Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
below is what stu calls an explanation.
No cite, not context, all bullshit.
When put in context we will see this is either pure speculation or speculation based on a multiverse or speculation based on the multiverse coupled with top down cosmology speculation.
In no way will it prove the current universe we observe is not fine tuned.
Now stu put up the context or stfu.
"Here's just one difference, again.
If the universe is tuned entirely by the laws of physics, which Stephen Hawking states is all that's needed, it isn't going to be what you call (intelligently) designed."
No cite, not context, all bullshit.
When put in context we will see this is either pure speculation or speculation based on a multiverse or speculation based on the multiverse coupled with top down cosmology speculation.
In no way will it prove the current universe we observe is not fine tuned.
Now stu put up the context or stfu.
"Here's just one difference, again.
If the universe is tuned entirely by the laws of physics, which Stephen Hawking states is all that's needed, it isn't going to be what you call (intelligently) designed."
Once again you've totally discredited yourself without even realizing it 
You've unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs because they're all about the outcome. Proofs 101 is, as long as the goal (be it proving a negative or something else) is achieved, any valid method can be used to get there. The proof that there exists no way to square a circle is absolutely a proof of a negative and "what the math actually does" is prove it despite your ignorance and confusion.
You are too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.
You've unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs because they're all about the outcome. Proofs 101 is, as long as the goal (be it proving a negative or something else) is achieved, any valid method can be used to get there. The proof that there exists no way to square a circle is absolutely a proof of a negative and "what the math actually does" is prove it despite your ignorance and confusion.
You are too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.
Rubbish.Quote from Trader666:
Once again you've totally discredited yourself without even realizing it
You've unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs because they're all about the outcome. Proofs 101 is, as long as the goal (be it proving a negative or something else) is achieved, any valid method can be used to get there. The proof that there exists no way to square a circle is absolutely a proof of a negative and "what the math actually does" is prove it despite your ignorance and confusion.
You are too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.
In this case Math is the valid method and the 'goal' is not to prove a negative.
The 'goal' to use your inappropriate parlance, is to solve a specific problem proposed under certain conditions to square a circle. The problem is proven to be logically impossible.
You trolling along after that to call that proposition itself a negative, when mathematically, neither the problem set nor the proven result or 'goal' is declared a negative.
The problem is proved to be true (so is that proof of a positive then!?) as a mathematical logical impossibility. You arbitrarily and inappropriately calling that logical impossibility a negative, something which the math does not state it to be, does not make it so.
So therefore in terms of mathematics, squaring the circle is not a good example for the term 'can prove a negative' as nowhere is the problem or its solution or 'goal' mathematically explained classically or formally in the negative, nor is the word applied.
Then all you can do is either hurl silly pictures of your ugly self about the place along with a bunch of infantile insults, or try dancing 'absolutelys' around , mixed in with false assumptions and petty argument, or just some rubbish with yet more gratuitous insult. Pathetic.
Squaring the circle in math as I said at the outset, is a bad example which you gave for proving a negative.
A better one would be 1 minus 2 especially as that would be completely out of context with how the term 'can't prove a negative' was being used, it should suit both yourself and Jem well enough. Which will also be reason why you can't understand how the can't prove a negative to do with Russell's Teapot works either.
Oblivious to the unsuitability in giving the example on the strength of a wiki disambiguation page , you obviously see the words 'proving a negative', and so decide in ignorance that link was going to be your evidence route for another mind burp to escape.
Contrastingly it can be said though, you are a very good example for proving positive as a goof.
ROFL!!!! I see I've touched a nerve... the truth hurts
Again you've unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs because "goal" is NOT "inappropriate parlance."
You've also unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs by your ignorance of the fact that reexpressing a negative is one way of setting out to prove it.
You've also unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs by childishly clinging to your "belief" that proofs of impossibility are not proofs of negatives. How in the world do you "think" proof that NO WAY exists to do something is not proof of a negative? Not to mention that proofs of impossibility are also called negative proofs but an ignoranus like you wouldn't know that.
Glad you brought up the teapot again. First because proof that a method doesn't exist is every bit as much proof of a negative as proof that an object doesn't exist. And second because your "reasoning" on that shows how laughably uninformed and self-contradictory your drivel is. STUpid assumptions + STUpid "logic" = STUpid conclusions.
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231
You've proven again that you are too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.
Again you've unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs because "goal" is NOT "inappropriate parlance."
You've also unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs by your ignorance of the fact that reexpressing a negative is one way of setting out to prove it.
You've also unwittingly admitted you know nothing about proofs by childishly clinging to your "belief" that proofs of impossibility are not proofs of negatives. How in the world do you "think" proof that NO WAY exists to do something is not proof of a negative? Not to mention that proofs of impossibility are also called negative proofs but an ignoranus like you wouldn't know that.
Glad you brought up the teapot again. First because proof that a method doesn't exist is every bit as much proof of a negative as proof that an object doesn't exist. And second because your "reasoning" on that shows how laughably uninformed and self-contradictory your drivel is. STUpid assumptions + STUpid "logic" = STUpid conclusions.
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231
You've proven again that you are too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.
Stop being a fairy, stop lying, and backup your statments with some proof.
You said you offered proof... lets see it.
I know you are lying. Stephen hawking has acknowledged the appearance of design for a long time. Its the point of the 2006 paper I linked to. If there was no appearance of design he would not have to propose top down cosmology coupled with a multiverse to explain it. You are too ignorant or too fraudulent to accept that.
By now then your nerves must be in a terrible mess. Probably better that makes you rofl though than self-harming.
Yes it is, completely inappropriate. You turning blue in the face shouting "STUpid" all the time won't alter a thing.
You were using goal and result synonymously.
Neither at the outset of the square circle problem, nor at the conclusion, nor anywhere in between is the 'goal' anything like the result.
Lol. First pseudoscience now pseudomath.
This mathematical problem was not set out to be "proved negative".... dear me.
There is nothing like the "reexpressing of a negative" ...wtf are you talking about? lol that is just too ridiculous for words! The proposition is given as a straight forward mathematical problem not a negative expression or "reexpression".. omg... "reexpressing a negative" after the result has bolted won't fix your confusion.
Unwittingly a new word discovery for you is it?
I already commented pages ago that a negative proof in math is not the same as proving a negative. Too busy acting like a 5 year old throwing fits, you obviously missed it.
The result of the problem proves true as a logical impossibility. It does not prove negative. Otherwise it would be called proof of a negative. It isn't. YOU call it that and as you are a total dickbrain anyway it doesn't count.
You're glad I brought up the teapot? You wouldn't be if you had a clue.
"First because proof that a method doesn't exist is every bit as much proof of a negative as proof that an object doesn't exist."
Bollocks.
It's proof of an impossibility as true. If circle's could be squared the result would be in the same form, and still a true statement. One proving impossibility the other proving possibility.
You are turning one of those proven results into a negative AND a different statement, namely "proof of a negative", which is categorically not what the math result states in mathematical terms.
As neither the Teapot or God can be measured as objects, both being too indeterminable to be relevant to math or science in general , they are equally unfalsifiable.
So yes, bollocks is a fitting description for your brainless idea that one is less so than the other.
Yes you have proven you are all those. I needn't have bothered really.
Lol.Are you really this ignorant because you are just a prick, or is it a religious mind block that's leaving you so ill-informed? Same thing I suppose.
The result of the math is proven true as a logical impossibility. That is the math part. End of.
It doesn't prove a negative - YOU say it does that AFTER the math and outside of it. It is YOUR perception . It is not the result given by the math.
Otherwise all such impossibilities proven true would be called "proof of a negative". In math none are.
You obviously need to understand math better to realize why they are not.
What the hell.... really Jem, yet another totally hopeless response. Because you can't rationally approach these topics, calling people liar and more all the time doesn't mean you have a point.
You keep using the word design for intelligent design. As long as you keep doing very silly and deceitful things like that, you will remain ignorant about what is actually being said.
In that way you keep equating intelligent design to fine-tuning . As long as you keep refusing to understand any APPEARANCE of fine-tuning is explained by Stephen Hawking as being due to the laws of physics from big bang and requiring nothing else, and proposals for top down cosmology and multiverses are a separate thing , but which would ALSO explain any APPEARANCE of fine-tuning due to the laws of physics too, you will remain ignorant about what is actually being said.
Suggesting Stephen Hawking had to "invent" a proposal to explain an APPEARANCE in the universe, not only is that a demonstration of how little you understand how science works, you will remain ignorant about what is actually being said.
Just how utterly uninformed do you need be to defend the ridiculous religious ideas you're trying so pointlessly to find some credibility for.