You are not logged in.
I do care but that is not important. History rates Gauss and Newton ahead of Sagan and Dawkins, not I. In a hundred years no one might remember the latter 2.
Really? Where do you get this from?
Here you are saying your mind changes without your control. Looks like you are saying I have no will of my own. Misreading this is easy as it is unclear. Nothing dishonest or twisted about my interpretation of it.
The difference is the same between deciding whether or not you like the color green, and whether or not you like the taste of broccoli. One is entirely a choice, one is not. Just because you can choose everything doesn't mean you can choose nothing.
He preaches atheism, there is a difference.
Sure, if you make a new definition for the word "atheism". Just out of curiosity, what is your definition for atheism? He is an evangelical, there is no doubt about that. Just like every single political organization, science educator, and D.A.R.E. employee.
Their convictions are not a whim as you believe.
Perhaps not a whim, but they didn't have scientific evidence. Or if you think they did, then perhaps you would care to provide some.
You told me you are unable to change your mind at will. You claimed that it is changed for you. I thought Huh, also!
What I said is that one can not simply choose to believe in a god. You have taken that, extrapolated, twisted it around, and somehow wound up with a statement about the ability to choose in all matters. That seems a bit dishonest to me.
I think I will let history decide.
I don't care who is actually "better", I was wondering why it is you think Gauss is.
I do not think [Dawkins] is an atheist...
If there is anyone who falls under the term atheist, then it is Dawkins. Why do you say that?
God could be considered an axiom.
Either god influences our world in an observable way or does not. If he/she/it (which I will say he from now on) does not, then from a practical standpoint it's the same as there being no god. If he does, then there would be evidence of it by definition. So far we've found none. If this were any other hypothesis, you would reject it (more than 2000 years of research!). Why does the factual statement, "There is a god" get special treatment?
And before you say "because god is supernatural", the assumption that god influences the world in an observable way forces the acts of god to be in natural, and thus not supernatural.
Why? A choice.
Typically people have reasons behind the choices they make. Typically.
You told me you don't have freedom of choice, I do.
Huh?
I do not consider them great scientists.
Why? Do you know of their work in science education? Or Dawkins research in evolutionary biology? Have you seen Cosmos?
God is outside the perview of science.
Which is precisely why it would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
This compartmentalizing you speak of is a bit of eastern philosophy more akin to Szen and probably unknown to people like Faraday or Heisenberg.
One does not need to take a course in logic to use implications in everyday life. The same goes here: one does not need a well-defined philosophical idea to use that idea in practice. Many people do this without ever realizing it.
You do not reason about God.
Why?
When St Thomas Aquinas was asked what was God doing before he created all things, he said he invented hell for people who ask such questions.
This is a great example showing once again that the Western religions are the antithesis of science.
If I understand correctly you feel that they are foolish in not being skeptical.
I disagree with them from a philosophical standpoint. I find their views to be hypocritical. But foolish is another matter entirely.
I trust Gauss' judgement a lot more than Carl Sagan's or Richard Dawkins.
It's not about trust. And why Gauss over two other great scientists?
You implied because you believe in science you or anyone else cannot believe in a God.
You're reading between the lines, and more importantly you are reading something that isn't there. I honestly can't believe you think I hold such a position, as thinking it would require a complete denial of reality. There are theistic scientists, there are great theistic scientists, and more importantly, there are great theistic mathematicians.
What I said on the other hand is that I believe in the observable universe. This is my philosophy, and I claim the world has shown it to be a successful one because it's the same philosophy that science uses. But it remains a philosophy, and as such can be seen as more or less a matter of taste. A very very successful taste.
If Gauss, Newton,Leibnitz, Kepler,Galileo, Heisenberg, Francis Bacon (the father of the scientific method) can find room for some supreme being than surely it is not anti-scientific.
This is not true at all. Indeed the fallacy you are committing is a false dilemma. There is a third option, that the men you mentioned compartmentalize. They apply their skepticism (i.e. science) to questions of the natural world, but not the supernatural world. For the idea of god will never survive scientific scrutiny. It is this compartmentalization which allows them to have a foot in both worlds.
The idea that we should accept things without questioning (which is at the heart of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) is the entire antithesis of science.
bobby, Einstein in that quote is talking about the natural universe. Moreover, that quote was from the 1930s. From what I've been reading, Einstein's views changed quite fundamentally during this time period. Einstien says that he believes in the "God of Spinoza", which is a naturalistic, not theistic, belief.
I have given you feedback on every quote you have provided, but you have not yet replied to a single one of my three quotes (I'm not counting the latest because it seems to me Einstein was only referring to the Christian god).
