Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[Blake]

Or is he showing one of many destinies?

If his specific prophecies don't come true, then Bible God is a liar.

[xellos88330]

If his specific prophecies don't come true, then Bible God is a liar.

Well, he did say that a great many would start to turn away from him and deny him. Isn't that happening now?

[Blake]

Well, he did say that a great many would start to turn away from him and deny him. Isn't that happening now?

So he does choose to see everyone's future.

Now back to the free will paradox.

[xellos88330]

Perhaps the prophecies were meant to serve as a warning to what would happen should a person choose to stray from the path.

[Blake]

Perhaps the prophecies were meant to serve as a warning to what would happen should a person choose to stray from the path.

Naw, he directly told Peter that he was going to deny him three times before his cock grows.

[xellos88330]

So he does choose to see everyone's future.

Now back to the paradox.

Once again, look at the explanation I gave to DMC about the child running across the street. The prophecy would be something like, "If you cross the street without looking both ways or holding my hand, you will transform into a road pancake." It is up to the child to choose their own destiny.

[xellos88330]

Naw, he directly told Peter that he was going to deny him three times before his cock grows.

That was Jesus.

[xellos88330]

“If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the Lord." - Jeremiah 3:1

Thus says the Lord: “What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthlessness, and became worthless?" Jeremiah 2:5

[Blake]

Once again, look at the explanation I gave to DMC about the child running across the street. The prophecy would be something like, "If you cross the street without looking both ways or holding my hand, you will transform into a road pancake." It is up to the child to choose their own destiny.

Nope. You're either omniscient or you're not. As soon as you erase or block your memory, you're no longer omniscient.

Can God make an indestructible wall that even he can't knock down?

[Blake]

That was Jesus.

Jesus = God

[Blake]

“If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the Lord." - Jeremiah 3:1

Thus says the Lord: “What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthlessness, and became worthless?" Jeremiah 2:5

Ok

[xellos88330]

Nope. You're either omniscient or you're not. As soon as you erase or block your memory, you're no longer omniscient.

Can God make an indestructible wall that even he can't knock down?

Ah, the classic question raises its head designed simply to prove that no matter the answer I give, God will not be all powerful. I will answer this with another paradox.

If I shoot a gun at someone, the bullet does need to travel a specified distance to reach the target, however, mathematically speaking the bullet should never hit the target because the distance the bullet must travel could be divided infinitely.

Some things just are.

[Blake]

You saying that God chooses to limit his knowledge is just another example of the classic omnipotence/omniscience paradox

If it "just is that way" then the Bible is completely invalid

[xellos88330]

God is the paradox. The answer is clearly beyond our understanding. In order for a person to prove the existence of God, they themselves must become omniscient. Neither of us can make this claim. The closest thing to evidence at least in Christianity is the teachings of the Bible. I just find it foolish to make a claim that God doesn't, or couldn't exist based on our current knowledge and history.

I look at the Bible more as a history lesson and guideline to a happier future. I don't think of it as the literal word of God, but a possible attempt to understand and explain him.

[spurraider21]

Ah, the classic question raises its head designed simply to prove that no matter the answer I give, God will not be all powerful. I will answer this with another paradox.

If I shoot a gun at someone, the bullet does need to travel a specified distance to reach the target, however, mathematically speaking the bullet should never hit the target because the distance the bullet must travel could be divided infinitely.

Some things just are.
no. that's not a paradox. that's just a repeating decimal. thats like saying 1.11111... = infinity

[RandomGuy]

God is the paradox. The answer is clearly beyond our understanding. In order for a person to prove the existence of God, they themselves must become omniscient. Neither of us can make this claim. The closest thing to evidence at least in Christianity is the teachings of the Bible. I just find it foolish to make a claim that God doesn't, or couldn't exist based on our current knowledge and history.

I look at the Bible more as a history lesson and guideline to a happier future. I don't think of it as the literal word of God, but a possible attempt to understand and explain him.

The concept of omniscience is itself flawed.

BdmPC5n_FM0

You don't know, and can't know, that "the answer is beyond our understanding".

The answer to the question "how big is the sun" or "what is the sun made of"? was beyond our understanding a mere few hundred years ago.

Again, I can't rule out the possibility of an immensely powerful being, but the Bible God is definitely nonexistant. That is easy. To say that "the closest thing to evidence..." is provably false. The bible is evidence of men writing about what they think God is, no more.

[DMC]

It is simple. Choose to know the destiny of mankind, or not to choose the destiny of mankind. That is the choice.

The future is known to God should he choose it. You may know if your child were to run across the street that he/she could be hit by a car. You don't know for certain whether or not the child will choose to do so, but you warn them anyways to mitigate the risk.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of omniscience. What you're saying is god is unlimited but limited if he chooses to be which would mean god isn't unlimited which would mean god isn't god.

[xellos88330]

no. that's not a paradox. that's just a repeating decimal. thats like saying 1.11111... = infinity

Then how does the bullet hit the man?

[spurraider21]

Then how does the bullet hit the man?
how is 1.1111 repeating not infinite if you always add another 1, thus making the number continuously bigger?

its just a misunderstanding of math

[spurraider21]

ok, lets assume that the bullet is for some reason very slow traveling and moves 10 feet per second, at a constant velocity. i know this number is nowhere near accurate, but just for the sake of math, lets go with it.

the target is 100 feet away. the bullet will get there in 10 seconds. period. end of story. it doesn't matter that the bullet must first travel 90 feet. then 9 feet. then 0.9 feet. then 0.09 feet. that doesn't matter. once it gets to 90 feet, it only needs 1 second to travel the remaining 10.

[xellos88330]

You seem to misunderstand the concept of omniscience. What you're saying is god is unlimited but limited if he chooses to be which would mean god isn't unlimited which would mean god isn't god.

We can hold an egg in our hands. We can easily crush it, or we can choose not to. We make similar choices all the time. How can God not be capable of a choice?

[spurraider21]

converging series are treated as finite numbers. this has been experimentally proven and is applied in physics and engineering

[DisAsTerBot]

infinite number of steps. finite amount of time.

[xellos88330]

ok, lets assume that the bullet is for some reason very slow traveling and moves 10 feet per second, at a constant velocity. i know this number is nowhere near accurate, but just for the sake of math, lets go with it.

the target is 100 feet away. the bullet will get there in 10 seconds. period. end of story. it doesn't matter that the bullet must first travel 90 feet. then 9 feet. then 0.9 feet. then 0.09 feet. that doesn't matter. once it gets to 90 feet, it only needs 1 second to travel the remaining 10.

But why does it hit the target when math says it both can, and can't hit it?

[spurraider21]

infinite number of steps. finite amount of time.
do you know what a convergent series is?

[spurraider21]

But why does it hit the target when math says it both can, and can't hit it?
math does not say it can't hit it. do you know what a convergent series is?

[Blake]

We can hold an egg in our hands. We can easily crush it, or we can choose not to. We make similar choices all the time. How can God not be capable of a choice?

He's capable but as soon as he expels the knowledge, he is no longer omniscient........which would contradict what the Bible says about God.

[silverblk mystix]

lol blind people still arguing over "sight"

Blind group "A" - "I have been blind since birth - I cannot debate "sight" - and I understand that all human beings on this planet are also blind" (I belong in this group)

Blind group "B" -"I have been blind since birth - but I will tell you all about "sight" because I went to jr college and swallowed the sleeping professors brainwashing"

Blind group "C" - "I have been blind, brainwashed & programmed since birth - I will lecture, debate,argue,kill,condescend - on things I have never seen, things I am not aware of, and things I will never see - furthermore - I am still asleep - yet I will preach to people on the subject of "wakefulness" (pretty much every spurs-troll-talker)


:rollin:rollin:rollin

[spurraider21]

Are you saying you never even attended jr college? Would explain a lot tbh

[Blake]

lol blind people still arguing over "sight"

Blind group "A" - "I have been blind since birth - I cannot debate "sight" - and I understand that all human beings on this planet are also blind" (I belong in this group)

Blind group "B" -"I have been blind since birth - but I will tell you all about "sight" because I went to jr college and swallowed the sleeping professors brainwashing"

Blind group "C" - "I have been blind, brainwashed & programmed since birth - I will lecture, debate,argue,kill,condescend - on things I have never seen, things I am not aware of, and things I will never see - furthermore - I am still asleep - yet I will preach to people on the subject of "wakefulness" (pretty much every spurs-troll-talker)


:rollin:rollin:rollin

Lol arrogant hypocritical shit hole implying he has sight while everyone else here is blind

[FuzzyLumpkins]

do you know what a convergent series is?

I tried to talk about convergence earlier and that is what get chinook to finally surrender completely when he was whacking off to limit notation for reimann sums. It is good stuff but completely beyond their scope.

[xmas1997]

lol blind people still arguing over "sight"

Blind group "A" - "I have been blind since birth - I cannot debate "sight" - and I understand that all human beings on this planet are also blind" (I belong in this group)

Blind group "B" -"I have been blind since birth - but I will tell you all about "sight" because I went to jr college and swallowed the sleeping professors brainwashing"

Blind group "C" - "I have been blind, brainwashed & programmed since birth - I will lecture, debate,argue,kill,condescend - on things I have never seen, things I am not aware of, and things I will never see - furthermore - I am still asleep - yet I will preach to people on the subject of "wakefulness" (pretty much every spurs-troll-talker)


:rollin:rollin:rollin

I also belong to Group A for the most part.

The only times I veer from it is usually to troll someone on here who is being ridiculous.

[spurraider21]

I also belong to Group A for the most part.

The only times I veer from it is usually to troll someone on here who is being ridiculous.
So you don't believe in the story of Abraham. You could have given this simple answer months ago

[spurraider21]

I tried to talk about convergence earlier and that is what get chinook to finally surrender completely when he was whacking off to limit notation for reimann sums. It is good stuff but completely beyond their scope.
He wasn't wrong. I haven't taken math since I finished calc 3 back in 2010, so I'm not as sharp as I had been, but you don't really use infinity as a number or actual value, but you take the limit of x as approaching infinity. That's where he took issue. Infinity doesn't have an actual applicable value

[xmas1997]

So you don't believe in the story of Abraham. You could have given this simple answer months ago

I was trying to clue you into the concept of the style of biblical writing used back then, or what most theologians claim was used, i.e. allegorical.

You seemed to expect everything to be either black or white, and I was trying to explain that it was mostly gray areas.

You thought I was evading answering you at the time, but I wasn't.

I don't believe the story of Abraham was an actual series of events in the literal sense. There may well have been a man named Abraham, and the story may have been loosely based on him, but I believe for the most part it was a whole lot of symbolism, i.e. the number and names of his sons, wives, cities, etc. we're symbolic of other things, and the message was morally based.

[spurraider21]

Style of writing is 100% irrelevant to my question and the mere bringin it up is deflecting from the question

But thanks for clarifying that you don't believe the story of Abraham actually occurred as written

[xmas1997]

Style of writing is 100% irrelevant to my question and the mere bringin it up is deflecting from the question

But thanks for clarifying that you don't believe the story of Abraham actually occurred as written

No, I don't believe it actually occurred EXACTLY as written and that is because of all the allegory.
The same with most of the O. T.

IMHO we modern day scholars understand it less than they did back then when it was written.

[xellos88330]

math does not say it can't hit it. do you know what a convergent series is?

Actually no I don't. Explain.

[spurraider21]

Actually no I don't. Explain.
lets say we have a Pizza. i can cut that pizza in half. i can cut the 1/2 into 1/4. i can cut that 1/4 into 1/8. i can cut it in half 100 times, and then keep going, making more halves.

there are an INFINITE number of times i can make halves. but we still have a finite amount of pizza, don't we?

infinite series of numbers can still lead to a finite value. the most famous is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 can go forever but it adds to exactly 1

[mouse]

lets say we have a Pizza. i can cut that pizza in half. i can cut the 1/2 into 1/4. i can cut that 1/4 into 1/8. i can cut it in half 100 times, and then keep going, making more halves.

there are an INFINITE number of times i can make halves. but we still have a finite amount of pizza, don't we?

infinite series of numbers can still lead to a finite value. the most famous is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 can go forever but it adds to exactly 1

All that math, all that knowledge you seem to have and yet you support the reason your here on earth is a result of two apes fucking?

What a waste.

[Blake]

All that math, all that knowledge you seem to have and yet you support the reason your here on earth is a result of two apes fucking?

What a waste.

Explain how believing in your alternative design theory is not a waste

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He wasn't wrong. I haven't taken math since I finished calc 3 back in 2010, so I'm not as sharp as I had been, but you don't really use infinity as a number or actual value, but you take the limit of x as approaching infinity. That's where he took issue. Infinity doesn't have an actual applicable value

You do that in certain approaching certain summations like riemann sums but there are other manifestations of the infinite as for example in geometric ratios. If no matter how close you look there is always a smaller value then that is unbounded. Scale is a funny thing. Conservation principles indicate that matter/energy is never created or destroyed.

I get the need to reduce scope along vectors or to whatever scaling convention they want to use when you are extending multiple axis but a lot of that shit is just tedious. "It's not infinity but its this vector extended to infinity." You are still considering that vector as unbounded. Just not everything else. That is the point of the notation. The point is not to say that they were just kidding about the whole infinite thing.

At the end of the day when you make calculations using certain irrational numbers, they produce repeatable results. I put the answer to whether or not the stuff that makes up reality ever truly ends or begins in the same category as whether or not there is a last digit of the number pi.

[xellos88330]

lets say we have a Pizza. i can cut that pizza in half. i can cut the 1/2 into 1/4. i can cut that 1/4 into 1/8. i can cut it in half 100 times, and then keep going, making more halves.

there are an INFINITE number of times i can make halves. but we still have a finite amount of pizza, don't we?

infinite series of numbers can still lead to a finite value. the most famous is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 can go forever but it adds to exactly 1

I follow you.

Now answer me this. Are we made of atoms?

[silverblk mystix]

All that math, all that knowledge you seem to have and yet you support the reason your here on earth is a result of two apes fucking?

What a waste.

[xmas1997]

Originally Posted by mouse
All that math, all that knowledge you seem to have and yet you support the reason your here on earth is a result of two apes fucking?

What a waste.


^

:lmao

[Blake]

lol blind people still arguing over "sight"

Blind group "A" - "I have been blind since birth - I cannot debate "sight" - and I understand that all human beings on this planet are also blind" (I belong in this group)

Blind group "B" -"I have been blind since birth - but I will tell you all about "sight" because I went to jr college and swallowed the sleeping professors brainwashing"

Blind group "C" - "I have been blind, brainwashed & programmed since birth - I will lecture, debate,argue,kill,condescend - on things I have never seen, things I am not aware of, and things I will never see - furthermore - I am still asleep - yet I will preach to people on the subject of "wakefulness" (pretty much every spurs-troll-talker)


:rollin:rollin:rollin

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240272&p=7632697#post7632697

[spurraider21]

I follow you.

Now answer me this. Are we made of atoms?
yes

[xellos88330]

yes

Can an atom think?

[xmas1997]

Can an atom think?

Were you aware that some have posited that the atom is its' own universe unto itself?
And in other words a single human can be compared to a single atom in a microcosmic sense, comparable to a human being compared to God in a macrocosmic sense.
Thus in a scenario such as this, there is no evidence to say that an atom may or may not have sentience in and of itself.

[spurraider21]

Can an atom think?
Can you ask a serious question?

[xellos88330]

Can you ask a serious question?

It is a serious question. Or could it be that you aren't taking it seriously because I admitted that I didn't know what a convergent series is, therefore you are somehow "better" than me?

[spurraider21]

It is a serious question. Or could it be that you aren't taking it seriously because I admitted that I didn't know what a convergent series is, therefore you are somehow "better" than me?
i never said i'm better than you. asking if an atom can think is not a serious question. but i'll play along and say no

[mouse]

Explain how believing in your alternative design theory is not a waste

Sure but doing so will now debunk the Study: Atheists, have higher IQs

[DMC]

We can hold an egg in our hands. We can easily crush it, or we can choose not to. We make similar choices all the time. How can God not be capable of a choice?

We are not omniscient however even we cannot both hold an egg and not hold an egg simultaneously.

[Agloco]

Sure but doing so will now debunk the Study: Atheists, have higher IQs

Eagerly awaiting your input mouse.

[Blake]

Sure but doing so will now debunk the Study: Atheists, have higher IQs

Lol mouse

[RandomGuy]

how is 1.1111 repeating not infinite if you always add another 1, thus making the number continuously bigger?

its just a misunderstanding of math

Eyup.

[xellos88330]

i never said i'm better than you. asking if an atom can think is not a serious question. but i'll play along and say no

People are a group of atoms, and apparently atoms cannot think on their own, so how is thought created?

[spurraider21]

People are a group of atoms, and apparently atoms cannot think on their own, so how is thought created?
that's quite an oversimplification :lol

a piece of metal can't access the internet, but a computer and a router are groups of pieces of metal. so how is the internet accessed?

[xellos88330]

Eyup.

A misunderstanding of math in Zeno's paradox is the same as misunderstanding the God Paradox.

In the God paradox, a person is trying to understand God within the framework of our own physical reality. God transcends that. To ask true questions about God, one must be able to get past the confines of their dependence on the physical.

[xellos88330]

that's quite an oversimplification :lol

a piece of metal can't access the internet, but a computer and a router are groups of pieces of metal. so how is the internet accessed?

True it is a gross oversimplification on my part, but the question still remains. How is thought created?

The computer and router were intelligently designed to master the currents of electricity to allow such a feat.

[DisAsTerBot]

"god transcends that" isn't an answer to anything and adds nothing to this discussion.

[ohmwrecker]

We are not omniscient however even we cannot both hold an egg and not hold an egg simultaneously.

You can if you have two eggs.

[xellos88330]

We are not omniscient however even we cannot both hold an egg and not hold an egg simultaneously.

You can be holding an egg and deciding whether or not to crush it though.

[spurraider21]

True it is a gross oversimplification on my part, but the question still remains. How is thought created?

The computer and router were intelligently designed to master the currents of electricity to allow such a feat.
i haven't taken much when it comes to neurobiology, so i don't think i'm qualified to give an answer. i have a very general idea about the physiology and biology of it from having taken basic psychology. it's one of the mysteries we're still learning about and making strides in.

You can if you have two eggs.
:lol

[xellos88330]

"god transcends that" isn't an answer to anything and adds nothing to this discussion.

You only say it isn't an answer because you do not want to understand the answer. The answer requires a person to leave all the knowledge they have, and throw it out of the window. To find God, you have to venture where all that knowledge is useless.

[ohmwrecker]

I just think if a creator made us with an intelligent design, we should be a lot better.

[DisAsTerBot]

You only say it isn't an answer because you do not want to understand the answer. The answer requires a person to leave all the knowledge they have, and throw it out of the window. To find God, you have to venture where all that knowledge is useless.

and this is why your answer is not an answer at all.

[xellos88330]

I just think if a creator made us with an intelligent design, we should be a lot better.

I think that is where evolution comes into play.

I believe that we were indeed created by a creator, but in what form were we originally created? I understand that the Bible states that we were created in God's image, but what exactly is that image? Just like a seed, I believe we were intended to grow.

[xellos88330]

and this is why your answer is not an answer at all.

How do you quantify the unknown?

[DisAsTerBot]

How do you quantify the unknown?

right, so if "god" is unknown, the sentence ends there.

[Blake]

You can if you have two eggs.

:lol

[xellos88330]

right, so if "god" is unknown, the sentence ends there.

If God was unknown, we wouldn't be debating him you smartass you. :P

Could you answer the question now?

[Blake]

If God was unknown, we wouldn't be debating him you smartass you. :P

Could you answer the question now?

Wut? How is god known?

[DisAsTerBot]

If God was unknown, we wouldn't be debating him you smartass you. :P

Could you answer the question now?

god is a word and the argument ends there.

[xellos88330]

Wut? How is god known?

If you people are so into the logical, why in the hell do you keep forcing things into a circular argument? Because the answer isn't one that you like? I can do that too. As a matter of fact, I do that with my wife all the time. LOL!!!

[DisAsTerBot]

not sure how that's a circular argument. "god" is unknown, Im not sure we can have any discussion without agreeing on this point.

[Blake]

If you people are so into the logical, why in the hell do you keep forcing things into a circular argument? Because the answer isn't one that you like? I can do that too. As a matter of fact, I do that with my wife all the time. LOL!!!

I didn't make an argument. I asked a question.

How exactly is god known?

[xellos88330]

not sure how that's a circular argument. "god" is unknown, Im not sure we can have any discussion without agreeing on this point.

You still haven't answered my question. How do you quantify the unknown? Let me add another. Because there is the unknown, does that mean something not known can't exist?

[xellos88330]

I didn't make an argument. I asked a question.

How exactly is god known?

You are still trying to force the circular argument. Choose a different path.

But if you must have an answer...

God is known because existence exists.

[DisAsTerBot]

Because there is the unknown, does that mean something not known can't exist?

no

[Blake]

You still haven't answered my question. How do you quantify the unknown? Let me add another. Because there is the unknown, does that mean something not known can't exist?

You're diving into spaghetti monster waters

[xellos88330]

You're diving into spaghetti monster waters

Adding a goofy name in an attempt to downplay the thought itself is insulting to logic.

[Blake]

You are still trying to force the circular argument. Choose a different path.

But if you must have an answer...

God is known because existence exists.

if God is known because existence exists, then why did he give atheists the higher IQs?

smh..

[Blake]

Adding a goofy name in an attempt to downplay the thought itself is insulting to logic.

Does the name Zeus work better for you?

Can you prove that Zeus doesn't exist?

[xellos88330]

if God is known because existence exists, then why did he give atheists the higher IQs?

smh..

The only factual argument that can come of that is that of those 518 people, the atheistic person scored higher.

Were you one of those that was studied? If you weren't, what gives you the right to take pride in it? It makes no logical sense since it isn't your accomplishment. Higher IQ indeed.

[xellos88330]

Does the name Zeus work better for you?

Can you prove that Zeus doesn't exist?

Can you?

[Blake]

Can you?

No. Can you prove a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

[xellos88330]

No. Can you prove a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

Can you?

[DisAsTerBot]

this is really going somewhere!

[RD2191]

Study: Atheists are huge faggots.

[DisAsTerBot]

glad that guy is on your team!

[xellos88330]

this is really going somewhere!

I am proving a point.

It is completely different when someone other than the atheist is answering a question with a question, forcing the atheist into their own circular argument.

[Blake]

Can you?

No, so by your logic, it's perfectly reasonable to debate his existence.

[xellos88330]

No, so by your logic, it's perfectly reasonable to debate his existence.

Of course it is. And by your logic, it is perfectly reasonable to debate his non existence. Hence, this debate.

[RandomGuy]

A misunderstanding of math in Zeno's paradox is the same as misunderstanding the God Paradox.

In the God paradox, a person is trying to understand God within the framework of our own physical reality. God transcends that. To ask true questions about God, one must be able to get past the confines of their dependence on the physical.

Please demonstrate that "God transcends physical reality".

Seems like a pretty straightforward claim, surely you can show me something that establishes that things can transcend our physical reality.

[spurraider21]

I think that is where evolution comes into play.

I believe that we were indeed created by a creator, but in what form were we originally created? I understand that the Bible states that we were created in God's image, but what exactly is that image? Just like a seed, I believe we were intended to grow.
theism is compatible with evolution

religion isn't, if taken at face value. the bible specifically says god created adam right there, separately from the animals. and if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the bible to take literally and which parts not to, it loses its whole meaning

[DAF86]

That's also not surprising to me. Theists have their philosophy already.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, that we can agree on. But it appeals to them because it lines up with their views, not because it is inherently more reasonable.

I can't speak for intellectuals but to me the Theory Of Evolution makes inherently more sense than the unproven existence of a supreme being.

[mouse]

How exactly is god known?


I can think of two ways.


known #1
You go to China and visit a gift shop where they sell Bibles and other religious items to tourists and local born again Christians or Catholics etc..
when you leave you can say I had no idea God is known in that part of China.

known #2
Used In a sentence, for example some may say "God is known to do this" or "God is known for his almighty powers" etc.....

[Blake]

Of course it is.

no it's not. Flying spaghetti monster is ridiculous.



And by your logic, it is perfectly reasonable to debate his non existence. Hence, this debate.

wrong. By my logic, since there is no proof of a god, there is no debate.

[mouse]

By my logic, since there is no proof of a god, there is no debate.

What do you consider proof?

[Blake]

What do you consider proof?

Showing himself would be fine

[spurraider21]

any sort of positive evidence... the lack of evidence for another theory doesn't cut it. the existence of a god isn't necessarily a default condition that needs to be refuted

[xellos88330]

Please demonstrate that "God transcends physical reality".

Seems like a pretty straightforward claim, surely you can show me something that establishes that things can transcend our physical reality.

Thought can.

Until it is perceived or received by someone it doesn't exist.

[xellos88330]

no it's not. Flying spaghetti monster is ridiculous.

Not anymore ridiculous than claiming something doesn't exist without proof of non-existence.


wrong. By my logic, since there is no proof of a god, there is no debate.

It isn't spaghetti monsters fault that you can't comprehend it the proof. Maybe you need to become smarter to see it.

[RandomGuy]

Thought can.

Until it is perceived or received by someone it doesn't exist.

Wrong again.

Thought is dependent on a physical mind conduct it.

No synapses, no thought.

[mouse]

Showing himself would be fine

And then what?

[Blake]

Not anymore ridiculous than claiming something doesn't exist without proof of non-existence.


there is concrete proof that Bible god does not exist.

If there is some other "creator" out there, then since he hasn't shown himself, he isn't worth any serious time debating his existence/non existence.

i.e. no debate.



It isn't spaghetti monsters fault that you can't comprehend it the proof. Maybe you need to become smarter to see it.

Spaghetti monster is fiction.

Just like Zeus. Just like Bible God.

[Blake]

And then what?

And then I have my proof.

Am I going too fast?

[mouse]

And then I have my proof.

now you can die happy?


Am I going too fast?

actually you could have said so on page 3

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBuDoNl0XQI
robdiaz2191

[Chinook]

I can't speak for intellectuals but to me the Theory Of Evolution makes inherently more sense than the unproven existence of a supreme being.

First, theism and evolution aren't incompatible. I believe in both with no reservations. Second, catchy phrases like the one you used are why I said what I said. I think atheists are so caught up in empiricism (the thing that got us away from religious thinking), that they ignore other aspects of critical reasoning. I am not trying to insult atheists when saying that. But I just feel most don't actually care to really think about the god issue anymore. That's fine by me, but it's not a validation of their stance.

[Chinook]

Russell had more formalized proofs than that. He used the teapot argument for the layman. That is really besides the point because you have not put forth a single formal argument at any point.

Russell's teapot isn't a proof; it's an argument. It's not surprising you don't know the difference. I agree with Russel's point of view on the burden of proof and haven't once argued against it, at least not in the sense you believe I do. My challenge is that you don't know what it means, and I believe that because you are using it when I've never disputed it.


As for the categorical imperative, you wikied the definition and posted it. The wrote entry about moral obligation. My response which you ignored was that you are describing the conclusion as used by Kant found from google where as I was talking about the process by which the conclusion was drawn. I have been trying to talk about categories that don't have basis in the objective world as meaningless for inferring characteristics to anything else. It comes to the very crux of the a priori debate; you cannot even acknowledge it yet I am clueless?

Bro, 'categorical' does NOT mean, "of categories". You just directly misunderstood what the words mean, and yet you still keep trying to use that term. As for your actual argument, there's nothing to acknowledge about it. Your point is that things aren't black and white, which is a nothing statement. We all know some things are on a continuum, but direct opposites aren't.


I have cited Nietzshes arguments here but let Fred speak for himself; its like he is speaking through time to you:

First off, throwing a quote out there and expecting it to do work for you is a fallacy, as I have told you before. A point is not stronger because a certain person makes it.

Second, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Seriously, I've read it about a half-dozen times, and I can't figure out why you posted it.


What is the antithesis of a theist? What he says about things need to "have truth within themselves" and not of what we make of them goes directly to what I have been talking about objective semantics. All you do is make up words without meaning: your boxes, boxboy.

An atheist. That's why it has an 'a' in front of it. I didn't make up that distinction; it's part of the language we share. Nietzsche seems to be arguing about a noumenon/phenomenon distinction rather than a intension/extension distinction. If he's arguing against Kantism in that quote, that's definitely the direction he's going in.


You don't even argue this you just say that I don't know what I am talking about or that I cannot read or other flailing. You are a coward.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. I can't argue with you when you don't understand anyone's arguments. Hence why you think you've been making good points, while everyone else is just scratching their heads at your posts. For example, you cite Nietzsche (again, committing a fallacy by hiding behind his words) and tell me to argue against it, but the quote you cite has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Why should I argue against it?


If you don't want to reveal your religion that is fine but as long as you continue to cite your two proofs on god and the the threat made by christian philosophers then it is pretty obvious what is what.

And then you come with this shit. First, I never claimed to give a "proof" of god -- if I had one, I would not have this attitude of "to each their own". I would be more like most of us are with the evolution-deniers. Second, it doesn't matter who came up with what proofs. You don't seem to get that the validity of arguments doesn't depend on the source of those arguments. Moreover, I had no idea who came up with prima causa, as you call it. I've never cared who shares my viewpoint, and neither should you.


As for infinity you can continue to handwave at notation like a shitty teacher all you like but I spoke of much more than that. Again I am not interested in getting caught up in your bullshit. I get your arguments and they are at best described as superficial. You need a box or you get confused though; i get it. Read the stuff about convergence, infinite series, geometric ratios, and infintesimals and try again. Then perhaps you can try and tell me what I don't know about again.

Dude, I was actually good at math in school. I'm sorry that you think bringing up things I learned as a sophomore in high school is somehow over my head, but your wrong. More importantly, all those things do is highlight my point that infinity is not an actual number.


What I will say in the mean time is that there are physical manifestations of the infinite in geometric ratios, physics, Euler's work and all other manner of thing. There is very good reason to believe that some things are infinite. You just ignore that and talk about notation from precalculus. There are many forms of infinite that have nothing to do with what you are talking about as I said before.

Obviously. That's the point. Most of what you're saying has had nothing to do with what I've been talking about. You just bring them up and expect me to address them anyway.


As for the pascal threat I get that you don't stand by any argument you make; that is besides the point of my message.

I said at the beginning that I didn't find the wager compelling. I've also said that my particular metaphysical outlook is considered atheistic in the scope of the wager, and that as a result, I gain no benefit from arguing for it. If you read that and aren't able to get what I said, that's not my problem.

[DMC]

You can if you have two eggs.

No, you're still holding an egg.

[xellos88330]

Wrong again.

Thought is dependent on a physical mind conduct it.

No synapses, no thought.

And when you have a thought, what happens to it?

[xellos88330]

there is concrete proof that Bible god does not exist.

If there is some other "creator" out there, then since he hasn't shown himself, he isn't worth any serious time debating his existence/non existence.

i.e. no debate.



Spaghetti monster is fiction.

Just like Zeus. Just like Bible God.

You stated earlier that you cannot prove the non-existence of spaghetti monster. Now spaghetti monster is fiction?

[ohmwrecker]

No, you're still holding an egg.

In one hand, you're holding an egg. In the other hand, you're not holding the second egg.

[DMC]

In one hand, you're holding an egg. In the other hand, you're not holding the second egg.

You changed "an egg" to "the second egg" ergo moving the goal posts.

[ohmwrecker]

You changed "an egg" to "the second egg" ergo moving the goal posts.

The second egg is still "an egg".

[DMC]

You can be holding an egg and deciding whether or not to crush it though.

A square cannot be a circle.

[DMC]

The second egg is still "an egg".

So is the first and it's the one you're holding, you cannot be not holding an egg if you're holding an egg, but you be holding an egg even if you're not holding other eggs. You can say there is an egg you are not holding, but that's not the same as saying you're not holding an egg as "an egg" doesn't define the other egg specifically.

[ohmwrecker]

so is the first and it's the one you're holding

There is also an egg you are not holding. "An" doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one egg.

[DMC]

There is also an egg you are not holding. "An" doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one egg.

X = Whats in your hand

Y = an egg

X=Y

You cannot say X=Y and X/=Y at the same time.


You can say there's an egg you aren't holding, but not that you're not holding an egg. You added "another".

Your take is illogical

[ohmwrecker]

I added another because I was not limited to the concept of only by the original statement. There will always be an egg you are not holding because you can't hold all the eggs.

[Chinook]

There is also an egg you are not holding. "An" doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one egg.

I think what you're saying is the equivalent to people saying, "Every NBA player isn't a seven-footer," when they mean, "Not every NBA player is a seven-footer."

1) DMC's statement in formal logic (but in English words and not symbols) is: There exists an egg that has the quality of you holding it.

2) The appropriate negation of that statement is: There does NOT exist an egg that has the quality of you holding it.

3) Your statement is: There exists an egg that does NOT have the quality of you holding it.

DMC's point seems to be that you can't have 1) and 2) at the same time. And that's true. Your point seems to be that you can have 1) and 3) at the same time, which is also true. But that does nothing to negate what DMC said.

[spurraider21]

lol all this because wrecker tried to make a funny :lol

[DAF86]

First, theism and evolution aren't incompatible. I believe in both with no reservations. Second, catchy phrases like the one you used are why I said what I said. I think atheists are so caught up in empiricism (the thing that got us away from religious thinking), that they ignore other aspects of critical reasoning. I am not trying to insult atheists when saying that. But I just feel most don't actually care to really think about the god issue anymore. That's fine by me, but it's not a validation of their stance.

Dude, stop to try to overanalyze it. I don't believe in God 'cause nobody has proven to me that he is real and the religious stories sound ridiculous to me. Not believing in God doesn't make me feel better, in fact it makes me feel worse 'cause I think that once I die that will be it for eternity, do you know how scary that thought is? I would love to think that when I die I will live hapily ever after on paradise but as an intelligent grown up man I can't force myself to believe that.

[Chinook]

Dude, stop to try to overanalyze it. I don't believe in God 'cause nobody has proven to me that he is real and the religious stories sound ridiculous to me. Not believing in God doesn't make me feel better, in fact it makes me feel worse 'cause I think that once I die that will be it for eternity, do you know how scary that thought is? I would love to think that when I die I will live hapily ever after on paradise but as an intelligent grown up man I can't force myself to believe that.

Dunno why you think you're unique. Anyone who's ever thought on these issue at all has had the same thoughts you've expressed. That's pretty much what this thread's been about. I don't really feel like repeating it when there's a whole thread of posts you can read if you want to. But the shorthand version is that you believe what you do because you value certain types of reasoning over others. Empiricism is NOT the only way people go about forming beliefs, but because that's the backbone of science, intellectuals tend to overvalue it.

Remember, I wasn't speaking to why people in general are atheists, but rather why intellectuals would be more prone to it than others. Atheism is the reasonable view when you apply only empiricism to the god question. Intellectuals favor empiricism, and so being atheists validates their system of reasoning (thus making them feel better about themselves).

[DMC]

Dude, stop to try to overanalyze it. I don't believe in God 'cause nobody has proven to me that he is real and the religious stories sound ridiculous to me. Not believing in God doesn't make me feel better, in fact it makes me feel worse 'cause I think that once I die that will be it for eternity, do you know how scary that thought is? I would love to think that when I die I will live hapily ever after on paradise but as an intelligent grown up man I can't force myself to believe that.
How scary were the billions of years before you were born?

[DMC]

I added another because I was not limited to the concept of only by the original statement. There will always be an egg you are not holding because you can't hold all the eggs.
I can hold all the eggs if I am all the things that hold eggs.

[z0sa]

How scary were the billions of years before you were born?

Mind=fucked

[Blake]

now you can die happy?

that depends on what the creator offers after death.

If nothing, then no happier or sadder than before



actually you could have said so on page 3

I said so right away

[Blake]

You stated earlier that you cannot prove the non-existence of spaghetti monster. Now spaghetti monster is fiction?

spaghetti monster was never not fiction.

You're struggling with this burden of proof/proving a negative issue. I suggest using google or we can go round some more here. I'm colors either way. :tu

[ohmwrecker]

I can hold all the eggs if I am all the things that hold eggs.

Possibly. However, you can never be completely certain that you are indeed holding all the eggs.

[Blake]

Possibly. However, you can never be completely certain that you are indeed holding all the eggs.

you can if you're omniscient.

The original question is can you force yourself to not know about other eggs out there and still be considered omniscient?

[DAF86]

How scary were the billions of years before you were born?

With all those dinosaurs and shit, it must have been pretty fucking scary.

[ohmwrecker]

you can if you're omniscient.

The original question is can you force yourself to not know about other eggs out there and still be considered omniscient?

You only need enough eggs to make an omelette.

[xellos88330]

spaghetti monster was never not fiction.

You're struggling with this burden of proof/proving a negative issue. I suggest using google or we can go round some more here. I'm colors either way. :tu

Spaghetti monster does indeed exist. I can make some spaghetti, fashion it into the shape of a monster, put it on a plane. Flying spaghetti monster. Negative issue my ass. You may think that this is just a smart ass comment. Look carefully, and you will see the faults of your logic.

I have already reached my conclusion in my own personal study conducted here. I also dislike using Google in a debate. It feels dirty.

[Blake]

Spaghetti monster does indeed exist. I can make some spaghetti, fashion it into the shape of a monster, put it on a plane. Flying spaghetti monster. Negative issue my ass. You may think that this is just a smart ass comment. Look carefully, and you will see the faults of your logic.

I have already reached my conclusion in my own personal study conducted here. I also dislike using Google in a debate. It feels dirty.

Do you believe your flying spaghetti monster creation created you first?

I love using google. It helps me make ass talkers look real silly real fast.

[spurraider21]

Spaghetti monster does indeed exist. I can make some spaghetti, fashion it into the shape of a monster, put it on a plane. Flying spaghetti monster. Negative issue my ass. You may think that this is just a smart ass comment. Look carefully, and you will see the faults of your logic.

I have already reached my conclusion in my own personal study conducted here. I also dislike using Google in a debate. It feels dirty.
putting something in the shape of a monster doesn't make it a monster. you are being purposely obtuse

[xellos88330]

Do you believe your flying spaghetti monster creation created you first?

Study the flying spaghetti monster and figure it out yourself. Or better yet, I suggest YOU use google to figure it out.

[xellos88330]

putting something in the shape of a monster doesn't make it a monster. you are being purposely obtuse

It isn't about that at all my man. It is about perception. I said it was a spaghetti monster, therefore, it is indeed a spaghetti monster.

[RandomGuy]

A misunderstanding of math in Zeno's paradox is the same as misunderstanding the God Paradox.

In the God paradox, a person is trying to understand God within the framework of our own physical reality. God transcends that. To ask true questions about God, one must be able to get past the confines of their dependence on the physical.


Please demonstrate that "God transcends physical reality".

Seems like a pretty straightforward claim, surely you can show me something that establishes that things can transcend our physical reality.


Thought can.

Until it is perceived or received by someone it doesn't exist.


Wrong again.

Thought is dependent on a physical mind conduct it.

No synapses, no thought.


And when you have a thought, what happens to it?

It remains in my brain for a period of time, dependent on my memory.

Again, requires a physical brain to conduct and retain. It is the cumulation of states in the neural network in my skull, and the configuration and connections of those neurons.

You have yet to show anything that exists beyond our physical universe.

I can, however, show you brains, and how they work.

Can you show me thought without a brain to conduct it?

[RandomGuy]

that depends on what the creator offers after death.

If nothing, then no happier or sadder than before

I said so right away

If one wants to see what existing to praise a higher power is like for eternity, one merely has to visit North Korea. They spend their lives praising the dear leader.

Given: Perfect beings don't require worship.
They have no unfulfilled needs, otherwise they would not be perfect.

Bible God requires worship, therefore Bible God is not perfect. QED.

[xellos88330]

It remains in my brain for a period of time, dependent on my memory.

Again, requires a physical brain to conduct and retain. It is the cumulation of states in the neural network in my skull, and the configuration and connections of those neurons.

You have yet to show anything that exists beyond our physical universe.

I can, however, show you brains, and how they work.

Can you show me thought without a brain to conduct it?

So, once the thought is created, and it is no longer stored in the memory, the thought no longer exists in the physical world. Does that mean that the thought never existed in the first place, or does the thought still exist only in a place with no physical reality?

[spurraider21]

It isn't about that at all my man. It is about perception. I said it was a spaghetti monster, therefore, it is indeed a spaghetti monster.
and that's why i said you are being purposely obtuse

[RandomGuy]

So, once the thought is created, and it is no longer stored in the memory, the thought no longer exists in the physical world. Does that mean that the thought never existed in the first place, or does the thought still exist only in a place with no physical reality?

No it does not. It was a physical wave form dependant on physical objects, i.e. matter in my brain.

Your question is akin to claiming that waves disappear from physical reality when they break on a shore. They represent a collection of matter moving in a certain pattern for a length of time. Once the wave breaks the water no longer has the specific pattern, but the water still exists.

I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

Now, can you show me a thought without a brain to conduct it or not?

[xellos88330]

and that's why i said you are being purposely obtuse

Ok, maybe a bit. LOL!!!

[xellos88330]

No it does not. It was a physical wave form dependant on physical objects, i.e. matter in my brain.

Your question is akin to claiming that waves disappear from physical reality when they break on a shore. They represent a collection of matter moving in a certain pattern for a length of time. Once the wave breaks the water no longer has the specific pattern, but the water still exists.

I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

Now, can you show me a thought without a brain to conduct it or not?

I will answer your question in a moment. Just bear with me.

So where does the thought exist?

[Blake]

Ok, maybe a bit. LOL!!!

yeah, it's good you ejected from that. It wasn't going anywhere.

[RandomGuy]

Fallacy: Special Pleading

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.
The argument is:

All things exist in our universe.
God transcends our understanding.
Therefore God is exempt from existing in our universe.

Logical fallacy, QED.

[RandomGuy]

I will answer your question in a moment. Just bear with me.

So where does the thought exist?

Already answered.

Since you cannot demonstrate that thought can exist without a brain, your assertion of a sentience, however great, existing outside physical reality is properly rejected.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

[RandomGuy]

This is covered in the scriptures. If you ever pick up a Bible you might know that.

E15IC3YKv8g

[xellos88330]

Already answered.

Since you cannot demonstrate that thought can exist without a brain, your assertion of a sentience, however great, existing outside physical reality is properly rejected.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.

To me, a thought is something that exists beyond reality until there is something that is capable of perceiving it.

[Blake]

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.

To me, a thought is something that exists beyond reality until there is something that is capable of perceiving it.

"to you" is irrelevant.

[xellos88330]

"to you" is irrelevant.

By that logic we wouldn't be having this debate. Yet, here we are.

I am a believer. I do not claim representation of any other believer in the world. I am not like one of your "studies". The fact that I am indeed a believer makes my arguments in this debate very relevant.

[Blake]

By that logic we wouldn't be having this debate. Yet, here we are.

I am a believer. I do not claim representation of any other believer in the world. I am not like one of your "studies". The fact that I am indeed a believer makes my arguments in this debate very relevant.

What exactly do you think we're debating here?

The original debate was regarding Bible God's omniscient/omnipotent paradoxes. The rest was just sidebar.

As far as your opinion goes, what a thought means to you is irrelevant. Either you prove it's what you say it is or the debate stops. It's how logic works.

[Expert]

Lol where does a thought go....not understanding abstract concepts

A thought is a series of events. Where do events go?

[xellos88330]

Lol where does a thought go....not understanding abstract concepts

A thought is a series of events. Where do events go?

So the planets rotating is a thought?

[RandomGuy]

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.

To me, a thought is something that exists beyond reality until there is something that is capable of perceiving it.

Define "exists beyond reality".


A thought is similar in nature to a coffee cup.

A coffee cup is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

A thought is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

If I smash the coffee cup with a hammer, it does not suddenly "exist outside reality". In the same way a thought, once I am done thinking it, does not magically transport itself to some place that you can't even prove exists.

I reject your definition of thought as "something that exists beyond reality", because you can't demonstrate that there is anything "beyond reality".

Sorry, you cannot define god into existence. It does not work that way, other than in circular reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.



Actually, I have addressed this, repeatedly. A thought, once is passes from memory, ceases to exist, just as a book ceases to exist once it is burned or simply rots.

That is the answer, just to be clear. I can, and have, answered your question.

[Chinook]

Lol where does a thought go....not understanding abstract concepts

A thought is a series of events. Where do events go?

More like where does a song go after the instruments stop playing it. I've never heard anyone claim music transcends reality.

[xellos88330]

Define "exists beyond reality".


A thought is similar in nature to a coffee cup.

A coffee cup is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

A thought is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

If I smash the coffee cup with a hammer, it does not suddenly "exist outside reality". In the same way a thought, once I am done thinking it, does not magically transport itself to some place that you can't even prove exists.

I reject your definition of thought as "something that exists beyond reality", because you can't demonstrate that there is anything "beyond reality".

Sorry, you cannot define god into existence. It does not work that way, other than in circular reasoning.


Actually, I have addressed this, repeatedly. A thought, once is passes from memory, ceases to exist, just as a book ceases to exist once it is burned or simply rots.

That is the answer, just to be clear. I can, and have, answered your question.

The book can indeed burn and be destroyed, but it does not mean that the book still does not exist. It merely exists as something else entirely.

Your statement is implying that things can pop in and out of existence. Are you not proving to yourself that things can exist beyond reality?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Russell's teapot isn't a proof; it's an argument. It's not surprising you don't know the difference. I agree with Russel's point of view on the burden of proof and haven't once argued against it, at least not in the sense you believe I do. My challenge is that you don't know what it means, and I believe that because you are using it when I've never disputed it.



Bro, 'categorical' does NOT mean, "of categories". You just directly misunderstood what the words mean, and yet you still keep trying to use that term. As for your actual argument, there's nothing to acknowledge about it. Your point is that things aren't black and white, which is a nothing statement. We all know some things are on a continuum, but direct opposites aren't.



First off, throwing a quote out there and expecting it to do work for you is a fallacy, as I have told you before. A point is not stronger because a certain person makes it.

Second, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Seriously, I've read it about a half-dozen times, and I can't figure out why you posted it.



An atheist. That's why it has an 'a' in front of it. I didn't make up that distinction; it's part of the language we share. Nietzsche seems to be arguing about a noumenon/phenomenon distinction rather than a intension/extension distinction. If he's arguing against Kantism in that quote, that's definitely the direction he's going in.



You don't seem to know what you're talking about. I can't argue with you when you don't understand anyone's arguments. Hence why you think you've been making good points, while everyone else is just scratching their heads at your posts. For example, you cite Nietzsche (again, committing a fallacy by hiding behind his words) and tell me to argue against it, but the quote you cite has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Why should I argue against it?



And then you come with this shit. First, I never claimed to give a "proof" of god -- if I had one, I would not have this attitude of "to each their own". I would be more like most of us are with the evolution-deniers. Second, it doesn't matter who came up with what proofs. You don't seem to get that the validity of arguments doesn't depend on the source of those arguments. Moreover, I had no idea who came up with prima causa, as you call it. I've never cared who shares my viewpoint, and neither should you.



Dude, I was actually good at math in school. I'm sorry that you think bringing up things I learned as a sophomore in high school is somehow over my head, but your wrong. More importantly, all those things do is highlight my point that infinity is not an actual number.



Obviously. That's the point. Most of what you're saying has had nothing to do with what I've been talking about. You just bring them up and expect me to address them anyway.



I said at the beginning that I didn't find the wager compelling. I've also said that my particular metaphysical outlook is considered atheistic in the scope of the wager, and that as a result, I gain no benefit from arguing for it. If you read that and aren't able to get what I said, that's not my problem.

You go long on saying what is wrong but make no constructions of your own. In fact, you keep dissembling never seeming to have a point. You even waffle over being a theist yet you argue rebuttals to theistic arguments on a regular basis.

Case in point, -because I am not doing the asinine line by line- you say that categorical has nothing to do with categories. Problem is you never present what it does mean. You just say I am wrong and don't understand and move on. Couple of things I will point out. First the term is German and was translated from 19th century classics. You are saying that translated a word but chose the adjective form of a word that means something completely different. A word that also happens to be the name of Aristotles arguably most important work and how the term is defined.

You do this on several items. The discussion of the antithesis paradigm, the requirement that deduction consider all possibilities, and so on you do the same. You are incredibly full of shit in your nihilism. Say no and give no construction.

What I think is that you don't understand and bluster bullshit. If you do not find the natural law and prima causa arguments that you have bandied about to be valid then fine. If you don't want others to examine some other alternate metaphysical construct you have yet to make then that is fine too. Scientologists do the same coy horseshit too.

You certainly have no interest in objective proof. The comment on infinity not being a 'real number' was particularly amusing considering I just gave several examples of how the number manifests in reality. The meme is that it is not a 'rational number' meaning that we cannot create an analog of it using ratios and orders of logs. It is indicated only by itself but there it is just the same. Please tell me more how i am not the one that doesn't understand. Note how I negate your argument with an emotional characterization much like you do BUT MORESO construct a counter example?

There are empirical examples of the infinite, unending, unbounded, etc. It is what it is and that still means what it means regarding any logical deduction. It may be tiresome for you to have to consider things that are not your own construction but the implication is still there. You can waffle from metaphysical proof to metaphysical argument and continue to handwave at arbitrary distinctions but it speaks to the very core of everything. It is principle as to how something is proven.

[xellos88330]

More like where does a song go after the instruments stop playing it. I've never heard anyone claim music transcends reality.

Yet, music can affect things even after the music stops.

[spurraider21]

Yet, music can affect things even after the music stops.
Even after I'm done taking a shit I can feel the effects of the shit. So now shit transcends reality

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I have addressed this, repeatedly. A thought, once is passes from memory, ceases to exist, just as a book ceases to exist once it is burned or simply rots.

That is the answer, just to be clear. I can, and have, answered your question.

Then what does it mean for two people to have the same thought?

When people start ordering the world in terms of how humans perceive it or moreso in how they make decisions regarding it then you know it is likely false in the broader sense. We are a species of approximations for the far larger part.

[xellos88330]

Even after I'm done taking a shit I can feel the effects of the shit. So now shit transcends reality

Now who is being obtuse. LOL!!! That was funny though.

Let's talk shit.

What transcends reality is that you have taken a shit, but yet I would not know that you had shit. Therefore, your shit never existed in my reality. In your reality the shit definitely existed. Does that not transcend my reality?

[xmas1997]

Now who is being obtuse. LOL!!! That was funny though.

Let's talk shit.

What transcends reality is that you have taken a shit, but yet I would not know that you had shit. Therefore, your shit never existed in my reality. In your reality the shit definitely existed. Does that not transcend my reality?

This is true.

[Blake]

Even after I'm done taking a shit I can feel the effects of the shit. So now shit transcends reality

:lol

[xmas1997]

Even after I'm done taking a shit I can feel the effects of the shit. So now shit transcends reality

This is true too.

[Blake]

Now who is being obtuse. LOL!!! That was funny though.

Let's talk shit.

What transcends reality is that you have taken a shit, but yet I would not know that you had shit. Therefore, your shit never existed in my reality. In your reality the shit definitely existed. Does that not transcend my reality?

Shit can be duplicated.

If it can't be duplicated or tested, then it's a worthless shit

[ohmwrecker]

You can either hold a shit, or not hold a shit.

[xellos88330]

Shit can be duplicated.

If it can't be duplicated or tested, then it's a worthless shit

Can it? Will it come out looking exactly the same, weigh, the same amount, contain the same portions of "ingredients"?

[xmas1997]

Can it? Will it come out looking exactly the same, weigh, the same amount, contain the same portions of "ingredients"?

This is true, you make a good although humorously shitty point.

[Blake]

Can it? Will it come out looking exactly the same, weigh, the same amount, contain the same portions of "ingredients"?

Doesn't have to be exactly the same. If it has the basic properties of a shit, it's a shit.

[Blake]

This is true, you make a good although humorously shitty point.

He didn't make a point.

[ohmwrecker]

Every shit is like a snowflake.

[xmas1997]

He didn't make a point.

Yes, he did, it went over your head and right up your ass.

[xellos88330]

Doesn't have to be exactly the same. If it has the basic properties of a shit, it's a shit.

But it still isn't the same shit.

[xellos88330]

This is true, you make a good although humorously shitty point.

:toast

[xmas1997]

But it still isn't the same shit.

I agree, but he doesn't "get" it.

And now he will get shit on.

Blake, take shit today and then again tomorrow.

Look at them both.

Smell them both.

Feel them both.

Taste them both.

And listen to them both when they come out.

Then tell us if they are the same.

:lmao

[xellos88330]

I agree, but he doesn't "get" it.

And now he will get shit on.

Blake, take shit today and then again tomorrow.

Look at them both.

Smell them both.

Feel them both.

Taste them both.

And listen to them both when they come out.

Then tell us if they are the same.

:lmao

That was some funny shit right there! :lmao

[xmas1997]

That was some funny shit right there! :lmao

But then we have to wait for blake to let us know if it is funny shit, or serious shit.

[xellos88330]

But then we have to wait for blake to let us know if it is funny shit, or serious shit.

I wonder if his response will be full of shit.

[Chinook]

You go long on saying what is wrong but make no constructions of your own. In fact, you keep dissembling never seeming to have a point. You even waffle over being a theist yet you argue rebuttals to theistic arguments on a regular basis.

Lol. You're attacking me because I don't tote all the arguments from my side? That's just what a reasonable person does. They can judge things for themselves instead of supporting anything that agrees with them.


Case in point, -because I am not doing the asinine line by line- you say that categorical has nothing to do with categories. Problem is you never present what it does mean. You just say I am wrong and don't understand and move on. Couple of things I will point out. First the term is German and was translated from 19th century classics. You are saying that translated a word but chose the adjective form of a word that means something completely different. A word that also happens to be the name of Aristotles arguably most important work and how the term is defined.

So you don't know how to multi-quote...

All you have to do is type in 'categorical' into a dictionary Web site, and you'll get the definition I used way back when I first called you out. 'Categorical' means, "overarching, not bound by circumstance". A categorical imperative is an obligation that exists regardless of what kind of situation it's applied in. That's contrasted with a hypothetical imperative, which is situational. Hence why I said the CI was a useless concept, since even Kant could only come up with one, which was essentially the golden rule.

Most of this exchange could been avoided if you simply looked up the term when I said you needed to.


You do this on several items. The discussion of the antithesis paradigm, the requirement that deduction consider all possibilities, and so on you do the same. You are incredibly full of shit in your nihilism. Say no and give no construction.

You don't know what the term 'atheism' means, and you keep saying stupid things as a result. There's not a middle ground between atheism and theism, just like there isn't between aerobic and anaerobic environment. When two words are direct opposites, something is one or the other. An environment either has oxygen or it doesn't; you either have the belief that god exists or you don't. Hell, the thread itself took a turn talking about this exact thing just two pages ago.


What I think is that you don't understand and bluster bullshit. If you do not find the natural law and prima causa arguments that you have bandied about to be valid then fine. If you don't want others to examine some other alternate metaphysical construct you have yet to make then that is fine too. Scientologists do the same coy horseshit too.

Again, didn't argue for natural law. Didn't even bring it up. I made my constructive, and you haven't refuted it. I repeated it, and you still can't address it. No one's being coy. You just keep saying dumb shit over and over again and think it's my job to rebut it.


You certainly have no interest in objective proof. The comment on infinity not being a 'real number' was particularly amusing considering I just gave several examples of how the number manifests in reality. The meme is that it is not a 'rational number' meaning that we cannot create an analog of it using ratios and orders of logs. It is indicated only by itself but there it is just the same. Please tell me more how i am not the one that doesn't understand. Note how I negate your argument with an emotional characterization much like you do BUT MORESO construct a counter example?

-Infinity is not a number. You haven't shown how it is a number. You've simply argued that some series have no end. But that's not the same thing as saying something equals infinity.
-Irrational numbers can be expressed just fine. They have to be rounded, sure, but it's not like anyone's wondering if pi is smaller than four.
-Infinity can be expressed as well. That's the whole point of limits.
-Yes, you don't understand.


There are empirical examples of the infinite, unending, unbounded, etc. It is what it is and that still means what it means regarding any logical deduction. It may be tiresome for you to have to consider things that are not your own construction but the implication is still there. You can waffle from metaphysical proof to metaphysical argument and continue to handwave at arbitrary distinctions but it speaks to the very core of everything. It is principle as to how something is proven.

No, there is not an empirical example of infinity. You can't observe something going on forever. There are mathematical examples of functions that have no upper bound and all that, but that's not the same thing. Math is not part of empiricism, but I'm not surprised that you didn't know that.

You show me someone who's counted to infinity, and I'll give you the point.

[Chinook]

You can either hold a shit, or not hold a shit.

The question is: After you take a shit, are you holding it, or are you not holding it?

[xellos88330]

The question is: After you take a shit, are you holding it, or are you not holding it?

I think that depends on if you are testing to see if it was the same shit you took previously. That would require holding it.

[xmas1997]

I think that depends on if you are testing to see if it was the same shit you took previously. That would require holding it.

And for that we will have to patiently wait for that little shit blake to do his shitty shit tests.

[Blake]

Yes, he did, it went over your head and right up your ass.

He asked a question. You're a dumb shit.

[Blake]

The question is: After you take a shit, are you holding it, or are you not holding it?

If you no longer have shit then you're not omnishit

[xmas1997]

If you no longer have shit then you're not omnishit

:lmao

Excellent.

[DMC]

Possibly. However, you can never be completely certain that you are indeed holding all the eggs.
Based on my criteria, I can. I am all the things that hold eggs, ergo all held eggs are held by me and all eggs are held by something, even if it's a chicken. God is said to be all things at once, since all things came from God, yet somehow some here think that same God can be limited if that God chooses to, which would make that God no longer "all things", ergo, by definition, not God, so a paradox ensues and we end up fapping.

[DMC]

Even after I'm done taking a shit I can feel the effects of the shit. So now shit transcends reality
Bullshit

Your asshole is so reamed out that shit falls out like lumber off the back of a truck.

[DMC]

With all those dinosaurs and shit, it must have been pretty fucking scary.
But how scary were they to you? If you think the future of not being around is scary, then why not the past?

[xmas1997]

Fapping?

So what else is new?

[DAF86]

But how scary were they to you? If you think the future of not being around is scary, then why not the past?

It wasn't scary to me 'cause I wasn't around, in the future it won't be scary either 'cause I won't be around. But right now that I am indeed around is fucking scary to think that after 60 years or so (if everything goes well) I will be gone for eternity.

Please tell me how does it feel to think you're making a good question and then realizing you made a pretty dumb one?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol. You're attacking me because I don't tote all the arguments from my side? That's just what a reasonable person does. They can judge things for themselves instead of supporting anything that agrees with them.

So you don't know how to multi-quote...

All you have to do is type in 'categorical' into a dictionary Web site, and you'll get the definition I used way back when I first called you out. 'Categorical' means, "overarching, not bound by circumstance". A categorical imperative is an obligation that exists regardless of what kind of situation it's applied in. That's contrasted with a hypothetical imperative, which is situational. Hence why I said the CI was a useless concept, since even Kant could only come up with one, which was essentially the golden rule.

Most of this exchange could been avoided if you simply looked up the term when I said you needed to.

You don't know what the term 'atheism' means, and you keep saying stupid things as a result. There's not a middle ground between atheism and theism, just like there isn't between aerobic and anaerobic environment. When two words are direct opposites, something is one or the other. An environment either has oxygen or it doesn't; you either have the belief that god exists or you don't. Hell, the thread itself took a turn talking about this exact thing just two pages ago.

Again, didn't argue for natural law. Didn't even bring it up. I made my constructive, and you haven't refuted it. I repeated it, and you still can't address it. No one's being coy. You just keep saying dumb shit over and over again and think it's my job to rebut it.

-Infinity is not a number. You haven't shown how it is a number. You've simply argued that some series have no end. But that's not the same thing as saying something equals infinity.
-Irrational numbers can be expressed just fine. They have to be rounded, sure, but it's not like anyone's wondering if pi is smaller than four.
-Infinity can be expressed as well. That's the whole point of limits.
-Yes, you don't understand.


No, there is not an empirical example of infinity. You can't observe something going on forever. There are mathematical examples of functions that have no upper bound and all that, but that's not the same thing. Math is not part of empiricism, but I'm not surprised that you didn't know that.

You show me someone who's counted to infinity, and I'll give you the point.

I well understand what you intend by your categories. I know what an a not theist is. What I want to know is what part of "I reject your antithesis paradigm and similar categorical imperatives as self assuming bullshit" was hard to understand?

The word categories is the same in german, english, french, latin and of course greek because the word is derived from a book where Aristotle coined the term in BC times.

I think it pretty clear that you are not familiar with the work. Did it ever occur to you where the cliche of renaissance era philosophers being heavily influenced by the greeks came from? At least he didn't dumb shit down to binary tripe like your ilk. Kant and Ari at least sought Virtue.

You just are not on the level and can only say negations and google basic definitions. Google came up with "true regardless of circumstance" and to me that sounds just like "universal truth" which sounds an awful like Platonic forms and Aristotelian categories. It's in the fucking name for fuck's sake. What do not mutually exclusive mean? Funny how things come full circle nonetheless your assertions.

I cannot state with absolute certainty that certain geometric ratio are infinite but they behave unbounded. At the same token you cannot demonstrate in any way that they are bounded.

We are talking in terms of proofs and while you can try to limit the scope of the universe rationally, you cannot disprove that certain physical phenomenon are infinite in reality. This again speaks to your presumption. You cannot prove the universe at any point in time is finite much less for all time.

Until you show me that pi's lowest order is then there are real world consistent examples of infinite behavior. I cannot with absolute certainty say that it will never end but after decades of computation using the strongest computers we have, I can tell you what is more probable.

It is the entire point of the search for the atom. We are down to quarks and their behavior doesn't seem to be an end point. Never mind that the standard model does not have binary symmetry which speaks to the simpleminded approximation that is your antithesis argument but I digress.

You also don't understand the point of infinity as a number. It implies no limit regardless of direction or scale in and of itself just as 1 implies a singular proportion. Unless you have orthogonal or similar symmetry infinity begets itself when it projects onto itself and convergence is impossible to achieve. That makes it undefined but not unreal. There is a difference for all your hand waving at symbols and jargon.

Your comment on numbers in and of themselves not being empirical just speaks to your box of thinking. Nevertheless when you project the proportions and directions of finite numbers and cartesian directions on to physical analogs they show repeatable results verifiable results. The same holds true for projecting infinity onto physical analogs ie vectors. Those two work repeatably ie are demonstrable empirically.

Quite frankly you sound like 18th century christian philosophers arguing the reality of Reimann and Euler's work. We know who won that debate because of the reality of things like mechanics (infinitesimal calculus), EM spectrum analysis (infinite convolutions), and thermodynamics (both). Newton et al put all your bullshit to bed. Inertia indeed.

Infinity is a proven number with defined properties just like the numbers "1" and "2." Your number theory is at about the same level as your philosophy ie shitty.

[Chinook]

I well understand what you intend by your categories. I know what an a not theist is. What I want to know is what part of "I reject your antithesis paradigm and similar categorical imperatives as self assuming bullshit" was hard to understand?

You sound like an idiot. That's the only thing to understand. You misused four terms in one sentence. That's impressive.


The word categories is the same in german, english, french, latin and of course greek because the word is derived from a book where Aristotle coined the term in BC times.

You didn't look up 'categorical', did you? 'Category' may mean whatever it does in whatever language, but 'categorical' doesn't mean "of categories" in English.


I think it pretty clear that you are not familiar with the work. Did it ever occur to you where the cliche of renaissance era philosophers being heavily influenced by the greeks came from? At least he didn't dumb shit down to binary tripe like your ilk. Kant and Ari at least sought Virtue.

Lol, "Ari". Friend of yours, is he? You have no idea what Kant said if you think he cared about categorizing things. You quote Nietzsche's attack on Kantism without knowing the first thing about what Nietzsche was objecting to.


You just are not on the level and can only say negations and google basic definitions. Google came up with "true regardless of circumstance" and to me that sounds just like "universal truth" which sounds an awful like Platonic forms and Aristotelian categories. It's in the fucking name for fuck's sake. What do not mutually exclusive mean? Funny how things come full circle nonetheless your assertions.

The hell? So it turns out you did Google 'categorical', saw that it didn't mean, "of categories" and are now trying to claim that it's wrong and you're right because ... what? Kant argued that there is such a thing as objective morality, but his only example is so weak that no one even cites it. I'm sorry that you keep trying to revive it by incorrectly using the term 'categorical imperative', but it's never meant what you think it means.


I cannot state with absolute certainty that certain geometric ratio are infinite but they behave unbounded. At the same token you cannot demonstrate in any way that they are bounded.

Until you show me that pi's lowest order is then there are real world consistent examples of infinite behavior. I cannot with absolute certainty say that it will never end but after decades of computation using the strongest computers we have, I can tell you what is more probable.

Lol. Trying to use the "you can't prove me wrong" line of reasoning you thought I suggested. Anyway, manipulating numbers is not empirical evidence that infinity exists in the real world. There are plenty of irrational numbers which cannot be completely expressed, and there are expressions that we can use in place of infinity. But neither of those are empirical things; they're both just part of math. If you try to measure a circle, you won't get an infinite length because pi doesn't terminate. We only deal in finite numbers empirically. Only when we apply theory do we get infinities, hence all the shit you keep saying about models.


You also don't understand the point of infinity as a number. It implies no limit regardless of direction or scale in and of itself just as 1 implies a singular proportion. Unless you have orthogonal or similar symmetry infinity begets itself when it projects onto itself and convergence is impossible to achieve. That makes it undefined but not unreal. There is a difference for all your hand waving at symbols and jargon.

Infinity is no more a number than 'nowhere' is a place. It's not a fake or undefined number -- it's a concept (and not a mathematical one at that), like 'eternity' and 'perfection'. I don't know who told you it was a number, but they were wrong. Chances are, you just misunderstood them like you seem to misunderstand everything else.


Your comment on numbers in and of themselves not being empirical just speaks to your box of thinking. Nevertheless when you project the proportions and directions of finite numbers and cartesian directions on to physical analogs they show repeatable results verifiable results. The same holds true for projecting infinity onto physical analogs ie vectors. Those two work repeatably ie are demonstrable empirically.

This part meant nothing. Is math part of scientific testing? Yes. Is it part of the empirical phase of scientific testing? No. Again, you should look up what empiricism is, but then again, you've already demonstrated that you'll just ignore it if you don't agree with what a dictionary tells you.


Quite frankly you sound like 18th century christian philosophers arguing the reality of Reimann and Euler's work. We know who won that debate because of the reality of things like mechanics (infinitesimal calculus), EM spectrum analysis (infinite convolutions), and thermodynamics (both). Newton et al put all your bullshit to bed. Inertia indeed.

You sound like a kid who thought he knew everything in school but can't understand why he keeps failing the tests. No one is arguing against math, merely your understanding of it and how it applies to this thread. Euler and Reimann (and the other pioneers of calculus) never claimed infinity was a number, WHICH IS WHY THEY FUCKING INVENTED LIMITS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You don't get that you aren't actually arguing from their standpoint; you're just saying stupid shit while citing their names.


Infinity is a proven number with defined properties just like the numbers "1" and "2." Your number theory is at about the same level as your philosophy ie shitty.

Lol. What number comes directly before infinity? You'd think that if it was a number along the lines of regular old integers like '1' and '2' that you'd be able to answer that question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You sound like an idiot. That's the only thing to understand. You misused four terms in one sentence. That's impressive.



You didn't look up 'categorical', did you? 'Category' may mean whatever it does in whatever language, but 'categorical' doesn't mean "of categories" in English.



Lol, "Ari". Friend of yours, is he? You have no idea what Kant said if you think he cared about categorizing things. You quote Nietzsche's attack on Kantism without knowing the first thing about what Nietzsche was objecting to.



The hell? So it turns out you did Google 'categorical', saw that it didn't mean, "of categories" and are now trying to claim that it's wrong and you're right because ... what? Kant argued that there is such a thing as objective morality, but his only example is so weak that no one even cites it. I'm sorry that you keep trying to revive it by incorrectly using the term 'categorical imperative', but it's never meant what you think it means.



Lol. Trying to use the "you can't prove me wrong" line of reasoning you thought I suggested. Anyway, manipulating numbers is not empirical evidence that infinity exists in the real world. There are plenty of irrational numbers which cannot be completely expressed, and there are expressions that we can use in place of infinity. But neither of those are empirical things; they're both just part of math. If you try to measure a circle, you won't get an infinite length because pi doesn't terminate. We only deal in finite numbers empirically. Only when we apply theory do we get infinities, hence all the shit you keep saying about models.



Infinity is no more a number than 'nowhere' is a place. It's not a fake or undefined number -- it's a concept (and not a mathematical one at that), like 'eternity' and 'perfection'. I don't know who told you it was a number, but they were wrong. Chances are, you just misunderstood them like you seem to misunderstand everything else.



This part meant nothing. Is math part of scientific testing? Yes. Is it part of the empirical phase of scientific testing? No. Again, you should look up what empiricism is, but then again, you've already demonstrated that you'll just ignore it if you don't agree with what a dictionary tells you.



You sound like a kid who thought he knew everything in school but can't understand why he keeps failing the tests. No one is arguing against math, merely your understanding of it and how it applies to this thread. Euler and Reimann (and the other pioneers of calculus) never claimed infinity was a number, WHICH IS WHY THEY FUCKING INVENTED LIMITS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You don't get that you aren't actually arguing from their standpoint; you're just saying stupid shit while citing their names.



Lol. What number comes directly before infinity? You'd think that if it was a number along the lines of regular old integers like '1' and '2' that you'd be able to answer that question.

I have a category: adverb. If the noun is category, what is the adverbial suffix? Could it be categorical? Shall we do the same exercise in german?

What do adverb mean?

I see your linguistics is about the same place as your number theory and renaissance metaphysics. I am going to leave that right there as all I can say is your obstinance is idiotic. You don't eat your feedback, box boy.

And yes there are several proofs of the infinite and the infinitesimal. The sets of prime numbers and real numbers are by definition infinite and everything else flows from that. The first proof is to me probably the most poignant in Euclid who demonstrated it geometrically using lengths of rope and their divisibility. There are formal analogs with their variable definitions for box people such as yourself.

I said that it was like 1 and 2 in that it was defined and had properties. I did not say that the properties and definitions were the same or were other similarities. A little intuition points to it's inverse, zero, or for the mathematically rigorous, the empty set as for its properties.

Unending and void. Being and nothingness. Philosophy has moved on and so should you.

Anyway just to further my point, Euler's intuition was that infinity bisected the positive and negative in the same way that zero, it's inverse, did. That axis was proportional to the square root of a negative number.

I take it that in your precalculus you completely missed the point of complex algebra.

That symmetry in complex field theory is what intuited quantum field theory and signal theory and that is what it is. Shit has an analog to the physical world. It's known as spin in quantum theory and phase in signals. That is what I 'believe' in.

It's freaky stuff that spits out sines, cosines and other geometric ratios. That is what string theory is all about with their multiple dimensions as they try and solve the quantum problem. They are checking for solutions that assume various geometries much like the bohr model and as an extension of VSPR theory.

But please tell me again that infinity is not 'real.' Are you on the level yet?

[DMC]

It wasn't scary to me 'cause I wasn't around, in the future it won't be scary either 'cause I won't be around. But right now that I am indeed around is fucking scary to think that after 60 years or so (if everything goes well) I will be gone for eternity.

Please tell me how does it feel to think you're making a good question and then realizing you made a pretty dumb one?

So it's scary to think you won't be around, but not scary that you're not around. Self centered much?

[DAF86]

So it's scary to think you won't be around, but not scary that you're not around. Self centered much?

Well yes, like any normal individual.

[Chinook]

I have a category: adverb. If the noun is category, what is the adverbial suffix? Could it be categorical? Shall we do the same exercise in german?

First off, 'categorical' is an adjective, not an adverb. 'Categorically' is the adverbial form. Secondly, the adjectival form of 'category' is 'categorized'. Thirdly, the term Kant used for 'Categorical Imperative' was "kategorischer Imperativ", which means "flat, absolute" in English. This could have been resolved easily by you looking it up instead of assuming you were right.


What do adverb mean?

Modifies a verb, adjective or adverb.


I see your linguistics is about the same place as your number theory and renaissance metaphysics. I am going to leave that right there as all I can say is your obstinance is idiotic. You don't eat your feedback, box boy.

You clearly don't know the first thing about linguistics if you didn't know what an adverb was.


And yes there are several proofs of the infinite and the infinitesimal. The sets of prime numbers and real numbers are by definition infinite and everything else flows from that. The first proof is to me probably the most poignant in Euclid who demonstrated it geometrically using lengths of rope and their divisibility. There are formal analogs with their variable definitions for box people such as yourself.

God, you're dumb. A "proof" is not part of empiricism. Empiricism doesn't "prove" things; it collects evidence for beliefs. That's why scientific findings are tentative, but math is not.


I said that it was like 1 and 2 in that it was defined and had properties. I did not say that the properties and definitions were the same or were other similarities. A little intuition points to it's inverse, zero, or for the mathematically rigorous, the empty set as for its properties.

It's not like numbers at all. That's the point.


Unending and void. Being and nothingness. Philosophy has moved on and so should you.

That's just a line that means nothing. I understand those concepts just fine. Doesn't make them numbers.


Anyway just to further my point, Euler's intuition was that infinity bisected the positive and negative in the same way that zero, it's inverse, did. That axis was proportional to the square root of a negative number.

Lol, his "intuition". The Greeks didn't even have a concept for zero back then. That came around when the Arabs brought in their number system.


I take it that in your precalculus you completely missed the point of complex algebra.

Nothing you've said has been complex. It's just been irrelevant to your point.


That symmetry in complex field theory is what intuited quantum field theory and signal theory and that is what it is. Shit has an analog to the physical world. It's known as spin in quantum theory and phase in signals. That is what I 'believe' in.

An analog is not the same thing as empirical evidence. You used the Achilles paradox and an example for how infinity works in the real world. But that's just silly, seeing as the Achilles paradox is only a paradox BECAUSE it doesn't work in the real world.


It's freaky stuff that spits out sines, cosines and other geometric ratios. That is what string theory is all about with their multiple dimensions as they try and solve the quantum problem. They are checking for solutions that assume various geometries much like the bohr model and as an extension of VSPR theory.

Trying to bring string theory into this after messing up the universal issue.


But please tell me again that infinity is not 'real.' Are you on the level yet?

Dude, I never said infinity wasn't "real". I said it wasn't a number. It's a concept. The reason why limits exists because infinity is not a number; you have to pretend like it is so that the math doesn't break down. I see you moved off that line of reasoning and moved on to others that don't support your point any better.

[RandomGuy]

Then what does it mean for two people to have the same thought?

When people start ordering the world in terms of how humans perceive it or moreso in how they make decisions regarding it then you know it is likely false in the broader sense. We are a species of approximations for the far larger part.

It means that two neural networks have achieved something of a synchronicity.

One can have two almost identical coffee cups, that are recognizable as being virtually the same, but they are still composed of different atoms, and down at a molecular level are quite different.

[RandomGuy]

The book can indeed burn and be destroyed, but it does not mean that the book still does not exist. It merely exists as something else entirely.

Your statement is implying that things can pop in and out of existence. Are you not proving to yourself that things can exist beyond reality?

I am implying nothing of the sort. Once a book ceases to exist, it ceases to exist, period.

The individual atoms continue to exist, but they are not organized in such a way as to be a "book", by definition, just as the atoms in my body that were once part of Abraham Lincoln do not make me an ex-president.

[RandomGuy]

Y


You didn't look up 'categorical', did you? 'Category' may mean whatever it does in whatever language, but 'categorical' doesn't mean "of categories" in English.



Sound like we need a modern major general to settle this, with knowledge of things categorical.

R1dy44jV8EM

[FuzzyLumpkins]

First off, 'categorical' is an adjective, not an adverb. 'Categorically' is the adverbial form. Secondly, the adjectival form of 'category' is 'categorized'. Thirdly, the term Kant used for 'Categorical Imperative' was "kategorischer Imperativ", which means "flat, absolute" in English. This could have been resolved easily by you looking it up instead of assuming you were right.



Modifies a verb, adjective or adverb.



You clearly don't know the first thing about linguistics if you didn't know what an adverb was.



God, you're dumb. A "proof" is not part of empiricism. Empiricism doesn't "prove" things; it collects evidence for beliefs. That's why scientific findings are tentative, but math is not.



It's not like numbers at all. That's the point.



That's just a line that means nothing. I understand those concepts just fine. Doesn't make them numbers.



Lol, his "intuition". The Greeks didn't even have a concept for zero back then. That came around when the Arabs brought in their number system.



Nothing you've said has been complex. It's just been irrelevant to your point.



An analog is not the same thing as empirical evidence. You used the Achilles paradox and an example for how infinity works in the real world. But that's just silly, seeing as the Achilles paradox is only a paradox BECAUSE it doesn't work in the real world.



Trying to bring string theory into this after messing up the universal issue.



Dude, I never said infinity wasn't "real". I said it wasn't a number. It's a concept. The reason why limits exists because infinity is not a number; you have to pretend like it is so that the math doesn't break down. I see you moved off that line of reasoning and moved on to others that don't support your point any better.

You talked before of entry level knowledge and your googling is just about that. I didn't assume anything. I have read both a critique of pure reason and categories as well as slugging through Hume's description of 18th century physiology in setting up the foundations of modern skepticism. Try googling harder.

Categorized is the past present participle of the word categorize. It denotes an identity using the form of to be in the romantic languages. 'He was categorized.' I am talking about the use of the suffix -al and what it means. How about you look that up box boy?

You were right that the usage was adjective but the point still remains. I have another example of the usage - methodical. According to you that has nothing to do with method. Prima facia it's stupid. Your unwillingness to surrender even obvious points belies your veracity.

I just gave you the rational construct of infinity via Euclid's proof and Euler's topological framework of the complex numbering system. It just like zero is a pole of said system and their are two linear skew orthogonal progressions one on proportion to the multiples of the singular proportion and the other to the square root of negative numbers. My math education didn't stop at infinitesimal calculus like yours.

Your problem is your stuck in the 19th century and waving your hands at notation that mathematicians use trying to shoehorn the number into newtonian or cartesian frameworks. As I said before, I am not talking about that. I am talking about the real form of infinity in the complex system. You are still stuck in your 18th century cartesian box and arguing the same things.

When you use the framework solutions like ((inf) - 1) - (((inf)-1)-1), it works to solve several infinite geometric progressions. Euler showed that. Laplace postulated that solutions could be described as sums of harmonics ie sin nx + cos nix in the complex system. Fourier formalized the solution and thermodynamics was born. Yay Napoleonic War!

EM radiation as a whole not just IR has been described using this frame work and it is the only solution for quantum phenomenon. It works on much larger scale because we use the concept in signal attenuation constantly. You basically are telling me that what I do for a living is irrational.

When you are ready to accept that there are an infinite wave harmonics at each and every moment of time and try to learn the real sense of proportions that are used to describe all phenomenon then let me know. It's obvious that you are still wrestling with your belief system and machismo and insist on behaving like a child or stupid man.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It means that two neural networks have achieved something of a synchronicity.

One can have two almost identical coffee cups, that are recognizable as being virtually the same, but they are still composed of different atoms, and down at a molecular level are quite different.

Yes but different atoms of the same mass and charge exhibit the same valence forms when put into the same relative position.

The coffee cup is a popular subject of topologists. Any partial sphere and circle will do. I am just saying that our perceptions of shapes have more profound meaning as opposed to our descriptions of motion. I am not necessarily conflating human and atomic behavior.

[xellos88330]

I am implying nothing of the sort. Once a book ceases to exist, it ceases to exist, period.

The individual atoms continue to exist, but they are not organized in such a way as to be a "book", by definition, just as the atoms in my body that were once part of Abraham Lincoln do not make me an ex-president.

You just provided a proof of God in your own words. Unless you will consider your statement as being incorrect.

God is supposed to exist in everything. Since atoms can indeed exist as both part of something at one point, and part of something else at another does that not conclude that he can indeed exist in everything since a single atom from him is all it takes to exist within another object?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just provided the proof of God in your own words. Unless you will consider your statement as being incorrect.

God is supposed to exist in everything. Since atoms can indeed exist as both part of something at one point, and part of something else at another does that not conclude that he can indeed exist in everything since a single atom could have existed in numerous different things over the course of time?

The christian God is supposed to have set afire a burning bush to give directives to his head priest, resurrected the dead, changed the surface tension of water, violated all manner of conservation principles and all manner of bugaboo inconsistent with 'everything.'

If 'God' is 'everything' then 'God' is not the christain god or any other religions diety. If your god indeed does exist that means he exists outside of 'everything' and is an extra-dimensional being but that takes a big shit on the notion of monotheism so most christians reject it. The other solution is that he was a lie created for social control and they don't like that.

In light of complex field theory and modern physics I think the approach of universe = God is pretty much entirely put to bed.

[xellos88330]

The christian God is supposed to have set afire a burning bush to give directives to his head priest, resurrected the dead, changed the surface tension of water, violated all manner of conservation principles and all manner of bugaboo inconsistent with 'everything.'

If 'God' is 'everything' then 'God' is not the christain god or any other religions diety. If your god indeed does exist that means he exists outside of 'everything' and is an extra-dimensional being but that takes a big shit on the notion of monotheism so most christians reject it. The other solution is that he was a lie created for social control and they don't like that.

In light of complex field theory and modern physics I think the approach of universe = God is pretty much entirely put to bed.

I didn't say that the universe = God. I said an atom of God can exist in everything.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say that the universe = God. I said an atom of God can exist in everything.

Cool then you are on the level. At the same time if you assume that God exists outside of everything then you admit that 'everything' is not a limiting factor to what constitutes an extradimensional being. There is nothing preventing other gods in your construct.

[Chinook]

You talked before of entry level knowledge and your googling is just about that. I didn't assume anything. I have read both a critique of pure reason and categories as well as slugging through Hume's description of 18th century physiology in setting up the foundations of modern skepticism. Try googling harder.

Didn't have to Google. Have a philosophy degree. Again, it doesn't matter that you claim to have read anything, seeing as you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.


Categorized is the past present participle of the word categorize. It denotes an identity using the form of to be in the romantic languages. 'He was categorized.' I am talking about the use of the suffix -al and what it means. How about you look that up box boy?

'Categorized' is a past participle, which is an adjective. 'Categorizing,' is the present participle, and it is also an adjective. Pick whichever one you want. They'd both fit better than 'categorical' would, because that already has another meaning. You sound like an idiot trying to go for general rules when you've already found out that this word has a specific definition that doesn't follow that rule. What's the adjectival form of 'box', "boxal"? Even so, the word Kant used himself is a term used commonly in German to mean "flat" or "unchanging". So your idea that Kant meant to use 'categorical' in a different way is just silly and demonstrably off-base.


You were right that the usage was adjective but the point still remains. I have another example of the usage - methodical. According to you that has nothing to do with method. Prima facia it's stupid. Your unwillingness to surrender even obvious points belies your veracity.

Again with your stupid argument about rules. Pick up a dictionary instead of trying to make silly arguments.


I just gave you the rational construct of infinity via Euclid's proof and Euler's topological framework of the complex numbering system. It just like zero is a pole of said system and their are two linear skew orthogonal progressions one on proportion to the multiples of the singular proportion and the other to the square root of negative numbers. My math education didn't stop at infinitesimal calculus like yours.


That's not an empirical example. It's like words don't actually mean anything to you.


Your problem is your stuck in the 19th century and waving your hands at notation that mathematicians use trying to shoehorn the number into newtonian or cartesian frameworks. As I said before, I am not talking about that. I am talking about the real form of infinity in the complex system. You are still stuck in your 18th century cartesian box and arguing the same things.

Again, I have no problem with math. I have a problem with your understanding of it, and how it applies to this discourse. Calling you stupid isn't the same thing as calling them stupid. You don't understand that infinity isn't a number; they did and made their systems of math accordingly.


When you use the framework solutions like ((inf) - 1) - (((inf)-1)-1), it works to solve several infinite geometric progressions. Euler showed that. Laplace postulated that solutions could be described as sums of harmonics ie sin nx + cos nix in the complex system. Fourier formalized the solution and thermodynamics was born. Yay Napoleonic War!

None of those are empirical examples.


EM radiation as a whole not just IR has been described using this frame work and it is the only solution for quantum phenomenon. It works on much larger scale because we use the concept in signal attenuation constantly. You basically are telling me that what I do for a living is irrational.

I don't give a shit what you do for a living. What you're doing here is idiotic. The math that uses infinity isn't irrational -- that doesn't make sense, since math can't be irrational. It can only be right or wrong.


When you are ready to accept that there are an infinite wave harmonics at each and every moment of time and try to learn the real sense of proportions that are used to describe all phenomenon then let me know. It's obvious that you are still wrestling with your belief system and machismo and insist on behaving like a child or stupid man.

So says the guy who can't read, and who can't understand the difference between "not a number" and "fake". I don't reject math at all. I just know you're too dumb or stubborn to actually understand it. If you don't even believe a dictionary when it tells you the word you're using doesn't mean what you think it means, there's clearly something wrong with your ability to reason.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Didn't have to Google. Have a philosophy degree. Again, it doesn't matter that you claim to have read anything, seeing as you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.

'Categorized' is a past participle, which is an adjective. 'Categorizing,' is the present participle, and it is also an adjective. Pick whichever one you want. They'd both fit better than 'categorical' would, because that already has another meaning. You sound like an idiot trying to go for general rules when you've already found out that this word has a specific definition that doesn't follow that rule. What's the adjectival form of 'box', "boxal"? Even so, the word Kant used himself is a term used commonly in German to mean "flat" or "unchanging". So your idea that Kant meant to use 'categorical' in a different way is just silly and demonstrably off-base.

Again with your stupid argument about rules. Pick up a dictionary instead of trying to make silly arguments.

That's not an empirical example. It's like words don't actually mean anything to you.

Again, I have no problem with math. I have a problem with your understanding of it, and how it applies to this discourse. Calling you stupid isn't the same thing as calling them stupid. You don't understand that infinity isn't a number; they did and made their systems of math accordingly.

None of those are empirical examples.

I don't give a shit what you do for a living. What you're doing here is idiotic. The math that uses infinity isn't irrational -- that doesn't make sense, since math can't be irrational. It can only be right or wrong.

So says the guy who can't read, and who can't understand the difference between "not a number" and "fake". I don't reject math at all. I just know you're too dumb or stubborn to actually understand it. If you don't even believe a dictionary when it tells you the word you're using doesn't mean what you think it means, there's clearly something wrong with your ability to reason.

:lol You sure have to limit your scope to try and make sense of things. Your mind is very inflexible. Likely why you had to settle for a liberal arts degree.

You do not understand the difference of a participle indicating an action being done on something and how a noun is turned into a general descriptor. -y is a similar suffix to -al and -ic. You argument to this point has morphed into its a past participle of the word category as opposed to it having nothing at all to do with it. Like I said, you don't eat your feedback.

I'll help because you are too determined to be ignorant to look it up on your own.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/reading/bestpractices/vocabulary/pdf/prefixes_suffixes.pdf

Lookee there all -al -ic and -y mean "characterized by" the root noun. The double regression in the usage is to be noted but it still is what it is. You would do better constructing a counter argument as opposed to your shrill whines of no. Wait last time you defined categorical as "true regardless of circumstance" which I noted was the same as universal truth and what Aristotle was getting at with his virtue too. You ignore most of my constructs.

If you have a philosophy degree that is pretty fucking sad. Sounds like UTSA engineering. I mean never mind that the word is in the name. Both Aristotle and Kant approached the notion of the categorical with the idea of ideal virtue as the goal and used that as a central premise that the imperative drew from. Different virtue and conclusion but the same approach: categorical. You wasted your parents money with a shitty liberal arts degree.

I never said topology was inherently empirical. OTOH, I gave you the logical, rational, and topological construct of the complex numbering system that has been demonstrated empirically. In it inf is a discrete case just like zero and bisects the positive and negative of the i-axis. This construct is what LaPlace postulated his harmonics of sines and cosines and Fourier formalized the description of heat transfer ie thermodynamics.

Is thermodynamics an empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.

Is quantum field theory and empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.

Does the cartesian or linear approach work with infinity described in terms of limits in either case? No.

In short the model of infinity I describe as a discrete case centering the i-axis and bi-axial symmetry works for all cases. Your model of it as the outer limit does not stand up to reality. Deal with it just like all the other classical mechanists.

Aquinas was wrong. Deal with that too. You are neither intellectually brave nor intellectually honest.

[Chinook]

:lol You sure have to limit your scope to try and make sense of things. Your mind is very inflexible. Likely why you had to settle for a liberal arts degree.

Bro, I have three degrees.


You do not understand the difference of a participle indicating an action being done on something and how a noun is turned into a general descriptor. -y is a similar suffix to -al and -ic. You argument to this point has morphed into its a past participle of the word category as opposed to it having nothing at all to do with it. Like I said, you don't eat your feedback.

Just an empty statement. You assumed a 'categorical imperative' was a mandate to put things into categories. But the term for that would be "categorizing imperative", since you're not trying to modify "category" but instead "put things into categories (categorize)". Again, a dictionary would really help you out here, but you don't believe in those.


I'll help because you are too determined to be ignorant to look it up on your own.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/readin...s_suffixes.pdf (http://teacher.scholastic.com/reading/bestpractices/vocabulary/pdf/prefixes_suffixes.pdf)

Lookee there all -al -ic and -y mean "characterized by" the root noun. The double regression in the usage is to be noted but it still is what it is. You would do better constructing a counter argument as opposed to your shrill whines of no.

Again, stupid. You don't have to try to apply general rules to this case, since you can simply look up the word in a dictionary. 'Categorical' has a meaning that's not "of categories". No amount of stupidity from you will change that.


Wait last time you defined categorical as "true regardless of circumstance" which I noted was the same as universal truth and what Aristotle was getting at with his virtue too. You ignore most of my constructs.

Yes, 'categorical' is an antonym for 'hypothetical'. It means absolute, unchanging. In German, it's also used to mean 'flat'. You did note that it talked about "universal truth" and all that. My response to that was, 'yes, and that's why no one cares about categorical imperatives anymore'. That's what Nietzsche was arguing against, not that Kant was putting things into boxes. Again, you don't read well, which is why you can't understand that.


If you have a philosophy degree that is pretty fucking sad. Sounds like UTSA engineering. I mean never mind that the word is in the name. Both Aristotle and Kant approached the notion of the categorical with the idea of ideal virtue as the goal and used that as a central premise that the imperative drew from. Different virtue and conclusion but the same approach: categorical. You wasted your parents money with a shitty liberal arts degree.


Phil was my final degree. I added it because I thought it was fun and had the courses open my last two semesters. And before you try to accuse me of backtracking, there's plenty of evidence on ST of me saying what my degrees were in. I imagine you struggled in school so much that you didn't even minor, since you were too busy arguing with the textbooks.

Anyway, your "It's in the name," argument is bad. We had dictionaries so that people don't have to trust their judgment on things like this.


I never said topology was inherently empirical. OTOH, I gave you the logical, rational, and topological construct of the complex numbering system that has been demonstrated empirically. In it inf is a discrete case just like zero and bisects the positive and negative of the i-axis. This construct is what LaPlace postulated his harmonics of sines and cosines and Fourier formalized the description of heat transfer ie thermodynamics.

No, you didn't. You gave me examples of theories describing real things that used the concept of infinity. Again, saying, "This model predicts infinity," is NOT an empirical statement.


Is thermodynamics an empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.

No. Thermodynamics isn't empirical. Not the way you're asserting it is. It gets supported by empirical evidence, but its relationships are mathematical.


Is quantum field theory and empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.

No. Again, "empirically proven" is a nonsense term. Empiricism doesn't prove things; it provides evidence to support beliefs.


Does the cartesian or linear approach work with infinity described in terms of limits in either case? No.

Yes. It's like you have no concept of how limits work and why they exist.


In short the model of infinity I describe as a discrete case centering the i-axis and bi-axial symmetry works for all cases. Your model of it as the outer limit does not stand up to reality. Deal with it just like all the other classical mechanists.

Yes, deal with it like they did: by using limits. Again, you don't seem to get that nothing you've said suggests infinity is a number. You've only demonstrated that math deals with it. No one's objected to that argument. Did you look up this issue at all? You apparently research counter arguments in advance, yet you don't seem able to do that with your constructive.


Aquinas was wrong. Deal with that too. You are neither intellectually brave nor intellectually honest.

I don't even know what he said. Yes, I could look that up right now. But that's not the point. You have this attitude that you're right because you believe that your view is in line with the view of people who are smarter than you. Besides you being wrong in understanding what those people are saying, you're hanging out in Fallacy City by trying to hide behind other people's minds. You clearly don't do any research into your ideas, and you're just as clearly resistant to the idea of doing so. This is why you have such a terrible constructive and can't seem to sustain a decent discourse with anyone. I really don't know how you function in this world, you seem so far out of touch. That's not me insulting you; it's my honest evaluation after seeing all of the posts you've made in this thread to anyone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bro, I have three degrees.



Just an empty statement. You assumed a 'categorical imperative' was a mandate to put things into categories. But the term for that would be "categorizing imperative", since you're not trying to modify "category" but instead "put things into categories (categorize)". Again, a dictionary would really help you out here, but you don't believe in those.



Again, stupid. You don't have to try to apply general rules to this case, since you can simply look up the word in a dictionary. 'Categorical' has a meaning that's not "of categories". No amount of stupidity from you will change that.



Yes, 'categorical' is an antonym for 'hypothetical'. It means absolute, unchanging. In German, it's also used to mean 'flat'. You did note that it talked about "universal truth" and all that. My response to that was, 'yes, and that's why no one cares about categorical imperatives anymore'. That's what Nietzsche was arguing against, not that Kant was putting things into boxes. Again, you don't read well, which is why you can't understand that.



Phil was my final degree. I added it because I thought it was fun and had the courses open my last two semesters. And before you try to accuse me of backtracking, there's plenty of evidence on ST of me saying what my degrees were in. I imagine you struggled in school so much that you didn't even minor, since you were too busy arguing with the textbooks.

Anyway, your "It's in the name," argument is bad. We had dictionaries so that people don't have to trust their judgment on things like this.



No, you didn't. You gave me examples of theories describing real things that used the concept of infinity. Again, saying, "This model predicts infinity," is NOT an empirical statement.



No. Thermodynamics isn't empirical. Not the way you're asserting it is. It gets supported by empirical evidence, but its relationships are mathematical.



No. Again, "empirically proven" is a nonsense term. Empiricism doesn't prove things; it provides evidence to support beliefs.



Yes. It's like you have no concept of how limits work and why they exist.

Yes, deal with it like they did: by using limits. Again, you don't seem to get that nothing you've said suggests infinity is a number. You've only demonstrated that math deals with it. No one's objected to that argument. Did you look up this issue at all? You apparently research counter arguments in advance, yet you don't seem able to do that with your constructive.



I don't even know what he said. Yes, I could look that up right now. But that's not the point. You have this attitude that you're right because you believe that your view is in line with the view of people who are smarter than you. Besides you being wrong in understanding what those people are saying, you're hanging out in Fallacy City by trying to hide behind other people's minds. You clearly don't do any research into your ideas, and you're just as clearly resistant to the idea of doing so. This is why you have such a terrible constructive and can't seem to sustain a decent discourse with anyone. I really don't know how you function in this world, you seem so far out of touch. That's not me insulting you; it's my honest evaluation after seeing all of the posts you've made in this thread to anyone.

It's called this is not the first time I have had any of these discussions and you are really starting to bore me.

:lol What do mutually exclusive mean.
:lol 3 philosophy degrees and doesn't know what Aquinas said about infinity.
:lol static linguistics as a worldview

Just a run down. Kant's a Critique on Pure Reason was not inspired by Aristotle's Categories yet both talked of virtue and categories. Thermodynamics is not empirical science. Quantum field theory is not empirical science. And complex field theory and topology is not math.

I am not surprised you cannot figure how I function given the above takes.

:lol dictionary
:lol universal truth
:lol one more time at 3 liberal arts degrees.

Anyway, I am now resorting to base trolling so I am done. If you don't want to believe that infinity is a discrete point in a topological construct that explains observable phenomenon then don't. All we are going to do is go in circles and I have made my point.

Nighty night.

[rogues]

:lol Chinook is taking a shit in FuzzyLumpkins mouth, tbh..poor guy, can't Google his way out of this one..

[Chinook]

It's called this is not the first time I have had any of these discussions and you are really starting to bore me.

What's called that?


:lol What do mutually exclusive mean.

It means two things don't overlap. What the hell does that have to do with anything?


:lol 3 philosophy degrees and doesn't know what Aquinas said about infinity.

No. I have a evolutionary/ecological biology degree and a cog-sci/linguistics degree. Again, that's already established on ST.


:lol static linguistics as a worldview

So says the guy who can't understand that 'categorical' doesn't mean what he thinks it means.


Just a run down. Kant's a Critique on Pure Reason was not inspired by Aristotle's Categories yet both talked of virtue and categories. Thermodynamics is not empirical science. Quantum field theory is not empirical science. And complex field theory and topology is not math.

Still can't understand anyone else, hence you relying on stupid rules. Said nothing about Kant's inspiration, but it's hilarious that you bring up Aristotle, since the Greek translation for 'categorical' still means "absolute and unchanging". That term's literally meant what the dictionary says it's meant for thousands of years.


I am not surprised you cannot figure how I function given the above takes.

I agree. You can't understand anything, as evidenced by your poor understanding of my view.


:lol dictionary

:lol You probably think that's a fictional book


:lol universal truth

:lol Still not understanding that's why Kant's normative view is outdated and why saying the term 'categorical imperative' made you look like an idiot in the first place


:lol one more time at 3 liberal arts degrees.

:lol Not realizing that almost all degrees from general schools at a university are considered LA, and not realizing that I have two science degrees.


Anyway, I am now resorting to base trolling so I am done. If you don't want to believe that infinity is a discrete point in a topological construct that explains observable phenomenon then don't. All we are going to do is go in circles and I have made my point.


I've honestly been hoping that you've been doing that from jump street, because you were stupid straight out of the box (pun, right?).

[Chinook]

:lol Chinook is taking a shit in FuzzyLumpkins mouth, tbh..poor guy, can't Google his way out of this one..

:lol He tried. But after he saw that it disagreed with him, he went on a diatribe about the theory of words and why the dictionary was wrong. I've just never seen that before.

[spurraider21]

damn, that was brutal. fuzzy had to try to prove the dictionary definition of a word was wrong in order to not look stupid, even though that makes him look more stupid

[FuzzyLumpkins]

cat·e·gor·i·cal
adjective \ˌka-tə-ˈgȯr-i-kəl, -ˈgär-\

: said in a very strong, clear, and definite way
Full Definition of CATEGORICAL
1
: absolute, unqualified <a categorical denial>
2
a : of, relating to, or constituting a category
b : involving, according with, or considered with respect to specific categories

:lol Merrian-Webster
:lol what do mutually exclusive mean? still have not figured that out.
:lol supposed philosphy degree hasn't read Ari or Aquinas
:lol selectively editing out your mistakes out of quotes of my arguments
:lol 'dictionary' means only one definition of word used in 18th century context
:lol static linguistics from a guy with a supposed degree in the subject
:lol verified at ST

But by all means circle jerk guys. I have shit to do.

[Chinook]

cat·e·gor·i·cal
adjective \ˌka-tə-ˈgȯr-i-kəl, -ˈgär-\

: said in a very strong, clear, and definite way
Full Definition of CATEGORICAL
1
: absolute, unqualified <a categorical denial>
2
a : of, relating to, or constituting a category
b : involving, according with, or considered with respect to specific categories

Oh, good. You've finally picked up a dictionary. In case you're wondering, I've known that definition this whole time. It's actually not used very often, and isn't even on some sites. But there are two instances when it means what you think it means. The first is when describing data (categorical data is data divided into categories), the second is categorical perception (seeing things in categories instead of on a continuum). However, you never meant it in that context, since you were talking about the CI, which not only has hundreds of years of analysis to tell us what way they were using it, but directly translates into the other definition.


:lol Merrian-Webster

:lol Thinking it was a lost book until just now


:lol what do mutually exclusive mean? still have not figured that out.

Why do you mean saying "what do..."? It's one term, which I defined when you first asked. You still haven't explained why the hell you keep using that as a dig.


:lol supposed philosphy degree hasn't read Ari or Aquinas

Lol, going from, "You're so pathetic with that philosophy degree", to "You don't actually have one." Also hilarious that you think all philosophy degrees are the same. Am I supposed to know everything about quantum physics because I have a biology degree?


:lol selectively editing out your mistakes out of quotes of my arguments

Didn't edit your posts at all.


:lol 'dictionary' means only one definition of word used in 18th century context

Kant's use is a lot older than that, first off. Secondly, 'categorical' has meant "absolute" for thousands of years (in its translations). You should have seen that when you were reading in the dictionary. Instead you're trying to rep its sub-definition just so you don't look stupid. That would be a decent argument had you not failed to make it until now.


:lol static linguistics from a guy with a supposed degree in the subject

I don't even think you know what that means. 'Categorical' hasn't changed its meaning, but that doesn't mean other words haven't. You're just mad that you didn't know the definition. Now, you're arguing against it so you don't look dumb.


:lol verified at ST

Meaning that I am not just saying that to try to cover up my tracks in this thread. I could be lying about my degrees (I'm not, but who cares?), but I would have been lying a long time before talking to you.


But by all means circle jerk guys. I have shit to do.

So says the guy who's admitted to preparing for Internet arguments and to try to follow me around if I don't respond to you fast enough. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands and will be back to make another stupid post in the middle of the day. But seeing as you just now actually clicked on the Google link to see 'categorical' in more detail, you definitely seem too busy to learn anything.

[xellos88330]

This guy seems to have some pretty compelling stuff. I understand most of you will TLDW it, but there are some interesting tidbits that could be hard to refute as far as his argument on creationism.

d4EaWPIlNYY

[Chinook]

:lol

[Blake]

This guy seems to have some pretty compelling stuff. I understand most of you will TLDW it, but there are some interesting tidbits that could be hard to refute as far as his argument on creationism.

d4EaWPIlNYY

Hugh Ross is making up his own translation of Genesis, fwiw, which is what Christians nowadays are being forced to do to explain evolution and the age of the universe.

But what interesting tidbit are you specifically referring too?

[Chinook]

Hugh Ross is making up his own translation of Genesis, fwiw, which is what Christians nowadays are being forced to do to explain evolution and the age of the universe.

But what interesting tidbit are you specifically referring too?

Only watched about 10 minutes (though it does seem entertaining). But this guy's whole point seems to be that things on Earth are "too perfect" for god to have not created them. Gotta give it to him, though. Bro's trying his hardest to make Genesis seem accurate.

[xellos88330]

Hugh Ross is making up his own translation of Genesis, fwiw, which is what Christians nowadays are being forced to do to explain evolution and the age of the universe.

But what interesting tidbit are you specifically referring too?

Mainly geometric time.

[xmas1997]

For every human on the planet, you have their own particular version of reality, their own theory for a God or no god.

Meh, just more banality, more of the same ol' same ol' business as usual, meh.

[xellos88330]

Only watched about 10 minutes (though it does seem entertaining). But this guy's whole point seems to be that things on Earth are "too perfect" for god to have not created them. Gotta give it to him, though. Bro's trying his hardest to make Genesis seem accurate.

It is quite entertaining. Much of what he says does make sense in the scientific world. At the same time, conditions do indeed need to be pretty perfect or at least to within a miniscule tolerance for human-like life to exist.

What I find most compelling is how he explains creation within scientific laws. I never heard anyone put it like that before because frankly, I don't research this kind of stuff.

[Chinook]

conditions do indeed need to be pretty perfect or at least to within a miniscule tolerance for human-like life to exist.

That's true. But that just makes Earth lucky. It doesn't suggest a divine hand did it. It's like the people who survive deadly plagues thinking they're blessed.

[xmas1997]

Oh, good. You've finally picked up a dictionary. In case you're wondering, I've known that definition this whole time. It's actually not used very often, and isn't even on some sites. But there are two instances when it means what you think it means. The first is when describing data (categorical data is data divided into categories), the second is categorical perception (seeing things in categories instead of on a continuum). However, you never meant it in that context, since you were talking about the CI, which not only has hundreds of years of analysis to tell us what way they were using it, but directly translates into the other definition.

:lol Thinking it was a lost book until just now

Why do you mean saying "what do..."? It's one term, which I defined when you first asked. You still haven't explained why the hell you keep using that as a dig.

Lol, going from, "You're so pathetic with that philosophy degree", to "You don't actually have one." Also hilarious that you think all philosophy degrees are the same. Am I supposed to know everything about quantum physics because I have a biology degree?

Didn't edit your posts at all.

Kant's use is a lot older than that, first off. Secondly, 'categorical' has meant "absolute" for thousands of years (in its translations). You should have seen that when you were reading in the dictionary. Instead you're trying to rep its sub-definition just so you don't look stupid. That would be a decent argument had you not failed to make it until now.

I don't even think you know what that means. 'Categorical' hasn't changed its meaning, but that doesn't mean other words haven't. You're just mad that you didn't know the definition. Now, you're arguing against it so you don't look dumb.

Meaning that I am not just saying that to try to cover up my tracks in this thread. I could be lying about my degrees (I'm not, but who cares?), but I would have been lying a long time before talking to you.

So says the guy who's admitted to preparing for Internet arguments and to try to follow me around if I don't respond to you fast enough. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands and will be back to make another stupid post in the middle of the day. But seeing as you just now actually clicked on the Google link to see 'categorical' in more detail, you definitely seem too busy to learn anything.


Thus why fuzzybumpkins personifies the label "pseudo-intellectual" although it is being extremely generous using the "intellectual" part.

This is how he debates everyone on here, I'm just surprised he has limited his use of invectives and cussing to make his quasi-points.

:lol

[xellos88330]

That's true. But that just makes Earth lucky. It doesn't suggest a divine hand did it. It's like the people who survive deadly plagues thinking they're blessed.

Atheists seem to think that the theist is the one that requires the proofs, yet I see no record of anything ever getting so lucky.

Is the claim that something is so lucky that it defies exponential odds really that much less of a claim than a creator? Both are fantastic claims to the other party.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Chinook going straight Scat Man in here, someone get Fuzzy a wet wipe.

[Chinook]

Atheists seem to think that the theist is the one that requires the proofs, yet I see no record of anything ever getting so lucky.

Is the claim that something is so lucky that it defies exponential odds really that much less of a claim than a creator? Both are fantastic claims to the other party.

When I say "lucky", I mean that there was no divine-intervention reason something happens. The Earth has life because it had the conditions to have life. That seems to be a rare thing, but it's not all that interesting, really. Just like a person is immune from a disease because of the makeup of their body. It's just the way things work. If someone shoots a gun straight into the air, and that bullet comes down an hits a random person a few minutes later, that person was just (un)lucky. They were on the wrong side of the odds.

There's no burden of proof for people who just chalk things up to probability -- that is almost always the null hypothesis.

[Blake]

Mainly geometric time.

what's the argument there that could be hard to refute?

[Blake]

Atheists seem to think that the theist is the one that requires the proofs, yet I see no record of anything ever getting so lucky.

Why should an atheist have to prove to you that something doesn't exist? What's practical about that?



Is the claim that something is so lucky that it defies exponential odds really that much less of a claim than a creator? Both are fantastic claims to the other party.

Who created the creator? How lucky was your creator? What are the odds there?

[xellos88330]

Why should an atheist have to prove to you that something doesn't exist? What's practical about that?



Who created the creator? How lucky was your creator? What are the odds there?

1. One side is arguing something that exists. The other is arguing that it doesn't exist. The debate is whether or not it even exists. What does an atheist provide as proof that it doesn't exist when there are some laws in science in which proves that it indeed can.

2. That is what I found so interesting about geometric time. I do not claim any expertise in the matter of geometric time or physics, but find some points within it that would indeed allow God to not need a creator himself. If you watch the entirety of the video I posted, he better explains it than I ever could. This is a website with the pdf download with a brief mathematical breakdown. http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1403.3879

[xellos88330]

When I say "lucky", I mean that there was no divine-intervention reason something happens. The Earth has life because it had the conditions to have life. That seems to be a rare thing, but it's not all that interesting, really. Just like a person is immune from a disease because of the makeup of their body. It's just the way things work. If someone shoots a gun straight into the air, and that bullet comes down an hits a random person a few minutes later, that person was just (un)lucky. They were on the wrong side of the odds.

There's no burden of proof for people who just chalk things up to probability -- that is almost always the null hypothesis.

Then why do some of the sciences prove that he could in fact, exist? God has become a probability of science. Wouldn't that make his existence the same as a probability?

[spurraider21]

Only watched about 10 minutes (though it does seem entertaining). But this guy's whole point seems to be that things on Earth are "too perfect" for god to have not created them. Gotta give it to him, though. Bro's trying his hardest to make Genesis seem accurate.
Nothing beats the famous banana video

[spurraider21]

Then why do some of the sciences prove that he could in fact, exist? God has become a probability of science. Wouldn't that make his existence the same as a probability?
Science doesn't rule out the possibility of god in the same manner it doesn't rule out Martians

[Chinook]

Then why do some of the sciences prove that he could in fact, exist? God has become a probability of science. Wouldn't that make his existence the same as a probability?

Science didn't have to prove that could might exist; that's inherent in the structure of statistical testing. The way it works is that people assume nothing interesting is happening unless they collect enough data to allow them to claim the opposite with confidence.

So if a person asserts divine intervention as an explanation for some phenomenon, then it is up to them to collect enough data to be able to pass a statistical test with a stringent enough confidence interval. If they can't, then their claim gets rejected.

This isn't an atheist/theist thing. Darwin had the burden of proof for his theory of natural selection, and in fact, he was dead before his work was widely accepted. Same is true for tectonic plate theory, the Big Bang, etc.

[Chinook]

Nothing beats the famous banana video
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Suddenly_816874_296065.jpg

Closest thing I've heard of to what you're talking about.

[spurraider21]

Closest thing I've heard of to what you're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[Blake]

1. One side is arguing something that exists. The other is arguing that it doesn't exist. The debate is whether or not it even exists. What does an atheist provide as proof that it doesn't exist when there are some laws in science in which proves that it indeed can.

one side is arguing that God exists. The other side is saying to prove it.

But from a practical standpoint for society's sake, why should an atheist need to disprove your god?



2. That is what I found so interesting about geometric time. I do not claim any expertise in the matter of geometric time or physics, but find some points within it that would indeed allow God to not need a creator himself. If you watch the entirety of the video I posted, he better explains it than I ever could. This is a website with the pdf download with a brief mathematical breakdown. http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1403.3879

What points?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, good. You've finally picked up a dictionary. In case you're wondering, I've known that definition this whole time. It's actually not used very often, and isn't even on some sites. But there are two instances when it means what you think it means. The first is when describing data (categorical data is data divided into categories), the second is categorical perception (seeing things in categories instead of on a continuum). However, you never meant it in that context, since you were talking about the CI, which not only has hundreds of years of analysis to tell us what way they were using it, but directly translates into the other definition.



:lol Thinking it was a lost book until just now



Why do you mean saying "what do..."? It's one term, which I defined when you first asked. You still haven't explained why the hell you keep using that as a dig.



Lol, going from, "You're so pathetic with that philosophy degree", to "You don't actually have one." Also hilarious that you think all philosophy degrees are the same. Am I supposed to know everything about quantum physics because I have a biology degree?



Didn't edit your posts at all.



Kant's use is a lot older than that, first off. Secondly, 'categorical' has meant "absolute" for thousands of years (in its translations). You should have seen that when you were reading in the dictionary. Instead you're trying to rep its sub-definition just so you don't look stupid. That would be a decent argument had you not failed to make it until now.



I don't even think you know what that means. 'Categorical' hasn't changed its meaning, but that doesn't mean other words haven't. You're just mad that you didn't know the definition. Now, you're arguing against it so you don't look dumb.



Meaning that I am not just saying that to try to cover up my tracks in this thread. I could be lying about my degrees (I'm not, but who cares?), but I would have been lying a long time before talking to you.



So says the guy who's admitted to preparing for Internet arguments and to try to follow me around if I don't respond to you fast enough. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands and will be back to make another stupid post in the middle of the day. But seeing as you just now actually clicked on the Google link to see 'categorical' in more detail, you definitely seem too busy to learn anything.

Well you have now joined Darrin in sophist piece of shit land. Winehole will be pleased.


You sound like an idiot. That's the only thing to understand. You misused four terms in one sentence. That's impressive.

You didn't look up 'categorical', did you? 'Category' may mean whatever it does in whatever language, but 'categorical' doesn't mean "of categories" in English.

Your intellectual cowardice is impressive.

Anyway that quote there is to your rejoinder after you dodged for 5 days. Are you really going to strut with TSA and m>s? You're a bigger douche than I thought.

[xellos88330]

one side is arguing that God exists. The other side is saying to prove it.

But from a practical standpoint for society's sake, why should an atheist need to disprove your god?



What points?

1. In practicality, they shouldn't have to. In practicality, they should be respectful of others beliefs. In reality, that is not the case. If there is an attempt to ridicule another for their beliefs, should they not provide their own proofs to justify such an act? There are many proofs of atheists ridiculing religion and theism in general. Flying Spaghetti monster is an obvious slap in the face to those who believe in God. Atheists claim that they cannot trust a religion because of how religion can treat people. Are the atheists not doing the same? If theists can be held responsible for their actions by atheists, shouldn't atheists be held responsible for their actions by theists as well?

2. I already said that I am no expert in geometric time, or physics for that matter. The points I found were in the way the video explained it to me. If you have anything to add or respond in addition to the video, I would be more than willing to listen as I am not confident in my grasp of the subject.

[xellos88330]

Science doesn't rule out the possibility of god in the same manner it doesn't rule out Martians

Then why ridicule the theist?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thus why fuzzybumpkins personifies the label "pseudo-intellectual" although it is being extremely generous using the "intellectual" part.

This is how he debates everyone on here, I'm just surprised he has limited his use of invectives and cussing to make his quasi-points.

:lol

chinook is being the same dissembling nihilist routine as you. he goes around saying he has 4 degrees but I am the quasi-intellectual?

you guys are fucked up.

[spurraider21]

Then why ridicule the theist?
For the same reason we'd ridicule somebody for making a claim that Martian life exists without any means to provide evidence

[FuzzyLumpkins]

damn, that was brutal. fuzzy had to try to prove the dictionary definition of a word was wrong in order to not look stupid, even though that makes him look more stupid

You want to revisit this or you just going to stick with it?