Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » More General Categories » Religion and Politics » fkin LMFAO @ Atheism, only retards think it’s a logical worldview.
  1. Results 151 to 180 of 240
  2. Page 6 of 8
  3. First
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  11. Last

Thread: fkin LMFAO @ Atheism, only retards think it’s a logical worldview.

post 1540293391 01-11-2018, 02:23 PM
-
#151
  1. acrawlingchaos
  2. Registered User
  1. acrawlingchaos
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2011
  4. Location: New Hampshire, United States
  5. Age: 49
  6. Posts: 16,672
  7. Rep Power: 150407
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
You can literally say that about any argument, I already explained to you what I mean by "cause", and "infinite". Tell me which premise is wrong. I keep proving to you logically that infinite regress is wrong and all you keep doing is saying "oh well look at it backwards", well that doesn't really touch any of the premises of my argument, it still makes infinite regress impossible.
So does this mean hypothetical analogies and musing are the extent of your evidence regarding god? That would indicate that under your own premise, any identifier other than agnosticism is illogical.
Originally Posted By RiceBrah93⏩
Most atheists I know are social rejects. A sound mind would not even entertain the thought of atheism
So what you are saying, is I could take a small cross section of the irrational and hateful and apply it to the whole? And you think that's a reasonable conclusion why?
Look at most successful people, athletes, musicians. They all believe in God, in a higher power, they give praise to Him and glorify Him that's why they are so successful in the first place.
It could be sincere and it could be virtue signaling.
post 1540299221 01-11-2018, 03:18 PM
-
#152
  1. Mr Beer
  2. Here's beer
  1. Mr Beer
  2. Here's beer
  3. Join Date: Nov 2004
  4. Location: In the bar
  5. Posts: 40,965
  6. Rep Power: 141991
Originally Posted By RiceBrah93⏩
That's just pure cope. Considering sports and entertainment are run by Satanists. Besides why would athletes acknowledge God in public if they don't even believe in Him in the first place? There's no money or accolades to be gained by doing so.

And are you're saying this man had to pretend he believes in God just to give this speech? What would he gain by pretending?
I can't look inside every person's heart and determine who is paying lip service to God and who means it, I'm just pointing out that it's an expected ritual in the US under certain circumstances, and athletes taking awards is one of those.

Regardless, conflating the public opinion of who people who get televised awards with the opinion of successful people as a whole is silly. Furthermore, if every single successful person in the entire world believed in God with every fibre of their being, that says nothing about the validity of their belief. Reality is not subject to opinions.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
post 1540345351 01-12-2018, 12:38 AM
-
#153
  1. RiceBrah93
  2. 8'3 330lbs
  1. RiceBrah93
  2. 8'3 330lbs
  3. Join Date: Oct 2013
  4. Posts: 12,489
  5. Rep Power: 13106
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
-Denzel Washington believes in God
-Therefore, God

Pretty sound I guess....
Your quote made no sense at all, stick to maths and science. English clearly isn't your forte
post 1540345491 01-12-2018, 12:40 AM
-
#154
  1. RiceBrah93
  2. 8'3 330lbs
  1. RiceBrah93
  2. 8'3 330lbs
  3. Join Date: Oct 2013
  4. Posts: 12,489
  5. Rep Power: 13106
Originally Posted By Mr
I can't look inside every person's heart and determine who is paying lip service to God and who means it, I'm just pointing out that it's an expected ritual in the US under certain circumstances, and athletes taking awards is one of those.

Regardless, conflating the public opinion of who people who get televised awards with the opinion of successful people as a whole is silly. Furthermore, if every single successful person in the entire world believed in God with every fibre of their being, that says nothing about the validity of their belief. Reality is not subject to opinions.
Choose what you want to believe, all I said is successful people are successful in the first place because they have God in their lives.
And you said, most of them just put on a facade in public, so I asked you why would they pretend to believe in God if they have no money or accolades to be gained from it? And you still haven't answered my question. Does it hurt you deep inside that most successful people aren't actually atheists and truly believe in God? Would it make you feel any better if they were like you?

So that's my belief, feel free to keep being cynical and contradict me as always like a true atheist does.
post 1540345611 01-12-2018, 12:42 AM
-
#155
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Posts: 6,938
  5. Rep Power: 51915
Originally Posted By RiceBrah93⏩
Your quote made no sense at all, stick to maths and science. English clearly isn't your forte
It's called argumentative shorthand. "God exists" is understood in the conclusion....

Sigh. Smh
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑

♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮

Nullius in verba
post 1540346211 01-12-2018, 12:58 AM
-
#156
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Posts: 6,938
  5. Rep Power: 51915
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
1. In order for the particular movement of my hand to occur, an infinite amount of causes and hence time must be concluded

-causes and infinite are both controversial, imprecise terms

2. infinity by definition cannot be concluded

- Nope. Depending on our definition of infinity.....I will use the common mathematical one....an infinite set can certainly be "concluded". Take the set of all non-positive whole numbers, from -∞ to 0 =
{ ...,-100,-99,-98,......,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0}. This infinite set "concludes", namely at 0. Just like our infinite set of causes can conclude at the moment the hand moves.

3. but the movement of my hand did occur

-Heck the strict logician would debate even this. The whole appearance vs reality thing. Are you dreaming? Are you in a matrix? Is your mind under the influence of something that makes it think your hand is moving? Etc

4. therefore, an infinite regress of causes is impossible

-Nope
^^(my answers in bold to your statements). Your statement #2 in particular has obvious issues. The set of all non-positive integers is both infinite* and does have an "end", or max element (0). Inb4 well numbers aren't real! Well neither is an infinite list of causes, or the notion of cause itself- they are just as abstract as numbers, and if you disagree with this, please direct me to the nearest museum that has a specific "set of causes" on display- the actual physical object- would be quite the sight. Lol.

*: not that you'll care I'm sure, but mathematics actually does have a precise definition of what infinity means: A set is said to be infinite if it can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. This definition didn't finally arrive until about the late 19th/early 20th century with Cantorian set theory, and is followed by the surprising fact there are different levels of "infinities", the groundbreaking result of modern mathematics. Anyway, the set of all nonpositive integers, or Z- U {0}, where Z- is the set of all negative integers, is clearly infinite by the above commonly accepted definition of infinity- just let f(x) = x-1 be the bijective map from (Z- U {0}) to Z-, a proper subset. And it has a greatest element of 0...so I object to your #2 statement.
Never did get a response to this. OP's original argument not looking too strong.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑

♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮

Nullius in verba
post 1540346771 01-12-2018, 01:17 AM
-
#157
  1. JediRN
  2. I lift dead people.
  1. JediRN
  2. I lift dead people.
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 8,437
  6. Rep Power: 43859
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
I'm sorry, but the bolded is not a good argument. You are saying an infinite number of causes requires an infinite amount of time....but an infinite amount of time is precisely what a physical reality extending infinitely into the past in fact does have.
Have we ever agreed to what is meant by "time"
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
It is a logical contradiction though, take any particular action, for example a particular movement for your hand, your hand moved because your brain sent signals to your nervous system to your hand, because of neurons firing in your brain, the neurons in your brain now are caused by the neurons in your brain from a moment before, and so on until you reach conception in your mother's womb, and then go on to both your parents and their bodies, and then their parents, and their parents, and so on, and eventually you reach the stage where inanimate matter became alive (abiogenesis) and from there you continue in the causal chain to the formation of the earth, solar system, galaxy, etc and eventually Big Bang, and then whatever conditioned caused the big bang, etc. to an infinite past

Now for your hand to make that particular movement, you'd need an infinite chain of causes, an infinite chain of causes would take an infinite amount to time to traverse, but infinity cannot end, therefore the particular movement of your hand would not be possible.
Said no Quantum Physicist ever.
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
Let me put it in simpler terms

1. If a car needs to go from point A to point B
2. And the condition for this is that the wheels have to rotate an infinite number of rotations

then the car will never reach point B because an infinite number of rotations can never be concluded.

It's really self-evident in my opinion, it's like you're asking me to prove to you that contradictions are impossible, you're doubting logic itself at this point.
It is known that subatomic particles do not obey this rule.

After perusing this thread it seems that God is just the filler for areas of ignorance.
post 1540347151 01-12-2018, 01:25 AM
-
#158
  1. MinisterOfLust
  2. 👽👽👽👽👽👽
  1. MinisterOfLust
  2. 👽👽👽👽👽👽
  3. Join Date: Aug 2003
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 65,452
  6. Rep Power: 688524
Just lol if you don't believe in a God. lol @ playing Russian Roulette.
post 1540347471 01-12-2018, 01:35 AM
-
#159
  1. MinisterOfLust
  2. 👽👽👽👽👽👽
  1. MinisterOfLust
  2. 👽👽👽👽👽👽
  3. Join Date: Aug 2003
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 65,452
  6. Rep Power: 688524
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Hmm which God though? Seems like if you pick one....you are still "playing Russian Roulette".
Jehovah is the only true God, however just for sake you might as well pick any higher power type of Gods. Good luck to you
post 1540351931 01-12-2018, 04:20 AM
-
#160
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  3. Join Date: Jul 2009
  4. Posts: 14,060
  5. Rep Power: 37269
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
They’re usually the type of people that say chit like “I ****ING LOVE SCIENCE!”

Like how can you even arrive at that position? the world and existence itself don’t even make sense, why is there even existence rather than non-existence?“OOO THERE WAS NOTHING, THEN THE WORLD JUST POPPED” “OOOO THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY INFINITE” even though infinite regress is obviously logically unsound.

Cmon I respect people that say “I don’t know”, these are the intelligent people. But Atheists are just rebellious morons that don’t like religion, so they go the opposite way. They’re emotional and not rational.
That happened to me once, I was banging this girl for like 6 hours
post 1540351971 01-12-2018, 04:22 AM
-
#161
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  3. Join Date: Jul 2009
  4. Posts: 14,060
  5. Rep Power: 37269
Originally Posted By Rabbitjb⏩
it's not up to atheists to prove the non existence of a fictional being
But yet you are the only ones saying God is fictional
post 1540352121 01-12-2018, 04:27 AM
-
#162
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  3. Join Date: Jul 2009
  4. Posts: 14,060
  5. Rep Power: 37269
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
atheism doesn't say god or some sort of creator doesn't exist for sure as a 100% fact.atheism dismisses religious claims based on a lack of evidence where as religious people rely on faith and 1000's of years old scriptures.
Yes it does
post 1540352181 01-12-2018, 04:29 AM
-
#163
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  1. VinnyPazRules
  2. Chitcoin sell
  3. Join Date: Jul 2009
  4. Posts: 14,060
  5. Rep Power: 37269
Originally Posted By Maestro⏩
If there is a god, which one do you believe in?If I had to wager i'd say you'd believe in the christian god simply because its what you were culturally raise with. A Cultural belief doesn't make something true, Don't believe me? Just ask Mromons that travel all over the world trying to convert people of other cultures to their brand of christianity. Also Remember, if you pick the wrong one then the true god will more than likely send you to a realm of eternal damnation for worshiping the wrong Being.

Hell, perhaps the its the Greek or Aztec gods that are the real ones and everyone is hell-bound because no one worships them anymore. Just because something is popular (Christianity and Islam) doesn't make is true. You know what else is popular and easy to do? Indulging in sin. Maybe Christianity is a religion concocted by satan for the world to worship a false god, and the one true religion (say, the Aztec religion) is the one true faith......funny thing is, you have no way to prove me wrong.

THATS why believing that there is a "god" that has set out rules and laws for us down to minute details is silly.



