Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above. I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument.
Oh? I wasn't the one who used "entanglement" when they 'meant' Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, (that was you, by admission). Any causality 'hints' would then have referred more to HUP than to entanglement theories. If you don't wish your mis-statements to be misinterpreted, be more specific.
[/quote]
Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)
Now you're playing the schoolyard ad hominem card to cover your vagueness? Wow, an impressive argument.
[/quote]
Name calling is not ad hominem, especially when it is true.
Au contraire; ad hominem includes name calling since it also consists of attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument, (which your characterization qualifies as). Further, a biased opinion does not support the contention that such an opinion "is true", (since the support for such an empty opinion was given as an assumption of what you and others allegedly "know"). The opinion is biased because you have a vested interest in skirting issues raised within this debate in lieu of rational rebuttal, resorting instead to attacking your opponent's character. Whether or not some irrelevant subjective perception is true or false remains immaterial to the contextual points of the debate. That means being a "*bleep*", (or lacking one, in your figurative case - see, I can do it with panache too), has no bearing on the debate itself. Your denial of using an obvious ad hominem is merely entered into quoted evidence of your dissembling.
(I have met many self delusional people in many different areas, myself included).
I will give you a recent posting of yours in a thread titled "Praying For Yourself":
"Prayer" is a self-delusional appeal to dubious 'authority'.
Indeed, that does constitute an example of self-delusion in which you included yourself, (as quoted above and within the context of the other thread). It is not however, conclusive evidence that some unsupported 'libelous' opinion is accurate. Given that this forum isn't a 'court' and that the subject of empty insults is largely immaterial to the context of the debate, (except as evidence of ad hominems you've denied using), I see no valid reason to keep addressing such smoke & mirrors on your part.
Considering that the thread was written by people who believe in prayer and wanted to ask serious questions regarding what is appropriate, how do you see your answer qualifying as anything other than being a *bleep*? *bleep*. (lol couldn't resist that last bit, but I know that doesn't really bother you to be called that).
That thread appeared in D+D, (Debate+Discuss), not in 'religious support groups'. My response dissented on the basis of the inherent presumptions made regarding "prayer" and appropriately appeared in the D+D forum. Again, whether or not an empty, biased opinion irrationally characterizes such dissent as "being a *bleep*" is immaterial to the dissension. No rebuttal of the contention was presented and instead, the same ad hominem was weakly employed. As an aside, if you are going to employ that weekly, (as well as weakly), expect derision.
No that wasn't meant to wound you at all but to bolster you up and get you back on your A game.
No such bolstering was required since the reasoning used to counter your evasions and empty claims hasn't faltered.
If I approached you purely with that intention though my answers would be extremely short as you are most assured and most dangerous when given a lot to work with and I do give a lot to work with (maybe that is what bothers you, that I don't have as many chinks as you are used to and your typical approaches just don't quite fit with me).
You'll have to translate that gibberish back into English before an appropriate response can be made. Until such time, however I can point out that your flimsy position is not only full of chinks, it may consist entirely of chinks.
I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do. My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility. Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.
I'm astounded to have come across two different people who cannot recall their own words and 'insist', (however 'politely'), that I look up their words for them. To paraphrase your assertion then; you stipulated that, according to current knowledge and reasoning, we logically shouldn't exist, (despite the apparent manifestation of our existance). I dissented and referred to emergent phenomenon theory as an alternate explanation for our existance. [/quote]
My saying that comprehension of reasoning denotes that we shouldn't exist is not the same as me saying that we don't exist.
Read it again; I didn't assert that you stated "we don't exist", I asserted that you implicitly stipulated that we 'shouldn't exist', (according to some unreferenced source or, 'reasoning'). You're making a strawman argument here, dude. Either we're going with the a priori assumption that we do exist, (despite unspecified 'reasoning' stipulating that we shouldn't), or one of us is going to have to take the position that we don't exist. I defer doing so.
Of course I believe God created the universe.
And is such a 'belief' based upon "faith" or, some evidence to support that 'belief'? Which is it, without evasion?
What I mean is even with my faith in knowing that God created the universe it still isn't understandable to the human brain.
What is understandable to my human brain is that, either such an asserted 'belief' is based upon "faith" or, some evidence which hasn't been presented. Especially given the further assertion you made that this is something you 'know'. As you stated previously, "knowing" involves some certainty, (usually extrapolated from evidence), and "faith" demands "trust", (sans evidence), to paraphrase. Therefore, your phrase "my faith in knowing" becomes self-contradictory, (which falsifies itself).
A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient. It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works.
It is even more foolish to try to reduce a manifestly complex concept down to inaccurately simplistic terms, (which would make such an analogy insufficient once it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate - which it was). Your debating is not benefiting from your migraine, man. [/quote]
A complex problem can be demonstrated by parallelism of another similar and familiar example, which is what I did.
The parallel was inaccurate and therefore failed to demonstrate the complex problem, (indeed, such a parallel as you used would be more likely to propogate an erroneous tangential conclusion - which may have been the intention, were I to speculate).
If someone demonstrated it to be inaccurate they failed to show it to me. I don't know I had a few rather good points in there.
Your quantum entanglement analogy is inconclusive as a parallel because it contains unspecified a priori assumptions, (regarding causality and other inherent aspects of the theory). If someone commented that this debate was like golf, only completely different, that would also be an inconclusive parallel.
You have probably noticed that I have adjusted on you a bit, exposing a flank here, redeploying there, etc, and am giving you full knowledge of that.
I've observed 'wargaming' before and do not require advance notice of your manuevers and feints however, you've managed nothing novel thusfar and haven't acheived any tactical advantage, (much less any strategic ones), so far. Smoke and mirrors aside, naturally.
Community Forum
Topic: Faith (Read 53402 times)
April 15, 2009, 07:34:39 pm
