| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mettas Mother" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2007 02:25:58 AM |
| Object: |
DEFINE GOD? |
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 04:43:47 AM |
|
|
"Mettas Mother" <mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:es3hdh$pp4$1@registered.motzarella.org...
GOD IS THE SON OF GOD?
Nice one! Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? But, whoa! It's not 'ridiculous' to
millions of the 'faithful', is it? What you've done is encapsulate the
absurdity of the faith in just a few words. It stares back at you *real*
hard. And yet, the mind of the brainwashed Christian fundamentalist need
only do a quick mental 'work-around' and end up with a response that will
make perfect religious sense to that individual. *Nothing* you can say from
a rational point of view, it seems, will 'dent' that individual. That is why
we should be fearful of the sheer numbers of them that are aggressively
active in spreading their infectious disease. They are brainwashed
brainwashers who are unaffected by reason and logic.
Even the fact that they cannot come to a universal consensus as to the
precise definition of 'God' dissuades them. They don't care what 'God'
actually is as long as belief in an ambiguous 'Him' convinces them that they
are going to a 'heaven' after they die. Too, many believers believe it's
justified to kill those who do not share their disease. Now how 'diseased'
is *that* way of thinking? And that means killing those who actually believe
in a 'God', but in one who is viewed as being too different from one's own
'interpretation' of him. (The existence of a 'real' one who could step out
into the 'open' and reveal himself *would* reduce such confusion. Don't you
think?)
God is an imagined supernatural force thought to be responsible for the
existence of existence but who, in fact, exists nowhere save within man's
imagination.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 05:02:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:43:47 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12uan87rr32f4be@corp.supernews.com>
"Mettas Mother" <mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:es3hdh$pp4$1@registered.motzarella.org...
GOD IS THE SON OF GOD?
Nice one! Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? But, whoa! It's not 'ridiculous' to
millions of the 'faithful', is it? What you've done is encapsulate the
absurdity of the faith in just a few words. It stares back at you *real*
hard. And yet, the mind of the brainwashed Christian fundamentalist need
only do a quick mental 'work-around' and end up with a response that will
make perfect religious sense to that individual. *Nothing* you can say from
a rational point of view, it seems, will 'dent' that individual. That is why
we should be fearful of the sheer numbers of them that are aggressively
active in spreading their infectious disease. They are brainwashed
brainwashers who are unaffected by reason and logic.
Even the fact that they cannot come to a universal consensus as to the
precise definition of 'God' dissuades them. They don't care what 'God'
actually is as long as belief in an ambiguous 'Him' convinces them that they
are going to a 'heaven' after they die. Too, many believers believe it's
justified to kill those who do not share their disease. Now how 'diseased'
is *that* way of thinking? And that means killing those who actually believe
in a 'God', but in one who is viewed as being too different from one's own
'interpretation' of him. (The existence of a 'real' one who could step out
into the 'open' and reveal himself *would* reduce such confusion. Don't you
think?)
God is an imagined supernatural force thought to be responsible for the
existence of existence but who, in fact, exists nowhere save within man's
imagination.
Greywolf
Well said, sir!
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 04:01:07 AM |
|
|
Yes, if the real one reveals itself then confusion will be eliminated, and
all the fun will be gone as well!
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12uan87rr32f4be@corp.supernews.com...
"Mettas Mother" <mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:es3hdh$pp4$1@registered.motzarella.org...
GOD IS THE SON OF GOD?
Nice one! Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? But, whoa! It's not 'ridiculous' to
millions of the 'faithful', is it? What you've done is encapsulate the
absurdity of the faith in just a few words. It stares back at you *real*
hard. And yet, the mind of the brainwashed Christian fundamentalist need
only do a quick mental 'work-around' and end up with a response that will
make perfect religious sense to that individual. *Nothing* you can say
from
a rational point of view, it seems, will 'dent' that individual. That is
why
we should be fearful of the sheer numbers of them that are aggressively
active in spreading their infectious disease. They are brainwashed
brainwashers who are unaffected by reason and logic.
Even the fact that they cannot come to a universal consensus as to the
precise definition of 'God' dissuades them. They don't care what 'God'
actually is as long as belief in an ambiguous 'Him' convinces them that
they
are going to a 'heaven' after they die. Too, many believers believe it's
justified to kill those who do not share their disease. Now how 'diseased'
is *that* way of thinking? And that means killing those who actually
believe
in a 'God', but in one who is viewed as being too different from one's own
'interpretation' of him. (The existence of a 'real' one who could step out
into the 'open' and reveal himself *would* reduce such confusion. Don't
you
think?)
God is an imagined supernatural force thought to be responsible for the
existence of existence but who, in fact, exists nowhere save within man's
imagination.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 03:38:52 AM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 8:25 am, "Mettas Mother" <mettas_moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
GOD IS THE SON OF GOD?
That's called infinite recursion, which would leave "God" absolutely
incapable of creating anything but copies of itself, therefore, if
such a god existed, nothing else would.
Thanks for refuting Christianity in five words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 05:37:16 AM |
|
|
On 28 Feb 2007 01:38:52 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist
minister" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
On Feb 28, 8:25 am, "Mettas Mother" <mettas_moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
GOD IS THE SON OF GOD?
That's called infinite recursion, which would leave "God" absolutely
incapable of creating anything but copies of itself, therefore, if
such a god existed, nothing else would.
Thanks for refuting Christianity in five words.
Dan Barker has pointed out that you also get infinite recursion with
omniscience. Like a map that contains a full copy of itself, which
contains a full copy of itself, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 10:01:11 AM |
|
|
AS with all attempts to define God.
How can anyone define something that defies definition? After all, if
one attempts to visualize a God/god/goddess/diety (regardless of the
specific religion) that is capable of doing what he/she does, his/her
capabilities are already beyond explanation. One can only describe,
not define.
Its like trying to put an absolute value to infinity. It just is not
possible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 12:48:02 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
AS with all attempts to define God.
How can anyone define something that defies definition? After all, if
one attempts to visualize a God/god/goddess/diety (regardless of the
specific religion) that is capable of doing what he/she does, his/her
capabilities are already beyond explanation. One can only describe,
not define.
Its like trying to put an absolute value to infinity. It just is not
possible.
'Infinite' is a direction, not a specific value. Some things just go on
increasing forever, without bound, like the value of y as the value of x
increases on the Cartesian plane for example.
The Cartesian plane, named after the mathematician Rene Descartes, is a
plane with a rectangular coordinate system that associates each point in
the plane with a unique pair of numbers in an ordered pair of the form
(x,y). The x value is the horizontal coordinate and the y value is the
vertical coordinate.
www.visionlearning.com/library/pop_glossary_term.php
'God is beyond explanation' is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis,
like 'invisible', or 'not of this world' or some such hypothesis.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 06:27:41 PM |
|
|
Ho, the specific word I used was "infinitY", not "infinitE". If you
would like to refute my point, at least pick your points carefully.
Here's a fact of science. Ad hoc hypothesis have been used to explain
a lot of things. If you want an ad hoc hypothesis, here's one.
How would you explain how the birds developed wings? Let me guess.
these land creatures just jumped over cliffs or flapping their limbs
in the crazy notion that one day their offspring thousands if not
millions of generations down would somehow undergo change develop
wings over time.
How about how is the eyeball supposed to have developed? Between the
original state as a nunfuctional piece of flesh into the complex organ
with the capacities it is fully capable of, any state in between would
be practically totally useless.
In both cases, any of the intervening stages between the original
state and the end state (complete wings and eyeball) are even worse
that the original state.... and yet both are supposed to have been
evolved via incremental steps, each building upon the slight
improvements of the previous steps.
Looks like even scientists are guilty of ad hoc hypothesis too. So are
we supposed to distrust everythingg they are saying? Your call.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 08:02:41 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
Ho, the specific word I used was "infinitY", not "infinitE". If you
would like to refute my point, at least pick your points carefully.
Here's a fact of science. Ad hoc hypothesis have been used to explain
a lot of things. If you want an ad hoc hypothesis, here's one.
How would you explain how the birds developed wings? Let me guess.
these land creatures just jumped over cliffs or flapping their limbs
in the crazy notion that one day their offspring thousands if not
millions of generations down would somehow undergo change develop
wings over time.
How about how is the eyeball supposed to have developed? Between the
original state as a nunfuctional piece of flesh into the complex organ
with the capacities it is fully capable of, any state in between would
be practically totally useless.
In both cases, any of the intervening stages between the original
state and the end state (complete wings and eyeball) are even worse
that the original state.... and yet both are supposed to have been
evolved via incremental steps, each building upon the slight
improvements of the previous steps.
Looks like even scientists are guilty of ad hoc hypothesis too. So are
we supposed to distrust everythingg they are saying? Your call.
To whom and to what are you responding, knucklehead? There's no way to
tell unless you learn how to include a copy of the thing with which you
are taking issue.
James wrote:
AS with all attempts to define God.
How can anyone define something that defies definition? After all, if
one attempts to visualize a God/god/goddess/diety (regardless of the
specific religion) that is capable of doing what he/she does, his/her
capabilities are already beyond explanation. One can only describe,
not define.
Its like trying to put an absolute value to infinity. It just is not
possible.
There is no place at which one can ever arrive known as 'infinity'.
'Infinite' is a direction, not a specific value. Some things just go on
increasing forever, without bound, like the value of y as the value of x
increases on the Cartesian plane for example.
The Cartesian plane, named after the mathematician Rene Descartes, is a
plane with a rectangular coordinate system that associates each point in
the plane with a unique pair of numbers in an ordered pair of the form
(x,y). The x value is the horizontal coordinate and the y value is the
vertical coordinate.
www.visionlearning.com/library/pop_glossary_term.php
'God is beyond explanation' is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis,
like 'invisible', or 'not of this world' or some such hypothesis.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Science IS NOT based on ad hoc hypothesis, knucklehead. Ad hoc
hypothesis is logical fallacy, as you were informed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 06:41:51 PM |
|
|
Ho, the specific word I used was "infinitY", not "infinitE". One is a
noun, the other an adjective, a big difference. Plus mathematicians
have been able to replesent this "imaginary figure" for calculation
purposes. Just because it defies exact "definition" does not mean it
does not exist or cannot be inforporated into mainstream.
If you would like to refute my point, at least pick your points
carefully. Here's a fact of science. Ad hoc hypothesis have been used
to explain a lot of things. If you want an ad hoc hypothesis, here's
one.
How would you explain how the birds developed wings? Let me guess.
these land creatures just jumped over cliffs or flapping their limbs
in the crazy notion that one day their offspring thousands if not
millions of generations down would somehow undergo change develop
wings over time.
How about how is the eyeball supposed to have developed? Between the
original state as a nunfuctional piece of flesh into the complex organ
with the capacities it is fully capable of, any state in between would
be practically totally useless.
In both cases, any of the intervening stages between the original
state and the end state (complete wings and eyeball) are even worse
that the original state.... and yet both are supposed to have been
evolved via incremental steps, each building upon the slight
improvements of the previous steps.
Looks like even scientists are guilty of ad hoc hypothesis too. So are
we supposed to distrust everythingg they are saying? Your call.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 08:03:55 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
Ho, the specific word I used was "infinitY", not "infinitE". One is a
noun, the other an adjective, a big difference. Plus mathematicians
have been able to replesent this "imaginary figure" for calculation
purposes. Just because it defies exact "definition" does not mean it
does not exist or cannot be inforporated into mainstream.
If you would like to refute my point, at least pick your points
carefully. Here's a fact of science. Ad hoc hypothesis have been used
to explain a lot of things. If you want an ad hoc hypothesis, here's
one.
How would you explain how the birds developed wings? Let me guess.
these land creatures just jumped over cliffs or flapping their limbs
in the crazy notion that one day their offspring thousands if not
millions of generations down would somehow undergo change develop
wings over time.
How about how is the eyeball supposed to have developed? Between the
original state as a nunfuctional piece of flesh into the complex organ
with the capacities it is fully capable of, any state in between would
be practically totally useless.
