Why I'm an Atheist

[Tubby]

Quadz, just a simple question: Do you think that in 10, 100, or 1000 years' time none of the facts you are espousing now might not be 'proven' wrong? Or do you think we - and especially you - have hit the evolutionary peak of scientific thought and that our descendents won't be laughing at many of our 'facts', just as we laugh at many of the 'facts' of our ancestors?

A simple question? If it's so god damned simple, why can't you answer MY question... you know, the one I walked you through like a 5 year old.

Name me one single instance in which a previous "fact" is no longer a "fact". Keep in mind that I said "fact" and put quotes around it to emphasize it. People thinking the world is flat and that boats fall off the side and get eaten by monsters is NOT A FACT, and NEVER WAS A FACT.

Focalor, you want me to name one instance in which a fact is no longer a fact?

I just did (Reply #351): Physical and mathematical 'facts' break down at the singularity of a black hole.

Inside the singularity of a black hole, if you type (hypothetically of course) 2+2 into a calculator, the answer might indeed come back as 5.

[Whirlingdervish]

Quadz, just a simple question: Do you think that in 10, 100, or 1000 years' time none of the facts you are espousing now might not be 'proven' wrong? Or do you think we - and especially you - have hit the evolutionary peak of scientific thought and that our descendents won't be laughing at many of our 'facts', just as we laugh at many of the 'facts' of our ancestors?

A simple question? If it's so god damned simple, why can't you answer MY question... you know, the one I walked you through like a 5 year old.

Name me one single instance in which a previous "fact" is no longer a "fact". Keep in mind that I said "fact" and put quotes around it to emphasize it. People thinking the world is flat and that boats fall off the side and get eaten by monsters is NOT A FACT, and NEVER WAS A FACT.

Focalor, you want me to name one instance in which a fact is no longer a fact?

I just did (Reply #351): Physical and mathematical 'facts' break down at the singularity of a black hole.

Inside the singularity of a black hole, if you type (hypothetically of course) 2+2 into a calculator, the answer might indeed come back as 5.

Prove it... Wait you can't.

By your own stated beliefs, you can't even prove that black holes exist. That would be a fact and according to you, those are subject to constant reinterpretation over time and thus can never be 100% correct (making them not factual.. as in.. nonfact)

I'm starting to get the impression that you do not understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

[Tubby]

Quadz, just a simple question: Do you think that in 10, 100, or 1000 years' time none of the facts you are espousing now might not be 'proven' wrong? Or do you think we - and especially you - have hit the evolutionary peak of scientific thought and that our descendents won't be laughing at many of our 'facts', just as we laugh at many of the 'facts' of our ancestors?

This has been answered repeatedly on this thread (cf. Newton vs. Laplace for one example.)  Rehashed so often, in fact, that I've even incorporated it into my assessment of your own position:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

Clear?  The answer is sitting right there, and look--it doesn't help your position at all.

So I guess that was a 'yes', Quadz?

So, why do you keep spewing out 'facts' as though they are immutable truths?

How does that help YOUR argument?

[Tubby]

Prove it... Wait you can't.

My point exactly, Dervish.

[Whirlingdervish]

you don't have a point. stop trying to bullshit us.
since you aren't even worth generating an original post, I'll just quote a few more you overlooked:

...come to think of it, I haven't seen you actually debate anything said yet, you obviously have your own set of views and "debating" isn't in your agenda. Focalor had you pegged pretty well.

 

established scientific theory

This part.

I doubt it, considering the entire rest of the paragraph is an attempt to unpack what I think your grievance is with the concept embodied by the phrase "established scientific theory".

Let's try again:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: Â When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. Â However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

Is this an accurate summary of your position? Â If not, why not?

You still haven't answered this 3 pages later...

If you'd like an answer to your question, try jotting some down to the multiple questions posed to you, which you promptly ignored and then attempted to bury with 3 more pages of bullshit smoke and mirrors posts.

Here I'll do it for you:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect.

Now we can all just go about our business. Thread closed.

[quadz]

So I guess that was a 'yes', Quadz?

So you do agree that the following is an accurate representation of your position?

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

If not, why not?

[Whirlingdervish]

Prove it... Wait you can't.

My point exactly, Dervish.

So I guess that is an admission of defeat?
It looks to me like you just admitted that you have nothing at all to add to this "discussion" since nothing you say is factual.

Since nothing you or I say is factual (according to your own stated belief) there can be no argument that draws to a conclusion, since according to you nothing is provable and either set of facts could magically become nonfacts tomorrow.


You've pretty much just shown that you think that nothing you say is correct.  
I'm willing concede the point that nothing you say is correct, although it will be for reasons that include logical backing.

[fdrjk]

[Tubby]

So I guess that was a 'yes', Quadz?

So you do agree that the following is an accurate representation of your position?

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

If not, why not?

Haha nice try, Quadz, twisting the question around like that because you have no rational comeback.

I expected better of you.

Once again, a simple YES or NO: Do you think that our descendants will 'prove' a certain amount of what you are today calling scientific 'fact' as wrong?

If you answer 'no', you're arrogant beyond belief. If you answer 'yes', you must concede that I have a fair argument. If you call me an epistemological nihilist again I will vomit.

[quadz]

Nope, it's your turn to answer a question for a change.

This question has been asked repeatedly, and you've consistently evaded it.

Do agree that the following is an accurate representation of your position?

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

If not, why not?

[fdrjk]

 

[Tubby]

Prove it... Wait you can't.

My point exactly, Dervish.

So I guess that is an admission of defeat?
It looks to me like you just admitted that you have nothing at all to add to this "discussion" since nothing you say is factual.

Since nothing you or I say is factual (according to your own stated belief) there can be no argument that draws to a conclusion, since according to you nothing is provable and either set of facts could magically become nonfacts tomorrow.


You've pretty much just shown that you think that nothing you say is correct.  
I'm willing concede the point that nothing you say is correct, although it will be for reasons that include logical backing.

That's actually a really fair reply, Dervish, apart from one thing:

I'm saying that 'facts' as we understand them today may not apply to tomorrow / another place in the universe / another time in the universe / before or after (outside of) the universe.

That doesn't mean I can't say, right here and right now - at this moment and in this position in space - 2+2 does equal 4. To me, HERE AND NOW, that IS a fact, but it may not be a fact - say - within the singularity of the black hole which supposedly resides in the centre of our own Milky Way galaxy: It may not be a fact when our universe stops expanding and begins contracting: It may not even be a 'fact' anywhere, anytime if even a few of the principles of quantum entanglement are shown to be correct.

[Tubby]

Hey who put that noob troll picture there? That guy looks nothing like me - way too skinny.

[quadz]

Hey who put that noob troll picture there?

It's your turn to answer a question for a change.

This question has been asked repeatedly, and you've consistently evaded it.

Do agree that the following is an accurate representation of your position?

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

If not, why not?

[Tubby]

Nope, it's your turn to answer a question for a change.

This question has been asked repeatedly, and you've consistently evaded it.

Do agree that the following is an accurate representation of your position?

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

If not, why not?

Quadz, my answer is an unequivocal Yes.

Now please reciprocate in kind re my question.