PDA

View Full Version : Open source and theology


Znurre
12-17-2010, 11:46 AM
Just found this gem while on my lunch break:

http://www.bitburners.com/articles/there-is-too-much-to-choose-from-in-the-world-of-linux/4094/#comment-9980

http://ompldr.org/vNmxvZw/discussion.png

Syd_Vicious
12-17-2010, 07:21 PM
Good thing it's only that person's opinion.

Look at Occam's Razor, Hoyle's Fallacy, and Russell's Teapot if you want to guess where I stand on that person's statement xD

theotherhiveking
12-17-2010, 08:16 PM
Russell's Teapot

Ha! Best analogy ever!

ArcticWolf
12-17-2010, 08:51 PM
His arguments sound extremely logical, to the point of divine insight.

Thanks for sharing this wonderful piece of evidence. It's a pity this didn't make it to the Bible (you know, Marty crashed the Delorean, so we're pretty much stuck here, unable to spread the good news).

Arafails
12-18-2010, 12:53 AM
The Delorean may have been obliterated by a freight train, but Doc Brown did put together another time machine.

SolomonDean
12-18-2010, 01:05 AM
Oh dear....I think it best for all I wont add to this thread. Other then this. XD

w_larsen
12-18-2010, 08:31 AM
i allways found occams razor to be sligtly funny, because of empirical unverifiability of most things that's assumed to be true.

following isnt to be taken too seriously:

according to occams razor, wich of these are true?
a)light years away, there are huge balls of burning gass as result of universes singularity, wich at some point lost its stability for reasons not yet fully explained, and exploded making some regions more uneven than others. in result we see light traveling from things we call stars.

b) every night fairies light up little latterns. we call them stars.

now while we have fancy data, pictures and whatnot, empirically i cannnot see stars other than dots of light. (apart of sun, but we could as well assume for sake of argument, that we are in some point between stars, where there isnt any stars close). and all the books, explanations and data could be as true as bible, because there is basically no way single person can verify it all.

Arafails
12-18-2010, 11:05 AM
Oh dear....I think it best for all I wont add to this thread. Other then this. XD
than* :fingers:

ArcticWolf
12-18-2010, 09:20 PM
The Delorean may have been obliterated by a freight train, but Doc Brown did put together another time machine.

Which we don't know where it is. And it's not as cool as the Delorean.

SolomonDean
12-18-2010, 10:03 PM
ah well...

i allways found occams razor to be sligtly funny, because of empirical unverifiability of most things that's assumed to be true.


This so called theory has nothing to do with real science and everything to do with Philosophy. Scientists that use this as an argument should be shot. Experience-based techniques for problem solving. omg that last sentence makes me laugh. Anyway its all Heuristics. Methods are used to speed up the process of finding a good enough solution. This is not science. Its called guessing.


the simplest explanation is more likely(Maybe) the correct one. Its a sudo science legal loop hole to try and explain away things we cant observe in the conventional sense. Pure Bull shit if you ask me.This is like a blanket for a baby for scientists that cant find anwsers. What you should all be really looking into is Schrödinger's cat.

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison and a radioactive source, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum de-coherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

Open source....is a great idea like democracy was lol.

Dracice
12-18-2010, 10:23 PM
+1 lol :horsey:

SolomonDean
12-18-2010, 10:34 PM
And just one more thing. If I was to implement Occams razor when discussing the possibility of a all powerful god that we must worship etc... The only conclusion I can come to theoretically using that posit is there is no god and that its been aliens all this time. Call me crazy like I call people that worship something that does not exist crazy. Bah....all Naïve diversification unfortunately. The only real sin is believing in something without facts. Science does not need a god.

Syd_Vicious
12-19-2010, 02:49 AM
i allways found occams razor to be sligtly funny, because of empirical unverifiability of most things that's assumed to be true.

following isnt to be taken too seriously:

according to occams razor, wich of these are true?
a)light years away, there are huge balls of burning gass as result of universes singularity, wich at some point lost its stability for reasons not yet fully explained, and exploded making some regions more uneven than others. in result we see light traveling from things we call stars.

b) every night fairies light up little latterns. we call them stars.


That is easy xD you wouldn't choose b) because that would be the invention of a whole new system of life forms, that goes against Occam's Razors principle of unnecessary plurality. You already identify in a) things that are already common on the planet and there for easier to believe being simpler than the mental invention of additional complex life forms that exist beyond our atmosphere that turn on the night time lights. I think you just want to believe in fairies xD

The important thing though is kinda what Dean brought up, its not meant to justify a scientific answer its just a guiding principle.

Schrodinger's cat is also a form of argument used to come to a conclusion, following something to the point that it is reduced to the absurd. We can take Schrodinger's cat for a walk in this circumstance as well. He puts the cat in an airtight box according to his argument, so after 5 minutes the cat is dead anyways - bye bye Schrodinger's cat xD Also the observer, if viewing a dead cat through the arguments means, has been both been afflicted by the poison and radiation. So if the observer doesn't live, was the cat alive in the first place to a secondary observer or is Scrodinger just a crazy person playing with poison, radiation and a dead cat? xD Of course all these type things that deal with thought experiments are fallible. The good thing about being fallible is that it helps to drive opposing solutions and further studies within a field, just look at Maxwell's Demon for an example.

If you want to see a movie example of Schrodinger's Cat through the eyes of the quantum suicide machine, see Jet Li's One.

Inline with the OP this person believes in a deity having influence to combat what they view as evil corporations using open source development:

Occam's Razor: argument is adding additional elements that are not necessary for this event to occur: unnecessary element = deity

Hoyle's Fallacy: evil Microsoft exists so good open source spontaneously generated, thereby there is a deity and he supports open source.

Russell's Teapot: this person likely grew up believing that the deity combats evil through influence of various people and that people could be influenced by evil to combat the deity. If they had not grown up this way they may see themselves as being crazy looking through these different eyes.

Schrodinger's Cat: The deity is locked in an airtight box and is either alive or dead based upon the observer. Whether the deity influenced open source or not according to this model the answer is yes or no dependent upon the observer. (quantum theory arguments are not always helpful in this sense xD)

Mattdoesrock
12-19-2010, 02:55 AM
Look at Occam's Razor, Hoyle's Fallacy, and Russell's Teapot if you want to guess where I stand on that person's statement xD

You forgot Seward's Folly. :sifflote:

DkySven
12-19-2010, 09:13 AM
The cat Schrödinger puts in the box is a system in itself, so you could say that already forces the atom causing the gas to release to get out of superposition.

And I love Occam's Razor.

Arafails
12-19-2010, 11:54 AM
The results of Schroedinger's experiment is always the same. Often the nurse at emergency is amazed by the amount of blood loss. The moral of the story is: Don't try it with a tiger.

Solomon, do you have actual evidence of the nonexistence of external entities, such as a god or gods? I bet you don't.

SolomonDean
12-19-2010, 02:12 PM
The results of Schroedinger's experiment is always the same. Often the nurse at emergency is amazed by the amount of blood loss. The moral of the story is: Don't try it with a tiger.

Solomon, do you have actual evidence of the nonexistence of external entities, such as a god or gods? I bet you don't.

Sigh you people....Ok here goes.

There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.

Arafails
12-19-2010, 11:59 PM
That test post has two possible results, yes or maybe. You post three possible reasons for no response, so you even admit that the results are probably inconclusive. You don't have evidence.
Also, you missed the option that you don't actually want proof of your deity, even if you think you do, and they understand that. Can you imagine the effect on a person, having spent their life searching for their god or gods, of actually finding them?

SolomonDean
12-20-2010, 12:50 AM
That test post has two possible results, yes or maybe. You post three possible reasons for no response, so you even admit that the results are probably inconclusive. You don't have evidence.
Also, you missed the option that you don't actually want proof of your deity, even if you think you do, and they understand that. Can you imagine the effect on a person, having spent their life searching for their god or gods, of actually finding them?

Fact Vs Belief never works out dealing with mundanes. If you cant see Religion is the single biggest reason of wholesale slaughter of countless Billions over the years then what can I say. Regardless if there is a .000000000000000000001% there is a god. I would make it my personal duty to overthrow him. Although I personally blame us for creating a god as an excuse to do whatever we want in his name. God is a scapegoat for irresponsibility, apathy and ignoring FACTS.


I am disappointed you didn't except the test in my last post as it was indented you just twisted it up and tossed it back at me like a true Believer. I rest my case.

Arafails
12-20-2010, 01:41 AM
I am disappointed you didn't except the test in my last post as it was indented you just twisted it up and tossed it back at me like a true Believer. I rest my case.

throw new Exception("Test is not correctly indented");

Happy?

I mean, I guess you're not. You don't even understand what you're saying, and you're clearing getting very upset about it. I suggest you stop being an evangelistic atheist, it rarely works out well.

SolomonDean
12-20-2010, 02:09 AM
No actually I do understand what I am saying and I am absolutely not upset I can't convince you that believing in any form of a god is a waste of your clearly exceptional intellect. Some things people just need to figure out on their own. If anything I feel sorry for you. If believing in a god makes you a better person then power to your delusions. Even made up stories have good moral lessons that can have positive effects on people. To bad its an exception and not a rule in this case. In any case one way or another we will find out soon enough. I will remain preoccupied with this life you can concentrate on the next life as ridicules to me as that is. I just hope towards the end you don't realize it was a complete waste of time. Silly me I forgot it takes faith. Well enjoy it cause its absolutely the only leg you have to stand on.

Cheers I really enjoyed this.

And for the record I am a Absolute secularist.

Arafails
12-20-2010, 02:21 AM
Actually I did have a sprain in my right ankle recently, thank you for your concern, but I strapped it up immediately and kept it compressed and supported for a couple of days and it's fine now, so I absolutely have two legs to stand on right here.

I believe that being a better person makes you a better person. It does so happen that I'm Christian, but all that does for me is give me warm fuzzies — I'm personally happier in the belief that there is a greater purpose I can not even begin to comprehend than the dread certainty that my futility is ultimate. It may be different for you.

SolomonDean
12-20-2010, 02:30 AM
Fine whatever.

If there is a God, atheism must seem to it as less of an insult than religion.

Syd_Vicious
12-20-2010, 05:11 AM
You forgot Seward's Folly. :sifflote:

Matt how does the Alaskan land purchase fit into a person's believe or disbelief in a deity?

Is it something a long the lines of putting faith in something and it pans out (something along the lines of Pascal's Wager)? From what I have read and been told about the subject the only reason why it was called "Seward's Folly" in the first place was due to hostility from the republicans that had an axe to grind about the president's administration at the time (besides some journalists who had doom and gloom articles printed).

Otherwise I see it as a smart deal where the US spent a little over 2 cents per acre for land, without war, and it is in line somewhat with the notion of manifest destiny.

If you are deriving meaning along the lines of manifest destiny, then I can see your point.

Mattdoesrock
12-20-2010, 11:21 AM
...

It was just a joke. :ohill:

KKharzov
12-20-2010, 12:18 PM
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, whatever. It is all the same thing. The only difference is that every group or religion has its own club guidelines and bullshit you need to follow to be a member. If on the other hand, you are an individual that does not fall into any groups or religions, then simply put, you're a nobody, and you belong to the lowest possible point in existence. Your existence is only perceived in your mind and through your actions telling yourself that you exist.

God is God, God is Science, God is not an individual or cause, God is something that the mind cannot understand, and will never be able to comprehend. God is unfortunately the most commonly used word for our maker/origin, as no word of higher power exists. I personally do not like to use the word God, as it makes most Atheists blood boil from their view of misconception, but there is no other word I could say.

Albeit, every club will have its own theory on the origin of life and our world, yet they do not agree with each other because every horse believes his or her own version to be more convincing then the other. In truth, it is a matter of how a person was raised. If you're a lost soul, then you will eventually fold in somewhere. Even being somewhere does not signify an end to ones being astray. This is continued even in the practices of ones belief. Every person is presented with a moment in their lives where they will come to question, or strengthen what they believe. That can be a Christian converting to a Muslim, an Atheist becoming Agnostic, a Jew becoming a bigger Jew. Etc. Etc.

