Hey Dan, Let's Talk About This

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
Hey Dan, Let's Talk About This

@ Dan

I am starting a new thred. Although my OP is directed at Dan, all are welcome to jump in. Sorry it is so long, but his post was ...

Reference Link: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/why-atheism-almost-certainly-true?page=1#comment-127417

Unfortunately, like most Religious Absolutist Apologists, you are so full of your own bullshit you cannot even smell the bullshit that you diarrhea from your own mind/mouth. Quit quote-mining William Lane Craig and go to a real university and learn some real knowledge.

Dan: "The star has run out of energy by the time it supernovas so the star system is no longer habitable. Running out of energy at some point is just natural and unavoidable. Thats why I think time is circular; everything dies and then renews itself. Stars and us included. That is God's great design. A looping game of Conway's game of life played with stars and planets."

So you base your presupposed assumptions on a computer program? Nice. Talk about delusions. Yes, life is circular. You are born. You eat. You defecate. You reproduce. You die, then get transformed into something else. In your case, I can only hope you have not and never do reproduce. We don't need more people like you in a civilized society. I would hazard a guess you also agree with William Lane Craig's hypothesis about the Divine Command Theory. If so, then you are just as deplorable a human as he is.

Dan: "Meteor strikes are incredibly rare and many a problem in the early universe; the number of meteor strikes decreases with time. It's also possible to develop technology to counter meteors, so they would not effect advanced life."

Ah, the Nemesis Event Factor huh? Completely wrong. The decrease in the number of meteor strikes decreases with time ONLY in a stellar system. Not throughout the universe. For all we know, on cosmological timescales, meteor strikes throughout the universe may actually be quite common. In all honesty with my 50+ years of studying Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, and Orbital Mechanics, I would have to admit "I do not know."

Dan: "Climate change and other extinction events: I think God expects us to develop the technology to look after ourselves. Live is very resilient and has never been under any real threat. Past extinction events have merely culled the weaker species and left the stronger to survive. That is part of God's plan."

Really? You think your deity expects us to develop the technology to look after ourselves? Well, we ain't exactly done so good so far. Did you know the Drake Equation also has a "survivability" factor that ranges from 0 to 10? And at our current technological level we only rate a 0.5 to 1? Not very good odds.

A good example is 'Oumuamua. A hyperbolic object we knew nothing about until it was on its way OUT of our stellar system. Suppose it had been on a collision course with Earth. We would not have known about it in time to do anything except to perform the Contortionist Act. FYI: The Contortionist Act comes from something me dad said one time, and I remember it thusly: Firmly place thy head between thy knees and kiss your ass goodbye. Hell, for all we know, there may be another hyperbolic object heading right for us and will impact on Wed 14 Aug 2019 @ 1951 UTC. And we would not know about it until too late. And I guess if such a Nemesis Event happened, we would be considered the weaker species and the Cockroach takes over.

And what about Climate Change due to anthropogenic modifications? Did you know if we were to stop all CO2 emissions, it would be about 500 years before the Earth's atmosphere returns to the levels before the start of the Industrial Revolution? And with all the land clearing to make farmlands and residential areas, it might be even longer.

Dan: "We would not be able to detect EMR from aliens via programs like SETI; other star systems are simply too far away for that. We have a sample size of 1 saying star systems support life. So statistically at this stage we have to assume the universe is absolutely crawling with life."

BTW: It is AEME, not EMR.

You are absolutely correct. The attached image is a map I generated in one of my Astronomy courses to show how far OUR radio and television signals had pentrated into the galaxy. See the highlighted star? Suppose that was the nearest advanced civilization comparable to us. That is about 6000LY away, meaning our signals would still take about another 5920 years to get there. Here is a summation paragraph I wrote in my report paper:

However, think on this. And please realize I am using approximations. The Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. We are situated about 60% of the distance from the galactic core. The galactic radius is about 50,000 light years. That puts us about 30,000 light years from the center. Now make a circle with a 30,000 light year radius. The circumference would be about 188,500 light years. Now divide that into ten equal arcs and you have a separation of 18,850 light years. We have been broadcasting signals into space, whether intentional or not, for only about 100 years. These signals travel at the speed of light, at best. If the next intelligent advanced civilization (IAC) is 18,850 light years away, that means they will not receive our signals for another 18,750 years. Even if they were much closer, say 200 light years, they still will not receive our signals for another 100 years. And that is assuming our signals remain strong enough to still be detected. What if this other IAC was 200 light years away and they sent their first signals only 50 years ago? We will not receive them for another 150 years. Think about it. And one of my favorite quotes: "I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." — Arthur C. Clarke

Dan: "I've been through the 97% probability calculation for a creator of the universe on this site before. Once again then (apologies):"

Prove it. I have seen no such debunking. I have also read that thread. The only thing that got debunked was proving you know nothing about probability theory.

Dan: "1. The big bang looks like it must of had an artificial cause (a creator)"

Please provide objective hard empirical evidence on how the Universal Expansion looks like it must of had an artificial cause (a creator). And there never was a "bang" big or small. Big Bang was a disparagical term used as a perjorative in an attempt to debunk the Universal Expansion Theory (its original name). Like all Religious Absolutist Apologists you are so full of presupposed assumption that you assert without any evidence. Richard Dawkins even said something about this in The God Delusion (paraphrased): "The greatest problem with ALL Religious Absolutists is the very fact that there is NO evidence to support theological opinions that fosters the characteristic draconian hostility towards those of different opinion that IS supported by objective hard empirical evidence." If you cannot provide any objective hard empirical evidence, then both Hitchens's and Arakish's Razors apply.

Dan: "2. There is the fine-tuning of the multiverse for life which implies an intelligent creator"

"No universe fine-tunes itself for life. Life tunes itself with the universe." — Arakish.

You can alter any or all of those fundamental parameters of which you speak and life may still come to exist. Just life fundamentally different than we know of now.

Dan: "3. Why is there ‘something rather than nothing?’ Logically there should be nothing. The fact that there is anything at all is amazing and enough to invoke a Deity as a possible solution."

Ah quote-mining. You got this quote from William Lane Craig who quote-mined it frim another Religious Absolutist Apologist. However, you are so dense and thick that you cannot even realize there is no such thing as "nothing." Nothing cannot exist except as an abstract idea.

Dan: "4. Various logical arguments (prime mover / necessary being) point to some sort of intelligent creator"

And those are not "logical arguments." They are presupposed assumptions that you are asserting without any objective hard empirical evidence along with all those dumb ass Religious Absolutist Apologists you listen to who nothing about any science. Ever watch the debate between Sean Carroll and Willian Lane Craig? Sean Carroll tore Willian Lane Craig a new ass so badly that Craig has probably never been able to sit down since.

Dan: "So the above constitutes evidence in favour of the existence of ‘God’ (where God is defined as the creator of the universe ONLY). I’m not aware of any evidence against God (please let me know if you have any)."

The above constitutes NO EVIDENCE. It is all presupposed assumptions made by other Religious Absolutist Apologists you stole by quote-mining. And you never attributed these quotes. That is plagiarism. As for evidence against god: "NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE" (Arakish's Razor). Then one can also apply Hitchen's Razor.

Dan: "For each argument I assign a probability that it is evidence for Gods’ existence. This step is a little arbitrary so you will likely have an opinion on the numbers I’m using:"

Actually, the above statement should have been worded thusly:

Dan: "For each argument I assume a probability that it is a presupposed assumption for Gods’ existence. This step is a little arbitrary so you will likely have an opinion on the numbers I’m using:"

You know, you should quit digging around in the toilet bowl after dropping those brown logs to pull numbers from your ass.

Dan: "1. 50% chance god exists"

The first presupossed assumption is actually 0%. You have to remember one thing in probability theory, everything starts at 0% probability.

Dan: "2. 75% chance god exists"

"No universe fine-tunes itself for life. Life tunes itself with the universe." — Arakish.

Thus, this one also has a 0% probablity. Think critically about it.

Dan: "3. 25% chance god exists"

Another guess estimated from a presupposed assumption. Another 0% probability.

Dan: "4. 25% chance god exists"

Again another guess estimated from a presupposed assumption. Again another 0% probability. Thus, you have a 0% probability due to presupposed assumptions. Use the Scientific Method instead.

Dan: "Starting at 50% chance God exists (always starts at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition), combine the probabilities:"

Dan: "1. 50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance god exists
2. 75% + 25% x 75% = 94% chance god exists
3. 94% + 6% x 25% = 96% chance god exists
5. 96% + 4% x 25% = 97% chance god exists
"

Again, you have it wrong. With your presupposed assumptions, the probabilities of which you speak are all multiplicative, NOT additive. Thus it would actually be:

1. 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25
2. 0.25 × 0.5 = 0.1875
3. 0.1875 × 0.25 = 0.046875
4. 0.046875 × 0.25 = 0.01171875

Or a 1.17% chance your deity exists. Not very good odds.

Dan: "So going on the available evidence, there is a 97% chance a creator God exists. I’m not claiming that any such God has magic powers like Omniscience, just that he created the universe."

