Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Atheism is a RELIGION, Same manufacturer but different products

views
     
chatter77
post Yesterday, 11:45 AM

Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,024

Joined: Nov 2017


QUOTE(Spear2 @ Jul 17 2019, 05:09 PM)
I don't have to prove to you cranial size of humanoids over evolutionary timeline is evidence for evolution of human, most scientists/experts have already concluded it is many decades ago, published tons of papers in academic journals, teach undergraduate biology course that is it, even in your secondary textbook I think, etc ...
Saying scientists/experts says this and that don't prove anything. The way I look at it, you just want give an excuse (run away?) from providing the scientific evidence.

QUOTE
Only people like you in denial and yet unable to produce like our discussion, anything substantial except complaining endlessly. Like the post above. Anything to rebut? I don't think anything worth addressing ... it's just more tap dancing, more spins, more denial.
You are entitled to your opinion. Again, I have yet to see any evidence from you in regards to the cranial size and ancestry information. You have yet to prove how such measurement provide or prove such relationship.

QUOTE
Show me one solid research/evidence/analysis ... that supports your view, maybe the discussion will be meaningful then, otherwise it's lepak and coffee ...
*
Again, already provided and I have yet to address your link.
chatter77
post Yesterday, 11:49 AM

Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,024

Joined: Nov 2017


QUOTE(Spear2 @ Jul 19 2019, 11:12 AM)
Did you read the post about BB and article I linked? Obviously not. And it appears you don't even know how BB came to be ... So if your premise for first cause does not rest on BB, what is the logical reason for first cause then?
*
Again, you are entitled to your opinion.

What is the logical reason for first cause? Aiyo, I have been through so many pages explaining the whole thing, and now you ask "what is the logical reason for first cause then"? Why do I need to repeat everything again?

This post has been edited by chatter77: Yesterday, 11:50 AM
Spear2
post Yesterday, 11:53 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,866

Joined: Oct 2017


QUOTE(chatter77 @ Jul 19 2019, 11:45 AM)
Saying scientists/experts says this and that don't prove anything. The way I look at it, you just want give an excuse (run away?) from providing the scientific evidence.
You are entitled to your opinion. Again, I have yet to see any evidence from you in regards to the cranial size and ancestry information. You have yet to prove how such measurement provide or prove such relationship.
Again, already provided and I have yet to address your link.
*
Aha! The spin doctor strikes again! Again endless complaint but no substance.

Why must the evidence please you since it is sufficed for the scientists and experts? Unless you are a prominent scientist, but so far so your posts showed you only have a rudimentary understanding of science.
Spear2
post Yesterday, 11:55 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,866

Joined: Oct 2017


QUOTE(chatter77 @ Jul 19 2019, 11:49 AM)
Again, you are entitled to your opinion.

What is the logical reason for first cause? Aiyo, I have been through so many pages explaining the whole thing, and now you ask "what is the logical reason for first cause then"? Why do I need to repeat everything again?
*
You don't read, you don't want to understand. So you spin and hope others are fooled.
chatter77
post Yesterday, 04:43 PM

Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,024

Joined: Nov 2017


QUOTE(Lionel90 @ Jul 19 2019, 11:42 AM)
Are you stupid or what? Their position is not what happens. Their speed (time taken to finish) is what happens. What are you spinning even after being schooled on the subject of ranking? Don't try and argue the context now. I brought in this as separate argument to show that 1st doesn't always cause 2nd and so on, hence I have spent some sweet time explaining system of ranking to you which you finally acknowledge is merely a name. Don't change the 'context' now. First doesn't cause second to be second, period.
The context began when you questioning on multiple causeless causes whom are independent. I have quoted your original argument which contains the context also. As I said, the causeless cause is independent of anything; so, you cannot put the sequence dependency onto them. It's simply illogical. That is why I said that is just merely a name and change it to X, Y, Z and demonstrate to you that it is still impossible to say there can be more than one causeless cause (per your original context).

Now as for the race, each of the runner subscribes to the numbering system. Per the system, the person who arrives the finish line after the first one has to take 2nd place, he cannot take the 1st place. When you subscribed to such system, you are automatically have dependency on how that system works. So 1st/2nd/etc are no longer merely names.

QUOTE
I have also said dependency is not causal. Say you have lung cancer - probably due to smoking, but you have to to born first, so your mum gives you cancer? That's what you are suggesting here. Stupid isn't it?
Again, the original context was about causeless. If you are causeless, you are not subjected to anything, you don't have any weaknesses, you won't be subjected to the cancer at all. Do you understand?

So, no, I'm not suggesting what you are saying above. Again, the context is different. Despite explaining that my point is for different context, why did you insist to use it in different context?

QUOTE
I think it's very obvious that if you put 'restriction' without any justification on it, then it's already a fallacy, hence it's not logical deduction. I mean, it's kinda obvious that I have been trying to falsify your 'logical' deduction right? So, pls answer, is that a restriction and why.
I think you don't get the point. Let me ask you: why "restriction" is the criterion to prove/falsify the claim?

Again, if a mathematician bring a proof for 1+1=2, how by answering the "restriction" question can prove/falsify the proof?

QUOTE
So now it's an argument? No longer something that you think is correct? You keep spinning like this of course I would be pening. Good job on that. So how, you wanna drop the argument on 'infinite series is logical'?
puchongite and Mea Culpa got my point (not necessarily agree with me); so I don't know if it's me spinning or you just simply don't understand the argument?

QUOTE
Sir, pls read the question again ya. "if something never come to existence, how do you say it exist at all? And apart from the first cause, what else could exist without coming into existence?" Don't need to keep repeating the irrelevant answer.
*
I break down the questions:
1) if something never come to existence, how do you say it exist at all?
How? By being eternal. It's already there and exist; doesn't come to existence i.e. not created.

2) And apart from the first cause, what else could exist without coming into existence?
Logically nothing else.

chatter77
post Yesterday, 04:53 PM

Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,024

Joined: Nov 2017


QUOTE(Spear2 @ Jul 19 2019, 11:55 AM)
You don't read, you don't want to understand. So you spin and hope others are fooled.
*
QUOTE(Spear2 @ Jul 19 2019, 11:53 AM)
Aha! The spin doctor strikes again! Again endless complaint but no substance.

Why must the evidence please you since it is sufficed for the scientists and experts? Unless you are a prominent scientist, but so far so your posts showed you only have a rudimentary understanding of science.
*
All I have been demanding here is for you to put forward the evidence for discussion. The way you argue is as if you've already put forward the evidence and the evidence doesn't please me. And you call me spinning?

Like I said be genuine.

Spear2
post Yesterday, 05:07 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,866

Joined: Oct 2017


QUOTE(chatter77 @ Jul 19 2019, 04:53 PM)
All I have been demanding here is for you to put forward the evidence for discussion. The way you argue is as if you've already put forward the evidence and the evidence doesn't please me. And you call me spinning?

Like I said be genuine.
*
Yes I did, and the evidence was presented to you numerous times in the past, which you ignored or dismissed. If you are incapable of basic reasoning, as scientists and experts, even layman, do, either you have low mental ability or you are spinning. Think of me of being kind here.
Lionel90
post Yesterday, 05:36 PM

I lift! Or so I think..
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,987

Joined: Jul 2016
From: Penang


QUOTE(chatter77 @ Jul 19 2019, 04:43 PM)
The context began when you questioning on multiple causeless causes whom are independent. I have quoted your original argument which contains the context also. As I said, the causeless cause is independent of anything; so, you cannot put the sequence dependency onto them. It's simply illogical. That is why I said that is just merely a name and change it to X, Y, Z and demonstrate to you that it is still impossible to say there can be more than one causeless cause (per your original context).

Now as for the race, each of the runner subscribes to the numbering system. Per the system, the person who arrives the finish line after the first one has to take 2nd place, he cannot take the 1st place. When you subscribed to such system, you are automatically have dependency on how that system works. So 1st/2nd/etc are no longer merely names.
*
Here, this is where the marathon analogy started: https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=93249077 I very clearly used that to show you that first don't cause 2nd to be 2nd. It is merely ranking, or name, as you put it. I started the analogy, you follow along, then now you wanna argue about the context?
Wow, you are spinning again after being schooled. Now you wanna spin to about dependency on system... Seriously who is talking about that? Does the 2nd place runner's finishing time (event X) depends on the first place runner's finishing time (event Y)? Yes, or no? No means an event occur later than another event doesn't always depend or caused by the earlier event. Understand this point, admit defeat, stop spinning.

QUOTE
Again, the original context was about causeless. If you are causeless, you are not subjected to anything, you don't have any weaknesses, you won't be subjected to the cancer at all. Do you understand?
So, no, I'm not suggesting what you are saying above. Again, the context is different. Despite explaining that my point is for different context, why did you insist to use it in different context?
I seriously wonder if you actually understand the context of my reply, dependency is not causal, hence my reply; I don't care about your stupid causeless logic here, it's full of fallacies so it's being dealt with separately. Read again: You have to be born first (dependency), so is you getting cancer caused by you being born? No, there is dependency, but no causal link, to make it clear so that you don't spin about context: having a dependency doesn't mean it cannot be causeless, causal is a separate issue from dependency, dependency !=causal. Can't make it any clearer. Understand this point, admit defeat, stop spinning.

QUOTE
I think you don't get the point. Let me ask you: why "restriction" is the criterion to prove/falsify the claim?

Again, if a mathematician bring a proof for 1+1=2, how by answering the "restriction" question canĀ  prove/falsify the proof?
I think you cannot read: "if you put 'restriction' without any justification on it, then it's already a fallacy, hence it's not logical deduction"
Unrelated question as there is no fallacy in it, so no need to falsify. So, it's also a stupid one.

QUOTE
puchongite and Mea Culpa got my point (not necessarily agree with me); so I don't know if it's me spinning or you just simply don't understand the argument?
You can take it as I don't understand your point or whatsoever, your finite series argument is wrong cause you understand infinity wrongly, I have asked you to explain what you understand about infinity to no avail. puchongiteMea Culpa you guys wanna join the party since he quoted you guys? Feel free to do so.

QUOTE
I break down the questions:
1) if something never come to existence, how do you say it exist at all?
How? By being eternal. It's already there and exist; doesn't come to existence i.e. not created.

2) And apart from the first cause, what else could exist without coming into existence?
Logically nothing else.
Wait a minute, so you mean it is eternal by being eternal? I think that's a really good non-explanation. Try again. Or you also don't know? Logical deduction is again, meaning you don't have proof.
Also, only one thing can be eternal by being eternal? I'm sure you don't mean God, but why is it so? And since only one thing can be that, how do you verify it as in confirm that it never came into existence and just being eternal? You know, extraordinary claim, this is also in the realm of discussion of God, but I'm sure you don't mean God, right? Also, while I haven't accepted the answer, where is this eternal being? Or we are still not allowed to talk about it?

This post has been edited by Lionel90: Yesterday, 07:11 PM
Spear2
post Yesterday, 05:44 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,866

Joined: Oct 2017


QUOTE(Lionel90 @ Jul 19 2019, 05:36 PM)
Also, only one thing can be eternal by being eternal? I'm sure you don't mean God, but why is it so? And since only one thing can be that, how do you verify it as in confirm that it never came into existence and just being eternal? You know, extraordinary claim, this is also in the realm of discussion of God, but I'm sure you don't mean God, right? Also, while I haven't accepted the answer, where is this eternal being? Or we are still not allowed to talk about it?
*
So chatter77 cheated, as usual, he slipped in a devious definition and then spin at max speed so you get dizzy enough, you can't see the incoming "I can you can't" cheat ...
Mea Culpa
post Yesterday, 10:42 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,104

Joined: Jan 2009
QUOTE(Lionel90 @ Jul 19 2019, 05:36 PM)
You can take it as I don't understand your point or whatsoever, your finite series argument is wrong cause you understand infinity wrongly, I have asked you to explain what you understand about infinity to no avail. puchongiteMea Culpa you guys wanna join the party since he quoted you guys? Feel free to do so.

*
(condition 1)

universe=big bang=time is finite

time=positive arrow only

time not possible to be - infinity.

time moving into infinite future.

current mainstream model



(condition 2)

universe(s)=cyclic oscillation

time arrow = time forward + time reversal

time return to initial time, so no beginning.

time is finite per time foward + time is finite per time reversal

universeS time = infinite x finite

time is (+)infinite + (-)infinite

speculative model



(condition 3)

univese time forward

time is (-)infinite (infinite past) + infinity into the future.

time=true infinite

law of physics undefined. like before big bang or moment of singularity.

speculative model.

This post has been edited by Mea Culpa: Yesterday, 11:12 PM
Lionel90
post Today, 12:00 PM

I lift! Or so I think..
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,987

Joined: Jul 2016
From: Penang


QUOTE(Mea Culpa @ Jul 19 2019, 10:42 PM)
(condition 1)

universe=big bang=time is finite

time=positive arrow only

time not possible to be - infinity.

time moving into infinite future.

current mainstream model
(condition 2)

universe(s)=cyclic oscillation

time arrow = time forward + time reversal

time return  to initial time, so no beginning.

time is finite per time foward + time is finite per time reversal

universeS time = infinite x finite

time is (+)infinite  + (-)infinite

speculative model
(condition 3)

univese time forward

time is (-)infinite (infinite past) + infinity into the future.

time=true infinite

law of physics undefined. like before big bang or moment of singularity.

speculative model.
*
Wait, I'm not very sure what you are talking about, but he is talking about finite series of causes rather than time, I don't suppose they are the same thing?
Mea Culpa
post Today, 01:40 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,104

Joined: Jan 2009
QUOTE(Lionel90 @ Jul 20 2019, 12:00 PM)
Wait, I'm not very sure what you are talking about, but he is talking about finite series of causes rather than time, I don't suppose they are the same thing?
*
series of universe event= finite time

series of causes not the same. can be infinite or finite.

causes can be finite ,infinite , independent, dependent, dependent branching, independent branching, predictive, random.. one cause affects billions, or billions of causes affects one...etc see what you look for. can be expressed in mathematical polynomial... if its as dead loop can be infinite

This post has been edited by Mea Culpa: Today, 01:47 PM

76 Pages « < 74 75 76Top
 

Switch to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0754sec    2.20    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 20th July 2019 - 03:41 PM