It's official: SCIENCE says God is real

[TheComebackKid]

saying that because things seem to be in order, god must have created it all, is no more intelligent than ancient greeks saying that the seasons change because Persephone fucked Hades and pissed off Demeter, or which the fuck ever of their gods it was,,,seriously, I can't believe people even try with this bullshit, just stfu about it, blither all you want in your churches to others whose minds are unfortunately stuck in the same loop...y'all can kid each other all you want (legally, its still not right morally to raise kids with that horseshit clogging up their brains) but the rest of us got better things to do that worry bout the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

By the grace of Science I can only hope my kids turn out as well balanced and clear thinking as you.

 

[TSO]

That commits the fallacy of composition. Just because some aspect of the whole can be "improved" in some way, does not mean the it is an improvement for the entire system.

I can improve my finances by taking your money. That doesn't mean the universe as a whole improved. As I improve my position, it lessened yours. Just because some single thing can be "better", doesn't mean the universe as a whole can. It may just be that as any one thing becomes "better", others become "lesser" in proportion.

Imagine I made mosquitos "better". They can fly faster, drink more blood, etc...
That certainly improves the conditions of the mosquito, but will make the world more miserable for everyone else. Thus, I made one thing better, while overall, making the world worse. Hence, it does not follow that improving one thing, improves the whole thing.

Another example would a link chain. The chain is only as good as its weakest link. Replacing any single link with a strong metal does not strengthen the chain as a whole.

Once again you've missed it. Is it intentional or do you really not understand what I'm writing?

 

[klnOmega]

How would you explain platonic solids in a way that denied the existence of a "most ordered arrangement"?

That's an arrangement of matter in 3d and has finite volume.

Putting all of the matter into a single point would be more ordered.

 

[klnOmega]

The set of natural numbers is a fully ordered set with a minimal element. Is it also not infinite? It very clearly is infinite, because for any finite M, I can find a natural number which is larger. Wanna hear something crazy? Even though it is an infinite set, we can count its elements.

Not saying that the universe is infinite, only that your reasoning is dumb, and that you are obviously (as if anyone needed the confirmation) way out of your depth.

I think he is just saying that be the universe had a finite start, and expands at a finite rate, it must finite in size. But it is unbounded and will keep growing.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I think he is just saying that be the universe had a finite start, and expands at a finite rate, it must finite in size. But it is unbounded and will keep growing.

Exactly. If I wanted to be daft like Proko, I could argue that there are an infinite amount of values we could measure between 1 and 2, and technically I'd be right. But the distance between 1 and 2 is finite, soo would be wrong if I said the domain is infinite. There's a pretty significant difference between a continuous distribution and infinity.

 

[BearGrounds]

That's an arrangement of matter in 3d and has finite volume.

Putting all of the matter into a single point would be more ordered.

Talking about putting matter into a single point is asserting something that neither of us can even prove possible.

As far as platonic solids, there are only five.

At each vertex at least 3 faces meet (maybe more)

When we add up the internal angles that meet at a vertex, it must be less than 360 degrees (at 360

 

[Prokofievian]

Exactly. If I wanted to be daft like Proko, I could argue that there are an infinite amount of values we could measure between 1 and 2, and technically I'd be right. But the distance between 1 and 2 is finite, soo would be wrong if I said the domain is infinite. There's a pretty significant difference between a continuous distribution and infinity.

Well, the natural numbers are not a continuous distribution, and you use the word measure, without defining what it means, and in a rather ham fisted way. We do not measure the real numbers for them to exist. They exist as abstract quantities as consequences of a definition.

At this point you are just saying words that you think you remember hearing from that one math class you took that one time.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Well, the natural numbers are not a continuous distribution, and you use the word measure, without defining what it means, and in a rather ham fisted way. We do not measure the real numbers for them to exist. They exist as abstract quantities as consequences of a definition.

At this point you are just saying words that you think you remember hearing from that one math class you took that one time.

At this point, you're just sounding off without understanding. I didn't say the natural numbers are a continuous distribution. I said when the distance between them is considered, it is.

Perhaps you should've taken some reading classes in between all that math you had.

 

[TheyAreSurfers]

By the grace of Science I can only hope my kids turn out as well balanced and clear thinking as you.

I just hope they didn't inherit your logical thinking.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Considered by whom and why?

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Potential_infinity.html - Uses your exact example.

http://www.jstor.org.remote.baruch....id=3739832&uid=3739256#page_scan_tab_contents - Argues that the potential infinite explains Cantor's theorems more, if I am reading it correctly.

I am not a philosopher of mathematics, but series where you can always add more are indicative of a potential, not an actual, infinite.

Still, actual infinities are just fine, so there is no problem with them.