new visitor with a logic question

Rei responds to me:

quote:

---

Just to nitpick, the technical terms are the Sierpinski Gasket, and the Menger Sponge.

---

Actually, I had it all wrong, but your correction is not right, either. The Gasket is the one where you remove the middle quarter from the triangle by joining the midpoints of the legs. Many people call it Sierpinski's Triangle, though.What I was describing, however, was the Koch Snowflake.The Sponge, however, is from Menger, as you correctly state, and my mistake in attributing it to Sierpinski.Does this mean I have to turn my degree back in? Sierpinski Gasket------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If Randy is going to aruge the outlier points which still remain in an aternative way to program inspector gasket. (take a "random" point relative to the OUTSIDE of the triangle and then go 1/2 the distance to the goal (center) and mark the sand there, by chance choose one of the other two verticies and one repeats this somewhat to your other means of obtaining the same)and if the first collected point is geometrically outside the gasket circumscription ( my whole issue with a need to DEFINE ahead of time the SURfACE of Punk Eeek) there will be some hangers on NOT part of the gasket itself. It would be hilarious is not Clinton to Gould if all of Gould's clumpy lumpy not limpy morphospace gels around these kinds of big baby dots. Then I could read eVc with GOOD AND PLENTY. It may be tough and not milk to discrimate the congruence this way incidentally but that is why I suggetted the O-Rang ring, so far - only a dial tone..and my slip SS7 of tongue. I guess I would not calim that as "taking in" T.

test

How is it that you are aware of a God that exists outside of time and space and how do YOU know this is the case.

The eternal question, sidelined. Although God exists outside of time and space, He also is present all over the universe, and manifests Himself everywhere - even talking to people like any normal human being. I have experienced His love many times. Furthermore there's always the evidence of God manifested in creation - which is what we're debating on this forum - such as the bat's sonar, which allows it to create a 'picture' without sight of everything around it and analyse the shape of even the smallest insect so that it will catch only food and nothing inedible. God also shows Himself in such designs.
If God had to "become" or "be created", He'd have to have a beginning before which he wasn't created. But as I said, He's existed for an infinite amount of time - eternity - and has not had such a beginning.
If there's one thing Occam's razor could liberally be applied to, it is the alternative to God - a cosmology by which matter appeared from nowhere. Since matter exists in this universe and is subject to loss of energy, matter cannot have existed for eternity. Matter must therefore, unlike God, have had a beginning. Who created matter, and why did it decide to 'expand' to form a universe? How did a tiny point of matter become this entire massive cosmos?

defenderofthefaith writes:

quote:

---

If there's one thing Occam's razor could liberally be applied to, it is the alternative to God - a cosmology by which matter appeared from nowhere.

---

But this isn't really a problem for quantum cosmology and since the quantum mechanics upon which it is based has been observed to be highly accurate, we're left with two scenarios:1) One which has a great deal of experimental evidence to buttress it, even though it doesn't particular jibe with our gut reactions.2) One which has absolutely no experimental evidence of any kind to buttressit, even though it may make us feel all warm and snuggly.Occam's Razor is quite clear: You take the argument that has evidence.

quote:

---

Who created matter

---

Nobody. It seems to have created itself. We can even see it creating itself through such things as the Casimir Effect. Just to make certain there are no confusions, I am not saying that the Big Bang was a special case of the Casimir Effect. I am simply pointing out that the concept of matter appearing without any underlying cause is not such a far-fetched idea.

quote:

---

and why did it decide to 'expand' to form a universe?

---

It didn't as that would imply that the universe is intelligent and did something consciously.Instead, it simply followed physics. When I toss coins on the ground, they do not "decide" to fall there (despite what Aristotle says). They simply follow physics.

quote:

---

How did a tiny point of matter become this entire massive cosmos?

---

Do some research on quantum cosmology and find out.A good term to look up is "instanton."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

1. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.2. Jehovah (the existing one, the I Am) is the forever alpha and the eternal omega by whom all things exist and from whom all things came.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-23-2003][This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-23-2003]

An eternal creator is as logical as an eternal universe which would be illogical without an eternal creator.

You cannot state that God lives outside of space-time since there is no way for anyone inside space-time to be aware of that.
As for the bat you are arguing out of ignorance when you say it will catch only food and nothing inedible.They will catch things that are inedible and then release them so their powers of analysis are not by way of their echo-location but by sense of taste.I have personally tested this idea before by throwing small pebbles into the air and watching bats catch them.If you do it often enough in a short time they will learn to be more cautious,however you can return the following night and they do not retain the memory and will proceed to repeat their error.Now as to his existing forever the bible itself has God state a contrary position in Revelations 1:8"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty"Our cosmology models do not point to a beginning from nothing and you have made the same error that is continually brought up in even science texts.You state:"Since matter exists in this universe and is subject to loss of energy, matter cannot have existed for eternity."It is not true that matter is subject to loss of energy.We do not even have a definition of what energy is.The only thing we understand is that when we calculate the actions of matter in its motion from one condition to another there is a quantity that remains the same.It is an abstract thing and we have no idea exactly what it is.Our deepest understandings of physics and mathematics do not allow us to understand how the universe actually came into being.However,what we do know is far more subtle than most people realize and God simply doesn't enter into the equations.

I thought that Occam's Razor only applies when, to put it simply, two or more ideas have equal supporting evidence. If I am correct, Occam's Razor would have nothing to say on the matter. Science would say that we take the argument with the best evidence.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

I thought that Occam's Razor only applies when, to put it simply, two or more ideas have equal supporting evidence.

---

I know, but I was making a point:defenderofthefaith was trying to apply Occam's Razor in the "too amazing to be true" category. That is, the idea that "something coming from nothing" is so absurd of an idea, that the idea that god created everything is at least not more absurd than that and thus, it must be just as legitimate.However, as you pointed out, Occam's Razor applies to hypotheses set to explain a given set of data. And the data does show that indeed, something does come from nothing. It may seem absurd, but if the data does say that something happens, you cannot use Occam's Razor to make it go away. Occam's Razor requires you to look at the data you have and come up with the simplest explanation that is consistent with all the data you have.It comes down to an equivocation on the word "simplest." "God did it" is very simple, but that isn't what is meant by "simplest." On a foundational level, the Razor requires data. If you have no data, you cannot use the Razor.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You were describing the Koch snowflake? Hmm, I must have misunderstood your description Ah, fractals are fun... ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

One last off topic post... I thought this was the case, however, isn't it maybe better to point out the mistake as well as making it plain that Occam's Razor has no bearing?------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

however, isn't it maybe better to point out the mistake as well as making it plain that Occam's Razor has no bearing?

---

I readily admit to needing an editor....------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi !