"The Big Three"

[swagmaster420x]

You missed my point. My point was that I hate arguing with you all because you are apparently incapable of carrying out a reasonable debate. You love trying to make me angry and look silly, probably to convince yourselves that I am wrong. That is why I have been ignoring your pathetic studies and illogical arguments. I promised myself and PS I wouldn't go through this again so I won't.

It's ironic, because you are claiming all everyone else is doing is AD HOMINEM arguments.
This is extremely ironic; this is an AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT IN ITSELF.
By painting everyone else as savages you forego having to make a real argument in the first place (holier-than-thou tactic).
Ironically, the only one who has spewed NOTHING BUT AD HOMINEM is YOU.

[swagmaster420x]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/592932/Polar-ice-caps-increase-volume-third-cool-summer-halts-melting-Arctic

[chopinlover01]

Swagmaster has essentially summed it up. You've accused us of only ad hominem arguments, and only false information. Meanwhile, you've provided zero evidence as to why this is so.

[opus43]

Ooooh, I'll go unbrainwash myself with some books supporting the geocentric model of the universe dating to before Galileo <33333333 

[pencilart3]

OK, then, you win! Yay! Pencilart3 is a stupid dork boxhead idiot brainwashed retard!! You win! Yayy!!!

Now are you happy?

[swagmaster420x]

OK, then, you win! Yay! Pencilart3 is a stupid dork boxhead idiot brainwashed retard!! You win! Yayy!!!

Now are you happy?

OK, then, you win! Yay! Swagmaster420x is a stupid savage evil irrational brainwashed hellbent retard!! You win! Yayy!!!

Now are you happy?

[chopinlover01]

OK, then, you win! Yay! Pencilart3 is a stupid dork boxhead idiot brainwashed retard!! You win! Yayy!!!

Now are you happy?

nobody said this but you, Noah..

[pencilart3]

...therefore it must be true...

[chopinlover01]

...therefore it must be true...

By what logic?

[swagmaster420x]

By what logic?

"Noah" is playing you like a fiddle

[ajlongspiano]

Take it easy, guys. We'll only find out for sure by the time we're dead, and if God doesn't exist, we won't really " know, " because we'll all be unconscious... forever  . Let's all have some pizza and talk about Scriabin's mysticism or something.

Best,

AJ

[chopinlover01]

Hey, if you're buying...

[ajlongspiano]

Some Papa John's or Pizza Hut really does sound like a treat right now.

[chopinlover01]

Like I said- if you're buying, I'm MORE than happy to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with you

[mjames]

why do people always like to mention religion...it has nothing to do with the topic.

[pencilart3]

Like I said- if you're buying, I'm MORE than happy to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with you

And Donald Trump!

That's post 1800! Woot WOOOTTTTTTT

[ajlongspiano]

James,

If you were referring to what I said then just remember that I didn't actually mention religion at all.


Best,

AJ

PS.

Science is cool.

[chopinlover01]

why do people always like to mention religion...it has nothing to do with the topic.

And Donald Trump!

Because dogmatic thinking can lead to unconditional acceptance of either one.

[pencilart3]

You are quite the ones to be talking about dogmatism

[mjames]

can you not

im not american so idc about trump
secondly noah-kun, if you dont have anything to say just dont post. either clearly illustrate your criticisms of climate science (or evolution, or big bang) or piss off.

[chopinlover01]

You are quite the ones to be talking about dogmatism

Yes, believing in the whole "evidence" and "logic" thing.

[pencilart3]

Assuming, of course, that logic and evidence are on your side?

[chopinlover01]

I'd be interested to see which of either you posses.

[ajlongspiano]

I have a question for you guys. And just so you all know, I hope we can be kind and civil to each other about this. You guys know I value our friendships and I wouldn't trade that.

 If we don't really have a solid foundation of what the essence of a God would be like, how can we disregard the possibility of his existence fully? It's as if we presuppose that a divine creator would be recordable if he existed. Some things can be objectively disproven. For example, can a person run at the speed of light? Now, that would be fairly easy to disprove because we are provided information which can act as a basis for our experiment. The first piece of information we have is what the speed of light is, which is 299 792 458 m / s.  The next piece of information is what physical requirements it would take to get you going that fast. It would take an infinite amount of energy to get anything that has mass (Like a person or a rock) going at that rate of speed. If you burned all the oil (and plants, and animals) on our planet and converted them into kinetic energy you would get going pretty dang fast, but it would still give you  0% of the total energy that you need to get going at that immense rate of speed (since any number divided by infinity is zero). Through this, we could come to the logical conclusion that a person cannot run at the speed of light.
   Now the dilemma when it comes to disproving or proving a God scientifically is that we don't actually have the necessary physical properties and data to define what a God would even be like, so it's just about impossible to come to a definite conclusion as to whether He exists or not based on whether or not we can observe Him. Science and physics observe the observable world and draw conclusions from it and that is BEAUTIFUL. I absolutely love science. But it can't draw conclusions out of things that don't have an observable foundation in the first place, even though the things may be true. For example, can you describe to me the essence of energy? Not what it does, how it relates to the world, or it's mathematical formula, but its very substance? We have a reason to believe in energy, no doubt, a really GOOD reason. It governs everything around us! But we don't believe in it because we can actually observe it, we believe in it because we observe how the world works and come to a conclusion that there must be an agent of cause, a logical progression that makes everything work. The really tricky part is when we get down to those little irreducible things that force us to (dare I say it) sacrifice our progressive and logical reasoning and come to the conclusion that "It just is" or "It was conceived by a mind and that mind just is." And I believe that the compromise of it is that when we choose which, we must acknowledge that that thing or who has the essence of being in of itself/themself. The intrinsic ability to cause itself to exist. That's a crazy thing to wrap our minds around in my opinion (The world is so cool!). So could God exist? I believe it's very possible/plausible, and I believe that a person who believes in God is neither unintellectual nor illogical. Looking forward to talk more about this with you guys. I hope you all have a great night and week!

Best,

AJ

PS.

I know this topic was not originally made to discuss the idea of God but it started to sway that way, so I figured I would share a few personal notions.

[mjames]

Yes, things that are falsifiable can be disproved, things that are not cannot...
Your point basically amounts to "if we don't know what it is then we can't disprove it." Yeah okay, so what?
You want me to describe a physical quantity without using physical definitions? Well yeah, that's another malformed question. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at. You're misunderstanding what energy is as a physical quantity, there is no "essence" to it. It is merely a tool of measurement we use to describe the transfer and exchange of different properties between systems.

----

Yes, God(s) are possible but they're also highly improbable. Much like a teacup being on the surface on Pluto, or all of us being inside the matrix, or all of us being a part of someone's dreams, or memories of your entire life were downloaded into you 5seconds though. It's just pointless rhetoric.
No evidence (aside from eye-witness testimony) points to any sort of deity described by humans. No scientific evidence points to the existence of an intelligent designer.

and I believe that a person who believes in God is neither unintellectual nor illogical.

Neither do i. Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and plenty of others believed in supernatural first causes, doesn't make them idiots. However the belief itself is irrational for a number of reasons (God being the first cause/non-sequitur, special pleading fallacies, and so on).

[swagmaster420x]

f u  c   k k k k   j e s u   s   ch  r  i  s tt 
hes some anoying stupid idiot at my school who wont shut the fu    c k k up  i think he needs to have his throat stomepd into the the curb

[opus43]

[timothy42b]

Assuming, of course, that logic and evidence are on your side?

A lot of it comes down to perceived certainty. 

The first point is that you are correct, this is a two step process.  You assume that logic and evidence means something, and then you determine if logic and evidence are on your side.  Then you make a choice which side you think is right.

The assumption that logic and evidence means something is not a universal given.  There are many particularly within conservative religious groups who do NOT accept that.  I am not sure whether you (pencilart) accept that.  I hope that you do. 

The actual mathematical models are beyond the understanding of most of us here.  I read the IPCC report and the opinion of 97% of climate scientists supporting it.  That was enough to give me at least a provisional acceptance of the likelihood of AGW.  Until I did that I had not formed any opinion.   Since then there has been a host of supporting evidence from ocean salinity and pH, glacier flow etc., that increased my degree of acceptance.  100% certainty?  Well, that's hard to come by.  But at least at the level of where a reasonable person can't reject it. 

If you came to your contrary conclusion before you looked at the data, OR you are very certain of your conclusion, then you based your decision on religious reasons and not on logic or evidence. 

This is very important.  Decisions made for religious reasons, in ignorance of evidence, are ALWAYS perceived to be more certain.  This in itself is a data point.  The more certain you are, the more your reasoning must be based on religion, and the more likely you are to be wrong about anything scientific.  (I'm using religion in a more general sense, not pointing at a particular religion or arguments from a religious text, but in the context of religious thinking in general.)  I think that you, pencilart, are very very certain.

The number of climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 97%.  The number of Baptist preachers who reject AGW is at least 99%.  Which group is better at evaluating scientific data? 

[swagmaster420x]

A lot of it comes down to perceived certainty.  

The first point is that you are correct, this is a two step process.  You assume that logic and evidence means something, and then you determine if logic and evidence are on your side.  Then you make a choice which side you think is right.

The assumption that logic and evidence means something is not a universal given.  There are many particularly within conservative religious groups who do NOT accept that.  I am not sure whether you (pencilart) accept that.  I hope that you do.  

The actual mathematical models are beyond the understanding of most of us here.  I read the IPCC report and the opinion of 97% of climate scientists supporting it.  That was enough to give me at least a provisional acceptance of the likelihood of AGW.  Until I did that I had not formed any opinion.  Since then there has been a host of supporting evidence from ocean salinity and pH, glacier flow etc., that increased my degree of acceptance.  100% certainty?  Well, that's hard to come by.  But at least at the level of where a reasonable person can't reject it.  

If you came to your contrary conclusion before you looked at the data, OR you are very certain of your conclusion, then you based your decision on religious reasons and not on logic or evidence.  

This is very important.  Decisions made for religious reasons, in ignorance of evidence, are ALWAYS perceived to be more certain.  This in itself is a data point.  The more certain you are, the more your reasoning must be based on religion, and the more likely you are to be wrong about anything scientific.  (I'm using religion in a more general sense, not pointing at a particular religion or arguments from a religious text, but in the context of religious thinking in general.)  I think that you, pencilart, are very very certain.

The number of climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 97%.  The number of Baptist preachers who reject AGW is at least 99%.  Which group is better at evaluating scientific data?  

Stf U idiot u are irrational