-.-
ban badzie!
=.=''
First of all, TRUTH, has a multitude of meanings. DICTIONARY.COM is trying to explain. Then u got the THEORIES of TRUTH by intellectuals, philosophers and the likes desperately trying to theorarize the meaning and definition of TRUTH.
I have already explained to you the meaning of TRUTH in my context is ACTUAL EXISTENCE. And i APPLIED it consistently in all my statements, and u just dont understand. That again, just shows how stupid you are.
Lets see... your first statement says tat there r many types of trith in tis world, then your second statement just says you apply it consistently as just actual existence. Then wat is the point of your first statement ? All tis while we have problem with how you use truth and it is, according to u, consistent
Next, we have a simple concept of 1 + 1 = 2. I said, its true, its a mathematical truth, hence i say, its true, but may not be the truth. I totally understand your simple understanding of the primary level of maths, but YOU however cant understand anything BEYOND that, ONLY after i TEDIOUSLY EXPLAINED to you then u understood and start blaming me on the different context n trying to riddle you. How hard is it to understand ? DO i have to POINT OUT.. n EXPLAIN... that WHY i said it is because it can be refered to in a different context ? Again, shows just how stupid u are to not even able to see beyond my simple language used. It is VERY obvious tat i meant other 1 + 1 = 2 context. Because, its the truth. 1 +1 doesnt always equal 2. Its a mathematical truth YES, but not the TRUTH in a sense, as an overall 1+ 1 = 2.
If use the equation 1+1=2 rightly, there is no problem with it. However u use the wrong applications on the right equation (like 2 different things or reactive things) and claim the equation is wrong. If u use such a simple equation wrongly, then u obviously cannot expect it can come out with a true result. Garbage in garbage out. If u disagree with me, then use your egg and sperm example and convince MOE or science to drop their indoctrination of children who they r teaching 1+1=2 as truth
Then we come to the issue of Theologians and Scientists. I already said, TWO DIFFERENT FIELDS . How hard is it to understand thier different domain ? U say double standard.. OF COURSE> They are BOTH different FIELDS.
Tis is again, a rubbish point u said. They r different fields. They r spelled differently. They sometimes belong to opposing clans. But so ? If your definition of the truth is the same, it can be applied to both scientist and theologists.If u say tat science proving gravity exists by discovering is not truth, theologist who is trying to prove existence of god is also not truth. Comparison is always made with two different things (unless u r trying to prove it is the same thing).
It is just like telling me Jack and Jill both kill a man in the same manner, but jack goes for death penalty while jill goes scot free. And the reason is, jill is a girl and is different from jack. This differences has no reason why they should be treated differently
Once again, i make my statement again and again, that Science's purpose is NOT to find the truth, its to discover WHY and HOW , and IN THE PROCESS of the WHY and HOW, they DISCOVER THE TRUTH, well.. GOOD FOR THEM. I did not say they CANT find the truth . You AGAIN.. are just too stupid. U just cant think OUTSIDE the box. U are trapped in your one meanig of truth from the word true from the dictionary, and stuck in primary school maths. NO wonder u cannot comprehend anything that is a level above primary school.
Lets look at your earlier statements before
Science is not there to PROVE, it is to find out WHY, to EXPLAIN. They are not to discern what is true and false. Its not even thier doman. It is the Theologists. You chuck an apple and it falls to the gound, scientist dont ask whether it is true or false, they Try to FIND out WHY.. to EXPLAIN.
You still dont understand the concept of science. Until now. The domain of science. How old are you actually ? If i may ask. And what field of study are u in ? I am curious. Science does NOT establish THAT TRUTH. Explains the Reasons.. WHY. It doesnt not say its TRUE or FALSE.
They stated the TRUTH about gravity in regards to it being 9.81ms2, not because gravity is the TRUTH. I am rejecting the original sentence but not rephrasing it, because that is how u properly state the science and its relevence to the truth and fact. But Science is not TRUTH. U get it ?
Why would gravity be a lie when Science already explains why the apple falls down ? The truth is that its 9.81ms2 on this planet. I never rejected it. Hence its TRUE that gravity exist. Like i said again n again... it is Science's explaination of WHY Gravity works. The Truth is Gravity Exists. U get it ? So i did no reject the explaination or reject the existence of Gravity, so why would gravity not be True in your context when it was never False? Science EXPLAINS WHY... it doesnt state the TRUTH.
There r many countless examples of u saying science cannot discover truth. SO do u wanna eat back your words and say now tat science can discover truth ?
Oh.. HELLO.. when did i say , ONLY superstituous shamans can find truth ?
Superstitious shamen is a type of theologians, which according to u can find the truth while scientist can't.
Hah what hah? You copied it from Wiki and you called that evidence? Hello? I can also say creation is a fact and then put it on wiki, flooding it with ''evidence'' and ''proof'' just to show it to the public. And even IF evolution were a fact, it does not disproof a God. I don't believe in the Christian God, but if you believe that NOTHING can CREATE this VAST UNIVERSE itself, you are pretty stupid and dumb in the sense.
It is true, u can go to wiki, find creationist and try to find "facts" or "evidence" supporting creationism. U can go to other reputable scientific organisations website and lift off evidences arguing for creationism. U can even try to edit creationism in wiki. So do it. Do it, show me and then I will agree with u tat creationism had evidence. If u can't, then there r evidences supporting evolution and I had proven u wrong
And u r again true on the statement tat evolution does not disprove god. In fact, no matter wat is discovered or how well we know the universe, we cannot disprove god. It is simply because it is not possible to disprove something tat is so abstract. I claim there is a flying sphaghetti monster in the universe somewhere. U can never disprove it no matter how well u know the universe.
And your last statement on believing tat there must be some being tat create the universe, I find tis type of questioning never ending. Who create the creator then ? In the end something must be created from nothing and if tat is the cae, something simpler like the universe is more appealing to be believed than some mythical beings
Lastly is your arguments on using clock designer (it is an aged old argument by the way). U assume tat because clock is designed, then the world must be designed. There is even a wikipedia on tis topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
There r three criticisms, one is a mindless natural processes can yield complex articles such as monkeys with typewriter analogy (u place a infinity - number of monkeys on same number of typewriters and they type infinity- words per second and u will one fine day find one monkey had typed the whole bible). The second is, a watch is man made doesn't means everything has to be made. I made A doesn't means B must be made by C. And the third argument is, if everything need a creator, the creator also need one himself.
Ah.. morning. i see StupidisSmart has replied. =D
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Lets see... your first statement says tat there r many types of trith in tis world, then your second statement just says you apply it consistently as just actual existence. Then wat is the point of your first statement ? All tis while we have problem with how you use truth and it is, according to u, consistent
If use the equation 1+1=2 rightly, there is no problem with it. However u use the wrong applications on the right equation (like 2 different things or reactive things) and claim the equation is wrong. If u use such a simple equation wrongly, then u obviously cannot expect it can come out with a true result. Garbage in garbage out. If u disagree with me, then use your egg and sperm example and convince MOE or science to drop their indoctrination of children who they r teaching 1+1=2 as truth
Tis is again, a rubbish point u said. They r different fields. They r spelled differently. They sometimes belong to opposing clans. But so ? If your definition of the truth is the same, it can be applied to both scientist and theologists.If u say tat science proving gravity exists by discovering is not truth, theologist who is trying to prove existence of god is also not truth. Comparison is always made with two different things (unless u r trying to prove it is the same thing).
It is just like telling me Jack and Jill both kill a man in the same manner, but jack goes for death penalty while jill goes scot free. And the reason is, jill is a girl and is different from jack. This differences has no reason why they should be treated differently
Lets look at your earlier statements before
There r many countless examples of u saying science cannot discover truth. SO do u wanna eat back your words and say now tat science can discover truth ?
*My quote thing fucked up*
*Double wrote too many things*
Well, I applied the consistency of the meaning of Truth and that is Actual Existence CONSISTENTLY in MY CONTEXT. I can see why u are stupid. Because you cant understand, and i need to explain to u in baby steps and spoon feed u.
1 + 1 again, = 2, IS A MATHEMATICAL TRUTH. When i said its true, but not REALLY THE TRUTH, it just means, 1 + 1 = 2, is a Number, that needs no classifications, while 1 ovum + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised Egg. AGAIN, i have to EXPLAIN to you. Becaue its TRUE, that it can NOT be the TRUTH in a different context, AGAIN, you are being VERY STUPID. You think i dont know 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical truth ? I thought i told u that alrady ?
Next,
Yes, EXACTLY, u answered the double standardness of Scientists adn Theologians! Bravo! Scientists, discover the how and why , and explain, and in the process discover the truth... thats GOOD. While Theologians , is trying to find the Truth of the Existence of God.
If u think Theologians are really superstitious shamans, then i let u think that they are stuperstitious shaman. Science just EXPLAINS the How and Why, the "Shamans" find find the TRUTH of existence of God. Whether they find it or not, its up to them. Like i said again , they can cross paths, Science n Theologians. Thats all.
Again you keep misunderstanding.
Again, I said perfectly CLEAR, i already said my mistake regarding the True and False but i did not go and EDIT it, and i explained my statement clearly. I said again, the TRUTH is already THERE, science just explains How and Why. Just like explaining the HOW and WHy, and in the process they find a TRUTH there, Good for them, they can proceeed to explain the How and Why of that TRUTH. Do u get it ?
Sigh, once again, u keep nit picking the little points and adding them together and saying that that I SAID SCIENCE CANT DISCOVER A TRUTH. I never said that, i just said, that is NOT thier DOMAIN. Thier purpose is How and Why, the TRUTH IS already there.
The universe can create itself. Hence, Badzmaro SHOULD NOT take Stupidismart's words's seriously, because there is an 80% possiblity that the words were not written by him, but by the computer itself.
Well, I applied the consistency of the meaning of Truth and that is Actual Existence CONSISTENTLY in MY CONTEXT. I can see why u are stupid. Because you cant understand, and i need to explain to u in baby steps and spoon feed u.
So in conclusion do u agree tat showing tat many philosopher etc version of truth is really out of point to tis topic since u just consistently use the same meaning throughout, and tat is the problem we r discussing about
1 + 1 again, = 2, IS A MATHEMATICAL TRUTH. When i said its true, but not REALLY THE TRUTH, it just means, 1 + 1 = 2, is a Number, that needs no classifications, while 1 ovum + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised Egg. AGAIN, i have to EXPLAIN to you. Becaue its TRUE, that it can NOT be the TRUTH in a different context, AGAIN, you are being VERY STUPID. You think i dont know 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical truth ? I thought i told u that alrady ?
1+1=2 is a mathematic truth and it is the truth if u apply it correctly. However the 1 egg + 1 sperm thing is applying the wrong application to the right equation and therefore obviously it is wrong. Garbage in garbage out. Wat do u really expect if u interpret wrongly and apply rubbish inside truth ? If u want to use it, u have to apply the right context to it. And therefore u have failed to shown tat there r situations 1+1=2 is not true, your example is not applicable if u use the equation rightly
Yes, EXACTLY, u answered the double standardness of Scientists adn Theologians! Bravo! Scientists, discover the how and why , and explain, and in the process discover the truth... thats GOOD. While Theologians , is trying to find the Truth of the Existence of God.
So do u agree in the beginning, with your tons of message saying tat scientist cannot discern wat is true or false, tat science does not establish truth, tat science is not truth etc is wrong because science is about finding the truth. It is similar to theologist trying to find "truth". They may be wrong and they don't have to succeed. But the objective is to find the truth.
The universe can create itself. Hence, Badzmaro SHOULD NOT take Stupidismart's words's seriously, because there is an 80% possiblity that the words were not written by him, but by the computer itself.
Where do u get the 80% possibility from ? Just to gauge your IQ in tis. BTW did u find any evidence supporting creationism at all ?
I think stupidissmart , u can stop with going back nitpick. Because i can do the same to you, with your statements and misunderstandings in your previous posts. Let me just give u a summary. A CLEAN summary
I have edited the TRUE and FALSE statements i made before i admited i phrased it wrongly and may have caused you confusion. However, u did not read in the context of it, instead, u choose the sentences u want out and lump them together to make my final statement. But my statements regarding it are as strong as it is till now.
I shall give u the crux of my argument and my belief,
Science is NOT TRUTH. Science seeks to explain HOW and WHY, to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
Science does not need to state the TRUTH, the the TRUTH is already THERE, it just once again seeks the explainations as to WHY and HOW, but if in the process they discover a TRUTH while explaining the WHY and HOW of another TRUTH, then they shall proceed to explain the HOW and WHY. Because the domain of Science is not to find TRUTH, because, the TRUTH is already THERE. Actual Existence, does not NEED science to state it. Because its there already in the first place.
