Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Josephhasfun01 said:It's tempting and although I am flattered you'd ask me to debate with you, I must declaine for the following reasons.
1 ) I am still learning how to use the quote system! :lol:
2 ) I have very little time. (note how long it takes me to respond to posts and how many of them I must just ignore as I have no time to explain complex issues.
3 ) I don't even have internet access at home. I am just a poor boy.
4 ) Given the obvious unreasonableness of people in this forum I think I would be setting myself up for dissapointment even If I did present something absolutely irrefutable.
5 ) My autistic son needs my attention
just as much as atheists but my family comes first.
Call me selfish but I must decline a debate for now. Maybe one day I would like to.But until then I will just engage in forum discussions when I can and leave it at that.
If I did say yes how does that work anyway? Some are very kind enough to call me fucking idiot and explain to me how quotes work, so, maybe you would be kind enough to tell me how a debate works?
he_who_is_nobody said:
Inferno said:Thanks. You forgot a - in the first link. It's "-8Jru3..." and not "8Jru3..."
Inferno said:Josephhasfun01 said:what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.
If you do want to, please open a new thread. Here is Lawrence Krauss' talk on the subject:
Josephhasfun01 said:I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.
Josephhasfun01 said:I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.
Inferno said:Josephhasfun01 said:I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.
You can also buy his book... A really really really condensed version can be found here. But if you already know Krauss's hypothesis (is it only his, though?), then you can stop dancing and deliver some proper criticism.
I've got a few posts over at "thearrogantatheist" forum where I detail what it is, but tbh I can't be arsed searching through my nearly 7k posts there... If you want to rebut the hypothesis, please do so without resulting to your silly tactics.
CosmicJoghurt said:
Inferno said:
Josephhasfun01 said:what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.
Josephhasfun01 said:I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.
1. Straw-man. I never stated I believed in it. At best, there are reasons to postulate the many hypothesis, but as I and many others have stated, We don't know!Josephhasfun01 said:Josephhasfun01 wrote:Sorry, but I must be behind on the scientific proof that would justify your argument that there are many universes. Care to interject? Show me proof of this intersection of multiple universes. Where and when and by whom was it observed?
You admit there is no proof, yet you still believe? Sounds like you have a lot of faith!There is no proof, yet
Is it unreasonable to have faith in things you have no proof for?
I must say that this discussion with you is becoming less and less objective, therefore, less productive.
Never back pedaled on this. You can look at my original post, and every single post regarding this point. They all state the same thing.Josephhasfun01 said:It's exciting watching you back pedal!I have never stated that "nothing could be philosophically proven", what I stated is "nothing could be philosophically proven to exist" which are 2 completely different statements.
1. Straw-man. I have already given myself the trouble of distinguishing the different forms of the usage of the word exist, and I have specifically the difference between the physical and the conceptual.Josephhasfun01 said:You're saying that "anything" cannot be proven to exist through philosophy which certainly implies 'all things' including things pertaining to philosophy. You have certainly contradicted yourself. While it is true that you cannot 'prove' something to 'exist' in the sense of a tangible object through philosophy, you can however, prove something to exist in the abstract sense of the word "exist."To try and prove the existence of anything philosophically is impossible.
Exist - Something which has a referent in physical reality.Josephhasfun01 said:I would suggest you define "exists" in order to squirm your way out of the mess you have gotten yourself into.
It is an absurd and self contradictory assertion. Just so you can appreciate your own stupidity, let me translate that in words that you can understand:Josephhasfun01 said:I am such a nice guy to help you out as I have already pointed you in the right direction. BTW God can be proven to 'exist' using philosophy to 'exist' because He is not a concrete object.
1. The immaterial argument was already refute despite your protests.Josephhasfun01 said:I have yet to see anyone coherently refute the 'immaterial' argument. The immaterial laws in which the universe follows theoretically 'exist'. Moving on.
Then, you have already failed before you even started. Because 2 was not a point that TBS was defending, your main problem was with 1.Josephhasfun01 said:There are many problems with the rest of your argument. My biggest problem is of a personal matter-I would rather have you quote me then restate in what I said in your own words via a numeric format.
Most of your argument is of no importance to address because all I need to do is refute just one thing and that is number 2. But I see I should also address number seven.
No, here is what I was responding to:Josephhasfun01 said:Here is what I said, ". If time had a beginning then how could the universe have not had a beginning?"2. There is nothing incoherent about "the universe always existed and time having a beginning".
Which states something different.Josephhasfun01 said:Scott contradicts his own view by stating that the universe has always existed yet time had a beginning according to the big bang.
1. Actually not. Always existed means that there is no state in which it does not exist. Having a beginning means that it exists a first state in which it exists.Josephhasfun01 said:2) Here is the fatal flaw with saying that something has always existed: In order for something to always exist it would need to have never had a beginning. (...) It's not an argument from ignorance because we know philosophically that something that always exists never had a beginning and will never have an end.
Why should I care about what theology has to say?Josephhasfun01 said:From the perspective of theology,
1. That is incoherent, meaningless.Josephhasfun01 said:But you're wrong. There is a timeless state! An infinite state!If there is no time before the Universe existed, what it means is that there is no state that precedes the Universe, and this means that no state exists where God exists but the Universe doesn't, and this means that God couldn't have cause the Universe to exist.
1. There is no working concept of action without time. Action without time is incoherent. Without time she can't do anything, this is the third time I have corrected you on this.Josephhasfun01 said:You never heard that God is eternal or infinite? Time did not exist until the Big Bang! God caused the Big Bang! Therefore God caused time. However just because God caused time does not mean that He is restricted by time. He remains outside of time! That is why God is able to see the end of time for us. That's why God is said to have foreknowledge in the bible! God is outside the universe and can manipulate the natural laws which He created and thus miracles are possible! I thought I'd throw that in so you can have something else to argue about since your previous objections are invalid.
Your arguments can not both be incoherent and stand in good quality.Josephhasfun01 said:c) Yes, a,b and c are not coherent. Thanks for being redundant and asserting that my argument stands as good quality.
If you want to know more about the subject, read a book on string theory.Josephhasfun01 said:Explain to me how 'Vilenkin's Cosmic' Vision is plausible? I can't read Scotts mind as well as you can but I believe "Many Worlds Interpretation" you are referring to Vilenkin's Cosmic Vision?
Well, if you don't believe me, you can just ask him.Josephhasfun01 said:I wish I knew what Scott was talking about. Actually I don't believe Scott even knows what he is talking about! It's fascinating that you can figure out what's on Scotts' mind without being able to read it! You must also be a good judge of character to know Scott well enough to read his mind.
Darkprophet232 said:Josephhasfun01 said:I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.
That you can't even spell hypothesis correctly half the time and have as of yet demonstrated no true understanding of even elementary physics reveals that this is a child's gambit.
I'm not sure if it has a technical name, but when a child has to lie to feel that he can fit in with other children, and when he he gets called out on the lie, he uses this defense as a way to get the other children to inform him of what he should know, and he can continue lying based on what he was told.
Based on your conduct up till this point, I have no qualms calling a duck a duck, or in this case a liar a liar.
At this point you have two options:
1) Prove me wrong by demonstrating your knowledge of physics ( something you have yet to do).
2) Stop trying to talk as some kind of authority on topics you have not thoroughly researched on your own and then lying when you get called out on your ignorance.
australopithecus said:No the argument would be; if you can't even be bothered to spell check and proof read your posts, then why should be expect a higher standard when it comes to you critically evaluating your own arguments.