SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

They believe separate, contradictory texts to be "good authorities". Try again?

Why should I try again when lots of texts on electronics are all "good authorities" on the topic too. Why must only a single book be a "good authority' on something as complex as the topic of God?

Post #872.

It doesn't address my question I'm afraid. You're intentionally misrepresenting the whole concept of monotheism and intentionally misrepresenting variation in belief in religion as multiple 'gods'. That's like claiming there are multiple Presidents of the US simply by virtue of variation in beliefs about his character.

I do not see how your predilection for fallacies affects your view on cosmology, but I could work something out for you.

I'd love to see you try, particularly since every claim of Lambda-CDM is ultimately based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy. Good luck with that.

 

[Michael]

Burn the Strawmen by Davian posted Apr 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

I'm not convinced that you understand the whole strawman fallacy any better than you comprehend monotheism. If we're going to do any comparison in terms of "weighing evidence" there has to be a comparison to what happens in other areas of physics and science.

 

[Davian]

Where does that definition use the term 'gods' plural or is that just your personal idiosyncrasy?

It is my means of staying within the site rules, by keeping the subject of gods in general: "This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers."

 

[Michael]

Where did I claim that?

The lack of compelling evidence for this undefined, unfalsifiable god-thing you are talking about.

Dark matter theory isn't defined or falsifiable, otherwise it would have been falsified by the failed "tests" at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness experiments.

 

[Michael]

It is my means of staying within the site rules, by keeping the subject of gods in general: "This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers."

Christians do not believe in "gods in general" however. No monotheists does.

 

[bhsmte]

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

Don't you know?

Every topic worth discussing on these boards, is somehow related to another person's obsession with dark matter and energy.

 

[Michael]

Don't you know?

Every topic worth discussing on these boards, is somehow related to another person's obsession with dark matter and energy.

I'm simply pointing out that your emotional need for falsification and empirical cause/effect justification isn't 'scientific'. You misrepresent the scientific method just like you misrepresent the concept of monotheism.

 

[Davian]

Sure, but then you're just another single story teller, telling your subjective story about a perceived lack of any experience of God.

Only to those that ask. Do you know that I met Santa?

Furthermore you're intent on stuffing it down everyone's throat based on a constant stream of ridicule of any claims that don't jive with your subjective experiences.

Not by intent. I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but it may be that there is no polite way of critically assessing the personal beliefs of others.

<snip false dichotomy>
<snip straw-man>

 

[Davian]

All I did ultimately was embrace Panentheism. I slapped on no labels of my own. Furthermore the structures and functions of the filamentary universe certainly mirror the sorts of functions and structures found in living organisms on Earth.

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/07/brain-structure-mirrors-the-universe/

The only question is whether or not those current carrying macroscopic structures of the universe give rise to awareness, but even "awareness" shows up in labs on Earth, unlike the invisible entities of Lambda-CDM.

Look - it is Bigfoot on Mars!

Bigfoot on Mars

• Davian
• Jul 31, 2015

 

[Michael]

Look - it is Bigfoot on Mars!

Look, it's you ignoring the value of pattern recognition in 'science' again.... Yawn.

 

[Michael]

Only to those that ask. Do you know that I met Santa?

Why would I care if you sat on Santa's lap as a kid (too)?

Not by intent. I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but it may be that there is no polite way of critically assessing the personal beliefs of others.

There's always a polite way, but you never do it that way.

 

[Davian]

That doesn't explain your reliance of ridicule in virtually every post. What's up with that?

Confirmation bias. Check the posts that I respond to that are not based on false dichotomies and fallacies.

 

[DaisyDay]

I look at it with awe and wonder. But it does not shape the way I live my life or interact with my everyday world. If it were somehow different (expanding/static/eternal/contracting) I don't see that it would affect the price of milk at the market.

Wouldn't a contracting universe affect time? I know this is late, but this thread is hard to keep up with.

Also, someone doesn't seem to understand that an original argument cannot be a strawman. Not that it matters, but it's been bugging me.

 

[Michael]

Confirmation bias. Check the posts that I respond to that are not based on false dichotomies and fallacies.

Which one might that be?

 

[Davian]

Why would I care if you sat on Santa's lap as a kid (too)?

I am under the impression that not too many believe at 40. I still get goosebumps.

There's always a polite way, but you never do it that way.

I'll just be ignoring these comments on my character. Thanks.

 

[Davian]

Wouldn't a contracting universe affect time? I know this is late, but this thread is hard to keep up with.

No problem. I am not sure what you mean about time; in general, or from the "beginning" of the universe?

Also, someone doesn't seem to understand that an original argument cannot be a strawman. Not that it matters, but it's been bugging me.

In the context of this exchange, the term straw-man indicates a misrepresentation of someone else's position or argument, for the purposes of being a defeater.

 

[Davian]

Which one might that be?

Posts that are not based on false dichotomies and fallacies? Look for the posts that are not yours.

 

[Davian]

I'm not convinced that you understand the whole strawman fallacy any better than you comprehend monotheism. If we're going to do any comparison in terms of "weighing evidence" there has to be a comparison to what happens in other areas of physics and science.

Confused yourself? the comparison is the [false] dichotomy, the misrepresentation is the straw-man.

Good gravy.

 

[DaisyDay]

No problem. I am not sure what you mean about time; in general, or from the "beginning" of the universe?

In general, I suppose. I don't think it could contract from the very beginning, if the beginning is a singularity. The context was that whether the universe was expanding or contracting would affect your worldview. I think it would, but the knowledge of which way it was going and that it could go some other way probably would not...Eh, never mind. Postprandial musing...quibbling...naptime.

In the context of this exchange, the term straw-man indicates a misrepresentation of someone else's position or argument, for the purposes of being a defeater.

Yeah, I know, but I've seen your own arguments being characterized as a straw-men as though someone learned the term but not how to use it properly. But I'm not caught up yet, maybe the actual usage has been imprinted on him over the pages I've missed.

ETA: Ops! I see from the above exchange it has not.

 

[DaisyDay]

(quote button instead of edit button)