Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:In order for my argument to work,


This is your entire malfunction in a nutshell. You're trying to support conclusions that you didn't reason your way to, therefore you're reduced to fucking around trying to get an argument to work. If you'd reasoned your way to your conclusion, rather than regurgitating the apologetic of others with zero competence, you might have something worth considering.

I could provide a very modest definition of universe


And I'm the one accused of semantic games! You don't fish around for a definition that makes your argument work, you start with your definitions. This once again highlights the distinction between real philosophy and apologetics.

Universe > All matter, mater, time and space that exist (I am aware of the fact that this definition might exclude stuff like dark energy, dark matter stings, and other hypoithetical stuff) but it is irrelevant you may or may not include this things and my argument would still work.


And this contradicts the definition you've been working from.

I should also point out that dark matter and dark energy are not hypothetical. They're both real things.

Anything with matter time and¬or space would by definition be part of the universe.


I agree, based on a definition of universe as 'that which is'. That's as distinct from 'that which arose from the big bang'.

By definition the universe is an isolated system, since any surroundings with matter or energy by definition would also be part of the universe.


In which case the correct response would be 'I don't know'.

With this said, do you still have problems accepting premise 1?


I reject it.

An argument is sound when the premises are more likely to be true than wrong,


Where the fuck do you get this guff? An argument is sound when the premises are true and the route from premises to conclusion valid. Anything else has an assumed material conditional, and it's being abused.

you don't have to be 100% sure, few things in science are 100% sure.


I'm 100% sure you have no fucking clue of what you're talking about.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:42 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Because the only alternative to a fist cause is and infinite regress of causes, this is logically absurd.


Why? Assertions don't cut it.

granted, (my mistake) the first cause it self is not timeless, but whatever was responsable for that first cause, has to be timeless


Let's just look at that:

You admit that a cause cannot be timeless, then go on to say that whatever caused the temporal cause must be timeless.

Do you read this shit prior to hitting 'submit'?
Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:44 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
There was a first cause, this is necessary true, and this first cause by definition has to be timeless and has always existed, but since this first cause is something that exist and you define universe as everything that exist then by definition this fist first cause is also part of the universe.


Actually, no, the "first cause" does not have to be "timeless and always existed". It could be nothing more than a random quantum fart, a completely chance happening without what we would call (anthropomorphically at least) a reason. Besides, if the multiverse hypothesis is true, there could be what we'd call time in the multiverse, meaning that the event that triggered the expansion of our universe was not "timeless" even though it happened before our "time" began.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:01 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:
Why? Assertions don't cut it. .


Jus to be clear, are you saying that the idea of something infinite is not logically absurd? or is it just an other where you agree with me, but pretend to disagree_



Let's just look at that:

You admit that a cause cannot be timeless, then go on to say that whatever caused the temporal cause must be timeless.

Do you read this shit prior to hitting 'submit'?


It might be a semantic problem caused by the fact that English is not my fist language

The first cause of the universe, caused the existence of the universe


Cause (in red) is a noun (timeless)

Caused (green) verb, someting that occurred in time
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:01 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Grumpy Santa wrote:
leroy wrote:
There was a first cause, this is necessary true, and this first cause by definition has to be timeless and has always existed, but since this first cause is something that exist and you define universe as everything that exist then by definition this fist first cause is also part of the universe.


Actually, no, the "first cause" does not have to be "timeless and always existed". It could be nothing more than a random quantum fart, a completely chance happening without what we would call (anthropomorphically at least) a reason. Besides, if the multiverse hypothesis is true, there could be what we'd call time in the multiverse, meaning that the event that triggered the expansion of our universe was not "timeless" even though it happened before our "time" began.


but the mechanism that caused the quantum fart would have to be timeless, otherwise the fart would have occurred after an infinite number of past events, since an infinite number of events will never occur, this fart would have never have occured
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:04 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Jus to be clear, are you saying that the idea of something infinite is not logically absurd?


I'm saying that the assertion that it's logically absurd has never been supported. Every single time I've come across arguments that employ infinity in apologetics, it's been the case that the apologist has no grasp of infinity.

or is it just an other where you agree with me, but pretend to disagree_


I don't recall this having happened.

It might be a semantic problem caused by the fact that English is not my fist language


Or it might be that you're regurgitating the arguments of arch-moron Kalamity Kraig without understanding them.

The first cause of the universe, caused the existence of the universe


Cause (in red) is a sustantive (timeless)

Caused (green) verb, someting that occurred in time


These are both causes, and causes require time. No idea what you mean by 'sustantive', because that's not a word in English.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:14 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:In order for my argument to work,


This is your entire malfunction in a nutshell. You're trying to support conclusions that you didn't reason your way to, therefore you're reduced to fucking around trying to get an argument to work. If you'd reasoned your way to your conclusion, rather than regurgitating the apologetic of others with zero competence, you might have something worth considering.

I could provide a very modest definition of universe


And I'm the one accused of semantic games! You don't fish around for a definition that makes your argument work, you start with your definitions. This once again highlights the distinction between real philosophy and apologetics.

Universe > All matter, mater, time and space that exist (I am aware of the fact that this definition might exclude stuff like dark energy, dark matter stings, and other hypoithetical stuff) but it is irrelevant you may or may not include this things and my argument would still work.


And this contradicts the definition you've been working from.

I should also point out that dark matter and dark energy are not hypothetical. They're both real things.

Anything with matter time and¬or space would by definition be part of the universe.


I agree, based on a definition of universe as 'that which is'. That's as distinct from 'that which arose from the big bang'.

By definition the universe is an isolated system, since any surroundings with matter or energy by definition would also be part of the universe.


In which case the correct response would be 'I don't know'.

With this said, do you still have problems accepting premise 1?


I reject it.

An argument is sound when the premises are more likely to be true than wrong,


Where the fuck do you get this guff? An argument is sound when the premises are true and the route from premises to conclusion valid. Anything else has an assumed material conditional, and it's being abused.

you don't have to be 100% sure, few things in science are 100% sure.


I'm 100% sure you have no fucking clue of what you're talking about.



That is the issue, instead of adressing the argument, you what to suck me in to your word games, if my definition of universe is inaccurate, then please tell me which word should I use?


you reject premise 1

premise 1 After an infinite amount of time the universe will reach termal equilibrium (or something close to that point if you what to be strict with the definitions)



based on every single observation that has ever been made, the system reaches termal equilibrium (or something close to that point) after a limited amount of time and this never reverts, this is true in isolated, closed and even some open systems

Since you are suggesting something that contradicts every single observation the least you can do is present some evidence, what reasons are there to reject premise 1?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:15 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:but the mechanism that caused the quantum fart would have to be timeless, otherwise the fart would have occurred after an infinite number of past events, since an infinite number of events will never occur, this fart would have never have occured


Utter nonsense, and predicated on a premise you've yet to support. Quantum nucleation is among the plausible mechanisms for cosmic instantiation. God is not.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:15 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:That is the issue, instead of adressing the argument, you what to suck me in to your word games, if my definition of universe is inaccurate, then please tell me which word should I use?


Why? It's your fucking argument! It's not my responsibility to come up with definitions for you to use. I note that you've completely evaded the substance of the post.

based on every single observation that has ever been made, the system reaches termal equilibrium (or something close to that point) after a limited amount of time and this never reverts, this is true in isolated, closed and even some open systems


Several things horribly wrong with this. The first is that, even supposing your overall contention was true, it runs hard up against the problem of induction. The second is that no universe has ever been observed reaching thermal equilibrium, so your initial premise is extracted directly from your rectum. The third is that it isn't true of closed and open systems, because energy can be input from outside, preventing them from reaching equilibrium. The vast list of questions you've failed to address is rapidly growing and, since you're basing your drivel on the answers to those questions, it behooves you to deal with them.

The one that's currently pertinent is this:

What defines a thermodynamic system?

Finally, overall you're committing a crystal-clear fallacy of composition, in asserting that something that applies within the universe applies to the universe itself, once again ignoring what's been said before.

Since you are suggesting something that contradicts every single observation


I'm not contradicting anything. I'm rejecting your premise as not having been demonstrated, because it hasn't been demonstrated.

the least you can do is present some evidence,


Now you're erecting a lovely commission of the fallacy known as onus probandi.

what reasons are there to reject premise 1?


I only need one reason, and this is it:

You haven't demonstrated it to be true.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:24 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Jus to be clear, are you saying that the idea of something infinite is not logically absurd? or is it just an other where you agree with me, but pretend to disagree_

Running away from your blunders does not work too well for you Leroy as you just end up making new ones.

So you believe that the idea of something infinite is logically absurd?

Is god's "existence" finite/not logically absurd or is it infinite/logically absurd?

Can you make an exception for god that is not logically absurd?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:35 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:Actually, no, the "first cause" does not have to be "timeless and always existed". It could be nothing more than a random quantum fart, a completely chance happening without what we would call (anthropomorphically at least) a reason. Besides, if the multiverse hypothesis is true, there could be what we'd call time in the multiverse, meaning that the event that triggered the expansion of our universe was not "timeless" even though it happened before our "time" began.


but the mechanism that caused the quantum fart would have to be timeless, otherwise the fart would have occurred after an infinite number of past events, since an infinite number of events will never occur, this fart would have never have occured


Nope, could simply be a random event, or an event that occurs outside *our* space/time but in a different space/time, therefore not being "timeless" at all.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:00 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
based on every single observation that has ever been made, the system reaches termal equilibrium (or something close to that point) after a limited amount of time and this never reverts, this is true in isolated, closed and even some open systems

Since you are suggesting something that contradicts every single observation the least you can do is present some evidence, what reasons are there to reject premise 1?


Only in closed systems, and no one has demonstrated yet that the universe actually is a closed system.

By the way, when you say "based on every single observation that has ever been made, the system reaches termal equilibrium ... and even some open systems"

You're contradicting yourself. You can't say every single observation and follow that with a "sometimes".
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:05 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Greetings,

leroy is attempting to use the word "universe" to mean the physical/material as distinct from the supernatural, ie "God".

@leroy, the term "universe" has but one meaning, as hackenslash has said, "all that is" or everything that exists - including a First Cause, whether there was one or not.

You can't exclude "God" from "all that is" (universe).

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:26 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:Jus to be clear, are you saying that the idea of something infinite is not logically absurd? or is it just an other where you agree with me, but pretend to disagree_

Running away from your blunders does not work too well for you Leroy as you just end up making new ones.

So you believe that the idea of something infinite is logically absurd?

Is god's "existence" finite/not logically absurd or is it infinite/logically absurd?

Can you make an exception for god that is not logically absurd?


"God existence is finite/infinite?

what is that suppose to mean?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:53 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:Why? It's your fucking argument! It's not my responsibility to come up with definitions for you to use. I note that you've completely evaded the substance of the post.

.



First of all I didn't ask for a definition, I asked for the word that would fit my definition.

Second, the standard definition of universe corresponds to what I defined as universe, only in a minority of cases people use some other definition (like dragan did)

Third If I am making the argument then obviously I am the one who provides the definitions,

So with that said, and using my definition of universe do you still reject premise ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:59 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:Jus to be clear, are you saying that the idea of something infinite is not logically absurd?


I'm saying that the assertion that it's logically absurd has never been supported. Every single time I've come across arguments that employ infinity in apologetics, it's been the case that the apologist has no grasp of infinity..


Mathematically infinity can be represented as 1/0 (or any other number divided by zero)

Do I really have to justify why 1/0 is an absurd and meaningless concept?




[

The first cause of the universe, caused the existence of the universe


Cause (in red) is a sustantive (timeless)

Caused (green) verb, someting that occurred in time


These are both causes, and causes require time. No idea what you mean by 'sustantive', because that's not a word in English
[/quote]

I meant noun.

the noun could be timeless, not the verb

if you disagree, please for the fist time in your life, take the burden and explain does the cause necessary requires time
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:06 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Grumpy Santa wrote:
leroy wrote:
based on every single observation that has ever been made, the system reaches termal equilibrium (or something close to that point) after a limited amount of time and this never reverts, this is true in isolated, closed and even some open systems

Since you are suggesting something that contradicts every single observation the least you can do is present some evidence, what reasons are there to reject premise 1?


Only in closed systems, and no one has demonstrated yet that the universe actually is a closed system.

By the way, when you say "based on every single observation that has ever been made, the system reaches termal equilibrium ... and even some open systems"

You're contradicting yourself. You can't say every single observation and follow that with a "sometimes".



The universe by definition is an isolated system, regrless if you use my definition of universe, or if you use Dragans definition.

it is not a contradiction, Isolated systems always tend towards equilibrium, sometimes open systems too.


I made this point because even if you happen to prove that the universe is an open system, you would still have to prove that it is the kind of open system that would prevent thermal equilibrium.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:11 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

leroy is attempting to use the word "universe" to mean the physical/material as distinct from the supernatural, ie "God".

@leroy, the term "universe" has but one meaning, as hackenslash has said, "all that is" or everything that exists - including a First Cause, whether there was one or not.

You can't exclude "God" from "all that is" (universe).

Kindest regards,

James


Nope,

1 the word universe has more than 1 definition

2 the most common definition corresponds to my definition,
The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.[9][10][11][12] It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy

form Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

3 I am not defining universe as everything that exist except God/supernatural that is a strawman,

For example numbers exist but are not part of the universe (as I defined universe) so my definition does not only exclude the supernatural
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:24 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Why? It's your fucking argument! It's not my responsibility to come up with definitions for you to use. I note that you've completely evaded the substance of the post.

.



First of all I didn't ask for a definition, I asked for the word that would fit my definition.

Second, the standard definition of universe corresponds to what I defined as universe, only in a minority of cases people use some other definition (like dragan did)

Third If I am making the argument then obviously I am the one who provides the definitions,

So with that said, and using my definition of universe do you still reject premise ?


Yes, I reject your premise as unsupported claptrap.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:33 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Mathematically infinity can be represented as 1/0 (or any other number divided by zero)

Do I really have to justify why 1/0 is an absurd and meaningless concept?


That's not the only definition of infinity. And yes, you need to justify the assertion that infinity is absurd.

I meant noun.


How the fuck does that get you out of jail? The noun 'cause' is 'something that causes'. In short, the verb is implicit in the noun, so there's no help for you. It's still a cause, and it still requires time, because cause and effect constitutes change.

the noun could be timeless, not the verb


Sorry, but no.

if you disagree, please for the fist time in your life, take the burden and explain does the cause necessary requires time


For the first time in my life? Who the fuck do you think you are? You know exactly fuck all about me, not least how many times I've justified my position, not least here on this forum, of which I've been a member since its inception.
Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:37 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Trixie and 6 guests