientific discussion.

i think he wanted an opportunity to talk and took whatever he could get. he went from a friar to molding what you see to what you first believed to going on about circles. he mentioned logic, but i cant see why he bothered.

come to think of it, on the topic of car-fishies, is there one with a fisherman reeling in one of these things?

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I love how you use Occam's Razor to prove that God doesn't exist. Didn't you know that William of Ockham was a friar? He was in the Order of Friars Minor to be exact. (I've met a lot of Franciscans myself.) You might have been better off calling it the Law of Parsimony, which is the more accepted term among atheists for trying to disprove God. (I've met plenty of you.)

The theory was not created to serve a purpose. It's just that God-fearing people see things that atheists don't. People are more than just machines with five senses. If you accept that, you'll see why. You won't see the evidence until you start to believe it. It's funny like that. You have emotions, and you draw conclusions from things that are only BASED on the five senses, yet you deny the existence of a universal LOGIC that you use every day to base your scientific observations. Logic is only a remnant of an intelligent creator... the ashes of the fires of Creation.

What is a circle? What is a square? These things don't exist in the world. Numbers don't exist in the world. These "mathematicals" (as Plato called them) are the halfway point between the material and the eternal. Are you going to tell me that circles don't exist, even though they can't be observed with the five senses? (Be careful here: you can see objects that are SHAPED like circles, but nothing is truly a circle in and of itself. All objects have mass and volume, but a circle is a locus of points, and a circle has no volume.)

i see another post might have tempered your hostility, but just in case... my post was by no means an attack on the existance of God. i'm not "one of those athiests" as you assumed. i was merely pointing out that ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a scientific discussion.

i think he wanted an opportunity to talk and took whatever he could get. he went from a friar to molding what you see to what you first believed to going on about circles. he mentioned logic, but i cant see why he bothered.

come to think of it, on the topic of car-fishies, is there one with a fisherman reeling in one of these things?

People deify logic, which is the souce of all science. Sure, you can observe things all you want, but it's the logic that pieces together observations into conclusions that characterizes science. People take logic for granted as a fundamental starting point in much the same way I take God for granted as a fundamental starting point of my view of the universe. Logic is something that isn't ever discussed from a philosophical point of view these days. (You only hear about it in the classroom environment when studying Greek philosophy, and then it's over.)

Logic, to me, is proof of an intelligent creator. People talk about the scientific origins of the universe, but people rarely stop to realize that these very laws of science responsible for the Big Bang and whatnot all follow a very organized system free of the chaos of a random and spontaneous universe. The very properties of math and time were created. They weren't "always" in existence (however you define "always").

My rambling about friars was reminiscent of a man I miss very much, Fr. Colin Kidd, OFM. I think about him all the time. He spent most of his life travelling the world as a missoinary. I always wish I got to know him more. I'm sorry that it entered the discussion in such an unrelated manner, but I can't stop thinking about him.

I went on to discuss the immaterial nature of math. Math does not exist in our world, yet people believe in it. You can't see a number. It's just like physics. You can't see a force. You can only observe these things indirectly. I belive in the number 2 because I've seen two of something, and I believe in forces because I've seen a car hit another car and cause damage. Can you describe math or physics to someone who has never seen them in action? Can someone who never payed any attention to the world around them properly learn math or physics?

My hypothesis is that those who don't believe in God are simply close-minded to the possibility of a God, and they'll never experience the extra-sensory "observations" made by those who do. People who say that agnostics are atheists without balls are people who are close-minded. It is impossible, in all areas of math, science, and logic, to prove a negative conjecture without surrounding positive conjectures in place, so why do people bother to put God in the category of science?


Edit: I just found some info about him:
Rev Colin Kidd, O.F.M.
Ordained June 13, 1948
July 30, 1921-Apr 28, 2001

Damn I miss him.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
There's the original Christian fish. Then there's the Darwin fish. Then everybody else came up with their own fish, like this one I saw today:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f360/kevinthenerd/darwin.jpg

With all the fish on the back of people's cars, I was beginning to wonder... are there any fish that support INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

I think the fish on the back of the car is retarded, but I do like that one... Clever.

That said, I'd never put it on my car.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I love how you use Occam's Razor to prove that God doesn't exist. Didn't you know that William of Ockham was a friar? He was in the Order of Friars Minor to be exact. (I've met a lot of Franciscans myself.) You might have been better off calling it the Law of Parsimony, which is the more accepted term among atheists for trying to disprove God. (I've met plenty of you.)

The theory was not created to serve a purpose. It's just that God-fearing people see things that atheists don't. People are more than just machines with five senses. If you accept that, you'll see why. You won't see the evidence until you start to believe it. It's funny like that. You have emotions, and you draw conclusions from things that are only BASED on the five senses, yet you deny the existence of a universal LOGIC that you use every day to base your scientific observations. Logic is only a remnant of an intelligent creator... the ashes of the fires of Creation.

What is a circle? What is a square? These things don't exist in the world. Numbers don't exist in the world. These "mathematicals" (as Plato called them) are the halfway point between the material and the eternal. Are you going to tell me that circles don't exist, even though they can't be observed with the five senses? (Be careful here: you can see objects that are SHAPED like circles, but nothing is truly a circle in and of itself. All objects have mass and volume, but a circle is a locus of points, and a circle has no volume.)

i see another post might have tempered your hostility, but just in case... my post was by no means an attack on the existance of God. i'm not "one of those athiests" as you assumed. i was merely pointing out that ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a scientific discussion.

i think he wanted an opportunity to talk and took whatever he could get. he went from a friar to molding what you see to what you first believed to going on about circles. he mentioned logic, but i cant see why he bothered.

come to think of it, on the topic of car-fishies, is there one with a fisherman reeling in one of these things?

People deify logic, which is the souce of all science. Sure, you can observe things all you want, but it's the logic that pieces together observations into conclusions that characterizes science. People take logic for granted as a fundamental starting point in much the same way I take God for granted as a fundamental starting point of my view of the universe. Logic is something that isn't ever discussed from a philosophical point of view these days. (You only hear about it in the classroom environment when studying Greek philosophy, and then it's over.)

Logic, to me, is proof of an intelligent creator. People talk about the scientific origins of the universe, but people rarely stop to realize that these very laws of science responsible for the Big Bang and whatnot all follow a very organized system free of the chaos of a random and spontaneous universe. The very properties of math and time were created. They weren't "always" in existence (however you define "always").

My rambling about friars was reminiscent of a man I miss very much, Fr. Colin Kidd, OFM. I think about him all the time. He spent most of his life travelling the world as a missoinary. I always wish I got to know him more. I'm sorry that it entered the discussion in such an unrelated manner, but I can't stop thinking about him.

I went on to discuss the immaterial nature of math. Math does not exist in our world, yet people believe in it. You can't see a number. It's just like physics. You can't see a force. You can only observe these things indirectly. I belive in the number 2 because I've seen two of something, and I believe in forces because I've seen a car hit another car and cause damage. Can you describe math or physics to someone who has never seen them in action? Can someone who never payed any attention to the world around them properly learn math or physics?

My hypothesis is that those who don't believe in God are simply close-minded to the possibility of a God, and they'll never experience the extra-sensory "observations" made by those who do. People who say that agnostics are atheists without balls are people who are close-minded. It is impossible, in all areas of math, science, and logic, to prove a negative conjecture without surrounding positive conjectures in place, so why do people bother to put God in the category of science?


Edit: I just found some info about him:
Rev Colin Kidd, O.F.M.
Ordained June 13, 1948
July 30, 1921-Apr 28, 2001

Damn I miss him.

I'm not nearly as eloquent as you (nor probably as intelligent). However, I do feel that your argument is flawed.

It's flawed in that it really isn't much of an argument at all, but more of a thinly veiled intellectual posturing belittling those who don?t prescribe to your belief system.

I?d agree with you that mathematics doesn?t ?exist? per se in this world. A circle can be found nowhere in perfection. Even the most precise machine couldn?t draw one without flaw (even discounting volume). This suggests that all exact reasoning is only to be found in the ideal, not sensible world.

Pythagoras first saw this as evidence that God (or some supernatural force) must exist in the ideal or supernatural world where pure mathematics exist (math is ?Gods thoughts).

