The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Christians hold that YHWH exists outside of this universe. If you hold it differently, you will just have to think it differently.
They're tautologically wrong. If God is outside the universe (set of all that exists) than he obviously does not exist. If he does exist, then clearly he is a member of the set of all that exists.
Well, Sky, we talk about the universe as "everything within our understood plane of existence." Suggest a better term for that and I'll try to use it instead.
Originally posted by Kucinich
Ah, except that 1) the evidence for the actual miracles is doubtful and 2) that specific influence lies contrary to all other scientific knowledge.
Once again, you claim to be basing your idea on science but make unscientific statements like 'doubtful'. Define your terms: what does 'doubtful' mean? Give me a significance, or a probability, and try and justify your figures. What one person finds doubtful, another may find perfectly plausible.
Anything that is about the universe is the domain of science.
Art is part of the universe. Is that the domain of science too?
Where'd you get math from?
This is entirely in line with my last statement. Mathematics has very little to do with the real world (other than being a tool). We postulate some axioms and go from their. There is lots of mathematics which is not manifest in physics. In other words, maths is also not the 'domain of science'. (This is why maths used to be taught in arts faculties.)
Circular reasoning! For there to be a why, a purpose, you must presume an intelligent creator! Otherwise, there is no purpose.
Since I don't accept that there is an intelligent creator, I don't see how there could possibly be a why. And if there is an intelligent creator, science can figure out the why - by asking him!
You are misunderstanding my use of the word 'why'. I mean 'why' in the sense that Newton asked 'why do object fall to the ground?'. The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it. Having just one equation to describe all of physics would be great but it would still be one too many.
[q]Of course they can be "described" by physics. [/QUOTE]
Here you go again, making an assumption for which you have no evidence while berating others for doing the same. What makes you think that all phenomena can be decribed by physical laws?
Originally posted by Elok
Well, Sky, we talk about the universe as "everything within our understood plane of existence." Suggest a better term for that and I'll try to use it instead.
WTF is an "understood plane of existance"?
In fact, give a meaningful definition of "universe" (that does not depend on the coincidental laws and makeup of our universe, but rather has a philosophical meaning) other than "the set of everything that exists".
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Once again, you claim to be basing your idea on science but make unscientific statements like 'doubtful'. Define your terms: what does 'doubtful' mean? Give me a significance, or a probability, and try and justify your figures. What one person finds doubtful, another may find perfectly plausible.
You're reading too much into the word "doubtful".
Art is part of the universe. Is that the domain of science too?
You are a ****ing ******, you know that? Yes, art is the domain of science, in the sense of statements such as "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa", not in the sense of statements such as "this painting is pretty".
Where'd you get math from?
This is entirely in line with my last statement. Mathematics has very little to do with the real world (other than being a tool). We postulate some axioms and go from their. There is lots of mathematics which is not manifest in physics. In other words, maths is also not the 'domain of science'. (This is why maths used to be taught in arts faculties.)
Where did I claim it is? Math is philosophy, not science, because it is true independent of the universe.
Circular reasoning! For there to be a why, a purpose, you must presume an intelligent creator! Otherwise, there is no purpose.
Since I don't accept that there is an intelligent creator, I don't see how there could possibly be a why. And if there is an intelligent creator, science can figure out the why - by asking him!
You are misunderstanding my use of the word 'why'. I mean 'why' in the sense that Newton asked 'why do object fall to the ground?'.
Which was not "why", or purpose, but "how", or mechanism. Science can give answers about that; for instance, relativity answered that gravity is actually distortions in space-time.
The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it.
How the hell do you figure that?
Here you go again, making an assumption for which you have no evidence while berating others for doing the same. What makes you think that all phenomena can be decribed by physical laws?
Because all phenomena obey physical laws by definition.
Originally posted by Lincoln
If you don't like my answer then that is your privilege but at least have the courtesy of not repeating the falsehood that I did not answer it.
It's hardly a falsehood. You were using the term "information" to mean "communicated data" (just count the number of times you used the words "communicate" or "communication" in your posts), but it is impossible to have communication without both an intelligent sender and an intelligent receiver -- that's what it means to communicate. This facet of communication should have been obvious to you, especially after we had repeatedly pointed it out, but we can only assume that you willfully chose to ignore the glaring flaws in your assertions out of fear of the "evolution boogieman" or whatever. You were unable to provide an example of an intended intelligent receiver for this supposed DNA "information," and you were unable to provide a single example of information encoding (communication) that occurs between an intelligent sender and a non-intelligent receiver (e.g., a man talking to a rock is an example of dementia, not of communication). Boris quoted two questions of mine from that thread -- you gave an incorrect answer to one and ignored the other, so either way you cut it you failed to answer the questions posed to you in that thread.
Originally posted by Kucinich
WTF is an "understood plane of existance"?
In fact, give a meaningful definition of "universe" (that does not depend on the coincidental laws and makeup of our universe, but rather has a philosophical meaning) other than "the set of everything that exists".
I just did give you one. When I say universe, I speak of our reality as a set of fixed events spiced up by free will in a closed system. I deny the "universal" dominion of science, of Natural Law. Sorry.
Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
"The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84
Originally posted by Elok
I just did give you one. When I say universe, I speak of our reality as a set of fixed events spiced up by free will in a closed system.
A closed system... which means it can have no outside influences... which means that anything outside of it, does not influence it, and thus does not exist by Occam's Razor.
Am I now? Well, rather than banging you head against a wall all day (not good for you that) why don't you tell us what you were meaning by 'doubtful'..
You are a ****ing ******, you know that? Yes, art is the domain of science, in the sense of statements such as "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa", not in the sense of statements such as "this painting is pretty".
losing you rag? tut tut.
I would call the statement "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa" neither art nor science.
Math is philosophy, not science, because it is true independent of the universe.
I agree that Maths is not science, but I disagree that it is independent of the universe. Have you ever been to a different universe to check? You are making assumptions again....
Which was not "why", or purpose, but "how", or mechanism. Science can give answers about that; for instance, relativity answered that gravity is actually distortions in space-time.
'How' can only come after the law is introduced (as in 'How does gravity make the apple fall?'). Why must be asked in order to come up with the law.
Besides, this is all semantics. You know perfectly well what I was objecting to - you are just trying to sidestep the issue....
The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it.
How the hell do you figure that?
Right.... let's assume we have a law which describes the behaviour of a particle in a certain state A, and we have a completely different law which describes its behaviour in a different state B. If some clever chappy comes along, says 'ah-ha' and writes down a single law which describes the behaviour of the particle in both A and B, do we know more about the universe or less? I would say that we know more, because we are able to describe the two previous laws by one unifying theory. But now we have fewer laws. Ultimately we will want one theory to descibe everything (I suspect that if there is one that it will actually be a symmetry principle).
Because all phenomena obey physical laws by definition.
By what definition? By definition of the word 'law' or the word 'phenomena' or the word 'physical' or what? Are you so lacking in imagination that you can't imagine a phenomenon that is non-predictive and therefore unable to be explained by a 'law'? Isn't your insistence that everything can be described by a physical law just a matter of faith?
Originally posted by Kucinich
A closed system... which means it can have no outside influences... which means that anything outside of it, does not influence it, and thus does not exist by Occam's Razor.
It normally operates as a closed system, yes. God can choose to intervene as he pleases, and we call it a miracle. You can't predict the actions of a sentient being you've never met, so he is considered "supernatural," to use the phrase that so annoys you.
He "would not exist" for the purposes of the system itself only, for those times it is allowed to run its course...much as a car is just an idling lump of scrap metal as long as nobody is inside to drive it. The driver steps in to hit the accelerator, and suddenly "exists" as far as the universe of the car is concerned.
Christians hold that YHWH exists outside of this universe. If you hold it differently, you will just have to think it differently.
Actually, it flows quite nicely from the concepts of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and eternal existence that he would exist 'out of time.'
So to say that the concept of God being out of time is arbitrary, seems rather simplistic.
Secondly, if what exists is limited to the physical universe, then the question remains is how did the universe spring into being? God had to exist before the universe, and before time in order to be the first cause of everything.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Am I now? Well, rather than banging you head against a wall all day (not good for you that) why don't you tell us what you were meaning by 'doubtful'..
The evidence does not meet a scientific standard. Happy?
I would call the statement "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa" neither art nor science.
You'd be wrong. It is a scientific fact that he painted it.
I agree that Maths is not science, but I disagree that it is independent of the universe. Have you ever been to a different universe to check? You are making assumptions again....
No I'm not, you're being stupid. Math doesn't behave differently in different universes because math is unrelated to the universe! Just like the statement P implies P is tautologically true, so is 2+2=4. Anything tautologically true is true independent of the universe.
Which was not "why", or purpose, but "how", or mechanism. Science can give answers about that; for instance, relativity answered that gravity is actually distortions in space-time.
'How' can only come after the law is introduced (as in 'How does gravity make the apple fall?'). Why must be asked in order to come up with the law.
"Why" never has to come into it at all! "Why" is purpose, and purpose only exists when there is an intelligent creator of something! The answer to"why do guns exist" is "to kill people", because guns are created by intelligent (by which I mean sentient) beings, humans. A rock has no purpose, even though it can be used to kill someone, because it wasn't created by a person or other intelligent being.
By claiming "it doesn't answer 'why'" as a failure of science, you are presuming your assertion (there is an intelligent creator) to be true, so it's all circular!
The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it.
How the hell do you figure that?
Right.... let's assume we have a law which describes the behaviour of a particle in a certain state A, and we have a completely different law which describes its behaviour in a different state B. If some clever chappy comes along, says 'ah-ha' and writes down a single law which describes the behaviour of the particle in both A and B, do we know more about the universe or less? I would say that we know more, because we are able to describe the two previous laws by one unifying theory. But now we have fewer laws. Ultimately we will want one theory to descibe everything (I suspect that if there is one that it will actually be a symmetry principle).
Oh, so you mean that when the laws aren't integrated into one underlying law, we know less. WTF does this have to do with anything? We also know less if this nice underlying law is false.
Because all phenomena obey physical laws by definition.
By what definition? By definition of the word 'law' or the word 'phenomena' or the word 'physical' or what? Are you so lacking in imagination that you can't imagine a phenomenon that is non-predictive and therefore unable to be explained by a 'law'? Isn't your insistence that everything can be described by a physical law just a matter of faith?
If a phenomenon is "non-predictive" (by which you mean probabilistic or even wholly random, I presume), then you can have a law describing either a) the probabilities of the various outcomes or b) (if it is wholly random) the fact that all of the outcomes are equally likely. Everything is still subject to natural laws. Natural laws are, obviously, the laws by which nature operates, thus the laws by which the universe operates (there is no meaningful definition of nature that is not exactly equivalent to the universe), and thus the laws by which everything operates.
Actually, it flows quite nicely from the concepts of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and eternal existence that he would exist 'out of time.'
So to say that the concept of God being out of time is arbitrary, seems rather simplistic.
Secondly, if what exists is limited to the physical universe, then the question remains is how did the universe spring into being? God had to exist before the universe, and before time in order to be the first cause of everything.
Existing outside of space-time is not existing outside the universe. Space-time just happens to be a part of our universe; clearly there could be a universe without this "space-time".
Originally posted by Elok
It normally operates as a closed system, yes. God can choose to intervene as he pleases, and we call it a miracle. You can't predict the actions of a sentient being you've never met, so he is considered "supernatural," to use the phrase that so annoys you.
He "would not exist" for the purposes of the system itself only, for those times it is allowed to run its course...much as a car is just an idling lump of scrap metal as long as nobody is inside to drive it. The driver steps in to hit the accelerator, and suddenly "exists" as far as the universe of the car is concerned.
Let's see if I understand: you take the so-called "physical" universe (by which I presume you are referring to the contiguous region of space-time that we happen to inhabit), and call it a closed system, despite the fact that you assert that there is an entity that is affected by this system (for God to receive information about it is to be affected by it) and that can affect this system. That's fundamentally inconsistent with the definition of a closed system.
This is entirely in line with my last statement. Mathematics has very little to do with the real world (other than being a tool). We postulate some axioms and go from their. There is lots of mathematics which is not manifest in physics. In other words, maths is also not the 'domain of science'. (This is why maths used to be taught in arts faculties.)
Tweet
Comment