|
Post by rizdek on Sept 22, 2020 19:14:13 GMT
My turn to go? How do you mean? You've provided nothing except for laying out the conundrums I already knew existed. This is all old stuff.
We must move on to whether such 'other' exists. And if it does, does it have the wherewithal to solve the conundrums you've outlined. And whether we can we determine that it does without resorting to faith and conjecture? Without making up attributes and capabilities, explain using data/observations/measurement that it can be the agency responsible for, say, the first life on this previously molten planet just as you claim we have found the basis for that life cannot be found in nature.
We know a lot about nature...not everything, I wager, but a lot. And what has been found out about it shows you, and perhaps others, that matter/energy cannot self organize into the life we see around us. Fine. But, before we 'go' with that other, we would have to know AT LEAST that much about it...this other existence/central figure as we do about nature...AND MUCH MUCH MORE, to be able to say IT is a better solution to the conundrum of...life, morality, meaning, value, consciousness, sentience and agency.
See the problem? Posting a god...or positing something else is, at best an interim step, a halfway point. But until we can measure/observe/study this "other" AT LEAST as much as we've studied the natural world, it is pure conjecture. You still have your work cut out for you.
This is not about proving or disproving a god of the gaps or any kind of god. This is about you showing us how you know this other thing...this other existence CAN BE the explanation and the basis for that knowledge. If you or someone else can't show that, we are secure in assuming we just don't know and/or that maybe, perhaps, the explanations exist in nature...parts/arrangements/realms of nature we don't know about and perhaps can't know about. AT a minimum we're in the same boat but at least I'm pretty sure nature exists AND that there's a lot about nature we don't know...despite knowing what all the elements are.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 21:25:36 GMT
My turn to go? How do you mean? You've provided nothing except for laying out the conundrums I already knew existed. This is all old stuff.
We must move on to whether such 'other' exists. And if it does, does it have the wherewithal to solve the conundrums you've outlined. And whether we can we determine that it does without resorting to faith and conjecture? Without making up attributes and capabilities, explain using data/observations/measurement that it can be the agency responsible for, say, the first life on this previously molten planet just as you claim we have found the basis for that life cannot be found in nature.
We know a lot about nature...not everything, I wager, but a lot. And what has been found out about it shows you, and perhaps others, that matter/energy cannot self organize into the life we see around us. Fine. But, before we 'go' with that other, we would have to know AT LEAST that much about it...this other existence/central figure as we do about nature...AND MUCH MUCH MORE, to be able to say IT is a better solution to the conundrum of...life, morality, meaning, value, consciousness, sentience and agency.
See the problem? Posting a god...or positing something else is, at best an interim step, a halfway point. But until we can measure/observe/study this "other" AT LEAST as much as we've studied the natural world, it is pure conjecture. You still have your work cut out for you.
This is not about proving or disproving a god of the gaps or any kind of god. This is about you showing us how you know this other thing...this other existence CAN BE the explanation and the basis for that knowledge. If you or someone else can't show that, we are secure in assuming we just don't know and/or that maybe, perhaps, the explanations exist in nature...parts/arrangements/realms of nature we don't know about and perhaps can't know about. AT a minimum we're in the same boat but at least I'm pretty sure nature exists AND that there's a lot about nature we don't know...despite knowing what all the elements are. You have some interesting questions, and I will try to help, but they are really not my problem. I never said the three notions of a god are necessarily the same thing. If you want to make any correlations, that is your problem. I am disinclined to associate the intelligent designer, a scientific fact, with any particular religion or philosophical system. My limited experiences might not be much help, but I have noticed that people who accept that there is an unknown power tend to be more careful and open to any sound advice. People who do not accept an unknown power tend to put too much faith in government. Again, if you haven't found it, then it doesn't matter whether it is in nature or not. It introduces as much unpredictability either way. Having a false confidence in science can lead to people believing in all sorts of possibilities that were considered problematic when "religious" people believed them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 22, 2020 21:48:43 GMT
My turn to go? How do you mean? You've provided nothing except for laying out the conundrums I already knew existed. This is all old stuff.
We must move on to whether such 'other' exists. And if it does, does it have the wherewithal to solve the conundrums you've outlined. And whether we can we determine that it does without resorting to faith and conjecture? Without making up attributes and capabilities, explain using data/observations/measurement that it can be the agency responsible for, say, the first life on this previously molten planet just as you claim we have found the basis for that life cannot be found in nature.
We know a lot about nature...not everything, I wager, but a lot. And what has been found out about it shows you, and perhaps others, that matter/energy cannot self organize into the life we see around us. Fine. But, before we 'go' with that other, we would have to know AT LEAST that much about it...this other existence/central figure as we do about nature...AND MUCH MUCH MORE, to be able to say IT is a better solution to the conundrum of...life, morality, meaning, value, consciousness, sentience and agency.
See the problem? Posting a god...or positing something else is, at best an interim step, a halfway point. But until we can measure/observe/study this "other" AT LEAST as much as we've studied the natural world, it is pure conjecture. You still have your work cut out for you.
This is not about proving or disproving a god of the gaps or any kind of god. This is about you showing us how you know this other thing...this other existence CAN BE the explanation and the basis for that knowledge. If you or someone else can't show that, we are secure in assuming we just don't know and/or that maybe, perhaps, the explanations exist in nature...parts/arrangements/realms of nature we don't know about and perhaps can't know about. AT a minimum we're in the same boat but at least I'm pretty sure nature exists AND that there's a lot about nature we don't know...despite knowing what all the elements are. it doesn't matter whether it is in nature or not. It introduces as much unpredictability either way. Having a false confidence in science can lead to people believing in all sorts of possibilities that were considered problematic when "religious" people believed them. To which the answer is that unpredictability can only be expected, when it is, from something which exists. And, further that just because some things in nature cannot be always be predicted (such as further discoveries or some workings of the quantum) it does not mean that, since God is sometimes seen as 'in mysterious ways' & etc, that that purported characteristic means, by an assumed equality, that the deity necessarily, or might as well exist. For one thing it us an unwarranted leap in logic. For another predictability, or not, is a predicate whereas (as Kant noted), existence is not. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. i.e. it is wrong to associate predictability with existence in the way Arlon tries to. We have in addition already discussed here how not all beliefs are equal (to which Arlon agreed) and how we typically resolve differences between them by use of reason and rationality. That which relies on evidence, falsification and the like differs from that based on faith. That is why Arlon presumably does not believe his website is worthwhile and not at the same time, but best distinguishes between the two states by examining things like statistics on visitors, and not through faith in 'just feeling' about it. But then maybe he does.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 22:03:23 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: {full text here] < clips > - One can observe that Arlon himself appears to have no fixed idea of what constitutes god
- He has also told us that, to be meaningful, definitions need to be agreed in advance between all sides - not done here,
- with characteristic offensiveness he calls atheists "retards"!
- For Arlon it would appear there is no such thing as the as-yet unknown, or unknowable, in nature.
- the world is full of such ethical codes
- I appreciate your concern for my personal beliefs, but they are not your business, and if I need your help with them I will ask. My comments address the beliefs apparently held by various large numbers of people generally. It is rude of you to assume I am "confused" merely because I have chosen not apprise you of my personal beliefs.
- In order to have a meaningful conversation it is necessary to have the same meanings for terms. We are not having a meaningful conversation. This is not necessarily my fault. The problem could well be on your end.
- Tragic shortcomings exist. It is usually impolite to mention them. Sometimes it can become necessary to mention them.
- As I have explained in exquisite detail many times, if you have not found it, then it doesn't matter whether it is in nature or not, it introduces the same unpredictability either way.
- Opinions indeed vary how an ethical code should be assembled. This is not proof that any of the attempts do not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 22:14:50 GMT
it doesn't matter whether it is in nature or not. It introduces as much unpredictability either way. Having a false confidence in science can lead to people believing in all sorts of possibilities that were considered problematic when "religious" people believed them. To which the answer is that unpredictability can only be expected, when it is, from something which exists. And, further that just because some things in nature cannot be always be predicted (such as further discoveries or some workings of the quantum) it does not mean that, since God is sometimes seen as 'in mysterious ways' & etc, that that purported characteristic means, by an assumed equality, that the deity necessarily, or might as well exist. For one thing it us an unwarranted leap in logic. For another predictability, or not, is a predicate whereas (as Kant noted), existence is not. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. i.e. it is wrong to associate predictability with existence in the way Arlon tries to. We have in addition already discussed here how not all beliefs are equal (to which Arlon agreed) and how we typically resolve differences between them by use of reason and rationality. That which relies on evidence, falsification and the like differs from that based on faith. That is why Arlon presumably does not believe his website is worthwhile and not at the same time, but best distinguishes between the two states by examining things like statistics on visitors, and not through faith in 'just feeling' about it. But then maybe he does. As usual you are distracted by the irrelevant having no concept of the real issues. It is irrelevant whether your definition of a god exists. You lost the argument that the universe is any more predictable without one. See the irrelevance now? You are not the arbiter of evidence, not the "dictator" of science. Those are just your delusions. You wouldn't know evidence if you drowned in it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 22, 2020 22:20:59 GMT
I appreciate your concern for my personal beliefs, but they are not your business, and if I need your help with them I will ask. My comments address the beliefs apparently held by various large numbers of people generally. It is rude of you to assume I am "confused" merely because I have chosen not apprise you of my personal beliefs. But indeed you have appraised us all - at last as far as to how God might be defined, giving various different ideas, just as I listed. And it seems perfectly apt to point out how you apparently cannot decide what God is yourself, all while at the same time defining the Almighty for us all as well as asserting that definitions need to be decided between parties beforehand to be meaningful. As already mentioned, by your own terms of debate your definitions of God have not been pre-agreed. Is that how you explain away your persistent rudeness now? One wonders whether the shortcomings are really of those "imbeciles" who happen not to agree with you ... or just your incivility and resort to rudeness over argument. To see the obvious reply to what is an illogical argument from unpredictability, see my recent message. There is difference in not knowing everything about nature and suspecting there is nothing to know about the supernatural. It is also hard to argue that the absence of evidence for the deliberate supernatural is unpredictable - for some, quite the opposite. No one argues that very many ethical codes exist. It is the difficulty in proving their magical provenance or moral hierarchy that is telling. Outside of the claims of scripture why should I prefer the The Ten Commandments over the Satanic Tenets?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 22, 2020 22:28:00 GMT
To which the answer is that unpredictability can only be expected, when it is, from something which exists. And, further that just because some things in nature cannot be always be predicted (such as further discoveries or some workings of the quantum) it does not mean that, since God is sometimes seen as 'in mysterious ways' & etc, that that purported characteristic means, by an assumed equality, that the deity necessarily, or might as well exist. For one thing it us an unwarranted leap in logic. For another predictability, or not, is a predicate whereas (as Kant noted), existence is not. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. i.e. it is wrong to associate predictability with existence in the way Arlon tries to. We have in addition already discussed here how not all beliefs are equal (to which Arlon agreed) and how we typically resolve differences between them by use of reason and rationality. That which relies on evidence, falsification and the like differs from that based on faith. That is why Arlon presumably does not believe his website is worthwhile and not at the same time, but best distinguishes between the two states by examining things like statistics on visitors, and not through faith in 'just feeling' about it. But then maybe he does. As usual you are distracted by the irrelevant having no concept of the real issues. It is irrelevant whether your definition of a god exists. It is as relevant as you think yours have just been in this thread, so when I actually define a god here please raise this again. I only see that you didn't answer my objections to your strained logic on this - a failure to engage which hardly constitutes an argument. Quite right; the dictator of science is evidence, and one cannot vote against it - although you repeatedly try, as our discussions have shown. This is pretty rich from someone whose views on many aspects of science flies in the face of overwhelming amounts of it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 23:15:34 GMT
I appreciate your concern for my personal beliefs, but they are not your business, and if I need your help with them I will ask. My comments address the beliefs apparently held by various large numbers of people generally. It is rude of you to assume I am "confused" merely because I have chosen not apprise you of my personal beliefs. But indeed you have appraised us all - at last as far as to how God might be defined, giving various different ideas, just as I listed. And it seems perfectly apt to point out how you apparently cannot decide what God is yourself, all while at the same time defining the Almighty for us all as well as asserting that definitions need to be decided between parties beforehand to be meaningful. As already mentioned, by your own terms of debate your definitions of God have not been pre-agreed. Is that how you explain away your persistent rudeness now? One wonders whether the shortcomings are really of those "imbeciles" who happen not to agree with you ... or just your incivility and resort to rudeness over argument. To see the obvious reply to what is an illogical argument from unpredictability, see my recent message. There is difference in not knowing everything about nature and suspecting there is nothing to know about the supernatural. It is also hard to argue that the absence of evidence for the deliberate supernatural is unpredictable - for some, quite the opposite. No one argues that very many ethical codes exist. It is the difficulty in proving their magical provenance or moral hierarchy that is telling. Outside of the claims of scripture why should I prefer the The Ten Commandments over the Satanic Tenets? One of the requirements for being a journalist is commonly known as "pounding the pavement" (with feet)(it's alliterative) in order to meet people to find out what they think in light of current events. You are obviously no journalist. You have a severe case of "mother's basement syndrome." Your only concept of reality is from the dictionary and children on the internet. The dictionary is supposed to reflect the outside world, not dictate it. You try to force the simplistic ideas you can find in the dictionary on the outside world. That is backward. Even now you are trying the find "the" definition of a god using evidence from rather plainspoken sources. It doesn't matter what "the" definition of a god is. No string of a few words can possibly describe the three instances from real life that I listed. Another person here seems to think that the three need to be conflated somehow into one. No they do not need to be conflated. There is no "the" definition necessary. That is just your cripplingly simplistic mind trying to cram all the world into the few short phrases you can handle.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 22, 2020 23:27:37 GMT
But indeed you have appraised us all - at last as far as to how God might be defined, giving various different ideas, just as I listed. And it seems perfectly apt to point out how you apparently cannot decide what God is yourself, all while at the same time defining the Almighty for us all as well as asserting that definitions need to be decided between parties beforehand to be meaningful. As already mentioned, by your own terms of debate your definitions of God have not been pre-agreed. Is that how you explain away your persistent rudeness now? One wonders whether the shortcomings are really of those "imbeciles" who happen not to agree with you ... or just your incivility and resort to rudeness over argument. To see the obvious reply to what is an illogical argument from unpredictability, see my recent message. There is difference in not knowing everything about nature and suspecting there is nothing to know about the supernatural. It is also hard to argue that the absence of evidence for the deliberate supernatural is unpredictable - for some, quite the opposite. No one argues that very many ethical codes exist. It is the difficulty in proving their magical provenance or moral hierarchy that is telling. Outside of the claims of scripture why should I prefer the The Ten Commandments over the Satanic Tenets? One of the requirements for being a journalist is commonly known as "pounding the pavement" (with feet)(it's alliterative) in order to meet people to find out what they think in light of current events. You are obviously no journalist. You have a severe case of "mother's basement syndrome." Your only concept of reality is from the dictionary and children on the internet. The dictionary is supposed to reflect the outside world, not dictate it. You try to force the simplistic ideas you can find in the dictionary on the outside world. That is backward. Even now you are trying the find "the" definition of a god using evidence from rather plainspoken sources. It doesn't matter what "the" definition of a god is. No string of a few words can possibly describe the three instances from real life that I listed. Another person here seems to think that the three need to be conflated somehow into one. No they do not need to be conflated. There is no "the" definition necessary. That is just your cripplingly simplistic mind trying to cram all the world into the few short phrases you can handle. The 'professional journalist' who has two connections on linked in, and has held the job Journalist (no company no details) for 12 years should not be telling other people what a journalist does. You are a journalist like I am a ww2 historian, with the exception that I am actually knowledgeable in the subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2020 8:03:21 GMT
TBH it is like watching a trainwreck...you can't look away. It is like you cannot believe that someone who can actually string sentences together ( usually a word salad however he sometimes almost makes sense) can actually be this arrogant stupid ignorant ill informed and well the poster boy for Dunning Kruger as being certain of himself. It is most unusual. How he gets through life, I have no idea. ..I suspect a hermit He reminds me of this << image mad-scientist-inventor-picture.jpg" >> because whilst he claims no belief in science, he also claims that you have to see everything to prove it with your own evidence. One can only hope that he doesn't try to do an amateur heart transplant in his basement LOLOLOLOL << image heart-transplant-2.jpg obviously not >> Some people are trying to have dinner, if you don't mind. I didn't say you have to prove everything. I accept most of the rules in religion as intuitive. When you do need to prove something it is because it is nutty, like a heart transplant. Yes, you have to prove that. And no I'm not getting one. Thank you for keeping your monkey paws off me, Some people with the help of science and heart transplant doctors are trying to live... successfully.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 23, 2020 10:40:07 GMT
One of the requirements for being a journalist is commonly known as "pounding the pavement" (with feet)(it's alliterative) in order to meet people to find out what they think in light of current events. You are obviously no journalist. When I claim to be one, I am sure this point will be relevant. Is all this why you argue with dictionaries and win? Please show where I am 'trying to find the definition of a god' rather than questioning your consistency and logic in deciding the different types to your own satisfaction. Again, not something I have said or even suggested. By supposedly addressing matters I have not raised, you offer distraction from my points not engagement with them. But that is no surprise. What was that logical reason again for why there cannot be something permanent in nature at a basic level?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 11:30:57 GMT
One of the requirements for being a journalist is commonly known as "pounding the pavement" (with feet)(it's alliterative) in order to meet people to find out what they think in light of current events. You are obviously no journalist. You have a severe case of "mother's basement syndrome." Your only concept of reality is from the dictionary and children on the internet. The dictionary is supposed to reflect the outside world, not dictate it. You try to force the simplistic ideas you can find in the dictionary on the outside world. That is backward. Even now you are trying the find "the" definition of a god using evidence from rather plainspoken sources. It doesn't matter what "the" definition of a god is. No string of a few words can possibly describe the three instances from real life that I listed. Another person here seems to think that the three need to be conflated somehow into one. No they do not need to be conflated. There is no "the" definition necessary. That is just your cripplingly simplistic mind trying to cram all the world into the few short phrases you can handle. The 'professional journalist' who has two connections on linked in, and has held the job Journalist (no company no details) for 12 years should not be telling other people what a journalist does. You are a journalist like I am a ww2 historian, with the exception that I am actually knowledgeable in the subject matter. The field of journalism was turned on its head by the internet. The internet offered a "democracy" like never before in that there can be instantaneous widespread response to events and instantaneous polls. Power to the people, right? Perhaps even you can tell something went terribly wrong with that. The dominance of the click count has put irresponsible children in charge of the news. Have you no idea what a farce the political process has become? Have you a television? I did have a job working alongside people who were professional journalists and lawyers for years before taking a job at Examiner.com where professional credentials did not matter one whit to the public. I had the unpleasant experience of watching the uninformed and undisciplined public with internet access trampling the truth into the ground. This board is a stunning example of the rule by the clueless herd. Everything is Dunning Kruger backward. Whatever you might know about the last century, dubious as that is, you have demonstrated no sense at all about this one. I represent a journalism that you have never seen. Yes, there is a battle for control, and I am currently held down, but the children are going to eventually crash and burn. Didn't you know?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 12:02:57 GMT
One of the requirements for being a journalist is commonly known as "pounding the pavement" (with feet)(it's alliterative) in order to meet people to find out what they think in light of current events. You are obviously no journalist. When I claim to be one, I am sure this point will be relevant. Is all this why you argue with dictionaries and win? Please show where I am 'trying to find the definition of a god' rather than questioning your consistency and logic in deciding the different types to your own satisfaction. Again, not something I have said or even suggested. By supposedly addressing matters I have not raised, you offer distraction from my points not engagement with them. But that is no surprise. What was that logical reason again for why there cannot be something permanent in nature at a basic level? I didn't say I can prove there cannot be anything permanent in nature. I suspect some basic particles like electrons, protons or neutrons might be eternal, but there is no telling. What I did say is that if you postulate some very complicated construction "CC 1" existing eternally, then anything else, CC 2, CC 3 ... might also exist and there is no argument against them anymore. You complained because you have absolutely no sense whatever. "Why can't just one thing have that property?" What you have done in trying to explain away a god is introduce a far more capricious universe than even the ancient Greeks imagined. That you cannot understand yet is very sad to watch. Why can't just one thing have that property? Why can't you just make up anything out of whole cloth and call that the truth? You need to practice being relevant and compelling. You have no talents for those.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 23, 2020 12:32:47 GMT
I didn't say I can prove there cannot be anything permanent in nature. In which case we can both admit it as a possibility. Thank you. This logic has already be covered in the points I put against your claims regarding unpredictability - to which I notice you made no reply. Just because we can imagine a whole new reality it does not mean it necessarily exists, whereas we know nature does. The existence of something is, crucially not a predicate, or characteristic of something in the way predictability or "very complicated construction" is, and you are wrong to conflate the two to support the idea of something you have already deemed "offending logic, measure and order" I hope that helps. But it didn't last time. Here you would appear to be arguing against your own extended credulity since, just above, you have accepted that it is entirely possible that something eternal can exist in nature and now it seems you suggest that well be enough.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 12:41:00 GMT
I didn't say I can prove there cannot be anything permanent in nature. In which case we can both admit it as a possibility. Thank you. This logic has already be covered in the points I put against your claims regarding unpredictability - to which I notice you made no reply. Essentially, just because we can imagine a whole new reality it does not mean it necessarily exists, whereas we know nature does. The existence of something is, crucially not a predicate or characteristic of something in the way a "very complicated construction" is. Existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. i.e. it is wrong to associate the characteristics of predictability, or complication, with necessary existence. I hope that helps. But it didn't last time. Here you would appear to be arguing against your own extended credulity since, just above, you have accepted that it is entirely possible that something eternal can exist in nature and now it seems you suggest that well be enough. I'm certain you're having great fun in the realm of "possibilities." That however is a very low bar. It is "possible" the world is run by unicorns from their cave in the Alps. It just isn't a very compelling story or relevant to any issue in society. You need to raise the standard. Search "relevant" and "compelling" on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 23, 2020 12:43:36 GMT
In which case we can both admit it as a possibility. Thank you. This logic has already be covered in the points I put against your claims regarding unpredictability - to which I notice you made no reply. Essentially, just because we can imagine a whole new reality it does not mean it necessarily exists, whereas we know nature does. The existence of something is, crucially not a predicate or characteristic of something in the way a "very complicated construction" is. Existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. i.e. it is wrong to associate the characteristics of predictability, or complication, with necessary existence. I hope that helps. But it didn't last time. Here you would appear to be arguing against your own extended credulity since, just above, you have accepted that it is entirely possible that something eternal can exist in nature and now it seems you suggest that well be enough. I'm certain you're having great fun in the realm of "possibilities." That however is a very low bar. It is "possible" the world is run by unicorns from their cave in the Alps. It just isn't a very compelling story or relevant to any issue in society. You need to raise the standard. Search "relevant" and "compelling" on the internet. That is why I defer to evidence and with the potential of that which I know exists. See you on the next thread, for you are worn out here.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 12:53:59 GMT
I'm certain you're having great fun in the realm of "possibilities." That however is a very low bar. It is "possible" the world is run by unicorns from their cave in the Alps. It just isn't a very compelling story or relevant to any issue in society. You need to raise the standard. Search "relevant" and "compelling" on the internet. That is why I defer to evidence and with the potential of that which I know exists. See you on the next thread, for you are worn out here. You defer to your own opinion regardless the evidence. Remember there is indeed a new "consensus" in the works. Then you might at last get in line.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 23, 2020 18:30:40 GMT
The 'professional journalist' who has two connections on linked in, and has held the job Journalist (no company no details) for 12 years should not be telling other people what a journalist does. You are a journalist like I am a ww2 historian, with the exception that I am actually knowledgeable in the subject matter. The field of journalism was turned on its head by the internet. The internet offered a "democracy" like never before in that there can be instantaneous widespread response to events and instantaneous polls. Power to the people, right? Perhaps even you can tell something went terribly wrong with that. The dominance of the click count has put irresponsible children in charge of the news. Have you no idea what a farce the political process has become? Have you a television? I did have a job working alongside people who were professional journalists and lawyers for years before taking a job at Examiner.com where professional credentials did not matter one whit to the public. I had the unpleasant experience of watching the uninformed and undisciplined public with internet access trampling the truth into the ground. This board is a stunning example of the rule by the clueless herd. Everything is Dunning Kruger backward. Whatever you might know about the last century, dubious as that is, you have demonstrated no sense at all about this one. I represent a journalism that you have never seen. Yes, there is a battle for control, and I am currently held down, but the children are going to eventually crash and burn. Didn't you know? I think this is a digression.
We want to know the basis of your claims. This isn't about where you've been, who you've worked for and what you've done. This is simply us asking you to support your contentions.
I contend the natural world is probably the explanation for all that we are aware of.
If you do not agree with that and think that something besides the natural world provides a (better) explanation, describe this 'other thing' and how you know...or can even have any idea that...it is a better explanation.
It's really quite simple. Just provide the data/results/observations. Otherwise admit you're basing your contention on faith and I'll be satisified.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 21:55:09 GMT
The field of journalism was turned on its head by the internet. The internet offered a "democracy" like never before in that there can be instantaneous widespread response to events and instantaneous polls. Power to the people, right? Perhaps even you can tell something went terribly wrong with that. The dominance of the click count has put irresponsible children in charge of the news. Have you no idea what a farce the political process has become? Have you a television? I did have a job working alongside people who were professional journalists and lawyers for years before taking a job at Examiner.com where professional credentials did not matter one whit to the public. I had the unpleasant experience of watching the uninformed and undisciplined public with internet access trampling the truth into the ground. This board is a stunning example of the rule by the clueless herd. Everything is Dunning Kruger backward. Whatever you might know about the last century, dubious as that is, you have demonstrated no sense at all about this one. I represent a journalism that you have never seen. Yes, there is a battle for control, and I am currently held down, but the children are going to eventually crash and burn. Didn't you know? I think this is a digression.
We want to know the basis of your claims. This isn't about where you've been, who you've worked for and what you've done. This is simply us asking you to support your contentions.
I contend the natural world is probably the explanation for all that we are aware of.
If you do not agree with that and think that something besides the natural world provides a (better) explanation, describe this 'other thing' and how you know...or can even have any idea that...it is a better explanation.
It's really quite simple. Just provide the data/results/observations. Otherwise admit you're basing your contention on faith and I'll be satisified.
Which lab results support my contentions? They all do. There are lots and lots of them. People have been trying to observe life assemble "randomly" since the time of Darwin and the journey has proved too steep up the ladder out of entropy time after time. That's why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a "law," not a theory. They are totally out of things to try. Time has proved that tornadoes do not assemble automobiles and the story of the origin of life is not a "false equivalence." It very much likewise cannot happen. That is the rather obvious reason life is not assembling itself after almost a century of research most of it with a complete catalog of possible agencies. What I did that no one did exactly before is call "time!" Before people had been allowing the assembly of life to happen "eventually" given millions of years of "random" actions. I noted that there are no random agencies and such agencies as there are have limited characteristics and express their entire repertoire in a short amount of time. No more waiting. Do something or get off the pot. Self replicating RNA chains developing longer and longer chains were the last hope of the "random" assembly team. After about 40 links those little buggers tear up the longer chains. That means in the prebiotic world the smaller links have the competitive advantage. Now guess what that means. You may "contend" whatever you like, but you obviously failed the science.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 23, 2020 22:08:54 GMT
The 'professional journalist' who has two connections on linked in, and has held the job Journalist (no company no details) for 12 years should not be telling other people what a journalist does. You are a journalist like I am a ww2 historian, with the exception that I am actually knowledgeable in the subject matter. The field of journalism was turned on its head by the internet. The internet offered a "democracy" like never before in that there can be instantaneous widespread response to events and instantaneous polls. Power to the people, right? Perhaps even you can tell something went terribly wrong with that. The dominance of the click count has put irresponsible children in charge of the news. Have you no idea what a farce the political process has become? Have you a television? I did have a job working alongside people who were professional journalists and lawyers for years before taking a job at Examiner.com where professional credentials did not matter one whit to the public. I had the unpleasant experience of watching the uninformed and undisciplined public with internet access trampling the truth into the ground. This board is a stunning example of the rule by the clueless herd. Everything is Dunning Kruger backward. Whatever you might know about the last century, dubious as that is, you have demonstrated no sense at all about this one. I represent a journalism that you have never seen. Yes, there is a battle for control, and I am currently held down, but the children are going to eventually crash and burn. Didn't you know? Arlon complains about the Dunning-Kruger effect, irony meters in the next galaxy explode. In related news, Arlon is in a battle for control, maybe he can ask the principal for help?
|
|