So much words, so little meaning upon it.

Meh, he's fishing for something that fits whatever talking point he has in mind.  It would probably be easier for him to just get to the moneyshot.  I strongly suspect that he's angling for an open existential question, but just doesn't know how to spool it up.

(June 17, 2017 at 2:52 pm)Mariosep Wrote: And please avoid trying to evade which you succeed in, by taking up with flippancies, in fact all your atheist arguments in the issue of God exists or not, they are all flippancies and nothing else.

I'm starting to suspect that these posts are the evil offspring of Google Translate-- because they do not really seem to have an English meaning.

". . . by taking up with flippancies. . ."

I know what flippant means.  I can guess what flippancies are-- multiple cases in which one has acted flippantly.  But how the fuck does one "succeed in trying to evade which one succeeds in by taking up with flippancies"?  Mario, would you please find someone who speaks English and have them come in and tell us what the fuck you're even talking about?

---

(June 17, 2017 at 5:27 pm)chimp3 Wrote: @Mariosep: Please explain what you have in your "sensory apparatus"that I do not have?

Angels! Based on my linguistic analysis, my software has informed me that there's a 63% chance that the answer to your question is "angels." The number two answer is a mere 25%: "donkey jizz."

Good day, dear atheist colleagues here, now I invite your retired staff member here, one Khemikal, for us two to exchange thoughts on what is sensory apparatus, for he is the one who brings up that term.


Dear Khemikal, let us we two talk about what is sensory apparatus by which you come to know what is existence.

You have brought up that term, sensory apparatus, so in re knowledge of existence, what do you mean by that term?

You bring up the term, so you have the right the privilege and the burden to explain what is your meaning of the term sensory apparatus.


Okay, dear readers, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to read how Khemikal explains the term he introduced into this thread, namely, sensory apparatus.

But I fear he will do a Mr.Obvious, go into non-communication mode.

And please Khemikal, do your own thinking and writing and no bringing in blind links, or quotes from the net, if you get everything from other sources instead of your own thinking and writing, then don't bother to mention them except informing readers here that according to what you read, now at this point in your very own words, reproduce what you read as already appropriated by you to be the truth, the fact, and the logic, and also founded on the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

What I expect from atheists is that they think even just from what they read from others; but if from others, it is enough to just mention it, this way, according to what I read, no need to bring in names, and links, and quotes whatever, very important: reproduce what you read as appropriated by you, and write it in your own words by your very own writing style.

Now, if you after this you want me to explain something I write here, you can ask me also.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all as I said earlier sit back, and await with bated breath to witness how Khemikal explains what is sensory apparatus.

And I want to tell you all, that the way to detect whether someone knows what he is talking about with a term he brings up, require him to explain the term in not more than say 50 words, when he cannot do it at all, then it is conspicuous that he does not really know what he is talking about.

So, dear readers, when you read posts coming after this post of yours truly, and in the first 50 words the author does not explain, any poster, what is sensory perception, then you need not read further, no sense in joining him in further evasiveness.

Quote:Khemikal  
Retired Staff
Posts: 32101
Threads: 102
Joined: 28th June 2011
Reputation: 131
#86  RE: What do scientists say about existence?
17th June 2017, 03:10
--------------------------------

We come to know existence through our sensory apparatus.

_________________________
“I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder

-----------------------
2 kudos given by: Mister Agenda, Astreja

Mario, we are in 11 pages now, and you have yet to express an actual idea. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT EXISTENCE?

More importantly, what in your mind is the reason for the existence of this thread? Are you just here to ask our opinion of what scientists think, or do you have an actual idea which you would like to put forward? If the former, you're a fucking idiot, since there are very many science forums on the internet. If the latter. . . go ahead and say what your idea is.

You are trying to use the Socratic method on us. Clearly, there's some position you want us to take, so you can respond with whatever clever retort you picked up in Sunday school or whatever. So tell us the position, tell us the response, and fuck off. But you can't use the Socratic method on people who are smarter than you, so give up that tack.

God reveals thought Special revelation, Scripture, which theologians interpret, General revelation, Nature, which scientists interpret. Since they both originate from God, Scripture and Nature will always agree, yes always.

(June 18, 2017 at 8:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Mario, we are in 11 pages now, and you have yet to express an actual idea.  WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT EXISTENCE?

More importantly, what in your mind is the reason for the existence of this thread?  Are you just here to ask our opinion of what scientists think, or do you have an actual idea which you would like to put forward?  If the former, you're a fucking idiot, since there are very many science forums on the internet.  If the latter. . . go ahead and say what your idea is.

You are trying to use the Socratic method on us.  Clearly, there's some position you want us to take, so you can respond with whatever clever retort you picked up in Sunday school or whatever.  So tell us the position, tell us the response, and fuck off.  But you can't use the Socratic method on people who are smarter than you, so give up that tack.

If only.

In the book - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker = “The Blind Watchmaker” Richard Dawkins demonstrated that natural selection requires intelligence; thereby completely invalidating the theory that the universe is not directed.
He uses a computer program to generate the Shakespeare phase “Me thinks it is like a weasel” to simulate how random mutations and natural selection could generate new functional information. His method: 1) randomized the generation of English letter sets (strings). 2) compare each string to the target phase “me think….”. 3) kept the strings that most closely resembled the target (usually, at this stage not exactly the target). 4) have the program generate variant version of the newly selected strings (so now the selected strings are closer to the target strings). 5) process is repeated until the selected strings match the target strings.
So in the end, he shows us that in his simulation that intelligence is guiding towards an end point using preplanned incremental steps and instructions, and employing newly acquired information to reach a predetermined target. But of course natural selection by definition is neither guided nor given information about a desired outcome to be generated in the future.
Have you noticed that after God ‘rested’ from creation that anatomically modern homo sapient (AMHS) hasn’t “evol-nated”?

Darwin believe in the existence of God; he would say 'dummies' to those who did this little act of effortful suppression. Everyone believes, get use to it because there's nothing one can do change that. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...t_god.html

(June 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm)snowtracks Wrote: God reveals thought Special revelation, Scripture, which theologians interpret, General revelation, Nature, which scientists interpret. Since they both originate from God, Scripture and Nature will always agree, yes always.

God reveals all this?  How?  In the hearts of idiots?  In a book written by ancient desert-dwellers?