{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/11/2015 6:07:14 AM
1
wow,
you are continuing like you didnt understand anything in my reply to you.
you are talking in terms based on our shallow perceptions.
what are your ideas of cause and effect based on?
your view of time?
It is just outright ridiculous to try to apply our petty views of causality to a pre timespace state.
A phrase like 'come from' has no meaning before the universe so thats why its stupid to ask 'what came before what came before the universe?'
English
-
Edited by Æsir: 9/11/2015 6:11:13 AMI continued because apparently you aren't capable of understanding that your argument is a logical fallacy which inherently renders it an invalid argument. All you are doing is contradicting yourself.
-
the logic we live by is ruled by forces that work differently on different levels. if you really BELIEVE that what is logical in this universe has any bearing on whatever was before then we have nothing more to talk about. you offer no reason why you think this please explain why the specific rules within this universe would apply to anything OUTSIDE this universe? huh? HUH!?
-
You are saying that the universe is evidence of a creator god and using the first cause argument, you then tell me that I can't possibly understand what happened before the universe began yet that is what you are doing. When you come up with an argument that isn't hypocritical we'll talk until then just shut up, you are making yourself look like a moron.
-
of course im not saying i understand it, silly. im saying its beyond our understanding, beyond our logic. HE is beyond our comprehension. but i dont have to understand something to know it.
-
[quote]but i dont have to understand something to know it[/quote] Another hypocritical statement from you, you are saying that you don't need to understand something to know it but I do? Like I said, until you come up with an argument that isn't hypocritical just shut up.
-
if you're talking about a logical scientific principle then yes, a person would be expected to understand something if they claimed to 'know' it. but im not being a hypocrite because im talking about something in a different context. example. we are on top of a tall building and im scared because of the heights but then on ground level im not scared but i haven't become a hypocrite, we are just in a different context. nother example, A person cannot prove infinity. no one can supply infinite anything, nor can anyone truly imagine infinity because we have finite imaginations. we just walk around with this vague notion of something that it is so much that it never stops. thats similar to how i know something that i dont understand, unlike you, who you need a very clear and detailed explanation if you wanted to talk about it because you couldnt explain something that you dont understand. we are talking about radically different ideas and ways of looking at existence so why would i be a hypocrite for not being constrained by your shortcomings? thats like me calling you a hypocrite because your ideas dont follow the same logic as the Koran.
-
Your first example in no way relates to the topic at hand and your second example is hypocritical, you are saying you don't need to understand your version of infinity but I have to understand mine, seriously dude I suggested you shut up a couple of times but you keep coming back making yourself look more stupid each time. I hate to tell you but I haven't engaged you in an argument about whether or not there is a god, I have been arguing that your reasoning behind the existence of a god is fundamentally flawed.......which it is.
-
[quote]I have been arguing that your reasoning behind the existence of a god is fundamentally flawed[/quote] The existence of a god only has to be logical if it came from OUR universe! youre just whining and saying 'its not fair! god has to play by the rules just like everybody else!' no. he doesnt. what he decides to do doesnt have to, nor will it make any sense to you. you are not given the knowledge of everything that ever was, is, or ever could be, so i can say that i have at least attempted (twice now) to explain to you why i am not being a hypocrite even if you dont accept the premise. you are showing a lot of weakness in the resolve of your idea by not responding to the question i posed previously, What we call logic (cause and effect and such) is based on the laws of physics found inside of our universe and the interaction of the forces within. Question, why would something beyond this universe be held to logical rules that only have any meaning inside of said universe? i know its a toughy (which is why you couldnt answer the first time) so you can just not respond and i'll take it as an acknowledgment that you can finally see the light.
-
I am gonna go ahead a sum up this argument as simply as I can and hopefully you will see how stupid you are being. "god must exist because something can't come from nothing" "that is flawed because God must have come from nothing" "nuh-uh, the laws of this universe don't count before the universe" "you're being hypocritical, you should stop before you make fool of yourself" "nuh-uh, [irrelevant illogical statement]" "you're still being hypocritical" "nuh-uh because......things" You don't understand that all you have done is weaken your own argument, here's how. You have been staunchly defending the fact that the laws of this universe didn't apply before this universe existed.......so basically you have been saying that this universe could well have popped into existence without a creator god because the laws of this universe didn't apply yet. You have argued yourself into a corner which you can't get out of without some serious back pedalling and a full re-evaluation of your argument. I told you to stop arguing or you'd make an idiot of yourself, I warned you.
-
At no point did i say "god must exist because something cant come from nothing" that sounds like a sherlock holmes deduction of the origins of the universe. and then you misquote me again (not just in words but in meaning) "So basically you have been saying that this universe could well have popped into existence without a creator god because the laws of this universe didn't apply yet." This assumes the pre universe realm would have already existing properties that allow for the presentation of a universe. i would never go so far out of my way to invent some special outer universe conditions for which i have no proof to explain something i dont understand. thats a job for the scientists. Let me tell you what a learned person reading our conversation would see Me: here is an explanation for existence that is superior to any scince has to offer. You: you cant say that Me: why? You: because. Me: i have the confidence to offer my ideas and stand behind them, would you like to share an explanation that you have confidence in? You: you're stupid, you're a moron, you're an idiot Me: Its becoming increasingly obvious to me that you know very little about this subject matter either religiously, scientifically or even philosophically. it seems the sole patch of ground you stand on consists of nothing more than disregarding anything that doesnt fit into your narrow view blinded by ignorance (in the same sense that everyone is ignorant) leaving you with only the option of personal insults in a desperate attempt to give your reply the slightest sense of petty patronization. So, if you please, would you be so kind as to offer any other idea that even comes close to explaining the universe as mine? or do you admit that its better than anything you've ever heard? You: ... (im waiting)
-
You implied it, that's more than enough. It is clear that you have been destroyed on both a philosophical and scientific level. You are the only one that can't see that.
-
so you got nothing? just insults and circular logic? no actual ideas or thoughts? ive reread everything you typed but i cant tell what or if you actually think. can you offer anything? anything at all? just one comment, one sentence, one word that you actually think for yourself and isnt just a tear at someone else's thoughts? or are you really so vacant?
-
Edited by Æsir: 9/11/2015 12:39:05 PMAt no point have I argued what the origin of the universe could be, and unlike you I am not narcissistic enough to presume I have the answer, just that your argument is fundamentally flawed, which it is. I am not telling you that your conclusion is absolutely wrong, just that your justification of how you reached your conclusion is.
-
so we agree, you offer nothing but unfounded criticism for other peoples ideas while supplying no substituting explanations. So a hundred and fifty years ago you were the guy saying 'its not evolution, i dont know what it is, but i know it aint that!' alright thank you for your time, now i believe you're needed in rome to tell them its not the lead in the water making everybody crazy. if you only came here to say that your limited idea of a god must abide by the laws of a universe he has yet to create then you have succeeded in your great deed. im sure we are all impressed by how many times you repeated yourself even though it didnt make sense the first time. but i cant help myself, let me just lay it out one more time for posterity. 1. we know the universe had a beginning (according to our specific perspective of time) 2. we know that the laws of physics governing the operations of this universe break down and become meaningless as you approach this point. 3. ANY theory regarding this point or beyond would not be testable or falsifiable, just pure belief 4. ANY theory regarding the singularity itself would not be expressed in any recognizable mathematical language that exists today (our current understanding of math doesnt work) so it becomes clear that science can never have a better theory than religion (because science cant probe non existence) all they can do is steal religious ideas and slap a new name on it. Multiverse, infinite came from no where, cant see it. great ideas guys Our universe popped from nothing. how? why?...how? this is really the kind of stuff they talk about. its embarrassing. And that whoever it was that created the universe, according to all physicists ever, would not be bound by the rules, laws, and logic of the universe he is bound to create. (because it is plain and clear that the laws that determine our logic do not exist prior to our universe) and thus would not require an infinite regression (like it would using the laws of our universe, which HE ISNT)
-
Once again you are just weakening your own argument, you are saying that the laws of this universe don't exist prior to this universe. That means that the universe just popping into existence is just as, if not more feasible than a creator god. The fact is you have not offered one piece of evidence or even a lingering thought that gives your argument any credibility whatsoever, all you have done is weaken your own argument further. Your op was a logical fallacy and all you have done is help me prove that.
-
A universe just popping into existence is just as, if not more feasible than a creator god? cool dude, i didnt know that. of course for me to fully except this premise i would like to see your calculations. im a big fan of odds and probabilities so of course im very excited to see these fascinating equations you used to come to this stern conclusion. please hurry, i want to make sure anybody who reads this thread doesnt think youre just talkin out your butt.
-
But that would be using laws of this universe which you have constantly argued don't apply prior to the existence of this universe.........seriously do you actually think, or do you just type the first idiotic nonsense that pops into your head?
-
ya that is stupid idea. when someone posted it i couldnt even laugh, i just felt embarrassed for him. first he says that without our physics, god and no god are equally probable, THEN he says that even those invented probabilities dont apply! Its like the poor guy is arguing with himself, and both sides are losing.
-
.......hmmmmm, I think I have broken your brain.
-
oh, my bad, it was just you the whole time. hey, by any chance do you have multiple personalities? and are those personalities mentally challenged? it would explain a lot. obviously you cant figure out if god is very probable, not very probable, or if probabilities have no meaning at this point id be blown away if you could count to 1. but i do love your replies, they make me feel so nostalgic, like something i would have written in middle school, if i hadnt received an education and was dumb, deaf and blind. i cant say youve offered anything close to intellectual for our little chat but i can still enjoy a conversation in which i can spread knowledge, share wisdom and offer a fellow destiny fan some advice on how to not fail life. (even if in vain)
-
You haven't shared any knowledge or wisdom, you have spent this entire conversation contradicting yourself and showing that you are unable to think in a logical manor. You've strengthened my argument while weakening yours.
-
oh, calm down. i was just playing. you dont gotta get all serious and defensive. i really was just having fun, not trying to be mean spirited i just love talking about this stuff. but you seem to just be copying and pasting at this point so if you want to post one more 'i know you are but what am i' so you can have the last word and some small sense of accomplishment then feel free. honestly i hope one day you will be able to contribute to this conversation, i'd be interested in what you actually have to say. til then, thanks for the chat and of course, GOD BLESS!!!!
-
Wow, you truly are delusional, kinda sad really.
-
BTW, from what i've seen on here, you should be a republican campaign manager, you have all the skills, dont talk about how incompetent i am, just focus all energy on attack ads against the opponent. and make sure you attack him personally, thats how you get all the dummies to get on your side. i wish you and the trumpster good luck next year.
-
Ad hominem huh, that's you admitting defeat in this argument.