Your 1 + 1 = 2, i stated clearly, that its true, and its the truth, a Mathematical Truth. But as a WHOLE, 1+1=2 is true, but not really THE TRUTH. Because not all 1 + 1 = 2. Because 1 Ovum + 1 Sperm = 1 Fertilised Egg. Its a reality, its ALSO a TRUTH.Hence in a totality of a 1 + 1 = 2 may be true, but not the TRUTH. Why must one lump everything together as a Mathematical Truth , when there are other Truths to a 1+ 1 = 2 ?
So i end this by saying simply that, Scientists CAN discover a truth, but AGAIN, i never said they CANT, i just said that its NOT thier domain! But if you believe that Science = Truth , go ahead. I am happy to accept your opinion. I just dont think Science = Truth. I believe Science = How and Why.
Simple enough ? I can understand yours, you cant understand mine, so be it. You dont have to keep compelling me to accept your beliefs and opinion over mine. Becuase yours maybe true, but not necessarily the TRUTH. Thats why i can understand, i accept, but i dont see it as the TRUTH.
And the whole purpose of my explaination was summarised in its simplest form, except the whole 1+1 , the evolution theory, the whatever stuffs u were nit picking, is from Mr Sean's post, he wrote it in the simplest manner without the need to go into the detail to explain my meaning of the TRUTH and Science, it was the gist of my opinion on what
And you were the one who cannot understand my simple statement of, "What is True, may not be the Truth" . U needed me to go to such lengthy manner to explain such a simple concept. Thats why we went down to the meaning of truth, while urs is dictionary True - Truth, mine was Actual Reality. And went on to intellectuals definition of the truth, but you decided that YOURS is the TRUTH, and that is the simple meaning of True - Truth.
So i hope i have finally cleared up any confusion, and misunderstanding, disregarding ALL PREVIOUS POSTS.
Once again, i say i understand your meaning of truth, and u deem science as THE TRUTH. I UNDERSTAND. But your are just TOO STUPID and DUMB to understand mine.
Hence, hopefully this clean summary will clear away ALL your confusion and FINALLY enlighten you to my understanding. You may not believe it as THE TRUTH, but nevertheless, its as true as your definition of what is the truth.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:So in conclusion do u agree tat showing tat many philosopher etc version of truth is really out of point to tis topic since u just consistently use the same meaning throughout, and tat is the problem we r discussing about
1+1=2 is a mathematic truth and it is the truth if u apply it correctly. However the 1 egg + 1 sperm thing is applying the wrong application to the right equation and therefore obviously it is wrong. Garbage in garbage out. Wat do u really expect if u interpret wrongly and apply rubbish inside truth ? If u want to use it, u have to apply the right context to it. And therefore u have failed to shown tat there r situations 1+1=2 is not true, your example is not applicable if u use the equation rightly
So do u agree in the beginning, with your tons of message saying tat scientist cannot discern wat is true or false, tat science does not establish truth, tat science is not truth etc is wrong because science is about finding the truth. It is similar to theologist trying to find "truth". They may be wrong and they don't have to succeed. But the objective is to find the truth.
No, i DO NOT AGREE, that i am out of context. I am MERELY showing u that even philosophers and intellectuals have a problem defining the meaning of Truth. It is in PERFECT context to have u see and compare the different definitions of truths out there. Because you cant accept my simple meaning. You are so close-minded, hence, u needed others with much learned wisdom to hopefully, open your mind up of the other possiblities.
I have already said, 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical TRUTH, and when u asked me WHY i do not think so, i said Quantity 1 + Quantity 1 = Quantity 1 . U asked for classfications, i said its a number, u dont NEED classifications. I answered your perfectly well in the manner your should understand why i do not thinkg.. 1 + 1 in general = 2 in general. Did i NOT agree that its a Mathematicla Truth ? Your 1+1 = 2 is not an ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Depends on situation. Thats it. I am not saying 1 + 1 not 2.
I already said, the true and false part is my mistake in trying to bring forth the statement, i worded it wrongly, i admited, and I HAVE OMMITTED it.
No, the Objective of science is to explain How and Why, to unravel the mysteries of the universe. They CAN discern True and False, (Which i have omitted already), Science is NOT TRUTH, Theologians try to find the TRUTH to the existence of God. Once again, u just keep misunderstanding.
So i disagree again. You can believe that its main objective is to FIND the TRUTH, then SO BE IT. I believe, that science explains the How and Why, because they dont NEED to find the TRUTH, because, the TRUTH is already out there! Its in Actual Existence, hence, Science explains the How and Why.
So we have differences of opinion. Thats all. How hard is it ? To accept difference of opinion ? You are saying it like i am totally wrong, i am lying, or i am just bullshitting crapping out of my pants and not making sense and all the stuff, while its your inability to understand that, the TRUTH is already OUT THERE. The gravity example is the most simple, Gravity exists, its a truth, u dont NEED science to state it, Science came up with the name Gravity, and seeks to explain Why and How. What goes up MUST come down. Its a truth. Even before science, it exists, its already there. Its a TRUTH.
So that is our difference of what is truth. And what Science does. If u believe thats not the objective, then .. so be it. I accept your opinion. But i dont have to discount mine.
Finally, my opinion ONE is the SEARCH of GOD, God is the TRUTH already for them.. One is to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Simple. They are of different fields. Thats it.
Science is NOT TRUTH. Science seeks to explain HOW and WHY, to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
Science does not need to state the TRUTH, the the TRUTH is already THERE, it just once again seeks the explainations as to WHY and HOW, but if in the process they discover a TRUTH while explaining the WHY and HOW of another TRUTH, then they shall proceed to explain the HOW and WHY. Because the domain of Science is not to find TRUTH, because, the TRUTH is already THERE. Actual Existence, does not NEED science to state it. Because its there already in the first place.
Why don't u read the definition of science then, from dictionary.com
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Since u said science cannot deal with truth, then tell the dictionary they r wrong and tell them to redefine the word la !
Your 1 + 1 = 2, i stated clearly, that its true, and its the truth, a Mathematical Truth. But as a WHOLE, 1+1=2 is true, but not really THE TRUTH. Because not all 1 + 1 = 2. Because 1 Ovum + 1 Sperm = 1 Fertilised Egg. Its a reality, its ALSO a TRUTH.Hence in a totality of a 1 + 1 = 2 may be true, but not the TRUTH. Why must one lump everything together as a Mathematical Truth , when there are other Truths to a 1+ 1 = 2 ?
It is the truth if use it rightly. If u fail to use it rightly, means u do not understand tis basic equation. U throw in all the wrong applications and obviously u get all the wrong answers. If u think it is not truth, and u got examples showing it to be untrue, then I challenge u to find MOE or science and prove the equation wrong.
No, i DO NOT AGREE, that i am out of context. I am MERELY showing u that even philosophers and intellectuals have a problem defining the meaning of Truth. It is in PERFECT context to have u see and compare the different definitions of truths out there. Because you cant accept my simple meaning. You are so close-minded, hence, u needed others with much learned wisdom to hopefully, open your mind up.
Nah... u just have problem with the english definition of the word science. U wanna redefine the word truth, science etc from the dictionary.
Well, good luck
I have already said, 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical TRUTH, and when u asked me WHY i do not think so, i said Quantity 1 + Quantity 1 = Quantity 1 . U asked for classfications, i said its a number, u dont NEED classifications. I answered your perfectly well in the manner your should understand why i do not thinkg.. 1 + 1 in general = 2 in general. Did i NOT agree that its a Mathematicla Truth ?
I have no problem with u saying tat 1+1=2 is a mathematical truth but I have a problem with your example of using the equation wrongly and trying to say it is not true. As said before, it depend on the context u r talking about. U talk about apples u add apples. U talk about object u add object. U don't talk about apples then add oranges and say the equation is wrong. Neither do u talk about apples, then apples rot become thin air and u claim the equation is wrong.U r just putting garbage into the right equation and claiming because your garbage is wrong, the equation is not true. Tat is absolutely stupid
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Where do u get the 80% possibility from ? Just to gauge your IQ in tis. BTW did u find any evidence supporting creationism at all ?
Of course there is evidence. You need some form of intelligence to create something that functions properly rather than just mathematical certainity. The universe you are in now is a little too complex to have created itself, just too vast. BTW, the creationism I am supporting is NOT the christian creationism where they believe in the flood and all those crap. My form of creationism can also be viewed as Deism.
Of course there is evidence. You need some form of intelligence to create something that functions properly rather than just mathematical certainity. The universe you are in now is a little too complex to have created itself, just too vast. BTW, the creationism I am supporting is NOT the christian creationism where they believe in the flood and all those crap. My form of creationism can also be viewed as Deism.
Well I have answered the question about watch designer before.
Lastly is your arguments on using clock designer (it is an aged old argument by the way). U assume tat because clock is designed, then the world must be designed. There is even a wikipedia on tis topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
There r three criticisms, one is a mindless natural processes can yield complex articles such as monkeys with typewriter analogy (u place a infinity - number of monkeys on same number of typewriters and they type infinity- words per second and u will one fine day find one monkey had typed the whole bible). The second is, a watch is man made doesn't means everything has to be made. I made A doesn't means B must be made by C. And the third argument is, if everything need a creator, the creator also need one himself.
And u think the universe must need something intelligent to create. i think it does not. So wat is your evidence ? Personal opinion is not evidence. And I do not believe deism of all sorts. Even if u r not a christian, it is still the same argument
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why don't u read the definition of science then, from dictionary.com
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Since u said science cannot deal with truth, then tell the dictionary they r wrong and tell them to redefine the word la !
It is the truth if use it rightly. If u fail to use it rightly, means u do not understand tis basic equation. U throw in all the wrong applications and obviously u get all the wrong answers. If u think it is not truth, and u got examples showing it to be untrue, then I challenge u to find MOE or science and prove the equation wrong.
That is your definition of Science,and the dictionary. I state again, that i want to think outside the box. Beyond, i question everything. Thats the whole purpose. To challenge the norm.
Thats how the theory of evolution came about, during those days, he challenged the norm, he postulated new theories. He was not limited within the box. TO QUESTION. To CHALLENGE THE NORM. In the end of the day, he proved that those that believed it to be the truth, turns out, it wasnt!
Thats why u cannot understand me. I am IN the norm, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU.. and i can think BEYOND the norm. Thats why u CANNOT GET me. U are already in such a limited state of mind. Some peoeple are born stupid and an idiot, its the truth, but who i dont know, i can only postulate using theories to determine.
One again, you are just stupid. All i am telling u is that 1+1 does NOT always EQUAL 2. If u read the words u will understand, and smart enough, to read between the lines you will understand. But u are too stupid. 1 apple + 1 orrange = 2 Fruits. U see it now ? It all depends on circumstances. You are just too stupid , and u cant link them . U cant understand the reality.
Even maths are fallible. 0 divides by 0 , should be 0 right ? logically speaking right ? But WHY.. MATHS cannot define 0 divide by 0 in a mathematically? Thats why, u can only comprehend the basics, within the norm. Not beyond. - Fallacy of Maths. U have to know how Algebra works first.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Well I have answered the question about watch designer before.
Lastly is your arguments on using clock designer (it is an aged old argument by the way). U assume tat because clock is designed, then the world must be designed. There is even a wikipedia on tis topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
There r three criticisms, one is a mindless natural processes can yield complex articles such as monkeys with typewriter analogy (u place a infinity - number of monkeys on same number of typewriters and they type infinity- words per second and u will one fine day find one monkey had typed the whole bible). The second is, a watch is man made doesn't means everything has to be made. I made A doesn't means B must be made by C. And the third argument is, if everything need a creator, the creator also need one himself.
And u think the universe must need something intelligent to create. i think it does not. So wat is your evidence ? Personal opinion is not evidence. And I do not believe deism of all sorts. Even if u r not a christian, it is still the same argument
You do not believe then it is your problem. It is of common sense that even a model of a solar system on a table needs to be made by some human which is of intelligence to do it. Just because you do not believe in a creator does not mean it doesn't exist, a criminal can try not to believe in an electric chair but he will still be executed on an electric chair. You are too delusional, I guess.
That is your definition of Science,and the dictionary. I state again, that i want to think outside the box. Beyond, i question everything. Thats the whole purpose. To challenge the norm.
Nah... u r trying to redefine the words for the english dictionary. Tat is not my definition of science. Tat is the dictionary, the world's standard of science. If u talk about science, u can challenge them and try to come out with new theories. If u talk about english words or grammer, u have to follow them. Creative words spelling or grammer or vocab is not recommended.
One again, you are just stupid. All i am telling u is that 1+1 does NOT always EQUAL 2. If u read the words u will understand, and smart enough, to read between the lines you will understand. But u are too stupid. 1 apple + 1 orrange = 2 Fruits. U see it now ? It all depends on circumstances. You are just too stupid , and u cant link them . U cant understand the reality.
U r using another stupid statement again. u r adding an fruit (orange) to a fruit (apple) = 2 fruits. U r using the right context here because the final form which u r interested is int he right context. But you other example is wrong because the final interested item is not in the right context (1 apple + 1 orange not = 2 apples) And we don't talk about chemical reactions etc (1 apple + 1 apple = 0 apple because they rot, decomposed and dissappear). U just link them wongly and use the equation the wrong way. U should really restudy the equation and try to understand it again.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Nah... u just have problem with the english definition of the word science. U wanna redefine the word truth, science etc from the dictionary.
