Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Also I think there might be misunderstanding when using the word "complex." Concerning the universe, I would use the word "complex" to describe the level of information density or essentially the amount of atoms/molecules within the universe.

  What type of information? How are you measuring the density? Why is that related to the amountof atoms and molecules?

  BTW, atoms and molecules didn't exist when the universe first formed. You may not realize it, but you are supporting my comment, although I am not sure what you mean by the bit about information.

  So I took your statement and Coded's statement to imply that the universe is constantly increasing it's contents of matter/energy.

  But that's not at all what I said. Why would you take what I said about start formation to mean something completely different?

  Conservation of energy apparently is accepted as fact within our earth but is only theory in the universe which I JUST learned, and is why I kept pointing out scientific law along with physical cosmology observations of stars being formed at a rate equal to their destruction

  That's not at all what the law of conservation of energy says. If that were true, the total amount of stars would be zero at at given time.

  and the disentigration of galaxies, however other factors inculding acceleration of expansion leads some to theorize that the universe does NOT conserve energy.

  Show one example of a galaxy that disintegrated. Who are some? What is their hypothesis?

  From my last post I admitted to putting my foot in my mouth when trying to insert room for a "God" where scientific unknowns exist.

  That's good!

  From my research just now it can not be proven that energy is lost and it can not be proven that new matter is coming into existence at a rate greater than old matter is disappearing in the universe. I apologize for making assumptions that earthly laws definitively apply to the universe.

  Actually, that's one of the basic rules of cosmology, that universal rules they are the same everywhere we look. So far that is true.
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane I am even living in a country in which I have to speak neither in Spanish nor in English. I can't say which country, because JW Apologists will know who I am .

  That's a stinker!
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane when I wrote "but", I meant an implication "then" in my mind , which of course is not the same. It is not easy to think in spanish and write in English at once.

  Not a problem, Opus. I can easily see where something like that can happen. It's all good!
• 
  33

  Would you go to church?

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have an unspoken rule that if someone ever invites me to a church - that i haven't been to before - i will go.

  even though i'm an atheist i'm still interested in the experiance.

  just like i'm not into basketball but i would like to go to a game sometime to feel the energy of the crowd.. growing up as a jw i've never set foot in another church.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  I'm looking forward to going to Christmas service this year at the church near my house. I've no intention of converting or joining the church as a social club or anything like that, I've just not ever seen a Christmas service and I do love Christmas.
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  It's not whether it was written "formally" or not, opus. It's that it was an entirely different type of statement. I apologize if I came across too strongly, in my field of work and, informally, here, I often come across people who claim to say one thing but wrote or said something else. I work in a field where logic and precision (as well as the occasional bout of accuracy) and clearness of communication is paramount so I tend to notice those things at a much higher rate than others might.
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Ok, what I meant was this, if you prefere:

  If God exists, then, he does not interfere in our life.

  "God exists" is not now the hypothesis?, yes or no?

  It's not if I prefer, it's simply that, when written that way, it's now what you claim it to have been. Of course "If God exists" is now the hypothesis.

  That's basic logic. Also, it takes quite a bit to admit when you are wrong. There was a great article on that in Forbes today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alastairdryburgh/2014/08/31/how-to-be-wrong/
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  If Dawkins said that, it means that he regards the existence of God as a hypothesis. yes or no?

  It means you got caught trying to change semantics twice now. Shame on you.

  So, in formal logic hypothesis denotes the antecedent, yes or no?

  It means you got caught three time now trying to suggest you wrote anything of the sort when you clearly did not. Shame on you.

  As I've clearly shown you many times, whether you choose P->Q or P=>Q, there must be an antecedent and a consequent. You simply wrote the logical evquivalent of P^A, a conjoined statement. There is no consequent, no "then", no "if".

  I've no idea why you keep going on about a scientific definition (which you said you weren't talking about) anda form of logical argument you didn't make. I'm not surprised at all you were getting this from Wikipedia.
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  "If God exists , he does not interfere in our life". It is a good example of P=>Q in Logic, where P is called "hypothesis". That's all.

  That's wrong. You are trying to shoehorn a logical implication truth table mapping into your original statement and say "Hypothesis!". Even in your orginal statement there is no implication, you aren't even using the right type of logic! You keep switching between -> and => (if and then), neither of which were part of your original statement, you used "but" which isn't a logical conjunction at all, you should have used ^ (and). You've variously switched between the layman, scienctific and logical uses of the word.

  Also, your example that initially gave is NOT, not even CLOSE either logically or scientifically to what you just wrote. It's absolutely clear you are learning on the fly. Your orginal statement was NOT and IF-THEN as you now write, it was "God DOES exist AND he doesn't interfere".

  There was NEVER, in any sense whatsoever in your orginal statement a hypothesis. The example you NOW use CLEARLY is a hypothesis. Your original statement was never any such thing.

  Did you really think no one would notice?
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  May be my English is not good, because it is not my native language, but it is clear that if I say "If God exists, then....", "God exists" is the hypothesis.

  It's your understanding that is flawed, not your English. You don't have a hypothesis without the "... then ..." part. "God exists" is the premise, the antecedent of the proposition.
• 
  101

  A question for Athiests.

  by new hope and happiness in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.

  some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.

  i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  What I see is you are unable to understand the definition of a hypothesis as simple premise in Logic. Did you take lectures of Logic?

  What Coded Logic said. A premise alone, even in logic, cannot and does not formulate a hypothesis and your own cut-n-paste jobs show. It appears you didn't actually understand the stuff you posted attempting to support yourself.

  What is a "lectures of Logic" and how does it support your position? If you are asking if I've taken classes on logic and work with it as a part of my daily life, then yes, I do.