Quote:
Originally Posted by
Juliet
Churchwork,
This will be my shortest post yet, because I honestly dont think I can say anymore.
Essentially, in all of your short little posts, you werent able to answer my questions. Instead, of answering my questions, you said I worshipped Satan, which is a non-answer.
What you say or don't say is up to you. Whatever questions you asked were answered I am sure adequately enough. If it was not the case you could show otherwise. I do believe you worship Satan, since you certainly don't worship God and have no relationship with Jesus Christ.
Quote:
When I asked my questions specifically dealing with your calculation of sin, you didnt provide any maths at all, only asserted more boldly "its exponential progression", without understanding that exponential progression does not necessarily yield infinity. You objected that I was talking about math, but you were talking about causes and effects, which you then apparently tried to imply that I was changing the subject and not arguing about your step 1 at all... but I dont know why you say that, although I suspect you're disagreeing with me only for the sake of disagreeing with me, while being completely oblivious to the fact that your previous posts make remarks like "as calculus teaches ... approximation of infinity = infinity", you are actually talking about math! I explained that the mathematical concepts you thought supported your assertion werent what they seemed, because they dont always tend toward infinity; so I asked to see your math, but you wouldnt show it.
Before my posts were lengthy, now they are little? An exponential progression in our conscience is a general statement of the increasing improvement of our conscience as cited by the various examples given. A mathematical formula is not necessary, nor could we make such a depiction so accurately through a math formula. We can only roughly estimate by citing various changes in human behavior to see there is a general trend that has an exponential improvement to it that is noticeable. Sounds reasonable. As all exponential progressions go, they lead to an ever increasing rapid rate if they continue on their course. They do approximate infinity as they continue on. As the rate of increase increases faster and faster, it becomes so rapid that it approximates infinity. This is necessarily the case. Hope that doesn't upset you too much.
I didn't say I object to you talking about math, why say so? If you are going to accuse of something, perhaps try to show it instead of just self-declaring it. Of course I am talking about cause and effects, as that is the basis of the Proof. Forgive me if I don't respond to your accusations that you don't cite the source for, but you are free to cite that source, and I would be happy to respond. This is a correct statement, "as calculus teaches, approximation to infinity is taken as infinity". I have never known any exponential progression that doesn't approach infinity. If one does not, you could show it, couldn't you? We know there is an exponential progression in our conscience, for each millennial there is a substantial change in our behavior patterns reflecting our conscience so that we simply stop doing things we as a human race had done before. For example, there is no more throwing of children in the fiery mouth of Molech and the murder rate per capita is going down. Before men might have had several wives, but with each millennia the number of wives drops. This is an exponential progression. It's not hard to see.
Quote:
The closest you came to showing your calculation was this exchange:
Thats it. You just suggested putting a one in front of 1/3, but you didnt explain why you prefer that number above mine, apart from the fact that it just happens to fit your claim; you didnt show your math or justify the numbers you chose, so your equation is arbitrary.
No, you're not understanding. By putting no 1 in front, the number actually gets smaller and smaller. But the idea of an exponential progression in improvement is that of course there would be a 1 in front to see the exponential progression increase to approximate infinity on the side of increase. This is a very reasonable statement, not hard to understand at all.
Quote:
You tried to justify your numbers rhetorically, but not rigorously when you stated "In 1000 years from now, murder rates per capita will be even less than they are now. Now they are even less than what they were 1000 years prior. These are very quantifiable numbers, and you will be able to see the exponetialness of it all by collecting this data.". Alright, they are quantifiable numbers, I agree with that much, because I earn a living working with calculus and statistics everyday... but once again, you dont state the equation you used, you only stated the numbers were quantifiable.
This amounts to nothing. I cant even grant you the benefit of the doubt of pullling your numbers out of thin air, because there arent any numbers at all, just a pathetic rhetoric.
There is no need to state an equation, for it is enough to observe the improvement generally speaking. If you want to do a deeper study of this, you are welcome to do so. I am sure someone has already done demographic studies like this which you can collect the data from that show the improvements. However, we can say based on various findings you see in the paper that the population sizes of cities are massive and the number of crimes to those populations is relatively small, showing a significant improvement from previous centuries. This is not as complicated to witness to.
Quote:
Seriously, let me just take one statement, "it trivial that the murder rate per capita is going down at an exponential rate even inspite of the major wars of the 20th century!". So its going down at an exponential rate... what rate precisely? I dont think you even know how to answer that question, because as I said from the very beginning, you just dont know math very well...
... but of course, theres something else you never even anticipated: an error function. Yes, you can determine precisely the exponential rate at which murder is decreasing, and you can extrapolate that to make predictions about the future, but all statistical models like that have an error that increases (exponentially in fact) with time. Taking data collected today and extrapolating it to infinity is hysterically amateurish, an error you wouldnt even expect from Statistics 101 students. Show me how you calculate your error from your exponential equation, using real numbers with real mathematics, not just rhetoric... wait, why would I bother asking that, I know for a fact that you either wont or cant do it. You'll instead dismiss my question by saying I worship the devil. You're guilty of what you accuse me of, "your scope is too small. You can't just pick pockets of time, for that is too small a sample".
I have already said if you want to do a deeper analysis you are free to do so, but suffice it to say we know the population is over 6 billion and the number of people that die due to murder percentage wise is falling. I don't know the exact number, but I do know generally speaking it is a fact. Don't let your petty self get in the way that you need to know the exact number to avoid the truth of this observation. My math skills are fine, and I got honors in math, so really that is not the issue at all. The issue is your belligerency to not recognize such a basic principle that there has been an exponential improvement in less murders per capita. Don't try to exalt yourself regarding math, for it just makes you look like you are grabbing onto anything you can to try to self-exalt yourself. Let it go.
Yes you do worship the devil because you call Jesus a liar. I don't think there is in any doubt at all about your going to hell. I am not guilty of your problem of picking too small a sample, since my idea would be to consider estimates of murders per capita ever sine the first Adamic man. The murder per capita was 50% with the two sons of Adam. Wars were profuse and they annihilated whole tribes which make up a significant portion of the population, more so back then compared to today.
Whatever the margin of error is it could never be so large as to reverse the exponential progression to become an exponential digression.
Quote:
Absent an equation for modeling sin, an error function for approximating future values, and where you have picked your non-existent numbers from apparently nowhere, you are still guilty of cherry picking your data to fit your needs; on the one hand, you point out that murder has decreased, yet you dismiss the fact that abortions are at an all time high, there are more homosexuals than ever, and there have been an increase in atheism in the US, UK, and Australia at a faster rate than theres ever been! Those things never existed in such numbers 100 years ago, they are a very recent phenomena, but you conveniently ignore them for some unspoken reason. I've never seen such a severe case of selection bias in my life.
Of course there is more abortions, more homosexuals, atheists, because there are more people, but percentage wise there are less of them. Homos are not a recent phenomenon. To show you how bad it was in the OT period they destroyed whole cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah and various surrounded cities for this perversion. Imagine today all of San Francisco being blown up because of all of the homos in that city. You get my point. This is hardly cherry picking, but tangible evidence. Don't just accuse mindlessly of some bias, but show it if it is true. Self-declarations don't have much value.
Quote:
All you have are self-proclomations, but when asked to explain them, you just dont. I think its because you just dont know what you're talking about; you're just one of a dime-a-dozen people who have their own crackpot theories of mind / science / theology / whatever, but you dont understand them at all. I've seen this so many times its not even funny, it puts you in the same boat with people who say "quantum consciousness explains telepathy!!"; that is, a boat full of crackpots.
I do explain my position, so don't accuse mindlessly that I don't. That's just your self-proclamation without proof. Your comparisons are hardly worth consideration. Since the Proof for God is exceedingly simple as you would expect so that people don't have to be rocket scientists to figure it out, then even you should be able to understand it. There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, most people will agree since murder rates per capita are going down and people certainly don't do some of the things we use to do before like actually throw children in the fiery mouth of the god of Molech. However, we still sin, so this shows that there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, otherwise we would have been without sin by now. And since everything in nature has a cause, you know that the uncreated creator created who is God of the Bible given Christ. It is also interesting to note that in your puff the magic dragon theory that things happen all by themselves, if such a thing ever did occur, it would be divine intervention because nothing can happen all by itself.
Just so you know you get an Infraction for name calling. Don't call people crackpots, for that is not loving.
Quote:
Crackpots have a habit of contradicting themselves, especially when they dont understand what they talk about, for example "The cause (of free will actions) is the very fact that it is made in God's image! Just like in quantum mechanics we often can only speak of probabilities, so it is with man's free-will, still ultimately caused. Just because something has a probability does not mean it is without a cause of being afforded the free-choice and to employ its own processes and receive from God or not." To say that God causes us to freely do anything is incoherent because free will and determinism are incoherent. You dont know what you're talking about. "no free-choice is undetermined", you dont have a clue what you're saying.
Free-will and determinism (cause and effects) are coherent and agree perfectly. If they were in contradiction, you could show it and you don't. God of the Bible teaches determinism and free-will. I know what I am talking about and it agrees with the Holy Spirit. But you don't know what you are saying in your accusations, because you can't show it. All you can do is self-declare it, and this is the proof of your faulty logic. It is not logical to accuse by self-declaration which stems from the evil spirit in your spirit. You should repent.
Quote:
And now a numbers game again, "I only state that since the odds are against you by a margin at least less than 1 in a trillion, you would be the worse gambler that ever lived." At least this time I can see a statistic, but I also see you pulled the number out of thin air, simply because you dont understand that that there is no theory that has unified GR and QM. In addition, you state "Because on the electron level, we don't know how it works exactly and thus can not predicted with certainty, does not mean there isn't real deterministic things going on there." as if the uncertainty principle is just a verbal argument... you've probably never even seen the math behind it; you've heard of it in pop culture, but otherwise you dont know what you're talking about. If you could disprove uncertainty principle, I guarantee you'll win the next 10 Nobel prizes; but you'll only win those prizes when you can show the error in the math, math you've never seen and probably arent aware even exists.
There is a theory that has unified GR and QM. It is called the UNIFIED THEORY and has 10 dimensions in string theory. I saw it on a PBS special on String Theory. Scientists say they have a potential Unified Theory. Who am I to argue with the greatest minds on the planet. You don't know what you are talking about, you really don't, because you are always trying argue for the idea in puff the magic dragon without reason, And even if your puff the magic dragon theory was true, it still would not have any validity in the way you perceive it because, since nothing in nature happens all by itself, therefore, it must have been divine intervention.
Credible scientists don't teach puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. Rather, they simple say they just don't know what the cause is yet. That is the humble position to take. It is the non-overassuming position. Understand you don't need to know the most complex scientific equations to be saved. If you did then God would be violating His own law that He is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34) and that we are all made in God's image (Gen. 1.26,27). Why would I need to show the error in the math of the uncertainty principle? You are really getting off topic. The uncertainty principle doesn't claim something happens from nothing. You are just misreading what the principle says.
Quote:
And again, "
The energy that gives rise to any so-called virtual particles has itself a cause of some other energy and so on and so forth.", not an shred of proof, just rhetoric. All you have is rhetoric, but that means nothing in the face of math. These things are quirks math, but their existence is confirmed experimentally. Seriously,
look at these equations, look at the diagrams (for the love of God, please dont say "but that links to an article on the casimir effect, not virtual particles, idiot"), stop being arrogant and actually take a look at what you're trying to argue against. Just for fun, look at the article titled
The Casimir Effect: a force from nothing.
Since nothing in nature has ever happened all by itself that we have been able to verify, and things we discovered to our surprise have a cause that we could not determine for the longest time, the humble position to take is when you don't know the cause, don't automatically assume it doesn't have a cause. That would be illogical. I don't know any scientist that thinks that way. They might as well stop investigating if that is their attitude. There is no experiment ever given that could prove something happens all by itself. That's your catch-22. You're not able to prove it because you don't have a device to be able to prove it. And no device is provided unless God gives it to you. Since the scientific method can't prove things happen all by themselves, it must mean the scientific method has its own limitations, after all, it can't even prove itself. I always find that funny. Either way, you lose, and your assumption is based on a pipe dream. Haha!
Nothing in those links suggests something happens all by itself. Don't speak for me, for I did not say what you said I said, and then you accused of arrogance? You are getting warped, even more than before. Your anger is increasing. Why don't you try to relax, because you are getting all worked up. The virtual particles mentioned don't indicate they happened all by themselves. If it did you could show it. Stop pointing out various articles in such a vague fashion, but try to be specific and post it on the forums. We are not mind readers here. All those articles show is they don't know the exact cause of that interaction. Just because you are not smart enough to figure it out, doesn't mean there is not a cause. I love how God doesn't let you understand things. He lets you be arrogant to conclude just because you can't figure it out it must not be there. What a dull mind you have.
There was no experiment conducted that proved there was no cause, only that they couldn't figure out the cause because it was too complicated for them to figure out.
Quote:
Remember what I said about intuition? In the world your used to seeing everyday, cause-and-effect are commonplace, but a lot of those rules arent true in the quantum level. Rules like the inverse square law break down, rules defining
quantum entanglement are a reality in the quantum world but do not exist in the macroworld, causality breaks down. To put it simply, the rules of quantum physics, while mathematically proven and empirically verified, look nothing like the rules in world you're used to seeing everyday. You just dont know what you're talking about, and dismissing my comments with your ignorant rhetoric does not amount to a defense of your proof, but a public display of ignorance.
Remember what I said about intuition? Don't rely on your intuition which is indwelt by the evil spirit that says just because you can't figure it out that means it must not have a cause. That is just your pride talking and is the mindset of a dullard. Scientists don't say the quantum level does not have its causes, only that they can't figure it out. They would not be good scientists if they just gave up and decided for no reason whatsoever it has no cause. It is common place to actually see things happen all the time, which you just can't figure out for the life of you what caused them, or for that matter why you did something you didn't want to do. The reason you do things you know you shouldn't do, and don't do things you know you ought to is because of a cause though it is not always easy to see. The cause is your flesh and your flesh is corrupted so much so that God knows its real condition to the point it must die and it cannot be refined or fixed. God's treatment of the flesh is to have you die on the cross with Christ to put to naught the deeds of the flesh. This is the only way in a perfect salvation.
The causality one may be use does not seem to fit, but does not mean there is not a causality in play. It is because you are using your preconceived notions of things, that causes you to see things not as they really or you just don't have the skill set to understand the deeper underlying workings of the causes.
My work as a child of God is to get you to see for yourself that it is your pride that causes you to think there is no legitimate cause just because you are not smart enough to figure it out. Since all things have a cause that we know of on all levels, and we can never prove something does not have a cause, it would stand to reason that in those areas we don't have the understanding yet, we should not jump to conclusions that there is no cause. Since the odds are trillions of causes to no incidents of proven causelessness, then the odds are stacked against you big time!
Since you make a claim things happen all by themselves, but you can't prove it, this shows you don't know what you are talking about because you think something is true you have no evidence for. Why just blindly accept the evil spirit's leading in your spirit?
You really should rethink your position, because it is quite embarrassing to see you make such a fool of yourself.