T
Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
- Status
K
KingCoil
Guest
You are not cooperating, it just takes you a click to cooperate.
You see, when I was new here I saw in you right away a poster who wants to post to take the topic of the thread away, and replace it with his own concern.
So, I just ignore you though I never keet you on ignore, your presence is always in my threads if you have posted something.
Now, I have a good ground to suspect you to be again into an allied gimmick of your previous thread-jacking routine, now in the present instance with putting a link and thinking that you have done your share of cooperating, when genuinely cooperating posters will not just put a link, but also present the text that is of concern from that link, or put forth the gist.
That is the way to inform authors of threads that you are not into exploiting the link system, because a link when opened up can turn out to be nothing at all, but only that after a long wild goose chase for any pertinent text in it.
My request to you is: “May I just ask you whether you are going to engage me with the fact of the universe having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, or not?”
Now, readers here, no need for any links, let us see how he will now act.
Tell me, ThinkingS, is the beginning of the universe a fact accepted by the majority of cosmologists and already common stock knowledge of folks who follow developments in science? The key word here is fact.
KingCoi
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
K
KingCoil
Guest
Well, the man is malingering.
So, I will just just dismiss him.
That is, just ignore him even though I don’t put him on ignore.
Now, so that my posting for this morning will not be a complete loss, I will just tell readers that the beginning of the universe is a fact, and it is not a theory only.
A theory explains a fact, that is why a theory can change but not a fact.
Dear readers here, from stock knowledge as folks who are current on developments in science and do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, tell me what do you think of my submission?
A theory explains a fact, that is why a theory can change but not a fact.
For example, coming again to our nose in our face, the nose existing in our face is a fact, but there can be various explanations for its existence in the face; so we can rank the explanations according to which one is most in accordance with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
If science has only one theory as I understand theory in science, then scientists can say that it is their common explanation or theory, but we can change our theory i.e. explanation, in the future or not ever, still most probably because as we get to know more and more of objective reality we come to better and better explanations for the nose in our face, but the fact is still the same, namely, there is a nose in our face.
So dear readers here, what do you say in reaction to my thinking:
A theory explains a fact, that is why a theory can change but not a fact.
From that point onward about the nose in our face being a fact, we can go forward to discuss if the universe having a beginning is a fact or not; if it is not a fact, then what is it? and why a theory for the universe with a beginning when there is no fact of a beginning of the universe?
KingCoil
So, I will just just dismiss him.
That is, just ignore him even though I don’t put him on ignore.
Now, so that my posting for this morning will not be a complete loss, I will just tell readers that the beginning of the universe is a fact, and it is not a theory only.
A theory explains a fact, that is why a theory can change but not a fact.
Dear readers here, from stock knowledge as folks who are current on developments in science and do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, tell me what do you think of my submission?
A theory explains a fact, that is why a theory can change but not a fact.
For example, coming again to our nose in our face, the nose existing in our face is a fact, but there can be various explanations for its existence in the face; so we can rank the explanations according to which one is most in accordance with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
If science has only one theory as I understand theory in science, then scientists can say that it is their common explanation or theory, but we can change our theory i.e. explanation, in the future or not ever, still most probably because as we get to know more and more of objective reality we come to better and better explanations for the nose in our face, but the fact is still the same, namely, there is a nose in our face.
So dear readers here, what do you say in reaction to my thinking:
A theory explains a fact, that is why a theory can change but not a fact.
From that point onward about the nose in our face being a fact, we can go forward to discuss if the universe having a beginning is a fact or not; if it is not a fact, then what is it? and why a theory for the universe with a beginning when there is no fact of a beginning of the universe?
KingCoil
K
Kurisu35712
Guest
After lurking on this thread and at least two of its previous iterations, I still never felt qualified logically, philosophically, or scientifically to add commentary. But KingCoil, this makes it seem as though you are not actually interested in the progress of your own thread. ThinkingSapien literally posted a link to his previous post in this thread in which you are currently posting giving his argument as to why, based on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, he does not believe your assertion that the universe had a definite beginning at some point many years ago, to be logically sufficient for the purposes of the argument you are supposedly trying to make.
In summary. The link posted by ThinkingSapien directly addresses the question you asked. Click the link. Read the post which is already in this very thread, which has now been linked to you multiple times. That link simply goes to a post already in this thread. That post, already in this thread several pages back, answers your question to ThinkingSapien regarding the beginning of the universe. Again. That post. Linked above. Is ThinkingSapien’s response to your question. Click the link and your repetitive and needlessly stubborn question will be answered.
F
frobert
Guest
I have been visiting on and off because I think it is the most absurd topic on CAF and there are plenty of absurd topics here.
KingCoil you say you want an intelligent discussion but the only discussion you will tolerate is one in which the posters are 100% in agreement with you your definitions. That is not a discussion its constrictive rigidity which becomes avoidance.
ThinkingSapien, I followed some of your posts and I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here. Yet, pages back you said you would post no more on this topic but you are still posting.
I will check back occasionally when I want a chuckle.
KingCoil you say you want an intelligent discussion but the only discussion you will tolerate is one in which the posters are 100% in agreement with you your definitions. That is not a discussion its constrictive rigidity which becomes avoidance.
ThinkingSapien, I followed some of your posts and I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here. Yet, pages back you said you would post no more on this topic but you are still posting.
I will check back occasionally when I want a chuckle.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I made a conditional statement where the condition was that some of the questions I presented be addressed. He almost answered one of them but not quite. So decided to throw him a bone by pointing back to something already said in this exchanged but resolved not to introduce new material (especially since there are no new responses).
There are a few other people that have no membership in this forum but follow this and a few other threads for occasional entertainment.
I won’t say too much about that here though.
K
KingCoil
Guest
Okay, I will open the link you refer to, namely:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…9&postcount=85.
Here is the post of ThinkingS referred to by Kurisu:
Begin quote from ThinkingS]
View Single Post
#85
Jun 29, '14, 6:44 pm
ThinkingSapien
Regular Member Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,464
Religion: I’m a Software Engineer
Re: Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
Since you are willing to conceded (1) my response here may not matter much. But I’ll share my understanding should it become relevant.
A part of the Big Bang theory is that earlier in the existence of the universe all of the material of the universe was concentrated in a common “place” (I’m ignoring how the the expansion of space-time impacts the meaning of the word “place” in this context) and a rapid expansion of this material around 13.74 billion years ago that lead up to the universe that we see today. As to what happened before this or whether or not there is a before this is something that is unknown. The beginning of this expansion is sometimes present by people as the “Beginning of the universe.” However this is the beginning of the universe in the same sense that an egg and cake mix are the beginning of a cake; it’s about the transformation of pre-existing material. There are varying opinions about what the pre- Big Bang universe may have been like and whether or not there was one but no one really knows…
庭に出て
物種蒔くや
病み上がり
End quote from ThinkingS]
So, as Kurisu is now the representative self-chosen of ThinkingS, I will ask Kurisu,
Dear Kurisu, what is the point of ThinkingS in that link referred to by you to be – correct me if I am mistaken, to be a crucial link from ThinkingS; and forgive me, put that point whatever of ThinkingS in concise precise and definitive form in connection with my request to him to tell me whether he accepts the fact that the universe has a beginning.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
You say,
KingCoil you say you want an intelligent discussion but the only discussion you will tolerate is one in which the posters are 100% in agreement with you your definitions. That is not a discussion its constrictive rigidity which becomes avoidance.
I have already told posters here nth times that I am the author of this thread and I have the responsibility to tell them to cooperate with me.
I am not demanding that they agree with me 100% to my definitions.
Have I not asked them time and again to give their definitions; and also told them to if they prefer be the first to give a definition, if not then may I present my definition, and from that point onward we together can work to concur on a mutually agreed on definition of the term, like for example, fact?
Please do not say that I am requiring posters here to agree 100% to my definitions.
If you have read my posts with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, you would not have said that I insist that posters agree 100% to my definitions.
That from you is what I see to be a fact, and I beg you to agree with me, namely, the fact of you committing the fallacy of exorbitant exaggeration.
Okay, tell me readers here, isn’t it a fact that Frobert is exaggerating that I am into insisting that posters here agree with me 100% to my definitions?
Anyway, now we dear readers here, we have two self-chosen representatives of ThinkingS, good! then they can talk for ThinkingS, and I am so happy that I have two posters to talk for him, since I have said that I will just ignore ThinkingS although I don’t put him on ignore; yes I see his post this morning but I don’t read it.
Addressing Kurisu and Frobert, do not go away, I have a post for you two after this one.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
Dear Kurisu and Frobert, please read this post from me.
Yesterday, 5:51 pm
KingCoil KingCoil is online now
Regular Member
Join Date: August 7, 2007
Posts: 529
Religion: Catholic on leave of absence
Default Re: Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
Dear Kurisu and Frobert, please speak for ThinkingS, and cooperate with me to move the thread forward, reply profitably to the lines below in big font:
King:
Dear Kurisu and Frobert, please tell me, “is the beginning of the universe a fact accepted by the majority of cosmologists and already common stock knowledge of folks who follow developments in science? The key word here is fact.”My request to you is: “May I just ask you whether you are going to engage me with the fact of the universe having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, or not?”
Now, readers here, no need for any links, let us see how he will now act.
King:
Best regards,
KingCoil
PS Let us see whether Kurisu and Frobert, self-chosen representatives or spokesmen of ThinkingS will accommodate to me on my request to them.
K
KingCoil
Guest
O
onenow1
Guest
Science, because it is theory, only relevant to information they have at any time in history is not the best source in the world to explain things they cannot know with absolute surety. Take for example the rocky planet they found, 13 x the mass of our earth in what is called the goldilocks zone. They did not think it possible; It was not gaseous as presupposed in theory prior to this finding. Reason is a cousin to wisdom and wisdom relies in God’s creation through Jesus because He told us so. The way the truth and the life.
God Bless
onenow1
opcorn:
K
Kurisu35712
Guest
I do not presume to be ThinkingSapien’s spokesperson; however, his quote in summary states that the Big Bang theory explains the universe in that, at some prior point 13.74 billion years ago, there began an expansion of space-time and matter from a single point. This point of expansion is widely held to be the beginning of the known universe.
The key word being known. Known, as defined by me, meaning understood to be true based on observable or otherwise able to be experienced phenomena. The beginning of the known universe. Science however cannot prove that this was the beginning of all things in whatever form that may have taken prior to the Big Bang. Science can neither prove nor disprove this because it would be unobservable. There would be no testable hypothesis for what came before the Big Bang, if anything. You, KingCoil, believe that nothing (aside from God I assume) existed prior to this point.
What ThinkingSapien is saying, is that he cannot know with absolute certainty that the expansion point of the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of all matter/quantum fluctuation/what have you. The reason for this is because it cannot be scientifically verified, as it occurred prior to the existence of the known universe. From a scientific standpoint, I agree. We cannot know this with certainty, as we cannot observe this. It existed (or not) prior to this universe.
K
KingCoil
Guest
You, Kurisu, say:
“You, KingCoil, believe that nothing (aside from God I assume) existed prior to this point.”
Okay, everyone here, and please, addressing also ThinkingS:
I never ever anywhere at anytime said that I “believe that nothing -](aside from God I * assume)/-] existed prior to this point.”
It is now my turn to ask ThinkingS and everyone who is trying to tell me that I did not get ThinkingS correctly, to ask namely:
Where in the universe and in particular in Catholic Answers ever anytime at all have I said that I “believe that nothing -](aside from God I * assume)/-] existed prior to this point.”
I tell you all now in particular ThinkingS, that I have been advocating for ever that intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts brings man to come to conclude that God creator of the inverse exists, like the nose exists – when it comes to just plain existence.
What I really dislike most vehemently is this habit of ThinkingS to not just tell me again in precise concise definitive words now and here what he said before; that is where I find exchanging ideas with him to be impossible, namely, that he requires me to find where he said what, instead of just coming out like I have just done here, with what exactly to the point in the instant issue at hand, namely, I am asking everyone, is it a fact that the universe did begin to exist.
Okay, ThinkingS and everyone who is trying to tell me what he is into, is that what you ‘believe’ that I am into? namely:
That I “believe that nothing -](aside from God I * assume)/-] existed prior to this point [the beginning of the universe]**.”
Now, emotionally I find it most abominable that people go away when I am trying to work out with them as to concur on anything at all, like the for example the nose in our face, or what is certainty, or that it is a fact that the universe has a beginning.
That is what I find most abominable, but with ThinkingS, he also goes away, or keeps repeating that he already said this or that but will not just now and here say it again, period.
Okay, please when you react to this post from me, please, just tell me:
Where and when (reproducing the text and the links) have I ever said that I “believe that nothing -](aside from God I * assume)/-] existed prior to this point *[the beginning of the universe]**.”
Please do not bring in anything else, but please just answer that question immediately above this line here with a period (.) ending it.
Now, please don’t react to the paragraph below unless and until you have answered the question above, (addressing ThinkingS):
You know ThinkingS, I don’t like to look for and dig up what you want me to do or to read something you already said earlier, because I fear that you will insist that I am not getting you correctly; so I just require you to say it again, but you just keep on and on and on with now a link and no text.
You will tell me that you are afraid that I might deny that what you say now is what you said before.
Listen ThinkingS, have I not been always telling you and everyone here, that when we have a conflict of you say this and I say you didn’t or I have defined this word and you have defined it differently, that in that case then we have to work together to get to come to concurrence on what you actually said before and now say that you are saying the same thing, or on a mutually agreed on definition of a word?
For example, I am asking you and everyone here now, is it a fact that the universe has a beginning, please answer – that is what I have been asking for sometime already; and I have been repeating it again and again, so that you folks will not say that I didn’t ask that before but only now.
Okay, dear ThinkingS and everyone humans of good will and sincerity to communicate successfully, please reply to my two questions here in this post:
- Where and when (with text and links) have I ever said that I “believe that nothing -](aside from God I * assume)/-] existed prior to this point *[the beginning of the universe]**.”
- Is it a fact that the universe has a beginning?
F
frobert
Guest
Please do not take this as an attempt to communicate with you.
I find it amusing that you ask the above when you believe anyone who is not 100% in agreement with your premises as not sincere and not communicating intelligently. I also find it amusing that posters actually try to communicate with you.
K
KingCoil
Guest
K
KingCoil
Guest
F
frobert
Guest
Other than finding your posts amusing (keep it up), I have no intentions of attempting to communicate with you when I know the result will not be satisfactory.
K
KingCoil
Guest
F
frobert
Guest
what can I say other than you provide amusement which for me is the issue at hand.
- Status