A drone internet?
Well, the delivery here was medicine. Medicine is usually delivered in small quantities. I don't think anyone consumes 150+ lbs of medicine. Moreover, medicine can be time-critical to deliver. And even if not, you usually need it when you're ill, which is the time when you don't want to leave home if not absolutely necessary. So it's a perfect fit for this delivery method.
Actually, it is not. The problem is that it is self-referent, so it cannot be part of any theory as a theory has to be self-contained. Just as the halting-problem breaks out of computability theory, Goedel's incompleteness is designed to break out of any theory that attempts to prove it.
It really only is a hypothesis and an informal one at that. It is often called a "theorem" in the literature though, but that is a mis-use of the word and incorrect. (Yes, I _have_ studied formal proof theory.)
The pure state is the absence of religion
Does that mean religion over the years has proven itself evolutionarily fitter than atheism?
For some of them, unfortunately yes. Not in all circumstances and not in truly modern societies. But then, so have the plague and cholera. In modern times less so.
I agree, that "the masses" may not be capable to live without some fantasy to tell them what to do. This is not an argument on how to control humanity (or the morality of doing so), it just demonstrates that success of a religion and its consistency with the truth are not related.
Mr Joseph Akinyede, if that's your real name, I have already contacted the police and they are on their way!
Indeed. One of the great thinkers.
Education must really be going down the drain. Science can prove and disprove. Science works with probabilities and likelihoods, it is not balk or withe in most aspects. There are some limits, mainly that you cannot prove something is impossible in a general, unrestricted setting. (Which fact the religious use, but do not understand...) The thing about science is that it actually works and has demonstrated so time and again, unlike all other approaches tried.
Sometimes you also have to resort to use theories and models, and there the thing that well in practice is to use Occam's Razor: The least complicated theory or model that explains all the available facts is likely the correct one. When more facts become available, that assumption may get disproven or strengthened.
Science disproves a lot of things. It proves a lot of other things. For example, science can perfectly explain religion. You just need to dig a bit deeper. Science does not say religion (any of the countless, inconsistent with each other ones) is wrong, it just says that is the wrong question to ask. Hell, science can even create quasi-religions and the followers will believe in them just as they would believe in naturally evolved ones. (As this is highly unethical, it is only done by the shunned scientific sects called "marketeers" and "politicians" today.) Fact is that people are willing to believe a lot of ridiculous things if they are presented right or indoctrination starts at an early age. This has been demonstrated experimentally a lot of times. It also has been demonstrated that beliefs negatively impact rational reasoning capability, for strong beliefs ("fundamentalism"), up to the complete obliteration of the afflicted individuals ratio.
So take modern memetic theory, the fact that believes suppress reason and the evolutionary mechanism, and you have a perfect explanation where religion comes from: Random thoughts that people had and that in some instances solidified into obsessions that proved infective. The less infective ones died out, being superseded by the more infective ones. Today, we see the end-result of that process, with modern science and education fortunately allowing many people to develop an immunity to these pests.
thanks for chiming in w/ an explanation of the teapot thing...I still think its a complete waste of time to consider but thnx just the same
"teapot" is in the eye of the beholder...
what i mean is, "a teapot orbiting the earth" is pure poppycock (said with English accent and foppish hair)
the analogy is that believing in some 'god' is just as patently ludicrous (more English fopping) as believing in a teapot or whatever
it's just like the Flying Spagetti Monster analogy
It's all just opinion too...it's your **opinion** that the proper analogy to believing in 'god' is [insert something ludicrous and nonsensical]
take **any belief system** hell even theistic Satanism...they all will tell you that their belief is logical or 'makes sense' given some precepts or inherent 'truths'
analogies don't prove anything...they are **opinions** of correlation meant to make a falsifiable point & aid understanding
Hehe, it is unclear whether there are un-provable statements. Goedel's incompleteness is a hypothesis and very likely un-provable itself, but there likely cannot be a proof for that either. Sorry, but there is no certainty in that mental space. (Which is why so many people find religion acceptable or are unable to shake it: Without religion, a lot of things become pretty murky.)
Cheap polemics. The analogy does not prove a god does not exists. It proves just how ridiculous the idea is. Occasionally a ridiculous idea turns out to be true, but no sane person will expect that as it is so very rare.