Earlier I made a boo-boo... That is false. An argument can be valid in form yet have a false premise(contradictory to known fact).

My bad!

Very sloppy of me.

I do not see how logic necessarily excludes first-person perspective. Logic is a means of assessing what is written from a first-person perspective.

Logic demonstrates the first-person thought process in such a way that it can be assessed for truth value, through necessity.

How can something inherently subjective(perceptual faculty) be considered absolute?

Sky wrote:

Could you give some other evidence which supports these two conclusions? I have never seen that claim before, and would like to see how it was arrived at.

I wanted to address a few different things here. One of which is the value of logic/critical reasoning skills, another is the idea of anthropomorphism, and last but certainly not least is an idea which I call partial evidence.



Concerning logic...

It is important to understand the value of a logically sound argument, and contrary to an earlier expressed opinion, the logic I use is not my logic. It is logic as it has been established throughout history by some of the brightest minds mankind has ever known. It is the most non-biased method of establishing truth value that we have at our disposal concerning ideas/propositions which are expressed with written language. Is it absolute???

Of course not, but what is? Therefore, for one to use [logic is not absolute[ as a reason to dismiss it's use would be unreasonable, unless s/he could replace it with something more absolute. That is not possible.

Just a small reminder to anyone interested, an argument or demonstration of thought process (which are essentially the same thing) cannot be both, contradictory to known fact, and valid.




Concerning anthropomorphism of the source of the universe...

As a result of the irrelevance to the topic at hand, I will not venture into anything outside of the idea of the original source of the universe. The label chosen does not matter here, because all of those have at least three things in common. They are claimed to *somehow* be responsible for the universe as we have come to know it, they have yet to have been proven to exist, and the very idea presupposes that the observations available to us are enough to be able to draw a conclusion about how the universe began.

The above three elements are true in all cases I can think of, regardless of whether or not personification(anthropomorphism) is involved. When that is done, it only adds variables which are not - cannot - be logically concluded as necessary. It assumes, without logically sound reason, two more things - one being that a creator/designer exists, the other being that that creator/designer has human-like emotions and needs. With our current understanding and knowledge, there is no way to know that.

If we are intellectually honest with ourselves, we must realize that because of the fact that we can only see *some* of what may be - and probably is if history is an indication - so much more, we do not have enough information to be able to draw a conclusion about the very beginning of it all. The idea of the big bang is the result of our using what we know to logically infer what we can. It is not considered to be a source, just a conclusion regarding the earliest possible(most probable) scenario based upon what is currently known. It has not been proven, but anyone who understands the knowledge behind it also knows why it has been postulated as the most likely 'beginning' according to the recognized scientific laws which our universe seems to consistently follow.





Concerning partial evidence...

Di hit on this slightly, and I approached the same idea prior to that a few times in this thread. I found it to be quite curious in a way to witness the invocation and use of scientific findings which support one's idea held with such high regard, but the same science - when demonstrated to deny the validity of the same argument - was held in a negative light as if it were unworthy of consideration. Is that not just a wee little bit hypocritical and/or intellectually dishonest? Selecting only partial supporting evidence, while leaving out or dismissing contradictory evidence from the same source is extremely bad form.

It so much reminds me of rhetorical advertising. Like in the case where two different companies make the same claim like - '4 out of 5 doctors prefer' - or - gets whites whitest out of the leading brands. Claims like those are partial evidence claims, and are meant for the sole purpose of selling the idea that that product is 'best'. The writers leave out the less compelling parts, like that the 4 out of 5 doctors were doctors purposefully chosen for their preferences. Or that the 'leading brands' included in that claim were the 'leading brands which were purposefully chosen for whatever reason' and not necessarily the reason being demonstrated in the ad, and that the claim does not include all of the most well-established or 'trusted' brands.

When one is presenting evidence, which is supposedly proven scientific fact, all of us must be stringent in our examinations of that evidence. Most often, one can find fault in the form of argument, which negates the content of the claim, regardless of its scientific accuracy. That is one of the most beautiful aspects of critical reasoning skills and logic. It recognizes the difference between truth, knowledge, and bullsh*t.

Just a few things which I wanted to say at this point in time.

Therefore, for one to use [logic is not absolute[ as a reason to dismiss it's use would be unreasonable, unless s/he could replace it with something more absolute. That is not possible.

As a result of the irrelevance to the topic at hand, I will not venture into anything outside of the idea of the original source of the universe.

…
The idea of the big bang is the result of our using what we know to logically infer what we can. It is not considered to be a source, just a conclusion regarding the earliest possible(most probable) scenario based upon what is currently known. It has not been proven, but anyone who understands the knowledge behind it also knows why it has been postulated as the most likely 'beginning' according to the recognized scientific laws which our universe seems to consistently follow.

This is Crazy.......

Golden Eagle Vs Wolves

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/32661/Golden_Eagle_vs_Wolves/

A hypernova causing a gamma ray burst by collapsing into a black hole releases 10 to the 54 power ergs of energy.

Yes. If we consider man-made solar panels. At the present. But there could be or could have been made in the past or in the future very big solar panels. There is a biggest difference betweent the two types of things that is bigger than size differences. This is not a test; I don't know the answer. So anyone's guess could be the right one.

That's what makes atom bombs work.

In layman's terms, what actually happens is that part of the atom is converted from matter into energy according the good old E=MC^2 equation.

Okay, I thought the atom was just "split" but I guess if it blows up you can say it has been "destroyed."

I wonder how such a tiny quanta could cause such a huge explosion.

http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/inftoi/inftoi1.html

"Many toilets are designed to have the water enter the toilet bowl through a series of small holes under the porcelain seat rim. These holes are angled slightly, causing the water in the bowl to swirl around. This swirling action, combined with the speed of the entering water, causes the contents of the bowl to quickly and thoroughly exit from the base of the bowl, into the waste pipes, and, hopefully, out of your life forever. "

Interesting.

I did not know atoms could be destroyed.

The trade winds and North, South, East, or West movement of the air have nothing to do with the rotational movement of a hurricane. The effect is caused by the movement of air up or down. Low pressure areas like hurricanes always spin in the same direction (on it's respective side of the equator) because the air is going UP. High pressure areas are always going in the opposite direction because the air is falling down. This is one of the most dominate facts to know in understanding aviation weather. Not only is it what causes hurricanes, it is what stops them. As soon as the hurricane is removed from it's source of power, i.e., rising low pressure air, it starts to die.

You are correct on the hurricane but wrong on the toilet. When I was in Ecuador I went to the equator toilet exhibit (somewhat less fancy than the Smithsonian). They had three toilets set up, one on the equator and one on each side. The two on each side flushed normally but in opposite directions. The one in the middle, located exactly on the equator, acted like it had a turd stuck in it but was made of glass to prove that it didn't. Objects that fall on a spinning planets surface have a rotational acceleration emparted regardless of size.

Okay then why do all my experiments come up ... counter clockwise?

so these electrons don't go in a type of circular motion around the center of the atom? They go in all different directions.

I mean one electron goes in a type of circular rotation doesn't it.

If not then these atom diagrams surely are misleading to me for it shows that they are orbiting around the center.

hmmmm. not quite. if gravity was the only phenomenon affecting water falling, why would it not fall strait down on all sides? why the rotating motion of a whirlpool? anybody?

hmmmm. not quite. magnetic variation as it's called, varies depending on where you are on earth. yes, where you live, the east coast i'd guess as you used eleven degrees, variation may amount to eleven degrees. but variation changes as you travel east or west. at two lines of longitude on the globe variation is zero meaning true north and magnetic north line up exactly. the magnetic north pole is changing as well so navigation charts must be altered from time to time. the reason that compasses are not much good near the poles is that magnetic variation can be so huge as to render them useless.

here's an interesting question. let's say you are flying directly over the true north pole, that is the point where the earth's axis would protrude if it were visible. if you want to fly to new york, what heading would you take? what heading for paris? moscow? australia? maybe you'll understand why navigating over the poles requires training that involves more than simply looking at a compass.

Your not wrong, we just have naysayers that once there argument falls flat they attack the very methods of understanding.

Once there arguments are shown to be illogical and not backed by evidence they claim logic fails.

Now that I think about it. If math would be quantized would that help physics in finding more answers about existence of a designer, or at least come closer to new possibilities?