Comments
1,361 - 1,380 of 1,922 Comments Last updated Oct 20, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1404 May 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Will you be my date for the prom?
LMAO!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1405 May 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Have we met?
Doubtful, but I would bet you $100 that you have >>stepped<< in some Buck though ...

... most likely to be found at a dog park ...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1406 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends.
Have you ever had sex through a car window with a 6'7 football player while your boyfriend was passed out behind the wheel?
Oh, bukster!

Nobody cares about your fantasies of gay-sex with men much prettier than you'll ever be.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1407 May 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm lesbian, so....no. Has your sister?
:)
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#1408 May 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Doubtful, but I would bet you $100 that you have >>stepped<< in some Buck though ...
... most likely to be found at a dog park ...
I think you two need to get a room!

I have music for you ;)

http://m.youtube.com/watch...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1409 May 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, velocity certainly *is* relevant. As you said, if the velocity is not zero, then the chandelier is not suspended. But you cannot tell if the velocity is zero from just a single point in time: you need at least two times to get a velocity. In particular, if all we have is the picture of the chandelier and the chain at one point, we cannot tell if the chandelier is suspended or not.
Meh, that stupid Einstein, what did he know anyway?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1410 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You need somebody to stomp a mudhole in your ass, Septic.
Tell us all how you believe fossils aren't "really there" again..

Its amusing that you believe you actually have something to say. Considering you believe that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs.
Lincoln

United States

#1411 May 2, 2013
Most of the atheists met at university seem to be agnostics.

Too much faith is required for atheism,and a bit of mumbo jumbo regarding physics.

Science remains silent on metaphysics

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1413 May 2, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Most of the atheists met at university seem to be agnostics.
Too much faith is required for atheism,and a bit of mumbo jumbo regarding physics.
Science remains silent on metaphysics
-------

You can say that again plus that their "mumbo jumbo" about physics is badly plagiarized to become a simple verbal juggling that once plugged in they come up with whatever the record says and in such a hostile way as their way to make a point. And for metaphysics they don't have what it takes to walk in that territory.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1414 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Cause does not require time or physical laws.
It usually does, but there is no such requirement.
Time has a cause.
You concede universe time did not always exist, I think. It requires, therefore, a cause.
If you claim universe time is eternal, then all causes would be in universe time and the question of whether a cause requires time would be irrelevant.
Of course, it is impossible that universe time always existed.
Really?

Under what definition of "cause" do you claim this to be true?

Or are you just doing your usual schtick and proclaiming things to be true without any support?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1415 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Causality - a relation between two entities or events wherein the condition of one results in the other.
It does not require time. Cause is not required to precede effect in time. Causality and effect can be simultaneous - a chain suspending a chandelier, for example.
The cause of time (universe time) would not be BEFORE time, but WITHOUT time.
Seems to me that your definition of causality still requires time. You may not have used the word "time", but you did use the word "results" which implies a "before and after", that is, time.

Thus, even under your own definition "the cause of time" is a meaningless statement.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1416 May 2, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Have we met?
Buck is that creepy dude you keep seeing at the street corner next to the school yard.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1417 May 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, velocity certainly *is* relevant. As you said, if the velocity is not zero, then the chandelier is not suspended. But you cannot tell if the velocity is zero from just a single point in time: you need at least two times to get a velocity. In particular, if all we have is the picture of the chandelier and the chain at one point, we cannot tell if the chandelier is suspended or not.
More to the point, the hanging of the chandelier is a sequence of events, not a single event. That sequence is started when the chandelier is hung, and that requires a change of state that requires time. Also, at that point, there is probably a lot of swinging and flexing of the chain, which is dampened by friction, etc. Whether the chandelier is suspended depends of a series of causes and effects over a period of time. it is the maintenance of the force over a period of time that keeps the chandelier hanging. In other words, it is an effect that requires time.
All cause and effect relationships require a time component. if we limit to single events (as opposed to sequences of events), then the ause of any event is prior to the effect. In a sequence of events, the cause of the first event is prior to that eventE and later events can work to support the status quo.
Suspension is stipulated.

You are dodging and weaving. On your approach, we cannot assess causation unless we consider all prior effects -including the forging of the steel chain, the guy who founded Caterpillar which manufactured the track hoe that dug the iron ore out of the ground,...etc. You can only have one ultimate cause of everything

The nonsense of your losing an argument.

A chandelier hanging from a ceiling is a simultaneous cause and effect.

Cause is not required to precede effect, and you cannot offer any valid argument that it is.

This is particularly obvious in the case of universe time being absent, as in the cause of the universe.

Just admit you lost to the pig farmer again.

You'll feel better.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1418 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
A dependence relation has NOTHING to do with time.
Just to point out, we were discussing "causality", not "dependence relation". They are not the same thing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1419 May 2, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that your definition of causality still requires time. You may not have used the word "time", but you did use the word "results" which implies a "before and after", that is, time.
Thus, even under your own definition "the cause of time" is a meaningless statement.
No, little buddy.

"Results" does not imply time.

The suspension of the chandelier is simultaneous with its suspension.

Do you really wish to venture down the embarassing path of being schooled with Polymouth - again?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1420 May 2, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to point out, we were discussing "causality", not "dependence relation". They are not the same thing.
Yes they are, if the dependence relation is asymmetric.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1421 May 2, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Most of the atheists met at university seem to be agnostics.
Too much faith is required for atheism,and a bit of mumbo jumbo regarding physics.
Science remains silent on metaphysics
And many believers draw lines between atheists and agnostics that few nonbelievers recognize. Each is a negative answer, but to different questions, one about belief, the other about the possibility of certainty. As such, it's possible for a person to be either one, both or neither. An agnostic acknowledges that certainty is not possible, but given that, can choose to believe, disbelieve, or reserve judgement.

Atheism and agnosticism are not the same, but they are not mutually exclusive, either. Your preconception that a nonbeliever must be one or the other is incorrect and leads to to other false conclusions. But the, judging from your posts, most subtle concepts are beyond your grasp.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1422 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, little buddy.
"Results" does not imply time.
The suspension of the chandelier is simultaneous with its suspension.
Do you really wish to venture down the embarassing path of being schooled with Polymouth - again?
Uh, Buck, there IS NO suspension without time. The chandelier is in no danger of falling, breaking the chain, nor putting stress on the chain to cause tension. It simply occupies a position in space. Only when someone presses play will tension be a factor.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1423 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, little buddy.
"Results" does not imply time.
The suspension of the chandelier is simultaneous with its suspension.
Do you really wish to venture down the embarassing path of being schooled with Polymouth - again?
With all due respect, Buck, you have not been prevailing in your discussions with polymath257. Your posts have been rife with fallacies that I have not bothered to point out (the conversation was too interesting to change by interfering with it) but which are obvious--to me at least. Keep at it anyway. Polymath has written some really interesting stuff in response to you, and I'd hate to see that stop.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1424 May 2, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, Buck, there IS NO suspension without time. The chandelier is in no danger of falling, breaking the chain, nor putting stress on the chain to cause tension. It simply occupies a position in space. Only when someone presses play will tension be a factor.
Suspended can mean "stilled" or "hung." The two definitions have been blurred in the posts about the chandelier, and the resulting confusion has kept the conversation from moving forward. It's time for the participants (which does not include me) to agree on a single definition--to examine the same part of the elephant together, if you know the old fable.

Carry on, then...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 7 min Thinking 226,606
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 37 min Eman 21,541
Becoming a parent changed everything. 1 hr Givemeliberty 1
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr greymouser 5,922
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) 2 hr Mikko 18
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 2 hr Mikko 63
Our world came from nothing? 11 hr Thinking 438
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••