|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 10:58:04 GMT
Yes I do know about the natural world. It's easy. Just to be clear then: you think you know all there is to know about the natural world? Is that the inevitable product of higher reading and having a website? In the United States libraries are free to residents. What I don't know I can look up. What would you like to know? Where is the designer of the first life on Earth? There isn't one in the natural world in the whole library. And since it seems be your point that I overrate myself. I do know better than you, but that isn't saying very much is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 11:02:27 GMT
Just to be clear then: you think you know all there is to know about the natural world? Is that the inevitable product of higher reading and having a website? In the United States libraries are free to residents. What I don't know I can look up. So that's a 'no' then? Please make it clear for those of us who don't know as much as you. Do you even know what you don't know you don't know?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 11:15:27 GMT
In the United States libraries are free to residents. What I don't know I can look up. So that's a 'no' then? Please make it clear for those of us who don't know as much as you. Do you even know what you don't know you don't know? 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 11:23:29 GMT
So that's a 'no' then? Please make it clear for those of us who don't know as much as you. Do you even know what you don't know you don't know? 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
|
|
|
|
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 Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Mar 31, 2020 22:34:44 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. How have you “shown” it can’t do this?
|
|
|
|
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. How have you “shown” it can’t 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 Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Apr 1, 2020 0:18:31 GMT
1. I cannot do that. I can however show what the natural world cannot do.How have you “shown” it can’t do this? 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?
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
