Faith and Reason.

[Melchiah]

I'm asking you for a mathematical models, and all you do is repeat the same bullshit that is missing the point. Your reasoning is stuck in a loop, except you don't realize it. Again, draw me a graph of your complete reasoning that justify that validity of the scientific model, otherwise, shut up and admit you don't know what an argument is.

What you're saying is

-My argument are valids because scientic method is valid
-Scientific method is valid because my argument are valid

Is this really how you define "validity"? I'm telling since the beginning you need something else to define what "validity" is, otherwise, you have a circular argument that is refering to itself.





HAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHA.AHHHH.
Thanks for the laugh.

The scientific approach is valid because it doubts itself, and it assumes falsehood until an experiment is devised that can reproduce the predicted results with a high degree of consistency.

I don't know how you want me to convert a line of thinking into a mathematical argument. I suspect you are simply being intentionally obtuse about the matter, because you don't like the fact that we've disagreed with you. In fact, I even agreed with you, up to a point, which you'd have noticed had you read my last response to you. Faith in a model only exists while the model is being constructed, and it can be argued that we really don't have faith in our models because we fully intend to prove or disprove them in the end. Once constructed, the model is tested for validity. This throws faith right out the window. I don't understand why you cannot understand that point.

In short, stop asking for a mathematical proof of a line of thinking. Apples and oranges Kaylia. You're the one who is arguing in circles.

[Melchiah]

As someone who understands little of Christian theology, i feel i must ask these questions. What exactly do we understand as lie with a woman in the context of the time and era this was written? Are we to assume that these things mean the same to us as they meant to them with a difference of two thousand years? Not that any of that matters, as regardless of the interpretation, i'd doubt we'd put anyone to death over it considering the way we see things.

As a reference, check out the book of Genesis in regards to Adam and Eve conceiving Cain and Abel. The term "lie with" is used in such a manner as to indicate copulation.

[Kuya]

Often, when anomalies are found within the natural sciences, and social sciences too, it is usually assumed that the anomaly is due to an error created by the scientist, not the theories behind the observations. If enough anomalies occur, or enough substantial ones occur, then the theory might begin to be questioned, if it is not possible for a sufficient amount of time to produce enough valid theories, then the methodology itself begins to be questioned, which leads to substantial instability. The last thing that would ever occur, and probably the only thing that has probably never occurred in the natural science, according to my limited understanding, is the mass doubting of the epistemological basis of the science. If such a thing were to occur, it would contradict the very meaning of natural science.

[Kuya]

As a reference, check out the book of Genesis in regards to Adam and Eve conceiving Cain and Abel. The term "lie with" is used in such a manner as to indicate copulation.

I don't understand one thing. If lie with means to copulate, then how would a man lie with another man? The answer that you would most likely give me is anal penetration, but does this then mean that a man, in those times, could have anal penetration with a woman and not be punished for it? Either way, i think you are most likely right and stand corrected, aside from my doubts.

[Linliel]

I remember being taught that the whole point of the New Testament was to overwrite the Old Testament rules anyway, with Jesus saying that there was only one law now which was to "love one another as I love you" or something like that. So why is that so conveniently ignored by church types? Oh yeah, when it suits their prejudiced purpose :/

[Melchiah]

I don't understand one thing. If lie with means to copulate, then how would a man lie with another man? The answer that you would most likely give me is anal penetration, but does this then mean that a man, in those times, could have anal penetration with a woman and not be punished for it? Either way, i think you are most likely right and stand corrected, aside from my doubts.

I used the term copulation, but I don't think it's a stretch to presume that any sort of sexual activity is included. Think "sleep with" in the context that we use it today.

Here's what I think: "If a man lies with a man as one would lie with a woman..." is to indicate sexual intimacy while adhering to some standard of decency in writing and avoiding vulgarity.

Edit: I didn't respond to your question on anal penetration. You know, I have no idea. I suspect you'd have to find some way of proving that your neighbor and his wife were into anal sex though, and I further suspect that would be kind of difficult. So in short, I don't know o.o

[Neosutra]

I used the term copulation, but I don't think it's a stretch to presume that any sort of sexual activity is included. Think "sleep with" in the context that we use it today.

Here's what I think: "If a man lies with a man as one would lie with a woman..." is to indicate sexual intimacy while adhering to some standard of decency in writing and avoiding vulgarity.

My version of the bible states "if a man sticks his pecker in another mans pie hole..".

What version do you guys have?

[Kuya]

I used the term copulation, but I don't think it's a stretch to presume that any sort of sexual activity is included. Think "sleep with" in the context that we use it today.

Here's what I think: "If a man lies with a man as one would lie with a woman..." is to indicate sexual intimacy while adhering to some standard of decency in writing and avoiding vulgarity.

So then it wouldn't be far fetched for me to deduce that any sexual activity that is not aimed at reproduction could be punishable by death? If a man can't lie with another man like he would with a woman, and we assume it means anal penetration, then we have an idea of something specific. However, i doubt that anal penetration between a man and a woman was also allowed, which might lead me to conclude that by that passage they must be referring to sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction, as evidently, a man lying with another man like he would with a woman does not lead to reproduction.

So it is not a specific reprimand of homosexuality (the concept did not exist back then) or homosexual behaviour, exactly, but sexual behaviour that does not lead to reproduction.

[Eratosthenes]

So then it wouldn't be far fetched for me to deduce that any sexual activity that is not aimed at reproduction could be punishable by death? If a man can't lie with another man like he would with a woman, and we assume it means anal penetration, then we have an idea of something specific. However, i doubt that anal penetration between a man and a woman was also allowed, which might lead me to conclude that by that passage they must be referring to sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction, as evidently, a man lying with another man like he would with a woman does not lead to reproduction.

So it is not a specific reprimand of homosexuality (the concept did not exist back then) or homosexual behaviour, exactly, but sexual behaviour that does not lead to reproduction.

Well, the thing about scriptures is that they can be interpreted however you want.

[Kuya]

Well, the thing about scriptures is that they can be interpreted however you want.

You're right, the passage could be an attack on homosexuality, or an attack on promiscuous behaviour (as it was known before the modern meaning, that is, behaviour that is not aimed at reproduction).

[Melchiah]

So then it wouldn't be far fetched for me to deduce that any sexual activity that is not aimed at reproduction could be punishable by death? If a man can't lie with another man like he would with a woman, and we assume it means anal penetration, then we have an idea of something specific. However, i doubt that anal penetration between a man and a woman was also allowed, which might lead me to conclude that by that passage they must be referring to sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction, as evidently, a man lying with another man like he would with a woman does not lead to reproduction.

So it is not a specific reprimand of homosexuality (the concept did not exist back then) or homosexual behaviour, exactly, but sexual behaviour that does not lead to reproduction.

I'm going to have confess here. I used this argument in my youth to condemn homosexuals as perversions, simply because I thought what they did was unnacceptable, and the church reinforced my line of thinking. Doesn't make it right or a valid argument in the least. I think that that argument could have been used a smokescreen to condemn behaviors that the authority at the time found objectionable for whatever reason.

[Neosutra]

But isnt it better for my seed to fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground?!

[Kuya]

I'm going to have confess here. I used this argument in my youth to condemn homosexuals as perversions, simply because I thought what they did was unnacceptable, and the church reinforced my line of thinking. Doesn't make it right or a valid argument in the least. I think that that argument could have been used a smokescreen to condemn behaviors that the authority at the time found objectionable for whatever reason.

You're possibly right. If anyone here has studied the Middle Ages can can confirm what i'm saying, that would be nice. What i want to say is that, in the Middle Ages, and a little bit after, it was common to use sodomy as an accusation. However, the interesting thing about it was that there was hardly ever any proof that sodomy ever occurred and most people in that time weren't even sure what sodomy meant. Sodomy, in that time, was regarded as anything that did not lead to reproduction, sexual behaviour specifically, and in those times it was common to toss the accusation for the political purposes of making an accused seem much more evil, even if there was no proof. For example, some of the Templars were accused of sodomy.

In fact, one of the factors that was involved in the emergence of the polemic over homosexuality, was the rising desire for governments, growing more technical at the time, to find out how one could prove that sodomy had occurred, as it worried the judges at the time as there was no way to actually prove it.

I suspect that this passage, as the concept of sodomy, was used more for its political purpose, rather than its actual meaning.

[Kaylia]

The scientific approach is valid because it doubts itself, and it assumes falsehood until an experiment is devised that can reproduce the predicted results with a high degree of consistency.

Just for your information, I've a major in physics, and trying to understand the world is where I spent most of my time every weeks. I swear by science, but I know how relative the definition of "truth" is. It's always relative to the axiom you defined at the start, and axioms is something that require a belief.

Why I say it's a belief? Because it's impossible for me (or anyone here) to state this as a scientifical fact. You need this axiom to be able to talk about "scientifical fact".


I already went through this on last page, but the doubt in sciences simply allow you to change the observation. We add more and more as time pass, and because of this, our model has to be increasingly more complex to answers the whole set of observations. However, we can't even speak about truth with this kind of implication, unless you assume those observation are true

I don't know how you want me to convert a line of thinking into a mathematical argument. I suspect you are simply being intentionally obtuse about the matter, because you don't like the fact that we've disagreed with you

Axioms:

definition: (relation between axioms)

Statement:

Reasoning

Conclusion


Here is my post from last page

Definition
A= Every observations
B= Model

Construction of a theory
Any set of obversation imply a solution
A -> B

Our goal
The model we are aiming for is one that can could explain every observations
A <--> B
Basically, every observations imply this model, and the model imply every observations

Discarding model
If B --> ¬ A, our model isn't the one we are looking for since it can't explain every observations. It can sometime be used to estimate a particular set of observations (subset of A), but it's not a complete model anymore.

This is the method

True observation give you true model, false observation give you false models.

The process that allow you to determine if something is "true" or "false" has to come before the definition of observation, because the way it is right now, you can't say anything since there is no axioms.


This definition will have to revolve around "reality" and how your observation can be repeated more than once.

[Neosutra]

Last thread you said you were working on your math degree, now you "have a major in physics". Im confused.

And you are still arguing semantics.

[Eratosthenes]

I don't think anyone said science could determine absolute truth. People used the words "prove" and "true", but in the practical sense, not absolute.

[Demosthenes11]

I don't remember who said it on the last page, but someone said you can live life without faith.

That is ridiculous.
You have faith your car will get you to work everyday, because if you didn't, you would not take it. You have faith your partner will not cheat on you, because if he/she did, you would not be with them. You have faith in chefs at the restaurant to cook your meat thoroughly, because if you didn't, you would not eat there.

much of what we do is based on faith

[Kaylia]

Last thread you said you were working on your math degree, now you "have a major in physics". Im confused.

And you are still arguing semantics.

Well, technically, I need 2 more classes to get my physics degree (laboratory 3, and solid state), but I can't take any of those until next year. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of maths right now (will have 1 year worth of maths after this semester). No clue if I will finish this degree tho. A 3rd degree would cost me too much, and I would rather finish physics master by 2011. Anyway way, I just want certains maths class to understand physics better.



I'm arguing semantic, because semantics is what allow us to communicate. If your A and my A don't mean the same thing, then your B and my B won't be the same.

[Eratosthenes]

I don't remember who said it on the last page, but someone said you can live life without faith.

That is ridiculous.
You have faith your car will get you to work everyday, because if you didn't, you would not take it. You have faith your partner will not cheat on you, because if he/she did, you would not be with them. You have faith in chefs at the restaurant to cook your meat thoroughly, because if you didn't, you would not eat there.

much of what we do is based on faith

Well, the definition of faith you're using here is simply a reasonable expectation. You expect your car to get you to work because it has done so in the past.

[Melchiah]

I don't remember who said it on the last page, but someone said you can live life without faith.

That is ridiculous.
You have faith your car will get you to work everyday, because if you didn't, you would not take it. You have faith your partner will not cheat on you, because if he/she did, you would not be with them. You have faith in chefs at the restaurant to cook your meat thoroughly, because if you didn't, you would not eat there.

much of what we do is based on faith

Oh FSM I'm gonna have a blast with this one.

As the above poster mentioned, this is all reasonable expectation, there is nothing reasonable about hearing a thunderstorm and arriving at Zeus as a conclusion.

You expect your car to get you to work because it's proven time and again to accomplish this task. You should be aware that the potential for failure is there, if you aren't an idiot, but you arrive at the expectation of success based on observations and reasonable conclusions.

You expect your partner to not cheat on you because you have a relationship with them, and this is an observable thing. You can draw reasonable conclusions from observing this relationship and your partner's actions.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have no faith in anyone outside myself who prepares my meals to cook meat properly, and I do inspect anything that is served to me before I eat it. To do otherwise is just ignorant.