*sigh* Once again we get the Deanhills version of truth - which is, of course, anything but truth.
Pentangelli posted some interesting things and those were responded to in the spirit in which they were posted. The reason he was banned (though he now posts under another name - which the staff are aware of, but have decided to let go, providing he behaves) is because he posted some extremely abusive attacks - targetting more than one person. They were not just over the line, they were so far out of line that there was no other decision possible.
Pentangeli joined Frihost on 16 October 2010. He was forced to stop posting, being branded a troll, and left the Board at the end of December 2010. Here is a collection of his first posts in a thread he had started on 18 October - lack of quality? trolling? out of control? judge for yourself. The tone of his posts are an exact replica of those of Indi and Bikerman in reverse. Yet he was branded a troll. Indi and Bikerman the robust debaters. There is regrettably a space limit, so if you are interested you can read the whole debate at the URL below.
Thread: All truth is subject to individual perception
|Pentangeli - OP Post wrote:|
|And not only that, if you perceive something to be real - is it. This isn't from any pan-psychic or zen standpoint. It's merely just an observation that reality itself is determined by "fact", but "fact" itself is not an exact science. What? How can you say such a thing!? Well, *lights the blue litmus paper* Science itself is not an exact science.
A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual. I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!). It finds integrity in the age old "a hundred million chinese people can't be wrong" maxim, which under a more powerful microscope, suggests that already on shaky foundations (albeit, hypocritically discounting the world's 4 major religions and the percentage of humanity that adheres to them). For example, it was once a fact that the earth was flat. It's not anymore. It rests it's laurels on "Umm, we have nothing better yet". Constant updates are healthy, but it makes you question the validity of advancements even a million years from now. Does this mean we will never evolve? Well evolution is just theory, right? Or is it a fact? So hard to tell!
Love is fact. How? Pain is a fact. How?
You think this post is incorrect. Is that the truth? All truth is subject to individual perception. It seems true to me. Yet false to you. Maybe I'm bs'ing you. Maybe you think it's the truth and I'm just posting for the frih. Maybe I could just tailgate other posts and paraphrase other people's posts for the same deal. What's true? You decide.
Objectivity, Causality, Sentience. All facts.
And a fact is as fallible as the one that replaces it. So was it ever a true fact in the first place? And if it was a true fact, and still is, "truth" is still determined by individual perspective so it's still flawed. True?
It's my contention, that whatever you think about all of this, you're both right and wrong at the same time. Fact!
So you cannot test the whole entire universe then? And everything in it? Because according to you, it doesn't exist because it never came to be. What you can do though, is take a look at the forest instead of the trees. There is a really simple question here waiting to be asked. It's so blatantly obvious, like losing your specs and looking all over for them when they are on the end on your nose. Or like my Irish grandmother used to say, "If it was a dog it'd bitecha!" It's that close and in your face. It's called the universe. It's the most wonderful mistake you've ever seen. I mean no artist, architect or engineer could even replicate it let alone conceive it, with it's mountains and oceans and species and cloud chambers and butterflies wings, life itself, and that's just planet earth. Amazing mistake it is. Yet here you are, Mr Egotistical little scientist bopping around on it patting himself on the back and calling himself intelligent. You're actually just an insignificant little spec on God's greenery and I'm about to tell you why.
Anything that is must have to came to be. Can we agree on that, at least? That if something is there, it is actually there? I mean I could get arguments from zen buddhists about this, but hopefully not from a scientist. So if a universe is there (is that considered a fact by you?) would it be fair to presume (state) that it's temporal origin insists that it was created? I'm consciously attempting steering well clear of causality here, because I know it's way too vast and chaotic to fit in your cute little petri dish.
It's not even Aristotelian. It's much simpler than that. If the world is there and possesses motion (by your big bang theory *LOL* or whatever the latest update on that is) then it requires a beginning and motioner. I mean Einstein's theory of special relativity agrees with me here. Grunbaum's scientific proponents agree with me. It's just you who doesn't. So when I say "your laws" you can bet I am using ironic singularity. You seem to be a law unto yourself mate. Not even your cronies have your back on this one.
When I was like... six, I had enough about to ask what lit the Big Bang even though it was an utterly puerile and juvenile question, here I am decades later, still unsatisfied with an answer.
Seemingly, in science, whatever begins to exist doesn't require a cause. Occam, Darwin, Dawkings. Not interested! But hey, I want a scientific test conducted on this "hypothesis". Preferably one that doesn't create this wacky Big Bang idea with no parental array to house the code. You see, that returns an error. Not found.
Things do not come to be without a definite cause. So scientifically, removing this "magic white bearded man in the sky" or the Spaghetti Monster or however you view Creationism, can we for a minute call God and [whatever lit the Big Bang] the same thing? To (pardon the pun) play devil's advocate just for the sake of this argument? I'll like that tested. Well that cannot be tested. Well okay. I'd like that explained then. Well that cannot be explained. Well okay, I'd like to leave the cinema and stop watching your rubbish movie that begins in the middle then. I would like to see the opening titles, or at least hear what your version is of them. Again, your reluctance to offer one because "we cannot test it" does not allow you to say anything about anything. God is now the default. You understand? Because look at this way. Me saying that anything that exists must have came to be is plausible and reasonable, right? Then you don't exist and neither does your theory (fact/law) because you never came to be. You do not exist to offer an explanation. How's that for the effect of final cause?
Science tells us that time began and the universe came to exist. Test it or stop talking about the most probable cause (a creation) existing being irrational and untestable and therefore not of interest because right now, prima facie justification is not smiling at you.
Here's the last bit where I really piss you off again...
"Something from nothing" is some ex-nihlo nonsense I don't have the patience to endure, I'm afraid. So whatever started anything, by your thinking and mine, whatever was capable of existing outside of the time-space continuum, outside of the universal "laws", before time and the universe even existed, must, by definition, not bound to it or slave to it or answerable to it. So you see, right there...
Allow me to finish by quoting my favorite scientist.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes.
2 blog comments below
Bikerman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:30 pm
I'll just add... the reason he was banned was that when talked to about making 'attack posts', his response was, literally "I won't stop until you ban me."
ocalhoun on Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:46 pm