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,
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.