I am just pointing out a simple fallacy of a mathematical truth. Once again, you are too stupid.
but u really pointed out nothing. As said before, using wrongly the right equation give wrong result. It is not the fault of the equation but the user
Originally posted by stupidissmart: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" as coherent or not.
Yes, to me, its Actual Existence in the definition of Truth being defined by the domain of science while finding out the Why and How. Because the Truth, like Gravity, is in Actual Reality.
Once again, the TRUTH theologians seek, is the Existence of GOD, becuase to them, God IS THE TRUTH. They are merely finding supporting evidence OF IT. Cant u understand ?
Science like i said again, seeks to unravel the mysteries of the universe. You cant comprehend. The Universe in Actual Existence IS THERE. Now, is to seek the How and WHY of its Existence. Do u get it ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:but u really pointed out nothing. As said before, using wrongly the right equation give wrong result. It is not the fault of the equation but the user
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ? Logically speaking. Cause that was what u were taught to believe. But i can see that, u cant link them together. Again, u are just too stupid. I am once again, pointing out even Mathematical Truth like this is fallible.
Yes, to me, its Actual Existence in the definition of Truth being defined by the domain of science while finding out the Why and How. Because the Truth, like Gravity, is in Actual Reality.
Once again, the TRUTH theologians seek, is the Existence of GOD, becuase to them, God IS THE TRUTH. They are merely finding supporting evidence OF IT. Cant u understand ?
If god exist, it is in actual reality too. Then it is the same as gravity. So if science discovering gravity is not truth, neither is the theologist.To scientist, science is the truth, same as god is the truth to theologist. There is no difference.
DO u understand such a simple statement ?
And again, any comment on the dictionary interpretation ? R u talking english at all ?
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ? Logically speaking. Cause that was what u were taught to believe. But i can see that, u cant link them together. Again, u are just too stupid. I am once again, pointing out even Mathematical Truth like this is fallible.
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter. Do u understand 0 multiply by anythinbg is zero ? DO u know anything divide by zero is infinity ? Tis both result go varsely different. So the conclusion depend on the subject matter. Wat is your maths level ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
If god exist, it is in actual reality too. Then it is the same as gravity. So if science discovering gravity is not truth, neither is the theologist.To scientist, science is the truth, same as god is the truth to theologist. There is no difference.
DO u understand such a simple statement ?
And again, any comment on the dictionary interpretation ? R u talking english at all ?
Yes, so to the Theologians, God Exists. I said already, they are TWO DIFFERENT FIELDS.
Again you are limited. I said again, you believe that , its your opinion. Do u not think i do not know the dictionary meaning of Scienec ? All i am saying is in regards to Science being Truth. My understanding of the word Truth is different, hence, in your context of the dictionary explaination of the word Science, it does not conform with your definition of science. Simple.
Do you understand ? Do u even know the meaning of understand ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter. Do u understand 0 multiply by anythinbg is zero ? DO u know anything divide by zero is infinity ? Tis both result go varsely different. So the conclusion depend on the subject matter. Wat is your maths level ?
YES, you get it, but u did not seem to be able to link them up. And u needed to ask me before. So like u, i assume.
As said, we r using english. ENglish does not encourage creativity. U r redefining the word as u like it. If u r not using the english definition of the word, then r u using hebrew or chinese to understand ? Then u fail communication because u fail your english
Theology and science different, tat is why we compare. And they r subject to the same scrutiny and compared. Just because they r different doesn't means u can just treat truth differently for both of them.
For maths, u r wrong and use another wrong example. The equations r right and ntohing wrong. Why u do u say tat 0/0 = 0 ? U failed your maths as well
I already stated, you can believe what u want , I have given you my understanding of your definitions, but u do no want it. U want my compliance.
I am not defining. I am mere stating my belief of Truth in the context of Actual Existence, AS DEFINED by the dictionary. And u are talking like i came up with the meaning of truth.
All i am saying is, i do not limit myself to the possiblities. I understood other philosophers and intellectuals, on the limitaion of the definition of truth. Thats all. There they are, trying to theorarize and definition of truth. And u can only see it as a word from the dictionary of true = truth. Which is NOT WRONG, just shows that u think.. INSIDE the box. Thats all.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said, we r using english. ENglish does not encourage creativity. U r redefining the word as u like it. If u r not using the english definition of the word, then r u using hebrew or chinese to understand ? Then u fail communication because u fail your english
Theology and science different, tat is why we compare. And they r subject to the same scrutiny and compared. Just because they r different doesn't means u can just treat truth differently for both of them.
For maths, u r wrong and use another wrong example. The equations r right and ntohing wrong. Why u do u say tat 0/0 = 0 ? U failed your maths as well
I already said, they are two different fields. Theologians believe that God Exists. Thats is the basis of thier belief already in the persuit
See, once again, u misunderstand. . i was merely pointing out. Logicaly what should b 0 and Nothing is not. Thats it.
How hard is it to understand my statement ? U read it as if though i am try to force feed u 0/0 = 0 as a mathematical truth. I already stated my opinion on it. Maybe i should have gone. 0/0 = Infinity or ?
But its clear in my statement what i am bringing forth.
I am fully capable of understanding your simple concept of the word truth, and your belief that Science = Truth.
I got no problem with that.
Dont blame me if you cannot think out of the box , to think beyond, to comprehend my belief and understanding of the word Truth and the domain of Science.
Its not my fault if you are too stupid to understand.
Thats why i tried to explain. Hopefully u can see it in my context after all the tedious explainations and statements i made. But you are stuck... in the word itself, i have tried to show u the possibilities of it, u understood, but u revert back to the closed mind argument again.
So there is not much i can do.
Hence, let us end here, by agreeing in our disagreement. Think all you want, that i am not talking English, my examples are shitty , i am not making sense and that you are the truth and i am full of holes , fallible and non-sensicle. It is unfortunate that i could understand your norm, thinking within the box, but u were unable to understand mine, thinking beyond the box.
So i shall cute n paste my my reasons for my beliefs here to end it.
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.
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 have understood yours yonks ago. The logical reasoning behind it.
I do not follow blindly, i wonder about the world. If you believe the dictionary definition is the truth to all truths because of the word and your superior mastery in the English language. So be it. I accept your opinion. But i however will not comply to your understanding.I understand, but i will not comply.
Hope this is as simple as it gets.
I shall go take my lunch, and see if u have any replies. As i get paid sitting on ass sgforuming, i have plenty of time to get back to you if u decide to continue on with this whole misunderstanding.
Both of you here are stupid since both are playing with words.
I am not defining. I am mere stating my belief of Truth in the context of Actual Existence, AS DEFINED by the dictionary. And u are talking like i came up with the meaning of truth.
All i am saying is, i do not limit myself to the possiblities. I understood other philosophers and intellectuals, on the limitaion of the definition of truth. Thats all. There they are, trying to theorarize and definition of truth. And u can only see it as a word from the dictionary of true = truth. Which is NOT WRONG, just shows that u think.. INSIDE the box. Thats all.
U see, your definition doesn't match the things u said. U said it is actual existence, then tat is it. We r talking based on tis definition which u stated. Then on your second statement, u say other philosophy bla bla bla but tat is not wat we r talking about. AM I asking wat other people think ? I am asking u about your vesion of truth, and tat u said it is "actual existence". Then tat is all. U cannot make a stand on the word "truth" ?
I already said, they are two different fields. Theologians believe that God Exists. Thats is the basis of thier belief already in the persuit
So your truth is not universal ? If u sell fish u got a different truth, if u r a theologist u got a different truth and if u r a scientist, it is another truth ? I am really interested in your version of truth
See, once again, u misunderstand. . i was merely pointing out. Logicaly what should b 0 and Nothing is not. Thats it.
How hard is it to understand my statement ? U read it as if though i am try to force feed u 0/0 = 0 as a mathematical truth. I already stated my opinion on it. Maybe i should have gone. 0/0 = Infinity or ?
No. U say it should be zero. Remeber the earlier statement ?
I don't see your logic. why 0 divide by zero must be zero ? Who says it cannot be define in a mathematical way ? Wat does your example try to show ?
Dont blame me if you cannot think out of the box , to think beyond, to comprehend my belief and understanding of the word Truth and the domain of Science.
Its not my fault if you are too stupid to understand.
Thats why i tried to explain. Hopefully u can see it in my context after all the tedious explainations and statements i made. But you are stuck... in the word itself, i have tried to show u the possibilities of it, u understood, but u revert back to the closed mind argument again.
U keep saying "think out of the box" "think out of the box" but wat precisely r u talking about ? U say u define truth is actual existence consistently. Then u say u think out of the box and so ? Truth is not really "actual existence" ? So wat is truth to u then, since u think out of your box and wanna re-explain and re-define the word.
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.
SO wat do u think ? I challenge u to state wat exactly do u mean by your truth then. 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.
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.
Ok lor... no prolem with tat. Is just a bit out of point tat is all
Lastly, if u ask me I do not wanna continue tis topic as well. However the way u dismiss all the other people's opinion and say they r incredibly stupid, no logic, cannot think out of the box, stubborn, dumb etc. Then u r really asking people to challenge your thinking. I am not one who is bullied or silenced away by such words.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:U see, your definition doesn't match the things u said. U said it is actual existence, then tat is it. We r talking based on tis definition which u stated. Then on your second statement, u say other philosophy bla bla bla but tat is not wat we r talking about. AM I asking wat other people think ? I am asking u about your vesion of truth, and tat u said it is "actual existence". Then tat is all. U cannot make a stand on the word "truth" ?
So your truth is not universal ? If u sell fish u got a different truth, if u r a theologist u got a different truth and if u r a scientist, it is another truth ? I am really interested in your version of truth
No. U say it should be zero. Remeber the earlier statement ?
I don't see your logic. why 0 divide by zero must be zero ? Who says it cannot be define in a mathematical way ? Wat does your example try to show ?
U keep saying "think out of the box" "think out of the box" but wat precisely r u talking about ? U say u define truth is actual existence consistently. Then u say u think out of the box and so ? Truth is not really "actual existence" ? So wat is truth to u then, since u think out of your box and wanna re-explain and re-define the word.
SO wat do u think ? I challenge u to state wat exactly do u mean by your truth then. 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.
Ok lor... no prolem with tat. Is just a bit out of point tat is all
Lastly, if u ask me I do not wanna continue tis topic as well. However the way u dismiss all the other people's opinion and say they r incredibly stupid, no logic, cannot think out of the box, stubborn, dumb etc. Then u r really asking people to challenge your thinking. I am not one who is bullied or silenced away by such words.
I told you already, i made my stand on the truth. Cant u understand that the Wiki - Truth is just an exmaple ? What about the issue of Absolute Truth in the examples given ? They are all EXAMPLES. U get it ? EXAMPLES to show u that your definition of the truth is one of such basic and limited one. There are so many truths out there with different theories and definition.
I have been consistent with my meaning, Since when does Science equate to Theology. 2 different kind of fish.. 2 different kinds of price.
The zero, is very simple. In non-mathematicl truth, 0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ? Its does not conform to the mathematical truth u stated that how 1 +1 = 2.
You are the one that keeps saying my truth is wrong. I accepted your statement and opinion of the truth, u just continue to nit pick irrelevant points. Even my pet turtle has more brain then you.
What i am saying is, Truth is Actual Existence. Right now, i think out side the box, if there is another explaination, or i find someone with other that is better then mine. Fair enough. I said i am open minded. ALL this time i am showing examples. YOU are the one trying to limit it, and i have no porblem with your limitation. You the one keep saying 'NO NO NO NO.. its THIS.. its THAT... NOT THAT' I told , i accept and understand yours, but u cant comprehend mine. So after how i explained so much, ur brain stil cant think outside, and beyond. I can only come down with the conclusion that u are stupid! Seriously.
U are the only person for that cant get it. Because of your limitation. I admit, I did not even talk about this to alot of people, only with some physicist , engineers and philosophy majors, but they all understood. They dont seem to have ANY problem in understanding.
U CHALLENEGE ME to state WHAT IS MY TRUTH ? I EXPLAINED IT ALREADY... PLEASE, REFER TO POST. If u cant figure out, u are really stupid. Simple. The summary there, pretty much sums it all up. The basic idea of how Mr Sean says about what is proven right now, maybe wrong in the future, in regards to Science. Regarding the TRUTH, read urself. I am tired of spoon feeding u. Even if i explain, u may not be able to figure it out. So do it urself.
Once again, u misunderstand. AGAIN.. i have said.. AGAIN n AGAIN, Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians.(God .. whatever they regard as the Truth)
There is NO NEED for me to copy n paste.
The latest summary pretty much sums it all up, clearly, concisely. Its for u to digest. Its right there.
Sure, go ahead, u ARE stupid. I have not said anyone stupid but you. Even when i said, IF they cant understand, they are stupid too. But you are the only one, who just cant get it, and continue to challenge , and i reply the same thing over n over again. N u cant get it. U cant even understand. So, i have to come to the conclusion, that u ARE stubborn, dense and stupid. There is no other explaination. Because i am sure as hell am not stubborn , dense and stupid, when i clearly understood your simple meaning of your truth, your context of science and how u bring forth your points.
Since u are not someone who is bullied or silced away by such words, then continue to prove ur stupidity by asking the same questions and not even able to comprehend a single thing.
Let me put down how u use truth so far then
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "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."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
7) U said "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Lets see your earliest statement
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.
Now u said theologist don't look for truth (actual reality), but the theologists' domain is to discern wat is true or false ? Wat r u trying to say ? Contradict yourself again ?
8) "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Actually tis statement is funny. Your first statement say they seek the truth (of the existence of god). Then u say they don't look for truth. Then lastly u say the truth (which they r not looking for) is god (very important?) to the theologians. So r they looking for truth or not ? Is the truth important to them ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Let me put down how u use truth so far then
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "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."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
7) U said "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Lets see your earliest statement
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.
Now u said theologist don't look for truth (actual reality), but the theologists' domain is to discern wat is true or false ? Wat r u trying to say ? Contradict yourself again ?
8) "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Actually tis statement is funny. Your first statement say they seek the truth (of the existence of god). Then u say they don't look for truth. Then lastly u say the truth (which they r not looking for) is god (very important?) to the theologians. So r they looking for truth or not ? Is the truth important to them ?
Let me put down how u use truth so far then
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
- I never said i did not believe in the meaning of science as defined by the dictionary. I meaning of truth, is Actual Existence. And what IS actual existence ? To you ? Maybe YOUR actual existence and mine have a different meaning. I dont know. No, i accept your definition. I believe, Science is a search for WHY and HOW. Can U UNDERSTAND THAT PART ? The REASON WHY I USED ACTUAL EXISTENCE, becuase u asked me to PICK one, i gave u the closest one. Truth has a lot of meaning . This one comes pretty close. So, obviously, out of all of it, we dont have to agree on ALL of it. Others we may disagree, same thing, science can be defined in many ways. It CAN be defined by different definitions. I said, I understand, TO YOU> its a search of TRUTH. All i am asking is, its a search of WHY and HOW. Thats all. Its MY opinion.
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "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."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
- O.K.. u see, the examples came about BECAUSE YOU DO NOT GET WHAT I WAS SAYING, i was trying VERY HARD to explain. U HAVE CONTRADICTING IDEAS of the DEFINITION. All i was trying to do , was open your eyes that its not limited to the dictionary. Even to intellectuals and scholars, the have difficulties to define Truth, yes, Dictionary defines it simpler for normal human beings to understand for normal usage. BUT if u go into a deeper meaning, these highly intelligent people have problem defining the meaning of TRUTH. These are all just examples. Obviously, i do not agree with a lot of thier theories, i got no beef with that. ALL THESE ARE EXAMPLES, to help u OPEN UP YOUR MIND. TO help u not get limited to the dictionary, U READ MORE STUFF, u GAIN MORE KNOWLEDGE n UNDERSTANDING. I am trying to help u get SMARTER. Eventhough i belive u are stupid, i blieve u have potential to get smarter. To GAIN MORE UNDERSTANDING n INSIGHT.
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
-Once again , u misunderstand. The ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF GOD, to THEOLOGIANS, is NEVER IN QUESTION. All i believe is what they do , it to find EVIDENCE, to SUPPORT thier TRUTH. They do not go and SEARCH of that TRUTH of GOD, its ALREADY THERE. The just need EVIDENCE.
- Where SCIENCE is DIFFERENT, its NOT TO SEARCH for TRUTH. They KNOW certain truth has existed, unlike Theologians they have a wider range. They look for :-
i)Evidence(Physical)
ii)Postulations , Mathematical Calculations, Observations..
etc..
Once again, you notice, SCIENCE is a SEARCH for HOW AND WHY. Wherelse Theologians have a narrow field, they only need to find evidence of God's EXISTENCE, they do NOT try to answer WHY, or HOW. THEY DO NOT ASK THAT.
Where science , knows the TRUTH of GRAVITY, but HOW IT WORKS. Do u understand ?
Remember, THESE ARE MY BELIEFS. IF U DISAGREE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM. All i am saying, is, each of us have a different belief or what each discipline does. U disagree, i disagree thats it. Simple. Move on.
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
-NO , ONCE AGAIN, U MISUNDERSTAND ME. Now, READ CAREFULLY. GRAVITY = Actualy Reality ( Existed Before Science)
-Science = WHY(Does the phenomenon of gravity exist?) And then, they find out the HOW, and from there , they call this phenomenon = GRAVITY.
-Gravity is the ABSOLUTE REALITY. The acceleration is the EFFECT of Gravity. Rain IS and ABSOLUTE REALITY, Science does not PROVE RAIN EXISTS, we can see it.. we know it exists, even if Science does not prove it, we KNOW it exists, because we can see it. All science did was explain HOW and WHY it comes down from the sky, and therefore condensation....yada yada...etc etc comes in.
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
-O>K.. U GETTING MY POINT HERE. Once again, THIS supports the fact that, i said, 1+1 DOESNT ALWAYS = 2 . I DID NOT SAY 1+1 DOESNT EQUAL = 2 . All i said is 1+1 ONLY EQUALS = 2 SOMETIMES, AND SOMETIMES, it is SOMETHING ELSE. IT depends on situations and cirucumstances. Hence i said 1+1 = 2 is TRUE but NOT THE TRUTH. GET IT ? Because if ITS THE TRUTH, 1+1 WILL ALWAYS = 2 , which isnt TRUE all the time. Like I already said, depends on cirucumstances !Which u have also proven.
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
- WRONG . ANY NUMBER OTHER ELSE then 0 = INFINITY. Where else 0/0 IS UNDEFINED(Which basically means it can be NOTHING). ( N this 0/0 is not the 0/0 =0 example i used previously)*Omitted*
This example is to SHOW U, that Math's itself is NOT PERFECT. Its NOT INFALLIBLE. Too many rules and laws that cant solve the problem of 0/0 . There is another rule saying, ANY NUMBER DIVIDED BY THE SAME NUMBER = 1 , SO Applying that rule, WOULDNT 0/0 = 1 ? SEE.. ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
7) U said "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Lets see your earliest statement
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.
Now u said theologist don't look for truth (actual reality), but the theologists' domain is to discern wat is true or false ? Wat r u trying to say ? Contradict yourself again ?
-AGAIN, I TOLD U I DID NOT MEAN IT THAT WAY. I OMITTED IT, and ALL SUBSEQUENT POSTS DO NOT REFLECT THAT STATEMENT. U see, AGAIN, keep bringing up my ommitted statement. Why no the subsequent statement that explaiend MORE CLEARLY. I ARLEADY TOLD YOU ITS WRONG. ITs MY MISTAKE.
8) "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Actually tis statement is funny. Your first statement say they seek the truth (of the existence of god). Then u say they don't look for truth. Then lastly u say the truth (which they r not looking for) is god (very important?) to the theologians. So r they looking for truth or not ? Is the truth important to them ?
- WHAT I MEANT WAS THIS. MAYBE i used TRUTH SO MUCH It became blurring. What i am saying is, to SEEK THE TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They DO NOT LOOK FOR THE TRUTH of GOD
Comprende ?
STUPID PIGS!
Enlightened Sheep yes.
Stupid pig no.
I never said i did not believe in the meaning of science as defined by the dictionary. I meaning of truth, is Actual Existence. And what IS actual existence ?
1) The dictionary just used the word "truth" in its explanation "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws".
If u accept the meaning from the dictionary, then u won't argue around how to define tis word or tat word etc. I am pretty sure the organisation writing the dictionary knows more than u
The REASON WHY I USED ACTUAL EXISTENCE, becuase u asked me to PICK one, i gave u the closest one. Truth has a lot of meaning . This one comes pretty close.
2) SO wat is your meaning of truth then ? I spent one whole reply asking u to define your truth and all I get is "actual existence" from u. SO now u said it is not really actual existence (it is just close) ? Is it or is it not ? If it is not, then u better specify it clearly and make sure it is consistent with all your other usage of the word. If it is, then wat is the point of tis message ?
TO YOU> its a search of TRUTH. All i am asking is, its a search of WHY and HOW
3) Since u said tat "truth=actual existence", and tat scientist answers questions on the nature world like how rain, wind comes about etc. Where did these "how and why" contradict the idea of "actual existence" ?
All i was trying to do , was open your eyes that its not limited to the dictionary. Even to intellectuals and scholars, the have difficulties to define
4) I asked u whether is the word "truth" easy to define or not and u come out with a whole load of... I don't know... irrelevent answer. Is truth easy to define, Yes or no ? A simple statement. Your answer suggest it is not easy to define. However u keep using the word "actual existence" consistently and said it is your truth for many pages of reply. Then now u say it is not easy to define after all. Then why didn't u state your stand clearly ? I have challenged u repeatedly to paste your version of truth but u refused and give a two words answer " actual existence". Those philosophers etc made their stand and categorised their truth (most used science and math). Can u make a stand ?
Truth, yes, Dictionary defines it simpler for normal human beings to understand for normal usage. BUT if u go into a deeper meaning, these highly intelligent people have problem defining the meaning of TRUTH.
5) If u really read your article, the basic idea is still "the true or actual state of a matter". If u think I am wrong, then read your article and find an application where it deviates from the above statement
Once again , u misunderstand. The ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF GOD, to THEOLOGIANS, is NEVER IN QUESTION. All i believe is what they do , it to find EVIDENCE, to SUPPORT thier TRUTH. They do not go and SEARCH of that TRUTH of GOD, its ALREADY THERE. The just need EVIDENCE.
6) After all tis words in bold and capital letters, wat is precisely the idea u r trying to say ? U claimed tat scientist cannot seek the truth and only theologist can. And your reasons are
a) theologist never doubt existence of god, (but scientist never doubt existence of gravity as wel nowl)
b) theologist find evidence to support existence of god (but scientist also find evidnece to support their hypothesis)
c) u said scientist have a wider area of search than theologist (but they r still search for existence of something new, and to u tat is something "truth")
d)u said " Where science , knows the TRUTH of GRAVITY, but HOW IT WORKS. Do u understand ?"
but however is not discovered at the start of human civilisation. Since u said gravity is truth, then the person who discovered it, a scientist, has found a truth isn't it ? Why will scientist not be finding truth to u then ?
NO , ONCE AGAIN, U MISUNDERSTAND ME. Now, READ CAREFULLY. GRAVITY = Actualy Reality ( Existed Before Science)
7) Now u reject science is not truth simply because u say gravity existed before man or science. But "god" also existed before man or theology. SO wat is the difference between the two here ? And if gravity exists before, so ? Why will tat makes it non truth ?
O>K.. U GETTING MY POINT HERE. Once again, THIS supports the fact that, i said, 1+1 DOESNT ALWAYS = 2 . I DID NOT SAY 1+1 DOESNT EQUAL = 2 . All i said is 1+1 ONLY EQUALS = 2 SOMETIMES
8) No u did not prove tat. I have already told u u r simply using the equations wrongly. Tat is not the problem of the equation (it is the truth ALL the time if u apply it rightly), but the problem of the user. U used the equation wrongly, u shouldn;t expect the right result
WRONG . ANY NUMBER OTHER ELSE then 0 = INFINITY. Where else 0/0 IS UNDEFINED(Which basically means it can be ANYTHING). ( N this 0/0 is not the 0/0 =0 example i used previously)
9) Aren't u repeating wat I said ? U claim tat logically the answer is zero remember ? Your reply on 23Jan 1.01pm
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
Now u said tat it is not zero. SO u contradict yourself again ?
This example is to SHOW U, that Math's itself is NOT PERFECT. Its NOT INFALLIBLE. Too many rules and laws that cant solve the problem of 0/0 . There is another rule saying, ANY NUMBER DIVIDED BY THE SAME NUMBER = 1 , SO Applying that rule, WOULDNT 0/0 = 1 ? SEE.. ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
U really need to brush up your idea of maths. 0/0 can means anything. As said before, wat do u understand by the idea of dividing things by 0 ? There is no physical meaning to it. And your question on dividing the same number by itself is a 1, but again u r dealing with zero here and dividing by zero is itself physically meaningless. It depend on subject matter then. The dividing by zero often means very close to zero, not absolute zero. If u means absolute zero, then dividing by it has zero meaning
WHAT I MEANT WAS THIS. MAYBE i used TRUTH SO MUCH It became blurring. What i am saying is, to SEEK THE TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They DO NOT LOOK FOR THE TRUTH of GOD
So u admitted tat your previous statement is grammatically incomprehensible ?
isn't the truth of existence of god = truth of god ? Wat is the difference then ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:1) The dictionary just used the word "truth" in its explanation "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws".
If u accept the meaning from the dictionary, then u won't argue around how to define tis word or tat word etc. I am pretty sure the organisation writing the dictionary knows more than u
2) SO wat is your meaning of truth then ? I spent one whole reply asking u to define your truth and all I get is "actual existence" from u. SO now u said it is not really actual existence (it is just close) ? Is it or is it not ? If it is not, then u better specify it clearly and make sure it is consistent with all your other usage of the word. If it is, then wat is the point of tis message ?
3) Since u said tat "truth=actual existence", and tat scientist answers questions on the nature world like how rain, wind comes about etc. Where did these "how and why" contradict the idea of "actual existence" ?
4) I asked u whether is the word "truth" easy to define or not and u come out with a whole load of... I don't know... irrelevent answer. Is truth easy to define, Yes or no ? A simple statement. Your answer suggest it is not easy to define. However u keep using the word "actual existence" consistently and said it is your truth for many pages of reply. Then now u say it is not easy to define after all. Then why didn't u state your stand clearly ? I have challenged u repeatedly to paste your version of truth but u refused and give a two words answer " actual existence". Those philosophers etc made their stand and categorised their truth (most used science and math). Can u make a stand ?
5) If u really read your article, the basic idea is still "the true or actual state of a matter". If u think I am wrong, then read your article and find an application where it deviates from the above statement
6) After all tis words in bold and capital letters, wat is precisely the idea u r trying to say ? U claimed tat scientist cannot seek the truth and only theologist can. And your reasons are
a) theologist never doubt existence of god, (but scientist never doubt existence of gravity as wel nowl)
b) theologist find evidence to support existence of god (but scientist also find evidnece to support their hypothesis)
c) u said scientist have a wider area of search than theologist (but they r still search for existence of something new, and to u tat is something "truth")
d)u said " Where science , knows the TRUTH of GRAVITY, but HOW IT WORKS. Do u understand ?"
but however is not discovered at the start of human civilisation. Since u said gravity is truth, then the person who discovered it, a scientist, has found a truth isn't it ? Why will scientist not be finding truth to u then ?
7) Now u reject science is not truth simply because u say gravity existed before man or science. But "god" also existed before man or theology. SO wat is the difference between the two here ? And if gravity exists before, so ? Why will tat makes it non truth ?
8) No u did not prove tat. I have already told u u r simply using the equations wrongly. Tat is not the problem of the equation (it is the truth ALL the time if u apply it rightly), but the problem of the user. U used the equation wrongly, u shouldn;t expect the right result
9) Aren't u repeating wat I said ? U claim tat logically the answer is zero remember ? Your reply on 23Jan 1.01pm
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
Now u said tat it is not zero. SO u contradict yourself again ?
U really need to brush up your idea of maths. 0/0 can means anything. As said before, wat do u understand by the idea of dividing things by 0 ? There is no physical meaning to it. And your question on dividing the same number by itself is a 1, but again u r dealing with zero here and dividing by zero is itself physically meaningless. It depend on subject matter then. The dividing by zero often means very close to zero, not absolute zero. If u means absolute zero, then dividing by it has zero meaning
So u admitted tat your previous statement is grammatically incomprehensible ?
isn't the truth of existence of god = truth of god ? Wat is the difference then ?
1) The dictionary just used the word "truth" in its explanation "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws".
If u accept the meaning from the dictionary, then u won't argue around how to define tis word or tat word etc. I am pretty sure the organisation writing the dictionary knows more than u
- I ALREADY STATED , WHAT I STATED ON MY VIEW ON THE WORD TRUTH. JUST READ IT. ITSTEAD OF EXPLAIN. PLEASE. REFER TO MY PREVIOS POSTS. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..
2) SO wat is your meaning of truth then ? I spent one whole reply asking u to define your truth and all I get is "actual existence" from u. SO now u said it is not really actual existence (it is just close) ? Is it or is it not ? If it is not, then u better specify it clearly and make sure it is consistent with all your other usage of the word. If it is, then wat is the point of tis message ?
- ONE AGAIN, U DONT GET MY POINT. - I ALREADY STATED , WHAT I STATED ON MY VIEW ON THE WORD TRUTH. JUST READ IT. ITSTEAD OF EXPLAIN. PLEASE. REFER TO MY PREVIOS POSTS. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..ALL MY PAST POST( WELL I LOST COUNT OF MY POST) IS THERE.
3) Since u said tat "truth=actual existence", and tat scientist answers questions on the nature world like how rain, wind comes about etc. Where did these "how and why" contradict the idea of "actual existence" ?
- SOMETIMES, ON THE WAY OF EXPLAINING THE HOW AND WHY, THEY MAKE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS, WRONG THEORIES, WHICH PEOPLE FIND OUT LATER, IS SUPPOSE TO BE THIS... NOT THAT. WHICH I ALREADY MENTIONED IN PREVIOS POST UNDER WIKI HEADSINGS. LOOK FOR URSELF. ONCE AGAIN, U JUST HAVE TO REFER BACK. example = Gravity. LOOK N UNDERSTAND. Previos wrong theory wrong have to be corrected.
4) I asked u whether is the word "truth" easy to define or not and u come out with a whole load of... I don't know... irrelevent answer. Is truth easy to define, Yes or no ? A simple statement. Your answer suggest it is not easy to define. However u keep using the word "actual existence" consistently and said it is your truth for many pages of reply. Then now u say it is not easy to define after all. Then why didn't u state your stand clearly ? I have challenged u repeatedly to paste your version of truth but u refused and give a two words answer " actual existence". Those philosophers etc made their stand and categorised their truth (most used science and math). Can u make a stand ?
- VERY SIMPLE. ONCE AGAIN, I AM SHOWING U THE POSSIBILITIES, YOU ARE THE ONE LIMITING IT TELLING ME. "NO .. ITS LIKE THIS... ITS NOT THAT. ITS A WORD' SO I HAVE TO SHOW U THE POSSIBILITES, THEN U COME N ASK ME WHICH POSSIBILITY. I TOLD U MY VERSION. YOU ARE STUPID TOO STUPID. PLEASE REFER TO PREVIOUS POST, N U WILL SEE U WERE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP TO THAT POINT. I SAID, PPL VIEW TRUTH DIFFERENTLY, U HAVE PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING, SO I JUST GIVE U EXAMPLES, TO SHOW THAT TRUTH IS NOT LIMITED TO A WORD n DICTIONARY. ONCE AGAIN, open ur ur MIND. U GOT IT. DIFFERENT DEFINITION.
5) If u really read your article, the basic idea is still "the true or actual state of a matter". If u think I am wrong, then read your article and find an application where it deviates from the above statement
- UNFORTUNATELY I DO NOT AGREE TRUE =TRUTH. AND ONE THING IT SHOWS THAT LANGUAGE IS LIMITED, EVEN IF I AGREE WITH UR STATEMENT, IT MIGHT BE CONSTRUED DIFFERENTLY, THATS WHY I MAKE SURE ITS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. THATS WHY I CHOSE ACTUAL EXISTENCE. CLOSEST THING.
6) After all tis words in bold and capital letters, wat is precisely the idea u r trying to say ? U claimed tat scientist cannot seek the truth and only theologist can. And your reasons are
a) theologist never doubt existence of god, (but scientist never doubt existence of gravity as wel nowl)
b) theologist find evidence to support existence of god (but scientist also find evidnece to support their hypothesis)
c) u said scientist have a wider area of search than theologist (but they r still search for existence of something new, and to u tat is something "truth")
d)u said " Where science , knows the TRUTH of GRAVITY, but HOW IT WORKS. Do u understand ?"
but however is not discovered at the start of human civilisation. Since u said gravity is truth, then the person who discovered it, a scientist, has found a truth isn't it ? Why will scientist not be finding truth to u then ?
- - I ALREADY STATED , WHAT I STATED ON MY VIEW ON THE WORD TRUTH. JUST READ IT. ITSTEAD OF EXPLAIN. PLEASE. REFER TO MY PREVIOS POSTS. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..
- TRUTH HAS EXISTED = GRAVITY. NO NEED TO LOOK FOR IT. ITS ALREADY THERE.
7) Now u reject science is not truth simply because u say gravity existed before man or science. But "god" also existed before man or theology. SO wat is the difference between the two here ? And if gravity exists before, so ? Why will tat makes it non truth ?
- I NEVER SAID ITS NON- TRUTH. U ARE JUS TOO STUPID.
-- ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..
8) No u did not prove tat. I have already told u u r simply using the equations wrongly. Tat is not the problem of the equation (it is the truth ALL the time if u apply it rightly), but the problem of the user. U used the equation wrongly, u shouldn;t expect the right result
- WELL, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT KEEP SAYINSG ITS THE TRUTH. ALL I AM SAYING IS ITS TRUE BUT NOT THE TRUTH. BECAUSE FROM THE SHEER FACT THAT U CANNOT APPLY IT TO EVERYTHING. IF IT IS THE TRUTH, SHOULDNT U BE APPLYING IT TO ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? HENCE ITS TRUE, BUT NOT THE TRUTH TO ME.
- PLS, REFER BACK TO POSTS. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..
9) Aren't u repeating wat I said ? U claim tat logically the answer is zero remember ? Your reply on 23Jan 1.01pm
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
Now u said tat it is not zero. SO u contradict yourself again ?
U really need to brush up your idea of maths. 0/0 can means anything. As said before, wat do u understand by the idea of dividing things by 0 ? There is no physical meaning to it. And your question on dividing the same number by itself is a 1, but again u r dealing with zero here and dividing by zero is itself physically meaningless. It depend on subject matter then. The dividing by zero often means very close to zero, not absolute zero. If u means absolute zero, then dividing by it has zero meaning
-NO- ITS UNDEFINED -IT CAN B 1 , 2 3 , pai ,
- ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE PULLING ANSWERS OUT OF YOUR ASS. I SAID 0/0 not 1/0 . 1, 3 , 4 ,5 other then 0, divided by 0 = Infinity.
- NOW - 0/0 = UNDEFINED. IT CAN BE 0 ,1 4, 599, 1000000 *whatever* . 0/0 = 1 is a rule, is a mathematical rule. ( Any number divided by itself = 1) , obviosly its wrong. Because 0/0 = UNDEFINED, because they dont know how to define it. It shows FALLACY OF MATHS. ONCE AGAIN, IF ITS A FALLACY IT CANNOT BE THE TRUTH. THEREFORE 1+1 = 2 IS NOT THE TRUTH. HOW CAN IT BE A TRUTH, IF MATHS ITSELF IS A FALLACY.
- PLS, REFER BACK TO POSTS. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..
So u admitted tat your previous statement is grammatically incomprehensible ?
- NO , U JUST COULDNT COMPREHEND IT.
isn't the truth of existence of god = truth of god ? Wat is the difference then ?
NO. TRUTH OF GOD IS TRUTH OF GOD.
TRUTH OF HIS EXISTENCE IS TRUTH OF THIS EXISTENCE.
- PLS, REFER BACK TO POSTS. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..
I ALREADY STATED , WHAT I STATED ON MY VIEW ON THE WORD TRUTH. JUST READ IT. ITSTEAD OF EXPLAIN. PLEASE. REFER TO MY PREVIOS POSTS. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE THERE, IF U DUN GET IT, I HAVE TO ASSUME U ARE STUPID. AND IF U ARE, THERE IS NO POINT I KEEP REGURGITATING THE SAME THING..
Haha... look at all the garbage coming out from u again. Lets see again wat is your truth about
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "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."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
U never succeed in showing wat is the difference between theologist and scientist. U just throw a lot of rubbish and double standard but u fail. And when questioned, u refused to elaborate. SO I can only assume u r just talking cock
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
This is again true. If u refuse to clarify your definition of truth, then it will be "actual existence" and then u r living in your delusinal world where everything tat is understood by science is not reality to u
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
U do came out with another rubbish statement to the equation. U said tat since it is true, so adding all rubbish into it could also make it true. WRONG. U have to follow the right way to use it then it is true. Otherwise u r just playing with words. U can have the most sophisticated equipment but u still have to obey its instruction manual. SO it is still rubbish from u
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
Then u claim stupid thing like why 0/0 should be zero
YOUR REPLY on 23 Jan 101pm
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?
yLook at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
And not u mention Pi as Pai ! I hope it is a typo error and not because u try to spell it with the pronounciation
7) U said "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Lets see your earliest statement
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.
Now u said theologist don't look for truth (actual reality), but the theologists' domain is to discern wat is true or false ? Wat r u trying to say ? Contradict yourself again ?
8) "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Actually tis statement is funny. Your first statement say they seek the truth (of the existence of god). Then u say they don't look for truth. Then lastly u say the truth (which they r not looking for) is god (very important?) to the theologians. So r they looking for truth or not ? Is the truth important to them ?
Now u reply tis again insanity word
NO. TRUTH OF GOD IS TRUTH OF GOD.
TRUTH OF HIS EXISTENCE IS TRUTH OF THIS EXISTENCE.
I ask u to elaborate on the above sentences and u refuse and just repeat the same incomprehensible statements. R u trying to avoid the question altogether ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Haha... look at all the garbage coming out from u again. Lets see again wat is your truth about
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "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."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
U never succeed in showing wat is the difference between theologist and scientist. U just throw a lot of rubbish and double standard but u fail. And when questioned, u refused to elaborate. SO I can only assume u r just talking cock
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
This is again true. If u refuse to clarify your definition of truth, then it will be "actual existence" and then u r living in your delusinal world where everything tat is understood by science is not reality to u
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
U do came out with another rubbish statement to the equation. U said tat since it is true, so adding all rubbish into it could also make it true. WRONG. U have to follow the right way to use it then it is true. Otherwise u r just playing with words. U can have the most sophisticated equipment but u still have to obey its instruction manual. SO it is still rubbish from u
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
Then u claim stupid thing like why 0/0 should be zero
YOUR REPLY on 23 Jan 101pm
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?
yLook at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
And not u mention Pi as Pai ! I hope it is a typo error and not because u try to spell it with the pronounciation
7) U said "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Lets see your earliest statement
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.
Now u said theologist don't look for truth (actual reality), but the theologists' domain is to discern wat is true or false ? Wat r u trying to say ? Contradict yourself again ?
8) "Theologians, seek the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD. They dont look for TRUTHS. Thier TRUTH is already GOD to the Theologians"
Actually tis statement is funny. Your first statement say they seek the truth (of the existence of god). Then u say they don't look for truth. Then lastly u say the truth (which they r not looking for) is god (very important?) to the theologians. So r they looking for truth or not ? Is the truth important to them ?
Now u reply tis again insanity word
NO. TRUTH OF GOD IS TRUTH OF GOD.
TRUTH OF HIS EXISTENCE IS TRUTH OF THIS EXISTENCE.
I ask u to elaborate on the above sentences and u refuse and just repeat the same incomprehensible statements. R u trying to avoid the question altogether ?
First of all, YOU.. based on the evidence, points to that you are STUPID. Its a theory, but i believe in the possibilities you are not stupid but average.
What is true , may not be the truth : - You are too stupid to understand this simple concept. Because of your limitation of the understanding of the deeper meaning of the word TRUTH from TRUE, you cant get it out of your head. U are just stuck at YOUR MEANING of TRUTH deriving from the word TRUE from the dictionary.
My stance is made clear. I elaborated my truth already. U KNOW my truth. Unless you are stupid, u keep on asking. Which looks to be the norm to you. Cause u keep asking when the answers are there.
The references are for YOUR benefit. The thing is, u must have gone confused, thats why u cannot get my meaning. You are just stupid. If u cant get such a simple two word explaination of Actual Existence, i got nothing to say. Its so simple. U cant get it, sorry.
You dont answer my questions, becaue u chose not to answer, even with the mistakes you make. I just overlook your mistakes. But i shall just point one out soon in this page, as to NOT confuse your stupid ass. Something simple. Easy to understand.
I did not question the existence of gravity. Again, you put things in my mouth. You pull answers out from your ass. You are just stupid. No other explaination.
U and Deadstroke are the one who started the- (I explained to deadstroke, no more queries. He understood but this is ur reply and my response)
"I can't help laughing when I hear someone say tat 1+1=2 is not the truth. How do u define the word "2" ?" -stupidissmart 18 Jan - I ANSWERED IT. Again and again i answered. But u are too stupid to understand. But NOW, u seem to understand and want me to explain again.
Look at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
And not u mention Pi as Pai ! I hope it is a typo error and not because u try to spell it with the pronounciation-
- WRONG - 0/0 = ITS UNDEFINED . NEVER INFINITY . Obviously, you dont have ur facts right. So you are talking rubbish too, gibberish. So you have no right to say i am talking rubbish when you yourself dont know what you are talking about. Again, proves that u are stupid. Yes i admit, Pais my typo error, like so many typos i make. I admit.
"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."
AGAIN, its obvious i said its my mistake, and ALL SUBSEQUENT POSTS DO NOT RELFECT THAT STATEMENT(15JAN2010). But obviously, you are too stupid, or u are ignoring my omission, or stubborn, or just being a moron.
Actual Existence. They are searching for the TRUTH of God's Existence. Once again, you are stupid. U cant differentiate between Search of the Truth, and Search of the EXISTENCE of TRUTH. Obvsiously, you are again, stupid. Hence, i am NOT trying to avoid the question altogether. Instead U FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
Just admit it, you are stupid. Because in this case, being stupid , IS NOT SMART.
You notice, i have NO problem with YOUR definition of the truth. Yours is very simple.
All my answers to ALL your questions are in the posts. Except the ommitted post of TRUE/FALSE that i kept telling you. ALL ANSWERS are there in the subsequent post of the ommited post. Or i will just regurgitate for your feeble mind to TRY to comprehend.