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 11th October 2019, 07:25 PM   #241
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
But you must refrain from even implied characterizations, otherwise I would have no choice but to have you "ignored"; lest I have the whole thread removed.
You cannot have the whole thread removed. (Deleted like on the Skeptic Society Forum thread 2009 to 2015) The aim is to leave this whole thread up for search engines to locate, so anyone can find it and see the holes in your incoherent "God is infinities" religious claim.

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

1) Using the formula, you posted, for approximating velocity at one point in time, show us how you integrated the words "EXISTENCE", "INTELLIGENCE", "ENERGY", "MATTER" into the formula?

2) You claimed time does not exist, yet the formula specifically requires the input of time. (velocity) Can you explain your error in claiming time doesn't exist?

3) If you cannot do this, and yet you claimed you already have, to prove your "God is infinities" religion, do you agree that we can see your religious claim is complete incoherent nonsense?

(Just admit it. You made up an entire story of using calculus to prove your silly religion and you got caught out. )
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 11th October 2019, 07:33 PM   #242
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
There is no longer a need to fake in the science anymore. None at all.
He will always continue to pretend he previously used science and mathematics but can't actually write it down today.....because...(unknown reasons).

In short, he is also unaware mathematics destroys his very claim. Imagine a set of infinite possibilities of every imaginable sort. That set would include both "God is real" and "God is not real". Obviously he can't claim that same set proves there is a god......but that's exactly what he is doing.
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 11th October 2019, 07:42 PM   #243
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,301
I have a very base understanding of advanced sciences. I do have powers of observation and s functioning BS filter.

None of his words really said anything that he concluded them to, and getting atomic particles to infinite universes in the same sentence was a red flag that something wasn't quite up to snuff.

My dad always said " if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS ".

It works until someone detects it.
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 11th October 2019, 09:40 PM   #244
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
I have a very base understanding of advanced sciences. I do have powers of observation and s functioning BS filter.

None of his words really said anything that he concluded them to, and getting atomic particles to infinite universes in the same sentence was a red flag that something wasn't quite up to snuff.

My dad always said " if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS ".

It works until someone detects it.


You know how you can tell whether an idea or a theory is brilliant or Bullflakes 8enotto? Simple, by the time it takes to debunk it.


I put my philosophical concept to the test, on harsh environment and hostile ground; namely two skeptic forums which people of incredulous and/or inquisitive minds tend to populate; first time in 2009! People still try to "debunk" it!

Now I don't know what you think of Matthews intellectual levels, but take it from me you got to account for his bulldog like tenacity! Ten years now, he still persists in trying to "debunk" Infinitism, and it seems that he will continue to do so, for the rest for his life! Matthew has been spending every day of his life, for the past decade or so, searching the internet in order to debunk any of the various claims posted on forums, which he views as contrary to whatever makes sense to him. He says he finds it entertaining!

The average person would find nonsense entertaining only for so long. Matthew 10 years now, has been entertained by wasting his time trying futilely to "debunk" what he calls my "nonsense." The average person would have better things to do in his/her life. Had Matthew succeeded, as he claimed, to "debunk" Infinitism, all he had to do is post a link to the deed, or other information that would prove so, and call it a day! He would abandon my "nonsense" thread and continue his merry way, devoting his time to things more worthy of it.


The same goes for you 8enotto; if you find my thread "BS", why you stick around? Don't you have better things to do with your valuable time?

Last edited by tazanastazio; 11th October 2019 at 11:09 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 11th October 2019, 09:52 PM   #245
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
He will always continue to pretend he previously used science and mathematics but can't actually write it down today.....because...(unknown reasons).

In short, he is also unaware mathematics destroys his very claim. Imagine a set of infinite possibilities of every imaginable sort. That set would include both "God is real" and "God is not real". Obviously he can't claim that same set proves there is a god......but that's exactly what he is doing.
The Infinite is not included in a "set." An infinite number of sets are instead included in the Infinite. There are gods, and there are no gods; depending on what your understanding of the human idea/word/definition/term of "god" is.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 11th October 2019 at 11:11 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 11th October 2019, 09:58 PM   #246
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You cannot have the whole thread removed. (Deleted like on the Skeptic Society Forum thread 2009 to 2015) The aim is to leave this whole thread up for search engines to locate, so anyone can find it and see the holes in your incoherent "God is infinities" religious claim.

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

1) Using the formula, you posted, for approximating velocity at one point in time, show us how you integrated the words "EXISTENCE", "INTELLIGENCE", "ENERGY", "MATTER" into the formula?

2) You claimed time does not exist, yet the formula specifically requires the input of time. (velocity) Can you explain your error in claiming time doesn't exist?

3) If you cannot do this, and yet you claimed you already have, to prove your "God is infinities" religion, do you agree that we can see your religious claim is complete incoherent nonsense?

(Just admit it. You made up an entire story of using calculus to prove your silly religion and you got caught out. )
I have answered all that already repeatedly. I was never a fan of Merry-go-rounds.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 11th October 2019 at 10:59 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 11th October 2019, 10:02 PM   #247
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
There is no longer a need to fake in the science anymore. None at all.


