Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am
You are really ignorant and stupid.
Why should I care about your opinion of me? You are just a philosopher.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am
I have already stated many times.
I don't have a personal definition for 'the universe'. I agree with the one defined and accepted by Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
When I used the term 'the universe' it is either in one of the above context or the other.
That's why you are an idiot. Science is not an entity with agency - it has no definitions.
The responsibility for using words (and the meaning you assign to those words) is yours and your alone.
You are committing a bandwagon fallacy. Exactly like a theist would.
You are bowing at the altar of Science while scolding theists. But you aren't a scientist, you only worship science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am
Btw, I have ignored all your previous posts for a long time but decide otherwise to one earlier post because I thought there was some rationality to it. But unfortunately the same old mess returned. I am opting out again.
That's what every sophist does when you point out their religion. Your religion is Science.
All that science could ever do is to produce a description of the table in a man-made language and scientists often have to invent new language to describe new things. Those descriptions are called models. Given two models (descriptions) of the same table there is no way to determine which one is the "more real" model. All models can ever be is "equally useful for a particular purpose".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
You happen to be using language to make arguments, but arguments suffer from exactly the same problem as models. In the absence of Sophist Olympics, how do you determine which argument is better?