Now-now!!!
Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Eternal also means, remaining the same. Doesn’t it?
Click because delicious must be heaven to the hungry in hell.
Little of both, little of neither.
Look, that statement is bullshit: Using the word, "infinity", is not inherently indicative of not knowing what one is talking about, so stop with that stupid bullshit. Furthermore, even if the word was some sort of definitive indicator, really, most of us already knew Jan's relationship with whatever he was saying was somewhat tenuous.
Or maybe you're just jealous of the attention he gets. In which case, I should probably point out that all that credit goes to the people who apparently don't know any better than to be afraid of him, so they keep giving him attention, and we can tell it's a vicious behavior because, like you, even if they were right about something in their dispute, that's not actually what they're after, so they end up saying something stupid or nonsensical because, hey, it's Jan, or some such, so nobody needs to make any sense. As far as I can tell, the whole point of your response was just to feel the thrill of saying, "Look, infinity is not a real number". The obvious question is, "So, what?" And if the answer is that, "if you start throwing that word around, as Jan did, you already know, that he doesn't know what he's talking about in the first place", the problem therein is that the answer does not follow; it seems non sequitur.
Furthermore, even if Jan's application is amiss, Jan was actually not so incorrect about his observation of how Xelasnave views the physics of the Universe; see #631↑.
So, yes, I really wonder how this particular scrap of observation that happens to be accurate is what confuses you, or anyone else. No, really, if we go back to #622↑, Jan is just attempting a cheap zinger. There is much to discuss about that form, but overall, Jan remains mostly harmless; the sleight, in competent hands, can really screw up a discussion, so, yes, in the moment, attention flicks back to the question of how this clumsy, meritless execution confuses anyone.
Because who cares if Jan got that little part correct? It's immaterial.
I mean, I don't like the word, swindle, on this occasion, because I really don't think Jan capable of being that sort of evangelist, but neither do I think the question of missing forests for trees is the right one. Still, if there was some swindle afoot, and we could all see it taking place, would we really be setting all that aside if Jan thought he zinged X for saying, "Porsche", with two syllables? We don't even know that Jan says it as one syllable, as such; that's the point, he thinks he's being clever.
No, really, read what Jan wrote: "To you, facts are ideas that support your position. You think it's a fact that the universe is beginning less.
" The first part is the sort of fallacious accusation some people throw at others because they somehow think it's hip, or something, or some manner of solipsistic equivocation. I mean, I can imagine it's wearying being told they're wrong, and with increasing impatience, frustration, and even vice; but some people would seemingly fail to understand that the problem has to do with facts, so they just start throwing back, regardless of what the words mean. Jan appears to have done that, accusing cherrypicking when he wouldn't even know what X would be selecting from or why. Historically, cherrypicking is a regular demonstrable accusation against arguments that have no foundation and rely on perpetual word games to shift context in order to stay afloat, e.g., much religiously-framed political discourse.The second part of what Jan said is a botched zinger; note the grinning emoji. X could easily have isolated that sentence and respondend, "And?"
It happens around Sciforums; Jan's not the only one, nor the clumsiest. There was one, in Politics, not long ago, having to do with apostrophes, and it wasn't just that the ever-anxious zinger was wrong on the facts, the poster even tried to pile on the snoot. Once upon a time we might have described an epic failure, but these days it reminds me more of an old Kliban cartoon called, "Exhibit Your Symptom", and we're all wondering if the rube in the back, there, staring into his pants, is about to whip out a rash or giant cyst, or whatnot.
And if you watch, carefully, the part that would, in more competent hands, suggest some pretense of swindle is how some of these people generally don't have much for affirmative argument; they're responding in some way to political discourse without actually saying anything of substantial, stable meaning. Substantial, meaningful discourse isn't their purpose; disruption thereof, however, offers at least some ephemeral feeling of empowerment.
Comparatively, sure, there was a typo in an irregular word, "begnining less", as compared to, "beginningless", to mean, "without beginning". It's actually hard to find words for that particular circumstance; timeless, ageless, and even, amaranthine, fail to address a particular aspect. What bothers me most is that I'm overthinking it; the word is somewhere right in front of me, and I'm trying too hard to find it. Still, we can set all of that aside, because, like I said, the answer to your inquiry was pretty straightforward:
[What do you mean: "... the universe is beginning less"? It sounds odd.]
Meaning the universe has always been.
It never came into being, nor will it ever go out of being.
Meaning the universe is infinite.
Meaning the universe has always been.
It never came into being, nor will it ever go out of being.
Meaning the universe is infinite.
My first question would have been whether he actually knew that was how X sees the Universe; and we find, in subsequent posting, sure, it works. When we consider the probability of an infinite Universe, compared to the possibility that X accepts and believes in this science, the real question is why Jan would have thought pointing it out was some sort of zinger when the first obvious response is to raise an eyebrow and ask, "And?"
So, it's true, in the moment, I'm curious: How is the timelessness of the Universe the confusing part of whatever Jan is on about?
Again: Little of both, little of neither. It's not about you, or Jan, any more than it needs to be. But the moment is an example of something both common and confusing, and in terms of the thread it actually occurs in, well, the word, apropos, does come to mind.
This bizarre manner of argument is ridiculous, and suggests people are after one another for the thrill of being vicious toward each other more than anything else; and, for the moment, sure, whatever, but we should probably abandon any pretenses to the other.
Earlier in this thread, someone asserted that sometimes you don't actually need to know a lot about something, and, sure, maybe if the critique is a one-trick routine. And like I said nearly two and a half years ago, it's not about watching people writhe on hooks, but, rather, that the behavior is alarming.
And this time later, we see an example of what it brings. The two weeks of the current revival comprise about sixty percent of its content (20 of 32 pages; 401 of 646 posts), and is such that nobody really seems to need to know anything in order to bicker their way through it.
Again, there is an underlying belief that some of our advocates of the supernatural are somehow dangerous. And, again, Jan Ardena has no flock but those who need him as an idol to lash against. And it is this priority that now constitutes sixty percent of this nearly two and a half year-old thread.
It's almost like people let Jan bullshit them in order to have something to complain about. Even more ridiculous is when they go on to miss the point.
But look at how he responds to the revival; he leads↑ with responding to a post over a year old, and then goes on to fluff the revival callout, itself. Nonetheless, if you read reasonably carefully, it's worth noting he says absolutely nothing of consequence in either of those posts. And as the posts and pages pile up, he's not really putting much into it, and, yes, it's kind of silly what people will say and do, along the way, in order to feel like they're ... well, what?
Like the sequence between #281↑-#291↑; it's not an admirable performance from Jan, but come on, people need to stop making it so damn easy for him. I mean, the way it comes around for him to deliver is just silly. He's still saying nothing of consequence, because he doesn't need to. Okay, I take it back; at some point he affirmed he is a monotheist.
And that last ought not be much, but think of how long it took for mislabeling and correction. (We might predict it will happen, sometimes, but it happened twice, recently, and, really, the silliness wasn't subtle.)
Meanwhile, the alternative is to just shrug and tell you, never mind.
Jan's is an easy cult; he needn't move much, for everyone else comes running to him. They're even providing the creed and code.
That last is a word game, by the way, a nifty pun that ought not come so cheaply. But it works rather neatly, and fulfills itself, so at least there is that.
It’s true.Whoa dude, you dissed me.
Smoke a bowl.
You are angry.
Dang straight!
I think you got it wrong.
I don’t think they can get around my points.
Granted, I may not be the fanciest writer on the planet. They get it.
I don’t let them get away with stuff, like most other theists who come here. Their philosophy, while it can be made to sound reasonable, and in accordance with reality. Alas, it is flimsy, and full of holes. That’s what makes it so easy to defeat them.
Come and have a go if you think my points are weak.
Great comment.
Like, Jan, you try to make this about, Alex.
I stopped reading after thee above.
That's debatable? But even if it did, that still does not mean infinite.
Last edited:
What did I win?
Hope it wasn't a handshake.
Havn't really followed this thread, so forgive me if I'm somewhat astray.....
But as I did say that's speculative. You may in turn speculate some deity....that's your right and I have no real objection to that, as long as you recognise that it is speculative just as my quantum foam/nothing is speculative.
.
And the above details that I have just related, is what is accepted by science, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and what we can reasonably accept, and while even the overwhelmingly accepted model the BB certainly still has some problems, so to does any other alternative proposal or speculation have their own inherent problems or inconsistencies. They all have holes in them and none is perfect, but I also believe that while not yet perfect, science is certainly striving for that perfection.
I will address some of your errors in due course.....
Join the club!
OK, I'll try and address your recent points....I don’t let them get away with stuff, like most other theists who come here. Their philosophy, while it can be made to sound reasonable, and in accordance with reality. Alas, it is flimsy, and full of holes. That’s what makes it so easy to defeat them.
Come and have a go if you think my points are weak.
The universe/space/time that we can be aware of is around 95 billion L/years in diameter, and evolved from a hot dense state, around 13.8 billion years ago. Our knowledge of it that we are able to express with some reliability though, only goes back to t+10-43 seconds. From that point backwards, both you and I can speculate whatever we like. The energy since the BB certainly can neither be created nor destroyed, simply changing states.
That's rather confusing. I prefer to ask, is it real? And the answer is yes, of course energy is real...While certainly not a physical thing, it is real...the same applies to space..it is what exists between you and me at this time...it also applies to time...Time is real, and acts to stop everything from happening at the one instant...like space, neither are physical.
The universe/space/time is real, I'm sure you have no argument in that regard. The conventional definition of nothing, is nothing, no space, no time just nothing. Can you imagine that? I can't. Just as I find it difficult to imagine infinity. So where do I speculate the universe came from? From here I'll borrow from Lawrence Krauss and say that the universe by necessity and scientifically certainly did arise from nothing. But the nothing needs redefining, and the closest we are able to get to the nothing as described by convention is the quantum foam from whence the universe arose due to some fluctuation. A quantum foam that is infinite and eternal.
But as I did say that's speculative. You may in turn speculate some deity....that's your right and I have no real objection to that, as long as you recognise that it is speculative just as my quantum foam/nothing is speculative.
.
I certainly believe that your philosophy has far more holes and is far more flimsy then science. My evidence for saying that is obvious in the advancements made since man first evolved on this planet.I don’t let them get away with stuff, like most other theists who come here. Their philosophy, while it can be made to sound reasonable, and in accordance with reality. Alas, it is flimsy, and full of holes. That’s what makes it so easy to defeat them.
Come and have a go if you think my points are weak.
And the above details that I have just related, is what is accepted by science, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and what we can reasonably accept, and while even the overwhelmingly accepted model the BB certainly still has some problems, so to does any other alternative proposal or speculation have their own inherent problems or inconsistencies. They all have holes in them and none is perfect, but I also believe that while not yet perfect, science is certainly striving for that perfection.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Which in one word would be....?
Nothing. Without looking it up I suggest that " opposite to something" would be useful.
That condition that existed before your mythical god created everything.
It is reasonable to regard energy as something.. mandatory actually.
Why need it to be otherwise? However is it inconceivable it could have no start and yet be finite. How see you your God. No start and infinite?
What logic do you employ?
I don't need to think about that but you do.
Yes and?
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I think you omitted before " universe" the important qualifier "observable".
That which is beyond the observable universe, on the most conservative model, is presented as some 250 times greater...No doubt you are aware of my point but I think passers by may focus on a size of only 95 billion light years.
It certainly does and redefined we find it means something.
I think his use of nothing is very bad given whatever we may imagine of this quantum foam it was never nothing....and he says that ..
There can be no alternative conclusion his nothing was always something...the exercise is like a straw man approach...he calls the pre existing condition nothing then proceeds to establish it as something which happily brings him onside with me and offering support for the notion that the universe can only be eternal sadly eliminating the once open job vacancy for a creator.
Alex
Bingo! Well spotted!!
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No no no...well yes. At least I believe it to be that simple.
All that you witness is marginally fancy trolling by most participants with perhaps Jan out shinning dimmer folk like me.
To all your reasonable critism and observation there is only one reply ..it's fun...fun permits a casualness and trampling upon so many things..that why it is fun.
It's a sheer joy to read your posts I hope you appreciate your wonderful gift if not of intellect but certainly of expression..I could read your work all day...I do not buy books but I would buy yours.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
It would seem that if finite it must exist in a sea of nothing and we know nothing is something and so as the required nothing becomes something the universe is revealed as only possible if indeed Infinite.
Alex
It could very well be finite but unbounded [as the surface of a sphere] and while WMAP, Boomerang and Maxima certainly supported an infinite universe, we are unable to rule out any exotic geometry [torus] that would be finite but unbounded.
- Status