Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2016, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 03:09 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 01:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I assure you the story is true.
But even if it wasn't the truth why would you insinuate someone's dishonesty based on your own personal experience rather than reputation of the individual? Would you accuse Obama of being dishonest if he said he found monkeys in your back yard?

Any story would do but a true one requires no imagination to prove & would be much easier to use as reference to the topic.
What would you prefer no personal anecdotes & no references that would help the audience better conceptualize the points being raised?

Your "reputation" is not exactly *sterling* dude.
Sorry to burst your little fantasy-land bubble.
Only the honesty part of the reputation matters with regards to the topic that was just raised.
Ignorance, pseudo intellectualism & all these other claims (which I have never directly made) are another topic of discussion which I would gladly discuss at another time.
What issues do you have with my honesty? Another trollish attempt to defame my character without providing any evidence as usual. Even if there was an issue why is it relevant to the scientific method and the decision making process?
How exactly do you burst the bubble of a skeptic that is open to new theories and evidence? A skeptic that rarely ever makes an "is" claim and if he does has a disclaimer in his signature that specifically states it is not an absolute claim of truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 02:20 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 03:11 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 11:39 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:I have objected to the presupposition that the Objective Age of the Universe "is" 13.8 billion years old, not on the grounds that I am a theist but on the grounds that it is still an assumption and not an "is".
When I hear people preach to me of an "is" I am within my rights to question that "is". I do not fear ridicule for questioning, in the same way many of the world's most reknown scientist did not fear ridicule for questioning.
I do not make "is" claims because they are subject to ridicule when proven wrong & rightly so, since we do not posses omniscience & science facts are always changing.

  1. Its no presupposition (or simple "assumption") of Paleophyte (and the rest of the scientific community) that the universe is 13bio years old. Its the result of observations, creating of theories and peer reviewing them.
  2. Nobody preaches "is", at least not in the scientific community. Straw man fallacy. When a scientist talks about an "is", then its within the limits of the very scientific method he is using, and that means: " *is* until disproven".
  3. You do not get ridiculed for questioning. You get ridiculed for ignorance. In the case of your debate with Paleophyte, it is because you demonstrated a lack of knowledge of cosmology in general and relativity in particuclar.


In the last point lies one of the many problems with your epistemology:
As peebo already pointed out, you keep yourself in a constant state of "i know almost nothing", if you really follow your line of reasoning, particularly if you havent examined the evidence yourself or lack the ability to do so.
Second: What if -as it is the case in regard to the question of the age of the universe- you arent intellectually equipped to "experience the evidence yourself"? Will you say "i dont know", as you arent able to solve the problem yourself? "Others know better" doesnt seem to be an option in your epistemology. Your whole approach seems quite arrogant, and that confirms my first impressions. Although you actually dont seem to be a theist, you still suffer from at least one of the same basic misconceptions many theists have: "Although i lack the proper education, i hereby reject any claims of knowledge by others who are demonstrably smarter than i am". You are free to do so, but it makes you look stupid.

You seem to think you are a lot smarter than you actually are. Hence the comparison between a scientist questioning established theories and you questioning the billion year old age of the universe. The difference between such scientists and you is: They understand the very theories they question.

Now, before you try to reply something to the effect that i am in fact the arrogant one in here: I do know in what fields of knowlegde i have some expertise and where absolutely not. I wouldnt have engaged someone like Paleophyte in more than 2 pages of debate, before i would have begged him to provide me informative links to learn from.
I wouldnt even have challanged him in fact.
We are all ignorant of something even if we are experts in a given field. It's not a matter of ignorance vs none ignorance.
It's ignorance vs less ignorance that you have issue with.
A debate from an ignorant person vs a lesser ignorant person to prove an "is" claim is definitely cause for ridicule. In the debate between me and Paleophyte I do not make an "is" claim.
So what exactly are you ridiculing?
Ignorance? Then that would mean you ridicule all of humanity.
You ridicule higher ignorance? We do not all start out as experts & we would have no experts if they never started out with a why. Are you a cyber Bully?
The mere fact that I am objecting to an "is" claim in light of my present lack of knowledge only shows that I am willing to learn as opposed to being silent on the matter. All my topics are titled with a question. Why do you think this is so? It's for the purpose of learning and an invitation to those that have knowledge on the subject matter.
I know you are tempted to claim I have an ulterior motive but on what grounds? I hold fast to no world view and am willing to accept claims to a certain degree of certainty based on examining the evidence provided myself.
I question everything and it may annoy others but it is the fastest way to accurately learn anything for me.
If others do not wish to answer then no one is forcing them to.

Would you rather live in ignorance without ever daring to ask why? You are as free to do so in the same way I am free to ask why.
I have no shame in asking a doctor why or even a cosmologist.
You think that is cause for ridicule? Good for you, but not everyone shares your opinion & quite frankly I don't see the usefulness of ridicule. Maybe that would be my next topic of debate. What is the usefulness of ridicule?

Many posters here make the claim that the universe "is" 13.8 billion years old +|- 21 million years and they hold fast to this "is" claim (following the crowd for fear of ridicule?) yet even in the debate with Paleophyte (whom you dare not debate on the subject matter) he claims that it is not 13.8 billion years old with regards to creation, but more likely to be +|- 50% with regards to objective reality. He conceded that half of the debate which so many were adamant was the case, not because they tested it themselves but because they believed what others told them to be true.
Suffice it to say I conceded the age with regards to creation cannot be 6 days old based on our own relative clocks however I am still discussing the relative age based on a starting frame of reference and still not ruling out time dilation as a possible means of dating. Although I still have to deal with special relativity being inadmissible to measure the expansion age.
It may well turn out that without time dilation being able to affect the age of expansion that a 6 day expansion epoch is not within the realm of possibility & the debate is nearing it's end. I haven't conceded as yet though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 06:08 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Quote:Many posters here make the claim that the universe "is" 13.8 billion years old +|- 21 million years and they hold fast to this "is" claim (following the crowd for fear of ridicule?) yet even in the debate with Paleophyte (whom you dare not debate on the subject matter) he claims that it is not 13.8 billion years old with regards to creation, but more likely to be +|- 50% with regards to objective reality. He conceded that half of the debate which so many were adamant was the case, not because they tested it themselves but because they believed what others told them to be true.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 06:57 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 07:25 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 06:08 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:Many posters here make the claim that the universe "is" 13.8 billion years old +|- 21 million years and they hold fast to this "is" claim (following the crowd for fear of ridicule?) yet even in the debate with Paleophyte (whom you dare not debate on the subject matter) he claims that it is not 13.8 billion years old with regards to creation, but more likely to be +|- 50% with regards to objective reality. He conceded that half of the debate which so many were adamant was the case, not because they tested it themselves but because they believed what others told them to be true.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

You seemed to have missed the entire response in an effort to single out something that detracts from the topic we are discussing.
Let me re-post it for you:
Quote:
(28-02-2016 11:39 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:I have objected to the presupposition that the Objective Age of the Universe "is" 13.8 billion years old, not on the grounds that I am a theist but on the grounds that it is still an assumption and not an "is".
When I hear people preach to me of an "is" I am within my rights to question that "is". I do not fear ridicule for questioning, in the same way many of the world's most reknown scientist did not fear ridicule for questioning.
I do not make "is" claims because they are subject to ridicule when proven wrong & rightly so, since we do not posses omniscience & science facts are always changing.

  1. Its no presupposition (or simple "assumption") of Paleophyte (and the rest of the scientific community) that the universe is 13bio years old. Its the result of observations, creating of theories and peer reviewing them.
  2. Nobody preaches "is", at least not in the scientific community. Straw man fallacy. When a scientist talks about an "is", then its within the limits of the very scientific method he is using, and that means: " *is* until disproven".
  3. You do not get ridiculed for questioning. You get ridiculed for ignorance. In the case of your debate with Paleophyte, it is because you demonstrated a lack of knowledge of cosmology in general and relativity in particuclar.


In the last point lies one of the many problems with your epistemology:
As peebo already pointed out, you keep yourself in a constant state of "i know almost nothing", if you really follow your line of reasoning, particularly if you havent examined the evidence yourself or lack the ability to do so.
Second: What if -as it is the case in regard to the question of the age of the universe- you arent intellectually equipped to "experience the evidence yourself"? Will you say "i dont know", as you arent able to solve the problem yourself? "Others know better" doesnt seem to be an option in your epistemology. Your whole approach seems quite arrogant, and that confirms my first impressions. Although you actually dont seem to be a theist, you still suffer from at least one of the same basic misconceptions many theists have: "Although i lack the proper education, i hereby reject any claims of knowledge by others who are demonstrably smarter than i am". You are free to do so, but it makes you look stupid.

You seem to think you are a lot smarter than you actually are. Hence the comparison between a scientist questioning established theories and you questioning the billion year old age of the universe. The difference between such scientists and you is: They understand the very theories they question.

Now, before you try to reply something to the effect that i am in fact the arrogant one in here: I do know in what fields of knowlegde i have some expertise and where absolutely not. I wouldnt have engaged someone like Paleophyte in more than 2 pages of debate, before i would have begged him to provide me informative links to learn from.
I wouldnt even have challanged him in fact.
We are all ignorant of something even if we are experts in a given field. It's not a matter of ignorance vs none ignorance.
It's ignorance vs less ignorance that you have issue with.
A debate from an ignorant person vs a lesser ignorant person to prove an "is" claim is definitely cause for ridicule. In the debate between me and Paleophyte I do not make an "is" claim.
So what exactly are you ridiculing?
Ignorance? Then that would mean you ridicule all of humanity.
You ridicule higher ignorance? We do not all start out as experts & we would have no experts if they never started out with a why. Are you a cyber Bully?
The mere fact that I am objecting to an "is" claim in light of my present lack of knowledge only shows that I am willing to learn as opposed to being silent on the matter. All my topics are titled with a question. Why do you think this is so? It's for the purpose of learning and an invitation to those that have knowledge on the subject matter.
I know you are tempted to claim I have an ulterior motive but on what grounds? I hold fast to no world view and am willing to accept claims to a certain degree of certainty based on examining the evidence provided myself.
I question everything and it may annoy others but it is the fastest way to accurately learn anything for me.
If others do not wish to answer then no one is forcing them to.

Would you rather live in ignorance without ever daring to ask why? You are as free to do so in the same way I am free to ask why.
I have no shame in asking a doctor why or even a cosmologist.
You think that is cause for ridicule? Good for you, but not everyone shares your opinion & quite frankly I don't see the usefulness of ridicule. Maybe that would be my next topic of debate. What is the usefulness of ridicule?

Let the debate run it's course. I will deal with the supposed embarrassment after.
Also get your fact's right at the very least when attempting to point out the flaws in another person's posts.
Paleophyte responded to a challenge I made in the Colloseum to prove that the Universe "is" 13.8 billion years old & cannot be 6 days old with regards to creation.
It was moved to the Boxing Ring because of the clutter and we ended up in a one on one debate.

The debate has now reached a point where Paleophyte admits that the universe is not 13.8 billion years +/- 21 million as most users were insinuating in the boxing ring.
If this is a form of embarrassment then clearly it does not fall on my end.

The second part which alludes to time dilation and a starting frame of reference to derive an age of 6 days is now under debate. I admit that without the use of time dilation to date the expansion my theory fails by leaps and bounds to fall within a 6 day epoch.

At the very least we both failed to to prove either sides of the coin.

Failure to prove a possibility isn't cause for an embarrassment, the debate is based on a question (not an assertion), the result of which has cleared up many of the myths behind the topic. Debates are a source of knowledge not just for both parties involved but mainly for the listeners & may some day be referenced to for educational purposes.

I am ever thankful to Paleophyte for his contribution to the debate and my knowledge base is far more expanded than it was before the start of the debate. In fact Paleophyte himself has admitted that he desires to learn more about Cosmology as a result of engaging in this debate, & I am sure he has achieved his goal as well.

Why don't you let the debate finish before you try to empathize with a losing party?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 01:36 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 01:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your "reputation" is not exactly *sterling* dude.
Sorry to burst your little fantasy-land bubble.
Only the honesty part of the reputation matters with regards to the topic that was just raised.
Ignorance, pseudo intellectualism & all these other claims (which I have never directly made) are another topic of discussion which I would gladly discuss at another time.
What issues do you have with my honesty? Another trollish attempt to defame my character without providing any evidence as usual. Even if there was an issue why is it relevant to the scientific method and the decision making process?
How exactly do you burst the bubble of a skeptic that is open to new theories and evidence? A skeptic that rarely ever makes an "is" claim and if he does has a disclaimer in his signature that specifically states it is not an absolute claim of truth.

You claim you need to "do tests". No one person can possibly "do tests" on all the relevant subjects one needs to accept to live in the 21st Century. You have demonstrated repeatedly, are incapable of being honest, or making an honest appraisal of your own (examined) ideas. Sorry if it pisses you off to have your own unexamined, inaccurate shit tossed back at yourself. Tough. Clearly you are certain of a LOT MORE than your own existence. You are here, wasting your time, using a specific language, reading ideas that YOU did not originate. You simply lie to yourself ... you seem to very VERY good at it, and completely comfortable with it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 07:35 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 09:03 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 07:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 01:36 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Only the honesty part of the reputation matters with regards to the topic that was just raised.
Ignorance, pseudo intellectualism & all these other claims (which I have never directly made) are another topic of discussion which I would gladly discuss at another time.
What issues do you have with my honesty? Another trollish attempt to defame my character without providing any evidence as usual. Even if there was an issue why is it relevant to the scientific method and the decision making process?
How exactly do you burst the bubble of a skeptic that is open to new theories and evidence? A skeptic that rarely ever makes an "is" claim and if he does has a disclaimer in his signature that specifically states it is not an absolute claim of truth.

You claim you need to "do tests". No one person can possibly "do tests" on all the relevant subjects one needs to accept to live in the 21st Century. You have demonstrated repeatedly, are incapable of being honest, or making an honest appraisal of your own (examined) ideas. Sorry if it pisses you off to have your own unexamined, inaccurate shit tossed back at yourself. Tough. Clearly you are certain of a LOT MORE than your own existence. You are here, wasting your time, using a specific language, reading ideas that YOU did not originate. You simply lie to yourself ... you seem to very VERY good at it, and completely comfortable with it.
This is why I said you do not know the meaning of the word test:
Test
tɛst/Submit
noun
1. A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.

We are arguing belief in something based on:
Heresay
vs
Personally experienced testing

Eg.
You say the car behind the wall is black.
vs
I look behind the wall and see a black car.

The latter method holds more validity to the individual seeking truth, but it starts with your statement. The point at which I believe is not when you make the claim, but when I see the actual car. Were I unable to see the smallest evidence for a black car I shall withhold judgement.

Eg.
You say the world is round
vs
I look at the movements of the Sun & Moon, it's shape, & determine if what you say has truth.

I don't believe it to be true simply because you or many others say so, but rather at the point in time where my personal experience has proven the claim to have some merit.

This is the core difference between blind faith and personal experience.

Why are you insisting I have to do tests on everything? I have never made such a claim. What I am saying is the absence of even a single test from your own personal experience to arrive at a conclusion is what I call blind faith & should not be used as a determining factor for truth.
It is the basis of many theistic beliefs and it seems to plague the atheist world as well.
As far as practical applications are concerned it matters not what my personal beliefs are but rather the weighing of statistical probability of risk when making a decision.
Eg. I have never tested the risk of death when riding a motorbike. Therefore the probability of me dieing is unknown based on a lack of data. If I receive data from my peers that indicate a higher probability of death then I must weigh the statistics:
What are the statistics that my peers are knowledgeable on the matter?
What are the statistics that the current situation will yield a high risk factor?
Is achieving my goal only possible via riding a motorbike?
How urgent is a decision required?

These questions are played out in the blink of an eye in most instances.
I only point out the steps involved in the decision making process.
For questions pertaining to faith and other less urgent matters I get a bit more time to gather information and reflect on the choices I can make if ever i chose to make a decision.

Lastly, stop repeating the lie that "i am only certain of my own existence".
"Clearly you are certain of a LOT MORE than your own existence"
I have never said anything to the contrary.
For like the 100th, time being certain of only my own personal experiences is not the same as believing in only my own existence.
You are a borderline dishonest poster/forum troll and I can bet thousands of dollars that I have never made such a claim on these forums. In fact I dare you to show just one post where i made such a claim of certainty "only to my own existence"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
I would call acceptance of one's personal experience just blind faith as well. It's nothing to anoint as worthy or trusting to a good degree.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 07:58 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 07:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I would call acceptance of one's personal experience just blind faith as well. It's nothing to anoint as worthy or trusting to a good degree.
If trusting ones own personal experience over others is the generally accepted meaning of blind faith then i have no issues with "blind faith"
I am not here to argue over differences in the meaning of the words "blind faith"
Only the difference between prioritizing other's personal experiences over your own.
Feel free to give names to the meaning I just described. It is the meaning that I seek to address and not the word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 08:03 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 07:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 07:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I would call acceptance of one's personal experience just blind faith as well. It's nothing to anoint as worthy or trusting to a good degree.
If trusting ones own personal experience over others is the generally accepted meaning of blind faith then i have no issues with "blind faith"
I am not here to argue over differences in the meaning of the words "blind faith"
Only the difference between prioritizing other's personal experiences over your own.
Feel free to give names to the meaning I just described. It is the meaning that I seek to address and not the word.

I am not talking about word meaning.

I'm saying they both are equally poor prioritizations. The argument that your personal experience is a better or more trustworthy form of collecting data is still flawed.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 08:47 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 08:03 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 07:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If trusting ones own personal experience over others is the generally accepted meaning of blind faith then i have no issues with "blind faith"
I am not here to argue over differences in the meaning of the words "blind faith"
Only the difference between prioritizing other's personal experiences over your own.
Feel free to give names to the meaning I just described. It is the meaning that I seek to address and not the word.

I am not talking about word meaning.

I'm saying they both are equally poor prioritizations. The argument that your personal experience is a better or more trustworthy form of collecting data is still flawed.
If you are seeking a debate over best methodology for collecting data & determining truth I am not here to debate that.
I am discussing when is the appropriate time to determine the validity of a claim based on only 2 options.
1. When the claim is made & based on who said it
or
2. When you have attempted to personally seek some form of validity yourself with regards to the claim
As stated before if there is no urgency to make a decision then there is no reason to rush a conclusion for truth. By all means apply the full scientific method if time will permit and seek truth as far as our collective knowledge would permit.

You can add more to the list of methodologies and we can start a new discussion, but for now these are the only 2 options we were discussing. Don't feel left out though, I will address your points as well my friend but we may most likely end up agreeing on all of them. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: