Reply With Quote
Mainly geometric time.
Only watched about 10 minutes (though it does seem entertaining). But this guy's whole point seems to be that things on Earth are "too perfect" for god to have not created them. Gotta give it to him, though. Bro's trying his hardest to make Genesis seem accurate.
Mainly geometric time.
For every human on the planet, you have their own particular version of reality, their own theory for a God or no god.
Meh, just more banality, more of the same ol' same ol' business as usual, meh.
It is quite entertaining. Much of what he says does make sense in the scientific world. At the same time, conditions do indeed need to be pretty perfect or at least to within a miniscule tolerance for human-like life to exist.
What I find most compelling is how he explains creation within scientific laws. I never heard anyone put it like that before because frankly, I don't research this kind of stuff.
That's true. But that just makes Earth lucky. It doesn't suggest a divine hand did it. It's like the people who survive deadly plagues thinking they're blessed.
Oh, good. You've finally picked up a dictionary. In case you're wondering, I've known that definition this whole time. It's actually not used very often, and isn't even on some sites. But there are two instances when it means what you think it means. The first is when describing data (categorical data is data divided into categories), the second is categorical perception (seeing things in categories instead of on a continuum). However, you never meant it in that context, since you were talking about the CI, which not only has hundreds of years of analysis to tell us what way they were using it, but directly translates into the other definition.
Thinking it was a lost book until just now
Why do you mean saying "what do..."? It's one term, which I defined when you first asked. You still haven't explained why the you keep using that as a dig.
Lol, going from, "You're so pathetic with that philosophy degree", to "You don't actually have one." Also hilarious that you think all philosophy degrees are the same. Am I supposed to know everything about quantum physics because I have a biology degree?
Didn't edit your posts at all.
Kant's use is a lot older than that, first off. Secondly, 'categorical' has meant "absolute" for thousands of years (in its translations). You should have seen that when you were reading in the dictionary. Instead you're trying to rep its sub-definition just so you don't look stupid. That would be a decent argument had you not failed to make it until now.
I don't even think you know what that means. 'Categorical' hasn't changed its meaning, but that doesn't mean other words haven't. You're just mad that you didn't know the definition. Now, you're arguing against it so you don't look dumb.
Meaning that I am not just saying that to try to cover up my tracks in this thread. I could be lying about my degrees (I'm not, but who cares?), but I would have been lying a long time before talking to you.
So says the guy who's admitted to preparing for Internet arguments and to try to follow me around if I don't respond to you fast enough. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands and will be back to make another stupid post in the middle of the day. But seeing as you just now actually clicked on the Google link to see 'categorical' in more detail, you definitely seem too busy to learn anything.
Thus why fuzzybumpkins personifies the label "pseudo-intellectual" although it is being extremely generous using the "intellectual" part.
This is how he debates everyone on here, I'm just surprised he has limited his use of invectives and cussing to make his quasi-points.
Atheists seem to think that the theist is the one that requires the proofs, yet I see no record of anything ever getting so lucky.
Is the claim that something is so lucky that it defies exponential odds really that much less of a claim than a creator? Both are fantastic claims to the other party.
Last edited by xellos88330; 10-31-2014 at 12:15 PM.
Chinook going straight Scat Man in here, someone get Fuzzy a wet wipe.
When I say "lucky", I mean that there was no divine-intervention reason something happens. The Earth has life because it had the conditions to have life. That seems to be a rare thing, but it's not all that interesting, really. Just like a person is immune from a disease because of the makeup of their body. It's just the way things work. If someone shoots a gun straight into the air, and that bullet comes down an hits a random person a few minutes later, that person was just (un)lucky. They were on the wrong side of the odds.
There's no burden of proof for people who just chalk things up to probability -- that is almost always the null hypothesis.
Last edited by Chinook; 10-31-2014 at 12:39 PM.
what's the argument there that could be hard to refute?
Why should an atheist have to prove to you that something doesn't exist? What's practical about that?
Who created the creator? How lucky was your creator? What are the odds there?Is the claim that something is so lucky that it defies exponential odds really that much less of a claim than a creator? Both are fantastic claims to the other party.
1. One side is arguing something that exists. The other is arguing that it doesn't exist. The debate is whether or not it even exists. What does an atheist provide as proof that it doesn't exist when there are some laws in science in which proves that it indeed can.
2. That is what I found so interesting about geometric time. I do not claim any expertise in the matter of geometric time or physics, but find some points within it that would indeed allow God to not need a creator himself. If you watch the entirety of the video I posted, he better explains it than I ever could. This is a website with the pdf download with a brief mathematical breakdown. http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1403.3879
Then why do some of the sciences prove that he could in fact, exist? God has become a probability of science. Wouldn't that make his existence the same as a probability?
Nothing beats the famous banana video
Science doesn't rule out the possibility of god in the same manner it doesn't rule out Martians
Science didn't have to prove that could might exist; that's inherent in the structure of statistical testing. The way it works is that people assume nothing interesting is happening unless they collect enough data to allow them to claim the opposite with confidence.
So if a person asserts divine intervention as an explanation for some phenomenon, then it is up to them to collect enough data to be able to pass a statistical test with a stringent enough confidence interval. If they can't, then their claim gets rejected.
This isn't an atheist/theist thing. Darwin had the burden of proof for his theory of natural selection, and in fact, he was dead before his work was widely accepted. Same is true for tectonic plate theory, the Big Bang, etc.
Closest thing I've heard of to what you're talking about.
one side is arguing that God exists. The other side is saying to prove it.
But from a practical standpoint for society's sake, why should an atheist need to disprove your god?
What points?2. That is what I found so interesting about geometric time. I do not claim any expertise in the matter of geometric time or physics, but find some points within it that would indeed allow God to not need a creator himself. If you watch the entirety of the video I posted, he better explains it than I ever could. This is a website with the pdf download with a brief mathematical breakdown. http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1403.3879
Well you have now joined Darrin in sophist piece of land. Winehole will be pleased.Oh, good. You've finally picked up a dictionary. In case you're wondering, I've known that definition this whole time. It's actually not used very often, and isn't even on some sites. But there are two instances when it means what you think it means. The first is when describing data (categorical data is data divided into categories), the second is categorical perception (seeing things in categories instead of on a continuum). However, you never meant it in that context, since you were talking about the CI, which not only has hundreds of years of analysis to tell us what way they were using it, but directly translates into the other definition.
Why do you mean saying "what do..."? It's one term, which I defined when you first asked. You still haven't explained why the you keep using that as a dig.
Lol, going from, "You're so pathetic with that philosophy degree", to "You don't actually have one." Also hilarious that you think all philosophy degrees are the same. Am I supposed to know everything about quantum physics because I have a biology degree?
Didn't edit your posts at all.
Kant's use is a lot older than that, first off. Secondly, 'categorical' has meant "absolute" for thousands of years (in its translations). You should have seen that when you were reading in the dictionary. Instead you're trying to rep its sub-definition just so you don't look stupid. That would be a decent argument had you not failed to make it until now.
I don't even think you know what that means. 'Categorical' hasn't changed its meaning, but that doesn't mean other words haven't. You're just mad that you didn't know the definition. Now, you're arguing against it so you don't look dumb.
Meaning that I am not just saying that to try to cover up my tracks in this thread. I could be lying about my degrees (I'm not, but who cares?), but I would have been lying a long time before talking to you.
So says the guy who's admitted to preparing for Internet arguments and to try to follow me around if I don't respond to you fast enough. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands and will be back to make another stupid post in the middle of the day. But seeing as you just now actually clicked on the Google link to see 'categorical' in more detail, you definitely seem too busy to learn anything.
Your intellectual cowardice is impressive.
Anyway that quote there is to your rejoinder after you dodged for 5 days. Are you really going to strut with TSA and m>s? You're a bigger than I thought.
1. In practicality, they shouldn't have to. In practicality, they should be respectful of others beliefs. In reality, that is not the case. If there is an attempt to ridicule another for their beliefs, should they not provide their own proofs to justify such an act? There are many proofs of atheists ridiculing religion and theism in general. Flying Spaghetti monster is an obvious slap in the face to those who believe in God. Atheists claim that they cannot trust a religion because of how religion can treat people. Are the atheists not doing the same? If theists can be held responsible for their actions by atheists, shouldn't atheists be held responsible for their actions by theists as well?
2. I already said that I am no expert in geometric time, or physics for that matter. The points I found were in the way the video explained it to me. If you have anything to add or respond in addition to the video, I would be more than willing to listen as I am not confident in my grasp of the subject.
Then why ridicule the theist?
chinook is being the same dissembling nihilist routine as you. he goes around saying he has 4 degrees but I am the quasi-intellectual?Thus why fuzzybumpkins personifies the label "pseudo-intellectual" although it is being extremely generous using the "intellectual" part.
This is how he debates everyone on here, I'm just surprised he has limited his use of invectives and cussing to make his quasi-points.
you guys are ed up.
For the same reason we'd ridicule somebody for making a claim that Martian life exists without any means to provide evidence
Last edited by spurraider21; 10-31-2014 at 05:34 PM.
You want to revisit this or you just going to stick with it?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
