Russell: There is No Real Table??

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3601
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Age » Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:56 am

I have provided the ultimate definition of God as defined by theists, note here;

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27640
and this;
  • St Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion, defined God as
    "a being than which no greater can be conceived" [2]
    -wiki
Now you can use Science to prove the above exists are real?
Yes, science proves the Universe exists.
The very existence of 'science' actually relies on the Universe existing.
Therefore, science confirms the Universe/God is real.

The Universe/God can also be a being than which no greater can be conceived, OBVIOUSLY. Although this is NOT the physical Universe is NOT the REAL term for the Being, of which there is no greater, it can suffice here for now.

So, now that that is settled, would you like to move on?
You are being deceptive in sliding the premise with Universe/God.
I have NEVER been deceptive at all. Unlike you, I have NOT changed one view, nor one word, in regards to this, YET.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am
You need to prove the Universe is the ontological God [as defined by theists] first.
I HAVE ALREADY.

You are just totally incapable of SEEING it and UNDERSTANDING this.

I have asked you to define EXACTLY what the ontological God IS. You have yet to do this, in this thread.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am
Science has proven the known universe exists not the Whole Universe exists.
LOL.

The ridiculousness of your statement speaks for itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am
The idea of the Whole Universe is a transcendental illusion.
The idea that there is NOT a whole Universe is beyond complete absurdity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am
Show me a scientific paper which prove the scientific universe is the ontological God?
Show me a scientific paper, or any paper, which proves the Universe is NOT the ontological God.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:56 am

I have provided the ultimate definition of God as defined by theists, note here;

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27640
and this;
  • St Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion, defined God as
    "a being than which no greater can be conceived" [2]
    -wiki
Now you can use Science to prove the above exists are real?
Yes, science proves the Universe exists.
The very existence of 'science' actually relies on the Universe existing.
Therefore, science confirms the Universe/God is real.

The Universe/God can also be a being than which no greater can be conceived, OBVIOUSLY. Although this is NOT the physical Universe is NOT the REAL term for the Being, of which there is no greater, it can suffice here for now.

So, now that that is settled, would you like to move on?
You are being deceptive in sliding the premise with Universe/God.
You need to prove the Universe is the ontological God [as defined by theists] first.

Science has proven the known universe exists not the Whole Universe exists.
The idea of the Whole Universe is a transcendental illusion.
Show me a scientific paper which prove the scientific universe is the ontological God?
Proof is definition. Science defines the universe. So does the languages and symbols through which it exists.

Show me a scientific paper which explains why many theories contradict? Or why the speed of light is proven as changing, but we view it as a constant?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:05 am


Yes, science proves the Universe exists.
The very existence of 'science' actually relies on the Universe existing.
Therefore, science confirms the Universe/God is real.

The Universe/God can also be a being than which no greater can be conceived, OBVIOUSLY. Although this is NOT the physical Universe is NOT the REAL term for the Being, of which there is no greater, it can suffice here for now.

So, now that that is settled, would you like to move on?
You are being deceptive in sliding the premise with Universe/God.
You need to prove the Universe is the ontological God [as defined by theists] first.

Science has proven the known universe exists not the Whole Universe exists.
The idea of the Whole Universe is a transcendental illusion.
Show me a scientific paper which prove the scientific universe is the ontological God?
Proof is definition. Science defines the universe. So does the languages and symbols through which it exists.
How come you are so ignorant?

1. Definition is etymology, which is agreed upon consensus and popularity.
2. Proof is: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

Science do not define the universe but rather is establishing justified knowledge, theories and scientific speculations [hypothesis] of the universe.
Show me a scientific paper which explains why many theories contradict? Or why the speed of light is proven as changing, but we view it as a constant?
There are no contradicting theories in Science.
There are alternative theories to accepted scientific theories, but they are not scientific theories until they are proven via the Scientific Method and consensus from peers, in which case they would replace the existing scientific theory, or qualified to its specific circumstances.

Note Newtonian, Einsteinian and QM as scientific theories are seemingly contradicting, but they are valid when qualified to their specific circumstances with their assumptions and limitations.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am

You are being deceptive in sliding the premise with Universe/God.
You need to prove the Universe is the ontological God [as defined by theists] first.

Science has proven the known universe exists not the Whole Universe exists.
The idea of the Whole Universe is a transcendental illusion.
Show me a scientific paper which prove the scientific universe is the ontological God?
Proof is definition. Science defines the universe. So does the languages and symbols through which it exists.
How come you are so ignorant?

1. Definition is etymology, which is agreed upon consensus and popularity.
2. Proof is: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

Evidence is the connection of assumptions and argument is the revolving dialectic where opposing sides synthesize to form new definitions.



Science do not define the universe but rather is establishing justified knowledge, theories and scientific speculations [hypothesis] of the universe.

Justification is the connection of beliefs, it differs little from definition by connected assumptions.
Show me a scientific paper which explains why many theories contradict? Or why the speed of light is proven as changing, but we view it as a constant?
There are no contradicting theories in Science.

Speed of light has been shown to change and has been redefined, but it as of 2017 or 2018 "if" memory serves, has potentially been proven to change again.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity has issues as well.

Also, and you can Google this, different frameworks (experiments) show different rates of expansion,

Etc.


There are alternative theories to accepted scientific theories, but they are not scientific theories until they are proven via the Scientific Method and consensus from peers, in which case they would replace the existing scientific theory, or qualified to its specific circumstances.

theories are not proven, that is why they are theories...seriously is this your f"""ing argument...theories are not theories when they are proven.

Is this a joke? Theories are not proofs, they are theories. They exist as definitions, just like proofs, but have less connections than proofs.


Note Newtonian, Einsteinian and QM as scientific theories are seemingly contradicting, but they are valid when qualified to their specific circumstances with their assumptions and limitations.
Then there specific contexts contradict.






Are you f"""ing serious? Your hatred of God is making you psychotic.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:03 pm

Proof is definition. Science defines the universe. So does the languages and symbols through which it exists.
How come you are so ignorant?

1. Definition is etymology, which is agreed upon consensus and popularity.
2. Proof is: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

Evidence is the connection of assumptions and argument is the revolving dialectic where opposing sides synthesize to form new definitions.



Science do not define the universe but rather is establishing justified knowledge, theories and scientific speculations [hypothesis] of the universe.

Justification is the connection of beliefs, it differs little from definition by connected assumptions.
Show me a scientific paper which explains why many theories contradict? Or why the speed of light is proven as changing, but we view it as a constant?
There are no contradicting theories in Science.

Speed of light has been shown to change and has been redefined, but it as of 2017 or 2018 "if" memory serves, has potentially been proven to change again.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity has issues as well.

Also, and you can Google this, different frameworks (experiments) show different rates of expansion,

Etc.


There are alternative theories to accepted scientific theories, but they are not scientific theories until they are proven via the Scientific Method and consensus from peers, in which case they would replace the existing scientific theory, or qualified to its specific circumstances.

theories are not proven, that is why they are theories...seriously is this your f"""ing argument...theories are not theories when they are proven.

Is this a joke? Theories are not proofs, they are theories. They exist as definitions, just like proofs, but have less connections than proofs.


Note Newtonian, Einsteinian and QM as scientific theories are seemingly contradicting, but they are valid when qualified to their specific circumstances with their assumptions and limitations.
Then there specific contexts contradict.

Are you f"""ing serious? Your hatred of God is making you psychotic.
You are the psychotic one.
I have been very objective and has presented proper arguments to support my points.

You as with other psychotics merely thrown out claims that are ungrounded.

How can I hate a claimed-thing like God that do not exists?
You swear a lot, that is another sign of mental illness, likely Tourrete's Syndrome.
In addition, swearing [despite some claiming it as a relief] induces toxins in your body.

Speed of light may have been redefined but they are never accepted in the same time and same sense, else that would be a contradiction.

Example, Pluto was once recognized as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again, but these recognition were never done at the same time and in the same sense.

Present you case with proper argument for whatever you claim exists real in the following format;
  • P1. All Ys exist as real
    P2. Whatever-X is Y
    C3. Therefore whatever-X exists as real
At present you are claiming for C3 but have not justify P1 nor P2.

You may have to use multi-layers of syllogisms.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:39 am

How come you are so ignorant?

1. Definition is etymology, which is agreed upon consensus and popularity.
2. Proof is: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

Evidence is the connection of assumptions and argument is the revolving dialectic where opposing sides synthesize to form new definitions.



Science do not define the universe but rather is establishing justified knowledge, theories and scientific speculations [hypothesis] of the universe.

Justification is the connection of beliefs, it differs little from definition by connected assumptions.

There are no contradicting theories in Science.

Speed of light has been shown to change and has been redefined, but it as of 2017 or 2018 "if" memory serves, has potentially been proven to change again.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity has issues as well.

Also, and you can Google this, different frameworks (experiments) show different rates of expansion,

Etc.


There are alternative theories to accepted scientific theories, but they are not scientific theories until they are proven via the Scientific Method and consensus from peers, in which case they would replace the existing scientific theory, or qualified to its specific circumstances.

theories are not proven, that is why they are theories...seriously is this your f"""ing argument...theories are not theories when they are proven.

Is this a joke? Theories are not proofs, they are theories. They exist as definitions, just like proofs, but have less connections than proofs.


Note Newtonian, Einsteinian and QM as scientific theories are seemingly contradicting, but they are valid when qualified to their specific circumstances with their assumptions and limitations.
Then there specific contexts contradict.

Are you f"""ing serious? Your hatred of God is making you psychotic.
You are the psychotic one.
I have been very objective and has presented proper arguments to support my points.

You as with other psychotics merely thrown out claims that are ungrounded.

How can I hate a claimed-thing like God that do not exists?
You swear a lot, that is another sign of mental illness, likely Tourrete's Syndrome.
In addition, swearing [despite some claiming it as a relief] induces toxins in your body.

Speed of light may have been redefined but they are never accepted in the same time and same sense, else that would be a contradiction.

Example, Pluto was once recognized as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again, but these recognition were never done at the same time and in the same sense.

Present you case with proper argument for whatever you claim exists real in the following format;
  • P1. All Ys exist as real
    P2. Whatever-X is Y
    C3. Therefore whatever-X exists as real
At present you are claiming for C3 but have not justify P1 nor P2.

You may have to use multi-layers of syllogisms.
All your arguments are assumptions, you admitted this in your other arguments. If they are connected then this argument you provide above is assumed. If not your mind is split and your contradict yourself.

From this point on your stance is equivalent to a deer hit by a car. It is dead but still twitching.

It's over for you, you have no grounds.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:53 am


Then there specific contexts contradict.

Are you f"""ing serious? Your hatred of God is making you psychotic.
You are the psychotic one.
I have been very objective and has presented proper arguments to support my points.

You as with other psychotics merely thrown out claims that are ungrounded.

How can I hate a claimed-thing like God that do not exists?
You swear a lot, that is another sign of mental illness, likely Tourrete's Syndrome.
In addition, swearing [despite some claiming it as a relief] induces toxins in your body.

Speed of light may have been redefined but they are never accepted in the same time and same sense, else that would be a contradiction.

Example, Pluto was once recognized as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again, but these recognition were never done at the same time and in the same sense.

Present you case with proper argument for whatever you claim exists real in the following format;
  • P1. All Ys exist as real
    P2. Whatever-X is Y
    C3. Therefore whatever-X exists as real
At present you are claiming for C3 but have not justify P1 nor P2.

You may have to use multi-layers of syllogisms.
All your arguments are assumptions, you admitted this in your other arguments. If they are connected then this argument you provide above is assumed. If not your mind is split and your contradict yourself.

From this point on your stance is equivalent to a deer hit by a car. It is dead but still twitching.

It's over for you, you have no grounds.
I have no qualms in highlighting whatever assumptions I have to use where necessary.
Note Science relied heavily on assumptions but it is the most objective knowledge and the most useful.

You are relying on Science [with assumptions] in many ways but you are denying Science.
Note you gave all sorts of excuse in the question I raised relating to the tsunami example.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:06 am
Note Science relied heavily on assumptions but it is the most objective knowledge and the most useful.
You can't assert the utility of objectivity/science/knowledge without stating the purpose of objectivity/science/knowledge.
Without stating your utility-function.

Science is most definitely not the 'most useful' thing for acquiring objective self-knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:06 am
You are relying on Science [with assumptions] in many ways but you are denying Science.
Exactly like you rely on other metaphysics in many ways but you are denying them?

Science is the best metaphysic we have for learning. That is acquiring knowledge, not communicating knowledge.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:18 am
Present you case with proper argument for whatever you claim exists real in the following format;
  • P1. All Ys exist as real
    P2. Whatever-X is Y
    C3. Therefore whatever-X exists as real
At present you are claiming for C3 but have not justify P1 nor P2.
Could you present a 'proper argument' for why you believe that your justification is justified?

P1. If P1 and P2 are justified then C3 is justified.
P2. P1 and P2 are justified.
C3. Veritas Aequitas doesn't understand the problem of justifying justification

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:06 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:18 am

You are the psychotic one.
I have been very objective and has presented proper arguments to support my points.

You as with other psychotics merely thrown out claims that are ungrounded.

How can I hate a claimed-thing like God that do not exists?
You swear a lot, that is another sign of mental illness, likely Tourrete's Syndrome.
In addition, swearing [despite some claiming it as a relief] induces toxins in your body.

Speed of light may have been redefined but they are never accepted in the same time and same sense, else that would be a contradiction.

Example, Pluto was once recognized as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again, but these recognition were never done at the same time and in the same sense.

Present you case with proper argument for whatever you claim exists real in the following format;
  • P1. All Ys exist as real
    P2. Whatever-X is Y
    C3. Therefore whatever-X exists as real
At present you are claiming for C3 but have not justify P1 nor P2.

You may have to use multi-layers of syllogisms.
All your arguments are assumptions, you admitted this in your other arguments. If they are connected then this argument you provide above is assumed. If not your mind is split and your contradict yourself.

From this point on your stance is equivalent to a deer hit by a car. It is dead but still twitching.

It's over for you, you have no grounds.
I have no qualms in highlighting whatever assumptions I have to use where necessary.
Note Science relied heavily on assumptions but it is the most objective knowledge and the most useful.

You are relying on Science [with assumptions] in many ways but you are denying Science.
Note you gave all sorts of excuse in the question I raised relating to the tsunami example.
And they are all assumptions "you use". They are assumptions. Period. They are built on nothing.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:28 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:18 am
Present you case with proper argument for whatever you claim exists real in the following format;
  • P1. All Ys exist as real
    P2. Whatever-X is Y
    C3. Therefore whatever-X exists as real
At present you are claiming for C3 but have not justify P1 nor P2.
Could you present a 'proper argument' for why you believe that your justification is justified?

P1. If P1 and P2 are justified then C3 is justified.
P2. P1 and P2 are justified.
C3. Veritas Aequitas doesn't understand the problem of justifying justification
Veritas doesn't understand anything.

One time he argued that "scientific theories were proof"! Lol!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests