Correct the Record. Hillary Shills pretending to be a super PAC. They sometimes come here but get btfo pretty quickly. They're most successful on reddit, where they have taken over several subs, with their own mods, including r/politics.
If you see them remind them that they are breaking the law, because none of them ever disclose that they are being paid to shill, which is against FEC regulations:
Here are the fucking premises. Pick which you want to call false AND WHY and I'll defend it.
P1: Change exists
P2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.
P3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
P4: An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
You can tell me P1 is false because change doesn't exist. Do you want to do that?
You can tell me that P2 is false because something changes itself. Do you want to do that?
You can say P3 is false because there are more options than an infinite or finite sequence of changers.
You can say P4 is false because an infinite sequence of changers is possible.
WHAT STRATEGY DO YOU WANT TO USE?! LINKING SHITTY ARTICLES AND CALLING AQUINAS OLD IS NOT A VALID RESPONSE!
your turn, bitch.
Okay. What you linked me was retarded.
It's clear the author, like you, knows nothing of what he's talking about.
The argument has committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question.
NO IT DIDN'T! FOR THAT TO HAPPEN THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNMOVED MOVER WOULD HAVE TO BE STATED IN THE PREMISES AND IT'S NOT!
This argument posited more questions than answers. Aquinas concluded that the first mover must be God. However, what motivated God to make the first move?
WE DON'T NEED TO ANSWER DIFFERENT QUESTIONS! THAT'S NOT HOW AN ARGUMENT IS SHOWN TO BE UNSOUND!
IF I PROVE THERE ARE INFINITE PRIMES, DON'T ASK ME HOW MANY PRIMES ARE BENEATH 1,000,000 AND EXPECT THAT INABILITY TO ANSWER THAT NEW QUESTION REFUTES THE PROOF OF THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES!
Although motion cannot have infinite regression, this argument assumed that God had been either not moving from infinity or he has been moving ever since.
WHAT THE FUCK?! GOD DOESN'T MOVE! HE'S THE UNMOVED MOVER!
What then is the source of his energy?
WHAT THE FUCK?! WE'RE DOING METAPHYSICS, NOT PHYSICS! YOUR ENERGY TERM DOES NOT HAVE MORE CLOUT THAN THE ACTUALITY TERM! GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ENERGY! THIS SAME STUPID QUESTION CAN BE ASKED OF MATTER AND ENERGY! WHERE DOES ENERGY GET ITS ENERGY FROM ROOFLES?!?!?!
If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?
GOD DOESN'T MOVE! THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DOESN'T MOVE!
Cosmologically, it can also be equally valid that an impersonal, unconscious force or energy was the first unmoved mover.
FUCKING FINE AND IRRELEVANT! THAT AN IMPERSONAL FORCE IS THE UNMOVED MOVER DOESN'T REFUTE THE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNMOVED MOVER! FUCK! TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNMOVED MOVER IS A PERSONAL FORCE IS THE TOPIC OF A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT! FUCK!
For instance, according to the Big Bag Theory, all motions, space, energy and matter can be traced back to a singularity at the beginning of the universe. This theory is supported by measurable and verifiable parameters such as the rate of expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distances between galaxies.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT! THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! IF I ARGUE ABOUT THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES, DON'T TELL ME ABOUT THE SUCCESSES OF SOME ECONOMIC THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT!
Egnorance: Aquinas' First Way -- the First Way has nothing-- n-o-t-h-i-n-g-- to do with the Big Bang.
"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another..."
Again we must be cautious. Let's rephrase it in modern terms: "whatever is changing is being changed by something else." But even more caution is warranted. What he means by "another" is not "something else" per se, but rather something that already exists. This could be a part of the thing that is changing, even an internal part. You may protest that you move yourself when you walk. That you are not moved by "another" at all. But think about what is being changed, here. Your upper body is being moved by your legs. Your upper body is not moving itself. It is being moved by something else. Something else that exists. If your legs didn't exist, they couldn't very well move your upper body.
IF something moved, THEN something else had to exist to move it. Even if that something else is only a different part of the thing being moved.
If there is an object A comprised of two parts B and C, the claim is B can change C and C can change B, but B can not change B, and C cannot change C.
Go on, ask me why B can't change B.
The idea is if we know B changed, (because SOMETHING changed according to premise 1), then something else like C must have moved it, because B cannot change B.
Your logic is pretty, but you're assuming that the beginning of the universe obeys laws of nature and logic, and you simply do not have a good reason to believe that. Or do you?
See, what you're doing here is opening up a skeptical line of argument that does not address any premises of the argument. It's hyperskeptical to reject logic when it comes to god arguments, but accept logic for everything else in the world. For you to dismiss logic because the origin of the universe is spooky makes you ILLOGICAL, atheist, while the theist is on the side of logic. What fucking bizarro world is this? Atheists are supposed to be the logical ones, and theists are the dumb faithful bible thumpers. But here you're so faithful to your fucking atheism that you'll throw out logic.
AND THE PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE! FUCK! IT'S ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF CHANGE, TODAY, NOW, ANY TIME THERE IS A CHANGE THIS ARGUMENT APPLIES! 2016! CURRENT YEAR! NO TALK OF BIG BANG! GODDAMN!
For you to dismiss logic because the origin of the universe is spooky makes you ILLOGICAL, atheist, while the theist is on the side of logic.
You just here said exactly what I was pointing out. You think that the beginning of the universe obeys logic and laws of nature, yet have no reason to do so.
You have no reason to think the beginning of the universe violates logic. You are being illogical, atheist, and you're making the opposition look more logical than you because they're not dismissing logic for no good reason.
BUT FUCK THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT APPLIES TO ALL CHANGE RIGHT NOW! TODAY! RIGHT NOW! AS I TOLD YOU ALREADY! GODDAMN!
You have no reason to think the beginning of the universe violates logic.
You have no reason to think that logic and natural law exist before the beginning of the universe. Sorry, but the onus is on you there.
You are being illogical, atheist, and you're making the opposition look more logical than you because they're not dismissing logic for no good reason.
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe? Is there any mechanism there to do so? Do you know for a fact that there is one, and how it worked?
AS LOGIC APPLIES TO EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER FUCKING SEEN, LOGIC IS MORE FUCKING CERTAIN THAN EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG AND ALL FUCKING SCIENCE THAT RELIES ON AND PRESUMES LOGIC! THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO JUSTIFY THROWING OUT OUR STRONGEST AND MOST CERTAIN FORM OF KNOWLEDGE! FUCK!
