Why I'm an Atheist

[Whirlingdervish]

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 would still imply that there can be no argument that draws to a conclusion, since we will never be at the time you posted them again, and according to you nothing in the past is provable fact and any facts could magically become nonfacts tomorrow.

You've pretty much just shown that you think that nothing you say is correct.  

I agree.

[yahoo]

 

 

Tubby is trying to hard IMHO...
 

[quadz]

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.

Regrettable.

Your position allows no room for rational debate, as you have eliminited the possibility of challenging your claims.

You've left room only for the posting of unchallengable opinions.  That's not a debate.

Now please reciprocate in kind re my question.

OK:

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

You've left yourself no basis from which to judge the rationality of an argument.

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.

My answer remains as follows: scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories.

As has been previously illustrated, this fact does not advance your nihilist position.

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

You've got this backward.

It's not mathematics that breaks down in a singularity. 

I could elaborate further, but why bother?  Playing by your rules, you have no framework in which to challenge my claims.

[|iR|Focalor]

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.

You have NO FUCKING CLUE what you mean. You're attempting to repeat something that you've seen on television while only paying half-attention to it or something that you've read here on the forums without fully understanding it. Don't bullshit me, son. You aren't even smart enough to lie straight, much less actually know anything.

What you stated is not truth. Black holes are not known to reprogram handheld calculators. Just to let you in on the secret, it was a trick question anyway. And only a complete moron like you wouldn't be able to realize why I asked it. Facts are TRUTH. You cannot disprove the TRUTH ever. If it WAS a fact, it still IS a fact. It WILL BE a fact tomorrow.

You lose the debate again, cocksucker.

And that's a fact.

[QwazyWabbit]

Tubby is a troll, this much is proven. I think you are wasting your time, Focalor, even calling him names. He's perfectly happy to see you ranting. His sole purpose is to see this topic extended forever and to see all the angry posts directed at him.

As for black holes and mathematics: The laws of mathematics don't break down anywhere at any time in the universe. Of course you must apply ALL the laws, including relativity, to correctly interpret the results of your computation according to the space-time frame of reference you are in, just as you cannot apply Euclidean geometry to spherical surfaces without a transform function. Mathematics, the creation of the mind of man, is used to describe our incomplete understanding of the universe as far as we know it at this time. There is nothing wrong with this. The laws can be extended and refined as our understanding improves. This is the fundamental tenet of logical discourse and of rational science. We can always improve and refine our descriptions of the "laws" of nature. Just as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity improved on Newtonian mechanics.

Our ability to describe the laws of physics at a singularity, as far as we understand those laws, breaks down. This even bothered Einstein who didn't like this prediction that arose from this theory. Nevertheless, the singularity is obeying the universal laws of physics, even if we don't know them all or how to apply them at the event horizon.

I'm sure Tubby didn't mean singularities alter calculators. He meant that "immutable" laws could break down where our understanding breaks down.

But even if 2 + 2 = 5 inside the singularity, it doesn't matter, it cannot be communicated to the rest of the universe since the information cannot be transmitted.

[Admin]

Tubby is a troll, this much is proven. I think you are wasting your time, Focalor, even calling him names. He's perfectly happy to see you ranting. His sole purpose is to see this topic extended forever and to see all the angry posts directed at him.

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.

Concur.