Ye Religion Thread

[Whirlingdervish]

Gimme a C
and an I
and a V
and another I
and an L
and yet another I
and a T
and a Y!

Whats that spell?!?!

CIVILITY.

(practice it people..)

[reaper]

i don't care what ni-ux is talking about.

[10zx]

THE INTERNET IS FOR PORN!

end of discussion.

[DWxchzrles]

THE INTERNET IS FOR PORN!

end of discussion.

it is for playing q2

[quadz]

LOL @ quadz straight up deleting my last post...

There must be some mistake.

[metaL]

i just guessed it was you since you're the admin. i posted something a few days ago, probably my longest post (6 lines), and i saw that it had posted successfully, but the next day it was gone. there is really nothing to resolve.

[DaHanG]

Perhaps reposting your post would be appropriate.

DHG

[Godz]

That would require short term memory.

[metaL]

That would require short term memory.

lol, guess my posts are really having an affect on Godz (paradise i'm guessing) for him to be making such pathetic attempts to fuck with me.  Its ok, its just a forum buddy 

[Godz]

That would require short term memory.

lol, guess my posts are really having an affect on Godz (paradise i'm guessing) for him to be making such pathetic attempts to fuck with me. Its ok, its just a forum buddy

Yes, I think it's pretty apparent for those out of touch with reality that I'm the one getting worked up here. Not the moron babbling and cursing how it's only a forum.

[metaL]

no, the ball isnt in my court. you just got dunked on and you're still trying to figure out who did it.

Well so far you seem to make grand, unsupported statements based on your private theory of reality, that appear to me to be at least questionable from both a scientific and logical standpoint.

Next, instead of defending your statements against counter-arguments, your tactic seems to be to use bluster and condescention to claim that anyone disagreeing with your statements merely "doesn't understand."

It seems it would be easier to move toward some mutual understanding if you would deign to make some of the private details of your theory of reality public.

  you continuously avoid the ONLY THING i have stated: That infinity cannot exist physically (and by this, i mean tangibly).

Avoid it?  I've done nothing but attempt to tackle your statements head on!

I still don't know what you mean that infinity cannot exist physically.  Does the singularity at the center of a black hole have infinite density, or not?  Theory predicts it does.  Do your private theories agree or disagree?

  IT DOES EXIST, AS A CONCEPT; not as a number, nor does it pertain any quantifiable entities.  In real life, history consists of real life events, where things happen in the physical realm.  I argue that such events do not extend backwards in time to infinity, because i do not feel that it is possible.  Everything that exists today must have been created at some point.  Since this "creation" seems to break the law of conservation of matter, it makes sense to me that a powerful entity facilitated such an event.

Your explanation is merely a recursive tautology.

You do not feel it is possible for matter & energy to have always existed, so you posit that a powerful entity facilitated its creation.

As I asked before: Did this powerful entity always exist?  (Or are we headed for the classic "we will introduce a powerful entity whose nature is unfathomable and incomprehensible in order to solve the problem of existence by rendering it unquestionable" manoeuvre?)

consider clarity provided.

Consider uncertainty reintroduced.   


Regards,

quadz

ok, i dont really have the time to pick apart each and every sentence of someone's post with serparate quotes and contest each of them individually, nor do i want to.  First of all, my beliefs are scientifically questionable, yes; but in my opinion they are logically sound.  When i say someone doesn't understand, it means they misinterpreted my post, not that he or she is an idiot.  I said you have avoided my main claim because you have, but at this point i believe you have done so unintentionally.  OK, back to the big infinity issue.  The example given of the infinite amount of tones between F and F sharp i believe? is an interesting thought.  True, there are an infinite amount of tones that COULD be played between these two notes, or any two notes for that matter.  However, an infinite amount of tones could never be played (At the moment we are focused on the physical realm, and things that actually happen in real life such as historic events; not things that theoretically COULD happen) so although it was a good thought, thats what it will remain: a thought.  The other example you gave of an infinite density is just what i am talking about; an infinite density cannot exist.  Density is a quantifiable calculation of an object's mass per unit volume.  all objects of this world have a definite density which can be represented numerically (it is quantifiable).  Once again i must remind everyone that infinity is NOT a number, but an inquantifiable concept that cannot be associated with one that is quantifiable such as density.  Just as mass and volume can be measured, so can time.  This is why i believe that history cannot stretch backwards forever.  No, i do not believe God always existed.  I really do not believe that ANYTHING has "always" existed.  Thus, I really do believe that something came from nothing, at some point, defying all we know to be true in the world of science.  Yep, i said it.  Dahang argued that "there's no evidence that there was ever any true nothingness."  No offense, but.. No shit buddy.  For now, i simply cannot fathom history going back in time indefinitely, and i must say that something quite powerful (but not omnipotent, this term, again, is yet a concept which reeks paradox) was involved in whatever true "beginning" undoubtedly occurred.

[DaHanG]

Dahang argued that "there's no evidence that there was ever any true nothingness."  No offense, but.. No shit buddy.  For now, i simply cannot fathom history going back in time indefinitely, and i must say that something quite powerful (but not omnipotent, this term, again, is yet a concept which reeks paradox) was involved in whatever true "beginning" undoubtedly occurred.

None taken, but it's interesting that your private theories are very inconsistent with the more mainstream (and generally agreed upon within the scientific community) theories. All your assumptions are based on a narrow point of view, not on proper investigation. If what you thought was so evidently true, then these so called scientists who have theorized of an infinitely dense particle in the beginning could not attempt to keep such concepts alive (since they're so idiotic). We see, however, this is not the case. I have a feeling they simply know more about this concept than you do.

I have been reminded of the "Oh and where is this so-called evidence for the big bang? You're an idiot if you believe in such a thing."

 

[Godz]

"A weak mind is like a microscope, which magnifies trifling things but cannot receive great ones."

[paradisel0st]

Well said!

:>

[metaL]

Dahang argued that "there's no evidence that there was ever any true nothingness."  No offense, but.. No shit buddy.  For now, i simply cannot fathom history going back in time indefinitely, and i must say that something quite powerful (but not omnipotent, this term, again, is yet a concept which reeks paradox) was involved in whatever true "beginning" undoubtedly occurred.

None taken, but it's interesting that your private theories are very inconsistent with the more mainstream (and generally agreed upon within the scientific community) theories. All your assumptions are based on a narrow point of view, not on proper investigation. If what you thought was so evidently true, then these so called scientists who have theorized of an infinitely dense particle in the beginning could not attempt to keep such concepts alive (since they're so idiotic). We see, however, this is not the case. I have a feeling they simply know more about this concept than you do.

I have been reminded of the "Oh and where is this so-called evidence for the big bang? You're an idiot if you believe in such a thing."

 

Actually, i have really only made one assumption, and it is based on a mathematical certainy  .  And about the big bang, i believe that such and event leading up to the universe as we see it today is incredibly improbable. maybe even 1 out of infinity? 

I think the concept of infinite simply references a huge unknown number (5.6 x 10^856 for example).

i mean, since it refers to an actual number and all.