Well, good luck
I have no problem with u saying tat 1+1=2 is a mathematical truth but I have a problem with your example of using the equation wrongly and trying to say it is not true. As said before, it depend on the context u r talking about. U talk about apples u add apples. U talk about object u add object. U don't talk about apples then add oranges and say the equation is wrong. Neither do u talk about apples, then apples rot become thin air and u claim the equation is wrong.U r just putting garbage into the right equation and claiming because your garbage is wrong, the equation is not true. Tat is absolutely stupid
You once again, limit yourself. I BELIEVE in those philosophers and intellectuals that think BEYOND, they think DIFFERENT. They ASK. The whole idea is to KEEP ASKING. To make sure you are RIGHT. Which so far i have proven in my statements and opinions to be true. Whatever dictionary put there. fair enoug, i like the Intellectuals and Philosophers DO NOT BELIEVE that the word TRUTH is so easy to define. Thats it. How hard is it for u to understand ? Must be very hard, because you are just stupid.
You can believe what u wish, if u believe in what people feed you, what dictionary tells you, what the government feeds you. So be it
I , persoanlly, believe I have a brain, i would want to see what other theories are there, what opinions are out there, and all that stuff, then i would decide where i want to stand, which has the best argument and which i believe is the most persuasive to me. I am not just a SHEEP. I am an Enlightened Sheep. And frankly, yours is just not compelling and persuasive enough for me.
I do not follow blindly, i wonder about the world.
Even maths are fallible. 0 divides by 0 , should be 0 right ? logically speaking right ? But WHY.. MATHS cannot define 0 divide by 0 in a mathematically? Thats why, u can only comprehend the basics, within the norm. Not beyond. - Fallacy of Maths. U have to know how Algebra works first.
Tat is strange.. I am talking about 1+1=2, u come out with 0/0. Why again your poor maths foundation fails to realise anything divide by 0 is infinity while anything multiply by zero is zero. So there is a conflict between the two outcomes and thus depend on subject matter. Tat is wat maths say. U wanna give your poor wrong examples in it again ?
You once again, limit yourself. I BELIEVE in those philosophers and intellectuals that think BEYOND, they think DIFFERENT. They ASK. The whole idea is to KEEP ASKING. To make sure you are RIGHT. Which so far i have proven in my statements and opinions to be true. Whatever dictionary put there. fair enoug, i like the Intellectuals and Philosophers DO NOT BELIEVE that the word TRUTH is so easy to define. Thats it. How hard is it for u to understand ? Must be very hard, because you are just stupid.
Aiyah.. u r just repeating the same rubbish. Didn't u say u use truth as "actual existence" throughout ? U say u use it consistently and tat is wat u understand from it.
So now wat ? U did not use it consistently ? Then wat do u understand from it ? U say science cannot seek truth, theologist can, and both try to discover existence of something and one is seeking truth while the other is not. Wat type of truth r u talking about then ? U read your article, copy the version of truth u said before and stick it here.
Then I will see if it can follows "actual existence", science is never about "truth", they only seek WHy and HOW and these r not "truth" while theology seek "truth" just by trying to prove god exists ,as coherent or not.
WTH lah both of you. This argument can go on to NOWHERE.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat is strange.. I am talking about 1+1=2, u come out with 0/0. Why again your poor maths foundation fails to realise anything divide by 0 is infinity while anything multiply by zero is zero. So there is a conflict between the two outcomes and thus depend on subject matter. Tat is wat maths say. U wanna give your poor wrong examples in it again ?
I am just pointing out a simple fallacy of a mathematical truth. Once again, you are too stupid.
You do not believe then it is your problem. It is of common sense that even a model of a solar system on a table needs to be made by some human which is of intelligence to do it. Just because you do not believe in a creator does not mean it doesn't exist, a criminal can try not to believe in an electric chair but he will still be executed on an electric chair. You are too delusional, I guess.
It is true tat a table of solar system is made by men etc. But it doesn't means tat everything must be made by something. The rock could just be a rock, made from natural without intervention. The sky could be just naturally formed without intervention. Just because something is made doesn't means everything must be made. Just because some of the food u eat raw (fruits), doesn't means all food must be eaten raw.