Comments by "MC116" (@angelmendez-rivera351) on "Response to Globebusters - The Earth Still Isn't Flat" video.
-
2
-
2
-
That is the entire point of conspiratorial thinking. It is unfalsifiable. It is akin to solipsism or Last Thurdayism. Unfalsifiable things are bliss for those who have a fragile ego: they are unfalsifiable, so they cannot be proven or convinced to be wrong by even the smartest of people, and because they cannot be convinced that they are wrong, their feelings and ego are safe from any danger. Everyone has some degree of fragility within their ego. It is the truth. Being wrong doesn't feel good. It lowkey does suck sometimes when you realize you believed in a lie for 20 years. Often, these lies are insignificant facts. Often, not so much. However, plenty of people are capable of still accepting that, yes, they were wrong, even if it temporarily hurts a little bit or a lot of bit, and learn from the mistake, to some capacity or another. But flat Earth believers have an ego so unbelievably fragile that they are willing to be ostracized by the entirety of society if it means not accepting that they are wrong.
2
-
2
-
Your Friend I don't think it's an issue about patience and effort to understand something. You require effort to understand quantum physics, set theory, cosmology, organic chemistry, evolution, epigenetics, music theory, languages, and so on. Those require effort and patience. But understanding the evidence and the basic physics behind the globe Earth does not require such effort and patience. These things can be understood by 7-year old children with cognitive disabilities. And I genuinely don't mean that offensively, I mean it in that having a cognitive disability can often make certain concepts difficult to understand. But this isn't the case even among people with cognitive disabilities. The globe Earth is one of the easiest things to understand that there are. So I can't honestly be convinced that they're not ready to put in the effort, because there is very little effort that you have to put in to understand it. Rather, it's an issue of fragility. The ego of a person who believes in the flat Earth is often so big that when they realize that their worldview is in danger, rather than accepting that they have been wrong this entire time, they choose to be stupid. Because this is how fragile their ego is. It's a variant of "I'd rather not know the truth, because learning the truth is too painful."
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tom H This applies to some flat Earthers, but in general, not really. Many flat Earthers, particularly in the U.S.A, do believe in the Bible, but many others are also atheists. And yes, they are uneducated in science, but they are also dumb. Here is the thing: most people are uneducated in science. This is the truth. Unless you went to undergraduate school and obtained a bacherlor's in science, your education science is effectively minimal, especially because high schools are not particularly good at teaching maths or sciences. But the difference is, most people uneducated in science aren't dumb. And they won't try to argue with you about stupid things they're not educated about because they're not dumb like this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John David There is evidence of a Creator.
There is absolutely, legitimately no evidence for the existence of a Creator whatsoever.
It's like math; it isn't seen or heard but known.
This is a terrible analogy, because (1) you can see manifestations of the consequences of the mathematics in the physical world. This is why there is such a tightly-knit connection between physics and mathematics. (2) You can prove a statement in mathematics by using some system of syntactic deduction and a set of initial axioms. There is no formal or logical equivalent for proving the existence of deities. You cannot prove the existence of a creator deity. There is no set of well-founded, indisputably proven truths from which you can validly conclude that a creator deity exists. None. 0. Nada. Nilch. Rien. If you want to believe that there exists such a creator in spite of the fact that no there is no valid argument with which you can conclude that such a creator exists, i.e, belief without justification, then you are welcome to do so, and I will not try to stop you from doing so, this is your choice, and you are free to do so. However, if you are going to claim that such evidence or proof does exist, then you are responsible for providing that evidence to us and subjecting your arguments to scrutiny. That is how it is.
It's not something I have the patience to teach.
You don't have to teach me anything. I have a degree in philsophy, and I studied epistemology and theology. I have another degree in physics, with some level of especialization in quantum theory and some especialization in astrophysics. I was a follower of Christianity for 20 years. I have also dedicated myself to reading the religious texts and studying the basics of the theologies of other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Shinto, and some shamanic religions of the Yoruba tribes in Africa and Latin America, because that is where my mom came from. I have read the Dao de Jing, several Buddhist texts, as well as Confucian texts, the Bible, some of the Quran, and what not. You can feel safe and confident that I am not just some fool who is coming into this conversation unprepared and uneducated. If you still don't want to have this conversation, then I can't force you to do so.
1
-
PhilAOFish x I can't imagine a more miserable, pathetic, and useless view, than nihilism.
How arrogant. Why do you assume all atheists subscribe to nihilism? I am willing to bet real money on the claim that, to the contrary, most atheists are not nihilists.
To think that WE humans are the top of the pyramid is what I consider to be Hell.
Many of atheists, myself included, do not believe we are at the top of the pyramid. In fact, we are not so ignorant as to think such a pyramid exists in the first place. At least I know plenty of atheists for whom that is the case.
The best human being is still only a human being, subject to all our faults and mortality.
Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with the fact that we are imperfect. I can accept those imperfections and live happily with them because they make us what we are. If you cannot be happy with that, then yikes, that must suck.
