The Solution To The Mystery

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: religion is a placebo

Postby TazAnastazio » Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:59 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TazAnastazio wrote: I don't know Matthew, you tell me, has the Ark been found,
[color=#000080]Nope. The "ark" is Babylonian and not Judaic-christian, which copied the religion. Didn't you know? /color] :lol: :lol:


Like I said Matthew, you are a wealth of knowledge. Answer that "beyond singularity to infinity thingy" and we'll be in agreement. Till then "we agree to disagree" as they say, or disagree to agree. :lol: :lol: :lol:
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby TazAnastazio » Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:15 pm

Poodle wrote:CONGRATULATIONS!!! You may now mount an effigy of Taz's head (oh .., god forbid) on your wall. Personally, I'm still trying to sort out any iota of logic associated with Taz. I think it's hopeless, especially as the latest, greatest, scientific "theory" appears to have transformed itself into a spit-dribbling move about the realms of love for Jehovah. Ah well - the world is a strange place.
Alternatively, I recommend a cup of tea. Well, I don't really, as I can't stand the stuff, but it's a straight fight - tea or Taz? Taz or tea? I wish Freebill was back - he was much more straightforward.


Poodle, I'm pretty confident that Matthew can tell us the chemical constitution of standard type green tea, straight from memory without googling it. I read somewhere that green tea has antioxidants, is good for your hair and keeps you younger! On the other hand arguing with me trying to score points with fancy footing, creative writing and baseless arguments; while humorous and interesting for the reader, it doesn't get you anywhere. It may in fact have the opposite effects to that of green tea! I'm just saying, it may be bad for your hair and make you older. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by TazAnastazio on Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9388
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Poodle » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:39 pm

It may, Taz - this is, after all, an open forum. However, I call into question your assertion that Matthew knows the chemical constitution of tea. What I would guarantee, though, is that Matthew would, if he thought it necessary, know that very thing five minutes after he saw the need. He wouldn't claim that he knew it if he didn't, and he wouldn't make up {!#%@} and then post it as though it was gospel. Nor would he claim that he'd spent years working on his theory of the relativistic advantages of tea, nor on the medical miracles guaranteed by tea-drinking.
Matthew, if he wished, could post here in the near future telling me that I'm completely wrong, but a little birdie tells me that's unlikely to happen.
There - a collection of possibilities, some of them probabilities. The one certainty in all of this is that you will remain an utter bozo.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby TazAnastazio » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:18 pm

Poodle wrote:It may, Taz - this is, after all, an open forum. However, I call into question your assertion that Matthew knows the chemical constitution of tea. What I would guarantee, though, is that Matthew would, if he thought it necessary, know that very thing five minutes after he saw the need. He wouldn't claim that he knew it if he didn't, and he wouldn't make up {!#%@} and then post it as though it was gospel. Nor would he claim that he'd spent years working on his theory of the relativistic advantages of tea, nor on the medical miracles guaranteed by tea-drinking.
Matthew, if he wished, could post here in the near future telling me that I'm completely wrong, but a little birdie tells me that's unlikely to happen.
There - a collection of possibilities, some of them probabilities. The one certainty in all of this is that you will remain an utter bozo.


Poodle, Matthew is the live version of Google! He can't simply figure out what lies beyond singularity to infinity; then again Google wouldn't turn anything either other than scientific info till the singularity, beyond that all knowledge stops.

Are you always that exasperated, as your avatar portrays or only when things get difficult and complicated?! It's all good, don't pout your lips. We agree to disagree (disagree to agree) on each other's assertions of each other. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9388
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Poodle » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:07 pm

If you knew how I came by that avatar, you may change your mind. Also, although I'm not going to get into a discussion with you concerning Matthew, I will say that his opinions tend to be based upon the real world - a place you would do well to study.
I cannot help but comment upon the way you have steered your course from world-breaking science to common-or-garden religion. How did that happen, do you think?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:19 pm

I think it's because that's the real focus of his "theory". To try and justify a god's existence. But I guess I have to let him say that himself before I just assume things.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9388
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Poodle » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:37 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:I think it's because that's the real focus of his "theory". To try and justify a god's existence. But I guess I have to let him say that himself before I just assume things.

Indeed - an admirable position. But I think it's undeniable that's precisely what he's done. This thread began with his 'scientific' exposition and quickly descended into a defence of the inneffable.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:53 pm

The signs do point that way.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: religion is a placebo

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:39 am

TazAnastazio wrote:Answer that "beyond singularity to infinity thingy" and we'll be in agreement.
I already answered that question. None of the answers were right as you couldn't write the question in a coherent way.


Remember, you are the bull-shit artist in this thread. You first posted your crap religious "infinities of infinities" here in 2009 and nine years later you claim you still haven't had time to read Stephen Hawking's "A brief history of time" although you say it is on your own computer. It would take you fifteen minutes to read the chapter explaining how and what we know about the singularity.

You are simply here to seek attention.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:44 am

TazAnastazio wrote:Poodle, Matthew is the live version of Google!
No. I have cited books on the topic. I link you to quick quotes on Google, as you have very low reading comprehension skills and little knowledge about basic science. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:47 am

TazAnastazio wrote:Poodle, I'm pretty confident that Matthew can tell us the chemical constitution of standart type green tea,
The correct spelling of "standard" is "standard" and not "standart"

Baby steps Taz. Baby steps. When you learn to spell basic words we will move on to chemistry. :lol: :lol:

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby TazAnastazio » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TazAnastazio wrote:Poodle, I'm pretty confident that Matthew can tell us the chemical constitution of standart type green tea,
The correct spelling of "standard" is "standard" and not "standart"

Baby steps Taz. Baby steps. When you learn to spell basic words we will move on to chemistry. :lol: :lol:


What can I say pal, you got me again ! Attention to detail ! Next stop Hawking ( hold one second, spell check, I think I got it right ), then Calculus, then Univ. Physics ( it will take me about ten years give or take ) then Chemistry. :lol: :lol: :lol:
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby TazAnastazio » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:32 am

:dizzy:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
TazAnastazio wrote:Poodle, Matthew is the live version of Google!
No. I have cited books on the topic. I link you to quick quotes on Google, as you have very low reading comprehension skills and little knowledge about basic science. :lol:


You are just being modest, I respect that. :gp: I'm doing pretty ok with reading comprehension (I still use the dictionary on novels written in Olde English or old time regional stuff - I do need to put a whole lotta work on science before I can plow my way through Steven Weinberg's Cosmology textbook for grads, true). :dizzy:
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14317
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:15 am

:pc: Gee, can Matt be Kung Foo-eyed by a throw away diversionary compliment???? I think not.....but I like popcorn.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:55 am

TazAnastazio wrote: Next stop Hawking
......which will only take you 15 minutes to read chapters 1 and 3 which explains the singularity.

TazAnastazio wrote: then Calculus,
You claimed you could already use calculus.
TazAnastazio in 2009 wrote:CALCULUS PROVES INFINITY, I SIMPLY APPLIED IT TO EXISTENCE, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND MATTER


TazAnastazio wrote: then Univ. Physics
Don't bother. You need high school mathematics first. Just read chapters 1 & 3 of Stephen Hawking's "A brief history of time". Tell us where you think there are errors in logic.

Here is the PDF if you don't really have it on your computer.

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/step ... f_time.pdf

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby TazAnastazio » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:13 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote::pc: Gee, can Matt be Kung Foo-eyed by a throw away diversionary compliment???? I think not.....but I like popcorn.


No compliment, just an observation. Matthew has exemplified unparalleled tenacity in researching a subject and finding information in order to support an argument and make a case. To be able to find information you have to have the background knowledge to know where to reach for it; basically to have known the information in the past so as to remember some clues in order to retrieve the data from the available resources. He would have made a great lawyer. I respect effort put in the attainment of a goal. This is one of the characteristics of people who have excelled and brought progress to hunanity. I fundamentally disagree with Matthew (obviously) and I don't mind debating with him for entertainment purposes and towards finding the truth on matters ; but I do not want to argue maliciously with anyone. Enjoy your pop corn. :slapfight: :duel:
Last edited by TazAnastazio on Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby TazAnastazio » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: You need high school mathematics first. Just read chapters 1 & 3 of Stephen Hawking's "A brief history of time". Tell us where you think there are errors in logic.

Here is the PDF if you don't really have it on your computer. [/color]
http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/step ... f_time.pdf


Matthew I have both the earlier and the tenth edition along with other three works of his. Thanks for the link. I'll start reading it.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:36 am

TazAnastazio wrote: I fundamentally disagree with Matthew (obviously) and I don't mind debating with him competitively and humorously
You are not debating with me. You are spamming religious crap on the forum, knowing your facts are wrong.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby TazAnastazio » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:50 am

This particular forum is titled "Belief, Nonbelief and Philosophy." Under this description I was not off topic. I can support whatever I believe, question whatever I don't, and philosophize over whatever comes to mind, whether fact or fantasy; the reader decides. But fine, let's leave it at that. I don't mind arguing and debating with anyone, but in the future let's try harder not to neglect civility.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31346
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Gord » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:32 am

Gord wrote:Anywho, here's some interesting science: http://www.castl.uci.edu/

It's the Center for Chemistry at the Space-Time Limit.

Did anyone see my link?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Religion is just a placebo

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:54 am

TazAnastazio wrote:This particular forum is titled "Belief, Nonbelief and Philosophy." Under this description I was not off topic.
Well.... you are "just off". How long were you left out of the fridge? :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9388
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Poodle » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:03 pm

Gord wrote:
Gord wrote:Anywho, here's some interesting science: http://www.castl.uci.edu/

It's the Center for Chemistry at the Space-Time Limit.

Did anyone see my link?

Sorry, Gord. It's just too hot to think here.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Unlimited_Oracular_Guidance
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: religion is a placebo

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:55 pm

TazAnastazio wrote: Answer that "beyond singularity to infinity thingy" and we'll be in agreement. Till then "we agree to disagree" as they say, or disagree to agree.


The human thinking about infinity has a very complicated history. The people who have discussed it most thoroughly are mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics. Going back to the ancient Greeks, we really don't find the concept of infinity at all, despite the fact that Euclid is credited with proving that "there are infinitely many primes." That formulation of the theorem, which is modern, cannot be obtained from Euclid's actual words, in Book IX:

Euclid wrote:Οἱ πρῶτοι ἀριθμοὶ πλείους εἰσὶ παντὸς τοῦ προτεθέντος πλήθους πρώτων ἀριθμῶν. (Literally translated: The prime numbers are more numerous than any given collection of prime numbers.)


In other words, all you can be sure of (and all Euclid proves) is that if you assemble any collection of prime numbers, there will be prime numbers not in that collection. Notice that this formulation avoids entirely talking about what we now call the whole SET of prime numbers. We nowadays talk easily about this set, masking the limitations of our knowledge. Similarly, in geometry, Euclid's concept of a line (εὐθεῖα, literally "well-placed") is what we now call a line SEGMENT, having endpoints. He specifically says that the boundaries of a line are points (and, by implication, every line has a boundary). The modern concept, taught to high-school students, insists that a line does not have any boundary. All Euclid would vouch for was that any (straight) line could be extended to a longer line (that is one of his basic postulates). The concept of an infinite line was not introduced until the seventeenth century, in connection with projective geometry, whose theorems are difficult to state without it.


When Georg Cantor, in the 1880s, introduced the notion of a point set (originally for what we call subsets of the real line), he willingly embraced the notion of infinite sets and developed an algorithm of sorts for comparing their sizes. But he encountered polite opposition. (No matter what you may have heard about the so-called "persecution" of him; he was paranoid and imagined people---especially Kronecker, who was a very nice man---were plotting against him.) One of his most vehement critics was the supreme genius Henri Poincaré. There was a long debate about this in 1905, involving among others Henri Lebesgue, David Hilbert, Bertrand Russell, and others. Mathematicians now use Cantor's set theory almost universally, but they understand that much of it is non-constructive, and when it says something "exists" that "existence" is just a matter of deductions in a formal language, entirely dependent on positing the "existence" of at least the set of natural numbers, which can be constructed from the empty set alone. But one particular axiom which provides the "existence" of a huge menagerie of mathematical concepts is the axiom of choice, which says that there "exists" a function f defined on the class of non-empty sets such that f(A) is an element of A for every non-empty set A. It's an axiom, and nobody can prove it (indeed, it has been proven to be independent of the rest of set theory).

