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 2nd October 2019, 06:41 PM   #121
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Care to show your work on that one? Secondly you still haven't answered my question, why is your philosophy in any way better that "we don't know"? What does your philosophical answer lead us to that is better than "we don't know"? "We don't know" is a far more satisfying answer and certainly more exciting than a philosophical answer that leaves us looking nowhere.
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;

If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?

Last edited by tazanastazio; 2nd October 2019 at 06:43 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 2nd October 2019, 07:04 PM   #122
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,790
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;

If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?
Is there something wrong with the answer "I don't know yet, but we're working on it."?
__________________
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 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 2nd October 2019, 08:14 PM   #123
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Is there something wrong with the answer "I don't know yet, but we're working on it."?
I didn't want to over-complicate matters, but choice D) implies what you said. Furthermore, "... but we are working on it..." was not included in Craig4's initial assertion.

Additionally "...but we are working on it..." implies the acknowledgment of something to look forward to work towards achieving. Which again nullifies in itself choice C) and leads to the only other remaining three choices. Let's take choice D) which is the only remaining to be examined. This allows only for one or two possibilities (hint depending how you see it). Can you guess it/them? Second hint: Unless you consider Hawking a philosopher, SCIENCE has nullified choice D).

From the two remaining, being like I already said that everything as far as we can think of had a cause, even if the in between venue was an arbitrary occurrence, the cause of the cause ...of the cause of the Universe, could not have simply popped out of an absolute nothingness. If my life depended on it, I'd bet on choice A).

You, being a rational human being, working your way backwards, x-ing the least possible correct answer first, how would You work towards increasing Your chances?

Last edited by tazanastazio; 2nd October 2019 at 09:02 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 2nd October 2019, 08:15 PM   #124
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Reply was duplicated during editing.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 2nd October 2019 at 08:34 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 2nd October 2019, 10:06 PM   #125
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,790
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You, being a rational human being, working your way backwards, x-ing the least possible correct answer first, how would You work towards increasing Your chances?
I, as a rational human being, would listen to what the scientists say, because as a rational human being I realise that they are likely to know a damn sight more about the subject than I do, since I have never studied tertiary-level mathematics, physics and astrophysics, and I haven't spent the entirity of my career researching the field, and they have.
__________________
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 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 2nd October 2019, 11:44 PM   #126
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Additionally "...but we are working on it..." implies the acknowledgement of something to look forward to work towards achieving.
That's right. That's because there is a scientific framework that is built upon, step by step.

You, however, have no understanding of science. You claimed "time doesn't exist" which was shot down with two easy forms of evidence. (Falsification of your "hypothesis") You have no framework for your word salad nonsense that you keep spamming here.

You really don't understand basic logic at all do you?
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 2nd October 2019, 11:47 PM   #127
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Is there something wrong with the answer "I don't know yet, but we're working on it."?
Of course there isn't. A good scientist would always be happy when a bad hypothesis is falsified because that narrows the scope of the next hypothesis.

Things take time.
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 2nd October 2019, 11:52 PM   #128
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
.....and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else.
How many times have you been shown evidence that this is incorrect?

Can you predict radioactive decay in one atom......nope.


"It is impossible to predict when an individual radioactive atom will decay. The half-life of a certain type of atom does not describe the exact amount of time that every single atom experiences before decaying. Rather, the half-life describes the average amount of time it takes for a large group of amounts to reach the point where half of the atoms have decayed."
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/04...al-be-changed/
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 3rd October 2019, 04:31 PM   #129
Deadie
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
\
From the two remaining, being like I already said that everything as far as we can think of had a cause, even if the in between venue was an arbitrary occurrence, the cause of the cause ...of the cause of the Universe, could not have simply popped out of an absolute nothingness. If my life depended on it, I'd bet on choice A).\
If my life depended on it, I'd do the math and present it to others for their verification and hope for confirmation and validation of my claim.

If my life didn't depend on it, which yours does not, I'd probably just get stoned and wax philosophically on nonsense.
Deadie 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 3rd October 2019, 06:22 PM   #130
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Deadie View Post
If my life depended on it, I'd do the math and present it to others for their verification and hope for confirmation and validation of my claim.

If my life didn't depend on it, which yours does not, I'd probably just get stoned and wax philosophically on nonsense.

I did the math. You either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

As far as getting stoned, along with anything else, suit yourself.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 3rd October 2019 at 06:27 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 3rd October 2019, 06:52 PM   #131
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I did the math.
No. You have done no mathematics for review.

Show us where you have done this.
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 3rd October 2019, 06:58 PM   #132
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
......As time goes by, I'll be researching the subject .......
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...99&postcount=1

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
...time does not exist
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110

You really can't remember anything you posted a day ago, can you?
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 3rd October 2019, 07:00 PM   #133
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,577
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
That is just a unique way of saying that he? will do no research.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 3rd October 2019, 10:40 PM   #134
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I did the math. You either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
You can't do any basic mathematics, remember? When you first started spamming your religious nonsense on the Skeptic Society forum, you made this hilarious claim.

"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."
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...greece#p594527

When we asked you to show us your calculations using calculus, you admitted that you didn't actually know what calculus was.

So show us where you have provided mathematical support for your religious claim?
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, 01:51 AM   #135
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,999
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
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.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices;
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.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
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.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;
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'.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?
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.
__________________
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 4th October 2019, 03:22 AM   #136
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,853
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;

If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?
Something would leak YOU to pick an answer other than D but it's not probability.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
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 4th October 2019, 10:12 AM   #137
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Perhaps you could detail some of the shortcomings of the scientific method. I have no idea what you mean about conventions as a shortcoming, you will have to explain/elaborate on this.

Science hasn't failed in any pursuit of knowledge and understanding. That would only be true if every person threw their hands up and said "I give in" when trying to explain a phenomena.* Actually even this would not indicate a failure of the scientific method, just a failure of people to apply it.


* Only the religious do this.
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.
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 4th October 2019, 10:18 AM   #138
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Something would leak YOU to pick an answer other than D but it's not probability.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
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.
D) allows only for one/two possibilities:

1) The Universe was always there.
2) The Universe is infinite.

See Hawking's theory about that.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 10:21 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 4th October 2019, 10:27 AM   #139
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You can't do any basic mathematics, remember? When you first started spamming your religious nonsense on the Skeptic Society forum, you made this hilarious claim.

"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."
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtop...greece#p594527


When we asked you to show us your calculations using calculus, you admitted that you didn't actually know what calculus was.

So show us where you have provided mathematical support for your religious claim?
.

True I have not had the chance to delve in the depths of calculus, yet.
But you bragging about having extensive knowledge of "Maths" how do you neglect, or rather pretend not to notice that,

The main reason Calculus was invented, was to approach mathematically the Unapproachable (the infinite as far as we humans could ever calculate), such as, Instantaneous Velocity.
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 4th October 2019, 10:59 AM   #140
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Matthew,

Obviously you can tell the difference between the above two statements; whose intelligence you really insult here, really?
For the sake of any of those who found themselves in a skeptics site, and might just somehow still get duped by your linguistic maneuverings and swerves:

Yes I do have a watch, no I don't think it can work backwards.

(with other words, watches are made to calculate the segmented period from sun-up to sun-up; the concept "time" is invented to measure the rate of movement, change, and physical deterioration. Watches with other words measure the effect of gravity, or environment on intelligent beings that could read them (that's why dogs don't carry watches). But even watches are affected by gravity.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 12:27 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 4th October 2019, 11:02 AM   #141
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
No. You have done no mathematics for review.

Show us where you have done this.
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. How about "π?" Let us use the scientific method. What is around us? The environment, molecules, protons neutrons etc. And beyond, as far as we can see, the horizon. And beyond, the stars! Now what's within the nucleus; within the protons and even the electrons? Other particles. And within them? Other particles comprising even what we imagine as the smallest of particles. How about beyond the universe? Following still the "scientific method", we have already recognized "patterns." Now we HAVE to extend them beyond the macrocosm and within the microcosm to Infinity! Why? Because according to math there is an Infinity between 1 and 2 (replicated pattern extending to Infinity). There is negative (-) infinity (infinite microcosm), and positive (+) Infinity (infinite macrocosm). Also considering the law of thermodynamics, we deduce that energy, because it cannot be created or destroyed, can neither be anything but INFINITE from EVERY perspective; microcosm, macrocosm, existence, magnitude etc., and yes so must be Matter and Intelligence. Reasonable step by step deduction we arrived to, due to recognizable patterns from our immediate environment, which following the example of units in math, we replicated infinitely!
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 4th October 2019, 11:38 AM   #142
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Matthew,

Suppose you and I are sitting at Starbucks one rainy day, sipping some green tea, doing our favorite thing in life, debating each other on Cosmology...

After listening patiently to your oration on famous statements about well known scientists I say,

"Mat, I just had a Deja Vu, and I don't mean figuratively, as in 'we are running into circles here.' I mean I literally just saw this scene repeating itself!...

Now Mat, matey, I don't have any high hopes on a checkmate on this; because you are too stubborn to be convinced, even if Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and Aristotle himself, woke up from their graves, and we both saw them walking in through the Starbucks door, just for the sheer purpose.

I have already asked you that if time was a physical dimension, that you could travel forwards and backwards; if the present was not the only thing that existed even if only for an infinitesimally fraction of an attosecond; if the past was not just the memory, and the future the anticipation in our brains; then what shape would you give it? Had it been the shape of an infinitely branching bush (future), with a barely visible trunk (present), and infinitely branching roots (past); what then fractions of an attosecond would determine which holographs within the future branches we would fill, based on the fact that they will also be affected by all the other existences and arbitrary happenings through out the Universe, throughout the Infinite? In order for all the possibilities to be covered, we would be talking about infinite Universes, a replicated Infinite. Would the latter make sense to you mathematically?

But you like to refer to famous statements by famous Scientists/Physicists. Well then mate, let me try that venue, once again; prior to getting completely tired about stating the obvious and trying to prove the self- evident.

Assuming that light does travel (deriving everlasting energy who knows from where); assuming that light is not instead passed along by particles; or the transfer of energy from the light source causing instead one particle after the other tog each generate a photon - causing a particle within the bigger particle to move and therefore generate a further photon); then,

1) During Planck's minimum movement of the photon theory, there is no time during that movement (or infinitely small for as to be able or to care to measure).

2) According to Hawking, there is no time in the depths of a black hole.

3) According to Einstein, time is a relative matter (precisely because it is a matter of personal experience and gravitational influence in space and change/deteriorating rate - after all we all spin on Earth at the vertiginous speed (if the "merry go around was smaller") of 1500 km/h.

4) Hawking also stated that subatomic particles appear out of nowhere. So time does not exist till they appear, form a singularity and a Universe. But what is this "nowhere" Hawking referred to? The Infinite.

About the Deja Vu, if the arrow of time points towards one linear direction(tsk. if anything while things due deteriorate along the revolution and movement of anything within the Universe, the Universe in itself is more ordered than before, society better organized and people less ignorant), then how come both of us supposedly sitting face to face at Starbucks had a different experience of that same moment? You experienced the moment during my Deja vu linearly only once; and I experienced it twice, as if on my path their was a bump or a pothole? How come time goes fast when you are hoping from forum to forum commenting and criticizing other people's writings (have you written something of your own, I asked you this in the past, still waiting for an answer on that one too), whereas my time is stalled when I am bored out of my brains trying to explain the self-evident?

5) People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, Einstein.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 01:26 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 4th October 2019, 11:49 AM   #143
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,866
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.
Nope. Your possibilities are hopelessly restricted, which is surprising given your desire to consider infinites.

A) Something caused the cause of the universe
B) Nothing caused the cause of the universe
C) The universe doesn't have a cause
D) The universe has a cause, but that cause doesn't have a cause
E) I don't know, but people far more intelligent than me are devoting their lives to finding out
F) I don't know, and nobody is doing anything to find out more
G) None of the above

If my life depended on it, I'd pick E with a side of C.
__________________
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 4th October 2019, 12:14 PM   #144
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Why do we, as humanity , need to know of or understand this Infinite?

What benefits do we now derive of this great knowledge you impart upon us that was not possible before?
I really am curious as to what it is we need of it.
The purpose of Infinitism is to attempt to answer, unanswered so far questions; and if not to bridge, at least fill/pad the gaps between opposing views; till something else is discovered and bridges do get built, or even streets and even cities upon the fills/padding.
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 4th October 2019, 12:23 PM   #145
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Nope. Your possibilities are hopelessly restricted, which is surprising given your desire to consider infinites.

A) Something caused the cause of the universe
B) Nothing caused the cause of the universe
C) The universe doesn't have a cause
D) The universe has a cause, but that cause doesn't have a cause
E) I don't know, but people far more intelligent than me are devoting their lives to finding out
F) I don't know, and nobody is doing anything to find out more
G) None of the above

If my life depended on it, I'd pick E with a side of C.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination"

“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks a real advance in science.”

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinion courageously and honestly.”


Einstein.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 12:39 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 4th October 2019, 12:53 PM   #146
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,866
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination"

“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks a real advance in science.”

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinion courageously and honestly.”

Einstein.
None of those quotes address anything I said, nor make any kind of commentary on what you chose to bold in my answer.
__________________
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 4th October 2019, 01:30 PM   #147
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,853
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
D) allows only for one/two possibilities:

1) The Universe was always there.
2) The Universe is infinite.

See Hawking's theory about that.
The fact that you are basing any of this on possibilities means that "we don't know" is presently the correct answer. I'm sure scientists will get back to us when it's not.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
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 4th October 2019, 01:57 PM   #148
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Nope. Your possibilities are hopelessly restricted, which is surprising given your desire to consider infinites.

A) Something caused the cause of the universe
B) Nothing caused the cause of the universe
C) The universe doesn't have a cause
D) The universe has a cause, but that cause doesn't have a cause
E) I don't know, but people far more intelligent than me are devoting their lives to finding out
F) I don't know, and nobody is doing anything to find out more
G) None of the above

If my life depended on it, I'd pick E with a side of C.

Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
None of those quotes address anything I said, nor make any kind of commentary on what you chose to bold in my answer.
You got to read between the lines;

as in...

Originally Posted by Agatha View Post

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.


If my life depended on it, I'd pick E with a side of C.
Now that you've added your input; and I, responding to your input, added mine; I'd go with G).

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 02:12 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 4th October 2019, 02:12 PM   #149
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination"

“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks a real advance in science.”

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinion courageously and honestly.”


Einstein.
In this case shameless ego inflation by an unsinkable rubber duck. There are four others with theories to upset all science currently here. Get in line.
8enotto 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, 02:20 PM   #150
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
In this case shameless ego inflation by an unsinkable rubber duck. There are four others with theories to upset all science currently here. Get in line.
What good would it do to someone who contemplates the Infinite, if she or he was to "inflate" his/her ego? If my theory is a "rubber duck" why is it then "unsinkable?"

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 02:21 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 4th October 2019, 03:32 PM   #151
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
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."
....later, when asked to show his calculations

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
True I have not had the chance to delve in the depths of calculus, yet.
Soooo.......you have proved your infinity theory is correct, using calculus, while simultaneously not knowing what calculus is?

Do you think this is because you are insane or just a non-stop liar?
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, 03:42 PM   #152
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
......As time goes by, I'll be researching the subject .......
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...99&postcount=1
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
...time does not exist
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You really can't remember anything you posted a day ago, can you?
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Matthew, Obviously you can tell the difference between the above two statements; .
Yes. I can tell you are lying and don't believe your own religious crap claim, that time doesn't exist.

You can't do any basic mathematics, while claiming you proved your claim using mathematics,
You can't remember what you posted a day ago,
You can't set out your infinity religion in any cohesive manner,
You keep spamming your crap on science forums to get attention,

Shall we cut to the chase where you claim your infinity religion is evidence of god?
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, 03:55 PM   #153
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,039
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You got to read between the lines;
The lines you simply made up?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
as in...

Now that you've added your input; and I, responding to your input, added mine; I'd go with G).
Of course. It matters not a whit how many possibilities exist, you automatically eliminate all in favour of the only one you want. This is commonly known as bias.

I could add several more likely possibilities off the top of my head. It would boot nothing. You would still reject all for you favourite without considering anything else. It matters not if any presents any other possibility, you simply reject it in favour of the only one that you have already decided is the only explanation.

How can I know this? Because you have already done it. The evidence is in this very thread and you cannot deny or edit it now, so no reboot for you.
__________________
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 4th October 2019, 04:02 PM   #154
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Now Mat, matey, I don't have any high hopes on a checkmate on this;
I know. You previously had your account deleted and all your posts removed by the moderator at the Skeptic Society forum, to hide your previous idiotic claims.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I have already asked you that if time was a physical dimension,
No. I had to explain to you that time started with the creation of dimensions in the Big Bang. You thought the big bang was an explosion in an empty space.......you still do.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Assuming that light does travel (deriving everlasting energy who knows from where);
Why would an electromagnetic wave "slow down" if nothing is retarding it? You really don't understand basic science and physics.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
According to Hawking, there is no time in the depths of a black hole.
Same as the singularity from which the big bang inflated from..... you are slowly learning from me.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
People like us, who believe in physics, .....
You don't know anything about physics. In this very post you couldn't grasp how light maintains its speed. You think it needs continual energy input.
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, 05:17 PM   #155
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
I know. You previously had your account deleted and all your posts removed by the moderator at the Skeptic Society forum, to hide your previous idiotic claims.

You keep on bringing this up in desperate attempts to score a point, I wrote a blog 10 YEARS AGO, and decided to edit it and post it in one thread; so what of it, I asked to have it removed, it was mine, I didn't plagiarize. And even if it was no "War and Peace," so what? Stop living in the past and focus on the present.


Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
No. I had to explain to you that time started with the creation of dimensions in the Big Bang. You thought the big bang was an explosion in an empty space.......you still do.
Again, this statement only proves that "time" does not exist and it definitely did not exist prior to the particles forming the singularity (forming briefly from smaller particles from within the Infinite - which Hawking describes as "nothing" - and de-form back to smaller particles into the Infinite - disappear into "nothing" according to Hawking - unless they form a singularity); time is only an illusion of the effect of gravity, which takes place AFTER the formation of the singularity. According to Hawking, there were particles, before the formation of the singularity; there was something BUT THERE WAS NO GRAVITY AND THEREFORE NO TIME-EFFECT (illusion).



Whole statement:

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
.

True I have not had the chance to delve in the depths of calculus, yet.
But you bragging about having extensive knowledge of "Maths" how do you neglect, or rather pretend not to notice that,

The main reason Calculus was invented, was to approach mathematically the Unapproachable (the infinite as far as we humans could ever calculate), such as, Instantaneous Velocity.


Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
.

True I have not had the chance to delve in the depths of calculus, yet.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post

....later, when asked to show his calculations

.......you have proved your infinity theory is correct, using calculus, while simultaneously not knowing what calculus is?

Whole statement:
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
5) People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, Einstein.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
People like us, who believe in physics, .....


If this is about you having the last word Matthew Ellard, at least don't cut what I write in half, to change the meaning of what I said and score a cheap point.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You don't know anything about physics. In this very post you couldn't grasp how light maintains its speed. You think it needs continual energy input.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Why would an electromagnetic wave "slow down" if nothing is retarding it? You really don't understand basic science and physics.
Photons constantly bump on objects. If the objects have some energy, some of the energy of the photons may be saved, if the objects have no energy the energy of the photon is completely absorbed till a new and more photons can add to the energy, for further photons to continue the "trip"; and in my opinion, particles of the surface to continue generating new photons.

Same as the singularity from which the big bang inflated from..... you are slowly learning from me.

The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. Einstein.

I knew about Hawking before you honored the skeptic forums with your presence. I have no issues with any of the various possible and different explanations of the formation of the Universe. The only issue I have is that they start from "Nothing" without explaining how could that ever be possible! Hawking says "particles pop in and out of "nothing." No they do not! Particles ALWAYS form from smaller particles! It is just that Hawking could not fathom such an admission, perhaps because he knew he would lose a lot of clout in the science circles, that is perhaps why he merely implied it. I personally cannot FATHOM that such an intelligent man, could have believed such NONSENSE! He may have been an Atheist, but he could NOT have simply ignored to weigh the possibilities of particles out of the Infinite vs particles out of "nothing" and tilt, in the depths of his mind, in favor of the particles out "nothing" choice!

Hawking simply did not make the leap and connection in his mind to allow to "let the religious people believe in a God - superior being or organization of superior beings within our galaxy, a number of galaxies, our Universe, or cluster of Universes; let the philosophers believe that God is the Infinite - without any needs, wants or demands, such as to be loved, worshiped, glorified or have faith to; and let the rest of the people believe that the Infinite is just that, the Infinite!"

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 07:16 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 4th October 2019, 07:04 PM   #156
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
I know. You previously had your account deleted and all your posts removed by the moderator at the Skeptic Society forum, to hide your previous idiotic claims.
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You keep on bringing this up in desperate attempts to score a point,
Nope. I keep reminding everyone that you did this to hide your previous spams that your "infinities of infinities nonsense" is somehow proof there is a god.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio a day ago
time doesn't exist
Originally Posted by tazanastazio today
Stop living in the past and focus on the present.
This is evidence you don't believe anything you post at all. You just post random nonsense.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I knew about Hawking before you honored the skeptic forums with your presence.
No. You said you would read "A brief history of time" three years ago and tell us the errors. You never came back. You simply copied your spam onto another forum and started posting your nonsense again.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Hawking says "particles pop in and out of "nothing." No they do not!
No. There are many experiments proving Quantum Fluctuation. You haven't read Hawking's works at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Particles ALWAYS form from smaller particles! It is just that Hawking could not fathom such an admission
No. Scientists performed experiments to prove the theory. You refuse to read about these experiments.
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, 07:15 PM   #157
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Assuming that light does travel (deriving everlasting energy who knows from where);
Light does travel.....at the speed of light......did you forget again?

Light does not need any input of energy to maintain its constant velocity.

You really don't understand basic mathematics or physics at all.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Photons constantly bump on objects. If the objects have some energy, some of the energy of the photons may be saved,
Complete gibberish.
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, 07:22 PM   #158
tazanastazio
Scholar
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 106
[quote=Matthew Ellard;12844796]Nope. I keep reminding everyone that you did this to hide your previous spams that your "infinities of infinities nonsense" is somehow proof there is a god.

This is evidence you don't believe anything you post at all. You just post random nonsense.

This sounds almost as silly as saying that Bill Gates didn't believe in Windows 1.0 or even in Windows XP.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th October 2019 at 07:33 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 4th October 2019, 07:36 PM   #159
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Nope. I keep reminding everyone that you did this ( deleted all your earlier posts) to hide your previous spams that your "infinities of infinities nonsense" is somehow proof there is a god.
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
This sounds almost as silly as saying that Bill Gates didn't believe in Windows 1.0 or even in Windows XP.
Nope. It sounds more like a typical religious spammer, deleting their earlier debunked arguments so they can spam them all over again. The forum expression for this activity is called a "fringe reset". That's exactly what you are doing and why your opening post was edited in this very thread.
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, 08:35 PM   #160
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,039
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Nope. I keep reminding everyone that you did this to hide your previous spams that your "infinities of infinities nonsense" is somehow proof there is a god.

This is evidence you don't believe anything you post at all. You just post random nonsense.
This sounds almost as silly as saying that Bill Gates didn't believe in Windows 1.0 or even in Windows XP.
Or asking where energy gets its energy? Because that is what you are asking.

Light is energy. It doesn't have to get it's energy from anywhere because it already is energy.
__________________
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
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 11:35 AM.
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.