Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ecthelion

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Flat Earth General / Re: please papa share your knowledge
« on: May 01, 2016, 01:47:33 AM »
I notice Papa Legba has not denied being Tim Bolen. Suspicious if you ask me.

Flat Earth General / Re: please papa share your knowledge
« on: May 01, 2016, 01:14:03 AM »
By the way, is Papa Legba Tim Bolen? And what do anti-vaxxers and alternative medicine have to do with NASA and FET?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: May 01, 2016, 01:06:58 AM »
It is not news that a vegan diet has no adquate source of vitamin B12. That lack can be very dangerous, especially to children. Some other vitamins are also problematic, but can generally be acquired with a very careful diet. In that sense, Ghandi was right that at his time and using his methods, an adequate vegan diet was impossible. The question is, of course, if a vegan or close to vegan diet is still impossible using modern knowledge and foods. It certainly is hard and requires an understanding of the nutritional requirements of the body and the nutritional values of all kinds of food.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« on: April 30, 2016, 09:52:21 PM »
I haven't yet understood what they really did.

The way I understand the text, the Chinese "experiment" was probably more of a gedankenexperiment. The numbers don't seem to be actual measurements, but rather assumptions for the sake of argument. It's an explanation of method and concerned with relations, not with quantified evidence.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: April 30, 2016, 12:40:13 PM »
As for the planted cameras, I give you the Planned Parenthood Defense when  hidden cameras caught them in criminal acts. "Out of context and carefully edited"

And how many of us have seen photos and videos that showed actions that because of the angle, lighting and other factors seemed to show things that were not actually taking place? All onc has to do look at their Face Book page to see at least a few everyday.

That is FES logic. Observations are always evidence and must be considered. You cannot assume doctoring without evidence - that way any observation could be dismissed.

AGW. Pure  bunk. Unless one believes there are humans on Mars driving SUVs. And Mars is not alone is warming. Pluto too was warming even as it was swing away from the sun. The moons of the Gas Giants are warming too.  It is unscientific and illogical to see all those planets and moons warming but believe only on Earth is it man's fault.

There is no obvious reason all planets would behave the same way. Your claim to that extend requires an argument. Are the warming trends equivalent? Do they point to the same source?

The Lounge / Re: Who is İntikam on FE forum?
« on: April 27, 2016, 09:39:01 PM »
As a Jew myself (messianic) and for Israel I don't think he shouldn't be banned. If he's wrong then we'll sort it out.

There is no sorting out Intikam. He need long-term therapy, not forum posts. I think it's a good thing he left. He had already started to post in every other thread, injecting himself in all kinds of discussions and derailing them with his ramblings.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 12:14:16 PM »
Ecthy Baby Brain, "G-d does not exist." means precisely that. It is a positive claim however you dress it up or not. the Emperor has no clothes. It Is as simple as that.

Look, I don't care what you call it, but if you state someone has a burden of proof for making a positive claim, then you should be able to explain what makes the claim "positive" and why they, and not you, have the burden of proof.

Every claim is a "positive claim", so he is right here.

Then why call it "positive claim"?

You positively assert something. You can say "unicorns do not exist" or "that what exists is unicornless". Both are positive assertions about the realm of existence.

I agree, but only insofar as we're talking about empirical existence. But that was never specified by Yaakov. And in any event that God doesn't empirically exist is obvious.

The more precise your assertion is, the less likely it is that it includes a negative grammatical particle, that's the only difference. To say, Yaakov is a Fascist is a more precise statement about him than to say, he is not a Liberal.

On the formal level, there is a difference. A positive statement links to a defined term. A negative statement leaves open infinite possibilities.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 10:57:21 AM »
He is NOT making the claim that X is not Y. He is claiming that X does not exist. That is a positive claim, Ecthy Baby Brain.

I can reformulate "X does not exist" as "X is not existing". There is a "not" in there. That usually means it isn't a positive claim.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 10:41:15 AM »
You are clearly not an attorney in the Anglo-American system of Jurisprudence. "Innocent until proven Guilty." But if not proven guilty, innocence is presumed. It is not guessed at or debated. The innocence is assumed. In Spain, which operates under the Code Napoleon, I know things work differently.

But "innocence" isn't a defined attribute. It is simply the absence of guilt.

Ergo, if you say there is no G-d, that IS a positive claim.

That is simply not what "positive claim" means.
X is Y is a positive claim
X is not Y isn't
X is not-Y is a synthesis of positive and negative claim in that it contains a positive attribution of an undefined ("negative") attribute.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 10:29:38 AM »
I think you misunderstand what we mean with burden of proof here. The null hypothesis is, in any existance claim, NOT to believe, by definition. Therefore, any claim of the form "There is" or "There is not" is opposing the null hypothesis ("Not to believe there is/is not"), so it requires proof. The null hypothesis is chosen this way preciselly because it is NOT an answer, it solves no conflict, has no explanatory value, and in general is nothing more than a placeholder for knowdlege we do not know or can know.

But not believing, in the realm of empirical knowledge, implies believing something else. There are no blank spots in the empirical. Which is why I conclude the null hypothesis actually does answer the question, since if the hypothesis cannot be proven, the result isn't a non-liquet, the result is another, positive claim.

I understand that you say the null hypothesis is just a placeholder - the way I understand it, it is merely chosen to give the hypothesis something to disprove. But nevertheless, if the hypothesis ends up falsified, then some other theory takes it's place. The null hypothesis may not precisely be that other theory, but it is the placeholder.

Which is why I specifically restricted it to the material world:

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material.

Metaphysical claims are by definition not knowable by physical means, so they are outside the explanatory power of science.

Ah sorry, I overlooked that. No disagreement here.

Ultimately, the point I wanted to make is that just throwing around "Burden of proof" isn't an argument. If we have an empirical question, claiming your opponent hasn't satisfied their "burden of proof" is meaningless unless you have a better alternative theory. If we have a metaphyiscal question, the concept is meaningless altogether since metaphysical truths either follow by deduction from a-priori knowledge or are unknowable.

Given that I speak Spanish fluently, double negatives are not a problem for me. Nevertheless, by refuting a claim, you are making a claim, whether you admit it or not.

But not a positive claim. If you want to work with burden of proof, there is a difference.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 07:44:45 AM »
God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

No-one said He would, you crook.

No? So you do have to independently prove His existence first?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 07:01:24 AM »
"Burden of proof is a legal concept,..." etc. Are we trying to avoid the hole we have dug for ourselves? My point is that it is incumbent upon you to prove yours.

Only insofar as the point is to convince someone. This is an open discussion, God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

The positive claim is that, "There is no Creator".

No, it quite obviously is not. Are you trying to redefine language and/or logic here?

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material. In a more general sense, existance of an explanation or entity must be proven, but disbelief requires none (as it is the null hypothesis).

There is a subtle difference between the concepts. Burden of proof resolves a non-liquet situation by ruling against the party who bears it, but it does not answer the question. A null hypothesis is the default answer if the alternative theory cannot be established. Neither technically applies to metaphysical questions, since that would imply that we always have a definitive answer, and agnosticism would hence be illogical.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 05:13:05 AM »
Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

Burden of proof is a legal concept, it doesn't apply to the question.

But, as no-one has ever, via any kind of Observation, witnessed a live microbe being created out of the elements of the periodic table, plasma, etc, my point very much stands.

To witness something implies direct observation. Observations made in the present can provide evidence for what happened in the past.

By the way, you're not talking about evolution, you are talking about abiogenesis.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 04:08:27 AM »
Because if you cannot Create a microbe using the scientific method, nor even Observe one being Created, then I suggest that Evolution has no scientific basis whatsoever & is simply a matter of Faith...

And you're wrong. Direct observation is not the only kind of observation.

The Lounge / Re: Who is İntikam on FE forum?
« on: April 25, 2016, 07:18:55 AM »
Intikam also believes Hitler was a great man, believes the holocaust was jews spreading lies, that ISIS is a jew organization and above all that he does Gods work and everyone who disagrees with him is a NASA satanist troll.

I believe that i'm living for God wants it, so only defending the truth that what God want to see.

Master atheists are usually Jews and role for they deceive the most of people as they are atheists. They have some argumants that only retarted men believes.
Atheism is a kind of Judaism and master atheists are jews at same time.

I already readen the Mein Kampf but i don't need to read it to know how about Jews. Hitler was also a great man and Was hampered the zyonists. therefore dominant Jews defeated him and  made up lies about him.

To believe the Hitler is a killer need to be an idiot by don't see any prove! Except some TV shows!

Ahaha you ignorant, ISIS never killed any oj Jews. ISIS an Jew organisation. I have an information how ISIS a Jew organisation the knowledge enough to be a book. :)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 25, 2016, 01:37:50 AM »
Plus, you like to use the term 'reality' a lot, but offer no definition for it...

"God exists" is not my claim. I can't define the terms, that's Yaakov's prerogative.

So far as I am concerned, reality is that which the subject puts in opposition to itself. Empirical reality is that which the subject perceives as outside affliction, i.e. the body of experiences.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 25, 2016, 12:28:11 AM »
I did, asshole. Your arguments have been addressed by me saying that your death should not be relevant to you, since existence is no more significant than nonexistence.

Aww, is someone upset?

Oh yes, my existance is relevant to me. But it doesn't follow that a defined term changes based in it's relation to reality. But that is what your argument requires. It states that the attributes of God change depending in it's relation to reality. This isn't the case unless you start out by defining God as "something which exists", at which point the argument is circular.

Short Version: putting a term in the group "things that exist" does not change the definition of the term. Else you could not judge whether X exists, since the judgement would change what X is.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 25, 2016, 12:04:36 AM »
Well if the argument is bullshit, you won't mind if I shoot you in the head then. Since your lack of existence is just as good as your existence...

Censors please note: I do not literally mean to threaten this idiot. Rather, I am compelled to display his stupidity clearly. Please do not take the first paragraph literally.

Cute. But if you wanted to show anyone that I was stupid, actually adressing my arguments might have helped.

The Lounge / Re: Is Intikam Papa Legba?
« on: April 24, 2016, 10:55:41 PM »
We have awakened the beast. Woe is us.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 24, 2016, 10:17:03 PM »
To even make the argument that G-d might exist but isn't really G-d is nonsensical. If the Ontological Argument has been forgotten or never learned, allow me to spark your memory.

I can conceive of a Being a Greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.

Existence is greater than nonexistence.

Ergo, G-d exists.

And the argument is bullshit. Terms can be empty without being imperfect, the second premise is unfounded. Existence and nonexistence are relations of a term to reality. By changing the relation of the term to reality (from "existance" to "nonexistance" or vice versa) I do not change the contents of the term.

While I can treat existance as a quasi-predicate and incorporate it into a term, this makes the argument tautological.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 24, 2016, 12:28:59 AM »
I would really like to talk about God without being constantly insulted. There is one argument for his existence that makes some sense to me: the argument from desire. Basically, it's that all the human beings evidently, since there has always been some form of religion, have a desire for God. Well, when we naturally desire something, we can assume it exists. Human beings naturally desire water, and water exists. Human beings naturally desire food, and there is such thing as food. Why then wouldn't god exist? Of course, there is still a problem of evil, but it assumes that, if there is a god, it's omnipotent. It doesn't have to be. So, what do you think about it?

I'm with Space Cowgirl in that your analogy doesn't really fit. Belief in a higher being isn't that kind of need. But it does seem to be an intellectual desire - perhaps even a necessity - for emotional and logical reasons. Emotional because we cannot imagine ourselves being gone, so we assume an afterlife which often, but not necessarily, includes a god. Logical because we try to find unifying principle behind all our experience, and that leads us to the highest unity, the absolutely necessary being, aka God.

FalseProphet, that is simply a stupid response, if I may be so bold. To say you know that no G-d exists implies that you are absolutely CERTAIN that the Universe came about by chance or accident. It simply isn't possible to know that. And the odds are so far against it anyway that...

It's possible to conclude that that which has no empirical evidence to support it doesn't empirically (physicall) exist. This isn't "certainity" in the strictest sense, but it is as close as we can get. Nevertheless, I do agree with you insofar as the (non-)existance of a metaphysical God is impossible to know.

As to "knowing" the Universe came about by chance or accident: It's a necessary conclusion. Science cannot possibly supply evidence of creation. By looking at the universe through the lense of possible experience, we will always only see the laws of nature (which in reality are all in our heads) at work, never a creator. Our perception distills the laws and regularities from that which we experience and would, even if a creator exists, always hide his hands behind the laws.

You are true you have that chance about a chance less than %33 reincarnating. But still you have %67 chance to go to hell and %0 chance to go to heaven.

You asked me if you can go to heaven or not, the answer did not changed. You can never go the heaven. (in your opinion if it exist)

Unless, of course, Religion is not a football team that lets you go to heaven. In that case I might go to heaven simply for being a good person, regardless of whether I believe in it or not.

Maybe god has sense of humor and sends all the atheist into an extra special cool heaven, just to show them.

This thread kinda reminds me of Pascal's wager. Do you know the idea, Intikam?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 23, 2016, 01:14:13 AM »
Because I mentioned Occam's razor you jumped on that and dropped the whole meaning of the point I was trying to make. This is what I said:

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. Would't you think a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in the stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

I can see no point here.

You asked me why I believed satellites are real. I gave you my reasoning. You questioned my reasoning with the statement above, and I showed why your criticism is misguided.

What is left if you take the reference to Occam's razor out is a meaningless anecdote. "What if" stallites are HAPs? Well it doesn't fit the evidence, so it's idle speculation. "What if" the world is ruled by the unicorn princess Sparklypoo? One can make any number of hypothetical scenarios, but unless you give me a reason why your scenario is probable instead of merely possible, there's no point.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Genuine question
« on: April 23, 2016, 01:09:35 AM »
Where is babyhighspeed, he started this thread? He should be part of the debate.

The things I find difficult to believe I try to find evidence to back up my beliefs.

That's a deflection tactic I haven't seen before.

But yes, it is blindingly obvious that what you do is try to find evidence to back up your beliefs, rather then adjusting your beliefs to fit the evidence.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 22, 2016, 12:28:31 PM »
Not sure what to call myself. I consider the idea of a physical god, i.e. a god that could be observed as part of the empirical universe, to be not wrong, but incoherent. The attributes generally attributed to god are impossible to observe, so we can certainly never gain any emprical knowledge of god.

Since, evidently, we also don't have any a-priori knowledge of god, what remains is the pure idea of god, that our reason seems to be compelled to produce to avoid the problem of infinite regression. Based on that idea, one may hope for a god, or one may conclude that this god is really just an ideal for ourselves to strive after. I like the notion that everyone carries their god around in themselves, as an ideal containing a perfect version of themselves and the universe.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 22, 2016, 12:22:53 PM »

I cannot help you further without any information on where the problem is.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: April 22, 2016, 12:12:49 PM »
How is anything horrific for a fish, and who cares? Your opinion about said fish is irrelevant, Shit for Brains. Slaves and children are people, Shit for Brains. Animals are not.

Oh really? Can you provide a compelling proof for that? Because I have been thinking about this specific problem a bit, and I have not come ot any satisfying conclusion. All personhood theories seem to include some amount or arbitrary "seems similar enough to me" thinking.

If I grew up thinking Europeans were subhumans who somehow diluted their pure ebony skin by interbreeding with vile creatures, why would I consider them more like people than, say, my dog, with whom I have a close emotional bond?
If I did consider them higher than ordinary animals because of their ability to communicate, why would I draw the line between animal and man just below them, rather than just above them?

It seems to me what we consider "people" and what we consider "things" is mostly an emotional distinction, rather than a rational one.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Genuine question
« on: April 22, 2016, 11:51:30 AM »
That is the problem, we assume too much because we have it shoved down our throats. All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Or better yet, teach basic philosophy in school so you don't need the disclaimer in the first place. You also get the added benefit of a young generation that knows basic theories on reason and morality.

But this is really an aside to the point I was trying to make. Did I get across how making guesses and then trying to find ways to rule them out is important in the search for knowledge?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 22, 2016, 11:27:02 AM »
Example: There is a device in the sky that sends to us TV signals. Think about these two possible explanations of how they got there:
1. A balloon floated them into space.
2. A rocket launched them into space.
Even though both are possible, only one explanation has been positively proven. It has been proven beyond all doubts that balloons can rise up in our atmosphere. It has never been proven that a rocket can fly in space. We only assume they can because we are told that. Besides that, we don't see rockets going straight up, we see them turn towards the ocean and go out of sight. Again, we can only assume they end up in space because we are told they do. We have to assume more to believe rockets get things into space and in my opinion it is probably the wrong answer. Occam's razor tells us that the device was put into space through the use of a balloon because that is the simplest answer and therefore probably the right one.

Your example still suffers from the issues already pointed out. Your theory is manifestly incomplete. You have to account for, among others:
  • The observation that there is widespread consensus that rockets exist and go to space
  • The observation that there is technical documents and calculation that show how and why rockets work
  • The obseravtion that actual rockets are, in fact, being launched and exhibit a trajectory that one would expect

Unless your theory accounts for all the observations it is a non-starter. You don't even get to the point where Occam's razor would be relevant. Occam's razor only applies between theories that have the same scope, that is, explain the same amount of observations. In order to fit the above mentioned observations into your theory, you will need to invoke massive amounts of fraud and deception. This will make the theory significantly more complex.

It is easy to see why this must be so: If it were permissible to use Occam's razor for partial theories, the result would only depend on what specific set of observations you chose, and hence be completely arbitrary. I could easily explain friction as tiny demons holding onto stuff and proclaim it's the simpler theory because it doesn't require complex assumptions about molecules and atoms. It simply requires tiny demons. Do you see how this is similar to what you are doing?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Genuine question
« on: April 22, 2016, 08:22:58 AM »
I'm not in a position to rule things out yet. I just know that for many years I fell in that trap of believing everything I was taught was true. I'm not going to be so quick to accept any longer. I just look for the possibility of another side of an issue. If I get convinced one way or the other, I may rule one side out.

Isn't "being convinced" a result of ruling everything else out? By what mechanism would truth suddenly emerge just by piling observation upon observation? The amount of possibilities is infinite. The amount of evidence required for certainity is, therefore, also infinite. The only way to move forward is to make guesses and rule out those that don't fit.

I'm sure you have moved forward on gravity for instance. It is my guess you believe what you were taught in school, maybe Cavendish experiment and you haven't ruled out other possibilities? I'm I correct?

But then it would be weird for me to say that I am convinced. I was talking about things you actively try to find out about, not the unquestioned background of information we all implicitly assume in daily life. Simply accepting what you are told does not, of course, require any method. Findung out for yourself does.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8