I don't care if you call me a nihilist or science a faith. Your framing is based on your delusional worldview, IMHO.
It does not change the fact that science is not faith and I am not a nihilist.
Here is a description of what nihilist assume about the nature of existence. What if anything do you feel is false? Nihilismhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NihilismNihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophicalviewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived.
|
|
|
|
You asked questions about one particular life form then you are surprised the answers are rooted in Biology?
Ask me anything about any non-living thing and the answers will be rooted in Physics or Chemistry.
I gave you our life purpose and meaning.
Yes I did and to your credit you answered straightforwardly and in a manner that lets us cut to the heart of the issue. We saw that at the center of your belief structure once we slip past the rings of scientific thought lies a belief a faith in nihilism. Similarly we could do the same for me and once past the science we would find theism. That fundamental difference makes sense and explains our prolonged argument over these many pages and threads. A robotic individual with a wholly scientific perspective would have no interest or motivation to participate in such a debate. Is it currently empirically testable they would ask? If the answer was no they would shrug their shoulders say they had no idea and move on to other topics that could be tested. There are, however, many questions that matter deeply to us that are not empirically testable. I highlighted a few above but there are many many others. This is why a foundational religion or philosophy is an inescapable necessity if we are going to interact with the world. Some foundational philosophies are mutually exclusive. When proponents of such philosophies meet clashes and conflict is expected which is exactly what we see. I agree. I bet if I ask you what is the purpose of bees your answer will be different than mine. You see my position as too simplistic. I see your delving for some supernatural cause that physically is not there as being deluded. Yes and thus we reach the end of the road. Our differences are revealled to be ultimately not scientific in nature but directly traceable to different empirically untestable and mutually exclusive a priori truths. BadDecker would say we have different religious. I think that word has too much potential for misunderstanding and would instead say that we have different faiths. |
|
|
|
* How can we find release from suffering and sadness?
I would recommend looking into Theravada Buddhism... they have correctly diagnosed the cause of suffering and lay out a path to cure yourself from it Other than the occasional mention of reincarnation, it is more of a science based philosophy than a religion. Think of it as a self-help manual Here is a fantastic example, I would highly recommend watching this video to anyone and everyone: Ajahn Brahm - Freeing Our Minds From The Mental Prisonshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_FsPEwOB0Watched the beginning looks interesting will watch the rest later. I have nothing bad to say about Buddhism. I am not particularly familiar with all of its tennents but I have met some wise Buddhists in my life. About nihilism, however I have lots of bad things to say. I debated the topic here: Debate on Nihilism. |
|
|
|
You asked questions about one particular life form then you are surprised the answers are rooted in Biology?
Ask me anything about any non-living thing and the answers will be rooted in Physics or Chemistry.
I gave you our life purpose and meaning.
Yes I did and to your credit you answered straightforwardly and in a manner that lets us cut to the heart of the issue. We saw that at the center of your belief structure once we slip past the rings of scientific thought lies a belief a faith in nihilism. Similarly we could do the same for me and once past the science we would find theism. That fundamental difference makes sense and explains our prolonged argument over these many pages and threads. A robotic individual with a wholly scientific perspective would have no interest or motivation to participate in such a debate. Is it currently empirically testable they would ask? If the answer was no they would shrug their shoulders say they had no idea and move on to other topics that could be tested. There are, however, many questions that matter deeply to us that are not empirically testable. I highlighted a few above but there are many many others. This is why a foundational religion or philosophy is an inescapable necessity if we are going to interact with the world. Some foundational philosophies are mutually exclusive. When proponents of such philosophies meet clashes and conflict is expected which is exactly what we see. |
|
|
|
* Is there any point to it all? To pass your genes to the next generation. (Biology)
* Why are we here? Because our parents made us. (Biology)
* How should we live? To survive and secure that your genes are passed on to the next generation(s). (Biology)
* Why be moral? It helps you survive in the long-term. Being immoral is self-destructive. (Biology)
* Why is there evil? I do not think evil exists. Some people might behave immorally in hopes to help them survive better. (Biology)
* Do we live on after death? No. Death is an irreversible process. (Biology, Physics)
* How can we find release from suffering and sadness? Lower your stress by socializing with other life forms, love someone, relax, find a hobby you enjoy doing. (Biology)
* What can we hope for? Whatever you wish. Hope is unlimited. It is a thought in your brain. I hope to live to 120. (Biology)
Let's unpack these answers a bit. By claiming biology as ultimate end you assume that process is purpose. By grounding purpose in biology which you in turn ground in the randomness of evolution you assume meaning itself to be random and ultimately nothing more then chances arbitrary output. By questioning the existence of morality you assume that there is no such thing as good and evil for such concepts are presumed to be evolution's useful delusions at best. What is notable about these assumptions is not only are they not scientifically testable they they are very much in line with a well known and prominent philosophy. Nihilismhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NihilismNihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophicalviewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.
Nihilism is not a scientific belief nor is it testable. You seem to have a adopted a worldview centered on a faith in nihilism and built a structure of science upon that foundation to understand the world. I have done something similar but built my worldview upon a different foundation which is why our approaches to problems are sometimes similar yet always seem to yield radically different outputs. |
|
|
|
The discussion of God existence is not a scientific question because we cannot collect data on God to study him/her/it.
My reality is based on science...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your reality is not based on science at least not entirely. You may want it to be but that's entirely impossible. Here are a few questions that demonstrate this point. * Is there any point to it all? * Why are we here? * How should we live? * Why be moral? * Why is there evil? * Do we live on after death? * How can we find release from suffering and sadness? * What can we hope for? You may have answers for these questions but whatever those answers may be they are certainly not scientific for there is no study to test their validity. Those answers even if tentative in all probability have and shape the course of your life far more then any particular study or scientific truth ever could. There is no escaping the necessity or the impact of a priori truth. |
|
|
|
Axiomatically? The Atheist position is based on the scientific evidence or in case of God a lack of it.
BTW, I base my truths on science. And guess what? They might change as a new scientific evidence becomes available.
My position is based on the most reliable method of discovering the truth that we know of, your position is based on a book that inspired you to develop a sci-fi story in your mind.
Frankly, I don't care anymore what you and BADecker believe. It is your delusion, so you deal with it. I tried. I cannot help you any more than I can help notbatman.
Yes axiomatically for the atheist position is simply not a scientific one. Belief to the contrary is the result of mistaken inference. Science is a cooperative social system.. It is a system based on reason which excludes all reference to divine revelation. Since science excludes divine revelation, it can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy. The idea that science in any way invalidates a belief in God is the result of a very common logical fallacy. Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
Basing your truths in science is by and large a sound policy but God lies outside the scope of science. An individual truly motivated by science alone who did not make false inferences could only be agnostic as the question simply cannot be answered within that framework. |
|
|
|
Says the guy who spent months, if not years, attacking atheists, etc
You can dish it out, but can't take it?
For what it's worth, stating facts is not a personal attack... sorry, not sorry
Attacking science and understanding is NOT attacking people, except under one circumstance. That circumstance is when the people have science and understanding as their religion. All Coincube attacks is science and understanding with other science and understanding. But you take it as a personal attack, thereby showing that your religion is science and understanding. So YOU are the one who hates science when you hate religion.  This post beats all your previous posts. You are off the charts!!! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.msg13910414#msg13910414I can understand how you are emotionally distraught. Like Moloch your religion is being calmly shown for what it is. And you are helping to show it, even though you don't want it to be that way. Why do you hate your religion so much that you don't stick up for it, but would rather prove its existence by not sticking up for it? Answer this and we might have the answer to this whole thread. Actually I am fairly certain I have not personally attacked or insulted any atheist on this forum. I have spent a good deal of time critiquing the idea of atheism mostly in the Health and Religion thread. I highlighted the tremendous number of scientific studies that indicate atheism is an unhealthy choice. In the link at the very bottom of that opening post I make other philosophical and practical arguments against atheism. Is critiquing atheism an attack on individual atheist? I would answer no but BadDecker raises a valid point. If an atheist holds to his belief with a religious fervor. If he accepts it axiomatically as true and structures his worldview around it. Perhaps then my critique would be perceived as a personal attack? Regardless any such a perception really is the the problem of those who have made the mistake of elevating atheism into a personal faith. If someone has built their their house on a foundation sand it is doomed to fall sooner or later. |
|
|
|
I had forgotten about that minor typo. I corrected it within minutes of posting and before anyone had even commented on it. I suspect you are the only one who even noticed. I do find it a little sad that after hundreds of pages of debate and logical arguments you are reduced to attempted character assassination and grasping at minor typos from two and a half years ago. ...
When someone says humanity was created in the image of our creator, you know you are dealing with someone who does not understand biology. The conversation is over at that point.
...
The only question remains, how severe their delusion is.
...
Guess what Coincube, evolution does not need faith, expanding universe does not need faith, 4.5 Billion years old Earth does not need faith, etc. we have data, we don't need faith.
