redneF vs Jean Chauvin II

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
redneF vs Jean Chauvin II

This thread is the second private 1 on 1 between myself and Jean Chauvin.

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ok, Jean Jean... Now you've

Ok, Jean Jean...

 

Now you've really got the burden of proof.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 The so called worldly science is a scam and is not real science however. Only science via Christianity is logically possible. This is why they many of them borrow Christianity principles of science in order to lie to the public so that they disguise their science as true while they used Christianity the whole time. It's a huge scam.

The secular science of today is non-science, non-sense.

 

Bring your 'A' game, 'professor'...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Red

Hi Red,

In the last debate, I barely lifted my pinky before you were utterly defeated. You could not even logically justify the role of definition in relation to absolutes, or how your definition then as an absolute is superior to the leading atheists of the 20th century. And if your definition was not an absolute, then your definition is admitted as being unprobable in truth, thus making your whole position like quick sand ready to destroy you.

Pretty pathetic.

Now that I've educated you, you post the debate (well, not by thesis), with me having the burden this time. I don't mind having the burden. Atheists are so scared in having the burden of proof, 99.9999999% of the time they Phrase the debate with the theists on the defense. This is because if the atheist was on the defense, they HAVE NOTHING TO DEFEND. LOL. And would lose 100% of the time.

The fact that we live in an era where Christianity is full of wimps is only the reason why atheists win. But in reality they do not since the truth is NOT on their side.

____________________________

Regarding my statement that secular science is NOT science must first be defined. Science is an attempt at the know, and the latin word science means "to know." Thus ALL science is an attempt at empistemology.

Since the means of todays towards wannabe science is empiricism, then empiricism must be analyised on it's CONSISTENT merits. Not on what we want it to be, but on the consistent logical consequences from point A, to Z.

When I tried to help Bob Spencer 1 with this, he continually made categorical fallacies. He tried to have empiricism go from A and jump to G without the logically consequences between B-F. I argue, that if a person is consistent in their empiricism, they can NEVER reach A. They can't even make it on the map.

Not only this, but the leading empiricists themselves have accidently refuted empiricism. David Hume refuted his own empiricism and became a Skeptic. Locke, and Berkely would disagree a lot. So really what kind of empircism are we talking about for modern so called science.

Logical Positivism is the means towards the know of ALL secular science. And since L.P. denies ontology, then we can't even talk about science as a subject of the know since we are catagorically making the SUBJECT metaphysical.

So RedNef, If empiricism has been refuted, and if logical positivism has been refuted, and ALL secular scientists admit that all is probable, then how can you claim SCIENCE as the known if there is ALWAYS  a probable ratio between truth and error. And the ratio of the truth and error, since this is non empirical, then now via empiricism can determine the ratio of truth and error on every specific issue if using non empiricial means is a refutation of our empiricism in the first place. Thus making my point victorous and secular "science" a scam.

go.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: ALL

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 ALL secular scientists admit that all is probable...

Cite your peer reviewed source.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Red

Hi Red,

You did not answer my question. Why not? Are you buying time? LOL. Though I'll bite.

Ernst Mach, the guy who really "invented" logical positivism, created what is known as Mach's principle. Basically it sets the stage of Heraclitus that everything is in motion. His principle was that if everything is in motion, then everything is relative since you can never step in the same river twice. And since all is relative, then how can we measure the inertia of a body.

I'm sure this is all over the web somewhere. Since modern science is a neo empiricism (Karl Popper), then by the founder of logical positivism itself, there is admittance that there is probability.

Locke on Human Understanding have a problem with absolutes regarding color as secondary attributes among other things.

David Hume in his book called "Moral Theory" also shows problems.

The Encyclopedia of philsophy (8 volumes) under science list the various views of science throughout the centuries and credits Christianity as the founder of science in the first place. If it wasn't for Christians there would be no science.

It also talks about current "science" in relation to its philosophy against absolutes.

And we can't forget Kant's views of science which are very relative before relativity really took off.

So again, answer my question. If science is based upon probabilty, then each piece of data has a ration in being right or wrong. So then, how does one calculate that ratio FOR EVERY LITTLE PIECE OF DATA?

And since calculation of any data is NON EMPIRICAL, then how do you escape refuting the "science" (empirical science), in the first place since to use non empirical calculations is non empirical itself.

So then, there must be an empirical way to tell the variance of right and wrong. However, right and wrong are also non-empirical.

Oh No, what are we going to do now? RUN???

So then, if truth and error are non empirical, then how can an empirical scientists (secular sciene of today) even know truth and error. They can't? Board scratch?

So then, we must somehow view truth and error in empirical terms, while at the same time finding the ratio (non empirical concept) to the right and wrong factor of EACH piece of information in order to know by what probability is the right vs. the wrong.

For example, if the ratio of probabilty of Macro Evolution being true is 0.1% (Which is NOT what I argue), then the "scientist" can say, oh evolution is true, without EVER telling the public the ratio of their findings.

You see, there is deception going on for the sake of money, and pressure from their bosses (see the Lucy structure).

So again answer my question.

1) Probabiliy of ration for every little thing

2) Probabilty and ration are NON empirical

3) Truth and Error are non empirical

4) How do you use truth and error and calculate the probability of truth and error via empirical means mode and measure FOR EVERYTHING.

If you break the chain of consistency, the chain then wips back at you and hits you in the face. Thus knocking you on the ground so hard you won't hear the cow bell ring for supper.

Just admit I win and let's go eat some apple pie. I have some root beer float Ice Scream that will go real nice on top. And I'll give you a beer too.

Hey you tried.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You did

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You did not answer my question. Why not? Are you buying time? LOL.

STFU, and cite your sources,

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Ernst Mach, the guy who really "invented" logical positivism, created what is known as Mach's principle. Basically it sets the stage of Heraclitus that everything is in motion. His principle was that if everything is in motion, then everything is relative since you can never step in the same river twice. And since all is relative, then how can we measure the inertia of a body.

From a fixed perspective. Duh...

 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The Encyclopedia of philsophy (8 volumes) under science list the various views of science throughout the centuries and credits Christianity as the founder of science in the first place. If it wasn't for Christians there would be no science.

You are patently insane.

How the fuck could you A/B test that 'conclusion'??

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So again, answer my question. If science is based upon probabilty

False premise.

Category error.

Science is not based on probability.

WTF did you get that notion?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
then each piece of data has a ration in being right or wrong. So then, how does one calculate that ratio FOR EVERY LITTLE PIECE OF DATA?

Whether the predictions made on the principle are 100% reliable, and non falsifiable under meta analysis.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And since calculation of any data is NON EMPIRICAL

2+2= 4

What is non empirical about that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So then, there must be an empirical way to tell the variance of right and wrong. However, right and wrong are also non-empirical.

Right and wrong are not values, or attributes. They are subjective categories.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So then, if truth and error are non empirical, then how can an empirical scientists (secular sciene of today) even know truth and error. 

Workability.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So again answer my question.

1) Probabiliy of ration for every little thing

For past events?

1 in 1

How humans 'categorize' that, is subjective.

Thanks for playing, Jean Jean...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Red

Hi Red,

The debate has turned from a debate, from me really teaching you logic, your own atheism (last debate), and now what empiricism is.

I don't mind teaching you. You remind me of my mother-in law during supper. She just sits there and groans with nothing intelligable to say.

I pointed you to the direction for my statements. Go read a book. I sited book titles, and discussed their positions in the book. Critique of Pure Reason is a book I forgot to include. That's another one.

Regarding your gross erros, I will try to be patient. After all, your mind is like a sponge that has soaked up all that grime and slime from gutters of atheism.

________________________

Fixed perspective is fine. But the concept of FIXED is non empirical. If it is, what does it taste like? Does it taste like your momma's cooking, because if it does, i'll go hungry tonight.

So while perspective is acceptable (to a degree), fixed is not. Remember, if ALL is relative and in motion according to Mach's principle, then you CANNOT HAVE FIXED PERSPECTIVE.

LOL.

So false. Try again.

Next

You could read the encylopedia of philosophy on that section. I personally read ALL 8 volumes, so you can read that section. I got my set at Powells and so can you at Powells.com. It's a must have in the field. Or go to a library. You know, those places with books where you check them out and bring them back. Don't steal.

E.T. Jaynes wrote and spoke on an interesting topic. He's a physics Professor I think at Washington State, I'm not sure. Anyway, it was entitle the PROBABILTY THEORY - THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE. Find it and read it. Since it's a common paper I'm sure it's on the web somewhere.

How is science or the means to know in the absolutes and how do you know what you know is the know. And if it is the know then how do you know that the know lacks the know. Go.

So again, just like with the definition of atheism, little old you. Some guys who works at Pizza Hut says that science is not probable, while a professor in physics writes a paper on it saying that science is probable.

Now, why should we listen to Pizza Hut guy Red. Why are you right and most other scientsts wrong?

Justify your answers. Go.

___

There's no such thing as meta-analysis since logical positivism denies metaphysics. Are you an ape? I've said this already.

___

2+2 is NOT empirical, it is logical and mathematical. I have a headache. You and Bob Spencer should get together and go dancing.

Empiricism is the attempt at knowing ONLY through experience. This is done via your senses. Did you take 2+2 out on a date last night? Did 2+2 go up to your place for drinks. Red, you didn't get frisky with 2+2 did you. Shame on you, shame on you.

There are 3 secular means of knowing.

1) Logic (e.g Math)

2) Empiricism (Experience)

3) Intuition

That's it.

____

Subjectivity is not empirical. Does Subjectivity smell like Hillary Clinton? And you have yet to justify the absolute from the probable in your worldview and the means that you know of which categories are indeed subjective vs. objective. You have a lot of work to do.

___

Catagorical is LOGICAL. So an empiricism would say it is subjective, though a logician would say it is objective. Now you are sounding like a crappy modern wannabe scientist.

Do you give up, or shall I pound the hell out of you some more? There's a lot of hell in there needing pounding.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I pointed

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I pointed you to the direction for my statements. Go read a book. I sited book titles, and discussed their positions in the book. Critique of Pure Reason is a book I forgot to include. That's another one.

I asked you for peer reviewed scientific WHITE PAPERS.

Not fucking literature...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Fixed perspective is fine.

No shit, Sherlock.

How the fuck do you think engineers design anything?

We work with datum planes, construction planes in Euclidian geometry, than can be synchronized, or isolated as/from 'world coordinates', or as/from 'universe coordinates'.

One can fix 0x,0y,0z any fucking where they want.

A system within a system...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But the concept of FIXED is non empirical.

Patently False.

Scientists and Engineers couldn't work without constants and constraints, you dufus...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If it is, what does it taste like? Does it taste like your momma's cooking, because if it does, i'll go hungry tonight.

Ya, you're scientific all right...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  So while perspective is acceptable (to a degree), fixed is not.

Then you have no possible way of falsifying your theory.

That makes your statement a non sequitur, and purely circular reasoning.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Remember, if ALL is relative and in motion according to Mach's principle, then you CANNOT HAVE FIXED PERSPECTIVE.

Then you have no possible way of falsifying your theory.

That makes your statement a non sequitur, and purely circular reasoning.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  So false. Try again.

Then we'd never have been able to put a man on the moon, if we listened to you...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 You could read the encylopedia of philosophy on that section.

Philosophers and philosophy don't create technology, and don't make modern medecine, you dufus.

Practitioners do.

And absolute knowledge can happen purely by 'accidents' and 'mistakes'. No 'thought' required.

It happens ALL the time, you fucking moron...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 I personally read ALL 8 volumes, so you can read that section.

So, you're a seasoned navel gazer.

Bully for you.

I design and engineer things that aid humanity, and save lives.

You write limp dicked blogs about how women shouldn't be in positions of power, and how you think Beyonce has multiple personality disorders.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/02/898149/-SHOULD-A-WOMAN-BE-IN-ANY-POLITICAL-POWER

http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-grabs-4-peoples-choice-award-nominations#comment-84783

 

You're my fucking hero...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Justify your answers. Go.

To a fucking little wee wee man child like you?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  2+2 is NOT empirical, it is logical and mathematical.

That's funny, because I'm looking at it, and experiencing it,  right now...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 I have a headache.

It's because you don't get laid enough...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 There are 3 secular means of knowing.

Means are 'neutral', you dufus.

People are 'secular'.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

1) Logic (e.g Math)

2) Empiricism (Experience)

3) Intuition

All of those can fail at being compatible with reality.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

That's it.

Already done, Jean?

You really are an intellectual ' 2 pump chump'...

You just can't get the job done, can you?...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

Catagorical is LOGICAL. So an empiricism would say it is subjective, though a logician would say it is objective.

Ahhh, yes.

The last bastion plea of the 'philosopher'.

" It's only logical !! "

 

I'll never forget the "What goes up, must come down!!"  you logicians thumped on for how many thousands of years??????

 

But, it's a 'relative', since nothing is still, right Jean Jean?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

Now you are sounding like a crappy modern wannabe scientist.

But, I make the big bucks, get the fast cars, and the smokin' hot girl, and you can't even spank your own monkey, Jean Jean...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Red

Hi Red,

You are like a little baby crying for ba ba. That is the level of your understanding of things. But I'll try again. If you fail to answer again, I'm done and I win again.

____

Engineers design things NOT through empiricism, but through the principles of Christianity since Christians are credited with Science's existence. If there were no Christians, there would never be science.

So these Engineers STEAL Christian intelligence. They are inconsistent. Then when they find them data, they say it was done purely empirically.

This is why ALL successful empiricists are liars. Because fixed perspective doesn't work. David Hume is the one who said this via space and time.

____

Constants are logical and mathematical. empiricism is purely ostesive. How can you as an empiricist crawl up to a universal with anything since interpretation of empirical data is non empirical itself. Perspective is only ostensive, it's the relationship of data I speak of.

____

Falsification of a theory was created by Karl Popper (died 1994) and has never been justified. You must justify Poppers positions if that is what you believe.

______

When you go to the University, you can get a Ph.D on various subjects including science. This means that if you have this degree, you know the subject in how it works.

Philosophy is the engine for every subject to go zoom. If you do not believe this, then you cannot write a sentence since that implies logic.

______

Mathematics is non empirical by definition. So if you say that you are experienceing 2+2 then you are on an Acid Dust or LSD trip. It's a categorical fallacy and thus you admit your absurdity. LOL

_____

If means are neatral, then you won't have any preconceived ideas about Christianity in this debate. There is no such things as neutrality unless two dead people are kissing.

____

Nothing is still according to logical positivism which is the basis for all secular garbage wannabe science.

_____

Red, you haven't done any homework. Show me how ostensibly with only empiricism (only experience) from a neutral state which is your position you can know anything since the relation of any subject is non empiricial. And the relation of subjects then must be universal which is also non empirical. And knowledge is also non empirical.

 

_____

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Engineers

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Engineers design things NOT through empiricism, but through the principles of Christianity since Christians are credited with Science's existence. If there were no Christians, there would never be science.

Please cite a peer reviewed scientific WHITE PAPER, that backs your claim.

 

I never knew the Sumerians, Egyptians and the Chinese were Christians.

I remember reading that it appears that Australia's Aboriginals are thought to have been civilized as far back as 50,000 yrs ago.

Your claims are not compatible with the historical and archaeological evidence.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
  I've given redneF and

  I've given redneF and his debate opponents access into the One on One debate forum.  Sorry I didn't get to it sooner.  Typical users aren't able to post in this forum, only people who have been granted entry.  This will help eliminate any future moderation issues in these threads.  


 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.