Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Logical issues with belief.


danydandan

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

As far as the Universe being 'flat' it depends on the resolution of the observations being made.

 

What observations?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, danydandan said:

As in God created the water and the land. 

So are you expressing your affirmation in the existence of a God in the positive or the negative?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

So are you expressing your affirmation in the existence of a God in the positive or the negative?  

What does that matter to our discussion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

What observations?

 

 

Maybe I should have said it depends on the resolution of the observations.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Will Due at least the Urantia Book rejects a flat Earth.

But I heard a good one today.

"The flat Earth movement is gaining more and more followers all around the globe"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, danydandan said:

@Will Due at least the Urantia Book rejects a flat Earth.

But I heard a good one today.

"The flat Earth movement is gaining more and more followers all around the globe"

 

Yeah, I've heard that too. 

I wonder why that is? What's behind it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Yeah, I've heard that too. 

I wonder why that is? What's behind it?

 

 

The word Globe literally means sphere. The statement is oxymoronic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The word Globe literally means sphere. The statement is oxymoronic. 

 

Yup. Lol. 

It's a constant problem, human inconstancy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

What does that matter to our discussion? 

I guess that would depend upon how you define the term 'discussion'.  When one party asks the other party questions yet won't answer a question asked  then I wouldn't consider that to be a discussion. 

However, your response to a specific question, or rather the lack thereof is reflective of the discourse with a flat earthers, or at least one who has the mentality of a flat earther.

So to specifically answer your question, I think my question on whether you believe in the existence of God would go to your assertions regarding the word of God.  For someone to assert something that they believe God said, who doesn't believe in the existence of God, seems to be reflective of a mental disorder rather than what someone who would assert by faith.

Edited by 029b10
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2018 at 1:03 PM, XenoFish said:

Can't help but feel that survey/questionnaire was loaded. 

I've always suspected there was something wrong with philosophers.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 029b10 said:

I guess that would depend upon how you define the term 'discussion'. 

Are we really going to play this game? Are you going to parse and quibble over the common usage of words?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Reflective deduction.  It is a conclusion based upon the assumptions reflected in your responses.   

Then your deductions reflected in error. And didn't any one ever warn you about making assumptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 029b10 said:

I guess that would depend upon how you define the term 'discussion'.  When one party asks the other party questions yet won't answer a question asked  then I wouldn't consider that to be a discussion. 

However, your response to a specific question, or rather the lack thereof is reflective of the discourse with a flat earthers, or at least one who has the mentality of a flat earther.

So to specifically answer your question, I think my question on whether you believe in the existence of God would go to your assertions regarding the word of God.  For someone to assert something that they believe God said, who doesn't believe in the existence of God, seems to be reflective of a mental disorder rather than what someone who would assert by faith.

Your whole contribution was to assume I was advocating for a flat Earth. Without actually reading what was being discussed, which was based on the passage in Matthew. That if it was read to be taken literally it could be argued that the author of said passage was under the impression that the Earth, or World what ever you deem necessary, was/is flat. Obviously regarding that particular allegorical tale from the Bible it can also be argued that it was not meant to be taken literally at all, and the whole thing happened in Jesus Christ's head.

But hey who knows? 

A belief in God is completely irrelevant to our discussion you started with an incorrect assumption. I'm pretty sure a good discussion can be had regardless of our individual beliefs don't you think? 

Do always include thinly veiled insults within your comments? It's clear to anyone reading this who has a mental disorder or not. 

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Are we really going to play this game? Are you going to parse and quibble over the common usage of words?

Again you answer a question with a question.  No, that is not what I consider a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Again you answer a question with a question.  No, that is not what I consider a discussion.

Then stop being deliberately obtuse.

Your preconceptions of what others believe is false. 

If you wish to discuss the issue of the thread, and wish to learn what others think, then it behooves you to NOT tell others what they mean or believe.

And I agree with @danydandan that there is an insulting, condescending tone to your posts. Based solely on my reflective deductions of your words, of course.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Then stop being deliberately obtuse.

When you won't answer any specific question except with a question, which I have personally observed in attempts to discuss the beliefs of those who believe the earth is flat, then I would disagree that I am being obtuse.

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Then stop being deliberately obtuse.

Your preconceptions of what others believe is false. 

Since a discussion involves the reciprocity between two parties, when questions are asked and responded to with and answer then that would be considered a discussion.  However the refusal to response to a specific question with only more questions is more reflective of an inquisition than a discussion.

However if you don't believe that a person who claims that God said something when they don't believe in God is a indication of a mental disorder then I doubt you would consider it to be at minimum an a indication of intellectual dishonesty if they couldn't justify how they know what a God actually said when they don't believe in the existence of the God that they claim actually said it.  So yeah, I think that would be a pretty good indicator that someone is cray cray.

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

And I agree with @danydandan that there is an insulting, condescending tone to your posts. Based solely on my reflective deductions of your words, of course.

If reflective deduction is false then how do you justify the accuracy of its use to reach your conclusion regarding the tone of my responses? 

Edited by 029b10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, danydandan said:

A belief in God is completely irrelevant to our discussion you started with an incorrect assumption. I'm pretty sure a good discussion can be had regardless of our individual beliefs don't you think? 

 

I think that a discussion regarding the word of God with a person who won't answer the question whether they affirm or deny the existence of God is the equivalent to attempting to have a discussion of quantum mechanics with a person who will not affirm or deny the principle that nothing is always something.   

Edited by 029b10
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you won't answer any questions then it seems to suggest that you have nothing to say therefore your questions are merely because you have to say something.

Edited by 029b10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 029b10 said:

I think that a discussion regarding the word of God with a person who won't answer the question whether they affirm or deny the existence of God is the equivalent to attempting to have a discussion of quantum mechanics with a person who will not affirm or deny the principle that nothing is always something.   

It isn't the word of God, it's claimed to be but there is nothing to confirm it is or isn't. Whether an Abrahamic God exists or not I have no clue nor do I care. 

This post should answer your question. 

So that's answers your question that has zero relevance to the initial comment you posted with your chest pumped out and balls swinging. I suggest you actually read the thread prior to jumping on to a comment, and making incorrect assumptions. If you want to discuss the interpretation of Matthew 4 that includes the Earth being flat we can continue or of you want to discuss QM or QFT you can start a thread on that too, the statement that something can come from nothing is incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Application of the uncertainty principal in this instance should explain why to you just like it did to Hendrick.

So back to the interpretation of Bible that assumes the Earth is flat, do you have anything to say about it? 

You do also know there is a whole field of study called theology where the majority of professionals within that field have no beliefs either way about God, and they are well capable of discussion about the interpretations of the Bible while leaving their beliefs at the door. I'm not sure why you think you can't have an intelligent discussion regarding something with out involving God. That speaks volumes for your own mental health in fairness. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Reflective deduction.  It is a conclusion based upon the assumptions reflected in your responses.    

For example, would you believe it is possible that the universe probably was flat?

Thus, your response will reflect how you define the term "world".  

It is self-induced which occurs from the inability to accept the possibilities all things.  

Thus, it is reflective from your use of the term 'earth' when referring to a scripture which used the term 'world'.  Not to say that you are wrong, yet it does reflect how you would response if asked if the term 'world' being defined by the scriptures as the elements in the heavens could infer physical universe.   

Since your responses reflect that you would accept that the universe was probably flat, but couldn't perceive that the term 'earth' as used in Genesis 1:1 could infer the physical universe, thus the disorder results from the inability to perceive the association of the two.  And that disorder is a good reason to be perplexed. 
 

OK, here is your post, and it seems the only question is whether I believe the universe is flat. I am not a cosmologist, I do not have the background or the training to even make an educated guess. There, I have now answered your question.

However, you seem to be equating the terms 'universe' and 'world', or 'earth', or even 'Earth' in your example. Are you positing that the shape of one determines the shape of the others?

And this statement is making some very broad assumptions about people you don't know, and cannot possibly deduce what we accept.

Quote

Since your responses reflect that you would accept that the universe was probably flat, but couldn't perceive that the term 'earth' as used in Genesis 1:1 could infer the physical universe,

And could you explain why you think that mountains on the moon is relevant to this discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

OK, here is your post, and it seems the only question is whether I believe the universe is flat. I am not a cosmologist, I do not have the background or the training to even make an educated guess. There, I have now answered your question.

However, you seem to be equating the terms 'universe' and 'world', or 'earth', or even 'Earth' in your example. Are you positing that the shape of one determines the shape of the others?

And this statement is making some very broad assumptions about people you don't know, and cannot possibly deduce what we accept.

And could you explain why you think that mountains on the moon is relevant to this discussion?

The universe isn't flat. We aren't 2D are we?

I'm pretty sure we live in a 3D + SpaceTime universe. What it looks like out side our universe horizon nobody knows, but again that irrelevant because it's un-testable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The universe isn't flat. We aren't 2D are we?

I admit that I didn't watch the entire youtube video, it is waaaaay to early to try and wrap my brain around cosmology. So, I'm just asking, does a flat universe imply 2 dimensionality?

Please use little words, Dan, I'm only on my 1st dimensional coffee so far. :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

I admit that I didn't watch the entire youtube video, it is waaaaay to early to try and wrap my brain around cosmology. So, I'm just asking, does a flat universe imply 2 dimensionality?

Please use little words, Dan, I'm only on my 1st dimensional coffee so far. :D

We need to establish a number of things here, what does flat mean? For instance. Do we mean 2d or flat as in a big pancake? 

Mathematically I'm thinking if you use two parallel lines you could assume the Earth is curved and the universe flat. So I can see that argument, however we take mass into effect and we know it bends space time.

If you take a global and draw two parallel lines from North Pole to South Pole they'll meet at one end, thus it's curved. Now we can't observe the universe from outside of it, so if you use a sheet to represent the universe draw two parallel lines and regardless of curvature due to mass these line will never meet. Thus flat.  But everything on the surface is flat. You could make a cylinder from that sheet and get the same results. Is a cylinder flat? 

Basically it's all down to topology and we can't observe the topology of the universe.

That's just off the top of me head. I could probably elaborate on it and make easier to understand but I'm playing @Pettytalk and @Atlantis Rises in the Chess tournament and they are sharks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2019 at 12:42 AM, danydandan said:

the statement that something can come from nothing is incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Application of the uncertainty principal in this instance should explain why to you just like it did to Hendrick.

If I had made the statement which you claim I made then I would agree; however, you have incorrectly quoted what I said which as evident by the quote below of what  I actually said: 

On 2/25/2019 at 9:16 PM, 029b10 said:

is the equivalent to attempting to have a discussion of quantum mechanics with a person who will not affirm or deny the principle that nothing is always something.   

But in regards to you comment regarding something not being able to come from nothing then where did the vacuum of space come from.  Now I understand that you can twist that question if you want because you would have to know what I was asking in order to do so.  Thus, you know that the question itself has twisted the answer to be that empty space come from nothing. :rofl:

However, as far as cosmology, I am leaning towards the Fromunda Universe, the published work of Mr. Farkle based upon the world being a highly dense finite sphere. But Mr. Farkle's paper is believed to be the stolen hypothesis of Prof. Unoi Amarah who disappeared shortly before the theory was published.  

I too am busy playing pool on mini-clips so let's just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.