There is no right or wrong. Everything is the same. Evolution is a theory, evolution is a fact. It's the only thing an Atheist will have to believe in so why shouldn't he or she cling onto it so desperately? If God is science, then evolution is the result. There are things that cannot be denied, like the existence of Jesus Christ. There are conflicts that cannot be unspoken, like the ever changing appearance of life over time.

The biggest asses however are those that would go as far as to say they already know the answer to our existence, because there is no answer and will never be an answer. Those individuals are lost mentally, and they hold onto shreds of illusion. But, there is no point in arguing about what is already there, when man finds peace of mind he has succeeded. If falling under a certain category makes you feel complete mentally, then by all means go ahead and continue believing whatever you believe in. Whatever you believe, whatever you call it, everything is the same. The name of our origin is one that we cannot understand.

And no I'm not Agnostic. I believe that life came from something itself, since our lives and our conditions for survival are amazing. Look at Earth, our position from the Sun, the fact that the sun itself exists. One could go on and on and on, because it is so perfect that it is indescribable. Those that disregard that and accept theories are wrong, because we do not even know our true potential and the scale of what is still there to uncover. To an ant, a mountain may seem like the ultimate obstacle, that nothing else is behind it. Yet when the ant scales the mountain its mind is blown from the sheer magnitude of what lies ahead. One may think that we are closer and closer to solving the mystery, but one cannot know if we are only covering 1/1000th of the puzzle.

So many variables come together to continue our survival and life itself. Even so, everything I believe in is a theory like every other religion or belief. Our origin will surely never be covered by a few words. Those that claim shit know shit. Those of you who chuckle with your smartass theories and sit back believing you are the masters of the universe are wrong. But what can I know, my belief collides with yours, once again, something is there.

tl;dr My point is don't play the smartass thinking you are high and mighty on your horse. Something that many people ITT have done whilst chuckling with their tea.

One can pull bullshit from literally anything. I could say the speck of dust on my right Shift Key is the maker of the universe, and make snide comments and facts to support it. Its just a matter of how convincing it is and how many sheep follow the master. I think it is rather contradictory, Salmon Dean that you would jump on people that believe in a god for whatever reasons you claim, while at the same time you are following the exact same story. Then again, you only seemed to be good at copy/pasting someone else's words instead of finding them yourself. It's clear that you are lost in your road. In time you'll find a new road to walk on.

I expect an unrelated copy/pasted reply.

Dome
12-20-2010, 04:47 PM
There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.

But what if gods logic does not match mortals.

there is no god and that its been aliens all this time.
And by the way if you mix aliens into all this, it only prove gods existance for a simple reason:
A.)Scientest stated that the evolving of life from it self is veeery unlikely. This means, if we are alone in the whole univers, the conclusion can be that there is no god that created life, we were just lucky.
B.)If there are other planets in the univers with any form of life on it means there does exist a probably immortal entity which has this strange hobby to create life on planets suitable, to support it. Now this means that this entity we call god wonders around the univers at given speed and creates life.

Another thing. Denial of a religious dogmas, does not mean denial of the concept of an immortal entity that may have created life on this planet, but has little interest in the beings life it self, other than its existance.
________
teen girl Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/teen-girls/)

ArcticWolf
12-20-2010, 06:57 PM
But what if gods logic does not match mortals.
It doesn't matter, it should be equivalent. Yet, it will be incomplete.

My view about this (which is entirely personal):
There's no way a Non-God entity can prove there is a god, and that occurs because deities have, by definition, powers that mortals like us don't.

Suppose there is at least one god. By definition, it can do anything the deity wants, provided it's "legal". It knows everything, it is everywhere. Yet, it cannot defy rules, because those generate the entire framework of our existence. But a god can do anything it wants, so "breaking" the rules implies changing them, and therefore, as we are limited by our reality, a god is bound to the rules it set.

Now that we have a notion of gods and their limitations, let's do one more though experiment (it's really simple): suppose we [1] are not gods. It's safe to assume that one of the skills gods have is to know about skills that no inferior being can know [2]. This omniscience propriety is inherently related to divinity, and limits all other beings to the inability to discern between fake and real divinities. Only a god (if such exists) can know about itself and others of its kind.

Deities have always been interesting to us because of their powers, not because of their condition. So we can reduce the problem to three scenarios:
If at least a god exists, but none of them can interact with our world: it's not relevant to our mundane life.
If at least a god exists and it can interact with our world: we may never know about it being a god.
If no god exists, then we won't know about that unless we become gods (which is absurd).


So, if a more-powerful-than-us being comes down from the skies in a chariot of fire and a chorus of anthropomorphous winged servants, the only thing that matters is how much harm can inflict on you.

[1] As a god knows everything, I would know it if I were one, so it's safe to assume (at least for me) that I'm not a god.
[2] That is, if I am a god, then I can do things you don't even imagine.


And by the way if you mix aliens into all this, it only prove gods existance for a simple reason:
A.)Scientest stated that the evolving of life from it self is veeery unlikely. This means, if we are alone in the whole univers, the conclusion can be that there is no god that created life, we were just lucky.

Am I missing a reference or two here?


B.)If there are other planets in the univers with any form of life on it means there does exist a probably immortal entity which has this strange hobby to create life on planets suitable, to support it. Now this means that this entity we call god wonders around the univers at given speed and creates life.

Another thing. Denial of a religious dogmas, does not mean denial of the concept of an immortal entity that may have created life on this planet, but has little interest in the beings life it self, other than its existance.

But it doesn't prove there's a god. You're just stating it's possible, yet not giving any logical evidence about that. Yes, it might be possible, and nobody is ruling out that. It's just not likely, that's all.

Syd_Vicious
12-20-2010, 07:45 PM
A.)Scientest stated that the evolving of life from it self is veeery unlikely. This means, if we are alone in the whole univers, the conclusion can be that there is no god that created life, we were just lucky.

I think more of the reverse of this statement is now known. Science has a field called abiogensis that studies where life can spring from inanimate matter, like the simple amino acids we call the building blocks of life. Look up something called the Miller-Urey experiment. It was able to experiment on inorganic precursors to develop organic matter based upon the Earth's early environment. They initially reported 5 amino acids were created using this experiment, but later testing identified that it really created 22. Furthermore amino acids created in the experiment are able to be found in the last universal ancestor of some species "old genes."

You can also take into account genetic algorithms that were used for the "War of the Weasels (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/war_of_the_weasels/)" where creationist algorithms actually proved the evolutionary algorithms as being of higher value and giving better results. If these algorithms were developed on open source I wonder how the OP's person of interest would contend with that (some of it on the evolutionist side was written in python xD ).

All I am saying is that science can reproduce the origins of life on earth by replicating the early environment, whether you want to believe if it was a deity or not that kicked it all off is up to you.

I go back to Occam's razor though and will maintain my idea of it rather than develop a belief in it - beliefs are dangerous xD

This article is also very interesting: here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11990878)

w_larsen
12-21-2010, 09:16 AM
I am disappointed you didn't except the test in my last post as it was indented you just twisted it up and tossed it back at me like a true Believer. I rest my case.

Solomons proposed experiment and conclusion doesn't float even by thinking standards of rational mind.

Praying for proof and not getting it indeed might suggest that god doesn't exist or cannot intervene, still conclusion cannot be reached, because there might be god deciding to wait.

praying for solar flares in recent solar minimum, and not getting them, doesn't prove that sun doesn't exist.

if A then B.
if not A, not B
denying the antecedent

conclusions wouldn't float even if there wouldn't be logical fallacy , because religions with god you can pray for stuff, usually focuses on events after death, therefore while it might not be worth praying for additional two inches, it doesn't mean, that it cant affect you after death, if the whole story turns out to be right.

here, i spent some time on stuff, ara didn't want to spend on.

CallThatClever
12-22-2010, 02:41 AM
Clearly you have no concept of Ontology.

ArcticWolf
12-22-2010, 02:55 AM
Clearly you have no concept of Ontology.

And God has no commits in the kernel repo.

Shiriki
12-23-2010, 04:37 PM
Ok, thanks everybody! Now my head is aching!!!

Just don't mix science with God because they don't have the same tipe of reasonings. However, it is still interesting to watch this, painful, but interesting.

Arafails
12-23-2010, 11:42 PM
You can mix science with God, just don't try using God to explain science.... It's a bit like putting the cart before the horse (and omitting Descartes entirely).