[size=13pt]<sup>Hello people. . . . .

have anyone blind yet. . .?</sup> [/size]

Pastor AIO:

Statement: There are no [/b]squares between the numbers 10 and 15

I am certain that this negative statement can be proved mathematically.

You have taken me completely out of context.

Here is what i said -

This analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the [size=16pt][b]non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, [/size] must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity -  the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

Please note the bolded and thus apply it in context; to wit - we are talking about a negative assertion regarding something that HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

10 - 15 HAS BEEN OBSERVED.

quote manmustwa May 19, 2010, 11:52 AM:

[size=20pt]@Mudley313[/size]
[size=35pt]Na woa so nairalanders are trying to get you banned? Anyway the site owner is an athiest too. [/size]

No wonder he enjoys most of the nonsense things that goes on here

Why has KAG taken off since the ridiculous fallacy of her claim that quantum vacuums approximate to "nothing" was EXPOSED? ? ?

Some people just pretend cheap scientific psuedo knowledge, are spoon fed and do not think for themselves!

No wonder he enjoys most of the nonsense things that goes on here

i know u would have much more preferred intolerance of other people's views and opinions on here cos religious people have always been known to be intolerant that's why it has historically been the cause of millions of deaths of those who disagree wit the followers of imaginary gods

this is the 21st century my friend and not Iran

Mudley313:

i know u would have much more preferred intolerance of other people's views and opinions on here cos religious people have always been known to be intolerant that's why it has historically been the cause of millions of deaths of those who disagree wit the followers of imaginary gods

this is the 21st century my friend and not Iran

guy what concern intolerance with absurdity or insanity? People had complained about some of the cartoons u posted as being against the rules.Yet ur fellow manmustwac gave u a 'bitter sweet' news on ur actions. My point is that manmustwac should have made such a ridiculous comment as to revealing seuns belief. Get it, its not intolerance at all.

Deep Sight:

Why has KAG taken off since the ridiculous fallacy of her claim that quantum vacuums approximate to "nothing" was EXPOSED? ? ?

Some people just pretend cheap scientific psuedo knowledge, are spoon fed and do not think for themselves!

Anyone else see the irony in someone who took two days to post a response hollering that a response hasn't been provided on the same day? What a douche.

Deep Sight:
[QUOTE]Oh, it has occurred to me that ancient writers could only describe things in the way they perceived them - although not to the degree you imply. However, that is part of the problem: as several of things described from their perspectives have, with continued discoveries, been shown wrong and falsified. The earth is not stationary, the gods don't reside just beyond the sky or on mountain tops, nor are humans the products of a magic cow.[/QUOTE]
It is quite convenient for you to point out these – NONE of which is advanced within a prophetic book such as the Bible.

- Whereas you fail to take cognisance of the fact that that book that I refer to did state with perfect scientific accuracy, centuries before science did so that –

1. The Earth is a Sphere

2. The Earth “hangs upon nothing”  

Both quite engaging if you consider that current thinking at the time of the Prophets Job and Isaiah who inscribed these words was that (1) The Earth was flat and (2) The Earth had physical support in the form of giant animas or other such puerile imaginations.[/QUOTE]

Let's tackle each of your statements and arguments one at a time.

First, one of the things to which I referred is in the Bible - the Bible does preach a stationary earth. It was this that informed the Church and helped them to determine that Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, et al. must be wrong. It was to the detriment of science. So much for your book.

Second, not to split hairs but the Bible doesn't state that the Earth is a sphere. Instead, it claims that the Earth is a circle. A circle is two dimensional - flat. It's the whole Chuwg or Duwr dichotomy. Further, the Bible wouldn't have found it hard to state the Earth hangs on nothing because it claims instead that "the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, / And He set the world on them". Hard for a stationary object to hang when allegedly it's being held up by pillars. Yes, bases were sunk and cornerstones were laid, too.

It should already be plain to see that the claims you present as scientifically accurate fall flat, and a thorough examination shows that the Bible is no different from the times in which it was written. It makes several mistakes on simple things from claiming hares chew cud to miscalculating pi. Then again, it was meant to be a science book, nor should it be read as such.

I am NOT a Christian, and the Bible is NOT my creed, but it is nothing but intellectual dishonesty to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It's intellectual dishonesty to present what you presented as evidence that the Bible has anymore scientific relevance than other ancient texts that also contain nonsense. Heck, you even somehow missed the geocentricism presented in the Bible.

Now in order not to lose direction, and for the purpose of tying this point up with the issue that brought it up: I positively state to you that whatever element was the source of the insights of the prophets who made these statements is NOT an element that you can “falsify”.

Except I did just falsify the implication that the "insights" presented must have come from some divine being. Unless, of course, you believe the Earth is stationary. I wouldn't put it past you to denounce findings that the Earth rotates around a sun as "belief in voodoo" or some such rubbish.

There is no doubt that if you, KAG had been alive in those times, like everyone else you would have believed the Earth to be flat and anchored on something heavy. This is more likely given your obvious and lamentably slavish adherence to “current thinking.”

Those prophets would have been millions of light years ahead of you.

It amuses me that you always imagine that current suppositions cannot be wrong. And yet in another breath you speak of being “imaginative.”

Lol.

Hmm, so far only one of the two of us has proved capable of not just accepting dogma and researching claims often assigned to deities. And it isn't you. I have researched and read up in order to understand the things I state and for which I argue. You haven't done the same. Instead, what we have had from you has been sloppy logic, dire mathematics and handwaves when faced with science.

Simply claiming I can't a god with as vague a quality as "an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists" isn't saying much because it's so unclear a descriptor that it could refer to something inanimate.

No, that is NOT the only quality of the ultimate deity, and I have to warn you to be careful of your use of the reference to “animation”, because animation cannot be the same thing in a physical context as it would be in a spiritual – and God is said to be SPIRIT.

When you show me an inanimate object with cognizance, I'll stop using that as a criteria for a god. Everything else you've claimed is conjecture.

[quote]Prior to this post I had only made two posts. Yes, I can't state absolutely that all gods are dead;

Thanks for the concession.

This emphatically shows that YOU CANNOT deny the possible existence of God/ gods.

My first post in this thread: "Can the existence of anything really be disproved? In my opinion, giv[en] the qualities of faith, no." However, I can deny the existence of gods because they have so far proved a necessary human construct with almost no evidence despite the extraordinary claims made of them.

what I can claim, though, is that gods when presented by their adherents can be falsified.

You cannot even falsify IFA, and you dare mouth off on this.

I positively challenge you to falsify IFA. Go ahead, I’ll meet you there.

You will be astonished at the extent of your ignorance on these matters.

What are the qualities of "IFA".  What makes it a god. Like I stated, when the god is presented by its adherents, then it can be falsified. Your move.

The former statement is not quite correct. Yes, I was pointing out how badly you were using maths and how bad your logic was proving,

You were the one who made the ludicrous equation 0 = 1, not me.

The only sense in which this could be rationalized is the obvious: to wit that zero is not really zero, and thus that your imaginary Alice-in-wonder-land “vacuum” never existed.

Once again:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

but I was making a positive assertion in that the universe may have arisen from a vacuum.

You are a native witch doctor, and a poor excuse for a scientific or rational mind.

"on this ground the traditionalists denounced the telescope, refused to look through it, and maintained that it revealed only delusions." Your response reminds me of the thread about the four-legged chick. Everything not understood is decried as magic and an observation or probable occurrence called the workings of a witch doctor.

This equates to stating that the universe arose suddenly, pointlessly, magically OUT OF NOTHING, and without any intelligent or purposeful direction.

I submit that a person with such lame propositions does not deserve further response on the subject.

Apart from magically, yes. You don't have to respond to me, but argument from personal incredulity is justifiably a fallacy.

Second, I'll wager that I have a better understanding of "nothingness" than you do.

Your understanding of “nothingness” is exactly that – NOTHING.

You have demonstrated a pathetic understanding of that word. I do not know what drives your tragic misapprehension, but let me summarize this for you: by its very definition, nothingness does not exist – it is nothing – and accordingly it is nonexistent.

Actually, nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable and are distinct both philosophically and scientifically. So, yeah, my understanding of the term still trumps yours.

It is therefore inconceivable for any thing to “arise from nothing” as you postulate. For the simple reason that there is no such thing as “nothing.”

I hope you can wrap your head around that.

It was inconceivable for images to be sent thousands of miles to a receiving "box" used for viewing. It was inconceivable that a particle could be affected by what happened to another many miles away. So far the findings give an indication in that direction. I hope you can wrap your head around the fact that, once again, an argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy and not a rebuttal.

Deep Sight: The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.”

I demand of you that you define for me the vacuum that you refer to and show me how it equates nothingness.

Here is what Wiki defines a vacuum as –

Please note the bolded words – THESE EMPHATICALLY PROVE THAT A PERFECT VACUUM DOES NOT EXIST, AND THUS THAT THE VACUUMS YOU REFER TO DO NOT EQUATE NOTHINGNESS!

I wonder what gives you the audacity to make such preposterous assumptions and yet claim a “better understanding” of the word “nothingness”

[/quote]

A vacuum as I pointed out is achievable nothing until affected the probability due to the uncertainty principle. I didn't say it was nothingness. I've quoted your post to which I was responding. Here it is the relevant section again: 'The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.'

[quote]I trust you will be honest and gracious enough to ADMIT that your understanding was flawed, and that vacuums DO NOT equate nothingness.

I quote the following from Wikipedia –

“Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy.[4] In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum”

Exactly.

[snip. Already addressed this]

Secondly, you have already agreed with me that the space within which such particles have been observed is within this universe. Nobody has observed anything outside this universe, so madam – kindly leave that for the time when such happens. Fact is we have NO IDEA what exists outside this universe so quit the baseless conjecture.

Since you accept –

1. That the space within which such particles have been observed is this universe

2. The universe is NOT Nothing, but is something

3. Then incontestably, such particles could never be construed as arising from nothing – regardless of whether or not we are able to observe the element from which they arise.

It has already been established in the previous thread that logic is not your strongest suit. You do it very badly, and it has reared its ugly head here again. You remember when you were trying to do representational maths and I mentioned sets? Well, let's think of this present conjecture using sets. Is it possible to have a zero in a numbers set, or, do we claim that just because it is a numbers set zero can't exist within it? The answer is obviously the former. The same applies to the universe and a vacuum.

One of the reasons true vacuums are proving difficult to create is because of quantum fluctuations. They essentially emerge from nothing into what would be a vacuum. That uncertainty ensures that even everything else were eliminated, true vacuums will still prove challenging to create. However, like the zero within a numbers set, that doesn't mean they are necessarily the product of the set itself.

Like I have mentioned several times, you have trouble not conflating things that shouldn't be equated.

I can this conclude that you are irretrievably drunk on what seems to be the zenith of your knowledge and experience – virtual particles. There is nothing in what you have said to connote that you have the slightest apprehension of what they are in fact.

Don't be silly. That's easily the most obtuse thing you've said so far, and that's saying a lot.

Now please do not display any hasty eagerness to prove your supposed knowledge by reverting inundating me with information I have already seen on Wikipedia – just answer me these questions –

1. What is nothingness?

2. What is a vacuum, in the terms you refer to?

3. How does such a vacuum (imbued with the interplay observed) equate nothingness?

I for my part, restate to you that (x) nothingness by its definition does not exist and (y) It is therefore inconceivable for anything to emerge from nothingness (which is non-existent).

The definition given of a vacuum above shows a number of things –

1. That it has gaseous pressure – only much lower than normally observed atmospheric pressure.

2. the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice

These show that your vacuum is not “nothing” and that no perfect vacuum has ever been observed. (in line with my submission that there is no such thing as nothingness).

Thus your use of this to claim that virtual particles are things that arise out of nothing is tragically flawed: worse – it has shown that you have NO understanding of what a vacuum is since you ignorantly attempted to equate it to nothingness which is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.
Alice in wonderland.

I laugh.

I'm tired now. I'll pick up where I left off.

guy what concern intolerance with absurdity or insanity? People had complained about some of the cartoons u posted as being against the rules.Yet your fellow manmustwac gave u a 'bitter sweet' news on your actions. My point is that manmustwac should have made such a ridiculous comment as to revealing seuns belief. Get it, its not intolerance at all.

@ bolded. when u yap about absurdity and insanity i guess u're talking about the belief in a dead jewish carpenter as your god, the belief in a compilation of jewish mythologies and fairy tale stories as "the word of god", the belief in a religion brought to you by the white man as they at the same time raped ur land and enslaved you, or is it the insane and absurd continous defense of a non-existent entity u claim to be all powerful but for some weird reason just cant speak or stand up for himself/itself/herself whatsoever

get a sense of humor n enjoy the cartoons i provide that exposes the absurdity and insanity of the belief of an incapicitated god (this thread is but one of many proof of your god's incapacity) wit a bunch of intolerant followers who believe those wit contrary views and opinions will end up in some imaginary torture chamber of fire created by their loving imaginary god

KAG:

Anyone else see the irony in someone who took two days to post a response hollering that a response hasn't been provided on the same day? What a douche.

O relax right there. I have been quite ill and on medication. Also I was just trying to draw your attention back to address the points I made.

I see you are not finished. So i will hold my peace till you are done.

But by the way - you will have to do quite some more wriggling to escape on the quantum vacuum one - because THAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY ASSERTION THAT "SOMETHING" CANNOT COME OUT OF NOTHING. THAT WAS THE EXAMPLE YOU USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO "FALSIFY" THAT ASSERTION OF MINE.

It therefore means that contrary to what you NOW claim, YOU DID approximate a quantum vacuum to "nothingness" - AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE ROUNDLY FALSE - AS SCIENTIFICALLY SUCH VACUUMS ARE NOT NOTHING!

I await to see with what effusive declamations you will seek to wriggle out of that FALSE allusion of yours.

Let me suggest that it would be simpler, and more honest, to simply admit your example regarding quantum vacuums was badly off. You cannot cavalierly pretend that you "never said a vacuum was nothing" - because if you do so, then you will have to explain EXACTLY why you used it as proof that something (virtual particles) could come out of nothing (a vacuum)? ? ? ?

KAG:


First, one of the things to which I referred is in the Bible - the Bible does preach a stationary earth. It was this that informed the Church and helped them to determine that Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, et al. must be wrong. It was to the detriment of science. So much for your book.

I vehemently resent your reference to the Bible as “my book” – I have stated to you that it is not my creed, and there are members of this forum who will swear that it is the thing I revile most.

The simple fact however, is that as much as it is riddled with myths, fantasies, absurdities, outright falsehoods, mistranslations and the like, it is also riddled with many true and startling facts. I do not wish to spend much time on this save to ask you if you ever studied Literature in English? ? ?

Because I am disgusted that a CLEAR figure of speech – such as “pillars of the earth” could be read by you to mean that the Bible-Writer supposed three-dimensional physical pillars to be upholding the Earth. I needn’t expatiate on this as it is clear for any person to see that that was a figure of speech. If you will study the style adopted by many Old Testament prophets, you will understand this better. So please the misconceptions of the Roman Church are theirs alone.

Second, not to split hairs but the Bible doesn't state that the Earth is a sphere. Instead, it claims that the Earth is a circle.

You ARE splitting hairs. (x) How would the writer express himself? (y) How many of his contemporaries even conceived of it as a “circle?” Oh please, feed me with steel, and not rubber, Madam KAG.

Nevertheless I must make it clear that I do not wish us to dwell on the subject of the bible: unless either of us is so unreasonable as to regard it as 100% True or 100% False. Evidently, neither is the case: nor do either of us hold it as a creed – so please, if you will permit, I prefer to focus on the philosophical and scientific aspects of this discussion in which I believe you have made evidently false presumptions and are simply NOT being man (or woman) enough to square up to them.

Instead, what we have had from you has been sloppy logic,

- - - such as my statement that something cannot come from nothing?

. . . dire mathematics

Such as 0 + 0 = 0? – Which of course, if it never occurred to you, is the mathematical proof of my statement that nothing will always equal nothing, and will never approximate to a something.

Grasp that is you can, Alice.

. . .and handwaves when faced with science.

O ho ho ho ho ho. . . such as the science that led you to comically construe a quantum vacuum as “nothing”? ? ? ?

And then attempt to retract your words dishonestly, when I, a non-scientist, drew out the facts of the nature of a quantum vacuum for you?

Do you imagine that once one is not a scientist, he has no rational brain, and as such you can pull the wool over our eyes just by uttering scientific jargon? ? ?

However, I can deny the existence of gods because they have so far proved a necessary human construct with almost no evidence despite the extraordinary claims made of them.

I doubt that you know what GOD IS: or what gods are.

Because it is strange that with the mass of the known universe sitting about you, and the mathematically unlikely existence of intricate organs (such as the eye, to cite but one), you can see “almost no evidence” of superior intelligence?

But no matter, you are entitled to your delusions and serial contradictions. (I cannot forget the many you fed me on in the last thread, such as “purposeful beings in a purposeless universe” [such a shallow statement], Universe emerging from vacuum, but its contents [which are the universe itself] not emerging from vacuum. . .oh, KAG!)

What are the qualities of "IFA". What makes it a god. Like I stated, when the god is presented by its adherents, then it can be falsified. Your move.

That we do not go off on a tangent, I will in future open a thread specifically to discuss IFALOGY.

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself.

If you are incapable of grasping a simple representation I cannot help you. I wonder what sort of mind is unable to see that we use the figure “1” there on a representational basis – as the sum of sets in the universe is at all events an unknown and possibly unknowable quantity.

In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

Tragically wrong. Because 0 = 1, which you have set forth, would mean that your “vacuum,” = the universe. Such inverse reasoning leads to the conclusion that the universe IS a vacuum. That it is EQUAL to a vacuum. Can you sustain that? Aha.

Rather 0 + 1 which I set forth envisages a situation whereat an element was introduced into what YOU would describe as a vacuum – and that that introduction initiated an expansion that today forms the universe.

Nothing else can explain the fact that the universe began to expand at a point. Why not previously? Why at that point? This can only be explained as I have said above if there was a change within the pre-existing singularity, that caused the expansion to begin.

Hence the cosmological argument: “whatever BEGINS to exist, has a cause”

I assume that you are at home with the fundamentals of the cosmological argument. In brief, it goes thus –

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. The Universe thus has a cause.

Now it is inconceivable to imagine any “cause” within the sort of vacuum you have laboriously tried to construct: which at all events we have shown to be at variance with even the very handicapped scientific discoveries regarding such vacuums.

I therefore re- assert to you that the only logical path of reasoning is that there must have been an intervention as a cause.

Otherwise nothing would exist.

Actually, nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable and are distinct both philosophically and scientifically. So, yeah, my understanding of the term still trumps yours.

At this point instead of the empty boasting you have persisted on, may I request you to adduce your definitions of “nothing” and “nothingness” in terms of this discussion.

I have already stated mine: nothingness is an absolute no thing – it represents a state of absolute zero: and I state to you again that by this very definition there is nothing like nothingness – it does not exist anywhere – any more than zero represents anything other than Zilch. Empty. Not there.

It was inconceivable for images to be sent thousands of miles to a receiving "box" used for viewing. It was inconceivable that a particle could be affected by what happened to another many miles away. So far the findings give an indication in that direction. I hope you can wrap your head around the fact that, once again, an argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy and not a rebuttal.

What are you on about here? That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed.

Thus, conquer the universe, and engineer new planets, if you will, that will not change the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 and as such something cannot sprout from nothing.

Is it possible to have a zero in a numbers set, or, do we claim that just because it is a numbers set zero can't exist within it? The answer is obviously the former. The same applies to the universe and a vacuum.

Nope. We only have zero in a set to indicate a state where there is NOTHING as opposed to a state where there are quantities. That nothing remains nothing – and as such does not exist.

If you even half-thought this through you would recognise what I am saying: Check this out.

1. Between No. 1 and No. 2 – there exists an INFINITE number of fractions.

2. Between No 1 and ZERO. . . start counting backwards. 1, - - 0.9 - - - .0.8 - - - 0.7 ….0.2 - - - 0.1 - - - 0.09 - - - 0.08 - - - 0.07. . . . . infinity. .

3. You will count the fractions to infinity and YOU WILL NEVER ARRIVE AT ABSOLUTE ZERO! ! ! ! ! ! !

THIS FIRMLY, IRREVOCABLY AND INELUCTABLY PROVES MY POINT THAT ZERO AND NOTHINGNESS DO NOT, AND CANNOT EXIST, ANYWAY, ANYHOW, ANYWHERE, AT ALL! ! ! !

Don’t you get it now!

One of the reasons true vacuums are proving difficult to create is because of quantum fluctuations.

No? I thought you earlier boasted that they were created even on earth? ? ?

Why did I have to hustle up the facts before you revert with this plea? ? ?

They essentially emerge from nothing into what would be a vacuum.

This is frankly meaningless. You state: “from nothing” (define that) and then you state – “into what would be a vacuum” (thus acceding that it is NOT a vacuum in the first place, remains NOT a vacuum, and as such the particles did not emerge from a vacuum or “nothing”)

That uncertainty ensures that even everything else were eliminated, true vacuums will still prove challenging to create.

That’s a good girl! Thanks for seeing my point and being so gracious as to concede it wholly.

This is at variance with your earlier boasts regarding vacuums!

Mudley313:

@ bolded. when u yap about absurdity and insanity i guess u're talking about the belief in a dead jewish carpenter as your god, the belief in a compilation of jewish mythologies and fairy tale stories as "the word of god", the belief in a religion brought to you by the white man as they at the same time despoiled your land and enslaved you, or is it the insane and absurd continous defense of a non-existent entity u claim to be all powerful but for some weird reason just cant speak or stand up for himself/itself/herself whatsoever

get a sense of humor n enjoy the cartoons i provide that exposes the absurdity and insanity of the belief of an incapicitated god (this thread is but one of many proof of your god's incapacity) wit a bunch of intolerant followers who believe those wit contrary views and opinions will end up in some imaginary torture chamber of fire created by their loving imaginary god

The above rants of urs makes little sense and absolutely irrelevant to issue i raised.

The absurdity and insanity im talking about is in some of the cartoons u posted which is against the rules of the forum. If not why was it deleted?

U have ur mouth and hand to say and type whatever no one should challenge u for that, but doing so shouldn't make u violate the law. This is the absurdity/insanity im referring to.

The above rants of urs makes little sense and absolutely irrelevant to issue i raised.

The absurdity and insanity im talking about is in some of the cartoons u posted which is against the rules of the forum. If not why was it deleted?

U have your mouth and hand to say and type whatever no one should challenge u for that, but doing so shouldn't make u violate the law. This is the absurdity/insanity im referring to.

@ bolded. it was deleted by a "christian" mod. no one ever pointed out which of the forum rule/law was violated. the absurdity/insanity is the way christians easily get their feelings hurt like little kids in situations where their all-powerful-god was suppose to defend himself n make his children proud

pity how an ordinary human forum mod had to come to the rescue of your all-powerful-god

Mudley313:

@ bolded. it was deleted by a "christian" mod. no one ever pointed out which of the forum rule/law was violated. the absurdity/insanity is the way christians easily get their feelings hurt like little kids in situations where their all-powerful-god was suppose to defend himself n make his children proud

pity how an ordinary human forum mod had to come to the rescue of your all-powerful-god

I thought I already explained that to you?

NO SEXUALLY EXPLICIT OR HATEFUL CONTENT
Please do not post any pictures, multimedia content, or writing that is sexually explicit (lewd, suggestive, bawdy, dirty, love-related, filthy, gross, hard core, immodest, indecent, indelicate, lascivious, licentious, naughty, obscene, off-color, pornographic,  X-rated, smutty, suggestive).  We will also not allow any comments that promote hatred, violence, or murder against any race, ethnic or religion group, gender, sexual orientation, person, et cetera.

  Once again, please discuss respectfully and cordially and no one will disturb you from airing your anti-religious views Mudley. Cheers.

Finishing up

Deep Sight:


I demand of you that you define for me the vacuum that you refer to and show me how it equates nothingness.

Here is what Wiki defines a vacuum as –

Please note the bolded words – THESE EMPHATICALLY PROVE THAT A PERFECT VACUUM DOES NOT EXIST, AND THUS THAT THE VACUUMS YOU REFER TO DO NOT EQUATE NOTHINGNESS!

I wonder what gives you the audacity to make such preposterous assumptions and yet claim a “better understanding” of the word “nothingness”

I trust you will be honest and gracious enough to ADMIT that your understanding was flawed, and that vacuums DO NOT equate nothingness.

I quote the following from Wikipedia –

“Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy.[4] In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum”

And I positively assert to you that the foregoing again shows emphatically that a “vacuum” as herewith described, DOES NOT equate the same thing as “nothingness.” There are myriad elements at interplay here, and this could not be the case in a “nothing.”

Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something: that for quantum fluctuations they do not play a part as a cause. That is, it is because of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum that a perfect vacuum can not be had. What you appear to be doing is to confuse an occurrence with an effect.

Further, if you read what you've quoted from wiki, it should be apparent that virtual particles emerge from nothing as a result of the uncertainty principle in a vacuum. Exactly what I've stated from the beginning. What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing. However, that isn't necessarily the important aspect of virtual particles. What is is that they aren't caused by vacuums themselves or, in fact, anything in a partial vacuum.

Secondly, you have already agreed with me that the space within which such particles have been observed is within this universe. Nobody has observed anything outside this universe, so madam – kindly leave that for the time when such happens. Fact is we have NO IDEA what exists outside this universe so quit the baseless conjecture.

Alright, I'll leave out any hypotheses that deal with the possibility of anything other than the universe.

Since you accept –

1. That the space within which such particles have been observed is this universe

2. The universe is NOT Nothing, but is something

3. Then incontestably, such particles could never be construed as arising from nothing – regardless of whether or not we are able to observe the element from which they arise.

No, your argument is illogical and wrong. You are making the same fundamental mistakes you were making in the other thread: confusing effects, causes and happenings is probably the most obvious one. I have given an analogy using a zero in a set, but I'll extend that response here. While space is a property of the universe, it doesn't mean space is the cause of virtual particles. They are caused by nothing emerging into something. That's a world different from what you're claiming.

Further, by your logic above you've successfully presented yet another rebuttal to one of the arguments you were making in the other thread, because you've essential claimed - though wrongly - that nothing can exist in the universe, a something.

I can this conclude that you are irretrievably drunk on what seems to be the zenith of your knowledge and experience – virtual particles. There is nothing in what you have said to connote that you have the slightest apprehension of what they are in fact.

You're being disingenuous.

Now please do not display any hasty eagerness to prove your supposed knowledge by reverting inundating me with information I have already seen on Wikipedia – just answer me these questions –

I don't have to do that. While the range of your knowledge is based mostly on what you can find on wiki, I am capable of going as far as to read source materials and primary research to understand different subject matters.

1. What is nothingness?

2. What is a vacuum, in the terms you refer to?

3. How does such a vacuum (imbued with the interplay observed) equate nothingness?

Nothingness is absolute negation. Something not existing either due to lack or an absence. A vacuum is state in which there's nothing or the likelihood of nothing. It doesn't equate nothingness.

I for my part, restate to you that (x) nothingness by its definition does not exist and (y) It is therefore inconceivable for anything to emerge from nothingness (which is non-existent).

Nothingness does exist. In philosophical parlance, nothingness can, and does, occur. Further, it is a state to which animals can resort.

The definition given of a vacuum above shows a number of things –

1. That it has gaseous pressure – only much lower than normally observed atmospheric pressure.

2. the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice

These show that your vacuum is not “nothing” and that no perfect vacuum has ever been observed. (in line with my submission that there is no such thing as nothingness).

See above.

Thus your use of this to claim that virtual particles are things that arise out of nothing is tragically flawed: worse – it has shown that you have NO understanding of what a vacuum is since you ignorantly attempted to equate it to nothingness which is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.
Alice in wonderland.

I laugh.

Wrong again. Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe. Think of that in any way you wish, but it isn't virtual particles caused by anything or from something.

Deep Sight:

O relax right there. I have been quite ill and on medication. Also I was just trying to draw your attention back to address the points I made.

Which makes your hypocrisy and your illogical conclusion all the more interesting.

I see you are not finished. So i will hold my peace till you are done.

But by the way - you will have to do quite some more wriggling to escape on the quantum vacuum one - because THAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY ASSERTION THAT "SOMETHING" CANNOT COME OUT OF NOTHING. THAT WAS THE EXAMPLE YOU USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO "FALSIFY" THAT ASSERTION OF MINE.

And it does falsify your claim. No wiggling needed on my part.

It therefore means that contrary to what you NOW claim, YOU DID approximate a quantum vacuum to "nothingness" - AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE ROUNDLY FALSE - AS SCIENTIFICALLY SUCH VACUUMS ARE NOT NOTHING!

Yet again, you're conflating nothing and nothingness.

I await to see with what effusive declamations you will seek to wriggle out of that FALSE allusion of yours.

Let me suggest that it would be simpler, and more honest, to simply admit your example regarding quantum vacuums was badly off. You cannot cavalierly pretend that you "never said a vacuum was nothing" - because if you do so, then you will have to explain EXACTLY why you used it as proof that something (virtual particles) could come out of nothing (a vacuum)? ? ? ?

I already did.

Once again, please discuss respectfully and cordially and no one will disturb you from airing your anti-religious views Mudley. Cheers.

okay. none of the pics i've posted have been close to being sexually explicit or obscene. provocative yes, but its the same way i see christians trying to ridicule islam or protestants trying to ridicule catholic beliefs etc not to talk of those who ridicule the hell outta traditional african beliefs

one of my earlier gifs taken down, the jesus saves one, was no different from the jesus walking on water playing polo pic posted prior, but mine was taken down and the other left becos it got more laughs thus incurring the wrath of the sensitivity of christians who think they have the right to mock others but when they're on the receiving end become all sensitive like their muslim counterparts who they so despice

hope the christians stop complaining when the islamic fundamentalist riot and cause mayhem when trivial stuff like a cartoon gets them all arou.sed in defence of gods who are supposedly all powerful

Deep Sight:

I vehemently resent your reference to the Bible as “my book” – I have stated to you that it is not my creed, and there are members of this forum who will swear that it is the thing I revile most.

The simple fact however, is that as much as it is riddled with myths, fantasies, absurdities, outright falsehoods, mistranslations and the like, it is also riddled with many true and startling facts. I do not wish to spend much time on this save to ask you if you ever studied Literature in English? ? ?

Because I am disgusted that a CLEAR figure of speech – such as “pillars of the earth” could be read by you to mean that the Bible-Writer supposed three-dimensional physical pillars to be upholding the Earth. I needn’t expatiate on this as it is clear for any person to see that that was a figure of speech. If you will study the style adopted by many Old Testament prophets, you will understand this better. So please the misconceptions of the Roman Church are theirs alone.

All books I have come across are riddled with many true and startling facts; it doesn't make them the inspired works of any deities or the like. The same applies to the Bible you claimed was prophetic , etc.

Also, of course I have studied literature; however, the instances of geocentric teaching in the Bible - and yes there's more than one mention of the Earth being immovable and on pillars in the book - aren't symbolic. The creation story in Genesis is symbolic. The pillars are not. And yes I have studied the Bible.

Finally, I called it your book because it was the one you gave as an example of a "prophetic book" possessing "scientifc accuracy". It doesn't meet the criteria you claim of it.

Second, not to split hairs but the Bible doesn't state that the Earth is a sphere. Instead, it claims that the Earth is a circle. A circle is two dimensional - flat. It's the whole Chuwg or Duwr dichotomy

You ARE splitting hairs. (x) How would the writer express himself? (y) How many of his contemporaries even conceived of it as a “circle?” Oh please, feed me with steel, and not rubber, Madam KAG.

How would a writer in that time have expressed himself? He would have used the word for a sphere or a ball. Yes, the term existed. That's why I said it's the whole Chuwg vs Duwr dichotomy. Many of the ancients conceived of a circle.

Nevertheless I must make it clear that I do not wish us to dwell on the subject of the bible: unless either of us is so unreasonable as to regard it as 100% True or 100% False. Evidently, neither is the case: nor do either of us hold it as a creed – so please, if you will permit, I prefer to focus on the philosophical and scientific aspects of this discussion in which I believe you have made evidently false presumptions and are simply NOT being man (or woman) enough to square up to them.

Then don't use the book as a yardstick, then. It clearly didn't live up to the billing you claimed of it.

- - - such as my statement that something cannot come from nothing?

Which you were wrong about and trying to use equivocation to prop up illogical conclusions.

. . . dire mathematics

Such as 0 + 0 = 0? – Which of course, if it never occurred to you, is the mathematical proof of my statement that nothing will always equal nothing, and will never approximate to a something.

Representational mathematics: you're doing it wrong. x⁄0 = a sideways eight.

Grasp that is you can, Alice.

I did. Now see if you can stop behaving like the twins from the book with the protagonist you mentioned.

O ho ho ho ho ho. . . such as the science that led you to comically construe a quantum vacuum as “nothing”? ? ? ?

And then attempt to retract your words dishonestly, when I, a non-scientist, drew out the facts of the nature of a quantum vacuum for you?

Do you imagine that once one is not a scientist, he has no rational brain, and as such you can pull the wool over our eyes just by uttering scientific jargon? ? ?

Yawn. Read back through what has occurred in this thread and the previous one. I don;t assume that one isn't rational if one isn't a scientist. All beings I have come across have the tendency towards rationality. However, your arguments have proven to be largely illogical.

However, I can deny the existence of gods because they have so far proved a necessary human construct with almost no evidence despite the extraordinary claims made of them.

I doubt that you know what GOD IS: or what gods are.

Because it is strange that with the mass of the known universe sitting about you, and the mathematically unlikely existence of intricate organs (such as the eye, to cite but one), you can see “almost no evidence” of superior intelligence?

But no matter, you are entitled to your delusions and serial contradictions. (I cannot forget the many you fed me on in the last thread, such as “purposeful beings in a purposeless universe” [such a shallow statement], Universe emerging from vacuum, but its contents [which are the universe itself] not emerging from vacuum. . .oh, KAG!)

More rhetoric. I have stated what the gods appear to be so far. You claim that the existence of intricate organs are mathematically unlikely: show your work. Show how they are mathematically unlikely. Yup, purposeful beings can live in a purposeless universe, etc.

That we do not go off on a tangent, I will in future open a thread specifically to discuss IFALOGY.

Okay.

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself.

If you are incapable of grasping a simple representation I cannot help you. I wonder what sort of mind is unable to see that we use the figure “1” there on a representational basis – as the sum of sets in the universe is at all events an unknown and possibly unknowable quantity.

Um, no. That's not a simple representation. You're attempting representational mathematics, but for the reason I stated - and more - you are not doing it. It's not a case of me being unable to grasp what you're trying to do, but me seeing how badly you've started your syllogism.

In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

Tragically wrong. Because 0 = 1, which you have set forth, would mean that your “vacuum,” = the universe. Such inverse reasoning leads to the conclusion that the universe IS a vacuum. That it is EQUAL to a vacuum. Can you sustain that? Aha.

Which is why the conclusion you snipped from my post was: "It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong." [Emphasis not in original]. Thanks for saying what I said back to me in different words.

Rather 0 + 1 which I set forth envisages a situation whereat an element was introduced into what YOU would describe as a vacuum – and that that introduction initiated an expansion that today forms the universe.

Representational mathematics: you're doing it wrong. You can also attempt reading back on what I wrote whre I pointed out a quantum fluctuation could have been "caused" the emergence of the universe.

Nothing else can explain the fact that the universe began to expand at a point. Why not previously? Why at that point? This can only be explained as I have said above if there was a change within the pre-existing singularity, that caused the expansion to begin.

Hence the cosmological argument: “whatever BEGINS to exist, has a cause”

And we're back to virtual particles and quantum fluctuations which needn't necessarily have a cause.

I assume that you are at home with the fundamentals of the cosmological argument. In brief, it goes thus –

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. The Universe thus has a cause.

It's a flawed argument, in the same vein of lizards have legs. New findings invalidate previous syllogisms. That argument precedes the Casmir effect and the uncertainty principle.

Now it is inconceivable to imagine any “cause” within the sort of vacuum you have laboriously tried to construct: which at all events we have shown to be at variance with even the very handicapped scientific discoveries regarding such vacuums.

I therefore re- assert to you that the only logical path of reasoning is that there must have been an intervention as a cause.

Otherwise nothing would exist.

See above and previous posts.

Actually, nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable and are distinct both philosophically and scientifically. So, yeah, my understanding of the term still trumps yours.

At this point instead of the empty boasting you have persisted on, may I request you to adduce your definitions of “nothing” and “nothingness” in terms of this discussion.

I have already stated mine: nothingness is an absolute no thing – it represents a state of absolute zero: and I state to you again that by this very definition there is nothing like nothingness – it does not exist anywhere – any more than zero represents anything other than Zilch. Empty. Not there.

See my previous post. It's interesting that even your definition subtly implies that nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable.

It was inconceivable for images to be sent thousands of miles to a receiving "box" used for viewing. It was inconceivable that a particle could be affected by what happened to another many miles away. So far the findings give an indication in that direction. I hope you can wrap your head around the fact that, once again, an argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy and not a rebuttal.

What are you on about here? That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed.

Thus, conquer the universe, and engineer new planets, if you will, that will not change the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 and as such something cannot sprout from nothing.

Actually, scientific advancements does mean that philosophical essentials and absolutes can be changed. One quick offhand example: "an atom is the smallest unit of matter and cannot be divided into anything else."

Is it possible to have a zero in a numbers set, or, do we claim that just because it is a numbers set zero can't exist within it? The answer is obviously the former. The same applies to the universe and a vacuum.

Nope. We only have zero in a set to indicate a state where there is NOTHING as opposed to a state where there are quantities. That nothing remains nothing – and as such does not exist.

And that nothing that doesn't exist is within a numbers set. Nothing within something. Thanks for playing.

If you even half-thought this through you would recognise what I am saying: Check this out.

1. Between No. 1 and No. 2 – there exists an INFINITE number of fractions.

2. Between No 1 and ZERO. . . start counting backwards. 1, - - 0.9 - - - .0.8  - - -  0.7 ….0.2 - - -  0.1 - - - 0.09 - - - 0.08 - - - 0.07. . . . . infinity. .

3. You will count the fractions to infinity and YOU WILL NEVER ARRIVE AT ABSOLUTE ZERO! ! ! ! ! ! !

THIS FIRMLY, IRREVOCABLY AND INELUCTABLY PROVES MY POINT THAT ZERO AND NOTHINGNESS DO NOT, AND CANNOT EXIST, ANYWAY, ANYHOW, ANYWHERE, AT ALL! ! ! !

Um, the first three statements do not lead to that conclusion. No, seriously! No. 1 shows that counting using fractions (or decimals) means that there can be an infinite amount of numbers between two digits. Therefore using your logic from no. 3 certain numbers do not exist. See: as you'll never arrive at one because of the infinite number of decimals between 2 and 1, 1 doesn't exist; therefore your notation of the universe as the number 1 means the universe doesn't exist. Goodness, taking your illogic to it's ultimate conclusion should indicate how poorly you frame syllogisms and do mathematics.

In fact, for your sake stop alluding to mathematics until you know how it works above a third grade level.

In case you're wondering, zero does exist.

Don’t you get it now!

Do you?

No? I thought you earlier boasted that they were created even on earth? ? ?

Why did I have to hustle up the facts before you revert with this plea? ? ?

That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

They essentially emerge from nothing into what would be a vacuum.

This is frankly meaningless. You state: “from nothing” (define that) and then you state – “into what would be a vacuum” (thus acceding that it is NOT  a vacuum in the first place, remains NOT a vacuum, and as such the particles did not emerge from a vacuum or “nothing”)

Actually, it makes a great deal of sense. From nothing means without a cause external to it self and from a lack of previous existence. It isn't a complete vacuum because of what is emerging into it.

That uncertainty ensures that even everything else were eliminated, true vacuums will still prove challenging to create. However, like the zero within a numbers set, that doesn't mean they are necessarily the product of the set itself.

That’s a good girl! Thanks for seeing my point and being so gracious as to concede it wholly.

This is at variance with your earlier boasts regarding vacuums!

I've quoted the part you snipped off, because it gives the context and shows that you were being disingenuous. There's a good reason you snipped that bit out, and that's because you knew that what I wrote wasn't the image you were trying to present.

[/quote][quote]

my God whats happening here?

Mudley313:

@ bolded. it was deleted by a "christian" mod. no one ever pointed out which of the forum rule/law was violated. the absurdity/insanity is the way christians easily get their feelings hurt like little kids in situations where their all-powerful-god was suppose to defend himself n make his children proud

pity how an ordinary human forum mod had to come to the rescue of your all-powerful-god

If u continue to defend ur stupidity, u will end up ridiculing urself. Even if it were deleted by a satanist, devilish,athesit or christian mod,the fact remain its against the rule of the forum and thats why it was deleted.

Why dont u ask ur manmustwac how many peoples posts he has deleted for going against the rules of the forum? I dont think anyone wanted to crucify him for doing same.

I see u are new here. Ask any one who ABUZOLA is. They will tell how many ur own manmustwac deleted his posts for going against the rules. In the islamic section, i had an argument with same abuzola(a muslim) and Jarus the muslim moderator deleted our posts for not too friendly. I even thanked him for the correction. Instead of u to heed to correction u are here defending and trying to justify absurdity.

What i have said is what she reaffirmed here

JeSoul:

I thought I already explained that to you?  Once again, please discuss respectfully and cordially and no one will disturb you from airing your anti-religious views Mudley. Cheers.

[size=20pt]NO SEXUALLY EXPLICIT OR HATEFUL CONTENT
Please do not post any pictures, multimedia content, or writing that is sexually explicit (lewd, suggestive, bawdy, dirty, love-related, filthy, gross, hard core, immodest, indecent, indelicate, lascivious, licentious, naughty, obscene, off-color, pornographic, X-rated, smutty, suggestive). We will also not allow any comments that promote hatred, violence, or murder against any race, ethnic or religion group, gender, sexual orientation, person, et cetera.[/size]

Mudley313 get my point straight. I have no issues with any comment,pics or cartoons u post about god/Gods. Do so reasonably and within the confinements of rules. Thats all.

@ KAG -

I am not able to respond intoto now, but let me just note yet another disastrous statement from you.

It worries me that a person of obvious proper schooling such as yourself would persistently make such pedestrian, nay, calamituos gaffes.

I had stated -

"That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed."

And you reverted with -

"Actually, scientific advancements does mean that philosophical essentials and absolutes can be changed. One quick offhand example: "an atom is the smallest unit of matter and cannot be divided into anything else."

I ASK YOU KAG - SINCE WHEN DID THE SUPPOSITION OF AN ATOM BEING THE SMALLEST UNIT OF MATTER BECOME PHILOSOPHY? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

IS THAT NOT RATHER SCIENCE? ? ? ?

I stated to you that science cannot change phylosophical absolutes. You denied that and as proof gave an example of improved science changing previous science? ? ? ?

This simply shows that you have no idea as to what philosophy is.

It would therefore be presumptuous of me to imagine that you would understand what i meant by a "phylosophical absolute."

Heaven help me.

If u continue to defend your stupidity, u will end up ridiculing urself. Even if it were deleted by a satanist, devilish,athesit or christian mod,the fact remain its against the rule of the forum and thats why it was deleted.

Why dont u ask your manmustwac how many peoples posts he has deleted for going against the rules of the forum? I dont think anyone wanted to crucify him for doing same.

I see u are new here. Ask any one who ABUZOLA is. They will tell how many your own manmustwac deleted his posts for going against the rules. In the islamic section, i had an argument with same abuzola(a muslim) and Jarus the muslim moderator deleted our posts for not too friendly. I even thanked him for the correction. Instead of u to heed to correction u are here defending and trying to justify absurdity.

What i have said is what she reaffirmed here

it is your own ignorance and stupidity that is blinding you from reading to comprehend the boldly displayed written rules you just posted above. NONE OF THE PICS I'VE POSTED HAVE EVEN COME CLOSE TO BEING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT. I've posted this same pics in religious websites with stricter rules but none of em got deleted cos actions taken were not solely based on emotions and the religious belief of the mods. I DID NOT BREAK THE RULES  as stated above, so there's actually no correction to be heeded here. It was all in good fun, but some christians who were doing exactly the same thing got their feelings hurt and ran to the mod to take action naija-style. no problem sha

back to topic, anybody blind yet?

if not we'll declare the thread officially closed and the challenge officially over, and ofcourse, the OP's god officially non-existent

Mudley313:

it is your own ignorance and stupidity that is blinding you from reading to comprehend the boldly displayed written rules you just posted above. NONE OF THE PICS I'VE POSTED HAVE EVEN COME CLOSE TO BEING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT. I've posted this same pics in religious websites with stricter rules but none of em got deleted cos actions taken were not solely based on emotions and the religious belief of the mods. I DID NOT BREAK THE RULES  as stated above, so there's actually no correction to be heeded here. It was all in good fun, but some christians who were doing exactly the same thing got their feelings hurt and ran to the mod to take action naija-style. no problem sha

Just like i was told to, i will ignore u since the pics/cartoon have been trashed already.

Deep Sight:

@ KAG -

I am not able to respond intoto now, but let me just note yet another disastrous statement from you.

You shouldn't have bothered. Your knee-jerk reactions only show how lacking your knowledge is.

It worries me that a person of obvious proper schooling such as yourself would persistently make such pedestrian, nay, calamituos gaffes.

I had stated -

"That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed."

And you reverted with -

"Actually, scientific advancements does mean that philosophical essentials and absolutes can be changed. One quick offhand example: "an atom is the smallest unit of matter and cannot be divided into anything else."

I ASK YOU KAG - SINCE WHEN DID THE SUPPOSITION OF AN ATOM BEING THE SMALLEST UNIT OF MATTER BECOME PHILOSOPHY? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

IS THAT NOT RATHER SCIENCE? ? ? ?

From wiki:

"In the West, the references to atoms emerged a century later from Leucippus, whose student, Democritus, systematized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter". Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)

I learnt of the origin of the concept of atoms, the notion of them being indivisible, and its philosophical import in primary school. I guess it's your turn to learn of them. You can thank me later.

By the way, if you had bothered to read my post closely rather than trying - unsucessfully, I might add - to score cheap points, you'd have seen I was extending the scope of the discussion to include absolutes in general - not that even noting that would have mattered to the points presented here.

I stated to you that science cannot change phylosophical absolutes. You denied that and as proof gave an example of improved science changing previous science? ? ? ?

No, I gave an example of a philosophical notion made absolute that was adopted by modern science and shown wrong by continued discoveries.

This simply shows that you have no idea as to what philosophy is.

I'd wager I have a better idea of what philosophy is than you do.

It would therefore be presumptuous of me to imagine that you would understand what i meant by a "phylosophical absolute."

Heaven help me.

Did you mean "philosophical absolute"?

I hope you've learnt why knee-jerk reactions can be bad for you.

NOTHINGNESS IS FULNESS

"God is greater than any thing one can imagine, like no thing."

In the Jewish literature God is often referred to as nothingness (ayin in Hebrew) or as Ein Sof (with no end, infinite).

The negative theology in Jewish philosophy and mysticism emphasizes the understanding of God solely by means of "no",

Furthermore, Jewish mystics of the kabbalist school see God as the paradoxical fullness of the great divine nothing,

And they maintain, that the nothing is infinitely more real than all other reality, more existent than all the being of the world,

That it (nothing) contains a wealth of mystical reality, and that the nothing [/b]is brimming with overwhelming [b]divine reality;


Nothingness  is the "whatness" of God.

Just like i was told to, i will ignore u since the pics/cartoon have been trashed already.

@ bolded. yea, i get it. "just like u were told". u religious zombies need to be told what to do since y'all never can think for yourselves

                                                           NOTHINGNESS IS FULNESS

"God is greater than any thing one can imagine, like no thing."

In the Jewish literature God is often referred to as nothingness (ayin in Hebrew) or as Ein Sof (with no end, infinite).

The negative theology in Jewish philosophy and mysticism emphasizes the understanding of God solely by means of "no",

Furthermore, Jewish mystics of the kabbalist school see God as the paradoxical fullness of the great divine nothing,

And they maintain, that the nothing is infinitely more real than all other reality, more existent than all the being of the world,

That it (nothing) contains a wealth of mystical reality, and that the nothing is brimming with overwhelming divine reality;


Nothingness  is the  "whatness" of God.

and where did you get all these crap from? the bible? i thought you were christian, so whats up with all the jewish mysticism and kabbalist bullcrap?

make you nor go craze o, in your furtile attempt to proove the existence of your imaginary god

KAG:


From wiki:

"In the West, the references to atoms emerged a century later from Leucippus, whose student, Democritus, systematized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter". Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)

I learnt of the origin of the concept of atoms, the notion of them being indivisible, and its philosophical import in primary school. I guess it's your turn to learn of them. You can thank me later.

Trash. Balderdash. Bunkum. Not even half close. You astonish me with your logical deficiencies. Perhaps if you found that flying objects were first conceived of by Socrates, you would conclude that aeronautics is a branch of philosophy. Afterall, everything, including flight, has a "philosophical import." I laugh.

I stated very clearly that I referred to philosophical absolutes. In this regard I was unequivocal in stating that such absolutes cannot be changed by science.

Now can you tell me how the notions advanced by the Indians and Greeks can be termed “absolutes?” What is an absolute, for heaven’s sake KAG? ? ? Do we have to haggle over and define every word as we go along?

An absolute is something which is logically closed and not open to alteration or corruption of any sort. Thus I may state that a logical absolute is that a shape cannot be a perfect square and a perfect circle at the same time – and because this is an absolute, no amount of science is going to change this fact.

In the same way I gave you 0 + 0 = 0. This is a philosophical, mathematical and logical absolute. No amount of, combination of, or agglomeration of zeroes will EVER amount to anything other than same zero: this is an absolute: and it is the absolute that shows that no conception of “nothings” can ever deliver a “something.”

Science CANNOT change that. In your attempt to contradict that you claimed that things do pop out of nothingness – and for this you adduced the example of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. WELL SORRY THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVELY SHOWN THAT A QUANTUM VACUUM IS NOT “NOTHING” SCIENTIFICALY SPEAKING AND YOU SINCE APOLOGIZED FOR YOUR SLOPINESS ON THAT!

Now what you pathetically presented as evidence that philosophical absolutes can be changed was the fact that a theory, a mere notion, conjecture by certain ancient minds – regarding the indivisibility of a unit was disproved by latter science!And you had the nerve to present this as a philosophical ABSOLUTE – which has been changed by science? ? ? ? ?

How was it ever an absolute? By what logical suppositions was it an absolute? ? ?

You amaze me!

No, I gave an example of a philosophical notion made absolute that was adopted by modern science and shown wrong by continued discoveries.

KAG, HOW THE HECK WAS SUCH A NOTION “MADE ABSOLUTE?”

I have already explained above what an absolute is. Who made those ancient conjectures absolutes? Absolutes are not even made, they simply ARE.

An absolute by its very nature is an ineluctable FACT, an adamantine TRUTH and CANNOT be “shown wrong” by any discovery.

Unless you will show me the discovery that means that 0 + 0 = 0 will become false. Or produce shapes that are perfect squares and perfect circles simultaneously.

You are terrifyingly off the mark.

I'd wager I have a better idea of what philosophy is than you do.

Do not struggle to impress: the fact that philosophers have made their conjectures regarding indivisible matter DOES NOT avail you as grounds for citing the indivisibility of matter as “philosophy.” The fact is that this is SCIENCE,  - which deals with physical material things and no amount of pondering by any ancient sages on the subject will ever translate into the excuse you seek for regarding the divisibility of an atom as “philosophy” and worse: as a “philosophical absolute.” You still do not know what philosophy is.

Perhaps if you found that flying objects were first conceived of by Socrates, you would conclude that aeronautics is a branch of philosophy, and that its principles are “philosophical absolutes!” You are so ridiculously funny! I laugh.

Let me just help you: there is a philosophy of everything, but it should be clear to you the area of philosophy that is relevant to the subject of our discourse: it will not be apt to cite an early philosopher’s perception of a forest as grounds for claiming that forestry is philosophy.  I will not say more than this and I hope you get the hint.

Alice in wonderland.

Deep Sight:

From wiki:

"In the West, the references to atoms emerged a century later from Leucippus, whose student, Democritus, systematized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter". Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)

I learnt of the origin of the concept of atoms, the notion of them being indivisible, and its philosophical import in primary school. I guess it's your turn to learn of them. You can thank me later.

Trash. Balderdash. Bunkum. Not even half close. You astonish me with your logical deficiencies. Perhaps if you found that flying objects were first conceived of by Socrates, you would conclude that aeronautics is a branch of philosophy.

Um, no. There's a clear difference between the history of the atom and your analogy. A more comparable analogy would be acknowledging the link between Aristotle's concept of the aether to modern ether hypotheses as used by some modern science. That's because the link isn't just tentative, but have the same bases and premises.

I stated very clearly that I referred to philosophical absolutes. In this regard I was unequivocal in stating that such absolutes cannot be changed by science.

Now can you tell me how the notions advanced by the Indians and Greeks can be termed “absolutes?” What is an absolute, for heaven’s sake KAG? ? ? Do we have to haggle over and define every word as we go along?

An absolute is something which is logically closed and not open to alteration or corruption of any sort. Thus I may state that a logical absolute is that a shape cannot be a perfect square and a perfect circle at the same time – and because this is an absolute, no amount of science is going to change this fact.

No. A philosophical absolute - even more so than any other conception of an absolute - involves claims and/or arguments built on the present or prevalent scope and findings at a particular time. So, for instance, the certainty that nothing while on earth can flow up hill in defiance of gravity, all effects or occurrences must have an immediate cause, and that spontaneous generation of the kind where complex organisms appear were all philosophical absolutes. They were declared certain, sacrosanct and unable to defied in any way. However, new discoveries have shown otherwise.

Therefore, yes, absolutes have been changed and debunked by new scientific discoveries.

In the same way I gave you 0 + 0 = 0. This is a philosophical, mathematical and logical absolute. No amount of, combination of, or agglomeration of zeroes will EVER amount to anything other than same zero: this is an absolute: and it is the absolute that shows that no conception of “nothings” can ever deliver a “something.”

That's not a philosophical absolute: it's a mathematical absolute. The same can't be said for "7 + 6 = 13" unless its numeral system was strictly defined.

Science CANNOT change that. In your attempt to contradict that you claimed that things do pop out of nothingness – and for this you adduced the example of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. WELL SORRY THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVELY SHOWN THAT A QUANTUM VACUUM IS NOT “NOTHING” SCIENTIFICALY SPEAKING AND YOU SINCE APOLOGIZED FOR YOUR SLOPINESS ON THAT!

Yup. virtual particles are an excellent example of something emerging from nothing. You're mistaking the emergence from nothing into the universe for that thing being caused by the universe. I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums.

Now what you pathetically presented as evidence that philosophical absolutes can be changed was the fact that a theory, a mere notion, conjecture by certain ancient minds – regarding the indivisibility of a unit was disproved by latter science!And you had the nerve to present this as a philosophical ABSOLUTE – which has been changed by science? ? ? ? ?

How was it ever an absolute? By what logical suppositions was it an absolute? ? ?

Actually, it was more than a theory or even a mere conjecture. It was declared an absolute formulation of the make-up of the world.

You amaze me!

KAG, HOW THE HECK WAS SUCH A NOTION “MADE ABSOLUTE?”

I have already explained above what an absolute is. Who made those ancient conjectures absolutes? Absolutes are not even made, they simply ARE.

Actually, they are made. Like the cosmological argument, for instance.

An absolute by its very nature is an ineluctable FACT, an adamantine TRUTH and CANNOT be “shown wrong” by any discovery.

Except when it is.

[snip]empty rhetoric getting repetitive[/snip]

^^^

'Virtual' particles are so called because they oscillate between a form of 'energy' and a form of 'matter' within a complex space-time continuum. You could also call them 'virtual energy', if you are so inclined, as it would mean almost the same thing. They do not pop out of 'nothing' as you suggest.


I make reference to this your comment: 'virtual particles are an excellent example of something emerging from nothing'. They are not.

beneli:

^^^

'Virtual' particles are so called because they oscillate between a form of 'energy' and a form of 'matter' within a complex space-time continuum. You could also call them 'virtual energy', if you are so inclined, as it would mean almost the same thing. They do not pop out of 'nothing' as you suggest.


I make reference to this your comment: 'virtual particles are an excellent example of something emerging from nothing'. They are not.

No. As far as I know virtual particles are so called because of their short time span and their inability to be directly observed in relation to other particles. In any case, that is besides the point, as what is important here is that they do emerge from nothing and their effects are measurable. By the way, I take it that by "they oscillate between a form of 'energy' and a form of 'matter'" you mean they can affect forms of energy and matter not that would be what effects them, right? Just so there's no misunderstanding on this.

Finally, I'll go out on a limb and state that no, they are not the same as virtual energy, but they can cause virtual energy.

KAG:

No. As far as I know virtual particles are so called because of their short time span and their inability to be directly observed in relation to other particles. In any case, that is besides the point, as what is important here is that they do emerge from nothing and their effects are measurable.

They have a ‘short time span’ because when they are not particles, they exist in the form of energy. That’s what I mean by ‘oscillate’ between a form of matter and a form of energy. They do NOT emerge from ‘Nothing’. They emerge from energy.

KAG:

By the way, I take it that by "they oscillate between a form of 'energy' and a form of 'matter'" you mean they can affect forms of energy and matter not that would be what effects them, right? Just so there's no misunderstanding on this.

By ‘Oscillate’, I mean that they swing back and forth from being a form of energy to a form of matter.

KAG:

Finally, I'll go out on a limb and state that no, they are not the same as virtual energy, but they can cause virtual energy.

You are right, they are not the same as virtual energy per se, but the concept of ‘virtual energy’ allows one to understand ‘virtual particles’ better, because in essence  that’s what they are. 

But like you rightly suggested, all this is beside the point.  Of relevance is the scientific FACT that they do NOT emerge out of nothing.

Right. There is no need to engage KAG further. She herself was forced to admit that quantum vacuums are NOT nothing and as such her claim that virtual particles emerge from "nothing" (a quantum vacuum) collapses FLAT ON ITS FACE AB INITIO.

Why are people so arrogant that they keep pursuing an absurd lie even when they themselves have acknowldged that it is false? ? ?