Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Hello again. Smile

(03-09-2016 04:28 AM)xear Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 06:57 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

A question for xear;

Do the other planets in our Solar sytem exist?

Does the Sun exist?

Consider

And here we're back to definitions of what "exist" means.

Does anything exist without a perceiver?

Is Andrei Linde Professor of Physics at Stanford University a crackpot too?

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there."

Right.. so then the problem of the speed of light and distant objects... How does that effect your philosophy?
Since.... many of the distant object we can currently see.... are pretty sure not to exist 'currently'.

Or, they are in different forms/states currently compared to the images we are seeing 'now'.

(Given ideas about reality etc)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2016, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2016 01:29 PM by xear.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Persistence, cause and effect, and consistency together are sufficient evidence of reality.

Persistence, cause and effect, and consistency judged by yourself alone or by others?

If you say by yourself alone then if you get alzheimers or some brain disease things may appear to you inconsistent, without cause and effect, and possibly even without persistence. You would be seeing strange new faces visit you with no idea who they are or where they came from, or why, and you would have to conclude you are in a dream and not in reality.

If you say persistence, cause and effect, and consistency as noted by others, that would mean if you have a dream and all the characters in the dream tell you persistence, cause and effect, and consistency are what is happening here, then you would have to conclude the dream is reality and not a dream.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 05:36 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-09-2016 12:51 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello again. Smile

(03-09-2016 04:28 AM)xear Wrote:  And here we're back to definitions of what "exist" means.

Does anything exist without a perceiver?

Is Andrei Linde Professor of Physics at Stanford University a crackpot too?

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there."

Right.. so then the problem of the speed of light and distant objects... How does that effect your philosophy?
Since.... many of the distant object we can currently see.... are pretty sure not to exist 'currently'.

Or, they are in different forms/states currently compared to the images we are seeing 'now'.

(Given ideas about reality etc)

"...many of the distant object we can currently see.... are pretty sure not to exist 'currently'."

Exactly right. In those cases we are seeing things that don't exist any longer. This demonstrates our subjective experience is the greater reality and what comes [came] first.

Materialism says life evolved out of inanimate matter, space, time.
Biocentrism says matter, space, time evolved out of life.

Here's the problem and the reason biocentrism will never be accepted: when it is accepted, at that point all the physics research grants for exploring the origins of the Universe dry up, funding ends and those exploring such questions have to go out and get real jobs.

You cannot make someone believe something when his livelihood depends on his not believing it. For this reason biocentrism will always be dismissed at the scholarly levels as crackpot.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 06:12 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  "...many of the distant object we can currently see.... are pretty sure not to exist 'currently'."

Exactly right. In those cases we are seeing things that don't exist any longer. This demonstrates our subjective experience is the greater reality and what comes [came] first.
It demonstrates the implications of relativity and the finite speed of light. Not more, not less.

(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Materialism says life evolved out of inanimate matter, space, time.
Biocentrism says matter, space, time evolved out of life.

Here's the problem and the reason biocentrism will never be accepted: when it is accepted, at that point all the physics research grants for exploring the origins of the Universe dry up, funding ends and those exploring such questions have to go out and get real jobs.

You cannot make someone believe something when his livelihood depends on his not believing it. For this reason biocentrism will always be dismissed at the scholarly levels as crackpot.
  • If (astro)physics is such a piece of cake then i suggest you quit your "real" job (you have one, right? One where you really have to be smart, not like (astro)physics, right?) and do planetary research for a couple of weeks.
  • Your conspiracy theory sounds just like the usual defense of any other woo-proponent.

The physicists that you so despise are day-in-day-out trying to falisify the latest theories. What is the testable prediction of biocentrism that they could falsify if they would be so sincere and clever as you would like them to be? Can they even prove you false, or are you just setting up a win-win-scenario for your pet philosophy?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
04-09-2016, 06:46 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 06:12 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  "...many of the distant object we can currently see.... are pretty sure not to exist 'currently'."

Exactly right. In those cases we are seeing things that don't exist any longer. This demonstrates our subjective experience is the greater reality and what comes [came] first.
It demonstrates the implications of relativity and the finite speed of light. Not more, not less.

(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Materialism says life evolved out of inanimate matter, space, time.
Biocentrism says matter, space, time evolved out of life.

Here's the problem and the reason biocentrism will never be accepted: when it is accepted, at that point all the physics research grants for exploring the origins of the Universe dry up, funding ends and those exploring such questions have to go out and get real jobs.

You cannot make someone believe something when his livelihood depends on his not believing it. For this reason biocentrism will always be dismissed at the scholarly levels as crackpot.
  • If (astro)physics is such a piece of cake then i suggest you quit your "real" job (you have one, right? One where you really have to be smart, not like (astro)physics, right?) and do planetary research for a couple of weeks.
  • Your conspiracy theory sounds just like the usual defense of any other woo-proponent.

The physicists that you so despise are day-in-day-out trying to falisify the latest theories. What is the testable prediction of biocentrism that they could falsify if they would be so sincere and clever as you would like them to be? Can they even prove you false, or are you just setting up a win-win-scenario for your pet philosophy?

Ahh yes, showing a resentment towards scientists? Check!

Believing in conspiracy theories on why scientists generally agree on a certain viewpoint? Check!

Here's an idea, if you have to default to conspiracy theories on why scientists agree on a certain theory, maybe the problem is with YOUR viewpoint and there's some bit of evidence or theory that your amateur viewpoint is overlooking or flat out not seeing.

Maybe running to an Alex Jones or Answers in Genesis website to get guidance isn't the best strategy if you really are interested in understanding things.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
04-09-2016, 06:54 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2016 07:01 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Is biocentrism falsifiable?

If not, then get out of Fuck-Town.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-09-2016, 07:00 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 06:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Is biocentrism falsifiable?

If no, then get out of Fuck-Town.

Yep, it's not falsifiable. Thumbsup

I don't see how, even if biocentrism could be proven, that it proves a god exists. It proves that the entity whose conscious has created the universe by perceiving it; is god, is the universe, is everything.

It's the ultimate ego-centric proposition. If you're the dufus that generated all of this, why can't we all have nice things? Laugh out load

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
04-09-2016, 07:14 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-09-2016 11:33 AM)xear Wrote:  If you go to sleep and dream of a world and then the next time you go to sleep that same world appears just as you left it the night before... the same characters, the same environment, everything completely continuous from the previous night... would you then conclude that the dream world is real?

For somebody who claims not to be a solipsist you slide into it pretty frequently. What I have said is that I accept that there is an objective reality and that my perceptions of it are sufficiently reliable for me to draw conclusions about it. That is based on decades of consistent experiences and confirmation by comparison to the experiences of others.

The idea that I may be deceived may not be impossible but it is largely irrelevant until there is a way to test it. I am convinced by the evidence I have that I am correct and unless you have any evidence to the contrary or a method to investigate the possibility then I see no point in giving any serious consideration to your blather. I have no choice except to deal with the reality that I perceive.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of what it means for plants to be aware.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 07:24 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Materialism says life evolved out of inanimate matter, space, time.
Biocentrism says matter, space, time evolved out of life.

Please provide a single example of life that does not require space, time, and matter.

Please elaborate on how you can investigate the conjecture that life could exist without those attributes.

Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.




Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
04-09-2016, 08:55 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 07:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Materialism says life evolved out of inanimate matter, space, time.
Biocentrism says matter, space, time evolved out of life.

Please provide a single example of life that does not require space, time, and matter.

Please elaborate on how you can investigate the conjecture that life could exist without those attributes.

Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.




One of my all time greats of TAE Thumbsup

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: