Formula? - Religion, God, and Theology - Religion and Spirituality Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

Formula?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3

03-14-2014 , 12:24 PM

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

E-S1-S2=G

Everything - Superstition - Science = God

Quote

03-14-2014 , 12:34 PM

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

E-S1-S2=G

Everything - Superstition - Science = God

superstition and science could also be part of god.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 12:37 PM

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 17,330

Nothing is gained by casting your definition as a formula

Quote

03-14-2014 , 12:37 PM

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

superstition and science could also be part of god.

is that different than S1 and S2 being 0?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 12:55 PM

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Nothing is gained by casting your definition as a formula

to understand you better, does this hold true for other tangible things as well?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 01:03 PM

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 17,330

Your statement is hardly tangible.

As a general rule of thumb, use plain English, as you could here, except when the formalism of mathematical symbols provides a distinct advantage such as a precision not allowed for in English, or perhaps as a shorthand for efficiency in a long exposition, and so on. Using it just to try and add gravitas and depth to superficial nonsense doesn't help anyone.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 01:14 PM

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

If we re arrange the formula, for the summation of what equals everything.

What is the real word for 'everything' that is the sum of all (whether we have defined them or proved them).

We do/don't have such a word, or you can't understand the question?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 01:19 PM

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

E-S1-S2=G

Everything - Superstition - Science = God

What do you intend this equation to accomplish? Why I can't I write down the equation "God = Everything" or "Science = Superstition"?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 01:28 PM

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

What do you intend this equation to accomplish? Why I can't I write down the equation "God = Everything" or "Science = Superstition"?

Sometimes i don't know my intentions.

We expect that science can explain everything, but until we disprove god, we must allow the variable (since if there is no god it can just be zero).

If one holds onto something science cannot disprove, it might be a connection to god, or if their is no god, then it is superstition that is not yet touched by science.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 01:36 PM

#10

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

Sometimes i don't know my intentions.

That would explain why sometimes your posts don't make any sense.

Quote:

We expect that science can explain everything...

We do?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 01:53 PM

#11

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

We do?

Well i mean i put up a formula in which we don't...

Quote

03-14-2014 , 02:01 PM

#12

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

Well i mean i put up a formula in which we don't...

So which is it?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 02:04 PM

#13

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

So which is it?

differently groups of people grouped differently view it differently, but i think we encapsulated the possibilities, maybe.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 02:49 PM

#14

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 17,330

Newuy either is an idiot or isn't an idiot, some think he is, some think he isn't, I think I have encapsulated all the possibilities.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 03:02 PM

#15

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Newuy either is an idiot or isn't an idiot, some think he is, some think he isn't, I think I have encapsulated all the possibilities.

It's a bit worse than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

I think then thats what I mean to say, I function from a logical system that can both accept and reject it (the law of excluded middle) interchangeably.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 03:19 PM

#16

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

It's a bit worse than that.

so he either is an idiot, isnt an idiot , or is both an idiot and not an idiot?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 03:19 PM

#17

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,443

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

It's a bit worse than that.

The funny thing is that his 'formula' is basically the expression for "we stop saying 'god or some other supernatural being did it' when science sheds light on how things work."

No one talks much about chariots pulling the stars and the sun around anymore, basically.

Of course, that can't quite be correct because some people still think that their god can make them sick or healthy even though we do know about germs and the immune system.

The other way to look at it is that "some people say 'god' instead of 'standard deviation'."

Quote

03-14-2014 , 03:21 PM

#18

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

so he either is an idiot, isnt an idiot , or is both an idiot and not an idiot?

And you'll be right and wrong, interchangeably.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 03:35 PM

#19

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

so he either is an idiot, isnt an idiot , or is both an idiot and not an idiot?

i think we can do best with 'and/or' and is/isn't

nonetheless its seems ukes formula did not cover the full scope of newguy, and its starts the question of whether or not i covered the full scope of 'e'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

The funny thing is that his 'formula' is basically the expression for "we stop saying 'god or some other supernatural being did it' when science sheds light on how things work."

closer yes, you seems to see the fundamentalness (we can have fun with this word) to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

No one talks much about chariots pulling the stars and the sun around anymore, basically.

Of course, that can't quite be correct because some people still think that their god can make them sick or healthy even though we do know about germs and the immune system.
The other way to look at it is that "some people say 'god' instead of 'standard deviation'."

yes not quite correct i should think but more so than others i think

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

And you'll be right and wrong, interchangeably.

i think my op is not subject to this issue you point out.

Last edited by newguy1234; 03-14-2014 at 03:42 PM.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 03:40 PM

#20

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

i think my op is not subject to this issue you point out.

It is if you expect the categories of information you're presenting to be meaningful. For example, what it allows something to both God and science at the same time, which would probably require you to redefine what "-" and "=" mean.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 03:47 PM

#21

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

We mean that which cannot be explained by science is godly, and that which science can explain, is not held up by god.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 05:24 PM

#22

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

We mean that which cannot be explained by science is godly, and that which science can explain, is not held up by god.

"We"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Are you making these categories completely exclusive? What happened to "superstition"?

Quote

03-14-2014 , 07:53 PM

#23

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

"We"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Its quicker than explaining the relationship of me to you, or us to them, or hypothetical me to hypothetical, you, or newguy or n, or irl. Its not so important, but helpful if you read into it.

Quote:

Are you making these categories completely exclusive? What happened to "superstition"?

I don't know what you mean by exclusive yet. Superstition, is because we are not sure the truth of non 0 in the god variable. If we are not sure if something is godly in its origins or just superstitious belief, it can still be said to fall in one or the other.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 08:08 PM

#24

Robin Agrees

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 2,310

I think science is rather boring. Basically science is observing and studying the past to make predictions about the future, science is essentially prophecy. So once you know the future and what is going to happen, its all rather boring.

Quote

03-14-2014 , 08:16 PM

#25

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 17,330

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

ukes formula

I don't think the word 'formula' means what you think it means.

Quote

Page 1 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last