The following is the precursor that lead to this thread about Libertarianism and Socialism and any other  form of government others wish to add to the discussion. 

Views: 5166

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

"The impossible is just a statement relative to the current state of knowledge as I have showed you time and time again, In relation to the now violated law of conservation of mass."

-So, then, you must agree that it is possible 2+2=17.3, water can freeze at 10,000 C and that you have a tribe a dwarfs under your thumb nail. Because humans have been wrong about things is not a reason to think that laws necessary for thought are invalid.

So, then, you must agree that it is possible 2+2=17.3, water can freeze at 10,000 C



So you think that the freezing temp of water is always the same? 

Did I say that? So you think water can freeze at 10,000 degrees? And what about 2+2? Can that possibly equal -51.7?

That is a stupid retort, Waters phase diagram is actually quite complex as waters phase relationships between pressure and temp are complex. But other more simple liquids do display such dynamic changes in phase change points over large temp spans.

You're right, that is a stupid retort. I would think someone who argues the very bad idea that science has primacy over epistemology should know better than basic physics. It is stupid to think that there is a pressure or pressure gradient that can take liquid H20 to a solid state at 10,000 degrees. At 10,000 degrees there is no water. There is only hydrogen and oxygen plasma. No gas (well maybe gas with a huge pressure gradient, but not water vapor). No liquid. No solid. 10,000 degree ice, that's funny. Ice. Actual ice at 10,000 degrees. Ridiculous.

You continue to dodge the very simple, non-strawman, logical implications of your rampant irrational skepticism. Either you admit that 2+2 can equal -312.9 or you admit that we can have certain knowledge.

Not everything is possible. If you wish to have a more accurate, honest, objective and non-contradictory understanding of the world, then you must admit this.

"However, MCT has already established that he has no respect many discoveries of science since they violate his interpretation of the universe."

-Creation is not a scientific discovery. I have no respect for any theory that violates the primacy of existence, identity, causality and noncontradiction.

1. Aristotle could say "pigs fly", wouldn't make it true or possible. Time before time, is impossible. You need existence and matter for time. A universal state of nothingness giving birth magically to existence is not scientific. It is fantasy.

2. To venture anywhere, even past what people thought was possible, one needs the law of identity which forbids creation. To discover something new a thing must be itself and nothing else, or you would not be able to identify it. Venturing past was actually is impossible is crazy talk.

3. There is no advanced technology that I am disputing, only a complete denial of the foundations of knowledge building.

the primacy of existence

Is almost pure Ayn Rand. Your dogma is showing.

For the record, there is nothing about the universe having a beginning which invalidates the fact of its existence. I still don't understand how you can insist that the repeatable and testable evidence that the universe had a beginning is wrong.

It is not dogma. If it was dagma, I would believe in freewill like she did and wrote. She happens to be right about the primacy of existence and I applaud her for her for it. That someone else is right about something and I agree is not dogma. What is showing is your emotional discontent, not my dogma, which by definition is not existent, since I hold basic principles to be true independent of who wrote them or in what book they might be found.

The following all dictate that to talk about what you know about what was 'here' 'before' existence is irrational:

0+0=0

A=A

That matter and energy are required for time and existence.

A universal nothingness cannot have a characteristic.

 

The problem is that you aren't willing, or able, to admit that the conditions of the early universe were/might have been completely different. You keep repeating the same statements like a Muslim repeating the Qu'ran. I call it dogma and so does the dictionary.

1. a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
1. b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
1. c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

I have adequate grounds.

Repeating something does not make it incorrect.

None-the-less, conditions of the unvierse implies existence. A state of universal nothingness cannot have conditions.

Also, objective reality is the standard and I adhere to it rationally. The impossible is not possible. Nothing plus nothing will always give you nothing. A thing can only be what it is and time or space cannot exist, or more accurately, cannot be properly said to exist, with matter and energy. There was no existent state of nothingness 'before' existence existed. To talk about such a thing is equivelant to talking about pure ice sinking in pure water (without adding additional variables).

Hi Dee,

What other viable option do you suggest? What organization or process do you propose to bring the people of the world together?

Personally, none. 

There is no other viable option. Not because the creation of the UN is a solution to the worlds problems, but because I think UN domination is inevitable. 

The reason why I think this, is because the number of languages in the world has been shrinking over time and the number of political/economic entities has also been shrinking over time. I look at city centres in the West and city centres in the second and third world, the difference between them is becoming unrecognisable. Global law is coming into place. Industry is now truly global. So because I am seeing this happening throughout the world, I think one world government will be inevitable. 

I don't consider the UN necessary. I don't consider this 'bringing the world together'. I consider this world domination. But if the world is going to be dominated, I guess it's better we dominate, rather than somebody else.

 

My support of the UN has nothing to do with my culture. My support of the UN is because the UN serves a great purpose. It is the only mechanism for the people of the world, or their representatives, to attempt to solve larger problems.

I won't go into culture, because it is off the topic of this thread, and we could talk about it forever. 

Instead: maybe my use of the word culture was wrong. Is Aculture a word? Are you an Aculturalist? Am I an Aculturalist?

 

Tell me how we are supposed to poll every adult on the planet to see what they think about this and decide what to do. The UN is an evolving mechanism of democratic processes. I am interested to know what your suggestion is to solve global problems.

If you can't poll every adult, there is no democracy. The UN is oligarchic, there is no democracy involved in it. I don't really think there are any major problems that make the UN necessary. The UN is an inevitable  means to an end. Global domination by the West. If I had to choose between different forms of global domination, I would definitely choose the UN. I prefer the UN over Islam or Chinese communism. 

 

I am sorry, but that is a massive logical fallacy which you are using.

Ouch. Maybe this is why I like you Dee. 

 

The argument Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) in which things will be this way because things have been this way.

The following is not my response to this statement, it's just my thought process in regards to it: Crime is not a tradition. Breaking the law and committing immoral acts are not traditions. Laws are traditions, so believing we should keep the same laws because they have always existed is an Appeal to Tradition. If the breaking of laws was something somebody believed they should do, because their ancestors had always broken laws, then that would also be an Appeal to tradition. 

This is my response: I understand you wrote those crimes down, as crimes committed in the name of tradition. Therefore yes, if those crimes were to be committed because of some Islamic or Christian law, they would be an Appeal to Tradition. But I don't think those Islamic and Christian laws are the reason why Muslims and Christians commit the crimes they commit. I think the actual individuals who commit those crimes are just murders and misogynists. I think those same crimes will still be committed in the future, regardless of tradition or law. Even if Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc, disappear and everybody becomes an atheist, those same crimes will still be committed. 

 

It completely ignores the evidence that these things are becoming less and less common. It is the same argument which says we will have violence because we have always had violence when the level of global violence is on a steady decrease and has been since paleolithic times. It denies that humans have the capacity to evolve past these things because we haven't yet or haven't completely yet.

I agree with you that some humans have the ability to evolve past these things but not all humans. I don't think I can argue against what you have said, what you have said make sense to me, and I also see what you are seeing in society. (Maybe somebody who has studied evolution to a great degree could confirm or deny the following) Evolution brings about differences in species. It creates diverging groups from one species. It doesn't keep the whole species together, so that it can change together. From what you have said, it makes me think of the classes(Alpha, Beta, Gamma etc) in Brave New World.

 

I think you should watch this speech by Steven Pinker. It might help you understand some of the changes which are occurring in humanity.

Nice video. The video and what you said about evolution made me remember the following conversation I had with a neighbour of mine, called Zdenek, in Iran. His theory was: those who were inclined to kill and were 'brave' enough to go to war were becoming less in number because they mostly died on the battlefield, before being able to breed. But the 'gutless' humans, who were inclined not to kill and who didn't go to war, would continue to live and breed. Peace has more to do with evolution than morality. 

 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service