x
Click to expand

colesy

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:6/04/2012
Last Login:5/26/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#8097
Comment Ranking:#5908
Highest Content Rank:#8111
Highest Comment Rank:#2332
Content Thumbs: 830 total,  1158 ,  328
Comment Thumbs: 1997 total,  2338 ,  341
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 82 Content: Srs Business → Level 83 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 3% (3/100)
Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:2
Content Views:92267
Times Content Favorited:57 times
Total Comments Made:472
FJ Points:355

Funny Pictures

1 2 3 > [ 16 ]

YouTube Videos

latest user's comments

#583 - i have no idea what i'm doing here 05/26/2015 on Steam game giveaway 0
#20 - and now practically worthless  [+] (2 new replies) 05/17/2015 on New Pepeland +6
#25 - moisture (05/17/2015) [-]
You fool!
You're ruining the Pepe Economy!
#22 - yourdonutz (05/17/2015) [-]
pls stop das illegal
#95 - Revision late into the night, It's only first year but I'm ski… 05/16/2015 on Tell Addy what you're up... +1
#106 - The main point of the last part of the video is that we made m… 05/16/2015 on Neil's FW tumblr users... 0
#102 - It's a pretty big philosophical question. I urge you to watch …  [+] (2 new replies) 05/15/2015 on Neil's FW tumblr users... 0
User avatar #105 - ninjaroo (05/16/2015) [-]
I... really still don't get it. The properties you're referring to are essentially defined by how we look at nature. Force is equal to mass times acceleration, because force is the measurement of a masses resistance to acceleration. To then say that because the linear relationship between the two is evidence of design beyond humanity creating mathematics is silly, but what you're referring to is the same thing tied up in some more complexity.
User avatar #106 - colesy (05/16/2015) [-]
The main point of the last part of the video is that we made mathematical models such as the Fibonacci sequence, and then they turned out be be commonplace in nature in ways that weren't foreseen when this type of maths was "invented". The argument being that the number of "coincidences" points towards the mathematics being in nature regardless of human perception.

That being said I'm not here to persuade you into believing that maths was definitely discovered because, as with all philosophical questions, there isn't a right answer - only a good answer back up with empiricism and/or logic.

I am here to tell you, however, that a philosophical question that dates back further than 4th century BC and deemed important by some of the greatest minds ever known is not one-sided. Only ignorance would lead an individual to call it "silly", before backing themselves up with a crude analogy to do with a low level perception of physics - which is innaccurate by the way, thereby assuming that nobel prize winners amongst others great minds are 100% wrong.

That being said, please, please read into the debate before deciding one way or another on pure gut-feeling, otherwise you're no better than religious individuals that believe in their religion because they were brought up to.

TL;DR the question isn't silly, enlighten yourself you philistine
rant over
#72 - look up the watchmaker analogy  [+] (2 new replies) 05/15/2015 on Neil's FW tumblr users... -1
User avatar #99 - YllekNayr (05/15/2015) [-]
Yeah, it's a deist thing, but it doesn't have evidence to support it.
It's a nice theory, but there's nothing suggesting it's correct.
User avatar #85 - ninjaroo (05/15/2015) [-]
The watchmaker analogy is completely flawed in that as best we can with tell with all the tools available the overwhelming majority of all the things ever were created by natural processes.

It's seriously on par with Pascals Wager It might be true, so you should believe it just in case! and the Ontological Argument It's possible, so it must be true!
#71 - Actually you've read me completely wrong; my parents are sever…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/15/2015 on Neil's FW tumblr users... +2
User avatar #98 - YllekNayr (05/15/2015) [-]
Incorrect assumption on my part then.
It's usually a safe one to make, but not always right.
You're the sort of religious person I like, then.
#70 - You're going into the whole "was maths created or discove…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/15/2015 on Neil's FW tumblr users... 0
User avatar #84 - ninjaroo (05/15/2015) [-]
That's a debate? I'd have thought they were unambiguously created. Math is entirely about creating a system and seeing what you can do with it.
User avatar #102 - colesy (05/15/2015) [-]
It's a pretty big philosophical question. I urge you to watch this to see some of the main arguments from both sides. I myself, due to the occurrence of mathematical patterns like Fibonacci sequences in nature sways me towards discovered.

ed.ted.com/lessons/is-math-discovered-or-invented-jeff-dekofsky
User avatar #105 - ninjaroo (05/16/2015) [-]
I... really still don't get it. The properties you're referring to are essentially defined by how we look at nature. Force is equal to mass times acceleration, because force is the measurement of a masses resistance to acceleration. To then say that because the linear relationship between the two is evidence of design beyond humanity creating mathematics is silly, but what you're referring to is the same thing tied up in some more complexity.
User avatar #106 - colesy (05/16/2015) [-]
The main point of the last part of the video is that we made mathematical models such as the Fibonacci sequence, and then they turned out be be commonplace in nature in ways that weren't foreseen when this type of maths was "invented". The argument being that the number of "coincidences" points towards the mathematics being in nature regardless of human perception.

That being said I'm not here to persuade you into believing that maths was definitely discovered because, as with all philosophical questions, there isn't a right answer - only a good answer back up with empiricism and/or logic.

I am here to tell you, however, that a philosophical question that dates back further than 4th century BC and deemed important by some of the greatest minds ever known is not one-sided. Only ignorance would lead an individual to call it "silly", before backing themselves up with a crude analogy to do with a low level perception of physics - which is innaccurate by the way, thereby assuming that nobel prize winners amongst others great minds are 100% wrong.

That being said, please, please read into the debate before deciding one way or another on pure gut-feeling, otherwise you're no better than religious individuals that believe in their religion because they were brought up to.

TL;DR the question isn't silly, enlighten yourself you philistine
rant over
#13 - But the fact that we can rationalise the workings of the unive…  [+] (23 new replies) 05/15/2015 on Neil's FW tumblr users... -2
#38 - bodeejus (05/15/2015) [-]
I am a hard agnostic. Because there really isn't evidence one way or the other. You can say there is no God because there really is no evidence or reason for one and you can say that there very well may be because of complexities in the universe. It really is impossible to tell that's kind of the point of living I believe to just struggle to make sense of something we never really quite get.
#45 - mathmanchris (05/15/2015) [-]
So you're not falling for Pascal's Wager?
User avatar #100 - YllekNayr (05/15/2015) [-]
Pascal's Wager is for idiots who can't think through 2 whole steps of logic.
User avatar #82 - bodeejus (05/15/2015) [-]
No because one of his flaws is that a God (and he only talks about a Christian god, when asked about other gods he simply states that the Christian god is the only one that matters) wouldn't simply want you to believe in him just to believe and not go to hell. I believe in the bible it is pretty clear that faith is the biggest key to the religion and if you are just "believing" not to go to hell then that would be a problem. Most Christians even have a problem with this argument. Also if he had things to say about other Gods and religions I would be able to think he was more credible/reasonable, but hr literally said that the Christian God is the only one that matters.. Mkay Pascal, how am I supposed to take that seriously?
User avatar #39 - unikornking (05/15/2015) [-]
This image is why I'm not agnostic, and it's kinda weird that people are agnostic because of it
User avatar #41 - bodeejus (05/15/2015) [-]
The pic was a joke. I actually think its great to talk about the possibilities but because we cant know for sure yet(or probably ever), I personally don't see a point in believing in one specific religion or idea. I have my own ideas, but there really are no facts to base them on because God is not a tangible idea, so I don't see any point in taking one specific idea and saying "that's it, that's the reason why there is or isn't God".
User avatar #37 - Whetstone (05/15/2015) [-]
It's okay, don't listen to what the others say. You have every right to hold the beliefs you have
User avatar #28 - caette (05/15/2015) [-]
you know calculus was invent by man right? the numbers that describe physics makes sense to us because its relative to how we think. it has nothing to do with a god
User avatar #70 - colesy (05/15/2015) [-]
You're going into the whole "was maths created or discovered?" debate now

think about integration and differentiation, when first thought up they were totally different areas of maths but coincidentally ended up being extremely linked
User avatar #84 - ninjaroo (05/15/2015) [-]
That's a debate? I'd have thought they were unambiguously created. Math is entirely about creating a system and seeing what you can do with it.
User avatar #102 - colesy (05/15/2015) [-]
It's a pretty big philosophical question. I urge you to watch this to see some of the main arguments from both sides. I myself, due to the occurrence of mathematical patterns like Fibonacci sequences in nature sways me towards discovered.

ed.ted.com/lessons/is-math-discovered-or-invented-jeff-dekofsky
User avatar #105 - ninjaroo (05/16/2015) [-]
I... really still don't get it. The properties you're referring to are essentially defined by how we look at nature. Force is equal to mass times acceleration, because force is the measurement of a masses resistance to acceleration. To then say that because the linear relationship between the two is evidence of design beyond humanity creating mathematics is silly, but what you're referring to is the same thing tied up in some more complexity.
User avatar #106 - colesy (05/16/2015) [-]
The main point of the last part of the video is that we made mathematical models such as the Fibonacci sequence, and then they turned out be be commonplace in nature in ways that weren't foreseen when this type of maths was "invented". The argument being that the number of "coincidences" points towards the mathematics being in nature regardless of human perception.

That being said I'm not here to persuade you into believing that maths was definitely discovered because, as with all philosophical questions, there isn't a right answer - only a good answer back up with empiricism and/or logic.

I am here to tell you, however, that a philosophical question that dates back further than 4th century BC and deemed important by some of the greatest minds ever known is not one-sided. Only ignorance would lead an individual to call it "silly", before backing themselves up with a crude analogy to do with a low level perception of physics - which is innaccurate by the way, thereby assuming that nobel prize winners amongst others great minds are 100% wrong.

That being said, please, please read into the debate before deciding one way or another on pure gut-feeling, otherwise you're no better than religious individuals that believe in their religion because they were brought up to.

TL;DR the question isn't silly, enlighten yourself you philistine
rant over
User avatar #27 - YllekNayr (05/15/2015) [-]
"IMO" is correct, because we have zero evidence that points towards intelligent design.
The main reason you're not an atheist is because your parents were religious.
User avatar #71 - colesy (05/15/2015) [-]
Actually you've read me completely wrong; my parents are severely non-religious. I just have a lot of mates that do philosophy and after hearing a lot of debates on the existence of a god I'd say I'm agnostic but pointing towards some sort of "god" because of the reason above along with others. I definitely don't believe in the Abrahamic God because i feel it way too personified.

But people who are religious purely because of their parents, I do find a little irritating, especially when they try to convert others - which i see as a massive arsehole thing to do - because they haven't really thought about the possibilities and are just blindly believing something.
User avatar #98 - YllekNayr (05/15/2015) [-]
Incorrect assumption on my part then.
It's usually a safe one to make, but not always right.
You're the sort of religious person I like, then.
#46 - stalini (05/15/2015) [-]
Because of retards like, people consider all the atheists dumb
#19 - anonymous (05/15/2015) [-]
"I can understand things -> there must be a god". Good one. Please stop trying to use logic because you'll break it and I need it tomorrow.
User avatar #72 - colesy (05/15/2015) [-]
look up the watchmaker analogy
User avatar #99 - YllekNayr (05/15/2015) [-]
Yeah, it's a deist thing, but it doesn't have evidence to support it.
It's a nice theory, but there's nothing suggesting it's correct.
User avatar #85 - ninjaroo (05/15/2015) [-]
The watchmaker analogy is completely flawed in that as best we can with tell with all the tools available the overwhelming majority of all the things ever were created by natural processes.

It's seriously on par with Pascals Wager It might be true, so you should believe it just in case! and the Ontological Argument It's possible, so it must be true!
User avatar #24 - trojanmannn (05/15/2015) [-]
fuck you.
#32 - anonymous (05/15/2015) [-]
Fuck you too faggot
#123 - Clearly you've never been part of a university sports team … 05/11/2015 on Drinking at parties 0

user's channels

Join Subscribe morbid-channel

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1100
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
 Friends (0)