UN Bias Hurts The World

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:15 pm

Banker wrote:1. If this is true (his omnipotence) then he is also able to fail, since failing is just as much an action as succeding in doing something, and he can do anything, including failing.

See this is a circular argument. You make the presumption that God can fail and then use that to prove that he can. This, like most paradoxs, is simply an error in logic (on your part).

2. The teachings of the very religions that preach this "god" generally dont have a clue about how simple things in nature work, how could they possibly have a single fuckin clue about something that would defy both science and logic like a god would?
(Like you are so quick to point out)

Well given that you yourself don't seem to have much of a clue about how simple things in nature work I don't see how you can fault anyone else for a lack of understanding.

Also the core of religion is not in explaining nature, at least not in the way you are talking about. The stories of creation and such are not a major part of the belief. At the time the religions were started no one knew about these things, so each religion offered up its own version (generally taken from what the culture historically believed). If God would have said to Moses "I am the Lord God, I created this thing called DNA and from there it mutated to form all life, etc," Moses would have had no clue what he was talking about. The mythic part of religion is limited by contemporary science, it always has been. The spiritual part of religion however is divorced from the mythic part and is really the core of any religion. It is the spiritual aspect that is enternal.

3. If this god is all good and omnipotent, then why is there "evil" (as defined by said religions) in the world? "His ("god's") ways are" (whats the term in english? well, you can fill in the blanks I suppose) is nothing but an excuse for the lack of intervention.
Thus, stuff like omnipotent, allmighty, perfect, is nothing but boasting about how great your own "god" is, it's a commercial
of said religion so to speak... :lol:

Different religion have different answers. I do not presume to know what God thinks, but I know that stories without conflict are uninteresting. If God created man to keep him company/entertained (as in Judeo-Christian belief) then it would be natural that a level of "evil" would be neccessary to keep things interesting.

Also in the Judeo-Christian belief it is Man (or more correctly Woman) who is responcible for the evil (that is the fall in the Garden of Eden).

4. The teachings of said religions contradict themselfs almost everywhere in respective "holy book".

Generally in unimportant ways. If you actually study the books these contradictions generally work themself out.

5. Most of the teachings are small parts of other, polytheistic religions, that have been simply taken and copied for respective religion. The name Lucifer for instance was taken from the Romans,
who in turn, took it from the Greeks, where he was named Eosphoros. Then it was taken and applied to a "fallen & evil angel" to slander those religions. If that isn't disrespect for other peoples
beliefs then I dont know what is. And that isn't the only example.. There are LOTS of them.

I don't see how this is a bad thing. . . Science builds off past experiments to come to new conclusions as well. The fact that relgions are so interconnected seems to me to support the idea of religion. After all if every new relgion came up with a totally different idea of "truth" then none of them would seem very important. However since all major religions tend to expound similar core ideals it makes all religions look like they may be on to something.

6. Most religions have been made for a purpose, and not a divine one, but a clearly human one, alot of people today stick to their respective religion for that small chance they might get
to live again in the afterlife (heaven or whatever you want to call it), so fear of death is one reason for such religions, or rather making them not afraid of dying for their "betters" that command the "word and will" of respective "god" is a reason (thus making the priests etc VERY powerful), explaining natural phenomena they didnt have a clue about when the religions was MADE UP is another.. And the list goes on.

Actually these perversions generally occur well after the formation of the religions.

Gravity is not a theory, it's a force, and it was proven to exist before there was any theory as of how it worked. (Newton didnt discover Gravity, he gave it a name and a theory of how it worked.)

It was observed before Newton certainly, but it was not explained in a scientific way before Newton. In fact it is still not understood. The fact remains that a Theory in science is as close to fact as you will get.

You might need to read up, if you think gravity is nothing but a theory so here; its aimed at people like you. (Kids 8+) :wink:

You have consistantly told me to read up, when I have been correct. I think it is rather stupid for you to keep pretending like you have a clue what you are talking about when you quite clearly don't. Trying to make it look like I am the one who is wrong, only makes you look even stupider than you already do.

Yes, but I said freely..
Objects cant (atleast we believe so) move "back" (or to the sides, however that would work) in time so to speak, only "forward".

Well, there are actually some ideas about that, but whatever. . .
User avatar
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:25 pm

Banker wrote:If you have ANY limits of size on an object, then the size of the object is not infinite.. It is not infinite as a whole if it is, only the depth (in your example) of said object is infinite, not the entire object, cause not all of the dimensions of the object is infinite.
I also wonder if any scientist would agree that there could exist such an object.. Cause the whole object is totally illogical.

You just proved my point about you not understanding the term infinite. I believe a few have already stated how wrong you are.

Banker wrote:I take it you never heard about Chaos theory eh?
Where pretty much everything is possible cause of a small, insignificant thing.. Like if I shout over here, that could cause a tornado in Florida, or if I jump hard on the ground, there might be an earthquake in India.. Or whatever, pretty much anything could happen in it, and if we include several dimensions in it like the string theory suggests, then the result is.. well, chaos.
Anything would be possible, and seemingly random.

Oh, I've heard about Chaos Theory and it would you have too. However, it would seem that you do not fully understand it. Chaos Theory does not state that "anything would be possible". The theory is about dealing with nonlinear dynamical systems which exhibit "sensitivity to initial conditions" which basically means that you only have to slightly change your initial conditions for a dynamical system to end up with a large variation over a long period of time (see Wiki on Chaos Theory and Butterfly effect). The reason for this is because of 'cause and effect' and 'cross-contamination' between events. There are more explicit explanations written by experts so I feel no need to go into extreme detail but what the theory tries explain is that events will interact with each other and create new events ("contamination"). These new events will also interact with each other, creating a cascading chain of events. Eventually it becomes extremely difficult (if not impossible) to trace/predict what effects will happen or have happened (hence the name 'Chaos Theory').

Notice that I do not disagree with your examples or that events can appear "seemingly random". I am disagreeing with your statement that Chaos Theory predicts that "anything would be possible".

Banker wrote:if we include several dimensions in it like the string theory suggests, then the result is.. well, chaos

I don't quite fully understand the point you intend to portray with this statement, seeing how chaos really does exist, weather systems being one of the best examples.

Banker wrote:Remember, these are all theories, none of them are proven.
Nobody has to acknowledge the string theory as fact, infact, it is NOT regarded fact by anyone so far.. Except those that came up with it maybe.

I already understand they are theories so there is no need to remind me...

Montyphy wrote:Alternatively, if you believe in String Theory...

Banker wrote:Uhm... the normal 3?

Since you seem to fail to acknowledge time as a dimension I can only gather you believe in a Newtonian universe. Newton believed space and time to be seperate entities (absolute space and absolute time) and I guess it would be slightly easier to dismiss time in such a situation.

I, on the other hand, prefer to believe in what superseded the Newtonian idea, the Einstein universe. Einstein, using Special Relativity and General Relativity, went on to show that space and time are intertwined, that they are of a single entity, hence the concept of absolute spacetime. In the Einstein universe there most definitely are 4 dimensions, no matter what you would like to think.

Banker wrote:Not when it comes to moving objects freely, no, then I do not consider it a "normal" dimension, simply because objects are "normally" not moved around in it.

We may not be able to control our movement but we can control our speed through time.

Banker wrote:And you were talking about sub-atomic demensions, and what not, not time.

Time got brought into the topic because you said:

Banker wrote:Lets stick to the normal dimensions for now shall we?

Banker wrote:...without using any other dimensions than the normal 3.

The main problem I have with these statements is your use of the word "normal". The word "normal" only has a definite meaning to the person who uses it and I can only make assumptions on what you meant. The assumption I made was that you only wanted to regard dimensions which are non-theorical, which is fair enough. The problem then comes down to the fact you said "the normal 3" when there are in fact 4 non-theorical dimensions.

Banker wrote:If he is omnipotent, then he would be able to put himself under said laws, and still do it.. Cause if you are omnipotent you can do anything, so he would be able to do it without breaking any laws of logic.. Meaning your argument still falls flat or you just doesnt got the intelligence necessary to grasp that simple fact.

Perhaps you fail to grasp the simple fact that I never stated that God wouldn't be able to constrain himself to said laws. I said because he is boundless and we are not we will thus never be able to understand him or his abilities. Although I guess it's to be expected that us "arrogrant" people will have words put into our mouths when we are not completely explicit in our explanations. Perhaps this will help you understand me...

If an entity were to be omnipotent there would be no task it could set itself which it would fail. Now, if said entity's task is to fail at something, it doesn't matter what the something was, it would only cease to be omnipotent if it fails the task rather than the something. The reason for this is simple, using the something as a basis to judge the entities power becomes void once the entity deliberately tries to fail to do it. Think of it this way, if the greatest ever tennis player was to deliberately lose a game against someone just to give them an ego boost does the tennis player autmoically fail to be the greatest ever? The answer: No, and the reason is because the player never attempted to succeed at the game, only to try and suceed at giving the opponent an ego boost. You may argue that if it was an offical game than the player would possibly drop in the world rankings but that wouldn't stop the player from still being the best ever. This same idea can be applied to the entity.

What this situation suggests is that the entity must not only have unlimited power but also limited power (simultaneously), otherwise it wouldn't be possible for it to succeed at failing. If the entity were omniponent then this would be entirely possible even if it does not conform to human logic. The concept for a entity to simultaneously be both limited and limitless difficult for humans to understand but entirely possible for an omniponent being to do. In fact, Quantum Mechanics shows similar traits, for example electrons are believed to rotate about every possible one of it's axis simultaneously until measured (see the works and experiments done by Alain Aspect, John Bell, Edward Fry and Randell Thompson)

Banker wrote:Sure that makes some sense.. While it still doesnt.

What part doesn't make sense. I would gladly try to explain something better for you.

Banker wrote:And to be honest.. In my opinon, infinite is more of a mathemetical label for numbers that are so large that there wouldnt be enough space on earth to write all the numbers in said number, and not a real and not an actual size. I only accept it for now since the universe is believed to be infinite and endless..

In situations were the number is too large to write down mathematicans and scientists generally note something along the lines of "it's large enough to be considered infinite".

You are correct in saying that something which is infinite has no actual, human conceivable size for it is infinite.

Banker wrote:And according to what you wrote here,
(which Ive seen somewhere else, or something similiar, I think)

It's a quote from wikipedia that I modified slightly to make it more coherent so it's not surprising that you may have read it somewhere.

Banker wrote:then there could be empty space outside of the universe and thus the universe would have an end, and not be endless and infinite. Which contradicts itself.

Please explain to me how you came to that deduction. I would love to know how you reasoned that from what I wrote:

Montyphy]Taking that into account should make it easier to realise that it is possible to have an infinite volume of space with which to keep an infinite amount of matter in and still have an infinite volume of empty space.[/quote]

To me this means there is a container of infinite size called 'space'. Inside 'space' is an infinite amount of matter and an infinite amount of 'empty space' (it may be easier to picture a single unit of 'empty space' as being 1cm^3, so for the example you have an infinite amount of 1cm^3 boxes of nothing). What part of that leads you to believe something is outside of the container? In this example nothing exists outside of 'space', everything is contained within it.

[quote="Banker wrote:
And numbers and math are really no good since infinity in itself contradicts both logic and math.

Please explain how you come to believe that? I guess next you will say you dispute the further maths which deals with imaginary numbers such at the (-1)^-0.5

Banker wrote:Im not saying all of this is wrong, but it cant be taken as fact either since we dont know anything about them FOR SURE. It is all theory, recognise that simple fact.

duh, I already do... :roll:

Banker wrote:And I already made it clear I dont believe that infinity really exists other than as an extremly large number that is so big (in relation to everything else you know) you just dont got a better label for it.

That's the kind of response I would expect from someone who would completely fail to understand infinity. My sister also had a similar view. I gave up on her though because she was just too ignorant.

Banker wrote:Yes, but I said freely..
Objects cant (atleast we believe so) move "back" (or to the sides, however that would work) in time so to speak, only "forward".

Time has no sides, it is one dimensional. It has a length but no width or depth to our current understanding. That would mean that the only possible ways to tranverse time would be forward or back.

As I already previously stated, Einstein has shown that it is possible to control our speed (providing it is greater than 0) at which we transverse time.

Banker wrote:Yeah, I never believed in infinity when it comes to size and such anyways.

Once again, as already stated things of infinite size have no real shape, form, or size. However us humans generally find such a concept hard to believe so tend to picture them as cubes of infinite lengths on each side.

I got a gut feeling that I've fogotten a lot but I guess you will have a lot to respond to this as is so I'll leave it
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:10 pm

Banker, if any one dimension of an object is infinite, then the object has infinite area (depth X hight, remember) and therefore is infinitely large. Just as any number multiplied by 0 is 0, so any number multiplied by infinity is infinity. So an infinitly long piece of string is infinitely large.

And yes, it's a bit odd, but there you go.

And Montyphy: it's not fair to mock him for that. That's just bad math, and anyone can be guilty of that. His arguments are full of stupidity of a scale only banker is capable of, so concentrate on them.

(Oh, and in the "Einstein" universe there are an infinite number of dimentions.)
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
User avatar
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:33 am

doormat wrote:And Montyphy: it's not fair to mock him for that. That's just bad math, and anyone can be guilty of that. His arguments are full of stupidity of a scale only banker is capable of, so concentrate on them.

Can you blame me? He doesn't believe in the concept of infinity!

May be Buzz Lightyear's catchphrase of "To infinity, and beyond!" really messed with his head.
Last edited by Montyphy on Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: Scotland. Och aye the noo, and all that.

Postby FrostShard » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:19 pm

"Buzzlight Year"? You philistine! You uncultured young whippersnapper! Why, you cad!

'tis Buzz Lightyear! :P

Heh. Catchpharse. It's just like a normal arse, but catchphier. :lol:
Rkiver wrote:So as you see, the average person is a fucking idiot.
User avatar
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:25 am

Leave my arse out of this. :wink:
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby Fawkon » Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:12 pm

I heard the word arse and just had too post.... :P
Pull the pin and count to what?
User avatar
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:16 am

*no comment*
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests