Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 351996

Sorry ding. Can't have evidence of magic.

 

[ding]

View attachment 351996

Sorry ding. Can't have evidence of magic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well this may be interesting:

Infinite divisibility arises in different ways in philosophy, physics, economics, order theory (a branch of mathematics), and probability theory (also a branch of mathematics). One may speak of infinite divisibility, or the lack thereof, of matter, space, time, money, or abstract mathematical objects such as the continuum.

But wait, there's more..

Atomism is explored in Plato's dialogue Timaeus and was also supported by Aristotle. Andrew Pyle gives a lucid account of infinite divisibility in the first few pages of his Atomism and its Critics. There he shows how infinite divisibility involves the idea that there is some extended item, such as an apple, which can be divided infinitely many times, where one never divides down to point, or to atoms of any sort.

How well that describes the Aether! Notice how atoms and subatomic particles need not apply? You were always taught otherwise. So was I. Goddammit!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Welp, looks like i broke ding again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well this may be interesting:

Infinite divisibility arises in different ways in philosophy, physics, economics, order theory (a branch of mathematics), and probability theory (also a branch of mathematics). One may speak of infinite divisibility, or the lack thereof, of matter, space, time, money, or abstract mathematical objects such as the continuum.

But wait, there's more..

Atomism is explored in Plato's dialogue Timaeus and was also supported by Aristotle. Andrew Pyle gives a lucid account of infinite divisibility in the first few pages of his Atomism and its Critics. There he shows how infinite divisibility involves the idea that there is some extended item, such as an apple, which can be divided infinitely many times, where one never divides down to point, or to atoms of any sort.

How well that describes the Aether! Notice how atoms and subatomic particles need not apply? You were always taught otherwise. So was I. Goddammit!

But those are not scientific, testable ideas. Apply the same standards to that as you do the magical nonsense from the bible.

 

[ding]

Welp, looks like i broke ding again.

Yes, your running away has me all in tears.

 

[ding]

Methinks the question "Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?" is a winning argument.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well this may be interesting:

Infinite divisibility arises in different ways in philosophy, physics, economics, order theory (a branch of mathematics), and probability theory (also a branch of mathematics). One may speak of infinite divisibility, or the lack thereof, of matter, space, time, money, or abstract mathematical objects such as the continuum.

But wait, there's more..

Atomism is explored in Plato's dialogue Timaeus and was also supported by Aristotle. Andrew Pyle gives a lucid account of infinite divisibility in the first few pages of his Atomism and its Critics. There he shows how infinite divisibility involves the idea that there is some extended item, such as an apple, which can be divided infinitely many times, where one never divides down to point, or to atoms of any sort.

How well that describes the Aether! Notice how atoms and subatomic particles need not apply? You were always taught otherwise. So was I. Goddammit!

But those are not scientific, testable ideas. Apply the same standards to that as you do the magical nonsense from the bible.

You were taught that the Greeks tried to discover the smallest indivisible particle - "the atom" - over and over again, correct?
Never that they were really interested in "infinite divisibility," correct?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You were taught that the Greeks tried to discover the smallest indivisible particle - "the atom" - over and over again, correct?

I am not your assistant. Juuuuust make your point.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But those are not scientific, testable ideas. Apply the same standards to that as you do the magical nonsense from the bible.

I am not your assistant. Juuuuust make your point.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ Fort Fun Indiana, et al,

BLUF: Magic is a subset of the Supernatural. Neither magic or the supernatural are concepts under study that are subjectable to the scientific method.

But those are not scientific, testable ideas. Apply the same standards to that as you do the magical nonsense from the bible.

(COMMENT)

I think there is some confusion here.

When you say something is infinite ("X" is infinite) - you are saying "X" is without a boundary in magnitude, size, or number. When "X" becomes recognized as being unlimited in some characteristic (as opposed to being finite) or an end-point.

This is somewhat different than saying Gold is pure to five 9s (99.999% pure). What that is saying is that any 9 that follows after that is insignificant in terms of reality.

When you say something is "infinitely dividable" you are saying that there is no limit to which "X" can be divided. This is a philosophical question. You cannot divide a grain of salt an infinite amount of times. At a certain point is ceases to be salt. This is called the effective point of degradation. (Zeno's paradoxes)

When you say there is an infinity, you are saying that "X" has some never-ending characteristic. While time is considered to be infinite, you have to define time first. If you cannot define it, it cannot be expressed as infinite.

Scientists do not like an expression that includes an infinity. The infinite quantity of even numbers (theoretically) is the same as the infinite quantity of odd numbers.

How well that describes the Aether! Notice how atoms and subatomic particles need not apply? You were always taught otherwise. So was I. Goddammit!

(COMMENT)

Two points:

• An atom cannot be further divided. In doing so, it becomes something else.​

• The Aether is not defined.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ Fort Fun Indiana, et al,

BLUF: Magic is a subset of the Supernatural. Neither magic or the supernatural are concepts under study that are subjectable to the scientific method.

But those are not scientific, testable ideas. Apply the same standards to that as you do the magical nonsense from the bible.

(COMMENT)

I think there is some confusion here.

When you say something is infinite ("X" is infinite) - you are saying "X" is without a boundary in magnitude, size, or number. When "X" becomes recognized as being unlimited in some characteristic (as opposed to being finite) or an end-point.

This is somewhat different than saying Gold is pure to five 9s (99.999% pure). What that is saying is that any 9 that follows after that is insignificant in terms of reality.

