The illogical logic...

[David T]

?

Your avatar makes my point very nicely.!!! How hard is this really..

 

[David T]

Of course it is not literal as science is not an entity.
yet the scientific method doesn't rely on opinions. it rely on nature. thus, it is indeed an objective way of looking at things (as much as possible)

So does astrology!! are you equating science with astrogy? Or maybe it's just an earlier version? Sergev you are on the right track I play the devils advocate here I am all about nature. I commented on crowfeather site that" to understand God you must understand nature, to understand Nature you must understand God. I am a pantheist. What exactly what is a pantheist sergev? I read in wimpipedia that panthetheism is " the doctrine that God an nature are one in the same." What exactly is wrong with that statement? How you answer is directly
Related to subconscious aspects of culture and self awareness. As socrates said to meno " too bad you weren't around next week sergev the mysteries happening and everything would become clear..pay attention to crowfeather he has a clue.

 

[ChristineM]

Your avatar makes my point very nicely.!!! How hard is this really..

So you have no idea of the literal objective reality of the skull in my avatar? If you want to objectively examine it, it can be found at Musée national de Préhistoire, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France.

Btw, i was (partially) responsible for it's discovery

 

[Segev Moran]

So does astrology!! are you equating science with astrogy?

The fact astrology deals with stars, doesn't make it scientific.
Astrology is a load of BS that its core art is to be able to come up with words that are so common that anyone can interpret to fit he's own life.

Or maybe it's just an earlier version?

Actually, Astrology is an earlier version of monotheistic religions (Yes.. all of them)

Sergev

Segev

you are on the right track I play the devils advocate here I am all about nature. I commented on crowfeather site that" to understand God you must understand nature, to understand Nature you must understand God.

lol. sorry.. its like saying that in order to understand love you have to understand intimacy, and in order to understand intimacy, you have to understand love.
Besides that, i have yet to meet anyone who understands god

I am a pantheist. What exactly what is a pantheist sergev? I read in wimpipedia that panthetheism is " the doctrine that God an nature are one in the same." What exactly is wrong with that statement? How you answer is directly
Related to subconscious aspects of culture and self awareness.

If you treat nature as god, and it makes you feel good, good for you

As socrates said to meno " too bad you weren't around next week sergev the mysteries happening and everything would become clear..pay attention to crowfeather he has a clue.

What i am having trouble with is, that no matter what mystery we face, it always seems to lead believers to the answer god.

 

[Nous]

I have no god to lie for, therefore i have no need to lie, i also consider any form of deliberate deceit to be abhorrent.

Then why did you claim that you provided "a link to over 100,000 scientific and academic papers that show your claim to be wrong?" Obviously your claim is false. That's why you were able to substantiate it.

 

[Nous]

And then again "maybe" other animals... As i have stated, please do not misrepresent me (by lying) just to massage your own ego.

Again, there is as much evidence substantiating your belief about moral rules enabling humans (but maybe not other animals) to "thrive" and "stay together" as there is evidence of Adam and Eve riding the dinosaurs.

 

[Nous]

If mathematics were a human invention, we wouldn't have unsolved problems in mathematics--of which there are many, such as the Hodge conjecture--we would just invent the answer. But the answers have to be discovered. Therefore, mathematical realism.

But you do raise an important issue about some mathematics "feeling" invented. Perhaps some currently accepted mathematics is invented. That doesn't actually infringe on mathematical realism, just like false theories in, say, physics, do not imply that the whole of physics is a human fabrication.

Are you familiar with Godel's incompleteness theorem?

Yes, I am (it's actually two theorems). Why do you ask?

I hope you are not trying to suggest that these two theorems somehow refute the thesis of mathematical realism.

 

[Nous]

I'd say that's actually the other way around. The existence of unsolved problems suggests that mathematics is more invention than discovery.

Then invent the answer to Hodge's conjecture.

Why hasn't someone invented the answer before now?

Another field where we have unsolved problems is artificial intelligence. One problem we're close to a solution on is how/whether AI can consistently beat humans at go. But surely both go and AI are invented and not discovered.

So according to your idea here, every scientific discipline (which all entail unsolved problems) is mere human invention, and does not involve discovery of objective facts.

I don't think you and I will find much in common.

 

[ChristineM]

Then why did you claim that you provided "a link to over 100,000 scientific and academic papers that show your claim to be wrong?" Obviously your claim is false. That's why you were able to substantiate it.

158,000 is over 100,000, had you bothered following my link and checking you would now not be looking so foolish. However, I'll give that not all them are relevant which is why i was not specific and offered a much lower count than that given in the link

 

[ChristineM]

Again, there is as much evidence substantiating your belief about moral rules enabling humans (but maybe not other animals) to "thrive" and "stay together" as there is evidence of Adam and Eve riding the dinosaurs.

Obviously didn't check out my link and now incredulity is setting in

Why do you insist on twisting my wording?

 

[Nous]

158,000 is over 100,000, had you bothered following my link and checking you would now not be looking so foolish.

Quote of dozen of the studies where your claim was tested and shown to be true.

 

[Nous]

Obviously didn't check out my link and now incredulity is setting in

Why do you insist on twisting my wording?

I couldn't possibly twist anything you've said to make it sound more goofy than it already does.

 

[ChristineM]

I couldn't possibly twist anything you've said to make it sound more goofy than it already does.

Then why so you have to twist it?

 

[ChristineM]

Quote of dozen of the studies where your claim was tested and shown to be true.

I provided a valid link, I'm not here to think for you too.

 

[Nous]

Then why so you have to twist it?

Quote it.

 

[Nous]

I provided a valid link, I'm not here to think for you too.

You didn't provide a link to a single study that tested and found anything resembling your claim about humans' morals and "thriving" or "staying together". Right?

 

[ChristineM]

You didn't provide a link to a single study that tested and found anything resembling your claim about humans' morals and "thriving" or "staying together". Right?

You claim to have read them all?

 

[ChristineM]

Quote it.

You know what i wrote and what you claimed i wrote are not the same thing.

 

[Nous]

what i wrote and what you claimed i wrote are not the same thing.

Prove it.

 

[Nous]

You claim to have read them all?

I wouldn't claim that you have read or understood any of them. So, again, you didn't provide a link to a single study that tested and found anything resembling your claim about humans' morals and "thriving" or "staying together". Right?