Considering that I've been a member here since 2005 don't you think that's a bit of a silly question?So, what the Hell are you doing Dywyddyr here now???!!!Are you crazy or what???!!!
Logical proof of a deistic "God"
- Thread starter martillo
- Start date
martillo
Registered Senior Member
No, what I consider silly is your behavior.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So you demand answers - evening going so far as to complain that having to demand is "trouble" for you.
And you expect reasoned, thoughtful responses in return?
And if you don't get them, you have the nerve to be cynical about the community?
You see yourself as David, and us collectively as Goliath, rather than individuals you are conversing with.
For my part, I think I have exceeded my obligation to be polite.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Was trouble because I demanded something wrong. And wrong because Dywyddyr answered with something wrong what shocked me. He insisted in Einstenian photons as "force carriers" in QED and that is wrong. There surged the demand which was a way I find to ask anyone to give a proper answer to the subject. May be was not a good way to ask but as I said I was someway "schocked" by that. As an Engineer I never heard about photons in electric and magnetic interactions in pieces of charged objects or magnets or inside electric motors. What would you have expected me to do?
What would you expect from someone who only receive critics and in a very not friendly way lot of times?
Last edited:
Personally I would expect a calm and collected well thought out discussion / opinioned reply post
Said post would be backed up with a vast number of references indicating where the sad misguided cretin critic had erred and how my brilliant well thought out discussion / opinioned reply post was logically vastly superior to the incoherent ramblings of any undeserved criticism
I would explain to the critics I do not take criticism well and my logically vastly superior information well thought out proposition of
leading to
deserved to go to number 1 contender for the Nobel Prize
Yours truly
A sad misguided cretin critic
Poe
Coffee time
Yet another unsupported assumption.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ask. "Hey, here's something I don't understand. Can anyone help me understand it?"
That's how you get courteous responses.
You set the tone for what kind of responses you got.
Anyway, this thread seems to be some sort of continuation of a previous thread, and appears to have brought some baggage along with it. I'm not interested in baggage, so I'm going to step back.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Peacedove: when you quote someone, especially the entire post, it's sort of good form to add your own comment. 
martillo
Registered Senior Member
You are misunderstanding that this is not a classroom of "resident" professors teaching to incoming students doubts, it is a forum for discussion. Particularly the description of this forum say: "revolutionary physics, alternative medicine, creationism/intelligent design and more" meaning the intention is to discuss all ideas and propositions in any of those areas. So as for us, it is the actually the case you said: "You see yourself as David, and us collectively as Goliath, rather than individuals you are conversing with." except that on the contrary to history you always win because you are the "residents" with the moderators chosen by the administrators of the forum who want the forum to be representative to the mainstream scientific community. Knowing that I enter here in your "Coliseum" not expecting anything else than the criticism of mainstream here and not expecting getting out winning, I get out with your criticism but with my own conclusions about them. I pretend to get out alive!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It has nothing to do with mainstream science, and it has nothing to do with moderation. I am just a layperson like you and I'm just a SciFo member like you.on the contrary to history you alwa Iys win because you are the "residents" with the moderators chosen by the administrators of the forum who want the forum to be representative to the mainstream scientific community. Knowing that I enter here in your "Coliseum" not expecting anything else than the criticism of mainstream here and not expecting getting out winning, I get out with your criticism but with my own conclusions about them. I pretend to get out alive!
Your idea lacks rational analysis. And that is all I'm using to address it - rational analysis.
Consider my more recent point: if the idea ultimately results in God, who, by its nature, is able to create a universe-sized calculator, why would it need to? Why wouldn't it simply make the universe itself? This is rhetorical question; it doesn't really need answering, because what is does is highlight the central problem of your idea, to wit:
As hard as it is to rationalize a plausible theory of God, your idea is even less plausible, because it simply raises even more questions than a theory of God does. That's exactly the opposite of what a good theory should do.
If you go away thinking you've simply been criticized into silence, you will be reinforcing the isolation of your ideas. You need feedback to weed out bad ideas that you are too close to see. That's why knowledge is a community effort.
Exactly what you didn't do
Your approach follows
"This is what I am telling you
I'm right and you lot are to dumb to understand"
pathway
and
betrays another aspect of your attitude. This is a discussion forum not slingshot and stones at 10 paces
No combatants in this arena
A collection of odd bods with frequently very odd ideas. Problems arise when the odd ideas are so odd they are not on the shoulder edge of the road to reality.
They detour into the countryside frequently to vanish over the horizon. A few which are found to be roadworthy do manage to rejoin the road
You appear to be driving your ideas off the edge of a cliff from which while you
it is very doubtful your ideas will survive
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Michael 345 wrote:
How that sounds?
No Sir, I don't think that way anyway. I could think you could be wrong in some thing sometime but not to be "too dumb to understand". If it really were the case I wouldn't lose my time discussing with you. What I expect is to hear good criticism for me to rethink my thinking looking for the "bugs" in my mind.
How that sounds?
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Thanks for this feedback. Time to rethink things...
You did not grant that to me.Michael 345 wrote:
No Sir, I don't think that way anyway. I could think you could be wrong in some thing sometime but not to be "too dumb to understand". If it really were the case I wouldn't lose my time discussing with you. What I expect is to hear good criticism for me to rethink my thinking looking for the "bugs" in my mind.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Sincerely at the beginning I felt you were disdaining me. I changed my mind about you as time passed. Now your avatar an its description ("Transcendental Ignorance!") tell me you could be a special person. Is the photo actually yours? Impressive eyes...
If you can apologize: I don't have any question for you, only propositions you don't have capability to analyze properly as you already shown so nothing with you.
Michael 345 wrote:
No Sir, I don't think that way anyway. I could think you could be wrong in some thing sometime but not to be "too dumb to understand". If it really were the case I wouldn't lose my time discussing with you. What I expect is to hear good criticism for me to rethink my thinking looking for the "bugs" in my mind.
OK if I mis-characterised you thinking we are to dumb that can be left behind
As for looking for bugs in your mind I would be more comfortable looking for bugs in your theories
Do you know of the expression not even wrong?
I think your theory fits into that category
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicistWolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[2][3]Rudolf Peierlsdocuments an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
This second link might help (hopefully)
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
Best of luck
martillo
Registered Senior Member
No, nothing to apologize since you didn't analyzed anything I posted. You just painted pink unicorns to me. But I changed my mind in something on you. Now I think you could just be so lazy as to not discuss anything but just post your final opinion very briefly and with just an image preferentially...