Sinequanon's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Sinequanon's Profile › Sinequanon's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 37 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 4:17pm On Oct 02, 2016

plaetton:
Yeah sure.

Physicists from all over the world are involved in a grand conspiracy to fool sinequanon.

And you are the only one that saw through their deception.
I wonder why I haven't read your refutations on a scientific journal.

You call yourself rational?

Well face the facts. Address the post, instead of your lame "why doesn't it say it in the bible" type of excuses.

Or maybe you don't actually understand the post, and you are just a cheerleader for scientists.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 3:46pm On Oct 02, 2016

EyeHateGod:
No i. Want u to tell me

I am not going to write an essay for you on the Higgs Boson.

[size=24pt]SCIENTIFIC LIES, LIES, LIES...[/size]

The important point is that leading scientists said that they had found the Higgs Boson. François Englert and Peter W. Higgs were awarded the Nobel Prize for it. Stephen Hawking claimed to have lost his bet that the Higgs Boson did not exist.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson with no spin, electric charge, or colour charge. It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately. It is a quantum excitation of one of the four components of the Higgs field. The latter constitutes a scalar field..

Let us examine the status quo of the "confirmation":

Spin: Spin-0 tentatively confirmed.

Parity: Even parity tentatively confirmed.

Decay: observed; but not "yet" confirmed.

Couplings to mass: "strongly evidenced" ("At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1".

Higher energy results remain "consistent".

So, when we look at the small print for the "confirmation" of the "Higgs Boson", we see wishy-washy double speak. Confirmation in particle physics is supposed to have a very precise definition -- statistical confidence to a level of what is known as 5 sigma, or above. Instead, we have evasive claims of "tentative confirmation", and "strongly evidence", "not yet confirmed", which are just euphemisms for unconfirmed. It's a bit like saying that a woman is "a bit pregnant".

3 years after announcing the confirmation, it is NOT confirmed.

At the time, they knew something was wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171611/Is-God-particle-impostor-Scientists-claim-signal-Large-Hadron-Collider-Higgs-all.html#ixzz20LyPensS

Scientists at CERN are also analysing the data further to see if their discovery corresponds to the 'standard model' Higgs boson - or to something more mysterious.
One of the reasons for the caution at Cern is that while the new particle has so far behaved liked the elusive Higgs boson it is lighter than expected.

If it is lighter than expected, then it is NOT behaving like the Higgs Boson. See how they twist things?

And this discrepancy is not listed explicitly in the Wikipedia article. It is probably hidden in the statement -- "strongly evidenced" ("At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1" wink

.

This is way below the 99.9999% required. So the term "strongly evidenced" is quite deceitful.

Whatever they have found, if anything at all, they are going to call it the Higgs Boson, and twist the Standard Model and claim that it predicts the Higgs Boson after the fact.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 9:53pm On Sep 30, 2016

WORLDPEACE:
What I see happening with evolution is the same thing that happened with religion. It's not really about studying in depth or not. It is about success. If successful people are associated with a thing, with time it catches on. With Islam it was trade and superior knowledge of warfare and literacy. With Christianity it was Literacy, route to a better life, fancy clothes and European type houses. Success will sell anything. Evolution to me is a probability stretched to the position of lab experiment type of fact. And it is not.

Science is also politicized and battle hardened. It is the David that has turned into the Goliath. It has become dogmatic.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution (ToE) is an hypothesis, not a theory, despite all the claims.

ToE will remain an hypothesis at the very least until it can prove its claim that mutations of DNA are "undirected". This explicit denial of the teleological argument needs to be proven, because ToE is not silent on the issue.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 7:55pm On Sep 30, 2016

raphieMontella:
i mean...musical notation is not independent of music...

glad you understand....
Cheers

raphieMontella:
been discovered ''tentatively''...
I.e the footprints..
Garrit bruh?

Are you drunk?

If not, go back to school and learn to communicate in some intelligible language.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 6:24pm On Sep 30, 2016

EyeHateGod:
Pls can u tell me what the Highs bosom is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 5:38pm On Sep 30, 2016

raphieMontella:
what does scientific theories and science base on?
Are laws of physics independent of mathematics and its concepts?

Absolutely, just as music is independent of musical notation.

Nature doesn't care about the models scientists use to describe it. Models have become obsolete, even. The nature they described remains.

raphieMontella:
Evolution sire...is not darwins theory of evolution...thats where you mistake it...

That depends on context. The context being debated in this thread is Darwin's ToE.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 5:21pm On Sep 30, 2016

raphieMontella:
so the 1+1=2 evolves?
Or in the future the hearts work will no longer be used for pumping blood?

1 + 1 = 2 isn't science. It is mathematics. To be precise, it is a mathematical definition.

As for your second rhetorical question, it also shows lack of understanding. There are many examples in the scientific theory of evolution, itself, of co-option and exaptation.

Unfortunately, this is typical. People who follow science mainly through popular media have little idea of what they are supporting.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 5:13pm On Sep 30, 2016

donnffd:
As to the Nobel prize winning discovery, you think they lied about it? Dude, you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorists!, like seriously...

https://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson

I've cut out your essay, as it is irrelevant.

All your post boils down to is "like, seriously..."

Now try to act rationally, and cut to the chase. Quote the part in your link which says that the existence of the Higgs Boson has been scientifically proven.

I'm telling you right now, it doesn't say or imply that, and, if you think that it does, it means you cannot read anywhere near critically enough to understand or be debating about science.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 3:27pm On Sep 30, 2016

donnffd:
Wow, is an educated person typing this?, this is amazing...

so are you telling me that the discovery of the Higgs boson is fake?

This is the reason why Africans dont do science, they dont innovate, they dont ponder on questions that amazes the mind!. How can someone be typing what you just typed? are you kidding me?.

Instead of "wowing", produce a scientific paper or quote from a scientist that says that the existence of the Higgs Boson has been proven.

Being "educated" means being able to read carefully and critically.

donnffd:
If Science is not about truth, then what in hell is it about?

Try using your critical faculties instead of your emotion. I have already answered this question in my previous post.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 12:25pm On Sep 30, 2016

Seun:
The scientific community has a good track record of telling the truth.

Science, itself, isn't about truth. It is about a certain kind of "consistency" and "predictability".

Scientific findings are not "true", they are "currently accepted in the field". Science evolves.

And, in general, scientists are no more honest than anybody else. Because something is "scientifically accepted" does not mean it is true.

The worst recent case of deception in the scientific community is the supposed confirmation of the Higgs Boson.

You will recall that, during the theatrical debacle, designed to justify investment in enhancing the Large Hadron Collider, Stephen Hawking actually pretended that he had lost his bet that the the Higgs Boson did not exsist, and Peter Higgs was awarded the Nobel Prize!!

Christianity Etc › Re: Why I Can Never Be An Atheist. by sinequanon: 12:00pm On Sep 30, 2016

honourhim:
Atheism simply defined is unbelief in the existence of a creator. After that what happens next?
I mean how does this put more food on my table than i already have?
How does this add to the academic qualifications that i have already acquired?
How does this add to the success i record in my career?
How does this add more cars and houses to me?
What has atheism to offer me rather than for me to be running around like a rabid dog and screaming- "there is no God, there is no God"?
Belief in God is not a burden to me rather its my joy, my peace, my courage, my strength and my everything.
Since all that atheism has to offer me is unbelief in God and a sense of false intelligence, then it is worthless and a waste to me.
I dont have time for such a waste.

Other christians can add their own.

Glib lip service: "God is not a burden to me rather its my joy, my peace, my courage, my strength.."

You let slip what you really value, earlier -- nothing spiritual. They are "food on your table", "academic qualifications" (presumably to enhance the food on your table), career (presumably to enhance the food on your table), cars and houses.

You are a materialist, first and foremost.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist by sinequanon: 5:13pm On Sep 29, 2016

Ontarget:
If you are an atheist I would really like to know what makes you think it is possible for a complex and organized system to emerge on its own without guidance

What is complex? What is simple?

Are you asking how it is possible for a system to emerge that appears complex and organized to the human brain?

What about complex and organized relative to the brain of a sardine or slug? Why shouldn't one thing be complex and organized relative to the cognition of another?

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › Re: Do Animals Have Rights? [argumentative Discussion] by sinequanon: 2:57pm On Sep 26, 2016

Shortly after I first joined this forum, I said that there should be a philosophy forum. The response was, "huh? what is that?"

It is a shame that philosophical discussions are still being subsumed under religion.

Now, there are two questions in this thread.

1. Do animals have rights?

2. Should animals have rights?

In answering the question, "do animals have rights?" we have to specify a jurisdiction. Surely, by "rights", we mean "privileges" (protections) above and beyond what nature automatically confers, otherwise the question becomes vacuous (of course, each animal has the rights nature automatically confers upon it -- e.g by means of flight, a bird has some right to escape danger).

Some jurisdictions confer more rights on animals than others, and those rights may vary from animal to animal. In the religious tradition of Jainism, for example, even insects and bugs have rights. One is supposed to do ones utmost to minimize harm to all living things, to the point of carrying a broom around to sweep the bugs away from the destruction of ones footfall. In other jurisdictions, blood sport is celebrated as entertainment.

The question, "should animals have rights?" is a critique of the jurisdictions. What are the merits and demerits of those rights, or absence of those rights, in the various jurisdictions?

No boundaries in this world are ever fully respected, whether they are geographical, ideological, religious, spiritual, social etc. People and ideas will permeate all boundaries and systems will evolve. People will migrate. Ideas will cross-fertilize. Traditions will intermingle. Folk will intermarry. It can be resisted but not stopped. Some philosophies even say that we are all essentially one, and that boundaries are illusory.

It is not possible for us to have one rule for animals and another rule for humans, and expect such boundary to be absolutely respected. The professor who tortures a monkey to test a drug will find a similar reason to torture a human he considers inferior or impaired. He need only convince himself that his choice is a "last resort", or even that he is working for the wider benefit of all.

A demerit of not recognizing rights for animals is that it represents a more general and fundamental compromise on rights of all beings, including humans. "Animal" becomes a euphemism for the threshold at which "self-interest" overcomes sense of group identity. Just as we can exclude animals from our circle of privilege, so we can exclude mammals, then races, tribes, neighbours, and even next of kin.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: What FEARS YOU Need To FACE? by sinequanon: 1:49pm On Sep 26, 2016

I was still waiting for the punchline of the story where a lion appears and all the buffalo scatter, except Walter.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why Darwin's "Theory" Of Evolution Remains Only An Hypothesis. by sinequanon(op): 11:09am On Sep 25, 2016

OoniOfIfe:
If God or Dog made man from dust why are there still dust?

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4278531_fe002f9fd115397441182bc88b7d8737_jpeg673e6399f97dbe8d87b4a2832a0e653d

Such is the level of your insight.

Read the OP. You will find yourself there.

It explains your knee-jerk reaction that is based on scant understanding and religious attachment.

Christianity Etc › Why Darwin's "Theory" Of Evolution Remains Only An Hypothesis. by sinequanon(op): 10:47am On Sep 25, 2016

Most people, including most atheists, have an inadequate understanding of the scientific contention inherent in Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution (henceforth ToE).

Most adherents to ToE only have a religious attachment to it, and they like to "beat up" people who know even less than they do about the issues. To this end, they would seek out people who say things like,

A) If ToE is true, why aren't chimpanzees turning into people?

B) Why are there still monkeys if they evolved into humans?

C) The Earth is only 6000 years old -- no time for ToE.

These are straw man statements that adherents of ToE like to knock down in order to bolster their own confidence.

Most adherents to ToE do not know the real problem with it:

Absence of a STATISTICAL MODEL.

Let me explain.

I enter a room and see a large table with 50 fair coins on it. I hypothesize that the coins were NOT place there by an intelligent agent, but landed randomly on the table (perhaps, thrown carelessly). That is an HYPOTHESIS.

To support my hypothesis scientifically, I need a STATISTICAL MODEL and statistical analysis of the situation.

Without it, my HYPOTHESIS cannot become a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

In the situation of the coins on the table, I could come up with a statistical distribution to model how the coins have landed (a binomial distribution). I could then work out the probability of the coins landing the way they have. If, out of the 50 coins, 47 are heads and 3 are tails, my hypothesis that the coins landed randomly would be scientifically rejected, because the chance of so many heads happening randomly is vanishingly small. My hypothesis must pass the statistical test (say 23 heads vs 27 tails) in order to possibly become a theory.

Now, replace your table by DNA, your coins by genes, and your coin placement by "mutation".

ToE HYPOTHESIZES that the mutations ARE random. It doesn't say that they could possible be random. It CONCLUDES that they ARE random. But it does so with no statistical model or statistical analysis. Therefore, Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution remains only an HYPOTHESIS.

Some work has been done to start on the long, long road of creating a model, which could turn the HYPOTHESIS into a THEORY. But unfortunately, this work is being led by religious folk with the agenda of disproving ToE. This situation has been allowed to happen because scientists themselves have tried to avoid the science and the real scientific questions. They have gone instead for the "what else could it be?" argument, and indulged in an unscientific squabble with religion.

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Neo Platonism by sinequanon: 9:17pm On Sep 24, 2016

sinequanon:
As an aside, I think that some of these neo-Platonic ideas can be found in Buddhist traditions. Did they evolve separately?

I've just read that Plotinus' student, Porphyry, wrote that Plotinus' was influenced by Indian philosophy.

And that some philosophers claim that Plotinus plagiarized Numenius, who referred to a measure of consistency between the works of Plato and of the Brahmins of India.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Neo Platonism by sinequanon: 6:35pm On Sep 24, 2016

PastorAIO:
This is so fascinating. I almost want to start another thread just to discuss these things you are saying.

While I can't speak for Plotinus, I think your criticism depends on how you're reading the passage and there is more than one interpretation.

When he says 'Goodness, Like light, ...', he is not necessarily suggesting an essential similarity in the ways Goodness and Light work. Rather he might be saying that the similarity is superficial but follows the same pattern. For example if I say that, ' I eat garri just like a gardener shovels soil into a wheelbarrow', I am not suggesting that there is an indelible connection between the way I eat and the way the gardener works. I'm just saying that visually, superficially the way a garderner works resembles the way I eat.

So Goodness in the way it diffuses itself is similar to the way that light diffuses itself. And perhaps also the way that salt in a cup of water diffuses itself, and a fart in the wind diffuses itself.

Suffering as a starting point for religious practice is a strong argument and in fact one that I totally agree with a embrace.

However I'm not sure whether you mean it as a basis for cosmogony.

I've finished reading the OP, and I can see in the Wiki article how Plotinus supports his "diffusion of light" comment.

I've given the OP a second reading to apply the contexts of the first reading.

"Suffering", I see as a natural starting point in a discourse on spirituality and religion.

I hadn't considered cosmogeny, but, now that you mention the word, it can be argued that the phenomenal world is something that is "endured" and has a "duration" or temporality contingent upon endurance. Time, itself, may be an artifact of incompleteness, finiteness and "disunity".

Does time exist outside the domain of suffering? Do space and distance exist outside the domain of suffering? In a real, undifferentiated world of Oneness what connotation could distance or delay have? It could be said that these aspects of the phenomenal world are part of its cosmogeny -- that the phenomenal world is our own subjective rendition of our "devolved" condition.

As an aside, I think that some of these neo-Platonic ideas can be found in Buddhist traditions. Did they evolve separately?

Christianity Etc › Prayer Without Words by sinequanon(op): 2:42pm On Sep 24, 2016

"Do you pray?" I was asked by someone who knows that I am not religious.

In an attempt to avoid reference to a particular god, she continued, "do you not ask for HELP from The Source?"

I did not have to think long to answer her question.

I am energy -- Spiritual energy. It is by action that I communicate, and by will that I act.

It is by sense that I observe, and by will that I sense.

It is not by words that I pray.

Help is not withheld by a Source. Inspiration is ever present. It is not invoked by words, but by the will and by the action.

It is by exchange of wilful acts that we are inspired.

Your will and your behaviour is prayer without words.

Life, itself, is a prayer.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Neo Platonism by sinequanon: 1:52pm On Sep 24, 2016

Plotinus' starting-point is that of the idealist.

...and there should be nothing but God. He is, however, good; and goodness, like light, tends to diffuse itself. Thus from the One, there emanates

I haven't finished reading the OP, but the parallel between goodness and light seems to me to be quite arbitrary and vague, yet it is key to the flow of the author's "argument".

Myself, my starting point would be "suffering". In acknowledging suffering, we acknowledge both experience and potential. Suffering expresses an awareness of the difference between what is experienced, and concept or idea (Idea) of what potentially "could be". It is coupled with a sense of frustration or "obstructed power" -- the belief that there is a way out of the suffering that is obscured or confounded by our condition.

Suffering is a natural starting point in the discourse of emanation and forms (if that is the paradigm you wish to follow).

As in, "I know, therefore I am", so, "I suffer, therefore I could be".

Family › Re: Photo Of Elderly Identical Twins In Sokoto State by sinequanon: 1:38pm On Sep 11, 2016

The one on the left looks 45 minutes older.

Programming › Re: I Want To Learn Programming. Which Language Should I Start With? by sinequanon: 9:37pm On Mar 13, 2016

Danobal:

..er..happy birthday?

Romance › Re: Why Can't I Fall In Love? by sinequanon: 11:23am On Feb 24, 2016

PasD:
my story is clear enough bro

No it is not.

You implied that you don't take advantage of women any more. So what are you doing now?

PasD:
I never really had a relationship. all I did (those days) was take advantage of them and walk.

Romance › Re: Why Can't I Fall In Love? by sinequanon: 11:11am On Feb 23, 2016

PasD:
I never really had a relationship. all I did (those days) was take advantage of them and walk.

This your story is not making sense.

First of all, why would a man who "takes advantage of women and then walks" have to explain that he is not gay?

Secondly, you have now said "those days". So what are you doing nowadays?

Romance › Re: Why Can't I Fall In Love? by sinequanon: 5:16pm On Feb 22, 2016

PasD:
heheheheheh I'm 30yrs sir

And your answer to my question?

Romance › Re: Why Can't I Fall In Love? by sinequanon: 3:38pm On Feb 22, 2016

PasD:
I have never fallen in love before and I am 30yrs this year! its beginning to worry me seriously. I seem not to trust a woman enough to love her. my part has crossed with many Parts: the beautiful, ugly, short, tall, small, slim etc yet no one seemed to take my heart why?? am worried seriously now. the highest I can do is to have 'sterrings' only for it to die off totally in weeks. I'm am totally not gay, I don't have any spiritual bae anywhere......is there ever anyone who can answer me cos me is very worried.

mature minds only pls

So, no sex, just stirrings?

Romance › Re: I Am A Pervert. I Need Help With My Sex And Porn Addiction. by sinequanon: 2:00pm On Feb 22, 2016

YourMain:
Get busy. Get a hobby. Slowly wean yourself off your addiction.

For a second, I thought that said "get p.usssy" shocked

Romance › Re: Type the first word you can see by sinequanon: 1:49pm On Feb 22, 2016

Romance › Re: If You Girlfriend Slaps You,will You Slap Her Back? by sinequanon: 3:52pm On Feb 21, 2016

Angry aggressive slap... won't happen. Only happens when a woman knows she is dealing with a woman wrapper.

Distressed spontaneous emotionally defensive slap... my instinct would be to comfort her. Doesn't matter where it is, or who is about.

Romance › Re: Can A Guy And A Girl Be Best Friends With Out Developing Feelings by sinequanon: 3:19pm On Feb 21, 2016

I am not quite sure what you are asking, exactly.

Saying you are friends or close friends is different from saying you are best friends.

Having feelings is different from falling in love.

So to the answers, depending on what you mean..

1. Best friends, no. I don't even know how I could be best friends with a woman.

2. Close friends, yes. I can be close friends with a girl without falling in love.

3. Close friends without romantic feelings? It should be possible although it has never happened huh

Just because you don't find a particular woman physically attractive, does not mean that you don't have a lot of common interests or common outlook. So, you ought to be able to be close friends if the situation were to arise (without your d1.ck arising too. cool

)

Of course, the "i-will-hit-anything-in-a-skirt-brigade" will step forward and tell us that they find all women physically attractive, and this is a sign of their incredible manhood (but I think it is a sign of their desperation. grin

)

Programming › Re: I Want To Learn Programming. Which Language Should I Start With? by sinequanon: 6:36pm On Feb 18, 2016

exxy:
Guys Check this challenge out

Program Specification

All the integers beginning with 1 are written down in succession. what digit is in the Xth place;
Write a program that allows me to input a position and it outputs what digit is in that place of the succession. Also the program should output how many numbers had to be created in order to get the position.

Note: Xth position will not be longer than 2000

This program is a school challenge, How do I go about the syntax ?

It doesn't make sense. Somebody is mixing up the words "digit" and "integer".

Also, "numbers created" doesn't make any sense. Do they mean, "how many numbers had to be tested?"

Not all methods will involve directly testing numbers.

It is a very badly formulated question (not the first I have noticed in assignments posted on this forum).

Romance › Re: Can You Ever Love A Girl? by sinequanon: 3:25pm On Feb 18, 2016

"Love" doesn't lead to heartbreak.

But "need" can.

Probably, most people cannot love without need.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 37 pages)