Preconditional Worldview

[Sparhafoc]

But what it means is that everyone knows you are a liar,.

well, ether stop calling me a liar, or quote any lie that I have made. quote an actual lie, and then explain why is that a lie

I have done so in this very thread.

Why do you always play this game, LEROY? Do you think that bumping a thread a few pages forwards means that the posts on previous pages have disappeared?

I was already extremely specific about how you had cited a source which did not corroborate the argumentative usage for which you had employed that source. You were told about it clearly and unequivocally, then you repeated the same claims. At that point, it became a lie, even if one were to grant you the benefit of the doubt for having quotemined a source in the first place, which no one is obliged to do considering your track record. Considering you then went on to repeat that claim ad nauseum when already shown wrong is deceptive behavior, and can unquestionably be called lying.

Don't like the label, then the onus is on you to change how people feel about your behavior, it is not on everyone else to repeatedly politely look the other way to save you the shame.

 

[leroy]

ok granted, we moved from the original topic in the thread because of me....

the thread was originally about how theists (particularly joshua040103) are dishonest because assertions are made without showing them to be true.

I'd say the thread is pretty clearly about preconditional worldviews, it being the title and the content of the OP.

So an open question for all the members of this forum would be>

Shouldn't AronRa show that his assertion is true?

Well, it's not an assumption you need to make on other peoples' behalf.

There are a number of reasons why people might not need Aron Ra, or anyone to support a claim.

The first and most obvious would be that the person is already in possession of sufficient evidence to lend the assertion credence.

The second is that a person might see it as sufficiently reasonable, based on what they know, to lend it credence.

The third, as a consequence of the two above, would be a person that agrees with Aron Ra.

Ergo, the only time you actually need to cite sources is when someone requests it - not as a default because that would make dialogue laborious. Not even the most extreme scientific papers cite a source for every single sentence because most scientists would assume prior knowledge in their specialist audience.

So, whether others might also want to see evidence for that claim, they're not asking for it, leaving only you.

Therefore, the simplest progression would be for you to elucidate what part of the sentence you have problems with and why you have problems with it.

Well I am requesting for sources or some other sort of evidence. with that said....

should Aronra support his assertion?

Therefore, the simplest progression would be for you to elucidate what part of the sentence you have problems with and why you have problems with it

I have problems with the parts that I highlighted in red, I have problems because the evidence that I am familiar with contradicts that statement.

AronRa wrote:
The inflation of "a" universe could have happened an infinite amount of time ago, or it could have happened last Thursday, but the inflation of THIS universe evidently occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

so
should Aronra support his assertion with evidence?

 

[leroy]

Why do you always play this game, LEROY? Do you think that bumping a thread a few pages forwards means that the posts on previous pages have disappeared?

I was already extremely specific about how you had cited a source which did not corroborate the argumentative usage for which you had employed that source. You were told about it clearly and unequivocally, then you repeated the same claims. At that point, it became a lie, even if one were to grant you the benefit of the doubt for having quotemined a source in the first place, which no one is obliged to do considering your track record. Considering you then went on to repeat that claim ad nauseum when already shown wrong is deceptive behavior, and can unquestionably be called lying.

Don't like the label, then the onus is on you to change how people feel about your behavior, it is not on everyone else to repeatedly politely look the other way to save you the shame.

which claims are you talking about? please quote those claims, and the explain why are those claims a lie.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Why do you always play this game, LEROY? Do you think that bumping a thread a few pages forwards means that the posts on previous pages have disappeared?

I was already extremely specific about how you had cited a source which did not corroborate the argumentative usage for which you had employed that source. You were told about it clearly and unequivocally, then you repeated the same claims. At that point, it became a lie, even if one were to grant you the benefit of the doubt for having quotemined a source in the first place, which no one is obliged to do considering your track record. Considering you then went on to repeat that claim ad nauseum when already shown wrong is deceptive behavior, and can unquestionably be called lying.

Don't like the label, then the onus is on you to change how people feel about your behavior, it is not on everyone else to repeatedly politely look the other way to save you the shame.

which claims are you talking about? please quote those claims, and the explain why are those claims a lie.

I have done so in this very thread, LEROY.

So the pretense that I need to run about repeating them is part of the same set of behaviors which ensure you are held in disdain here.

 

[leroy]

I have done so in this very thread, LEROY.

So the pretense that I need to run about repeating them is part of the same set of behaviors which ensure you are held in disdain here.

In other words you were unable to find any claim made by me that can be considered a lie (or even a mistake) right?
.................................................................................................................................
and I am still interested in your own personal opinion


should Aronra support his assertion with evidence? this is a simple yes or no question

 

[leroy]

What I will note, for the benefit of those who are interested in what that paper is actually talking about, is that what it's really doing is assessing candidate models that appeared to circumvent the requirements of BGV Theorem, and pointing out that they don't. This still brings us back to what BGV Theorem actually says, which is that new physics is required to circumvent a beginning because of entropy.

In the case of eternal inflation, that new physics would be in the form of something that slows expansion in pockets of the bulk, allowing for an infusion of radiation into such a pocket.

No intention of engaging with Leroy on this, because he has nothing remotely of value to contribute to any discussion.

The best bit is that no atheist I'm aware of is wedded to any particular model. The simple fact is that we have several models on the table, both with and without a beginning. Neither scenario leaves the door open for a magical entity. In that light, the entire entry of cosmology into this discussion is nothing more than a sidebar and a distraction from the elephant that's completely failed to be in the room for several thousand years.

Leroy could make his entire case if he could cite on unequivocal piece of evidence for his cosmic curtain-twitcher. Instead, all we have is semantic diversions, cretinous citations of science he has no grasp of, and accusing others of dishonesty in the most ludicrous case of projection this commentator has ever seen, in an extremely strong field spanning many fuckwits over several decades.




Seriously, I have no further interest in watching Leroy wanking all over the forum.

Te BGV theorem says that any universe/multiverse that has been on average in a state of expansion is not past complete, which essentially means that it can´t eternal in to the past. This includes models like eternal inflation (multiverse) and cyclic models that appear to circumvent the BGV theorem.

It is true that as Sparhafoc, noted, the theorem does not apply to all models but it does apply in a wide rage of models, other models like “emergent universes” or “bouncing universes” can be rejected on the basis of other arguments.

Sure there is a potentially infinite number of possible models that avoid a beginning and no one has ever disproven all of them but ¿Can you name any model that circumvents a beginning that is demonstrably as good as the standard big bang theory?


Plus don’t forget about all the positive arguments for a beginning and the absence of any positive evidence for a beginningless universe.

This still brings us back to what BGV Theorem actually says, which is that new physics is required to circumvent a beginning because of entropy.

This is simply not true, and if I were to bet I would say that you know it is not true, but you also know that atheist form this forum will always grant what you say.


this is what the papers says regarding "new physics"

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary...The result depends
on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a
positive value when averaged over the affine parameter
of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic.

https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Inflation%20past0110012v2.pdf

What the paper is saying is that current inflationary physics can’t describe the past boundary, but given that the BGV theorem makes just 1 assumption (H is positive) the conclusions would apply independently of any (or almost any) model that might describe this past boundery. Aslong as H remains positive.

The paper doesn’t say “ new physics is required, therefore we don’t know anything on whether if the universe had a beginning or not” as you seem to suggest.

So you see Sparhafoc, I am accusing hackenslash for being a liar (or at least mistaken) but I can prove my assertions, I was capable of quoting his exact words, and then explain why is he wrong.

Given that I clearly an unambiguously sited the alleged lies and explain why are they lies, hackenslash has the opportunity to defend himself, he can for example reed the paper and quote where the authors said something that confirm that his statement is correct.

This still brings us back to what BGV Theorem actually says, which is that new physics is required to circumvent a beginning because of entropy

where does the article says something like that? I afirm that the quote is a lie, but hackenslash can show that I am wrong.

So Sparhafoc,, why cant you do the same,? why can’t you quote the exact claim that you think is a lie, and then explain why you think is a lie?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have done so in this very thread, LEROY.

So the pretense that I need to run about repeating them is part of the same set of behaviors which ensure you are held in disdain here.

In other words you were unable to find any claim made by me that can be considered a lie (or even a mistake) right?

Fuck off you lying twonk. There are 6 pages of me highlighting your lie, explaining why it is bullshit and showing you up yet again. 2 people even commented on how you pretended all those posts don't exist and that was several pages ago, so WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FOOLING, you complete fucking moron?

.................................................................................................................................
and I am still interested in your own personal opinion


should Aronra support his assertion with evidence? this is a simple yes or no question

If you are interested, then you will read the post I already wrote answering this.

But you're not interested in anything other than idiotic trolling.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So Sparhafoc,, why cant you do the same,? why can’t you quote the exact claim that you think is a lie, and then explain why you think is a lie?

You really are the lowest form of troll imaginable, LEROY.

And it's why everyone here thinks you're a cunt.

 

[leroy]

[


But you're not interested in anything other than idiotic trolling.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And you are still unable to show a lie.

 

[MarsCydonia]

well, ether stop calling me a liar, or quote any lie that I have made. quote an actual lie, and then explain why is that a lie

I am sure that near every other commenters independently reaching the exact same conclusion about Leroy is purely coincidental :lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

[


But you're not interested in anything other than idiotic trolling.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And you are still unable to show a lie.

As if the question of whether a lie was shown resides on getting the liar to acknowledge it.

6 pages of discussion of your lie, but wait... it's not on the top page, so LEROY starts lying about what happened.

Quelle surprise!

 

[Sparhafoc]

LEROY's claim:

you are still unable to show a lie

Whereas, in reality....


http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183847#p183847
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183848#p183848
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183849#p183849
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183854#p183854
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183858#p183858
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183860#p183860
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183861#p183861
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183862#p183862
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183864#p183864
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183873#p183873
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183874#p183874
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183875#p183875
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183898#p183898
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183900#p183900
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183906#p183906
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183917#p183917


As usual, this shows how abstracted from reality all LEROY's claims are.

It also shows, exactly as predicted earlier in this thread, that LEROY routinely employs the same deranged tactics where, after spending dozens of pages on a topic and being roundly criticized for his bullshit, he then pretends it never even happened just a couple of pages later and continues making up lies and misdirection as if everyone else is going to be convinced to forget the recorded history too.

And just for intersubjective validation.


Here, he_who_is_nobody notes how LEROY is already pretending that inconvenient posts didn't happen, even when they predate his supposed 'challenge'.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183911#p183911

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.

So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?

I do love it when someone issues a challenge that was already met a few posts above their challenge.

And, of course, Steelmage brooking no more of this bullshit from LEROY where he lies that his challenge wasn't met even before he tried the distraction.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183921#p183921

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again Sparhafoc ran from a challenge with lies and insults

Fuck off, leroy.
He has repeatedly shown you the difference between the two. You are seemingly just too dense to grasp the difference, despite it repeatedly being made abundantly clear.

Just.....fuck....off.

So where are we now? In a typical place for one of LEROY's threads where he's now lying about being caught lying. If this is what Christianity does to one's moral fibre, I'll pass all the same, thanks.

Regardless, LEROY. You've been caught, once again, with your hands down your pants fiddling away. Do what you want in private, but rubbing yourself off in public is not a pleasant experience for other people, and you should have been taught this by your parents. They have failed you, but you can still learn by seeing what consequences your behavior reaps. Everyone on this forum knows you are a liar. Everyone knows you are a troll. Everyone knows you are full of shit, and pretend to be an expert in every field even though you've just read Wikipedia and your reading comprehension sucks. If you are under any illusion that the membership here sees you in another way than this, it's time to grow up and face yourself in the mirror. You are a walking joke here, LEROY. Yet you choose to spend so much time with people who lost their respect for you a long time ago, and now only have disdain for such a morally stunted idiot. Get a fucking grip, man behind the internet persona.

 

[Gnug215]

Requesting a split because LEROY is doing his usual of trying to drag conversations over to topics he wants to discuss, and those topics being ones he's already 'discussed' ad nauseum before.

I am responding to ARONRA, he claims that one cant show empirically nor logically that God exists, I am simply responding to that thread.

But I would not mind if moderators decide to split

Leroy, I'm not gonna run around and split topics every time you derail one. That would almost be a full-time job, AND I'd actually have to read all the crap you're posting. I've long since stopped doing that.

Instead, how about you start new topics when you want to derail a conversation?

 

[Sparhafoc]

AND I'd actually have to read all the crap you're posting. I've long since stopped doing that.

Yeah, that really would be cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[leroy]

LEROY's claim:

you are still unable to show a lie

Whereas, in reality....


http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183847#p183847
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183848#p183848
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183849#p183849
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183854#p183854
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183858#p183858
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183860#p183860
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183861#p183861
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183862#p183862
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183864#p183864
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183873#p183873
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183874#p183874
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183875#p183875
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183898#p183898
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183900#p183900
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183906#p183906
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183917#p183917


As usual, this shows how abstracted from reality all LEROY's claims are.

Leroy
in fact what you (Aronra) call rationalism (also called verificationism) has been falsified and largely abandoned by scholars, only fanatic atheist from youtube and forums hold on to that view.

your reply
Sparhafoc

Oh look! LEROY's back, and what's the very first thing he does?

A is actually B, B is unpopular, only ad hominem believe in well poisoned B

In reality, of course, verificationism has precisely fuck all to do with anything, being 100 years out of date, and not a single person in this forum has ever espoused the contention that only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.

But LEROY's doing only what LEROY knows how to do. Wonder how that repeated lying would go down with the Christian god were it to exist?

Your concern seems to be that ARONRA does not support verificationism. Particularly that Aronra does not support this statement :“only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.”


But clearly Aronra, supports that view,

Aronra
nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated

Your concern seems to be that ARONRA does not support verificationism. Particularly that Aronra does not support this statement “only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.”

But clearly Aronra, supports that view,

Aronra
nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated

What you have to do is show that there are relevant differences between verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes

So clearly I was no lying, but you can always prove me wrong and provide an explanation on how is that statement made by Aronra, is not verificationism.


Please show that I am lying, up to this point you are just asserting that I am lying.


After you admit that I was not lying (or even mistaken) we can go to the next link.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Your concern seems to be that ARONRA does not support verificationism. Particularly that Aronra does not support this statement :“only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.”

Fuck off lying LEROY.

Your concern seems to be that ARONRA does not support verificationism. Particularly that Aronra does not support this statement “only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.”

Fucl off lying LEROY.

But clearly Aronra, supports that view,

Lying LEROY lying, what a surprise.

What you have to do is show that there are relevant differences between verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes

So clearly I was no lying, but you can always prove me wrong and provide an explanation on how is that statement made by Aronra, is not verificationism.

Liar trying to pretend he's not lying whilst lying.

How LEROY.

Please show that I am lying, up to this point you are just asserting that I am lying.

Lying LEROY, you're replying to a post in which I show you a dozen instances of me having shown you lying, and you're lying that I have just asserted it.

After you admit that I was not lying (or even mistaken) we can go to the next link.

You were both lying and wrong. It's par for the course with lying LEROY.

 

[leroy]

Your concern seems to be that ARONRA does not support verificationism. Particularly that Aronra does not support this statement :“only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.”

Fuck off lying LEROY.

Your concern seems to be that ARONRA does not support verificationism. Particularly that Aronra does not support this statement “only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.”

Fucl off lying LEROY.

But clearly Aronra, supports that view,

Lying LEROY lying, what a surprise.

What you have to do is show that there are relevant differences between verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes

So clearly I was no lying, but you can always prove me wrong and provide an explanation on how is that statement made by Aronra, is not verificationism.

Liar trying to pretend he's not lying whilst lying.

How LEROY.

Please show that I am lying, up to this point you are just asserting that I am lying.

Lying LEROY, you're replying to a post in which I show you a dozen instances of me having shown you lying, and you're lying that I have just asserted it.

After you admit that I was not lying (or even mistaken) we can go to the next link.

You were both lying and wrong. It's par for the course with lying LEROY.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Once again Sparhafoc is unable to prove that I am a lying, proof that I am lying instead of just asserting it.

 

[Dustnite]

This is a discussion between myself and Aron Ra. If you read his initial post, you'd probably understand that this isn't the place for your conjecture

Ya, it's not like your position got obliterated or anything. You may want to review this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

 

[Sparhafoc]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Once again Sparhafoc is unable to prove that I am a lying, proof that I am lying instead of just asserting it.

Whereas, in reality....

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=184031

LEROY's claim:

you are still unable to show a lie

Whereas, in reality....


http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183847#p183847
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183848#p183848
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183849#p183849
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183854#p183854
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183858#p183858
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183860#p183860
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183861#p183861
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183862#p183862
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183864#p183864
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183873#p183873
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183874#p183874
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183875#p183875
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183898#p183898
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183900#p183900
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183906#p183906
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183917#p183917


As usual, this shows how abstracted from reality all LEROY's claims are.

It also shows, exactly as predicted earlier in this thread, that LEROY routinely employs the same deranged tactics where, after spending dozens of pages on a topic and being roundly criticized for his bullshit, he then pretends it never even happened just a couple of pages later and continues making up lies and misdirection as if everyone else is going to be convinced to forget the recorded history too.

...

So where are we now? In a typical place for one of LEROY's threads where he's now lying about being caught lying.

 

[*SD*]

Granted, however it is still a fact that you can know something even if you cant show it to be true. For example It is completely reasonable to grant something as real on the basis on a memory or a personal experience.

As much as it pains me to agree with Leroy on pretty much anything, I do wholeheartedly agree with him on this point (and this point alone so far) and this is something I've brought up before.