Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233257 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a classic example of an egotistical maniac suffering from Dunning Kruger effect.
"You showed a hypothetical mathematic computation, and substituted the term "infinity" for "unknown"."
No I didn't , what I showed you is a mathematical certainty that arises due to there being a cosmological event horizon.
"You compounded your ridiculousness by self-contradiction - claiming the universe had expanded to a distance "that cannot be reached".
Then the piece-de-resistance, you entered "infinite sum"."
The universe *has expanded to such great distances in space/time that one part, can never be affected by the other. I also showed you an example of how a sentence can contain the phrase of infinite sums. As multiple phenomena are capable of multiple infinite sums.
So plural and sums are correct as the concept of expressing them. In both math and geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathemat...
http://www.mathwords.com/i/infinite_geometric...
You can't bullsht , strong arm or logically free yourself from your arrogant and
goofy attempts to change what is true.
If you were not stupid, you would realize the reference to "infinite sums of money" is figurative, not literal.

I'm not going to start explaining that distinction to you.

But here's one hint: It is figurative because it cannot be true.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233258 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

An infinite sum is a series of values that never reaches capacity or conclusion.

Did you not realize this portion of your definition proves you wrong?

For the universe to reach infinite extent, it would be a completed infinite, though still continuing.

Your definition says that can "never" happen.

"The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics; infinity is merely a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits"

-German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss



“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233259 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not realize this portion of your definition proves you wrong?
For the universe to reach infinite extent, it would be a completed infinite, though still continuing.
Your definition says that can "never" happen.
"The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics; infinity is merely a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits"
-German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss
You idiot, the universe would have been infinite from the start.
But the discovery it is and repeated the repeated attempts to measure it would not.
You can only measure a finite amount , but you can take a sequence of measurements and add them up . But for an infinite sum you will have to measure an infinite string of sequences that are never completed. This is expressed by &#8734;
I showed you the math , but like a fool you keep saying it doesn't exist.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233260 Jul 22, 2014
Well the infinite symbol wont work in topix , but we all know ur as the sideways 8.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233261 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
One infinite sum, or multiiple infinite sums is impossible.
"Infinite" and "sum" are mutually exclusive.
A physical infinity is impossible.
"Physical" and "infinity" are mutually exclusive.
But don't let that interfere with your stupidity.
Oh, almost forgot...
Why won't you answer what figures make A x B = Infinity?
That is what you are proposing. Why won't you back it up?
I'll let you express it this way: Infinity/A = B; and Infinity/B = A
...where "A" is average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.
This is the proof of your contention - so why will you not supply your numbers?
Is it because you don't know? Or is it because you are shy?
You are a class A nut, quite simply infinity + a + b + d + e = infinity
infinity + A x B = infinity. You will never get a or b to equal infinity , but infinity + any set of numerical addition will always equal infinity.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#233262 Jul 22, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>God made Angels , Quasars and Dinosaurs " first " ...
God is not looking for excitement ..
Perhaps they didn't have the imagination he was looking for.

You said excitement. I said intelligent company. There is a difference.

Besides, watching lizards devour each other can get old on the excitement level, particularly if he could only watch them and not feel the action.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#233263 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a class A nut, quite simply infinity + a + b + d + e = infinity
infinity + A x B = infinity. You will never get a or b to equal infinity , but infinity + any set of numerical addition will always equal infinity.
Which renders your observations and careful calculations totally useless.
CunningLinguist

Apopka, FL

#233264 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a class A nut, quite simply infinity + a + b + d + e = infinity
infinity + A x B = infinity. You will never get a or b to equal infinity , but infinity + any set of numerical addition will always equal infinity.
One thing is certain - this is an infinite meandering banter between an infinite narcissist in an infinite obfuscated loop.


'Heaven', is a place so inane, so dull, so useless, so miserable, that nobody has ever ventured to describe a entire day there, though plenty of people have described a great day at the beach.

ďIf you really believe in eternal bliss then why are you wearing a seat-beltĒ~ Doug Stanhope

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#233265 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
Well the infinite symbol wont work in topix , but we all know ur as the sideways 8.
Which just so happens to be a closed loop of finite dimensions. You got dizzy running in circles.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233266 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot, the universe would have been infinite from the start.
But the discovery it is and repeated the repeated attempts to measure it would not.
You can only measure a finite amount , but you can take a sequence of measurements and add them up . But for an infinite sum you will have to measure an infinite string of sequences that are never completed. This is expressed by &#8734;
I showed you the math , but like a fool you keep saying it doesn't exist.
I see.

So you take a series of finite measurements and "add them up".

And get infinite.

Adding finites always gives you a larger finite. Always. By definition.

And you don't see a problem with your suggestion.

Amazing.

According to physics, the universe did not begin infinite. In fact, its volume began near zero.

Then expanded.

You need to tell us how A x B = Infinite, where "A" is the average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.

It's a mystery why you don't do that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#233267 Jul 22, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Credit when due.
Good argument.
Very cold and logical and persuasive.
My problem is, it completely ignores the human factor.
Discrimination hurts.
Catcher out.
You revealed some class in that post. Along with your believing your personal feelings trump natural selection and evolution. That your moral code is derived from something beyond organisms trying to maintain themselves. Which is what cultures and races are all about. Human or otherwise.

You claim there is no higher consciousness to direct such events.

So you will assume the morality of such and lead the charge.

Thoust are a hypocrite.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233268 Jul 22, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Which just so happens to be a closed loop of finite dimensions. You got dizzy running in circles.
Oh I'm not dizzy, you're dizzy in denial this symbol exists and it represents a sum that is infinite.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus/...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233269 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So you take a series of finite measurements and "add them up".
And get infinite.
Adding finites always gives you a larger finite. Always. By definition.
And you don't see a problem with your suggestion.
Amazing.
According to physics,In fact, its volume began near zero. In fact, its volume began near zero.
Then expanded.
You need to tell us how A x B = Infinite, where "A" is the average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.
It's a mystery why you don't do that.
You must enjoy making sht up , because this isn't what I wrote.
And adding to infinite doesn't make it more infinite

"In fact, its volume began near zero.In fact, its volume began near zero."

WRONG!
According to physics the universe began as an infinitesimal.

infinitesimal =
1. infinitely or immeasurably small .

There goes your favorite word again. hahahah!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233270 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a class A nut, quite simply infinity + a + b + d + e = infinity
infinity + A x B = infinity. You will never get a or b to equal infinity , but infinity + any set of numerical addition will always equal infinity.
That's convenient.

You start with infinite to prove infinite.

Unfortunately, you made it up.

"Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[2] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons."

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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233271 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So you take a series of finite measurements and "add them up".
And get infinite.
Adding finites always gives you a larger finite. Always. By definition.
And you don't see a problem with your suggestion.
Amazing.
According to physics, the universe did not begin infinite. In fact, its volume began near zero.
Then expanded.
You need to tell us how A x B = Infinite, where "A" is the average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.
It's a mystery why you don't do that.
Time for your Big Bang and physics lesson of the day.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.- See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.UJ63H8...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233272 Jul 22, 2014
When infinitesimals grow up, they become infinitly large. lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233273 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You must enjoy making sht up , because this isn't what I wrote.
And adding to infinite doesn't make it more infinite
"In fact, its volume began near zero.In fact, its volume began near zero."
WRONG!
According to physics the universe began as an infinitesimal.
infinitesimal =
1. infinitely or immeasurably small .
There goes your favorite word again. hahahah!
That's even better!!!!

The universe began infinitely small, and became infinitely large!!!

After you claimed it started infinite in extent. But now it's extremely small - "infintesimal", in extent.

Here's a flash for you.

Infinitely small cannot be infinitely large.

Pick one.

You have to pick the small version, because that's what your physics says.

And now you are back to your next impossible problem - explaining how something expands from very small to infinite.

You can do this by solving A x B = Infinity, where "A" is the average rate of expansion, and "B" is elapsed time.

The world is waiting.



Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#233274 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I'm not dizzy, you're dizzy in denial this symbol exists and it represents a sum that is infinite.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus/...
Symbol?

Look for the exit sign from la la land. Will aid you in your quest for knowledge.

Here is something symbolic for you.

As you gaze out upon the infinite, it will become finite after you take the first step. You created a measure. Just keep walking.

Confucius said something like that, too.

You will never get to your destination, but you will see plenty of scenery along the way. Enjoy.

Watch out for tar babies along the way. Don't get in any arguments with them.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233275 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Time for your Big Bang and physics lesson of the day.
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.- See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.UJ63H8...
OK. I will let you misuse the term "infinitely" to say the universe began....very small.

This refutes your claim that it started infinite in extent, which you made up in order to escape the impossibility of expanding to an infinite distance.

So now. The universe was very, very small. How did it get to an infinite extent by addition?

We know this is impossible.

You attempted to obfuscate the difficulty by saying it "began infinite".

But the alleged infinte was in DENSITY, not EXTENT or VOLUME.

So you are back to the need to explain A x B = Infinity, where "A" is average rate of expansion, and "B" is elapsed time.

I'll give you "B". It's 13.8 billion years.

You just need to tell us "A" - the rate of expansion required to reach infinite distance in 13.8 billion years.

I made it really simple for you.

Now cough up the number.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233276 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You must enjoy making sht up , because this isn't what I wrote.
And adding to infinite doesn't make it more infinite
"In fact, its volume began near zero.In fact, its volume began near zero."
WRONG!
According to physics the universe began as an infinitesimal.
infinitesimal =
1. infinitely or immeasurably small .
There goes your favorite word again. hahahah!
"immeasurably small" means near zero.

"Infinitely small" is an absurdity. Chop it in half, what is it then?

Half as large, but the same size.

Don't try to bull shit me.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 7 min lovewithin 39,366
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Lumajuice 777,491
a dramatis false eye eook ? reviewing macís fal... 8 min mohamed sh 1
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min June VanDerMark 560,163
Gay snapchat names 35 min lifeofsinx93 165
REAL ENEMIES of America living among us 39 min hpcaban 2
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 40 min hpcaban 441,809
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 42 min YellowPissreality 265,393
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Atheist girl 605,279
More from around the web