IP 216.73.216.185 has been banned until the end of time because of VPN Detected
If you couldn't possibly be guilty of what you're banned for, the person we banned probably had a dynamic IP address and so do you. Please email soysneed@soyjak.st or post in the /q/ thread.
See http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static for more information.
Image
Commenting
Comment Formatting Options
Want to report a comment? Report the post itself with relevant details.
Muslims and Muhammad though...
Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
Therefore,the universe has a cause.
<
Premise 1 is true for three reasons ... "Nothing" by definition cannot do anything. We never experience something coming from nothing. Every instance of change requires a cause (ALL of our experience verifies this) and something coming from nothing would in fact be an instance of change.
Premise 2 is true for three reasons ...There cannot be an actual infinite amount of "quantitative" events. An actual eternal universe would have reached maximum entropy. The big bang shows that the universe ultimately began to exist.
The cause of the universe would have to be a sentient cause ... A non-sentient eternal state of being could never change from that eternal state apart from a volitional source (the actual cause of time,space,matter and energy would ultimately have to have been in an eternal state of being).The order and complexity of the effect (the universe) points to an intelligent cause.
Mick XISTAS....do we have no basis for our claims?
'Z loves blowing on things, swallowing too
theory state already that the universe was already a thing before the big bang (albeit a more centralized and condensed ball of heat.)
I'm denying the intelligent cause part as it's pretty easy to assume that a flaming condensed heat ball would probably do something
@Chud: The Quran doesn't say Aisha RA's age anywhere, special.
- Reply
I asked Sulaiman b. Yasar whether the semen that gets on to the garment of a person should be washed or not. He replied: A'isha told me: The Messenger of Allah washed the semen, and then went out for prayer in that very garment and I saw the mark of washing on it. (Sahih Muslim 289a)
"I often scraped it (semen) from the garment of the Messenger of Allah with my hand." (Sunan Ibn Majah 537)
"I remember when I found it (semen) on the garment of the Messenger of Allah and I scratched it off." (Sunan Ibn Majah 539)
"I asked Sulaiman bin Yasar about a garment which gets semen on it. 'Should I wash it off or wash the entire garment?' Sulaiman said: 'Aishah said: "Semen used to get on the garment of the Messenger of Allah and he would wash it off his garment, then he would go out to pray wearing that garment, and I could see the marks left on it by washing." (Sunan Ibn Majah 536)
"I used to scrape the Janabah." On another occasion she said: "The semen from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (salla Allah `alayhi wa-sallam)." (Sunan an-Nasa'i 296)
"I used to scrape it (the semen) off the garment of Allah's Messenger and then he offered prayer with it. (Bulugh al-Maram 28)
I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them. (Sahih al-Bukhari 232)
Based on Sahih al-Bukhari 5134 we can still say Muhammad was a diddy but nowhere in the paragraph you gave mentions again
@Chud: @Mick:
Debunked here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MiupfAM3Sb5GNC9HkP58MbhYUQe2JW38-W9QuZ9e2o8/edit?tab=t.0
- Reply
- Reply
What do you mean by this proposition? Are you saying it's the holy book?
That's not the argument.
Yeah. Most Satanists are actually just leftist athiests but I am an actual Satanist (someone who is in opposition to God)
- Reply
It's a controlled greedy person splinter
Problem with P1: There's no logical contradiction entailed had the universe had a first moment, before it existing nothing like how there is nothing north of the north pole. Because there then would have been no time without spacetime (entailed by definition), conservation laws are not broken.
Problem with P2: There's no logical contradiction in the notion of an infinite past. See Roger Penrose's CCC for how an infinite past is compatible with the Big Bang and entropy.
While both premises are maybe true, that'd only lead to the conclusion of that "God maybe exists", which isn't what you're arguing for.
ESL sry
@Chud: This is a fallacy called a false analogy, since the analogy of the "North Pole" depends on the spatiotemporal aspect of the universe for the view of the North Pole to be plausible. It does not explain the notion of absolute nothingness. Conservation laws and spacetime dependencies presuppose that the universe already exists, and therefore, one will be begging the question if the presider is to assume its existence beforehand. A fallacy of appeal to authority is committed if a theory (Penrose's CCC) placed in evidence is not demonstrably logically self-coherent thus, it does not invalidate the assumption. CCC is, therefore, too speculative for it to settle issues regarding actual infinites or entropy reaching singularity. For a cyclical universe to be plausible, entropy must reset to its lowest state. This, however, violates the second law of thermodynamics unless there is an external intervention hence it does establish that an infinite number of cycles before the present-a time before time is impossible truly. You also commited a strawman, misrepresentation of the argument. The premises necessitate a transcendent, sentient cause (volitional, eternal, non-material), consistent with the classical concept of God. The nature of the cause can be inferred from the qualities of the effect order, complexity, and intentionality consistent with the actual premise.
@Imperfene:
2. I referred to CCC in short because I hoped that you understood that explaining an entire cosmological model in 'ru comments is worse than just reading it elsewhere. It's as speculative as any other model.
3. The second theory of thermodynamics isn't violated because, in CCC, the universe at its lowest entropy is the same at its highest. This is why I referenced it so that you perhaps would read it. I can summarize it for you: in CCC, all matter eventually becomes photons (light), which're timeless. If there's no time, there's no space. We thus get the same conditions of the early universe, and it acausally starts over. If you dispute the possibility of acausal effects, I'd be interested in hearing your argument.
I'm not making appeals to authority nor strawmanning you either.
kiss yourself
1. What logical contradiction is entailed by the view that the universe had a first moment, with no time beforehand?
2. What logical contradiction is entailed by a model being "speculative"? Every explanation is speculative because we do not know. KCA relies on the impossibility of the contrary, but I showed that the contrary is possible.
3. What logical contradiction is entailed by matter turning into spaceless-timeless light and thereby resetting entropy? Saying "this can happen only by virtue of an external intervention" presupposes that CCC is invalid, and I see no reason to accept that premise.
To selas paragetai apokleistika apo ta somatidia poy ekpempei o esoterikos ilios tis gis kai o iliakos anemos stin pragmatikotita, den mporei na eiselthei sto magnitiko pedio tis gis. Alla ektrepetai gyro apo ayto. Episis ta chromata toy selas prokaloyntai apo entona stroma energitikon ilektronion poy ekpempontai apo tin poliki mesa stin atmosfaira opoy ayta sygkroyontai me somatidia moriakoy azotoy, moriakoy oxygonoy kai atomikoy oxygonoy. To pio synithismeno chroma toy selas, to prasino, poy ekpempetai apo diegermena atoma oxygonoy ta opoia sygkroyontai me ilektronia chamilis energeias. To skoyro kokkino chroma apo moria oxygonoy otan ayta sygkroyontai me energitika ilektronia
Rodney Cluff who explains:
The aurora is produced exclusively by particles emitted by the Earth's inner sun , and the solar wind actually cannot enter the Earth's magnetic field. But it is deflected around it. The colors of the aurora are also caused by an intense layer of energetic electrons emitted from the polar in the atmosphere where they collide with particles of molecular nitrogen, molecular oxygen, and atomic oxygen. The most common color of the aurora, green, is emitted by excited oxygen atoms colliding with low-energy electrons. The dark red color is from oxygen molecules colliding with energetic electrons.
1. None of this shows that a logical contradiction is entailed by the view that the universe had a first moment, with no time beforehand. Rather you assert that the PSR must be applied, but why should it be applied if the universe began to exist without a cause?
2. CCC and the universe being created by something immaterial, spaceless, and timeless are both speculative. I see no reason to favor any of them. Infinite regresses aren't metaphysically impossible.
3. You refer to "empirical causality", where something comes from something, when supporting a view were something came from nothing. Either way, there are empirical observations which may be acausal (for example: exactly which atoms of a substance will decay during a half life cannot be determined and seems to be completely random, acausally selected). No logical contradiction is entailed.
It's hard to talk with someone who doesn't understand half the things I say.
2. Explain clearly how an infinite, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, etc. entity is more likely than CCC. You can't, since both require assumptions. Those of CCC however are falsifiable.
3. Hilbert's hotel confuses different kinds of transfinite sets. Clearly, the infinity which contains a guest in the first room is different from the infinity that does not, yet both are endless.
This is why I always have to repeat that there was never a moment where the universe didn't exist as moments presuppose time. Again, you don't understand what you're replying to.
Atomic decay was already mentioned.
warrior z sameflamboyant personging his post
like clockwork
- Reply
Theism/Deism is possible on the grounds:
A. Law of Conservation of Energy (Cannot be created nor destroyed -> All Energy has an Infinite Lifespan -> Infinite Being that represents the total field/collection of energy
Theism/Deism is possible on the grounds:
A. Law of Conservation of Energy (Cannot be created nor destroyed -> All Energy has an Infinite Lifespan -> Infinite Being that represents the total field/collection of energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph#Character_encodings
Yup, issa greedy personish VVin
- Reply