Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
and that isn't an answer 
Four Questions For Brent
- Thread starter Agnosticus_Caesar
- Start date
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
I'm off.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
No its not. Its simply the fact that the subject matter becomes volitile.
AC uses logic, you use faith.
Funny thing about logic though. It doesn't always apply to quantum physics, in fact, quantum mechanics flat bitch slaps all logic. Quite fascinating really.
That being said, you two guys are coming from different angles and animosity naturally follows.
As far as both of you are concerned, you're absolutely, positively right. Good luck convincing one another otherwise.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Its not fair to apply Socratic questioning to religious ideas.
Yes, it is. It creates a larger picture than you want, but it is an answer. Any human can be wrong. Faith allows for belief when science cannot prove or disprove something, such as the existence of a Creator. The sum of all knowledge is not from science, regardless of the western thought that trends in that direction.and that isn't an answer
Just because a human may be wrong, does not mean what they believe is untrue. The very statement that they may be wrong leaves the considerable possibility that they are right.
It doesn't "bitch-slap" logic. The language used to describe it flows only from logic. Mathematics are created only from logic.
Some things may seem counterintuitive to those relying on "common sense" and hence you get that Einstein quote we spoke of on length in another thread. Often science can challenge our preconceptions of reality, but it is always based in logic.
Really? Then you would expect a place that is going union to fire the managers who were there when the "revolt" happened?
I think it is. Why would it not be 'fair' to apply such reasoning? What is fundamentally funny is the idea that responses must be only one word so that they can be easily dumped by a fifty word response by the other.
Saying that a human could be wrong about something is not proving them wrong.
uscitizen
Villified User
Don't be that disin... word Damo. Taking over the head seat is not the same as a union forming....
Really? It certainly is close. So, every manager that was at United when the Union purchased it should have been immediately fired? I'm trying to see how far you are willing to take this and what your delineation of "revolt" might be.
In order to get a union going more than half of your workforce has to "revolt", at least in a limited way. And sometimes they do actually take over and run things when they win. Usually that doesn't mean the wholesale firing of all management. But should it?
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Untrue. Specifically the path an electron takes in the double slit experiment, is wholesale illogical.
You have 2 slits. The electron can pass through slit A, slit B, both slits, or neither slit. 4 logical possibilities. They can experimentally eliminate all 4 possibilities, yet the electron still arrives at the detector behind the slits.
It defies logic, and is not based on logic. In fact, it has been flabbergasting scientists for quite some time.
To quote Richard Feynman, one of the greatest minds of the modern era "If someone claims to understand quantum mechanics, they don't understand quantum mechanics."
Once again, that we can determine it takes a different path is logically determined. And when that path is found and mathematically described it will be beautifully within the realm of logic. That we haven't yet found an explanation doesn't mean that it is illogical.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
it falls outside the realm of logic. Whatever path it is on falls outside of all logical possibilities. A, B, Both, Neither. That is all there is, yet it is none of these that it is traversing. There are many things that fall outside of logic in the quantum field. The EPR paradox is one of the most mind boggling occurrances ever observed, so much so that in fact Einstein referred to its implications as "spooky".
It is these bizarre leaps from the classical field that prompted Shroedinger to make is analogy that became known as Schroedinger's Cat.
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
Personally, the older I get, and the more I debate, the more I learn about Christian Theology. Also, the less respect I have for radical fundamentalists.
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
BTW Brent, I came up with this series of questions specifically for fundy assholes like yourself. Damo isn't brainlocked as you are, and saw the trainwreck coming. YOU wouldn't have.
I didn't modify a fucking thing. I tailored this EXACT series of questions to logic-trap idiots like you. Damo isn't a fundy, and can easily escape the trap.
You, on the other hand, would have no recourse but sink in the quicksand.
I didn't modify a fucking thing. I tailored this EXACT series of questions to logic-trap idiots like you. Damo isn't a fundy, and can easily escape the trap.
You, on the other hand, would have no recourse but sink in the quicksand.
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
I came up with this logic trap ten years ago, dipshit. It almost never fails.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
You have 2 slits. The electron can pass through slit A, slit B, both slits, or neither slit. 4 logical possibilities. They can experimentally eliminate all 4 possibilities, yet the electron still arrives at the detector behind the slits.
It defies logic, and is not based on logic.
Not sure this really defies logic, sounds to me that we don't know all the variables that drives the electron to the detector.
It defies logic, and is not based on logic.
Not sure this really defies logic, sounds to me that we don't know all the variables that drives the electron to the detector.