Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I guess you must have viewed some connection between these two statements in order to post them but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is ..... Its not even clear why the issue of creating nature is begging question as well ....
Tell me, how long since you stopped beating your wife? I assume you have a wife, that you beat her in the past, and therefore you could tell me the length of time that has passed since her last beating. You obviously assume not only that the universe was created by a separate agent, but that agent is a "who".
spidergoat Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tell me why you think this is a picture of your mother? (NB - James, is this considered a more morally on par response for a stranger who is allegating claims of domestic abuse upon oneself?) and you appear to be thinking that the "who" is someone like a "you"
I'm saying that you are limiting the kind of answer you will accept by asking "who". It's like asking "who erupted Krakatoa?". I would call it a theological bias. It's basically disingenuous, since it's not a proper investigation of your assumptions and principles. Rather it is an example of your reinforcement of them.
are you saying that there is actual evidence that religion is correct? If you have any at all please share.
spidergoat You mean a "who" like you? If you are saying that it is absurd to think it was erupted by someone like you I would agree I would call it a theological basis On the contrary, it seems you have not seriously investigated the definitions of god Assuming of course that there is no such thing as an atheistic bias .....
Are you saying that you are qualified to perceive the evidence relating to religion? If so please explain.
firstly [deleted] lightgigantic, his question was to islamsmylife, and you are not qualified to answer, especially with another question. and my arse and excreta, can percieve the evidence or lack there of to religion. you have been told and told again, yet you always come back with the same inane and infantile arguements, could you give it a rest now, some people, would like to converse intelligently. you spam on ever thread, [deleted]. please troll some where else, because of you, this site should be renamed to Moronforums, the intellect is leaving, but you would not know what that is would you. some very good posters used to post here they dont now, just because of your trolling.
No. I mean any kind of "who". Atheists leave it an open ended question. Not, "what entity caused the cosmos", but "how did the cosmos come to be". This leaves room for an entity, if that is the best explanation. It also leaves room for other explanations. Your aruments are creative, but essentially weak.
How many types of "who's" are you aware of? On the contrary they seem to assume the only "who" is a "who" the same or perhaps a little bit more potent than themselves (in sanskrit it is called "the logic of the fish seeing the moon's reflection in the pond" - that is the moon is a large body, many billions of times greater than the fish, but due to the nature of its small reflection in the same pond as the fish, the fish thinks, "Oh the moon is just the same size as me, perhaps a little bigger ..." You haven't established why your argument is any less creative - at least with religions there are claims by persons who have direct perception of god and the means and processes to achieve that perception - in science there is no one who is on the platform of direct perecption how life evolved from matter, nor is there any clear direction as to what the nature of the process is that would theoretically enable one to perceive - in other words it is highly creative
The perception of humans is suspect, that is why science eliminates this variable in favor of measurement. As I said before, the legitimacy of science is not based on wether it can explain everything right now.
spidergoat and if that measurement is also done with human perception, where does the improvement lie? the legitimacy of science is based on the perception of persons in knowledge - the easiest way to distinguish the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact is to locate a person on platform of directly perceiving the said phenomena and assessing their credibility. Clearly if you want to talk about the scientific understandings of the creation of the universe,or some othetr thing you postulate science will udnerstand in the future, you are not talking about scientific fact but scientific theory
Measurements are percieved, but to rule out error and bias, there are standards of measurement. 1mm is the same no matter who measures it. You are applying religious standards to science, and it doesn't apply. YOU determine truth by weighing the relative credibility of those who percieve something, or weighing the perceptions of someone who's credibility you accept. This is not how science works.
spidergoat No its not. The 1mm of a carpentry is not the same as a 1mm of nanotechnology. Of course anyone can claim anything in the name of credibility - whether it is credible or not is determined by the results - for instance if I make a bogus claim in the name of religion, the result will be that I will not receive the result of the benefits actually indicated by religion. Similarly if I make a bogus claim in the name of medicine, persons under my care will not receive the benefits of medicine (namely improved health as a result of medical treatment)
a carpenter is required to cut a 1mm groove If a nanoscientist was to measure that 1mm groove it would not measure to an exact 1mm. The carpenter however doesn't suffer a depreciation in his credibility as a tradesman. If a nanoscientist however drew up a 1mm field of the same dimensions as the carpenter his credibility would suffer. The reason is that measurement is standardized to time place and circumstance (ie measurement is not absolute, it is relative)
Measurement is not just relative, it is subjective. Take a length with a Vernier caliper. One experimenter will read 4.03 cm, the other 4.04. In the end, the measurement comes down to us as individuals - our eyes, our brains, our minds.
That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. A carpenter knows that his measurements don't require the accuracy of nanotechnology. He doesn't care if a groove is 1.2mm or .9mm. A meter is defined as the distance travelled by light in an absolute vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second. The second is defined by atomic clocks. While your particular precision may vary, the unit does not.
Well, units are defined, not observed. If a carpenter and a nanotech engineer have different definitions of the millimeter, then they're just using the same word to describe two different things. That might be what LG was getting at.
The carpenter is just not too concerned that his measurement is less precise than the nanotechnologist, but it is still accurate, since his measurement tools were calibrated according to the standard. That is why we have the Bureau of Standards, now called the National Institute of Science and Technology. Do I have to explain the difference between accuracy and precision? Geez, go back to high school.
