Gene Frenkle Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 You can't even come close to a response. Once again. What are you now 0-22 against me? Edit: Hell I edited my last to try to take it easy on you. Come on dude.... You are the king of your world. A legend in your own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 You are the king of your world. A legend in your own mind. "Ahh there's no reply at all, no reply at all". (Cue Gene Frenkle and the Mary Jane Girls dancing) "No reply. There's no reply at all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick. Given that, throwing around the Scientific Method proves nothing. It is quite possible, hell, likely, that the Scientific Method itself will need a major overhaul to understand things like extra dimensions, as in: What if an extra dimension's existence is atomic, thereby making it impossible to ever reproduce the data from the single experiment that proves its existence, or modifies/creates it? Does that mean it doesn't exist? If we use the current scientific method as defined, the answer can only be NO, and, we have to "scientifically" not believe our own eyes. If we need to modify the Scientific Method just to deal with extra dimensions, think about what we would have to do to it to prove the existence of God.... I realize that all methodology is fallible, and the Scientific Method cannot be applied to everything. Your example (if it's correct, I don't know because I don't have a physics degree) would certainly demonstrate this. I think, however, that you just reiterated my point, that the existence of God cannot be proven or dis-proven, especially with our current, fallible, methodologies. I was trying to say that believers who try to parody non-believers by saying, "Oh, I can't see gravity, does that exist?" aren't quite following correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 Ok, let's take it apart...First point... As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick. It's a false premise because you can't prove the statement. It's just a fluffy blanket BS statement. Your assertion is completely 100% anecdotal, unsupported and irrelevant. You attempt to apply this false premise to Scientific Method later in your argument, but you fail to provide any specifics. The rest of it falls apart because the bulk of it is based on your false premise. We can get into the specifics of that if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I realize that all methodology is fallible, and the Scientific Method cannot be applied to everything. Your example (if it's correct, I don't know because I don't have a physics degree) would certainly demonstrate this. I think, however, that you just reiterated my point, that the existence of God cannot be proven or dis-proven, especially with our current, fallible, methodologies. I was trying to say that believers who try to parody non-believers by saying, "Oh, I can't see gravity, does that exist?" aren't quite following correctly. There's no doubt that the above bolded is a specious argument. Clearly you can't see air, yet you breathe it, so it has to be real. My point is: claiming that God doesn't exist because the Scientific Method says so is ALSO a specious argument. Either side running around claiming superiority on the other is pointless. Once again, telling me that you are an atheist says nothing about your intellectual ability....as evidenced in this and other threads. If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 There's no doubt that the above bolded is a specious argument. Clearly you can't see air, yet you breathe it, so it has to be real. My point is: claiming that God doesn't exist because the Scientific Method says so is ALSO a specious argument. Either side running around claiming superiority on the other is pointless. Once again, telling me that you are an atheist says nothing about your intellectual ability....as evidenced in this and other threads. If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think. Who said anything about god? I'm only talking about your ridiculous post. Stay on topic and tell my why the first paragraph is not a false premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think. Good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 There's no doubt that the above bolded is a specious argument. Clearly you can't see air, yet you breathe it, so it has to be real. My point is: claiming that God doesn't exist because the Scientific Method says so is ALSO a specious argument. Either side running around claiming superiority on the other is pointless. Once again, telling me that you are an atheist says nothing about your intellectual ability....as evidenced in this and other threads. If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this. Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think. I didn't mean to imply that the Scientific Method says God doesn't exist, I was trying to say that it couldn't be applied at all, so many scholars withhold belief for that reason. I agree with everything you said in this post. I can't stand people who proselytize, no matter what their beliefs (or non-beliefs) are. If you want to have a healthy debate, that's one thing. Shoving your beliefs down someone's throat is completely another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Ok, let's take it apart...First point... It's a false premise because you can't prove the statement. It's just a fluffy blanket BS statement. Your assertion is completely 100% anecdotal, unsupported and irrelevant. You attempt to apply this false premise to Scientific Method later in your argument, but you fail to provide any specifics. The rest of it falls apart because the bulk of it is based on your false premise. We can get into the specifics of that if you like. I can't prove what exactly? 1. That I haven't worked with multiple methodologies? Again, I refer you to project manager, enterprise(Fortune 500, last big gig was $45 million) and architect, technical as my qualifications for saying um, yeah dopey, I have done the job. Anything else I say about my qualifications to speak on this matter will be interpreted by you as bragging, so spare me. It suffices to say: I am fully qualified to deliver an expert conclusion on this aspect because...I am a f'ing expert. 2. That I can't prove clear and consistent fault with ALL methodologies, including the Scientific Method? You are free to select any particular methodology you want, and I will find fault with it. If you won't/don't, then you can't say what I am saying is anecdotal, because I am allowing you to chose any, even the ones I haven't worked with(a short list), you also can't say it's unsupported....because I am talking about what I can do, which only requires my support, dumbass, and you also can't say it's irrelevant, because your entire positions centers on what I supposedly can't do. There are no specifics other than to say: you still don't understand the flaw in the Scientific Method as it relates to atomic events. Running your mouth at me, instead familiarizing yourself with the material, does not mitigate your lack of understanding. I'll dumb it down for you: an event that cannot be repeated may still exist. However, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to such an event. By definition, therefore, using the Scientific Method, we are forced to conclude that such events do not in fact exist, even if they happen right in front of us. Hence, this method, like all methods, is inherently flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Who said anything about god? I'm only talking about your ridiculous post. Stay on topic and tell my why the first paragraph is not a false premise. Try to keep up skippy. I wasn't replying to you. Believe it or not, there are other people besides you in this thread. I have told you 2 times now. Here's some friendly advice, don't argue with an expert, they will only make you look foolish in the end. Want me to start toying with you? Keep it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 I can't prove what exactly? 1. That I haven't worked with multiple methodologies? Again, I refer you to project manager, enterprise(Fortune 500, last big gig was $45 million) and architect, technical as my qualifications for saying um, yeah dopey, I have done the job. Anything else I say about my qualifications to speak on this matter will be interpreted by you as bragging, so spare me. It suffices to say: I am fully qualified to deliver an expert conclusion on this aspect because...I am a f'ing expert. 2. That I can't prove clear and consistent fault with ALL methodologies, including the Scientific Method? You are free to select any particular methodology you want, and I will find fault with it. If you won't/don't, then you can't say what I am saying is anecdotal, because I am allowing you to chose any, even the ones I haven't worked with(a short list), you also can't say it's unsupported....because I am talking about what I can do, which only requires my support, dumbass, and you also can't say it's irrelevant, because your entire positions centers on what I supposedly can't do. There are no specifics other than to say: you still don't understand the flaw in the Scientific Method as it relates to atomic events. Running your mouth at me, instead familiarizing yourself with the material, does not mitigate your lack of understanding. I'll dumb it down for you: an event that cannot be repeated may still exist. However, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to such an event. By definition, therefore, using the Scientific Method, we are forced to conclude that such events do not in fact exist, even if they happen right in front of us. Hence, this method, like all methods, is inherently flawed. Wow, you don't like be wrong do you? Are you looking to start and internet fist fight? Personally, I don't really care where you manage projects or clean out garbage cans or whatever. All that is important to me is the lack of intelligence and incapacity for critical thought that you display here on a regular basis. You still have not specified any flaws in the Scientific Method. If an event cannot be reproduced, it is not scientifically relevant. The Scientific Method does not attempt to either prove or disprove ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality such as your silly 'atomic dimensions' theory. This is not a flaw in the Scientific Method. As for the existence of God, the Scientific Method does not attempt to prove or disprove that claim either. All you've really done is cite two nearly identical fantastical claims that illustrate limits of the Scientific Method. Again, limits not flaws. In both cases, the only flaws exist in the logic behind the belief. It occurs to me that the overly-qualified Fortune 500 Project Manager is out of his depth here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Wow, you don't like be wrong do you? Are you looking to start and internet fist fight? Dude, don't talk about fights. You would lose to me in every kind of fight there is, and I don't pick on the intellectually or physically crippled, unless they keep running their mouths. You still have not specified any flaws in the Scientific Method. Yes I have. I can state more, but I'm not going to until we are all sure you understand the first one. If an event cannot be reproduced, it is not scientifically relevant. I would imagine the existence of a parallel dimension might just be....oh I don't know, the largest scientific discovery of all time...but yeah, you are right. The Scientific Method does not attempt to either prove or disprove ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality such as your silly 'atomic dimensions' theory. Hint: it's not my theory. It's somebody else's. Somebody who is very relevant to this thread. There is this thing called Google. You may use it at any time to educate yourself. This is the third and final time I am offering you a chance to read up on the material.... Oh, and since we are talking alternate dimension here, we are also talking alternate realities. So of course something that only deals with this this "reality" is going to be flawed. But I am sure you knew that before you posted and are just joking here right? This is not a flaw in the Scientific Method. It demands that things be reproduced in order to prove causal relationships. It therefore cannot deal with singular events, such as the possibility of starting a new dimension by driving down the road and turning left instead of right. How about the Big Bang....are you suggesting that we can't believe in that, since it can't be reproduced? That event can only happen once, cannot be repeated a that point in time, therefore cannot be reproduced for study. Therefore the Scientific Method cannot be used to study all things in this universe: which means that, by definition, it is flawed. As for the existence of God, the Scientific Method does not attempt to prove or disprove that claim either. All you've really done is cite two nearly identical fantastical claims that illustrate limits of the Scientific Method. Again, limits not flaws. In both cases, the only flaws exist in the logic behind the belief. What? The logic behind the belief? What are you talking about? You are operating under the assumption that the scientific method can be used to explain all things. That is your belief. I point how how that simply cannot be the case, and thereby point out the clear flaw in your logic...and you tell me about limitations? Your the one stating that it can be used to explain everything. It cannot. Therefore, it is inherently flawed. Make up your mind: it either can be used to explain everything or it cannot. If it cannot, then you can't hold it up as Holy writ, like you have been doing this entire thread. It occurs to me that the overly-qualified Fortune 500 Project Manager is out of his depth here. There is a giant piece of info I am going to drop on you like a safe in about 2 posts. Focus on why that hasn't occurred to you yet. Out of my depth? You still don't understand any of what I am saying, and I have 3 more flaws left to go. Hint: Carl Sagan said "It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don't understand." In your case, it means nothing to be closed off to a proposition you don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Dude, don't talk about fights. You would lose to me in every kind of fight there is, and I don't pick on the intellectually or physically crippled, unless they keep running their mouths. Ok, you're a tool without hope and now you're ignored. Internet tough guys never get old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I didn't mean to imply that the Scientific Method says God doesn't exist, I was trying to say that it couldn't be applied at all, so many scholars withhold belief for that reason. I agree with everything you said in this post. I can't stand people who proselytize, no matter what their beliefs (or non-beliefs) are. If you want to have a healthy debate, that's one thing. Shoving your beliefs down someone's throat is completely another. My "other" point is: I tend to believe that no single, unifying Scientific Method can be used to explore and find and explain everything. Saying otherwise, as I have has stated, makes you just as dogmatic at the ultra-religious. Instead, I like this quote from Nietzche: Linky. (scroll down a bit) 1. Partially because I have been the cause of putting people in a room to solve a problem and have seen the very behavior he describes over and over....and sometimes not, 2. Partially because there are fools like the one I am currently dealing with in this thread who pursue their hatred and attempts at discrediting religion using the very same, non-scientific, tactics of those they claim are so wrong and those they claim to hate so much, 3. and partially because I am simply not comfortable with any man-made construct as being now and forever infallible. Zealotry is zealotry, it's behaviors and consequences are indistinguishable moving from one belief system to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Ok, you're a tool without hope and now you're ignored. Internet tough guys never get old. Awesome. Now I can continue ripping you a new one unhindered. You have offered nothing to support your position, once again. Your only avenue has been to "take all my toys and go home". So, now you are 0-23. EDIT: And Carl Sagan, yes the very guy you quoted to begin this thread, is the source of the Scientific Method criticism I have deployed here. In fact, he was using this criticism as a means to question other scientists. So all along your hero, and not me, is the one who you are arguing against....but of course, you will probably ignore that as well. More evidence that liberals and atheists and in no way intellectually superior to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 You have chosen to ignore all posts from: OCinBuffalo. This is your best post by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Awesome. Now I can continue ripping you a new one unhindered. You have offered nothing to support your position, once again. Your only avenue has been to "take all my toys and go home". So, now you are 0-23. EDIT: And Carl Sagan, yes the very guy you quoted to begin this thread, is the source of the Scientific Method criticism I have deployed here. In fact, he was using this criticism as a means to question other scientists. So all along your hero, and not me, is the one who you are arguing against....but of course, you will probably ignore that as well. More evidence that liberals and atheists and in no way intellectually superior to anyone. And another thing, why do you like to parade in your mothers underwear? Is it a liberal or atheist thing or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Warmongering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts