South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 20, 2019, 08:19:34 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

The Skeptical Crackpot

 (Read 41491 times)
Description: A general description
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #135 on: July 27, 2010, 11:59:38 AM »

1) Then give me an example of where belief advanced scientific progress. (And stay on the topic - you know what belief we are talking about)

There is a whole topic now for you to be clear Wink.

2) I did not say ALL atheists - THAT would be a generalization. I stated specific atheists - ones I know.

Yeah so? Is that suppose to mean anything?

3) The argument there is simple. Provide me with an argument for the existence of God that has not been torn apart.

Let's see if you find this argument convincing (take note that it has nothing to do with God, this is purely there to see if you are capable of understanding it).

My argument is:
Given that a full rotation is 100 degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of this enclosed figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees.

On the scale below, what do you think is the probability that the interior angles of the above figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees?

1 100 per cent probability.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 0 percent probability.

Do you agree with my argument?

 



Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 27, 2010, 19:47:50 PM »

Given that a full rotation is 100 degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of this enclosed figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees.

Never seen a real Euclidean plane, so far they've all been approximations. Does this lead me to infer that there must be a perfect Euclidean plane somewhere out there? No! But it is still quite easy to model an Euclidean plane on a computer, or even in my head.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #137 on: July 27, 2010, 21:56:41 PM »

Never seen a real Euclidean plane,
You can grasp the concept intellectually and then apply it to solve other intellectual problems right?
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #138 on: July 27, 2010, 22:02:48 PM »

You can grasp the concept intellectually and then apply it to solve other intellectual problems right?

Sure there's no real trick to it, just stop at two dimensions. We can model many more dimensions mathematically, doesn't mean all of them exist.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #139 on: July 27, 2010, 22:24:39 PM »

Sure there's no real trick to it...
That's good. So, do you agree with the argument? Where on the scale are you?
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #140 on: July 27, 2010, 22:34:21 PM »

That's good. So, do you agree with the argument? Where on the scale are you?

6.9 since there is no such thing as a perfect Euclidean plane the sum of the interior angles will probably never add up to exactly 50 degrees, though they will come fairly close.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #141 on: July 28, 2010, 13:16:52 PM »

My argument is:
Given that a full rotation is 100 degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of this enclosed figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees.

On the scale below, what do you think is the probability that the interior angles of the above figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees?

1 100 per cent probability.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 0 percent probability.

Do you agree with my argument?

Are you blogging from a padded cell somewhere? What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING that's been discussed here?

I ask for an argument for the existence of God that has not been torn apart and this is what I get. I assume there aren't any then.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #142 on: August 03, 2010, 08:43:19 AM »

Sentinel, did you read what I said just before the part you quoted? Do you understand the argument?
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #143 on: August 05, 2010, 20:31:15 PM »

Sentinel, did you read what I said just before the part you quoted? Do you understand the argument?
Yes. I also understand that it's a red herring.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #144 on: August 06, 2010, 10:14:24 AM »

You show no understanding of either.
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #145 on: August 06, 2010, 17:34:02 PM »

You show no understanding of either.
You show no understanding of anything discussed here, nor are you able to explain or defend the thread you started.

When questioned, you fail to provide evidence to back up your statements and call it a straw man - without understanding the meaning of the term. When counter arguments are given, you merely state the opposite without offering an explanation.

Now you are attempting to divert attention from the issue at hand - i.e. red herring. But you won't admit to it. You are arrogant and ignorant - a good combination if you want to be a religious crackpot.

Good luck with your delusion.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 17:47:11 PM by Sentinel » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #146 on: August 07, 2010, 10:23:31 AM »

You show no understanding of anything discussed here
Oh... I am pretty sure I am able to recognize a skeptical crackpot. How is your maths (geometrical proofs to be precise) btw?
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #147 on: August 07, 2010, 20:36:03 PM »

You show no understanding of anything discussed here
Oh... I am pretty sure I am able to recognize a skeptical crackpot. How is your maths (geometrical proofs to be precise) btw?
You have yet to define the concept of a "skeptical crackpot" before you can use it.

How is your ability to reason; to propose an idea, prove and defend it? I can answer that - pathetic. That is why you have to make use of logical fallacies to save face.

I rest my case.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #148 on: August 07, 2010, 21:12:04 PM »

You have yet to define the concept of a "skeptical crackpot" before you can use it.
Try the first post Roll Eyes. The actual purpose of the thread... Got anything more insightful than a little trash talking? How about demonstrating that you actually understand a simple geometrical proof?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 21:24:57 PM by Teleological » Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #149 on: August 08, 2010, 11:25:06 AM »

Hey Tele, how about you show some understanding that idealised geometric models and the proofs involving them are only useful to the extent that they actually mirror reality. If your model of reality is wrong, your proofs are meaningless.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.13 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 13, 2019, 16:09:36 PM
Privacy Policy