Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I never said it was ;). Ten points for going after a red herring.
Lol well that was directed at Nyarlathotep and greensnake!
That is my the most important evidence i have in my argument that they won't address and that alone proves they are wrong!
Well, I will say your argument is very stubbor--i mean "sturdy".
That is the reason I wanted to share it and to get some objective feedback and to make it an even stronger concept. But guys here just like to debate not to gain supreme knowledge.
Now now, calling it "Supreme" is arrogant. Just stick with "Knowledge".
You might be right but i think it is supreme i don't even think the scientists figured this one out and the average person is still stuck on religion i am on a supreme quest for knowledge about existence but just saying knowledge is cool too.
not according to you:
-------------------------------------------------------
And that is exactly the service we have provided (despite the insults you have thrown at us during the process). You have a contradiction. One that is easily fixed without sacrificing your argument. You just need to fix it.
OMG THEY ARE SAYING THE SAME THING!
ZERO: the definition of start and create means to come into existence
not according to you:
ZERO: My definition of created is something that has a starting point(which the definition of create and start is to come into existence its worded differently i just added the definition in the first quote)
You know what you have made it stronger but not by understanding the concept and adding to it, but by denial which led me to new information and a better understanding of it myself.
Well so long as you endorse that definition, Greensnake's example falls outside your two categories because it most certainly does NOT have a starting point.
Then we have a different class of objects which fall outside your categories, one of which we could call D: An object that exists on the interval (-∞, 0), but does not exist on the interval (0, +∞). So it doesn't exist on all intervals, and yet there is no interval in which it came into existence. So as I count: that that gives you 4 categories (+1 more for stuff that never existed). And I'm sure there are more!
Start means to come into existence that is greensnake example is to come into existence which is not a 3rd way for something to exist.
"+1 more for stuff that never existed"
Not existing is not a way to exist.
Except that you said:
No matter how many times you ignore the problem---as long as you stand by that definition---Greensnake example doesn't fit into your system. If you really want to improve your argument---as you have told us was your intention in the past---you need to deal with that, and stop trying to sweep it under the rug. I've suggested an easy way to deal with it, but of course there are others. Good luck.
you keep ignoring the fact that the the definition of start and create means to come into existence and that is exactly what greensnake example says and thats exactly what one of my ways for something to exist implies you keep trying to twist it to mean something else but i gave you the definitions.
ZERO: My definition of created is something that has a starting point
THAT STATEMENT MEANS TO COME INTO EXISTENCE! I use the word start to define create but definition of both words is to come into existence.what i was trying to get to was The definition of the words which is to come into existence i didn't think i had to state The definition. The pragmatic warned me of this earlier in the thread that certain words are loaded he was right!
Start means to come into existence that is greensnake example is to come into existence which is not a 3rd way for something to exist.
"+1 more for stuff that never existed"
Not existing is not a way to exist.
"The word "created" automatically implies a creator. It's a "loaded" word.
Why not just say something that does not have hidden implications? Like "came into existence", "became", "materialize", "burst forth", "sprung out", etc."
The pragmatic was right its a loaded word!
*Swoosch!*
Wait, what?! I was right? Yay!
"*Swoosch!*"
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
*Swoosch!*, as in the sound when I suddenly arrive very very fast!
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Lol i thought you wouldn't see this for some reason and never have known i gave you some credit. saying that it is loaded means it has multiple definitions.
"ZERO: My definition of created is something that has a starting point"
Nyarlathotep thinks a STARTING POINT does not mean "to come into existence" allow me to destroy his insane argument theses are definitions to words that have multiple definitions verbatim and proves that a STARTING POINT does mean to come into existence.
POINT-a stage or level at which a change of state occurs.
.the critical or decisive moment.
.the verge or brink of (doing or being something).
STARTING-come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.
.cause (an event or process) to happen.
SO THAT STATEMENT OF A STARTING POINT MEANS TO COME INTO BEING THAT IS THE CRITICAL MOMENT AND THE PROCCES IN WHICH A CHANGED OF STATE OCCURS.
To come into being means to come into existence lol 1 more definition.
BEING-existence.
You will notice the Greensnake's example does not meet this requirement.
/e If you remember, he offered a mathematical proof for this (and you aren't going to find anything stronger than that).
To come into existence is my biggest point i have gave you the definitions of start and point proving that they mean to come into existence so you can use all the math you want but that is the undeniable fact.
ZERO:POINT-a stage or level at which a change of state occurs.
Green snake example states that a change of state occurs for object b after 11am so it does fit the requirements.
You are the one who demanded it happen at a point, he proof shows that it does not happen at any point. This leaves you 4 choices (as I see it):
So long as you are insist on #4, I'm done with you. So post your obligatory parting snooty remarks and accusations of dishonesty/cowardice; although I hope you consider 1-3 instead. Good luck.
All I HAVE STATED I DON'T KNOW TRIGONOMETRY! So its not me ignoring math but that i don't understand it and requested multiple times for you to put it in more simpler terms.
So i have addressed your mathematics and the reasons why it was a misunderstanding.
So all i would like for you to do is address that a starting point by definition means to come into existence so by definition thats not wrong that is undeniable that object b comes into existence which is one the ways i claim something can exist that is undeniable that a starting point means to come into existence as i have explained and gave the definitions(which is proof above) can you please address this.
"but that i don't understand"
Sounds like a personal problem that's up to you to fix. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it incorrect.
But when i asked him to put it in more simpler terms "object b comes into existence with no start point" which is a contradiction because the definition of start is to come into existence so the the example is invalid because the evidence and circumstances implies that it has a starting point. For something to come into existence and not start is like saying a Lamborghini is not a fast car and doesn't fit in the category of a fast car when all the evidence and circumstances implies the very opposite so
There is no simpler way to put it. Either you understand it, or you don't.
First off I appreciate you addressing the problem in a more or less reasonable manner.
We've tried that. Remember when I gave you a list of 8 facts from calculus that you need to incorporate into your system (HERE)? You ignored them. You are still ignoring them. Just look at your last question:
I know it sounds crazy, but a starting point requires a point. This is according to you:
Greensnakes posted a mathematical proof (as did I) that such no such point exists for his example; which of course you ignored when you posted the following false statement:
The truth is you are ignoring the mathematics. Perhaps not on purpose, but you are doing it.
Lets stay with the topic at hand i will address your 8 facts in a second.
But the word point can also mean to come into existence by definition can you address this as well i have gave you the definitions above for proof and one more time.
POINT-a stage or level at which a change of state occurs.
.the critical or decisive moment
.the verge or brink of (doing or being something).
So like i have said object b change of state occurs after 11am. but can you please address the undeniable fact that POINT buy definition means to come into existence which these definitions proves.
ZERO: Definition of start:
1. come into being; (the semicolon is there for a reason to represent that statement as a single thought.)
You are ignoring again. You need to get this through your head: There is no point where Greensnake's object came into existence. He already proved this mathematically. I'm tried of sugar coating it:
No matter how long you live, no matter what arguments you come up with, no matter what new things are discovered, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do; you will never overcome a mathematical proof. That is why they are so powerful. You must modify your argument to accommodate it, or become a crackpot. I hope you make the reasonable choice.
You did not address this fact.
"So like i have said object b change of state occurs after 11am. but can you please address the undeniable fact that POINT buy definition means to come into existence which these definitions proves"
Your ignoring the definitions which proves my POINT!
POINT-a stage or level at which a change of state occurs.
.the critical or decisive moment.
.the verge or brink of (doing or being something).
How many times do we have to say it? You need to get this through your head: Greensnake's proved mathematically that there is no no place, no point, no time, no stage, no level, no whatever it is you want to call it; where this change of state occurs. This is why your argument---without modification---is doomed.
Pages