Moderated Infinity!!!

[Chanakya]

Ah, I made the honors list, I see. Now I'll have to start practicing my winning speech, right? Just in case I bag the oscar, I mean?

But I protest the inclusion of that arrant impostor Steve. His pathetic post, that said "dupe", is nothing more than an irrefragrable contraction of the term "duplicate". Indicating merely that he'd pressed "Submit" twice, and was deleting the extra post. He is an arrant interloper who wouldn't know a Christian apologist if one ran up his leg and bit him on his bum, far less defend said apologists, unlike the rest of us. I demand that his candidature be revoked forthwith from this august list.

Fie, Steve. Begone, in everlasting shame, thou arrant whatsit.

 

[Leumas]

The Apologetic of "Not All Christians"

Note: on Christian forums... when one debunks Jesus or his sky daddy... or the apologetics of apologists... the Christian members take it as a PERSONAL offense and start to attack the PERSON who never attacked them but rather just stated facts about imaginary characters in fairy tales.

All of them? It sounds like you're setting yourself up to make a no true Scotsman claim.

Thanks for that laugh and yet another proof of your concern to defend the reputation of Christian forums... QED!!!

I have just had a thought that made me laugh for a bit.

This wily but despicable apologetic ruse that many christian apologists use to defend their blind faith...

Every time an atheist points out the sordid turpitude in the Christian theology or tenets or fairy tales or practices or politics or beliefs....

The apologists scurry to jump in to retort that not all christians do that or the other.

Which is of course just another way of reframing the fallacy below... And then they proceed to attack the person of the atheist for daring point out the ignobility of the christian theology.

 

[Thermal]

It's kind of sad how much time is spent requoting and reposting things that have no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. I mean, I didn't used to understand seppuku, but lately...

 

[Leumas]

Ah, I made the honors list, I see. Now I'll have to start practicing my winning speech, right? Just in case I bag the oscar, I mean?

But I protest the inclusion of that arrant impostor Steve. His pathetic post, that said "dupe", is nothing more than an irrefragrable contraction of the term "duplicate". Indicating merely that he'd pressed "Submit" twice, and was deleting the extra post. He is an arrant interloper who wouldn't know a Christian apologist if one ran up his leg and bit him on his bum, far less defend said apologists, unlike the rest of us. I demand that his candidature be revoked forthwith from this august list.

Fie, Steve. Begone, in everlasting shame, thou arrant whatsit.

How does it feel to be a full member of the "us" now?? You worked hard for it... congratulations.

 

[Leumas]

It's kind of sad how much time is spent requoting and reposting things that have no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. I mean, I didn't used to understand seppuku, but lately...

That is indeed what your concerted posts are all about... wafting mephitic red herrings to draw attention away from the facts about your fellow Christian Apologists denying infinity from one side of their mouths and then affirming it for their sky daddy from the other side of their mouths.

 

[Chanakya]

It's kind of sad how much time is spent requoting and reposting things that have no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. I mean, I didn't used to understand seppuku, but lately...

This is so very cringe, this business, that it's actually painful. Every which way painful.

And yet they're difficult to simply unsubscribe from and keep away from, these threads. Sounds completely perverse, but somehow it's ...enjoyable is hardly the word, but they're kind of ...addictive, these weird threads.

There now, I've done it again. I'm going to be called a QED one more time, and a Tribal one at that.

 

[junkshop]

Oh, Leumas....

 

[Dr.Sid]

This is so very cringe, this business, that it's actually painful. Every which way painful.

And yet they're difficult to simply unsubscribe from and keep away from, these threads. Sounds completely perverse, but somehow it's ...enjoyable is hardly the word, but they're kind of ...addictive, these weird threads.

There now, I've done it again. I'm going to be called a QED one more time, and a Tribal one at that.

If it's trolling, it's indeed elaborate one. I don't think it is though.

 

[jsfisher]

That Leumas continues to assert Steve's post of "dupe" was a personal attack is incredibly amusing to me and very telling to all but one of us.

 

[Steve]

Ah, I made the honors list, I see. Now I'll have to start practicing my winning speech, right? Just in case I bag the oscar, I mean?

But I protest the inclusion of that arrant impostor Steve. His pathetic post, that said "dupe", is nothing more than an irrefragrable contraction of the term "duplicate". Indicating merely that he'd pressed "Submit" twice, and was deleting the extra post. He is an arrant interloper who wouldn't know a Christian apologist if one ran up his leg and bit him on his bum, far less defend said apologists, unlike the rest of us. I demand that his candidature be revoked forthwith from this august list.

Fie, Steve. Begone, in everlasting shame, thou arrant whatsit.

One simple word. It's going to haunt me for the rest of my days. If only I had added QED!!!.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes to you they are because of your stance as a defender of Christian Apologists... I get that... QED!!!

yet again from your viewpoint of consternated concern to defend Christian Apologists you do not realize that y'all are concertedly attacking me personally... that is why I yet again say QED!!!

Nixon's list was better.

Seriously, you should call this list "black eyes". Then you can make another list of your triumphs and call it "feathers in my cap".

Yossarian!!!!!!!!!

 

[GDon]

Re potential vs actual infinities, these are ideas of the finite mind.
Re actual infinity, has anyone proposed a theorum which required an actual infinity (measurement) to make the theorum work?

It's a good question, LarryS. I can't really speak to the concepts involved, way out of my comfort zone!. AFAICT Craig seems to be saying that there are no actual infinities, so a universe existing eternally within time cannot exist, since one can't transverse an actual infinity of time. I.e. it would take an infinity to get to "now", which is impossible. So no "actual infinity". Craig's conclusion: the universe had a starting point. (I'm not saying I agree, just what I think he's saying!)

On the other hand, Craig accepts there are "potential infinities", an unending sequence where you start with a number and you can continually add one to it.

Leumas is clearly getting confused by those two different concepts. I hope he can kindly and patiently explain his point, and we can turn this thread into a productive discussion around the concept of "infinity". Leumas, lead the way! The floor is yours!

 

[Leumas]

....
Leumas is clearly getting confused by those two different concepts. I hope he can kindly and patiently explain his point, and we can turn this thread into a productive discussion around the concept of "infinity". Leumas, lead the way! The floor is yours!

The confusion is only yours I assure you.... and any clarity you have about it is due to you self-projecting your confusion onto me.

...
But... do you know what a "potential infinity" is and what an "actual infinity" is and what is the difference if you think there is one and can define either?

I asked you to explain what you think and of course you never managed to give any.... you just went on to EQUIVOCATE me with some Christians you know.

I am not confused about infinity at all... only Christian Apologists and Other theistic apologists are confused about it because of their fairy tales.

... as evinced by this post... as well as

this

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

and this

One of the common claims which is utilized in arguments for the existence of God is that actual infinities cannot exist, implying that there cannot be an infinite regress of causal events in the history of the universe. If there cannot be such an infinite regress, then there must be some First Cause. Theologians then put forth other arguments attempting to show that this First Cause must be God. Blake Giunta, a Christian apologist,

And this

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

And here have a look how wrong you are... QED!!!

• Why Islam Is True E08: Infinity Is an Imaginary Concept
• Al Ghazali and the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress
• Creator of The Creator: The Problem of the Infinite Regress

And Temporal finitism

Temporal finitism is the doctrine that time is finite in the past. The philosophy of Aristotle, expressed in such works as his Physics, held that although space was finite, with only void existing beyond the outermost sphere of the heavens, time was infinite. This caused problems for mediaeval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian philosophers who, primarily creationist, were unable to reconcile the Aristotelian conception of the eternal with the Genesis creation narrative

And there is no god infinite or otherwise... the only confusion there, is on your behalf who believes in Imbecilic Design and hopes one day the DiscoverHoodwinking Institute for Peddling Jesus will manage to bribe enough venal "scientists" to ratify its creation myth disguised as pseudo-science and thus enable them to subvert science and regress education.

And the claptrap about "potential infinite" and "actual infinite" is utter codswallop... an artifice fabricated by Christian Apologists to confound and befuddle simpletons.

There now... GDon...

.... The floor is yours!

 

[Steve]

It's a good question, LarryS. I can't really speak to the concepts involved, way out of my comfort zone!. AFAICT Craig seems to be saying that there are no actual infinities, so a universe existing eternally within time cannot exist, since one can't transverse an actual infinity of time. I.e. it would take an infinity to get to "now", which is impossible. So no "actual infinity". Craig's conclusion: the universe had a starting point. (I'm not saying I agree, just what I think he's saying!)

On the other hand, Craig accepts there are "potential infinities", an unending sequence where you start with a number and you can continually add one to it.

Leumas is clearly getting confused by those two different concepts. I hope he can kindly and patiently explain his point, and we can turn this thread into a productive discussion around the concept of "infinity". Leumas, lead the way! The floor is yours!

Regardless of his own thread title Leumas has little to no interest in discussing infinity. This thread has exactly the same purpose as all other Leumas threads - a forum to display his anti-Christian zealotry. There is no discussing in these threads. They merely provide an audience for rants.

I will shortly be accused of being a Christian apologist even though my post contains absolutely no comment about Christians.

And, of course, the obligatory "QED!!!".

 

[Leumas]

Regardless of his own thread title Leumas has little to no interest in discussing infinity. This thread has exactly the same purpose as all other Leumas threads - a forum to display his anti-Christian zealotry. There is no discussing in these threads. They merely provide an audience for rants.

I will shortly be accused of being a Christian apologist even though my post contains absolutely no comment about Christians.

And, of course, the obligatory "QED!!!".

So you can read minds at a distance as well as advocate for Christian Apologists... ah well... I am amazed.

But you are proven not able to do either by the post above yours.

 

[Steve]

So you can read minds at a distance as well as advocate for Christian Apologists... ah well... I am amazed.

But you are proven not able to do either by the post above yours.

Called it ! So, so predictable. The proverbial one-trick pony.

And just for you, Leumas, "QED!!!"

 

[Foster Zygote]

So you can read minds at a distance...

I'm pretty sure Steve just read your posts. Your bigotry is transparently obvious.

 

[Leumas]

I'm pretty sure Steve just read your posts. Your bigotry is transparently obvious.

Ah... so when I expose the lies of Christian Liars for Jesus... y'all get concertedly consternated and thermal under the collar and call me a bigot.

But when I expose the lies of Muslim Liars for Allah.... I am cheered on and asked to "bring it on"

I get it now...

Yeah, man, bring it on! ... But, what I'm saying is, if ever this sort of high-octane stuff, coupled with a meme or two, and tinged with sarcasm and ridicule, were apposite, then this is where it's at. When someone is completely impervious to reason, has a hide that a rhinoceros would pray to the gods for but never ever get, has not a smidgen of shame or intellectual honesty --- or else, just perhaps, is sitting there yanking our chains and giggling away to himself at getting us to fall for his shtick --- well then, what you got is exactly what the doctor ordered! Bring it on, and more!

 

[Thermal]

This thermal under the collar thing is getting me a little hot, if I'm being honest here.

 

[Chanakya]

Ah... so when I expose the lies of Christian Liars for Jesus... y'all get concertedly consternated and thermal under the collar and call me a bigot.

But when I expose the lies of Muslim Liars for Allah.... I am cheered on and asked to "bring it on"

I get it now...

facepalm



Let's just say, I didn't then know all the wondrous facets of your brilliant mind and your gentle endearing personality and your inerrant dedication to truth and your complete lack of disingesnuousness, that I do now. At that time I merely thought you oddly strident.

If tomorrow an *actual* Christian presented their *actual* weirdness here, in as "arrant" a disply of complete imperviousness to reason, and of hypocrisy, and disingenuity as well, as in that other thread; well then I guess I wouldn't mind you unloading your nonsense on them in turn, even now. I still probably wouldn't actually egg you on, though, or even ask you, not now; not even if that particular gentleman, who seems to have disappeared, were to return with a fresh load of bull.