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.
I believed greensnake called it a" transition" when object b did not exist before 11am
and came into existence after 11am which if you are a logical and critical thinker proves that object b had a change of state from non existent to existence. Which the definition of POINT is a change of state. Your math doesn't negate this undeniable fact!
The ink wasn't even dry before you changed the definition, AGAIN. Notice how every-time you need to, you just alter your definitions (and I'm sure you will claim you didn't, just like the last two times you did this). I'm done with you, you are a lost cause. Good luck with your folly.
FINAL ACTION REPORT:
USS "NYAR" NORTH CAROLINA CLASS BATTLESHIP: SCUTTLED
HK PENGUIN CLASS AXILLARY CRUISER "ZERO": SUNK.
Lmao wtf are you talking about I might not have said the whole definition(which is called paraphrasing) but i definitely did not change it. Please explain how they are 2 different definitions because if you think that you are literally delusional.
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"
I had to put Nyarlathotep and those who stand with him in a ZERO of fire for his indenial position.
It's all over, Zero! Hang it up! The mathematical proof is in! No rational mind needs more than that. Zero, your credibility has been zeroed! There is nothing more to discuss unless you want to change your original argument, either by changing your definitions or other parameters. If so, start a new thread--and have the courtesy to admit that you were wrong. With a proof in hand, we really don't need your admission of error, but it would be very adult of you.
You are starting to act like a dog who latched onto truck tire as it drove off, refusing to let go until his brains were beat out on the road! The story, no doubt, is apocryphal but there is an important lesson there.
He just came back......
That is the location where something changed, a noun.
That is the changing of a state, a verb.
Well now you are just lying. /e Not only did you change it, you changed it so much it isn't even the same part of speech any more (noun -> verb)
POINT-a stage or level at which a change of state occurs
Where in this definition does it say anything about location?
Wait a minute, are you trying to claim that this definition is not the definition of a noun?!?
I'm serious you are going to give me a heart attack from laughing. I can't do this anymore.
Lol PERSON, PLACE OR THING so a stage or level is what you are claiming is a place? I would say a logical thinker would say that a stage or level is a thing!
Stage 1 of cancer is not a place buddy!
"High level of employment" is not a place either!
Definition of AT. -expressing location or arrival in a particular place or position.
Definition of POSITION -a particular way in which someone or something is placed or arranged.
definition of ARRANGED- put (things) in a neat, attractive, or required order.
This proves that the word AT does not necessarily mean a place or location.example im AT peace with the fact that i am talking to a person who cares more about being right then to admit that hes wrong and learn new information. you can reject this all you want to and wait until science catches up with me and explains it in 10 years.
I see the delusions of grandeur are back, let's add that to the list:
It's all over, Zero! Hang it up! The mathematical proof is in! No rational mind needs more than that. Zero, your credibility has been zeroed! There is nothing more to discuss unless you want to change your original argument, either by changing your definitions or other parameters. If so, start a new thread and hope that somebody shows up.
I am reminded of a story of a dog who latched onto truck tire as the truck drove off, refusing to let go until its brains were beat out on the pavement!
ZERO, if you could drop the "GOTCHA!!!" attitude, it would be much easier to have a constructive conversation...
I only do that because that is what i sense i am getting but its really frustrating talking to people that ignore words have multiple definitions and there are different ways to use words. Its annoying having a conversation with a person and debating undeniable definitions and how you can use words. So when Nyarlathotep makes a statement that the word AT can only be used to describe a place or location when in fact AT is a noun which is a person, place, or thing that is undeniable and can get a little irritating to explain.
The mathematical proof says it all. Your original idea is dead. That's 100% certain. If you want to move the goal posts by redefining terms or splitting hairs then start a new post.
Zero - you started with the assumption that if something exists it either always existed or was created.
Can you provide references for this claim.
As far as I can see, this claim of yours is unsubstantiated.
1. There are things that are created (man made objects)
2 There are things that are Born/Begotten (not created) (living creatures)
3. There is nothing we know that has always existed. (if you know of anything that has always existed please mention)
Thus your primary assumption in my opinion requires modification
And so your choice that the universe was created or plays existed and god was created or always existed etc etc is not an acceptable theory by any standards.
More lies; I never said that.
I can't talk to people where you say something come into existence but doesn't have a starting point but the definitions of STARTING and POINT proves that a starting point means coming into existence HOW is this not a contradiction and how does this not prove that your example is invalid the math greensnake stated does not negate this undeniable fact!
My mathematical proof shows, with 100% certainty, that your original proposition is FALSE. There is nothing left to discuss! You are confused in thinking that the mathematics has missed something. A real proof, such as the one I gave you, covers all possibilities. Just because you don't understand why your ideas don't work doesn't mean diddly-squat. You are only fooling yourself if you think there is a way to overturn a clear, mathematical proof!
Your mathematical proof does not negate that a starting point by definition means to come into existence. I have stated facts of the definitions.of how it can be interpreted as such.
Your math is making as much sense as 1+1=3
Like i said for something to exist with no starting point is like saying a Lamborghini is not a fast car its a 100% contradiction that is what your math implies and the creditablity in you argument has been lost a long time ago.
Just because something exists and has a finite starting point doesn't mean it needs to be created.
That is a long stretch unless you can prove either the act of creation or the creator or both.
All you can assume is that it exists.
It could have just as easily been born into existence, willed itself into existence etc. If you make a claim it is essential you prove it.