Self-developmen;A Christian perspective.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I agree. At least mathematicians argue cleanly. They have to, otherwise they're not taken seriously .

Mathematics looks like the only form of science that can be trusted as "true" then.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Mathematics looks like the only form of science that can be trusted as "true" then.

Not exactly. It's more that the scientific method works.

Get the facts, create hypotheses, test them, draw conclusions, share with peers and be willing to be criticised.

The problem with religion is that it can't be tested scientifically (at least, not that I know). People who believe often reject the scientific method. I guess out of fear that they might find out that their beliefs are unfounded.

There are more sciences where it's not easy: psychology, social sciences, political science to name a few. Usually it's hard to design good experiments. But even there the method supports you in thinking clearly.

The scientific method works best in maths, physics, chemistry etc. The so-called hard sciences.

[GHI]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Mathematics looks like the only form of science that can be trusted as "true" then.

Why?

Do you think a person cannot argue in a civil and clean manner unless he is a mathematician?

Spirit4711 is right, you know. The kind of "discussion" you and Joel are having here isn't doing either of you any good. You both sound like complete idiots when you bicker at one another like that. And what's even worse: niether of you are growing as a result of this stupid mud-wrestling match. It's just completely, utterly, pointless.

Now, since you are a Christian, here is a thought for you:

What do you think Jesus would do, if he were in your position? You've talked about the Christian perspective on personal development. So here is your chance to apply these principles in a real-world situation.

[GHI]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

There are more sciences where it's not easy: psychology, social sciences, political science to name a few. Usually it's hard to design good experiments. But even there the method supports you in thinking clearly.

Very true. But here is the really interesting question:

Given that "thinking clearly" is so valuable, why limit its use to professional fields of knowledge? Why not apply it every day of our lives?

It isn't always easy. But shouldn't we, at the very least, strive to thinking clearly and logically about everything?

Even about religion. God gave us the ability to reason, didn't He? Now, why is that so? What's the point of giving us this wonderful supercomputer we call "the human brain" if we aren't supposed to use it?

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by GHI

Very true. But here is the really interesting question:

Given that "thinking clearly" is so valuable, why limit its use to professional fields of knowledge? Why not apply it every day of our lives?

It isn't always easy. But shouldn't we, at the very least, strive to thinking clearly and logically about everything?

...

Yes, yes, yes! Read the book: The Choice by Eli Goldratt. Supports what you say, and also how and why.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Get the facts, create hypotheses, test them, draw conclusions, share with peers and be willing to be criticised..

Test your own hypothesis using your own methods, come up with your own conclusions, and finally be criticized by your peers, what a fool proof way to the truth.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

The problem with religion is that it can't be tested scientifically (at least, not that I know). People who believe often reject the scientific method. I guess out of fear that they might find out that their beliefs are unfounded..

I have never rejected scientific methods just never seen the one that is foolproof apart from mathematics anyway.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

There are more sciences where it's not easy: psychology, social sciences, political science to name a few. Usually it's hard to design good experiments. But even there the method supports you in thinking clearly..

They are not perfect but support your thinking which is always influenced by your pursuits, experiences and education.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

The scientific method works best in maths, physics, chemistry etc. The so-called hard sciences.

Have they disapproved faith in anyway? Seems split right in the middle when it comes to the issue of God.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Test your own hypothesis using your own methods, come up with your own conclusions, and finally be criticized by your peers, what a fool proof way to the truth.


...

It seems you're reading something in my post that I didn't intend to write. I suggest you try again.

For the record, I don't say the scientific method is the perfect tool. But it supports me much better in my life than endless bickering over faith issues nobody can prove anyway. That phenomenon has only some psychological value for me.

But please continue if you want to, it's your thread. I'm out of this one.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by GHI

Do you think a person cannot argue in a civil and clean manner unless he is a mathematician?.

I have always thought so but it is unfortunate that mathematicians think that it is their domain not ours, we the mere mortals.

Originally Posted by GHI

Spirit4711 is right, you know. The kind of "discussion" you and Joel are having here isn't doing either of you any good. You both sound like complete idiots when you bicker at one another like that. And what's even worse: niether of you are growing as a result of this stupid mud-wrestling match. It's just completely, utterly, pointless..

Contrary to your rather negative conclusion which is quite unfortunate but understood, it was fulfilling to me as it was to Joerl. Who is on record saying that he had via this thread refreshed his history, which is besides my learning a lot from him. It is pointless to you maybe but pretty much rewarding to me.

Originally Posted by GHI

What do you think Jesus would do, if he were in your position? You've talked about the Christian perspective on personal development. So here is your chance to apply these principles in a real-world situation.

Firstly, he can never be in my position he is who he is and I am what I am; secondly, he perfectly knew who he was and his purpose on earth while am still trying to figure out the truth about him. And it doesn’t hurt to engage in a completely, utterly, pointless search for the truth about what one holds so dear, is it?

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

It seems you're reading something in my post that I didn't intend to write. I suggest you try again..

Are we not guilty of the same mistake?

Originally Posted by spirit4711

But please continue if you want to, it's your thread. I'm out of this one.

The scientific method of getting solutions; run away from something you cannot understand, seek for reasons to demean it via facts you cannot explain outside those of the same mind. It is your choice but thanks anyway for the little discussions we had, God bless!

[newsbone]

Hi! Liveform and Joelr!(plus anyone else out there) I have just read an article posted on the net, 'The lost years of Jesus: the life of saint Issa', what is your take on it? Sincerely!

[johnlazy]

This is what i love about human beings and the power of imagination, sometimes illusion can be made truth.

[GHI]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Contrary to your rather negative conclusion which is quite unfortunate but understood, it was fulfilling to me as it was to Joerl. Who is on record saying that he had via this thread refreshed his history, which is besides my learning a lot from him. It is pointless to you maybe but pretty much rewarding to me.

I find it very hard to believe...

But it really doesn't matter. My personal opinion is irelevant. If you really feel that you're growing and learning in this so-called discussion, by all means, continue.

And it doesn’t hurt to engage in a completely, utterly, pointless search for the truth about what one holds so dear, is it?

If it were an honest search for truth, I would agree.

Then again, if it were an honest search, you would have peacefully explored the issues together instead of being at each-other's throat.

At least that's my take on things. Of-course, you are free to ignore everything I've said and continue your little fist-fight. It's your thread, not mine.

I'm with Spirit on this one. Out the door of this thread, to places with more positive energy.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by GHI

Actually... no.

First of all, w is not a "cardinal" but an ordinal number.

Secondly, w+1 is not equal w. Their cardinality is the same (both have a cardinality of Aleph_Null) but the numbers are not the same.

What is true, is the 1+w=w. Addition of ordinals is not commutative, you see...

Ah, the joy of mathematics. The joy of Absolute Truth.

And now, we return to our regular bickering... er, regular program. Back to you, guys.

actually...yes , "w" or "Omega" is a cardinal. w cannot be mapped one-to -one into any of the finite numbers before it.
Besides that all of the alephs are often referred to as "large cardinals, infinite cardinals or transfinite cardinals"

[newsbone]

I sincerely thank all of you who participated in this thread and more so, those that were very active. It has been a thread that has opened my eyes to a lot more than I had thought to be there. Truly no person is an island we all need one another irrespective of forms of belief, way of life, race and culture and distance. Good Day to you all.