Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, JonF, Theodoric (4 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,057 Year: 22,093/19,786 Month: 656/1,834 Week: 156/500 Day: 53/61 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Regarding the illusion of confidence
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 16 of 18 (865793)
10-30-2019 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ssope
10-18-2019 5:14 AM


Re: Considering This Topic
So your intent is to give us pause in our assessment of un-evidenced myths?
And you think the evidence for dark matter supports that intent?

Religious people should not try to science. You don’t understand it. You are so bad at it.

Dark matter is not impervious to detection. Vera Rubin having detected it is why we know it is there. Just like microbes were unknown until van Leeuwenhoek discovered them.

None of this has anything to do with excuses for your god.

Unlike microbes and dark matter there is nothing to evidence your god. If that should change then science will assess that evidence and embark upon yet another great quest for knowledge.

Until then your god is no more worthy of consideration than any other un-evidenced conjecture, like the tooth fairy.

There are physical characteristics of this reality that are impervious to detection.

And you know this how? Tell us about these physical characteristics that are impervious to detection?


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ssope, posted 10-18-2019 5:14 AM ssope has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2019 1:30 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(5)
Message 17 of 18 (866117)
11-06-2019 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ssope
10-17-2019 3:09 PM


Quantum
ssope writes:

If you say something can't be in two places at once, you're wrong. Quantum mechanics has proven the superposition principle to be true


Quantum Mechanics doesn't say something can be in two places at once. It predicts probabilities to detect a particle in various locations, but it doesn't say it is actually in all those locations at once.

If you lose your phone you might come up with probabilities it's in various rooms in your house, but that doesn't mean it is "in all those rooms at once" just because you assign probabilities to all the rooms.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ssope, posted 10-17-2019 3:09 PM ssope has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2926
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 18 of 18 (866446)
11-11-2019 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by AZPaul3
10-30-2019 5:25 PM


Re: Considering This Topic
AZPaul3 writes:

And you know this how? Tell us about these physical characteristics that are impervious to detection?


Ummm, errr.... Well they defy detection hence they can not be described.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 10-30-2019 5:25 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019