Worshipping ourselves is what I believe Satanism is.
My first instinct when I read this sentence was to think "you're an idiot." I will refrain from actually consciously declaring that you are, though, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. With that said, though, you need to recognize how absolutely ignorant and moronic your sentence is. Atheists do not worship humans. They do not worship themselves. You are right. Satanists do worship humans. Plenty of pagan belief systems do. But atheism is not a belief system, and atheists, by the literal definition of the word, do not worship anybody, not even us humans.
1
-
CHAD Once again, I will play devil's advocate...
You are not playimg anyone's advocate, you are simply being dishonest and disguising that as a farce of being a mediator of sorts. I can justify this accusation that I am making.
Please provide the evidence that unequivocally refutes the notion of a Universal Creator.
Infinite Monkey has no responsibility to provide you with such evidence, because they never claimed that a Universal Creator does not exist. To the contrary, in their response to your comments, they clarified that atheists do not believe a god does not exist. As such, the burden of proof falls exclusively on John David, who does actively claim that a Creator does exist.
Secondly, any evidence, or lack thereof, used to support either side of the argument, is also subjective.
It is not. Epistemology and formal logic exist.
For instance, what may be undeniable proof to some, may not suffice for others, especially when each side uses their own criterion.
Some criterion are invalid, meaningless, or simply absurd. Others are not. Whether you or anyone else agrees with this does not change that fact. If a proof that is valid does not suffice for someone, then that someone is just in denial, and they are wrong. This is why, we can say, for example, that a flat Earth conspirationist, is wrong, and in denial, regardless of what you, they, or anyone else says. If a proof is not valid, or is incomplete, and does not suffice for someone, then it does not matter if the entirety of the Earth decides that the proof that is valid, it is simply not, and it means that the entirety of the Earth is wrong, even if no one knows it, because that is how truth-value semantics work. If a proof is invalid, but it suffices for someone, that someone is still wrong, and it is their mistake for not realizing why the proof is invalid. Proofs are valid and invalid. This is not subjective. Independently of whether any human ever in existence ever acknowledges this or not, this is true.
Both sides of this argument are contingent on one's own subjective understanding of reality.
Understanding, by the very virtue of what it is, is not subjective.
1
-
PhilAOFish x We live in a casual Universe. Every effect has a cause.
This is, unfortunately, inaccurate. This not what the current scientific understanding of a causal Universe is. Scientific, physical causality is actually understood via the theory of general relativity. "Causes" and "effects" in the classical understanding that philosophers and scientists alike had in the 1600-1800s simply do not exist. This classical understanding fails to take into account the relativity of simultaneity, and time dilation in general. It also fails to take into account non-locality and quantum theory as a whole.
Therefore, our Universe began with an external cause.
This is impossible, because according to all understandings of causality, scientifically accurate or not, include the notion that the cause and the effect are connected via temporal precession. However, anything external to the universe cannot participate in temporal precession with the universe or anything with the universe, because that would imply that they exist somewhere in spacetime, but if they do exist in spacetime, then they are, by definition, not external. In fact, the current scientific understanding of the universe is that it is impossible to interact with the universe or any parts thereof, unless that interacting entity is also contained by the universe. The universe, in its definition, includes all the set of interactions physically possible.
1A: Causality, Newton's 3rd Law, action-reaction
This is most definitely NOT what Newton's 3rd law states. What Newton's 3rd law states is that if an object A applies a force F on object B, then object B will also apply a force -F on object A. And unfortunately, Newton's laws are only an approxiation of reality. A more accurate description of reality is given by the theory of general relativity and quantum field theory.
In this case arguing the premise cause and effect requires you to argue against using science to discern knowledge.
No, it doesn't. It only requires for me to argue that your fundamental understanding of physics is completely inaccurate. And I can do that, because I am a physicist, and I have a degree in physics, and I know that the claims you're making just aren't scientifically accurate. If you want to make scientifically accurate claims, then you should be talking about metric tensors, curvature tensors, stress-energy tensors, Lagrangian densities, quantum fields, wavefunctions, and what not. You aren't doing that, so there is nothing else really to discuss here. I am sorry.
1
-
John David I can not confirm the existence of things that must experience on your own
Personal experience is not a form of evidence. You cannot draw a valid conclusion about an unphysical entity via an experience that is contingent on the laws of physics. You can claim that you have experienced the creator, or that you experienced death, but just because you make that claim, that does not imply that you did indeed experience the creator or that you experienced death. In fact, just because you claim you understand what you experienced, that does not mean you do. Neurological studied have demonstrated that we can use electromagnetic resonance to manipulate regions of the brain, such that it induces hallucinations in patients, including sensations of a holy entity, and you can even induce consistent out-of-body experiences despite the fact that the body is not in any danger whatsoever. These can be done independently of whether there exists a creator, multiple, or none. These findings suggest that these sacred personal experiences are just stray sensations that do not have any real connection to anything preternatural, surnatural, or supernatural, whatsoever. The fact that each personal experience contradicts most or all others only further destroys the reliability of experience as evidence.
The Creator cannot be calculated anymore than a computer can surpass its programmer's knowledge.
This is factually and objectively incorrect. A computer can, and often, does, surpass the knowledge of its programmer. For example, in the decades of the 1990s, a computer, which was programmed by somebody who was not an international grandmaster at chess, defeated Garry Kasparov, who at the time, was the best chess player in the world. The knowledge the computer had qualitatively and quantitaively surpassed Kasparov's, and therefore, surpassed the programmer's, who had less knowledge than Kasparov. This is just one example, but there are potentially millions of currently existing examples in the real world today.
You must experience your own evidence.
I already debunked this above.
You cannot know what love is without experience.
This is false. You can know what love is without having experienced it. You can consult people who have experienced it and obtain a statistical consensus. You can investigate the brain chemistry and the hormonal chemistry of people who experience love and who do not experience it. You can investigate all the sociological facets of what love is by looking at different societies and looking at the different traditions centered around the topic of love. None of this requires that you experience love ever in your life. You need to experience love to know what love feels like, but not to know what it is or that it exists. Frankly, this also holds true for most things in life. You can know what a country is like without being there. You can know what a person is like without ever having seen them or met with them in person. I can know that Moscow exists without ever having needed to be there. You need not know to experience something to know that it exists, and in the same vein, that you think you experienced something does not imply that it exists.
for all we know, math is an obsolete way of keeping track of things
No, we know for a fact that math is not obsolete. It cannot be, because math is just a collection of formal theories of propositional logic constructed by humans. Math is a human invention. Mathematical statements are true because we decide that they are true in our system. For example, there exists the axiom of infinity. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which is the foundation of standard mathematics as we know them, includes the axiom of infinity, which declares that one infinite set exists. This is the set of all natural numbers. Therefore, an infinite set exists, because we decided it exists. Of course, we could have chosen to reject this axiom, and work with an ultrafinitist set theory of mathematics. Sure, it is not practical to do so, but it is logically consistent, and therefore, just as valid as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, or any other mathematical theory. Another example is the continuum hypothesis. The continuum hypothesis not decidable in the standard mathematical set theories. You can append the continuum hypothesis as an axiom, and you maintain consistency. You can append its negation, and still maintain consistency. This is perfectly legitimate. Whether the continuum hypothesis is true or not, is genuinely and literally up to our choice. Anyhow, the point is that, because mathematics are constructed according to a set of logical criteria, and according to human necessity, it is basically, by definition, not obsolete.
An A.I. cannot surpass its programmer.
You are in dire need of consulting multiple computer scientists that will all tell you otherwise, and explain to you why you are wrong. I also gave a counterexample to this claim, so it is effectively debunked. Moving on.
If a computer is a compilation of our pre-existing knowledge...
That is not what a computer is. Once again, I STRONGLY recommend that you watch or take introductory computer science courses, and/or you consult with multipli computer scientists in-depth about the topic. I am not a computer scientist. However, I have enough of an education on the topic to at least know that this is not what a computer is.
Anyhow, none of this is evidence that a creator exists.
What do you want me to do?!?!
To give us evidence that God exists, not use some elegant-sounding rhetoric that only amounts to cute poetry. Saying "with will, anything is possible" is not an argument. If you can actually indeed prove that "with will, anything is possible," then that is an argument. Making claims without proof is not presenting an argument. Rather, it is just a waste of everyone's time. The only arguments you have presented, which were that experience is evidence, and that computers cannot surpass their programmers, were both debunked. So you need to present us a new argument and not some poetry. I'm sorry, but that is how conversation works. Poetry is not going to convince me or anyone here.
when you look at the amount of "programs" running through the human brain in comparison to the fastest super computer... let's just say it doesn't compute
Once again, this is false. The fastest neurological processes cap at a speed of no more than 125 m/s. This is due to biological limits that cannot simply be surpassed through sheer will. Surpassing them actually requires undergoing natural selection and, frankly, being lucky that the correct mutations happen in our genes. A computer has physical limitations, but not biological ones. And while a brain does run more programs than a computer at any given second, it is far less efficient than even an ordinary computer, let alone a supercomputer. Frankly, the only task at which humans surpass computers (for now) is at replicating thorough emotions. But A.I is coming closer and closer every year.
Einstein wasn't very bright. This is common knowledge.
No, it isn't, John.
The size of his brain is exaggerated.
You have to be joking. You cannot be making such blatantly ignorant claims and expect us to take you seriously. Intelligence actually does not correlate with the size of the brain. It correlates with the number and the density of the wrinkles in the brain. This is why there exist mammals who have legitimately larger brains that are considered to be less intelligent than those with smaller brains. It is because these larger mammals have smoother brains. This is why you will often find that, in the Internet, will people will call you a "smooth-brained person" as an insult: biologically, it is synonymous with "idiot."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1