H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Look, I'm not drunk every day. I know what I said!
Indivisibility and existence
- Thread starter lifegazer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- existence indivisibility
Hyver
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 149
And it appears we have arrived at the root of our problem. As one part of your all encompassing God-Mind-Universe I demand that you commence "hitting the sauce", as it were, on a daily basis.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Err...I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. In fact, I am sure I don't understand what you mean by this, other than the fact that you would like it if I drank more.And it appears we have arrived at the root of our problem. As one part of your all encompassing God-Mind-Universe I demand that you commence "hitting the sauce", as it were, on a daily basis.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
I suspected as much.
?This is probably too complicated for most here to understand... with all due respect. By the way, this saddens me, for I really do want it to be simple.
Take, for example, H's response:
H first dares to suggest that indivisible matter might occupy different space [and time]. This is an exhibition of his logical naivity since - obviously - indivisible matter cannot be separated, by logical default.
His second hope is that zero-dimensional entities can actually have a 4-dimensional existence. The important point to note here, is that 4-dimensional entities have a 4-dimensional existence... and that zero-dimensional entities, do not.
Oh well, such is the nature of second-rate debate. At least he [later] got drunk and told me he liked me, before proceeding to tell me to get a life.
For what it's worth H: if you read all of my threads closely, you will see some original ideas and alot of original approaches to old ideas. So don't lecture me about past 'wise men' that have already addressed everything I am talking about - even before you were born!
Take, for example, H's response:
A very bizarre response.
H first dares to suggest that indivisible matter might occupy different space [and time]. This is an exhibition of his logical naivity since - obviously - indivisible matter cannot be separated, by logical default.
His second hope is that zero-dimensional entities can actually have a 4-dimensional existence. The important point to note here, is that 4-dimensional entities have a 4-dimensional existence... and that zero-dimensional entities, do not.
Oh well, such is the nature of second-rate debate. At least he [later] got drunk and told me he liked me, before proceeding to tell me to get a life.
For what it's worth H: if you read all of my threads closely, you will see some original ideas and alot of original approaches to old ideas. So don't lecture me about past 'wise men' that have already addressed everything I am talking about - even before you were born!
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
No, it's basically confusion and ignorance poorly masked by obnoxious and undeserved overconfidence.
Of course. And only somebody like yourself - one absolutely qualified to cure all confusion and ignorance - could ever hope to cure me of such obnoxiousness and undeserved overconfidence.
Get wise. You're beginning to look dumb. Next thing you know, I'll have to deal with stupid pride too.
Address the relevant content of my thread.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
I did. Here and here.
The fact that you can't understand that your "proof" is nothing but an apparant paradox created by your poor understanding of the definition of an indivisible object is not my fault. The fact that you can't understand that your argument against the existence of the universe is conclusively disproven by the actual existence of the universe is not my fault. The fact that your low self-esteem makes you lash out at those who point out your inadequate reasoning skills is also not my fault.
Z
Variable Constant
There ya go - corrected a few typos.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Or too complicated for you to understand why you're wrong.
As pointed out earlier, your definition of indivisible matter is very different to that which is used and understood by every one else. When you say "indivisible matter" what you are referring to is what most people understand as "a completely homogeneous universe". This is where your confusion arises, because H'ethetheth is referring to individual, indivisible particles existing in a heterogeneous space.
Bummer for photons! Massless dimensionless particles that do not experience the passage of time. Must tell the Sun to stop shining, it's light can't exist.
And don't tell me that I can't use photons as an example because they're part of physics. You're the one who's trying to argue physics here. And failing miserably.
Actually I think lifegazer has a point about original ideas and original approaches. I mean who else in the past has shown the speed of sound to be constant?
Z
Variable Constant
Actually I think lifegazer has a point about original ideas and original approaches. I mean who else in the past has shown the speed of sound to be constant?
There's nothing original about being wrong.
Z
Variable Constant
It's not terribly original, though. Acosmism has been around for quite a long time. As for the approach - it's hard to say, since Dar is trying here to use modern knowledge of matter to disprove its existence.
That much might be considered original, in a sense.
That much might be considered original, in a sense.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Actually, I told you to get a life before I said I like you.
Well, the world of the very small is bizarre by any standard. We don't know the lot of it, but what we know points to bizarreness aplenty. But all of this isn't even really the point.
The point is an argument you have failed to address every single time it was put to you, and it has been put to you many times.
Let's assume you're completely right about cosmology.
Still, whatever matter is behaves exactly the same in your universe as it does in mine. There just aren't any discernable differences between your universe and mine.
So basically, your argument must be flawed because our own eyes demonstrate that your God came up with a way to make stuff that behaves like matter in every single way, exist in something that is a 4-D space in every single way.
Haha... oh, but it is the point.
You admit that we know very little about the "very small". Then you have the cheek to pass judgement about the very small - "bizareness" - and simultaneously berate my argument because of everything that we know.
I see. You're wondering what the point of my philosophy is. You don't think it's worth caring whether my philosophy is true unless it's going to affect mankind.
You say that there aren't any discernible differences between our universes, yet the universe we share is full of people believing in the reality of their humanity and the world within their senses, so we share a world full of BS.
You cannot know what my universe is since it has yet to pass.
Z
Variable Constant
Bingo.
Prove there's some benefit or positive reason for bothering with your universe, and then we'll talk.
You're all like kids in a candy shop. Only interested in bigger and better candy shops. Nothing else matters.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
No, we're like kids in a candy shop who've been told that we're not in the candy shop we thought we were but one that looks and behaves exactly the same as our candy shop in every way down to the smallest detail but which in some ineffable, undetectable and incomprehensible way differs. And then we're asked to care.