Since: May 10

Location hidden

#469 Apr 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
However B may be uncaused.
Which uh, you shouldn't have a problem with since after all, you think A is uncaused.(shrug)
The claim was not that B is uncaused; the claim was that it caused itself.

Impossible.

Also impossible that B is uncaused.

Keep trying.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#470 Apr 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, two at least.
What's the "scientific theory" of IDC, Buck?
Thought so.
You thought what?

I can give it to you.

But you see, I know you are not asking for information. You are attempting to spar based on something you think you know and you think I don't know.

You are misguided, my little buddy.

If I cut your head off and shit in it, then sewed it back on your neck, it would raise your IQ by 50 points.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#471 Apr 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Impossible and stupid.
Tell me. If something extends infinite into the past, how long would it take to arrive at the present moment?
Answer: It never could.
After traversing 1 million years to the exponent of the largest number that could be written by a million human beings all working together, the "infinite past" thing would be no closer to the present moment than when it started.
An infinite past does not preclude us from starting somewhere closer to the present. The infinite past does not have to be broken up into infinite, uncountable chunks.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#472 Apr 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "Law of Identity" you ignorant buffoon.
----------

The Dude wrote:

But isn't that what fundies are supposed to do? Bastdardize other people's concepts so they fit with their theological preconceptions or make up totally new BS on the spot and call it relevant to reality?
----------


Lesson 02.01
Three Laws of Logic

The Law of Identity
The Law of Non-Contradiction
The Law of Excluded Middle

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#473 Apr 10, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you haven't. You are too stubborn and egomaniacal to see it. Anyone reading your posts can see that your need to feel superior to everyone overrides what little intellect you have.
Which isn't much.
I take that for the complete lack of a thinking argument that it is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#474 Apr 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means that time is active, so causes only exist inside the universe.
Wrong. No such assumption is valid.

Time itself is caused.

All that is required of a non-universe cause is that it is not dependent on universe time.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#475 Apr 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Define your terms and prove that anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
<quoted text>
And if the universe did not 'begin to exist in time' because time itself is part of the universe, then the universe requires no cause.
Simple.

Something cannot come from nothing.

By the way, the universe DID begin to exist in time.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#476 Apr 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "Law of Identity" you ignorant buffoon.
You are correct so far as you go.
Your failure, is that you ASSume that the whole expression is fundamentally required: causality.
If there is no time? There cannot possibly be causality, as this requires time.
Prior to the universe's expansion? There was no time-- thus it is impossible to have a cause.
You also fail to recognize that in the universe, there are many-many uncaused events. It happens all the time at the quantum level.
But all of that? Is literally beyond your feeble attempts to understand.
Prediction:
Your "response" (if you have one) will be in the form of some pathetic attempt to insult.
The Law of Identity is one of the 3 fundamental laws of logic.(No, don't even try to understand it)

Causality does not require time; before expansion there was time.

There are no uncaused events at the quantum level.

The discussion was not about "events", it was about things beginning to exist.

You didn't get one thing right, Bob-Of-Cum-On-Face.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#477 Apr 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.
Something cannot come from nothing.
By the way, the universe DID begin to exist in time.
The "nothing" could have been a well of negative energy, in which virtual particles were free to pop in and cause a big bang without violating conservation or causation.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#478 Apr 10, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>An infinite past does not preclude us from starting somewhere closer to the present. The infinite past does not have to be broken up into infinite, uncountable chunks.
If it is claimed a universe or multiverse is past-infinite, as was claimed, you can't then claim it starts at some finite point in the past.

But if you do start at the finite past point, then you can't say it is infinite.

You are just trying to say that it's infinite, but ignore that it is infinite.

Ridiculous.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#479 Apr 10, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The "nothing" could have been a well of negative energy, in which virtual particles were free to pop in and cause a big bang without violating conservation or causation.
Then there would be a cause. What is the cause of the particles and energy?

Particles and energy are NOT nothing.

You are trying to claim "something from something" is "something from nothing".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#480 Apr 10, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The "nothing" could have been a well of negative energy, in which virtual particles were free to pop in and cause a big bang without violating conservation or causation.
So something is nothing.

Got it, Timmy.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#481 Apr 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So something is nothing.
Got it, Timmy.
I was just offering you a possibility.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#482 Apr 11, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Leisure suit Larry
Frogger
Tetris
PacMan
Olde PC games
forgot name but it had like a caterpillar on the screen and then there was another one where you defended a constant attack from above but I don't remember the names the games
Yes, I remember the caterpillar one-- I had that one on two of my earliest cell phones-- mildly addicting. Centipede it was called, I think.

I had even written a Visual Basic version of it that was pretty good-- "reverse engineered" if you will. I should've saved that code, but didn't.

I remember the aliens marching left and right, with a high-flying one dropping bombs-- you had to zap the rows through with your single gun, sliding left and right... I should know the name, but like you, I don't remember it.

The Stop-animation show, Robot Chicken has done several parodies of that last one.

Oh, the old heyday of 8 bit, then 16 bit graphics...:D

One of my favorites in that old genra, was the god-game Populous. Do you remember it?

What I also find amusing, is that for my Nintendo DSxl, I have a version of Populous that is superior in every way to the original PC one I played for so many wasted hours.

Amazing: I hold in my hand, a small device about the size of a book, and it has more computer-power than some of the most expensive computers in the world, back in the heyday.

More storage too: I have an old 8 gigabyte flash drive in it, a casual re-use of an obsolete (to me) item.

Had NASA had a couple of these hand-helds, back in the 1960's? Imagine what they might have achieved....!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#483 Apr 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Atheism"; from the Greek "atheos" - no god.
ĎAtheismí means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism: a + theos, denying god,(Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology).
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, idiot.
Nice! You are clearly a MIND READER, in that you have actually read the minds of people who call themselves "atheists" and you purport to KNOW what they think.

Amazing!

Stupendous!

All Hail The Mind-Reader Butt Creeks (or whichever he's calling himself these days)

Ruler Of The World!

All-Mighty!

The entire world bows to your feet, humbled by your genius.

----------

(only-- all of the above solely exists, in it's entirety, in your tiny and stunted little imagination....)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#484 Apr 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
There is much evidence. Some has been presented here.
It is not conclusive. But it is evidence.
Ahhh... yes... your ... ahem ... "evidence".

Not even as convincing as that steaming pile of excrement you use for brains, is it?

I mean-- the Ultimate Creator of Everything has to stoop so low, as to use....

... the likes of YOU.

For it's spokes-weenie.

Riiiiight.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#485 Apr 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "Law of Identity" you ignorant buffoon.
----------
The Dude wrote:
But isn't that what fundies are supposed to do? Bastdardize other people's concepts so they fit with their theological preconceptions or make up totally new BS on the spot and call it relevant to reality?
----------
Lesson 02.01
Three Laws of Logic
The Law of Identity
The Law of Non-Contradiction
The Law of Excluded Middle
Making up more sh7t as you go along?

LMAO!

As if, Butt Cheeks.... as if.

My but you are dense-- like unto a swamp dense.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#486 Apr 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is claimed a universe or multiverse is past-infinite, as was claimed, you can't then claim it starts at some finite point in the past.
But if you do start at the finite past point, then you can't say it is infinite.
You are just trying to say that it's infinite, but ignore that it is infinite.
Ridiculous.
Not the universe itself. An infinite set does not mean that between every point on the line there is an infinite period of time. Say pi turns out to be infinite - does that mean that we can't count from 3.1 to 3.14? You're confusing infinite divisibility with an infinite stretch of time.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#487 Apr 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The Law of Identity is one of the 3 fundamental laws of logic.(No, don't even try to understand it)
It cannot be understood because it's 100% bullsh7t? Okay. I'll buy that-- you ARE comprised of pure bullsh7t after all.

So everything YOU say is also pure bullsh7t.
Buck Crick wrote:
Causality does not require time; before expansion there was time.
False. Plain and simple-- causality DOES require cause-- then time-- then effect.

Without time, there cannot be a sequence.

So you are spewing more bullsh7t.
Buck Crick wrote:
There are no uncaused events at the quantum level.
Lie. You are smarter than the worlds most clever and educated physics professors, then?

Seriously?

I call more bullsh7t from you-- as is your wont.
Buck Crick wrote:
The discussion was not about "events", it was about things beginning to exist.
You cannot understand such things, silly billy-- your swamp-mind is not sophisticated enough.

So you spew more of your bullsh7t. As expected.
Buck Crick wrote:
You didn't get one thing right, Bob-Of-Cum-On-Face.
Jealous? I do believe you ARE jealous!

How charming!

You... jealous of me!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#488 Apr 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there would be a cause. What is the cause of the particles and energy?
Particles and energy are NOT nothing.
You are trying to claim "something from something" is "something from nothing".
Something from nothing is what YOU butt-munchers claim, you silly .. >>boy<<<.

You claim your god *bampf* from >>nothing<< made >>something<< magically appear.

No modern physicist claims something from nothing.

This is just more of your 100% unadulterated bullsh7t, oozing forth from your swamp-for-brains.

Now go back to playing with your dolls, >>boy<<

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 22 min Thinking 229,859
Our world came from nothing? 25 min Thinking 1,002
Islam for peace, or violence? 27 min Thinking 24
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr fadu singh 22,979
Man center of the universe. 2 hr Thinking 85
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Fri Thinking 6
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 16 Mikko 1,401

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE