₦airaland Forum

plaetton: Mr Annony, If this is the best that you can do, then this is an Epic fail.

.

WHAT! ! ! ! Is Plaetton same person as logicbloy ? ? ? ? ? ?

MacDaddy01: The colours are measurable


Epic fail.


Reread his arguments again

Please describe blue.

And kindly remember that you cannot define a word using the same word. In other words you cannot point to the sky or facebook's logo,because i might be color blind and see it as red.

So please go ahead and describe what blue is, thanks.

Thank you.

MacDaddy01: Visual illusions dont come in plain colours. The colour blue exists since we can see it. The problem is that our colour-seeing abilities are limited. Aparently, there are deep colours invisible to the naked eyes.

Not at all, if i were to post here a simple visual illussion, you might find that the color blue ceases to exist - sensually. That's the issue. The fact that you limited real things to our senses. That is faulty, clearly.

plaetton: Mr Annony, If this is the best that you can do, then this is an Epic fail.

There is a mathematical, molecular and geometric relationship between color and all the above. Grab your physics text book and read up on optics.
It about numbers. Blue is justa certain wavelenght of energy, smell is a certain wavelenght of energy, taste and feel are related to molecular structure, which also may have a corresponding wavelenght of energy.

So colour can indeed be reducable into tangible units of measurement, namely wavelength.

He has not said they don't exist. Get the logic right: he is proceeding from logicboy's statement that real things must be measurable and quantifiable. The colors you see - and much worse - the thought of those colors - are not.

Is there any thought you have which you can extract, measure and quantify?

In fact, there is nothing that you think that you can prove exists.

Think on it.

plaetton: It seems that you have not been reading my post.
If you have , you would not be asking for the attributes of the first cause.

If the permanent somethingness(your words) is eternal and uncaused(your view), then how in gods name(FSM) would there be a first cause with any attributes.
How can you in one part of your mouth say eternal, uncaused cause, permanent somethinness, then , in another part of your mouth you are asking me for attributes of the first cause?

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?

Because the universe demonstrably had a beginning.

Material things are thus caused/created.

Immaterial things such as eternity - which is what God is - are not.

MacDaddy01: Blue is a shade isnt it. We can see it. Colours have something to do with light and reflection.

If you have studied visual illusions, you might be acquainted with the fact that what you see is not what is there. And this says alot. It says that that which is real can by no means be limited to our senses, as you earlier suggested. Even your partial color blindness says the same thing.

For Jayriginal, I add this - observation still remains the tool of science nonetheless.

Deep Sight: Give me an example of one single OBSERVED EVENT that you know has no cause.

Jayriginal's conundrum.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]lol, they won't. they'd much rather ridicule

@plaetton, all he is asking is that you describe what attributes first cause would have. Simples. A conceptual analysis if you may.[/quote]Here it is again, Plaetton.

Stop running.

And remember the context - re: FSM.

plaetton: when you say answer, what excactly do you expect?

Scientific explanations or mere mental gymanstics?
Opinion is the most abundant commodity there is. I could flood this market, I mean this thread with all sorts of wild opinions. I dont know how much that would help our discussions.

Escapism.

Answer the question. Fetch my quotes. Read them. Answer them. They were simple and clear questions. Anony also paraprahsed the question. Stop running.

mkmyers45: @Deep Sight I hope you remember our thread and the fact that not all observed events are caused...

Give me an example of one single OBSERVED EVENT that you know has no cause.

plaetton: I do not see how I have done so.
All I have conceded is that the big ba.ng could have been a mere inflection in existence that spawned new characteristics to the what already is.
It still means there was no creation and no creator.

Still saying the same thing!

MacDaddy01: Regarding your debunked particle nonsense,


If you cant show me what is smaller than a quark, then shut the feck up. Dont do Anony Houdini with me

Oh yeah, just like once upon a time the atom was the smallest particle, no?

Oh,and go back and read your link again. If you had read it, you would not have posted it.

MacDaddy01: lol.....there is no discussion. Any rational person knows that numbers do not exist. They are ideas, ideological constructs. Have you experienced number 4 ?



Hail the new God, number 4! Another abstract that Deep Sight believes exists

Read the link i gave you,i wont waste my time explaining to you.

MacDaddy01: How do we know that something exist?


Tangibility!


See, touch, smell, feel, taste, hear.......,measurable, quantifiable, etc



Anything beyond our senses is non-existent. Unless you have some 6th sense you want to share with us.

By that token, time itself does not exist. Nor do thoughts. Nor do emotions. Nor do ideas.

plaetton: [/b]
[/b]
Am rolling on the floor laughing.

I have pondered the first cause since I was 5yr old.
I do not pretend to know and I'm not willing cop out and claiming the most comforting idea that comes into my head or regurgitated every sunday.
I would rather continue to ponder and ask questions along the way.
I do not envy you who has already found an answer that is soft, cuddly and sweet in the mouth, much like spaghetti.

If indeed you have pondered the first cause for so long, then you ought to have pondered its tenable attributes. I listed some earlier. UP TILL NOW, NONE OF YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THAT QUESTION I GAVE YOU ABOUT ATTRIBUTES, AND THE SOURCE FOR SUCH: CAUSALIY

COWARDS - Address the question!

MacDaddy01: You are quite mad to try to argue that numbers exist. You were proven wrong and now you want to shift and dump the argument. Hell no! Numbers do not exist and only an idiot or dishonest theist would argue they exist. They are ideological constructs.

I cannot engage you in a discussion as advanced as that about numbers. You are not fit for such a discussion. I have told you that I am se.xually masochistic but not intellectually masochistic. So no thanks.

As for the smallest particles, we know nothing smaller than quarks. That is the end of the story. There might be speculation of something smaller but there is no evidence for that yet.

No: there is no limit to sub particles.[/quote]

plaetton: Yeah. No problems with that idea.
But the universe is just an offshoot, an inflection point, and perhaps an insignificant phase of the permanent somethingness.
Do you agree?

Yes, and in saying this, you have acceded to the existence of a pre existent, which is the thing from which this universe proceeds.

# Plaetton closed.

Good day, noble kind and gracious sir.

plaetton: So god is the sum of all reality. Right?



Hmmmm. Its deja vu all over again.
You see. you have come full circle to agree with me, a pantheist.

If god is the sum of all existence, then there could not have been a time when he created or caused anything to be created.
Like I stated in a another thread,the god would not be distinguishable from anything else in existence.
therefore the idea of a god is null and void because all that exists,the permanent somethingness, the universe being perhaps just an offshoot, has always been and did not come into being at any point.

Wrong, because the universe demonstrably had a beginning. Simples.

MacDaddy01: Numbers exist? Are you mad? They are only ideological constructs. the number 2 does not exist in real life, it is only the figure we use to represent something double in value.


The smallest particle
http://education.jlab.org/qa/quark_01.html

Olodo. Read your own link.

This is what it says -

So far it looks like there is nothing smaller inside an atom than quarks. Our experiments look for evidence that quarks have some sort of shape or structure. If they do have a shape or structure rather than just being a point (which by itself is a very difficult concept to understand), then there might be some sub-quark constituents. At present there is little or no evidence of any structure to the quark. Maybe there is though! That might be something for you, the next generation, to look for and try to figure out!

Numbers exist? Are you mad? They are only ideological constructs. the number 2 does not exist in real life, it is only the figure we use to represent something double in value.

Numbers do exist. But it is beyond you to discuss the issue. Far far beyond you. I wont waste my time trying to do so with a nit wit. Read carefully this post -

https://www.nairaland.com/315294/atheists-empirical-reasoning-existence-god/8#4551331

plaetton: Or even a mathematical equation, or a sound or harmonic sequence?

And these are still existents.

In reality, GOD is as you have said above,but more: it is the infinite equation, the eternal sound, the limitless harmonic sequence of all reality.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, he clearly isn't. I am happy to ask you a question though just to test. Why can the first cause not be an abstract such as a number?[/quote]Indeed it is so as far as the finite can perceive: and an abstract is still an existent: and a real existent for that matter when we speak of the first cause: given that its existence is inferred directly from other very real existents: the material universe.

MacDaddy01: we dont know what is beofre the big bang. If there was a trigger, yes it wouldnt be noodle, neither will it be spiritual ectoplasm

And that ends the discussion.

#FSM DEBUNKED!

Good day, noble kind and gracious sir.

MacDaddy01: Ode, numbers dont exist in the real world, they are ideological constructs

Numbers do exist, otherwise you won't even be typing. I don't expect that you are philosophically mature enough for us to venture into the discussion on numbers though.

matter is the smallest material. No infinite in particles.

O really? Oya, show me the smallest particle na?

MacDaddy01: Universe had a beginning? Is that not your argument?


Isnt that the point of the big bang?

And the big bang was massive motion. Now tell me: are you unscientific enough to believe that such massive motion occurs without a trigger?

Do you think that such a trigger could be noodles?

MacDaddy01: Eternity is an infinite. Infinites do no exist n the real world.

In fact,just to re inforce how wrong this statement is: infinites DO EXIST in our reality.

Every particle can be sub divided to sub particles to infinity. Same with numbers. Same with everything.

So infinity is in fact the only reality.

MacDaddy01: Eternity is an infinite. Infinites do no exist n the real world.


#back to life, back to reality

Nonsense. If eternity does not exist,then what else exists? In what does the universe exist? What timeline. Get serious.

plaetton: Beautiful logic.
By the same token, So if god exists, god cannot come from nothing, so there must be something pre-existent and more permanent than god.right?

Hhhmmm, what should we call it?
Let me see.
I know. please please, lets call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster(FSM).
What do you think?

O no: remember that matter is mutable and hence not self xistent. Thats the key. Simples.

The intagible is not caused. Eternity is intangible. Is it caused? There's your answer.

plaetton: @Deepsight:

Pls answer honestly.
No matter how elegant,complete and reassuring it sounds, Is god, the uncaused cause, the eternal, immutable overlord of space and time, not a mental construct?

Can you demonstrate how god is demostrably eternal, immutable, uncaused, or that god even exists at all?

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. Thus something pre exists.

4. The pre existent cannot be nothing.

5. It is thus a permanent something.

MacDaddy01: "The cause of matter can not be matter"

#things that Deep Sight pulls from his Azz

So your responses to premises are not counter premises but only mockery?

plaetton: By what means?
Through my imagination, or by revelation?

By reason.

It is logical to say that a first cause is eternal or immaterial:

Is it logical to say that a first cause is Indomie Noodles?

Come on. Be serious.

plaetton: And of course, by your logic, god demostrably had no beginning ., Right?

I just dont know how you can so fiercely argue that the universe must have a first cause, but magically, god cannot.
Because the universe occupies a spot in space and time, and ,god magically does not. right?

Conscisely, because the universe is matter,and matter cannot cause itself and as such, the cause of matter cannot be matter: and is therefore immaterial. That which is immaterial is naturally permanent and uncaused.

Simples.

Now answer my questions!

cyrexx: why not start by giving us reasons why you think there is a first cause?

Because the universe demonstrably had a beginning.

you just assume there is one and you would want us to agree to your assumptions.

FSM also presupposes first cause.