TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Mormons on TA.?
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by Subey It is based on the most natural evaluation of nothingness. And that is the observation that Nothing has absolutely zero requirements.

ok, enough with trying to make my point via questions, let's turn to statements: nothing requires a lack of something.

and to be even more redundant: requiring a lack of something is a requirement, shocking, right?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN um, yeah. the atheists are always round my place, with their copy of the "not watching" magazine, making 101 different ads on television, building temples of worship all over town,

don't you mean temples of NOT worshiping?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey You've taken it down the wrong path. The following illustration sucks but its the best I can come up with that hints at the issue. Which is more plausible of the following two scenarios. a) A perfectly sealed safe with nothing in it yesterday, today and forever. b) A perfectly sealed safe with nothing in it yesterday, and today there is a rock in it. In scenario a there are no issues. Of course the safe is empty today. In scenario b the rock is a huge problem. What is the origin of the rock? But in the case of nothingness its even more extreme and difficult to conceptualize, there's no space, no time, no nothing. To nothingness, dimensions and time are all rocks that appear inside the empty safe. *** From that perspective which scenario is reasonable a or b?

c) A perfectly sealed safe with a rock in it yesterday, today and forever.

(and again, to be redundant.. i'm not saying c is more likely than a, i'm just saying a is not more likely than c)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T ok, enough with trying to make my point via questions, let's turn to statements: nothing requires a lack of something. and to be even more redundant: requiring a lack of something is a requirement, shocking, right?

A requirement of you being human is that you are not a rock?

I can spend forever listing things that you lack. The line of reasoning you wish to explore results in an infinite list, and as such you should abandon it.

So, I'm going to butt into this thread and ask this question.

I heard it's against Mormon belief to get blood transfusions.

Who's the expert on this?

me i'm actually mormon and that's bullshit i think you are thinking of jehovas witness but i could be wrong.

mormons have the stupidest set of beliefs ffs

quote:

Originally posted by Subey A requirement of you being human is that you are not a rock? I can spend forever listing things that you lack. The line of reasoning you wish to explore results in an infinite list, and as such you should abandon it.

a requirement of being nothing is that it is not a rock...

......

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T c) A perfectly sealed safe with a rock in it yesterday, today and forever. (and again, to be redundant.. i'm not saying c is more likely than a, i'm just saying a is not more likely than c)

I can't see how the two scenarios are equal.

Something has requirements. It requires itself. Nothing doesn't require itself. It has no characteristics that it has to fulfill.

quote:

Originally posted by Ibizadreamer AG mormons have the stupidest set of beliefs ffs

lol, yea. but they aren't that much worse than others'

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail lol, yea. but they aren't that much worse than others'

true

quote:

Originally posted by Ibizadreamer AG mormons have the stupidest set of beliefs ffs

look dude (and this goes for everyone i guess) i don't know what you're beliefs are or if you have any but ffs i will completely accept them as being yours and support you with that instead of telling you that you are stupid etc. why is everyone so resentfull towards mormons? even if i did worship 20 gods and they all wear pink tutus and live on jupiter who the fuck cares? just relax, don't tax my gig so hard.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey You've taken it down the wrong path. The following illustration sucks but its the best I can come up with that hints at the issue. Which is more plausible of the following two scenarios. a) A perfectly sealed safe with nothing in it yesterday, today and forever. b) A perfectly sealed safe with nothing in it yesterday, and today there is a rock in it. In scenario a there are no issues. Of course the safe is empty today. In scenario b the rock is a huge problem. What is the origin of the rock? But in the case of nothingness its even more extreme and difficult to conceptualize, there's no space, no time, no nothing. To nothingness, dimensions and time are all rocks that appear inside the empty safe. *** From that perspective which scenario is reasonable a or b?

Depends where the safe is and what type of safe, your conveniently omitting information. You could use the exact same example to illustrate the contrary point because where did the safe como from? If there were absolute nothing, it would be like absolute zero everything else would be absorbed by it. As far as being likely both of your options are likely to happen depending on the circumstances. Your argument that nothing is more likely than anything is makes no sense because to define "nothing" you need "something", because by definition nothing is defined as lack of something. Im pretty sure your option a is not statiscally more likely than b unless you define where the safe is, what is was used for, if there are stones around, does anyone has acces to the safe?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I can't see how the two scenarios are equal. Something has requirements. It requires itself. Nothing doesn't require itself. It has no characteristics that it has to fulfill.

Dude define nothing. Nothing requires that there not be something. Nothing is not without requirements. Nothing is only without requirements in a world where there is nothing. And since that world doesnt exist, nothing will require that there not be something.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I can't see how the two scenarios are equal. Something has requirements. It requires itself. Nothing doesn't require itself. It has no characteristics that it has to fulfill.

even if i conceeded that point (which i do not), what is infinity minus 1?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Depends where the safe is and what type of safe, your conveniently omitting information. You could use the exact same example to illustrate the contrary point because where did the safe como from? If there were absolute nothing, it would be like absolute zero everything else would be absorbed by it. As far as being likely both of your options are likely to happen depending on the circumstances. Your argument that nothing is more likely than anything is makes no sense because to define "nothing" you need "something", because by definition nothing is defined as lack of something. Im pretty sure your option a is not statiscally more likely than b unless you define where the safe is, what is was used for, if there are stones around, does anyone has acces to the safe?

Aacck! The safe is just a symbol of a place that is sealed from outside access.

If you bought a 100% normal safe. And it was empty, and you closed it. And I said i'll give you a million dollars if you correctly guess what is inside the safe when you open in 2 minutes later are you going to guess "nothing" or a "dog", a "rock", a "roll of toilet paper" etc.

Of course you are going to say nothing because it's the logical contents of the safe.

Nothing is the logical contents of reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Aacck! The safe is just a symbol of a place that is sealed from outside access. If you bought a 100% normal safe. And it was empty, and you closed it. And I said i'll give you a million dollars if you correctly guess what is inside the safe when you open in 2 minutes later are you going to guess "nothing" or a "dog", a "rock", a "roll of toilet paper" etc. Of course you are going to say nothing because it's the logical contents of the safe. Nothing is the logical contents of reality.

Only if as you said, its sealed from outside acces. If not then your argument doesnt apply, and since most things in life are not sealed from outside access, your argument rarely applies

well nothing wouldnt be in it. There would be air... probably fungus spores... etc

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Dude define nothing. Nothing requires that there not be something. Nothing is not without requirements. Nothing is only without requirements in a world where there is nothing. And since that world doesnt exist, nothing will require that there not be something.

there's no need for those special circumstances

nothing alawys requires a lack of something,

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T even if i conceeded that point (which i do not), what is infinity minus 1?

When I think about infinity its a vanishing point beyond my sight. I can't place a -1 beside a point I can't see.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Dude define nothing. Nothing requires that there not be something. Nothing is not without requirements. Nothing is only without requirements in a world where there is nothing. And since that world doesnt exist, nothing will require that there not be something.

The only time you could define nothing is with something.

nothing requires lots of butth4x to be present

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T there's no need for those special circumstances nothing alawys requires a lack of something,

I'll attack this a little cause it seems like a pretty bizarre point of logic to be hooked on.

Why would a 2 dimensional square require a 4 dimensional tesseract?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey When I think about infinity its a vanishing point beyond my sight. I can't place a -1 beside a point I can't see.

I came up with a better argument because i have nothing to do. In your safe example, statiscally anything is as likely then nothing. Why? If its sealed, and has no outside acces, you have no clues as to what is inside. It follows then that anything you can concieve of could be inside the safe, including nothing. Hence, nothing is bound to happen as often as anything

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Aacck! The safe is just a symbol of a place that is sealed from outside access. If you bought a 100% normal safe. And it was empty, and you closed it. And I said i'll give you a million dollars if you correctly guess what is inside the safe when you open in 2 minutes later are you going to guess "nothing" or a "dog", a "rock", a "roll of toilet paper" etc. Of course you are going to say nothing because it's the logical contents of the safe. Nothing is the logical contents of reality.

when 'nothing' is the default, it might be the logical contents of reality.

what suggests 'nothing' is the default?

edit: to be a bit verbose, and to support the opposite of your argument:
nothing has a probability of 1/infinity to be the default.
anything has a probability of infinity-1/infinity to be the default.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.