- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Pretty good for one sentence eh? There is a word for it though...truth.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Pretty good for one sentence eh? There is a word for it though...truth.Now we get three logical fallacies for the price of one; all in a very brief response.
Along with the shifting of the burden of proof and the argument from ignorance fallacies, the red herring fallacy is thrown in for good measure as your post is totally irrelevant in supporting your fishbowl.
There is no truth in science .. you are in the wrong forum!Pretty good for one sentence eh? There is a word for it though...truth.
The truth was refence to my points, not science. However real science does involve a lot of things that are true. Origin so called sciences are simply false religion.There is no truth in science .. you are in the wrong forum!
Nope .. wrong again.... Origin so called sciences are simply false religion.
The “truth” in your case is the existence of fishbowls, tooth fairies, unicorns or anything limited to one’s imagination.The truth was refence to my points, not science. However real science does involve a lot of things that are true. Origin so called sciences are simply false religion.
(haven't read or followed the thread; just saw this post)Nope .. wrong again.
Religions assume untestable truths (as beliefs) and then leaves it at that.
The scientific process does no such thing. It tests everything.
Speculation, followed by testable hypotheses, followed by testing, is the scientific process.
Everything in science's cosmology models is subject to testing at some stage ...
The scientific process is grossly unreliable and untrustworthy.
I don't trust the computer network, nor scientific advancement (nor technology),And yet here you are, posting all this anti-science nonsense on a 21st century computer network that is a direct result of scientific advancement over the centuries.
Ironic isn't it?
I don't trust the computer network, nor scientific advancement (nor technology),
nor any of fallen man's controls/ pernicious society.
Nope .. wrong again.
Religions assume untestable truths (as beliefs) and then leave it at that.
Correction, it tests what it can.The scientific process does no such thing. It tests everything.
Speculation, followed by testable hypotheses, followed by testing, is the scientific process.
False. It is totally belief based godless nonsense.Everything in science's cosmology models is subject to testing at some stage ...
No. The truth is man has only explored so much and had actual limits. At least my truth isn't just in my head!! Ha.The “truth” in your case is the existence of fishbowls, tooth fairies, unicorns or anything limited to one’s imagination.
Not only is is NOT a criteria it is not allowed, nor recognized!As Selfsim has pointed out truth is not a criteria in Science as nothing in Science is considered to be true as old theories are retested with improved technologies.
Irrelevant. The orbit of fishbowl items is not in question. You conflate actual knowledge with filthy religious origin religion.As an example the Newtonian theory of the Moon’s orbit being in free fall was considered “true” for over 250 years until Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the moon to accurately measure the Earth Moon distance using lasers.
It was found the Moon is not in free fall but is moving away from the Earth albeit at very small rate.
This is how Science operates.
Science's objective test results lead us to draw conclusions about what conditions were like the early universe based on those results.Science cannot test what nature was like in the far past or future,
False.dad said:.. neither can it test what time is like in the distant universe. So they have untestable beliefs.
... and that is an unsupported outright lie, as well as an ad-hom attack on all scientists!dad said:... Instead, they work night and day to taint evidences with their beliefs.
.. Correction .. Scientists following the well-documented and widely taught scientific process, conduct objective tests.dad said:Correction, it tests what it can.
Unsupported rubbish!dad said:False. It is totally belief based ...
Nothing is logical about insane belief based models. Nothing about them is tested. It it all circular reasoning and belief.Science's objective test results lead us to draw conclusions about what conditions were like the early universe based on those results.
These conclusions are thus a logical consequence of already tested things.
Well if true that is proof they are out of their minds. I suspect the actual claim about time and what it is will be 'we do not know!'.False.
'What time is like in the distant universe' is no less testable than what time is like in the local universe .. because: 'Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][15][16]'.
Simple!
Tests you cannot tell us about with regards to what time is like in the far universe...or what nature was like on earth in the fa past... Correction .. Scientists following the well-documented and widely taught scientific process, conduct objective tests.
Ha. Now you are offended at having your religion called 'it'!Science is a human process followed by humans (abundantly evidenced).. and not some kind of autonomous 'thing', (aka: your "it" ... referenced from your own words above).
You can be excused for failing to understand the logical fallacies behind your fishbowl or the incoherent nature of your posts as it reflects your intellectual capacity but there is no excuse for blatant lying or wilful ignorance.No. The truth is man has only explored so much and had actual limits. At least my truth isn't just in my head!! Ha.
Not only is is NOT a criteria it is not allowed, nor recognized!
Irrelevant. The orbit of fishbowl items is not in question. You conflate actual knowledge with filthy religious origin religion.
Sorry, your idea of what you think is logical has no weight here. Wasn't that you that claimed gravity is some sort of item in man's mind or some such? There is no math that tells us what time is like in the far universe. Why pretend?You can be excused for failing to understand the logical fallacies behind your fishbowl or the incoherent nature of your posts as it reflects your intellectual capacity but there is no excuse for blatant lying or wilful ignorance.
Science is not based on truths because theories can never be proven unlike theorems in mathematics.
Now you're confusing posters and then imposing your own claims on them?!?Wasn't that you that claimed gravity is some sort of item in man's mind or some such?
I have pointed out that you only have beliefs that cannot be supported. I do not need to do anything more than show that the basis of origin models is belief.Wrapping together some comments made about truth, religion, assumptions and science, I make the following response:
When someone chooses a belief, (eg: reality exists independently of minds), that's fine. But then if they say "my belief is the truth, and I don't need to supply any evidence because I already know it's true," (such as is persistently demonstrated by 'dad' in this thread), then that's circular reasoning.
You were shown that gravity is outside the mere mind of mind, and an actual force.More deeply though, there's also a fallacy of the 'hidden assumption', ie: (using the example) it is only that they believe that reality exists independently of minds is true, that allows them to then assert it is true. It does not hold up to any standard of objective evidence, as has been clearly demonstrated in my prior conversation about reality being dependent on a mind with 'dad', this thread.
The absence of objective evidence pertaining to some goal say like, 'surviving a high cliff jump’, is what makes it a belief, and the presence of a subjective goal being satisfied by the believer, is also what makes it a belief. If we say we just have two different assumptions here, one that assumes belief leads to truth, and one that assumes science leads to truth, and all the rest is circular reasoning based on those different assumptions, we have missed the crucial difference between them ... the presence or absence of an objective test.
There are no consequences to what time is like in the far universe in science. There are only circular beliefs.The bottom line is, we choose a process that gives meaning to what we call 'truth', and we live with the consequences of that choice of process, but the consequences can include objective facts, and that is what separates the various processes that give the "truth" concept its meaning.
Correct, if someone jumps off a high cliff, even if he thinks gravity is a product of the mind, there will be consequences.You don't have to make 'surviving a high cliff jump’ your goal, but you do have to accept the fact that if it is your goal, you will find out if you achieved that goal or not, and so will everyone you leave behind. You, nor they, can deny the role your mind played in distinguishing the meaning of ‘truth’ here, because of its direct influence on selecting a process which has an objective consequence for demonstrating the meaning of ’truth’.
If they use the word it is in error. They cannot ever find the truth.That's also as close as it gets to what scientists mean if/when the word 'truth' ever appears in a scientific context.
Ok, so you are not the guy that claims that things are a product of the mind.Even if you are confusing sjastro with myself, I never said any such thing either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?