Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256128 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233342 Jul 23, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>

That's where you lose me. He and his puppet friends...

!
You are all my puppets.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233343 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> We can only measure in small to the Planck , but it was smaller than this. We in this reality, cannot measure smaller than this, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a period before measurable. We just can't measure it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch
You are admitting the universe began finite in extent.(smaller than the Planck)

But your solution to the impossibility of achieving infinite expansion was that it began infinite in extent.

Again, please provide the average rate of expansion "A" that would satisfy your assertion of expanding from "less than the Planck" to infinite distance in an elapsed time of 13.8 billion years.

A x 13.8 billion = Infinity

Plug in the number for us.

That's all you have to do, but what you must do, to make your case.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233344 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>

When someone latches on to an abstraction like "infinity", the utility of which is nothing but a mathematical tool for expression of theoretical limits, and tries to make it a physical phenomenon, they have nothing to teach me.
To be more precise, even within the domain of mathematics, infinities can only exist because they are symbolically represented.

It is never actually represented. No one has ever actually represented an infinite set. It is only "referred", never fully represented. If sets were required to be fully represented then mathematics could not operate with actual infinities; it could only operate on potentially infinite sets which always have finite representations (e.g.{1,2,3}) but which are unlimited in their length. Such sets are arbitrarily large but always have a definite finite size.

Physical phenomena disallows actual infinity. Physical characteristics like quantity or distance coexist with what actually exists and represents it. If it exists, it can be represented. If it exceeds, in degree, our ability to observe or measure, it may be arbitrarily large or arbitrarily small, but it cannot be non-representational, but expressed as representational. It cannot be infinite.

It is contradictory to simulate a representation of the universe with features that cannot be represented. It is to offer a computational foundation which is not computational.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233345 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am stubborn in my resistance to popular nonsense.
When someone latches on to an abstraction like "infinity", the utility of which is nothing but a mathematical tool for expression of theoretical limits, and tries to make it a physical phenomenon, they have nothing to teach me.
Every intelligent person on this thread knows I am correct and Aura is wrong. I suspect even he knows it, and is too stubborn (there's that word) to admit it.
My quest is not one of ego. My quest is to find someone smarter than me on the planet so as to conquer my ego.
So far, no luck around here.
Even a Topix atheist idiot thinks they are smarter than everyone else. Endemic to the species and survival.

But you know that.

You should also know there are a lot of women out there who can aid you in conquering your ego. Whether you wanted them to or not.

As far as smart goes, clubs and size can work at close range to exercise will. Real smartness knows how to pull levers at a distance. But you know that, too.

WTF are you doing up so early in the morning?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233346 Jul 23, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a Topix atheist idiot thinks they are smarter than everyone else. Endemic to the species and survival.
But you know that.
You should also know there are a lot of women out there who can aid you in conquering your ego. Whether you wanted them to or not.
As far as smart goes, clubs and size can work at close range to exercise will. Real smartness knows how to pull levers at a distance. But you know that, too.
WTF are you doing up so early in the morning?
I don't sleep. Seems a waste of time.

I get that about women conquering our ego.

Growing up with a dad whose a professional fighter can do it too.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#233347 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Immeasurable does not mean infinite.
You are taking one qualtiy of "infinite" and making that the entire concept.
Your entire understanding of the concept is wrong.
I have proven this multiple times.
Your errors of logic are even worse. You claim "infinite distance" for the expansion of the universe. Then when shown how reaching infinity by addition is impossible, you resort to "infinite from the beginning". But your "infinite" in this case is "infinitely small", which does not help your dilemma of the impossible "infinitely large". It compounds the contradiction.
You plod along stupidly and assert it as intellectual superiority.
I can't help you. But I'm happy to ridicule you.
Actually you think everything is quantifiable, this is your "belief" , but it isn't so.
My claim of infinite distance is dependent on traveling the distance, which is impossible because it becomes infinite, this is a mathematical certainty.
The universe itself maybe infinite, you are using your "belief" that everything is quantifiable
to support this "belief". When we talk about infinitesimals you are clearly misunderstanding the meaning.

Define it Buck, we have definitions for a reason, I don't make the sht up. Nor do I assume
everything is quantifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

After you understand what an infinitesimal is, what us the opposite of one?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233348 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you think everything is quantifiable, this is your "belief" , but it isn't so.
My claim of infinite distance is dependent on traveling the distance, which is impossible because it becomes infinite, this is a mathematical certainty.
The universe itself maybe infinite, you are using your "belief" that everything is quantifiable
to support this "belief". When we talk about infinitesimals you are clearly misunderstanding the meaning.
Define it Buck, we have definitions for a reason, I don't make the sht up. Nor do I assume
everything is quantifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal
After you understand what an infinitesimal is, what us the opposite of one?
The distance you claim is impossible to travel, you also claim universe expansion has traversed it.

If the distance is impossible to traverse, nothing traversed it.

If something traversed it, it is not impossible to traverse.

You can't have it both ways.

I didn't claim everything is quantifiable.

But if something is a physical distance, it has a quantity, whether its quantity is known or not.

"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity

What is "A"?

Why won't you tell us?



“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#233349 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are admitting the universe began finite in extent.(smaller than the Planck)
But your solution to the impossibility of achieving infinite expansion was that it began infinite in extent.
Again, please provide the average rate of expansion "A" that would satisfy your assertion of expanding from "less than the Planck" to infinite distance in an elapsed time of 13.8 billion years.
A x 13.8 billion = Infinity
Plug in the number for us.
That's all you have to do, but what you must do, to make your case.
I've explained to you why it's impossible to measure the entire universe, and it's not a problem that will be overcome by science or understanding.
If we follow the increase in the expansion rate toward the horizon, then past the cosmological event horizon where it is receding 3x faster than light, if this progression in increase continues as we see it from here. Then in the same distance beyond 14.3 Gigaparsecs it would be receding 6x faster than light and could continue to regression speeds into infinity itself. But that would make the distance to the next horizon 270 billion lys. NASA calculates the universe us at least 250 x what we can see. But since we will never be able to measure past the event horizon because it being a physical impossibility,
everything beyond that point us absolutely infinite by definition anyway.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233350 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

... what us the opposite of one?
What is the opposite of one??

World peace?

Water?

You get dumber by the minute.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233351 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't sleep. Seems a waste of time.
I get that about women conquering our ego.
Growing up with a dad whose a professional fighter can do it too.
You learned various disciplines in your time. Some voluntary, some not. But they have all served you well. Putting them into perspective will come with time.

We are ultimately facets of something larger that get shaped by experiences. The raw spirit is pretty emotion based. It tends to carry more baggage than it needs. It has a lot to learn and understand.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#233352 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The distance you claim is impossible to travel, you also claim universe expansion has traversed it.
If the distance is impossible to traverse, nothing traversed it.
If something traversed it, it is not impossible to traverse.
You can't have it both ways.
I didn't claim everything is quantifiable.
But if something is a physical distance, it has a quantity, whether its quantity is known or not.
"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity
What is "A"?
Why won't you tell us?
Space/time traversed it, but matter cannot unless it was in the space/time coordinates the expanding space/time was in to begin with. You don't understand general relativity, that's apparent. But we are talking about the obvious fact that since it is expanding faster than you can travel , you could never reach the distance , but in fact only fall farther and farther behind the expansion. Therefore the distance becomes larger and larger into infinity.
Can you swim up Niagara falls?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#233353 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Immeasurable does not mean infinite.
You are taking one qualtiy of "infinite" and making that the entire concept.
Your entire understanding of the concept is wrong.
I have proven this multiple times.
Your errors of logic are even worse. You claim "infinite distance" for the expansion of the universe. Then when shown how reaching infinity by addition is impossible, you resort to "infinite from the beginning". But your "infinite" in this case is "infinitely small", which does not help your dilemma of the impossible "infinitely large". It compounds the contradiction.
You plod along stupidly and assert it as intellectual superiority.
I can't help you. But I'm happy to ridicule you.

"Immeasurable does not mean infinite."

Again, you can't change the definition. Though you sure dance around trying too.
1.immeasurably great:

1.limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate

2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless:

"impossible to measure or calculate"
Moonie

Columbia, SC

#233354 Jul 23, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW It is pretty obvious you are the one using the judgecons and giving yourself a pat on the back.
Have you got any idea how pathetic it makes you look.
You do realize that anyone can judge a post. Or are you really that clueless.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233355 Jul 23, 2014
I've said this before, but will do it again.

We are conditioned to to be directed by authority figures. Fathers, kings, and holy men. So there is an expectation of the supreme being or force that brought this all together to be a totally separate entity and consciousness looking down upon us. But the fact is we are part of that larger parcel. Just like those nerve endings in your body. They all serve a purpose. Mostly, anyhow.

The end product can't see all that made it. It has to make sensors and do some deducing.
God won't appear here as a pope, politician, or economic powerhouse. They are just tools to an end. He will appear as the derelict watching the show from the sidelines.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233356 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Space/time traversed it, but matter cannot unless it was in the space/time coordinates the expanding space/time was in to begin with. You don't understand general relativity, that's apparent. But we are talking about the obvious fact that since it is expanding faster than you can travel , you could never reach the distance , but in fact only fall farther and farther behind the expansion. Therefore the distance becomes larger and larger into infinity.
Can you swim up Niagara falls?
Maybe that expansion is caused by your pushing on the boundaries? Something like growth?

Think big, Aura.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233357 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"Immeasurable does not mean infinite."
Again, you can't change the definition. Though you sure dance around trying too.
1.immeasurably great:
1.limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless:
"impossible to measure or calculate"
"Immeasureable" is ONE quality of infinity.

But they are not one in the same.

You are too stupid to get this.

Something infinite would be immeasurable, but something immeasurable is not necessarily infinite.

You raisin-brained moron.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233359 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I've explained to you why it's impossible to measure the entire universe, and it's not a problem that will be overcome by science or understanding.
If we follow the increase in the expansion rate toward the horizon, then past the cosmological event horizon where it is receding 3x faster than light, if this progression in increase continues as we see it from here. Then in the same distance beyond 14.3 Gigaparsecs it would be receding 6x faster than light and could continue to regression speeds into infinity itself. But that would make the distance to the next horizon 270 billion lys. NASA calculates the universe us at least 250 x what we can see. But since we will never be able to measure past the event horizon because it being a physical impossibility,
everything beyond that point us absolutely infinite by definition anyway.
250x what we can see is a finite sum.

270 billion ly is a finite sum.

6x faster than light is a finite speed.

Where is your infinite sum in this analysis?

What average rate of expansion results in infinite distance in 13.8 billion years?

Why won't you answer?

"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity. 13.8 billion is finite. Right? To mulitiply a finite amount by "A" and get the product "infinity",..." A" has to equal infinity.

For you to be correct, the rate of expansion of the universe has to be "infinite".

How does something expand at infinite speed?

You already related the speed of expansion to the speed of light.

How many times the speed of light is "infinite speed"?

Are you now flip-flopping away from your claim that the universe began infinite in extension, and now saying it expanded from finite to infinite?

Answer the basic questions or shut the fuck up.

"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity

What is "A"?

Can't answer? Stumped?

You are a fucking moron.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#233360 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Immeasureable" is ONE quality of infinity.
But they are not one in the same.
You are too stupid to get this.
Something infinite would be immeasurable, but something immeasurable is not necessarily infinite.
You raisin-brained moron.
It certainly meets the criteria of the definition in every way jack ass , and you are far too stupid
to admit it.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#233361 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
250x what we can see is a finite sum.
270 billion ly is a finite sum.
6x faster than light is a finite speed.
Where is your infinite sum in this analysis?
What average rate of expansion results in infinite distance in 13.8 billion years?
Why won't you answer?
"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity. 13.8 billion is finite. Right? To mulitiply a finite amount by "A" and get the product "infinity",..." A" has to equal infinity.
For you to be correct, the rate of expansion of the universe has to be "infinite".
How does something expand at infinite speed?
You already related the speed of expansion to the speed of light.
How many times the speed of light is "infinite speed"?
Are you now flip-flopping away from your claim that the universe began infinite in extension, and now saying it expanded from finite to infinite?
Answer the basic questions or shut the fuck up.
"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity
What is "A"?
Can't answer? Stumped?
You are a fucking moron.
Because the distance is infinite the speed becomes infinite, I just gave you the start of a series of expansion rates that moves to infinite moron.
But that besides the point that it became infinite beyond the 14.3 gigaparsecs distance, which at that point nothing will ever interact with anything here, nor anything from here ever interact with anything there you retard yard ape..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233362 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly meets the criteria of the definition in every way jack ass , and you are far too stupid
to admit it.
Really?

So it meets "that which cannot be realized"?

Your expansion realized a distance which cannot be realized?

How 'bout the quality of "if infinite in total, then infinite in all it's parts".

Does your distance meet that?

If so, the length of your nose, being a distance in the universe, is infinite in length.

"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity

What is "A"?

Answer or shut the fuck up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RoxLo 1,406,240
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed Trojan 32,308
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Wed ThomasA 311,496
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jul 27 IB DaMann 9,991
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 25 NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web