|
Mormons on TA.? (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| wienerschnitzel |
| me i'm actually mormon and that's bull i think you are thinking of jehovas witness but i could be wrong. |
|
|
| Ibizadreamer AG |
| mormons have the stupidest set of beliefs ffs |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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...
...... |
|
|
| Subey |
| 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. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| 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' |
|
|
| Ibizadreamer AG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
lol, yea. but they aren't that much worse than others' |
true |
|
|
| wienerschnitzel |
| 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 cares? just relax, don't tax my gig so hard. |
|
|
| venomX |
| 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? |
|
|
| venomX |
| 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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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? |
|
|
| Subey |
| 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. |
|
|
| venomX |
| 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 :wtf: |
|
|
|
|
