Peanut Gallery

Whilst it almost pains me to side with Buz I am going to play devils advocate here..........What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory?I am thinking of starting a thread that asks how maths and reality are (or are not) inter-entwined. Maybe we should take this there?

Don't get me wrong I am not really questioning the validity of string theory research.I am just asking what links the concept of vibrating strings to the fact of gravity? Is it just abstract mathematics or is there a more empirical evidential basis?Our ability to use abstract maths to derive highly plausible and indeed verified (GR, QED) hypotheses is, I think, both interesting and different to the normally very empirically led scientific process of discovery.

I could not agree more. That is what I am getting at. It is bloody remarkable that "just" abstract mathematics is capable of this.Why is that? What about the universe is it that makes this abstract logical method such a successful method of revealing it's nature?

OK OK. I will stop.Well.... If he will stop I will stop too. Promise.Obviously I am biased but I think Percy's wisdom in spotting this outcome months in advance is the most obvious winner in all of this. Message 114

Look I know everyone is sick of this but I have actually been called a liar Message 34. I have been accused of repeated intentional misinterpretation and downright dishonesty with regard to RAZD's position on non-empirical evidence. But....... Message 150 My emphasis.RAZD specifically agrees that an "aware but otherwise insensate intellect" is in a situation where "perception of any external experience was impossible". How can this possibly be construed as anything other than an absolute statement that empirical evidence is the only means of experiencing reality external to ones own mind?Nobody has to answer this. I am not asking for people to take sides. I just felt that being called a dishonest liar demanded at least an explanation as to why I repeatedly described RAZD's position as I did.Anyway the important thing is that we have now unequivocally established RAZD's true position which is that non-empirical evidence is indeed valid and that it is by means of this non-empirical evidence that we can distinguish between those non-empirical concepts that are evidenced and those that are not. Unless of course I have got it wrong yet again..? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think that you should concede that it is impossible for any one immaterial god concept to be any more evidenced than any other by means of "experience". Subjective or otherwise. Message 392You should also concede that the IPU is therefore a valid argument.You can apologise for calling me a liar while you are at it. I know how much you enjoy your dictionary definitions so here are some.Surely even you cannot claim that immaterial entities can be detected by the five material senses? Or are those "scientifically unknowable" gods you have been talking about actually materially detectable now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So there is evidence that is not able to be empirically sensed by means of our 5 material senses after all......The lengths I have had to go to just to get your real position out of you huh?So all that talk of aliens, Nessie, Bigfoot, men in woods, cats crossing roads etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ALL very material concepts. ALL very very irrelevant to the sort of evidence required to evidence immaterial gods. ALL a giant red herring in terms of the IPU or any other immaterial concept. Why RAZ? Why so evasive? Chess games with words RAZ. All, I would suggest, because you have no faith in your actual argument so you resort to attempting to win the debate by means of evasion and ambiguity instead. It's dishonest.See you back in the hypothesis thread where you can attempt to justify this "immaterial evidence". If you think you can?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't think he is a "troll" as such. I think he genuinely believes his position in both threads to be both evidenced and correct. He may well be a nutter. But I don't, at this stage, doubt the genuineness of his nuttiness.The question remains as to whether he can be convinced that he might be wrong. Rather than just abuse his stupidity let's find out how glued to his position in the face of contradictory evidence he really is.

You seem to be alluding to something but I have no idea what it is.............?

Hey Oni I feel that I have already done my tour of duty with regard to ICANT and Big Bang cosmology. It can be a self educating experience if nothing else but frustration is inevitable. If you succeed where others have failed I will be very impressed.Your vid clip reminded me of a conversation I had with my little fella (he's 3) the other day. It started with "Why is it raining?" and proceeded down much the same line......... Maybe I should get him signed up here?

On a completely unrelated note.... (and I realise the peanut gallery may not be the place for this....) do you speak Spanish? Do your kids?Given my missus Argentinian heritage we (i.e. she) is trying to bring up the lil fella bilingual. Fantastic idea. But not easy. Have you any advice or insights on doing this in an almost exclusively English speaking country?If this is not appropriate for the Peanut gallery we can take this elsewhere..............

Fair enough. See Bilingualism.

But Rahvin he has provided "sources".... What more do you want? Personally I find him hilarious and I will miss him dearly. Alas I suspect that his current suspension is just a sign of more permanent things to come.Oh well. Next.......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I still don't understand RAZD's position.On one hand he seems to say that his faith is deeply personal and independent of logic or rationality. (Fine. No argument from anyone there.)Yet on the other hand any suggestion that believing in one immaterial unevidenced entity over any other is irrational and the result of special pleading and he will start banging on about the value of "subjective evidence". Whatever exactly "subjective evidence" is in relation to entities that are wholly materially undetectable?I find it all very contradictory. And all very ambiguous. I hope to rectify this here Immaterial "Evidence"

I am not, and never have been, overly interested in your faith. I am however very interested in what can be evidenced and what cannot. I am also interested in whether atheism or agnosticism is the rational conclusion. It should be noted that it was you who raised the issue of "subjective evidence" in a thread about deism and atheism. Not me. It was you that created any conflation between faith and evidence. Not me.Personally I think your little hissy fits, wild accusations, mock indignation and personal attacks are just a means of evading the real issue at hand. Namely that you are simply unable to justify your assertion that agnosticism is the rational position with regard to some unevidenced gods whilst remaining totally atheistic to equally unevidenced immaterial concepts like our old friend the Immaterial Pink Unicorn.Special pleading. Indisputably. But you would rather put pins in your eyeballs than ever actually concede that fact, or tackle the issue of how immaterial entities can be evidenced. Immaterial "Evidence" has been specificaly setup to discuss evidence independently of any conflations with faith. Maybe you should take your comments there.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add link to Immaterial Evidence thread.