|
Mormons on TA.? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
alon.. this is hilarious its like your talking to an answering machine
Like that episode of alvin and the chipmunks where he puts the tape player under his bed and david saville is like "ALVIIIIIIIN" and the tape plays "yes dad" and then dave says some more stuff and the tape ansewrs the questions!
LOL |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
.................................and this statement is based on what? |
It is based on the most natural evaluation of nothingness.
And that is the observation that Nothing has absolutely zero requirements.
This thread needs some graphical aids
 |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
The use of probability is a weak attempt to place a concept into the mind's hand, and not to place the concept onto an actuarial table.
In other words...
Infinity can not be grasped, and doesn't need to be. We can stretch our minds in the direction of infinity, that is enough to acquire a symbolic representation of it to use conceptually.
Nothing comes to the party alone. Anything comes with the burden of answering the question "what is your origin", scientists don't go there. They go as far as a billionth of a second after the big bang.
Once you conceptually examine anything beyond that point nothing's point outweigh's anything's in an argument that is lobsided infinitely to its side. |
yeah thats why scientists call themselves operationalists not essentialists, scientist dont pretend to answer question in absolutes, and less try to answer questions abt the essence of things. also you wrote a lot in your post without saying absolutely anything, if you're gonna pretend to be smart at least meake your post coherent, i mean wtf does "nothing's point outweight's anything's point in an argument that is lobsided infinitely to its side" mean, :wtf: :wtf: |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
yeah thats why scientists call themselves operationalists not essentialists, scientist dont pretend to answer question in absolutes, and less try to answer questions abt the essence of things. also you wrote a lot in your post without saying absolutely anything, if you're gonna pretend to be smart at least meake your post coherent, i mean wtf does "nothing's point outweight's anything's point in an argument that is lobsided infinitely to its side" mean, :wtf: :wtf: |
Your evaluation appears reasonable to you because you are coming from a place that cannot conceptualize what nothingness is relative to anything.
Its a difficult concept to transmit. I may not be able to transmit it. If that is because of a weakness on my part, a weakness on yours, or the inaccessibility of the concept I can not say. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Your evaluation appears reasonable to you because you are coming from a place that cannot conceptualize what nothingness is relative to anything.
Its a difficult concept to transmit. I may not be able to transmit it. If that is because of a weakness on my part, a weakness on yours, or the inaccessibility of the concept I can not say. |
lol, but then again nothingness only exists due to our perception of a lack of "something", if no one percieves nothingness, is it really nothingness. and even at that nothingness doesnt really exists, theres always "something", so all that fancy rethoric means nothing :p. and with respect to nothingness versus anything, i think your just having trouble expressing that you mean that randonmess is more likely to cause certain events more than a complicated explanation, amirite? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by analpie
I also laugh at the hypocrisy of atheists, who condemn religion and religious people for pushing their beliefs onto others, when they do it just as much.
|
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, getting on the tv and telling society how to behave based on their funny adherence to magic.
| quote: | Originally posted by analpie
I think that those who are unwilling to even admit the possibility of a God, yet hide behind science, fail to actually recognize that science is, in itself, of a very tentative nature and exists to further our understanding of what possibility actually is.
If someone had not looked at the stars and said "wow, I wonder what is out there", would we have science as it is? Would we have religion as it is? |
blah blah blah. if you reckon science is as equally tentative as "faith" then its you that is failing to recognise something. at least science is open to change and revision and there to be built upon and improved. intellectual evolution.
know any scientists using a 4000 year old textbook for their "tentative" research? :haha: |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
lol, but then again nothingness only exists due to our perception of a lack of "something", if no one percieves nothingness, is it really nothingness. and even at that nothingness doesnt really exists, theres always "something", so all that fancy rethoric means nothing :p. and with respect to nothingness versus anything, i think your just having trouble expressing that you mean that randonmess is more likely to cause certain events more than a complicated explanation, amirite? |
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? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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? |
|
|
| wienerschnitzel |
| 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?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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) |
|
|
| Subey |
| 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. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
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? |
|
|
|
|
