Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#21  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 09, 2020 12:33 am

First off you are NOT coming up with theories, or recipes. You are speculating wildly, and I have read the entire thread. Instead of wild notions one could defer to actual science, but that’s not nearly as fun.

Try this instead:
A single mind stands isolated, and even if this mind conceives of the most profound thought to have ever existed. When properly communicated to other minds, and testing of said notion is undertaken, the minds no longer matter as empirical evidence results. It doesn’t matter if other minds accept observational reality as their acceptance is not required. This applies to all matters wherein science applies. Quantum mechanics has some well understood instances, such as the electron tunneling that makes your computer/phone work. Just because we do not know every intricacy, and how it relates to the wider world, does not mean we are groping in the darkness. We just haven’t got there yet.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#22  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 1:01 am

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:First off you are NOT coming up with theories, or recipes. You are speculating wildly, and I have read the entire thread. Instead of wild notions one could defer to actual science, but that’s not nearly as fun.

Try this instead:
A single mind stands isolated, and even if this mind conceives of the most profound thought to have ever existed. When properly communicated to other minds, and testing of said notion is undertaken, the minds no longer matter as empirical evidence results. It doesn’t matter if other minds accept observational reality as their acceptance is not required. This applies to all matters wherein science applies. Quantum mechanics has some well understood instances, such as the electron tunneling that makes your computer/phone work. Just because we do not know every intricacy, and how it relates to the wider world, does not mean we are groping in the darkness. We just haven’t got there yet.

RS


But you did not defer to Science.
You deferred to Philosophy.

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:and how it relates to the wider world, does not mean we are groping in the darkness. We just haven’t got there yet.


If you were looking at things from a Scientific point, you would be discussing subatomic particles, and how "light" may contain Photon particles



The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon


According to the Hebrew bible, light was the very first thing there was



Clutching at straws, i know.

But.

Day 2 in the real bible says nothing about a firmament

Rāqîa, the word translated as firmament, is from rāqa', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_c ... Second_day


This is actually only about waters when translated in to English.
But this word when first written in Sandskrit, or whatever it was, actually said

used for the act of beating metal into thin plates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_c ... Second_day


Sounds like a description of turning light in to physical matter?

And when i run the word through google, it does not take me to a bible bashing page, but to a science page, discussing

Thoughts on the rāqîa‘ and a Possible Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... ackground/


So it seems those 72 Hebrew Scholars, that i assume were taken hostage by Ptolemy, "lied" about what their scriptures said, when they gave Ptolomy the writings for their Greek marvel, the Septuagint and all its rubbish!

King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Jewish_legend
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 09, 2020 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#23  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 09, 2020 1:56 am

Bullshit. Pure weapons grade bullshit. Empirical evidence isn’t a philosophical talking point. Testing to attain said empirical evidence isn’t based on thought, but rather repeatability. You don’t get to just declare your bullshit opinion into reality.

That’s twice you have mischaracterized my position. I strongly suggest this pattern end abruptly, and I also suggest you learn that I am a retired earth scientist. If you lack the ability to grasp the simple language I am using perhaps it would be best for you to stop assuming what you clearly cannot. Oh, I tried to bring actual quantum physics into the thread when I mentioned virtual particles, but apparently that escaped your critical eye. So, don’t now presume to lecture me on what I should, or should not, post in response to your sophomoric ramblings.

I think you are way out of your depth, and your colloquial use of theory exposes this fact. It’s boggling to read critiques on my posts when you talk about dry ice bombs. Real scientific stuff right there! Fuck me.

Frankly, I’m already bored of the proud mediocrity. Have your say. I’m done.

RS
Last edited by theropod_V_2.0 on Mar 09, 2020 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#24  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 2:05 am

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Bullshit. Pure weapons grade bullshit. Empirical evidence isn’t a philosophical talking point. Testing to attain said empirical evidence isn’t based on thought, but rather repeatability. You don’t get to just declare your bullshit opinion into reality.

That’s twice you have mischaracterized my position. I strongly suggest this pattern end abruptly, and I also suggest you learn that I am a retired earth scientist. If you lack the ability to grasp the simple language I am using perhaps it would be best for you to stop assuming what you clearly cannot. Oh, I tried to bring actual quantum physics into the thread when I mentioned virtual particles, but apparently that escaped your critical eye. So, don’t now presume to lecture me on what I should, or should not, post in response to your sophomoric ramblings.

