Levels of EvC belief

[FredVB]

These which are shown following are the total of these responses from VirOptimus to my original post that led to me getting all the responses to me.

All ”views” are not equal.
Science explains data and evidence and is a description of physical reality.
Creationism is a religious belief with no power of explanation. (Magic explains everything and therefore nothing.)

you just reinforce my point.

Still reinforcing my points.

Math is an axiomatic logical system that is used in science. It is not the same as physical reality.

I suggest a science 101 and a theology 101.

tl, dr.
Brevity is a virtue.

You dont seem to grasp the difference between science and metaphysics.

Only assertions, and faulty logic. Yawn.

Math is an axiomatic logical system that is used in science. It is not the same as physical reality.

My post wasnt an attack on you or your faith. So no apology from me.
Its obvious the point went over your head however, but Im not responsible for your education so I dont care.

You are hilarious.

wooosh.

In all of these none of the responses, including the first one to what I posted, Levels of EvC belief, answered any point I was saying, except maybe that math does not apply to physical reality, which I would answer is just wrong. It is otherwise immature responses not showing anything for information. As I said nothing from the start to be identified as magic, and I defend what I posted to the thread topic of belief in necessary existence being the explanation adequately, and these implying lack of education on my part, I could be justified in saying I do not trust there is any real maturity from this poster, who may yet to become of age.

 

[Ophiolite]

These which are shown following are the total of these responses from VirOptimus to my original post that led to me getting all the responses to me.













In all of these none of the responses, including the first one to what I posted, Levels of EvC belief, answered any point I was saying, except maybe that math does not apply to physical reality, which I would answer is just wrong. It is otherwise immature responses not showing anything for information. As I said nothing from the start to be identified as magic, and I defend what I posted to the thread topic of belief in necessary existence being the explanation adequately, and these implying lack of education on my part, I could be justified in saying I do not trust there is any real maturity from this poster, who may yet to become of age.

No. Nothing yet. Still as ambiguous as a ripe water melon in a coal scuttle.

Try writing in short sentences. Make sure each sentence addresses only a single point. Do not mix dependent and independent clauses indiscriminately. Ensure all pronouns are clearly related to their referents. Good luck.

 

[Speedwell]

In all of these none of the responses, including the first one to what I posted, Levels of EvC belief, answered any point I was saying, except maybe that math does not apply to physical reality, which I would answer is just wrong.

Who said that math does not apply to physical reality? Mathematics is an axiomatic formal system which models reality.

 

[VirOptimus]

These which are shown following are the total of these responses from VirOptimus to my original post that led to me getting all the responses to me.














In all of these none of the responses, including the first one to what I posted, Levels of EvC belief, answered any point I was saying, except maybe that math does not apply to physical reality, which I would answer is just wrong. It is otherwise immature responses not showing anything for information. As I said nothing from the start to be identified as magic, and I defend what I posted to the thread topic of belief in necessary existence being the explanation adequately, and these implying lack of education on my part, I could be justified in saying I do not trust there is any real maturity from this poster, who may yet to become of age.

My biggest fan! Dont ever change.

 

[FredVB]

No. Nothing yet. Still as ambiguous as a ripe water melon in a coal scuttle.

What? I never heard anything like that, for it to be meaningful to me. I understood you previously to have said you were no longer trying with communication with me, and as I considered that you were giving up on it, but not so graciously as it might have been, with blaming my own ability to communicate, I was no longer addressing you.

Try writing in short sentences. Make sure each sentence addresses only a single point. Do not mix dependent and independent clauses indiscriminately. Ensure all pronouns are clearly related to their referents. Good luck.

It is not considered that my posts were addressing various responders to me, communicating different things, so I address various things in any posted response, they are not all necessarily for you.

In any communication I ever have, I do not see such criticism of my communication, except for my communication in discussion I am having with atheist people. I suspect such ones really just don't want to understand anything that would change their thinking.

Who said that math does not apply to physical reality? Mathematics is an axiomatic formal system which models reality.

If you just missed it, you could see it above, it is in this thread Levels of EvC belief. If it is the case, as I think, that math applies to physical reality and it models reality, my point which was dismissed with that really stands.

My biggest fan! Dont ever change.

You may think so, I don't mind. But my point with quotes from you is to show that you haven't really shown me anything, such that I would think anything differently.

I posted for any here to notice. Rather than dealing with any points in my communication, other tactics have been used, in this case it was just with personal comments with suggestion of my inadequacy to understand from lack of study or education. This is with no basis, there is no knowledge of how much study or education I have had, it is simply assumed that with having such adequate study or education anyone would not be a believer with beliefs I have communicated. That is faulty reasoning. These are the responses to me:

"Magic explains everything and therefore nothing. I suggest a science 101 and a theology 101. You dont seem to grasp the difference between science and metaphysics. Its obvious the point went over your head however, but Im not responsible for your education so I dont care."

 

[Speedwell]

If you just missed it, you could see it above, it is in this thread Levels of EvC belief. If it is the case, as I think, that math applies to physical reality and it models reality, my point which was dismissed with that really stands.

My point is that while math models reality, because it is just a model we cannot be certain that it models reality accurately or completely. There is no reason to believe that it models God at all.

 

[VirOptimus]

What? I never heard anything like that, for it to be meaningful to me. I understood you previously to have said you were no longer trying with communication with me, and as I considered that you were giving up on it, but not so graciously as it might have been, with blaming my own ability to communicate, I was no longer addressing you.



It is not considered that my posts were addressing various responders to me, communicating different things, so I address various things in any posted response, they are not all necessarily for you.

In any communication I ever have, I do not see such criticism of my communication, except for my communication in discussion I am having with atheist people. I suspect such ones really just don't want to understand anything that would change their thinking.



If you just missed it, you could see it above, it is in this thread Levels of EvC belief. If it is the case, as I think, that math applies to physical reality and it models reality, my point which was dismissed with that really stands.



You may think so, I don't mind. But my point with quotes from you is to show that you haven't really shown me anything, such that I would think anything differently.

I posted for any here to notice. Rather than dealing with any points in my communication, other tactics have been used, in this case it was just with personal comments with suggestion of my inadequacy to understand from lack of study or education. This is with no basis, there is no knowledge of how much study or education I have had, it is simply assumed that with having such adequate study or education anyone would not be a believer with beliefs I have communicated. That is faulty reasoning. These are the responses to me:

"Magic explains everything and therefore nothing. I suggest a science 101 and a theology 101. You dont seem to grasp the difference between science and metaphysics. Its obvious the point went over your head however, but Im not responsible for your education so I dont care."

I can only judge you by what you post and your posts are ignorant and show no sign of understanding even basic science or theology so I gave constructive advice.

But shine on!

 

[Ophiolite]

What? I never heard anything like that, for it to be meaningful to me. I understood you previously to have said you were no longer trying with communication with me, and as I considered that you were giving up on it, but not so graciously as it might have been, with blaming my own ability to communicate, I was no longer addressing you.

You appeared to be making another effort to make your meaning clear to me. Consequently I resumed my attempt to understand you and to inform you of the continued incoherence of your posts.
If you refuse to recognise the current inadequacy of your written English then the situation will never change. If you accept that it is difficult to understand your writing then we can work on improving it. If you don't want to be understood, why are you posting?

 

[FredVB]

My point is that while math models reality, because it is just a model we cannot be certain that it models reality accurately or completely. There is no reason to believe that it models God at all.

Granted. But it addresses what I did not bring up. Sure I have my faith, and science cannot prove what I have faith in is real, or not real. It is what I say, science cannot answer these things, there are still explanations, which scientific approach cannot show. But when I speak of the logic about necessary being, I did not bring up God, others responded bringing up God themselves. If there is no God, though I would not say there is no God, there is still explanation for all that is necessary for all of the universe to come into being, and it is not just nothing else. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have something. So it is necessary existence I mean.

You appeared to be making another effort to make your meaning clear to me. Consequently I resumed my attempt to understand you and to inform you of the continued incoherence of your posts.
If you refuse to recognise the current inadequacy of your written English then the situation will never change. If you accept that it is difficult to understand your writing then we can work on improving it. If you don't want to be understood, why are you posting?

I have not stopped trying to be understood. I address different responders, if I am still responded to, why not focus on my direct response to what was addressed to me and not my response to others? Seeing those also might make it seem that my communication does not flow but jumps from one thing to another.

...

"Magic explains everything and therefore nothing. I suggest a science 101 and a theology 101. You dont seem to grasp the difference between science and metaphysics. Its obvious the point went over your head however, but Im not responsible for your education so I dont care. I can only judge you by what you post and your posts are ignorant and show no sign of understanding even basic science or theology so I gave constructive advice."

This was all that was ever addressed to me in these posts, there was never anything shown from any of these posts for understanding anything, to even stop and give "constructive advice" for instead. And what can it be constructive for if I had more education than is assumed, while I have no need to share how educated I am? Points of my communication should stand on their own, any claim of those not being understood notwithstanding. I might have, as I could say I have, seen the gaps in the theories, to not assume everything I saw was being assumed in what is taught.

 

[Speedwell]

Granted. But it addresses what I did not bring up. Sure I have my faith, and science cannot prove what I have faith in is real, or not real. It is what I say, science cannot answer these things, there are still explanations, which scientific approach cannot show. But when I speak of the logic about necessary being, I did not bring up God, others responded bringing up God themselves. If there is no God, though I would not say there is no God, there is still explanation for all that is necessary for all of the universe to come into being, and it is not just nothing else. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have something. So it is necessary existence I mean.

Yes, I misunderstood your point and thought you were asserting mathematical realism.

 

[VirOptimus]

Granted. But it addresses what I did not bring up. Sure I have my faith, and science cannot prove what I have faith in is real, or not real. It is what I say, science cannot answer these things, there are still explanations, which scientific approach cannot show. But when I speak of the logic about necessary being, I did not bring up God, others responded bringing up God themselves. If there is no God, though I would not say there is no God, there is still explanation for all that is necessary for all of the universe to come into being, and it is not just nothing else. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have something. So it is necessary existence I mean.



I have not stopped trying to be understood. I address different responders, if I am still responded to, why not focus on my direct response to what was addressed to me and not my response to others? Seeing those also might make it seem that my communication does not flow but jumps from one thing to another.



"Magic explains everything and therefore nothing. I suggest a science 101 and a theology 101. You dont seem to grasp the difference between science and metaphysics. Its obvious the point went over your head however, but Im not responsible for your education so I dont care. I can only judge you by what you post and your posts are ignorant and show no sign of understanding even basic science or theology so I gave constructive advice."

This was all that was ever addressed to me in these posts, there was never anything shown from any of these posts for understanding anything, to even stop and give "constructive advice" for instead. And what can it be constructive for if I had more education than is assumed, while I have no need to share how educated I am? Points of my communication should stand on their own, any claim of those not being understood notwithstanding. I might have, as I could say I have, seen the gaps in the theories, to not assume everything I saw was being assumed in what is taught.

Shine on!

 

[FredVB]

Yes, I misunderstood your point and thought you were asserting mathematical realism.

Reality still has what is happening and what is happening is understandable to us with mathematics. I apply this to what I was saying, and that had the response that mathematics does not reflect reality.

 

[Ophiolite]

Reality still has what is happening and what is happening is understandable to us with mathematics. I apply this to what I was saying, and that had the response that mathematics does not reflect reality.

I doubt anyone said that mathematics did not reflect reality. I suspect they said it was not reality.
Philosophers debate as to whether the universe is,at its roots, mathematical, or whether it can simply be modelled with mathematics. Thus, you agree with some philosophers, and the poster who challenged you on that, agreed with other philosophers.

 

[FredVB]

Reality still has what is happening and what is happening is understandable to us with mathematics. I apply this to what I was saying, and that had the response that mathematics does not reflect reality.

I doubt anyone said that mathematics did not reflect reality. I suspect they said it was not reality.
Philosophers debate as to whether the universe is,at its roots, mathematical, or whether it can simply be modelled with mathematics. Thus, you agree with some philosophers, and the poster who challenged you on that, agreed with other philosophers.

There was the response to me asking why mathematics would not apply to understanding reality. That was disagreement with me, stating that mathematics did not apply. Why would disagreement be stated to me when I mean "Reality still has what is happening and what is happening is understandable to us with mathematics", unless there is disagreement with that?

Why would mathematics not apply? Though there are processes alien to conventional understanding, where is it that mathematics is not applying?

Math is an axiomatic logical system that is used in science. It is not the same as physical reality.

There was something already that would be all that is needed for causing everything of the universe, with us in it enabled with all that we know to be true, to come into existence. If there is agreement that whatever this is would be necessary existence, that it is alright to dismiss what I think about it as magic but it is different with what another thinks about it I see is inconsistent.

 

[Ophiolite]

There was the response to me asking why mathematics would not apply to understanding reality. That was in disagreement with me, stating that mathematics did not apply. Why would disagreement be stated to me when I mean "Reality still has what is happening and what is happening is understandable to us with mathematics", unless there is disagreement with that?

I offered you specific guidance on how to write your ideas clearly. If you cannot be bothered to follow them, why should I be bothered to read your posts?

 

[FredVB]

Mathematics applies to understanding things happening in reality.

This is the case regardless of what another says.

So why should the original events, from which all of the universe, with us and our capacity to know about the reality, comes into being, be exception to that?

Something was always there, for anything to be existing now.

There isn't anything that came into being from nothing.

 

[VirOptimus]

Mathematics applies to understanding things happening in reality.

This is the case regardless of what another says.

So why should the original events, from which all of the universe, with us and our capacity to know about the reality, comes into being, be exception to that?

Something was always there, for anything to be existing now.

There isn't anything that came into being from nothing.

We dont know what happened before the big bang or what existed then.

You dont seem to understand how physics work and its relationship with logic (math).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mathematics applies to understanding things happening in reality.

This is the case regardless of what another says.

So why should the original events, from which all of the universe, with us and our capacity to know about the reality, comes into being, be exception to that?

Something was always there, for anything to be existing now.

There isn't anything that came into being from nothing.

And the topic of this thread is creationism, which tends to be mainly a denial of evolution. How can creationists defend their beliefs in a concept that has no reliable evidence behind it?

 

[FredVB]

We dont know what happened before the big bang or what existed then.
You dont seem to understand how physics work and its relationship with logic (math).

You keep saying so, but why don't I? That is not actually ever shown. This thread was asking for responders to say where on the designated spectrum of belief their belief would be, this I responded to. I do not have to refer to physics, though I do not deny physics working as it does, to use logic, and you have absolutely nothing to show that something, let alone everything, can come from absolutely nothing. And if there was not absolutely nothing before, which I can say is the logical understanding, there was always something. That does not involve magic. But what does something coming from nothing involve?

And the topic of this thread is creationism, which tends to be mainly a denial of evolution. How can creationists defend their beliefs in a concept that has no reliable evidence behind it?

Same answer, I gave my response to the topic and was accused of belief in magic. I did not claim evidence from science of the belief, but just expressed what I believed then so far. It is my interpretation, without disregarding evidence, just as all others have their interpretations, and you do too. No one is just looking at evidences without a view they have and interpretation.

Though I don't claim scientific evidence for what I said then I believe, I can look at the same evidences considered in science, I see other bases that any responders are not considering for what I understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

You keep saying so, but why don't I? That is not actually ever shown. This thread was asking for responders to say where on the designated spectrum of belief their belief would be, this I responded to. I do not have to refer to physics, though I do not deny physics working as it does, to use logic, and you have absolutely nothing to show that something, let alone everything, can come from absolutely nothing. And if there was not absolutely nothing before, which I can say is the logical understanding, there was always something. That does not involve magic. But what does something coming from nothing involve?



Same answer, I gave my response to the topic and was accused of belief in magic. I did not claim evidence from science of the belief, but just expressed what I believed then so far. It is my interpretation, without disregarding evidence, just as all others have their interpretations, and you do too. No one is just looking at evidences without a view they have and interpretation.

Though I don't claim scientific evidence for what I said then I believe, I can look at the same evidences considered in science, I see other bases that any responders are not considering for what I understand.

There is considerable research into theese subjects, and you seem ignorant of it.

Magic and belief has no place in science.