quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Define "better".

As stated in one of my previous posts, one needs a metric by which to define "better". A suitable choice would be the average integral dt of human happiness or satisfaction over a lifetime. Other suitable choices exist. I'm sure you are familiar with utilitarianism and related concepts, so I won't bore you with details you already know.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And what is this nonsense about game theory? Sure, it's an interesting field, I've read a lot of it myself, but it doesn't claim to be a model for social behaviour outside of... well, games. Real life is not game theory. Information is always constrained, resources usually are not, actors are not rational, and there are few if any clearly-defined rules and boundaries. Game theories are useful models for explaining and predicting a limited subset of social and psychological phenomena, but extrapolating it the way you have is just asinine, and I believe that the majority of practicing mathematicians and researchers in the field would laugh at you for trying to use it in such a way.

Many authors have written about social implications of game theory and you are naive to dismiss it as irrelevant. For example, Brian Skyrms has been quite influential in this area.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Essentially you've given us an analogy in place of evidence and justified it with some excuse about it being too difficult to come up with direct evidence. As someone so deeply interested in mathematics, you really ought to be holding yourself to a higher standard than this. Analogies are the tools of writers and politicians, not mathematicians and scientists, and while they are excellent for explaining difficult concepts to unfamiliar audiences, they have zero value in deductive reasoning.

In the social sciences, one often seeks a mathematical model by which to model human interaction. For example, the Black-Scholes model can accurately model the market for an equity given certain assumptions. If the assumptions are not accurate, you refine the model. The Black-Scholes model is not an "analogy". It is a mathematical representation of a social phenomenon.

Game theoretic models of social behaviour are the same. Aumann and Schelling won the 2005 Nobel prize in economics because of their work in the area. Their analysis has proven extremely useful in modeling competition, conflict, and cooperation.

Dismissing these types of analysis as "the tools of writers and politicians" is doing a great disservice to the entire field of social science. I don't think you actually believe this, but then either you're failing to understand my argument, or you're attacking a straw man.

The one reasonable counter-claim you made is that actors in real life are not always rational. However, this only helps your cause if you believe that it's easier or better to coerce people into behaving in a globally optimal manner by indoctrinating them, rather than actually teaching them to understand the consequences of their actions and building a society where law and responsibility enforce reasonable behaviour. So maybe it's better to have a society full of sheep...?

I suppose some people might think so. I don't.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

Last edited by DJ_Elyot on Feb-02-2009 at 06:05

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Well, yes, it is - if said atheists actually want to prove their position.

Not everyone believes this. Some people would claim that saying "I know there is no god" is as reasonable as saying "I know there is no tooth fairy". Here one has to be careful about what one means by "god". Under the right interpretation, I think it makes sense.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

Ha. I'm not trying to prove if there is a God or not. I'm saying - you don't know. The same way I don't know. So stop saying there is when you have no evidence of such. (Hence why I'm not an atheist of 6/6 on Dawkins scale).

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade I love how the burden of proof is on Atheists. Last time I checked there isn't a single shred of evidence of a God. Now, evolution on the other hand..

There is all kinds of wrong in this post:
a) Atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). The burden of proof in any argument is on the person taking the positive position; thus, it is incumbent on anyone taking the position that there is no god(s) to prove there position; the same is true for theists who take the positive position that there is a god(s). The only people in this discussion with no burden or proof are the agnostics, as they take no positive position.

b) Your assertion that there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god(s) is inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence, it is up to each person to decide how much weight they put on that evidence. Those who believe put a great deal of weight on that evidence, those that do not believe put little or no weight on it; nevertheless, the evidence exists... each of us has the freedom to judge the quality of said evidence for ourselves.

c) You seem to suggest that evolution and atheism are inextricably linked and creationism and religion are as well. This suggestion on your part is patently false. Evidence supporting evolution is not evidence against the existence of god(s) nor is it evidence in support of the existence of no god(s). Furthermore; the creation myth of Genesis only applies to three religions and all but a very few sects of those religions regard it as an apology rather then a literal account (in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has gone so far as to endorse the Theory of Evolution as being truth). One cannot cite evidence of evolution as evidence that there is no god(s); the two things are not mutually exclusive.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced at this time, science can only explain so much....at some point you have to believe in something that science just hasn't been able to explain. That being said, I am not a religous person and scientific proof is where I look first for any explanation.

What if one holds the belief that eventually science can and will explain everything?

However, having a belief/faith in science is not for the purpose of disproving a god. Didn't Newton say something along the lines of his desire to understand the universe, was his desire to understand gods creation?

Following the train of thought that God being 'perfect/rational' being, designed the universe along universal/rational principals, and these principals were free for all to discover. That understanding the laws of nature was to understand the logic of gods creation, and to get to know god better?

So, even if Science gets to the point of being able to explain/prove 'everything' - its coming to an understanding of Gods creation, not disproving the existence of god.

Not saying that I agree or disagree with this notion, but I do find it interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by kaniz What if one holds the belief that eventually science can and will explain everything?

Science will never be able to explain everything as the laws of physics break down at plank time, which means we can only ever speculate what existed prior to then. I fail to see how science could ever get around this as science can only ever hope to explain what is measurable/observable and without the laws of physics in play nothing is measurable/observable.

quote:

However, having a belief/faith in science is not for the purpose of disproving a god. Didn't Newton say something along the lines of his desire to understand the universe, was his desire to understand gods creation? Following the train of thought that God being 'perfect/rational' being, designed the universe along universal/rational principals, and these principals were free for all to discover. That understanding the laws of nature was to understand the logic of gods creation, and to get to know god better? So, even if Science gets to the point of being able to explain/prove 'everything' - its coming to an understanding of Gods creation, not disproving the existence of god. Not saying that I agree or disagree with this notion, but I do find it interesting.

This notion is Pope Benedict's view as well.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Science will never be able to explain everything as the laws of physics break down...

Isn't the general consensus in the scientific community that the current laws of physics break down at various points because they are still incomplete? I don't believe that physicists are of the opinion that the universe's processes are (or were (in the past)) so complex that they are not theoretically explainable according to rules/laws. For instance, astronomers believe that very early on in the universe's history, the four forces that presently exist as separate (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) were unified as a 'super force'--it is not yet known exactly how this 'super force' operated but that doesn't mean scientists assume it cannot be explained. Similarly, quantum mechanics and general relativity appear to be rather incompatible as present--the consensus seems to be that this is so not because the theories are thoroughly mistaken but rather because a common link has yet to be discovered.

Either way, I think it's obvious that the world is intelligible and, as such, operates in accordance with principles that can be understood.

But what do I know? I study criminology and philosophy

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Cenik Isn't the general consensus in the scientific community that the current laws of physics break down at various points because they are still incomplete? I don't believe that physicists are of the opinion that the universe's processes are (or were (in the past)) so complex that they are not theoretically explainable according to rules/laws. For instance, astronomers believe that very early on in the universe's history, the four forces that presently exist as separate (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) were unified as a 'super force'--it is not yet known exactly how this 'super force' operated but that doesn't mean scientists assume it cannot be explained.

The superforce you speak of is a theory of what existed at plank-time (the point at which matter sprang into being and time/distance became a reality). Because we cannot measure/observe anything that does not exist in time (physics does not exist without the four forces... they don't exist until there is time/distance) we cannot explain what existed before time... thus science cannot hope to explain anything before plank time.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee i love how choice and belief are considered the same here...

In any event, neither have anything to do with homosexuality.
Although that's not what Mr Haggard said on Larry King last night.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The superforce you speak of is a theory of what existed at plank-time (the point at which matter sprang into being and time/distance became a reality). Because we cannot measure/observe anything that does not exist in time (physics does not exist without the four forces... they don't exist until there is time/distance) we cannot explain what existed before time... thus science cannot hope to explain anything before plank time.

The force is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The superforce you speak of is a theory of what existed at plank-time (the point at which matter sprang into being and time/distance became a reality). Because we cannot measure/observe anything that does not exist in time (physics does not exist without the four forces... they don't exist until there is time/distance) we cannot explain what existed before time... thus science cannot hope to explain anything before plank time.

At least science can explain something...

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade At least science can explain something...

ffs how stupid are you?

CAN WE END THIS BY RESTATING THAT RELIGION IS BASED ON BELIEF?

___________________
www.elkdee.com
Soundcloud sampler: www.soundcloud.com/elkdee