• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Maths

Angel said:
Point out the logical fallacy, if you think you've found one. I would appreciate the favor.
On the other hand, the accusation without some indication of a basis, some example of my fallacious logic, this I don't appreciate. ;)
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance. Argument from appeal to authority. Argument to popularity. Argument from personal belief are the ones I see you using.
 
RAMOSS said:
Argument from ignorance. Argument from appeal to authority. Argument to popularity. Argument from personal belief are the ones I see you using.
Click to expand...
I can list fallacies as well as you, but the onus is on you to point out where I've committed these fallacies. My inferences are based on the success of physical science and conditional logic. Unless you reject these as authoritative, where is the appeal to ignorance or to popularity in my argument? ;)
 
Angel said:
I already made it, William. The cut and paste was merely the celebration of a point already made.
If you have nothing to say about Big G, then I guess we're done.
Cheerio. :)
(Do you all still say that?)
Click to expand...

What is this 'Big G'?
 
Angel said:
I can list fallacies as well as you, but the onus is on you to point out where I've committed these fallacies. My inferences are based on the success of physical science and conditional logic. Unless you reject these as authoritative, where is the appeal to ignorance or to popularity in my argument? ;)
Click to expand...

The memes you did where a combination of appeal to authority and appeal to personal belief.. Does that narrow it down??
 
RAMOSS said:
The memes you did where a combination of appeal to authority and appeal to personal belief.. Does that narrow it down??
Click to expand...
The memes followed my argument. My argument had already been made. These memes were not part of my argument. These memes are not arguments. They're conclusions. All they show is that my thesis is not as outlandish as you and others make it out to be.
And what is this appeal to personal belief business? Earlier you mentioned appeal to popularity. Are these the same? Two different fallacies? And again where do they, or does it, apply to my argument?
Earlier in the thread my argument is very clearly laid out in a series of posts. Please quote one of those posts and demonstrate its fallacy. :)
 
Angel said:
The memes followed my argument. My argument had already been made. These memes were not part of my argument. These memes are not arguments. They're conclusions. All they show is that my thesis is not as outlandish as you and others make it out to be.
And what is this appeal to personal belief business? Earlier you mentioned appeal to popularity. Are these the same? Two different fallacies? And again where do they, or does it, apply to my argument?
Earlier in the thread my argument is very clearly laid out in a series of posts. Please quote one of those posts and demonstrate its fallacy. :)
Click to expand...

This was your opening below. You have posted literally nothing that supports the part that I underlined. On the other hand, as Ramoss has pointed out, you have committed fallacies pretty typical of creationists that assert 'design' and 'fine tuning' with no basis in evidence whatsoever.

Angel said:
That the universe is mathematical in design and operation -- and that, before man invented the language of mathematics with which to measure and monitor the universe -- strongly suggests something other than accident and blind chance at work. :)
Click to expand...
 
William Rea said:
This was your opening below. You have posted literally nothing that supports the part that I underlined. On the other hand, as Ramoss has pointed out, you have committed fallacies pretty typical of creationists that assert 'design' and 'fine tuning' with no basis in evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Do you mean "literally" when you write "literally"? Or do you mean "figuratively"?
Lest you misunderstand my question, I am asking you whether you know what you mean there.
I suspect you don't, and that it's just a manner of speaking on your part.
I suspect as much because I know to a moral certainty that I have supported that conclusion in other posts.
But what's your best guess? About what you mean, I mean.

RAMOSS has so far pointed out nothing in his exchanges with me in this thread except his own obduracy toward a conclusion I've drawn that he does not like.
So when you say "as Ramoss has pointed out," do you know what you mean? Literally? Figuratively? In any sense whatever?
And I ask you what I asked RAMOSS -- please point out the fallacy in my reasoning. Or as you charge, "fallacies" -- plural. More than one. Please point them out.
You (and he) have made an accusation. Instead of just repeating the accusation, back it up. Show where my reasoning breaks down.

Here is a simple heuristic that points up our differences, yours and RAMOSS's and mine.
J9FA4XU.jpg

You and RAMOSS see the work of blind chance and accident here, the work of wind and surf and flotsam, etc.
I see footprints and infer that someone has walked by along the shore.

P.S. Nothing to say about Big G? :)
 
Angel said:
That the universe is mathematical in design and operation -- and that, before man invented the language of mathematics with which to measure and monitor the universe -- strongly suggests something other than accident and blind chance at work. :)
Click to expand...

Support this assertion or lose the argument.

'Fine tuning' and 'intelligent design' are arguments that are trivially easy to destroy, even in a philosophical sense, with a simple search of the internet. if you have nothing new to add then all you have is 'woo' and you should take it to the religion sections. They treat 'woo' seriously over there.
 
William Rea said:
Support this assertion or lose the argument.

'Fine tuning' and 'intelligent design' are arguments that are trivially easy to destroy, even in a philosophical sense, with a simple search of the internet. if you have nothing new to add then all you have is 'woo' and you should take it to the religion sections. They treat 'woo' seriously over there.
Click to expand...
Now you're inviting snark, my friend. So stand down.
"Fine tuning" and "intelligent design" are your -- I repeat, your -- characterizations of my argument here in this thread.
"Destroy" them as you will at your pleasure -- THEY ARE OF YOUR INVENTION.
Meanwhile, you have not offered anything by way of argument yourself. Just a No. A No. A No.
**** or get off the pot, my friend. And dial back the attitude.
If you have nothing to add to the conversation except negativity and derogation, then I recommend you watch Walt Disney's Bambi this weekend and acquaint yourself with the Thumper Rule.
Yes, that is your homework for the weekend. Watch Bambi. :)
 
Angel said:
Now you're inviting snark, my friend. So stand down.
"Fine tuning" and "intelligent design" are your -- I repeat, your -- characterizations of my argument here in this thread.
"Destroy" them as you will at your pleasure -- THEY ARE OF YOUR INVENTION.
Meanwhile, you have not offered anything by way of argument yourself. Just a No. A No. A No.
**** or get off the pot, my friend. And dial back the attitude.
If you have nothing to add to the conversation except negativity and derogation, then I recommend you watch Walt Disney's Bambi this weekend and acquaint yourself with the Thumper Rule.
Yes, that is your homework for the weekend. Watch Bambi. :)
Click to expand...
Support your assertion or lose.

I am not indulging your Gish Gallop.
 
William Rea said:
Support your assertion or lose.

I am not indulging your Gish Gallop.
Click to expand...

It's totally within the realm of reason to surmise that we just might be living in a computer-like simulation of cosmic proportions. I don't necessarily agree with that hypothesis, but if ones and zeroes are at the root of our existence, it certainly would put some meat on the bones of that theory.
 
calamity said:
It's totally within the realm of reason to surmise that we just might be living in a computer-like simulation of cosmic proportions. I don't necessarily agree with that hypothesis, but if ones and zeroes are at the root of our existence, it certainly would put some meat on the bones of that theory.
Click to expand...
So we're going to do ignorance again are we?

Religion is going to destroy Philosophy.
 
William Rea said:
So we're going to do ignorance again are we?

Religion is going to destroy Philosophy.
Click to expand...

What's ignorant? The "math is at the core of the universe" theory is being proposed by the MIT professor in the video linked in the OP.

BTW: I clearly stated, numerous times, that I do not buy it.
 
William Rea said:
Support your assertion or lose.

I am not indulging your Gish Gallop.
Click to expand...
Defeat my assertion or lose.
See how easy that is!
I've already supported my view here in this thread.
Your asking me to support it indicates that you are not even paying attention.
I dare say you're getting very close to being full of ****, my friend.
Either show the flaws in my argument, make an argument of your own, or take your game to the kiddie park. :)
 
calamity said:
Pretty interesting information is shared in the video below. Basically, the thesis presented is that math lies beneath the structure of our universe. "Everything is math," is a quote one of the physicists in the video used.

From the Fibonacci Sequence to Pi and beyond...it really is interesting to see how so many things adhere to mathematical patterns.

As an engineer, I learned sometime in 2nd year of college that the universe had mathematical structure. But, I guess…to describe how I always saw it: I understood math to be more a language that we invented to better understand events around us than the essence of some deeper truth that we somehow discovered.

Of course--disclaimer time---we must keep in mind that humans like to see patterns in things, sometimes filling in blanks to complete patterns which are not even there. A certain cloud that we imagine looks like a dog, for example. So, we certainly do not want to leap to conclusions. But, the information presented in the documentary sure does give one food for thought.

Personally, I like this stuff.


Click to expand...


Me, too!

Your comment on people seeing dogs in clouds is also natural.

We are constantly "seeing things" that are either familiar and inviting or strange and threatening. Add two buttons to a stuffed sock and the "eyes" make it a puppet.

While we pedestrians don't always understand the Math of things, we do see the patterns in things and do experience un-rational associations that are either inviting or warning.

Nature seems to have pathways that we innately find better or worse for our well being. You seem to be discovering a whole different plane of this in Mathematics.

Given the current state of science and math, you are in a very exciting and wondrous field.
 
Angel said:
Defeat my assertion or lose.
See how easy that is!
I've already supported my view here in this thread.
Your asking me to support it indicates that you are not even paying attention.
I dare say you're getting very close to being full of ****, my friend.
Either show the flaws in my argument, make an argument of your own, or take your game to the kiddie park. :)
Click to expand...

In some ways, I understand what he is doing: "Show me some hard evidence or admit it's BS." In other ways, I am as frustrated as you are by his complete unwillingness to explore the possibilities. It's even more frustrating when a layman on a chat board discounts an MIT professor who is actually working on this theory in a scientific setting.

I've encountered William's absolutist skepticism before in various god-related threads. I'm not so sure he even realizes just how much he sounds like a theist when he pushes his absolutism.
 
calamity said:
In some ways, I understand what he is doing: "Show me some hard evidence or admit it's BS." In other ways, I am as frustrated as you are by his complete unwillingness to explore the possibilities. It's even more frustrating when a layman on a chat board discounts an MIT professor who is actually working on this theory in a scientific setting.

I've encountered William's absolutist skepticism before in various god-related threads. I'm not so sure he even realizes just how much he sounds like a theist when he pushes his absolutism.
Click to expand...
I applaud skepticism, calamity. I don't applaud obduracy. The "hard evidence" in my argument is the success of mathematical physical science over 400 years. As your own skepticism brought out in exchanges in this thread, no one can claim that the mathematics we invented 14 billion years after the universe began is the mathematics that holds the universe together, but the success of our mathematical description of the workings of the physical universe points to a rational computational order in the universe, which our late-invented system somehow approximates. That the selfsame proportionality is at work in star systems millions of light years apart is better explained by logos, rational ordering, than by accident and blind chance. And that's the sum and substance of my argument in this thread. :)
 
calamity said:
In some ways, I understand what he is doing: "Show me some hard evidence or admit it's BS." In other ways, I am as frustrated as you are by his complete unwillingness to explore the possibilities. It's even more frustrating when a layman on a chat board discounts an MIT professor who is actually working on this theory in a scientific setting.

I've encountered William's absolutist skepticism before in various god-related threads. I'm not so sure he even realizes just how much he sounds like a theist when he pushes his absolutism.
Click to expand...
Oh dear calamity. We've done this before many times and yet you are still holding this flame for Frank? If you want to fantasise about mathematics, I am fine with that but, I will call out appeals to ignorance and filling gaps with gods for the nonsense that it is for ever and a day. I lack belief in assertions that have no evidence to support them, if you can't show it you don't know it, it is as simple as that.

Picking up a map and declaring that it is strong evidence that the Earth is designed because it looks like the map is absurdism at its most absurd. Musing over how amazing it is that the water is shaped exactly like the hole that contains it is absurdism at its most absurd. If you want to consider such things as having any meaning beyond religious philosophical masturbation then please continue your mutual willy rubs with anyone that comes along with it. Me, I think Paley and Billy Lane Craig are apologists of the most devious kind because they try to hide it in a mess of philosophy.
 
William Rea said:
Oh dear calamity. We've done this before many times and yet you are still holding this flame for Frank? If you want to fantasise about mathematics, I am fine with that but, I will call out appeals to ignorance and filling gaps with gods for the nonsense that it is for ever and a day. I lack belief in assertions that have no evidence to support them, if you can't show it you don't know it, it is as simple as that.

Picking up a map and declaring that it is strong evidence that the Earth is designed because it looks like the map is absurdism at its most absurd. Musing over how amazing it is that the water is shaped exactly like the hole that contains it is absurdism at its most absurd. If you want to consider such things as having any meaning beyond religious philosophical masturbation then please continue your mutual willy rubs with anyone that comes along with it. Me, I think Paley and Billy Lane Craig are apologists of the most devious kind because they try to hide it in a mess of philosophy.
Click to expand...

Take it up with the MIT professor. It's his theory. But, I'm sure you imagine that you can hold your own with him too. I wish we could watch that.

As for my thoughts, you clearly demonstrate exactly what I wrote above, or as Angel put it: obdurate behavior.
 
calamity said:
Take it up with the MIT professor. It's his theory. But, I'm sure you imagine that you can hold your own with him too. I wish we could watch that.

As for my thoughts, you clearly demonstrate exactly what I wrote above, or as Angel put it: obdurate behavior.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, same old same old huh, citing sources that you won't defend in your own words. The 'woo' is strong around here.
 
William Rea said:
Ahhh, same old same old huh, citing sources that you won't defend in your own words. The 'woo' is strong around here.
Click to expand...

What part of "I do not agree with Professor Woo" did you not understand?

Oh, I get it. You can't disagree with someone's theory and still consider the theory at the same time. Pity.
 
calamity said:
What part of "I do not agree with Professor Woo" did you not understand?

Oh, I get it. You can't disagree with someone's theory and still consider the theory at the same time. Pity.
Click to expand...

So you are Just Asking Questions huh calamity? CT style JAQing is what you are reduced to?

You appeared to be turning it around buddy, I was beginning to think that you were moving on but, same old calamity with the same old crap. I'll just go back to my previous default of silent contempt.
 
William Rea said:
So you are Just Asking Questions huh calamity? CT style JAQing is what you are reduced to?

You appeared to be turning it around buddy, I was beginning to think that you were moving on but, same old calamity with the same old crap. I'll just go back to my previous default of silent contempt.
Click to expand...

Well, there is one thing you can count on from me. My contempt is never silent.

Do I buy what the MIT physicist is selling? Hell no. Do I think I know more than the MIT physicist? Hell no. Do I therefore leave open the door to the possibility that the MIT physicist may be onto something? Of course.

Why do you have such a hard time leaving said door open to other ideas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom