I noticed MR hasn't been here in a while, pretty much ever since bennyboy started the one on one debate thread. He has popped in a couple of times, but didn't have the time for debating other than to take a couple of sniper shots. He apparently had to join a monastery or something to learn more about how right he was all along and in what ways he could defend his rightness. Now that the debate thread with its single post is no longer threatening him with actually having to defend his claims maybe he'll be back.
I must say, I'm going to miss the debate between Jason and that 6 year old he was debating. I found it boring at first, but once you got into it, it was kind of amusing.
:lol: Of course, when he comes back, he can start off by answering my last post.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu":lol: Of course, when he comes back, he can start off by answering my last post.
Don't count on it, heh.
Maybe he thinks the site was shut down because he was too right to handle! :o
Or maybe not... :roll:
Maybe it was shut down because he prayed to Allah for it. Maybe it was a miracle. Wait, how long was it down? Tell me the forum died and rose again in 3 days! Please, someone tell me that now!!!
^ Then Allah decided MR was being a little bitch and restored us.
Mr was funny . His arguments were destroyed millions of times and he don't want to listen .
Hey guys, it feels great to be back.
I have had a lot of things to do in real life, and that required almost all of my effort. I have seen the final posts on the Archive, i will be responding to recent arguments, as well as drafting and re-thinking one or two of my ideas.
Quote from: "widdershins"I must say, I'm going to miss the debate between Jason and that 6 year old he was debating.
Me too :) It's like trying to convince a child that the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
Actually, my world does disappear every night when i close my eyes. Is that enough evidence that snakes and donkeys can talk?
Oh my. He's back. I wonder if he's learned anything in his recent bout of exams.
I don't think my objections (among many others) were adequately- or in the case of some, at all- answered. Which is why the suggestion for a 1 vs 1 debate came up, so MR couldn't use that as an excuse any further, and the arguments would be easier to follow.
But alas, he disappeared seemingly the moment Bennyboy set it up, and never seemed to come around to acknowledging that thread. Coincidence? I can't help but doubt that.
Quote from: "NonXNonExX"Actually, my world does disappear every night when i close my eyes. Is that enough evidence that snakes and donkeys can talk?
Your world might.
The world doesn't.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Hey guys, it feels great to be back.
I have had a lot of things to do in real life, and that required almost all of my effort. I have seen the final posts on the Archive, i will be responding to recent arguments, as well as drafting and re-thinking one or two of my ideas.
So, expect yet another long, meandering OP? :-k
A few tips:
* KISS (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle)
* One subject at a time
* Answer objections (anticipate them if possible)
Oh yeah, he needs to come back. there is never enough bombastic pomposity to go around.
Quote from: "Plu"Oh my. He's back. I wonder if he's learned anything in his recent bout of exams.
I sure did. As much as i enjoyed debating, i had to tend to real life work, and prioritization pays off. I did like reading all of the conspiracy theories here.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Hey guys, it feels great to be back.
I have had a lot of things to do in real life, and that required almost all of my effort. I have seen the final posts on the Archive, i will be responding to recent arguments, as well as drafting and re-thinking one or two of my ideas.
So, expect yet another long, meandering OP? :-k
A few tips:
* KISS (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle)
* One subject at a time
* Answer objections (anticipate them if possible)
Often a single topic has many branches which need to be discussed. Quite often i have had posters bringing in things not even part of the branches.
And i do answer objections. I am working on one right now. If i am not comfortable or feel i need to do more research and double check what a user has said, i take my time on it.
I'm in no rush :)
AGAST! The SAME MR who changed into a crime fighting superhero 12 year old Japanese girl? :shock: Nooo..not THAT MR???
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"And i do answer objections. I am working on one right now.
(//http://th08.deviantart.net/fs71/200H/f/2011/284/e/4/oh_applejack__don__t_lie_to_me_by_notanartisticpony-d4cifla.png)
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"And i do answer objections. I am working on one right now.
[ Image (//http://th08.deviantart.net/fs71/200H/f/2011/284/e/4/oh_applejack__don__t_lie_to_me_by_notanartisticpony-d4cifla.png) ]
(//http://i.imgur.com/B7ljf.jpg)
I object to 12 year old Japanese schoolgirls parading around as 'grown' men.. but that's just me.
I thought this thread would be about Mitt Romney
Quote from: "PJS"I thought this thread would be about Mitt Romney
Let's see, insanely religious, won't listen to reason, disappears in time to avoid the tough issues... Eh, close enough.
Dang.
That debate, and the hope of seeing it continue, is what brought me to join this forum.
Still worth it though but I would have liked to see more of that debate.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Often a single topic has many branches which need to be discussed.
If only there were a way to narrow a discussion down to a single focus, possibly between only two people. We should invent something like that-- it might catch on.
Quote from: "bennyboy"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Often a single topic has many branches which need to be discussed.
If only there were a way to narrow a discussion down to a single focus, possibly between only two people. We should invent something like that-- it might catch on.
I chuckled at that. :)~
Heck, I'll debate you if you MR want a softer opponent. ;-)
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"AGAST! The SAME MR who changed into a crime fighting superhero 12 year old Japanese girl? :shock: Nooo..not THAT MR???
Lol - please direct me to that user/thread?
I have not been on here since january 26th, having had to do quite a few things in real life.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "bennyboy"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Often a single topic has many branches which need to be discussed.
If only there were a way to narrow a discussion down to a single focus, possibly between only two people. We should invent something like that-- it might catch on.
I chuckled at that. :)~
Heck, I'll debate you if you MR want a softer opponent. ;-)
I do not look at these as me vs x, or me vs you. I simply look at it as a dialouge, a discussion, scrutinizing opposing views.
If i ever see the truth in what someone who has different views as me says, i will gladly, without any shame, submit to those views.
I will be debating BennyBoy, but those debates are more focused on the assumption that God exists, therefore how can he be sentient ect.
What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
While on the whole i do respect most of the posters here, i have seen an alarming ammount of ... blind belief? Surprising to find that here , to be fair.
I.e When on chat, i will not name users, but i was told my 'arguments were non sequitor' and that i needed to 'pick up a cosmology book' when i was trying to convince someone String theory relies on assumed / not evidenced dimensions.
Infact, i re-call being on the other thread convincing everyone that according to modern science and testable data, due to dark energy, the critical mass of the universe is not sufficient to enable it to contract again - so it will expand for good due to dark energy.
I was told that i was appealing to authority, and that my claims were false, and a few other analogies of arguments were thrown my way.
What i have seen so far is good arguments, and then a large band of people throwing one liners : "ad hominem" "tu quoque" ect, and misusing it most of the time.
When you ask "how is it x ? "
So i call on honesty on both sides, mine, and the few who are on the other side.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I.e When on chat, i will not name users, but i was told my 'arguments were non sequitor' and that i needed to 'pick up a cosmology book' when i was trying to convince someone String theory relies on assumed / not evidenced dimensions.
Your arguments were a non-sequitur! You were arguing that if you could show that infinities didn't exist that therefore your god must.
The one has nothing to do with the other.
I told you to learn something about cosmology when you conflated about 3 different multi-verse theories. Even though I repeatedly asked you, you could not state which multi-verse theory you were attacking.
If you're going to lie and try and play the martyr, I will pull you up on it.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
What's a non-physical reality?
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
What's a non-physical reality?
Imaginationland.
As near as i can tell, a non-physical entity is something that talks through an ass and whose son can walk on water. Is that about right?
Quote from: "NonXNonExX"As near as i can tell, a non-physical entity is something that talks through an ass and whose son can walk on water. Is that about right?
Yes ! He is back ! :popcorn:
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
What's a non-physical reality?
Imaginationland.
Something that is made up to adhere and to and satisfy the cognitive dissonance of the claimant.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Something that is made up to adhere and to and satisfy the cognitive dissonance of the claimant.
Dude - that's just.......erm........magical!
:rollin:
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
Why? Who cares whether it's necessary? (Remember - the universe, even though it definitely exists, is not necessary.) Just prove the existence of a non-physical reality.
If it's necessary, but doesn't exist, so what? The fact that it's necessary would prove nothing. ("Necessary"
does not mean "exists".)
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
What's a non-physical reality?
And what does non-physical even mean and how does the non physical interact with the physical?
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
Why? Who cares whether it's necessary? (Remember - the universe, even though it definitely exists, is not necessary.) Just prove the existence of a non-physical reality.
If it's necessary, but doesn't exist, so what? The fact that it's necessary would prove nothing. ("Necessary" does not mean "exists".)
Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.
There has had to be something, which simply 'just exists'. There is solidarity among atheists and theists. The theists assert it can not be a physical reality(i am going to go back to the archive and respond to posts soon and explain why). The atheist asserts it must have been physical.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
What's a non-physical reality?
Imaginationland.
Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.
Nonsense.
To say that something necessarily exists is only to say that you cannot think- or in this case, want- to find an explanation for it.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.
Why? Who cares whether it's necessary? (Remember - the universe, even though it definitely exists, is not necessary.) Just prove the existence of a non-physical reality.
If it's necessary, but doesn't exist, so what? The fact that it's necessary would prove nothing. ("Necessary" does not mean "exists".)
Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.
That's meaningless babble. Why not just admit that it's nonsense you made up, forget it and move on? ("Must exist by necessity of its own existence" pre-supposes that it exists, so that's the fallacy of assuming your conclusion.)
QuoteThere has had to be something, which simply 'just exists'.
Another mere assertion. WHY?
QuoteThere is solidarity among atheists and theists. The theists assert it can not be a physical reality(i am going to go back to the archive and respond to posts soon and explain why). The atheist asserts it must have been physical.
Nope. Atheists assume that what is, is. (Which, being a tautology, must be true.) Anything else is your assertion, not ours.
And not all theists require it to be non-physical. ("Theist" doesn't mean "Judeo/Christian/Moslem".)
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"To say that something necessarily exists is only to say that you cannot think- or in this case, want- to find an explanation for it.
He's saying it in the sense that it must exist for his beliefs to not be nonsense. It's necessary for his sanity, not for the existence of the universe. Which is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
To add to what Colanth said, to say that something contains within itself the necessity/reason for existence is a, strictly, meaningless statement. It is not only incomprehensible, but nonsensical. And if you're going to say that something can exist without a knowable cause for its existence, you have to admit that you know of no way to show that the universe couldn't fit your description as a necessary thing.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.
And yet it has more evidentitary support than your nonsense.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.
The probability of something that has already occurred happening is 100%, so your analogy is silly and also dishonest.
Do please answer my previous questions or you shall be marked a liar.
MR, I'm willing to debate you on the existence of God ("Does God Exist?") in the debate forum. We'll need someone to propose a structure to how the debate will work though (anyone?). With just you and I interacting, you'll have the capability to concentrate and respond properly.
Accept? Deny?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTn7xtVs ... ata_player (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTn7xtVsE6U&feature=youtube_gdata_player)
Thought it'd fit nicely.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"MR, I'm willing to debate you on the existence of God ("Does God Exist?") in the debate forum. We'll need someone to propose a structure to how the debate will work though (anyone?). With just you and I interacting, you'll have the capability to concentrate and respond properly.
Accept? Deny?
I do not mind debating you, but i have made a promise to Benny Boy to debate him first. After that, if we are both ready, i will debate you after.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.
