Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another one coming to the same conclusion. Undoubted expertise in Philosophy, yes, but false reasoning, and basic illogic, awful analogies, and a general refusal to listen or take points on board.
The demand to provide a lot of back posts supporting Monumentus (sorry, I seem to habitually misstyped it myself) is a bit crafty. I have seem posts from him, from me and from others, and not one one them seems to have been remembered by Mystic, as the same assertions are trotted out with claims that no rebuttal has been given.
No rebuttal that Mystic will accept, yes, that is understood, but no rebuttal at all..this gives us the not unfamiliar creepy feeling that something is out of kilter.
Yet another one coming to the same conclusion. Undoubted expertise in Philosophy, yes, but false reasoning, and basic illogic, awful analogies, and a general refusal to listen or take points on board.
The demand to provide a lot of back posts supporting Monumentus (sorry, I seem to habitually misstyped it myself) is a bit crafty. I have seem posts from him, from me and from others, and not one one them seems to have been remembered by Mystic, as the same assertions are trotted out with claims that no rebuttal has been given.
No rebuttal that Mystic will accept, yes, that is understood, but no rebuttal at all..this gives us the not unfamiliar creepy feeling that something is out of kilter.
This is unworthy of you, Arq . . . not unusual since your concern over bamboozlement borders on the obsessive. I am subject to Senioritis, have had a mini-stroke, am heavily medicated and have no agenda other than to explain and defend my views. I have been totally sincere and open and I have assumed you were being as well. KC is obsessed with a math error because he apparently doesn't ever make any. My Synthesis was compiled in a very short time from memory for a very specific reason for a very specific lay audience. There was no time to edit for any errors. The 90 minute time period limits any editing . . . so to accuse me of not correcting errors is just puerile nonsense. I have explained in more rigorous mathematical detail during the exchange with Morbert whereupon he abandoned the discussion. I tire of the unwarranted attacks on my character and competence . . . especially from those who have exhibited neither.
This is unworthy of you, Arq . . . not unusual since your concern over bamboozlement borders on the obsessive. I am subject to Senioritis, have had a mini-stroke, am heavily medicated and have no agenda other than to explain and defend my views. I have been totally sincere and open and I have assumed you were being as well. KC is obsessed with a math error because he apparently doesn't ever make any. My Synthesis was compiled in a very short time from memory for a very specific reason for a very specific lay audience. There was no time to edit for any errors. The 90 minute time period limits any editing . . . so to accuse me of not correcting errors is just puerile nonsense. I have explained in more rigorous mathematical detail during the exchange with Morbert whereupon he abandoned the discussion. I tire of the unwarranted attacks on my character and competence . . . especially from those who have exhibited neither.
Your specific goal was more than achieved Mystic. There are no words sufficient to thank you.
I'm sorry your more general goal has not been. But don't despair...some things just take time to be revealed and realized.
This is unworthy of you, Arq . . . not unusual since your concern over bamboozlement borders on the obsessive. I am subject to Senioritis, have had a mini-stroke, am heavily medicated and have no agenda other than to explain and defend my views. I have been totally sincere and open and I have assumed you were being as well. KC is obsessed with a math error because he apparently doesn't ever make any. My Synthesis was compiled in a very short time from memory for a very specific reason for a very specific lay audience. There was no time to edit for any errors. The 90 minute time period limits any editing . . . so to accuse me of not correcting errors is just puerile nonsense. I have explained in more rigorous mathematical detail during the exchange with Morbert whereupon he abandoned the discussion. I tire of the unwarranted attacks on my character and competence . . . especially from those who have exhibited neither.
I am sorry to hear of your health problems, but the facts are what they are. It would not hurt you to step back from your conviction that, not only is what you experienced is what you believe it to be, but that it is somehow bound up with the Bible, which by now, you know better than.
It is unworthy that you you continue to treat poster after poster who sees clearly the flaws in the argument (or explanation) you repeatedly make, and which you persistently peddle over on Christianity with a quite astonishing confidence, regarding what definitely happens after we die.
Would it really cause you some damage to stop trying to sell what nobody seems to want to buy?
It is unworthy that you you continue to treat poster after poster who sees clearly the flaws in the argument (or explanation) you repeatedly make, and which you persistently peddle over on Christianity with a quite astonishing confidence, regarding what definitely happens after we die.
My beliefs are my beliefs . . . my scientific rationale is my scientific rationale . . . my hypotheses are my hypotheses . . . and never it seems can atheists separate them properly. I have tried to explain the source of each . . . but apparently to no avail. They continue to be muddled together and it is my ultimate conclusions that seem to drive the antipathy.
Quote:
Would it really cause you some damage to stop trying to sell what nobody seems to want to buy?
I will not stop defending my views from attack, Arq . . . especially when they are based on misunderstanding. That is not selling anything . . . that is defense. I notice you do the same.
Your specific goal was more than achieved Mystic. There are no words sufficient to thank you.
I'm sorry your more general goal has not been. But don't despair...some things just take time to be revealed and realized.
Thank you, my friend. Actually the intellectual challenges and outcomes from my publication of my Synthesis have enriched these last few years and kept my mind sharper than might have otherwise been true. That is more than enough of a goal for now. I thank you for pestering me to do it.
KC is obsessed with a math error because he apparently doesn't ever make any.
I already explained my reason for posting, no need for you to make them up.
It was just pointing out the fact that in previous threads, the people you're claiming have zero knowledge in the field had enough knowledge to successful identify an error in the science you posted. At worst, that means that despite your claims to the contrary they have read and comprehended what you've been writing, and have enough technical ability to at least sanity check the actual physics.
Time to fabricate another excuse why people knowledgeable in the field disagree with your conclusions.
My beliefs are my beliefs . . . my scientific rationale is my scientific rationale . . . my hypotheses are my hypotheses . . . and never it seems can atheists separate them properly. I have tried to explain the source of each . . . but apparently to no avail. They continue to be muddled together and it is my ultimate conclusions that seem to drive the antipathy. I will not stop defending my views from attack, Arq . . . especially when they are based on misunderstanding. That is not selling anything . . . that is defense. I notice you do the same.
Of course. I am always open to crit. And you can't fool me. You are always popping up 'correcting' people's views on Life, the universe and everything in line with your theories, as though they were proven fact. Your denial of what is plain to all (apart from good old Gldnrule) is wasted typing time.
I still think your hypothesis is ingenious and possible, but peddling it as fact to anyone who will listen is going to attract dispute, even though you are pleased to wear the the martyrs hat. I hope your health problems improve, old chum...mine are...since I stopped taking those damn' pills and wasting my time sitting in a clinic.
But as other users have noted - and I already noted in the post before this one - you simply ignoring the posts where I do something - is not the same as me not having done it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I have over 18,000 posts and a lengthy Synthesis displaying my knowledge and training.
And if repeating assertions made them more true then your post count would indeed be relevant. However since it is not the case - I do not see why you mention it. You have just gone down a whole road of ad hominem here. I am not joining you on it. Either you want to back up the claims you have made on this thread - or you do not / can not. Pointing to 18000 posts as if we will find it somewhere in there - is just a dodge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I simply said it evidences the brain's capability to detect external field phenomena.
No such evidence is required. As I said __all__ electical systems produce some level of electical and magnetic fields. And __all__ such systems are affected by other such systems and fields.
All you are doing is stating the absolute obvious in order to get the word "fields" into the conversation. And having then introduced that word you simply run away with it as if it means all kinds of other things it does not.
You do the same - as I have pointed out a few times - with words like "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter". You throw them in to sound sciencey - but what you do with them is anything but.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I prefer to see it as an indication of another sensory path for the brain to receive information from reality.
I know you _prefer_ it. I already pointed out that preference in my previous post when I wrote "What backs up this assertion? Nothing that I can see - except you really really reeeeally want it to be true. ".
Your preferences and biases are clear. I point them out all the time. It is the actual evidence to back up your claims that is missing. Your prefernces have nothing to do with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I willfully ignore nothing.
Except all the times when you do. Which I am now not the only one to have noticed - noted - or mentioned. Your posts are often written in a way that is clear they are not accounting for posts other users have written in the past. Now either you are willfully ingorning them and pretending they do not exist - such as the "analogy" discussion ones - or you have a memory condition that neither you or I appear to be aware of.
Regardless of which of the two it is however - the posts are there - and I am happy to link to them as you will find if you try to claim once again I never explained why your analogies are bad ones in the past - when in fact I have the links right here to posts where I have done so and I have told users they can find those posts themselves in mere seconds merely by putting my user name into the search with the word "analogy" and checking out the first page of results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I accept that you have similar experiences and CHOOSE not to see them as I do.
Wrong. Try again. It is not a choice. I simply see no basis to see them as you do. The conclusions you leapt to first - then spent decades trying to villify second - were simply leaps you decided to make and have been unable to support since.
Certainly sitting there pretending no one understands science except you is not going to support your assertions. And certainly nor is claiming no one has rebutted your positions when you have not given anything _to rebut_ except assertions. How can one rebut an assertion except with counter assertion? Until you can even start backing up what you say - all we can do is keep pointing out that you are not backing up what you say.
In other words you deliberately keep your positions beyond the bounds of discussion - and then act like peoples resulting inability to discuss them is somehow a point in favor of your positions. You do like to keep stacking that deck - and unfortunately when that does not work you throw out accusations of everything from lack of knowledge - to arrogance - to even "stalking". One need only put that last word into a search with your name in it to see how often you try that particular tactic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
he Friar's razor....
Is not science. Therefore it does not in any way support the stuff you are simply making up about sciences "default position". It is a principle based on experience and wisdom and is not a science law or rule in and of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
so to accuse me of not correcting errors is just puerile nonsense.
As is accusing people who were capable of seeing and correcting that error of having no demonstrated knowledge of the subject however.
Hey, I understood your thesis pretty well which is one reason why I don't try to shhot it down. I don't agree with all of it, especialy when trying to bring Christianity into an otherwise beautiful hypothesis.
So, does that make me a really good lay ............ person?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are always popping up 'correcting' people's views on Life, the universe and everything in line with your theories, as though they were proven fact. Your denial of what is plain to all (apart from good old Gldnrule) is wasted typing time. 
