TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religious Flaws
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Re: Religious Flaws

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey Hey I wanna know what pisses people off about certain aspects of religions. This is one of my sore spots... "Man have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them." (4:34, Quran)

the end of that section is

For those who fear disobedience, first admonish them, next, refuse to share beds, and last beat them lightly if it is useful. but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means of annoyance.

quote:

I think I've seen the one with complex numbers too, doesn't it exploit the periodic nature of the complex exponential and attempt to prove an invalid construct using multiples of 2j*pi as the argument?

Actually, the one I know of is much simpler than that. In fact, it could be argued that even though imaginary numbers are involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Here is is. (sorry it's so ugly, couldn't figure out a square root sign, so I used a negative 2 exponent instead)

Step 1: -1/1 = 1/-1
Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: (-1/1)^-2 = (1/-1)^-2
Step 3: Simplifying: (-1)^-2 / (1)^-2 = (1)^-2 / (-1)^-2
Step 4: In other words, i/1 = 1/i.
Step 5: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i),
Step 6: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i),
Step 7: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ),
Step 8: (i^2)/2 + (3i)/(2i) = i/(2i) + (3i)/(2i)
Step 9: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2,
Step 10: 1=2

I actually thought this one was easier to find the false step than the first. Probably because I was looking too hard in the "easier" one.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Actually, the one I know of is much simpler than that. In fact, it could be argued that even though imaginary numbers are involved, it has nothing to do with them. Here is is. (sorry it's so ugly, couldn't figure out a square root sign, so I used a negative 2 exponent instead) Step 1: -1/1 = 1/-1 Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: (-1/1)^-2 = (1/-1)^-2 Step 3: Simplifying: (-1)^-2 / (1)^-2 = (1)^-2 / (-1)^-2 Step 4: In other words, i/1 = 1/i. Step 5: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i), Step 6: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i), Step 7: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ), Step 8: (i^2)/2 + (3i)/(2i) = i/(2i) + (3i)/(2i) Step 9: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2, Step 10: 1=2 I actually thought this one was easier to find the false step than the first. Probably because I was looking too hard in the "easier" one.

Bahahaha, that proof is ridiculous! Whoever wrote it seems to have forgotten that sqrt(x) = x^(1/2), not x^(-2). So (-1)^-2 is most definitely NOT i, it's actually 1. Basically everything from step 2 onward makes no sense.

quote:

Bahahaha, that proof is ridiculous! Whoever wrote it seems to have forgotten that sqrt(x) = x^(1/2), not x^(-2). So (-1)^-2 is most definitely NOT i, it's actually 1. Basically everything from step 2 onward makes no sense.

No, that was my fault...I couldn't find the square root tag, so not thinking I put the exponent as -2 instead of 1/2....my bad. The fault still is pretty simple though.

Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: (-1/1)^(1/2) = (1/-1)^(1/2)
Step 3: Simplifying: (-1)^(1/2) / (1)^(1/2) = (1)^(1/2) / (-1)^(1/2)

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, that was my fault...I couldn't find the square root tag, so not thinking I put the exponent as -2 instead of 1/2....my bad. The fault still is pretty simple though.

Well in any case, a square root is double-valued, so it's not a valid proof when one value is ignored. Otherwise you could claim that 1 = -1 because 1� = (-1)�. You can see the positive/negative problem already at step 4 because 1/i = -i, not i.

-2 instead of 1/2 though, you need to brush up on your algebra.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut As for proving the existence of God, the only really viable way to do it would be proof by contradiction (i.e. assume the contrary and prove it is impossible). However, no form of proof for God could ever be constructed this way, because God is a catchall explanation, and proof by contradiction requires an alternative hypothesis (form of disproof).[/COLOR][/FONT]

so at least you admitted you can't disprove existence.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey so at least you admitted you can't disprove existence.

Not sure how you got that from his statement. Proving a negative, however, is easy to do for an explanation of nearly anything you want.

Ex: I believe in flying pink elephant-like creatures from outer space

: Can you prove they exist?

: No, but you can't disprove it either.

See? Pretty easy really.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Not sure how you got that from his statement. Proving a negative, however, is easy to do for an explanation of nearly anything you want. Ex: I believe in flying pink elephant-like creatures from outer space : Can you prove they exist? : No, but you can't disprove it either. See? Pretty easy really.

So the the winged martian death elephants DO exist!!!! I knew it.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So the the winged martian death elephants DO exist!!!! I knew it.

Yeah, they're called Republicans - the wings are merely clipped.

Ahh hell, I just couldn't resist it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Yeah, they're called Republicans - the wings are merely clipped. Ahh hell, I just couldn't resist it.

So are the democrats then space-faring asses from venus?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So are the democrats then space-faring asses from venus?

Damn straight!

I think.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.