When you say something is "infinitely dividable" you are saying that there is no limit to which "X" can be divided. This is a philosophical question. You cannot divide a grain of salt an infinite amount of times. At a certain point is ceases to be salt. This is called the effective point of degradation. (Zeno's paradoxes)

When you say there is an infinity, you are saying that "X" has some never-ending characteristic. While time is considered to be infinite, you have to define time first. If you cannot define it, it cannot be expressed as infinite.

Scientists do not like an expression that includes an infinity. The infinite quantity of even numbers (theoretically) is the same as the infinite quantity of odd numbers.

How well that describes the Aether! Notice how atoms and subatomic particles need not apply? You were always taught otherwise. So was I. Goddammit!

(COMMENT)

Two points:

• An atom cannot be further divided. In doing so, it becomes something else.​

• The Aether is not defined.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm asking everyone this question, so don't take it personal. Assuming it is true that the universe was created from nothing and assuming it is true that the creation of the universe was done for the express purpose of creating beings like us that know and create...

Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?

 

[Grumblenuts]

(COMMENT)

Two points:

• An atom cannot be further divided. In doing so, it becomes something else.
• The Aether is not defined.

Three points:

• Thanks
• Indeed, but there's dirty laundry attached now
• Okay, trying..

Atomic bomb first recorded 1914 in writings of H.G. Wells ("The World Set Free"), who thought of it as a bomb "that would continue to explode indefinitely."

Einstein spoke often in terms of "rods and clocks" - suggestive of reactor fuel rods and atomic clocks in retrospect. Seems to me "physics" went nuts in the early 1900's, caught between our constant obsession with blowing shit up on one hand and our fear of inevitably blowing everything up on the other. We got drunk with the notion of unlimited power, couldn't focus on much else, so lost perspective. Put way too much faith in Einstein's ramblings when we should have been paying attention to Tesla instead.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Assuming it is true that the universe was created from nothing and assuming it is true that the creation of the universe was done for the express purpose of creating beings like us that know and create...

Both patently absurd premises leading only to more nuttiness. Not to mention argument is circular as hell. Don't take it personally!

 

[ding]

Assuming it is true that the universe was created from nothing and assuming it is true that the creation of the universe was done for the express purpose of creating beings like us that know and create...

Both patently absurd premises leading only to more nuttiness. Not to mention argument is circular as hell. Don't take it personally!

So your answer must be yes then.

 

[ding]

There is nothing circular about the question.

 

[ding]

I am merely asking people to assume that the universe was created from nothing which is what the science says and that intelligence is written into the fabric of the laws of nature which it clearly is.

I am not asking them to assume God exists.

I am asking them why can’t the universe pooping into existence and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be used as evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Hollie]

means you may have accepted the wrong religion and thus the wrong Gods.

And this is just silly. Even the Hebrew Bible notes that God is beyond our comprehension. People of all faiths get this. I am sorry you got into a Christian denomination that told you differently, but you will find that the majority of the people of faith are comfortable where God has drawn them. Yes, we believe that Jesus is the son of God, and as such, we believe we have the most accurate depiction of God we humans are capable of understanding (God is love, God is forgiving, etc.) If an afterlife with God is dependent on who understands Him best, every human who has ever lived is going to fall way short.

It’s important to note that the men who wrote the Bible describing the Christian gods amounts to but one account of many Gods written by many men. As to having some accurate description of the Gods and some claimed afterlife, I wish you luck with that as your only conception of those things comes from, again, a book written by men with authorship coming from the Gods. I have to note that describing the Gods as incomprehensible and then immediately describing an accurate depiction of them is a complete contradiction.

While believers will often describe their gods as being incomprehensible, they also have this odd habit of assigning human attributes to their gods such as anger, jealousy, revenge, etc.

 

[BreezeWood]

Methinks the question "Why can't the universe popping into existence from nothing and being hardwired to create beings that know and create be proof of God's existence?" is a winning argument.

.
is that a statement of generic existence or the little voice you hear in your head and is that voice coming from that book you peddle, the christian bible - and if you removed the forgeries and fallacies written in your book do you think it might come (back) to life for the better part of society that presently is lacking ...

and no the universe did not pop into existence from nothing. can the metaphysical forces exist without physical influences in a dormant state or just not exist at all without material and there is not a certainty one is not as dependent as the other for their mutual existence.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well this may be interesting:

Infinite divisibility arises in different ways in philosophy, physics, economics, order theory (a branch of mathematics), and probability theory (also a branch of mathematics). One may speak of infinite divisibility, or the lack thereof, of matter, space, time, money, or abstract mathematical objects such as the continuum.

But wait, there's more..

Atomism is explored in Plato's dialogue Timaeus and was also supported by Aristotle. Andrew Pyle gives a lucid account of infinite divisibility in the first few pages of his Atomism and its Critics. There he shows how infinite divisibility involves the idea that there is some extended item, such as an apple, which can be divided infinitely many times, where one never divides down to point, or to atoms of any sort.

How well that describes the Aether! Notice how atoms and subatomic particles need not apply? You were always taught otherwise. So was I. Goddammit!

But those are not scientific, testable ideas. Apply the same standards to that as you do the magical nonsense from the bible.

Just to be clear, I disagree with "those are not scientific, testable ideas." Arising in "physics, economics, order theory (a branch of mathematics), and probability theory (also a branch of mathematics)" indicates the opposite. I do not accept ideas on faith and don't think anyone else should either. But that includes many false premises (imo, among others) still commonly taught in physics classes and taken as fact by far too many. And I know you disagree and enjoy defending the current gospel.. but let's avoid simply going there again.. Been there done that enough already methinks.