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe? Is there any mechanism there to do so? Do you know for a fact that there is one, and how it worked?
NONE OF THIS PICKS A PREMISE TO REJECT! YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT AT ALL! GODDAMN!
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe?
LAWS AND LOGIC ARE ABSTRACT! ONLY CONCRETE OBJECTS ARE CAUSAL! THAT'S WHY GOD IS A CONCRETE OBJECT, AND LAWS CANNOT CREATE OR CAUSE!
Is there any mechanism there to do so?
MECHANISM IS TALK OF EFFICIENT CAUSALITY! EFFICIENT CAUSALITY DEALS IN ACTUALITY AND POTENTIALITY! THE CAUSAL "MECHANISM" IS PURE ACTUALITY!
Do you know for a fact that there is one,
YES!
and how it worked?
HOW SOMETHING WORKS IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING! WE CAN BE CERTAIN PURE ACTUALITY EXISTS WITHOUT KNOWING HOW IT WORKS! THERE'S LOTS OF SHIT THAT WE KNOW EXISTS BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS!
No, I'm saying that the assertions you, and everyone else make about it are unsubstantiated. To think that the logical and natural laws of our universe also created our universe is quite a bit of hubris on your part.
This is your level. When you want to reject P1, P2, P3, or P4 this conversation can continue. Otherwise you're being illogical for no good reason.
Look, let's say a donkey, or Krauss, or Crensch's penis created the universe. Wonderful. You've taken god out of the origin of the universe. THAT DOESN'T REFUTE THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT! IN ORDER TO DO THAT YOU NEED TO REFUTE SOME FUCKING PREMISE!
Dickhole, if a donkey created the universe, (to appease you since you can't fucking get over the beginning of the universe), THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT IS STILL SOUND! THERE MUST BE AN UNMOVED MOVER RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGE TODAY! NOW! NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO! NOW! WHY CAN'T YOU GRASP THAT?! FUCK!
Oh, I only got to the second premise before you failed. Did you want a freebie for the next ones?
I'll give you a freebie if you want.
Also, if the unmoved mover argument isn't refuted by the fact that it doesn't necessarily hold at the beginning of the universe, then why do you have such a hardon for Krauss?
I didn't fail. You failed. You rejected logic. Logic necessarily applies at the origin of the universe. You're stupid and think it doesn't. You can't grasp that the argument holds today, right now. You have a hard on for Krauss, because you think 2 equals 0. You make atheism look idiotic. Deny logic and cry about the origin of the universe harder, faggot.
I didn't fail at the second premise. You went off the rails at the second premise, stopped talking about the argument completely, denied logic, and failed to grasp that a proper analysis of the unmoved mover argument needn't even mention the origin of the universe, as it's fucking irrelevant.
When will you get it through your stupid head that to refute an argument you have to address its premises, not go off on a tangent completely unrelated. Aquinas is old. They didn't know about spacetime. Why trust logic? What if we're in the Matrix right now? Harry Potter roofles.
No you fucking idiot. The premises are reasonable. This is not fiction. You are being illogical and a faithful atheist. You would rather fucking deny logic than admit those reasonable premises are reasonable. Fuck you, idiot Crensch. You have no idea how to properly respond to argument. You don't know logic. And much of the time you don't even comprehend what I tell you. That's why I have to tell you that logic and laws are abstract not concrete multiple times. That's why I have to tell you the argument needn't be about the origin of the universe multiple times. That's why I have to tell you to properly address the argument address the premises multiple times. That's why I have to tell you that B cannot change B multiple times. That's why I have to explain to you what question-begging is and how this is not that, multiple times. Because you're terrible at this philosophy thing. You don't know basic logic. You don't know how to respond to argument.
Fuck off now, idiot Crensch. Be an illogical cheerleader atheist rather than clearly explaining what's wrong with P1, P2, P3, or P4.
You asserted logic where you have no reason to do so. If space-time started at the big bang, there's no reason to think the laws of nature or logic hold before that, either. Yet you insert it there as if you know something, which causes you to fail.
You have the Krauss hardon. You insist his nonsense book makes sense. And you are rejecting logic because of the origin of the universe.
Infinite primes? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Evolution? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
I think therefore I am? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Trump for president? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky. Lalalala reject reject reject you can never prove anything to me because I shut my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears! You can't convince me of anything because maybe logic don't real at the origin of the universe, which I base on nothing!
Because, yea even because they despised My laws [Logic], and because their soul abhorred My decrees, therefore they shall pay for their iniquity.
For it was of ＹＨＶＨ to harden their hearts, that they should come against Yisrael in war, that he might destroy them utterly, that there might be for them no plea for mercy.
Go in unto Pharaoh [the evil inclination]; for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants [of darkness].
"And a new king arose over Egypt…" [Ex. 1:8] This refers to the evil inclination, who is the "old and foolish king". [Ecc. 4:13; Kohelet Rabba 4:9]
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. You belong to your father, the Opposer, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
Sar is smarter than you. You and @bilbo_swaggins are anti-intellectual. I've disagreed with Sar before. I replied to a friend without yelling, therefore logic don't real. Keep believing you can find something in my behavior to negate logical proof. Fucking idiot.
Keep believing you can find something in my behavior to negate logical proof.
I never said that - you just need to put words in my mouth to create a nice strawman to knock down, because I'm done with the kid gloves, and you can't handle it.
Why would someone who doesn't understand the Bible elevate himself over someone who tries to? Can you imagine a fundie claiming to be smarter than every astrophysicist, "therefore anyone spouting physics is a dummy"? That's how you sound to other people. It's OK to say "I don't know anything about that" sometimes; even eagleshigh is able to overcome his Narcissistic Personality Disorder long enough to do that.
Why would someone who doesn't understand the Bible elevate himself over someone who tries to?
I understand it just fine.
Can you imagine a fundie claiming to be smarter than every astrophysicist, "therefore anyone spouting physics is a dummy"?
The difference is that I can read the book that is supposed to be divinely inspired by your god, and it's garbage. You actually have to study stuff to be an astrophysicist, and claiming there's no difference just shows how unqualified you are to comment.
That's how you sound to other people.
No, it's not. That's how I sound to indoctrinated fools that learn things only to confirm their beliefs, and leave out the parts that show them to be untenable.
It's OK to say "I don't know anything about that" sometimes; even eagleshigh is able to overcome his Narcissistic Personality Disorder long enough to do that.
I've read the fucking book. There's nothing more to know about it. There is no science or discovery or questions needing to be asked to learn more about it. It's there. I can pick one up in the drawer of a fucking hotel room.
The literal stories are a mere vehicle. It's a metaphysical reference book. Reading the literal text without any deeper explanation and pretending to understand it is like, again, a fundie reading a long list of equations without explanation what the variables are and pretending to "understand enough to know it's gibberish". Even homilies are a superficial popsci understanding. The very fact that the Creator wrote a text whose every segment has 70 layers of meaning is itself a digital signature of divine authorship. Just as one tiny example, the Mathematical patterns in Torah arising by chance alone has a p-value of 0.000005; you can't say "you'd find the same thing in the phone book."
No, it's included in the list you criticized as not having any NDE studies (even though it did), so why would I suppress it? Islam just doesn't fly on Voat.
The Oral Torah and the Written Torah were received side by side and remained largely unwritten, they just happened to need to be written down at some point, and the fact that happened at different points in history for each is a stumbling block for people. There is no understanding the Written Torah without the received tradition, otherwise how could people follow the command to circumcise themselves? The Torah never explains what circumcision means. It's ridiculous to criticize the written tradition alone, which itself supports the need to refer to the oral tradition ("Go to the judges there will be in your time"), when the oral tradition explains the written tradition. It can't be called "post-hoc rationalizing" if there has never in Jewish history been an application of the written Torah without the oral Torah.
The Oral Torah and the Written Torah were received side by side and remained largely unwritten
Post-hoc rationalization is what it sounds like.
they just happened to need to be written down at some point, and the fact that happened at different points in history for each is a stumbling block for people.
"Stumbling block"
There is no understanding the Written Torah without the received tradition, otherwise how could people follow the command to circumcise themselves?
You say that as if the action isn't barbaric, dangerous, pedophilic, and of no actual benefit.
The Torah never explains what circumcision means
I wonder why.
It's ridiculous to criticize the written tradition alone, which itself supports the need to refer to the oral tradition ("Go to the judges there will be in your time"), when the oral tradition explains the written tradition.
Sounds like you're just making shit up. Since you wanted to mention what everyone else thought of me, let me give you a hint on what people would think of you here.
Duh.
It can't be called "post-hoc rationalizing" if there has never in Jewish history been an application of the written Torah without the oral Torah.
It's just bullshit, and you know it. Keep trying, but there's absolutely no reason to suspect that there's a second half that is only oral that somehow makes the bible (or torah) make sense.
You can't even understand basic logic concepts that are slowly and patiently explained to you a million times, like what the fuck begging the question means.
You used to insist Aquinas is old teehee not a physicist.
Then you used to insist the argument was question-begging.
Now you insist that logic doesn't apply to the origin of the universe. How long before you abandon this ridiculously retarded objection just like you abandoned your previous retarded objections that you were so sure of?
Then you used to insist the argument was question-begging.
It still is. You're leaving room for your prime mover because you know once you take the logical, realistic approach of conceding that your laws do not necessarily hold before the universe began, you won't have room to stuff him back in.
The only one using the retarded phrases "before the universe began" and "before the big bang" is you, retard.
conceding that your laws do not necessarily hold before the universe began
The laws always hold. That's what necessarily means, you fucking idiot.
@eagleshigh, @SarMegahhikkitha, can you believe this stupid motherfucker STILL doesn't know what question-begging means?
You know, stupid dickhole, you could also attempt to say the unmoved mover is an impersonal force, but you're too chicken shit to attempt any other defenses of your atheism other than denying logic.
@eagleshigh, anything in your logic book about time?
Crensch, you believe in physical laws, right now even if they didn't apply at the start of the universe. So if I made some physical claim about the moon or something right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that those physical laws didn't apply at the start of the universe.
Likewise, if an argument is given for god existing right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that logic didn't apply at the start of the universe.
Crensch, you believe in physical laws, right now even if they didn't apply at the start of the universe. So if I made some physical claim about the moon or something right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that those physical laws didn't apply at the start of the universe.
I fully agree with that. I've asked you to caveat your words, and you went mental. You're done dude. It takes you 50+ posts to caveat a post.
Seriously, I listen to what he says. You find cocks to ride that attack him for not asking "why is the universe here?". How am I supposed to take you seriously after that?
Seriously, I listen to what he says. You find cocks to ride that attack him for not asking "why is the universe here?". How am I supposed to take you seriously after that?
YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION! I HAVE MULTIPLE EXPERTS SUPPORTING MINE! AND IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT THE EXPERTS! TWO DOESN'T EQUAL ZERO, IDIOT! AND THE LOGICAL PROOF IS LOGICAL, IDIOT! AN EXPERT ISN'T NEEDED TO POINT OUT THAT 2 IS NOT 0, AND THAT DENYING LOGIC IS ILLOGICAL! FUCK YOU!
Your denial is just like when Wendy Wright told Dawkins that she just didn't think that the evidence of evolution was there. Sure, she could look at all the fossils, but still creationism teehee because she's brainwashed. And you can see a fucking logical proof, but still logic don't real at the origin of the universe, because you're a brainwashed faithful atheist.
YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION! I HAVE MULTIPLE EXPERTS SUPPORTING MINE!
No, you had that one guy, what was his name? He was admonishing Krauss for not answering questions no scientist has any business attempting to answer. It was embarrassing.
And look at you talking about authorities and character flaws RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE PREMISES OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!
If you reject P2, then you are saying that something can move itself. Or should I reject the negation of P2 also because logic don't real? P2 is neither true nor false because logic don't real teehee! We can't know anything ever!
And look at you talking about authorities and character flaws RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE PREMISES OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!
You're the one that got off topic. You could have moved the conversation forward by saying that you realize your logic and laws of nature don't hold before the big bang, but you didn't.
Oh, btw, I read Sagan, Hawking, Panek, Feynman, Asimov, and Greene. They all kinda agree. Are they all idiots, in your book?
Right, I'm the bad guy because I go to physicists to have my physics questions answered instead of philosophers.
For all your talk about how great you are with logic, you seem to think the term "natural philosophers" survived after the advent of science, and think those, and current "philosophers" superior to physicists where physics and the nature of reality is concerned.
I'm pretty sure the reason for this is if you accepted modern physics, your logic for your god breaks down. That's a pretty sad reason to cling to such a thing.
Right, I'm the bad guy because I go to physicists to have my physics questions answered instead of philosophers.
This is metaphysics, philosophy of religion, theology, philosophy of physics, and philosophy of logic.
For all your talk about how great you are with logic, you seem to think the term "natural philosophers" survived after the advent of science,
This is a myth. It never happened.
and think those, and current "philosophers" superior to physicists where physics and the nature of reality is concerned.
Philosophers of physics often are superior to physicists about things. And way to fucking ignore the physicists who disagreed with you, so you had to say they're not real physicists.
I'm pretty sure the reason for this is if you accepted modern physics, your logic for your god breaks down. That's a pretty sad reason to cling to such a thing.
I am better at physics than you. There is nothing you know about physics that I don't. I am better at math than you. I am better at philosophy than you. I am better at logic than you. I am intellectually superior to you. There is nothing about this topic related to physics or god that you know and I don't. My knowledge is far more comprehensive than yours. You are clinging to antitheism because you were brainwashed by a political movement. Logic is on my side. All the quantum weirdness you can imagine is fucking irrelevant here. If we stop talking about God and start talking about quantum physics, I will school you as hard as I schooled you on logic. There's nothing you know that I don't, idiot uneducated Crensch. You are intellectually inferior to me.
You are clinging to antitheism because you were brainwashed by a political movement.
You mean I don't accept stupid ideas that were hammered into me by the majority social narrative up 'till about 5 years ago? That I don't accept silly, fantastical stories about theistic gods that have books that show them to be both internally and externally inconsistent?
Oh, but somehow I'm supposed to believe in that, but also believe you when you want to force your logic into shit before time even started.
And way to fucking ignore the physicists who disagreed with you, so you had to say they're not real physicists.
You mentioned ONE. And he was a whiny little bitch asking questions that no self-respecting physicist would ever admonish another for not answering. You keep bringing this garbage up, which shows that you're just not able to cope.
David Z. Albert, Ph.D., is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the M.A. Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York. He received his bachelor's degree in physics from Columbia College (1976) and his doctorate in theoretical physics from The Rockefeller University (1981) under Professor Nicola Khuri.[1] Afterwards he worked with Professor Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University.
Albert has published three books (Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992), Time and Chance (2000) and After Physics (2015)), as well as numerous articles on quantum mechanics. His books have been both praised and criticized for their informal, conversational style. In 2015, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
"It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy." -- George Ellis
George Francis Rayner Ellis, FRS, Hon. FRSSAf, (born 11 August 1939), is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology.
The book has been widely panned by physicists and philosophers alike, despite being a popular success.
Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."
The physicist George F. R. Ellis, when asked whether Krauss has "solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing", noted that the "belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy ... Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence)."[9]
Yes, "widely panned". Garbage-tier questions that you find compelling. Well done.
Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."[8]
Yes, "widely panned". Garbage-tier questions that you find compelling. Well done.
this is all easy info that's broadcasted, considering these idiots are all so proud of being CTR they have to announce it everywhere. There's the first page of accurate info, some people are a little bit harder to get correct, so I skipped them. Almost all have CTR as their main job on LinkedIn lmao. I'll edit if I find other news anchors or important people.
Everyone of the Twitter accounts show delusional morons. And not because they support Clinton, that bolsters it, but like victims. The type of people that those paid to protest a Trump event; they would rob and beat these assholes.
chodie ago
Pardon my ignorance but wtf is CTR?
Shekelstein6M ago
Correct the Record. Hillary Shills pretending to be a super PAC. They sometimes come here but get btfo pretty quickly. They're most successful on reddit, where they have taken over several subs, with their own mods, including r/politics.
If you see them remind them that they are breaking the law, because none of them ever disclose that they are being paid to shill, which is against FEC regulations:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/notices.shtml
mispelledsomething ago
Control the Record. A bunch of people paid to "correct" people on the internet who talk about things like arkancide.
chodie ago
Thank you. So they are an organization of shills, essentially?
mispelledsomething ago
That's my understanding, at least.
fluxusp ago
Before these collaborators realise it they're part of another list.
Crensch ago
Some are already getting fired - others are getting Smug Pepes mailed to them or dropped on their doorstep with Arkanicide victim names on them.
No fucks given here. I hope they drink ammonia.
Antiracist2 ago
You're an idiot with no objection to Aquinas.
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @cancel-cat-facts
Crensch ago
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/10/did-aquinas-arguments-just-suck/
Get on my level.
antiracist3 ago
Link HuffPo next time, idiot.
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
PICK A PREMISE TO SAY IS WRONG IDIOT CRENSCH!
Crensch ago
http://patas.co/articles/opinion/refuting-the-five-ways-of-aquinas/
Even HuffPo could beat your AIG crap. Get on my level.
antiracist3 ago
Link HuffPo next time, idiot.
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
PICK A PREMISE TO SAY IS WRONG IDIOT CRENSCH!
Look, I'll prove that the Holocaust happened using Crensch's stupid standard of rationality.
http://huffpost.com/us/news/holocaust-denial
You are so stupid, Crensch.
PICK A FUCKING PREMISE TO SAY IS WRONG! THAT'S HOW YOU ADDRESS AN ARGUMENT! NOT WITH SHITTY ARTICLES FROM NON-EXPERTS!
You are so stupid, Crensch.
Crensch ago
I did that three times in the other thread and you went mental, just like you're doing now.
You wanted me to dig up your stupid aquinas proof before, and I did, your turn, bitch.
antiracist3 ago
No dickhole. We're starting fresh.
Here are the fucking premises. Pick which you want to call false AND WHY and I'll defend it.
P1: Change exists
P2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.
P3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
P4: An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
You can tell me P1 is false because change doesn't exist. Do you want to do that?
You can tell me that P2 is false because something changes itself. Do you want to do that?
You can say P3 is false because there are more options than an infinite or finite sequence of changers.
You can say P4 is false because an infinite sequence of changers is possible.
WHAT STRATEGY DO YOU WANT TO USE?! LINKING SHITTY ARTICLES AND CALLING AQUINAS OLD IS NOT A VALID RESPONSE!
Okay. What you linked me was retarded.
It's clear the author, like you, knows nothing of what he's talking about.
NO IT DIDN'T! FOR THAT TO HAPPEN THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNMOVED MOVER WOULD HAVE TO BE STATED IN THE PREMISES AND IT'S NOT!
WE DON'T NEED TO ANSWER DIFFERENT QUESTIONS! THAT'S NOT HOW AN ARGUMENT IS SHOWN TO BE UNSOUND!
IF I PROVE THERE ARE INFINITE PRIMES, DON'T ASK ME HOW MANY PRIMES ARE BENEATH 1,000,000 AND EXPECT THAT INABILITY TO ANSWER THAT NEW QUESTION REFUTES THE PROOF OF THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES!
WHAT THE FUCK?! GOD DOESN'T MOVE! HE'S THE UNMOVED MOVER!
WHAT THE FUCK?! WE'RE DOING METAPHYSICS, NOT PHYSICS! YOUR ENERGY TERM DOES NOT HAVE MORE CLOUT THAN THE ACTUALITY TERM! GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ENERGY! THIS SAME STUPID QUESTION CAN BE ASKED OF MATTER AND ENERGY! WHERE DOES ENERGY GET ITS ENERGY FROM ROOFLES?!?!?!
GOD DOESN'T MOVE! THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DOESN'T MOVE!
FUCKING FINE AND IRRELEVANT! THAT AN IMPERSONAL FORCE IS THE UNMOVED MOVER DOESN'T REFUTE THE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNMOVED MOVER! FUCK! TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNMOVED MOVER IS A PERSONAL FORCE IS THE TOPIC OF A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT! FUCK!
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT! THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! IF I ARGUE ABOUT THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES, DON'T TELL ME ABOUT THE SUCCESSES OF SOME ECONOMIC THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT!
Egnorance: Aquinas' First Way -- the First Way has nothing-- n-o-t-h-i-n-g-- to do with the Big Bang.
https://voat.co/v/Theology/1258362
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
OK, we'll start slow. Prove this:
I don't buy it.
antiracist3 ago
"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another..." Again we must be cautious. Let's rephrase it in modern terms: "whatever is changing is being changed by something else." But even more caution is warranted. What he means by "another" is not "something else" per se, but rather something that already exists. This could be a part of the thing that is changing, even an internal part. You may protest that you move yourself when you walk. That you are not moved by "another" at all. But think about what is being changed, here. Your upper body is being moved by your legs. Your upper body is not moving itself. It is being moved by something else. Something else that exists. If your legs didn't exist, they couldn't very well move your upper body.
Crensch ago
Rejected.
antiracist3 ago
Wonderfully articulate.
Crensch ago
Prove that something else has to exist. You're dropping the ball here and you can't even see it.
antiracist3 ago
IF something moved, THEN something else had to exist to move it. Even if that something else is only a different part of the thing being moved.
If there is an object A comprised of two parts B and C, the claim is B can change C and C can change B, but B can not change B, and C cannot change C.
Go on, ask me why B can't change B.
The idea is if we know B changed, (because SOMETHING changed according to premise 1), then something else like C must have moved it, because B cannot change B.
Go on, ask me why B can't change B.
Crensch ago
No, it didn't.
antiracist3 ago
Then how did it move? It moved itself?
Go on, ask me why B cannot change B.
Crensch ago
Your logic is pretty, but you're assuming that the beginning of the universe obeys laws of nature and logic, and you simply do not have a good reason to believe that. Or do you?
Antiracist4 ago
See, what you're doing here is opening up a skeptical line of argument that does not address any premises of the argument. It's hyperskeptical to reject logic when it comes to god arguments, but accept logic for everything else in the world. For you to dismiss logic because the origin of the universe is spooky makes you ILLOGICAL, atheist, while the theist is on the side of logic. What fucking bizarro world is this? Atheists are supposed to be the logical ones, and theists are the dumb faithful bible thumpers. But here you're so faithful to your fucking atheism that you'll throw out logic.
AND THE PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE! FUCK! IT'S ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF CHANGE, TODAY, NOW, ANY TIME THERE IS A CHANGE THIS ARGUMENT APPLIES! 2016! CURRENT YEAR! NO TALK OF BIG BANG! GODDAMN!
@eagleshigh @stretched_girl @bilbo_swaggins
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
Pretty sure you used the exact wording previously to argue for your stupid idea.
Ok, so not the origin of the universe, so you're arguing for what, now?
Antiracist4 ago
NOPE!
THAT ALL CHANGE STARTS WITH AN INITIAL CHANGER THAT IS NOT CHANGED! FUCK!
WHICH ONE?!
POINT OUT THE HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS!
YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO BACK YOUR BASELESS CLAIM OF HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS!
Crensch ago
You just here said exactly what I was pointing out. You think that the beginning of the universe obeys logic and laws of nature, yet have no reason to do so.
Antiracist4 ago
You have no reason to think the beginning of the universe violates logic. You are being illogical, atheist, and you're making the opposition look more logical than you because they're not dismissing logic for no good reason.
BUT FUCK THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT APPLIES TO ALL CHANGE RIGHT NOW! TODAY! RIGHT NOW! AS I TOLD YOU ALREADY! GODDAMN!
Crensch ago
You have no reason to think that logic and natural law exist before the beginning of the universe. Sorry, but the onus is on you there.
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe? Is there any mechanism there to do so? Do you know for a fact that there is one, and how it worked?
Antiracist4 ago
AS LOGIC APPLIES TO EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER FUCKING SEEN, LOGIC IS MORE FUCKING CERTAIN THAN EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG AND ALL FUCKING SCIENCE THAT RELIES ON AND PRESUMES LOGIC! THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO JUSTIFY THROWING OUT OUR STRONGEST AND MOST CERTAIN FORM OF KNOWLEDGE! FUCK!
NONE OF THIS PICKS A PREMISE TO REJECT! YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT AT ALL! GODDAMN!
LAWS AND LOGIC ARE ABSTRACT! ONLY CONCRETE OBJECTS ARE CAUSAL! THAT'S WHY GOD IS A CONCRETE OBJECT, AND LAWS CANNOT CREATE OR CAUSE!
MECHANISM IS TALK OF EFFICIENT CAUSALITY! EFFICIENT CAUSALITY DEALS IN ACTUALITY AND POTENTIALITY! THE CAUSAL "MECHANISM" IS PURE ACTUALITY!
YES!
HOW SOMETHING WORKS IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING! WE CAN BE CERTAIN PURE ACTUALITY EXISTS WITHOUT KNOWING HOW IT WORKS! THERE'S LOTS OF SHIT THAT WE KNOW EXISTS BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS!
Crensch ago
Have you seen the beginning of a universe?
How about you go take a walk or something - splash some water on your face. I'd mention snickers, but I'm afraid this is the real you.
Antiracist4 ago
The unmoved mover argument, for the gagillionth time, doesn't have to be about the beginning of the universe! It's about change that exists now!
Crensch ago
But it fails at the beginning of the universe.
Antiracist4 ago
No, you're hoping it does so you don't have to go to church.
Crensch ago
No, I'm saying that the assertions you, and everyone else make about it are unsubstantiated. To think that the logical and natural laws of our universe also created our universe is quite a bit of hubris on your part.
Antiracist4 ago
Logically proven.
I just fucking explained to you that logic and laws are abstract and cannot cause, that is why concrete god is required! Reading comprehension.
Crensch ago
Rejected.
No god is required. If you can make up stories, so can I.
Antiracist4 ago
This is your level. When you want to reject P1, P2, P3, or P4 this conversation can continue. Otherwise you're being illogical for no good reason.
Look, let's say a donkey, or Krauss, or Crensch's penis created the universe. Wonderful. You've taken god out of the origin of the universe. THAT DOESN'T REFUTE THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT! IN ORDER TO DO THAT YOU NEED TO REFUTE SOME FUCKING PREMISE!
Dickhole, if a donkey created the universe, (to appease you since you can't fucking get over the beginning of the universe), THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT IS STILL SOUND! THERE MUST BE AN UNMOVED MOVER RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGE TODAY! NOW! NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO! NOW! WHY CAN'T YOU GRASP THAT?! FUCK!
Crensch ago
Oh, I only got to the second premise before you failed. Did you want a freebie for the next ones?
I'll give you a freebie if you want.
Also, if the unmoved mover argument isn't refuted by the fact that it doesn't necessarily hold at the beginning of the universe, then why do you have such a hardon for Krauss?
Antiracist5 ago
I didn't fail. You failed. You rejected logic. Logic necessarily applies at the origin of the universe. You're stupid and think it doesn't. You can't grasp that the argument holds today, right now. You have a hard on for Krauss, because you think 2 equals 0. You make atheism look idiotic. Deny logic and cry about the origin of the universe harder, faggot.
I didn't fail at the second premise. You went off the rails at the second premise, stopped talking about the argument completely, denied logic, and failed to grasp that a proper analysis of the unmoved mover argument needn't even mention the origin of the universe, as it's fucking irrelevant.
When will you get it through your stupid head that to refute an argument you have to address its premises, not go off on a tangent completely unrelated. Aquinas is old. They didn't know about spacetime. Why trust logic? What if we're in the Matrix right now? Harry Potter roofles.
No you fucking idiot. The premises are reasonable. This is not fiction. You are being illogical and a faithful atheist. You would rather fucking deny logic than admit those reasonable premises are reasonable. Fuck you, idiot Crensch. You have no idea how to properly respond to argument. You don't know logic. And much of the time you don't even comprehend what I tell you. That's why I have to tell you that logic and laws are abstract not concrete multiple times. That's why I have to tell you the argument needn't be about the origin of the universe multiple times. That's why I have to tell you to properly address the argument address the premises multiple times. That's why I have to tell you that B cannot change B multiple times. That's why I have to explain to you what question-begging is and how this is not that, multiple times. Because you're terrible at this philosophy thing. You don't know basic logic. You don't know how to respond to argument.
Fuck off now, idiot Crensch. Be an illogical cheerleader atheist rather than clearly explaining what's wrong with P1, P2, P3, or P4.
Fuck you, Crensch.
@eagleshigh @watitdew @bojangles @bilbo_swaggins @SarMegahhikkitha @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
You asserted logic where you have no reason to do so. If space-time started at the big bang, there's no reason to think the laws of nature or logic hold before that, either. Yet you insert it there as if you know something, which causes you to fail.
Antiracist5 ago
/atheism
Crensch ago
You're the one with the Krauss hardon. Also with the premise that you won't concede doesn't hold before the big bang. You lose, nigger.
Antiracist5 ago
You have the Krauss hardon. You insist his nonsense book makes sense. And you are rejecting logic because of the origin of the universe.
Infinite primes? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Evolution? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
I think therefore I am? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Trump for president? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky. Lalalala reject reject reject you can never prove anything to me because I shut my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears! You can't convince me of anything because maybe logic don't real at the origin of the universe, which I base on nothing!
Fuck you. Idiot.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @stretched_girl
SarMegahhikkitha ago
Antiracist5 ago
It is a neurological matter. In 6 months @Crensch will be theist. He can't process it right now because of his emotional investment in hating theists.
His brain needs to rewire. The indisputable logic will rewire his brain as he thinks about it over the next months.
Crensch ago
I find that you responding to bible passages without going apeshit hilarious. Talk about having a double standard where logic is concerned.
Antiracist5 ago
Sar is smarter than you. You and @bilbo_swaggins are anti-intellectual. I've disagreed with Sar before. I replied to a friend without yelling, therefore logic don't real. Keep believing you can find something in my behavior to negate logical proof. Fucking idiot.
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
The guy quotes the bible. No, he's not.
I never said that - you just need to put words in my mouth to create a nice strawman to knock down, because I'm done with the kid gloves, and you can't handle it.
Antiracist6 ago
P1, P2, P3, P4. Pick, shithead.
Deny logic harder, illogical atheist. Way to keep making an argument about the origin of the universe rather than present change.
The dude is a fucking neuroscientist, fax machine salesman Crensch.
You deny logic. I don't need to make a strawman out of you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
SarMegahhikkitha ago
Why would someone who doesn't understand the Bible elevate himself over someone who tries to? Can you imagine a fundie claiming to be smarter than every astrophysicist, "therefore anyone spouting physics is a dummy"? That's how you sound to other people. It's OK to say "I don't know anything about that" sometimes; even eagleshigh is able to overcome his Narcissistic Personality Disorder long enough to do that.
Crensch ago
I understand it just fine.
The difference is that I can read the book that is supposed to be divinely inspired by your god, and it's garbage. You actually have to study stuff to be an astrophysicist, and claiming there's no difference just shows how unqualified you are to comment.
No, it's not. That's how I sound to indoctrinated fools that learn things only to confirm their beliefs, and leave out the parts that show them to be untenable.
I've read the fucking book. There's nothing more to know about it. There is no science or discovery or questions needing to be asked to learn more about it. It's there. I can pick one up in the drawer of a fucking hotel room.
SarMegahhikkitha ago
The literal stories are a mere vehicle. It's a metaphysical reference book. Reading the literal text without any deeper explanation and pretending to understand it is like, again, a fundie reading a long list of equations without explanation what the variables are and pretending to "understand enough to know it's gibberish". Even homilies are a superficial popsci understanding. The very fact that the Creator wrote a text whose every segment has 70 layers of meaning is itself a digital signature of divine authorship. Just as one tiny example, the Mathematical patterns in Torah arising by chance alone has a p-value of 0.000005; you can't say "you'd find the same thing in the phone book."
Antiracist6 ago
So you did downvote this. https://voat.co/v/Theology/1308571
SarMegahhikkitha ago
No, it's included in the list you criticized as not having any NDE studies (even though it did), so why would I suppress it? Islam just doesn't fly on Voat.
Antiracist6 ago
I don't buy divine inspiration of Scripture, and I don't think it has been established that the existence of God necessitates an afterlife.
I like you tho.
Crensch ago
Source? You know, a contemporary source that isn't a post-hoc rationalization of the patently absurd book you're defending.
SarMegahhikkitha ago
The Oral Torah and the Written Torah were received side by side and remained largely unwritten, they just happened to need to be written down at some point, and the fact that happened at different points in history for each is a stumbling block for people. There is no understanding the Written Torah without the received tradition, otherwise how could people follow the command to circumcise themselves? The Torah never explains what circumcision means. It's ridiculous to criticize the written tradition alone, which itself supports the need to refer to the oral tradition ("Go to the judges there will be in your time"), when the oral tradition explains the written tradition. It can't be called "post-hoc rationalizing" if there has never in Jewish history been an application of the written Torah without the oral Torah.
Crensch ago
Post-hoc rationalization is what it sounds like.
"Stumbling block"
You say that as if the action isn't barbaric, dangerous, pedophilic, and of no actual benefit.
I wonder why.
Sounds like you're just making shit up. Since you wanted to mention what everyone else thought of me, let me give you a hint on what people would think of you here.
Duh.
It's just bullshit, and you know it. Keep trying, but there's absolutely no reason to suspect that there's a second half that is only oral that somehow makes the bible (or torah) make sense.
Antiracist6 ago
You can't even understand basic logic concepts that are slowly and patiently explained to you a million times, like what the fuck begging the question means.
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
You talk about logic then defend the bible? My sides.
Antiracist6 ago
P1, P2, P3, or P4. Pick, shithead.
Keep denying George Ellis, David Albert, and Sean Carroll are physicists.
Do you see that 3 names are more than 1? Or would Krauss have you believe 1>3 as he has you sucking his penis and believing that 2=0 and 0+0=5?
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
Oh, they might have the label, but the questions they're asking are garbage-tier. Kinda like you are with logic, apparently.
Besides: Krauss - 364 Ellis - 86 Carroll - 77 Albert - 0
https://arxiv.org/multi?group=grp_physics&%2Ffind=Search
"Logic" HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Antiracist6 ago
Shit, better compare holocaust historians in the same way.
Because how many papers Krauss wrote totes establishes that P1, P2, P3, or P4 are false, and that 2 equals 0, and that physicists aren't physicists.
Idiot.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Lol, as if they're on the same level at all. It's not illegal anywhere to question physicists. Garbage mind makes garbage arguments.
Antiracist6 ago
2 does not equal 0.
Logic applies.
P1, P2, P3, or P4. Pick which is false, shithead.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Apparently you can assert that it applies before time. /golfclap
Fail.
Antiracist7 ago
P1, P2, P3, or P4. Pick which is false, illogical shithead.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Your frame is broken. Has been this whole time. You assert that P2 applies before time existed. Until that changes, no reason to continue.
Antiracist10 ago
You used to insist Aquinas is old teehee not a physicist.
Then you used to insist the argument was question-begging.
Now you insist that logic doesn't apply to the origin of the universe. How long before you abandon this ridiculously retarded objection just like you abandoned your previous retarded objections that you were so sure of?
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
It still is. You're leaving room for your prime mover because you know once you take the logical, realistic approach of conceding that your laws do not necessarily hold before the universe began, you won't have room to stuff him back in.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
The only one using the retarded phrases "before the universe began" and "before the big bang" is you, retard.
The laws always hold. That's what necessarily means, you fucking idiot.
@eagleshigh, @SarMegahhikkitha, can you believe this stupid motherfucker STILL doesn't know what question-begging means?
You know, stupid dickhole, you could also attempt to say the unmoved mover is an impersonal force, but you're too chicken shit to attempt any other defenses of your atheism other than denying logic.
Idiot.
Crensch ago
Yeah, I'm using that because you want to use your logic there, which would require time to actually exist then. You're welcome.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
You're an idiot. You're welcome. Deny logic harder, stupid bitch.
Crensch ago
Suggesting your logic works without time? Kek.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
@eagleshigh, anything in your logic book about time?
Crensch, you believe in physical laws, right now even if they didn't apply at the start of the universe. So if I made some physical claim about the moon or something right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that those physical laws didn't apply at the start of the universe.
Likewise, if an argument is given for god existing right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that logic didn't apply at the start of the universe.
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
I fully agree with that. I've asked you to caveat your words, and you went mental. You're done dude. It takes you 50+ posts to caveat a post.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
Whatever dawg. God exists right now. P1, P2, P3, or P4, motherfucker.
Crensch ago
Obviously not a physicist. Saying that he is creates another issue we won't be able to cross until you admit that he's not.
No, you insist it does, yet have no mechanism you can present within our universe that could create another universe. Onus is on you.
Antiracist7 ago
You're an idiot. @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl @cancel-cat-facts
Crensch ago
Seriously, I listen to what he says. You find cocks to ride that attack him for not asking "why is the universe here?". How am I supposed to take you seriously after that?
Antiracist5 ago
YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION! I HAVE MULTIPLE EXPERTS SUPPORTING MINE! AND IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT THE EXPERTS! TWO DOESN'T EQUAL ZERO, IDIOT! AND THE LOGICAL PROOF IS LOGICAL, IDIOT! AN EXPERT ISN'T NEEDED TO POINT OUT THAT 2 IS NOT 0, AND THAT DENYING LOGIC IS ILLOGICAL! FUCK YOU!
Your denial is just like when Wendy Wright told Dawkins that she just didn't think that the evidence of evolution was there. Sure, she could look at all the fossils, but still creationism teehee because she's brainwashed. And you can see a fucking logical proof, but still logic don't real at the origin of the universe, because you're a brainwashed faithful atheist.
Crensch ago
No, you had that one guy, what was his name? He was admonishing Krauss for not answering questions no scientist has any business attempting to answer. It was embarrassing.
Antiracist5 ago
And look at you talking about authorities and character flaws RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE PREMISES OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!
If you reject P2, then you are saying that something can move itself. Or should I reject the negation of P2 also because logic don't real? P2 is neither true nor false because logic don't real teehee! We can't know anything ever!
Crensch ago
You're the one that got off topic. You could have moved the conversation forward by saying that you realize your logic and laws of nature don't hold before the big bang, but you didn't.
Oh, btw, I read Sagan, Hawking, Panek, Feynman, Asimov, and Greene. They all kinda agree. Are they all idiots, in your book?
Antiracist5 ago
Suck my dick, idiot Crensch. I'm done with you. Go suck science dick cheerleader bitch idiot.
Crensch ago
Right, I'm the bad guy because I go to physicists to have my physics questions answered instead of philosophers.
For all your talk about how great you are with logic, you seem to think the term "natural philosophers" survived after the advent of science, and think those, and current "philosophers" superior to physicists where physics and the nature of reality is concerned.
I'm pretty sure the reason for this is if you accepted modern physics, your logic for your god breaks down. That's a pretty sad reason to cling to such a thing.
Antiracist5 ago
This is metaphysics, philosophy of religion, theology, philosophy of physics, and philosophy of logic.
This is a myth. It never happened.
Philosophers of physics often are superior to physicists about things. And way to fucking ignore the physicists who disagreed with you, so you had to say they're not real physicists.
I am better at physics than you. There is nothing you know about physics that I don't. I am better at math than you. I am better at philosophy than you. I am better at logic than you. I am intellectually superior to you. There is nothing about this topic related to physics or god that you know and I don't. My knowledge is far more comprehensive than yours. You are clinging to antitheism because you were brainwashed by a political movement. Logic is on my side. All the quantum weirdness you can imagine is fucking irrelevant here. If we stop talking about God and start talking about quantum physics, I will school you as hard as I schooled you on logic. There's nothing you know that I don't, idiot uneducated Crensch. You are intellectually inferior to me.
Crensch ago
You mean I don't accept stupid ideas that were hammered into me by the majority social narrative up 'till about 5 years ago? That I don't accept silly, fantastical stories about theistic gods that have books that show them to be both internally and externally inconsistent?
Oh, but somehow I'm supposed to believe in that, but also believe you when you want to force your logic into shit before time even started.
Crensch ago
You mentioned ONE. And he was a whiny little bitch asking questions that no self-respecting physicist would ever admonish another for not answering. You keep bringing this garbage up, which shows that you're just not able to cope.
Antiracist5 ago
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=2&referer=
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert
David Z. Albert, Ph.D., is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the M.A. Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York. He received his bachelor's degree in physics from Columbia College (1976) and his doctorate in theoretical physics from The Rockefeller University (1981) under Professor Nicola Khuri.[1] Afterwards he worked with Professor Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University.
Albert has published three books (Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992), Time and Chance (2000) and After Physics (2015)), as well as numerous articles on quantum mechanics. His books have been both praised and criticized for their informal, conversational style. In 2015, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
"It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy." -- George Ellis
George Francis Rayner Ellis, FRS, Hon. FRSSAf, (born 11 August 1939), is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology.
Roy Sorenson wrote this. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
Here he talks with Krauss.
http://www.philostv.com/2012/06/13/lawrence-krauss-and-roy-sorensen/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing#Reception
The book has been widely panned by physicists and philosophers alike, despite being a popular success.
Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Yes, "widely panned". Garbage-tier questions that you find compelling. Well done.
Crensch ago
Yes, "widely panned". Garbage-tier questions that you find compelling. Well done.
Antiracist6 ago
You're the only guy still sucking Krauss' cock. Well done.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
You bring up shit arguments because you think you're a physicist, and as usual, I bring a bit of sanity to the argument.
You just can't handle not having kid gloves against you.
Antiracist6 ago
Nuh uh u insane not I. I bring sanity 4 real u dumb me smart
P1, P2, P3, or P4. Pick, shithead. You can't get on my level as I'm intellectually superior to you.
Crensch ago
Bring all the P# you want, you think you're a physicist, and your supporting authorities are asking such blatantly absurd questions.
Your mind is mush.
Antiracist6 ago
Yeah man, those world class physicists have mush brains and ask absurd questions, but 2 totes equals 0, and logic dun real.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
I reject your premise because it makes assumptions that are not self-evident; and you don't have the balls to admit it.
Mr_Sir ago
Where's @ilikebordercollies?
Crensch ago
Hiding, I assume.
New_years_day ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-group-accuses-clinton-campaign-of-election-law-violations-214054242.html
BentAxel ago
Ahhhh my sarcasm dial was turned off this morning.
SergeantSlother ago
CTR shills,
Yol-Itzma Aguirre, who puts ctr on their linkdin. Dolt.
Karen Smith-Murphy, also announces shilling for ctr on linkedin.
Ryan Migeed; linkedin twitter, and even his contributions to the Benghazi Committee.
Joshua Dolin; twitter.
Elliot Fink; Linkedin.
Margaret Ann Morgan; LinkedIn. She's an anchor for a local news station.
David Brock; here's just the google search. Pretty sure he's the ringleader if I remember right.
Karla Towle; LinkedIn., Twitter.
Benjamin Fischbein; LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter
Shawn Drury; LinkedIn, twitter, apparentlly writes from HuffPo lol.
Camden Weber; Twitter.
Lauren Green; if this is her, she's works for Fox.
Sam Ritzman; an article about the Super Pac.
Sean England; LinkedIn, Twitter.
Caryn Lenhoff; LinkedIn
Elizabeth Cohen; here's the google search it it's her. "Elizabeth Cohen is an American television news journalist for CNN."
CTR gave $15,000 to the Bonner Group.
$15,000 to the Grahnholm Mulhern Associates; Seems to be just a couple. A governor and his wife? Idk.
Gave $48,333 to QRS Newmedia, probably for advertising.
Daniel Wessel; LinkedIn, Twitter,, also worked for Gawker lol.
Wilson Woodhouse, might be the congressional staffer. Here's the google search.
this is all easy info that's broadcasted, considering these idiots are all so proud of being CTR they have to announce it everywhere. There's the first page of accurate info, some people are a little bit harder to get correct, so I skipped them. Almost all have CTR as their main job on LinkedIn lmao. I'll edit if I find other news anchors or important people.
Shekelstein6M ago
CTR shills already downvoating in this thread. Hilarious.
BTW you cucks, it's illegal to post without disclosing that you are being paid to do so.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/notices.shtml
BentAxel ago
Everyone of the Twitter accounts show delusional morons. And not because they support Clinton, that bolsters it, but like victims. The type of people that those paid to protest a Trump event; they would rob and beat these assholes.
Alois_sticklgruber ago
God, elliot fink couldnt be more jewish if he tried.
Dirty hook nosed bastards
TheDude2 ago
Now some asshat will link them to twitter and face book accounts. That would be wrong.
Eualos ago
So wrong! How dare anyone do that!!!
BentAxel ago
Say's you. I think it would be hilarious. Getting paid to be a political shill? There's no rule that we can't mock them and make fun of them.
Shekelstein6M ago
Interesting, Google is on there as well.