- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I am not going to apologize for being logical. If someone makes a formal error in reasoning, I believe they should be called out on it. Since people don't like being called out on being illogical, they react emotionally instead of sticking to the topic at hand. That's simply not my problem.
Here are your sources buddy. Wikipedia, politics and arrest section:
"During the trial, Sidis stated that he had been a conscientious objector of the World War I draft, did not believe in a god, and defined himself as a socialist." You can also go sidis.net to get the rest of the information.
"I do commit them for a reason..."
So...you commit fallacies for a reason? So you're intentionally illogical? Ok then.
"If they won't handle non-believers why should I not think that they've something to hide?"
I am not following you here. This makes no sense. I am not even going to bother to read through the rest of this. The entire response reads as if it is written by some whiney 12 year old. Also, all caps makes you right. Nice logic fail.
Actually, William James Sidis was an atheist. When in court after being arrested for a protest, he said he did not believe in any theistic conception of God. Furthermore, you are committing multiple logical fallacies Terminator. For one, you are cherry picking. Two, you are saying that if someone does X and is part of a group X, this is directly reflective of that group, which is a complete non sequitur.
"Why is it that Christians can be insulted and harassed and nobody gives a shit..."
You are making another fallacy in the form of an argument as an appeal to emotion. How Christians are treated in relation to other groups of people is not relevant to the truth-value of a premise. Your statement "It does correlate directly..." is yet another fallacy. Please see correlation does not imply causation.
"Name me a few wars begun by atheists..."
Another fallacy. Particularly, this is a red herring. Being able to pick out a certain event or group of people isn't relevant to the truth-value of an argument. So that is about five fallacies and one factually incorrect statement. I ask that you please refrain from committing so many fallacies in the future.
"My understanding is that the degrees of freedom come from reduced symmetry as per a report 'Strong coupling in Horava gravity'. Am I correct in assuming that the preferred foliation's introduction is what is responsible for the reduced symmetry?"
It is assumed that the spacetime diffeomorphism group can be broken down into a subgroup and the correct long-distance limit can be reproduced in Horava quantum gravity. This assumption is what is meant by reduced symmetry. So yes.
"Also in the aforementioned strong coupling report, I read that Horava theory lacks a perturbative General Relativity limit, can you elucidate this point? What exactly are perturbative General Relativity limits?"
The paper you are referring to ("Strong coupling in Horava gravity") talks a bit about perturbative gravitational waves in General Relativity. In this paper I believe when they use that term they are talking about the limit of General Relativity as approximated by perturbation methods (because of the assumption of different distance scales).
You can't compare God to the toothfairy. The toothfairy actually has a coherent ontology. It can actually be considered a concept. God does not have a coherent ontology. God is nothing but a list of secondary and relational attributes, which do not make up a conceptual entity. Before one can even speak of the existence or nonexistence of God (like the existence or nonexistence of the toothfairy, for example), one must first provide a coherent ontology for God.
Thus, both answers to these questions are wrong. You cannot discuss the existence of something that no coherent definition. In any other discussion, you would first have to define a concept and then discuss whether that concept exists or not. For some reason, people mistakenly assume that God has the necessary attributes to be considered a coherent concept, and thus can be discussed.
I disagree that the problem is lack of evidence. The challenge for Christianity is that there is no coherent ontology for God. All God is is a list of secondary and relational attributes. Thus, before one could even begin to discuss evidence for or against God in rational discourse, one would first have to provide a positive ontology for God.
This is why it doesn't make sense to compare God to mythical creatures like a unicorn for instance. A unicorn is a concept; it has a coherent ontology. Ask what God is. You will get statements like "love" or "power." But this is merely equivocating a nonconcept with no coherent ontology with a concept that has coherent ontology. To be an atheist, you have to assume that God has a coherent definition that can be disbelieved in.
But you can't disbelieve in a nonconcept. This is why I consider myself a noncognitivist and not an atheist.
There are some inconsistencies in the Horava-Lifshitz theory of quantum gravity. It relies on the theory of foliations, but the introduction of the preferred foliation breaks the gauge group of general relativity down to the group of spacetime diffeomorphisms explicity preserving this foliation. This requires the introduction of extra degrees of freedom.
A normal degree of freedom corresponds to a 2-dimensional phase space, while the phase space of Horava gravity is five-dimensional. This leaves an obscure extra "half-mode" which lacks a physical interpretation (i.e. it is unclear whether it corresponds to a real degree of freedom). The model also seems to suffer from a strong coupling problem. That is, the strong coupling scale is dependent on background curvature.
It has also been criticized that the Harava model can only be trusted in the realm of very small energies far below the Planck scale. Nevertheless, despite its criticisms it has some clear advantages, such as solving the problem of different concepts of time in quantum field theory and general relativity.