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 -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

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: 

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.

We can't really say there is such thing as nothing or such thing as a true vacuum either, it seems that we can't ever answer if nothing is actually a thing due uncertainty. Once we know everything and uncertainty is removed from the equations we can come to some agreement. Seems like everything boils down to fluctuations.

Cosmology isn't my vice, so I'm not sure what your talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
On 2/26/2019 at 12:42 AM, danydandan said:
12 hours ago, danydandan said:

Once we know everything and uncertainty is removed from the equations we can come to some agreement.

Application of the uncertainty principal in this instance should explain why to you just like it did to Hendrick.

Sounds like scientism rather that science, since one doesn't need to know everything in order to remove the uncertainty of the uncertainty principal.  :tu: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
17 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Sounds like scientism rather that science, since one doesn't need to know everything in order to remove the uncertainty of the uncertainty principal.  :tu: 

I'm not much for neopositivism. 

To remove uncertainty you do need to be certain of everything. That applies for the Uncertainty Principle too, of course that depends on the accuracy and resolution of experimental observation. 

Maybe God is the principal of the principle? 

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10

I am pretty certain that the Certainty Principle isn't really a principle even thought I won't say that its isn't true because it obviously would be true in some situations however that is the difference between a principle and a precept.  However, merely because a precept is true doesn't in and of itself  meet the criteria to be considered a principle. 

Likewise, even if a precept does not hold true in every application it does make it any less true for the application it was intended for. Even the article  from which I obtained the following insert cited a falsifiability of the precept if you care to examine for yourself, the source is cited below.

Quote

 

Uncertainty principle, also called Heisenberg uncertainty principle or indeterminacy principle, statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.

https://www.britannica.com/science/uncertainty-principle

 

However I would cited the "Mr. Z Spot" where the position and the velocity of the object was measured to the exact moment of time, even in theory.  Yet position and velocity might not have any meaning in nature but exact time, in reality, is a fact.

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 2/11/2019 at 5:09 AM, danydandan said:

2.What does the Moon having mountains got to with anything?

Hi Dany

I would expect that it would be easier to stand on a mountain on the moon to see all the kingdoms on earth than it would be to see them from a mountain on earth.:lol:

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dany

I would expect that it would be easier to stand on a mountain on the moon to see all the kingdoms on earth than it would be to see them from a mountain on earth.:lol:

jmccr8

I'd have thought getting to the moon was the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
Just now, danydandan said:

I'd have thought getting to the moon was the problem?

Not for Satan and Jesus.:rolleyes:

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Not for Satan and Jesus.:rolleyes:

jmccr8

Well Satan doesn't exist and Jesus was a man, and like all men needs air to breathe. So the Moon is no go for either.

I think.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Well Satan doesn't exist and Jesus was a man, and like all men needs air to breathe. So the Moon is no go for either.

I think.

Hi Dany 

Agreed, but it was no less nuttier than what was previously stated about standing on a mountain and seeing all the kingdoms of Earth flat, round or square.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
18 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dany 

Agreed, but it was no less nuttier than what was previously stated about standing on a mountain and seeing all the kingdoms of Earth flat, round or square.

jmccr8

It's still more impossible due to axial rotation, I assume.

It's all friggin crazy. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

It's still more impossible due to axial rotation, I assume.

It's all friggin crazy. 

:tu:

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 5:07 PM, 029b10 said:

Sounds like scientism

What is "scientism"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:15 AM, danydandan said:

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. 

How did you do? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.