And where is your objective hard empirical evidence your deity exists and/or created the universe? All you have shown us is how illiterate you are in your presupposed assumptions quote-mined from William Lane Craig, who quote-mined his presupposed assumptions from others. As said, Sean Carroll completely debunked everything William Lane Craig ever said in his retarded presupposed assumptions. And Sean Carroll actually used objective hard empirical evidence we currently have to show how retarded William Lane Craig is with his retarded presupposed assumptions.

rmfr

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

arakish's picture
Damn! Forgot the image.

Damn! Forgot the image. Sorry y'all.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
toto974's picture
It is thought to ressemble

It is thought to ressemble this galaxy. Plus the picture is cuter^^.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
arakish's picture
@ Talyyn

@ Talyyn

I have to agree. Yours is an actual photograph. Mine was computer generated. And the final image was 15Kpx by 15Kpx. Mine above was cropped and reduced in size. And please don't ask for the original image. It is on one of about 1000 DVDs and BRDs.

And someone else commented about finding it incredibly difficult to throw away old books and old data.

rmfr

toto974's picture
But yours is schematic, it

But yours is schematic, it helps understand. Old data can be very important, we may have missed something for decades.

Devans99's picture
Why are you so rude? I am

Why are you so rude? I am merely, like all of us I hope, questing for the truth. Whats the problem?

I have not quoted William Lane Craig. The opinions I express are my own. Craig is a Presentist I belief whereas I am an Eternalist. Shows how little you know about either of our opinions.

Evolution is part of God's plan. We first evolve to the stage where we can use technology and then we use technology to complete the process of evolution. So yes God expects us to look after ourselves and use technology to achieve a perfect society. And we have millions of years to do so before the next asteroid strike. Child's play to design a missile defence system in that time.

I don't have hard evidence that the big bang was caused by a creator; it merely looks likely so I assign it a 50% chance it was caused by I creator. Time forms a circle, joined at the Big Bang/Big Crunch as far as I can see. That circle of time looks very much designed. If I was in God's shoes its the design I would have used for the universe. Hence 50% is conservative. Probably should be higher.

You know nothing about probability and I do not have the time or inclination to correct you a second time.

Cognostic's picture
But you are not "Questioning"

But you are not "Questioning" Dan. You are making lame ass assertions, one after the other, with weird logic, faulty reasoning, and a whole lot of WOO WOO. You are trying to defend yourself against solid facts and science with nothing but imagination, wild hypothetical assertions and more Woo Woo;

Devans99's picture
BTW I think you will find

BTW I think you will find Sean Carroll turns out to be the wrongest person on the planet. He believes is actual infinity!

Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

There you go Sean. Goodbye to all those infinite models of the cosmos. All utter bollocks I'm afraid.

arakish's picture
Both in the same reply.

Both in the same reply.

Dan: "Why are you so rude? I am merely, like all of us I hope, questing for the truth. Whats the problem?"

Because you have been spewing the same mind diarrhea for 100 pages across these forums. I've lost all patience dealing nicely with you. It seems the only way to get through that incredibly thick skull of yours is to use a hammer and chisel.

Dan: "I have not quoted William Lane Craig. The opinions I express are my own. Craig is a Presentist I belief whereas I am an Eternalist. Shows how little you know about either of our opinions."

Yes, you have. Besides, I never said you quoted William Lane Craig. I said you are quote-mining his same ideas. Quote-mining is not the same as actually quoting. William Lane Craig has also quote-mined all of his presupposed assumptions from far older writings. Ever heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Ever heard of the Teleological Argument? No? Then perhaps you should read up on them because you are using the same damned arguments for your presupposed assumptions and asserting them as your arguments. And I have been hearing these arguments for 50+ years. That is the problem with you Religious Absolutist Apologists. Nothing changes.

Dan: "Evolution is part of God's plan. We first evolve to the stage where we can use technology and then we use technology to complete the process of evolution. So yes God expects us to look after ourselves and use technology to achieve a perfect society. And we have millions of years to do so before the next asteroid strike. Child's play to design a missile defence system in that time."

And where is your objective hard empirical evidence that "Evolution is part of God's plan."? Remember Hitchens's and Arakish's Razors?

Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.

Where is your objective hard empirical evidence that your deity actually exists? Remember Hitchens's and Arakish's Razors?

Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.

Dan: "I don't have hard evidence that the big bang was caused by a creator; it merely looks likely so I assign it a 50% chance it was caused by I creator. Time forms a circle, joined at the Big Bang/Big Crunch as far as I can see. That circle of time looks very much designed. If I was in God's shoes its the design I would have used for the universe. Hence 50% is conservative. Probably should be higher."

