The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws

And that destroys your sillyjisms.

Ahh, well, yeah. That is the way reality works. I quote our science and when it says you're wrong then you are wrong.

quote:

---

And that destroys your sillyjisms.

---

My syllogisms are destroyed because you deny my premises?

quote:

---

Ahh, well, yeah. That is the way reality works. I quote our science and when it says you're wrong then you are wrong.

---

Then science is not self-correcting. For if science were self-correcting, then where it says I am wrong, I could be right. Otherwise science cannot ever be wrong. Therefore it cannot be self-correcting.

What a twisted dumbfuck of an argument.Science is not religion. We don't ascribe to stone age concepts disproven long ago.And when it comes to your specific brand of bullshit, when the science says you are wrong, it means, C7(77), that you, personally, are wrong. No corrections required.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What a twisted dumbfuck of an argument.

​

Science is not religion. We don't ascribe to stone age concepts disproven long ago.

​

And when it comes to your specific brand of bullshit, when the science says you are wrong, it means, C7(77), that you, personally, are wrong. No corrections required.

---

Then instead of resorting to vulgar language, which proves nothing, why don't you refute the argument?Science didn't always say what it says now. They would have said the same thing to those who contradicted where it was wrong, whether experts or laymen. And either one of them could have been right, the scientific knowledge being wrong.Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Your sillyjisms are bullshit. They were wrong from inception.That appears to be a major problem with you. You're so in love with your sense of logic that you can't see the flaws embedded.

quote:

---

Your sillyjisms are bullshit. They were wrong from inception.
That appears to be a major problem with you. You're so in love with your sense of logic that you can't see the flaws embedded.

---

You still haven't refuted my argument.

How do I do the blue box quotes?

Just be cause science doesn't know everything does not mean we know nothing.Most things we know very very well, indeed, and in those things, like known evidenced physics, you cannot challenge it with religious bullshit.Use:
[qs]...[/qs]
or use
[quote]...[/quote]Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You can click on "peek" to see how it was done.

Here are two simple syllogisms. Can you refute them, by proving the falsity of the premises, or the invalidity of the argument, not by denying the conclusion based on some other source. For if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow, if the form of the syllogism is valid, proving the other sources false. Otherwise logic is illogical.A: If the universe does not make sense, it violates the laws of meaning and logic.
B: The universe cannot violate the laws of meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, the universe makes sense according to meaning and logic.A: For the universe to make sense according to meaning and logic, it must make sense to a mind.
B: The universe makes sense according to meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, the universe cannot exist without a mind.When I used to present tense, I refer to the tense of the factual always. (Sorry for the bizzare term.)

But there is no certainty is science, as Percy said, and therefore nothing is proven, and nothing can be certain to anyone.Thank you.

Your arguments were refuted hundreds of years ago.We have no need to re-examine your failed religious tracts. It is a waste of electrons.It's like trying to argue vaccines with a trumpette.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

What I'm trying to say is this: We know that certain things are true about the universe, not because we have evidence, but because what we believe is true. If we have evidence, but that evidence if faulty, yet we believe that evidence to be solid, then though we believe the conclusions, we do not know the conclusion as truth, though we have what seems to be solid evidence. This is because knowledge requires truth, not just evidence. And even without evidence, as long as the thing trusted in is true, then it is knowledge. For if I hear that something has happened, and I believe it, though I have no evidence for it, yet if it did happen, then I know what I believe to be true.