More personal attacks. It seems that debate has achieved all it can at this time. For the record, however, I have never argued against evolution. We all have faith. Some of us understand our faith. Others do not. Dear lord never thought my first message here would be about this , so basically humanity is created/designed in the image of the creator but ignore the motion of how the creator came to be in the first place and it's existence is accepted by you as a starting point.
As I noted above saying humanity was created in the image of God may have a more nuanced meaning then is commonly appreciated. Nevertheless I do accept the existence of the creator as a starting point. Here is why this is the most reasonable place to start. An Argument for God |
|
|
|
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
Wow, I did not expect that from you. I thought you were smarter than that. We humans have such an infantile understanding of the universe. It is important not to overstate our knowledge. Case in point a hologram is an image. Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universehttps://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.htmlTheoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.
|
|
|
|
Here is the problem with all these calculations. When the Beginning happened, be it by God-creation, or by some sort of big bang, time and other physics was not set in place like it is today. Time and other physics were all in formation. What does this mean? It means that all of our math and understandings of past timelines are incorrect. Why are they incorrect? Because we are measuring things by the standards that we use, rather than by the standards that were in existence when the past happened. Can we ever determine what the standards of the so-called distant past were? Possibly. But it will take way more calculation than we can currently program a computer to calculate, and it will take more precise measurements than we are able to make at this time. Why? Because we will need to see how physics is changing, just so we can extrapolate back to see what physics was in the so-called distant past. We are absolutely just in the beginnings of understanding things. And things are so greatly complex that we may never understand them as individuals... even though a computer might be built that is capable of crunching the numbers so-to-speak. Fair points it is indeed possible that things were different in the early universe. I came across the work of these scientists in an earlier discussion. Though the work discussed remains very theoretical the direction of research supports your position. I have explained that we can't exist (the past and future will collapse) if there could exist an absolute truth...
iamnotback you have not made the case that an absolute truth cannot exist though perhaps you made this argument somewhere I am not aware of. In your essay The Universe you instead made this claim.
"If the speed-of-light were infinite, the time domain (and thus reality) would collapse to a single point, because all future changes in configuration would occur instantly."
There are a minority of scientists who believe that this is the exact the condition of the universe at the start of the big bang. Scientists Think the Speed of Light Has Slowed, and They're Trying to Prove Ithttp://motherboard.vice.com/read/light-speed-slowedBut in the late 1990s, a handful of physicists challenged one of the fundamental assumptions underlying Einstein’s theory of special relativity: Instead of the speed of light being constant, they proposed that light was faster in the early universe than it is now. This theory of the variable speed of light was—and still is—controversial. But according to a new paper published in November in the physics journal Physical Review D, it could be experimentally tested in the near future. If the experiments validate the theory, it means that the laws of nature weren’t always the same as what we experience today and would require a serious revision of Einstein’s theory of gravity. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light." ... So just how much faster was light speed just after the Big Bang? According to Magueijo and his colleague Niayesh Afshordi, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo, the answer is “infinitely” faster.The duo cite light speed as being at least 32 orders of magnitude faster than its currently accepted speed of 300 million meters per second—this is merely the lower bounds of the faster light speed, however. As you get closer to the Big Bang, the speed of light approaches infinity. On this view, the speed of light was faster because the universe was incredibly hot at the beginning. According to Afshordi, their theory requires that the early universe was at least a toasty 10 28 degrees Celsius (to put this in perspective, the highest temperature we are capable of realizing on Earth is about 10 16 degrees Celsius, a full 12 orders of magnitude cooler). As the universe expanded and cooled below this temperature, light underwent a phase shift—much like liquid water changes into ice once the temperature reaches a certain threshold—and arrived at the speed we know today: 300 million meters per second. Just like ice won’t get more "icy" the colder the temperature gets, the speed of light has not been slowing down since it reached 300 million meters per second. If Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory of variable light speed is correct, then the speed of light decreased in a predictable way—which means with sensitive enough instruments, this light speed decay can be measured. "Varying speed of light is going back to the foundations of physics and saying perhaps there are things beyond relativity." ... Now that they’ve used the variable light speed theory to put a hard number on the spectral index, all that remains to be seen is whether increasingly sensitive experiments probing the CMB and distribution of galaxies will verify or overturn their theory. Both Magueijo and Afshordi expect these results to be available at some point in the decade. But Marsh and other physicists aren't so sure. If their theory is correct, it will overturn one of the main axiom’s underlying Einstein’s theory of special relativity and force physicists to reconsider the nature of gravity. According to Afshordi, however, it is more or less accepted in the physics community that Einstein’s theory of gravity cannot be the whole story |
|
|
|
I know what is the difference between you and I. You need to HAVE answers to unknowns. I am ok to say I don't know.
That is why in your world you need to have an answer to who created the Big Bang.
In my world, I'm not sure if the Big Bang was created by anyone or how it came about at time 0. I don't know.
As a practical matter we all HAVE to have answers to basic inescapable questions about the nature of reality. These answers cannot be avoided as engagement with the world cannot be avoided. Even if we profess a lack certainty we must act and such actions at their foundation are predicted upon our world views. Verbally it is easy to deny assumptions or certainly but short of death we cannot deny or stop interacting with the world. It is these interactions where we show the world our answers. We live as though our answers were true and actions speak more loudly then words. You have already shared with us some of your answers not that long ago. ...
Our universe, our chemistry and physics are pure lottery.
...
The fact that we are here is also pure chance.
...
Homo Sapiens are not special. Do not fool yourself into thinking that.
....
What is common in all of these answers is that none of them can be proven. They are the foundations of a faith. I have different answers. 1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design. 2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance. 3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable. The real difference between us is that we follow different faiths. |
|
|
|
That is a problem with infinities. It is hard to imagine them. "infinity + something = infinity"
Some things are not intuitive. When Feynman first presented his diagrams, Dirac and Bohr told him he is an idiot and walked out of the room.
This universe is amazing, we all should be glad the supernovae created atoms in our bodies.
We should indeed be grateful for the stars and supernovae that allowed heavy elements to form and spread. We should also be grateful for the light called into existence at the beginning of time that eventually made those supernova possible.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universeThe early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed
Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.
And most importantly we should be grateful for the infinite creator who willed it all into existence and sustains it still. Genesis 1-3: 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. |
|
|
|
Saying that infinities do not exist is also the sign of ignorance where our observations indicate what our universe started at a singularity. The scientific community is pretty much in an agreement on this point (pun intended).
As for Black Holes, next year they will be releasing the 25-year observational study of the behavior of the black hole in the center of our Milky Way. Exciting stuff coming up ... BTW, general relativity predicts a singularity at the center of the black hole.
General relativity does indeed predict a singularly at the center of a black hole. General relativity works well to describe the universe but that does not mean it can be extrapolated into quantum scales. Newton's laws of motion work wonderfully for what they do also but push them to the edges and they break allowing for things like travel faster then the speed of light. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity is a powerful indication that general relativity is probably inaccurate at very small sizes. We already know this which is why we need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. However, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This lack means that we really have no idea what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. As for the Big Bang I agree that something very unique occurred at that moment. The instantaneous creation of everything from nothing. A fascinating area of study. Another question you can ask yourself is the universe finite or infinite. I mean the part of the universe past the observable horizon which changes over time as stuff moves away from us. Observations indicate an infinite and flat universe.
Observations indicate a flat universe that is probably finite. Unless inflation went on for a truly infinite amount of time, the Universe must be finite in extent. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/11/05/ask-ethan-could-the-universe-be-infinite/amp/ |
|
|
|
Ok, try the same with the divergent series.
Clearly that would be more challenging. That said I am skeptical that divergent series actually exist in reality. Easy to set up on paper but they break down when applied to the real world. Here is a clarifying example. Consider a handball court inside a cube, where every wall including the ceiling is fair game to bounce a ball off of.
Bounce a ball at an angle off one wall, so that it bounces off numerous different walls.
In an ideal world of no friction, etc., the ball will bounce forever and never converge anywhere. This is a divergent series.
In the real world, eventually the ball will converge and come to rest somewhere.
The divergent series in this example is simply an inaccurate modeling of reality. It fails to account for friction. 1+1+1+1+... to infinity probably fails in a similar way because in a finite universe you eventually run out of subatomic particles or whatever it is that you are counting. The model is too simple. Same story with the "infinity" of a black hole. We have no concrete knowledge of what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. Any comments on the physical dimensions of the mass inside the event horizon are pure speculation. Physics professor Christopher S. Baird covers this well http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/09/13/does-every-black-hole-contain-a-singularity/In the real universe, no black holes contain singularities. In general, singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. When scientists talk about black hole singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that actually exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they really exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance.
|
|
|
|
...
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it. Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.
Indeed we certainly can tie ourselves into thinking knots. To avoid this we must deeply scrutinize our assumptions for these are the foundation our structures of thought rest upon. We must identify and look at each a priori belief and genuinely consider the possibility and that the assumption is untrue. Not a trivial rejection but a full exploration of a foundational shift on ones entirely structure of thought. This is actually extremely difficult to do because our basic assumptions deeply shape our very patterns of thoughts. Everything rests on them. Perhaps one of us has tied ourselves into such a thinking knot. Are you absolutely certain that I am the one tangled up? Which of us has adopted a set of beliefs that has been shown in basically every study to be correlated with lower health, lower fertility, and reduced well-being? Which of us has adopted beliefs that appear to, limit possible cooperation over time? The world does indeed look like it was fine tuned. Maybe that's not an illusion but a simple observation of reality. I will leave that for you to decide. Time constraints force me to bow out of this conversation. The final word is yours. |
|
|
|
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
In this also you are mistaken. What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientisthttps://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.htmlSaying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can. We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time. How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer? Ask any of the guys you listed above. Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you. My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said. You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum. You are entertaining af_newbie. First you argue my claim is ridiculous and that I will not be able to find a single scientist that supports my view. Then when I show you not one but several highly regarded scientist who take this idea very seriously you argue that I should stop reading scientist's books and think for myself? Just so you know I wrote my Argument for God a few months before I stumbled across professor Tegmark's excellent book: Mathematical Universehttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_divWhy are you twisting yourself up into such rhetorical knots. It is not necessary. All you need to say is that you are not convinced that the universe is logical and mathematical thus you reject my first claim. You could also correctly point out that the idea of a logical and mathematical universe as outlined by professor Tegmark is not universally accepted among scientists. By going beyond that and turning to personal attack calling me delusional and implying that I am "far gone" presumably into insanity you only expose you own bias and weaken your arguments. In regards to your other comments the Planck length is a certain combination of the three physical constants fundamental to general relativity and to quantum theory. As we currently lack a unified physical theory that incorporates all three of these constants we do not fully understand the physical meaning and significance of the Planck length. Such an understanding would require a physical theory that subsumes both quantum theory and general relativity. Should such a theory be discovered we cannot even be certain it would continue to ascribe a fundamental status to the three constants from which the Planck length is derived. If the universe is logical and mathematical then the answers to these questions exist and simply wait to be discovered. |
|
|
|
Kavanaugh may have underhandedly won enough votes with his temper tantrum and cover story FBI investigation but he exposed himself in a way that will forever cast doubt on his credibility as a professional. I know the right doesn't care as long as they get the 5th seat but it should matter he is way to partisan to sit on the bench!
To the far left perhaps but they would have felt he was illegitimate no mater what he said. Kavanaugh's approach at the hearing was exactly what it needed to be. If he had been dispassionate aloof and logical the impartial judge so to speak he would have been destroyed in the media and public opinion as wooden, guilty and hiding something. Instead he responded as any man any father would do when confronted with a false accusation. He answered with the anger and emotion of the falsely accused. His rebuttel was powerful and it cut through the media narrative. It set up a direct emotional conflict between the condemning accusation of a vulnerable victim against the righteous anger and emotion of a man defending himself and his family against lies. Framed in this context the majority will then turn to the evidence. What proof is there of these last minute but extremely serious charges. What evidence did the media, senate, FBI find. Answer: None Thus the leftist narrative must shift. Now Kavanaugh is too emotional too angry to be a judge. It's a desperate attempt to hold together a shattered attack. It will play well to the left but that's about all it will do. |
|
|
|
Midterms are only 33 days away. The attempts to stop the Kavanaugh nomination are looking like they will be a major driver of republican turnout. Republicans needed a midterms miracle. Could Brett Kavanaugh be it?https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-midterms-republicans-2018/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F(CNN) — The confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh's nomination hasn't gone the way any Republican would have hoped when President Donald Trump picked him for the Supreme Court on July 9.
What looked like a sure-thing confirmation -- and one that would move the court in a decidedly more conservative direction for years to come -- has been badly sidetracked by allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.
And yet, it appears as though the incredibly public and nasty fight over what Kavanaugh did or didn't do has had a somewhat unexpected result: Republican base voters are suddenly telling pollsters that they are considerably more enthusiastic about voting in 33 days' time.
In a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, Republicans had closed a 10-point enthusiasm deficit with Democrats in July, which is down to just 2 points now. In July, 78% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans said the November elections were "very important." Now, 80% of Democrats say the same while 78% of Republicans do too.
That same poll shows that the Democratic edge on the generic ballot question -- if the election were held today would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in your district -- has been cut in half (from 12 points to 6) between mid-September and now. Now, this poll was conducted entirely in one night, so it may not be completely representative of public opinion.
...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
