Tired of the religious right putting down science

[GunnyFreedom]

If you believe you are incapable of understanding something, you will never understand it.

Who believes they are incapable of understanding something?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It's always the religion/anti-religion threads that wind up the least civil.

Somewhere God is facepalming.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MelissaWV again.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't wish to get into a string theory debate. Its flawed and overly complex.

It is not, however "we can't possibly know so why bother to try" which was your accusation.

 

[Origanalist]

It is not, however "we can't possibly know so why bother to try" which was your accusation.

That sounds a lot like old school fundamentalism.

 

[tttppp]

Who believes they are incapable of understanding something?

I would have to go back in the thread to find out, but I've heard it many times from religious people that we are designed by God to be incapable of understanding our place in the universe. I believe this post was addressing a similar argument.

 

[tttppp]

It is not, however "we can't possibly know so why bother to try" which was your accusation.

Thats not my point at all on string theory. From what I've read on string theory, it wastes so much time detailing ever last detail of string theory, and never gets to the point of the whole thing, which is to be a theory of everything. From what I have seen, it is not a good theory of everything. Like anything else, if you can't explain clearly what the point of your theory is, its a waste of time discussing every last detail of your theory.

 

[tttppp]

He's right though, if you aren't affirming the consequent, begging the question, or circling the cause, then you are appealing to authority (in this case "common sense"). It doesn't matter if a fallacy agrees with you or not, it's still a fallacy. If not 'convertible' then why not 'portable' between realms or m-branes? If not portable, then why not generated from background energy? "That's dumb because I said so" is not much of an argument.

I'm not the one who argued that "God energy" is different that the energy we percieve today. You should take that up with whoever said that, not me.

All I was saying was that he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. "No God energy is special and not like the energy we have today...but of course you can convert God energy into our energy."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I would have to go back in the thread to find out, but I've heard it many times from religious people that we are designed by God to be incapable of understanding our place in the universe. I believe this post was addressing a similar argument.

Putting words into other people's mouths is also an invalid form of argumentation.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Thats not my point at all on string theory. From what I've read on string theory, it wastes so much time detailing ever last detail of string theory, and never gets to the point of the whole thing, which is to be a theory of everything. From what I have seen, it is not a good theory of everything. Like anything else, if you can't explain clearly what the point of your theory is, its a waste of time discussing every last detail of your theory.

OK, how about "subatomic particles are subdimensional strings that subsist below the four dimensions of space-time" and "eleven dimensions to account for every phenomena that exists." Seems like a pretty concise statement to me.

 

[tttppp]

Putting words into other people's mouths is also an invalid form of argumentation.

So is wasting people's time giving them a grammar lesson.

In case you haven't noticed, RPF doesn't use multiple quotes, so I can't just read the post 3 quotes back and automatically know what it addresses. I chose to elaborate on my post instead of trying to find the post it addresses. That will have to do for now.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not the one who argued that "God energy" is different that the energy we percieve today. You should take that up with whoever said that, not me.

All I was saying was that he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. "No God energy is special and not like the energy we have today...but of course you can convert God energy into our energy."

You are assuming the conclusion in the premise, "God cannot create matter in space-time because matter cannot be created in space-time." Also, you are assuming that God functions within the paradigm of space-time rather than outside of it. This is the biggest problem that naturalists have with supernaturality, they can't grasp the fundamental premise of existence outside of the space-time realm of temporality. The temporal rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to the atemporal realm of eternity. It is a blind spot inherent to the conceptualization that the realm of eternity does not exist or is a product of fantasy. What you say may be accurate from within your personal paradigm, but the supernaturalist inhabits an entirely different paradigm than the exclusive naturalist.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So is wasting people's time giving them a grammar lesson.

In case you haven't noticed, RPF doesn't use multiple quotes, so I can't just read the post 3 quotes back and automatically know what it addresses. I chose to elaborate on my post instead of trying to find the post it addresses. That will have to do for now.

LOL who's giving anybody a grammar lesson? Are you just making stuff up as you go here?

"Oh people hate grammar nazis so I'll just randomly accuse this guy of being a grammar nazi so maybe people will like my argument better than his." Is the impression that I am getting here.

 

[tttppp]

OK, how about "subatomic particles are subdimensional strings that subsist below the four dimensions of space-time" and "eleven dimensions to account for every phenomena that exists." Seems like a pretty concise statement to me.

I would start by explaining how string theory explains everything. Because if it doesn't that means its 11 dimensions most likely don't exist.

Just to be clear, I think there are some valid ideas to string theory. But from what I've seen, it doesn't explain everything.

