Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am
So Steve, no counter response to my response?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56808-p...pid1827684
Oh, speaking of infinity, here's a link to a thread in which both Steve and RR showed they couldn't do maths and consequently got their asses spanked badly by a number of us. It's an amusing read, enjoy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53460.html
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:29 am
(October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: So Steve, no counter response to my response?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56808-p...pid1827684
Oh, speaking of infinity, here's a link to a thread in which both Steve and RR showed they couldn't do maths and consequently got their asses spanked badly by a number of us. It's an amusing read, enjoy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53460.html
If your math leads to logical contradictions, then I think that you need to re-examine your math. But it's not really about math, but assumptions that haven't been properly thought through.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:31 am
(October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: So Steve, no counter response to my response?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56808-p...pid1827684
Oh, speaking of infinity, here's a link to a thread in which both Steve and RR showed they couldn't do maths and consequently got their asses spanked badly by a number of us. It's an amusing read, enjoy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53460.html Your expect a real response from Steve ?
And yup Roads had his ass kicked so many times it's beyond belief
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:32 am
(October 9, 2018 at 11:29 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: So Steve, no counter response to my response?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56808-p...pid1827684
Oh, speaking of infinity, here's a link to a thread in which both Steve and RR showed they couldn't do maths and consequently got their asses spanked badly by a number of us. It's an amusing read, enjoy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53460.html
If your math leads to logical contradictions, then I think that you need to re-examine your math. But it's not really about math, but assumptions that haven't been properly thought through.
You are an idiot. Just as 0/0 = indeterminate is not a logical contradiction, it's the same with infinity - infinity.
Not surprised you still don't get it.
Posts: 2619
Threads: 4
Joined: September 21, 2018
Reputation:
33
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:42 am
(October 9, 2018 at 8:23 am)SteveII Wrote: (October 8, 2018 at 5:56 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Along with spontaneous nuclear fission for things happening without causes.
Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?
We can give an average half life for each radiactive substance, based on empirical evidence and in accordance with the known laws of physics.
We can (not yet) tell which individual atom (of a given substance) will decay when. We currently can not determine a "cause" for radioactive decay of a single individual atom.
You didnt know this?
SteveII Wrote:If there is a God, he exists necessarily. Fixed it for you. Now what information do we actually gain from your statement? 
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:44 am
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2018 at 11:46 am by Amarok.)
Quote:If there is a God, he exists necessarily.
He's trotting out the many many many times refuted ontological argument .........Yawn
Quote:
We can give an average half life for each radiactive substance, based on empirical evidence and in accordance with the known laws of physics.
We can (not yet) tell which individual atom (of a given substance) will decay when. We currently can not determine a "cause" for radioactive decay of a single individual atom.
You didnt know this?
No he doesn't and he will still assert everything needs a cause without a lick of proof
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:47 am
(October 9, 2018 at 11:42 am)Deesse23 Wrote: SteveII Wrote:If there is a God, he exists necessarily. Fixed it for you. Now what information do we actually gain from your statement?
It's his pretext to argue for his pet god's existence in all possible worlds if he exists in even one of them. The problem is that the modal ontological argument still doesn't effectively show that his pet god possibly exists, only that it must exist if it is possible for it to exist. It's only "compelling" to people who already accept this nonsense.
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 11:48 am
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2018 at 11:53 am by Amarok.)
(October 9, 2018 at 11:32 am)Grandizer Wrote: (October 9, 2018 at 11:29 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If your math leads to logical contradictions, then I think that you need to re-examine your math. But it's not really about math, but assumptions that haven't been properly thought through.
You are an idiot. Just as 0/0 = indeterminate is not a logical contradiction, it's the same with infinity - infinity.
Not surprised you still don't get it. He does not get it nor does he wish too .He simply wants to repeat his apologist script and pretend he's won .
(October 9, 2018 at 11:47 am)Grandizer Wrote: (October 9, 2018 at 11:42 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Fixed it for you. Now what information do we actually gain from your statement?
It's his pretext to argue for his pet god's existence in all possible worlds if he exists in even one of them. The problem is that the modal ontological argument still doesn't effectively show that his pet god possibly exists, only that it must exist if it is possible for it to exist. It's only "compelling" to people who already accept this nonsense. One among many reasons the ontological argument is regarded as rubbish can't wait till we wind up going over his math vs metaphysics bullocks .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2018 at 12:20 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 9, 2018 at 11:32 am)Grandizer Wrote: (October 9, 2018 at 11:29 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If your math leads to logical contradictions, then I think that you need to re-examine your math. But it's not really about math, but assumptions that haven't been properly thought through.
You are an idiot. Just as 0/0 = indeterminate is not a logical contradiction, it's the same with infinity - infinity.
Not surprised you still don't get it.
I wasn’t talking about that. I’m talking about the concept of an anctual infinity or of crossing an actual infinity, by stepping through each one. As I said, not talking about the math. The problem is with its assumptions.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 12:24 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2018 at 12:35 pm by SteveII.)
(October 9, 2018 at 11:42 am)Deesse23 Wrote: (October 9, 2018 at 8:23 am)SteveII Wrote: Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?
We can give an average half life for each radiactive substance, based on empirical evidence and in accordance with the known laws of physics.
We can (not yet) tell which individual atom (of a given substance) will decay when. We currently can not determine a "cause" for radioactive decay of a single individual atom.
You didnt know this?
So then you are confusing the term 'uncaused' with 'indeterminate'.
Quote:SteveII Wrote:If there is a God, he exists necessarily.
Fixed it for you. Now what information do we actually gain from your statement?
You should look up the term--it's important to know what the word means in a philosophical sense--otherwise you do what you do and have no clue of the meaning of the two sentences I originally wrote.
(October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: Oh, speaking of infinity, here's a link to a thread in which both Steve and RR showed they couldn't do maths and consequently got their asses spanked badly by a number of us. It's an amusing read, enjoy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53460.html
And here are my posts that you could not address because you got in way over your head:
1. An actual infinite consists of real (not abstract) objects.
2. In 100% of our experiences and 100% of our scientific inquiries, quantities of real objects can have all the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division applied to them.
3. As Hilbert's Hotel shows, these operations cannot be applied to the concept of an actual infinite without creating contradictions and absurdities
4. Classical propositional logic does not allow for contradictory statements to be true.
5. Therefore an actual infinite of real objects is logically impossible.
Infinite set theory is not a defeater for (2) because infinite set theory is not itself a conclusion derived from a logical process. To defeat (2) you have to give logical reasons why we should expect an infinite quantity of objects to behave fundamentally different than a finite quantity of objects.
1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present.
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.
|
