if there is a god...you'd think he ws a rational being right..

[Necrosis]

another thing i find funny is that you think you can conceptualize concretely or graps infinity more then in an abstract sense. hahahah you are the next einstein.

[logical?]

ahah, it is ironic that your name is logical.

1)i have said that you cannot conceptualize infinity, just like you cannot conceptualize a new sense, something foreign to experience like non-locality is impossible to grasp. i too know infinity exists because of mathematical abstractions in the plantonic sense that have specific axioms, but i dont KNOW what it is to be infinite, because my brain cannot fathom it. a definition of finite, would be contained or with edges, or barriers, can be measured. ex my body is finite as my skin is the endpoint. now a definition of infinite is boundless, no barriers. there are no examples therefore your concept of infinity while correct is a mere abstraction. you do not understand infinity truly i am sorry, no human can truly know infinite just like they cannot know what it means to be in two places at once. however, from mathematical axioms based on the validity of previous assertions i accept that infinite exists. i never said it never existed it does, but i cant properly describe it using our finite language. give an example of infinite, there is no concrete understanding of infinite only abstract, much like mathematics.

2)here are some definitons of faith from wiki
-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
-confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love
-Belief without evidence
-A convinced belief; a condition of mind fully satisfied; next to actual knowledge. We have faith the sun will rise to-morrow morning, but the knowledge can not be actual until after sunrise.
so as you see you have faith with no evidence that god does not exist, much like you have evidence that your lottery ticket IS the winning ticket without proof. funny thing is you and other atheist argue with me without having knowledge in anything your talking about. hell, according to you, your beleif isnt faith when using concrete definitions it is. yes, if you dont know something, but beleive it to be true, like i will wake up tommorrow that is faith. what is so hard to comprehend?

3)i can see red, i know intimately what red is, i can view it. anything you can experience you can conceptualize, what is at the horizon of a black hole, were does stuff go when sucked in a black hole. your using examples of concrete things to justify the abstract, this is called ill-logic. you cant see infinite, nor can you imagine timelessness, but they exist as abstractions with axioms based on logic. stop making dumb arguments. you dont even know the difference as to why i can understnad the concept RED and cannot conceptualize concretely INFINITE. i have examples of red and black holes, they are perceivable, infinite is not. please do not make another dumb argument, i cant bare to keep repeating myself to atheist who dont know mathematics, nor philosophy, nor what there faith stands for.

4)look nothing is you still dont have a grasp of what nothing is. your question is like asking, what about if there is a different type of infinite, or black. if there was a different type of infinite do you know what it would be called, well i know based on gradeschool logic that it is something different not inifinite. if you say "what about nothing existing or being able to allow something to come from it under different laws" you are mistaking what you think is nothing. to say there is a different type of nothing one we do not know, is defining that nothing by difference or contrast to our nothing, making it something. once you give nothing characteristics that allow it to DO something it is no longer nothing. i meant to say "dont try to conceptualize, accept them as mutually exclusive"(ive said this on four threads now). once you start defining how laws operate on nothing or nothing creating something , your nothing has know become a something, thus invalidating your argument. nothing given eternity cannot create something. go to avantlabs for a better discussion, as you are just not grasping the logical and philosophical ramifications of your language. law dont operate with nothing, the laws of this unverse dont nor would the laws of a hypothetical universe, its like saying what if there was a different type of infinite that did not go on forever, you have changed what it means to be infinite, it is a ill-logical fallacy, and if you cant see this you should change your username.

im being a dick, because you, sandy and others make dumb points over and over, while others have understood what i say and keep making me repeat myself with dumb arguments. this was something you said
"So basically, whenever you don't know something, but believe it, you have faith in it" yes this is actually the definition of faith, do some research. why should i have to defend if a different type of nothing exists? this question is convaluted and self-defeating, can you see why. what if there was a different type of black? THEN IT WOULDNT BE THAT TYPE OF BLACK BUT ANOTHER MAKING IT DIFFERENT WITH NO RELEVANCE TO OUR ARGUEMENT. nothing can not have variant forms, just like infinite cannot, and saying things like what if we had this sixth sense etc etc which is what your asking me to conceptualize doesnt hold water.

every atheist pay attention
if you say everything needs a cause then there is a infinite regression of causes, making this something(life) not possible. so logical something needs to be eternal, but based on science this unverse is not, therefore it had a creation a cause. the only way for anything to exist is for something to exist that has always existed and is uncaused. could be another universe, god, a bunny rabbit i dont know but some non-thing outside of time(hence uncaused)created us.

Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you left out the personal BS and kept to arguing points. Maybe this is difficult for you, but I've tried to treat you with respect and argue your statements point-by-point. You don't see me making fun of your username, so try to return me the same curtesy.

- I don't care how many times you've said you can't conceptualise infinity, you still haven't demonstrated this claim. Am I to accept it merely on your say-so? Just because YOU don't know what it is to  be infinite, doesn't mean that no one else can. So, a demonstration or proof would be nice, please. (I even asked nicely).

Re abstraction, this is a moot point; whatever you say is an abstraction. Whenever you start talking, you are abstracting. When I refer to the car on the street, I am abstracting it from its environment. This is a very, very weak path to go down for you.

Further, as I have said now multiple times, by asserting why it is not understandable, you have understood it. Seriously, don't go there- it's illogical. You tell me that no human can know inifnity- well, this is a comment on the nature of infinity, even if only dealing with its perceptability. So, it follows that, if we are to take you seriously, then you are understanding what you're talking about. Ie, infinity. Yet how can this be? According to you, no one is allowed to understand infinity

- I accept that definition of faith- I have no problem with it. However, it grossly weakens your stance on God. What distinguishes your faith that God exists from your faith that your girlfriend loves you, or that you'll excrete what you just eat sometime tomorrow? Nothing, really.

It's quite different to knowledge. If I start defining knowledge along the lines of sufficiently justified true belief, then I have more than enough to assert that 'I know the Sun will rise tomorrow.' Just because I can't prove it empirically beyond all doubt, doesn't mean I don't know it.

- You can conceptualise more than experience. That's what thought and imagination is about. I might have only experienced 256 colours in my lifetime. Does this stop me from imagining a 257th? No..

And seriously, just because you can't think of a coherent reply, doesn't mean my arguments are dumb. As far as I'm concerned, you have done nothing to justify any of your claims. You simply repeat them over and over, with different wording. Is this a sensible argument? OK... I'm sure you're the be all and end all:

- I'm not even going to bother replying to this insulting crap. Re-word it without the bullshit, maybe also make it comprehendable and I'll think about replying. Otherwise, you're wasting my time- I don't need to sit here and be insulted by some internet expert



And if that's how you concluded God, well, God help you mate.

[Necrosis]

i apologize for being a dick, i get carried away with tiny tits on this site. And my syntax is bad, i will try to clean it up. .but its rather annoying to argue a point like "just because you dont understand concretely what infinite is doesnt mean i can". when you create a thought you take up some space in the finite amount of associations between the synapses of two neurons, or three or four. you only have so many of these associations. therefore you cannot  know infinite material(or infinite anything including infinite) what it is to be infinite. your definition of infinite=not finite decribes this relationship quite elequently. if your finite, your not infinite therefore you cannot know infinite. your arguing that you can understand the implications of infinite and i accept this, i to know the ramifications.

- i did not say i cant understand the implications of infinite i have said you cannot grasp with examples what infinite is. give me a example that is concrete of infinite if you can not, your argument fails plain and simple. yes i have demonstrated this claim to have a concrete concept is to have an example there are no examples of infinite. i also, have shown why a finite brain cannot know infinite numbers, or cannot no what it means to have no edge. math is based on this, books have been written about this, i dont know why im even arguing it, it is a ludicris point.

-wrong. i dont understand what quantum non-locality is but i accept it based on experiments that can be repeated. i accept infinite based on mathematical axioms.and i accept nothings implications based on logic and reason, plus its  juxtaposition from something.

 

show me a concrete example of infinite.?
show me logically how variant forms of nothing can occur( while not being something).?
and tell me why if nothing did create something why does that first cause not have to have a cause?

please answer these questions.

[ToxicAvenger]

i dont understand knowledge displaces electrons in the human mind,

LMAO....

you started off with bullshit so i wont bother reading the rest...soo you r saying is that the thought process is a form of "oxidation" LMAO

robert penrose did some work with microtubules..google it..if you had mentioned that i'd have taken you seriously...but from now on your posts will go ignored ...soo i implore you not to post in my threads on the religion board again
thanx..

[logical?]

i apologize for being a dick, i get carried away with tiny tits on this site. And my syntax is bad, i will try to clean it up. .but its rather annoying to argue a point like "just because you dont understand concretely what infinite is doesnt mean i can". when you create a thought you take up some space in the finite amount of associations between the synapses of two neurons, or three or four. you only have so many of these associations. therefore you cannot  know infinite material(or infinite anything including infinite) what it is to be infinite. your definition of infinite=not finite decribes this relationship quite elequently. if your finite, your not infinite therefore you cannot know infinite. your arguing that you can understand the implications of infinite and i accept this, i to know the ramifications.

- i did not say i cant understand the implications of infinite i have said you cannot grasp with examples what infinite is. give me a example that is concrete of infinite if you can not, your argument fails plain and simple. yes i have demonstrated this claim to have a concrete concept is to have an example there are no examples of infinite. i also, have shown why a finite brain cannot know infinite numbers, or cannot no what it means to have no edge. math is based on this, books have been written about this, i dont know why im even arguing it, it is a ludicris point.

-wrong. i dont understand what quantum non-locality is but i accept it based on experiments that can be repeated. i accept infinite based on mathematical axioms.and i accept nothings implications based on logic and reason, plus its  juxtaposition from something.

 

show me a concrete example of infinite.?
show me logically how variant forms of nothing can occur( while not being something).?
and tell me why if nothing did create something why does that first cause not have to have a cause?

please answer these questions.

- Yes, fair enough. I guess I badly worded what I was trying to say. When I say, 'just because you don't understand infinity, doesn't mean no one else can,' I mean that- just because you, or any or all of us don't understand infinity (assuming we don't), does not logically imply (of itself) that it is not possible to. Just because person A does not understand concept x, does not mean that it is logically impossible for person A, or any other, to understand concept x. Granted, you are saying that the nature of the particular concept at hand- infinity- implies that this is the case. I don't think you've demonstrated this, however, and I also think that this means that you are saying a bit about the nature of infinity (it's not able to be understood by us), and are hence understanding it.

- I don't think this is a particularly strong point for you, and this is the point I was using the red brain case to argue against. When you say that the brain is a finite piece of matter, and a thought (even though it is intangible) is simply a semblance of electrons in a finite area of space- to this I agree. Yet, I do not think it implies the next step- just because the brain is (physically) finite, doesn't mean it can't comprehend what it is like to be not-finite. So, I mentioned the red brain. The brain is a particular colour. But we are able to comprehend other colours. I think that perhaps you are on a bit of a reductionist track here.

Your other point, however, was strong- we can conceptualise only what we have encountered in experience. I made the point, however, that we can use processes of thought to deduce other concepts which we have not encountered in experience. A person can know two concepts, A and B, and from A and B he can logically deduce the existence or nature of a third concept, C, even though he has not had experience of this concept C.

- Again, just because I cannot point to a particular thing and say, 'that's an example of infinity,' doesn't mean one can't grasp the nature of it. See above paragraph.

- Nothing is something. It is nothing. Nothing and something are not mechanistically, rigidly exclusive concepts, just like objective and subjective are not.

[Necrosis]

some good points, and i glad to see at least your acknowledging my points, just have to flesh out the weak points from the strong i guess. my response is in the atheist thread. because we are arguing on three threads, not being condescending at all.

[logical?]

Yes, I'm not trying to convince you at all. I just disagree with your points and am trying to argue against them. We've both made some weak points.

[Necrosis]

LMAO....

you started off with bullshit so i wont bother reading the rest...soo you r saying is that the thought process is a form of "oxidation" LMAO

robert penrose did some work with microtubules..google it..if you had mentioned that i'd have taken you seriously...but from now on your posts will go ignored ...soo i implore you not to post in my threads on the religion board again
thanx..

great arguement. you totally refuted me, funny thing is i havent seen you debate one thing nor make one intelligent comment other then read about string theory, read about branes blah blah balh. electrons occupy a particular energy state when mentation is produced. mind is a quantum collasper of potentia into actuality much like the observer effect collapses particle potentials(quanta) into particles(actuality), mind is like a quantum computer, to which hasnt been built yet(for a through analysis read roger penrose road to reality, it even has some math if you can count). there is not an infinite numvber of atoms or even sub-atomic particles in your brain, i could have said neurons, but fundamentally quanta are the real substrate .again care to DEBATE ME or do you wish to remain in your world of ignorance were you can pretend to sound smart but can provide anything other then a copy and paste. shit you havent even done that. and i dont know whats with the dickhead like tone, i said you sounded intelligent and asked you to clarify some points but you come back with bullshit. you dont have a clue about anything your talking about so you keep saying, read this read that, ok so whats your interpretation of it? and what is your point, you havent made one. MAKE YOUR OWN POINT.

[Necrosis]

what your asking by the way is like asking fish to prove water. "someone discovered water but it sure wasnt the fishes" -geingereich

[logical?]

what your asking by the way is like asking fish to prove water. "someone discovered water but it sure wasnt the fishes" -geingereich

ROFL.

[ToxicAvenger]

great arguement. you totally refuted me, funny thing is i havent seen you debate one thing nor make one intelligent

blah blah


here is what u wanna read before u come to me with a valid argument

http://www.consciousentities.com/penrose.htm

[Necrosis]

you seem to believe in theories with no testable predictions. like string theory. the graviton is the only prediction i can think of that can be tested anywere close to soon. even that does not directly support the theory.

also, i have a degree in neuroscience, and let me be the first to tell you that noboby knows WHAT consciousness is. people seem to think it is a epiphenomenon of matter(the brain)but either way no proof exists, just theories like your proposing.

www.sheldrake.com

or search rupert sheldrake, its about morphic resonance, and people have used this and holographism to explain storage of memories outside of the brain. similar to jungs collective unconscious. but again this is a theory so stop saying read this read that and give me a interpretation in your own words evidence for your beleif. many have likened mind to a quantum computer, some oppose, what does that prove. i tend to think of consciousnous as a seperate phenomenon apart from the brain, similarly to eccles proposal. however, im not a dualist so i lean towards goswamis view however, unproved it may be. penrose worked with eccles, i read the papers. your point again would be? that penrose has a threory,and others have different theories. i like his theory for sure, avoids homonuclus.

[ToxicAvenger]

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html