Re: Useful ASCII Codes



Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:07:23 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


A transcendent beingness that initiated the
runaway vacuum fluctuation called the Big Band, is just one of thousands
of ways of defining the concept.

Just like great flying purple pumpkins. Except unknown & undefined.
I see.

Cliff:

Protons, Neutrons, quarks, black holes, even virii & bacteria were
"unknown & undefined" just a few centuries ago. Does that mean there
was NO possibility that they existed? Of course not. Just as we don't
currently have sufficient evidence to confirm or deny the existence of
dark matter, dark energy, branes, Higgs' bosons, or any number of other
possible phenomena.

You DO see the inconsistency in your patterns of thinking, don't
you?

There is none. You do so love those "logical" flaws.

Oh? Of course there is, despite your denial, much of your thinking is
based upon your emotional preferences NOT logical conclusions.

Pecks of "inertia"? Expanding holes that get smaller?

Kick that bowling ball, that should give your toes the immediate
experience of the principle of inertia that states that objects at rest
tend to remain at rest. You've never once supplied ANY credible source
that stated inertia doesn't exist, why?
As far as expanding media, just put a glass in a pan of water and put
it in your freezer and see if when it turns to ice whether it grips the
glass or not. Simple enough experiment that anyone could do to see if
your claims are valid, or not. And again, you've never produced any
data that contradicts the experimental evidence that expanding fusible
alloys can hold parts to be machined.



None of the comments in your post I'm responding to refute the
observation of an inconsistency in your thinking.


You just
confirmed that observation by saying: "Finding something is proof it
existed. NOT finding it is not"

And what specific class of thing was this about & based on
what prior knowledge?

So now you're resorting to weasel words? Implying that your comment
refers to some things and not others? LMAO!

So your comment

while simultaneously stating/implying
that even the possibility of WMD's

That was known about long ago.

What was known about? That they had WMD's?

or the existence of a supreme being
couldn't possibly exist.

You cannot even define the noise.

I already did, look at the first lines of this post. How many
different ways do you want such a possible beingness defined? Your own
comment that I can't define it, shows that you understood what I was
talking about. So obviously something was communicated other than
"noise". You DO realize this is just another example of your own
inconsistent thinking, don't you?

In my considered opinion this inconsistency in
your thinking is quite obvious. LMAO!

Bad nuns & pickles giving you problems?

Pickles & nuns? That's quite the detailed refutation. What's next?
Oh yeah, it was the LINT that made me say it. You're such a transparent
troll. LOL


May I remind you of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

From the site you listed above:
=================================================================
The following rephrasing of the second theorem is even more unsettling
to the foundations of mathematics:

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from
within itself, then it is inconsistent.

There are some who hold that a statement that is unprovable within a
deductive system may be quite provable in a metalanguage. And what
cannot be proven in that metalanguage can likely be proven in a
meta-metalanguage, recursively, ad infinitum, in principle. By invoking
such a system of typed metalanguages, along with an axiom of
Reducibility ? which by an inductive assumption applies to the entire
stack of languages ? one may, for all practical purposes, overcome the
obstacle of incompleteness.
====================================================================

That states the exact opposite of what you were claiming. That you can
KNOW that something doesn't possibly exist.


Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal

That's "Principle", unless you were talking about Heisenburg's
headmaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenburg_principle

And what does Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle have to do with the
subject of your inconsistent thinking? Other than being an attempt at
distraction on your part to deflect attention away from your own
cognitive dissonance?

& Wittgenstein?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein#The_Tractatus
http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/aintro.html << Read *at least* that, BB

Yeah, I read it. As I stated to you before, Wittgenstein sometimes
makes some good points, and sometimes he doesn't.

====================================================================
http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/aintro.html
We here touch one instance of Wittgenstein's fundamental thesis, that it
is impossible to say anything about the world as a whole, and that
whatever can be said has to be about bounded portions of the world.
====================================================================

So one can infer from the site above, that if it is impossible to say
anything about the world as a whole, it would be even more impossible
(impossible cubed? <g>), to make any definitive statements about the
existence, or non-existence, of a transcendent beingness. To wit, you
can't prove a negative. Especially a negative that isn't even in our
plane of existence.


Also from your W. site:
======================================================================
In logic, therefore, we cannot say, there is this and this in the world,
but not that, for to say so would apparently presuppose that we exclude
certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case, since it would
require that logic should go beyond the boundaries of the world as if it
could contemplate these boundaries from the other side also.
=======================================================================

Note where it says: "...for to say so would apparently presuppose that
we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case..."
In other words, "Absence of evidence, is NOT evidence of absence"

Your own philosophical heroes and idols don't even seem to agree with
you. Go troll someone else with your misinterpreted/misunderstood
specious nonsense, preferably over in alt.usenet.kooks. LMAO!

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Best Explanation: Creation or Evolution?
    ... existence of human intelligence -- i.e. ... You can't just assert something occurred without backing evidence, ... The principle of biogenesis applies to pre-biotic beginnings. ... Conclusion - A human-like or human level intelligence created all that we ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Challenge to My Fellow Creationists
    ... I'm suspecting a basic difference in epistemology here, such that you wouldn't accept my basis for considering something evidence, and I wouldn't accept yours. ... you can't demonstrate the existence of 'the past.' ... Also, how and why is it different from the beliefs of various Christians who believe the same thing, but also believe in time and evolution? ... Is such practice a form of empiricism? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: making fun of atheists
    ... so you take their actual existence as a matter of faith. ... you take it on faith that the evidence for Jesus is somehow ... Jesus, date at least decades after he supposedly died. ... on one hand, you're totally relying on first hand accounts, on the ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Channel 4s The Quran
    ... A book about a person cannot be used as evidence that he existed. ... about Julius Caesar do not provide evidence of the existence of Julius ... You're consigning the whole or written history ... orthodox) belief that Jesus was/is God. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: A Challenge to My Fellow Creationists
    ... I'm suspecting a basic difference in epistemology here, such that you wouldn't accept my basis for considering something evidence, and I wouldn't accept yours. ... you can't demonstrate the existence of 'the past.' ... Also, how and why is it different from the beliefs of various Christians who believe the same thing, but also believe in time and evolution? ... model can't accommodate - and relativity involves some odd concepts ...
    (talk.origins)