You claim to worship science

but your goal to obtain nuclear devices to use against Christians.

http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html

MOAR NUCLEAR DEVICES

http://www.abarim-publications.com/FourHorsesRevelation.html
http://www.abarim-publications.com/GenesisStandardModel.html

Science doesn't rely on the shoddy human perception of "truth", it relies on proof.

>>5
What is proof to us, without a human perception involved? It is necessary to rely on a common perception of *something*, somewhere down the line.

>>6
Take your ignorant pseudo-philosophical bullshit elsewhere. Logic does not work that way. Cogito ergo sum, bitch. Start there and work your way up to larger objective truths, evidence, and proofs.

   http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html

scariest/most amusing thing I have ever seen.

>>7
Suppose a model fits extremely well with the data, statistically speaking. So we are inclined to accept it, fine.
But there are several places where this relies on at least some level of subjective human experience. Each of the scientists must share the common interprative experience of realising that the data fits the model. Merely understanding a number relies on representing the concept of that number in some way in our brains - something we don't have a full understanding of.
Similarly, what is this inclination, once that realisation has taken place, to accept the model? It is based on logic, sure. Falsifiability and all that. Again I'd contend that we cannot possibly posit that logic as a universal structure because it is simply something we discuss with each and seem to comunally understand with each other.

>>1
If this shoddy attempt at propaganda has actually swayed you into believing, then I have no words for you....except those last ones. If you're trolling, which I hope you are, then I don't even have those last words for you.

>>9
What you need is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Try this axiom on for size: what we perceive is correct. If you don't take that, then you've just got some crazy esoteric attitude that just won't get you anywhere you hadn't started. If you can't determine anything based solely on observations, which are the only sources of information, then you've got no method by which to determine anything....Sure, it may be an incorrect axiom, but seeing as progress may only be made assuming it is correct, then you're guaranteed to learn no less than had you not assumed this axiom.

>>10
"what we perceive is correct" is a horribly vague and fairly useless axiom to take, but I grant you your point. I'm not trying to devalue science. I think it's important to realise that somewhere down the line there *is* such an axiom at work.

I'm also talking about the nature of how perceptions must undergo a shared understanding between groups of people. It's one thing to see snow and conclude that somewhere its cold enough for water to freeze, but what if some alien species saw the same and came to some entirely different conclusion? It's dangerously close to cultural relativism I know, but I think we should consider that the logical processes we use may be entirely unique to our species, and another species may have their own systems of logic in conflict with ours.

*facepalm*

Stop it with the ignorant philosophical masturbation, kid. Go take some logic and philosophy courses, ffs. Cripes.

>>11
Well yes, things may be observed differently, thus effecting the outcome, but would not the observation-conclusion relation remain the same? What I mean is, although all the observations, methods, and conclusions may be different from the opposite system's, the same basic logic remains the same. Like doing a math problem in base 10 or base 2, the numbers, methods, and results differ, but the same rules are applied, only in a warped form.

>>13
This is exaclty what I'm considering. How can we be so sure? We constantly undergo observation-conclusion processes everyday, and assume that the logic that seems to feel ineffably right to us is universal in some way. What if aliens undergo a different *kind* of observation-conclusion process that we simply can't comprehend, in the same way they can't comprehend ours?

>>14
This all is, of course, assuming a constant set of "rules" and such that govern the universe, which act whether or not we understand them. The rules are what we are attempting to discover when we come to conclusions based on our observations. Naturally, the universal laws, being nonexistent in any concrete form, will not be "formatted" the same as our own attempts to match them, but the effects will still be the same. So for any conclusion that matches observation past the extent of human fallacy, the conclusion, if based correctly on said observations, will match the universal laws. The same will hold true no matter what method, terrestrial or alien. Now, if what we observe isn't correct, then we're back to >>10

I'm done with trying to explain things. I feel like I'm explaining physics to a kindergarten student who believes they know everything. It's fucking frustrating. SO, good luck in the future. I'm just here for the lulz.

If everyone else on earth performs the same experiment you're performing and gets different results from you but they all get the same results, then there's a good chance that: (a) "You're doing it wrong." or (b)"You're batshit insane and hallucinating."

>>16
Alright, despite the subtle feeling that I'm feeding a troll, I'm going to attempt to tell you what you're talking about. For two logical systems to take in the same observations and spit out two different, yet correct, conclusions, then either:

1. There is no universal law.
or
2. They are the same conclusions, just warped in a manner that makes them unrecognizable to the other system.

Either way, there's nothing exceptional about what happens. If there's no universal law, then I suppose there never will be a right or wrong, and this argument is null. If the latter is true, then I've just repeated myself several times.

>>18
I have a notion that both 1 and 2 are correct, relatively, and ambiguously (they apply to more than one thing and/or situation).
Sorry to confuse the issue.
I'd rather have an all-inclusive explanation rather than a far-fetched exclusive explanation that fits only certain situations.
Does this make sense? If I use a metaphor to explain a universal process I'm not talking about the example, I'm talking about the process that exists in everything. The only way to see it is to loosen the rigidity of thought and make it flexible. This means fundamentally, a way of thinking that is changeable and easily manipulated to confirm to what is found; not what is remembered. "If the map doesn't match the ground; change the map." Understand? I am the one that needs to change. Because people change and all things given exposure an interaction eventually change to alternating degrees; I must re-learn what I have learned. Thus, I can truly know nothing; I must always be learning. Does this make sense?
And because of perception, there are certain things that we can really never know. But, that is only for me to say. If others want to disagree; that's okay with me. With the way I think, it's good and I would like to hear the alternative.
Thanks for reading.

>>19
Observational evidence overwhelmingly confirms #1 is false.

If as you say, both statements are true, then there would be total chaos in the world.  Science would never have grown, and we'd still be planting wheat for our feudal lords.

I agree with >>20 that it is quite impossible for any sort of continuity to exist without there being a universal law of some sort. Even if that law is randomness in a semi-ordered fashion (quantum mechanics), it would be a law such that you could fashion a science that didn't require the total overhaul of its entire logical system every short while. I'm not sure if you're proposing that this universal law doesn't exist, or that it is not able to be discovered in such a manner that it requires the constant changing of our ideas about that law. Upon rereading it a few more times, it seems that you are proposing the latter. I agree with this to some degree: that the possibly infinite complexity and unknown variables may critically interfere with our efforts to discover the universal law, that we must warp ourselves to compensate. I'm not sure if this is quite the same logic you're following, as you didn't exactly explain your reasoning behind the statement:"The only way to see it is to loosen the rigidity of thought and make it flexible."

While both 20 and 21 are looking to understand the world outside of humans, I am learning humans and the world.
I can never truly know both, but I strive to learn them every day I am alive. That is the difference. Why is both 1 & 2 correct, because I have no contradictory evidence to the contrary. You see, in my line of investigation; everything is true even if I don't believe it. What this does for me is forces me to look to confirm this truth for myself. You see, I'm inclusive of the truth, not exclusive. I don't want exclusive rights or truths exclusively to what I know. As the world changes so do I, relative to location of course. You see, the truths I seek must be applicable to everything or it is a situational identifier only. Like saying, "See this nose, every person has one; that is the truth." Okay, but does everything have a nose? Can everything smell? No, to my current knowledge. So this is just an identifier, can you see?

I'm not trying to say that you guys are wrong, I just want to be sure that what I am saying is coming across appropriately.

this is funny
>>Krieger: I agree with >>20 that it is quite impossible for any sort of continuity to exist without there being a universal law of some sort.

>>4tran: Observational evidence overwhelmingly confirms #1 is false.

>>If as you say, both statements are true, then there would be total chaos in the world.  Science would never have grown, and we'd still be planting wheat for our feudal lords.

truly, a /b/ moment. Lapse in judgment causes a vulnerability to be perceived; now that I have made you aware of it; how does that make you feel. If I had to guess...it would be shock, fear, shame, and possibly hatred. Hehehe, your expressions don't get away from my awareness. :P

Funny that the things we can't explain away with the knowledge we have ascertained so far is dismissed with something as contrite as "chaos". Which basically means, "I don't understand." or "I don't know." I am just here to waste time and accomplish nothing, and you?

>>23
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. You've made me aware of nothing, as you've simply misread, possibly due to a misunderstanding of how double, and perhaps single, negatives work. I've seen you doing this for a while: you misunderstand something, then go off on a rant of varying duration, whose entirety is resting on the unproved and, more often than not, completely incorrect premise.

>>24
I agree with you here to some extent. For the most part, whenever people say something is chaotic or unpredictable, they simply don't understand it. This is because there is a universal law that allows its prediction, given the ability to understand and apply said law. What I was saying was that, without this universal law, there would be true chaos, true unpredictability. This would be due to the fact that there would be absolutely no method by which to predict what would happen: any method would be, in itself, a law by which the universe were governed.

You see, everything we learn changes, therefore we must re-learn what we have previously learned in order to understand one thing. How it changes. Those that call it "chaos" or "god" simply say, "it exists." I say, "I am not sure it exists or not, but I will learn and then I shall see." You see, once you know anything, it changes. What we fail to see is the self-preserving reason for any energy or form to Willingly change itself or its own nature. What we do see is the effect or rather the interaction. Light off of objects allows us to perceive the color not absorbed. Any connection we see is because of interaction. I refer to it simply as self-awareness, The ability to perceive these connections and use them for the purposes of self-preservation. But like I said before, it's all relative to perception. What I perceive one moment may change the next; also what other people perceive may also change. Understand one thing. I am not here to change your mind, I'm here to express who I am and learn who you are; what you do is your own choice, and that I leave entirely up to you. Or you can say I am just here to waste time and accomplish nothing...what you believe bares no impact upon me unless it is followed with actions that detour my objectives. Though, like I've said, I've already figured out the patterns of life and any action you take against me will only cause it to happen faster. So...do your worst, for I will do mine.