 

[Origanalist]

You are assuming the conclusion in the premise, "God cannot create matter in space-time because matter cannot be created in space-time." Also, you are assuming that God functions within the paradigm of space-time rather than outside of it. This is the biggest problem that naturalists have with supernaturality, they can't grasp the fundamental premise of existence outside of the space-time realm of temporality. The temporal rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to the atemporal realm of eternity. It is a blind spot inherent to the conceptualization that the realm of eternity does not exist or is a product of fantasy. What you say may be accurate from within your personal paradigm, but the supernaturalist inhabits an entirely different paradigm than the exclusive naturalist.

Gunny, I know you are speaking from well understood concepts, but +1 for baffling them with their own bs.

 

[tttppp]

LOL who's giving anybody a grammar lesson? Are you just making stuff up as you go here?

"Oh people hate grammar nazis so I'll just randomly accuse this guy of being a grammar nazi so maybe people will like my argument better than his." Is the impression that I am getting here.

You appear to be trying to have a pissing contest here. Nobody cares about your rules for arguments. If they did, half the posts in here would be critiquing people's argument skills. You're just singling out my posts because you happen to disagree with me. I already pointed out one instance where you were criticizing me for a statement someone else made.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You are assuming the conclusion in the premise, "God cannot create matter in space-time because matter cannot be created in space-time." Also, you are assuming that God functions within the paradigm of space-time rather than outside of it. This is the biggest problem that naturalists have with supernaturality, they can't grasp the fundamental premise of existence outside of the space-time realm of temporality. The temporal rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to the atemporal realm of eternity. It is a blind spot inherent to the conceptualization that the realm of eternity does not exist or is a product of fantasy. What you say may be accurate from within your personal paradigm, but the supernaturalist inhabits an entirely different paradigm than the exclusive naturalist.

Yes

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I would start by explaining how string theory explains everything. Because if it doesn't that means its 11 dimensions most likely don't exist.

Just to be clear, I think there are some valid ideas to string theory. But from what I've seen, it doesn't explain everything.

I have yet to see any phenomena that mTheory fails to account for, but even if it did that clearly was not the point. Someone explained the generation of matter as originating from outside the dimensions of space-time (in their words 'from eternity,' and your response was that this was an example of 'we can't possibly know so why bother explaining.' Nothing could be further from the truth, and so I called upon the example of superstring theory to demonstrate that matter wave and energy and generation through transference from transcendent dimensions is already widely held as explanation from a purely naturalistic point of view. Instead of taking the point, you tangentially struck out against string theory, which nobody can argue against as at least an attempt to explain everything.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You appear to be trying to have a pissing contest here. Nobody cares about your rules for arguments. If they did, half the posts in here would be critiquing people's argument skills. You're just singling out my posts because you happen to disagree with me. I already pointed out one instance where you were criticizing me for a statement someone else made.

Actually no, I am not trying to have a pissing contest here, I am pointing out the double standard being used in argumentation, and the rules of logical fallacies are not 'my own rules for arguments' they are widely accepted as fact and taught in any Logic 101 course at pretty much every single institution of higher learning on the planet.

As for pointing out that I have somehow attributed someone else's argument to you, I have yet to see such a thing.

 

[tttppp]

You are assuming the conclusion in the premise, "God cannot create matter in space-time because matter cannot be created in space-time." Also, you are assuming that God functions within the paradigm of space-time rather than outside of it. This is the biggest problem that naturalists have with supernaturality, they can't grasp the fundamental premise of existence outside of the space-time realm of temporality. The temporal rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to the atemporal realm of eternity. It is a blind spot inherent to the conceptualization that the realm of eternity does not exist or is a product of fantasy. What you say may be accurate from within your personal paradigm, but the supernaturalist inhabits an entirely different paradigm than the exclusive naturalist.

Thats where your focus is wrong. The only way to understand everything, is to figure out a system that works for everything. The theory I have suggested, also works for the supernatural. It just doesn't work if you believe God created everything.

Maybe you can better explain God better. Is God nothing? Is God something but finite or infinite.?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, I know you are speaking from well understood concepts, but +1 for baffling them with their own bs.

LOL well that's not actually my intent here. I too think that mTheory is flawed, but it has a lot of good points and may well be closer to a description of fundamental reality than the Theory of Relativity. My primary point was that concepts that are nearly universally accepted in the naturalistic realm are rejected out-of-hand as foolishness (or contrary to 'common sense') by naturalists when those same concepts are applied to supernatural mechanics. That's a blatant double standard.