Really betwixt all this, who let the madhouse door open?

"Heh heh, not now Alice. These smart ass atheists actually believe I'm a little girl. Pretty soon they'll be begging God's forgiveness. I've got them on the ropes!"

---

(January 30, 2017 at 8:34 am)LastPoet Wrote: Really betwixt all this, who let the madhouse door open?

Maybe someone just smuggled a tablet into the locked ward?

(January 30, 2017 at 8:34 am)Whateverist Wrote: "Heh heh, not now Alice.  These smart ass atheists actually believe I'm a little girl.  Pretty soon they'll be begging God's forgiveness.  I've got them on the ropes!"

---

(January 30, 2017 at 8:34 am)LastPoet Wrote: Really betwixt all this, who let the madhouse door open?

Maybe someone just smuggled a tablet into the locked ward?

I see the thirteen year old girl now claims to be in possession of a large penis. I see conflict in these claims unless maybe someone said they WERE a large penis which I think is something we can all agree on.

One last attempt; consider a hypothetical universe with no time and no space, then imagine an event, it doesn't matter what, it could be right down at the quantum level. That event would have to happen to the entire universe simultaneously. Still think that a universe without time or space could result in the formation of our current universe?

Anyone else disturbed by the prospect of an adult male, in this case, posing as a barely-teenage girl on the internet? I'm only glad it's just here.

I am also disturbed. This guy is messed up.

(January 30, 2017 at 6:01 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 30, 2017 at 4:09 am)Gestas Wrote: Did you not read the part where I wrote that I don't know how that'd work and that I'm all ears if somebody could explain it to me? But your response implies that I said the opposite: that I think it makes sense for a possible world containing no natural world (and no time) to produce a natural world, despite the fact that I explicitly said that doesn't make sense. In fact, that's part of my argument. It's because that doesn't make sense that I think we live in a possible world where that didn't happen.

Let's try again... once more... now with me on a full keyboard, not that clumsy phone one...

So... if we, in our limited reasoning capabilities, cannot think of even a hypothetical scenario for that, does it automatically mean that it's impossible?

My response implies that you cannot grasp the implications of your inability to think about it. Not all that gibberish that you think you understood.
But first I had to make the groundwork and make you understand how our words and the concepts they convey and the way we think with those concepts are manifestly insufficient to describe the scenario you wish to portray.

But you do wish to portray that scenario of timelessness and then apply conventional concepts to it, when that makes no sense. If none of us can even conceptualize it, how can anyone provide a mechanism that brings about our space-time based Universe from such a setup?

I'm curious why you keep talking about a "natural world". Is there anything else?
If there is anything beyond our Universe, is it also not natural?

"Let's try again... once more... now with me on a full keyboard, not that clumsy phone one..."

What about your clumsy brain?

"So... if we, in our limited reasoning capabilities, cannot think of even a hypothetical scenario for that, does it automatically mean that it's impossible?"

P -> Q
P
Therefore,
Q

I can't think of a hypothetical where, given the information here and here, would not result in the conclusion Q. Can you? I'm all ears if you can. However, saying something is possible is cheap, brah. I could say that it's possible for the Spaghetti Monster to exist, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? You're going to have to provide an argument as well. After you've done that, go to the mirror, and then punch yourself in the face for being retard. Because you just tried destroying logic. The very thing you're trying (and failing) to use against me. You're guilty of sawing off the limb on which you stand.

Moving on...

"My response implies that you cannot grasp the implications of your inability to think about it. Not all that gibberish that you think you understood.

But first I had to make the groundwork and make you understand how our words and the concepts they convey and the way we think with those concepts are manifestly insufficient to describe the scenario you wish to portray.

But you do wish to portray that scenario of timelessness and then apply conventional concepts to it, when that makes no sense. If none of us can even conceptualize it, how can anyone provide a mechanism that brings about our space-time based Universe from such a setup?

I'm curious why you keep talking about a "natural world". Is there anything else?
If there is anything beyond our Universe, is it also not natural?"

For your benefit, I will give you the definition of a possible world. A possible world is a maximum description of reality that is logically coherent (at the very least). Please pay attention to the last bit.

Now, I can't think of a possible world where literally nothing--that with zero potentiality, nonexistence, etc.--could timelessly produce a natural world. I don't know of any evidence of it and it appears to be logically unsound. The idea of this happening appears to be logically incoherent in the same way denying the truth of Modus Ponens would be. If you want to say that it is possible or other such gobbledygook, then please attach evidence or an argument to it, because, say it with me, possibilities are cheap. In light of logic and contemporary evidence, there is no good reason to believe that this can happen. And if no possible world can exhibit the above characteristics, then that possible world is, in fact, impossible. Impossible in the same way that Modus Ponens cannot fail.

Which brings us to the possible world that we reside in (the actual world). Because of the above, I conclude that we live in a possible world where time, along with the natural world, has always existed. And there's nothing logically incoherent about the natural world, including time, always existing. If you think there is, then again, I'm all ears. Let's see an argument or some evidence. Otherwise, shut the fuck up you inbred monkey.

---

(January 30, 2017 at 9:24 am)Stimbo Wrote: Anyone else disturbed by the prospect of an adult male, in this case, posing as a barely-teenage girl on the internet? I'm only glad it's just here.

What I find disturbing is your lack of respect for my pronouns.

I identify as a 13-year old girl. What more needs to be said? If I identify as a 13 year old girl, then that means I'm a 13-year old girl. Correct? Of all people I'd think you would understand.

(January 30, 2017 at 11:52 am)Gestas Wrote:

(January 30, 2017 at 6:01 am)pocaracas Wrote: Let's try again... once more... now with me on a full keyboard, not that clumsy phone one...

So... if we, in our limited reasoning capabilities, cannot think of even a hypothetical scenario for that, does it automatically mean that it's impossible?

My response implies that you cannot grasp the implications of your inability to think about it. Not all that gibberish that you think you understood.
But first I had to make the groundwork and make you understand how our words and the concepts they convey and the way we think with those concepts are manifestly insufficient to describe the scenario you wish to portray.

But you do wish to portray that scenario of timelessness and then apply conventional concepts to it, when that makes no sense. If none of us can even conceptualize it, how can anyone provide a mechanism that brings about our space-time based Universe from such a setup?

I'm curious why you keep talking about a "natural world". Is there anything else?
If there is anything beyond our Universe, is it also not natural?

"Let's try again... once more... now with me on a full keyboard, not that clumsy phone one..."

What about your clumsy brain?

"So... if we, in our limited reasoning capabilities, cannot think of even a hypothetical scenario for that, does it automatically mean that it's impossible?"

P -> Q
P
Therefore,
Q

I can't think of a hypothetical where, given the information here and here, would not result in the conclusion Q. Can you? I'm all ears if you can. However, saying something is possible is cheap, brah. I could say that it's possible for the Spaghetti Monster to exist, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? You're going to have to provide an argument as well. After you've done that, go to the mirror, and then punch yourself in the face for being retard. Because you just tried destroying logic. The very thing you're trying (and failing) to use against me. You're guilty of sawing off the limb on which you stand.

Moving on...

"My response implies that you cannot grasp the implications of your inability to think about it. Not all that gibberish that you think you understood.

But first I had to make the groundwork and make you understand how our words and the concepts they convey and the way we think with those concepts are manifestly insufficient to describe the scenario you wish to portray.

But you do wish to portray that scenario of timelessness and then apply conventional concepts to it, when that makes no sense. If none of us can even conceptualize it, how can anyone provide a mechanism that brings about our space-time based Universe from such a setup?

I'm curious why you keep talking about a "natural world". Is there anything else?
If there is anything beyond our Universe, is it also not natural?"

For your benefit, I will give you the definition of a possible world. A possible world is a maximum description of reality that is logically coherent (at the very least). Please pay attention to the last bit.

Now, I can't think of a possible world where literally nothing, that with zero potentiality, nonexistence, etc., could timelessly produce a natural world. I don't know of any evidence of it and it appears to be logically unsound. The idea of this happening appears to be logically incoherent in the same way denying the truth of Modus Ponens would be. If you want to say that it is possible or other such gobbledygook, then please attach evidence or an argument to it, because, say it with me, possibilities are cheap. In light of logic and contemporary evidence, there is no good reason to believe that this can happen. And if no possible world can exhibit the above characteristics, then that possible world is, in fact, impossible. Impossible in the same way that Modus Ponens cannot fail.

Which brings us to the possible world that we reside in (the actual world). Because of the above, I conclude that we live in a possible world where time, along with the natural world, has always existed. And there's nothing logically incoherent about the natural world, including time, always existing. If you think there is, then again, I'm all ears. Let's see an argument or some evidence. Otherwise, shut the fuck up you inbred monkey.

You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. Brah. I'll streamline it for you. You're a theist making the claim that "something cannot come from nothing". Your burden of proof is as follows:

1. Demonstrate with evidence that a "state" of "absolute nothing" is actually possible, which you can't do. You can't even describe it adequately, let alone prove anything about its nature.

2. Demonstrate with evidence that "something" cannot in fact "come from nothing", which you also can't do.

Spoiler alert: Saying, "well, I can't imagine how it could" is not making your case. It's just an argument from incredulity.


You're 0 for 2 my friend. You lose. It's over. You've utterly failed at making a case. You've failed to even be transparent about the case you are trying to make. You have failed at shifting the burden of proof onto the atheist, and you have failed at meeting your OWN burden of proof. Now, kindly take your ball and run on home to mama.

---

And if you say one more thing about not being a theist, I'm going to bitch-slap you, you lying sack of shit.


Sincerely,

The ugly chick who can't cook

(January 30, 2017 at 12:16 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 30, 2017 at 11:52 am)Gestas Wrote: "Let's try again... once more... now with me on a full keyboard, not that clumsy phone one..."

What about your clumsy brain?

"So... if we, in our limited reasoning capabilities, cannot think of even a hypothetical scenario for that, does it automatically mean that it's impossible?"

P -> Q
P
Therefore,
Q

I can't think of a hypothetical where, given the information here and here, would not result in the conclusion Q. Can you? I'm all ears if you can. However, saying something is possible is cheap, brah. I could say that it's possible for the Spaghetti Monster to exist, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? You're going to have to provide an argument as well. After you've done that, go to the mirror, and then punch yourself in the face for being retard. Because you just tried destroying logic. The very thing you're trying (and failing) to use against me. You're guilty of sawing off the limb on which you stand.

Moving on...

"My response implies that you cannot grasp the implications of your inability to think about it. Not all that gibberish that you think you understood.

But first I had to make the groundwork and make you understand how our words and the concepts they convey and the way we think with those concepts are manifestly insufficient to describe the scenario you wish to portray.

But you do wish to portray that scenario of timelessness and then apply conventional concepts to it, when that makes no sense. If none of us can even conceptualize it, how can anyone provide a mechanism that brings about our space-time based Universe from such a setup?

I'm curious why you keep talking about a "natural world". Is there anything else?
If there is anything beyond our Universe, is it also not natural?"

For your benefit, I will give you the definition of a possible world. A possible world is a maximum description of reality that is logically coherent (at the very least). Please pay attention to the last bit.

Now, I can't think of a possible world where literally nothing, that with zero potentiality, nonexistence, etc., could timelessly produce a natural world. I don't know of any evidence of it and it appears to be logically unsound. The idea of this happening appears to be logically incoherent in the same way denying the truth of Modus Ponens would be. If you want to say that it is possible or other such gobbledygook, then please attach evidence or an argument to it, because, say it with me, possibilities are cheap. In light of logic and contemporary evidence, there is no good reason to believe that this can happen. And if no possible world can exhibit the above characteristics, then that possible world is, in fact, impossible. Impossible in the same way that Modus Ponens cannot fail.

Which brings us to the possible world that we reside in (the actual world). Because of the above, I conclude that we live in a possible world where time, along with the natural world, has always existed. And there's nothing logically incoherent about the natural world, including time, always existing. If you think there is, then again, I'm all ears. Let's see an argument or some evidence. Otherwise, shut the fuck up you inbred monkey.

You're making this far more complicated than it actually is.  Brah.  I'll streamline it for you.  You're a theist making the claim that "something cannot come from nothing".  Your burden of proof is as follows:

1. Demonstrate with evidence that a "state" of "absolute nothing" is actually possible, which you can't do.  You can't even describe it adequately, let alone prove anything about its nature.

2. Demonstrate with evidence that "something" cannot in fact "come from nothing", which you also can't do.

Spoiler alert:  Saying, "well, I can't imagine how it could" is not making your case.  It's just an argument from incredulity.


You're 0 for 2 my friend.  You lose.  It's over.  You've utterly failed at making a case.  You've failed to even be transparent about the case you are trying to make.  You have failed at shifting the burden of proof onto the atheist, and you have failed at meeting your OWN burden of proof.  Now, kindly take your ball and run on home to mama.

---

And if you say one more thing about not being a theist, I'm going to bitch-slap you, you lying sack of shit.


Sincerely,

The ugly chick who can't cook

I was banned for being awesome so I had to make anther account to respond to you. Afterwards, I guess my 13-year old girl self isn't wanted around these parts... so I'll take my leave. *tips fedora*

“You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. Brah. I'll streamline it for you. You're a theist making the claim that "something cannot come from nothing". Your burden of proof is as follows:

1. Demonstrate with evidence that a "state" of "absolute nothing" is actually possible, which you can't do. You can't even describe it adequately, let alone prove anything about its nature.”
 
If nothingness is impossible, then that only strengthens my case for an eternal natural world, you dolt.
 
Defining nothingness is simple: nonexistence.

“2. Demonstrate with evidence that "something" cannot in fact "come from nothing", which you also can't do.”
 
This is like asking me to demonstrate that the Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist. The Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence or good argument for his Noodly Appendage. Likewise, there’s no evidence of literally nothing, in a timeless state, producing stuff. Not only is there no evidence of it, but it also doesn’t make any logical sense. What would produce stuff? We’re dealing with literally nothing. I mean, you don’t even think literally nothing is possible. That’s more than I’m willing to state. You seem to be in agreement with me. Are you just disagreeing with me because of your female nature?

Finally, I'd totally fuck your mouth. You're hot as fuck, even for a pregnant lady.

Wow, who knew 13 year old girls were such dirty birds!