That aside, it seems to me that you didn?t really want to travel down the road of trying to show proofs of Gods existence, but rather use it to segue right into your ?hypothesis? that those who don?t believe in God are simply closed minded.

You say that those who have failed to observe their world couldn?t know what math and physics are and then attempt to say this is the same as with people who have closed their mind to God.

If that is the case, then it should be a simple matter of opening their minds. It is a fairly simple matter to open peoples eyes to physics and math (we are all born ignorant of such matters yet nearly all learn of them). If being closed minded about math and physics is really analogous with being closed minded about God, it should be a simple matter of showing people the proof.

However, it isn?t. And that would seem ?proof? enough that they aren?t the same. And saying ?you just don?t understand because you are closed minded? is quite the cop-out. It would seem to me that you are the one who is closed minded.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
My hypothesis is that those who don't believe in God are simply close-minded to the possibility of a God

those who deny the possibility of a "god" are as close minded as those who accept one.

i will never understand why so many humans just can not accept the fact that there is a lot more to everything than our brains are capable of understanding or comprehending.

 

[GeneValgene]

haha i've seen cars with both darwin fish and regular fish

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
My hypothesis is that those who don't believe in God are simply close-minded to the possibility of a God

those who deny the possibility of a "god" are as close minded as those who accept one.

i will never understand why so many humans just can not accept the fact that there is a lot more to everything than our brains are capable of understanding or comprehending.

Please support your assertion that this is a "fact". I contend that it is not a "fact", but rather simply your opinion that there is a lot more to everything than what we are capable of understanding.

Because we do not understand foo YET does not mean that we will NEVER understand foo.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Please support your assertion that this is a "fact". I contend that it is not a "fact", but rather simply your opinion that there is a lot more to everything than what we are capable of understanding.

Because we do not understand foo YET does not mean that we will NEVER understand foo.

That doesn't stop me from pitying the foo.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
...Damn I miss him.

I'm not nearly as eloquent as you (nor probably as intelligent). However, I do feel that your argument is flawed.

It's flawed in that it really isn't much of an argument at all, but more of a thinly veiled intellectual posturing belittling those who don?t prescribe to your belief system.

Yes, it's thin. Proof of God will always be thinly-based because God is outside of the customary system of proof.

I?d agree with you that mathematics doesn?t ?exist? per se in this world. A circle can be found nowhere in perfection. Even the most precise machine couldn?t draw one without flaw (even discounting volume). This suggests that all exact reasoning is only to be found in the ideal, not sensible world.

Well, you almost have it, but not quite. It's not the perfection I'm talking about, although that's one important aspect of it. I'm talking about the fact that a circle is not at all something that can be approached. A flawed circle can't even exist in the material world, just as a number can't. You can have exactly 20 cars in a parking lot, but you can't fetch the number 20 out of a hat and hold it up, recognizable only as a number -- not a number on a piece of paper but a material object. You see, circular objects exist, but to pick up an object and say that it's a circle, without belonging to any other category of objects (i.e. a coin, a jar lid, a CD) is impossible. To exist in the natural world, a circular object has to be made of some kind of matter. A circle contains no matter, and its volume is zero. A circle is simply a mathematical tool. The fundamental concept of a circle is something that was created in the human mind, and we see all kinds of circular objects in this world because we've named that circular shape a "circle."

Pythagoras first saw this as evidence that God (or some supernatural force) must exist in the ideal or supernatural world where pure mathematics exist (math is ?Gods thoughts).

Yes, but I'm taking his ideas a few steps further.

That aside, it seems to me that you didn?t really want to travel down the road of trying to show proofs of Gods existence, but rather use it to segue right into your ?hypothesis? that those who don?t believe in God are simply closed minded.

Those who don't entertain the possibility of something -- be it anything -- are close-minded. These individuals, in my opinion, don't seem like the ideal candidates for being a research scientist or an inventor. You have to have a little imagination. It's a healthy part of the human psyche. The adult imagination can blend seamlessly into the material world, providing the powers of creativity and intuition. I'm not really trying to prove that God exists. "Proof," as I said, is transcended by this stuff. I'm trying to "show" that God exists. There's a slight difference between the two.

You say that those who have failed to observe their world couldn?t know what math and physics are and then attempt to say this is the same as with people who have closed their mind to God.

If that is the case, then it should be a simple matter of opening their minds. It is a fairly simple matter to open peoples eyes to physics and math (we are all born ignorant of such matters yet nearly all learn of them). If being closed minded about math and physics is really analogous with being closed minded about God, it should be a simple matter of showing people the proof.

I'm not trying to open minds. I'm trying to open "hearts." I'm not talking about the four-chambered muscle in your chest; I'm talking about those illogical parts of the human that are inseparable and often conflicting with those machine-like, scientific instincts most of the average Anandtech'ers might have. You feel it when you fall in love or when you think about fond memories. You feel it when you get angry with people without logical cause.

However, it isn?t. And that would seem ?proof? enough that they aren?t the same. And saying ?you just don?t understand because you are closed minded? is quite the cop-out. It would seem to me that you are the one who is closed minded.

My arguments come after a period of spiritual crisis. I had to rediscover God for myself because I doubted Him. I was open to all possibilities, and this is where I arrived. I can't say that I have all the truth, and that's why I'm still learning. I wish I had the words to describe what I feel to others.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
...Damn I miss him.

I'm not nearly as eloquent as you (nor probably as intelligent). However, I do feel that your argument is flawed.

It's flawed in that it really isn't much of an argument at all, but more of a thinly veiled intellectual posturing belittling those who don?t prescribe to your belief system.

Yes, it's thin. Proof of God will always be thinly-based because God is outside of the customary system of proof.

I?d agree with you that mathematics doesn?t ?exist? per se in this world. A circle can be found nowhere in perfection. Even the most precise machine couldn?t draw one without flaw (even discounting volume). This suggests that all exact reasoning is only to be found in the ideal, not sensible world.

Well, you almost have it, but not quite. It's not the perfection I'm talking about, although that's one important aspect of it. I'm talking about the fact that a circle is not at all something that can be approached. A flawed circle can't even exist in the material world, just as a number can't. You can have exactly 20 cars in a parking lot, but you can't fetch the number 20 out of a hat and hold it up, recognizable only as a number -- not a number on a piece of paper but a material object. You see, circular objects exist, but to pick up an object and say that it's a circle, without belonging to any other category of objects (i.e. a coin, a jar lid, a CD) is impossible. To exist in the natural world, a circular object has to be made of some kind of matter. A circle contains no matter, and its volume is zero. A circle is simply a mathematical tool. The fundamental concept of a circle is something that was created in the human mind, and we see all kinds of circular objects in this world because we've named that circular shape a "circle."

Pythagoras first saw this as evidence that God (or some supernatural force) must exist in the ideal or supernatural world where pure mathematics exist (math is ?Gods thoughts).

Yes, but I'm taking his ideas a few steps further.

That aside, it seems to me that you didn?t really want to travel down the road of trying to show proofs of Gods existence, but rather use it to segue right into your ?hypothesis? that those who don?t believe in God are simply closed minded.

Those who don't entertain the possibility of something -- be it anything -- are close-minded. These individuals, in my opinion, don't seem like the ideal candidates for being a research scientist or an inventor. You have to have a little imagination. It's a healthy part of the human psyche. The adult imagination can blend seamlessly into the material world, providing the powers of creativity and intuition. I'm not really trying to prove that God exists. "Proof," as I said, is transcended by this stuff. I'm trying to "show" that God exists. There's a slight difference between the two.

You say that those who have failed to observe their world couldn?t know what math and physics are and then attempt to say this is the same as with people who have closed their mind to God.

If that is the case, then it should be a simple matter of opening their minds. It is a fairly simple matter to open peoples eyes to physics and math (we are all born ignorant of such matters yet nearly all learn of them). If being closed minded about math and physics is really analogous with being closed minded about God, it should be a simple matter of showing people the proof.

I'm not trying to open minds. I'm trying to open "hearts." I'm not talking about the four-chambered muscle in your chest; I'm talking about those illogical parts of the human that are inseparable and often conflicting with those machine-like, scientific instincts most of the average Anandtech'ers might have. You feel it when you fall in love or when you think about fond memories. You feel it when you get angry with people without logical cause.

However, it isn?t. And that would seem ?proof? enough that they aren?t the same. And saying ?you just don?t understand because you are closed minded? is quite the cop-out. It would seem to me that you are the one who is closed minded.

My arguments come after a period of spiritual crisis. I had to rediscover God for myself because I doubted Him. I was open to all possibilities, and this is where I arrived. I can't say that I have all the truth, and that's why I'm still learning. I wish I had the words to describe what I feel to others.

I am troubled somewhat by the arguments... Although I advocate not being closed minded about God existing, I dont see how your argument is relevent.
A circle is a concept, not an object. Althought I cannot touch a circle, I can define what a circle is: by listing its logical measurable components. A circle has a center point and a radius. Those are the only 2 things I need to know, and everyone will know my circle. Furthermore, I can define the center point as having X and Y qualities. (A nice perspecting from a OOPer.)
Our basis of logic relies on tangible measurable qualities, we dont question it, because it accurately describe the world we live in.

(Un)Fortunately if a God were to exist, God would not necessarily be subject to the world we live in, therefore all our logic and tangibles cannot be applied. Lets now assume that there exists a spiritual world, where all gods and spiritual beings exist. That place would be subject to its own set of unique physical laws, (much like our own). And there would be a system of logic to describe that world, and all that is in it. What I believe you are trying to say, is that some humans have learned to "experience" this spiritual world with a "sixth" sence, lets call it the spiritual sence/. Althought this spiritual sence may exist, it is not measurable in any way with our other five. (much like scent, cannot be detected by our ears.) And anyone who has not developed this sixth sence should not rule out the spiritual world, because doing so would be closed minded. Whether it be religious folks praying to god, psychics fortelling the future (beware fo fakes), Mystical Spirit Contacters (mediums who talk to the dead), demon possessions and excorcisms... There seems to be a significant amount (>2%) of spiritual contact activity to ignore that this world possibly exists entirely.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Well, you almost have it, but not quite. It's not the perfection I'm talking about, although that's one important aspect of it. I'm talking about the fact that a circle is not at all something that can be approached. A flawed circle can't even exist in the material world, just as a number can't. You can have exactly 20 cars in a parking lot, but you can't fetch the number 20 out of a hat and hold it up, recognizable only as a number -- not a number on a piece of paper but a material object. You see, circular objects exist, but to pick up an object and say that it's a circle, without belonging to any other category of objects (i.e. a coin, a jar lid, a CD) is impossible. To exist in the natural world, a circular object has to be made of some kind of matter. A circle contains no matter, and its volume is zero. A circle is simply a mathematical tool. The fundamental concept of a circle is something that was created in the human mind, and we see all kinds of circular objects in this world because we've named that circular shape a "circle."

ok, you and a billion other people before you have established that pure mathematics is composed of intangible constructs. math was (and is being) developed for its predictive power. it's intangible for a reason - it is bulky and awkward in the "physical" world, so we're forced to play with theoretical concepts in order to get the job done. if you want to compare God to math, you're saying that man invented God in order to solve some of his problems.

Those who don't entertain the possibility of something -- be it anything -- are close-minded. These individuals, in my opinion, don't seem like the ideal candidates for being a research scientist or an inventor. You have to have a little imagination. It's a healthy part of the human psyche. The adult imagination can blend seamlessly into the material world, providing the powers of creativity and intuition. I'm not really trying to prove that God exists. "Proof," as I said, is transcended by this stuff. I'm trying to "show" that God exists. There's a slight difference between the two.

there are an infinite number of alternative explanations of a set of data. removing God as a possible explanation still leaves an infinity of explanations. that's not very closed minded, IMO.

I'm not trying to open minds. I'm trying to open "hearts." I'm not talking about the four-chambered muscle in your chest; I'm talking about those illogical parts of the human that are inseparable and often conflicting with those machine-like, scientific instincts most of the average Anandtech'ers might have. You feel it when you fall in love or when you think about fond memories. You feel it when you get angry with people without logical cause.

i'm sorry, but this sounds like the crappy voiceover in Grey's Anatomy or something.

while i doubt we'll ever be able to solve the equation of love, anger, etc completely, that doesn't automatically mean that these things are floating around in a magical ether.

 

[FelixDeCat]

That fish is as old as the hills. Ive seen them all and then some since the 70s.