Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[Notvacka]

I see a dictionary as a standard, i.e., a standard is used in precise measuring to ensure that any two or more measuring devices, shall achieve the exact same value. This is what a dictionary is for, to ensure all parties are speaking the same language so as not to be misunderstood.

Yes. Dictionaries can be useful, of course. But in practice, a simultaneosly general and precise measure is impossible. The meaning of words change over time, and more importantly, depending on context. The most common way to explain what a word means is to offer synonyms, but no two words mean exactly the same, even when they might seem interchangeable. Like with "presume" and "assume" there are always subtle differences. Language is a malleable thing, and it belongs to everybody. No dictionary is up to the task you describe. Each word would need several pages of etymology and examples, and it would still not be enough. I think that the best way to approach language is in good faith. And to ask questions.

Let's see here:

God is said to be the creator of reality for 'us,' this does not necessarily mean that he is not contained within this same reality, that he did not create our reality within his realm. It is a false assumption. I would go so far as to say that as with anything that has to do with a god, all bets are off that any human would be capable of putting forth any ideas worth mentioning in an argument meant to actually make a point.

Does your use of the pronoun he indicate that God is male? Do you picture God as a man, complete with cock and balls, or are you using that pronoun because you are incapable of discarding the box of thought, that archaic ideas has placed you in (sorry, but I couldn't resist)?

What do you mean by contained here? If reality is a container, I suppose you don't suggest that it contains God the same way it contains us.

What do you mean by his realm? Is this another container? Perhaps a larger "reality" containing our lesser "reallity"? How does God creating our container (our reality) within such a larger container (his realm) mean that God is contained within our reality (if that is what you mean)?

What do you mean by false here? In what way could the assumption be true or false? I think it's a reasonable assumption. Examine the realtionship between your suggested realms/realities/containers and I think you will see what I mean.

[chaz wyman]

No! That is not what an agnostic is. According to the dictionary, an agnostic see's that either solution is possible, such that they're on the fence so to speak. In my case, I see that it's currently, virtually impossible, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if either side is true or false. It's not for fear of a creator's retribution that I stand on this fence, with me it's all about truth, and the ability to know it! I have ping ponged back and forth throughout my years on this subject, but now find that I prefer to be perched upon this fence until absolute proof topples me from it. I find that there are good arguments supporting both possibilities, but in the end both are steeped in speculation and archaic rhetoric.

I believe thats a Skeptic , sitting on the fence , not convinced either way ,
Skeptic , and it saddens me to hear you can't see a difference ,
between superstitious nonsense , and science , despite all it's flaws ,
science is at least attempting to discover reality ,
creation is pure fantasy , nothing to do with reality,
and rather than rave on about Skeptics , if you want my view ,
read page one of Atheists vrs Skeptics , !!!

A skeptic is a doubter. One who continues to doubt, in the view to finding the truth. An agnostic is an untenable position. For them the issue is decided. It is decided to be undecided. A skpetic continues to enquire, an agnostic has made up his mind to give up.
Skepticism is the only position to take on any issue as it enables one to keep the issue open to new facts and presentations of evidence. Even a person who accepts a position is best to maintain a skeptical stance never fully accepting the truth of a thing. They make the best scientists and thinkers. An agnostic has given up by declaring his position.

On the issue of god and creation however. This is not even wrong. It is just meaningless.

I agree with most of your definition , but I believe agnostic ,
believes there is "something" out there , they are not sure what ,
but they are sure/have decided there is something out there ,
where-as a Skeptic doesn't accept either argument , and will challenge,
both sides to prove their stance ,
the Skeptics don't tend to like Atheists , because Atheists ,
assume too much and prove too little ,
but one version of reality is correct ,
you can't keep saying they are all wrong , some of it's right ,
and people like me are putting it together in new ways ,
steady state or static universe doesn't really represent my model ,
so I have to come up with my own phrase , and my own explanation,
surely the challenge is to accept what is right/correct ,
and reject that which is wrong or easily dismissed as nonsense,
put together what you think is right , and thats your model ,
you can't say it's all wrong , thats just pig ignorant,,!!!

I think your problem is that you consider these words to exhaust the definition of the person.
And an 'agnostic", or a "skeptic" as to conform you your idea of them. It is a labelling fallacy.
The reality is that you can be a skeptic and agnostic and an atheist all in one, by considering different aspect of different arguments.
You might know a person calling himself an 'agnostic' who (as you say) "believes something out there" but that is simply NOT what the word means nor what it is designed to convey. An agnostic in the sense it was designed does not believe in God because he realises that the basis upon which god is designed was engineered by reason against dogma to achieve a state where the assertion can neither be proven or disproven.
SoB is neither a skeptic nor an agnostic; he deserves neither position. He is a conflicted seeker, looking for a truth that is beyond acquisition- that is not only impossible to find, but is designed that it cannot be refuted. In short he is a seeker for the FSM.

All atheists are skeptics, all agnostics are atheists.

[Godfree]

I believe thats a Skeptic , sitting on the fence , not convinced either way ,
Skeptic , and it saddens me to hear you can't see a difference ,
between superstitious nonsense , and science , despite all it's flaws ,
science is at least attempting to discover reality ,
creation is pure fantasy , nothing to do with reality,
and rather than rave on about Skeptics , if you want my view ,
read page one of Atheists vrs Skeptics , !!!

A skeptic is a doubter. One who continues to doubt, in the view to finding the truth. An agnostic is an untenable position. For them the issue is decided. It is decided to be undecided. A skpetic continues to enquire, an agnostic has made up his mind to give up.
Skepticism is the only position to take on any issue as it enables one to keep the issue open to new facts and presentations of evidence. Even a person who accepts a position is best to maintain a skeptical stance never fully accepting the truth of a thing. They make the best scientists and thinkers. An agnostic has given up by declaring his position.

On the issue of god and creation however. This is not even wrong. It is just meaningless.[/quote]
I agree with most of your definition , but I believe agnostic ,
believes there is "something" out there , they are not sure what ,
but they are sure/have decided there is something out there ,
where-as a Skeptic doesn't accept either argument , and will challenge,
both sides to prove their stance ,
the Skeptics don't tend to like Atheists , because Atheists ,
assume too much and prove too little ,
but one version of reality is correct ,
you can't keep saying they are all wrong , some of it's right ,
and people like me are putting it together in new ways ,
steady state or static universe doesn't really represent my model ,
so I have to come up with my own phrase , and my own explanation,
surely the challenge is to accept what is right/correct ,
and reject that which is wrong or easily dismissed as nonsense,
put together what you think is right , and thats your model ,
you can't say it's all wrong , thats just pig ignorant,,!!![/quote]

I think your problem is that you consider these words to exhaust the definition of the person.
And an 'agnostic", or a "skeptic" as to conform you your idea of them. It is a labelling fallacy.
The reality is that you can be a skeptic and agnostic and an atheist all in one, by considering different aspect of different arguments.
You might know a person calling himself an 'agnostic' who (as you say) "believes something out there" but that is simply NOT what the word means nor what it is designed to convey. An agnostic in the sense it was designed does not believe in God because he realises that the basis upon which god is designed was engineered by reason against dogma to achieve a state where the assertion can neither be proven or disproven.
SoB is neither a skeptic nor an agnostic; he deserves neither position. He is a conflicted seeker, looking for a truth that is beyond acquisition- that is not only impossible to find, but is designed that it cannot be refuted. In short he is a seeker for the FSM.

All atheists are skeptics, all agnostics are atheists.[/quote]
Well thats a fairly broad category ,
modern society is trying to be all inclusive ,,!!
but that just feels like the status quo again ,
in other words , just the fudge to excuse not changing ,
Change is what we need , we have got a hell of a lot of things wrong ,!
as long as we see all beliefs as equal and accept the status quo ,
we will never change , the religious fundamentalists aren't going to,
give up their power and position , they aren't going to decide to ,
give up their belief system just because it's a load of old cobblers ,
governments will continue to fund it , and it never goes away ,
thats not a society I would be proud of ,,!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

No! That is not what an agnostic is. According to the dictionary, an agnostic see's that either solution is possible, such that they're on the fence so to speak. In my case, I see that it's currently, virtually impossible, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if either side is true or false. It's not for fear of a creator's retribution that I stand on this fence, with me it's all about truth, and the ability to know it! I have ping ponged back and forth throughout my years on this subject, but now find that I prefer to be perched upon this fence until absolute proof topples me from it. I find that there are good arguments supporting both possibilities, but in the end both are steeped in speculation and archaic rhetoric.

I believe thats a Skeptic , sitting on the fence , not convinced either way ,
Skeptic , and it saddens me to hear you can't see a difference ,
between superstitious nonsense , and science , despite all it's flaws ,
science is at least attempting to discover reality ,
creation is pure fantasy , nothing to do with reality,
and rather than rave on about Skeptics , if you want my view ,
read page one of Atheists vrs Skeptics , !!![/quote]
Not to be mean, but you seriously need to consult some reference material. I never considered myself an agnostic until Chaz, Attofishpi or someone mentioned the difference between the various non believer labels. So then I consulted a dictionary and realized that my beliefs most closely resemble that of an agnostic. I wasn't asking you, I was telling you, what I seem to be, for the most part.

[SpheresOfBalance]

No! That is not what an agnostic is. According to the dictionary, an agnostic see's that either solution is possible, such that they're on the fence so to speak. In my case, I see that it's currently, virtually impossible, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if either side is true or false. It's not for fear of a creator's retribution that I stand on this fence, with me it's all about truth, and the ability to know it! I have ping ponged back and forth throughout my years on this subject, but now find that I prefer to be perched upon this fence until absolute proof topples me from it. I find that there are good arguments supporting both possibilities, but in the end both are steeped in speculation and archaic rhetoric.

I believe thats a Skeptic , sitting on the fence , not convinced either way ,
Skeptic , and it saddens me to hear you can't see a difference ,
between superstitious nonsense , and science , despite all it's flaws ,
science is at least attempting to discover reality ,
creation is pure fantasy , nothing to do with reality,
and rather than rave on about Skeptics , if you want my view ,
read page one of Atheists vrs Skeptics , !!!

A skeptic is a doubter. One who continues to doubt, in the view to finding the truth. An agnostic is an untenable position. For them the issue is decided. It is decided to be undecided. A skpetic continues to enquire, an agnostic has made up his mind to give up.
Skepticism is the only position to take on any issue as it enables one to keep the issue open to new facts and presentations of evidence. Even a person who accepts a position is best to maintain a skeptical stance never fully accepting the truth of a thing. They make the best scientists and thinkers. An agnostic has given up by declaring his position.

On the issue of god and creation however. This is not even wrong. It is just meaningless.

Here's something for the ignorant. Pay particular attention to the red highlight. it's the first definition, I might add.

ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
--Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012--

Some megalos just don't quit, because they just love eating their own toe jam.

[Godfree]

Spheres , heres how I see it ,
even using your definition"or that human knowledge is limited to experience"
we can then express what I know to be the agnostic rationale ,
which is the same as the old religious claim ,
above and beyond or comprehension , that there is something out there ,
but it is beyond or ability to experience , most the agnostics I have talked to believe in spiritual things , rather than ,"mans god"
most have a idea that ghosts or souls or spirits are out there ,
eternal life , re-incarnation , these things are often possible ,
in an agnostics mind , I have yet to meet an agnostic , that dismisses ,
all of superstition or spirituality ,
they nearly always have something unreal they believe .
otherwise they would be an Atheist , surely ,,???

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see a dictionary as a standard, i.e., a standard is used in precise measuring to ensure that any two or more measuring devices, shall achieve the exact same value. This is what a dictionary is for, to ensure all parties are speaking the same language so as not to be misunderstood.

Yes. Dictionaries can be useful, of course. But in practice, a simultaneosly general and precise measure is impossible. The meaning of words change over time, and more importantly, depending on context. The most common way to explain what a word means is to offer synonyms, but no two words mean exactly the same, even when they might seem interchangeable. Like with "presume" and "assume" there are always subtle differences. Language is a malleable thing, and it belongs to everybody. No dictionary is up to the task you describe. Each word would need several pages of etymology and examples, and it would still not be enough. I think that the best way to approach language is in good faith. And to ask questions.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I disagree, of course. Your method tends to initially confuse, and it's absurd considering one doesn't like to spend to much time typing a response.

Let's see here:

God is said to be the creator of reality for 'us,' this does not necessarily mean that he is not contained within this same reality, that he did not create our reality within his realm. It is a false assumption. I would go so far as to say that as with anything that has to do with a god, all bets are off that any human would be capable of putting forth any ideas worth mentioning in an argument meant to actually make a point.

Does your use of the pronoun he indicate that God is male? Do you picture God as a man, complete with cock and balls, or are you using that pronoun because you are incapable of discarding the box of thought, that archaic ideas has placed you in (sorry, but I couldn't resist)?
No, unlike some, I'm aware of what others presume, and try and speak their language, when talking to them so they can understand, such is this case. Whooops, must have been a banana peel!


What do you mean by contained here? If reality is a container, I suppose you don't suggest that it contains God the same way it contains us.
Of course it's possible, just as much as he is possible! Remember, I don't believe in him.

What do you mean by his realm? Is this another container? Perhaps a larger "reality" containing our lesser "reallity"? How does God creating our container (our reality) within such a larger container (his realm) mean that God is contained within our reality (if that is what you mean)?
Have you taken English in college. Well I don't know about yours, but my professor said that when referring to the same thing in various lines of text within a paragraph, one should mix it up with the synonyms, because otherwise it makes for both dull reading and potential misconception, as someone might be more familiar with a particular synonym, over another.

What do you mean by false here? In what way could the assumption be true or false? I think it's a reasonable assumption. Examine the realtionship between your suggested realms/realities/containers and I think you will see what I mean.
There is no difference, they are one in the same, you got confused, I blame your English professor, if you had one. It's false because no one could possibly know, and you stated it as though it's the only way it can be. My assertion was only to counter yours, to show you your error by providing a contradictory error to yours, that is equally possible when one talks of an invisible god, or so mans box tells us.

My intellect is such that I know that as far as a god is concerned no one knows, so you won't see me making any hair brained assumptions as if I possibly could, as an argument, such as you did. There is no way of knowing whether he exists, here, there, everywhere or nowhere. He could be right in front of your face, for all you 'know.' Can you see a gamma or beta ray? No, just Roy G Biv. How many rays can our machines not detect? Answer that one! Do we detect gravity itself, or do we detect the effects of gravity. Do we detect the movements of a clock, or do we detect time itself? What is, or is not, right in front of your face, anyway? No one necessarily knows, they just think they know.

P.S. I really like the way you structured this response for clarity's and reference's sake, thank you!

Edit: P.S. added.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres , heres how I see it ,
even using your definition"or that human knowledge is limited to experience"
we can then express what I know to be the agnostic rationale ,
which is the same as the old religious claim ,
above and beyond or comprehension , that there is something out there ,
but it is beyond or ability to experience , most the agnostics I have talked to believe in spiritual things , rather than ,"mans god"
most have a idea that ghosts or souls or spirits are out there ,
eternal life , re-incarnation , these things are often possible ,
in an agnostics mind , I have yet to meet an agnostic , that dismisses ,
all of superstition or spirituality ,
they nearly always have something unreal they believe .
otherwise they would be an Atheist , surely ,,???

Godfree, I'm not here to tell anyone what they are, as I believe it's hard enough for each to know what they are for themselves.
As far as I've read, NOT MINE, but their definition, I see that what I am, most closely, resembles an agnostic! I believe that Purposeful Creation is as equally possible as Chance from Chaos! It's exactly 50/50 for me! PERIOD!! I see that the jury is still out and probably shall be until long after I die, unfortunately!

[Godfree]

one! Do we detect gravity itself, or do we detect the effects of gravity. Do we detect the movements of a clock, or do we detect time itself? What is, or is not, right in front of your face, anyway? No one necessarily knows, they just think they know.[/color][/quote][/quote]

Is that nobody nows ?, anything ?, are you suggesting nothing is knowable,,???
I know things , you know things , there are many things we can agree on ,
I find it strange how people want to base a belief system on what they can't know,,????
when there is a mountain of stuff we do know , my model for the universe ,
just uses what we can see , and know already , gravity , matter and time ,
gravity is the engine that drives the universe ,
it causes suns to do what they do and black holes to be black holes .
we don't need to live in fantasy land when reality is staring us in the face,,!!

[Godfree]

[
believe that Purposeful Creation is as equally possible as Chance from Chaos! It's exactly 50/50 for me! PERIOD!! I see that the jury is still out and probably shall be until long after I die, unfortunately![/color][/quote]

thats the bit I don't get , after the discussions we have had ,
for you then to say 50/50 , and what happened to infinity ,,??
in an infinite universe there was no creation , given up on that one , huh ,?
50/50 , sigh ,
I feel I have failed you Spheres ,
I would never suggest an individual doesn't have the right to believe ,
whatever they want to , but I thought you were smarter than that ,
I thought you could tell the difference ,,!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

[
believe that Purposeful Creation is as equally possible as Chance from Chaos! It's exactly 50/50 for me! PERIOD!! I see that the jury is still out and probably shall be until long after I die, unfortunately![/color]

thats the bit I don't get , after the discussions we have had ,
for you then to say 50/50 , and what happened to infinity ,,??
in an infinite universe there was no creation , given up on that one , huh ,?
50/50 , sigh ,
I feel I have failed you Spheres ,
I would never suggest an individual doesn't have the right to believe ,
whatever they want to , but I thought you were smarter than that ,
I thought you could tell the difference ,,!!![/quote]
Now see that's not right of you to publicly diminish my IQ based purely upon my not agreeing with you. I have never done that to you, nor shall I ever. Actually my IQ is quite high (above average). And to think that I've supported you in your arguments, go figure, man, go figure!

[Godfree]

[
believe that Purposeful Creation is as equally possible as Chance from Chaos! It's exactly 50/50 for me! PERIOD!! I see that the jury is still out and probably shall be until long after I die, unfortunately![/color]

thats the bit I don't get , after the discussions we have had ,
for you then to say 50/50 , and what happened to infinity ,,??
in an infinite universe there was no creation , given up on that one , huh ,?
50/50 , sigh ,
I feel I have failed you Spheres ,
I would never suggest an individual doesn't have the right to believe ,
whatever they want to , but I thought you were smarter than that ,
I thought you could tell the difference ,,!!!

Now see that's not right of you to publicly diminish my IQ based purely upon my not agreeing with you. I have never done that to you, nor shall I ever. Actually my IQ is quite high (above average). And to think that I've supported you in your arguments, go figure, man, go figure![/quote]
I'm not trying to insult you Spheres , I am surprised by the 50/50 ,
you do seem intelligent , and I have agreed with a lot of your posts ,
I'm just trying to understand ,
so if I was to ad a third option , "purposeful creation" , "chaos"
and "infinity" , would you then say 33.3% probability for each ,,???
and what probability would you put on god existing,???of some sort ,!!
and is that just for creation , or do you see religion in general ,
as just as likely to be true as science and evolution ,,???

[Arising_uk]

You do this all the time, Arising. You should have read above!

That leading physicists dealing with cutting edge cosmology, not amateurs such as you and I, have been so confounded by what they think they've seen, that they've turned to creation for solution.

You cited string-theory, its not an accepted theory of physics at present, its just a mathematical idea, its not 'cutting-edge cosmology'. Amongst the cosmologists and mathematical physicists I doubt you'll find more than a handful who think 'god' has anything to do with anything where Physics is concerned.

What on earth do you mean by " turned to creation for solution"? What solution would a creator solve in Physics!?

But LMAO that once again you use authorities as your source of ideas given your oft squawking about parrots.

Did you watch the link I gave to Krauss's lecture?

[Notvacka]

Have you taken English in college. Well I don't know about yours, but my professor said that when referring to the same thing in various lines of text within a paragraph, one should mix it up with the synonyms, because otherwise it makes for both dull reading and potential misconception, as someone might be more familiar with a particular synonym, over another.

I do something similar when I write "realms/realities/containers", suggesting that in this context, these three words are supposed to mean the same thing, which they usually don't. This is a way of narrowing down, not expanding, and a way of checking if I understood you correctly, since you introduced the words "realm" and (indirectly) "container" to the discussion.

There is no difference, they are one in the same, you got confused, I blame your English professor, if you had one. It's false because no one could possibly know, and you stated it as though it's the only way it can be. My assertion was only to counter yours, to show you your error by providing a contradictory error to yours, that is equally possible when one talks of an invisible god, or so mans box tells us.

Please don't blame my English professor (I had one, though English is not my primary language). And I think that it's you who "confuse" the realms/realities/containers here. Let's try to break it down and focus:

There is no difference, they are one in (and?) the same.

How can they be? The creator must exist before/outside and independently from that which is created. It's simple cause and effect. I say "must" here because I can't imagine it any other way. If you can, please explain how.

It's false because no one could possibly know.

Do you realise that this is as infuriating to me as when you spouted "not knowledge" earlier?

We both agree that such knowledge regarding God is impossible to obtain. But does that mean that nothing can be said about God? I don't think so. What I'm talking about here is the concept of a creator (God) and the possible relations between such a creator and creation (reality).

The fact that knowledge is impossible to obtain, does not make such statements false, but unfalsifiable. (At least as far as any actual God, who might or might not exist, is concerned.) However, I believe that certain logical truths can be established regarding the conepts of God and creation.

Since Godfree is concerned about the universe having a beginning, the only aspect of God that need concern us here is the role of creator. If Godfree understood Einstein's theory of relativity and the concept of space-time, he would realise that before the big bang equals outside the universe, and that an infinite universe is just as likely to have been created by God as a finite one. My point being that he could accept and appreciate modern physics and cosmology without fear of it being "tainted" by theist notions.

...and you stated it as though it's the only way it can be.

Yes, I did. It's the only logical way. You might of course imagine a God who is beyond logic. I have nothing to say about such a God.

My assertion was only to counter yours, to show you your error by providing a contradictory error to yours, that is equally possible.

Then I'd like you to explain how it's equally possible.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You do this all the time, Arising. You should have read above!

That leading physicists dealing with cutting edge cosmology, not amateurs such as you and I, have been so confounded by what they think they've seen, that they've turned to creation for solution.

You cited string-theory, its not an accepted theory of physics at present, its just a mathematical idea, its not 'cutting-edge cosmology'. Amongst the cosmologists and mathematical physicists I doubt you'll find more than a handful who think 'god' has anything to do with anything where Physics is concerned.
You can't read for crap, as when you do, you obviously project your own strange, untrue presumption into it. I suggest you reread above as your brain is still stuck back there, once you do and catch up, we'll continue. I expect you to reiterate your retort before I take you seriously!
What on earth do you mean by " turned to creation for solution"? What solution would a creator solve in Physics!?
Again reread!


But LMAO that once again you use authorities as your source of ideas given your oft squawking about parrots.
ROTFLMAO!! As you're incapable of seeing the distinctions here. He was speaking for authorities, so I spoke for authorities, are you dense? I don't necessarily mindlessly believe in what they said and then parrot it, as a sense of my own achievement, as some do around here.


Did you watch the link I gave to Krauss's lecture?
No, where is it, I must have missed it, this thread?.