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.
This IS straw-manning because you pretend that there is no such thing as plausible hypotheses based on existing knowledge in the area of the currently unknown. Plausible hypotheses are NOT just making things up. It is how science expands current knowledge. Yes, they need to be fully tested before accepting them, but dismissing them as "making things up" is definitely "straw-manning."
That sound you hear is Mystic moving the goalposts again.
Earlier I stated that belief was a more appropriate word than truth for what the OP was talking about. Now Mystic would have you think that I was trying to define hypotheses as “making things up”.
There are several problems with this, the primary one being that Mystic is trying, but failing, to shift the discussion topic without anybody noticing. If anything, Mystic is creating the straw man by applying my words to something that I did not intend or reference.
The second shift is Mystic trying to classify the OP’s thoughts into the class of hypothesis and merging the OPs thoughts with Mystic’s own. This is a grand enlargement of the discussion, and one that I was obviously not addressing.
The shift that Mystic is trying to make by moving either OP’s thoughts, or Mystic’s, or both, into a hypothesis is similarly groundless. A hypothesis is a proposal based upon limited evidence. Quite simply, we do not have even limited evidence to support either poster’s thoughts.
Finally, Mystic keeps presenting thoughts with limited or no evidence as truth. This is merely redefining the word into meaninglessness.
I am not creating a straw man. A straw man would require me to misrepresent your argument in order to defeat the mis-representation. I very clearly understand and acknowledge that you think that if something is unknown you feel justified in making something up and presenting it as truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
That sound you hear is Mystic moving the goalposts again.
Earlier I stated that belief was a more appropriate word than truth for what the OP was talking about. Now Mystic would have you think that I was trying to define hypotheses as “making things up
Since my views ARE based on hypotheses extrapolated from existing science there is no moving of goalposts as indicated in the bold of his post. He did accuse me of making things up.
Since my views ARE based on hypotheses extrapolated from existing science there is no moving of goalposts as indicated in the bold of his post. He did accuse me of making things up.
Please note you accused me of creating a straw man first, and now you are trying to support your baseless accusation by pulling in later statements of mine.
Obviously I did not say anything about you making things up before you threw the straw man accusation.
Your goalposts are moving around again. We have also drifted sufficiently far from the OP into rounds of pointless squabbling. I will respond to anything related to the OP, but not any additional strawman/goalpost discussions.
Apparently you did not read the title which states that this is a theory. Also belief in a God Or Gods is not and cannot be based on half truths as there is no way to test the validity of such a belief or to prove or disprove the existence of such an entity or entities. Each person's belief or lack thereof in that which is Supranatural is the complete truth of that individual as truth has no foundation in actual fact. Each person has that which is true to them, which may not and likely will not be the truth for any other.
no I read it. I just don't hide behind it. Once we are past "yeah, they got it wrong." The question becomes "explain what we are seeing."
the rest of the post is meaningless because its a total cop out.
That sound you hear is Mystic moving the goalposts again.
Earlier I stated that belief was a more appropriate word than truth for what the OP was talking about. Now Mystic would have you think that I was trying to define hypotheses as “making things up”.
There are several problems with this, the primary one being that Mystic is trying, but failing, to shift the discussion topic without anybody noticing. If anything, Mystic is creating the straw man by applying my words to something that I did not intend or reference.
The second shift is Mystic trying to classify the OP’s thoughts into the class of hypothesis and merging the OPs thoughts with Mystic’s own. This is a grand enlargement of the discussion, and one that I was obviously not addressing.
The shift that Mystic is trying to make by moving either OP’s thoughts, or Mystic’s, or both, into a hypothesis is similarly groundless. A hypothesis is a proposal based upon limited evidence. Quite simply, we do not have even limited evidence to support either poster’s thoughts.
Finally, Mystic keeps presenting thoughts with limited or no evidence as truth. This is merely redefining the word into meaninglessness.
lmao, no he is not. Its you not understanding what he is saying at all. And the little bit that you do, you just deny.
All mystic is saying is that we exist because the universe exists. That the patterns we see in nature produced a subset of interactions that are "humans", and without that larger set of patterns we do not exists.
so when we compare his claim to your claim "I don't care there is no god" ... the sect of atheism you follow is debunked. lmao, so easily, in fact, you don't even know the game is over.
now, what you can argue, is the unified field and calling it god. But then we adjust his belief to a set of fields and his claims becomes more empirical ... empirical means if you deny it, you are just acting religious.
the real point of contention is the word "god". again, at that point, if its the word "god" bothering you and causing you deny everything, we need to look at what happened to you to cause the word to be a trigger.
the real point of contention is the word "god". again, at that point, if its the word "god" bothering you and causing you deny everything, we need to look at what happened to you to cause the word to be a trigger.
I don't know what happened to anyone else, but here is what happens to me when I hear word "god" -
I have no idea what that word means.
It does not cause me to deny everything, it does not bother me and nothing is triggered by it.
I simply draw blank.
Not because I don't understand something, but because there nothing to understand, because nothing is explained.
It looks from your comments, that you see something I don't (or just think, that you see something I don't)
I dealt with your misunderstanding of an immanent and transcendent panentheist God elsewhere which disposes of your so-called debunk of Minkowski's formulation within the "measured" 5%.
If so I haven't seen it. Only a thunderous silence for my showing that Minkowski's theorem apparently refuted your claim. I challenge you to cite a post where you have done so, otherwise i am going to swap 'evasive' and even 'dishonest' for a harsher word.
Quote:
I will let the future findings write the epitaph for my views. There have been many unsung or rejected polymaths within their own generations. These are absurd claims equivalent to proclaiming "common sense" and the "simplest explanations" are always best. I accept that they could be enough for "laybods" but not for those desirous of the best possible explanations.
Oh please, spare us the 'Unrecognised genius' tosh (I know all about it ..There -I've said it )(1) if you are not aware of not only the unreliability of common sense but also the irrelevance to your argument (revelation through Faith) and the demonstration of the validity of the principle of parsimony it is only because you immediately put out of your mind anything that you do not want to hear or you never listen in the first place.
It is powerful condemnation of your flawed thinking that a laybod like myself (and so many others - with or without qualifications0 have seen through and sussed you. And yet you think that everyone is ignorant other than you.
(1) Raffs and Trouts update. Halfway with the checkback -that is the transfiguration. During which I found the Key to the whole synoptics mess. Luke 6.17, where the Galilee healings (withered hand etc.) are linked with the 'sermon on the mount' which is interesting as Luke had Jesus come down (from the hills where he's been praying) onto a level place (where there is room for all the multitude) and thus showing that the original (Q-document) version of the sermon actually had Jesus up on a Mountain.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-01-2019 at 04:01 PM..
I don't know what happened to anyone else, but here is what happens to me when I hear word "god" -
I have no idea what that word means.
It does not cause me to deny everything, it does not bother me and nothing is triggered by it.
I simply draw blank.
Not because I don't understand something, but because there nothing to understand, because nothing is explained.
It looks from your comments, that you see something I don't (or just think, that you see something I don't)
What is it?
it doesn't me either.
but when everything is about you, I will limit what I say to things about you.
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.
There is no sound. Mystic's goalposts are so well oiled as to be virtually frictionless and soundless.
)(1) if you are not aware of not only the unreliability of common sense but also the irrelevance to your argument (revelation through Faith) and the demonstration of the validity of the principle of parsimony it is only because you immediately put out of your mind anything that you do not want to hear or you never listen in the first place. 