reply to post by nunya13
Guess I was being lazy. It's hard to go through 8 pages of posts so I was hoping you would restate yourself. I was also trying to change the
tone of our interaction with eachother.
Well, I suppose I should inform you of some thing's you might want to know about me.
I don't like dishonest people and I view dishonesty as proclaiming a truth without backing up that truth.
I don't like arrogant people and I view arrogant people as those pompous buffoons who will blatantly ignore explicit evidence against their
I don't like ignorant people and I view ignorant people as those who purposefully don't bother to learn anything at all.
I don't like Liars and I view these people who just general make BS up that doesn't exist on purpose towards their own agendas and beliefs.
I don't like lazy people, if I say I've already explained something in a thread I'm discussing an issue with and you repeatedly demand of me to
repeat that explanation, then your lazy and I will treat you accordingly.
Look, there may not be scientific data to back some of this stuff up and I am not of a scientific mind. The only way I can really learn about
this stuff, since I can't ever seem to comprehend physics in general no matter how hard I try, is by discussing it with people who may know better
than I or have their own ideas.
Great, so you piss on me while admitting you don't know nothing about any of this personally. Another trait I dislike. Yet you want me to change *MY*
tone? How about you change your unfounded opinion?
Could you imagine if I required proof every single time I got into a discussion with someone (in "real" life) about physics, philosophy?
Sometimes I think it's just too much to always require hard evidence if people are just trying to converse and learn from eachothers
Look, it's quiet easy; Reality is reality and whatever is real to reality is proven to be real to reality. Science doesn't have all the answers and
often times if not most times the answers it arrives to are proven wrong time and time again, but over a larger period of time certain answers keep
popping up that seem to just work, so we base theories and technologies upon those certain answers, because they seem to work.
Despite the appearance of seemingly working however, this does not invariably make it true or factual in explanation. As I've been telling the OP,
correlation does not imply causation. Take his argument of dark matter. Despite the invented form of matter and thus the predicted observations, the
correlation of it's predictions does not mean dark matter is inherently the causation of the observation, if you can understand that. Dark matter is
an invented requirement, not an observed truth.
The point is, what may appear true today may not be what is true tomorrow, so unless it can be proven true over and over again through constant
falsifiability, then there is no reason to continuously believe it to be true. Science is never about absolutes as it constantly forces itself to
recheck it's "facts".
Never believe someone who claims to have an absolute truth, they're idiots of the highest degree.
So I understand how you may call the OP's a logical fallacy, I'm just hoping that you and others can just join in the conversation even if
you disagree without calling people liars just because they are posing ideas that may not have scientific data to back it up.
He was called a liar for a very specific reason, he lied to me. I don't call people names without reason, I do have certain morals. I treat people
how THEY want to be treated. You want to lie, you get treated as such, etc.
Pretty reasonable way to live if you ask me.
There's no harm in discussing ideas such as these even if they are completely false (which also can't be proven). As someone I know always
says, "there's a point where discussions like these stop applying to your life". So it doesn't hurt a soul to imagine, wish, or believe that
"you" are the Higgs Boson.
There is a distinct difference between speculative discussion and proclaimed truth. The OP exclaims a truth, not a speculative possibility. When I see
a proclaimed truth, I demand evidence for such before I accept that truth. Without evidence, then what right do we have to blindly believe in
something unproven? It's idiocy.