In both cases, any of the intervening stages between the original
state and the end state (complete wings and eyeball) are even worse
that the original state.... and yet both are supposed to have been
evolved via incremental steps, each building upon the slight
improvements of the previous steps.
Looks like even scientists are guilty of ad hoc hypothesis too. So are
we supposed to distrust everythingg they are saying? Your call.
Are you going to post two copies of all your nonsense? It's a waste of
bandwidth, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 08:30:32 PM |
|
|
Look who's posting 2 copies of practically the same thing above, lol.
I never said that science is not ad hoc hypothesis, just that it has
been guilty of it to explain many generally accepted theories. If you
would stop quoting verbatim from other sites and actually bothered to
read and think for yourself, you will have noticed this in my post.
I picked InfinitY instead of infinitE fora very specific reason. Its
sad that you have to twist my words to fit your arguement, but I guess
that could be the best you can do.
Mathematicians and scientists are able to visualise and conceptualize
it even when it canot be absolutely defined, merely because they, as
humans, have that capacity to think beyond the boundary. Here's a
interesting bit of information through. Computers cannot conceptualize
infinity. Because everything to them MUST have a value appended to it.
So would you rather think like a human or a computer? Your call.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 10:16:46 AM |
|
|
James wrote:
I never said that science is not ad hoc hypothesis, just that it has
been guilty of it to explain many generally accepted theories.
Wrong. Ad hoc hypothesis has no place in science, it is logical fallacy,
as you have been told.
'God is beyond explanation' is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis,
like 'invisible', or 'not of this world' or some such hypothesis.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
No part of science is based on ad hoc hypothesis, knucklehead. Ad hoc
hypothesis is logical fallacy, as you have been told.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
28 Feb 2007 10:57:41 PM |
|
|
Look who's posting 2 copies of practically the same thing above, lol.
I fail to see why you are repeating the definition of the Cartesian
plane, as I am talking about infinitY as a number rather than a co-
ordinate, which should be pretty obvious from my posts.
I never said that science is not ad hoc hypothesis, just that it has
been guilty of abusing it to explain many generally accepted theories.
If you would stop quoting verbatim from other sites and actually
bothered to read and think for yourself, you will have noticed this in
my post.
I picked InfinitY instead of infinitE fora very specific reason. Its
sad that you have to twist my words to fit your arguement, but I guess
that could be the best you can do.
Mathematicians and scientists are able to visualise and conceptualize
it even when it canot be absolutely defined, merely because they, as
humans, have that capacity to think beyond the boundary. Here's a
interesting bit of information through. Computers cannot conceptualize
infinity. Because everything to them MUST have a value appended to
it.
So would you rather think like a human or a computer? Your call.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 10:37:39 AM |
|
|
James wrote:
I picked InfinitY instead of infinitE fora very specific reason.
Yes, I know, you are trying to use an ad hoc hypothesis, that God is
like 'infinity', and thus totally beyond the capability of us mere
mortals to ever comprehend. Here is your post:
James wrote:
How can anyone define something that defies definition? After all, if
one attempts to visualize a God/god/goddess/diety (regardless of the
specific religion) that is capable of doing what he/she does, his/her
capabilities are already beyond explanation. One can only describe,
not define.
Its like trying to put an absolute value to infinity. It just is not
possible.
'Infinity' is just a colloquialism, a figure of speech. There is no such
place.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Acolloquialism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://tinylink.com/?S170oU8cg1
'Infinite' is a direction, a tendency, not a specific value. Some things
just go on increasing forever, without bound, like the value of y as the
value of x increases on the Cartesian plane for example.
The Cartesian plane, named after the mathematician Rene Descartes, is a
plane with a rectangular coordinate system that associates each point in
the plane with a unique pair of numbers in an ordered pair of the form
(x,y). The x value is the horizontal coordinate and the y value is the
vertical coordinate.
www.visionlearning.com/library/pop_glossary_term.php
There is nothing metaphysical or particularly hard to understand about
the term, 'infinite' (without bound), it's covered pretty early on in
basic high school math, pre-calculus.
Your argument, 'God is beyond explanation' is just the fallacy of ad hoc
hypothesis, like 'invisible', or 'not of this world' or some such
hypothesis.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 11:39:43 AM |
|
|
And Yet for a third time you keep insisting on giving a definition of
infinitE instead of infinitY which I mentioned. Its pretty obvious
who'savoiding the question here.
The concept behind InfinitE and InfinitY is the same, just that the
application and use is different. If one was able to understand one,
one would also be able to understand another. Unless one choses not
to. Guess which category you fall into.
Its good that you mentioned calculus which is basically a study of
numbers. And yet you still are unable to absolutely define infinity in
numeric terms.
As it is with God.
Of course you have failed to consider one important factor, that being
that God is beyond explanation based on our limited knowledge.
Think out of the box for once. It can be very enlightening.
On prominent jewish scientist had this to say:
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and
religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very
close connection between the two. Further, I think that science
without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without
science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand."
His name was Albert Einstein. Dare you aspire to his level of open-
mindedness?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 04:08:07 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
And Yet for a third time you keep insisting on giving a definition of
infinitE instead of infinitY
Why do you have such a big problem understanding the the relationship
between the terms, 'infinity' and 'infinite'?
Do you have the same problem with 'insane' and 'insanity'?
Insanity is the state of being insane.
It's simple. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
The term 'infinity' comes from the Latin infinitas meaning 'unboundedness'.
'Infinity' refers to the property of being unbounded, infinite, not finite.
Got it now? See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Some things just go on increasing forever, without bound, like the y in
y = x.
Simple as that.
Your argument, 'God is like infinity, beyond explanation' is just the
fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, like 'invisible', or 'not of this world'
or some such ad hoc hypothesis.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
It's logical fallacy.
Got it now? See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 06:00:44 PM |
|
|
Lol and it took you so many posts to actually get around to exlpaining
infinity it self instead of infinite. I wonder how long it will take
you to get to this next one, but lets just have a go shall we?
If according to your reasoning anything that cannot be explained, must
not be true...
How would you explain how early land creatures came to have developed
wings and flight, since every intervening state actually worsens the
creature's survival rate?
Can you imagine a whole tribe of rats just suddenly deciding one day
to start diving like lemmings off cliffs or just jumping up and down
flapping their limbs in the hope that they can fly (wow they have
pretty strong drugs back then) for thousands of generations, before
even rudimentary flaps started to develop or their bones started to
get lighter..... and suddenly, you get bats!
If it cannot be explained, then must evolution be false?
Or is it simply because we do not have the level of understanding to
explain how it must have occured?
"The only box is the one theists have erected around themselves. "
And yet here we are, debating the scientific boxes that althiest are
erecting around themselves, deciding that anything that cannot be
defined must NOT be true.
Touche.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 09:58:21 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
Lol and it took you so many posts to actually get around to exlpaining
infinity
Exlpaining infinity? You mean explaining the relationship between
infinite and infinity?
Phew! So you finally get it, infinity HAS been explained, infinity is
not something 'beyond explanation', as in your argument. Just as
insanity is the state of being insane, infinity is simply the state of
being infinite (not finite, unbounded).
Now where does that leave your argument, 'God is like infinity, beyond
explanation'?
Does it leave it out in the cold, with nobody saluting it, because, as
you have stipulated, 'infinity' HAS been explained?
Now if you were to want to be part of the EAC (the Excellent Atheist
Conspiracy), if there were such a thing, which there is not, then this
is where you would say "Sir, yes sir!"
Otherwise you are going to wash right out right now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 10:35:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:58:21 -0800, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <7Oadncv8wOtDPXrYnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com>
James wrote:
Lol and it took you so many posts to actually get around to exlpaining
infinity
Exlpaining infinity? You mean explaining the relationship between
infinite and infinity?
Phew! So you finally get it, infinity HAS been explained, infinity is
not something 'beyond explanation', as in your argument. Just as
insanity is the state of being insane, infinity is simply the state of
being infinite (not finite, unbounded).
Now where does that leave your argument, 'God is like infinity, beyond
explanation'?
Does it leave it out in the cold, with nobody saluting it, because, as
you have stipulated, 'infinity' HAS been explained?
Now if you were to want to be part of the EAC (the Excellent Atheist
Conspiracy), if there were such a thing, which there is not, then this
is where you would say "Sir, yes sir!"
Drop, soldier! And give me ten.
No, make that infinity pushups!
Otherwise you are going to wash right out right now.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 12:27:41 PM |
|
|
On 1 Mar 2007 09:39:43 -0800, "James" <zhanzhao@gmail.com> wrote:
And Yet for a third time you keep insisting on giving a definition of
infinitE instead of infinitY which I mentioned. Its pretty obvious
who'savoiding the question here.
The concept behind InfinitE and InfinitY is the same, just that the
application and use is different. If one was able to understand one,
one would also be able to understand another. Unless one choses not
to. Guess which category you fall into.
Its good that you mentioned calculus which is basically a study of
numbers. And yet you still are unable to absolutely define infinity in
numeric terms.
As it is with God.
Question-begging *****.
Of course you have failed to consider one important factor, that being
that God is beyond explanation based on our limited knowledge.
More question-begging *****.
Think out of the box for once. It can be very enlightening.
The only box is the one theists have erected around themselves.
On prominent jewish scientist had this to say:
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and
religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very
close connection between the two. Further, I think that science
without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without
science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand."
Standard dishonest out of context quote.
His name was Albert Einstein. Dare you aspire to his level of open-
mindedness?
Do you aspire to any honesty?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 10:53:26 PM |
|
|
On Mar 1, 8:41 am, "James" <zhanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ho, the specific word I used was "infinitY", not "infinitE". One is a
noun, the other an adjective, a big difference. Plus mathematicians
have been able to replesent this "imaginary figure" for calculation
purposes. Just because it defies exact "definition" does not mean it
does not exist or cannot be inforporated into mainstream.
Lol well look at that. Your pointing out that I finally understood the
difference between infinity and infinite would be nicer.... If I
didn't ALREADY point out your inability to differentiate between the
two and ALREADY pointed out the difference to you about 11 posts back
(as referenced in the quoted text).
Thanks for making an obvious fool of yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
02 Mar 2007 01:36:22 AM |
|
|
James wrote:
... Your pointing out that I finally understood the
difference between infinity and infinite
That's not what I am pointing out, dummy.
What I am pointing out is that you have now STIPULATED (LOOK IT UP) that
infinity HAS been explained, infinity is not something 'beyond
explanation', as in your argument. Just as insanity is the state of
being insane, infinity is simply the state of being infinite (not
finite, unbounded).
Now where does that leave your argument, 'God is like infinity, beyond
explanation'?
Does it leave it out in the cold, up the flagpole, waving in the breeze
with nobody saluting it, because, as you have stipulated, 'infinity' HAS
been explained?
Now if you were to want to be part of the EAC (the Excellent Atheist
Conspiracy), if there were such a thing, which there is not, then this
is where you would say "Sir, yes sir!"
Otherwise you are going to wash right out right now. Last chance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
01 Mar 2007 11:02:02 PM |
|
|
On Mar 1, 2:48 am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
James wrote:
AS with all attempts to define God.
How can anyone define something that defies definition? After all, if
one attempts to visualize a God/god/goddess/diety (regardless of the
specific religion) that is capable of doing what he/she does, his/her
capabilities are already beyond explanation. One can only describe,
not define.
Its like trying to put an absolute value to infinity. It just is not
possible.
'Infinite' is a direction, not a specific value. Some things just go on
increasing forever, without bound, like the value of y as the value of x
increases on the Cartesian plane for example.
On Mar 1, 8:41 am, "James" <zhanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ho, the specific word I used was "infinitY", not "infinitE". One is a
noun, the other an adjective, a big difference. Plus mathematicians
have been able to replesent this "imaginary figure" for calculation
purposes. Just because it defies exact "definition" does not mean it
does not exist or cannot be inforporated into mainstream.
Lol well look at that. Your pointing out that I finally understood
the
difference between infinity and infinite would be nicer.... If I
didn't ALREADY point out your inability to differentiate between the
two and ALREADY pointed out the difference to you about 11 posts back
(as referenced in the quoted text).
Thanks for making an obvious fool of yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
02 Mar 2007 01:39:24 AM |
|
|
James wrote:
... Your pointing out that I finally understood the
difference between infinity and infinite
That's not what I am pointing out, dummy.
What I am pointing out is that you have now STIPULATED (LOOK IT UP) that
infinity HAS been explained, infinity is not something 'beyond
explanation', as in your argument. Just as insanity is the state of
being insane, infinity is simply the state of being infinite (not
finite, unbounded).
Now where does that leave your argument, 'God is like infinity, beyond
explanation'?
Does it leave it out in the cold, up the flagpole, waving in the breeze
with nobody saluting it, because, as you have stipulated, 'infinity' HAS
been explained?
Now if you were to want to be part of the EAC (the Excellent Atheist
Conspiracy), if there were such a thing, which there is not, then this
is where you would say "Sir, yes sir!"
Otherwise you are going to wash right out right now. Last chance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
02 Mar 2007 02:30:11 AM |
|
|
Wow. Is that the only thing you are good at, twisting other people's
words? If you have not realised it, let me explain the punchline to
you in detail.
Do refer to my original post:
"AS with all attempts to DEFINE God.
How can anyone DEFINE something that defies DEFINITION?.... One can
only DESCRIBE,
not DEFINE."
You're only explaining infinity/infinite, not defining it yet (or as I
mentioned, putting an absolute value to it). By definition (sic) to
define is to to "fix or lay down DEFINITELY; specify DISTINCTLY:".
Which caNNOT be done with infinity as it cannot be given an absolute,
definite or distinct value.
The problem is, you took so many posts to even getting to the stage of
differentiating between infinity/infinite, its very VERY
understandable why you failed to catch this.
Congradulations on wasting so many post and YET still fail to address
the definition. And Kudos on repeatedly succeeding in only DESCRIBING
it though, which only reinforces my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielS" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
02 Mar 2007 02:44:07 AM |
|
|
Before Man understood the concept of gravity, everyone though the idea
of the world being a sphere was ridiculous, because the understanding
of science at that stage was lacking. It took some open minded sparks
to open up their minds to even consider the possibility of gravity,
even though it goes against everything they knew then.
A few centuries later, its so sad to see that there are still some
that are still so well-entrenched in their comfort zones of science-as-
it-is-understood-at-that-point-of-time, that they refuse to accept the
possibility of anything else, since science cannot define it.
Its a sad day when atheists become so stubborn that they have over-
taken the thiests in terms of being close-minded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
02 Mar 2007 03:48:21 AM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2007 00:44:07 -0800, "DanielS" <danielseah76@gmail.com>
wrote:
Before Man understood the concept of gravity, everyone though the idea
of the world being a sphere was ridiculous, because the understanding
of science at that stage was lacking. It took some open minded sparks
to open up their minds to even consider the possibility of gravity,
even though it goes against everything they knew then.
A few centuries later, its so sad to see that there are still some
that are still so well-entrenched in their comfort zones of science-as-
it-is-understood-at-that-point-of-time, that they refuse to accept the
possibility of anything else, since science cannot define it.
Its a sad day when atheists become so stubborn that they have over-
taken the thiests in terms of being close-minded.
Yet another in-your-face liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
02 Mar 2007 03:52:48 AM |
|
|
"Why don't you idiots shut the ***** up because you can't put up? "
Exactly. Seeing you basically didn't contribute anything constructive
with your posts at all (other than you're lying cos I say so), I think
its a good idea you took your own advice lol.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: DEFINE GOD? |
02 Mar 2007 04:18:22 AM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2007 01:52:48 -0800, "James" <zhanzhao@gmail.com> wrote:
"Why don't you idiots shut the ***** up because you can't put up? "
Exactly. Seeing you basically didn't contribute anything constructive
with your posts at all (other than you're lying cos I say so), I think
Were did I do that, liar?
its a good idea you took your own advice lol.
Did we go looking for you to browbeat you over something irrelevant to
you, which we know you don't believe?
Were you begging the question talking about something you know we
don't grant as though we did?
What part of "put up or shut up" are you pretending you are exempt
from?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
