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.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 36
31
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?

Sure, as long as you don't mind suspending theism until somebody can provide even as much as a shred of objective evidence of god.


Math operates just fine without "the infinite" or nothingness,


Ha, ha, ha
(poor stupid Liebnitz and Newton).



but at this point we do not know if either of those things exist or may have existed in the past.


You should do stand-up!




Don't confuse logical default with the idea of nothingness; OR infinity in numbers with an actual "infinite universe". In both cases they are vastly different concepts.


I don't think that there is much chance of me confusing them.




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Incorrect again digger.

Every disbelief is 'pending further evidence!'

I dont believe Trump will win. If he does and his President (aka the evidence in news and multimedia) i would believe it.

The definition i said still stands.

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

"Immediately after you show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports "the hypothesis of the non-existence of god". Not something you personally attribute to the absence of God in some vague, wishy washy way but something explicit."

Oh man, you're really not grasping the concept of positive claims and burden of proof.


Wikipedia says, regarding the holder of burden of proof: "An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition".

As it IS an argument from ignorance defined according to those terms, and you are the one criticizing Theism (the positive case), the burden of proof would appear to fall to you.

The truth is that the holder of burden of proof is only a politely agreed convention. All arguments have a burden of proof otherwise the argument would correspond to a special pleading fallacy (placing all responsibility on one side and none on the other).


What next, I need to "show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis of the non-existence of Zeus" as well, do I?

The Theistic argument could be fulfilled by any god. Likewise, the athesitic argument could be negated by any god. It is about the existence of a god (any god). The specifics of 'which god' are another separate argument.



Your mental gymnastics are of an Olympic standard. You an I both know very well there is not a single shred of scientific evidence for God so you instead try and turn the tables back on me to avoid the question but in an inept manner that only serves to reveal either A) how little you know about the scientific method and the burthen proof or B) (most likely) how much you are prepared to abandon all logic to contort your reasoning in such a matter as to attempt to reconcile your subjective beliefs with the cold, hard reality of scientific objectivity and evidence.

It's quite sad, really.

Since there is no evidence, there can be no science. The words that you are using are meaningless in your argument if, as you make claim, there is no evidence. If there is no objective evidence, you cannot present it. You cannot use the evidence to test hypotheses if the evidence doesn't exist. You can't get me to accept your claim of "scientific objectivity" when you don't and cannot apply scientific method.

edit on 12/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Math operates just fine without "the infinite" or nothingness


It does in Our everyday finite situations. But when it comes to the question of how Our universe came to be. Our known Math dont operate just as good. Math can not explain how Our universe came to be. Math dont even come Close. It stops at the Plank constant.

Science is Limited to information and can not assume proper calculations byond the speed of light.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Incorrect again digger.

Every disbelief is 'pending further evidence!'

I dont believe Trump will win. If he does and his President (aka the evidence in news and multimedia) i would believe it.

The definition i said still stands.

Coomba98

It only has a 1 in 2 chance of being right. That's a fairly poor type of 'definition'.

Also, you seem to be making the assumption that everyone will automatically believe something, just because it is true. It may shock you to discover that people in the real world have many motives for their beliefs.

For instance, Sigmund Freud suggested that the basis for all neurosis was the Oedipus Complex, a subconscious sexual desire of 3 to 6 year old males for their mothers and subsequent subconscious fear of, competition with, and desire for the removal of, their fathers.

Freud subsequently went on to explain athesim and irreligion as motivated by the Oedipus Complex (with God being the proxy father figure). This has, of course, been challenged, re-challenged, tested and re-tested over the years (using scientific method) and does appear to be the case. There is strong evidence that atheists have daddy issues and if this is their motivation, it will not be resolved by evidence.

edit on 12/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok ill give you that one digger, the 50/50. But im sure you get my point.

I dont believe aliens have visited earth.
I dont believe the loch ness monster exists.
I dont believe Sumeria was the first civilisation.
I dont believe ghosts exist.
And so on and so on, all this is pending demonstrable evidence.

Here are somethings we did believe but now have changed due to 'evidence'.

Flat Earth.
Earths the centre of the universe.
Everything revolves around the earth.
Everything is made up of earth, fire, water, air (aether or metal depending on the civilization).

The list goes on.

Ohh and my dad and i get along great so atheism isnt a daddy issue. But nice try digger


Coomba98



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
That will never happened. Science cant study infinite. Or see past Our observable finite universe.

As time passes scientists will only observe less of Our universe. That means what they observe today will be gone for them in the future.


Agreed. The second you observe something "infinte" is it no longer infinite, since you can see a beginning and end, hence seeing all of it. Infinity is a concept that cannot be observed or verified. It really just shows that our number system can count as high as we want it to.


It does in Our everyday finite situations. But when it comes to the question of how Our universe came to be. Our known Math dont operate just as good. Math can not explain how Our universe came to be. Math dont even come Close. It stops at the Plank constant.


Exactly. Math can't explain how our universe came to be, just like anything else. Math can only deal with quantifiable concepts. When somebody says "the infinite", they aren't saying anything related to math, just guessing about what they think might be the nature of our universe. It is not a tangible concept, it is assumed and is not quantifiable in math because they aren't numbers.
edit on 10 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


I don't think that there is much chance of me confusing them.


Really?

In my latest post to you that you ignored, you mentioned atheism waving a flag of "nothing", and then later in the thread suggested suspending mathematics until somebody has physically observed nothingness or infinte. Math is not dependent on folks observing those things. It never has been and you clearly confused the 2 concepts, otherwise you wouldn't have compared math with tangible observations of concepts that can't be quantified.
edit on 10 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
Ohh and my dad and i get along great so atheism isnt a daddy issue. But nice try digger

Coomba98


I hear that a lot. Preachers and other similar religious believers always try to deceptively claim that atheism is not the norm, and that theism is logical because it's been ingrained in their head via indoctrination. They think of them like, "what went wrong? Oh! They must have psychological issues! It's the only possibility!" It's insulting and flat out stupid. When arguments like that come out, it speaks volumes about the character of the person making that claim. It just shows they aren't willing to discuss the topic as soon as the going gets tough. They can't defend theism, so they instead attack atheism. It's silly and illogical, but it's pretty much par for the course here. "You can't prove god doesn't exist" isn't an argument against atheism.
edit on 10 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: GF Coomba

Think you will find it wasn't Chro explaining your daddy issues GF, it was a Mr Freud, take it up with Mr Freud
Anyway, do you know what red shift and blue shift is, why we can only see red shift (moving away) in every circumstance bar one, andromeda and only slight blue shift there.

Every nerdy Star Wars space cadet should know what that means GF



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: coomba98
Ohh and my dad and i get along great so atheism isnt a daddy issue. But nice try digger

Coomba98


I hear that a lot. Preachers and other similar religious believers always try to deceptively claim that atheism is not the norm, and that theism is logical because it's been ingrained in their head via indoctrination. They think of them like, "what went wrong? Oh! They must have psychological issues! It's the only possibility!" It's insulting and flat out stupid. When arguments like that come out, it speaks volumes about the character of the person making that claim. It just shows they aren't willing to discuss the topic as soon as the going gets tough. They can't defend theism, so they instead attack atheism. It's silly and illogical, but it's pretty much par for the course here. "You can't prove god doesn't exist" isn't an argument against atheism.


Atheism is the norm, theism is illogical, it's a faith in a God we can't understand
Freud said atheists had psychological (daddy) issues, not christians, strawman
It is insulting and flat out stupid when Freud states something and people say it was christians. Speaks volumes of the average atheist comprehension skills and capacity to reason.
We Christians can defend theism, it's called apologetics, silly if you don't know that.
Yes it is a faith, just like evolution, no empirical evidence ( that old line)
It is silly and illogical but you can't prove God doesn't exist.
Can't prove there are no atheists in foxholes either

Barking mad



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.


Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.


That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.


Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.

The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.

In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.

The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.

A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.

The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.


Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.


Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?


No one worships math.


Have you never heard of Pythagoras?



You are still missing the point. Omniscience has not been demonstrated or measured, atemporality has not been demonstrated or measured, omnipotence and immortality have not been demonstrated or measured. These are adjectives employed to circumvent methods of measurement. Doesn't that strike you as even a little convenient?


As previously noted, exactly the same could be said for infinity and nothingness.


But no one worships math, as I said before. There is no church of Pythagoras. You can compare theology and math all you want, but math is not a religion and its methods aren't based in morality or existential security. If scientists were to employ math in such a manner, insisting they had an equation that proved a war is happening between otherworldly forces with our species as the prize, then I would have much the same concerns.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



The second you observe something "infinte" is it no longer infinite, since you can see a beginning and end, hence seeing all of it.


Infinity doesn't preclude a thing from having a beginning and and end. Though a mathematical construct, rather than a physical one, take the Koch curve , and just about any segment of it as an example.



When somebody says "the infinite", they aren't saying anything related to math, just guessing about what they think might be the nature of our universe. It is not a tangible concept, it is assumed and is not quantifiable in math because they aren't numbers.


Why is everyone so ignorant of Cantor's work? On a Property of the Class of all Real Algebraic Numbers. was published in 1874, and mathematicians have been building on his work ever since.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut


I don't think that there is much chance of me confusing them.

Really?

In my latest post to you that you ignored, you mentioned atheism waving a flag of "nothing", and then later in the thread suggested suspending mathematics until somebody has physically observed nothingness or infinte.


They were in different posts. Perhaps the topic had moved on?


Math is not dependent on folks observing those things.


No field of human knowledge, including science, is dependent upon observation (alone). That was precisely my point, language and meaning, philosophy, reasoning and theorization are not depenent upon observation, and yet you used the lack of 'observed evidence' as a reason why semantic and philosophic constructs were not acceptable to you.


It never has been and you clearly confused the 2 concepts, otherwise you wouldn't have compared math with tangible observations of concepts that can't be quantified.


You actually presented four discrete concepts in the section I answered. The concepts stated were "logical default with the idea of nothingness; OR infinity in numbers with an actual "infinite universe"'.

The use of 'or' between the two comparisions (note also thet the "or" quoted was uppercase, probably to highlight its significance) I take to indicate that you concieve them to be mutually exclusive of each other, something with which I would disagree (i.e: 'one OR the other', not 'one AND the other').

I was not confusing "the logical default with the idea of nothingness" - they are obviously unrelated concepts.

I was also not confusing the "infinity in numbers with an actual "infinite universe" (the universe must be finite or the night sky would be infintely bright from infinite numbers of stars).

So, I responded truthfully to the specifics of your post and you, perhaps, did not express your question/s well? I can only respond to what you post, I cannot hear the voices in your head.

edit on 12/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Barcs


The second you observe something "infinte" is it no longer infinite, since you can see a beginning and end, hence seeing all of it.
Infinity doesn't preclude a thing from having a beginning and and end. Though a mathematical construct, rather than a physical one, take the Koch curve , and just about any segment of it as an example.

When somebody says "the infinite", they aren't saying anything related to math, just guessing about what they think might be the nature of our universe. It is not a tangible concept, it is assumed and is not quantifiable in math because they aren't numbers.


Why is everyone so ignorant of Cantor's work? On a Property of the Class of all Real Algebraic Numbers. was published in 1874, and mathematicians have been building on his work ever since.


To be fair, the works of mathematicians such as Cantor and Ramanujan are not usually explored outside of higher mathematics.

I was initially fairly gobsmacked that someone would suggest that "Math operates just fine without "the infinite" or nothingness" but I can see how someone not versed in the study might think such a thing.

edit on 12/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




But no one worships math, as I said before.


I do. May I interest you in a copy of the good book my friend?

Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid




In a way, this book is a statement of my religion. I hope that this will come through to my readers, and that my enthusiasm and reverence for certain ideas will infiltrate the hearts and minds of a few people. That is the best I could ask for.

D. R. H
Bloomington and Stanford
January, 1979 -GEB



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm



But no one worships math, as I said before.


I do. May I interest you in a copy of the good book my friend?

Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid




In a way, this book is a statement of my religion. I hope that this will come through to my readers, and that my enthusiasm and reverence for certain ideas will infiltrate the hearts and minds of a few people. That is the best I could ask for.

D. R. H
Bloomington and Stanford
January, 1979 -GEB


Absolutely fantastic read. I lent my copy (along with "The Mind's I") to a friend and have regretted it ever since.




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: GF Coomba

Think you will find it wasn't Chro explaining your daddy issues GF, it was a Mr Freud, take it up with Mr Freud
Anyway, do you know what red shift and blue shift is, why we can only see red shift (moving away) in every circumstance bar one, andromeda and only slight blue shift there.

Every nerdy Star Wars space cadet should know what that means GF


In truth, over 100 galaxies have been found exhibiting blue-shift.

If you consider that the big bang has caused the universe to expand at a rate such that we can measure red shift in nearly all galaxies (i.e: high velocity close to light speed), it is somewhat strange that things with the mass of galaxies are travelling in the opposite direction, also at nearly the maximum speed-limit possible.

I could concieve of the possibility of a few objects bouncing around in the primal chaos and travelling backwards at that velocity, but galaxies (considering the 'quantum foam' homogenity of the proto-universe where structures such as galaxies hadn't yet formed, this would indicate that such blue-shifed galaxies were a late addition)?

edit on 12/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman
a reply to: GF Coomba

Think you will find it wasn't Chro explaining your daddy issues GF, it was a Mr Freud, take it up with Mr Freud
Anyway, do you know what red shift and blue shift is, why we can only see red shift (moving away) in every circumstance bar one, andromeda and only slight blue shift there.

Every nerdy Star Wars space cadet should know what that means GF


Padawan Raggedyman your back!! Awesome!!

If someone assures something that someone esle has said Padawan Raggedyman, then that assurtion is by all who assurt it. Super simple stuff Padawan #2.

Not sure where your going with red and blue shift and andromeda Padawan. Strange Padawan #2 strange.

Not going into evolution cause you totally dont understand it and you have said many many times you dont want to. What an asinine way of thinking and living Padawan Raggedyman. But then we all know your level of intelligence. Aka kindergarden. And youd still not be at the top of the class.

Your a funny Padawan just like Padawan #1.

Got anything intelligent to add to the overall discussion.

Show us your knowledge and intelligence ohh young Padawan #2.

Master Coomba



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

You worship math? Have an altar to it and a bible, a patron saint to give thanks to before meals and holidays to celebrate? How then do you measure the divinity in math? What properties have you found to indicate godliness, and how have you defined the quality referred to as 'godlike'? What are you using as basis for comparison?




top topics



 
31
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join