"I don't have hard evidence..." And there you have it. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.

Just because something LOOKS to be designed does not mean it was. Think Critically about this: "We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled, the ears tricked. How can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time? The human brain runs some of the best simulation software. However, it suffers a much greater fallacy from the GIGO principle, than do modern computers. The same goes for ALL religions." — Arakish, synthesized from The God Delusion and the PC game Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri.

And here is another one for you to think critically about: "Your position is dishonest because you’re not open to the fact that you could be wrong. You won’t admit when you are wrong. You believe what you do for no reason because you can’t produce evidence. The thing you’re promoting is not even possible, and it’s a logical contradiction as well. So you believe impossible nonsense for no good reason, and you want to use that as your defense that you’re being unreasonable." — Aron Ra

"...it was caused by I creator." Now you are saying you are the creator of the universe. Thanks for letting us know that you are completely bat-shit crazy delusional. You need to seek psychiatric help.

And where is your objective hard empirical evidence that there will be a Big Crunch? Remember Hitchens's and Arakish's Razors!

And where is your objective hard empirical evidence that circle of time looks very much designed? Remember Hitchens's and Arakish's Razors!

"Hence 50% is conservative." Again failing in your usage of Boolean math. The Yes/No Boolean is NOT 50%/50%. It is 100%/0%. Again you need to study further into probability theory and Boolean logic.

Dan: "You know nothing about probability and I do not have the time or inclination to correct you a second time."

Nor do I. But I am going to do it anyway. The probabilities you are proposing with your presupposed assumptions are MULTIPLICATIVE, NOT additive. Again you need to study further into probability theory.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/hey-dan-lets-talk-abou...

Dan: "BTW I think you will find Sean Carroll turns out to be the wrongest person on the planet. He believes is actual infinity!"

Sean Carroll is way more correct than any other person you can name. Infinity does exist. Guess you have never heard of Benoit Mandelbrot? Fractal Geometry? Infinite regression and infinite progression? Hmm...

Dan: "Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:"

Correct. No "buts".

Dan: "There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X + 1 > X"

Wrong math again. Try using y = x + 1 and you can get infinite progression. Try using y = x - 1 and you can get infinite regression.

Dan: "There you go Sean. Goodbye to all those infinite models of the cosmos. All utter bollocks I'm afraid."

Only bollocks to those who have no understanding in advanced mathematics.

rmfr

Devans99's picture
You are a very stupid person.

You are a very stupid person. You criticise theists for believing in magic, yet you belief in it yourself (infinity).

∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0

How exactly can you (and Sean) defend 1=0?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan∞ + 1 = ∞

Dan:
∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0

Only if you don't know calculus. ∞ - ∞ is indeterminate.

Devans99's picture
So what does ∞ + 1 equal in

So what does ∞ + 1 equal in your opinion?

Look at it this way, one of the following MUST be true:

∞ + 1 = ∞
∞ + 1 < ∞
∞ + 1 > ∞

All three are absurd statements. The third implies there is something bigger than infinity; which is obviously a contradiction. Whatever way you turn infinity is BOLLOCKS.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Dan

@Dan
∞ + 1 = ∞

You've told us in the past that set theory is bollocks. Are you now telling us that calculus is bollocks as well?

Are there any other cornerstones of mathematics you'd like to inform us are bollocks? Long division? Fractions? How about differential equations? Pythagoras theorem? Negative numbers?

Devans99's picture
Calculus is mainly OK because

Calculus is mainly OK because the limit concept only requires Potential Infinity not Actual Infinity. You know the difference right?

Lets examine it again:

∞ + 1 = ∞

What real world object can you think of which you can add to and not change?

There is no such object. Common sense says everything is changed by addition. Infinity and common sense are at odds. Infinity is just illogical nonsense.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - Common sense says

Dan - Common sense says everything is changed by addition.

Common sense is notoriously dangerous in fields such as statistics, probability, and most mathematics.
-----------------------------
I could give you an example where 1 + 1 = 1, but then you'd just tell us linear algebra is bollocks.
-----------------------------
But even a simple example shows your statement is inaccurate:
1 + 0 = 1. You said everything is changed by addition, clearly that is wrong.

Devans99's picture
Addition of zero does not

Addition of zero does not count as addition.

This is silly you are defending 1=0. Actual infinity does not exist. Seen it anywhere in nature? No. Does it hang together logically? No. Is it akin to magic and thus has no place in maths or science? Yes.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - Addition of zero does

Dan - Addition of zero does not count as addition.

You just told us that addition doesn't count as addition. That might be in the running for the craziest sentence ever posted on AR. It is a real achievement to manage to contradict yourself in 8 words or less.

LOL. I just don't know what else to say.

Devans99's picture
Addition of zero is not

Addition of zero is not really addition:

1 + 0 = 1

The + 0 is redundant.

Zero represents void or nothing so it's correct it should not change whats its added to.

But non-zero represents something so it should always change what it's added to.

∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0
How can you defend this? What planet are you on? 1 = 0 is plain wrong.

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

Your logic here is wrong.

∞ + 1 = ∞

Does NOT imply 1 = 0. It implies exactly what it states. Doing anything with ∞ is either ∞ or indeterminate.

rmfr

Devans99's picture
Exactly my point, you can't

Exactly my point, you can't do anything with infinity because it immediately leads to a logical contradiction. That contradiction counts as a proof via contradiction that infinity does not exist.

You know actual infinity was originally included in set theory by Cantor as a tribute to God? That was his motivation. He thought the spinning head feeling you get when thinking of infinity was God! Its actually your brain choking on something deeply illogical. So anyway we are left with set theory and actual infinity - spiritually rather than logically inspired. What a mess.

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

And there is our difference. I do not find infinity to be illogical. For me, it is completely logical. However, even I cannot explain why. Thus, just like Cantor, it is an assertion. A presupposed assumption. Just like you finding infinity to be illogical.

rmfr

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

Would you agree there are also different levels of infinity? Such as ∞^2 > ∞? And then the largest infinity is infinity raised to infinity ad infinitum?

Devans99's picture
There are no actual

There are no actual infinities.

Cantor's diagonal proof is contradictory. See Galileo's paradox.

If actual infinity did exist, which it does not, it precludes the existence of any other infinities because of its definition as 'larger than anything else'. You can't have multiple things that are larger than everything else that makes no sense.

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

"There are no actual infinities."

There are in Theoretical Physics. You said your degree was in ONLY math. My degrees encompass several different sciences: astrophysics, celestial mechanics, orbital mechanics, theoretical physics, geology, geography, geographical information science, geomorphological deformation, volcanology, global climatology. I was all over the place.

And one thing science and critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought has taught me, the probability of ANY deity actually existing is infinitesimally small. Using your percentage probabilities in the proper method actually arrives at a chance greater than the chance I believe in. Want to see what I believe is the chance of any deity existing?

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - 1 = 0

Dan -
1 = 0
How can you defend this? What planet are you on? 1 = 0 is plain wrong.

That isn't my statement, I didn't defend it. I already told you that was incorrect. That is a very nasty strawman Dan.

Sheldon's picture
"Actual infinity does not

"Actual infinity does not exist. Seen it anywhere in nature?"

"Is it akin to magic and thus has no place in maths or science? "

I'm not entirely au fait with calculus, but I certainly recognise irony.

Your fictional deity can't be found anywhere in nature. Your creationist superstition has no explanatory powers and cites supernatural cause. So let's take a look at The definition of magic as a comparison...

Magic
noun
1.the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

It's you who is espousing beliefs that by definition areenvoking magic, Dan.

Unless of course by Your own standard you can "point to your deity in the natural world" in some tangible or objective way, and can explain accurately how it created everything?

Do you need the definition of irony as well, Dan?

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

Dan: "Calculus is mainly OK because the limit concept only requires Potential Infinity not Actual Infinity. You know the difference right?"

Wrong. The limit concept in calculus is actually "as approaches infinity" meaning an Actual Infinity. You just have the "potential" to achieve an Actual Infinity.

rmfr

Devans99's picture
But you can define a limit as

But you can define a limit as 'tends to but never actually reaches infinity'. That's the correct way to approach it bearing in mind actual infinity does not exist. So calculus is mostly OK. Only thing is I'd suggest the use of the ~ rather than = as in:

lim 1/x as as >∞ ~ 0

The expression is always non-zero, whatever the value of x so small errors like writing the above as = 0 can cause discrepancies further down the line. The use of the approximately equals sign helps to guard against such errors.

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

Small mistake. I make them all the time.

∼ actually means "similar to".

≅ means "approximately equal to".

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - lim 1/x as as >∞ ~ 0..

Dan - lim 1/x as as >∞ ~ 0...The expression is always non-zero...

Even after correcting for your gibberish, that is incorrect. So apparently calculus is bollocks as well.

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

Being nice. How much math have you had? I am just curious.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.