• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

Craig4 said:
Care to show your work on that one? Secondly you still haven't answered my question, why is your philosophy in any way better that "we don't know"? What does your philosophical answer lead us to that is better than "we don't know"? "We don't know" is a far more satisfying answer and certainly more exciting than a philosophical answer that leaves us looking nowhere.
Click to expand...

I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;

If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?
 
Last edited:
tazanastazio said:
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;

If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?
Click to expand...

Is there something wrong with the answer "I don't know yet, but we're working on it."?
 
arthwollipot said:
Is there something wrong with the answer "I don't know yet, but we're working on it."?
Click to expand...

I didn't want to over-complicate matters, but choice D) implies what you said. Furthermore, "... but we are working on it..." was not included in Craig4's initial assertion.

Additionally "...but we are working on it..." implies the acknowledgment of something to look forward to work towards achieving. Which again nullifies in itself choice C) and leads to the only other remaining three choices. Let's take choice D) which is the only remaining to be examined. This allows only for one or two possibilities (hint depending how you see it). Can you guess it/them? Second hint: Unless you consider Hawking a philosopher, SCIENCE has nullified choice D).

From the two remaining, being like I already said that everything as far as we can think of had a cause, even if the in between venue was an arbitrary occurrence, the cause of the cause ...of the cause of the Universe, could not have simply popped out of an absolute nothingness. If my life depended on it, I'd bet on choice A).

You, being a rational human being, working your way backwards, x-ing the least possible correct answer first, how would You work towards increasing Your chances?
 
Last edited:
tazanastazio said:
You, being a rational human being, working your way backwards, x-ing the least possible correct answer first, how would You work towards increasing Your chances?
Click to expand...
I, as a rational human being, would listen to what the scientists say, because as a rational human being I realise that they are likely to know a damn sight more about the subject than I do, since I have never studied tertiary-level mathematics, physics and astrophysics, and I haven't spent the entirity of my career researching the field, and they have.
 
tazanastazio said:
Additionally "...but we are working on it..." implies the acknowledgement of something to look forward to work towards achieving.
Click to expand...

That's right. That's because there is a scientific framework that is built upon, step by step.

You, however, have no understanding of science. You claimed "time doesn't exist" which was shot down with two easy forms of evidence. (Falsification of your "hypothesis") You have no framework for your word salad nonsense that you keep spamming here. :p

You really don't understand basic logic at all do you? :p
 
arthwollipot said:
Is there something wrong with the answer "I don't know yet, but we're working on it."?
Click to expand...

Of course there isn't. A good scientist would always be happy when a bad hypothesis is falsified because that narrows the scope of the next hypothesis.

Things take time. :)
 
tazanastazio said:
.....and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else.
Click to expand...

How many times have you been shown evidence that this is incorrect?

Can you predict radioactive decay in one atom......nope.

"It is impossible to predict when an individual radioactive atom will decay. The half-life of a certain type of atom does not describe the exact amount of time that every single atom experiences before decaying. Rather, the half-life describes the average amount of time it takes for a large group of amounts to reach the point where half of the atoms have decayed."
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/0...lf-life-of-a-radioactive-material-be-changed/
 
tazanastazio said:
\
From the two remaining, being like I already said that everything as far as we can think of had a cause, even if the in between venue was an arbitrary occurrence, the cause of the cause ...of the cause of the Universe, could not have simply popped out of an absolute nothingness. If my life depended on it, I'd bet on choice A).\
Click to expand...
If my life depended on it, I'd do the math and present it to others for their verification and hope for confirmation and validation of my claim.

If my life didn't depend on it, which yours does not, I'd probably just get stoned and wax philosophically on nonsense.
 
Deadie said:
If my life depended on it, I'd do the math and present it to others for their verification and hope for confirmation and validation of my claim.

If my life didn't depend on it, which yours does not, I'd probably just get stoned and wax philosophically on nonsense.
Click to expand...


I did the math. You either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

As far as getting stoned, along with anything else, suit yourself.
 
Last edited:
tazanastazio said:
I did the math. You either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
Click to expand...
You can't do any basic mathematics, remember? When you first started spamming your religious nonsense on the Skeptic Society forum, you made this hilarious claim.

"CALCULUS PROVES INFINITY, I SIMPLY APPLIED IT TO EXISTENCE, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND MATTER NON OF WHICH COULD SPRING OUT OF AN ABSOLUTE NOTHING AND NOWHERE, AND FORM/EVOLVE FROM ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN FROM WITHIN THE INFINITE."
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28465&p=594527&hilit=greece#p594527

When we asked you to show us your calculations using calculus, you admitted that you didn't actually know what calculus was.:p

So show us where you have provided mathematical support for your religious claim?
 
tazanastazio said:
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. 'I don't know' is the start of the journey, not the end. Admitting you don't know something, as well as a useful exercise in humility, helps to define the area in need of further research or exploration.

tazanastazio said:
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices;
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. It would lead us to consider other options, alternative explanations, different perspectives, plus again leading to the idea that one doesn't know everything.

tazanastazio said:
perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Click to expand...

Now you simply invent some numbers to make your already-settled conclusion look more like science. If you disagree, do please share how you arrived at these percentages.

tazanastazio said:
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;
Click to expand...

And again you repeat your earlier error. You claim the universe must have a cause whilst maintaining that 'the Infinite' does not need one, without any justification at all.
Your appeal to 'reason' and 'a good bet' is just you stroking your own ego and trying to get us to go along with it.
Not going to happen, I'm afraid, at least not without more support that 'tazanastazio says so'.

tazanastazio said:
If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?
Click to expand...

I'm finding it hard to conceive of a scenario in which I might find myself having to make this choice in those circumstances, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume this has actually happened.
I would choose 'C', 'I don't know'.
The safe bet, for me, would be not to assume that I knew everything about everything, and stake my life on my egotism. I would rather admit my shortcomings, and accept the possibility that I might be wrong about something.
 
tazanastazio said:
I thought it was self evident, but if you insist;

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet, and you don't have to admit it, just think about it;

If your life depended on the correct answer, which one would you pick?
Click to expand...

Something would leak YOU to pick an answer other than D but it's not probability.
 
Thor 2 said:
Perhaps you could detail some of the shortcomings of the scientific method. I have no idea what you mean about conventions as a shortcoming, you will have to explain/elaborate on this.

Science hasn't failed in any pursuit of knowledge and understanding. That would only be true if every person threw their hands up and said "I give in" when trying to explain a phenomena.* Actually even this would not indicate a failure of the scientific method, just a failure of people to apply it.


* Only the religious do this.
Click to expand...

1)The minimal increment assumption by Planck, which brought about his constant; and any constant for that matter (Avocado's constant, the term "mole." As if Ions, Atoms and Molecules were beans in a bag (so we could actually count them one by one); regardless the type, black, pinto, or cranberry; and country of origin; Hydrogen, Nitrogen or Oxygen: they all where ABOUT 6.022140857 × 10^23).

2) The term "potential energy" as if physicists could calculate how many bean soups I ate to climb on a ledge, with a rock of my back which I would later drop on a lever.

The above assumptions work because humanity duels on a planet and not in the microcosm.
 
Craig4 said:
Something would leak YOU to pick an answer other than D but it's not probability.
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak said:
No, it wouldn't. It would lead us to consider other options, alternative explanations, different perspectives, plus again leading to the idea that one doesn't know everything.
Click to expand...

D) allows only for one/two possibilities:

1) The Universe was always there.
2) The Universe is infinite.

See Hawking's theory about that.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
You can't do any basic mathematics, remember? When you first started spamming your religious nonsense on the Skeptic Society forum, you made this hilarious claim.

"CALCULUS PROVES INFINITY, I SIMPLY APPLIED IT TO EXISTENCE, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND MATTER NON OF WHICH COULD SPRING OUT OF AN ABSOLUTE NOTHING AND NOWHERE, AND FORM/EVOLVE FROM ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN FROM WITHIN THE INFINITE."
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28465&p=594527&hilit=greece#p594527

When we asked you to show us your calculations using calculus, you admitted that you didn't actually know what calculus was.:p

So show us where you have provided mathematical support for your religious claim?
Click to expand...
.

True I have not had the chance to delve in the depths of calculus, yet.
But you bragging about having extensive knowledge of "Maths" how do you neglect, or rather pretend not to notice that,

The main reason Calculus was invented, was to approach mathematically the Unapproachable (the infinite as far as we humans could ever calculate), such as, Instantaneous Velocity.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12822499&postcount=1


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12840776&postcount=110

You really can't remember anything you posted a day ago, can you? :p
Click to expand...

Matthew,

Obviously you can tell the difference between the above two statements; whose intelligence you really insult here, really?
For the sake of any of those who found themselves in a skeptics site, and might just somehow still get duped by your linguistic maneuverings and swerves:

Yes I do have a watch, no I don't think it can work backwards.

(with other words, watches are made to calculate the segmented period from sun-up to sun-up; the concept "time" is invented to measure the rate of movement, change, and physical deterioration. Watches with other words measure the effect of gravity, or environment on intelligent beings that could read them (that's why dogs don't carry watches). But even watches are affected by gravity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom