The Problem with Science

[shunyadragon]

For all of you that are blind : I will point out a point for you


View attachment 21501

This is not a point in space. It is geometric description of the intersection of the X, Y and Z axis in graphic representation, and as such has absolutely noting to do with the nature of space.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sir, you are mistaken, consider your own words you are saying: ''no objectively observable absolutes in space''.

Not in space, the' space . The space that everything of physicality occupies. You are mistaking the word space for universe.

No the space does not equal the universe. Your graphic representations are geometric math descriptive points and have absolutely nothing to do with 'space,' nor anything beyond descriptive math of hypothetical points.

Actually the closest definition of space in your graphic representation is the 'space' between points, but that remains only a graphic representation and not context in the reality of our physical existence.

Your description of God in terms of space further complicates and clouds you explanation.

 

[james blunt]

This is not a point in space. It is geometric description of the intersection of the X, Y and Z axis in graphic representation, and as such has absolutely noting to do with the nature of space.

Sir, remove the lines from the picture, the coordinate system, is there a background left?

The background is space, you are quite confused sir in the difference between space and the observable Universe.

Space is nothingness , the background. OK ?

 

[james blunt]

space
speɪs/
noun

1. 1.
   a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

For all of you that are blind : I will point out a point for you

And the red herrings continue to fly across the room.

 

[james blunt]

universe
ˈjuːnɪvəːs/
noun

1. 1.
   all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

Ok sir, do you understand the difference now ?

 

[james blunt]

And the red herrings continue to fly across the room.

Well! Yes they do .

 

[james blunt]

= ∞


Ok, lol irony.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sir, remove the lines from the picture, the coordinate system, is there a background left?

The background is space, you are quite confused sir in the difference between space and the observable Universe.

Space is nothingness , the background. OK ?

Again, and again, and again no, you are trying to mix math with abstractions that are not related. Again, you appear to describing the philosophical nothing, or 'ex nihilo', which has no 'objectively observable' relationship with our physical existence.

As in your reference above to God, it does compute to use math to describe something that is not objectively observable.

 

[james blunt]

Again, and again, and again no, you are trying to mix math with abstractions that are not related. Again, you appear to describing the philosophical nothing, or 'ex nihilo', which has no 'objectively observable' relationship with our physical existence.

As in your reference above to God, it does compute to use math to describe something that is not objectively observable.

Sir you are practically saying space does not exist. It is quite apparent you have no idea what you are talking about as you keep giving moo moo arguments.

 

[james blunt]

A simple fact, space cannot be created or destroyed roof : absolute:

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm still not seeing how the scientific method is being applied. What units is order measured in? How do we empirically measure order? Also, how are you measuring an objective morality independently of the subjective wants and needs of humans?

Violations of human rights per capita.

Subjective wants and needs of humans are irrelevant to morality, the violation of which is the only human cause of the loss of good order.

In my experience, climate change deniers are never able to marshal any evidence in support of their claims. It's rather difficult to get around 100 years of science that clearly points to the reality of the Greenhouse Effect.

Been there done that ad nauseam. What can you say to change the mind of a brick wall who dances to the tune of a broken record.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Violations of human rights per capita.

How do you objectively determine what a human right is and when such a right has been violated?

Subjective wants and needs of humans are irrelevant to morality, the violation of which is the only human cause of the loss of good order.

You are going to need some objective evidence to back up these claims.

Been there done that ad nauseam. What can you say to change the mind of a brick wall who dances to the tune of a broken record.

Only science deniers call science supported by 100+ years of scientific evidence a "broken record". The Greenhouse Effect was discovered back in the late 1800's, yet people still refuse to acknowledge its existence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Just a small point: the first quote to which you reply is actually your own words, not mine. There was a glitch in the quoting in post 23.

Re Truth and God, the reason I say we can leave science out of the discussion is because science restricts itself, as a matter of method, to natural explanations and does not engage in metaphysical speculations. You are free to claim that science is, without acknowledging it, trying to understand God through its work, but it is not the job of science to comment on that view. (I think we are agreeing, actually.)

What has that got to do with syncretism?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I define God - An entity that creates substance.

Would anyone argue that definition ?

Science or a creationist?

Yes. Science. God=Truth, which might have come to be spontaneously, and could also have created nothing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How do you objectively determine what a human right is and when such a right has been violated?

I just went through that, again.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I view things this way, I am people , you are people, we are all people, there should not be an inequality in rights.

Wages aren't rights. And even if they were, how would you define what a "fair wage" is? But yes, there should be no inequality in genuine rights.

Wages should be on even terms, one persons time has the exact same value as another persons time.
However, there should be bonuses for nurses, doctors, firemen, the police, people who are doing lets say the caring jobs, the most risk.
I don't think I have seen a government yet that has any sort of clue how to govern and have a happy country.

Indeed, even when they tried to do what you suggest with actually good intentions--which is rare.

 

[james blunt]

how would you define what a "fair wage" is?

An interesting question that is not easy to answer with such an extensive list of issues involved. I think to define a fair wage there would be considerable thought needed on the different issues firstly.

In one issue example. how do we determine what is the value worth of a worker?

In terms of time , every bodies time is equal and proportional in worth , but then there is academic achievement to consider versus the man doing hard physical labour.

Being smart may put a person in a position of doing less labour, often better paid positions, for less energy used. Where some people prefer the physical labour and are not bothered about academics.

So who is worth the more in this situation ?

I see no distinction between the two situations of worker, time being the same. If anything the labourer is doing the more.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I just went through that, again.

I looked back through previous posts and I didn't see an objective methodology for determine what is and isn't a human right. Instead, human rights were simply listed and assumed to be rights without any method, unless I am missing something.

 

[exchemist]

What has that got to do with syncretism?

Search me.