Voice of Principle budges in on me, so does MicoMan and valence quark, AbbyLeever makes points about history of physics

VoiceOfPrinciple wrote:

<7> Abby: You've done a good job of trying to persuade Hans of the value of modern science, but I'm afraid your effort will not be crowned with success. Hans does not accept the scientific method as you and I understand it. Hans' world view begins with two fundamental and unquestioned postulates:

1) God exists; and

2) All things must trace back to God.

If any line of inquiry leads to either of these first principles, or any of their corollaries, being called into question, Hans will reject it, as occurred in my discussion with him concerning the rotation of the earth.

I have disproven this contention about my arguments previously, but Voice Of Principle dishonestly repeats an insulting and disproven charge. Although he has previously admitted to having misunderstood my argument. Rather, it is you who reject any line of inquiry which proves the existence of God or anything seen to be obvious corollaries of it. And then here and previously shift the responsibility of doing that on me.

HGL

Debating Hans, however, is not a waste of time. The effort involved forces you to improve your own arguments and to increase your knowledge base, and those are good things in and of themselves. <7>

If improving your arguments is what you want to do, why don't you get started? Like answering my vindication of Classical Mathematics and its ability to understand logarithms, without changing the definition of number.

HGL

MicoMan2U wrote:

Good points. We can also be assured that if Hans really had a valid argument then it would have hit the front page of the paper. Currently there is no evidence to support deity and if there were it would certainly be the biggest news story ever.

Not in the Jewish/Masonic dominated press you read. In the history of learning it is old news. Only the textbooks claim that the proofs were later refuted - which is not the case. Because the refutations are sophistical rather than logic.

HGL

But I agree with VP that each new confrontation only serves to strengthen our ability to enlighten others to the reality of a secular existence, free from the chains of religious suppression.

Religious suppression! My foot! As for strengthening your ability, are you dreaming?

AbbyLeever wrote:

sorry about the html overrun.. fixed

AbbyLeever wrote:

VOP - I agree, it also serves to show other creationists that their position is not a homogeneous one - there is disagreement in the ranks. I accept Hans for what he is, and enjoy those discussions where I am not put through the brick wall.

Mico - also good points on the development argument.

Quark - it is easy to lose your temper with Hans - he is a "pre-enlightenment scholastic" and lives surrounded by (imho) brick walls that to him are reasonable limits on rational versus fantasy thoughts. The bit on numbers is 'enlightening', and the thoughts shared on the inquisition, to me, are disturbing but understandable. Read down through this [Classic Math] thread if you didn't read it before.

Thank you for beginning the thread with that nasty insult which is a total sideline to the issue like you keep cluttering up my threads with: like Inquisition and Galileo or modern medicine and surgery on a thread having to do with mathematics!

Doing a search on "pre-enlightenment scholastic" may help you understand. (a couple below, and I am sure Hans would provide more if asked): 1^st link 2^d link

Hans - my position is that there are things that we do not know, that what the reality is behind those things is outside our current ability to imagine, but that our inability to imagine it doesn't prevent it from being true or understandable at a future date.

The proper name for preferring that hogwash to the rational explanation that already does exist is obscurantism.HGL

Before the earth was found to be round it was logical to think it flat and unimaginable for some to even consider it being round - this did not prevent the roundness from occurring.

When was "before the earth was found to be round"? Certainly NOT in the Middle Ages, as they are called. The Church Fathers, Dante, St Thomas Aquinas and the rest of Medieval authority knew the earth was round. Bringing in the subject of Galileo being tried on account of believing it to move or Bruno being burnt for believing in pantheism has nothing whatever to do with the subject. And as for pre-classic antiquity, we have not read any logic defense of Babylonian flat earth cosmology - except by a Nestorian who misunderstood the Holy Scriptures, as heretics do.

Having a 'freethinkers' mind open enough to consider options on the universe allows me to consider the fascinating developments in evolution, archaeology, sub-atomic particles and universe inflation with the anticipation of finding new understandings of life, the universe and everything.

Being promiscuous and infertile in sex gives you a freedom of sweet imaginations - so does roaming and inconclusive thoughts in philosophic matters. I do not admire freethinkers more than wankers or profligates who use the condom. Sexual organs were made for procreation and imagination and reason for reaching conclusions.

HGL

valencequark wrote:

so now you are a conspiracy theorist too? why don't you pu tall of the energy that you waste whining about logarithms and international sceintific conspiracies into learning something worth learning?

-vq

If you call my observations on who dominates the so called free press conspiracy theories, you seem to be either part or victim of their conspiracy. Victim let's hope.

HGL

AbbyLeever wrote:

I will be happy to let anyone read the whole of that [Classical Math] thread, which was my point in referencing it. Here is the start:

http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=472202&artNum=94442&sort=pref&tsort=msgs&

a word of caution though - posts only last 1 month so review it soon.

If you change your Preferences, you can read older posts.

Quite a diatribe Hans. Let the facts fall where they may.Like that the flat earth belief was the dominant belief at one time - did I say medieval? no.

Neither did you present any other period when it was supposed to be dominant. Furthermore knowing that my Theology and Scholasticism are what you would call medieval, and you accusing me of being a flat earther, it would seem to be the most natural meaning of your words.

did you refute that it was at one time so? no.

Neither did you prove it or prove it had any point in relation to me and my creed.

Is this belief now proved wrong? yes, by both your and my acknowledgments.

Wrong? Yes. Once dominant or universal? ?

Does that validate my statement about it? Yes. Thank you.

The other point too, please. Do have the courtesy to go into details.

HGL