(September 27, 2013 at 10:35 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: You realize Vinny is an atheist trying to develop an atheistic argument, right?

No, he isn't. He's a deist, IIRC.

I know he isn't because he first came here under the guise of being an atheist to say stupid shit and ridicule the atheist's position. He admitted that he wasn't when he was called out on it.

(September 27, 2013 at 3:10 am)max-greece Wrote:

(September 27, 2013 at 2:45 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: If you're telling me to watch Krauss' "A universe from nothing", then it's obvious you know nothing about Krauss' "A universe from nothing".

Seriously, only recommend these things if you're capable of understanding and discussing them.

Seriously? That's your response?

Wow - shot me down, I'm gutted. What a magnificent mind you have. Now carry on trying to prove an outdated theory mathematically.

I'm out.

You don't have to be "be out".

You just have to be "capable of discussing Krauss' theory". If you cannot, then yes, you need to "be out".

Not because I have anything personal against you. But even if I watch your video (again), neither you nor anyone else will be able to have a conversation about it.

---

(September 27, 2013 at 10:35 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(September 27, 2013 at 10:22 am)pocaracas Wrote: This request in particular makes no sense.
All he seems interested in getting is the inability to disprove god, hence god exists.
Should we indulge in such mental masturbation which takes off from a fallacious premise?... or make fun of it?

After sooo many such threads.... people start just making fun of it...
The OP is fully aware of what he's doing, so there's no need for any tip-toeing.

You realize Vinny is an atheist trying to develop an atheistic argument, right?

I'm not an atheist. But I have a lot of atheistic views. Sorry if I gave off the wrong impression.

(June 9, 1970 at 2:10 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm not an atheist. But I have a lot of atheistic views.

What is an 'atheistic view'? Is there something that makes one view atheistic and another not atheistic, or not as atheistic, and if so, what is that something?

(September 27, 2013 at 1:29 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(June 9, 1970 at 2:10 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm not an atheist. But I have a lot of atheistic views.

What is an 'atheistic view'? Is there something that makes one view atheistic and another not atheistic, or not as atheistic, and if so, what is that something?

Seriously? You'll pop up after so long and won't even say hi?

Psh, my feelies, they holler.

(September 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: One of the problems with believing that atheism is true is that we have no remotely plausible account of our universe.

There are multiple remotely plausible accounts of our universe.

(September 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: One possibile way that avoids metaphysical problems involves the use of infinites.

If actual, discrete infinites can exist in our world, then our universe can exist eternally, and does not need God to create it.

That's the gist of the argument. But to develop this further, I need someone who is familiar enough in transfinite arithmetic and set theory to help me with a few issues first. If you're one of them, hit me up.

It doesn't take fancy arithmetic. Unless something stops it, our universe will continue to exist infinitely into the future, albeit eventually as an ever expanding cloud of photons, barring one or two hypotheses that have this iteration of space-time collapsing. There's no strong reason to think our universe won't go on forever in one form or another.

---

(September 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Lawl. Is like everybody here an idiot?

My argument is an attempt to PROVE atheism is TRUE.

Seriously, you guys are embarrassing.

Atheism is not a claim. It is the condition of not believing any gods exist. Your argument is an attempt to prove that God isn't a necessary explanation for the universe, but there's no need for that, since if God hasn't been proven to be a necessary explanation for the universe, there's no good reason to think God IS an explanation for the universe, let alone a necessary one. Trying to prove something isn't something there's no good reason to think it is, isn't a very significant endeavor.

There's lots of proposed Gods, disproving one doesn't disprove all the others anyway.

How can one prove a negative? You can only prove a positive. If a positive claim cannot be proven, it is to be presumed to be false until such a time that it can be proven. In the case of Gods, that'll never happen. But the people with lower IQs will undoubtedly continue to miss the fucking obvious and believe in them anyway.

Do you believe in the Goat herd that aliens took to Titan to live on their alien farm? No? PROVE IT!!!
See how stupid that was?

(September 27, 2013 at 2:23 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: One of the problems with believing that atheism is true is that we have no remotely plausible account of our universe.

There are multiple remotely plausible accounts of our universe.

(September 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: One possibile way that avoids metaphysical problems involves the use of infinites.

If actual, discrete infinites can exist in our world, then our universe can exist eternally, and does not need God to create it.

That's the gist of the argument. But to develop this further, I need someone who is familiar enough in transfinite arithmetic and set theory to help me with a few issues first. If you're one of them, hit me up.

It doesn't take fancy arithmetic. Unless something stops it, our universe will continue to exist infinitely into the future, albeit eventually as an ever expanding cloud of photons, barring one or two hypotheses that have this iteration of space-time collapsing. There's no strong reason to think our universe won't go on forever in one form or another.

---

(September 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Lawl. Is like everybody here an idiot?

My argument is an attempt to PROVE atheism is TRUE.

Seriously, you guys are embarrassing.

Atheism is not a claim. It is the condition of not believing any gods exist. Your argument is an attempt to prove that God isn't a necessary explanation for the universe, but there's no need for that, since if God hasn't been proven to be a necessary explanation for the universe, there's no good reason to think God IS an explanation for the universe, let alone a necessary one. Trying to prove something isn't something there's no good reason to think it is, isn't a very significant endeavor.

There's lots of proposed Gods, disproving one doesn't disprove all the others anyway.

It's less about the arithmetic and more about the metaphysics of infinity.

I haven't even explained my argument so I don't know how you can jump to conclusions like this.

All I've said is "The best, most effective non-theistic explanation of the universe would involve a metaphysical argument about infinity."

But since infinity is a mathematical concept, I want to run my intuitions by someone familiar with set theory and/or transfinite arithmetic.

Fair enough.

(September 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But since infinity is a mathematical concept, I want to run my intuitions by someone familiar with set theory and/or transfinite arithmetic.

*sits down with a cup of coffee*

I'm game.

You can't prove or disprove atheism or theism. I thought a rational person would understand that.