Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
No, I merely have the capacity to read your statements in the other thread that brought you here to cry about your complete inability to comprehend the difference between blind belief founded in no evidence whatsoever, and induction, which is moving from a specific instance to a broader general definition.

There's a huge difference, but I'm beginning to believe that nuance is beyond your capacity.
Click to expand...
Nope. You're shitting up the thread with religion. I have not brought it, you have. And I again stated that there is no scientific proof for God, I don't know how much more clear I can be about the subject.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
You: I don't want this to seem like its about religion because its inconvenient to my argument

Me: Its pretty clear your trying to equate science and religion, because you are.

Also, in response to your earlier edit

Weaponsfree_sl said:
To sum up your answer, yes science employs induction, and yes there are things in science that I must believe or reject.
Click to expand...
To sum up my answer correctly and devoid of your strawmanning of my specific language, yes science employs induction, no, there are no things in science you must believe, and every explanation provided for observed phenomena is merely a convention of convenience, to be discarded the moment it becomes untenable as an explanation for the observed phenomena.

You may have taken a class or two, but you most certainly failed to learn anything.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
You: I don't want this to seem like its about religion because its inconvenient to my argument

Me: Its pretty clear your trying to equate science and religion, because you are.

Also, in response to your earlier edit



To sum up my answer correctly and devoid of your strawmanning of my specific language, yes science employs induction, no, there are no things in science you must believe, and every explanation provided for observed phenomena is merely a convention of convenience, to be discarded the moment it becomes untenable as an explanation for the observed phenomena.

You may have taken a class or two, but you most certainly failed to learn anything.
Click to expand...
You: It's pretty clear you're trying to equate science and religion
Me: No I'm not

In a logical argument, which you are not engaging in, one lists various premises and conclusions. I posed questions as well. You have then taken them elsewhere. I am making no comparison, you are the one making the comparison.

Is logic a class you've taken? I recommend it.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
You: It's pretty clear you're trying to equate science and religion
Me: No I'm not
Click to expand...
Which is easily disproven by simply walking over to the astronomy thread, where this debate began, and seeing that you are in fact attempting to claim that science and religion are the same because science employs induction, which to you means science inherently requires a belief based framework to function, which is fundamentally wrong, and proof on its face that right now, you are lying.

In a logical argument, which you are not engaging in, one lists various premises and conclusions. I posed questions as well. You have then taken them elsewhere. I am making no comparison, you are the one making the comparison.

Is logic a class you've taken? I recommend it.
Click to expand...
I have merely taken them where you took them. And I got an A in sentential logic. So continue to be butt frustrated that science and religion are incompatible and science does not require belief devoid of evidence, unlike religion, which exists solely on the premise that blind faith is the only possible path towards redemption.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
I am not in a debate. I asked two questions. Get over yourself.

I got an A in logic too. Keep getting buttmad and making this about something it's not!
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
And now he has devolved into "NO U" statements

Pretty much par for the course with religious people when they get shut down on the comparison between science and religion.

Yawn.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
unlike religion, which exists solely on the premise that blind faith is the only possible path towards redemption.
Click to expand...
Top lels on this too man. Quit fucking bringing religion into this. This also sounds like...I don't know, exclusive to a couple religions and not applicable to many religions.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
Fucking LOL! I'm not religious andnever claimed I was.
Click to expand...
You also claim that this discussion isn't about an attempt to equate religion and science, which it clearly is.

Your word isn't worth all that much in this context, your actions speak for themselves.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
You also claim that this discussion isn't about an attempt to equate religion and science, which it clearly is.

Your word isn't worth all that much in this context, your actions speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
In order to make such a claim you have to prove that it is.

I made a post that included 0 religion asking questions about science. You then chose to get dickhurt and make it a comparison between science and religion. I have made no quality statements about the results of the question or even implied that the answers had anything to do with religion. Nor will I. This is a thread about science you keep shitting up.

Thank you for your answers. I make no comparison and draw no conclusion between them and religion.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
In order to make such a claim you have to prove that it is.
Click to expand...
Easily done

Weaponsfree_sl said:
The existence of other life forms, that God created us in some way, and that life can exist other places in other forms arenotmutually exclusive ideas.
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
Don't shit up the thread with stuff like that. People like you go around and think things like "Religion is stupid cause SCIENCE." Well, I have news for you. First, science and religion can and do coexist for a good deal of people, and second, a good deal of science is inductive and unprovable. These are the axioms that entire fields are built on. And that's okay! We should of course keep functioning as if for any number there exists a number n+1 because to operate differently would be silly. But don't take a dump on someone else's equally unfounded axiomatic belief.

The universe itself either is the cause of itself (unproved and absurd) or something else started it, a God which is also, unproved and absurd, which in turn some religions assert is the "cause of himself."

Let me also state I am not religious. A large number of people believe things with "no proof or reason" including atheists, agnostics, and so on. Just read some of the assertions from people on this forum. I don't want to start a religious debate in the Astronomy thread--just be assured that these things can co-exist not because "religion finds a way to explain it and is all about believing something with no proof or reason," but because there are axioms that are common in their inductive, unprovable nature.
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I don't think you understand how axioms work.

You do "believe" the Big Bang Theory because it is not reproducible. You "believe" that for all numbers there exists another number, n+1. That is belief. There are no proofs for it that do not rely on wholly axiomatic claims--you believe something arbitrarily.

A favorite of atheists to bring out is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Okay, I can buy that. "All matter exists because it exists," seems like a pretty extraordinary claim. There is no proof for it.

Do you exist? Do others exist? What is the difference between a conscious amalgamation of matter and an unconscious one? What gives it its consciousness?

No one fucking claimed at any point that people are believing things because it is cool. A good deal of science is inductive in nature, deal with it. Better yet take a Logic and Philosophy intro course.

"Axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''

Read Godel's proof.
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
And those probabilities themselves are based on "self-evident" axioms. All persons in a quest for any knowledge must start at some unprovable axiom, and actually create an entire network of unprovable axioms, upon which we then make observations on top of and extrapolate.

My original assertion: a religious view (not ANY religious view, but A religious view) and a view that there is life on other planets, or the big bang theory, or evolution, or any scientific observation by their very definitions are not mutually exclusive. That's it.
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
An axiom should not be a belief--I stated what an axiom was.

"they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit "If we assume that...""

The n+1 is a conjecture based on those unprovable assumptions. So it's doubly dubious. If we assume that [axiom] then even though we can't prove it we [assume this other thing within the system of {x}]. Again Godel's Proofs are of great help here. Simply stated then, for all numbers n there exists a number n+1, is a belief. Or if you don't want to use n+1, that all evens can be expressed as the sum of two primes. Those are not provable, based on axioms, and beliefs.

A problem arises is when people TREAT the axioms as unassailable truth and they become dogmatic, as people who are militantly religious, or militantly anti-religion do.
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I'm going to make this really clear because apparently my previous attempts have yielded either deliberate obtuseness or befuddlement.

1. A belief in God and extraterrestrial findings would not be logically inconsistent with any number of beliefs in God
2. Science isn't this inviolate, proven thing, logically or otherwise--not even mathematics (see Godel's Proof).
2a. There are "beliefs" present in all disciplines, from mathematics to geology. This is a form of dogma.

Calm down and let's talk about cool stuff in space.
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I believe in God because I observe that the universe has order and that it must have a starter, organizer, or creator--extraordinary claim, but observable in the fucking existence of people and the universe
I believe that things exist "just because they exist"--extraordinary claim as well.

People continue to make the totally false assumption that I am making a case for prophecy, or for religion, or for something else. The idea of God isn't based on "books," dumbass. The idea of a creator, organizer, or starter is something every philosopher has wrestled with.

You can believe in God and "believe" because yes, there are beliefs, in science. You can have both. People do it all the fucking time. That a person would believe that "life and matter are just cause they are" is just as valid as "I feel as if there must be a God that started this."

And there's no logic for God? Have you done any fucking research at all? You're starting to sound religious. There are tons of logical arguments for God--I shouldn't even need to highlight any since it's been the mostasked question in all of human existence.

BUT I SAID THERE'S NO LOGIC FOR GOD CAUSE I DON'T AGREE

Okay well a whole host of people, many of them brilliant with logical fucking proofs, disagree with you. And a whole other host of people disagree with them--and that's okay. What's not okay is to say BUT I SAY THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GOD. That's a belief.

And the other 2 objections? That science is not inductive? Go ahead and go to google. Type in "Is science inductive?" See what pops up. Oh that's right--it's inductive. And then I guess I can't talk about science cause I'm not a scientist. Another totally baseless objection.
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
Not making the case for intelligent design but thanks for the video.

What created matter? What started everything? For some people that's "Nothing." For some people, that's "God."

Intelligent design pro: look at all the order in this chaos! And these specialized things. It must have a creator.
Intelligent design con: order is found in any chaotic system and the things we observe develop.

I am not making either of these arguments. I'm talking about the existence of anything.

Either
1. Matter has always existed, which is an absurdity
2. Matter was created by something, which in turn must have been created by something, ad infinitum, which is an absurdity
3. Matter was created by something that was the cause of itself, or matter is the cause of itself, also an absurdity.

I came into the thread cause someone had a hardon for the idea that discovering something extraterrestrial would finally disprove those durn religious people who STILL believe in God! I'm not religious. It would not be logical to assume any extraterrestrial discovery would disprove God. Viewed in many lights, it might reinforce a belief in God.

From wikipedia: "the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God..." There are certainly logical proofs for God, but there are no scientific proofs for God. Those are different things. But in turn, there is no scientific proof for the non-existence of God either.

Here's a neat proof from our man Godel for God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...ological_proof
Click to expand...
Weaponsfree_sl said:
No it does not. It's a good video and interesting but still does not explain the origin of matter.

The video states that it would be silly to say well I don't understand the origin of matter--God did it.

Well that's just as absurd as saying--well, matter is the cause of itself.

But okay. IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU'RE A FAGGOT WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. Let us continue to dogmatically cling to that. It makes us feel smug and superior.
Click to expand...
Did I miss any?
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
LOL

STOP
SHITTING
UP
THE
THREAD

You are quoting different arguments, different topics, from a different thread.

Please note that YOU KEEP BRINGING IT HERE. I am not making it about it but you are!
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I'm quoting your words, the discussion which brought you to this thread.

Sorry if the facts are inconvenient to your world view, as a religious person who believes science and religion are comparable in terms of requiring blind faith in order to justify knowledge, I am certain you are quite used to ignoring facts which are inconvenient to your world view.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
I am not religious. I've stated this multiple times. I don't think science and religion are comparable in that respect. I was not brought here to this thread by that discussion, that is your assumption.

I've made a post that asked questions and introduced a proof. You want to attack me personally and there's no reason or call for it.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
Your own statements are contradictory in nature.
Click to expand...
Nope. This is the danger of taking things out of context. Those are statements within a framework that don't show that I believe them, they are thought exercises. Read the next line.

I believe in God because I observe that the universe has order and that it must have a starter, organizer, or creator--extraordinary claim, but observable in the fucking existence of people and the universe
I believe that things exist "just because they exist"--extraordinary claim as well.

I didn't say I believed either. I was demonstrating that they were both extraordinary claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.