Well, that's just a brief introduction to the complexity of infinity, and it's from an area of knowledge that is better understood than almost any other. What infinity means in a physical sense is enormously more difficult, and it's a problem I wouldn't ever claim to know anything about, and I doubt if anybody else has such knowledge. All talk of infinity in that sense is mere empty words, as far as I'm concerned.
"My firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt."

Robert Welch (1899—1985), founder of the John Birch Society (1958), on July 11, 1960

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11339
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 15, 2018 10:34 pm

Totally agree, Upton. The infinity concept is empty words. Totally.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lausten » Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:28 am

TazAnastazio wrote:This particular forum is titled "Belief, Nonbelief and Philosophy." Under this description I was not off topic. I can support whatever I believe, question whatever I don't, and philosophize over whatever comes to mind, whether fact or fantasy; the reader decides. But fine, let's leave it at that. I don't mind arguing and debating with anyone, but in the future let's try harder not to neglect civility.

I had some important ditch digging to do, so I've missed a couple good days of this fascinating conversation.

Tell me Taz, and if you successfully do this, you'll be the first, how is it that you can "question whatever" and "support whatever" and "whatever whatever", but if anyone else does exactly that, they are uncivil? Why is incivility defined as questioning you specifically? Or, what definition of civility did I miss?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Is it more beneficial to individual health, to be a) A theist b) An atheist c) An agnostic

Postby Lausten » Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:43 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
No disagreement from me there, although I see at least one indication that Paul's letters were written to contradict other versions of the story, and he says that anyone---even an angel from heaven---who contradicts his version should be anathematized. I don't think anyone was consciously trying to collaborate on a consistent picture of Jesus. The notorious difficulties of reconciling the accounts of the Resurrection seem to be evidence that they were not. But yes, it's best not to get distracted when talking with Christians about their doctrines. (That is something I generally avoid doing anyway, since I don't want to give offense.)


I've been meaning to get back to this. Lots I could respond to. One question, where is this angel who should be anathematized thing? I don't remember that.

As for giving offense. I don't mind doing that, it's kind of where we find ourselves. I wish more atheists, or non-believers of all stripes, would take more interest in the history of the Bible, it's place in influencing culture, how it came to be, because I think it would make talking about it as a myth the mainstream discussion. Instead, we are stuck "respecting" religion. We are stuck with people making decisions about global warming one day, then every Spring, going to a ritual that says a ghost spoke to 5,000 people. So, I don't get to have the conversations I like. Atheists aren't really interested in the quality of some of the literature from 1st century Judaism or it's meaning in that context because they'd rather talk about an evil Pope from the 9th century. Theists aren't interested in that because it threatens their narrative.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Unlimited_Oracular_Guidance
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Is it more beneficial to individual health, to be a) A theist b) An atheist c) An agnostic

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:04 am

Lausten wrote:I've been meaning to get back to this. Lots I could respond to. One question, where is this angel who should be anathematized thing? I don't remember that.



Galatians 1:8. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (As a lapsed Catholic, I remember hearing an Irish priest say whimsically that the Galatians were related to the Gauls, and hence to the Celts. Thus, the Galatians were the Irish!)

Lausten wrote:As for giving offense. I don't mind doing that, it's kind of where we find ourselves. I wish more atheists, or non-believers of all stripes, would take more interest in the history of the Bible, it's place in influencing culture, how it came to be, because I think it would make talking about it as a myth the mainstream discussion. Instead, we are stuck "respecting" religion. We are stuck with people making decisions about global warming one day, then every Spring, going to a ritual that says a ghost spoke to 5,000 people. So, I don't get to have the conversations I like. Atheists aren't really interested in the quality of some of the literature from 1st century Judaism or it's meaning in that context because they'd rather talk about an evil Pope from the 9th century. Theists aren't interested in that because it threatens their narrative.


I agree with you in general, and I'm sure you are tactful in dealing one-to-one with Christians (the major theist group we atheists deal with). So, go to it. Of course, on this board, one can swing away at will; those who are offended can easily leave without identifying themselves.
"My firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt."

Robert Welch (1899—1985), founder of the John Birch Society (1958), on July 11, 1960

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Stephen Hawking

Postby TazAnastazio » Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:46 am

After Matthew's repetitive reference to the 21st century's champion of scientific theory, I went ahead and started reading the idolized work of the renown Stevie Hawks. So far so good; chapter 1 page 10, and I have yet ways to go till "THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING!" Thrilling title, I am on the edge in anticipation. But first things first. Where to start, let's get straight to the potatoes:

Newly, fresh out of the oven ( or refrigerator, for surely this thought was somewhere in the spaces of my brain between neural cells waiting for new neurotrophins to be developed and in turn develop the connections and associations. But without further ado:

Time started to count for our Universe ever since the Big bang. The Universe is expanding as is evident since no matter which direction we look from earth, galaxies are getting further and further away. I haven't gotten into relativity yet, but I guess depending how fast things move in a given part of space, its given time. So far so good like I said. Conjecture 1, Time still is a matter of perception. It exists as far as measuring movement in that given space in contrast to another, and effect/change to an object or existence given the exposure to that space/movement and the particular time it took. Fine, still no physical time let alone time travel; Also gravity would affect the speed of light differently in a given space or universe compared to another.I'll see as I progress to relativity etc.

And now to the meat:

The Universe is not static, it expands as it is evident from the aforementioned movement of galaxies seen from the earth. If it was Infinite static every line of sight would end on the surface of a star and the sky would be illuminated even at night... unless the stars from far away had switched off ... still the absorbing (hypothetical) matter would eventually heat up and light up at some point... Pitfalls of thinking about an infinite universe; there would be no center for the stars to fall on each other (true)... more correct to think of it from a finite perspective of a few (trillion) stars and add more stars afterwards ( why create a center on your own, why not infinite centers of greater gravity that attract the stars to that center and less gravity from neighboring such clusters ... and Big Bang force surpassing gravity in some cases like in our own Universe ... If rotating galaxies around a black hole, why not rotating Universes around a bigger center point ).

Back to our own Universe... Can it expand forever or would the Big Bang force eventually give in to gravitational forces between the galaxies, along with gravitational forces from other Universes. I know, an object in space...Newton's 1st law. But we are talking about beyond observable space...can the universe expand forever ! What if it does eventually stop ? Then time will stop for our Universe, and star gravity would prevail and our Universe will go back in time and space, and stars will collapse on each other to an Infinite dense singularity ( or dense to a point that the compacting forces of further densing will cause a new Big Bang ); and the cycle will be repeated INFINITELY, because there is No Beginning and No End to Eternity; and there is no other way for the Finite, but either a circle of events, or Beginning and an End of a segment. What if the Galaxies do eventually approach the Galaxies of other universes and all collapse on each other creating other singularities ? Is there an end to the Ifs, Buts and theories ?!

And "the fool said there is no God" :

Is it really foolish to say there is no God ? What is God other than the Infinite ?! Why would it matter for the Infinite, whether you believe in it or not? Does the Infinite truly exist? Doesn't to exist mean to have a beginning and an end; to be finite? Doesn't the infinite include all existence and phenomena, and isn't it the reason for all existence and phenomena? What is the Infinite ? What is God ? Does it have a conscious, a "Me" as Victor Hugo put it, when he stated in "Les Miserables" : " The infinite exists. It is there. If the infinite had no me, the me would be its limit; it would not be the infinite; in other words, it would not be. But it is. Then it has a me. This me of the infinite is God."

Well it matters for humanity. Imagine 5 billion something people ( young children excluded ), believing that this is all there is to it. That because of their primordial necessity for existence, that is self interest, and recognizing their finalism, they had to blindly and whole heartedly obey the emerging property of self-interest, selfishness; and achieve self satisfaction AT ALL COSTS ! Welcome to the APOCALYPSE ! It is a finite world after all, and it has to have some rules; consequences and consciousness for those who choose or contemplating not to play by them. Draw your own conclusions. The Infinite is all inclusive, and all derives from it and all is directed to it, in an eternal, endless, infinite cycle of events.

Sure we cannot have perfection, ONLY THE INFINITE IS PERFECT; PERFECTLY INFINITE FROM EVER PERSPECTIVE ! But we can counterbalance negativity with positivity ! Sure ALL religions have major flaws, some more than others; some are evil and disastrous to society no doubt whatsoever ! But completely and utterly without any faith whatsoever ( assuming that that was possible) we would have MAD-MAX chaos on Earth! What self-destructive force (or otherwise) what insanity, what downright FOOLISHNESS would advocate for that... That is why nature gave humanity consciousness, along with thought. And IT TOOK AN INIFINITE INTELLIGENCE TO DESIGN IT. It didn't just pop up on its own; that too was an emerging property, an outcome of evolution. But who or what started evolution and intervened in it? Same phenomenon that started and intervened in everything else, the Infinite phenomenon, God.

Civility please ( by which Lausten I mean to refrain from characterizing the other writer's intelligence by stretching the bounds of "innocuity" ).

Gentlemen and Ladies, have a nice day or night.
Last edited by TazAnastazio on Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Cadmusteeth » Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:26 am

Did anyone read that in full? 'Cause I just assumed he was full of it like usual.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Stephen Hawking

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:31 am

TazAnastazio wrote:......then time will stop for our Universe, and star gravity would prevail and our Universe will go back in time and stars will collapse on each other to an Infinite dense singularity.......
If there is a "Big Crunch" and everything in the universe returns to one single point singularity, then time would stop.

TazAnastazio wrote:And "the fool said there is no God"
As everything would have collapsed in the singularity and time would have stopped, there can't be any God. That was the whole point in us forcing you to read these chapters.

Secondly, if the singularity is quantized ( Big Bang) by two intersecting branes under M-Theory/String Theory, there is no reason to assume there will be the same things like photons, protons, quarks and so on in the next universe.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:35 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:Did anyone read that in full? 'Cause I just assumed he was full of it like usual.


He copied some stuff from the book but didn't really understand what he was copying. He still thinks there can be a "god" outside of a zero dimension singularity. Thus the second half of his post, was "god related" garbage.

At least he now knows the universe is not infinite in size and thus his infinities of infinities crap is just crap.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Stephen Hawking

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:44 am

TazAnastazio wrote:And IT TOOK AN INIFINITE INTELLIGENCE TO DESIGN IT.
I don't think Taz Anastazio has grasped the fact that the universe existed for 10 billion years before Earth and our solar system even started forming.

Earth has carbon and other heavy elements because we are a second or third generation solar system formed from a supernova that had already collapsed hydrogen into larger atoms.

Taz Anastazio's "infinitely wise God" made a universe that could not produce life for 10 billion years and must be an idiot.
:D

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: Stephen Hawking

Postby TazAnastazio » Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TazAnastazio wrote:......then time will stop for our Universe, and star gravity would prevail and our Universe will go back in time and stars will collapse on each other to an Infinite dense singularity.......
If there is a "Big Crunch" and everything in the universe returns to one single point singularity, then time would stop.


Did you just invented the term "Big Crunch!" First time I hear it. Did I inspire you ?

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TazAnastazio wrote:And "the fool said there is no God"
As everything would have collapsed in the singularity and time would have stopped, there can't be any God. That was the whole point in us forcing you to read these chapters.


I didn't exclude this phenomenon, solely for our Universe.

Matthew Ellard wrote: Secondly, if the singularity is quantized ( Big Bang) by two intersecting branes under M-Theory/String Theory, there is no reason to assume there will be the same things like photons, protons, quarks and so on in the next universe.


Ok, so another type of Universe will emerge.

All this form the first 10 pages, interesting stuff mate.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28310
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Stephen Hawking

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:19 am

TazAnastazio wrote:Did you just invented the term "Big Crunch!" First time I hear it. Did I inspire you ?
Nope. I read a lot.

https://www.universetoday.com/37018/big-crunch/
"The Big Crunch is one of the scenarios predicted by scientists in which the Universe may end."

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Unlimited_Oracular_Guidance
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:07 pm

Still waiting for a definition of infinite. True, Spinoza defined God as "being absolutely infinite." But he, like everyone else, it seems, thought he knew what that meant. He didn't. There is only one area where "infinite" has an actual, workable definition, and that is in set theory. A set is infinite if there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the set itself and one of its proper subsets. I still wait for someone to give me a definition of physical infinity that can actually be used to determine whether some physical thing is infinite. As for spiritual infinity, we'd need to establish first the existence of any spirit, finite or infinite.
"My firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt."

Robert Welch (1899—1985), founder of the John Birch Society (1958), on July 11, 1960

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: Stephen Hawking

Postby TazAnastazio » Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:06 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TazAnastazio wrote:Did you just invented the term "Big Crunch!" First time I hear it. Did I inspire you ?
Nope. I read a lot.

https://www.universetoday.com/37018/big-crunch/
"The Big Crunch is one of the scenarios predicted by scientists in which the Universe may end."


I think I may have come across the term when 20 odd years ago I first stumble upon Hawking's book and flipped through the pages. It rings a faint bell.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you read a lot and you've learned / learnt a lot :!: ( :offtopic: I disagree with the passive form "well read" by the way, because it brings to mind a religious ritual in which a priest reads a prayer for someone in front of him / her, or when someone reads someone else their rights :lol: :offtopic: ).

Thank you for insisting on reading Hawking. He was on my list along with Dawking, but I have thousands of books om my virtual library and about a few scores on my physical library to peruse through.

May God / the Infinite; or the Force, or sheer luck, coincidence or happenstance; make us both ( and all in this thread, and forum ) live long and prosper, and always be healthy and happy ( health and happiness bring one the other actually - positive thinking, optimism ) to learn; also to those who we love and care for, to teach them.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Unlimited_Oracular_Guidance
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:33 pm

Taz,

I take it that last post is a good-bye. So, thanks for dropping in and conversing with me. All the best.

UOG
"My firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt."

Robert Welch (1899—1985), founder of the John Birch Society (1958), on July 11, 1960

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Stephen Hawking

Postby Lausten » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:56 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TazAnastazio wrote:Did you just invented the term "Big Crunch!" First time I hear it. Did I inspire you ?
Nope. I read a lot.

https://www.universetoday.com/37018/big-crunch/
"The Big Crunch is one of the scenarios predicted by scientists in which the Universe may end."

Proof that Taz does not use Google. Or Grammar check.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31346
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Stephen Hawking

Postby Gord » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Earth has carbon and other heavy elements because we are a second or third generation solar system formed from a supernova that had already collapsed hydrogen into larger atoms.

Our Sun is probably best called a third generation star, which is more properly called Population I because we got the system backwards when we designed it.

Population I stars have lots of metals. (In astronomy, everything that isn't hydogen or helium is considered a metal. Why? Because...uhhhh... :befuddled: . Shut up! That's why!.) Those metals were created inside earlier stars that then explodimated [technical term] and spewed their metals out into nebulae that later collapsed and condensed into other stars.

Population II stars have less metals, because they were made from the nebulae of earlier stars.

Population III stars are the earliest stars. They didn't have any metals in them, except for what they made themselves. In fact, Population III stars probably wouldn't have lived very long before explodimating, so there aren't any of them around anymore. We have to theorise their existence from logic and deduction tantalising evidence taken from observations of galaxies so distant from our own that they are billions of years old, but also extremely hard to observe*. (Also theoretically, if some Population III stars were ejected from their birth clusters, they might actually have survived to the present day if they were small enough -- but we haven't found any yet.)




* like this: http://www.astronomy.com/news/2015/06/t ... -iii-stars A galaxy so far away and so hard to see that there's no way to have a photograph of it, so the article uses an artist's impression -- our best photo couldn't show more than a single point of light, at best.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14317
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:58 am

I would have thought that Gen III stars would be forming today from gas clouds?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests