Re: A Challenge To Atheists Part One (Science and the Unimaginable)

[77GSlinger]

The Creator is: sexless, formless, omnipresent. omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, infinite and all loving! You can not imagine all of these qualities, nevertheless you can prove it through Sacred Geometry and Plasma Physics. Magnetism is cathode planes of stillness which control spiraling electric motions within Cubic wave fields. Gravity is stillness which centers astro-bodies and extended in shafts to create North and South gravity poles. Russellian Science explains Cosmology in great detail

[tangldmojo]

There are an infinite quantity of numbers between 499 and 499.9, so it is irrational to say that, "infinity is larger than 500."

[Tr3xKuro]

@tangldmojo

Wait, what? I hope you're not being serious, because that's one of the dumbest mathematical contentions I've ever heard.

[EpicYarnEM]

I listened to the audio, nice response and great summary of JBC's points as well. I think everything you mentioned has been addressed in the comments, although not as fleshed out as it could be. To see why JBC is entirely correct, you have to take it back down to the first-person perspective. At that level there is no truth or falsity, just experience. That is the level of rigor required to see his main point.

[EpicYarnEM]

Infinity is bullshit. Truth is a useful term when speaking casually, but it is useless and distracting in science. If you disagree, please STOP and define "truth." This religion of "truth" in science needs to die.

Finally, quantities like 3 are not imaginable, but three dots or a 3-inch twig are, so that is no problem for measurements.

[EpicYarnEM]

"Conceivable" means you can imagine it in your five senses, preferably visually (just because that's easiest to work with). Anything in science that doesn't meet that bare minimum requirement is out, because if it an't be imagined in the five senses, how in the hell is it going to be communicated to anyone else? A sixth sense?!

[Tsicar]

Should've added text at beginning.

[HookedOnMneumonics]

great video

[junior00bacon00chee]

"JBC's notion of truth and falsity makes such notions subjective and relative to what the person can imagine..."

exactly! that's why they have no place in the physical sciences. the only way we can hope to enlighten ourselves is to discover rational models which we think do an excellent job of explaining our observations.

[rahotep101]

Bullshit baffles brains.

[junior00bacon00chee]

finally someone wants to play with me! excellent response i'll try to make one back ASAP.

[PrecambrianLullaby]

@junior00bacon00chee snap to it! i'll get sum popcorn...

[junior00bacon00chee]

@PrecambrianLullaby

lol i know i feel bad i keep putting this off and it was such a great response. christmas, that's my excuse. i'll get it out within the next week i promise!

[lovingsingleton]

That was awesome

[TheAist]

great freakin video!

[TheAntiEgalitarian]

I don't know if this is just me but it seems like philosophers are very inconsistent and unclear about how they use the word "conceivable". There are different ways of using the term and they rarely specify how they are using it.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@TheAntiEgalitarian

agreed, the word requires clarification. i use it synonymously with "rational."

rational - that which is distinguishable enough in experience to be used consistently in deductive logic

if something is vague to the point where there are different possible interpretations for it such that it cannot be used consistently then it is irrational, ie, inconceivable. "spacetime" for example would be irrational under this def.