Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Diest TKO wrote:

Is it a japanese word?

Yup, it's the term for the white river sand often used in zen gardens. It's pretty uncommon in roman characters and has the advantage of sounding cool and referring to something awesome Wink

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Lessee, 'the definition fits', but 'it distorts the meaning', eh?

How confused you are.

Yes. It's called equivocation, look it up. I believe I've thoroughly explained this to you before as well, and you didn't reply to those posts.

(edit: it seems you did reply, but never quite grasped the idea of equivocation)

As for confusion uh... no. At the very least I don't have problems with remembering things which have been explained to me at length Wink

.

real life wrote:

Read this carefully:
Since I am the one who made the statement, I think I am a pretty good judge of what I meant and what I didn't. My usage did not 'distort' my meaning.

Intention is not the same as effect. Also, the definition you cited fails to match what you're trying to describe, and I noted that when explaining equivocation to you. It's time to get a new word, although I know it'll pain you to no longer be able to call the singularity of the Big Bang supernatural. (do you really think anyone believes that you're using the word for any other purpose than to compare it to the religious ideas "we" oppose? I mean really, now. Do you even remember the context in which you brought up the word?)

real life wrote:

It matters not how 'common' a definition is.

Clearly it does. Exploiting common vs. uncommon (or non-implied) usages is an easy way to equivocate.

real life wrote:

Is 'star' used more frequently to describe an actor/actress, or a celestial object?

Depends on the context. In the context of a scientific theory, "supernatural" most commonly refers to the scientific method's exclusion of supernatural explanations, for which your usage is not comparable.

real life wrote:

It makes no difference which one is 'more common'.

Redundant statements are redundant.

real life wrote:

There are definitions of 'star' to cover both usages.

See above. You said something very similar in your last post or two to me, but didn't reply to my response. Here it is again:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Duh, I never said it doesn't fit. Never. So, how's your light hobby of religion going? I hope it's as much fun as my regular pretzel eating, which is also a religion.

real life wrote:

Your concept of a 'singularity' preceding the BB is a supernatural explanation of origins.

And Christianity is a religion just like regularly luxuriously eating a pretzel is.

Incidentally, if we were to pretend you weren't equivocating, where would you be going with your application of an uncommon and apparently personalized definition (remember, "laws of nature" != "laws of physics")?

real life wrote:

Why?

Because lying to yourself through implication makes the world easier to rationalize.

real life wrote:

Because as postulated, said singularity was not subject to the laws of our physical universe, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that such a thing EVER actually existed. None.

False, yet again. Where did this "laws of our physical universe" bit come from now? You know, those words following "laws" actually have meanings, too.

real life wrote:

What else would you call something for which there is no evidence (the BEST that can be said is that , since a negative cannot be proven , then it COULDA happened, yeah it MIGHTA been there) and which is not subject to the physical laws of our universe

I'd call it telling half-truths to make someone feel good about their rejection of science. Hint: the singularity is supported by implicit evidence, namely the repeated affirmation of the Big Bang theory's predictions.

real life wrote:

It's supernatural by definition. Deal with it.

Given your specialized usage of supernatural, there's nothing to deal with. Oh, wait, are you planning on equivocating?

real life wrote:

Do you consider a belief in the supernatural to be a 'scientific view'?

Hey look, you did equivocate. So much for honesty, eh?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

you wish to paint Parados in the darkest hues you are able to accomplish, to make him look as bad as possible, to make that value-neutral comment of his appear to be haughty arrogance and condescension.

Do you really consider the statement I was responding to:

parados wrote:

You intend to mislead.....

to be 'value-neutral' ? Laughing

What nonsense.

Or did you think that nobody would go back and see what statement was being referred to?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You're using the wrong definition of supernatural to include something that is actually scientific, so as to make it seem unscientific.

All I am doing is noting that what some folks consider 'scientific' actually fits the definition of 'supernatural'.

This is because:

A. there is no evidence for the actual existence of a singularity prior to BB,

B. and said singularity (as postulated) was not subject to the physical laws of our universe.

Now if you have evidence that a singularity actually DID exist, perhaps you can show it.

Or if you want to say that said singularity was subject to the physical laws of our universe , then we can talk about that.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What is really hilarious, though, it to see you attempting to take anyone else to task for how they define terms.

Actually it's the other way round.

Others have objected to my usage of the word.

I am the one who made the original statement and was told that I 'used an uncommon definition' etc

Also I was told :

This is a clear cut example of your habitual distortion of definitions

Who was it who said that?

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Intention is not the same as effect.

Very true.

But if you are unable or unwilling to understand what I've said after having had it explained to you several times, then I am not responsible for the effect.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
You intend to mislead the uninformed.

How patronizing of you, parados.

'Smart guys' like you are surely going to be ok, but you are concerned about the ignorant masses who might consider a view other than what you consider safe.

You're very thoughtful.

I guess being "thoughtful" would make me "supernatural" if we consider you to be normal.

My point is I wondered why you seem to consider yourself the guardian of the thoughts of the masses.

Don't you trust others to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions?

Why are you afraid that others might hear a POV that disagrees with your own?

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Also, the definition you cited fails to match what you're trying to describe

That's odd, because previously you denied stating or implying same:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Duh, I never said it doesn't fit. Never.

Did you change your mind, or just decide to be honest about your intentions?

btw, what makes you think that you're a better judge of what I am trying to convey than I am?

0 Replies

Your hopeless flailing around for a different term

Setanta wrote:

That makes it other than natural, non-natural, unnatural--but you want to insist upon "supernatural,"

is all about a distinction without a difference.

If it ain't 'natural', it ain't science, right?

0 Replies

Re: Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Wilso wrote:

Ok losers, freaks and weirdo's. Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position.

My God, I like this guy. Please tell me this is a tribute to an earlier thread by me of a simlar name. I would be soooo flattered!

Ah! real life, we meet again. Seems like you haven't changed since the last time. Holy ****, where is your forum decorum? Septuple posting?? That's unheard of!!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
you wish to paint Parados in the darkest hues you are able to accomplish, to make him look as bad as possible, to make that value-neutral comment of his appear to be haughty arrogance and condescension.

Do you really consider the statement I was responding to:

parados wrote:
You intend to mislead.....

to be 'value-neutral' ?

What nonsense.

Or did you think that nobody would go back and see what statement was being referred to?

Anyone who goes back to look at the statement, and your response to it, will quickly see the editing job you've done here.

Parados wrote:

You intend to mislead [/u]the uninformed.[/u]

I have emphasized the portion of Parados' statement which you hacked off in the post of yours which i have quoted. You responded to the entire statement by changing Parados' "the uniformed" into "the ignorant masses." Using a term such as "the uninformed" is value neutral--it doesn't say why someone would be uninformed, it doesn't state or imply how many uninformed there may be, and it refers to simple ignorance. Simple ignorance is a pre-eminently "curable" condition, for those who, unlike you, are sincerely willing to learn.

You used the term "ignorant masses," which Parados did not use, because you wished to paint him in unflattering colors, wished to make him appear haughty and condescending, and, in fact you used the term "patronizing."

Did you really think no one would go back to read the statement, and your lying response, in context?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your hopeless flailing around for a different term

Setanta wrote:
That makes it other than natural, non-natural, unnatural--but you want to insist upon "supernatural,"

is all about a distinction without a difference.

As usual, you can only make your accusations by cutting up people's posts to remove the context. My point, which you are dodging as fast as your dancing little feet can carry you, is that there is a major difference between how speakers of English understand unnatural and supernatural. As i pointed out, you want to insist upon supernatural because you are attempting to promote your superstition of choice, and you want to trot out your witless dualism. You want to make any conflict between your scripturally inspired superstition and scientific investigation seem to be a choice between god and science, and only god and science.

Also, given your hilarious assumption that you imaginary friend has all the answers, and has provided them in the laughable scripture which you got from a pack of middle-eastern hillbillies writing thousands of years ago, it is very important for you to attempt to frame any discussion in those terms. Either science has all the answers, or it has none, and your imaginary friend superstition wins by default.

It doesn't work that way, neither logically, nor scientifically. Those who make extraordinary claims have the burden of proving them. Your entire religious superstition, your entire imaginary friend mumbo-jumbo, constitutes an extraordinary claim, for which you provide not a shred of proof--which is the point of this thread.

Quote:

If it ain't 'natural', it ain't science, right?

I would certainly never agree to that. In the first place, i have no idea what you mean by putting natural in quotes, and i don't buy pigs in pokes. In the second place, science is a method for investigating the cosmos. We usually refer to the naturalistic world, because the god superstition crowd don't provide any evidence that there is any such thing as the supernatural. Therefore, people who investigate the cosmos restrict themselves to what can be quantified and qualified, and give that the name of the natural world. But that doesn't mean that a scientific investigator claims to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They are interested the truth, and nothing but the truth, but they are honest enough to acknowledge that they don't have all the answers . . .

. . . which makes them quite different from superstitious liars such as you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
You intend to mislead the uninformed.

How patronizing of you, parados.

'Smart guys' like you are surely going to be ok, but you are concerned about the ignorant masses who might consider a view other than what you consider safe.

You're very thoughtful.

I guess being "thoughtful" would make me "supernatural" if we consider you to be normal.

My point is I wondered why you seem to consider yourself the guardian of the thoughts of the masses.

I don't recall saying any such thing. Set has already pointed that out. But if you feel better repeating a lie over and over, go ahead. It does seem to be your normal modus operandi.

Quote:

Don't you trust others to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions?

When did I say others couldn't think for themselves. My putting words on the page pointing out your langauge misuse is NOT thinking for anyone that might read it. It is giving them information contrary to what you said. Does that make me afraid they will draw conclusions? Not at all. I hope they will draw conclusions based on the comparisons. Does it mean everyone will agree with me? No. Does it mean they have the opportunity to be a little more informed before they draw a conclusion because they are presented with more than just your unchallenged statement? Yes. Will it mean that they might go off and do some independent research? One can only hope so.

Quote:

Why are you afraid that others might hear a POV that disagrees with your own?

Because you intend to deceive the uniformed doesn't mean I fear they will hear a POV that disagrees with my own. Pointing out the errors in your statements is hardly silencing you.

Are you projecting your own fears that others might be presented with a POV that disagrees with your own? Only you can answer that.

When you use the term "supernatural" and others post the dictionary definitions to point out you are not using the first definition but instead you are using a truncated version of the second definition that is hardly thinking for anyone. If you were truly honest you would have explained your meaning the first time you used "supernatural". Instead, you have argued with those that point out your usage is not the normal usage. You are attempting to deceive by your language. The reader should be wary and always look to other sources. Pointing that out to the reader of your posts is hardly fear of a POV different from mine.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
you wish to paint Parados in the darkest hues you are able to accomplish, to make him look as bad as possible, to make that value-neutral comment of his appear to be haughty arrogance and condescension.

Do you really consider the statement I was responding to:

parados wrote:
You intend to mislead.....

to be 'value-neutral' ?

What nonsense.

Or did you think that nobody would go back and see what statement was being referred to?

Anyone who goes back to look at the statement, and your response to it, will quickly see the editing job you've done here.

Parados wrote:
You intend to mislead [/u]the uninformed.[/u]

I have emphasized the portion of Parados' statement which you hacked off in the post of yours which i have quoted. You responded to the entire statement by changing Parados' "the uniformed" into "the ignorant masses." Using a term such as "the uninformed" is value neutral--it doesn't say why someone would be uninformed, it doesn't state or imply how many uninformed there may be, and it refers to simple ignorance. Simple ignorance is a pre-eminently "curable" condition, for those who, unlike you, are sincerely willing to learn.

You used the term "ignorant masses," which Parados did not use, because you wished to paint him in unflattering colors, wished to make him appear haughty and condescending, and, in fact you used the term "patronizing."

Did you really think no one would go back to read the statement, and your lying response, in context?

The value judgement that is apparent in parados' statement is his accusation that I intend to mislead.

Hello?

Value-neutral. Yeah right.

0 Replies

Then what was your intent in using the truncated definition of "supernatural"? Based on your defense of its usage, I reached the conclusion your were attempting to mislead.

By claiming that "supernatural" means anything that doesn't follow the existing scientific laws that you are willing to admit exist while ignoring the rest of physics, you are misleading.

Since you just stated that unnatural is the same thing as supernatural, does that make your God unnatural? Does that make homosexuality the same as your God? After all, they are a distinction without a difference in your words.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If you were truly honest you would have explained your meaning the first time you used "supernatural".

You should have looked back at the point 2 months ago from which this portion of the discussion began, and you would have seen that I did exactly that.

And I have repeated my meaning numerous times since, including citing the fact that it is a standard dictionary definition.

Don't give me your 'if you were honest' garbage.

If you can't keep up on the discussion then your comments are worthless.

Your value judgements are especially ridiculous in light of your position on morality.

It is absurd for a moral relativist to ever accuse anybody of anything.

0 Replies

From about 2 months ago
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3201612#3201612

Quote:

Scientific law (1st Law/Conservation) prohibits the universe from being created. (i.e. it is not possible for the universe to have formed using natural processes.)

Therefore, the universe was formed then using a supernatural (i.e. not natural) process or act.

Note that you didn't post a link to where you copied from to introduce it into this thread.

If anyone wants to check, for a couple of weeks prior to your introduction of this statement of yours, "supernatural" had been used on this thread in the discussion of God and other supernatural beings. Simply inserting the phrase "not natural" doesn't eliminate the prior context.

But let's look at what I said about your statement of "supernatural."

Quote:

By claiming that "supernatural" means anything that doesn't follow the existing scientific laws that you are willing to admit exist while ignoring the rest of physics, you are misleading.

Wow.. Read your statement then read mine.

So lets see. You bring up thermodynamics while ignoring quantum physics. My statement looks pretty accurate based on what I said and what you said.

Your next statement about "supernatural" on this thread after that is here
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3213352#3213352
then here

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3213451#3213451

There, now anyone can go back and follow your statements and when and if you introduced a definition 2 months ago and see when and if you gave a dictionary definition. I found none from you at that time. Feel free to post a link to where you did in this thread.

But to go back your first post on this thread using "supernatural".

Quote:

t is routine to ask for 'natural' proof of natural processes.

However , asking for 'natural' proof of a 'supernatural' process/event (creation) is more than special, it is specious.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2875630#2875630

Then this by you
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2945238#2945238

Quote:

If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

All I am doing is noting that what some folks consider 'scientific' actually fits the definition of 'supernatural'.

This is because:

A. there is no evidence for the actual existence of a singularity prior to BB,

Mathematical evidence based on the Theory of General Relativity counts as evidence, RL. I think I and many others have repeated this many times, but it seems you wish to ignore anything that contradicts your ignorance.

Quote:

B. and said singularity (as postulated) was not subject to the physical laws of our universe.

Once again, no one said that. We said that it does not seem to be subject to the known physical laws of our universe. Or are you so arrogant as to assume that we know everything about how the Universe works?

If so, then tell me how gravity works. Tell me exactly how gravity makes an apple fall towards the ground. Go on. Do it.

Even so, I think I may be wrong about the singularity and have admitted to that in the past. You chose to ignore this, so you could continue arguing your strawman.

I've done some reading and from what I can tell, singularities only defy those known laws of physics that involve mass and volume in their equations, because the mass is inifinte and the volume is zero. Put those figures into any equation and you don't get a sensible answer, thus showing that those laws do not apply to the singularity.

Now, here you don't even understand what a law is. A law is a scientific description of an observation in nature. It is not a fundamental truth about the Universe.

Take Newton's Laws of Gravity. They do not hold true at the speed of light. That is where the Theory of General Relativity comes in. It surpasses the laws of gravity. However, at the quantum scale, even the General Theory of Relativity breaks down.

But let's ignore all that.

Let's for example say that the known laws of the universe apply to a singularity. What then?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

From about 2 months ago
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3201612#3201612

Quote:
Scientific law (1st Law/Conservation) prohibits the universe from being created. (i.e. it is not possible for the universe to have formed using natural processes.)

Therefore, the universe was formed then using a supernatural (i.e. not natural) process or act.

Note that you didn't post a link to where you copied from to introduce it into this thread.

If anyone wants to check, for a couple of weeks prior to your introduction of this statement of yours, "supernatural" had been used on this thread in the discussion of God and other supernatural beings. Simply inserting the phrase "not natural" doesn't eliminate the prior context.

What I said then:

"All I am doing is pointing out that the universe did not come into existence by 'natural' means, which you seem to admit when you appeal to a process outside the bounds of scientific law; and the presence of an entity (a 'singularity') for which you have no evidence , but you believe it existed anyway.

Such is , by definition, a belief in the 'supernatural'."

is what I've repeated several times since.

Your statement:

"By claiming that "supernatural" means anything that doesn't follow the existing scientific laws that you are willing to admit exist while ignoring the rest of physics, you are misleading. "

is a great example of the mischaracterization that you engage in on a regular basis.

And you want to claim others are 'dishonest' while you post such garbage. Rolling Eyes

If you have any evidence that a singularity ACTUALLY DID exist prior to BB, then post it.

But you don't.

You can only say , 'well it COULDA, yeah it MIGHTA been'.

That's not evidence.

That's faith.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
All I am doing is noting that what some folks consider 'scientific' actually fits the definition of 'supernatural'.

This is because:

A. there is no evidence for the actual existence of a singularity prior to BB,

Mathematical evidence based on the Theory of General Relativity counts as evidence, RL. I think I and many others have repeated this many times, but it seems you wish to ignore anything that contradicts your ignorance.

You want to cite GR as proving that a singularity existed, and at the same time stating that said singularity operated outside the bounds of GR.

Do I understand you correctly?

Or are you simply retreading the old 'it COULDA been, it MIGHTA been, you can't prove a negative' argument?

Would you admit that mathematics shows only that whatever preceded the universe is not quantifiable mathematically?

For you to insist that this is 'proof' of the existence of a 'singularity' is only an admission of your need for a First Cause.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know