Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Religious Flaws
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
NeoPhono
Übermensch



Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit

quote:
hey you try to sound so smart. if you're so smart, why don't you disprove the proof i posted on the existence of god.


I know you're not exactly talking to me, but I've had my fair share or proofs and thought I'd give it a shot.

I do have a problem with this proof, and that is in the definitions he gives. He uses his initial premisis (namely number 2) along with his definiton of "God" to proove his therom instead of non-controversial mathamatical evedince. In premiss 2 he states the the Universe "set" is inductively ordered, meaning that there is a direct line of causation of all elements of the set, such that there is a traceable lineage of those elements, so that there is in fact one "first" element, the spawn of all others. He then goes on in the next paragraph to state that this first element, or the cause of all other elements, must be "God," this is him merely giving a philosophical definition to this first element he said exists due to premiss 2.

My arguement with the proof comes in prooving that the Universe is infact inductively ordred. I find it hard to proove conclusively that it is possible to "order" all elements of the Universe by way of causality using any sort of modern physics or math. I think it would be very difficult to proove this assumption, even if it were the case. This assumption, coupled with the definition he gives for the first element of this inductively ordered set (by defacto "God") are the two problems I have in his proof. He uses premiss two to create an environment in which a "supreme" element could exist, and then by his own mouth defines this element as "God."

The main difference between faith and science is in how you proove your beliefs. Science places the weight of burden on emperical, repeatable evidence. Faith places its belief in the hands of annectodal evidence or personal motivation, both not being emperical or reproducable in nature. However, just because you cannot proove scientifically that God does or does not exist should not be a deterant for "believers" since it is faith, not science that makes a relgion, or even a philosophy.

If you like some "fun" proofs that also are a little wacky, try this classic.

quote:
Step 1: Let a=b.
Step 2: Then a^2 = ab
Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab
Step 4: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab
Step 5: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab
Step 6: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab
Step 7: reduced to 2(a^2 - ab) = 1(a^2 - ab)
Setp 8: cancelling (a^2 - ab) on both sides leaves 2 = 1


There's also a similar proof using complex numbers, but I thought this one would be more "kid friendly."

Old Post Jan-05-2004 21:24  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for NeoPhono Click here to Send NeoPhono a Private Message Visit NeoPhono's homepage! Add NeoPhono to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!



Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe

quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
If you like some "fun" proofs that also are a little wacky, try this classic.

quote:
Step 1: Let a=b.
Step 2: Then a^2 = ab
Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab
Step 4: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab
Step 5: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab
Step 6: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab
Step 7: reduced to 2(a^2 - ab) = 1(a^2 - ab)
Setp 8: cancelling (a^2 - ab) on both sides leaves 2 = 1


There's also a similar proof using complex numbers, but I thought this one would be more "kid friendly."

Haha, I've seen that one before. Of course, when you cut out all the eye candy, it's more like:

10 - 10 = 5 - 5
10(1 - 1) = 5(1 - 1)
10 = 5

Ah, the lovely things you can do with the number zero. The only problem is, it's mathematically invalid to "factor out" a zero, so the whole proof is invalid, just like the God proof.

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?

/offtopic

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).


___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Old Post Jan-05-2004 23:04  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for DigiNut Click here to Send DigiNut a Private Message Add DigiNut to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lakerfan36
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2003
Location: california
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.

Old Post Jan-06-2004 00:31 
Click Here to See the Profile for Lakerfan36 Click here to Send Lakerfan36 a Private Message Add Lakerfan36 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
NeoPhono
Übermensch



Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit

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.

Old Post Jan-06-2004 05:06  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for NeoPhono Click here to Send NeoPhono a Private Message Visit NeoPhono's homepage! Add NeoPhono to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!



Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe

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.


___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Old Post Jan-06-2004 13:10  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for DigiNut Click here to Send DigiNut a Private Message Add DigiNut to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
NeoPhono
Übermensch



Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit

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)

Old Post Jan-06-2004 14:22  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for NeoPhono Click here to Send NeoPhono a Private Message Visit NeoPhono's homepage! Add NeoPhono to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!



Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe

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 1² = (-1)². 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.


___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Old Post Jan-06-2004 14:28  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for DigiNut Click here to Send DigiNut a Private Message Add DigiNut to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Dopey
Palestinian Pornstar



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Ramallah

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.

Old Post Jan-06-2004 15:39  Palestine
Click Here to See the Profile for Dopey Click here to Send Dopey a Private Message Add Dopey to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

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.


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Jan-06-2004 17:03  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
occrider
Traveladdict



Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York

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.


___________________
Retro ...

Old Post Jan-06-2004 18:27  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for occrider Click here to Send occrider a Private Message Add occrider to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

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.


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Jan-06-2004 18:29  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
occrider
Traveladdict



Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York

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?


___________________
Retro ...

Old Post Jan-06-2004 18:44  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for occrider Click here to Send occrider a Private Message Add occrider to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Religious Flaws
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackRoger Sanchez track #2 [2006] [3]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackMarc Dawn - "Random Walk" (Club Mix) [2004]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:15.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!