What a stunning surprise.
3 Likes
Oh, but canāt we answer questions in the same order they get asked ? call me old fashioned I knowā¦
Youāve rarely afforded that to others.
Come on, chop chop, quit stalling.
3 Likes
I see this tiresome shite is being peddled yet again ā¦
Bollocks. There exists no observation that supports the assertion that a cartoon magic man exists. This is a fantasy living rent free in the television in your head.
Except that no one who paid attention in class has ever espoused this strawman caricature you keep pedding. Instead, what actually happens, is that new entities and interactions are postulated to underpin the observations in question, and then effort is expended to determine experimentally if those new entities and interactions actually exist, and behave in the described manner.
Indeed, several entities and interactions postulated by scientists in the past, were rejected precisely because the relevant experimental tests failed. Phlogiston and the luminiferous aether being two classic examples, which were abandoned once the experimental tests told us that an alternative needed to be sought. Indeed, in the case of the former, not only did Antoine Laurent Lavoisier have an alternative in mind, in the form of the element Oyxgen, but he had grounds to be suspicious of the phlogiston concept even before the discovery of Oxygen, because he reasoned from basic chemistry that phlogiston would be required to possess negative mass, and would therefore be repelled by gravity instead of attracted.
For someone who claims to āunderstand theoretical physicsā, and has engaged in tiresome bleating about my supposed ādeficienciesā in this matter, your failure to understand even the elementary concepts at work here lead to much deep suspicion about your claims.
Bollocks.
What we can infer instead, is that we need to look for a set of well-defined entities and interactions that are amenable to experimental test and verification. āMagic Man did itā fails on this basis.
You are in NO position to question the honesty of others here.
More bullshit. NOT treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, is substance writ large. Itās the entire basis of proper discourse.
The only inanity on display here, is your ex recto apologetic fabrications. Along with your duplicitous twisting of the actual statements of others, because you need strrawmen to knock down.
Complete and utter poppycock.
We can reject a belief in X, when X is undefined, precisely because the person asserting X doesnāt know what heās talking about if he canāt define it!
On the contrary, treating X as true in such circumstances is the REAL vacuity.
Do you need the baby steps here?
Bare faced lie. But youāve peddled a lot of those.
Oh wait, I seem to recall presenting an exposition on this very topic in the past. Oh look, this is a topic Iāve devoted much attention to in the past here, sample posts covering this (and the business of any āalternative methodologyā anyone wishes to bring to the table) being this one, this one, this one which, wait for it, I posted in direct response to one of your posts (such a short memory you have), and this one that covered the topic briefly.
Indeed, in that post of mine answering one of yours, after explicitly stating that we have two methodologies for sorting assertions into true and false propositions, I then explained in detail to you, what steps you need to complete successfully, in order to introduce any third, alternative methodology, viz:
Of course, Iām used to seeing indolence of this sort from mythology fanboys.
Hereās a clue for you ā¦ some of us not only have functioning neurons and functioning reasoning, but long memories.
5 Likes
Oh okay, so you have no evidence and canāt prove the existence of a god. Gotcha.
It makes more sense than your bullshit religion does.
1 Like
Give him a moment to watch the latest William Lane Craig apologetics youtube video and heāll be right backā¦
3 Likes
Wait, heās a devotee of Kalamity Kraig?
Oh that speaks volumes if so.
1 Like
Just an assumption based on the apologetics and inability to answer questions.
Youād have no
No, lets answer questions in the order they are asked, no hand waving, no smoke and mirrors just good old fashioned logical discourse.
.
4 Likes
An unprovable statement incidentally, proving a negative and all that. Also all observations are subjective experiences, each observer has their own interpretation so how you can elevate your own relevance and imply to speak for all observers isnāt clear to us.
Thatās rather a long winded way of saying that science is reductionist. One again you prove you are a master at using thirty words when three would suffice.
I do understand theoretical physics, it is you who does not, if you want to challenge any statements Iāve made about that subject feel free to do so and we can discuss that publicly here in front of everyone.
So the name calling continues, I admit I am capable of error, I can and sometimes do say things that are untrue, either oversight or misunderstanding sometimes, not often but it does happen, I am human. But your accusation of liar is uncivil, a lie is an intentionally effort to knowingly deceive someone by making false statements.
Oh come on, be a sportā¦ entertain usā¦
Has your god interacted with the universe?
Ok maybe thats too muchā¦ lets try an easier oneā¦
How do you know that god had any influence on scripture?
1 Like
You want to answer question in the reverse order then yes? OK let me ask you this, this is now the newest question and based on your ālogicā it should be answered first, so go on then:
I actually want you to tell me why you believe you can recognize evidence for God?
What a stunning surprise
1 Like
Not really, we can infer the moon is made of cheese if it makes us happy. Our inference would just be subjective nonsense of course. Like inferring something exists we cannot explain or objectively evidence, and insisting it get a pass on the best methods we have, based on the assumption that those methods detecting no data is a flaw in them, and not because non-existent things provide no data. All the while anyone who suggests we submit ALL ideas to the same criteria, and not to a special pleading fallacy, is laughably accused of bias.
One simply has to laugh at anything so obviously biased, projecting that bias falsely onto anyone who wonāt or canāt share the one single belief they are so emotionally invested in, it is touted as āthe reason the universe exists at allā. Anyone with a cursory understanding of species evolution, and even a shred of objectivity, should balk at the sheer arrogance that we are the āmain showā, based on an unevidenced archaic creation myth.
Canāt even define ti accurately, but then has anyone encountered any Christian apologetics that did not have at itās heart an appeal to mystery, mysteries and mysticism are powerful tools to indoctrinate the gullible and suggestible, an obvious example if the RCC keeping their superstitious public ceremonies in Latin, and forbidding the hoi polloi for centuries from owning or reading a bible, often with dire if not fatal consequences.
Great news, I have been waiting now for 7 months for you to give some examples the āhost of good reasonsā you claimed to have for believing the origins of the anonymous hearsay in the gospels have a supernatural origin? Acn we assume you will addressing that first then?
Indeed, though it would be beyond absurd to suggest they are all equally subjective, I may have mentioned this a few times already, but you seem to miss it in all the excitement of repeating your facile mantra. I have even asked repeatedly if you accept that they are not equally subjective, and since questions are to be answered in the order theyāre asked, and that one is also months in the asking, one assumes that one will be slated in at no 2?
The problem is when you skip over the process of addressing those errors and repeat the claim, for example when you asserted that all beliefs must have an initial belief, then stating you donāt know where the initial beliefs come from, and then asserting you had made no comment on how initial beliefs are formed. Despite multiple requests you never clarified or accepted any error, and as I recall resorted to insulting my comprehension skills.
I donāt. I have never seen any presented. I think you mean why do we believe we would be able to recognise evidence for a deity, and I canāt say until it is presented obviously, to suggest an a priori declaration about something that has not been presented is utterly absurd.
1 Like
Just a quick reminder Mr. Sheldon, Iām not responding to you much now because of the incessant abuse and uncivil personal attacks and name calling, carry on as much as you like, Iām done with you.
This is a silly claim. I have told you many times, the scientific method is my (our) rule set, my epistemology. I have asked you multiple times what you use to know truth. Is it the courts? Christians love doing this, they canāt directly measure what they claim, so they try to go to āreasonable doubtā. The problem is that all they have for evidence has to be strung together using fallacies.
@Sherlock-Holmes, why do you say we donāt have rules when you happily ignore when you break them. Your big piece of āevidenceā you gave is ensnared in a logical fallacy. Therefore it canāt be considered evidence. So far you have nothing to address this with. None of us are not going to take you seriously if you keep ignoring your own illogical statements. Please respond to my claims above.
3 Likes
You poor thing. You canāt answer his questions or back up your own claims so you stoop to dishonestly playing the victim lol. Canāt say Iām surprised.
1 Like
He dances between science method and naturalism canāt be used, but we can somehow observe it which means we can use the scientific method and this would be naturalistic evidence. Heās not very good at this.
Oh look, more bollocks to deal with ā¦
Apparently you failed to recognise the elementary concept, that if there ever had existed an observation unequivocally pointing to the existence of a cartoon magic man, this would now be a part of our body of mainstream knowledge and no one would be arguing about this.
Funny how such elementary concepts appear to be too hard for Mr Trained Theoretical Physicistā¢ to understand ā¦
Do stop peddling this apologetic bullshit. Oh wait, what part of "when multiple observers observe the same entities and interactions and do so reliably and repeatably, weāre no longer dealing with the āsubjectiveā do you continue to pretend dishonestly doesnāt apply?
If 50,000 people look at a tree, and all say āthis is a treeā, what fucking āpersonal interpretationā is involved?
I donāt, this is another ex recto apologetic fabrication of yours. What I do claim instead, is that Iāve exercised diligence with respect to determining the best explanation for those observations, by referring to the work of people who spent decades researching the subject.
But of course, I donāt expect you to understand this elementary concept either.
No, Iām just providing you with the baby steps because you obviously need them, otherwise your wouldnāt post the utter shite that you do.
Nothing more than hubristic self-aggrandisement ā¦
Funny how Iāve been above to present papers on cosmological physics here without exhibiting any of your fictitious ālack of understandingā ā¦
Iāll be patient, and wait for the right opportunity to expose you as a blowhard on this matter.
Once again, pointing out that you have manifestly lied isnāt āname callingā. Grow up and grow a pair.
Oh, weāre a long way past basic honest error with you.
No, itās manifestly a deliberate part of your apologetics. Others have noted this as well.
And another irony meter bites the dust ā¦
Anticipating the obvious apologetics in 3 ā¦ 2 ā¦ 1 ā¦
I donāt care about pandering to your synthetic indignation, I care about facts. Which you manifestly donāt.
No kidding? You mean the way you tried to deceive in the past, by pointing to a known liar and charlatan whose assertions happened to be consonant with your biases, while refusing point blank to even acknowledge the existence of the research refuting those assertions, let alone read the papers in question?
Iām going to make sure that one haunts you constantly here.
Indeed. This is an elementary mistake I see from so many mythology fanboys. Along with the duplicitous attempts to have their cake and eat it simultaneously of course, in which they want their cartoon magic man to be both a weaver of spectacularly observable āmiraclesā and an ineffable āmysteryā.
3 Likes