This point is true, there are billions of people out there that need religion to "scare them straight" or else they'd rape and pillage or simply kill themselves. Thats why I don't think religion should cease to exist, but I don't want people shoving it down my throat or exacting judgement on people for not believing in what they believe. Thats where bearded fedora wearing militant atheists are born from. People speaking in absolutes with no proof of their claims except for a 6kyo book with no quantifiable means of proving anything in the book to be true.
There is only 1 God. Anything else is merely a different interpretation
post 1540353531 01-12-2018, 05:09 AM
-
#164
  1. TINOFGE
  2. Banned
  1. TINOFGE
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2017
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 66
  6. Rep Power: 0
There is no evidence for Gods existence.
post 1540361081 01-12-2018, 07:20 AM
-
#165
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2011
  4. Location: Egypt
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 9,450
  7. Rep Power: 13784
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Pointless to continue debating about the argument. It's not a sound argument in my opinion, and neither of us will be changing our opinion obviously.
As for being able to say the above about any argument...not true at all. You are picking literally the two most infamous terms throughout the history of science that have led to endless debates and resulted in confusion ..."infinity" and "cause". (Zeno's paradox above was just one illustration). I can make many, many arguments that do not involve such imprecise terms. Pick basically any mathematical argument (which are true deductive arguments....not some poverty physical argument).

I can argue (prove) that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. It's a simple proof. Notice that all of the terms involved are precisely defined- "square root", "2", "irrational number". No vagueness involved.
All you're doing is doubting the definitions of the argument and claiming they are "imprecise", even though i made it clear what I mean by them. I can say the same thing about your mathematical proof, what do you mean exactly with "square root"? is it a "a number which produces a specified quantity when multiplied by itself."? what's a number? is it a "quantity"? what's a quantity? is it an "amount"? what's an amount? how can we be sure that numbers and mathematics are even accurate? maybe we're being mislead by an imaginary being that messes with our brain collectively to make think our maths is logical when it's not.

You can doubt anything, and you already proved your irrationality by saying "what if the particular movement of your hand isn't real", this is grasping at straws, if you had told me that you doubt observation since the beginning I would have not responded to you in the first place.
post 1540361891 01-12-2018, 07:32 AM
-
#166
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2011
  4. Location: Egypt
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 9,450
  7. Rep Power: 13784
Originally Posted By JediRN⏩
Have we ever agreed to what is meant by "time"



Said no Quantum Physicist ever.



It is known that subatomic particles do not obey this rule.

After perusing this thread it seems that God is just the filler for areas of ignorance.
Why do atheists think quantum science proves that subatomic particles don't follow causation for some reason? not sure if willful ignorance or sophistism.

So far atheists in this thread claimed.

"You can't rely on observation to prove anything"

"Some things have no cause"

What an intelligent rational people fkin LOL
post 1540362231 01-12-2018, 07:37 AM
-
#167
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 28,218
  6. Rep Power: 130149
The problem with atheists is that they always believe themselves to be purely rational beings.
post 1540362241 01-12-2018, 07:37 AM
-
#168
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Posts: 6,938
  5. Rep Power: 51915
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
All you're doing is doubting the definitions of the argument and claiming they are "imprecise", even though i made it clear what I mean by them. I can say the same thing about your mathematical proof, what do you mean exactly with "square root"? is it a "a number which produces a specified quantity when multiplied by itself."? what's a number? is it a "quantity"? what's a quantity? is it an "amount"? what's an amount? how can we be sure that numbers and mathematics are even accurate? maybe we're being mislead by an imaginary being that messes with our brain collectively to make think our maths is logical when it's not.

You can doubt anything, and you already proved your irrationality by saying "what if the particular movement of your hand isn't real", this is grasping at straws, if you had told me that you doubt observation since the beginning I would have not responded to you in the first place.
And you arestillavoiding the very obvious, concrete example I am providing which shows your entire argument loses all validity:

The set of all non-positive integers
{....,-100,-99,-98....,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0} is both infinite and concludes, at 0. Argument finished.


Oh and all those terms in the mathematical proof have very precise definitions:

"Square root of x": a nonnegative real number y, such that y^2 = x, where x>=0

"Irrational number": a real number that is not rational, i.e. cannot be written as p/q, with p and q both integers

"Number": This would take nearly an entire textbook to define properly, but let's just start with the counting numbers 1,2,3,4: We can define 2, for example, as the set of all sets that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set {a,b}. Similarly for any other natural number.

Actually infinity does have a precise definition also, as mentioned above. But your posts have made it clear you have absolutely no idea what this definition is....you are attempting to use a vague notion of "going on forever" used thousands of years ago, shown to be utterly fruitless.

Try harder.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑

♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮

Nullius in verba
post 1540362291 01-12-2018, 07:38 AM
-
#169
  1. Maestro
  2. отличнo!
  1. Maestro
  2. отличнo!
  3. Join Date: Oct 2002
  4. Location: New Mexico, United States
  5. Posts: 58,400
  6. Rep Power: 203698
Originally Posted By VinnyPazRules⏩
There is only 1 God. Anything else is merely a different interpretation
You don't know that. There is no way to talk about this subject while speaking in such "certainty"
post 1540362371 01-12-2018, 07:39 AM
-
#170
  1. HoganIsGOAT
  2. Bonafide Stud
  1. HoganIsGOAT
  2. Bonafide Stud
  3. Join Date: Jan 2014
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 22,731
  6. Rep Power: 69277
Originally Posted By Maestro⏩
You don't know that. There is no way to talk about this subject while speaking in such "certainty"
The certainty of something so uncertain does tend to annoy me - it's rather arrogant, whether intentional or not.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.
post 1540362431 01-12-2018, 07:40 AM
-
#171
  1. JediRN
  2. I lift dead people.
  1. JediRN
  2. I lift dead people.
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 8,437
  6. Rep Power: 43859
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
Why do atheists think quantum science proves that subatomic particles don't follow causation for some reason? not sure if willful ignorance or sophistism.
I have no knowledge that what you just said is true. In fact in any science 101 class one of the first things that you learn is that the most important question to a scientist is why. "Why" implies a cause or a reason.

As one progresses one is introduced to the concept of we don't know yet, but here a plausible explanation.
post 1540363451 01-12-2018, 07:53 AM
-
#172
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Posts: 6,938
  5. Rep Power: 51915
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
Why do atheists think quantum science proves that subatomic particles don't follow causation for some reason? not sure if willful ignorance or sophistism.

So far atheists in this thread claimed.

"You can't rely on observation to prove anything"

"Some things have no cause"

What an intelligent rational people fkin LOL
Exactly what a religious person would claim about God, eh? (bolded)

You also have no idea what proof means if you are connecting it observation, lol. Deductive proofs- true proofs- have nothing to do with observation.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑

♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮

Nullius in verba
post 1540365271 01-12-2018, 08:11 AM
-
#173
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2011
  4. Location: Egypt
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 9,450
  7. Rep Power: 13784
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
And you arestillavoiding the very obvious, concrete example I am providing which shows your entire argument loses all validity:

The set of all non-positive numbers
{....,-100,-99,-98....,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0} is both infinite and concludes, at 0. Argument finished.
All you did was misconstrue what I mean by infinite, wtf does a set that represents numbers have to do with what I'm talking about? the function of these sets is to put limit to the possible numbers in any particular set. so [ -infinity, 0] just means that the set contains any number from zero to below. It doesn't say anything about infinity concluding, it doesn't say anything philosophical. I'm not sure if you're being serious right now.
post 1540365731 01-12-2018, 08:16 AM
-
#174
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2011
  4. Location: Egypt
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 9,450
  7. Rep Power: 13784
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
You also have no idea what proof means if you are connecting it observation, lol. Deductive proofs- true proofs- have nothing to do with observation.
there are two types of proof, deductive and inductive, both are valid, both can be used in one proof, if you doubt the particular movement of the hand then what's the point in debating anything? you can always doubt anything.
post 1540365961 01-12-2018, 08:17 AM
-
#175
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Posts: 6,938
  5. Rep Power: 51915
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
All you did was misconstrue what I mean by infinite, wtf does a set that represents numbers have to do with what I'm talking about? the function of these sets is to put limit to the possible numbers in any particular set. so [ -infinity, 0] just means that the set contains any number from zero to below. It doesn't say anything about infinity concluding, it doesn't say anything philosophical. I'm not sure if you're being serious right now.
I literally cannot spell it out any more basically. You are using terms like "infinite", "infinity". These are specifically mathematical terms....and you bet your *** they apply to things like sets. In fact that's how the term infinity isdefined.

If you are going to say "nothing infinite can conclude", well no......that set "concludes" at 0 and is infinite. So your statement is false. A chain of causes is no more real than a chain of numbers.....if you disagree, show me which museum I can go to to view a "chain of causes" in person. It's not physical.

This isn't rocket science.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑

♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮

Nullius in verba
post 1540366811 01-12-2018, 08:26 AM
-
#176
  1. NuggzTheNinja
  2. Exotic Game Hunter
  1. NuggzTheNinja
  2. Exotic Game Hunter
  3. Join Date: Oct 2004
  4. Posts: 31,871
  5. Rep Power: 237953
I always assumed that sane people stopped taking religion as fact around the same time they found out that Santa Claus isn't real.
This account was created for the purpose of roleplaying and satire. All posts, messages, images, or other media produced by this Bodybuilding.com profile, including stories, names, references to characters and incidents, and views expressed, are fictitious and intended as parody. No identification or association with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, or products is intended or should be inferred.
post 1540366941 01-12-2018, 08:28 AM
-
#177
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2011
  4. Location: Egypt
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 9,450
  7. Rep Power: 13784
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
I literally cannot spell it out any more basically. You are using terms like "infinite", "infinity". These are specifically mathematical terms....and you bet your *** they apply to things like sets. In fact that's how the term infinity isdefined.

If you are going to say "nothing infinite can conclude", well no......that set "concludes" at 0 and is infinite. So your statement is false. A chain of causes is no more abstract than a chain of numbers.....if you disagree, show me which museum I can go to to view a "chain of causes" in person. It's not physical.

This isn't rocket science.
You keep ignoring what I'm saying, you're either confused or stubborn.
post 1540367531 01-12-2018, 08:34 AM
-
#178
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  1. numberguy12
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Posts: 6,938
  5. Rep Power: 51915
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
You keep ignoring what I'm saying, you're either confused or stubborn.
Actually I'm addressing each of your points in turn as you look up through the posts. It's all coming to the same conclusion...you put up a poor argument for the impossibility of an infinite chain of causes. That's all. QED.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑

♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮

Nullius in verba
post 1540367821 01-12-2018, 08:36 AM
-
#179
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  1. Alchem
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2011
  4. Location: Egypt
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 9,450
  7. Rep Power: 13784
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Actually I'm addressing each of your points in turn as you look up through the posts. It's all coming to the same conclusion...you put up a poor argument for the impossibility of an infinite chain of causes. That's all. QED.
ok Mr. doubts observation and thinks infinity has an end.
post 1540375441 01-12-2018, 09:50 AM
-
#180
  1. sy2502
  2. Registered User
  1. sy2502
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 13,396
  6. Rep Power: 131822
Originally Posted By Alchem⏩
Why do atheists think quantum science proves that subatomic particles don't follow causation for some reason? not sure if willful ignorance or sophistism.
When a photon hits a glass surface, some photons will be reflected and others absorbed. What causes a photon to be reflected? What causes the other photon to be absorbed?

PS: if you have an answer to this, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Follow my 2018 competition prep here:
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=175566421&p=1547462721#post1547462721
Quick Navigation Top Misc
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts