|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Dr Adequate writes: No, it would have been incorrect if we were discussing the First Cause. Or the best way to make mango chutney, or the historical origins of the offside rule in association football, or the career prospects for a one-legged tapdancer. But we were not discussing any of those things, and I was right. Scientists do in fact ascribe the DNA of living things to an unintelligent cause, and the communication of dolphins to an intelligent cause (i.e. dolphins) and in doing so they are not even contemplating the question of whether or not they have an intelligent First Cause, which is a different question.
OK Fair enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
GDR writes: It's highly speculative, but if God's existence has more than one time dimension, (back, forward and maybe through), non-existence wouldn't have any meaning.Straggler writes: I have no idea what this even means. This as I say is highly speculative but it helps me to grasp the idea of what eternal life might conceivably look like. From Brian Greene I think it was, I learned that mathematical formulas tell us that time should be symmetrical, or in other ways we should be able to go backward and forward in time. (Two dimensions of time) If in addition there was a third dimension of time perhaps you could go from one point to another without passing through the time in between. This would make time infinite and so a being that exists in 3 time dimensions would have always existed and so there wouldn't be a question of creation. Take that for what it's worth, which is very little, but it helps me wrap my head around anything infinite. I know I'm leaving myself wind open with this.
Straggler writes: But god(s) as prime over is just one of the potentially infinite possibilities. On what basis should we deem it any more or less likely than any of the conceivable alternatives? Or even the possibility of any inconceivable alternatives? And if it is one of an infinite array then just pure stats makes your particular claim unlikley to be true doesn't it? I don't see it that way. I'm talking about a prime mover that is the first cause which would include being a first cause of a being from somewhere else in the universe who planted the seed of life here.
Straggler writes: Untrue. The conceivable possibilities are vast.
Can you be more specific of what other possibilities that you are talking about.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
...and the christian creation account violates all 4 and is therefore a 'fake'.. I've actually been studying the Christian creation account for some time and have yet to find a single case where it does. I have seen people twist verses out of context or try to spin an unintended meaning into the texts, but no fairly examined texts violate any of those rules. In fact there are many cases where the scriptures actually demonstrate a knowledge beyond what was possible for the authors to have possessed at the time. Thereby giving a clear indication of divine rather than human origin.
Could you identify which of those tests the Islamic creation account fails? Sure thing. First let me point out that the law of non-contradiction, which is the basis for all logical thinking, states that; a thing can not be both (A) and (non-A) at the same time and place and manor. It can not be both day time and night time over New York at the time of the twin tower attacks. We would expect any Book truly inspired by God to be consistent. The Koran fails the contradictory test. The Koran states that all creation took Allah Six days in Sura 7:54, but in Sura 41:9-12 it took him a total of eight days. The Koran itself, claims to be free from contradictions. Sura 39:23, 39:28. However, the Koran also says it is not supposed to be translated out of the, so called, uncorrupted language of Arabic. Yet the original manuscript contains well over 100 foreign words and phrases, such as, Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian, Akkadian, Ethiopian and Persian. The Koran states that Moses was the first to believe. Sura 6:14. Then it states that Abraham was the first. Sura 7:143. The Koran states that Allah first appeared to Mohammed, as a man, to call him to service. Sura 51:19-34, 53:2-18 It then claims Mohammed was first called by the Holy Spirit. Sura 16:102, 26:192-194. Then the Koran states that angels came down to first call him to service. Sura 15:8. Finally The Koran states that it was only the angel Gabrielle who issued the call to Mohammed. Sura 2:97. The Koran fails the scientific test. The Koran calls the moon a male deity, the sun a female deity, and the stars, their offspring. Sura 41:37. The Koran states that the sun sets every night in the waters of a muddy spring. Sura 18:85,86. The Koran fails the historic test. The Koran claims that Abraham , (father of the Jewish nation), moved to Mecca and rebuilt the Kabah. Yet it is a known archeological fact that this never happened. Archeology reveals that the Kabah was originally first built to "worship the black stone that fell from the sky," not Allah. The Koran fraudulently attributes false speeches to people such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Moses, Mary, and Jesus. It has them using words like, Muslim, and Islam, which did not yet even exist. It would be like trying to pass off a so called authentic journal of Julius Caesar of Rome, that makes statements like, "his favorite meal was a Big Mac and fries at McDonald's." Sura 2:60, 2:126-128, 2:132-133, 2:260, 3:48-52, 3:67, 6:74-82, 7:59-63, 7:120-126, 10:71-72, 18:60-70, 19:16-33. The Koran makes crucifixion the form of execution during the time of Pharaoh in Egypt. Sura 7:124. Crucifixion did not yet exist. The Koran has the building of the tower of Babel taking place during the time of Moses. Sura 27:4-6, 28:38, 29:39, 40:23-24, 40:36-37. The Koran states that Alexander the Great, was a Muslim and lived to an old age. Sura 18:89-98 He died a young man. The Koran has Noah's flood taking place during the time of Moses. Sura 7:59, 7:136. The Koran confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary the sister of Moses. Sura 19:28. They are two separate people who lived centuries apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Straggles still cannot understand that his interpretations of my positions are fundamentally flawed, because of his personal biases and his failure to comprehend it.
RAZ you can't test for the undetectable bogeyman in your bedroom ... Amusingly I can test and have tested for it everytime I enter my bedroom.
... but you know as well as I do that it is a human fiction. But I don't know as well as you, whether or not you have made this up. It is impossible for me to know. All I can do is look at the objective evidence cited previously that indicates that this is likely a fiction on your part, and I can form my opinion on whether this concept exists in reality -- but I don't know this for sure unless and until you admit that it is a fiction that you have created.
However, this does not mean that I cannot behave based on my opinion, and I don't need to claim that it is anything more than opinion to do this (category 5).
You can't test for Last Thursdayism but you know as well as I do that the Earth is "old, very, very, old" Message 30 (and many places elsewhere). What I know is that the data and evidence indicate an earth that is old. This is what I have said before, and your failure to comprehend the fundamental distinction is once again noted. Also, as previously stated, science assumes that the empirical evidence truthfully represents reality, as the fundamental principle of science. The alternative is that evidence is illusory, and you cannot then tell what is real and what is illusion, including all religions, all science, all philosophy, and all existence. For all you know the universe is assembled anew every second, as subatomic particles blip in and out of existence. If this is true then the data and evidence would still show an earth that is old. So no, you can't test for it, all you can do is assume one or the other, form an opinion and act on the basis of that opinion.
I can test that static electricity accounts for thunder and lightning and on this basis confidently but tentatively reject the idea that some supernatural agency is involved. Except that you haven't tested for the presence of a supernatural agency, just assumed it. Science does not consider assumptions to be evidence. All your test shows is how Thor could cause thunder and lightening, not that there is no supernatural agency involved. Your confidence is based on your opinion and biases, and not on any scientific objective empirical testing or data. This certainly does not show that any particular human mind invented the concept of Thor. Fail.
Likewise we can test the human ability and proclivity to invent false positive agency (in the form of imaginary friends, conspiracy theories, demonstrably false gods and the teleological imbuement of natural phenomenon with human-like intelligence) and the circumstances in which such agency is typically invoked (when events are deemed significant and/or inexpicable or when rational modes of thought give way to more intuitive modes due to strong emotion or mental illness). Which only shows that humans can create fictions not that any particular concepts are fictions. Fictional stories about fictional cowboys do not mean that all cowboys are fictions. Assuming your conclusion is not evidence for your conjecture.
You may not like the evidence. But you can't just ignore it. Here is a short essay by one of the leading researchers in the field outlining the general approach. Which, amusingly, can also be construed to be evidence for the Hindu Hypothesis -- that all religious concepts involve different aspects of the supernatural essence/s. Perhaps the universe has a built-in subliminal message: without a test for supernatural presence you don't know if this is imagination or detection, and you only assume a conclusion that fits your a priori conclusion. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4453 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph,
Firstly, you have no evidence whatsoever of any position that does not supprt a universe maker for an existng universe. Such a position is not based on any scientific premise whatsoever and is less than fiction. This is the preamble. Just because you have not looked for positions that do not support a universe maker does not mean those positions do not exist. Just because you have not studied hard enough, does not mean that these hypothoses and theories do not exist. There are many hypothoses and theories based upon scientific premises and they are not fiction. You being unaware of these ideas does not mean that they do not exist. It just means that you can make the incorrect statement that you have made. Here are some positions, based on scientific premeses that do not support a universe maker. Including the universe maker of the Bible. Stephen Hawking on the origin of the universe(Source : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)) sorry for the long quote but I was not able to cut much out and still cover everything.
quote: There is also this theory, again, not requiring a universe maker...(Source : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=been-the...) quote: Some information on the cyclic model : Cyclic model - Wikipedia Here is another theory based on scientific premeses the require no universe maker... (Source : http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf)
quote: You can also check this out for more information. It is pretty heavy going though, I will be of no help if you want any of it explained : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) I am happy that I could clear up the issue you were having locating current scientific theories and hypothoses (that are not works of fiction) that do not support a universe maker for the existing universe.
there is absolute evidence of a universe maker: no other possibility is open. It is not as though another source is provided or posited as a potential, which is incumbent and not an option to dismiss. there is no absolute certainty in science. There is also no absolute evidence of a universe maker. You have been asked on mulitple occasions to provide your absolute evidence but you never have. If you have this absolute evidence, please publish it. I will personally travel to Sweden and congratulate you upon your receiving the Nobel Prize for your discovery. Please dont keep it a secret. Why dont you write to Hawking with your idea as he has provided another source (not really a source as suggesting there has to be a source in the statement you have already set up conditions to your advantage) as a potential. There is also always an option to dismiss. There is always the option that we dont know. This is not an absolute dismissal of any idea. It is an admission that we dont know everything yet.
all of science's most respected figures agree with [1], declaring a complexity has to have a source and cannot subsist in its absence, al beit they call this an X factor. This inclines only with a universe maker. All of sciences most respected figures do not agree with your first statement. I hope Stephen Hawking is respected enough to invalidate your statement.
Conclusion: 1 & 3 is vested in science and the sound premise. Its rejection rests on non-science and not a sound premise. I have covered this issue over at Message 200 Objections without alternate sound premises is not a premise at all. Lucky for us we have objections with alternate sound premises then isnt it?I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4453 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph,
Thunder and lightning are obviously caused by laws which turn on the rain cycle, effecting weather patterns which humanity and all life has to cater to with management and stewardship; in turn such management abilities are also based on corresponding laws. i have been struggling with your use of the word law to describe everything from Judicial system laws, scientific laws, theories and other uses that i cant even identify. Help me out here. What laws do you believe cause thunder and lightning? What laws 'turn on the rain cycle'? What are these corresponding laws? It is not on topic but I am wondering how you establish the beginning point of a cycle. Dont bother answering that, just food for thought.
Otherwise life would not exist and the universe would allow no form of elevation and management to humanity. So the (so far undefined) 'laws' that govern the rain cycle are also a deciding factor on the existence of life and also the existence of the universe?I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4453 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
You have mentioned that the Hebrew Bible has changed the universe forever.
examples...
Stemming from Greek philosophy [Aristotle; Helenist flat earth, head bashing dieties, etc] which was KO'd with the superior theology, philosophy and science of the Hebrew bible which ushered in Creationism & Monotheism and changed the universe forever. In fact the Hebrew bible stands unique among all other wiritngs; the NT is OLD because no one is discussing it. Head bashing dietes like Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mitraish and JC were toppled away when one Abram smashed the idols in his father's house. And the universe was changed forever. How exactly was the universe changed? What was it like before the writing of this particular book? What changes can we detect now. Exactly when did all of these changes occur? Also, considering that there are people on this Earth who have not even heard of the book, how would you suggest an area 1000 light years from Earth has been changed?I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You still refuse to give any evidence. it is your premise, not mine. You need to show evidence not speculation. GIVE ME THAT EVIDENCE.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4453 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello Dawn Bertot,
Hardly boring and certaily not pointless. the two possibility principle can only be applicable to existence itself. the universe is I believe a part of the existence, no? I did not say that philosphical debates are boring nad pointless. I said that I find them boring and pointless. Me personally. Thats why I dont get involved in them.
At any rate the Only two logical possibi;ity policy can and does apply to existence itself. there are no other alternative to explore Thats fair enough. But as I was not talking about existence with regards to the false dichotomy, this is irrelevant.
my comment - I will always applaud a Star Trek reference. However, there is a third and forth option not considered by Kirk or Spock. The third option is : They are responding in a manner that we cannot understand or detect. your reply - Sorry this wont work because it falls under the category of UNABLE, it does not matter the reason, the nature of existence wont allow another category my comment - The forth option is that the subject of their communication is unaware of the original communication and is not aware it needs to respond to anything. your reply - Sorry UNABLE and UNWILLING. If the enterprise is willing that they reply, the problem of non or miscommunication falls to the enterprise. the Un able and unwilling applies to both parties because it involes each Your replies are simply not correct. The word used is respond. Not communicate. It is possible and quite common for something to have a response without the target receiving the response. In the first example, the responder is able to respond. But the receiver is not able to understand the response. This means that communication has failed, but the response was sent by a willing and able subject. The second example, the subject can be both willing and able to respond but is unaware of the original communication. This means that communication has failed. But the subject was willing and able to respond. Respond is different to communicate. Communication is a two way street. Response does not have this restriction.
my comment - This is only a relatively recent discovery. Plants have been communicating with one another (even different species) all this time and we have not known about it. your reply - Are you kidding I saw the Happening. M. Night Ramaladingdng Are you suggesting that plant to plant communication does not occur. I certainly hope it does because I am considering this subject for my masters. If you actually do not believe or understand this issue, let me know and I will provide ample evidence.
Sorry UNABLE. existence wont allow anything else ... If they were smart aliens they would be correct, UNABLE Its a logical impossibility and a logical contradiction to look for another option, it wont work You are confusing response with communicate. A response does not require the receiver to actually receive the response. A response can be without a receiver at all. If the word communication was in your original example, then everything you have said would make perfect sense. As the word response was in the original example, it does not make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Just being real writes:
And GEN 1:6 states that it took 3 days to make the heavens and the earth and in GEN 2:4 it states that it only took 1 day. The Koran fails the contradictory test. The Koran states that all creation took Allah Six days in Sura 7:54, but in Sura 41:9-12 it took him a total of eight days.So, the bible also fails the contradictory test. Just being real writes:
The bible states that the earth sits upon pillars. This has easily been shown to be false. The Koran fails the scientific test. The Koran calls the moon a male deity, the sun a female deity, and the stars, their offspring. Sura 41:37. The Koran states that the sun sets every night in the waters of a muddy spring. Sura 18:85,86.So, the bible also fails the scientific test. (I would have mentioned that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth - but, somehow, the bible no longer says that it does. I guess that they released an updated version of the bible that included several corrections.) Just being real writes:
The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood. The Koran fails the historic test. The Koran claims that Abraham , (father of the Jewish nation), moved to Mecca and rebuilt the Kabah. Yet it is a known archeological fact that this never happened. Archeology reveals that the Kabah was originally first built to "worship the black stone that fell from the sky," not Allah.So, the bible also fails the historic test. Just being real writes:
Then I am glad to have pointed out what you have clearly failed to notice. I've actually been studying the Christian creation account for some time and have yet to find a single case where it does. Edited by Panda, : typosAlways remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not only did I study it, but I also never opened mouth wide and said AAH. Be assured all of your blondly accepted assertions will be shown as ludicrous.
quote: You forgot about Newton, Einstein and Roger Penrose. Somewhat greater than Hawkings - and they all support a universe source! The likes of Hawkings and Dawkins do not support a finite universe - guess why!
quote: There is no 'IF' here. Before the universe existed the universe never existed - including all the universe's components. A finite cannot cntain an infinite. Which part is confusing?
quote: The question has no alignment with its inclusion as a responsa. If we do not know what your dentist did before removing your tooth - does it mean your dentist never existed? The madness continues:
quote: Knock-knock! Time is a post universe phenomenon. It would be ubsurd and a violation of the universe's finite factor in anything contained in this universe existed before the universe existed. The madness continues:
quote: Why not an unsubstantiated conjuring without any scientific basis?
quote: I call it madness; see above re time. The thesis totally abandons the finite factor again.
quote: Then pray tell why are stars accounted as 15B years - how many stars existed 250 B years ago - and why not if time is infinite!? The madness:
quote: So matter and energy are also infinite - how many objects did these infinite phenomenons produce in their infinite time period: list one? What about pineapples?
quote: Why then have you been touting time? Duh!
quote: Its not philosophical but one of math and physics. There is no need to go back to earlier times; the universe is dated as approx 13.7 B years. Finite! Yes/no?
quote: Fine. In a finite model, we cannot depict anything in this universe existing before this universe: yes/no? In an infinite universe we would most certainly be able to depict at least something which existed before - e.g. background radiation; different colors; square pinepples; etc. But no luck! Yes/no?
quote: Correct, but against Apion: a changing universe proves only a finite one. Only something not subject to change can be infinite. The madness will continue!
quote: No impact. BTW, Galaxies are homonogised and expand in equal direction and velocity. But still no impact here.
quote: You are chopping off your own foot. The universe is changing, proving it is finite.
quote: The singularity factor is incorrect. No actions can occur with an indivisible and irreducible lone item. This is the premise introduced in Genesis and is scientifically irrefutable. The madness does not stop:
quote: Correction. Laws would not have yet emerged, rather than break down. You are observing the universe retrospectively. Gravity yet did not exust because no laws of gravity existed, nor any mass bodies which gravity is derived of. .
quote: And everything we see relates to that which is evolved, referring to time, and measuring only a 13.7B period. Conclusion: finite.
quote:Who!!!??? Wow - did the Pope really write Genesis? quote: There you go again! It yet never kick started.
quote: Its been said Einstein is toppled by QM, but this is not correct. Einstein based his equations by inserting and allowing an 'X' factor, namely there is a componenet of unknown factors, but which do not effect the whole premise.
quote: History is proof of finite. Once there was no history!
quote: Science is a faculty which explains observable and testable laws. Once there were no laws - and no stars, energy, light, time or space. You have to show us trillion billion year stars incumbent in a finite universe to impress! You cannot. Need a more powerful telescope, perhaps?
quote: Them thar Helenists' flatulent earth was KO'd by Genesis - yet you harken to them in prostration mode!?
quote: The reverse applies. Not time or space existed before the universe. Infinite stuff cannot be measured.
quote: No sir! It means there were many small bubbles in the one big bubble called the universe. I don't say AAH! to what is clearly slight of hand casino science.Its like saying the surface of a circle is infinite - it is not: the circle ends when the same ground is covered again! Otherwise everything is infinite, including a 2 meter rope: just make a U-turn at the end!
quote: Your explanation does not validate multi-universes. MV only pushes the goal post further back.
quote: This infers external input of a purposeful and impacting kind and negates internal random impact! Try to sing out of tune purposefully.
quote: QM has proven to be definitive, not as first thought.
quote: How? If we discovered anything more than 15B years then I missed it. Please demonstrate your assertion?
quote: No, they do not. Black holes are less old than the universe! Its the ssme old story. Only now we have a new kind of fundamentalist theology with the same anxst as those who have been beaten to disappear before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It is expanding. It was not infinite 10 seconds ago.
quote: No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No it does not. Actions entailing Billions of years are listed before the Creation days; e.g, seperation of light and darkness [universal action]; seperating day from night [solar system action]; seperation of water from land [earthly action]. The creational days are epochs of time, prior to the sun's luminosity being critically focused on the erath [the text 1/14], and prior to history. That is why the Hebrew calendar, the oldest we have, begins 'AFTER' the creational days.
quote: No sir. 'IN THE DAY WHEN...' refers to the times when. The periods have already been given in Ch 1.
quote: Not so - I say you fail the comprhension test here. The flood refers to a regional flood and to Noah's own possessions only [the text: 'thou and thy possessions/household']. There are 100's of factors in the Noah story which are 100% proven factual historical items and the only ones we possess of this period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes: *bollocks* Ok - to be clear:You are a dishonest debater with a grasp of English which would embarrass a chimpanzee. I intend to completely ignore your posts from now on as discussing anything with you is beyond pointless. Hopefully the time you waste replying to my posts will be less time spent annoying others.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Your replies are simply not correct. The word used is respond. Not communicate. It is possible and quite common for something to have a response without the target receiving the response. In the first example, the responder is able to respond. But the receiver is not able to understand the response. This means that communication has failed, but the response was sent by a willing and able subject. Believe me there is a point to this madness. I sorry but I dont think you are seeing very simple points. If the recieve is not ABLE to recieve the response, (for any reason) then the sender is UNABLE to respond irregardless if they sent the message. therefore unable. Nice try though
The second example, the subject can be both willing and able to respond but is unaware of the original communication. This means that communication has failed. But the subject was willing and able to respond. Respond is different to communicate. Communication is a two way street. Response does not have this restriction. The expression "communication has failed", means that they are unable to recieve the info, correct. Remember though the enterprise is party in the process as well. You cant only look at it from the other ships perspective. It takes two to tango. If the other ship is not aware of thier communication, then from the enterprises perspective, they are unable to respond The only way your scenerio would work is if neither ship was tyring to contact eachother or there was no situation at all
Are you suggesting that plant to plant communication does not occur. I certainly hope it does because I am considering this subject for my masters. If you actually do not believe or understand this issue, let me know and I will provide ample evidence. heck I cant even understand IMJ or Iano when they speak and now you want me to listen to plants. let me figure these goomers out first I wonder what aplant thinks right before you cram it in your mouth. Oh crap, Oh crap, Oh crap
A response does not require the receiver to actually receive the response. A response can be without a receiver at all. If the word communication was in your original example, then everything you have said would make perfect sense. As the word response was in the original example, it does not make sense. The words UNABLE and UNWILLING have to have meaning to both parties, otherwise it makes no sense. Think about it logically Spock is the one making the suggestion in the first place. unable has to have meaning to the originator as well
reponse does not require the receiver to actually receive the response Correct. However, if the enterprise is wishing for a reception of that response, then from the enterprises perspective they were unable, no matter the failed reason. Both parties are a part of the scenario Maybe what we are discussing here will assit you and IMJ in that discussion. I hope so No amount of logic or rangling will allow you to go past the only options, there are no others Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024