Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Okay, Let's Talk Basics

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on July 23, 2003 19:31:12 UTC

Alan,

Just a few comments before I leave this discussion. I should have known better to respond to you, but I might as well clear up a couple of matters so that others can see why I react so negatively to you:

I was just referring to IQ in identifying who he is.......evidence I've seen is he is intelligent...

You don't need to mention a person's IQ. First you have to find out if your audience is impressed. I'm not.

What's wrong with [oversimplication]? No law against simplicity.......what content is supposed to be missing?

Oversimplification is a logical fallacy which leads to faulty reasoning.

Can you prove there is such a thing as "abstract"?

Why do you even ask such a silly question? Can you tell me there's such a thing as 'prove'? This is one example of how you lose credibility to others. You play word games that only fool yourself.

Are people trying to imprison reality?

How is providing useful definitions based on empirical results in any way 'imprisoning reality'?

I think God is universal.

Great, but regardless of what you think, your definition is bound to be your definition and not necessarily someone else's definition. Are you trying to imprison God?

To talk to another is to have a partially common background to each life experience.....it seems........surely.......................?

Partial life sharing experiences might make for good Kodak moments, but it's not enough to establish agreement in areas such as metaphysics. For example, do you think you can establish 100% agreement on religion as with a Muslim, or with a Hindu? On the other hand, does religion so much matter if studying mathematics? Why is it Alan that all people from different religions can agree on math but not on the right religious worship or the same God definition (e.g., Trinity)?

Universal: freedom........????????????????

Please elaborate. What does this have to do with finding common consensus for definitions used by a universal audience for practical purposes?

What is the "universal defdinition" criteria you require?

Universal means wide-spread acceptance. What do you think is the criteria for something to have wide-spread acceptance?

Alan: It occurs to me that "E = mc squared" translates to "a picture is worth a thousand words" in general terms. "Alternatives = freedom of definition of comparison compared" where "E" becomes "alternatives"; "m" becomes "freedom of definition"; "c" becomes "speed of speed" or "comparison of comparison" as by simple Newtonian relativity we can say "speed" involves "things moving relative to each other while still differentiable (not muddled)...." Harv: "It's always fun to see you just arbitrarily throw yourself overboard and off the boat of reason. At times you seem like you can walk around on the boat of reason, and then for apparently no reason you just take a running dive". Alan: Please say explicity challenge the arguments!

Well, let's see. You take Einstein's use of 'mass' and you convert it into 'freedom of definition. You take Einstein's use of 'c' and convert that into 'comparison of comparison', etc. Alan, rule number one. You are not allowed to re-write physics to your fantasy. Maybe you think that is acceptable, but it is pure lunacy. Why don't we just start calling you 'Mel'. Is that okay? Can we start inventing a whole history about you that just didn't happen? Do you see the lunacy in that? This is what you are doing. Taking concepts from your imagination and taking them as if they are reality and have some credibility. You're lucky I'm even responding to you. I should do as others and say nothing to you for this kind of immature approach to the subject of physics. Re-defining Einstein's equations with your fantasy ideas, you have some nerve. [And then asking that someone reply with explicit arguments challenging this as if it is something that needs serious entertainment...]. Alan, I think it is better I avoid you. You are just a nut and I just shake my head everytime I debate with you because you make all these acinine comments and then keep asking for a logical response. You are not logical, you have no idea what logical means. I've said my peace. Good luck.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins