Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

You are still wrong. On so many topics that I can't even begin to point them all out.

[Neruz]

Nice dodge.

[MrWiggles]

Its redundant to be skeptical of skepticism.

And the question about solipsist was in general.

If you mean solipsism as a skeptical hypothesis, it's funny that the so called "skeptical science lovers" can't defend their own beloved science against skepticism

On line forums are a hard place to discuss that as when its brought up its in light toward someone spouting some sorta crap and taking any inch given admittance is just a quagmire. There are a few places where you can talk about that sorta stuff without it being used as a middle finger to any of your counter points. scienceforum.com, and sguform.com are two places I semi frequent. I've been the mod for sguforum a few times. And, its not a star gate forum. Its for a podcast. Sorid and I are fans of it.

But sure, anytime you want to discuss the lapses or weakness in a theory, I enjoy those conversation, and doing the fancy speculation on the what ifs hit me up, and it'd be awesome if you hit up on one of the ones I know something about. Like the star nebula formation theory. There also talk about general and special relativity needing to be tweaked since there are several deep space satellite not where they are suppose to be. Either there are unknown forces at play we cant yet observe or Einstein was wrong. The last time I read up on it, it was leaning toward Einstein was wrong. Not majority, just some tweakage.

[Neruz]

Einstein himself admitted that General Relativity was still flawed; the mere existence of Quantum Physics proves that General Relativity is flawed, and Einstein spent the latter part of his life trying to come up with something better.

I don't think i know any physicist who will tell you that General Relativity isn't flawed; the thing is, we don't have anything better yet.


No doubt some time in the future someone will come up with a better theory. Or maybe not, who knows.

[MrWiggles]

It is flawed, but damn if its creepily close to representing whats out there.

I'm of the mind, that it wont be outright replaced just changed here and there.

[Siquo]

Well, neither was Newton. He was "correct enough" for most practical purposes, and the basic mechanics for physics that he invented/discovered (tough question, that) is still taught in school today.

I'm of the opinion that saying that any scientific theory is right, is always wrong. Even the "laws" might/will someday be bent, or broken. They might be right according to current knowledge/instrument sensitivity, but there will always be a better one. At least until we find God the ultimate theory of everything, but (unlike quacks like Fukuyama) I think we're a long way away from that.


Neruz, straight question: Do you really want me to point it all out or are you merely trolling (again)?

[Neruz]

Generally when stating "x theory is correct" one does not actually mean "x theory is correct for all time, ever", it means that "at this moment in time, x theory has been shown to be experimentally reliable and thus can be treated as correct until such evidence is presented to the contrary".

The whole point about the Scientific Method is that everything is subject to revision if new evidence arises.


Siquo; i know, you were inserting Philosophy into the discussion again. I was trying to subtly point out that you were moving the goalposts.

[Siquo]

The whole point about the Scientific Method is that everything is subject to revision if new evidence arises.

And yet, somehow, that fact seems to be forgotten by a lot of "atheists". Also that the "first theories" are actually assumptions

I'm also confused how you can discuss two belief systems without an accepted overlapping paradigm, such as philosophy. Discussing theism vs atheism using solely theology vs scientific terms is never going to get anyone anywhere. I'm trying to find a common ground by transposing the discussion into philosophical territory. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

[Cheeetar]

The whole point about the Scientific Method is that everything is subject to revision if new evidence arises.

And yet, somehow, that fact seems to be forgotten by a lot of "atheists". Also that the "first theories" are actually assumptions

I'm also confused how you can discuss two belief systems without an accepted overlapping paradigm, such as philosophy. Discussing theism vs atheism using solely theology vs scientific terms is never going to get anyone anywhere. I'm trying to find a common ground by transposing the discussion into philosophical territory. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

Why do you have atheists and first theories in quotation marks?

[Siquo]

1. Because I don't want to insult all atheists, by calling a few of them ignorant.
2. They aren't the first theories of science, but they are the foundations on which all other theories are built. It's therefore an incorrect term, but "first theories" conveys the meaning I had in mind better.

[Cheeetar]

Perhaps it would be better to say 'some atheists', because I got the wrong impression from reading '"atheists"'.

[Neruz]

The whole point about the Scientific Method is that everything is subject to revision if new evidence arises.

And yet, somehow, that fact seems to be forgotten by a lot of "atheists". Also that the "first theories" are actually assumptions

Already been over this, if you want to pick up the discussion where you abandoned it feel free.

I'm also confused how you can discuss two belief systems without an accepted overlapping paradigm, such as philosophy. Discussing theism vs atheism using solely theology vs scientific terms is never going to get anyone anywhere. I'm trying to find a common ground by transposing the discussion into philosophical territory. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but if you want to discuss philosophy, don't just start stealthily inserting philosophical discourse into your posts. All that does is cause confusion.

[Andir]

Consciousness is defined by your senses.  Once your brain functions cease, so does your consciousness.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Consciousness is defined by your senses.  Once your brain functions cease, so does your consciousness.

Prove eet.

[Phmcw]

Well, easy worms aren't conscious.

I'm so sick of discussing atheism when theist rely on sophism to prove their point.
Prove me that I'm not loosing my time when I delete spam that promise me million if i give my credit card number.