Is God really real? page 26

Originally posted by somebody613:

tenco (and somewhat DR)
I already said, I’m not “making up definitions”.

And I can say that I made Kongregate.

Ignorant can be assumed based on action, i.e. your posting provides context for me to accurately demonstrate that you’re a belligerent idiot. Now, fuck off because you’ve stopped saying anything interesting, at least before your batshit rambles were creative.

K
Were you ever saying ANYTHING “interesting” (on this thread at least)?
I’d like anyone to provide an example…

Originally posted by KronikTheWeedhog:

Originally posted by somebody613:

http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2005/09/30/evolution_diversity

Student paper, not accredited source of information. Shall I link to a blog post that objectively shows that you are a tit?

Your very first post was a mockery AND an insult already. O_o
So, you continue using foul words and telling me to get lost, even though I wasn’t talking with you specifically so much.
My main discussion opponent is DR, and we sometimes have really long arguments, at least TRYING to understand each other.

tenco
You aren’t as dumb as you want me to look.
Aka you are definitely smart enough to know what I meant in 1. and 2.

Originally posted by somebody613:
Your very first post was a mockery AND an insult already. O_o

It wasn’t without reason, though.

My main discussion opponent is DR, and we sometimes have really long arguments, at least TRYING to understand each other.

And you’re definitely not helping with that.

tenco
You aren’t as dumb as you want me to look.

Wait, how does that work?

Aka you are definitely smart enough to know what I meant in 1. and 2.

Yeah, your knowledge of English phrases needs some work.

As well as specifying what you’re reffering to.

Good work, you’ve figured it out. I was trying to get you to spout more of your idiotic dogma through insults and all it got me was a boring ass derail for my trouble. I’ll stick to harassing dumb kids from now on, and mock your kind from a distance, because interfering with your sort only leads to tedium.

Don’t feed the troll after midnight. Or ever.

Originally posted by somebody613:

Don’t feed the troll after midnight. Or ever.

Troll is such an ugly word. I am a mere spectator, a peanut gallery if you will.

The problem I have with you is that you pretend to take the role of the teacher while you are completely misunderstanding and misinterpreting definitions that you can find right on the internet or in a dictionary, and then go on to blame us for the differences.

I said what I wanted to say.

Yet, in the rest of the same post you actually addressed some issues. That’s what is needed, since you can’t bury your head in the sand the moment there’s some problems.

Aha, and DR is trying to “explain” to me how “science is objectively right”, cause “I can go and build a spaceship/particle accelerator all by my own”. Or go dig the entire Sahara. Or create a Jurassic Park. ETC…

I’ve explained this one many times, so I’m not going into detail yet again. I’m concerned that you only believe in anything you can “do yourself” but you maniacally believe in “traditional stories” that are supposedly true because the first people supposedly having seen it must have been correct in all their interpretations. I cannot stress the inconsistency.

I already said, I’m not “making up definitions”.

Right in every of your posts you explain the concepts of “faith” and so on, and they are simply wrong.

Some misunderstandings MAY be due to me thinking NOT in English, and translation MAY be detrimental sometimes…

That’s all right, as long as you accept our corrections.

This is NOT due to anyone being “ignorant”, it’s due to me and others having different “TRUST SYSTEMS” or rather “DOGMAS”, which leads to exactly this misunderstand we encounter constantly.

No, it’s really just part of the definitions. “Faith” should have a universal definition. If it doesn’t, then one of the two concepts need to have a different name.

I’m equally trusting religion AND applicable science, when it was (EMPIRICALLY) PROVED to be working.

And it’s fine you trust applicable, empirical science (I will not argue about religion, it’s fine to have religious beliefs, as long as you know this isn’t scientifically true). It’s even fine you don’t trust science that, according to your own opinion, isn’t empirical (even if it is).

You seem to “forget” that part, when it comes to THEORETICAL science, which I simply don’t TRUST, for whatever reason, LOGICAL one.

See, here’s another concept. Theory. It means that it has a vast amount of evidence behind it. Trying to be satirical when calling something “theoretical science” leads to the opposite reaction.

Yes, from MY point, science must PROVE itself to be TRUSTED, not by “default definition” like in DR’s view of scientific method – but rather EMPIRICALLY, so that everyone can SEE the REAL results.

Anything must prove itself to be trusted. Including traditional stories. The problem is that you assume that doesn’t happen in all science. It does.

DR
We finally came to a point when I realized how to make it really clear.
1. I religiously believe in religion (whatever you mean by that, but yeah, it’s not through “scientific method”).
2. I trust applicable science that anyone can use, be it gravity (“natural fact”) or computers (“scientific invention”).
3. I don’t trust the rest of science, however believable/trustable it looks to you. This is a personal choice, cause no one has anything ACTUAL to show to prove it (otherwise it would become 2, which I do trust). Everything that belongs to this group IS “guesses”, again, otherwise it automatically falls under 2, which has practical life application.
…
As of “faith” (and other “definitions”) – I highly think it is due to me being a native Russian speaker, which means I constantly translate into English, and I SHOWED you, how the same word has a multitude of similar-yet-different translations BOTH WAYS.
…
But as of “fact”, this is rather (and I again said it before) a matter of opinion, not definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Except, I trust only first-person experiments on theories, not what I call “guessing the past from the present”, in which case you’re NOT truly testing the past, but rather the present and your theory on it.
There’s a huge difference between ways of testing “2+2=4”:
1. If you test how 2+2 ends up to be 4, you must be first-hand present at both 2’s and their “addition”.
2. But if you only test the 4, you can “guess” that it was made by 8/2 as well – which is true THEORETICALLY, but is not the actual FACT (which still remains 2+2).
And retesting the 8/2 WILL result in 4 EVERY time – yet it won’t PROVE that it was ACTUALLY 8/2 (cause we know in this example it actually was 2+2).
This works in many topics, not just math – but I’m no mood NOW to bring harder examples, I’m sure you can think of any real ones yourself.
I do hope you can see this point…
…
(I will provide one “crazy” example – you have no way to prove that all those bones weren’t ACTUALLY created as such and not real remains of real animals – for that, you need to be present at the time any of them was alive. The rest is the self-deception of “it can’t be otherwise than what we’re used to”… aka the Occam’s LIE…)

2. I trust applicable science that anyone can use, be it gravity (“natural fact”) or computers (“scientific invention”).

Anyone can breed animals, that’s applied evolution.
Anyone can measure CO2’s ability to absorb IR waves and extrapolate from that to how doubling atmospheric CO2 might affect the whole planet.

The things you don’t believe in don’t stop being true because you can’t understand or dislike the implications of them.

Except, I trust only first-person experiments on theories, not what I call “guessing the past from the present”, in which case you’re NOT truly testing the past, but rather the present and your theory on it.

Then how exactly have you managed to believe in religion? Your position in incoherent, either you can only trust your direct senses or there are other sources of information. You cannot hold to both principles at once.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

god is ssssssooooo real, how do u think the universe was made?!?!?!

We don’t know. That’s why we believe in God. Others don’t. I don’t like it when other believers make it seem like there’s no other way than God, since obviously there are many more beliefs, and many more people without beliefs.

because there is no other option….

God is not real.

The Higgs Boson is real.

Redem
1. I trust empirical science which operates with actual facts – it’s not a CHOICE, but rather a logical OUTCOME.
2. I don’t HAVE to trust non-empirical stuff of any kind, but I CHOSE to trust the religious side – it was a CHOICE, not a logical NECESSITY.
3. The moment a theory becomes truly empirical, it automatically becomes type 1 – so I also trust it. But not before that.
…
1. We all have to eat – it’s a NECESSITY, not a CHOICE.
2. We all choose what to eat – it’s a CHOICE, not a NECESSITY.
3. If you were put on a strict diet, for whatever serious reason, you’d have to eat only that – it’s not a CHOICE, it turns out to be a NECESSITY.
Same goes for information – some we should just accept, some we can freely choose.
And haven’t you understood the “2+2=4” example? O_o
(Or is it under the “never doubt science” TABOO? :DDDDD)

Redem
1. I trust empirical science which operates with actual facts – it’s not a CHOICE, but rather a logical OUTCOME.
2. I don’t HAVE to trust non-empirical stuff of any kind, but I CHOSE to trust the religious side – it was a CHOICE, not a logical NECESSITY.
3. The moment a theory becomes truly empirical, it automatically becomes type 1 – so I also trust it. But not before that.

But that is a lie, you reject plenty of empirical facts by pretending they’re not empirical facts. Evolution being a great example.

Redem
You seem to NOT know what can be called EMPIRICAL.
Speciation is empirical, breeding is empirical, hybrids are empirical, dinos are NOT empirical (only their bones are).
And taxonomy is pretty arbitrary too.
Again, you can get to 4 not only through 2+2, so testing the 4 itself is meaningless until you actually empirically recreate OR experience the entire 2+2.
In other words, Jurassic Park or Time Machine, your choice.
The rest are guesses, however some want to believe it otherwise.
Be scientific, finally… O_o
Or would you call “Walking with dinosaurs” OR “Alien planet” empirical? O_o

I think, rather, that you do not know what empirical means.

That dinosaurs existed is indeed an empirical fact, the evidence to justify this is in the fossils and genetic lineages that descended from them.

Taxonomy was only arbitrary under the creationist that first invented the idea, no longer, as paleontologists use an entirely different model now, based on ancestry rather than on broad appearance.

Walking with dinosaurs is entertainment, meant to give a brief education in the conclusions of paleontology in a manner that is entertaining as well as informative. It’s not science, it’s public education.

Redem
No it’s not.
Empirical

The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment.
A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.
The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.
In a second sense “empirical” in science may be synonymous with “experimental.” In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

Now find 10 differences between this wiki and what I’ve been saying ever since…
1. I trust fully-empirical science.
2. I don’t trust any other less-empirical science.
3. Kuhn says the same words I use (on evolution and the like, the “semi-empirical” ones, that they aren’t as objective as some would want them to be).
4. I don’t mix religion and science, but I do trust religion over non-fully-empirical science (and it’s a personal choice of credence priorities, when neither is more objective, as in both testable and free from bias, that’s how I understand “objective”).
(Which, btw, never objects to EMPIRICAL science, rather promotes and incorporates it. Like I do this very moment, by using a computer to speak on religious topics.)

Redem
No it’s not.
Empirical

Yes, it is. Observation in this case refers to scientific evidence, in other words those fossils are observable and empirical evidence of dinosaurs.

You create an arbitrary distinction that, should you actually hold to it, would require you to reject your religion.

Yup, FOSSILS are empirical.
DINOS are not.
That’s the difference.
You see only the 4, but you claim it to prove the 2+2 BY ITSELF.
Which it doesn’t.
Having a bruise is zero proof for being assaulted.
Having a camera recording is different, though.
See the difference?
Or too zombified for it? O_o
…
I think, DR agreed long ago, that one can have “non-scientific” religious beliefs, “as long as it isn’t claimed to be scientific”, which I don’t.
I just don’t trust non-empirical science SIMULTANEOUSLY.
You can distrust stranger A and trust stranger B – it depends on your personal feelings towards them.
Cause neither of them has something that you MUST trust (objectively) – like your parents, for example.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

“How evidence can be utterly wrong OR seeing only the 4.”
May 1945, Berlin.
An UFO lands.
The aliens somehow get to meet Hitler.
He complains about “evil Russians conquering his poor country” and shows at the huge army outside and inside the city.
This is the first day the aliens saw Earth, they have no knowledge of the past history, not even from yesterday.
Should they trust such OBVIOUS EVIDENCE? O_o

I don’t know what you’re trying to say with that, but you seem to have hit Godwin at mach speed. How about before shitting out your next non-sequitur of a post, you go outside and speak to a real person, maybe it would help you be less bonkers.

K
I can’t help you to raise your IQ, but I can try to explain myself.
The idea of the above post was, like it actually says itself, to show how you can end up having totally wrong conclusions, if you only rely on your theory and the final result.
It LOOKS like what Hitler says, but IS he objectively right?
(I hope you know, he isn’t.)
So, if aliens only “see the 4”, aka the Russian armies (without testing WHY they’re there, aka the “2+2”), they will definitely end up AGREEING with Hitler – which is simply unscientific and a lie…