Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by googlefudge
We are all homo-sapiens, we are all human... We are not all men.

And I will continue to pick you, and anyone else up, when you use male specific
gender pronouns when you mean men and woman (Yes the string man appears
in woman too... apparently the string man appearing in a word doesn't mean what
you think it means.)

I really don't give a damn ...[text shortened]... ple use are both informed by, and inform their thoughts.

If you don't like it. Tough cookies.

Good for you: consistency is a tough thing to not only establish, but maintain and you have certainly established and maintained consistency. Unfortunately, it is nearly always being wrong. Ironically, it seems to come with your most emphatic statements which makes it kind of funny, really.

Homo sapien is literally translated from the Latin homo for "man" (and by "man," it is meant to confer "male human," believe it or not), and the Old French sapience via Latin sapientia/sapiens for "good taste, good sense, discernment; intelligence, wisdom," and is long considered to encompass all of mankind.

So slay away, Alonso Quijano: those windmills are itching for a fight.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This dogmatic assertion underpins your argument entire. Is there empirical evidence for this "god-consciousness" or is it to be taken as self-evident?

I am quite certain the point has been established ad nauseam: man has been religious even before he started chronicling his existence--- without fail, every single society has included acknowledgement of the supernatural.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well if it means the sum totality of everything, the laws of physics, spacial and
time dimensions, and all matter and energy spontaneously coming into existence
from a total and utter absence of anything at all...

Then that is exactly what I mean.

Ah, I see.
So the laws of physics allows for the laws of physics to come into existence.
Interesting conundrum you have there...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ah, I see.
So the laws of physics allows for the laws of physics to come into existence.
Interesting conundrum you have there...

Not if you understand the mathematics.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not if you understand the mathematics.

Do tell.

If I have zero, according to you, one can be manufactured from that zero?
If I have no mathematics (because there is nothing), if the laws of physics (which pertain to what is, the physical world) are not existent, somehow out of this nothing, mathematics will appear as well as the laws of physics?
And the cause of the appearance of both mathematics and the laws of physics is... mathematics and the laws of physics?

Please tell me you don't seriously believe this.
But if you truly do, please tell me you the authorities have removed your right to drive a motor vehicle.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do tell.

If I have zero, according to you, one can be manufactured from that zero?
If I have no mathematics (because there is nothing), if the laws of physics (which pertain to what is, the physical world) are not existent, somehow out of this nothing, mathematics will appear as well as the laws of physics?
And the cause of the appearance of both math ...[text shortened]... u truly do, please tell me you the authorities have removed your right to drive a motor vehicle.

I said mathematics. Not preschool arithmetic.

And no I can't explain it to you.

You need about a decade of hard study of mathematics and physics to do before
it could be explained to you. (and the ability to keep up)

And this isn't me saying this. This is quantum physics of the standard model
telling you this. This is Nobel laureates telling you this.

I'm just the messenger.


I'm sorry but the fundamental laws of physics say this can happen.
And they are written in the language of mathematics.


However if we were to dumb it down to an incredible degree...

0 can become + and - 1. Because 1-1=0

The universe has a net zero energy, the positive balances out the negative and
results in nothing.


I don't know if our universe DID come from nothing, or if there was something before it,
and something before that.

But I do think it's POSSIBLE for our universe to have come from nothing.

As does physics. (and we observe things popping in and out of existence, coming from nothing,
all the time)




I would also remind you of this...

If you say the universe were created by a god, then I have to ask, how did the god come to exist?

If you say the god existed forever, then it's just as easy, and simpler, for me to say that the universe
has existed forever.

If the god hasn't existed forever, then it had a beginning too, where it had to appear from nothing,
and it's just as easy, and simpler, for me to say that the universe just popped into existence.

Either way, god just makes things more complicated and less likely.

Because the universe when it formed was simple, and complexity has developed in it.
God is inherently complex, indeed infinitely complex, and much harder and less likely to create from nothing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I said mathematics. Not preschool arithmetic.

And no I can't explain it to you.

You need about a decade of hard study of mathematics and physics to do before
it could be explained to you. (and the ability to keep up)

And this isn't me saying this. This is quantum physics of the standard model
telling you this. This is Nobel laureates telling ...[text shortened]... ntly complex, indeed infinitely complex, and much harder and less likely to create from nothing.

I said mathematics. Not preschool arithmetic.
You missed the point.
Mathematics is rooted in what is: counted, calculated, measured, or, in general... "the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects."Reveal Hidden Content

And while you will not find consensus today as to what constitutes mathematics, it necessarily must have something upon which/with which to perform functions--- even if that something is theoretical.

When there is nothing, no mathematics exist... until an agent adds something.

This is quantum physics of the standard model telling you this.
Quantum literally from the Latin for "as much as, so much as; how much? how far? how great an extent?" or, in general, the base of mathematics: counted, calculated, measured. If there be nothing, no observation is possible. No laws are possible where nothing exists.

I'm sorry but the fundamental laws of physics say this can happen.
And they are written in the language of mathematics.
Perhaps in some imaginary, theoretical world the laws of physics can intone on nothing, but not in this world, where the laws of physics speak on the behavior of the physical world.

However if we were to dumb it down to an incredible degree...

0 can become + and - 1. Because 1-1=0
Gee: where'd you get that 1 from?

As does physics. (and we observe things popping in and out of existence, coming from nothing,
all the time)
It isn't magic. It is incredibly uninhibited movement, from one spot to another spot seemingly without the need to travel. It was there, it is now here.

If you say the universe were created by a god, then I have to ask, how did the god come to exist?
Uncaused cause.

If you say the god existed forever, then it's just as easy, and simpler, for me to say that the universe
has existed forever.
Now, you're getting somewhere.
Everything within the universe (without even including our own intuition) tells us that it all began at some point.
Nothing, then something.
There was nothing to act when there existed nothing, therefore eliminating a start from natural causes: nothing natural existed.
Therefore, it is far more complex to imagine natural causes acting upon nothing and creating itself than it is to imagine an agent outside of the created universe as being the impetus for what was created.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I said mathematics. Not preschool arithmetic.
You missed the point.
Mathematics is rooted in what is: counted, calculated, measured, or, in general... "the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects."[hidden]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics[/hidden]

And while you will not find consensus today as to what const ...[text shortened]... s to imagine an agent outside of the created universe as being the impetus for what was created.[/b]

Yeah, this discussion is going nowhere.

You have not one clue what you are talking about.

And presume that your wholly ignorant viewpoint is better than that of those
that have spent the lives studying this using the only methodology ever
demonstrated to actually work. And which has built our modern world.

I am telling you what science says.

Like it, or don't like it. I don't care.

Science says that something can come from nothing.

And you don't speak the language of science so I can't explain it to you.

Even if you were actually interested.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah, this discussion is going nowhere.

You have not one clue what you are talking about.

And presume that your wholly ignorant viewpoint is better than that of those
that have spent the lives studying this using the only methodology ever
demonstrated to actually work. And which has built our modern world.

I am telling you what science says. ...[text shortened]... k the language of science so I can't explain it to you.

Even if you were actually interested.

You have not one clue what you are talking about.
In Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, your response (ad hominem) is one step above name calling, and a full five steps removed from actually refuting the central point of my assertions--- any of them.

About par for course, given your history.

I am telling you what science says.
Yeah.
Kinda.
You regurgitate half-chewed, wholly-undigested bits and pieces of this-n-that, things which impressed the hell out of you when you frantically searched for some supporting argument on the intertube, but your application of these fragments are so poorly placed in your sentences, you come off sounding even worse for the wear.

Science says that something can come from nothing.
Oh, back to that argument again?
The one you said you rely on, then said you said no such thing, then said you really, really do rely on it?
What is the name of that science, again?

And you don't speak the language of science so I can't explain it to you.
I like numbers real good.
Wutchu talkin' bout, Willis?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You have not one clue what you are talking about.
In Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, your response (ad hominem) is one step above name calling, and a full five steps removed from actually refuting the central point of my assertions--- any of them.

About par for course, given your history.

I am telling you what science says.
Yeah. ...[text shortened]... ience so I can't explain it to you.[/b]
I like numbers real good.
Wutchu talkin' bout, Willis?[/b]

Yeah... Not an ad hominem.

I wasn't saying you are an idiot therefore your argument is wrong.

I was saying your an idiot and thus I'm giving up on this discussion.


And the fact that you can't tell the difference just reaffirms my view that
there is no point discussing this with you.

And no, I haven't been looking this stuff up just to debate idiots like you.

And I would add that while that is undoubtedly insulting... It's not an
ad hominem either.

Try reading this... maybe you will learn something.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah... Not an ad hominem.

I wasn't saying you are an idiot therefore your argument is wrong.

I was saying your an idiot and thus I'm giving up on this discussion.


And the fact that you can't tell the difference just reaffirms my view that
there is no point discussing this with you.

And no, I haven't been looking this stuff up just to deb ...[text shortened]...
Try reading this... maybe you will learn something.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

I wasn't saying you are an idiot therefore your argument is wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what you said:

You have not one clue what you are talking about.
and then:
And presume that your wholly ignorant viewpoint is better...
and then again:
And you don't speak the language of science so I can't explain it to you.

Thanks to your timely support, I was able to learn something new about ad hominem argumentsReveal Hidden Contentin the second paragraph of the link you provided:

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. (italics from yours truly)

It must be hard being you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I wasn't saying you are an idiot therefore your argument is wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what you said:

You have not one clue what you are talking about.
and then:
And presume that your wholly ignorant viewpoint is better...
and then again:
And you don't speak the language of science so I can't explain it to you.

T ...[text shortened]... he logical fallacy isn't there. (italics from yours truly)[/quote]

It must be hard being you.[/b]

You have not one clue what you are talking about.

Not an ad hominem. It's an observation about you.
It does not follow the form, "insult, therefore, wrong"

And presume that your wholly ignorant viewpoint is better...

Again, not an ad hominem.
I am making the observation that your viewpoint is ignorant.
Now you can argue that I am wrong, but it is not an ad hominem.


And you don't speak the language of science so I can't explain it to you.

Not an ad hominem.
It's the equivalent of saying that you don't understand ancient Latin and thus you can't
read texts written in ancient Latin.

Again the form of an ad hominem is that I say you are [insert insult here] Therefore you are wrong.

What I am actually saying is "having heard your arguments, I think thy are so bad I think you are [insert insult here].

Not an ad hominem.


As you would realise if you read the entire web page... and had reading comprehension skills.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If I have no mathematics (because there is nothing),

Are you seriously suggesting that it is possible for mathematics not to exist?

Do you not think calculus existed before Newton?
Do you not think that trigonometry existed before Pythagoras?
Before your god made anything wasn't 1+1=2 ?

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]You have not one clue what you are talking about.

Not an ad hominem. It's an observation about you.
It does not follow the form, "insult, therefore, wrong"

And presume that your wholly ignorant viewpoint is better...

Again, not an ad hominem.
I am making the observation that your viewpoint is ignorant.
Now you can argue that I a ...[text shortened]...

As you would realise if you read the entire web page... and had reading comprehension skills.[/b]

Not an ad hominem. It's an observation about you.
Great.
What do you think makes it an ad hominem, a--- as I called it--- one step above name calling, exactly?
Here it is: you use the insult to replace an actual rebuttal to the assertion.
Your objection has no weight in terms of actual argument; you resort to dismissing the point(s) made by virtue of your assessment of the other person's alleged intellectual inferiority.
Can you see it?
Every time you insult the other person while also without offering an iota of counter-argument--- with or without substance--- you are arguing from an ad hominem position.

What I am actually saying is "having heard your arguments, I think thy are so bad I think you are [insert insult here].
No need for the King's English; let's keep it informal, shall we?
I don't think you realize it, but what you offered in the quotes is the same thing: ad hominem.
If you want to avoid looking like an ignorant buck-toothed tea-sipping s o p, have a counter-argument or actual evidence-based reason for rejecting their position.



You see what I did there, right?