How much total energy was produced? 0, right?
How much infinitesimal change of the total energy was there, over any time period? 0, right?
Yes. In grand total, a figure of zero.
Well Iâll dig up more for you; but you can start with this course. I tried to link to a time stamp in the first lecture along similar lines.
You initially insisted your personal unevidenced testimony was sufficient for us to believe your claims. Then moved the goal posts when the same standard was offered, my contrary claim of personal evidence, and the testimony offered for mermaids. A straw man fallacy is the creation of an easily defeated argument someone has not made, where did I do that exactly?
You have insisted from the start that your sole anecdotal testimony was enough, more than one poster has offered exactly that, and you are prevaricating, as youâve done here again. I made a contrary claim to yours, since we both offered the same standard of evidence which of us should everyone believe and why? You claimed I was lying, but when I asked how you knew you didnât answer.
How is that a double standard, you now appear to be dishonestly listing my own initial objections back at me, without explanation or merit, now that is childish, and dishonest. The double standard is yours, and others have pointed it out, in insisting your word alone is sufficient reason for belief, but then setting a different standard elsewhere, and the two examples are the claim for mermaids, where you are now insisting on âenoughâ testimonies, and on evidence of the sobriety of those witnesses. Then where you dismissed my contrary testimony to yours as a lie, but refused to say how you know this.
There is, but why should I, you havenât posted any video to support your claim, another example of your hypocritical double standard here.
This is also an example of you shifting the goal posts for claims other than your own, to set a double standard for evidence.
Another string of unevidenced claims. What if I insisted that I have seen them, and theyâre the same, why would my word not carry the same weight as yours? THIS IS THE FLAW IN YOUR RATIONALE THAT YOU SEEM UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO UNDERSTAND.
Well you asked if they were, itâs quoted again above, so youâve lost me here. You ask are mermaids âŚand I point out I never said they were, then you ask me what my point is? Thatâs just bizarre?
Read my post properly before responding.
Iâve offered multiple examples of your use of known common logical fallacies.
I note you donât bother to address your original claim.
You donât get to dictate what is discussed. Anymore than you get to reel off unevidenced claims, then imply personal motives to my objections without ever evidencing your claims.
2 Likes
If I saw just one mermaid, sincerely beleived I saw it, the first thing I would do is check into a mental health unit to verify my sanity.
The likelihood that one would observe a mermaid is exceptionally rare, considering that there has never been a verified case of a mermaid. I do not say they do not exist, I just say that the odds that a person was hallucinating or has mental health issues is a lot higher. By many magnitudes.
And even if I got a clean bill of health, I would serious wonder what I saw because ⌠people can be fooled. When I was 15 years old I was convinced I saw a UFO, until ten minites later it turned out to be a train. And due to the optics, if anyone else had been watching with me, they too would have believed they saw a UFO. An individual can be fooled, a group of people can be fooled.
Anything extraordinary must be verified by more than a few personal testimonies. That would be just the beginning of a very exhaustive and intense investigation.
3 Likes
I think youâve cut right to the heart of the matter there. Bottom line anecdotal or unevidenced claims about personal experience tell us fuck all about the validity of whatâs being claimed. The level of objective evidence that needs to be demonstrated, rises in direct proportion with the extraordinary nature of the claim.
1 Like
sounds a lot like Feynman:
1 Like
Can you imagine how pages of text we would have had to exchange to convince you (or anyone else) that the sum of infinite infinitesimal changes was 0; if you didnât already know how to calculate it yourself?
None of that matters because your contrary claim was based on an obvious lie.
Which you cater to over and over again with intellectual dishonesty.
Why do you accuse me of the same dishonesty?
In fact my response to your dishonesty (as if I ever even needed to make one) was that if you âtrulyâ heard the voice of God we wouldnât be here having this discussion because you would no longer be an Atheist.
Honest question with a simple answer. Was your contrary anecdote a lie and are you therefore still an atheist?
I have accused you of intellectual dishonesty in the past. It has never been more clear than now.
Go ahead and make the claim. If you wish to lie to your self and me make the claim that mermaids are omnipotent - etcetera.
I will regard it in the same way that I regard your revelation from God.
You see, thereâs something to be said about what is true and what is false, my dear Watson.
âUnevidenced claimsâ in a scientific sense - but true claims in the sense that I would swear on my grand mothers eternal soul that I heard, saw, smelled, and knew the highest power in this universe.
Would you be willing to do the same? Would you swear on your grand motherâs eternal soul that the voice of God told you I was a fraud?
For all of your âad populumsâ and âad ignoramusâ fallacies, you canât even master the concept of telling the truth - and what is even more puzzling is that you insist on using it as a point of argument - while accusing me of shifting the goal posts - etcetera.
Puzzling and amusing.
I can do the math.
I still donât see where these arbitrary values have their origin.
Where did this positive energy come from? Where did this negative energy come from?
I know physics has no use for what happened before the Big Bang.
How about for the sake of knowledge? What happened before the Big Bang?
Is it not a philosophically relevant question?
Lol 
.
From your god when he pushed through his âno need for cause or conditionâ TO âcreateâ reality - AND oops died!!!
Weâre just examining âbody partsââŚ
HERE - let me re-word this to help you understand!!!
I know faith/belief has no use for what happened before god/s.
How about for the sake of knowledge? What happened before god or the Big Bang? How long did god sit motionless? Would god/s thinking ability require any movement or time?. How would a god/s get âthereâ?. Why create anything if god/s are already complete? (I got a million of theseâŚ)
Are not these philosophically relevant questions?
1 Like
Dude, you were asking about the source of energy before the big bang. That is what we were discussing. After all we discussed, why would you ask me basically the same question as if we didnât have a discussion?
As I suspected: you arenât serious. And now I feel pretty stupid for chatting with you, again.
Congratulations, you have successfully wasted my time and trolled me.
1 Like
Ditto here. I have given u in believing in any supernatural stuffâŚâŚ.and my life is better for it.
Au contraire.
Well Iâm happy for others to judge what my intent was, but your distortion of it, to deliberately avoid my point is I suspect, pretty obvious to everyone.
Because I have explained what the point of my claim was thoroughly and repeatedly, yet you are still dishonestly misrepresenting it.
Oh dear, Iâm afraid itâs too tedious to repeat your error again. Iâve emboldened the relevant text if you wish to honestly address my actual point, and not the dishonest straw man youâre using.
As I have explained exhaustively, it was an example of a contrary claim offered with exactly the standard of validity that you claim is sufficient for others to believe yours, but you seem unwilling or unable to understand this.
I donât particularly care, but itâs telling that as usual you have descended into petty insult rather than address my argument.
SighâŚ
Thus youâre discarding your own criteria you have from the start insisted is sufficient that others must believe your claims, I simply canât dumb this down anymore.
Theres a great deal to be said I imagine, but the salient point here is that you are setting your own subjective unevidenced anecdotal opinion as sufficient, then discarding it from others, and insisting there are other criteria.
I never mentioned science, and youâre again adding to your original criteria, not that it helps, I could aa easily swear on my âgrand mothers eternal soul thatâ a deity has told me your wrong.
Thatâs the problem with subjective claims, as Iâve explained.
Yes, absolutely, not that it matters of course, as we can all see you wriggling away from your original claim.
Itâs an ad ignorantiam fallacy, and theyâre not mine, they are dictated by the principles of logic. As Iâve already explained, you claimed repeatedly and from the start, that personal subjective claims were sufficient for belief, so calling me a liar or citing other criteria contradicts your own claim.
You donât seem able pr willing to understand that bizarrely.
In a debate forum, well you might want to look up the definition of debate.
You have shifted the goal posts, after starting by insisting personal subjective anecdote was sufficient for belief, youâve since shifted that position and are denying it, with accusations of lies and insisting I swear on dead relatives etc.
Whatâs bizarre and amusing is that you donât understand that.
1 Like
How long before he blames me somehow?
What is south of the south pole, if such a thing like that even exists? Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking the question I just askedâŚâŚ.nonsensical and unintelligible.
Where did god come from?
2 Likes
What happened before god?
2 Likes