There's so much hate in this thread.

God is such a hate monger. What a dick.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO This isn't about physics, this is about waves.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack And why is it a legend? Because people perceive it as being based on reality. That is what "legend" means. Maybe he was not a legend, but just a story. - You can use that we call him a legend, as proof that he is a legend. It is circular logic.

Actually, that's not what legend means. Honestly, I don't know why people here continue to argue with someone more concerned with the prevalence of his own tactical conversational style than the substance of his arguments. When you engage in semantic hair-splitting to arrive at a conclusion which no other evidence is provided - THAT is what circular logic means.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

The first thing you write, i dont understand. Yes, people who believe in supernatural things, believe things without evidence. It goes without saying. Do you think this is a good thing? I do not understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On In what you suppose I am trying to do, you are in some way acknowledging yourself that theoretical physicists are an authority.

Not really. Appeal to authority is simply the name of a false argument-form in which one attemts to portray a person or work as authoritarian, and therefore as an argument in itself.

quote:

But then you turned around and appealed your argument to what you believe to be the greatest minds in recent times - obviously irrefutable authorities in the matter. Nice.

No, I did not. I have never claimed that simply the fact that intelligent people believe (or dont believe) something, is an argument for its state. I mentioned Einstein and Hawking because they clearly show that intelligent people or physicists not necessarily have to be right, because it is impossible that both believers and nonbelievers of them are right.

- I thought frankly that was pretty obvious. How can you get the absurd idea that I presented ​​them as arguments?

quote:

Anyway, it is my understanding that Einstein did indeed believe it was possible there was a God - albeit not the "Christian" god of authority or punishment,

Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

That's some fine mental gymnastics for you, sparky.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

quote:

Originally posted by Znack The first thing you write, i dont understand. Yes, people who believe in supernatural things, believe things without evidence. It goes without saying. Do you think this is a good thing? I do not understand.

Perhaps you should explore why it might be a bad thing. I refuse to accept any argument that refers to the 'progression of our species' because that is a disgustingly arrogant notion typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou.

quote:

Not really. Appeal to authority is simply the name of a false argument-form in which one attemts to portray a person or work as authoritarian, and therefore as an argument in itself.

I am well aware of its red-herring status...

quote:

No, I did not. I have never claimed that simply the fact that intelligent people believe (or dont believe) something, is an argument for its state. I mentioned Einstein and Hawking because they clearly show that intelligent people or physicists not necessarily have to be right, because it is impossible that both believers and nonbelievers of them are right.

Such a pre-occupation with being right. It seems a rather convenient portion of recorded science is only concerned with 'being right' when it suits its agenda; is not a great deal of the entire scientific method being completely wrong, in lieu of failed experimentation and subsequent test results? Is it only "science" when it's correct, or more specifically, conducive to observable documentation one bestows a great deal of faith in the veracity of, given supposed peer-review?

quote:

I thought frankly that was pretty obvious. How can you get the absurd idea that I presented ​​them as arguments?

Likewise. I merely brought up the notion not because theoretical physicists are supposedly educated professionals in the very forefront of our embryonic paradigm, but because the datum they are inclined to formulate with is wrought with the chaotic behaviour of subatomics and celestial contradictions even the educated man would have no idea how to correlate. The very nature of their occupations practically demands a philosophy of sorts that must accommodate for a unifying force to give reason to the completely scientific observations that give rise to their theorems.

I am not saying it required to be spiritual before one enters theoretical physics - I am saying that as one shapes their understandings of the cosmos and its interplay upon mankind, it is practically unavoidable to surmise that there is an order to things. Personally, I do not think you can call this "God" is any tribal conscience, but might there be a being or a force that dictates this universal texture? Suddenly, it doesn't seem so outlandish.

quote:

Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

No, it is not exactly the same. It is not the same at all.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker That's some fine mental gymnastics for you, sparky.

I love the word "meaningful" - as though its importance is obfuscated by... well, personal meaning, of course! Isn't that the same for everyone? Shit.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Perhaps you should explore why it might be a bad thing. I refuse to accept any argument that refers to the 'progression of our species' because that is a disgustingly arrogant notion typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou. I am well aware of its red-herring status... Such a pre-occupation with being right. It seems a rather convenient portion of recorded science is only concerned with 'being right' when it suits its agenda; is not a great deal of the entire scientific method being completely wrong, in lieu of failed experimentation and subsequent test results? Is it only "science" when it's correct, or more specifically, conducive to observable documentation one bestows a great deal of faith in the veracity of, given supposed peer-review? Likewise. I merely brought up the notion not because theoretical physicists are supposedly educated professionals in the very forefront of our embryonic paradigm, but because the datum they are inclined to formulate with is wrought with the chaotic behaviour of subatomics and celestial contradictions even the educated man would have no idea how to correlate. The very nature of their occupations practically demands a philosophy of sorts that must accommodate for a unifying force to give reason to the completely scientific observations that give rise to their theorems. I am not saying it required to be spiritual before one enters theoretical physics - I am saying that as one shapes their understandings of the cosmos and its interplay upon mankind, it is practically unavoidable to surmise that there is an order to things. Personally, I do not think you can call this "God" is any tribal conscience, but might there be a being or a force that dictates this universal texture? Suddenly, it doesn't seem so outlandish. No, it is not exactly the same. It is not the same at all.

I love it when turn on your thinking cap, my dictionary hasn't seen this much action since the last spelling test I cheated on.

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

Yep, completely the same thing. 100%. For sure.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I love the word "meaningful" - as though its importance is obfuscated by... well, personal meaning, of course! Isn't that the same for everyone? Shit.

It's funny how someone trying to disprove the existence of God infers their own inability to prove the existence of logic.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker It's funny how someone trying to disprove the existence of God infers their own inability to prove the existence of logic.

I've never understood why anyone ever tries to prove or disprove the existence of God these days. I figured after Descartes' embarrassing attempt (I feel bad for the guy, he tried so hard) people would have given it up. I had a logic professor try year and it was just bad. Needless to say I'm thinking about retaking the class (from someone else) as I didn't fucking learn much.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)