Support NeoGAF

[cutmeamango]

What, how? Mathematics I get, but mathematical concepts do not have to have a relation with reality.

If you say the universe energy sums to 0, as of now, we would have to notice the big crunch occuring, since rest mass of the universe would have to be 0. Which would mean we would notice retrograde momentum. Which would mean we would observe physical incongruences in those areas.
And thermodynamics a zero energy system is impossible, because there is still ground state energy.

 

[Satyamdas]

You're trying to convince them that your speculation deserves merit, that it should not be dismissed out of hand because it cannot be proven or disproven. I just want my cock monster to be treated the same.

No I'm not. If my speculation rings false I expect it to be ignored and/or dismissed. That's the nature of speculation, you see.

 

[leadbelly]

Yeah, it's not known where the concept of energy comes from. Maybe it doesn't come from anywhere. But that's a very esoteric discussion

Well, the energy apparently comes from vacuum fluctuations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

[Kinitari]

No I'm not. If my speculation rings false I expect it to be ignored and/or dismissed. That's the nature of speculation, you see.

Hmm.

Exactly my point. This idea frightens you. It threatens you. OH NOES! MAYBE I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!!! This idea is bothersome to the pompous and the arrogant. So what do you do? You deify your own logic and reason. You make them impervious and infallible. You close off your own thinking even as you claim otherwise.

Who says they have to be discarded? All I've said is that these tools may be inadequate for fully grasping god. Why does that concept irritate you so much? It's because that concept threatens your deified logic.

To demand that an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient entity (to use the most common traits believed to be possessed by god) somehow neatly fit within our limited human construct of logic is patently absurd. Everyone is so busy trying to bring god down to their understanding, make him fit in whatever parameters they have decided he can't violate. This is nothing more than ego run amok. "Well if god exists then he has to exist in the manner *I* deem logical."

No. If god exists then he is beyond your puny logic. He would be logical, illogical, and neither simultaneously.

I could do more, but I think three is good enough for now. In each of these quotes you ridicule people for not giving the idea that there could be something that exists outside of our understanding and logical adherence, a chance.

Interestingly enough, specifically pertaining to the bold...

We judge inanity against our own logic. My logic tells me that someone positing a cock monster that he just made up is inane and not worth consideration.

 

[Satyamdas]

I could do more, but I think three is good enough for now. In each of these quotes you ridicule people for not giving the idea that there could be something that exists outside of our understanding and logical adherence, a chance.

Yes, in my estimation a closed mind is nothing to be proud of. Especially if you are going to go around bashing others for the same thing.

Interestingly enough, specifically pertaining to the bold...

And? That is my speculation. If you find it inane then ignore it. Doesn't bother me at all.

 

[DCKing]

If you say the universe energy sums to 0, as of now, we would have to notice the big crunch occuring, since rest mass of the universe would have to be 0. Which would mean we would notice retrograde momentum. Which would mean we would observe physical incongruences in those areas.
And thermodynamics a zero energy system is impossible, because there is still ground state energy.

Would you expand on that? Because I only half understand it. How does E=0 imply that we're in a Big Crunch universe? How is momentum implied? Why can't the ground state energy be 0?

Well, the energy apparently comes from vacuum fluctuations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

I thought you were wondering about what constitutes energy, which is a mystery. I know this vacuum fluctuation stuff, but that basically means there needs to be no premise for energy to be, eh, caused.

 

[KtSlime]

Yes, in my estimation a closed mind is nothing to be proud of. Especially if you are going to go around bashing others for the same thing.


And? That is my speculation. If you find it inane then ignore it. Doesn't bother me at all.

Do as I say not as I do?

 

[Kinitari]

Yes, in my estimation a closed mind is nothing to be proud of. Especially if you are going to go around bashing others for the same thing.


And? That is my speculation. If you find it inane then ignore it. Doesn't bother me at all.

You don't see the absolute hypocrisy of my post above? Of the post I am quoting right now?

You say that a close mind is nothing to be proud of, and a close mind is a product of assuming your logic is the end all be all. You then go on to say that using your logic, my made up deity is inane.

Are you proud of yourself?

 

[Satyamdas]

Do as I say not as I do?

I'm not telling you to do anything. Do whatever the fuck you want.

You don't see the absolute hypocrisy of my post above? Of the post I am quoting right now?

You say that a close mind is nothing to be proud of, and a close mind is a product of assuming your logic is the end all be all. You then go on to say that using your logic, my made up deity is inane.

Are you proud of yourself?

The rub is that having an open mind does not mean being open to every stupid thing you hear. I know your cock deity is just a lame insult, so why would I take it seriously? Why should I give it any credence? And if you think my speculation about god being beyond our logic is also stupid, then you should ignore it as well. We can both retain our logic, reject speculations we don't agree with, and still have an open mind. Why is this so hard??

 

[leadbelly]

I thought you were wondering about what constitutes energy, which is a mystery. I know this vacuum fluctuation stuff, but that basically means there needs to be no premise for energy to be, eh, caused.

Yeah. I get your meaning. You're right.

And it is a mystery. Of course vacuum fluctuations themselves are at least following some kind of law. It is not actually nothing, it is rather a system. In that sense it doesn't answer the question, no.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not telling you to do anything. Do whatever the fuck you want.


The rub is that having an open mind does not mean being open to every stupid thing you hear. I know your cock deity is just a lame insult, so why would I take it seriously? Why should I give it any credence? And if you think my speculation about god being beyond our logic is also stupid, then you should ignore it as well. We can both retain our logic, reject speculations we don't agree with, and still have an open mind. Why is this so hard??

Because my cock monster is just -one- example. There are hundreds of other examples where people are -not- being silly. If it is all in the same realm of possibility, it is all equally dismissable - the exact same way you dismissed my cock monster.

The point is, you came into this thread sanctimoniously claiming your open mindedness is some ideal to pursue, but it's obvious that when push comes to shove, this perceived open mindedness is simply there to give your own baseless belief system some weight.

You use the term open mindedness because it has become synonymous with liberal, thoughtful, maybe even inquisitive - and you abuse this to give your insults validity.

Don't do that, and people will take you more seriously - I could have made this exact same point without resorting to cock monsters, but I felt no reason to give you any serious consideration.

Regardless - your stance is hypocritical, it's probably important you realize that.

 

[KHarvey16]

The rub is that having an open mind does not mean being open to every stupid thing you hear. I know your cock deity is just a lame insult, so why would I take it seriously? Why should I give it any credence? And if you think my speculation about god being beyond our logic is also stupid, then you should ignore it as well. We can both retain our logic, reject speculations we don't agree with, and still have an open mind. Why is this so hard??

How can you judge it a lame insult? It is perhaps a fantastic insult, or maybe a tepid insult, or even a huge insult. The level of its ability to insult is potentially beyond your mortal mind's ability to comprehend you realize. You assume you can understand it, but that's only because of your enormous ego. Or perhaps you have a small ego, or a medium sized ego and the size of egos exists beyond the ability for this mortal to comprehend.

 

[KtSlime]

I'm not telling you to do anything. Do whatever the fuck you want.


The rub is that having an open mind does not mean being open to every stupid thing you hear. I know your cock deity is just a lame insult, so why would I take it seriously? Why should I give it any credence? And if you think my speculation about god being beyond our logic is also stupid, then you should ignore it as well. We can both retain our logic, reject speculations we don't agree with, and still have an open mind. Why is this so hard??

If you believe this to be true, why is it atheists can't "retain logic, reject speculation atheists don't agree with, and still have an open mind"? Most atheists keep a mind open enough that there could be a god - but that it seems unlikely, and that if the god doesn't interact with the universe, we have no way of ever determining the god's existence one way or another. Seems to me there is not many places to go beyond that logically, and anything beyond that is just pure imagination.

If you are making an appeal to atheists that we should keep an open mind about currently practiced beliefs, then all I can reply is: Really? Really??

 

[Satyamdas]

Because my cock monster is just -one- example. There are hundreds of other examples where people are -not- being silly. If it is all in the same realm of possibility, it is all equally dismissable - the exact same way you dismissed my cock monster.

Nonsense. I judge on merit. Your cock monster had none. You have no idea what other examples might entail, you just assume that none of them can possibly have any more merit than what you just made up. Hubris to the max.

The point is, you came into this thread sanctimoniously claiming your open mindedness is some ideal to pursue, but it's obvious that when push comes to shove, this perceived open mindedness is simply there to give your own baseless belief system some weight.

And what belief system would that be? You have no clue. So how do you know it is baseless? You don't. You assume that because it makes you feel superior without actually knowing whether you are or not.

You use the term open mindedness because it has become synonymous with liberal, thoughtful, maybe even inquisitive - and you abuse this to give your insults validity.

No. I use the term because it most accurately reflects my position. I'm open minded, but that doesn't mean I am open to any and everything. I'm open minded because I see the folly in the alternative, where I assume I have everything figured out.

Don't do that, and people will take you more seriously - I could have made this exact same point without resorting to cock monsters, but I felt no reason to give you any serious consideration.

I'll do whatever I please, and I really don't care whether people like you take me seriously. I don't take you seriously either. If you're going to insult my intelligence then don't bother with the faux-pleasantries.

Regardless - your stance is hypocritical, it's probably important you realize that.

It's only hypocritical under the assumption that keeping an open mind means that you have to give every idea equal consideration. This is a retardedly stupid assumption, and if you can't see why that is then you are even slower than I thought.

 

[Helscream]

I am not sure if this has been brought up but I have a two part question for those who are in favor of the "Theory of Evolution". Considering the subject that is at hand in this thread I felt this would be a appropriate place to ask these questions.

For those that are in favor/believe the Theory of Evolution my two questions are;

What are your thoughts/opinions on Irreducible Complexity?

What are your thoughts/opinions on the Second Law Of Thermodynamics?

 

[Christine]

It's only hypocritical under the assumption that keeping an open mind means that you have to give every idea equal consideration. This is a retardedly stupid assumption, and if you can't see why that is then you are even slower than I thought.

Fair enough. Please describe why your ideas are more worthy of consideration than other possibilities in this realm.

 

[KHarvey16]

I judge on merit. Your cock monster had none.

Explain how you know. Remember to take into consideration the fact the cock monster may exist beyond our collective ability to reason.

 

[KHarvey16]

I am not sure if this has been brought up but I have a two part question for those who are in favor of the "Theory of Evolution". Considering the subject that is at hand in this thread I felt this would be a appropriate place to ask these questions.

For those that are in favor/believe the Theory of Evolution my two questions are;

What are your thoughts/opinions on Irreducible Complexity?

What are your thoughts/opinions on the Second Law Of Thermodynamics?

Irreducible complexity doesn't exist, and the second law of thermodynamics doesn't work the way the argument against evolution tries to use it.

 

[DCKing]

Nonsense. I judge on merit. Your cock monster had none. You have no idea what other examples might entail, you just assume that none of them can possibly have any more merit than what you just made up. Hubris to the max.

Really? Would you care to explain how a deity beyond our imagination has different value than, let's not use the cockmonster, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Because I'd love to understand.

What are your thoughts/opinions on Irreducible Complexity?

Irreducible complexity has never been shown by anyone. Most complex systems are traceable to other mechanisms that underwent strong selection. Although it's no argument against irreducable complexity as a concept, there are actually many many examples of systems in nature that go through very complex measures to achieve very simple things because of the history in which they evolved.

What are your thoughts/opinions on the Second Law Of Thermodynamics?

The second law of thermodynamics discusses that over time, entropy tends to increase in a closed system. The notion that Earth's biosphere is a closed system could however not be further from the truth, with the Earth's core and the Sun delivering massive, massive amounts of energy and the Earth radiating a similarly huge amount of energy it back into space. This absolutely destroys any relation thermodynamics has with evolution.

 

[Satyamdas]

Fair enough. Please describe why your ideas are more worthy of consideration than other possibilities in this realm.

The only idea I've presented is that if god exists, and is eternal, then by virtue of being without beginning and without end, he would not likely be completely understood by our logic which operates under a linear understanding of time and space. How can our temporal logic be enough to fully understand a being which exists beyond time itself?

I'm not saying this is definitely the case. I'm not telling anyone to accept it as gospel. I'm saying that it makes little sense to me to place our logic in such supreme estimation that nothing can violate it and exist. To me that is too extreme of a position to take.

 

[KtSlime]

I am not sure if this has been brought up but I have a two part question for those who are in favor of the "Theory of Evolution". Considering the subject that is at hand in this thread I felt this would be a appropriate place to ask these questions.

For those that are in favor/believe the Theory of Evolution my two questions are;

What are your thoughts/opinions on Irreducible Complexity?

What are your thoughts/opinions on the Second Law Of Thermodynamics?

Looks like someone here got a beginners guide to Intelligent design for Christmas.

1) Nonsense
2) Doesn't apply

 

[KHarvey16]

The only idea I've presented is that if god exists, and is eternal, then by virtue of being without beginning and without end, he would not likely be completely understood by our logic which operates under a linear understanding of time and space. How can our temporal logic be enough to fully understand a being which exists beyond time itself?

I'm not saying this is definitely the case. I'm not telling anyone to accept it as gospel. I'm saying that it makes little sense to me to place our logic in such supreme estimation that nothing can violate it and exist. To me that is too extreme of a position to take.

Why would a being that exists outside of linear time and space be impossible for us to understand? Don't project.

 

[soul creator]

I'm not telling you to do anything. Do whatever the fuck you want.

The rub is that having an open mind does not mean being open to every stupid thing you hear.

Great, so you agree with us when it comes to "unknowable and outside of logic" gods...

I know your cock deity is just a lame insult, so why would I take it seriously? Why should I give it any credence?

Hmm. Why should anyone give any credence to other gods seriously? At what point does unknowable, outside of logic Being #1 becomes "more probable" than unknowable, outside of logic Being #2?

How do you even make this assessment (or even have any sort of discussion about it) if they're both defined as "unknowable and outside of logic"? You said in a following post that you base it on "merit". But you've removed "evidence" and "logic" from the discussion, which is what's usually used to determine "merit", so what exactly are we talking about here?

And if you think my speculation about god being beyond our logic is also stupid, then you should ignore it as well. We can both retain our logic, reject speculations we don't agree with, and still have an open mind. Why is this so hard??

This is not "two people with different logic". This is "one person going with normal standards of evidence, and the other going with gut feelings and personal taste"

You personally prefer and have a strong feeling towards taking "generic" gods more seriously than "cock" gods, even though they're both defined to be unknowable and outside of logic, immune to normal standards of evidence and reason. That's fine and all, but it's still just a personal feeling.

 

[Kinitari]

This is getting a bit exhausting, and mildly circular, but I'll try to keep it up.

Nonsense. I judge on merit. Your cock monster had none. You have no idea what other examples might entail, you just assume that none of them can possibly have any more merit than what you just made up. Hubris to the max.

We already went over merit. If you want to provide me with an argument that holds any more weight in support of a deity, than me just making up a story, PLEASE. Do so. you don't even have to give me an actual argument, give me the criteria - what would be worth merit?

And what belief system would that be? You have no clue. So how do you know it is baseless? You don't. You assume that because it makes you feel superior without actually knowing whether you are or not.

The belief that us Atheists are being silly by not giving the idea of God the appropriate amount of consideration? The appropriate amount, by the way, is something you haven't even specified. Is thinking "Is there a God? Hmm... doesn't seem to be, guess it's bullshit" - I'm assuming is not appropriate enough? What would be an appropriate amount?

No. I use the term because it most accurately reflects my position. I'm open minded, but that doesn't mean I am open to any and everything. I'm open minded because I see the folly in the alternative, where I assume I have everything figured out.

You assume you have everything figured out - by making a stance on the level of consideration to give a deity, or any concept, and what meets that criteria, you make a stance. It's so weird that you can't see what you are doing - in one sentence you criticise those that say 'Logically, it makes no sense' - because our logic can't reach this God you've created with specific "outside the realm of logic" criteria. Then you say 'My logic says your god is silly' - is your logic not flawed? What's special about it?

I'll do whatever I please, and I really don't care whether people like you take me seriously. I don't take you seriously either. If you're going to insult my intelligence then don't bother with the faux-pleasantries.

I'm a pleasant guy, normally. I prefer pleasant conversations and I'd like it if you at least attempted to have them. And this isn't just me saying "Do it because I want to" but it's me giving you advice, because people (like yourself) have been banned for resorting to the sort of personal attacks that you've riddled this thread with already. Basically - calm the fuck down, don't get yourself banned.

It's only hypocritical under the assumption that keeping an open mind means that you have to give every idea equal consideration. This is a retardedly stupid assumption, and if you can't see why that is then you are even slower than I thought.

Like these sorts of personal attacks. These don't reflect well on you - oh wait, you don't care what people think of you. Which is why you continuously post in this thread attempting to salvage the shambles of your ridiculous argument. I'm sorry, was that too personal? Can you see why saying stuff like that can turn a debate to shit? Can you see why we should be avoiding it?

And more specifically - your open mindedness seems to have a line that shouldn't be crossed. Describe this line to me - where is it?

Also, I like how you haven't really directly addressed my question, just reiterated your previous nonsense. You specifically say that people who believe their logic is the end all be all of truth are being close minded, then you specifically say that you use logic to dismiss particular claims - is that not you being hypocritical?

 

[Satyamdas]

Why would a being that exists outside of linear time and space be impossible for us to understand? Don't project.

We can understand it conceptually, but we can't completely understand what it means to be eternal. The issue is that as soon as something violates our logic we say "Nope, not possible."

You're putting a shoebox on a table and saying "Make god fit in to that, and then maybe I'll consider that he exists". I'm saying, if he exists, he is probably a bit too big to fit perfectly well within our logical constraints.

 

[KHarvey16]

We can understand it conceptually, but we can't completely understand what it means to be eternal. The issue is that as soon as something violates our logic we say "Nope, not possible."

You're putting a shoebox on a table and saying "Make god fit in to that, and then maybe I'll consider that he exists". I'm saying, if he exists, he is probably a bit too big to fit perfectly well within our logical constraints.

Why would something eternal violate our logic? Concepts and ideas we can understand just fine as being eternal. The concept of infinity is difficult to understand, but fundamental to many branches of mathematics. We seem to be ok with that. Why are you putting a box on a table and saying "make human understanding and ability to comprehend fit in that."

 

[Kinitari]

We can understand it conceptually, but we can't completely understand what it means to be eternal. The issue is that as soon as something violates our logic we say "Nope, not possible."

Like you did with my dick monster. Hypocrite.

You're putting a shoebox on a table and saying "Make god fit in to that, and then maybe I'll consider that he exists". I'm saying, if he exists, he is probably a bit too big to fit perfectly well within our logical constraints.

And we are saying that assigning those characterstics to something - outside our realm of reality, makes the argument immediately dismissable.

1. If it is outside our realm of reality and understanding, there is no point in considering it or trying to understand it, because we reside strictly within our realm of reality. When we can reside outside of it, then it's worth considering.

2. You are assigning it criteria that make it immune to all criticism (in your opinion), which is very easily done to any crazy idea. Which is the argument everyone is making. Which specifically addresses your argument that we should give the idea of God some consideration. Because then any idea that fits the criteria you specify with God deserves consideration. Like my cock monster. Rather than give them ALL consideration, it's logical to give NONE of them consideration.

 

[KtSlime]

We can understand it conceptually, but we can't completely understand what it means to be eternal. The issue is that as soon as something violates our logic we say "Nope, not possible."

You're putting a shoebox on a table and saying "Make god fit in to that, and then maybe I'll consider that he exists". I'm saying, if he exists, he is probably a bit too big to fit perfectly well within our logical constraints.

Is "god can't possibly be a cock monster" a logical constraint?

Quit putting Kinitari's cock monster in a shoebox!

 

[cutmeamango]

Would you expand on that? Because I only half understand it. How does E=0 imply that we're in a Big Crunch universe? How is momentum implied? Why can't the ground state energy be 0?

For the system energy to be zero, it would have to present a negative energy, because even those moving in opposite vectors have positive energy. So the initial vaccum would be the best choice.
Or the system rest mass would have to be 0. But even if rest mass in zero, relativistically it still has momentum. Basically if everything was absolute stationary there would be nothing.
Ground state energy can't be zero because they have mass, which is an interaction, and waves have momentum.

---

Just noticed how dangerous this forum is hehehe

 

[Christine]

The only idea I've presented is that if god exists, and is eternal, then by virtue of being without beginning and without end, he would not likely be completely understood by our logic which operates under a linear understanding of time and space. How can our temporal logic be enough to fully understand a being which exists beyond time itself?

This argument is a construct of temporal logic. What makes it uniquely privileged so as to logically exclude entities from the entire domain, whilst simultaneously making statements within that domain which continue to hold said entities as a referent?

In addition, this argument assumes the existence of god as its first premise. Without that assumption, there is no reason to believe that this ontology is even possible.

 

[AZ Greg]

These types of threads are the equivalent of the Jehovah's witnesses going door to door but for the opposite side of the spectrum.

Regardless of right or wrong, logical or illogical, it's just another annoying group to ignore.

 

[KHarvey16]

These types of threads are the equivalent of the Jehovah's witnesses going door to door but for the opposite side of the spectrum.

Regardless of right or wrong, logical or illogical, it's just another annoying group to ignore.

Welcome to the thread, thanks for clicking on it and posting. I wish Jehovah's Witnesses waited until I approached and engaged them.

 

[Deleted member 81567]

 

[Pollux]

Can't unsee.

Is that photoshopped in there?

 

[DCKing]

For the system energy to be zero, it would have to present a negative energy, because even those moving in opposite vectors have positive energy. So the initial vaccum would be the best choice.
Or the system rest mass would have to be 0. But even if rest mass in zero, relativistically it still has momentum. Basically if everything was absolute stationary there would be nothing.
Ground state energy can't be zero because they have mass, which is an interaction, and waves have momentum.

---

Just noticed how dangerous this forum is hehehe

I got that information from a a talk by Lawrence Krauss. It's pretty interesting stuff. He asserts that gravity represents negative energy? Which makes E=0 possible. I don't have enough expertise in physics to argue that however.

 

[Uchip]

almost as good as the Jesus sighting @ dog anus

 

[Mario]

It's certainly true that they don't have the ability to give weight to things that are proven. They have the ability to accept them quickly though which was the case with evolution (to an extent).

Are you saying evolution was something that either science or society accepted quickly?

However, they are the only reason things are given weight that aren't which is why society can dismiss some things as wacky and not others despite you thinking that it may all be wacky.

You're the one making the distinction because you believe your views as valid, not that they actually are. There is no methodology in place that proves how life begins on its own.

You don't think the scientific method has the capacity to determine that life either can or cannot begin on its own?

There is also no methodology in place to helps prove that belief &/or faith is some kind of irrational response in life.

Is faith not irrational by definition given it is a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence?

Thus society overall rejects those notions until a better one comes along. This is why Thor & Zeus, are of no consequence now outside of movies and comic books.

Is the Christian God headed to the same place as the Norse and Greek gods then, given Islam is currently the fastest growing religion and newer concepts such as Scientology have come on the scene (the Christian God and Islamic God being considered "the same" by some notwithstanding)?

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm disappointed that my weak feeble human body had to sleep. This thread turned so much more entertaining after I turned in for the night.

An epic meltdown if ever I saw one...

*ad hominen* *logic is human ego at its worst* *dismissive arrogance*

Kinitari smashed it out of the proverbial park with his cock monster.

 

[cutmeamango]

I got that information from a a talk by Lawrence Krauss. It's pretty interesting stuff. He asserts that gravity represents negative energy? Which makes E=0 possible. I don't have enough expertise in physics to argue that however.

Pretty interesting indeed, thank you for the link. Heavily hypothetical though. It's like assuming an answer is correct, and fixing the math on the way up to work.
He does sounds like stating concrete facts though. He might as well be, but as of now, it's just mmm faith confidence in his work.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm disappointed that my weak feeble human body had to sleep. This thread turned so much more entertaining after I turned in for the night.

An epic meltdown if ever I saw one...

*ad hominen* *logic is human ego at its worst* *dismissive arrogance*

Kinitari smashed it out of the proverbial park with his cock monster.

I was really hoping he would at least specify

1. At what point one could be 'too' open minded. He kind of said it's when you give any inane claim merit - but... ridiculed atheists for not giving inane religious claims merit.

2. His stance on using logic to reject ideas that are proclaimed to exist outside the realm of logical inquiry. He was doing it in the thread, and probably does it all the time - yet he ridiculed so many people for doing it as well.

I told him he'd get himself banned.

 

[Mario]

Pretty interesting indeed, thank you for the link. Heavily hypothetical though. It's like assuming an answer is correct, and fixing the math on the way up to work.
He does sounds like stating concrete facts though. He might as well be, but as of now, it's just mmm faith confidence in his work.

I think that is one of the challenges science faces in disseminating information. The scientific method necessarily includes much hypothesis, conjecture and speculation, and the spread and discussion of ideas at that level is necessary to accelerate research and learning. But when such ideas are being presented with authority, lacking clarification of what and what is not pure conjecture, or otherwise lacking context, the lines between what is proven and accepted scientific theory and what is hypothesis and speculation can become blurred to the casual observer. Sensationalist media which reports on early findings or conclusions being drawn from research before the peer review process doesn't frame the integrity of science well either, especially when followup stories report backing down from early claims after further research, analysis and scrutiny.

 

[Timedog]

Holy shit, I just read through that Satyamdas crap.

"God is beyond our logic, thus we can't assign god properties based off of what we know!"

...

...

"God is definitely not a cock monster"

 

[Log4Girlz]

Holy shit, I just read through that Satyamdas crap.

"God is beyond our logic, thus we can't assign god properties based off our logic!"

...

...

"God is definitely not a cock monster"

*looks at avatar, giggles*

But in all seriousness, placing one hypothetical being above another simply because you wish to believe in it and not the alternative is not logical.

 

[Timedog]

*looks at avatar, giggles*

But in all seriousness, placing one hypothetical being above another simply because you wish to believe in it and not the alternative is not logical.

Now I wish I hadn't avoided this thread like the plague and could have interacted earlier.

 

[Zaptruder]

*looks at avatar, giggles*

But in all seriousness, placing one hypothetical being above another simply because you wish to believe in it and not the alternative is not logical.

But don't you see... god is above the logical!

 

[Lionheart1337]

Way to kick the guy when he's down, XD.

Bah, he'll be back soon enough.

 

[Zaptruder]

Way to kick the guy when he's down, XD.

Bah, he'll be back soon enough.

Nothing we wouldn't have said if he were here!

You'd just get a bunch of angry retorts and twisted reasoning interspersed.

 

[Monocle]

Holy shit, I just read through that Satyamdas crap.

"God is beyond our logic, thus we can't assign god properties based off of what we know!"

...

...

"God is definitely not a cock monster"

Amazing, lol.

 

[jaxword]

jaxword: JGS sometimes lies, it's to be expected. I figured he would ignore it the second it was pointed out.

Anyone who lies proves the weakness of their stance.

Here's a more interesting fact: If JGS is lying to promote Christianity/theism, then he's actually damaging its credibility.

Therefore, he should be called out and attacked by pro-theist/pro-Christian posters too.

But he isn't.

In other words, people who claim to be moral and will go into a moralistic rage to defend their beliefs...will conveniently NOT get angry when someone on "their side" does something morally wrong--as long as it's to help their "side."

It's a sad reality about arguing politics: Lying is wrong, but if it's for something you support, it's suddenly right.

We're all such hypocritical scum.

 

[astroturfing]

Holy shit, I just read through that Satyamdas crap.

"God is beyond our logic, thus we can't assign god properties based off of what we know!"

...

...

"God is definitely not a cock monster"

yeah, dude dismisses one very possible god so arrogantly. such close-mindedness.

doesn't he realize that there is actually SOME proof that there could be a god that could be classified as a cock monster? it says right there in the Holy Bible that man was created in god's image.. and man has a cock. so god probably has a cock. and god probably has some qualities that us mere humans would consider monstrous (or at least god can have them if he wants). so, possibly monstrous qualities and with a cock: a cock monster.

Satyamdas didn't even stop to consider this.