Gullible, and Impressionable come to mind....Some people need that warm comfortable inner glow to go through life
...............
Why we exist
- Thread starter Starlord
- Start date
...............Gullible, and Impressionable come to mind....Some people need that warm comfortable inner glow to go through life
Yes they do , its called being Human .
There isn't any
I replied to this stupidity in a reply to that post
Don't think you will receive a valid reply
(From a retired midwife)
Not so sure about that
Judging by some of the post here it seems some may have dropped out of natural laws into a world of their own
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
My wife is in perinatal education. Blood vessels pop out on her forehead when I recite to her some of the things people say here on SciFo.
Hope she doesn't pop a blood vessel with this
If you think she might don't quote it
My wise ancient guru once explained to me about babies
Grasshopper
If they are born looking perfect
And they seem to do all natural things like breathing drinking sleeping popping
And they have ten toes five on each foot in the right place and order
And ten fingers five on each hand in the right place and order
They are perfect
BUT (here his voice went deep and ominous and 18th century)
If they be born ahrrr with eleven toes (lightening flashed outside as the rain beat against the window and a creaking door slammed shut) (voice back to normal)
They are perfect with eleven toes
I passed my exams on that pearl of wisdom
Now where did I put my tongue?
An absence of everything (i.e., "nothing") isn't applicable if there's a "principle of balance" in effect / existing.
A literal absence of all law, regulating principle, government or logic is also the absence of impossibility. Thus with no restrictions and limitations, not only "something" would be allowable but every possibility.
But since causality and temporal orientations of past, present, and future would be absent as all the rest... To speak of "nothing" being prior to "something", or rationally beside each other in balance, or absence causing presence, or whatever else, is accordingly meaningless or unnecessary.
If these wanderings serve any slight purpose, it would apparently be to clarify why "non-existence existing" is both dissonant / incoherent and unneeded / inutile (should that not already have been obvious to us).
Is this ad hominem really necessary?
It's not an adhom.....Gee, I've seen you use more colourful language yourself, particularly with MR....
You assert that timojin holds "mythical beliefs", without specifying what they are or how you know they are mythical.It's not an adhom.....Gee, I've seen you use more colourful language yourself, particularly with MR....
You also claim that certain things are beyond timojin's comprehension, implying that you understand things that he can't begin to comprehend. That is insulting.
In a follow-up post you call him gullible and impressionable (and don't say you didn't mean him).
None of this is necessary.
Havn't you done the same thing with MR?
I try very hard to base any assessment I make of MR (or anybody else here, for that matter) on what they write.
In MR's case, when I say that he believes in certain types of "woo", that is because he himself has posted (often in detail) about those beliefs. I have made significant effort to engage him in discussions of whether his beliefs on such things are reasonable or not, and we have had arguments back and forth about various facts and interpretations. This is different from making ad hominem attacks.
You will also see, if you look through my posts to MR, that on many occasions I have acknowledged his intelligence and have lamented his unwillingness to applying that intelligence to think critically about some of his professed beliefs.
MR's self-described willingness to accept all eyewitness accounts of things like alien spaceships at face value as good evidence that earth-visiting aliens exist (for example) makes him, in my opinion, naive - gullible if you prefer. But note: this assessement is based on hundreds of back-and-forth posts between myself and him. If I say he is gullible, I do not mean it as an insult, and I have in fact been quite careful to explain to him exactly what I mean and why I am saying it.
You might notice that I spend a lot of time asking MR questions about his views. I don't want to assume; I'd rather hear from him what he believes.
Do you believe I am gullible James? But let's cease this chatter, obviously you have different standards.
I think you trust certain sources of scientific information without fully understanding them. That doesn't exactly mean you're gullible. The same can be said for myself.
Meh. If you say so.
The different standards comment was in relation to the highlighted part in what you said, and expecting me to be gullible enough to accept that.
Do you think there might be a blindfolded being out there holding a set of balance scales like Justice weighing up NOTHING / SOMETHING?
Just to pretend that it's not a rhetorical question...
Lady Justice, of course, would be a prosopopoeia confined to symbolizing moral force in judicatory practices. But there are arguably more general emblems which ancient logicians or their later groupies had for denoting their preoccupations with opposites. A unity of opposites theme would apparently-- via its very nature -- entail a balancing act, too. ("Nothing" and "something" would only be one choice of plug-ins for its paired placeholders, though, among many others).
"Nothing" in a global and absolute sense would mean even the absence of a container or background that was empty of substantive content (neither classic space nor inferred governing principles susceptible to analysis). Thereby "nothing" is kicked out of the tangible / actual to merely refer to an imaginary counter-possibility [concept] whose purpose is to be a rational ballast for the concept of "something".
IOW, a particular scheme of human thinking might demand "nothing" as an abstract complement to its concept of "something", but not human-independent affairs. If literally reified in the context of the latter, nothing would sport "absence of impossibility" as a consequence of its lack of laws and lack of restrictions package. Ergo "something" (likewise reified) is not barred from being the case or would just as much still be the "default" setting. (Ordinary language seems to need awkward, figurative expressions at times just to have verbal objects to manipulate around for this bizarre, inutile subject.)
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Taking multiple eyewitness accounts at their word is not gullible. It is going by the evidence, the same way detectives and reporters do with crimes and accidents.
It is an ad hom meant to discredit me with some character flaw or mental disability. If I am a gullible person, then what I say is evidenced and real cannot be trusted. I am essentially written off as a source of accurate observations. You have undermined my credibility in order to refute my claims.
Last edited: