Scientific Method and God

[-1-]

Einstein was not a scientist but a philosopher whose toy idea proved to be true by observation.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

No, it's not a "No true Scotsman fallacy".

[-1-]

Can anybody provide a definition for "God" that does not recurse into a Null-pointer [1]? A signifier without a signified.

e.g God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. All three of those adjectives are null-pointers unless you can provide an example of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

I'd use my imagination to define those characteristics, instead through an example.

I agree omnipotent is self-contradictory, but not the other two.

Examples of instances of omniscience and omnipresence:

An omniscient god knows everything knowable.

An omnipresent god is as large in expanse as the universe itself.

This was not even hard.

[-1-]

Can anybody provide a definition for "God" that does not recurse into a Null-pointer [1]? A signifier without a signified.

Three of those adjectives are null-pointers unless you can provide an example of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

Null pointers in philosophy have classical names: impossible, non-existent, nil.

So we call them null-pointers from here on. Okay.

What's the advantage? What's the need that necessitated the change?

[TimeSeeker]

No, it's not a "No true Scotsman fallacy".

Then I am sure you will have no trouble producing your classification rule (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ) for sorting “scientists” from “non-scientists”?

[-1-]

No, it's not a "No true Scotsman fallacy".

Then I am sure you will have no trouble producing your classification rule (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ) for sorting “scientists” from “non-scientists”?

I am sure you are having problems understanding factual statements and comparing it to reality.

If you read Einstein's own account of creating his relativity theory, and the history of its supporting evidence, you would be able to see that you erred when you called my claim a "Not a true Scotsman" fallacy.

[TimeSeeker]

Null pointers in philosophy have classical names: impossible, non-existent, nil.

So we call them null-pointers from here on. Okay.

What's the advantage? What's the need that necessitated the change?

That is the thing, epistemically they aren’t the same thing.

Non-existent is not the same as impossible.

Impossible means “violates known laws of physics” e.g omniscience. Maxwell’s daemon. Violates 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Non-existent means “not yet discovered”. e.g black swans. There are no physical laws that one can use to dismiss their existence.

And so the God signifier is not nil in your head

God -> omniscient.

But omniscient is impossible. So God becomes a nil-pointer.

[TimeSeeker]

No, it's not a "No true Scotsman fallacy".

Then I am sure you will have no trouble producing your classification rule (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ) for sorting “scientists” from “non-scientists”?

I am sure you are having problems understanding factual statements and comparing it to reality.

If you read Einstein's own account of creating his relativity theory, and the history of its supporting evidence, you would be able to see that you erred when you called my claim a "Not a true Scotsman" fallacy.

I am not interested in Einstein’s written account (now that he isn’t here to address ambiguity).

I am interest in your criteria for sorting people into two boxes: scientist vs not-scientist.

Clearly you have some pre-conceptions about what science is and how it should be conducted.

Which smells like an appeal to authority.

[-1-]

Then I am sure you will have no trouble producing your classification rule (...) for sorting “scientists” from “non-scientists”?

Why do you ask me what you are sure of?

[-1-]

I am not interested in Einstein’s written account (now that he isn’t here to address ambiguity).

You make it hard to make known facts be accepted by you.

And your reason for that is...???

There is no ambiguity. Your calling it does not create it.

[TimeSeeker]

I am not interested in Einstein’s written account (now that he isn’t here to address ambiguity).

You make it hard to make known facts be accepted by you.

And your reason for that is...???

There is no ambiguity. Your calling it does not create it.

Non-regular languages are open to interpretation. Derrida has demonstrated this over and over again with deconstruction.

I will demonstrate it to you. I need one ambiguity to shift the entire semiotic framework.

Words don’t have objective meaning. You are just a victim of the correspondence theory of truth (which is a load of bullshit).

This is the symbol-grounding problem and the principle of explosion. I know how to leverage it to my advantage.

And so yes - just because you don’t see an ambiguity doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[-1-]

Null pointers in philosophy have classical names: impossible, non-existent, nil.

So we call them null-pointers from here on. Okay.

What's the advantage? What's the need that necessitated the change?

That is the thing, epistemically they aren’t the same thing.

Non-existent is not the same as impossible.

Impossible means “violates known laws of physics” e.g omniscience. Maxwell’s daemon. Violates 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Non-existent means “not yet discovered”. e.g black swans. There are no physical laws that one can use to dismiss their existence.

And so the God signifier is not nil in your head

God -> omniscient.

But omniscient is impossible. So God becomes a nil-pointer.

Nice try. Riddled with faulty reasoning, but as an attempt, your attempt is not bad. If you discount logic and reason, naturally.

1. Please prove that omniscient is impossible. Heidelberg's uncertainty principle does not render it impossible.

2. Impossible means “violates known laws of physics” plus it violates laws of logic.

3. Non-existent means “not yet discovered”. e.g black swans. This is an impoverished definition.

You haven't built a case and your claim is unsupported.

[-1-]

Non-regular languages are open to interpretation. Derrida has demonstrated this over and over again with deconstruction.

I will demonstrate it to you. I need one ambiguity to shift the entire semiotic framework.

Words don’t have objective meaning. You are just a victim of the correspondence theory of truth (which is a load of bullshit).

This is the symbol-grounding problem and the principle of explosion. I know how to leverage it to my advantage.

And so yes - just because you don’t see an ambiguity doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your demonstration applies to your claim and logic equally. You have not used completely clear language, either. So with the same reason that you painstakingly presented here, I have just as much right to reject your arguments as much right you falsely claim you have to reject mine.

You have not built a case, your claim is unsupported, and you use a blanket epistemological description, unrelated to the foregoing, to fallaciously try to invalidate my argument.

[TimeSeeker]

Non-regular languages are open to interpretation. Derrida has demonstrated this over and over again with deconstruction.

I will demonstrate it to you. I need one ambiguity to shift the entire semiotic framework.

Words don’t have objective meaning. You are just a victim of the correspondence theory of truth (which is a load of bullshit).

This is the symbol-grounding problem and the principle of explosion. I know how to leverage it to my advantage.

And so yes - just because you don’t see an ambiguity doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your demonstration applies to your claim and logic equally. You have not used completely clear language, either. So with the same reason that you painstakingly presented here, I have just as much right to reject your arguments as much right you falsely claim you have to reject mine.

You have not built a case, your claim is unsupported, and you use a blanket epistemological description, unrelated to the foregoing, to fallaciously try to invalidate my argument.

Well, while we are throwing accusations around you haven’t stated the criteria/standards by which you would evaluate my case.

Ohhhh wait. You think YOU are privy to criticising my work.

Hahahaha. Shame. Academics

[TimeSeeker]

Non-regular languages are open to interpretation. Derrida has demonstrated this over and over again with deconstruction.

I will demonstrate it to you. I need one ambiguity to shift the entire semiotic framework.

Words don’t have objective meaning. You are just a victim of the correspondence theory of truth (which is a load of bullshit).

This is the symbol-grounding problem and the principle of explosion. I know how to leverage it to my advantage.

And so yes - just because you don’t see an ambiguity doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your demonstration applies to your claim and logic equally. You have not used completely clear language, either. So with the same reason that you painstakingly presented here, I have just as much right to reject your arguments as much right you falsely claim you have to reject mine.

You have not built a case, your claim is unsupported, and you use a blanket epistemological description, unrelated to the foregoing, to fallaciously try to invalidate my argument.

Well, while we are throwing accusations around you haven’t stated the objective criteria/standards by which you would evaluate the validity of my case/argument.

And so you keep shifting the goal posts....

Ohhhh wait. You think YOU are privy to criticising my work. You have bought into the peer-review scam...

Hahahaha. Shame. Philosophers

[-1-]

Dear Time-Seeker, Are you a new manifest of any of these users:
Averro
BillWilltrack
JohnDoe7
ImmanuelCan?

If yes, please let me know. Please forgive me, spelling of names in the list is at times only approximate.