Neilium

neutrons? hydrogen atoms? Aren't all hydrogen atoms identical (barring any isotopes, if that's possible)? Or is there just one hydrogen atom that's in a gazillion places at once?

-neilium

ex-xian

Well, on that small of a scale you have to introduce a wave function to describe the atom. There's really no definite way the "a" hydrogen atom can be described absolutely. Even hydrogen atoms with identical energies and, thus, wave functions will appear in different states after the measurement is taken.

GrandDesigner

Now, I'm not a scientist in the least, but one thing always seemed to stand clear. That no matter how powerful our detection devices can get, there always seems another layer of information to strive to understand. I stopped at basic chemistry. Atoms, electrons, photons...that sort of thing. But there are Neutrinos and Quarks and this and that. And in a not distant future, I'm sure there is even more detail to be understood. That hydrogen atom has to be different than another hydrogen atom. Not that it matters much. But if you weighed 2 different atoms to a high number of decimal places, they'd be differrent. But subjectively, one hydrogen atom is the same as another. Just not identically the same. You're human. So am I.


Grand Ol Designer

Big Spoon

x is divisible by 2, y is divisible by 2.
x and y are both congruent to 0 modulo 2, and thus are both elements of the same congruence class - namely the even integers, which together with the odd integers form a partition on the integers, as the relationship "congruent to a modulo n" (n,a are natural numbers) is an equivalence relation

Your mom may not equal a stone, but they are both elements of the set of all things that can't fly, although "cannot fly" is not a relation in the mathematical sense.

ex-xian

You could write them in formal logical notation.

m, your mother; s, a stone; Mx, x is a member of arbritrary set; Fx, things that fly

Ax(Mx => ~Fx)
Ma & Ms
therefore, ~Fa & ~Fs

You know, if the OPer would study some formal logic, all the confusion would vanish.

Darth Dane

I'll answer more to your individual posts later, right now this:

Some people believe in God as portrayed in the bible, with an incident that changed some stuff...Jesus was born.

Some say that God is the God from the OT
Some say that God is the God from the NT

Some say it is the same God, now we put this in our logics formula.


OT God = NT God

According to some this is true right?

OT God = Wrathful, jealous, eye for an eye and so on.
NT God = Love, forgiving, turn the cheek and so on

Wrathful = Forgiving???

Eye for an eye = Turn the other cheek???

No they are not teh same, if logics applied yields faulty results, should we discard?

But there are those who adamantly claim that it IS the same God, so either their belief is askewed, or we should adopt a different POV on the yin/yang contradiction.

Within One(the bible(tao)) we see yin and yang.

So whenever we put up, a good side to something, a bad side appears.






DD - Love Spliff

Keith Russell

Darth, I believe that 'logic' (or 'reason', if you will) must ultimately defer to the evidence of reality, not just an internally cosistent system of claims.

The Bible (like all books) only ever makes claims. Yes, one can test any given Biblical claim against any other, to see if there are internal contradictions (and, as you've noted, there are).

But, ultimately, you have to test Biblical claims against reality itself.

It is in the fact that the most significant Biblical claims contradict what we know to be true about reality--not its internal consistencies--that the basic falsehood of the Bible becomes clear.

Keith.

Darth Dane

Darth, I believe that 'logic' (or 'reason', if you will) must ultimately defer to the evidence of reality, not just an internally cosistent system of claims.

Yes, reality should rule over logics and human claims as such

But, ultimately, you have to test Biblical claims against reality itself.

INteresting, you see what if I told you that I have tried to verify some of tehbible's claims, like for example "seek and youshall find" Lets say I wanted to find out if all is one or not and how it manifests it self. Lets imagine that I had an experience that was real to me, that confirmed the claim from the bible that all is one.
This proof which is subjective, is it good enough, objectively to say that all is one, or is it that the claim that all is one, is real for me, but not you?
If you have not experienced the reailty I have of which one observance is "all is one", how can I tell you some is true and some is not. And vice versa how can you disporve my experience of reality?
Of course the next would be to say that the brain is teh next stepping stone, where some say it is the brains haluccinations, and some say divine experience.

It is in the fact that the most significant Biblical claims contradict what we know to be true about reality--not its internal consistencies--that the basic falsehood of the Bible becomes clear.

Yes, some stuff is definately not so relevant anymore, but some still is.





DD - Love Spliff

Keith Russell

darth, if you were alone in the woods, and a spaceship landed nearby, and the extraterrestrials took you on board, and told you everything about their homeworld, culture, language, etc., then let you go--

--and, after it was all over, there was no evidence whatsoever that you could show to anyone--

--I would recommend that you keep the experience to yourself.

K

ex-xian

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. The fact that some people "adamantly claim" something has absolutely no bearing regarding the truth of the claim. I can adamantly claim that gravity stopped working, but if I jump off a building I'll still fall at 9.81 m/s/s.

One can use this "logics formula" to prove anything.

Some say that the earth is flat.
Some say that the earth is spherical.

flat earth = spherical earth?

Of course not. As has been pointed out, you're misusing language when you try to do this.

Here's another:

Some say that christianity is the truth and thus, theonly true way to god.
Some say that atheism is the truth and, thus, there is no true way to god.

christianity = atheism
christianity is true way to god = there is no god.

Obviously this isn' true. Really, study some logic.

If? Don't you mean again?