I think you are way out of you are way out of your depth, and your colloquial use of theory exposes this fact. It’s boggling to read critiques on my posts when you talk about dry ice bombs. Real scientific stuff right there! Fuck me.

Frankly, I’m already bored of the proud mediocrity. Have your say. I’m done.

RS


So you do not think then that Scientists believe that the word rāqîa is pertaining to The cosmic microwave background?

The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background


If not, then please explain how i managed to go directly from reading about the Genesis creation theory in the Hebrew bible, and straight from there to a Science page, and then to a wikipedia page, coincidentally discussing the big bang, using only the word rāqîa, which was the original word, before it got retranslated in to waters, in English?

Those Scientists are discussing Raqia, not firmament, and they totally believe it to be to do with the big bang.

the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background noise, or glow, almost isotropic, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#25  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 2:42 am

Nevets, it has to be said; you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about. It's not even wrong. It isn't even coherent enough to be wrong. Every statement you're making is based on at least one faulty premise which you haven't even tried to establish, you keep expanding the point at hand way beyond any legible remit, and you mischaracterize what other people are saying by telling them what their position is even when they've said nothing about it.


So you do not think then that Scientists believe that the word rāqîa is pertaining to The cosmic microwave background?


No, that's not how it works, it's not how anything works. If you want to contend that scientists believe X, then show evidence of scientists believing X - don't try to sneak it in reversing the burden of proof.

I would almost guarantee that the vast majority of scientists don't think anything about the word "rāqîa" because it's not a scientific term, it's from ancient Hebrew, and scientists aren't in the business of sifting through religious tracts trying to craft retrofitted apologetics to prop up antiquated beliefs.


If not, then please explain how i managed to go directly from reading about the Genesis creation theory in the Hebrew bible, and straight from there to a Science page, and then to a wikipedia page, coincidentally discussing the big bang, using only the word rāqîa, which was the original word, before it got retranslated in to waters, in English?


One word is sufficient: bollocks.

The creation story of the Abrahamic faiths is complete fucking hogwash, and normal scientists don't lend it any credence as it's provably wrong. What you're doing is pretending that some shill from Answers in Genesis is acting as a scientist when he/she's actually acting as an apologist from Christian dogma.

All you're doing is parroting this turgid rag as if it's got anything to do with science:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... ackground/

Unadulterated retrofitting hogwash.

Are you here to proselytize for Christian dogma? If not, then you need to explain why you're trying to foist off extremist fundamentalist nonsense as if it's got any bearing on evidence based science.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#26  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 2:49 am

Nevets wrote:
But i am coming up with recipes, in the hope it might spark an idea in the OP, as it is the OP that is looking for a magical answer.


1) The OP is from 18 months ago.
2) The author of the OP hasn't been here for many months.
3) The OP explicitly asks for someone with knowledge about Quantum Mechanics, not religious apologetics, not wholesale speculation without even an elementary knowledge of physics.
4) Absolutely nothing in the OP suggests the author is looking for a 'magical answer'
5) Magical answers aren't actually answers; they're non-answers.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#27  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 3:12 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
But i am coming up with recipes, in the hope it might spark an idea in the OP, as it is the OP that is looking for a magical answer.


1) The OP is from 18 months ago.
2) The author of the OP hasn't been here for many months.
3) The OP explicitly asks for someone with knowledge about Quantum Mechanics, not religious apologetics, not wholesale speculation without even an elementary knowledge of physics.
4) Absolutely nothing in the OP suggests the author is looking for a 'magical answer'
5) Magical answers aren't actually answers; they're non-answers.


(1) The OP is called Wheelspawn, and has already replied to two of my posts in the last 2 hours, and is involved in this current conversation tonight.

Last participation was when i asked her/him to explain how physical matter came in to being
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#28  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 3:47 am

Spearthrower wrote:Nevets, it has to be said; you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about. It's not even wrong. It isn't even coherent enough to be wrong. Every statement you're making is based on at least one faulty premise which you haven't even tried to establish, you keep expanding the point at hand way beyond any legible remit, and you mischaracterize what other people are saying by telling them what their position is even when they've said nothing about it.


This is because i am unable to prove how physical matter came in to being, and all we have is hypothesis, and when all we have is hypothesis, there is nothing wrong with hypothesising. You are coming from the point of view that hypothesising is wrong. Or should be treated with hostility. But this is not the case

Spearthrower wrote:No, that's not how it works, it's not how anything works. If you want to contend that scientists believe X, then show evidence of scientists believing X - don't try to sneak it in reversing the burden of proof.

I would almost guarantee that the vast majority of scientists don't think anything about the word "rāqîa" because it's not a scientific term, it's from ancient Hebrew, and scientists aren't in the business of sifting through religious tracts trying to craft retrofitted apologetics to prop up antiquated beliefs.


Ok. But Scientists do believe that the Cosmic microwave background is an important theory in the big bang thesis? Do you know of anyother elements in the creation process that are more important than the Cosmic Microwave Background?

The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background


Spearthrower wrote:One word is sufficient: bollocks.

The creation story of the Abrahamic faiths is complete fucking hogwash, and normal scientists don't lend it any credence as it's provably wrong. What you're doing is pretending that some shill from Answers in Genesis is acting as a scientist when he/she's actually acting as an apologist from Christian dogma.

All you're doing is parroting this turgid rag as if it's got anything to do with science.


You appear to be under the false illusion i am wanting a debate about the Old testament.
I am bringing up a word called Raqia, which just so happened to be mentioned in the creation myth.

Spearthrower wrote:Unadulterated retrofitting hogwash.

Are you here to proselytize for Christian dogma? If not, then you need to explain why you're trying to foist off extremist fundamentalist nonsense as if it's got any bearing on evidence based science.


What is with all this extremism?
I am of a philisophical practise called speculative, which means i am unreligious but not irreligious, and the topic of religion does not need discussing, neither for, nor against, and the philosophy also places Atheists, alongside those that practise the Abrahamic faiths, as Atheists actively participate in fighting over religion. And also the philosophy i practise, is a philosophy shared by many 33rd degree freemasons, and it was this very practise that got themselves labelled "Satanists", when this society was formed, and the Christians believed the society to be Satanic due to their unwillingness to discuss religion.
It was formed in the wake of Culloden, in order to avoid another religious war, and i am a "strong" follower of this philosophy, and yet you throw this diatribe at me? Now a fundamentalist Christian, would view me as a Satanist, even though i have no opinion on their belief.

he Speculative Society is a Scottish Enlightenment society dedicated to public speaking and literary composition, founded in 1764.[1] It was mainly, but not exclusively, an Edinburgh University student organisation. The formal purpose of the Society is as a place for social interchange and for practising of professional competency in rhetoric, argument, and the presentation of papers among fellow members. While continuing to meet in its rooms in the University's Old College, it has no formal links to the University. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Speculative_Society


There is absolutely nothing wrong in searching for the meaning of Ancient words, whatever source they come from.
Just because the bible, might or might not be, accurate, i have no opinion on it, it does not mean that words, and language, do not exist.

Now, what elements are involved in the creation of the universe?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#29  Postby Macdoc » Mar 09, 2020 4:15 am

I think hogwash sums it up. This chew toy is getting very stale. Starting to capitalize too :roll: :nono:
:coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#30  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 12:20 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
But i am coming up with recipes, in the hope it might spark an idea in the OP, as it is the OP that is looking for a magical answer.


1) The OP is from 18 months ago.
2) The author of the OP hasn't been here for many months.
3) The OP explicitly asks for someone with knowledge about Quantum Mechanics, not religious apologetics, not wholesale speculation without even an elementary knowledge of physics.
4) Absolutely nothing in the OP suggests the author is looking for a 'magical answer'
5) Magical answers aren't actually answers; they're non-answers.


(1) The OP is called Wheelspawn, and has already replied to two of my posts in the last 2 hours, and is involved in this current conversation tonight.

Last participation was when i asked her/him to explain how physical matter came in to being



On what plane of existence, nevets?

There's absolutely no replies from wheelspawn in this thread.

Clicking on his profile, you get this:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/member/Wheelspawn/

Last visited: Dec 23, 2019 3:28 am


Searching user posts for his name, the last time he posted here:

by Wheelspawn
Dec 23, 2019 3:27 am


So I have to say that it appears you are consistently confused.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#31  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 12:22 pm

This is because i am unable to prove how physical matter came in to being, and all we have is hypothesis, and when all we have is hypothesis, there is nothing wrong with hypothesising. You are coming from the point of view that hypothesising is wrong. Or should be treated with hostility. But this is not the case


The notion that because there are scientific models, any old Tom, Dick or Harry's random wibblings are validated is utter poppycock.

For your ideas to have any credibility, they need to be grounded in empirical observation, not the detritus of your belly button.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#32  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 12:29 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:No, that's not how it works, it's not how anything works. If you want to contend that scientists believe X, then show evidence of scientists believing X - don't try to sneak it in reversing the burden of proof.

I would almost guarantee that the vast majority of scientists don't think anything about the word "rāqîa" because it's not a scientific term, it's from ancient Hebrew, and scientists aren't in the business of sifting through religious tracts trying to craft retrofitted apologetics to prop up antiquated beliefs.


Ok. But Scientists do believe that the Cosmic microwave background is an important theory in the big bang thesis? Do you know of anyother elements in the creation process that are more important than the Cosmic Microwave Background?


You're doing it again.

You're spinning away from the topic you raised to change the goals in mid-discussion and you're also trying to characterize my position for me on something that's not been discussed.

Plus, it's all completely wrong, as in, not even wrong.

The CMB isn't a 'theory' - it's a direct observation.
It's not 'important' in Big Bang cosmology because it wasn't even discovered for decades after the formulation of the model.
If we're talking about science, then you can dump the expression 'creation process'.
It's gibberish to conceive of CMB as being involved with the 'creation' of the universe - it's an effect; the pattern of radiation resulting from those early expansion events .
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#33  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 12:36 pm

Nevets wrote:You appear to be under the false illusion i am wanting a debate about the Old testament.
I am bringing up a word called Raqia, which just so happened to be mentioned in the creation myth.


Factually, it's you who appears to be under the entirely erroneous belief that words in ancient religious tracts have an impact on modern science which is why you've brought up the word 'raqia' from the Hebrew Bible.


Nevets wrote:What is with all this extremism?


What "extremism"? Have you got a special definition for this word too?


Nevets wrote:I am of a philisophical practise called speculative, which means i am unreligious but not irreligious, and the topic of religion does not need discussing, neither for, nor against, and the philosophy also places Atheists, alongside those that practise the Abrahamic faiths, as Atheists actively participate in fighting over religion.


What a load of wet wank.


Nevets wrote:And also the philosophy i practise, is a philosophy shared by many 33rd degree freemasons, and it was this very practise that got themselves labelled "Satanists", when this society was formed, and the Christians believed the society to be Satanic due to their unwillingness to discuss religion.


Wut?


Nevets wrote:It was formed in the wake of Culloden, in order to avoid another religious war, and i am a "strong" follower of this philosophy, and yet you throw this diatribe at me? Now a fundamentalist Christian, would view me as a Satanist, even though i have no opinion on their belief.


I don't believe anything you've written above. I don't believe you follow a philosophy. I don't believe you've characterized speculative philosophy truly or accurately considering it's expressly concerned with making statements about the divine. I don't believe your motivations in discussing science by appealing to religious tracts. I don't believe your argumentation is honest.

For me, people who claim to follow a philosophy are almost inevitably doing so in order to cover over the glaring weaknesses in their knowledge. Evoking the word 'philosophy' isn't a carte blanche to just make shit up because it takes your fancy.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#34  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 12:39 pm

Nevets wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong in searching for the meaning of Ancient words, whatever source they come from.


Indeed, there is nothing wrong with searching for the meaning of ancient words: the practice is called etymology.

Etymology, however, is not part of scientific method.


Nevets wrote:Just because the bible, might or might not be, accurate, i have no opinion on it, it does not mean that words, and language, do not exist.


If it might or might not be accurate, then you need to justify why you're appealing to it in order to discuss aspects of modern empirical knowledge.


Nevets wrote:Now, what elements are involved in the creation of the universe?


God
Will
Word
Light

Because the creation of the universe is a religious story.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#35  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 2:55 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
This is because i am unable to prove how physical matter came in to being, and all we have is hypothesis, and when all we have is hypothesis, there is nothing wrong with hypothesising. You are coming from the point of view that hypothesising is wrong. Or should be treated with hostility. But this is not the case


The notion that because there are scientific models, any old Tom, Dick or Harry's random wibblings are validated is utter poppycock.

For your ideas to have any credibility, they need to be grounded in empirical observation, not the detritus of your belly button.


Correct. So my original stance that the conspiracy theorist on youtube, which the OP asked us to debunk, cannot be debunked, no matter how hard we try.

That was my original stance.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#36  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 2:59 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:You appear to be under the false illusion i am wanting a debate about the Old testament.
I am bringing up a word called Raqia, which just so happened to be mentioned in the creation myth.


Factually, it's you who appears to be under the entirely erroneous belief that words in ancient religious tracts have an impact on modern science which is why you've brought up the word 'raqia' from the Hebrew Bible.


Nevets wrote:What is with all this extremism?


What "extremism"? Have you got a special definition for this word too?


Nevets wrote:I am of a philisophical practise called speculative, which means i am unreligious but not irreligious, and the topic of religion does not need discussing, neither for, nor against, and the philosophy also places Atheists, alongside those that practise the Abrahamic faiths, as Atheists actively participate in fighting over religion.


What a load of wet wank.


Nevets wrote:And also the philosophy i practise, is a philosophy shared by many 33rd degree freemasons, and it was this very practise that got themselves labelled "Satanists", when this society was formed, and the Christians believed the society to be Satanic due to their unwillingness to discuss religion.


Wut?


Nevets wrote:It was formed in the wake of Culloden, in order to avoid another religious war, and i am a "strong" follower of this philosophy, and yet you throw this diatribe at me? Now a fundamentalist Christian, would view me as a Satanist, even though i have no opinion on their belief.


I don't believe anything you've written above. I don't believe you follow a philosophy. I don't believe you've characterized speculative philosophy truly or accurately considering it's expressly concerned with making statements about the divine. I don't believe your motivations in discussing science by appealing to religious tracts. I don't believe your argumentation is honest.

For me, people who claim to follow a philosophy are almost inevitably doing so in order to cover over the glaring weaknesses in their knowledge. Evoking the word 'philosophy' isn't a carte blanche to just make shit up because it takes your fancy.


I dont know what type of skepticism you are practising, but it must be the type that just seeks to debunk anything.
In reality you have nothing to debunk, because i agree, that there is no evidence for God, nor for it being possible for physical matter to be created out of nothingness.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#37  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 3:04 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

God
Will
Word
Light

Because the creation of the universe is a religious story.


Correct.

I do not know what is more preposterous, a person that believes Jesus died for our sins, and that God created the world in 7 days, or a person that would attribute this belief to someone, simply because they used a bible for historic reference.

That would be Irrational Skepticism.

Obviously you have a lot of pre-conceived notions.

But using a bible for reference, would be just that, it would be making a statement, that the only way the youtuber conspiracy theorist can be debunked, is by getting a good bible bashing.

Because it is a matter of blind faith.

Though the confucian in me, which does not oppose, nor impose, allows me to use a bible for certain purposes, without assuming myself an authority on the book, or the subject, and without bearing a cross
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#38  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 3:30 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
This is because i am unable to prove how physical matter came in to being, and all we have is hypothesis, and when all we have is hypothesis, there is nothing wrong with hypothesising. You are coming from the point of view that hypothesising is wrong. Or should be treated with hostility. But this is not the case


The notion that because there are scientific models, any old Tom, Dick or Harry's random wibblings are validated is utter poppycock.

For your ideas to have any credibility, they need to be grounded in empirical observation, not the detritus of your belly button.


Correct. So my original stance that the conspiracy theorist on youtube, which the OP asked us to debunk, cannot be debunked, no matter how hard we try.

That was my original stance.



That does not follow. Of course it can be debunked: bad arguments are built on faulty logic, so that logic can be debunked.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#39  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 3:33 pm

Nevets wrote:
I dont know what type of skepticism you are practising, but it must be the type that just seeks to debunk anything.
In reality you have nothing to debunk, because i agree, that there is no evidence for God, nor for it being possible for physical matter to be created out of nothingness.



And you are doing it YET AGAIN!

Stop telling people what their positions are! :doh:

You don't "agree" with me that it is not possible for "physical matter to be created out of nothingness" because I have made no comment whatsoever on that, so you don't even know what I think about it, let alone portray that as being my position. I would never contend such an empty position predicted on assumptions that haven't been discussed.

For example: what the hell is 'nothingness'?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#40  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 3:36 pm

I dont know what type of skepticism you are practising, but it must be the type that just seeks to debunk anything.


The type of skepticism I practice is one where the ascribed truth value of a statement is directly proportional to the support offered for it. If there is no support offered for it, then that statement must either be supported, or it is dismissed. Before you make yet another mischaracterization, that doesn't mean I am saying X is wrong, I am saying X is unsupported and until it is supported, then it isn't something worth discussing.

Want to contend that this is some kind of quirky skepticism? Go right ahead, but given your proclivity for making up special definitions for words, I am skeptical you'll be able to do so.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27924
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest