It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Can God create a rock..."

page: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66


Because A is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.


with all due respect, its a freaking letter. it takes up all of three milimeters on my screen. 'A' isnt infinite anymore than the rest of the alphabet. otherwise we could communicate any message using only 'A'.


To understand how A did it you would have to ask. Unless you are A, then you would be bale to mathematically track the creation of 2.


...is this even a serious discussion.




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66


Because A is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.


with all due respect, its a freaking letter. it takes up all of three milimeters on my screen. 'A' isnt infinite anymore than the rest of the alphabet. otherwise we could communicate any message using only 'A'.


To understand how A did it you would have to ask. Unless you are A, then you would be bale to mathematically track the creation of 2.


...is this even a serious discussion.


No, it cant be a serious discussion With you since You dont know what A represents.

That means you just wasted a bunch of Words for nothing, and so did i.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Hello again TzarChasm,
Your humility is quite noble.

"And I'm of the (humble) opinion that perfection is a destructive standard to set for yourself."

We cannot reasonably expect to ever be perfect.
We should strive to embrace perfection. The closer we get, the better we become.

"Perfection is a bottomless pit."

The way I see it, perfection is the unreachable peak of a mountain most majestic.
By climbing upward we achieve a clearer vision of our world and ourselves.

"The instant you become convinced that you are perfect, the rest of existence falls beneath you."

The hapless soul that is convinced of his perfection is partially correct,
for he is a perfect fool.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: compressedFusion

Excellent post.

"After all if the concept of omnipotence can exist within our minds then why wouldn't omnipotence exist? In fact it must exist or you have created a contradiction which proves that the formulation of the paradox is invalid. Otherwise, the definition of omnipotence would be different from your system to my system and thus the question itself would be unintelligible."

If God is real, then so too is anything that God can imagine.
This makes my meager paradox of the unmovable rock a trifle.
Yes, we are smarter than a Bonobo,
But a Bonobo is smarter than a Capuchin.
(I may be wrong about that.)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot





The way I see it, perfection is the unreachable peak of a mountain most majestic.
By climbing upward we achieve a clearer vision of our world and ourselves.


The only way you can clearly see the difference between perfection and immperfection is not from the top. But from the Botom looking up.

Because who do you think you have to Climb past on Your way to the top?

If we are all immperfect you have to step back, and take a look at whats in front of you. Only then will you be able to compare Your self to the others who are in front of you. You will be able to observe everything and adjust Your self and Your point of view.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66


Because A is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.


with all due respect, its a freaking letter. it takes up all of three milimeters on my screen. 'A' isnt infinite anymore than the rest of the alphabet. otherwise we could communicate any message using only 'A'.


To understand how A did it you would have to ask. Unless you are A, then you would be bale to mathematically track the creation of 2.


...is this even a serious discussion.


No, it cant be a serious discussion With you since You dont know what A represents.

That means you just wasted a bunch of Words for nothing, and so did i.


dont speak as though you are talking simple mathematics.

"For A to be able to make a change, it would have to be aware/intelligent. So it is not only enough to be able to observe the Properties of A. You would have to be able to communicate With A. "

^ that is not math. what you have been describing is not a mathematical process. dont act like this is common sense because it looks like you are making up the rules along the way. you need to come up with a better analogy.
edit on 22-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"Calling an action unloving relies on the existence of an objective moral law, yet as an atheist there is no way to justify moral law. Better yet as an atheist how do you even justify your ability to reason? You say we should all accept we are ignorant, but why should I even accept that you can think or reason?"

I justify my sense of morality by the impact I have upon my world. I am a utilitarian in this respect.
The most noble, righteous, and loving mark I can make is that which enriches the world and spreads happiness.
Often my aim is off the mark, but this is how I think and reason.

It's not that we are all ignorant; it's just that we all have so much more to learn.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Timely

"What is the difference between a duck ?"

The difference between a duck is the difference between a duck and a duck.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66


Because A is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.


with all due respect, its a freaking letter. it takes up all of three milimeters on my screen. 'A' isnt infinite anymore than the rest of the alphabet. otherwise we could communicate any message using only 'A'.


To understand how A did it you would have to ask. Unless you are A, then you would be bale to mathematically track the creation of 2.


...is this even a serious discussion.


No, it cant be a serious discussion With you since You dont know what A represents.

That means you just wasted a bunch of Words for nothing, and so did i.


dont speak as though you are talking simple mathematics.

"For A to be able to make a change, it would have to be aware/intelligent. So it is not only enough to be able to observe the Properties of A. You would have to be able to communicate With A. "

^ that is not math. what you have been describing is not a mathematical process. dont act like this is common sense because it looks like you are making up the rules along the way. i gather the letter 'a' is an analogy for god, but not even your analogy makes sense.



Read it again.

If A = A.

A = infinite.

If 1 = 1. Than 1 = inifnite.

A would be a absolute constant when it is infinite. 1 = 1 would also be a absolute constant.

A would never change randomly when it is a absolute constant. 1 = 1 would also be a absolute constant.

Is this not Math?



A if then 1 = 2.

Is the same as A = 2

How would A = 2 ? Mathematically ?

I am not going to Waste time on you if you cant answer properly.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Timely

"What is the difference between a duck ?"

The difference between a duck is to get to the other side.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Timely

"What is the difference between a duck ?"

The difference between a duck is so heavy that I can't lift it.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66


If A = A.

A = infinite.


i dont follow.


If 1 = 1. Than 1 = inifnite.


nope. still makes zero sense.


A would be a absolute constant when it is infinite. 1 = 1 would also be a absolute constant.


still assuming it is infinite.


A would never change randomly when it is a absolute constant. 1 = 1 would also be a absolute constant.


what do you mean by 'absolute constant'?


Is this not Math?


not any kind of math i know.

"A if then 1 = 2."

^ this right here makes no sense to me and you treat it like the key to some cosmic encryption. the hell does "if then" mean? how does that in any way make 1 = 2 and how does 'a' fit into that? all i see is gibberish.


edit on 22-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.

My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot


The way I see it, perfection is the unreachable peak of a mountain most majestic.
By climbing upward we achieve a clearer vision of our world and ourselves.


there are those who will die before reaching the top, never knowing happiness for having made it halfway. that is the curse of perfection. if you do not die while trying to attain it you will die trying to keep it.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: compressedFusion




A = A or 1 = 1 is a absolute standard.
This however is not true. There is no absolute standard. No such concept exists.


1 = 1 is the same as A = A. If you can use: A if then 1 = 2 You have used A = 1. So i used 1 as an example to A = A.

In that case 1 would be a absolute constant and absolute infintie if that is all that existed before 1 = 2. Becasue nothing else would exist Accept 1.

If nothing else exists Accept A(1). Than A(1) is absolute infnite becasue A(1) would have to take up all Space possible. A = absolute infinite.

I never said it was true, i just explained the consept of what A is and what 1 would be.


I also said that: For us to know how A = 2 we would have to know all the Properties of A. Because it is A who would have to create 2. Where you say: A if then 1 = 2.

If you bring up the consept we should be able to answer it.

Mathematically A would have to be absolute infinite in Your Equation set up. I am not saying it is true. But if we are to fallow the rules, that is how it would be.

Something that is absolute infinite would also be a absolute constant. That is what the Consept of A = A means.
If A is a absolut constant and created 2. The creation of 2 can only be described through A. But not by obsevration. Because by observation 2 would appear instantaneously. So A if then 1 = 2 would be the correct Equation for 2.

But you would not know how A created 2. You would only know it through A. But A is not talking, because you didnt ask


A if then 1 = 2 is a Equation beased on observation. Therfor we can not know how 1 created 2. We only know that 1 created 2.

Furhter the Equation also proves that we ignore 1. And only base Our rules on observation.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.

My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.



my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Set theory. An attempt of placing definition on the undefinable. Definitely needed, and helpful really.
edit on 22-9-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

might i take a crack at this?


but as an atheist how do you justify calling one action unloving? Calling an action unloving relies on the existence of an objective moral law, yet as an atheist there is no way to justify moral law


a very good point. have you heard of empathy? the capacity to experience, or imagine you are experiencing, the suffering or elation of another person. to love is to exercise this capacity to its fullest extent in many cases. it is to become addicted to this exercise, to the point that your perception becomes oriented around it. morals are subjective in that they rely on a cultural understanding of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. in the same sense that morals are subjective, this "love" is also subjective. but they both exercise that capacity i mentioned.


Better yet as an atheist how do you even justify your ability to reason? You say we should all accept we are ignorant, but why should I even accept that you can think or reason?


there are ways to test logic and reasoning. ways to make sure we are not just fooling ourselves.


As atheist you must believe that we are all just meat and chemicals preforming actions as they see fit. So I must ask why should I take any point you make as valid? You are just typing what you type because chemicals make you. There is no thought going on. If an atheist is to hold true to the world view they claim that is how they must think about all conversation


the nature of consciousness is not yet fully known. either way, you too are meat and chemicals. what makes your chemical reactions any more meaningful than my own?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Can god create a rock?

God wont even stop terrorism, rape and murder
what makes you think he cares



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.

My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.



my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.


No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join