Who Am I: Redux - Page 16

Originally posted by: Summer3

Well it looks like it was a frame up.
But there are certain things they have taught which I find very useful.

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

Thickhead, when you have unapologetically embraced naturalism and decided to tirelessly promote materialism, you are, perhaps, better off eschewing topics such as these that are apparently making sincere attempts to tackle the not-so-obvious? Why make perfunctory assays like you did above, unless your intention is to sneer at the subject matter?

Sure, your perception of reality holds water at the macroscopic scale. But at this scale, all you are doing is encapsulation. Have you pondered that? All you are doing is observing reality at a scale that is convenient to you?

Convenience obscures reality. Reality is that it's just a bunch of subatomic particles interacting in free-space. Apart from that, we don't know why some of these particles have intrinsic properties such as mass, charge or spin; properties on which you unabashedly rely to explain away the entire universe. We don't know what the essence of free-space is and yet we are inside of it; we don't know how or from where the laws of nature originated and yet we are bound by them, obeying them rigidly; we don't have a carrier particle for gravity which means it is the least understood of all forces and yet in common parlance we use it to lend support to explain away most events happening at the macroscopic level; we don't know if space-time is continuous or discrete at the quantum scale and yet all our calculations at the macroscopic scale consider time intervals and three dimensions; we don't know the position of particle if we are not observing it, all we know is it's momentum in some probabilistic space and yet our macroscopic world is all about locations. We don't know if, in reality, it's a point particle or a string or what and yet we talk about "solidity" of matter. We just don't know how to unify the micro with the macro but somehow, it never seemed to stop some people from eliminating possibilities that don't conform to what materialism and naturalism promulgate. Don't you think that is being intellectually dishonest?

Even when we talk about life, we don't know if life is necessarily carbon based.
We don't know how in the universe matter can arrange itself, against astronomical odds, into such byzantine patterns, as evinced in the DNA. We are not even close to producing one teeny-tiny living bacterium cell from scratch in the laboratory without relying on super computers and existing raw material such as yeast. Our latest and greatest technology can't crunch the code embedded in a single human cell, yet. Our most advanced chips can't hold the humongous amount of information encapsulated in the human DNA, a molecule so tiny that it's not even visible to the naked eye. We don't know anything about the nature of this "nature" but that doesn't seem to stop us from flippantly saying that it all came about "spontaneously", "randomly" and "by chance"! Don't you think that is being deceitful, covering the gaps by fudging the truth?

What we know is probably extremely negligible compared to what we don't know. Heck, when we don't know how much we don't know, considering we don't know how much there is to know, it doesn't even make sense to gauge percentages of how much we know compared to how much we don't. Any guesses, however educated, are just that. Guesses! There's a reason why most of the physics is considered theoretical. It only exists in the form of mathematical equations. Probably, reality is just that. Pure Math. Who knows?! Shouldn't you mull that over, considering how enamored you are with empiricism, logic and reasoning?

All I am saying is that you cannot roll up details into some level of abstraction whenever you please, at your own convenience. "I am thickhead" is as abstract as saying "something is wrong with my computer" which we know could never be as detailed as "my system is low on virtual memory" which we know is not as illuminating as "my computer is thrashing by spending a disproportionate amount of its capacity swapping pages". So, if you would like, please do give us details as to why you think the material world arose "spontaneously", "randomly" with no "outside" influence. Enumerate the reasons as to why you think your theory would be testable and observable. I would love to engage you in a debate then. Till then, I would let the others come to their own conclusions without mocking or ridiculing their ideas, however "illogical, irrational, un-testable, unobservable" they are.

absolute BUNK. y're u unnecessarily extolling the unkonwn ??? When did i claim that everything is known ? Which scientist says that all is known?LOL typical strawman. appointed self as the judge, fed words into my mouth and passed the verdict - all by urself. unny. and "unabashed","apologetic" ?? Dude who gave you the authority to judge me ?? shall write an elaborate reply from pc. u seem to hv a big,fat ego. this'll be fun. tc

Originally posted by: thickhead

absolute BUNK.

Originally posted by: thickhead

y're u unnecessarily extolling the unkonwn ???

Unknown to who? You? If you had taken the time to advance from junior high text books, you would have probably understood a few of the concepts I was "extolling".

Originally posted by: thickhead

When did i claim that everything is known ? Which scientist says that all is known?

Nice try, you are not a scientist (judging by the way you were rambling about evolution before in some other thread) so don't put scientist and you in one sentence.

Originally posted by: thickhead

LOL typical strawman.

Hmm..I don't think I misrepresented any position. You are a materialist * and a naturalist **. That's an inference, not strawman. Epic fail!

Originally posted by: thickhead

Dude who gave you the authority to judge me ??

Don't be mad. I only gave you a taste of your own medicine. You were the one judging others.

Originally posted by: thickhead

u seem to hv a big,fat ego. this'll be fun. tc

Originally posted by: Believe

NOTE TO SELF: Please stop writing yourself notes. Love, Self

Originally posted by: angie.4u

Looks like the note had been meant for self and not SELF!