Declare your diety all powerful and beyond anything we mortals could ever understand and there you go..everything we have no understanding of is his and we were never meant to fully understand.

It's an ancient formula. Human ignorance + fears = need of all powerful diety.
Powerful diety + incessant fearful prayers makes for a safe protected life.

Unless one overcomes fear and worry to just enjoy a mundane life.

The response to all that is included in the end of the original post, I put the first sentence in the original (here in dark red), in bold blue letters so you can scroll down and find easily :

..........

"And 'the fool said there is no God' :


Is it really foolish to say there is no God? What is God other than the Infinite? Why would it matter for the Infinite whether you believe in it or not? Does the Infinite truly exist? To say "to exist" doesn't it mean to have a beginning and an end, to be finite? Doesn't the infinite include all existence and phenomena, and isn't the Infinite the reason for all phenomena and the source of every existence? What is the Infinite? What is God? Does it have a conscious; does the Infinite have a "Me" as Victor Hugo put it when he stated in his novel, Les Miserables: " The infinite exists. It is there. If the infinite had no me, the me would be its limit; it would not be the infinite; in other words, it would not be. But it is. Then it has a Me. This Me of the infinite is God."

Well it matters for humanity. Imagine billions of people (young children excluded), believing that this is all there is to it. That because of their primordial necessity for existence, self interest, and recognizing their finality, they had to blindly and wholeheartedly obey the emerging property of self-interest, selfishness; and achieve self satisfaction AT ALL COSTS! Welcome to the APOCALYPSE! It is a finite world after all, and it has to have some rules; conscience and consequences for those who choose or contemplate not to play by them. Draw your own conclusions. The Infinite is all inclusive, and all derives from it and all is directed to it, in an eternal, endless, infinite cycle of events.

..........

When we under the control of our feelings, instead of our feelings being under our control, when we are possessed by fear and panic, when we are addicted to act in ways that could have dire and even catastrophic results; it would be, figuratively speaking, as if we were controlled and tortured by daemons. A person sees a skull of a goat, ugly thing that it is, and scary enough to engage the minds of the curious, and associates it with the devil. He then can use it as a means to inflict fear in the hearts of the unfaithful; some of which in order to appease the devil, because they are afraid of him, they form a religious sect; another religion is formed. You, seeing the image at some point in your life, and being a little over-stressed and worried not to loose your job, wake up in the middle of the night because your subconscious has associated the image of the skull of the goat, with a distorted similar shape in your dream; you just had a nightmare, say a prayer to calm down or get over it. Seriously, if indeed there are superior beings spying over the Earth, don't they have anything better to do in the whole galaxy, or clusters of them? Do they need to torture us for entertainment?"


..........

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28434

Last edited by tazanastazio; 11th October 2019 at 11:50 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 11th October 2019, 11:04 PM   #248
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
How to change your claim 110 times!

Originally Posted by 8enotto
There is no longer a need to fake-in the science anymore. None at all.
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
The response to all that is included in the end of the original post,
That means he is now going to fake parts of the bible and change his claim again.

Tell us again about how 1/3 of angels disguised themselves with radiation?
Which Bible did you read that in?


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Last edited by TazAnastazio on Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 am, edited 110 times in total.

I see you changed you original claim again fifteen minutes ago to hide errors
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 11th October 2019, 11:09 PM   #249
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
God the mass murderer

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
And "the fool said there is no God" :

Imagine billions of people (young children excluded), believing that this is all there is to it.
Your "god" drowned and murdered every innocent child on the entire planet, in "the flood" for no reason. Is that something for billions of people to look forward to?
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 11th October 2019, 11:27 PM   #250
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
[color="Navy"]
Last edited by TazAnastazio on Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 am, edited 110 times in total.

I see you changed you original claim again fifteen minutes ago to hide errors
No I didn't, I just put the first sentence in bold letters, in order for anyone interested to be able to scroll down and find it easily, as I explained in my answer to 8enotto; proof? Here is the post which was split to the "abandon All Hope" thread because of your "innocuous" remarks, to which I felt I had to respond in kind:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=339551

Some of your posts ended up there, and we both got a yellow card if you noticed. Now I don't know if they keep the same type of score here in regard to yellow cards as in soccer (football rather, that's probably one of the few things we would ever agree on in life ); but I don't want you to find out if two yellow cards mean a red, on my expense.


Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
That means he is now going to fake parts of the bible and change his claim again.

Tell us again about how 1/3 of angels disguised themselves with radiation?
Which Bible did you read that in?
Read again about my dislike for Merry-go-rounds, of which I mentioned a few posts above.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 12th October 2019 at 12:12 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 11th October 2019, 11:35 PM   #251
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Your "god" drowned and murdered every innocent child on the entire planet, in "the flood" for no reason. Is that something for billions of people to look forward to?

Quoting from the original:


"In terms of religious point of view, there is that of the Atheist, who believes that there is no such a thing as God; the Agnostic who does not hold for an opinion or against; the Theist, who believes that there is definitely a God; and the Infinitist who considers all concepts and acknowledges that, being that all concepts are included within the Infinite, they convey an understanding, whether interpreted or extrapolated, figuratively or literally. If the burden of proof falls on the Theist to prove the existence of God, doesn't the burden of disproof of the existence of God, fall on the Atheist? Doesn't the Atheist have to prove what the source of all existence and phenomena is, if it is not God?

But what characteristics does humanity attribute to a god? Certainly the concept of superior beings with finite however needs, could apply to some entity or organization of entities who visited occasionally another planet; or some superior civilization colonizing a technologically inferior one. Or organizations within civilizations which fabricate stories, and by taking advantage of the needs and feelings of the people, establish an hierarchy of power over them and control them; by propagandizing the idea that riches and possessions of goods lead to a Hell (or belong to the elect of god), whereas sharing of goods, poverty, or struggling to make ends meet, lead to Heaven; being proud of your abilities and intelligence are faults, whereas meekness and humbleness are blessings; entertainment is a sin, whereas asceticism is a virtue. Surely if the masses have no riches; if they are powerless, and they demand less; if they are too humble to seek to acquire knowledge and ability; then they are sheep and therefore easy to control.

..........

"Certainly in their strife to control by means of establishing yet another correct dogma, the creators of religions lack originality.The story of Hercules, Dionysus, Buddha, Krishna, Christ and others... (please pardon me if I don't want to enrage the fanatics), all bear similarities. And certainly I am not to blame if Eve gave the apple to Adam and he ate it. And if God was to ask anyone nowadays to burn their child for sacrifice, they should seek help immediately. The Infinite would not need to send prophets and messengers, bring a flood and pestilence to make a point, sacrifice infants, and take a people to a 40 year maze of a tour in the desert; neither would it demand for people to perform their ablutions prior to their leader receiving plates with living guidelines, or appear in the sky in something that would resemble a futuristic spacecraft, or have angels sing while they repeatedly ascend and descend a sky-reaching ladder, or pick up one of its prophets in a flying chariot for effect.

The Earth is not even a drop in an infinite ocean of an infinite number of oceans. If the whole universe was to blow up tomorrow, at the same time others would form, let alone a small planet; a bud in a prairie among an infinite multitude of prairies. We humans give so much worth to our lives, because that is all we have. If the Infinite wanted for us to learn something from life and to evolve to something else, it would be left to happen on its own; eventually evolve. It could even speak through our minds, and some of us would indeed speak to others; yet we would speak only what our finite minds understood; and yes our stories would be similar. So believe what you like the outcome and the truth remains the same. Whatever actions we humans do, they only affect ourselves, humanity and society, not the Infinite. The Infinite could care less whether you are righteous or a crook, gluttonous or you fast, virtuous or lustful, strong or weak, brave or a coward; whether you believe in It or not, whether you glorify It or not, whether you sacrifice your life for It or not. Therefore the Infinite could not be used as a means of controlling you by manipulating your feelings; Who knows you may get to be a being of higher level of purpose and service within the Infinite, because everything within our finite existence has a reason right? And maybe some superior organization of beings would grand you a temporary stay in a heaven, and save you from a temporary punishment in a hell, or from utter oblivion. What you believe is in fact a personal matter; there is a multitude of possibilities we can imagine with our finite minds, and it is up to you to decide whether or not it is worth it to spend your life following one dogma out of so many others."

..........

Last edited by tazanastazio; 11th October 2019 at 11:52 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 11th October 2019, 11:59 PM   #252
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Changing the claim 110 times fifteen minutes ago

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard
You re-edited your claim fifteen minutes ago to hide your previous errors. You have now changed it 110 times
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
No I didn't,
Nope. Read the times
"Last edited by TazAnastazio on Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:15 am, edited 110 times in total".

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard
Tell us again about how 1/3 of angels disguised themselves with radiation? Which Bible did you read that in?
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Read again about my dislike for Merry-go-rounds, of which I mentioned a few posts above.
Soooooo....you just made that bible story up. OK!
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 12th October 2019, 12:08 AM   #253
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
And "the fool said there is no God" :

Imagine billions of people (young children excluded), believing that this is all there is to it.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard
Your "god" drowned and murdered every innocent child on the entire planet, in "the flood" for no reason. Is that something "good" for billions of people to look forward to?


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Quoting from from the Original: " 'And the fool said there is no God'
Sooooo.... you don't like children and think it was OK for God to kill them all in the flood and if you don't believe in this god you are a fool?

No wonder Christianity is dying out.
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 12th October 2019, 12:19 AM   #254
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post


Sooooo.... you don't like children and think it was OK for God to kill them all in the flood and if you don't believe in this god you are a fool?

No wonder Christianity is dying out.

Read again :

"And 'the fool said there is no God' :

Is it really foolish to say there is no God? What is God other than the Infinite? Why would it matter for the Infinite whether you believe in it or not? Does the Infinite truly exist? To say "to exist" doesn't it mean to have a beginning and an end, to be finite? Doesn't the infinite include all existence and phenomena, and isn't the Infinite the reason for all phenomena and the source of every existence? What is the Infinite? What is God? Does it have a conscious; does the Infinite have a "Me" as Victor Hugo put it when he stated in his novel, Les Miserables: " The infinite exists. It is there. If the infinite had no me, the me would be its limit; it would not be the infinite; in other words, it would not be. But it is. Then it has a Me. This Me of the infinite is God."

Well it matters for humanity. Imagine billions of people (young children excluded), believing that this is all there is to it. That because of their primordial necessity for existence, self interest, and recognizing their finality, they had to blindly and wholeheartedly obey the emerging property of self-interest, selfishness; and achieve self satisfaction AT ALL COSTS! Welcome to the APOCALYPSE! It is a finite world after all, and it has to have some rules; conscience and consequences for those who choose or contemplate not to play by them. Draw your own conclusions. The Infinite is all inclusive, and all is formed/derives from it and all is deformed/directed to it, in an eternal, endless, infinite cycle of events.

..........

Perhaps in the historic past, when human law was not able to keep the peace among the deprived masses, which the economy of the times could not supply with even the necessities, religion did provide a solution; or perhaps in the future when our limited planet is not able any more to provide for the population, still some may resolve to believe in an after death salvation. Whereas some of us can swim in deeper waters, we all have our limits of understanding, and can only float for a while, and some could even drown in shallow waters. Certainly religion could play a role of simplifying matters to those who cannot conceive or comprehend deep concepts. So unless religion becomes a burden to the economy, progress and function of society, it could assist in lessening the weight of society in providing for peace and law and order within it. "


I like children; I would make every effort for the future generations to avoid the pitfalls of the past, and while living their lives to the fullest, to not go overboard and be affected by all the bad influence and maladies of the present; to be better prepared for the future, so they can pass on the same principles to the generations beyond their own.

I said "children excluded" in parenthesis, because as children they would not be preoccupied with the notions described in the lines following that statement.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 12th October 2019 at 12:32 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 12th October 2019, 12:26 AM   #255
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Read again :

Is it really foolish to say there is no God?
Nope. As there is no evidence there is a god at all. There is only a fictional character in a bronze age book who murdered all the children on Earth in a flood.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
What is God other than the Infinite?
A fictional character in a bronze age book

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Does the Infinite truly exist?
No, as the universe is finite otherwise starlight would be everywhere in every direction. That's how it was first concluded the universe is finite. Didn't you realise that?

Well this is easy and fun.
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 12th October 2019, 12:42 AM   #256
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Does the Infinite truly exist?
No, as the universe is finite otherwise starlight would be everywhere in every direction. That's how it was first concluded the universe is finite. Didn't you realise that?

Well this is easy and fun.
Is it that easy though? If the Universe was finite wouldn't the starlight bounce upon its limit and eventually keep the universe always illuminated? Wouldn't also the energy of light eventually be exhausted by being absorbed in objects, while continue to be replenished from the sources? Couldn't light keep on "travelling" (passed on or be generated from particle to particle) throughout the Universe into the Infinite; and then its energy be absorbed by other objects, pulled by the gravitational force of a black hole, or in any way be lost within the Infinite?

You mentioned in the past that the singularity caused all dimensions (I say only three, you say more); so if that is the case then beyond the Universe there is "a non-dimensional nothingness" correct? Then whatever limits this universe, the universe of your perception, which somehow is expanding into "a non-dimensional nothingness"; something like, say gravity; would keep the light within the limits of the Universe, no? You see Matthew when you think in terms of an infinite Universe, you imagine it full of stars, galaxies etc. It doesn't have to be like that. It could be (as I imagine) a three dimensional Infinite, with an infinite number of Universes, perhaps of a variety of shapes; some far from each other, others closer; and "void" in between (comprised by infinitely as far as we can measure particles; which comprise the fabric of the Infinite with everything within it).

Last edited by tazanastazio; 12th October 2019 at 01:44 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 12th October 2019, 01:02 AM   #257
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,339
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
No, as the universe is finite otherwise starlight would be everywhere in every direction. That's how it was first concluded the universe is finite.
Except of course the later discovery that the universe is expanding put paid to that argument. The observable universe is finite, whether it continues beyond the part we can observe is undetermined.

I'm sure you know this, and are demonstrating the OP's ignorance; if the OP had any actual understanding of cosmology he would have responded as I have rather than spew out yet more nonsense.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 12th October 2019, 01:29 AM   #258
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Except of course the later discovery that the universe is expanding put paid to that argument. The observable universe is finite, whether it continues beyond the part we can observe is undetermined.

I'm sure you know this, and are demonstrating the OP's ignorance; if the OP had any actual understanding of cosmology he would have responded as I have rather than spew out yet more nonsense.
[b]You rushed to conclusions, I was about to get ready to catch some z's, I have an early start tomorrow; then I said why leave something for tomorrow that I should probably do today, sure enough you posted your statement.

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP> Text moved to FMF.
Please discuss Forum Management issues in the correct sub-forum.

Last edited by zooterkin; 16th October 2019 at 03:20 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 12th October 2019, 02:03 AM   #259
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Except of course the later discovery that the universe is expanding put paid to that argument.
An infinite universe cannot be expanding from one big bang event. The universe is finite.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The observable universe is finite, whether it continues beyond the part we can observe is undetermined.
Homogeneous cosmic background radiation defines its size.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I'm sure you know this,
That's right.
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 12th October 2019, 02:07 AM   #260
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You rushed to conclusions
No. I ask questions that you refuse to answer. You are simply spamming the same "God is infinity" rubbish you spammed in 2009 and editing it to hide the errors as they get identified.
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 12th October 2019, 02:18 AM   #261
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Is it that easy though?
Yes it is that easy

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
If the Universe was finite wouldn't the starlight bounce upon its limit
The universe does not have a limit nor an edge. It is curved. In addition, you claimed light needs an energy input to maintain velocity. It doesn't. It goes forever.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You mentioned in the past that the singularity caused all dimensions
No. I said the big bang created dimensions and time. You denied time existed to allow the universe to expand. Remember that?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
which somehow is expanding into "a non-dimensional nothingness"
The universe is not expanding into anything. It is creating its own dimensions. That is why there is no centre of the universe.

Shape of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
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 12th October 2019, 02:33 AM   #262
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,339
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
An infinite universe cannot be expanding from one big bang event. The universe is finite.
The point I was making was that the argument you quoted against the universe being infinite was negated by the discovery that the universe is expanding. That discovery does, as you say, bring other arguments against the universe being infinite into play.

Quote:
Homogeneous cosmic background radiation defines its size.
The size of the observable universe, yes. We don't if there is anything beyond the observable universe. An infinite multiverse consisting of multiple finite universes like ours remains a possibility. I'm referring to level 1 of Tegmark's four levels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 12th October 2019, 06:02 AM   #263
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,125
Why do you think that there is only one multiverse?!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 12th October 2019, 06:29 AM   #264
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,339
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Why do you think that there is only one multiverse?!
Because any number of multiverses = a single, bigger, multiverse.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 12th October 2019, 09:35 AM   #265
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,317
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You rushed to conclusions, I was about to get ready to catch some z's, I have an early start tomorrow; then I said why leave something for tomorrow that I should probably do today, sure enough you posted your statement.

Perhaps you haven't been following, but the administrators delete the whole page for whatever they consider as characterization remarks; to avoid having my whole page deleted I ask you to please refrain from those.
A) It is not deleted.

B) "Addressing the argument not the arguer" is exactly what is happening here. That you don't like that is your problem. Nobody else's.
__________________
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 12th October 2019, 09:46 AM   #266
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,317
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The size of the observable universe, yes. We don't if there is anything beyond the observable universe.
Fascinating question, isn't it? Assuming the 13.8 billion years of our local universe, we can only see/detect out to a range of 13.8 billion light years. Taking expansion into account, that extends to approx. 47 billion light years. What exists just a little further than that? More? Nothing? The Restaurant at the end of the Universe?
__________________
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 12th October 2019, 05:49 PM   #267
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The size of the observable universe, yes. We don't if there is anything beyond the observable universe. An infinite multiverse consisting of multiple finite universes like ours remains a possibility.
We don't really have to worry if there is a multiverse or even space pixies existing outside the observable universe, unless that is a requirement of a hypothesis or meets some sort of observed evidence. Obviously under Brane theory or string theory there may be 21, 11 or other actual dimensions. Multiverse is another theory in progress.

My simple aim, in this thread, is to establish what is observed in the current universe, so that tazanastazio is forced to show how his "infinities of infinities religion" theory explains it, as he claims he is using science.

Currently, tazanastazio claims photons need a continuous input of energy to maintain speed. He also claims there is no such thing as time and thus doesn't believe in velocity anyway, as velocity is a function including time. I simply can't get him to answer any direct question about his claims and he simply swaps from "God is infinite" to avoid answering questions.
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 12th October 2019, 06:23 PM   #268
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
So let's get back to a skeptical and scientific rebuttal of tananatazio's posted claims.

Firstly, tananatazio made a clear claim that he used calculus to prove his "Infinities of infinities religion and did so by incorporating words
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."
When asked to show us his actual calculations, tazanastazio simply ignored the question and then posted the equation for approximating velocity of an object in a linear path at any particular point in time.

𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Time does not exist
As this formula requires the input of time, and cannot introduce words into the equation, it is impossible that tazanastazio used this equation.

I directly ask tazanastazio again

1) Can you show us your calculation of "infinities of infinities" using calculus or not.

2) If not, is it reasonable for skeptics to assume you never did 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 13th October 2019, 01:19 AM   #269
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
My simple aim, in this thread, is to establish what is observed in the current universe, so that tazanastazio is forced to show how his "infinities of infinities religion" theory explains it, as he claims he is using science.

Currently, tazanastazio claims photons need a continuous input of energy to maintain speed. He also claims there is no such thing as time and thus doesn't believe in velocity anyway, as velocity is a function including time. I simply can't get him to answer any direct question about his claims and he simply swaps from "God is infinite" to avoid answering questions.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
So let's get back to a skeptical and scientific rebuttal of tazanastazio's posted claims.

Firstly, tazanastazio made a clear claim that he used calculus to prove his "Infinities of infinities religion and did so by incorporating words

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."

When asked to show us his actual calculations, tazanastazio simply ignored the question and then posted the equation for approximating velocity of an object in a linear path at any particular point in time.

𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Time does not exist.
As this formula requires the input of time, and cannot introduce words into the equation, it is impossible that tazanastazio used this equation.

I directly ask tazanastazio again

1) Can you show us your calculation of "infinities of infinities" using calculus or not.

2) If not, is it reasonable for skeptics to assume you never did this?
..............

At first, Matthew Ellard's post seemed "Marry-Go-Roundy." But in further consideration and to be objective and honest with ourselves, a question merits a direct, clear and as precise an answer as possible.

Let us ALL be objective therefore:

Mathew asked for me to provide the equations I used in calculus that prove the philosophy of Infinitism ("the infinite infinities" within the Infinite), and to show how I applied such an equation and extended and extrapolated the idea to "words", concepts I would say, such as "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."

First of all when I say "infinite infinities" I mean infinitely unapproachable/unreachable/incalculable quantities as far as a finite, actual or even artificial intelligence, would ever be able to calculate. In addition when I refer to infinite infinities within the Infinite, I also refer to some infinitely unapproachable/unreachable/incalculable point inwards the infinite microcosm, in which matter is dispersed in its totality and it is completely and utterly transformed to energy. When I refer to the Infinite I also refer to the extension of the aforementioned infinities outwards the infinite macrocosm.

Second there is a plethora of such equations in calculus, but even one admissible would prove my point.

Therefore let's see if the equation used in calculus to approximate with as great a precision as possible the instantaneous velocity of an object at time t -> 0, should be admissible.

Mathew asked me directly; and by that I take it he asks me to provide a clear proof; a precise answer on how I used a calculus equation to prove the philosophy of "infinite infinities." My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used to provide an approximate/unreachable quantity, not a precise calculation of instantaneous velocity; which deems instantaneous velocity in itself an "infinity" within the Infinite; and the aforementioned equation uses an additional approximated/unreachable quantity, time t -> 0; which is another example of an "infinity" within the Infinite.

Matthew then questions my use of an equation that includes the quantity of "time" since I claimed that time does not exist. I take the question one step further; why did I also use the term "velocity" in the same equation? Does "velocity"/"speed with specified direction" exist? No, The only things that do actually exist that would in fact be described in the equation mentioned above, are "an Object, Movement, and Points of Reference.

Additionally in similar calculus equations that approximately/imprecisely calculate unreachable quantities (infinite infinities); what actually exists that would be described in those equations, is change to matter exposed in certain conditions, and the dilation/shrinkage/alteration of the fabric of space (particles that comprise space and void) due to gravity.

From the above, I conclude, that while we could never be able to use calculus to approximate the total population of animal species in the galaxy, or in a cluster of galaxies; or in the Universe, or cluster of universes; or within the Infinite; because we will never have the required data available for such a calculation; we can use calculus to approximate the population of Earth in a variety of reference points of time in the future. With that fact in mind, we could conclude that given specific data, we could calculate the population of living human-like species within a star system.

Also, light is energy and as such it does not travel on each own; it is instead passed on, transferred, absorbed, altered and further transferred (light/photons in my opinion is/are transferred/generated from particle to particle ).

Energy cannot be created or destroyed (1st Law of Thermodynamics), it alternates to matter and vice versa. What cannot be created or destroyed, can be nothing but infinite. It takes matter to use energy or transfer energy to form matter/create other form of matter; and it takes intelligence to design/set the process going. If you have infinite matter and infinite energy, and an infinity of processes set to have them alternating from one to another; in an extend an infinite process; there must be an infinite intelligence that has set the infinite processes/infinite process.

This is how I applied an equation of calculus out of the plethora of them (and the corresponding calculus graph of the equation with the tangent line that represents instantaneous velocity; along with chemistry and physics); this is how I used calculus and I extended/extrapolated it, to "words"/concepts to prove the existence of the Infinite.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 13th October 2019 at 02:58 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 13th October 2019, 01:51 AM   #270
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: 3,076
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Your OP is an apparently endless screed of bare assertions. I read as much as I could stand, but my eyes started to glaze over. Please quote the specific parts of your text in which you answer my points.
I am not bad-mouthing logic and reason. I assumed you were conversant with such things as Intelligent Design, in which religious believers attempt to use specious logic to prove the existence of their particular god, because they don't have any actual physical evidence. Obviously, I was wrong to assume you had this kind of knowledge.
However, as you have neither physical, empirical, experimental evidence, nor any kind of logical backing for your claims, it is safe to assume they are not worth consideration.
Feel free to take time off from your personal grudge-match with Matthew Ellard any time you like, and respond.
Got those quotes yet?
__________________
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 13th October 2019, 02:42 AM   #271
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Got those quotes yet?

I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
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

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...

D) allows only for one/two possibilities:

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

See Hawking's theory about that.
..........

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:

I scratch of choice "C) I don't know", because that choice automatically nullifies completely my chances to get the correct answer.

I scratched off choice D) initially because it was nullified by Hawking, and because in essence it is the same with choice A), depending how you see it; the Universe was always there as part of the infinite in one form or another; such as a singularity, or was formed by particles and it exists within the Infinite); Since choice D) is in essence the same with choice A), it is nullified in itself since it reads: "D) None of the above, something else happened."

I could allocate an equal amount of 50% to the other two answers, that's why I said at least 30-40%. Now based simply on the fact that from nothing, nothing happens, but we do have a Universe after all, I would take all the points from choice B), and allocate them to choice A), giving it at least 70 - 80%; but I personally would give that choice 100% based on all the considerations I have referred to so far in this thread.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 13th October 2019 at 02:54 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 13th October 2019, 06:29 PM   #272
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Mathew asked for me to provide the equations I used in calculus that prove the philosophy of Infinitism ("the infinite infinities" within the Infinite), and to show how I applied such an equation and extended and extrapolated the idea to "words", concepts I would say, such as "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."
Yes. I have asked you five times and you refuse to do this and back up "the maths" you claimed proves your religion.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
First of all when I say "infinite infinities" I mean infinitely unapproachable/unreachable/incalculable quantities as far as a finite, actual or even artificial intelligence, would ever be able to calculate.
That cannot be expressed as an equation and has nothing to do with calculus.

Try again.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Second there is a plethora of such equations in calculus.
No, There are no such equations in calculus. That's why economics uses statistics and economic formulas to determine saturation points and so on.

Try again


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Therefore let's see if the equation used in calculus to approximate with as great a precision as possible the instantaneous velocity of an object at time t -> 0, should be admissible.
No. The equation you provided requires the input of time, which you deny exists, and approximates the velocity of an object in a straight line. It has nothing to do with "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used.
No you didn't.

Show us how you incorporated "existence" into the formula and introduced a zero value for time (which would cause the equation to divide by zero and become nonsensical)


It is clear to everyone reading this thread that you never used any form of calculus at all and that you simply pretended to had used mathematics.

As your entire religious claim is predicated on your use of calculus and that didn't happen skeptics and readers can fully dismiss 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 13th October 2019, 06:38 PM   #273
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Let us be objective therefore:
Yes. Let us use objective mathematics. In a set of all possible things (infinite set of everything), that set would include "There is no god" and "There is a god"

Your "infinite of infinities" set simply negates itself and cannot be proof of anything as any conclusion is a non sequitur

Didn't you realise that until now?
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 13th October 2019, 07:45 PM   #274
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,130
I do so love threads like this. There is almost a mathematical precision to how the color, size and bolding of fonts increases along with the craziness of the posts.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 13th October 2019, 11:27 PM   #275
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio
My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used.
One very crazy part is that the above formula is used to approximate the momentum of a particle at one point on a line. It is a calculation leading towards Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in that you cannot know the exact location and momentum of a particle at the same time.

tazanastazio claims he somehow integrated the words "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."somewhere into the formula but can't say how.

Does that mean tazanastazio is claiming we can know the location of "intelligence" but not its velocity?

Where does he get his "infinities of infinities" solution from using this equation?

It is a very crazy claim and it is obvious he just picked a random formula from the internet.
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 14th October 2019, 01:57 AM   #276
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: 3,076
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak
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.




..........

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:

I scratch of choice "C) I don't know", because that choice automatically nullifies completely my chances to get the correct answer.
No it does not, and I have already said why:

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.
Next:

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I scratched off choice D) initially because it was nullified by Hawking, and because in essence it is the same with choice A), depending how you see it; the Universe was always there as part of the infinite in one form or another; such as a singularity, or was formed by particles and it exists within the Infinite); Since choice D) is in essence the same with choice A), it is nullified in itself since it reads: "D) None of the above, something else happened."
Again, I have already answered this:

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.
Did you actually read my post?


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I could allocate an equal amount of 50% to the other two answers, that's why I said at least 30-40%. Now based simply on the fact that from nothing, nothing happens
That is not a fact, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you in this thread.


Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
but we do have a Universe after all, I would take all the points from choice B), and allocate them to choice A), giving it at least 70 - 80%; but I personally would give that choice 100% based on all the considerations I have referred to so far in this thread.
So, as an answer to my point that you have simply made up numbers to make your prior conclusion sound more like actual science, you proceed to make up yet more numbers, which contradict your earlier made-up numbers.

How is this helping your argument? Do you think that actual science is done this way?

As I said before, in the post you either did not read or did not process:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
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'.
Now, about those quotes you were going to provide from your OP, proving the existence of 'the Infinite': do you have them yet?
__________________
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 14th October 2019, 05:51 AM   #277
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,263
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:







..........

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:

I scratch of choice "C) I don't know", because that choice automatically nullifies completely my chances to get the correct answer.

I scratched off choice D) initially because it was nullified by Hawking, and because in essence it is the same with choice A), depending how you see it; the Universe was always there as part of the infinite in one form or another; such as a singularity, or was formed by particles and it exists within the Infinite); Since choice D) is in essence the same with choice A), it is nullified in itself since it reads: "D) None of the above, something else happened."

I could allocate an equal amount of 50% to the other two answers, that's why I said at least 30-40%. Now based simply on the fact that from nothing, nothing happens, but we do have a Universe after all, I would take all the points from choice B), and allocate them to choice A), giving it at least 70 - 80%; but I personally would give that choice 100% based on all the considerations I have referred to so far in this thread.
The fact that you are going through this exercise means that you don't know. Your tortured logic would not be required if you did know.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 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 14th October 2019, 10:47 AM   #278
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,068
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:
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...

D) allows only for one/two possibilities:

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

See Hawking's theory about that.

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:
[snip pointless blethering]
You are still making the assumption - for which you have not shown any evidence - that the universe had a cause, and that that cause had a cause.

Saying that choice D is the same as choice A, when it is absolutely not the same, is fallacious. Eliminating "I don't know" because you don't like that answer is both fallacious and foolish. We don't always know the answers.

Substituting your own personal fantasy of a renamed god of the gaps is fallacious, foolish and false.
__________________
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 14th October 2019, 02:23 PM   #279
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Substituting your own personal fantasy of a renamed god of the gaps is fallacious, foolish and false.
I have not heard of this religion before, the "God of Gaps" you keep referring to. I'll look for it in the internet and see what common ideas there may be, as you claim, between the philosophy of that religion and my philosophic concept - Infinitism/The Philosophy of the Infinite; and I'll get back to you. For now I'll say what I have already said in my original post: the Infinite has no gaps.

Quoting from the original:

"The Infinite has no shape or size; no beginning or end; no limits and no gaps. "Nothing", "time" and "distance" do not exist for the Infinite; as it encompasses every unit, every stage, every existence and every concept. When humanity refers to the idea of "God", what other concept should have such characteristics attributed to, by humanity, other than the Infinite? Any other traditional god/superior intelligence/existence/being/entity concept would have evolved from the Infinite and would be finite. Every form of existence; every intelligence, energy and matter, form/evolve from the Infinite and de-form/dissolve into the Infinite...
..........
Infinite minute particles; perhaps spherical (no other shape would provide for better combinations to form matter, and no other shape of matter would provide for better fluidity within the infinite than the spherical), bring about every action and reaction, and all phenomena within the Infinite; such as matter, energy and intelligence; along with gravity, light and sound.

If "nothing" did exist, if even infinitely minute space of nothing truly existed, there would be no Infinite; since there would be limits/borders within it. Which means that the only seemingly infinite, had beginnings and endings. Yet existence, or particles and objects forming everything within the Infinite cannot form/evolve out of nothing. Therefore, nothing cannot exist at all and definitely cannot extend beyond the Infinite, for the Infinite to exist, and for everything else to exist within the Infinite. Yet, if "nothing" does not exists, what then explains space for fluidity within the Infinite? Could there be an Infinite Nothing within an Infinite Everything, how could that be possible when the existence of the one, would nullify the existence of the other? Surely there always has to be something for something else to form from, and there always has to be something for something else to be de-formed ( destroyed, be disposed of) into.

The concept of "nothing" simply serves the purpose for humanity to describe the invisible and the non-existing from humanity's perspective. Nothing is not a necessity for fluidity within the Infinite, since simply put, infinite matter turns to infinite energy and vice versa. Even any conceptual nothing is included within the Infinite and fails infinitely in comparison. A (0) simply denotes the separation of any line between two points, a negative and a positive side; yet any such side of any such line can further be divided to infinity. A person may wonder how large or how small something can really get? Infinitely large and infinitely small, as far as humans could ever not just measure, but conceive! For an object to actually become infinitely small, every particle, to the infinite minute ones as far as we humans can imagine, has to be discarded; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself. For an object to become infinitely large, it has to acquire all the energy and matter within the Infinite and become the Infinite Itself. A shape too is an object, since even a drawing on a piece of paper is drawn actually with three dimensional particles which comprise the surface of the paint/ink, on three dimensional particles which form the surface of the paper."

Last edited by tazanastazio; 14th October 2019 at 04:01 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 14th October 2019, 06:26 PM   #280
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
"Nothing", "time" and "distance" do not exist for the Infinite
You keep contradicting your own words. Yesterday, you claimed you used this formula to prove your "Infinities of infinities" which specifically requires the input of time as a factor. Tell us what the "t" in the formula represents as an input?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio, yesterday
My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used.
As your religious claim is self contradicting, you should simply say "I made a mistake and will go away and try again another 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
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 05:52 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.