If you want quotes from when Einstein was older, check this one out from January 1954, just over a year before he died:
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
I have Einstein on film at the United Nations where he says, "I am a good European and I am a Jew." This was later in his life, the time when most men rediscover God.
This is the standard confusion about the term "Jewish". Being Jewish can mean two different things, the first a belief in a certain religion, and the second is more or less a "race". Many people state they are Jewish because they're parents are Jewish, even though they don't believe any of the faith. It is the later which I believe Einstein was referring to, and I use my three previous quotes to support this contention.
Dont all countable sets have the same cardinality? Do you mean not all infinite sets have cardinality
?
Jane, we've had this discussion before. The usual definition is that a set is countable if it has the same cardinality as some subset of the integers. Some authors (enough to be notable) take countable as meaning the same cardinality as the integers. Based on the two problems cxc001 is trying to solve, it should be apparent that he is using the first definition.
The standard definition of countable is that it can be put in a 1-1 correspondence with the integers. As such, not all countable sets are of the same cardinality of the integers. So your attempt to put them in a bijective correspondence is futile (since it's not true).
I don't want you to think that I missed your post to me somewhere up there. Just that, I can see you are firm in your convictions. Coercion, whether by force or intellectual argument is wrong, so I have desisted. The rule is, if someone is happy with their philosophy and it is working for them then I should not attempt to undermine it.
Sure that's the rule. Until they come talking to you about those ideas. Then it's proper to assume they want a discussion. Intellectual arguments are one of the great joys of life, I don't understand why you think they're wrong. Do you still think that Einstein was a theist?
In order to show the function is injecitive, I have to show two different elements have two different images which is if f(x)=f(y), then x=y (use proof by contrapositive method)
This is true by the very definition of f. You send the nth entry in your listing of A to the nth natural number. The only way two things can get sent to the same natural number is if they are both in the nth entry, but this is clearly absurd.
So Let f(a1)=f(a2), I need to show that a1=a2
No! You just picked two elements from your set (which you know are not equal I might add), but to prove injectivity they must be left as general elements. You are not allowed to pick them.
Also, what is this set A?
The Problem is that a Large Mass will NEVER Agree to ur viewpoints even though u might be able to convince a few of them!!
Some how people are not understanding my posts. I don't care about convincing. G_Einstein claimed he didn't understand, so I wanted to help to see if we could come to an understanding. His response tells me that he doesn't want to understand, he just wants others to believe in what he believes. So I gave up on this task and moved on to my next one. G_Einstein used an argument which is very common among those in the Western religions, the New Agers, and charlatans as well. It is a bad argument, and I was simply trying to get him to see it was a bad argument.
No, "We have built the heaven with our power and We extend it" clearly means that Allah built the univers and expand it,the word heaven means the sky and the universe.....and that every living thing is made from water....
It only means that because you want it to mean that. Because heaven does not literally mean universe, it is an interpretation. "Extend" does not literally mean that space itself will "expand". It is your interpretation that makes the meaning the same, and a rather generous interpretation I might add.
And the Quran,is the word of God,not of people......you can not find 2 different Quran in the world,they are UNIQUE and ONE
Yes, you can. But it doesn't matter anyways. Do you see that your argument about predicting things that have already happened is a bad one? If you don't see that, then why do you not believe that Nostradamus is a profit?
Then when you have made you search,you can say I Belive or I don't believe....just sitting at home and saying I don't believe doesn't mean anything......
Looks as if you didn't understand a single part of my post. Oh well, I tried.
G_Einstein, what you're doing with the quotes above is very wrong. To be brief:
[align=center]Anyone can predict that which has already happened.[/align]
Let me give you an example, a writing of Nostradamus. This is where he "predicted" the rise of the Nazi party.
Beasts ferocious with hunger will cross the rivers,
The greater part of the battlefield will be against Hister.
Into a cage of iron will the great one be drawn,
When the child of Germany observes nothing.
Now I assume you don't take Nostradamus as being a prophet. Why? Just like you claim the Koran predicted discoveries of science, he predicted the Nazi invasion of France, and pretty much got the name of Hitler right. This is precisely the evidence in the Koran you're giving. If you accept one as evidence, you must accept both.
The problem is that you are both fitting the text to the facts. If you could use the Koran to predict the discovery of scientific theories, then you would absolutely have something. But there is absolutely no way you can go from, "We have built the heaven with our power, and We extend it" to "The space which composes our universe is expanding."
In this same sense, no one can use Nostradamus to predict future events. They can only take events that have already happened, and fit them to the writings. Christians do this all the time as well, and so do Jews. That you can do it with the Koran is really nothing special. Give me an event predicted from the Koran that hasn't already happened, and then I'll be interested.
Ever change your mind about anything? How long did it take? Just trying to show that all you have to do is want to. Doesn't require anything more.
Certainly. But it wasn't because I sat there wanting to change my mind. My mind will change whether I will it to or not. Indeed, willing my mind to change will have no effect at all.
Your Einstein quote, "Religion without science is lame and science without religion is blind," is entirely meaningless without its context.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Upon reading the context, it's clear that Einstein was not talking about religion or faith in the way a theist would. On the other hand:
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Einstein expressed his passion for science using religion as a metaphor. This is why so many people are mistaken about his (lack of) faith. But it all doesn't matter any way. What Einstein thinks about God is no more important than what he thought about the TV. Understanding his reasoning is where the value is at. There is no point in solely understanding his conclusion.
Do you care to predict what you will be like in 2050? You just wake up one day and you have changed. That's all it takes.
So your statement now has become, "One day, you might believe in a god." Umm, so what? One day I might become a paranoid schizophrenic. One day I might be an astronaut. It isn't that much of a statement, really.
bobby, before I respond to your post, it seems you are missing the entire point of mine. G_Einstein said he didn't understand the unbelievers, and my post was to help him understand. That you responded "It might be better to be a believer" suggests to me you didn't catch this. But you've opened the door, and so I will respond to your post, even though I believe it to be entirely off topic from what I posted.
Since Newton, Leibnitz, Einstein, Gauss, Bohr, Von Neumann, Heisenberg, Fermat, Gell -Mann, Sandage... were able to accept that conclusion, perhaps your understanding of science is too restrictive.
Einstein? He was at best an agnostic. I would have to look up the others to verify (besides Newton of course), but it's a pointless task anyways. It is nothing but a direct appeal to authority, one which I won't have any part in.
Check these out, some pretty smart people believe in a God. Might be wise to emulate them.
Ignoring the appeal to authority (and the fact that emulation is anything but wise), you really think belief in God is much of a choice? That I can wake up one day and decide that I believe in a god because I want to? I don't think so...
I can;t uderstand why people prefere believing in "everything else" than in God??
Is it so hard for you to accept that there is a Suprem Ruler (and you are not this one)?
That you are simply a creature and He is the creator?????
By stating you don't understand, I assume you wish to understand. The first thing is that stating there is a supreme ruler does not make it so. Believing there is a supreme ruler does not make it so. Feeling there is a supreme ruler does not make it so.
I believe in the observable universe. Certainly there are things out there we can't observe. But by definition, I have no idea what they are, so I can't say anything about them. This seems to me to be completely common sense.
I believe in the principles of science. Why? Because they have time and time again been shown to be good principles. This isn't faith at all. If science did not enjoy the success we observe, I would not believe in the principles of science. If there is ever a method of learning which can show it is better than that of science, I will without hesitation switch to that method. Again, this seems to me to be common sense: Believe in the thing which has shown itself to be good.
I have never observed any supernatural phenomenon, a god or otherwise. I have never heard of any evidence, based in the principles of science, suggesting such phenomenon. Using the principles of science, I find no evidence and therefore will not accept the conclusion.
So what about this do you not understand?
I know that there are a lot of words circulating about islam,terrorism and things like that,but one thing that all of us needs to know,is that a TRUE muslim can not kill an innocent person.
Religious fanatics (of all faiths) tend to believe the people they kill are not innocent.
Usually, there is a time honored path to learning programming. It starts with the learning of some dialect of BASIC.
Now-a-days we teach the vast majority of students C++ or Java as a first language.
It may be that Java has surpassed it.
One cannot order languages. Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people describe one language as being "better" or "more advanced" than another. Purpose is the main factor which should determine which language to use. After this is preference, which should really only be considered if there are two (approximately) equally good options (as is normally the case when deciding between Python and Perl, for example).
i would like to learn on making a game, but still i am confused on choosing the programming language, please give me some suggestion.
How much programming have you done in the past? I suspect none, and if that's the case, realize that learning to program games takes a lot of work. Don't let this deter you though, anyone can do it, as long as you're willing to put the work in.
As for which language you should learn, it all depends on what kind of game. But once you learn one language, it will be very easy to learn the other. So do you know what game you want to make yet?
b = a^2/c, so a*c = a^4/c^2 or rather a^3 = c^3 meaning a = c. Thus b = a. The only solution in this case is the trivial one. The other case is where my previous work does not apply, c = 0 (or a = 0, but by symmetry, you need to only consider one case). But if this were the case, then bc = a^2 and ac = b^2 assure that both a and b are zero as well.
(1) Give an example of a continuous f on [a,b) which is not bounded.
A way to think about this question is to name a function which goes off to infinity at some number.
That's an amazing result Jane, one which I had never heard. Thanks!