sees_all1

#8 was today :oops: Maybe you should get a setup in which you can protect them :thumbup: 1 feb is going to be an interesting day.. Now where's the fun in that? I only use G2h's in full armour fights in pvp worlds where the loot is generally better. Unfortunately, there is no +1, and my lag is unpredictable. <_<

#8 was today :oops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yidkJlUBsvM :twss:

I never claimed that "all assumptions are equally respectable," because some assumptions can be proved to be incorrect. The assumptions that can't be proved or disproved are equally respectable, however. Back to math, one does not equal zero is a reasonable assumption to hold. In religion, God exists is a reasonable assumption to hold. Saying that math is more correct than religion because it is based on proofs is ridiculous, because both have foundations on things that cannot be proved or disproved.

Why are you trying to fallaciously argue over petty stuff that is irrelevant to the point I made, and the topic at hand? Two events occurring are not equiprobable even if assumptions are made for both. Lets assume I buy a powerball ticket, and lets assume I roll fair six-sided die. The probability that I roll a six is MUCH greater than the probability that I win the powerball (on the order of fifty million times more likely). Both events required assumptions, and both are not equiprobable. Regardless of the assumptions that must be made for certain viewpoints, the fact remains that for math or science to say anything meaningful about anything, certain beliefs must be established, which cannot be proved. This is the exact same for religion. By simultaneously saying that religion is stupid because it can't prove the fact that God exists while math, science, and logic are somehow more intelligent because the entire subject is proven is short-sighted and ridiculous.

I'm still here, so I guess that asteroid never hit. I don't worry about a life ending asteroid hitting in the next 5 minutes because its out of my control, and I don't have to assume or even think about it. No, because I know that people have been shot in the head and I know that after people were shot in the head a shower of magical flying puppies didn't appear, which is evidence contrary to the assumption.

You assume that everything you see is real, but lets say you're actually on hallucinogens. Everything is a figment of your imagination, so is everything you perceive real? Or lets say that the entire universe and everything in it was created yesterday, including fossils and memories. You have no proof otherwise, yet you'd think this is a ridiculous statement because of the fossils and memories that are there, but were created with everything else. You assume much about the world and are condescending to people that assume different things, this is ridiculous.

I think you already know the answer to that.

DUH You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different? We assume lots of things to be true. However we make lots of observations that lead us to the fundamental assumptions of math. An assumption based on evidence is certainly MUCH DIFFERENT from an assumption based on no evidence. A scientist has to operate based on the assumption that what he sees under the microscope actually exists and is not an optical illusion. Is he silly for doing so? No. However, one could also make the assumption (again I will use this example) that he is constantly being followed by invisible monsters that are ready to strangle him. Is this person right in living his life cowering in fear from these monsters? No. There is little evidence that seems to confirm his assumption. No, you're picking and choosing what you want to assume, and you're berating everyone else for making different assumptions. This, in my opinion, is ridiculous and hypocritical. EDIT: No directed specifically at you, but at those that value logic, math, and science above all else.

I'm saying your sacred system of math, science, and logic are based on underlying assumptions that cannot be proven. How is religion any different? You say that since God cannot be proven then God does not exist, but science and math are proven so they do exist? How laughable.

DUH You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different?

The point I'm trying to make is that all of math and science are based on a few axioms which can't be proven. If you, in clear conscience can say that God does not exist, therefore all your religious arguments/morality arguments/etc. have no backing, then I, in clear conscience can say that 1 = 0 and all your science and math have no backing, and you can't prove otherwise.

16 is defined as 15 + 1, 15 is defined as 14 + 1, and so on.... Since 1=0, 16 = 15 + 1, that is to say 16 = 15. And 15 = 14 + 1, that is to say 15 = 14, and so on. Which means that 5 = 0, 2 = 0, and 16 = 0. So 0*0 = 0. Why is this so difficult?

5 in math is defined as 1+1+1+1+1? Well guess what? Guess what 1 is defined as? 0+1 You are holding the definition of 5 to be true, but you aren't holding the definition of 1 to be true. This is such complete nonsense. No, 5 in math is defined as 4+1, 4 is defined as 3+1, 3 is defined as 2+1, and 2 is defined as 1+1. There is no definition of 1, except for these axioms: There is a number, one, such that "a" multiplied with one equals "a". There is a number, inverse of "a", such that for "a" does not equal zero, "a" multiplied with inverse of "a" equals 1. Zero does not equal one. These are all definitions though, and they can't be proved.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0? Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0. How are you linking 0*0=0 with 5*2=16? Because 5 in math is defined as ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1), and 2 in math is defined as (1+1), and since 1=0, ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1) = 0, and (1+1)=0. I don't want to write out 16, but you get the picture.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0? Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0.

Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work. This is getting quite frustrating to argue with people who don't understand the basics of reasoning. I provided you with everything else you need to indeed prove, with high certainty, that 1 is not the same as zero. What we call 0 is what happens when we look for something and instead find nothing. How many rocks am I holding in my hand right now? This is what zero means. Now if I add a rock, how many do I have? This is what 1 means? No, see you don't understand the concept of a proof. A proof takes something that is known, absolute facts, builds upon them until it shows something that isn't known, or not completely obvious. In math, all equations make sense if one equals zero, really it does. What's 1*1? Well, since 1=0, its 0*0, which equals 0. What's 1+1? Well, its actually 0+0, so its 0. All the rest of the axioms I posted hold when one equals zero, because its a trivial solution. There is no amount of math or logic that you can write down that will explain why one actually doesn't equal zero, you have to believe that axiom to be true. There are no facts before the statement "one does not equal zero", which is why it can't be proved.

Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work.

I'll stop posting it when you can prove that one does not equal zero, or you stop bashing religion.

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact. You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

No, it is a belief, because you cannot prove it. For the sake of shutting you up, I will concede to your point. You STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor any evidence. Belief in a god is not beneficial; no, it is the reverse. "Belief" that there are numbers is not harming anyone, and amounts can be REPRESENTED by numbers. Thinking that because you believe in science and math, and all things "proven" is just as ridiculous as a belief in God (and in my opinion, neither are ridiculous). You can't prove anything in science or math without a couple simple statements that are held as absolute truths. Also, religion never developed nor used an atom-bomb, which is to say that numbers have harmed people more than religion.

No, it is a belief, because you cannot prove it.

And you still can't prove that 2+1=3 without axiom Z, that 1 does not equal 0. Your entire system of science and math cannot be proven without a few simple beliefs.

I'm dead serious, you can't prove Z. If I don't accept Z as fact, you can't prove that 2+1 = 3, when in fact 2 + 1 = 2.

Hold up two fingers. Now hold up one more finger. Now you're holding up 3 fingers. There's your damn proof.You still can't provide the existence of YOUR god, let alone the existence of the hundreds of thousands of gods that exist and have existed. 2 doesn't exist and 1 doesn't exist. Therefore you have no proof that 3 is the sum of 2 and 1. EDIT: I actually believe that Z isn't true, that is to say one equals zero. Therefore, 2 + 1 = 2. You can't prove me wrong because you can't prove Z.