Thread: Presuppositionalism View Single Post
10-08-2008, 02:08 PM   #16
Arcesious
@Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jae Onasi Sure.
Was that sarcastic or something else?

Quote:
 Gravity is a physical law: F = (G*(m1m2))/r^2 I can get into the general theory of relativity and its discussion of gravitation, strong and weak forces, and so on when you've gotten through the basics of Newton's gravitation law. Gravity works regardless of what we think of it, fallacy or otherwise.
Sounds facinating actually... Once I'm done with Biology this year I'll take Cosmology next year, and then Physics...

Quote:
 What a concept for science. I'm glad your 6th grade teacher was diligent in teaching you that.
Mrs. Ritch was a really good teacher, yes...

Quote:
 That would be because physics uses math in its equations--something you'll learn when you hit physics in high school. The Big Bang is hard to put into cold hard fact because physical laws were created a fraction of a second after the Big Bang occurred. Science can't explain it prior to that fraction of a second. Along with all the other particle accelerators we have, radio telescopes, telescopes in a variety of wavelengths both visible and non-visible, let me know what others you might need help with.
Sounds interesting... I could wiki it, but I'd prefer a good source to learn about those things...

Quote:
 I'm sure Congress will get right on that.
I think I phrased that part wrong. I should have said: "We should strictly self-regulate our arguments against big inductive fallacies when debating."

Quote:
 What does this have to do with anything else said in this thread? That's just you sitting in front of your computer deciding the probability of it exploding is minute compared to it not exploding and electing to take the risk of sitting there.
True, unless if you'd like to argue about probability too...

Quote:
 Who decides the balance? Which fallacies?
Good point. We can't be precise. We have to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't. If some 'fallacies' in an argument make it make sense, it's either a good argument or just a bad argument, depending on just how the argument is structured... No argument I've heard seems to be perfect however.

Quote:
 Quantum mechanics is a fundamental branch of physics and your statement that it's different from the laws of physics is just plain wrong. You've missed part of the point I made about the metaphyics part--physics (and the underlying mathematical forumulas) don't work and don't even come into play until that fraction of a second after the singularity explodes into the universe. Since there is no physics prior to that, any explanation becomes metaphysical, i.e. outside the realm of physics/science. In respect to how this fits into the rest of this thread, it shows that scientism cannot explain everything--there are some metaphysical issues we're forced to deal with.
Yeah I don't know physics beyond what I've displayed what I know, really... I would gladly welcome it if you could explain it to me so that I can avoid making an ignorant argument about physics...

This must be one of the most annoying arguments for you to hear, but:

How can you assume God created the universe? Before the Big Bang, at this time, as you've been saying, we don't know and can't know what happened.

Please feed the trolls. XD
you may: quote & reply,