ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th October 2019, 09:54 PM   #161
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
If we where to contemplate what is between "1" and a second "1", which makes a "2", we would realize that what we thought of as a segment, is an infinity in itself.
Soooo..... I have "1" proton and then another "1" proton....I now have "2" protons. I do not have an infinity of bits of other protons between my 2 protons, as per your ridiculous religion.

Your stupid "infinity religion" has no relationship to the real world. That is why you refuse to try write it down as a coherent hypothesis.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 10:28 PM   #162
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,818
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Soooo..... I have "1" proton and then another "1" proton....I now have "2" protons. I do not have an infinity of bits of other protons between my 2 protons, as per your ridiculous religion.

Your stupid "infinity religion" has no relationship to the real world. That is why you refuse to try write it down as a coherent hypothesis.
Hey. leave the prophet alone. Blessed are the infinite cheesemakers!
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 11:42 PM   #163
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Hey. leave the prophet alone. Blessed are the infinite cheesemakers!
I deserve a medal. I have had to read his rubbish for 10 years. He has absolutely no idea about basic physics.

Here is his claim from 2009 on the Skeptic Society forum.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...11128&start=40

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
Even if photons had a brain that kept them in formation, which you called spin if I understood correctly, they would still need a shot of energy to keep on traveling through space. Are you saying photons use their own energy to travel endlessly through space ( like billions of light years from one star to the other )?
He is still making this same claim today in this thread after ten years of people explaining basic physics to him.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 12:31 AM   #164
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Assuming that light does travel (deriving everlasting energy who knows from where); assuming that light is not instead passed along by particles;

Junior Scientist Website Q&A
Q: If you fire a laser in space, does it just keep on going as there is nothing to draw energy from it so it would dissipate? As for a projectile, isn't this also the case as there is no gravity or air friction to stop it like on Earth?
A: The light from a laser in space would continue on forever unless it hit something.


https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-e...ergy-it-so-it-

tazanastazio?
1) Do you know what a laser is? How does that work in your "infinity of infinities religion"?


2) If we can see light from stars that are 5 billion light years from Earth, explain, using your "infinities of infinities religion", where the starlight is getting energy from?

3) Do you think big rocks fall faster than small rocks?
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 02:59 AM   #165
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,985
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
[color="darkgreen"]


The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. Einstein.
And yet you tell us you know the secrets of the origins of the universe without having done even the most basic study of the topic.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 11:02 AM   #166
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,955
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You got to read between the lines;

A) Something caused the cause of the universe - The Universe was formed from within the Infinite.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the universe - The cause of the Universe is the Infinite.
C) The universe doesn't have a cause - It always existed in one form or another, as a part of the Infinite.
D) The universe has a cause, but that cause doesn't have a cause - The cause of the Universe is the Infinite.
E) I don't know, but people far more intelligent than me are devoting their lives to finding out - Searching in vain, following a step by step infinite reversal, which simply points to the Infinite); the Infinite has no end, no beginning, no limits and no gaps.
F) I don't know, and nobody is doing anything to find out more - Because they realize they cannot follow a step by step infinite reversal, which simply would lead to the Infinite; the Infinite has no end, no beginning, no limits and no gaps.
G) All of the above - There are infinite possibilities within the Infinite, as to how the Universe could have come to be; the sure thing is, that the Universe somehow came to be out of the Infinite.

Now that you've added your input; and I, responding to your input, added mine; I'd go with G).
Well, of course you would. You've altered every single possibility to only allow for the one you want. That may fly in a New Age or woo forum, but it won't fly here.

Your Infinite nonsense is just a renstated God of the Gaps argument, where you've renamed the GotG as "Infinite".
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 02:07 PM   #167
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
I often think, "Why wasting my valuable time, arguing with these people when my point has already been MADE AND PROVEN and they KNOW it, but will never publicly admit it. Why does it matter?" On my part I admit that while my time is limited and valuable, some of these arguments are simply TOO RIDICULOUS TO IGNORE!

The qoute below from Einstein will do for now, in responding to Matthew Ellard's "mindbonglingly" ridiculous argument about "the two particles with nothing in between."

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

Last edited by tazanastazio; 5th October 2019 at 02:43 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 02:10 PM   #168
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,065
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
You do get from Einstein's view, he could as easily be speaking of you as your critics?
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 02:11 PM   #169
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,955
And Einstein never spoke a truer word. But possibly not for the reason that you think.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 02:19 PM   #170
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
And Einstein never spoke a truer word. But possibly not for the reason that you think.
I'll let you figure out the details and what is "between the lines."

Quoting from the original post:

"If we were to make a distinction between the Universe and the Infinite, and we were to call the 'Universe', the outcome of the Big Bang occurrence (for a better word than eruption/explosion) and the expansion that was caused by it, then, the actual (not the visible) universe may or may not have a center. Also, it may be of any shape depending on the opposing forces of the fabric within the Infinite; which fabric in my opinion is comprised of, as far as we can measure, infinite minute particles. The border of the Universe would then be the border between the force of the Big Bang occurrence, and the force of the fabric within the Infinite, which would withstand the force of the Big Bang occurrence."

Last edited by tazanastazio; 5th October 2019 at 02:33 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 02:24 PM   #171
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,955
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I'll let you figure out the details and what is "between the lines."

Quoting from the original post:

If we were to make a distinction between the Universe and the Infinite, and we were to call the "Universe", the outcome of the Big Bang occurrence (for a better word than eruption/explosion) and the expansion that was caused by it, then; the actual (not the visible) universe may or may not have a center. Also, it may be of any shape depending on the opposing forces of the fabric within the Infinite; which fabric in my opinion is comprised of, as far as we can measure, infinite minute particles. The border of the Universe would then be the border between the force of the Big Bang occurrence, and the force of the fabric within the Infinite, which would withstand the force of the Big Bang occurrence.
The Big Bang was neither an eruption nor an explosion. If you persist in thinking about it in those terms you are doomed to misunderstanding.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 03:01 PM   #172
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,585
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
1)The minimal increment assumption by Planck, which brought about his constant; and any constant for that matter (Avocado's constant, the term "mole." As if Ions, Atoms and Molecules were beans in a bag (so we could actually count them one by one); regardless the type, black, pinto, or cranberry; and country of origin; Hydrogen, Nitrogen or Oxygen: they all where ABOUT 6.022140857 × 10^23).

2) The term "potential energy" as if physicists could calculate how many bean soups I ate to climb on a ledge, with a rock of my back which I would later drop on a lever.

The above assumptions work because humanity duels on a planet and not in the microcosm.

Strange post. I get the impression of somebody floundering and grasping at straws, or beans maybe, to make a point.

You associate the term "potential energy" with bean soups. That's odd. Most associate "potential energy" with the idea of a mass at elevation, but any form of energy is potential in so far as being able to convert into another form. Bean soups would contain a considerable quantity of kilojoules but would not convert into much work when consumed by an animal. Animals not being very efficient machines.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 04:07 PM   #173
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,146
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I'll let you figure out the details and what is "between the lines."
Of course. Because you are unable to even define any lines at all.

Your argument relies on demanding things you are unwilling to extend to your interlocuters. That is a flat out dishonest position.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 05:04 PM   #174
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Of course. Because you are unable to even define any lines at all.

Your argument relies on demanding things you are unwilling to extend to your interlocuters. That is a flat out dishonest position.
Defining lines even more vividly:

Whether the Universe is infinite or not depends on whether you distinguish a line between the outcome of the Big Bang expansion, and the "fabric" of the Infinite; which in my opinion, is comprised of infinitely minute, as far as we can measure, particles. The infinite points of opposing forces between the particles of the Big Bang expansion and the resisting forces of the Infinite would comprise the limits of the Universe; which Universe depending on its shape (outcome of opposing interacting forces) may have a center or not.

Einstein was correct to imagine that the Universe may be Infinite and doubt that concept at the same time; because whether the Universe is infinite or not, depends on from which perspective you see it.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 5th October 2019 at 05:06 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 05:12 PM   #175
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,985
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I often think, "Why wasting my valuable time, arguing with these people when my point has already been MADE AND PROVEN and they KNOW it, but will never publicly admit it. Why does it matter?" On my part I admit that while my time is limited and valuable, some of these arguments are simply TOO RIDICULOUS TO IGNORE!

The qoute below from Einstein will do for now, in responding to Matthew Ellard's "mindbonglingly" ridiculous argument about "the two particles with nothing in between."

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Why then does probability play any role in you figuring out if "we don't know" is the correct answer? If you're applying probability, it means you don't actually know. Probability only comes into play when there is doubt.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:12 AM   #176
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
...... these people when my point has already been MADE AND PROVEN and they KNOW it, but will never publicly admit it.
Your hilarious "infinity of infinities religion" fell apart in its first application to the real world.

You say there is an infinite number of smaller possibilities between the written number "1" and the written number "2". However if I get two electrons in the real world, there are not an infinite number of smaller and smaller electrons between them, are there?

In fact you don't actually have a clue what goes on in the real world at all.
You think the Big Bang was an explosion.You think photons have to receive ongoing power to keep going in a vacuum.

You really need to go read a basic science book.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:52 PM   #177
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Your hilarious "infinity of infinities religion" fell apart in its first application to the real world.

You say there is an infinite number of smaller possibilities between the written number "1" and the written number "2". However if I get two electrons in the real world, there are not an infinite number of smaller and smaller electrons between them, are there?

In fact you don't actually have a clue what goes on in the real world at all.
You think the Big Bang was an explosion.You think photons have to receive ongoing power to keep going in a vacuum.

You really need to go read a basic science book.
Mathew, even though your objective all this time has been to dispute my arguments, debating with you, and others, along with answering questions, helped significantly in solidifying "Infinitism." Despite therefore of the objective in your efforts (futile in my opinion), namely to "debunk" my theories and philosophy in general; and as a moderator put it once the "Innocuous" characterizations of me, by mostly you and occasionally some of the other interlocutors (strongly "innocuous" in fact, to say the least), I am grateful for your and their time and effort. That is why I do not mind you or others having the last word, seeing that debating has achieved my objective; I am just waiting for it to be something, positive, or substantial or even sufficient enough in ending the conversation in a good note.

I know that you are a very learned and intelligent person, and while others can see it too, by scrolling up or searching your other blogs (in which, albeit you mostly harshly to severely harshly criticize other people's work, instead of you sharing your point of view, wisdom, imagination and knowledge in a positive; way as I have already mentioned to you on one occasion in the past, where you were ripping apart a poor lamb like a hungry wolf); some people that won't put the effort, or due to personal perspective may not be able to see through your debating tactics; they may actually think that you cannot tell the difference between say, the "real world" use of the word "time" and the statement that in the "unreal world" of the microcosm, and the macrocosm, and in actuality; time is an illusion of the effect of gravity - not even an emerging property.

Between a "1" and another "1" which make a "2", there are not "infinite possibilities", but infinite "1's" which make infinite "2's." Infinite segments, as far as we could ever measure, and within them, infinite more! The term "infinite possibilities" would apply for example in covering all the possibilities that would be required to have "infinite" futures in order to have as you still believe, a physical, dimensional time (which would imply replicated Infinites which is impossible and therefore a nullified concept.).

In the "real world", engineers, create photons with the same phase and frequency; which is perceived as a laser beam; what happens in the "quantum world," we would have to be able to see it from a particle perspective, to ever be able to be certain.

As I have already mentioned, in the "real world" the concept of time has been adopted along with other means to keep society organized and working like a clock. So I don't have all the time in a day or even a week to go on into circles responding to your arguments, some of which remind me of a lawyer addressing a jury comprised of retail clerks. They may work with them, but they are not worth it my time. I mean, you don't seriously believe that every time Hawking or Einstein referred to the term "God" they were preaching a religion, do you?

Hawking on God:

"Einstein was wrong when he said, 'God does not play dice'. Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen."

"Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

"God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator."

"If we do discover a theory of everything… it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would truly know the mind of God."

“God is the name people give to the reason we are here,” he said. “But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.”

“What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”


Einstein on God:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details."

"I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clock-maker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?"

"We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."

"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."


Matthew, you should never let ego come in the way of you being a quick learner! I have told you before to be careful not to "shoot yourself in the foot." When you go hunting, it does not take wisdom to know where to point a gun, before you pull the trigger; it takes common sense! After all, you only have two feet.

Folks don't know their science (/philosophy/religion).

Last edited by tazanastazio; 6th October 2019 at 02:44 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 03:14 PM   #178
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Mathew, even though your objective all this time has been to dispute my arguments,
You are posting on a skeptic forum, where skeptics apply skepticism to bad claims. What did you think was going to happen when you spammed your incoherent religious nonsense here?


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
...debating with you, and others, along with answering questions, helped significantly in solidifying "Infinitism."
Exactly the opposite happened. After ten years you still can't write down your BS claims as a coherent hypothesis. You still don't even know what a hypothesis is.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
As I have already mentioned, in the "real world" the concept of time has been adopted along with other means to keep society organized and working like a clock.
All living things have internal methods of measuring time. Let's add biology to things your don't understand.

What is hilarious, is that after ten years of spamming your incoherent "Infinities of infinities religious manifesto" on science and skeptic forums you still haven't learned a thing. If anything you have become more incoherent.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 05:49 PM   #179
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Why then does probability play any role in you figuring out if "we don't know" is the correct answer? If you're applying probability, it means you don't actually know. Probability only comes into play when there is doubt.
When I weigh in my mind,

Cause of the Universe out of "nothing" vs Cause of the Universe out of the Infinite,

I find no room for doubt in choosing the only sensible choice, in my opinion, between the two.

Einstein perhaps, simply and rightfully, did not want to designate a line between the Universe and the Infinite that lies beyond the Universe, and within it.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 6th October 2019 at 07:14 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 06:05 PM   #180
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
1)The minimal increment assumption by Planck, which brought about his constant; and any constant for that matter (Avocado's constant, the term "mole." As if Ions, Atoms and Molecules were beans in a bag (so we could actually count them one by one); regardless the type, black, pinto, or cranberry; and country of origin; Hydrogen, Nitrogen or Oxygen: they all where ABOUT 6.022140857 × 10^23).

2) The term "potential energy" as if physicists could calculate how many bean soups I ate to climb on a ledge, with a rock of my back which I would later drop on a lever.

The above assumptions work because humanity duels on a planet and not in the microcosm.
Is an avocado a bean?

Avocados Constant
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 06:32 PM   #181
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Einstein perhaps, simply and rightfully, did not want to designate a line between the Universe and the Infinite that lies beyond the Universe, and within it.
1) There is no "infinite" outside the universe.

2) Albert Einstein never thought there was an infinite outside of the universe. (You simply made that up)

3) Your hilarious "infinity of infinities religion" is an incoherent collection of unrelated sentences, that you have been spamming on science and skeptic forums. Sometimes you claim you use calculus and other times you admit you don't even know what calculus is.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 06:49 PM   #182
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Your Infinite nonsense is just a restated God of the Gaps argument, where you've renamed the GotG as "Infinite".
You got it. Here is Tazanastazio's final "calculation" to his religion, that he posted on the Skeptic Society Forum in 2013.

Originally Posted by Tazanastazio
GOD IS THE INFINITE AND THE INFINITE IS GOD (Anastasios Anastasopoulos)
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...=22197#p379351

Tazanastazio will spend a couple of months posting complete nonsense and then delete all his posts and start again. You can still see his earlier posts when he has been quoted in a reply. His earlier posts were more clearly Christian but went fully off the rails about ten years ago. He introduced nonsense science in his "radioactive Angels" phase.

Originally Posted by Tazanastazio
1/3 of the Angels who rebelled against God and were cast out from heaven shows), they could of course evolve an altered image by means of misusing technology (radioactivity),
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...=22197#p379351
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 07:43 PM   #183
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You got it. Here is Tazanastazio's final "calculation" to his religion, that he posted on the Skeptic Society Forum in 2013.


https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...=22197#p379351

Tazanastazio will spend a couple of months posting complete nonsense and then delete all his posts and start again. You can still see his earlier posts when he has been quoted in a reply. His earlier posts were more clearly Christian but went fully off the rails about ten years ago. He introduced nonsense science in his "radioactive Angels" phase.


https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...=22197#p379351
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
1) There is no "infinite" outside the universe.

2) Albert Einstein never thought there was an infinite outside of the universe. (You simply made that up)

3) Your hilarious "infinity of infinities religion" is an incoherent collection of unrelated sentences, that you have been spamming on science and skeptic forums. Sometimes you claim you use calculus and other times you admit you don't even know what calculus is.
Matthew, you have started to sound like a desperate suitor, and repeat the same mistakes, over and over. Do you really have to win every argument and every debate? Save your breath, you are too far behind. Not because I am a better debater than you, it's not about that. You simply trying, desperately and futily, to dispute the self evident - the Infinite; which Einstein himself did not, simply because he recognized that the Universe MAY itself be infinite!

You keep on going on over and over on what I wrote 10 years ago, as a random supposition / hypothesis in response to an argument of yours; or what my philosophical views were 10 years ago. That was then, this is now. You expected a wooly sheep and you came face to face with a curly wolf and you cannot stomach it, and that's all there is to it.

Einstein referred to the Universe being infinite and then expressed his doubts about that. Should I have put the word "perhaps" in bold for you not to pretend that you missed it? Haven't I told you already that the word "hypothesis", which you claimed I didn't know what it meant, is actually from the greek word "Υπόθεση" which is the combined form of the greek words "Υπο-θεση" = "Sup-position" ,which two words correspond actually word for word with their English counterparts? Why then you keep on bringing it up, again and again?

I did not say "I used calculus" I said "calculus proves the Infinite." I said I "did the math." Nobody said that the math had to be complicated. I pointed out to you that you bragging about your extensive erudition in "Maths" still somehow don't understand, or refuse to admit, that calculus was invented to calculate the unapproachable, the infinite as far as we humans could ever calculate; case in the point INSTANTENEOUS VELOCITY.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 6th October 2019 at 08:39 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 10:46 PM   #184
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Matthew, you have started to sound like a desperate suitor,
No. You are posting on a skeptic forum where idiotic ideas are pulled apart by skeptics. You seem to be struggling with that concept as you keep coming back to be made fun of.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Not because I am a better debater than you,
No. You struggle to spell words, write complete sentences and you contradict your own claims.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You keep on going on over and over on what I wrote 10 years ago, as a random supposition
Why not. You claimed angels disguise themselves using radioactivity. Can't we laugh at all your claims?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Einstein referred to the Universe being infinite and then expressed his doubts about that.
Stop lying. Einstein's cosmological constant only defined a finite closed universe.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I did not say "I used calculus"
Liar. This is what you wrote....
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
"CALCULUS PROVES INFINITY, I SIMPLY APPLIED IT TO EXISTENCE, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND MATTER NON OF WHICH COULD SPRING OUT OF AN ABSOLUTE NOTHING AND NOWHERE, AND FORM/EVOLVE FROM ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN FROM WITHIN THE INFINITE."
Why do you lie so much?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
....we humans could ever calculate; case in the point INSTANTENEOUS VELOCITY.
Learn to spell basic words. The word is "instantaneous."

Go post your "god crap" on a Christian forum.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 02:06 AM   #185
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,026
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Matthew, you have started to sound like a desperate suitor, and repeat the same mistakes, over and over. Do you really have to win every argument and every debate? Save your breath, you are too far behind. Not because I am a better debater than you, it's not about that. You simply trying, desperately and futily, to dispute the self evident - the Infinite; which Einstein himself did not, simply because he recognized that the Universe MAY itself be infinite!

You keep on going on over and over on what I wrote 10 years ago, as a random supposition / hypothesis in response to an argument of yours; or what my philosophical views were 10 years ago. That was then, this is now. You expected a wooly sheep and you came face to face with a curly wolf and you cannot stomach it, and that's all there is to it.


No, mate. You are not any kind of wolf. Nor are you a better debater.

Pigeon chess, is what this is.

If you want a break from your sparring with Matthew Ellard, you could always try answering my points instead.
Or those made by other posters here.
This egotistical monomania is doing you no favours at all.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 03:34 AM   #186
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,985
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
When I weigh in my mind,

Cause of the Universe out of "nothing" vs Cause of the Universe out of the Infinite,

I find no room for doubt in choosing the only sensible choice, in my opinion, between the two.

Einstein perhaps, simply and rightfully, did not want to designate a line between the Universe and the Infinite that lies beyond the Universe, and within it.
The fact that you are weighing anything in your mind is proof that you don't know what, if anything caused the universe to begin, if it did. If you knew isuch "weighing" would not be required.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 08:00 AM   #187
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post


No, mate. You are not any kind of wolf. Nor are you a better debater.

Pigeon chess, is what this is.

If you want a break from your sparring with Matthew Ellard, you could always try answering my points instead.
Or those made by other posters here.
This egotistical monomania is doing you no favours at all.
I may have been raised as a Shepherd dog, but don't let that detail fool you, 'sides I wear a wolf collar around my neck, and wolves yourselfs you ain't. More like a bunch of coyotes, and for some of you that's a high praise.

This is no pigeon chess, it amounts to nothing more than a Mexican stand off, one against a dozen, but I got the brunt of it, I'm still standing and you are out of arguments. Whereas I still have plenty.

Now, if you are so kind, tell me which point of yours I dodged?

Last edited by tazanastazio; 7th October 2019 at 08:13 AM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 10:12 AM   #188
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
No. You are posting on a skeptic forum where idiotic ideas are pulled apart by skeptics. You seem to be struggling with that concept as you keep coming back to be made fun of.

No. You struggle to spell words, write complete sentences and you contradict your own claims.


Why not. You claimed angels disguise themselves using radioactivity. Can't we laugh at all your claims?

Stop lying. Einstein's cosmological constant only defined a finite closed universe.


Liar. This is what you wrote.... Why do you lie so much?

Learn to spell basic words. The word is "instantaneous."

Go post your "god crap" on a Christian forum.

Matthew you calling me a liar is like a mule calling a rooster "Bighead." As far as what Einstein said, it is evident from his quotes. Like I said, folks don't know their science.

You criticize my spelling skills of such a "basic" word such as "instantaneous" whereas you try to pass as you do not understand the full definition of the word "apply" and you make yourself look like you are cognitively lacking. Not to mention I can write whatever I have written so far in these forums in two languages, being that I have graduated from a greek highschool in Greece (you? What have you written in any language other than mediocre to abnoxiously arrogant, banal and cliche criticism of the work of others?) Intelligence is compartamentalized, but usually in different sectors. As in you can be a genius in physics but trip when you try to dribble a soccer ball. But to have on and off intelligence within tbe same sector, as in your case, now that is a rarity; unless there is a medical/cognitive condition involved and/or if impaired by drugs or alcohol.

Infinitism in principle attempts to delve in any philosophical concept and answer every aspect of the human experience, without living any stone unturned, honestly and without fear of criticism, or harm of reputation whatsoever. To that end, when people claim that they had alien visitations or when it is written in the Bible that people had vision of Angels, I attempted to rationalize it, in the process of responding to an argument of yours. Thinking back then that the only possible means of traversing light years of distances would be if a vehicle would travel with the speed of light, which such trip beings could not survive, unless they managed to switch to light themselves and back on (do you detect the character of the phrase here - I mean you believe in multiple futures; and therefore, with holograms of ourselves in them)? Or unless the "beholders" were either on heavy medication or going through a period of strenuous fasting.

Quote from the original:

" Since we will never be able to travel light-speed, we will never be able to visit inhabited planets further into the galaxy and will never be visited by organic species from the depths of the galaxy, because these are impossible distances to traverse otherwise. Light-speed travelers would need to be able to perceive what is in front of them in time to avoid collisions. Given that they would be travelling in the same speed as light does, the rays of their spaceship's radars will be travelling towards their destination with the same speed. They would not be able to tell what lies ahead, in order to be able to react in time, to avoid colliding with objects appearing in front of them, even with the use of navigating systems operated by powerful computers. Even if they did manage to travel light-speed and did so only in "empty" space; as mentioned earlier, their spacecraft would be alight and destroyed to ash and dust due to friction alone, before they reached fractions of light speed. Do I need to get into the type of steering and break system they would need? And no, time would not be affected (since it does not actually exist) and the travelers would not travel in it. Neither the effect to their brains bouncing in their skulls, or to their other organs, would be any less detrimental because they travel light speed; nor would their blood and other body vessels fare any better, or their cells and the very molecules that comprise them. Because part of the problem is not just accelerating to light speed, making it through the friction and navigating among giant objects in space; it is also slowing down in time to avoid collision, and the whiplash and the other aforementioned effects to a living organism (not even any insects on board would perhaps make the trip). So no living breathing species could have ever possibly reached, or will ever possibly reach Earth; unless they were or will be able to navigate by other means than following the path of light (shortcuts of the universe), or they come from stars in close proximity, or unless they are other forms of energy + intelligence + matter combination. For one they shouldn't have to breath, drink, eat and move their bowels; no time to sleep from all that bouncing, the noise, and the heat from all that friction ( For comparison: Boeing 737 take off speed: 70 m/sec * Maximum allowed Boeing 737 cruise speed at 27,000: 252 m/sec * Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird max speed: 980 m/sec * automobile at 70 mph: 31 m/sec * Light Speed: 299,792,458 m/sec)."

Last edited by tazanastazio; 7th October 2019 at 11:02 AM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 12:25 PM   #189
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,955
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
When I weigh in my mind,

Cause of the Universe out of "nothing" vs Cause of the Universe out of the Infinite,

I find no room for doubt in choosing the only sensible choice, in my opinion, between the two.

Einstein perhaps, simply and rightfully, did not want to designate a line between the Universe and the Infinite that lies beyond the Universe, and within it.[/color]
Your logical fallacy is:

Argument from incredulity! Thanks for playing, don't forget to tip your server.

Misrepresenting Einstein isn't helping your credibility, either.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 12:37 PM   #190
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,221
A question to the crew, not to the Op.

If Einstein and the others quoted here meant what taz says, would they be as respected as they are?

Last edited by 8enotto; 7th October 2019 at 01:01 PM.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 12:49 PM   #191
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,026
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post

(Hubristic posturing snipped)

I'm still standing and you are out of arguments. Whereas I still have plenty.

Now, if you are so kind, tell me which point of yours I dodged?

Basically, all of them.
Here you go:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, it doesn't. 'I don't know' is the start of the journey, not the end. Admitting you don't know something, as well as a useful exercise in humility, helps to define the area in need of further research or exploration.



No, it wouldn't. It would lead us to consider other options, alternative explanations, different perspectives, plus again leading to the idea that one doesn't know everything.



Now you simply invent some numbers to make your already-settled conclusion look more like science. If you disagree, do please share how you arrived at these percentages.



And again you repeat your earlier error. You claim the universe must have a cause whilst maintaining that 'the Infinite' does not need one, without any justification at all.
Your appeal to 'reason' and 'a good bet' is just you stroking your own ego and trying to get us to go along with it.
Not going to happen, I'm afraid, at least not without more support that 'tazanastazio says so'.



I'm finding it hard to conceive of a scenario in which I might find myself having to make this choice in those circumstances, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume this has actually happened.
I would choose 'C', 'I don't know'.
The safe bet, for me, would be not to assume that I knew everything about everything, and stake my life on my egotism. I would rather admit my shortcomings, and accept the possibility that I might be wrong about something.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, we don't. All you have done is to say that something must have caused the universe. You then posit this cause to be something you term 'The Infinite', which apparently doesn't need a cause.
If 'The Infinite' doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe need one?

On what basis do you assert that 'The Infinite' is caused by nothing?
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Citation needed, because I don't think it does.



Becasue you say so.



Because you say so.



Because you say so.

(Snipped yet more bare assertions)



No. The above is you inventing something you call 'The Infinite', and then using all sorts of special pleading to make it do the things you want it to do, apparently in an attempt to appear superior to everyone else.
Trust me, it isn't working.
Try some kind of evidence. You could even try logic, which is often used as a last resort by the religious when it becomes apparent they haven't actually got any evidence for their claimed gods (and your 'Infinite' sounds suspiciously like a god).


Bare assertions, special pleading and some semantic tomfoolery.
Nothing more.
Do please give some thought as to how you would demonstrate the existence of this special thingy you have made up. I look forward to your presentation.
Kind of.
Off you go.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 12:49 PM   #192
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,098
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I may have been raised as a Shepherd dog, but don't let that detail fool you, 'sides I wear a wolf collar around my neck, and wolves yourselfs you ain't. More like a bunch of coyotes, and for some of you that's a high praise.
I think you might have missed your medication.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 02:03 PM   #193
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I think you might have missed your medication.
Last time I had any medication was a cough syrup a few years back, perhaps half aspirine as a child, here and there. I may have taken Tylenol once or twice 20 something years ago. I don't smoke and I never used any drugs whatsoever EVER, neither have I ever used prescribed mind/ mood affecting medication! Some beer and red wine on occasion.I've drunk a bit of hard liquor a time or two. YOU?

I forgot, I had an accident at work once, had to go through foot surgery and all. My foot had slit open like a banana underneath. I ended up with a scar, could have been much worse.They gave me some percocet to take home. After a few pills I chose to bite the bullet without it. I made due with some Ibuprofen, after all my left foot felt as if my blood wanted to burst through the ends of my blood vessels. I'm not bragging; you made a foolish, ignorant claim, and I'm responding.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 7th October 2019 at 03:55 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 02:14 PM   #194
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
7
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Your logical fallacy is:

Argument from incredulity! Thanks for playing, don't forget to tip your server.

Misrepresenting Einstein isn't helping your credibility, either.
Argument from logic/reason not incredulity.

I did not misrepresent Einstein I quoted him word for word, and madea hypothesis (I said "perhaps") on his insight (did you see any quotes on the clause that included the word "perhaps?").

Last edited by tazanastazio; 7th October 2019 at 02:33 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 02:17 PM   #195
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
The fact that you are weighing anything in your mind is proof that you don't know what, if anything caused the universe to begin, if it did. If you knew isuch "weighing" would not be required.
To weigh all information presented regardless the source, is the surest way to make the best out of every situation.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 02:25 PM   #196
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Try some kind of evidence. You could even try logic, which is often used as a last resort by the religious when it becomes apparent they haven't actually got any evidence for their claimed gods (and your 'Infinite' sounds suspiciously like a god).
This the only argument that you've made for which I don't already refer explicitly in my original post. Duly noted, I will. Why do you bad mouth logic and reason? Isn't scientific exprimentation based on empirical evidence? Doesn't it take logic/reason to judge the quality of the evidence?

Next.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 04:43 PM   #197
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,985
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
To weigh all information presented regardless the source, is the surest way to make the best out of every situation.
Until you inject probabilities.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:33 PM   #198
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,131
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
To weigh all information presented regardless the source, is the surest way to make the best out of every situation.
You'd think so, but it's almost never true. Some sources are inherently unreliable, and others are actively misleading.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 08:57 PM   #199
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Matthew you calling me a liar is like a mule calling a rooster "Bighead."
Nope you are a 100% constant liar. You originally pretended you applied calculus to prove your "infinities of infinities religious" crap and then when challenged to show the mathematics, you then said you never made that claim.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio two years ago
"CALCULUS PROVES INFINITY, I SIMPLY APPLIED IT TO EXISTENCE, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND MATTER NON OF WHICH COULD SPRING OUT OF AN ABSOLUTE NOTHING AND NOWHERE, AND FORM/EVOLVE FROM ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN FROM WITHIN THE INFINITE."
Originally Posted by tazanastazio yesterday
I did not say "I used calculus"


//////////////////////

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You criticize my spelling skills of such a "basic" word such as "instantaneous"
Yes and all the other basic words you can't spell. Do I need to draw you a picture to understand this?

//////////


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Quote from the original (Infinities of infinities religious manifesto):
Here is your first version of your manifesto. Let us all have another jolly good laugh at you:
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
GOD IS THE INFINITE AND THE INFINITE IS GOD

God is the Infinite; the Infinite Intelligence, Matter and Energy (this idea is perhaps what the meanings of “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” may also symbolize). Any form of matter, is simply particles in a different formation and every situation is regarded as "negative or "positive" depending on its effect on the well being of the existence experiencing it.........as for example species with animal like and even monstrous features as portrayed in sci-fi works of fiction, would bear the question of whether those beings are part of a group of beings of an already higher level of existence, that chose directly or indirectly to separate itself from the Infinite God (by means of choosing to follow God’s directions and serve the purpose of their existence within the Infinite, or not, as the example in Genesis of the 1/3 of the Angels who rebelled against God and were cast out from heaven shows), they could of course evolve an altered image by means of misusing technology (radioactivity), if God had allow for their species to exist for that long of a time interval after He had sent them His messenger (every human level of existence would have received the messenger of God at a similar time interval within their evolution)
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...=22197#p379351

Your original manifesto was completely insane and you hinted you were Jesus
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 08:59 PM   #200
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Isn't scientific exprimentation based on empirical evidence?
The correct spelling is "experimentation."
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.