Nonsense.
Not at all. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, there has always had to have been something which exists, as a necessity of it's own existence - otherwise you would have no existence. Something , if we can define it as that, has always had to exist anyway.
Otherwise every single form of existence would be contingent - it would have no meaning or reason to exist.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.
The probability of something that has already occurred happening is 100%, so your analogy is silly and also dishonest.
Do please answer my previous questions or you shall be marked a liar.
Precisely the paradox of the multi-verse theory. If there truly are an infinite number of universes, everything that will ever happen has happened an infinite number of times - as if an infinite can be eclipsed?
Yet, there are still things 'yet' to happen.
When one believes in a physical existence which is infinite, it brings up paradoxes.
It is less about us trying to get it into our minds , and more about it abusing the very foundations of logic by which we make these statements in the first place.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.
And yet it has more evidentitary support than your nonsense.
There is a universe where you are the theist, and i am the atheist, typing the exact same words and both simultaneously singing "thriller" to our pet monkey.
It gets even more ridiculous.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"what does non-physical even mean and how does the non physical interact with the physical?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"MR, I'm willing to debate you on the existence of God ("Does God Exist?") in the debate forum. We'll need someone to propose a structure to how the debate will work though (anyone?). With just you and I interacting, you'll have the capability to concentrate and respond properly.
Accept? Deny?
I do not mind debating you, but i have made a promise to Benny Boy to debate him first. After that, if we are both ready, i will debate you after.
You will not debate anyone . Liar .
Well, let's see what happens before calling him a liar guys. :O
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"There is a universe where you are the theist, and i am the atheist, typing the exact same words and both simultaneously singing "thriller" to our pet monkey.
It gets even more ridiculous.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. This is doubly true if you are not willing to do the work to understand logic, mathematics and science. This is part of your problem.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"There is a universe where you are the theist, and i am the atheist, typing the exact same words and both simultaneously singing "thriller" to our pet monkey.
It gets even more ridiculous.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. This is doubly true if you are not willing to do the work to understand logic, mathematics and science. This is part of your problem.
The problem is, logic, mathematics, and science are restricted to our experiences in this universe , something you have constantly been telling me can be abandoned for the universe as a whole.
No one denies logic, maths, and science, what is denied is the belief there is a universe where a monkey is responding to you, and i am in unison shouting out random words which coincidentally are the exact same as your last five hundred forum posts.
I will begin my refutation on the multi-verse soon however.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"The problem is, logic, mathematics, and science are restricted to our experiences in this universe , something you have constantly been telling me can be abandoned for the universe as a whole.
If this is what you thought I've said ("consistently"?), then you need to re-read our conversations, boyo. In particular, science is
not restricted to your experiences. It
also has access to our observations and experiments through enhanced senses — instruments. It is exactly these instruments that reveal that radioactive atoms are not
caused to decay as such; they have a propensity of decay in any given time interval.
You have consistently shown that you don't have the background to argue effectively for your case.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"No one denies logic, maths, and science, what is denied is the belief there is a universe where a monkey is responding to you,
You're responding to me, aren't you? Oh, you mean a non-intelligent,
tailed simian? Well, champ, what makes you think that another universe would have an evolutionary history exactly the same as ours as to not produce
two intelligent primate species, one of whom is a tailed primate — a monkey?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"and i am in unison shouting out random words which coincidentally are the exact same as your last five hundred forum posts.
Well, those words won't be random to
us, boyo. The only thing random would be the stuff that gave me the misfortune to live your life and you the good fortune to have my upbringing.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I will begin my refutation on the multi-verse soon however.
Oh, you're going to
refute it, whereas the best minds in physics have been unable to do so (merely arguing that there's no evidence for such)? Yeah, I've heard that before, but you consistently fail to actually demonstrate such a feat.
To add to Hakurei's post, mathematics is DEFINITELY not restricted to your sense experience. There are things in mathematics with no apparent correspondence to any know thing in Nature, and thus cannot be experienced.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, let's see what happens before calling him a liar guys. :O
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and it's already been a couple months and still a no-show at the debate hall...
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Not at all. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, there has always had to have been something which exists, as a necessity of it's own existence - otherwise you would have no existence. Something , if we can define it as that, has always had to exist anyway.
Otherwise every single form of existence would be contingent - it would have no meaning or reason to exist.
Yeah! Imagine stuff just existing or coming about naturally. That's preposterous! Obliviously, goddidit. And by god I mean Allah, praise be.
Watching MR post logical fallacy after logical fallacy leads me to think there might be a world record attempt in there somewhere.
Remember when he joined and we said that arguments aren't evidence, and he just said they were, even though they're not?
We need to remember that initially exchange in every proceeding conversation.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"To add to Hakurei's post, mathematics is DEFINITELY not restricted to your sense experience. There are things in mathematics with no apparent correspondence to any know thing in Nature, and thus cannot be experienced.
There are a lot of things in mathematics which can not be put into nature. Nothing is restricted to my sense experiences, it is only restricted to consistent logic.
Mathematics does not have a direct correlation to nature. Some mathematics can be used to explain natural phenomenon, but to assert all mathematics has it's place in nature is false.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"If this is what you thought I've said ("consistently"?), then you need to re-read our conversations, boyo. In particular, science is not restricted to your experiences. It also has access to our observations and experiments through enhanced senses — instruments. It is exactly these instruments that reveal that radioactive atoms are not caused to decay as such; they have a propensity of decay in any given time interval.
You have consistently shown that you don't have the background to argue effectively for your case.
You are referring to something else in this post. What you have referred to else where is that the logic we see in this universe may not be consistent with the logic 'outside' or for the 'universe as a whole'. What you are doing is simply stating a commonly known fact i.e every radioactive nuclei has a half life.
What does this prove exactly? That there is instability which causes it to undergo radioactive decay - however, we do not exactly know precisely when and where something will decay, but can exactly know how much of it will decay due to half lifes?
So the fact is, the instability causes decay, but the mechanism for the instability is not 'uniform' but random, although it is uniform in how much it decays within a half life time interval.
You also talk about 'sciences fine instruments'. The fact is, there are things even we can't exactly measure. Read this:
My understanding is that an unstable atomic nucleus decays
when the constituent quarks happen to come together in a way
which allows them to interact such that an energy threshold is
exceeded. The quarks are moving randomly, just like molecules
of air move randomly. With a large population of quarks, the rate
at which they come together and interact is very uniform and
predictable.
But the motions of individual quarks in a nucleus
can't be followed, so there is no way to predict when the nucleus
will decay.I just want to know, what does this prove? Who disagree's with this?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You're responding to me, aren't you? Oh, you mean a non-intelligent, tailed simian? Well, champ, what makes you think that another universe would have an evolutionary history exactly the same as ours as to not produce two intelligent primate species, one of whom is a tailed primate — a monkey?
This has happened an infinite number of times, according to the multi-verse theory. A monkey has been randomly hitting at words during the entire duration of my stay, and coincidentally has been responding to your post. There are an infinite number of universes where this has taken place by the way. In addition, Christian Bale randomly decided to drive with Katie Holmes to have tea at your house in an infinite number of universes where they both had the exact same roles and did pretty much the exact same things.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Oh, you're going to refute it, whereas the best minds in physics have been unable to do so (merely arguing that there's no evidence for such)? Yeah, I've heard that before, but you consistently fail to actually demonstrate such a feat.
The truth is that the multi-verse theory is simply 'just' a theory. There is nothing solid to refute. Infact, many multi-verse theories rely on string theory, which many scientists are against and skeptical about.
So the argument that 'the best minds in physics have been unable to refute it ' is false, seeing there are so many multi-verse theories, and many simply straight from the imagination.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"If this is what you thought I've said ("consistently"?), then you need to re-read our conversations, boyo. In particular, science is not restricted to your experiences. It also has access to our observations and experiments through enhanced senses — instruments. It is exactly these instruments that reveal that radioactive atoms are not caused to decay as such; they have a propensity of decay in any given time interval.
You have consistently shown that you don't have the background to argue effectively for your case.
You are referring to something else in this post. What you have referred to else where is that the logic we see in this universe may not be consistent with the logic 'outside' or for the 'universe as a whole'.
Again, wrong. I am and continue to use the same principles of logic that have been taught for millenia. What I refused to do was agree to the universality of your assertions, such as your "My daily observations show to me that every effect that I observe has a cause" canard.
At best, what you have there is an inference, which gives you a plausible rule of behavior for the range of phenomena you formed the inference from. Tell me, where did you make any observations of what we call "dark matter" and "dark energy?" You know, that stuff that together makes up 96% of the universe? Tell me, also, where did you make any observations of quantum phenomena, which underpins all macroscopic phenomena and verify that they also follow this "principle?"
Nowhere. You have cut out
at least 96% of all the stuff in the universe from the scope of your observations, and only examined perhaps 9 of the full 39 orders of magnitude in length scale of the universe. Am I really supposed to believe that this body of observation is anywhere
near comprehensive enough to accept as a universal, applying to objects
completely unlike from the body of observations used to formulate it? I don't think so.
Everyone else can see the hasty generalization for what it is.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"What you are doing is simply stating a commonly known fact i.e every radioactive nuclei has a half life.
What does this prove exactly? That there is instability which causes it to undergo radioactive decay - however, we do not exactly know precisely when and where something will decay, but can exactly know how much of it will decay due to half lifes?
Did you ever wonder why it's called a 'half-life' and not a 'life'? It's precisely because you cannot tell when a
particular nucleus will decay. All you have is the propensity of decay within a certain period of time, which is what half-life measures.
This is what you learn in college physics class when they talk about radioactive decay.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"So the fact is, the instability causes decay, but the mechanism for the instability is not 'uniform' but random, although it is uniform in how much it decays within a half life time interval.
Which is basically an admission that you cannot tell when a
particular nucleus will decay, which is what I said and is the whole damn point. That you are playing this dance of "the instability causes decay, but the mechanism for the instability is not 'uniform' but random" is merely semantics — the uncausedness of a
particular decay event is still there.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You also talk about 'sciences fine instruments'. The fact is, there are things even we can't exactly measure.
What, you can see into the ultraviolet and X-ray spectrum, as well as into the microwave spectrum? You can observe on the nanosecond timescales? You can detect atomic radiation?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Read this:
My understanding is that an unstable atomic nucleus decays
when the constituent quarks happen to come together in a way
which allows them to interact such that an energy threshold is
exceeded. The quarks are moving randomly, just like molecules
of air move randomly. With a large population of quarks, the rate
at which they come together and interact is very uniform and
predictable. But the motions of individual quarks in a nucleus
can't be followed, so there is no way to predict when the nucleus
will decay.
Pfft! :lol: What is this unsourced paragraph supposed to prove?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I just want to know, what does this prove? Who disagree's with this?
My physics class and textbooks. I think they have a bit more credibility than a random quote you pulled off from the internet.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"This has happened an infinite number of times, according to the multi-verse theory. A monkey has been randomly hitting at words during the entire duration of my stay, and coincidentally has been responding to your post. There are an infinite number of universes where this has taken place by the way. In addition, Christian Bale randomly decided to drive with Katie Holmes to have tea at your house in an infinite number of universes where they both had the exact same roles and did pretty much the exact same things.
...And? This scenario has also
not happened an infinite number of times. What is your point?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Oh, you're going to refute it, whereas the best minds in physics have been unable to do so (merely arguing that there's no evidence for such)? Yeah, I've heard that before, but you consistently fail to actually demonstrate such a feat.
The truth is that the multi-verse theory is simply 'just' a theory. There is nothing solid to refute. Infact, many multi-verse theories rely on string theory, which many scientists are against and skeptical about.
So the argument that 'the best minds in physics have been unable to refute it ' is false, seeing there are so many multi-verse theories, and many simply straight from the imagination.
Did you not read the underlined part? That's basically what I said. The only way you're going to progress
beyond what the best minds in physics have done —the
same best minds in physics who are currently trying to
both advance and demolish the multiverse— is to come up with that refutation, which again you have shown yourself unable to do. Otherwise, you're simply treading old ground.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"To add to Hakurei's post, mathematics is DEFINITELY not restricted to your sense experience. There are things in mathematics with no apparent correspondence to any know thing in Nature, and thus cannot be experienced.
There are a lot of things in mathematics which can not be put into nature. Nothing is restricted to my sense experiences, it is only restricted to consistent logic.
Mathematics does not have a direct correlation to nature. Some mathematics can be used to explain natural phenomenon, but to assert all mathematics has it's place in nature is false.
Dude, I was correcting you, who said that, not me.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"To add to Hakurei's post, mathematics is DEFINITELY not restricted to your sense experience. There are things in mathematics with no apparent correspondence to any know thing in Nature, and thus cannot be experienced.
There are a lot of things in mathematics which can not be put into nature. Nothing is restricted to my sense experiences, it is only restricted to consistent logic.
Mathematics does not have a direct correlation to nature. Some mathematics can be used to explain natural phenomenon, but to assert all mathematics has it's place in nature is false.
Dude, I was correcting you, who said that, not me.
You're actually contradicting Heiku there then (unknowingly).
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You're actually contradicting Heiku there then (unknowingly).
How?
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Again, wrong. I am and continue to use the same principles of logic that have been taught for millenia. What I refused to do was agree to the universality of your assertions, such as your "My daily observations show to me that every effect that I observe has a cause" canarda.
The very fibers of existence dictate that every effect needs an explanation. This is a far-cry from my own observations , although they also are in solidarity with this claim. You are about to go on to asking me how my 'daily observations' are consistent with dark energy.
Why do you always assert that i use my narrow daily observations , and not those deduced with scientific instruments and logic?
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"At best, what you have there is an inference, which gives you a plausible rule of behavior for the range of phenomena you formed the inference from. Tell me, where did you make any observations of what we call "dark matter" and "dark energy?" You know, that stuff that together makes up 96% of the universe? Tell me, also, where did you make any observations of quantum phenomena, which underpins all macroscopic phenomena and verify that they also follow this "principle?"
The first mistake you have made is asserting that I am basing my experience of reality by my own subjective existence. I am basing it on the core principle of science, the foundation is broken totally obliterate science as a whole.
The universe needs to have a critical mass, above which it will end up in a big crunch. Sadly for the cyclical universe theory, the universe is actually accelerating in it's expansion. Scientists have not tangibly touched what is causing this, and it remains a mystery, but they have identified whatever it is as 'dark energy'. It's simply a label of whatever is causing the universe to expand.
Observation: Universe is accelerating, not slowing down as once though.
Result: Scientist label a force which must be causing it's acceleration as "dark energy".
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Nowhere. You have cut out at least 96% of all the stuff in the universe from the scope of your observations, and only examined perhaps 9 of the full 39 orders of magnitude in length scale of the universe. Am I really supposed to believe that this body of observation is anywhere near comprehensive enough to accept as a universal, applying to objects completely unlike from the body of observations used to formulate it? I don't think so.
Everyone else can see the hasty generalization for what it is.
Once again, you have not accurately stated what I actually believe. I fully respect and understand what you say when you mean that there is so much more we can know, and that perhaps there is much more we can discover, but when I say "observation" I do not mean what I see with sight.
Yes, we can not 'see' this dark energy, but we can view its effects.
What we can not do is assert "water exists as liquid in 25 degrees....we have never seen it morph into chlorine ay 25 degree's so based on our own speculation, until someone proves it can't, it's wild speculation".
The principle of effect and explanation is universal. It is inherent in every fibre of existence. If causes simply occurred without explanation, it would totally demolish the rawest foundations of all science. We aren't dealing with one or two theories on the expanding universe(which I suggested to you when you upholded the cyclical universe theory). We are dealing with a universal law.
Can we know if it can be broken? Maybe? But so far, universally, it's absurd to believe so.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Did you ever wonder why it's called a 'half-life' and not a 'life'? It's precisely because you cannot tell when a particular nucleus will decay. All you have is the propensity of decay within a certain period of time, which is what half-life measures.
This is what you learn in college physics class when they talk about radioactive decay.
Not a single person disagree's with that , and almost everyone here should have learnt that very early on their education. The problem being debated here is, is radioactive decay causeless?
Just because it occurs randomly, does not mean it is causeless . I tend to prefer to say "explanation and effect" rather than "cause" and effect. Who said cause has to be predictable?
And there is a clear 'cause' for radioactive decay. When an nucleus is unstable, either by excess energy or skewed ratio of nucleons, it begins to under-go radioactive decay.
Yes it must be 'random', but when was random synonymous with causeless? Clearly the fact there is a precise half life proves some sort of collective regularity.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Which is basically an admission that you cannot tell when a particular nucleus will decay, which is what I said and is the whole damn point. That you are playing this dance of "the instability causes decay, but the mechanism for the instability is not 'uniform' but random" is merely semantics — the uncausedness of a particular decay event is still there.
Radioactive decay is not causeless. The cause is the instability. The effect is random decay, which is actually uniform in terms of the half life. Just because it occurs randomly does not mean it is not causeless.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Pfft! :lol: What is this unsourced paragraph supposed to prove?
You assert radioactive decay is an effect with no cause, simply because individual decay is random. Random does not equate to causeless. The decay occurs because the cause is instability. The half life is pretty uniform too. And the 'unsourced paragraph' precisely explains the unscientific claim that just because a process is random, that it is not cause.
The passage I quoted explains that although it is random, the cause is instability, which evokes random responses which then is uniformly represented in a half life. It simply explains that you can have a cause which is random, but is a cause.
A cause and a random effect are not mutually exclusive.
Here you go again. It's bolded.
My understanding is that an unstable atomic nucleus decays
when the constituent quarks happen to come together in a way
which allows them to interact such that an energy threshold is
exceeded. The quarks are moving randomly, just like molecules
of air move randomly. With a large population of quarks, the rate
at which they come together and interact is very uniform and
predictable.
But the motions of individual quarks in a nucleus
can't be followed, so there is no way to predict when the nucleus
will decay.Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"And? This scenario has also not happened an infinite number of times. What is your point?
That's the paradox of the multi-verse, believing you can actually have an 'infinite number' of universes.If you do believe the above, then any event has happened an infinite number of times, because you have an infinite number of universes.
If you do not have an infinite number of universes, or an increasing number, then it has not happened an infinite number of times so you do not have an infinite number of universes.
That's the problem with the multi-verse. You can not say "something is infinite but also not infinite"
Claim: "there are an infinite number of universes at any one time".
You can not have a constant body of infinite universes.
IF you do assert you can, every physical possibility has happened an infinite number of times. So in a parralel universe, you and i are putting monkeys on our keyboards every time we debate, and it is by their random typing which causes our responses, for every single conversation we have had.
Oh, and this has happened an infinite number of times.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Did you not read the underlined part? That's basically what I said. The only way you're going to progress beyond what the best minds in physics have done —the same best minds in physics who are currently trying to both advance and demolish the multiverse— is to come up with that refutation, which again you have shown yourself unable to do. Otherwise, you're simply treading old ground.
Actually, there are scientists who have thoroughly asserted the multi-verse can not even stand up on it's own two feet. String theory in particular has received extremely thorough refutations.
There are scientists who support it as well. The scientists who support the multi-verse do not agree with the scientists who do not, even though the scientists who do not support it assert it simply can not exist.
The problem is that it's all speculation, imagination. It's an idea. Every idea has two sides (theory).
glitch
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You're actually contradicting Heiku there then (unknowingly).
How?
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You want proof that an infinity can be deduced in a finite number of steps? Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes. Two discrete steps that show that the number of primes must be infinite, and the proof is over 2000 years old and still taught today in schools. Or take the entirety of real analysis and the resulting integral calculus. Or any number of theorems that apply to infinite sets in any number of mathematical fields. You will find that all of them require a finite number of steps for their proofs.
Or for a more real example, the fact that our finest theories depend on continuities in space and time in order to work properly.
In most cases, it is not required to count to infinity, and you can count a countable infinity, so long as you're able and willing to count for eternity. That's really your stumbling block. Euclid's proof of infinite primes merely shows that no finite set of primes can contain all the primes, and if no finite set of primes can contain all the primes, then there are an infinite number of primes. Bam! An infinite number of primes, deduced in a finite number of logical steps. "
I have read your responses. You used this paragraph to try and assert that because there is a mathematical theory, that is around a few thousand years old, which proves there are infinite prime numbers in finite 'mathematical steps', that this could somehow be extrapolated into real life to prove that you could solve the infinite regress problem.
IF that is not what you were trying to solve, please specify exactly how it was relevant to my older post, and exactly what it solves (in terms of the physical world).
This is why I believe the other poster (incorrectly) told me this: "To add to Hakurei's post, mathematics is DEFINITELY not restricted to your sense experience. There are things in mathematics with no apparent correspondence to any know thing in Nature, and thus cannot be experienced."
And I agree. Just because you can use two equations to prove there are an infinite number of primes, you can not take those equations and propose physical existence has any correspondence to it.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Watching MR post logical fallacy after logical fallacy leads me to think there might be a world record attempt in there somewhere.
Remember when he joined and we said that arguments aren't evidence, and he just said they were, even though they're not?
We need to remember that initially exchange in every proceeding conversation.
Only a handful (and maybe you were one of them) have attempted to actually show me the fallacy in my arguments. It is natural for someone on the opposite side of the debate to not agree with the logic or arguments, otherwise there would not be two sides debating to begin with.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Again, wrong. I am and continue to use the same principles of logic that have been taught for millenia. What I refused to do was agree to the universality of your assertions, such as your "My daily observations show to me that every effect that I observe has a cause" canarda.
The very fibers of existence dictate that every effect needs an explanation.
Translation: You REALLY REALLY WANT there to be an explanation for every effect, regardless of whether it actually has one.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Why do you always assert that i use my narrow daily observations , and not those deduced with scientific instruments and logic?
Because of your consistent insistance on logical fallacies? Because you aren't the least bit circumspect about the limits of the observations you do perform and are appropriately cautious about the limits of what they're telling you?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"At best, what you have there is an inference, which gives you a plausible rule of behavior for the range of phenomena you formed the inference from. Tell me, where did you make any observations of what we call "dark matter" and "dark energy?" You know, that stuff that together makes up 96% of the universe? Tell me, also, where did you make any observations of quantum phenomena, which underpins all macroscopic phenomena and verify that they also follow this "principle?"
The first mistake you have made is asserting that I am basing my experience of reality by my own subjective existence. I am basing it on the core principle of science, the foundation is broken totally obliterate science as a whole.
Nonsense. The core principle of science is that evidence is king, and not to be afraid of saying, "I don't know," when you reach the limit of that evidence. This is why you have to reach past the state of the art of science and propose your 'trancendent causes' malarcy.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"The universe needs to have a critical mass, above which it will end up in a big crunch. Sadly for the cyclical universe theory, the universe is actually accelerating in it's expansion. Scientists have not tangibly touched what is causing this, and it remains a mystery, but they have identified whatever it is as 'dark energy'. It's simply a label of whatever is causing the universe to expand.
Only one particular model of the cyclic universe requires there to be a Big Crunch. Other models have other requirements, but fulfil the same ends. For instance, unless the Higgs' superpartner can be found, the universe is not stable, but metastable, and will sooner or later wipe itself out as another Hubble volume (read, observable universe) spawns somewhere within it. (source) (//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/universe-lifespan-finite-unstable-higgs-boson_n_2713053.html) It is effectively a cyclic universe theory, and the mass of the Higgs is sitting right about where it should be for this instability to occur. This is a cyclic universe theory. Not the standard one, but I never at any time pretended that the theory I presented to you months ago was necessarily the only one there could be.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Observation: Universe is accelerating, not slowing down as once though.
Result: Scientist label a force which must be causing it's acceleration as "dark energy".
Your wild speculation: There is sufficient evidence to suggest this acceleration will continue in perpetuity.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Once again, you have not accurately stated what I actually believe. I fully respect and understand what you say when you mean that there is so much more we can know, and that perhaps there is much more we can discover, but when I say "observation" I do not mean what I see with sight.
Yes, we can not 'see' this dark energy, but we can view its effects.
What we can not do is assert "water exists as liquid in 25 degrees....we have never seen it morph into chlorine ay 25 degree's so based on our own speculation, until someone proves it can't, it's wild speculation".
The principle of effect and explanation is universal. It is inherent in every fibre of existence. If causes simply occurred without explanation, it would totally demolish the rawest foundations of all science. We aren't dealing with one or two theories on the expanding universe(which I suggested to you when you upholded the cyclical universe theory). We are dealing with a universal law.
Can we know if it can be broken? Maybe? But so far, universally, it's absurd to believe so.
Again, hasty generalization. We
understand why this "universal law of causation" applies within the universe. But it depends on prerequisites that you not only fail to show apply to the universe, but
actively deny apply to the universe. You actually
need your "universal law of causation" to
not be true for you to even move your argument forward. If your "universal law of causation" is true, then the only way to generate the universe
is something like a cyclical universe.
You seem to think that I haven't thought this trough. I have. Then again, I understand that true universals apply to
everything, including supposed gods. A true universal can
never be established by way of inference, which is exactly what you're trying to do, whether you use science or not. It won't work. Give it up. Only
positive evidence and a
compelling, airtight argument will establish a God.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Not a single person disagree's with that , and almost everyone here should have learnt that very early on their education. The problem being debated here is, is radioactive decay causeless?
Yes. Because it's a quantum event. The radioactive nucleus exists as a bound state, which are quantized — restricted to well-defined quantum states. A decay event is all-or-nothing, with no room for internal rearrangments. The nucleus remains precisely in the same state, or it suddenly transitions to the lower state and expulses a particle.
This implies that the process is not just random, but
memoryless. In real decay processes, it
is memoryless. Decay follows an exponential decay curve. This screams to the statistician "memoryless process." Thus, we can fairly conclude there is no hidden states to probe in a decay event.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"And there is a clear 'cause' for radioactive decay. When an nucleus is unstable, either by excess energy or skewed ratio of nucleons, it begins to under-go radioactive decay.
Nope. The statistics say that radioactive decay is a
memoryless process, and not just merely random. It does not "start" to decay; it's all or nothing. A radioactive nucleus is no more likely to decay the first second after its formation as it is a second a million years from now (given it survived those million years already).
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You assert radioactive decay is an effect with no cause, simply because individual decay is random.
No, I said that the
statistics of the decay event imply that it is causeless. Subtle but
very important difference.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"That's the paradox of the multi-verse, believing you can actually have an 'infinite number' of universes.
You have in no way shown this is the case, or a true paradox.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"If you do believe the above, then any event has happened an infinite number of times, because you have an infinite number of universes.
And what's wrong with that?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"If you do not have an infinite number of universes, or an increasing number, then it has not happened an infinite number of times so you do not have an infinite number of universes.
And I assert there are an infinite number of universes, at least within the context of that argument. You have yet to show what is wrong with that position. What is the contradiction, hoss?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"That's the problem with the multi-verse. You can not say "something is infinite but also not infinite"
Which, YET AGAIN, no one has asserted, at least the way you're portraying the argument.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Claim: "there are an infinite number of universes at any one time".
You can not have a constant body of infinite universes.
Again, WHY? You have given no compelling arguments to show that there cannot be an infinity of universes. There are plenty of quite viable theories that not only admit, but require them.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"IF you do assert you can, every physical possibility has happened an infinite number of times. So in a parralel universe, you and i are putting monkeys on our keyboards every time we debate, and it is by their random typing which causes our responses, for every single conversation we have had.
Oh, and this has happened an infinite number of times.
Still not seeing anything wrong with this postion.
Lissen, hoss. You've been dancing around this issue long enough. You are repeating "infinite universes"
without showing what's wrong with supposing they do exist, as if their mere repetition in a disparaging tone is somehow proof that they're not legitimate.
Show what's wrong with an infinity of universes. Otherwise, STFU.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Actually, there are scientists who have thoroughly asserted the multi-verse can not even stand up on it's own two feet. String theory in particular has received extremely thorough refutations.
There are scientists who support it as well. The scientists who support the multi-verse do not agree with the scientists who do not, even though the scientists who do not support it assert it simply can not exist.
The problem is that it's all speculation, imagination. It's an idea. Every idea has two sides (theory).
And what you need to take away from that is that the question is still up in the air, and not count on either possibility being true. That means, not putting forward you own ideas that contradict either side without properly qualifying them to show how provisional they are. Because if your arguments
are that compelling, you would be up for a Nobel Prize if they were true, and as such you need to stop arguing with us and go contact some of those scientists to explain your "brilliant theory."
I at least have the presence of mind to know that my speculation is speculation and I'm prepared for any eventuality. Whether the multiverse exists or not, whether the universe is cyclical or not, I know that the only argument for a god (or any condor-concept performing the same function) I will accept is positive evidence for such and a proper, non-fallacious analysis of that evidence, carrying us from the observations to the firm conclusion of the existence of a God. This is precisely what you have failed to bring forward. Instead, you believe that you can magic a God into existence by treating an inference as if it were a true logical universal.
You, on the other hand, are the only one wedded to any particular state of affairs. You depend on there being no multiverse. You depend on there being no cyclical universe in ANY form (not just one with Big Crunches). You depend on causation without time (a clear stolen concept fallacy), and that the word 'trancendental' is somehow an escape clause from such an impossibility. No, this is an exercise in wishful thinking on your part.
Seriously. Give up.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I have read your responses. You used this paragraph to try and assert that because there is a mathematical theory, that is around a few thousand years old, which proves there are infinite prime numbers in finite 'mathematical steps', that this could somehow be extrapolated into real life to prove that you could solve the infinite regress problem.
You have failed to identify any such 'problem' at all
save for mathematical 'problems.' You simply deny infinities
can be real, by fiat and 'clever' choice of premises. That's not convincing at all.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"This is why I believe the other poster (incorrectly) told me this: "To add to Hakurei's post, mathematics is DEFINITELY not restricted to your sense experience. There are things in mathematics with no apparent correspondence to any know thing in Nature, and thus cannot be experienced."
And I agree. Just because you can use two equations to prove there are an infinite number of primes, you can not take those equations and propose physical existence has any correspondence to it.
Well, the primes example was not intended to show that they do have any physical application. That example was aimed squarely at your "finite = infinite" canard.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.
There has had to be something, which simply 'just exists'. There is solidarity among atheists and theists. The theists assert it can not be a physical reality(i am going to go back to the archive and respond to posts soon and explain why). The atheist asserts it must have been physical.
What you fail to understand after all this time is that you are applying the rules of our universe absolutely and then making an exception for your god, all the while arguing against exceptions for any other reason. The absolute is the definition of "exists", which has one meaning within our universe. The exception is the meaning of "exists" you use for your god. The denial is that "to exist" may not mean the same thing outside of our universe, where you cannot know the rules and it may be completely possible for something to "exist" in a form we would not even understand as "existence" (something you accept for your god without evidence), or that things may not "exist" in the same linear fashion that they do in our universe, or that things may "exist", "cease to exist" and then "exist again, not as a copy, but in the original form" for all you know. Basically you apply the known laws of our universe in an attempt to shoot down any and every possibility but the one you wish to believe, which is no more "proof" of your belief than it is of anything else.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.
The probability of something that has already occurred happening is 100%, so your analogy is silly and also dishonest.
Do please answer my previous questions or you shall be marked a liar.
Precisely the paradox of the multi-verse theory. If there truly are an infinite number of universes, everything that will ever happen has happened an infinite number of times - as if an infinite can be eclipsed?
Yet, there are still things 'yet' to happen.
When one believes in a physical existence which is infinite, it brings up paradoxes.
It is less about us trying to get it into our minds , and more about it abusing the very foundations of logic by which we make these statements in the first place.
What paradoxes? How is it that you can see these paradoxes when actual physicists who are properly trained to think along these lines cannot? The arrogance of you anti-science people is just mind-blowing. You can shoot down any theory you don't like with nice words, but the physicists can back those theories with nice words you can't understand, mathematics and empirical data. Yet somehow in your head your thoughts are superior in every way and you MUST be right. Somehow in your head you know more than every physicist on earth, many of whom have studied these things full time for decades,and have much greater intelligence than you. You somehow know more about the life-work of the people whose job it is to think about these thing. Do you not see the arrogance there? We are not making shit up here just to argue with you. We are re-stating what the people whose job it is to think about these things say they have some evidence to suggest is true. Yet you arrogantly dismiss it all with the ignorant notion that you have some knowledge which eludes the literal geniuses who work on this for a living. At best you choose the few physicists who agree with whatever point you are trying to make and ignore all those who do not. If they agree with you, it's proof. If they don't, it's nonsense and can be dismissed without further thought, as if science works that way.
Turn to the dark side. Accept that scientists know more about science than theists.
Quote from: "widdershins"Turn to the dark side. Accept that scientists know more about science than theists.
People who can do that are known as ...
... atheists.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "widdershins"Turn to the dark side. Accept that scientists know more about science than theists.
People who can do that are known as ...
... atheists.
Dammit! Undone by reason!
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, let's see what happens before calling him a liar guys. :O
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and it's already been a couple months and still a no-show at the debate hall...
Instead of mendacium remedium, perhaps it'd be more appropriate if his name was mendacium auctoris (I'd be grateful if someone can confirm if MR's new name is correct Latin).
Mendacium isn't enough? He's certainly mendacious enough. And he sure needs remediation.
I would just like to point out the name of this thread. Called it!
:rollin: Widdershins & Colanth
"There's a reason for evolution, and it's not to ensure that the stupidest survive." So, the real purpose is to make religious nutters to blow a gasket?