Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2016, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 03:55 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 03:24 PM)drymetal Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 02:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Infinite fractions cannot be achieved in physical reality.

I was talking about infinite sets. Not physical reality.
Yes, but if it cannot be used in physical reality what use is it to us other than for philosophical discussions maybe?
Not that I have any issues with philosophical discussions.
I live for them Wink
I think infinity may be the mathematical term for "unspecified" but not necessarily "unknowable" when it refers to physical things.
Oh and "never ending" may be an omniscient claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 03:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Yes, but if it cannot be used in physical reality what use is it to us other than for philosophical discussions maybe?

Basic calculus.

(29-03-2016 03:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think infinity may be the mathematical term for "unspecified" but not necessarily "unknowable" when it refers to physical things.

...which is immediately added to the ever-growing list of things that Shane does not understand and yet feels irresistibly compelled to mouth off about.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-03-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Yes, but if it cannot be used in physical reality what use is it to us other than for philosophical discussions maybe?

Basic calculus.

(29-03-2016 03:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think infinity may be the mathematical term for "unspecified" but not necessarily "unknowable" when it refers to physical things.

...which is immediately added to the ever-growing list of things that Shane does not understand and yet feels irresistibly compelled to mouth off about.
Nice I seem to have an objector.
Let's see how good you are:
Premise 1. Mathematics is based on Philosophy <---- please object to this. I have an article I am just anxious to reply with
Premise 2. Calculus is based on mathematics
Conclusion: Therefore basic calculus is based on philosophy.

Now for the question:
Why did you seemingly disconnect calculus from Philosophy?
If nothing we know of has been proven to be infinite in physical reality does this mean it is "unknowable" or does it mean it is for the time being "unspecified"?

Let's see how the Unbeliever's understanding beats mine.
The challenge is on. Shall we begin?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 02:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think Chas is right, Hilbert didn't say infinity was absurd.

Then both of you are wrong. And "two wrongs don't make a right" Big Grin. When you subtract something, you are always supposed to have LESS than what you started with.

In the Hilbert's Hotel paradox, you have an infinite amount of rooms. Now lets say you placed a natural number on every single room door (in numerical order, ad infinium ).

Actually, each numbered room would be equivilent to the same number of guests (if at least one guest occupied each room).

So, each room has a number. Now lets say all of the odd numbered guests were to check out...well, you would STILL have the same amount of even numbered guests/rooms, DESPITE the original total amount being decreased by infinity!!

That is clearly absurd. You've subtracted equal amount, yet you don't have any less than what you started with. If you don't see the absurdity with that...mannnn I don't know what to tell you.

(29-03-2016 02:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What does "subject to belief" mean though?

I don't know, ask the joker who originally said it. An actual infinity is just a concept. It cannot/does not reflect reality. Hilbert's Hotel could never exist in reality. Reality cannot reflect something like Hilbert's Hotel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:31 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 04:45 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 04:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 02:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think Chas is right, Hilbert didn't say infinity was absurd.

Then both of you are wrong. And "two wrongs don't make a right" Big Grin. When you subtract something, you are always supposed to have LESS than what you started with.

In the Hilbert's Hotel paradox, you have an infinite amount of rooms. Now lets say you placed a natural number on every single room door (in numerical order, ad infinium ).

Actually, each numbered room would be equivilent to the same number of guests (if at least one guest occupied each room).

So, each room has a number. Now lets say all of the odd numbered guests were to check out...well, you would STILL have the same amount of even numbered guests/rooms, DESPITE the original total amount being decreased by infinity!!

That is clearly absurd. You've subtracted equal amount, yet you don't have any less than what you started with. If you don't see the absurdity with that...mannnn I don't know what to tell you.

(29-03-2016 02:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What does "subject to belief" mean though?

I don't know, ask the joker who originally said it. An actual infinity is just a concept. It cannot/does not reflect reality. Hilbert's Hotel could never exist in reality. Reality cannot reflect something like Hilbert's Hotel.
Read it again CotW. Did you consider that it may be possible that not everyone here is out to get you. Paranoia may be clouding your comprehension.
My statement doesn't mean Chas is right about "infinity". I am stating he might be right about Hilbert not stating that infinity is "absurd"

On another note:
Unless someone here is going to claim omniscience soon I suggest we stop thinking that there are things that are not "subject to belief" except maybe with the exception of "thought"

I know "I believe I am right" although I could be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 04:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 02:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think Chas is right, Hilbert didn't say infinity was absurd.

Then both of you are wrong. And "two wrongs don't make a right" Big Grin. When you subtract something, you are always supposed to have LESS than what you started with.

In the Hilbert's Hotel paradox, you have an infinite amount of rooms. Now lets say you placed a natural number on every single room door (in numerical order, ad infinium ).

Actually, each numbered room would be equivilent to the same number of guests (if at least one guest occupied each room).

So, each room has a number. Now lets say all of the odd numbered guests were to check out...well, you would STILL have the same amount of even numbered guests/rooms, DESPITE the original total amount being decreased by infinity!!

That is clearly absurd. You've subtracted equal amount, yet you don't have any less than what you started with. If you don't see the absurdity with that...mannnn I don't know what to tell you.

(29-03-2016 02:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What does "subject to belief" mean though?

I don't know, ask the joker who originally said it. An actual infinity is just a concept. It cannot/does not reflect reality. Hilbert's Hotel could never exist in reality. Reality cannot reflect something like Hilbert's Hotel.

cow shit - still unable to respond to the evil christard video and still haven't told your children that their dumb-ass pappy supports and evil cult?

I'm surprised that you came back after last night's whooping.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 04:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Now for the question:
Why did you seemingly disconnect calculus from Philosophy?

I didn't. Because the answer to "is mathematics philosophy?" depends entirely on how you define the two (more usually, how you define "philosophy", but given your issues with definitions I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't have a coherent one for "mathematics" either).

And, given your demonstrated lack of coherent definitions and willingness to ignore the definitions supplied to you when it comes to topics like this, I honestly don't give enough of a damn to play whatever stupid games you have in mind.

(29-03-2016 04:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If nothing we know of has been proven to be infinite in physical reality does this mean it is "unknowable" or does it mean it is for the time being "unspecified"?

It's your gibberish argument. It's your responsibility to try and answer these questions if you want anyone to take you at all seriously, not mine.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 05:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 04:48 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 04:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Now for the question:
Why did you seemingly disconnect calculus from Philosophy?

I didn't. Because the answer to "is mathematics philosophy?" depends entirely on how you define the two (more usually, how you define "philosophy", but given your issues with definitions I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't have a coherent one for "mathematics" either).

And, given your demonstrated lack of coherent definitions and willingness to ignore the definitions supplied to you when it comes to topics like this, I honestly don't give enough of a damn to play whatever stupid games you have in mind.

(29-03-2016 04:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If nothing we know of has been proven to be infinite in physical reality does this mean it is "unknowable" or does it mean it is for the time being "unspecified"?

It's your gibberish argument. It's your responsibility to try and answer these questions if you want anyone to take you at all seriously, not mine.
Touché
It seems you fail to see the irony in your statements. Someone that claims to never be certain can quite possibly never be certain (except for their thoughts). Thus my arguments may always lack full coherence. It may be inevitable you will always arise at this conclusion about all my posts.
Also:
I quite possibly don't "have" to do anything my friend & neither do you (maybe)
If it is full coherence you seek from my posts, you may want to consider hitting the ignore button right about now.
I might send you insane very soon. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:29 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 05:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thus my arguments may always lack full coherence.

This has nothing to do with your supposed lack of certainty.

You're just very, very bad at this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 06:06 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(29-03-2016 05:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 05:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thus my arguments may always lack full coherence.

This has nothing to do with your supposed lack of certainty.

You're just very, very bad at this.
Yes, it may have more to do with your lack of understanding my points than my lack of coherence.
Coherence might just be a very subjective word.

It may serve you better to stop arguing with me. You may soon realize all of my arguments are directed at Theists who think they "know" what's true.
If you want to truly denounce Theism as I have you may soon realize that the word "know" may be your enemy & "likely assumptions" your friends.

It may be the only thing that makes you both the same.
It may be possible that two groups cannot argue against the same position.

When I see an Atheist debate a Theist I don't see two different sides arguing.
I see both sides arguing that they both "know" the truth, when it is quite possible neither of them know the truth.

Have you ever once considered:
It may be possible the only way to successfully win an argument with a Theist is to show the possibility that they don't "know" and never claim that you do.
Check what was the deciding factor that causes a Theist to become Atheist and you may soon realize it was when they realized they "did not know"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: