SEB True Science Fact #74

18 thoughts on “SEB True Science Fact #74

  1. THEOCRAT Logical Fact #75: If we’re imagining a situation that can’t possibly happen then we’re also imagining they die. In our imaginations things don’t have to die.

  2. Good zinger Les.

    THEOCRAT Logical Fact #76: Ascertaining knowledge about transcendent potential realities requires senses and/or vantage points beyond our nature (as per the definition of transcendent).

  3. Your follow up fact damages your claim of belief. You’re not really doing yourself any favors with these inconvenient facts, Theo.

  4. I thought we were discussing logic, nature, science and facts. When did belief come into the discussion? Is it correct for me to assume that the humor in the picture comes from the absurdity of “nature facts” predicated on imagination, or did I miss the punchline? ;P

  5. Actually, the first dozen or so would probably be OK in the lower levels of the atmosphere, until the dung beetles stopped functioning. Then we’d be for some more major Republican crap!

    😉 😆


  6. THEOCRAT: “When did belief come into the discussion?”

    Belief came into it when you said “transcendent potential realities”, words which the very meaning of require belief.

    You have to show proof that such an ‘ascertaining of extra-sensory realities’ is possible, and since, by your own words, it is not observable, no evidence for it can be forthcoming.


  7. If you think that things exist because we can imagine them, then I guess you are a Thomist?

  8. @legacyabq

    1) You either don’t know what Thomism is or are relying on only one interpretive scheme for Aquinas to represent all Thomisms.

    2) “You have to show proof that such an ‘ascertaining of extra-sensory realities’ is possible, and since, by your own words, it is not observable, no evidence for it can be forthcoming.” This is a tautology.

    3) “transcendent potential realities” do not require belief. Nothing that is potential requires belief. Belief in any potential reality, transcendent or not, is always a choice.

  9. “This is a tautology?”

    Umm, yes, I know.. It is yours. I mean, huh?

    I had to laugh at your first sentence. What interpretation? I’m talking about Thomism. What’s to get? It’s not nearly as deep as you think it is. It is laughable in fact. So I guess your answer is “Yes, I am a Thomist, and I am sensitive about it”


    Happy Zombie Day man

  10. I’ll give credit to the angelic doctor for recognizing the power of logic, but really, his syllogisms only undermine his own religion.. In fact, Thomist doctrine has given a theological opportunity for some of the best critiques of religious thought..

    Personally, I find them self-evidentially DIS-proving of the possibility of introducing logic into an inherently NON-logical belief system.

    LOL, what, are you a jesuit? Have fun with those mind-games.

  11. Don’t expect me to engage you. I don’t come here to argue, I come here because I love reading comments, and Les’ posts.

    But really man.. The Middle Ages are looong over.. I mean, the ontological argument? Please.
    And I referred to Thomism because your post was essentially the ontological argument, and was fallacious.

    That said, you seemed to be being light-hearted about it, vis-a-vis the elephants and such, so I am not trying to be unpleasant… I’m sure you are a lovely (albeit deluded) person. At the same time.. This is a pretty rationalist blog, so what can you expect, right? 😛

    Peace brother Anselm! 😛

  12. @legacyabq

    I’m not a Thomist or a Jesuit. I am educated enough to know that there are many very different understandings of Aquinas’s thought. It would appear you’ve never seriously studied Aquinas or you would be aware of this. See Fergus Kerr’s After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism.

    What I wrote is not a tautology. A tautology is “needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness.” I pointed out a logical implication of “transcendent potential realities” (responding to Les’ zinger on my “imagination” of God), namely that they can’t be known with certainty. You wrote, essentially, that I have to prove something that isn’t provable and since I can’t prove it it isn’t provable. That is a perfect example of a tautology.

    I did not make an ontological argument. Nothing I said was fallacious.

  13. How do I get into this argument about fellatio – fallacious? I believe Lao Tsu had a good handle on this:
    “The tao that can be told
    is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be named
    is not the eternal Name.”
    Tao Te Ching, trans Stephen Mitchell

    That pre-dated Thomas by about 600 or 700 years.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.