|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 12:59:27 GMT
Cataloging the natural world is an enormous task, but with help from people who can read, write, use dictionaries, use libraries and generally stay focused on issues I can know everything there is to know. It is my superpower and not yours. I'm sorry. Perhaps you can find the kryptonite in your neighborhood that is causing you difficulty. This is my quote of the week. When you have those 'stringent scientific methods' to hand which have 'established the facts' of Creationism, er, intelligent design, which I am reassured now that you must know but for some reason have forgotten to present, please get back to me. In the meantime, thank you for playing with a mere mortal. Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance - Confucius The most significant problem you have engaging reality is your incapacity to focus on any point. I suspect some severe accident caused that. No one else here, atheist or otherwise, has your ability to float about the dark forest of ill defined terms and rules that do not exist. It is very often the case elsewhere that people stumble a bit over terms though. Most debates over the "existence" of a god turn on closer inspection to be about the "definition" of one. Some atheists argue against an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds while their opponents are arguing for an established system of ethics with no anthropomorphic manifestations. You are especially prone to try to force real data to fit some "definition" you think it should rather than accepting a definition that fits the data on hand. Only a person with brain damage would do that. That's the extent of your ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2020 21:59:09 GMT
This is my quote of the week. When you have those 'stringent scientific methods' to hand which have 'established the facts' of Creationism, er, intelligent design, which I am reassured now that you must know but for some reason have forgotten to present, please get back to me. In the meantime, thank you for playing with a mere mortal. Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance - Confucius The most significant problem you have engaging reality is your incapacity to focus on any point. I suspect some severe accident caused that. No one else here, atheist or otherwise, has your ability to float about the dark forest of ill defined terms and rules that do not exist. It is very often the case elsewhere that people stumble a bit over terms though. Most debates over the "existence" of a god turn on closer inspection to be about the "definition" of one. Some atheists argue against an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds while their opponents are arguing for an established system of ethics with no anthropomorphic manifestations. You are especially prone to try to force real data to fit some "definition" you think it should rather than accepting a definition that fits the data on hand. Only a person with brain damage would do that. That's the extent of your ignorance. Telling others that you know everything there is to know in the world and they don't makes you look inestimably stupid.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 31, 2020 22:20:09 GMT
If lumberjacks gave intelligence tests then lumberjacks would likely score higher than everyone else. To whom might that not be obvious? But they don't. They chop down trees. If psychologists chopped down trees they would be less productive than professional lumberjacks.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2020 23:30:16 GMT
1. The existence of a God 2. The fact that your version of God was the Creator of the universe. 1. I cannot do that. I can however show what the natural world cannot do. The "negative proof" as you might like to call it is possible because the natural world is limited. Whenever the scope of a proof is limited it is possible to prove a negative. If the natural world were not limited it would make no difference whether the natural world or a god did anything. Either one is unlimited. 2. I never even tried anything remotely like that. It clearly can, because it did!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2020 0:11:38 GMT
The most significant problem you have engaging reality is your incapacity to focus on any point. I suspect some severe accident caused that. No one else here, atheist or otherwise, has your ability to float about the dark forest of ill defined terms and rules that do not exist. It is very often the case elsewhere that people stumble a bit over terms though. Most debates over the "existence" of a god turn on closer inspection to be about the "definition" of one. Some atheists argue against an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds while their opponents are arguing for an established system of ethics with no anthropomorphic manifestations. You are especially prone to try to force real data to fit some "definition" you think it should rather than accepting a definition that fits the data on hand. Only a person with brain damage would do that. That's the extent of your ignorance. Telling others that you know everything there is to know in the world and they don't makes you look inestimably stupid. Did you know relevance isn't your forte? Of course I don't know everything there is to know in the world. I do have library skills though. My chosen career requires and exercises them regularly. The library has a rather "comprehensive" array of information known to man. What it might lack isn't terribly relevant. For example there might be a "new" species of ant found in the vast wilderness that is 7mm long when its nearest known relative is 4mm long. It is not a "significant" point of "new" data. It likely fits neatly into existing taxonomic tables with little dispute or adjustment. By the way there is some minor dispute about how things ought to be placed in taxonomic tables. Similarly there is a table of chemical elements. Any "new" elements will necessarily fit on it since that's how integral numbers of protons play out. Yet there are perhaps surprisingly few "new" elements. That's because very high numbers of protons are going out to weirdsville and are not stable.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2020 0:15:28 GMT
Telling others that you know everything there is to know in the world and they don't makes you look inestimably stupid. Did you know relevance isn't your forte? Of course I don't know everything there is to know in the world.I dont like this situation any more than you do dude, but right now thats not possible. I do have library skills though. My chosen career requires and exercises them regularly. The library has a rather "comprehensive" array of information known to man. What it might lack isn't terribly relevant. For example there might be a "new" species of ant found in the vast wilderness that is 7mm long when its nearest known relative is 4mm long. It is not a "significant" point of "new" data. It likely fits neatly into existing taxonomic tables with little dispute or adjustment. By the way there is some minor dispute about how things ought to be placed in taxonomic tables. Similarly there is a table of chemical elements. Any "new" elements will necessarily fit on it since that's how integral numbers of protons play out. Yet there are perhaps surprisingly few "new" elements. That's because very high numbers of protons are going out to weirdsville and are not stable. Then why claim it as a possibility?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2020 0:15:57 GMT
1. I cannot do that. I can however show what the natural world cannot do. The "negative proof" as you might like to call it is possible because the natural world is limited. Whenever the scope of a proof is limited it is possible to prove a negative. If the natural world were not limited it would make no difference whether the natural world or a god did anything. Either one is unlimited. 2. I never even tried anything remotely like that. 1. I cannot do that. I can however show what the natural world cannot do.How have you βshownβ it canβt do this? All the possibilities have been exhausted because surprise! there is a limited number of them that can be exhausted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2020 0:17:22 GMT
If lumberjacks gave intelligence tests then lumberjacks would likely score higher than everyone else. To whom might that not be obvious? But they don't. They chop down trees. If psychologists chopped down trees they would be less productive than professional lumberjacks. Nothing much gets past your watch, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2020 0:19:59 GMT
Did you know relevance isn't your forte? Of course I don't know everything there is to know in the world.I dont like this situation any more than you do dude, but right now thats not possible. I do have library skills though. My chosen career requires and exercises them regularly. The library has a rather "comprehensive" array of information known to man. What it might lack isn't terribly relevant. For example there might be a "new" species of ant found in the vast wilderness that is 7mm long when its nearest known relative is 4mm long. It is not a "significant" point of "new" data. It likely fits neatly into existing taxonomic tables with little dispute or adjustment. By the way there is some minor dispute about how things ought to be placed in taxonomic tables. Similarly there is a table of chemical elements. Any "new" elements will necessarily fit on it since that's how integral numbers of protons play out. Yet there are perhaps surprisingly few "new" elements. That's because very high numbers of protons are going out to weirdsville and are not stable. Then why claim it as a possibility? www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevance
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2020 0:20:23 GMT
All the possibilities have been exhausted because surprise! there is a limited number of them that can be exhausted. How do you know all possibilities have been exhausted? DUH! The tornado didn't turn his Pontiac into a VW Beetle!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2020 0:21:24 GMT
Wait! I thought you claimed to argue with dictionaries and win? You are NOW relying on them for your only argument?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2020 0:21:49 GMT
All the possibilities have been exhausted because surprise! there is a limited number of them that can be exhausted.How do you know all possibilities have been exhausted? Does the highlighting help?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2020 0:25:21 GMT
How do you know all possibilities have been exhausted? Does the highlighting help? No. Because...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2020 0:25:30 GMT
1. I cannot do that. I can however show what the natural world cannot do. The "negative proof" as you might like to call it is possible because the natural world is limited. Whenever the scope of a proof is limited it is possible to prove a negative. If the natural world were not limited it would make no difference whether the natural world or a god did anything. Either one is unlimited. 2. I never even tried anything remotely like that. It clearly can, because it did! I knew you were old, but ... ... were you there? Did you see who or what did anything?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2020 0:27:20 GMT
It clearly can, because it did! I knew you were old, but ... ... were you there? Did you see who or what did anything? Scientifically, that is not necessary due to evidence that remains everywhere around us and a scientific understanding of its 'relevance'!
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Apr 1, 2020 1:23:58 GMT
Cottleston pie.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2020 2:36:19 GMT
It clearly can, because it did! I knew you were old, but ... ... were you there? Did you see who or what did anything? One could easily ask you the same question since you appear to know all the possibilities of what could and couldn't have happened ~4 billion years ago during Earth's Archean eon when the environment was radically different than what it is now. Apparently, even though scientists are not able to recreate the conditions of Earth ~4 billion years ago in a lab (much less replicate the number of trials that such an Earth would've had), you can say conclusively what could and couldn't have happened there.
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Apr 1, 2020 3:37:01 GMT
There aren't enough of them.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2020 3:53:43 GMT
One could easily ask you the same question since you appear to know all the possibilities of what could and couldn't have happened ~4 billion years ago during Earth's Archean eon when the environment was radically different than what it is now. Apparently, even though scientists are not able to recreate the conditions of Earth ~4 billion years ago in a lab (much less replicate the number of trials that such an Earth would've had), you can say conclusively what could and couldn't have happened there. One of the things discovered with the Higgs Boson...the so-called God Particle...is at that moment in the Big Bang extreme heat and energy, at the fundamental level of matter, these Higgs Bosons were trapped by the Dark Energy field and begin to slow and cool to a point where more complex particles formed eventually slowing and cooling into denser and denser matter becoming atoms, then molecules, macro matter, etc. I might have this totally wrong, but thatβs my simpleminded way of understanding it...my current pop-science take away being the potential for matter reaching the point of self-replication billions of years later, that is life, began at that fundamental moment along with everything else in the Universe. Can you help me understand this better? I think you've got it essentially correct though it's been a good while since I was reading about cosmology.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2020 10:44:55 GMT
I knew you were old, but ... ... were you there? Did you see who or what did anything? One could easily ask you the same question since you appear to know all the possibilities of what could and couldn't have happened ~4 billion years ago during Earth's Archean eon when the environment was radically different than what it is now. Apparently, even though scientists are not able to recreate the conditions of Earth ~4 billion years ago in a lab (much less replicate the number of trials that such an Earth would've had), you can say conclusively what could and couldn't have happened there. Actually another thing about the public library is that not only does it contain the virtual sum of human knowledge it also has the history of mistakes in knowledge. For example there was once the idea of "animalcules" when "scientists" had no indoor plumbing. No, I wasn't there, but anyone can find out about it in the library.
|
|