KC, you're a twit.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2012, 12:56 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(21-11-2012 08:33 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(21-11-2012 08:33 AM)germanyt Wrote:  KC is a construct of my imagination. I created him to contrast with the existing population in the forum. He isn't real. When you rep him you are really repping me. The pics of him, his wife, his kids, dog, etc are all taken from a random people on my Facebook.
I can vouch for this.
Had me laughing my ass off.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like germanyt's post
23-11-2012, 10:43 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 10:16 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 10:07 AM)Humakt Wrote:  The religious, can and do say they can know when evidence is provided. But that you would say is irrational. Seems same same to me. Or a matter of opinion or faith.
Not at all. I am waiting for them to provide evidence. Until they don't, their magical fairytales don't exist. Do you maintain the same position on the Lochness Monster? Do you think it exists? And if not, why?
My position on the Loch Ness monster would be entirely the same, agnostic, I have no knowledge one way or the other. However, many people report seeing it, academics even search for it, without evidence I have no real grounds to discount their claims. But, the Loch Ness monster is a different matter to God, Nessy if it exists is a concrete entity of which evidence can be collected, Gods are metaphysical entities outwith our ability to perceive.

As to do I believe in a Loch Ness monster, no I don't and why not never having given the matter much thought in the past I'd say the best reason to discount the Loch Ness monster, would be for there to be an individual Loch Ness monster there would need to be a population of monsters large enough to maintain a genetically viable species for it to be a part of, given the supposed proportions of the Loch Ness monster, such a population would not be mysterious. Again, this limitation of maintaining a genetically viable species isnt a problem God would have to deal with.

Lastly, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. If things did not exist until evidence was provided of them, then how would anything have existed before we as a species started to gather evidence of it, how woukd we advance our scientific knowledge into new fields. You can say that a lack of evidence makes a claim scientifically unsupportable, but to say that without evidence they dont exist is a step to far.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 04:01 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
If God interacts with the universe by way of answering prayer or administering worldly justice then he is not outside our ability to perceive. All we need do is seek after the physical evidence left behind by his intervention. We can look for healed sick and and justice served. These measurements are as direct as the pressure exerted by the wind and as sure as the nature of the being. Having searched and found nothing we can with some degree of certainty conclude that the being does not exist or at least that his nature is inconsistent and unreliable.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
24-11-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(24-11-2012 04:01 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  If God interacts with the universe by way of answering prayer or administering worldly justice then he is not outside our ability to perceive. All we need do is seek after the physical evidence left behind by his intervention. We can look for healed sick and and justice served. These measurements are as direct as the pressure exerted by the wind and as sure as the nature of the being. Having searched and found nothing we can with some degree of certainty conclude that the being does not exist or at least that his nature is inconsistent and unreliable.
That fails to take into account, that Gods a bit of twat, if he doesn't wanna be detected he wont be. The whole thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god, ineffability and being twat. It certainly seems to be within "his" modus operandi to not answer prayers that are being studied. In short, theres some validity to that method when dealing with physics, but not God. That aside, that certain degree of certainty, is the comfort zone some are happy to be atheistic about, and that I am comfortable being agnostics about, but maybe inconsistent and unreliable is a more respectful way of say "is a bit of a twat" Smile

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 11:24 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 07:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 02:23 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Yeah, on that scale I'm a 4, there being as much evidence for as there is against, that is to say none.


I don't see how anyone with a knowledge of the workings of the natural world could claim that there is no evidence against gods or the supernatural.

Do you have no knowledge, or do you not see the workings of pathogens, predators, and mass death as evidence against a theistic god?

I would agree that the evidence regarding a deistic god is closer to neutral.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELb...re=g-all-c

There you go someone who knows a lot about the natural world stating there is evidence, in fact saying there can be no evidence of gods r the supernatural. Like the man says, the whole shooting match is outside science. Doesn't stop him be a vocal atheist or a working scientist.

The relevant section starts at 08:00.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 03:25 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(23-11-2012 10:43 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Lastly, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. If things did not exist until evidence was provided of them, then how would anything have existed before we as a species started to gather evidence of it, how woukd we advance our scientific knowledge into new fields. You can say that a lack of evidence makes a claim scientifically unsupportable, but to say that without evidence they dont exist is a step to far.
In science, it is. If a person is to claim there are multiple universes, it remains a simple hypothesis. Not one shred of evidence supports it, therefore it does not progress through the scientific hierarchy. Until evidence exists that supports it, it remains a funny little idea. Apply the same reasoning to religion and you are suddenly far more atheistic than agnostic.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2012 06:01 AM by Humakt.)
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 03:25 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 10:43 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Lastly, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. If things did not exist until evidence was provided of them, then how would anything have existed before we as a species started to gather evidence of it, how woukd we advance our scientific knowledge into new fields. You can say that a lack of evidence makes a claim scientifically unsupportable, but to say that without evidence they dont exist is a step to far.
In science, it is. If a person is to claim there are multiple universes, it remains a simple hypothesis. Not one shred of evidence supports it, therefore it does not progress through the scientific hierarchy. Until evidence exists that supports it, it remains a funny little idea. Apply the same reasoning to religion and you are suddenly far more atheistic than agnostic.
Except that I'm also agnostic on the issue of multiple universes, that is to say I have no knowledge either for or against. I am neither, more or less agnostic about it, I have the same knowledge of both. Also, the idea that a hypothesis progresses no further through the scientific hierarchy until there is evidence to support it, is not right. Hypotheses are the basis on which experiments are based, it is these experiments that derive the evidence, these experiments are ongoing in multiple fields of science as we speak. I am sure none of the scientists would consider it just a funny little idea and rather understand that the experimental work involved in progressing a hypothesis through experimental evidence to a working theory can be the work of a life time or life times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

There is a description of the scientific method:

Formulate -> Hypothesis -> Prediction -> Test -> Analysis : Replicate - Publish - Disseminate.

You've formulated a question and made a hypothesis, a false one has it happens. You have made no prediction as such, I however have looked at your hypothesis seen that your predictions are not in accord with the facts, I have tested my assumption against a published source citing the scientific method and I am happy with my predictions and that they refute yours, or at the very least show them to be a simplistic misunderstanding of the process. In analysis, your comments are opinionated bluster. Anyone, can and indeed should rather than simply take my word for it, replicate the 10 seconds "work" it took me to type scientific method into google, which I did to provide a source against which the assertions I made could be compared. This post, is the step where I publish my findings for peer review, it will be disseminated further, if anyone feels the need to quote or comment upon it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...l-universe

Further, as published in the Scientific American, the musings by a proper scientist, on the actual published work of another proper scientist, both far better qualified to talk on the subject than myself, and I'll assume your not a scientist working in the field, you. I again invite everyone to read the entire article and see that it is a brief description of the idea of multiple universe and how the entire body of the scientific method has and is being applied to it.

Your statement and view point from previous posts is classic example of, and I quote directly from the article:

1) Omnivision assumption: physical reality must be such that at least one observer can in principle observe all of it.

and to my mind also

2) Pedagogical reality assumption: physical reality must be such that
all reasonably informed human observers feel they intuitively understand
it.

which are refuted, again quoted directly from the article:

(1) and (2) appear to be motivated by little more than human hubris. The
omnivision assumption effectively redefines the word "exists'' to be
synonymous with what is observable to us humans, akin to an ostrich with
its head in the sand. Those who insist on the pedagogical reality
assumption will typically have rejected comfortingly familiar childhood
notions like Santa Claus, local realism, the Tooth Fairy, and creationism—but
have they really worked hard enough to free themselves from
comfortingly familiar notions that are more deeply rooted? In my
personal opinion, our job as scientists is to try to figure out how the
world works, not to tell it how to work based on our philosophical
preconceptions.


Lastly, it is important to note that in the case of the multiverse theory such work is possible, but as the youtube ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid209014 ) by AronRa clearly states as I posted above, such work is not possible with a deity, and I paraphrase here, because a deity would be if it in fact existed a supernatural entity outwith our ability to perceive or measure and therefore outwith the scientific method to examine or comment on.

In short, what I've said and been saying. Now if you have something to add, beyond your usual ad hominems and just saying your wrong, I look forward to reading it.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 09:25 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Except that I'm also agnostic on the issue of multiple universes, that is to say I have no knowledge either for or against. I am neither, more or less agnostic about it, I have the same knowledge of both. Also, the idea that a hypothesis progresses no further through the scientific hierarchy until there is evidence to support it, is not right. Hypotheses are the basis on which experiments are based, it is these experiments that derive the evidence, these experiments are ongoing in multiple fields of science as we speak. I am sure none of the scientists would consider it just a funny little idea and rather understand that the experimental work involved in progressing a hypothesis through experimental evidence to a working theory can be the work of a life time or life times.

Hypotheses are the set of predictions and principles laden by the observer. These ideas are correct or incorrect based on what is discovered during the experiment. It is a hypothesis that multiple universes exist because we are yet unable to test said hypothesis. You can note that by looking at current String Theory's criticisms.



(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  There is a description of the scientific method:

Formulate -> Hypothesis -> Prediction -> Test -> Analysis : Replicate - Publish - Disseminate.

You've formulated a question and made a hypothesis, a false one has it happens. You have made no prediction as such, I however have looked at your hypothesis seen that your predictions are not in accord with the facts, I have tested my assumption against a published source citing the scientific method and I am happy with my predictions and that they refute yours, or at the very least show them to be a simplistic misunderstanding of the process. In analysis, your comments are opinionated bluster. Anyone, can and indeed should rather than simply take my word for it, replicate the 10 seconds "work" it took me to type scientific method into google, which I did to provide a source against which the assertions I made could be compared. This post, is the step where I publish my findings for peer review, it will be disseminated further, if anyone feels the need to quote or comment upon it.

I am quite aware of the scientific method and its multiple steps it requires to properly create an assessment concerning the observations of reality.

(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Further, as published in the Scientific American, the musings by a proper scientist, on the actual published work of another proper scientist, both far better qualified to talk on the subject than myself, and I'll assume your not a scientist working in the field, you. I again invite everyone to read the entire article and see that it is a brief description of the idea of multiple universe and how the entire body of the scientific method has and is being applied to it.

I am quite aware of the components and lack of evidence for String Theory, which encompasses M-Theory, and has made the most progress in its quest for theoretical mathematics.

(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Your statement and view point from previous posts is classic example of, and I quote directly from the article:

1) Omnivision assumption: physical reality must be such that at least one observer can in principle observe all of it.

and to my mind also

2) Pedagogical reality assumption: physical reality must be such that
all reasonably informed human observers feel they intuitively understand
it.

which are refuted, again quoted directly from the article:

(1) and (2) appear to be motivated by little more than human hubris. The
omnivision assumption effectively redefines the word "exists'' to be
synonymous with what is observable to us humans, akin to an ostrich with
its head in the sand. Those who insist on the pedagogical reality
assumption will typically have rejected comfortingly familiar childhood
notions like Santa Claus, local realism, the Tooth Fairy, and creationism—but
have they really worked hard enough to free themselves from
comfortingly familiar notions that are more deeply rooted? In my
personal opinion, our job as scientists is to try to figure out how the
world works, not to tell it how to work based on our philosophical
preconceptions.

1) I do not believe that one observer is required to view the entirety of reality.

2) Again, you insist on making inaccurate assumptions about how I operate. I do not require that every reasonably educated individual should be able to fully or adequately understand specific components about reality.

You have made assertions, failed ones at that.

(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Lastly, it is important to note that in the case of the multiverse theory such work is possible, but as the youtube ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid209014 ) by AronRa clearly states as I posted above, such work is not possible with a deity, and I paraphrase here, because a deity would be if it in fact existed a supernatural entity outwith our ability to perceive or measure and therefore outwith the scientific method to examine or comment on.

In short, what I've said and been saying. Now if you have something to add, beyond your usual ad hominems and just saying your wrong, I look forward to reading it.


Currently, no experiments are possible concerning M-theory or String Theory, and it relies completely on theoretical mathematics. It is unknown whether it is possible to do so. Because there is no evidence supporting String Theory, I view it as a possibility, but not reality until proven otherwise. The same could be said about a deity.

Concerning AronRa's statement regarding the implied mutual exclusiveness of science and theology, he would be correct if said deity did not intervene with reality. One must first establish what qualities the deity has. If we are discussing the idea of a deistic deity, we'd have very little to debate about. I'd remain an agnostic atheist. For theistic deities, it is safe to be gnostic atheist.

I have yet to throw a single ad hominem at you, but if you like I can start.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 09:48 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
Why is it that there exists this subsection of forum members that seem to get really annoyed when someone refuses to abandon the agnostic stance? This is literally why I just call myself an atheist here unless someone asks. To avoid the constant attempt at conversion. You guys are fucking crazy, and a little creepy. I always get this fundie vibe off of those who get so adamant about the atheist title.

You crazy creepy mother fuckers.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like lucradis's post
26-11-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 09:48 AM)lucradis Wrote:  Why is it that there exists this subsection of forum members that seem to get really annoyed when someone refuses to abandon the agnostic stance? This is literally why I just call myself an atheist here unless someone asks. To avoid the constant attempt at conversion. You guys are fucking crazy, and a little creepy. I always get this fundie vibe off of those who get so adamant about the atheist title.

You crazy creepy mother fuckers.
I don't even think he realizes that I have not wholly abandoned the agnostic stance. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: