Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

     Seriously. Do you pay attention at all to what you are publishing as references - your last 'razor', for example - what does it claim?
   It claims that the one with the more mind-blowing theory should provide the evidence.
   My claim is that the possibility for a meta-intelligence to have taken part in our creation and in the creation of the Universe (if it has been created) is not entirely to be excluded?
   Your claim is that the Big Bang 'theory' has had the capacity to create the Information for structuring of the Universe out of Nothing and out of Nowhere ... and without any Intelligence, by simple Stochastics.
   IMV your claim is much more mind-blowing - so you are the one to present the evidence.

There's shitloads of genuine, physical and observational evidence - including things as mundane as the static in your TV - that you have to work your mental ass off to deny, and that supports the Standard Model. Therefore, it is the less extraordinary claim by far. You want us to believe that some invisible alien/god/ILF for which you have NO evidence is the answer. Your hypothesis is the more extraordinary by far. The evidence for the Standard Model has been made public long ago and new developments are publish daily. Let's see something for your alien/god/ILF. Something. Anything. A single scrap of genuine evidence would help your cause. Until then:

4:0

     No, no, your mind-blowing claims are outperforming everything that may exist in the physical & the non-physical world. As you have so much evidence, why don't you tell us what is the color of the H2O-CH4-N2 ice ... and where can you observe it ... by the telescope?

What ******* difference does it make with regards to the relative strength of the argument for the Standard Model compared to your claim about some "45% alien/god/ILF"? That's arguably among the most idiotic question you've ever asked. Congratulations. You're getting even nuttier.

Speaking of observations, let's see some of your observations of your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps," ya bloomin' idjit. Anybody ever seen it? Got radio signals from it? Got any empirical reason whatsoever to believe that it even exists? If so, show us. Until you do:

4:0

     1. You continue answering to the posts without actually answering to the questions. There has been a question there - what happened?
     2. There is a difference and it is really f'cking: you believe in an idea (without even understanding it at 99.999%) just because many people believe in it. Why don't you ask yourself 'how they believe' - in exactly the same way that you assign your beliefs, just because the other believe.
     The non-f'cking difference is when you start believing in things because you understand them and match them against your understanding of the world - not because some other people present themselves of believing in such.
     From where automatically follows that there is ultra-high probability for most of the other knowledge that you may have to be build in the very same way - just because other people believe in it - not because you personally understand it and have accepted it as true and correct on the basis of your personal estimates and assessments.

The ******* difference is that you can't seem to comprehend the very simple statement that I've made over and over again: I'm not claiming to know whether or not the ******* Big Bang happened or not. I'm claiming that there's a shitload of evidence for it and you haven't produced the smallest turd of evidence for your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps." Zip. Nada. Zero. Therefore:

4:0

You can't change that score by pointing out weakness in the opposing theory. That's precisely the ******* "god 0f the gaps" argument, and it's fallacious. Do you have such a serious learning disability that you can't understand such a very simple, basic aspect of logic? The only way you can change the score is to present some ******* evidence for your own hypothesis.

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

Doesn't matter if it's a god or an alien or an ILF. If you try to use the limits of scientific knowledge as support for your alternative hypothesis, you're ******* up. Everybody but you knows this, Herod. Catch up, already.

     O.K., but you cannot claim such things without understanding what is said there.
    By Def.: the gravitation is the interaction between mass-energy; it is the product of the total energies of the interacting particles, and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the particles; the force carrier of the gravitation is the graviton ... that nobody has discovered yet in the physical world.
     Further, the Standard Model claims that the Singularity (with its Infinite Gravitation coming out of Nowhere) might have caused the initiation of the Creation of the Universe. What does that mean?
     The 'shitload of evidence' that you are talking about actually is looking like that: We have a star burning by thermonuclear fusion its fuel to 'ground zero': H → He → C → Fe, and thus becoming in the end white dwarf, converted after that into a neutron star, which collapses into a black hole and emits the energy of the matter. So far so good, but here comes the collapse of the logical reasoning as well: nobody has ever proved that an inference by analogy on that process will ever work ... in reverse.
     1. This process is a 'one-way-ticket' and notwithstanding that it might create Singularity out of a Neutron Star (which is not Nothing and out of Nowhere), nobody has ever proved that the process can operate in reverse. The fact that one can slide down the Niagara falls does not necessarily mean that one can swim upstream of that falls.
     2. Nobody has ever proved that the Singularity is really Nothing, emitting infinite Gravitation. The official force carrier of the gravitation in the Standard Model is the graviton ... that has not been discovered yet. Nobody has ever proved that gravitation can exist without its force carrier - the graviton, and that the existence of the force carrier may not require matter ... in contradiction to its definition.
     3. Even if we assume that the Singularity can emit infinite gravitation, the 'shitload of evidence' show that it is in no way 'out of Nothing' and 'out of Nowhere' - the gravitation (the energy) comes from the collapse of the neutrons (the matter) of the neutron star, it comes from the conversion of matter into energy - it does not appear just so, out of Nowhere and out of Nothing. Nobody has ever proved that the Singularity (if possible to exist) can appear out of Nowhere and out of Nothing ... let alone create 3D space or whatsoever after that.
     4. The Black Hole attracts matter in the known Universe ... but what will a Black Hole, appearing out of Nowhere attract, when it is entirely surrounded by Nothing?
     The Standard Model relies on the circumstance that most of the people do not have the physical and the math logic culture to understand what it is actually claiming, form where automatically follows the conception that everything goes.

You genuinely stupid, pitiful fucktard. You've just had the god of the gaps fallacy explained to you in very simple terms just a few posts above, yet you immediately resort to it once again.

For Xenu's sake, do you not have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER that is NOT based on a well-known logical fallacy? What's your major malfunction, numbnuts? Wait, I know the answer: ignorance and denialisim. Which is why we are still at:


4:0

This, you dumb ****:

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.” - Darwin

Wiping out bullshit charlatanism is a service to mankind. You have evidence or you don't. Herod, you don't. Pull your head out of your ass. You're just embarrassing yourself. And mankind. If we followed whatever whimsical nonsense some fiction writer came up with, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. Catch the **** up and stop ******* around with fantasies. People like you are the ones who wave crystals, channel aliens, buy into homeopathic bullshit, and let their children die while you pray or do whatever mystical bullshit you're into.

      1.The inability to construct a sustainable theory is not gaps - it is an abyss without a bridge.
     2. The question was: How did you come to know that a process in the physical world can always be set to work in reverse? How can you prove that we will ever manage to cope with the CO2 and that it is not the rien ne va plus and game over? ... and how can you explain the fact that we with all the knowledge and the intelligence that we pretend to have, cannot solve that problem with the recycling of the CO2 but the stochastics of another fake theory, successor of your fake 'theory' has solved the problem in the past, right here on the Earth? How does that happen?
     So and so you are a great fan of the stochastic processes that are just happening - why don't you explain to us how they actually work?
     BTW where do you see any God here - the Universe might have always existed is also a plausible hypothesis ... and why do you think that God (if exists) is something like us and is concerned to send you a picture? How many of your photos have you shown to the chimpansees in the Zoo, for example?

The stupid, it burns. Please pay attention, wingnut:



You can't correct a logical fallacy by repeating it. You can't seem to fathom that bit of basic logic. That's why you can't change this score:

4:0

You really seem to have mounted an extremely high horse here, FBM. Science must (by definition) confine itself to naturalism in its methodology, that's true. But promoting naturalism to a metaphysical ontology is no less arbitrary, or more justified, than an ontology that does otherwise.

The assertion that the "whole" of reality consists of the inexorable operation of materialistic, mechanistic, and deterministic "natural laws" certainly cannot be proven. It is an assumption. A postulate, if you will.

If one fully adopts and internalizes this metaphysical ontology, and is convinced of its absolute truth, then ANY proposition which conflicts with it will be labeled a "fallacy" by its adherents. It's tautological and self-defining. The conclusion IS the premise, and vice versa.

The same holds, in reverse, for one who unconditionally adopts a different ontology and is fanatically devoted to it. One need not be fanatical about any particular metaphysical view, but some are, nonetheless.

You can call the suggestion that something other than strictly naturalistic forces may exist a "god-in-the-gaps fallacy" if it points out the limits, deficiencies, and failure of scientific theories, all day long. But that label doesn't prove anything (other than to reveal your metaphysical inclinations).

One could just as easily erect a "science-in-the gaps fallacy" by claiming that science is merely parasitic on the fact that there is no supernatural theory which satisfactorily explains everything.

Do you see the point? Most likely not, I'm guessing.

Please read my posts more carefully. I've made it clear that I'm simply comparing the relative strengths of two arguments: that for the scientific worldview (represented by the Standard Model) and Herald's claim that ancient aliens/gods/ILFs are telepathically creating the universe (or something of the sort).

In doing so, I present relevant claims and data published by scientists and juxtapose them against Herald's lack of evidence and repeated logical fallacies. This does not entail that I believe anything in particular about the conclusions the scientists have reached. I do employ rhetoric in an effort to get Herald to be more intellectually honest about his beliefs and claims, but rhetoric is just a tool. The meat is in the logic.

Well, I must confess that I have no idea what the exact nature of his claims are. I've only read the most recent few pages of this thread. It does strike me, however, that in those few pages, he has been raising some very valid points., and not in any suspect manner, either.

It's a long thread full of one god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps argument after another. I don't for a moment dispute that there are gaps, limits and problems in scientific knowledge; I'm just pointing out that he's fallaciously trying to use that well-known fact to support his alien/god/ILF hypothesis. Thus, the alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

For decades I've had a pet rock that I've always kept in close proximity. All that time, I've talked to that rock like he was god, or maybe like a psychologist.

But, ya know, in all that time, he never talked back to me. He just isn't all that bright. If he did suddenly start talking back to me, I would have to wonder: How did this stupid rock suddenly wise up?

Ex nihilo, nihil fit (something like that, I think).

There's a lot of ongoing debate in the scientific commumnity about whether or not the universe sprang up ex nihilo. There's nothing in the Standard Model to prevent it, nor anything in it that entails it. Nothing that either prevents or entails a universe with no beginning at all. But that's beside the point, and Herald has tried to feed me that red herring repeatedly. It boils down to the fact that he has zero evidence to support his extraordinary claim and seeks to wedge some credibility for his hypothesis into well-acknowledged gaps in the Standard Model.