Who is God?

[Josephhasfun01]

       "devilsadvocate"

Yeah, they plagisrized stories about Jesus!

All that can be conclusively proven is that around the time gospels were written, it wasn't uncommon for biographies to detail miraculous deeds performed by the subject. I have to say, though, considering miracles by definition are extremely rare occurrences that defy what we know is possible, and considering that people misinterpreting what they hear or see, being gullible, or simply lying is not exactly uncommon and doesn't violate any laws of nature, I'm persuaded that most likely none of that stuff actually happened.

I always love it when you weigh in Advocate.

considering miracles by definition are extremely rare occurrences

Yes, extremely rare. However I ask that you not be so easiuly swayed that miracles do not happen.

I'm persuaded that most likely none of that stuff actually happened

If Jesus is truly the son of God then you should of course feel differently about miraclse. By definition your birth was a miracle. It was a rare occurance. You will only be born once physically.

Anthony Flew has a pretty good definition of miracles. I can't remember it exactly but it was something like, a mirical is the laws of nature not left to their own devices (something like that). I agree that miracal don't happen unless God has something to say about it.

Another thing to think about is my assertion that the people you listed all have been said to have done one or two the many miracles that Jesus performed. I find it odd that they make the same claim of miracles that were attributed to Jesus. It would be more probable that three or four people heard of Jesus miralcles and they attempted to copy them in order to stake their claim to fame. I only researched one of the people you listed and He was known as a person that scammed and tricked people. It would be more reasonable to say that if miracles were possible and had actually hapenned, then the one that had been claimed to have done them all throughout his life would over rule various ones that plagiarized the various miracles that Jesus did. It just seems obvious to me that immatation of the miracles that Jesus did by various people, with at least one of those people you listed being a know swindler, that they were merely people trying to immulate Jesus by immatating His miracles. It is very suspect.

 

[Noth]

Rarity of events is an extremely relative concept.

Miracles are occurrences that defy the laws of nature (or the law of identity).

Really extremely rare events cannot simply be classified as miracles even if they seem aaaaalmost impossible.

I'll ask you not to be so easily persuaded that miracles DO happen or DID, for that matter, ever happen. Considering the astounding amount of knowledge we've accumulated as a race over the past two millenia do you not concede that it is entirely possible - likely even! - that purported "miracles" of the past did not actually, factually, meet the standards I, and you, give for what a miracle should be?
Let alone the enormous burden of proof resting on the shoulders of the believer making the claim that miracles really did (do?) happen.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Yeah, they plagisrized stories about Jesus!

Could you just TRY to sound out words you don't know how to spell? I could understand spelling it phonetically and getting it wrong, but you're not even close.

By definition your birth was a miracle... I agree that miracal don't happen unless God has something to say about it.

What your saying is that for anyone to have been born, your god must have had a hand in it? Did he force your parents to have sex so they could conceive you? What does that say about free will?

It just seems obvious to me that immatation of the miracles that Jesus did by various people, with at least one of those people you listed being a know swindler, that they were merely people trying to immulate Jesus by immatating His miracles. It is very suspect.

How can you prove that Jesus was the only one to actually preform these miracles? Every miracle attributed to him, from being born of a virgin to healing the sick to resurrecting three days after his death, some other religious figure supposedly did before him (some supposedly did them millennia earlier). That your savior just so happens to have a larger number of these miracles attributed to him only stands to prove that his followers told larger and more varied lies.

 

[tuxbox]

I think MGK did a better job responding to his than I can, but since it was addressed to me I will reply.

Your source is a lawyer that teaches at a law school (main consideration is constitutional law) and discusses famous trials as a base for one of his classes. I wouldn’t call him a scholar on antiquity by any means.

If, on the other hand, you’re saying that any scholar in any field who shares the belief in a historical Jesus and copies the two references that you have is automatically an expert on the subject, well, there’s a reason I wouldn’t trust Lawrence Krauss on biology.

To further my point, a quote from his website:

Christian scribes edited the writings of Josephus, probably adding references that surfaced in some versions to the performance of miracles by Jesus and to the ascension of Jesus three days after his death. Historians reconstructing the account of Josephus generally omit those references as interpolated.

After admitting that Josephus’s writing had been altered, he then immediately quotes one of the lines from that some contend is a Christen alteration!

Here is how I see it (as flawed as it maybe). Most lawyers studied a lot of history while in school (at least the lawyers I know did) and while that does not make them an expert in world history, it is likely that they would have had courses in world history and undoubtedly the subject of the Roman Empire and Jesus would have been apart of those courses. I looked at the website with the list of "Famous Trials" and every single one was of an actual historical figure.

I admit that the two mentions of Jesus by Josephus were altered, but that is not the same as them being fabricated. If the Christian scribes who were responsible for translating Antiquities of the Jews were blindly adding stories of Jesus, then why did they not include the Massacre of the Innocents?

You are correct; 60 years is nothing in history. But this is a straw man because my point is that 6 DAYS would be too long for a historian to write about someone that has no official record of ever living. Try it for yourself. Find a news clipping regarding the death of a homeless John Doe and try to find out ANYTHING about him that isn’t hearsay. Keep in mind that you would have a major leg up on Josephus and Tacitus because at least you have a body to start from.

We in the 21st century do not have any official records of Jesus every living. That said, I do see your point.

Let’s Occam’s Razor this. I’m saying that Tacitus was relying on the hearsay of Christians at the time in order to bash them, which he did… a lot. You’re saying that Tacitus had access to a super-secret-double-hush-hush record of Jesus’ execution that no one else ever talked or wrote about, and has since been destroyed or lost. Are you really saying the second is more plausible than the first?

(lol @ super-secret-double-hush-hush)

I am not saying it was super secret. I am going on how Tacitus worded his passage and on how much he hated the Christians. In this quote: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..", he says "at the hands of one of our". It seems to me if he was going on hearsay, it would have been worded differently.

The "Great Fire of Rome" was only mentioned by two contemporaneous historians (Tacitus and Pliny the Elder), and Pliny only mentioned it in passing. I do not see the difference in assuming there were records of Jesus back then, and assuming there were not. That said, I obviously need to work on my critical thinking skills.

Instead of thinking as Tacitus as a paragon of historical information which he was collecting to spread across the Roman Empire at a later date, think of him as a Roman senator that, among writing family and war histories, also wrote down the things that were happening around him (and gave opinions on those situations) whose writings historians have later used to help understand the history of his time. Does it make more sense now?

Yes it does make sense.

Appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum. You and I have access to the same information the historians do, and more importantly, we can think for ourselves and evaluate the facts as they are presented. These anecdotes wouldn’t fly for confirming that Alexander the Great had successfully waged war in India (which some historians say never happened) and as such do not meet the burden of proof for me to believe they are true. But by all means, continue to believe whatever you like. Just don’t pretend you have a good or convincing reason to.

Lmao, yeah that was a cluster ***k of a statement I made.


Anyway, it has been fun discussing this with you, but I feel dragging this out any further and we would just be talking in circles. Thanks for kicking my ass politely.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

tuxbox, this is not about kicking anyone's ass. As far as I know you could be right, there might have been a guy named Jesus on which the character of Jesus in the Bible was based upon. It might have been the case that Tacitus had some information about a guy named Jesus that was killed (not likely but none the less). However you can't really make to much of a case for the historical Jesus with that. On the other hand Mohammed, he started some real shit, he waged wars and conquered people, and that is something that can hardly go unnoticed.
So the historicity of Mohammed is more well established than that of Jesus, which was the original point.
Now it is also important to notice that because Mohammed or Jesus are (or could have been) real people, it does not mean that any of the miracles and divine relations attributed to them are based in reality.

 

[tuxbox]

tuxbox, this is not about kicking anyone's ass.

I totally agree. That was just my way of complimenting DP232 on a well argued point of view.

 

[devilsadvocate]

Josephhasfun,

I do agree with Flew's definition, though I'm quite sure it originates from David Hume's work "An enquiry concerning human understanding". In the same section of the book, Hume puts forth a principle for accepting miracles which I agree with; "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."

 

[Darkprophet232]

Anyway, it has been fun discussing this with you, but I feel dragging this out any further and we would just be talking in circles. Thanks for kicking my ass politely.

I shall respect your wishes. If you ever wish to pick this up again, I'll happily share a debate topic with you.

One last thing that should be said: you may very well be right. Keep looking, and if you find something, please share. I'm not afraid of being wrong, just that no one will tell me when I am.

Edit: wording changed for clarity.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Josephhasfun01 wrote:1) Immaterial things exists independently of material.

Upon reflection, no. Not really. The immaterial, such as mathematics, describes the physical. You cannot have one without the other. They are mutually inclusive.

Big problem here with your objection to my first premise. “you cannot have one without the other” is a propositional fallacy.

No, it's not. If you lived in a universe devoid of material substance then by what frame of reference would you infer the concept of 2 + 2 = 4 from exactly?

So you then go, from making positional fallacies, to making this new informal fallacy?

Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Don’t fret! It’s ok to commit fallacies because anyone can commit them and still have a conclusive argument. You can have an entire argument that consists of no fallacies and still have a false conclusion.

In order to refute your hypothesis all I need to do is point out that concepts can exist without objects to attribute them to. Humans have imagination. Imagination is the ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or experienced directly. The fact that we have imaginations proves God exist. Non sequitur though I suppose. Yet I believe it stands to be tested. How does evolution explain were imagination came from? It doesn’t, does it? Not that someone out there is not extrapolating an explanation from something to try to.
Never mind asking evolution to explain human behavior. We know it doesn’t.

Abstract maths and material entities you claim….

“They are mutually inclusive”

Abstract mathematical concepts and material are mutually inclusive?

“They are mutually inclusive”

.

Do you lack imagination? Given your hypostatization at the top you clearly don’t.

If I may be allowed to use the same logic you used, numbers have a form then? That’s funny because I thought numbers were abstract! I realize of course I just totally straw manned you right there, but however, that straw man is not far from the truth. What really you in fact claim, is that mathematical concepts cannot exist without something concrete existing in order to develop and execute a mathematical concept. If I have understood you correctly the latter is exactly what you have been postulating. Without two rocks we cannot know about the abstract mathematical concept of two!? Unless we see the cohesion of 3 atoms we cannot know of the abstract mathematical concept of three!? Without 10 fingers we could never know about the abstract mathematical concept of 10! That is what you postulate. However I am about to show how this is wrong.

If you lived in a universe devoid of material substance then by what frame of reference would you infer the concept of 2 + 2 = 4 from exactly?

If I were to be allowed to make propositional and informal fallacies as well(in a more coherent manner), in order to support my hypothesis, I would say: If I live in a spacecraft and the universe is devoid of material substance I could still use the laws of mathematics and say that there is “zero” form to the universe! Nothing! Nothing is 0! Nothing is an abstract mathematical concept! Even if concrete objects in the universe were to be obsolete, it still does not mean that the laws of logic and mathematics are devoid also. If you were all alone. It was just you and nobody and nothing else existed…you could still have the capacity for math. You could imagine another person to keep you company. Or a ball that you could hold or throw up into nothingness.

They’re abstract! They are not mutually inclusive as you posit. Even if our minds are non existent, mathematical laws as well as moral law and laws of logic still exist without our existence!

Our brains do not need concrete objects in order for laws of morality, mathematics and logic to exist!

If we did not know that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius would that implicate that water does not boil at 100 degree Celsius? Of course not! Likewise the laws by which abstract thought follows have always existed. Even before the universe began! Far out, right!? It’s true! We discovered mathematics and the rules by which they follow. Your logic suggests that maths were invented. But math, science, logic, morality are not things that were invented. They were all discovered. Once we make a discovery we expound upon that discovery until we make the next discovery.

They didn't need an intelligence to "give" them to the universe, they exist as a property of the universe.

I get what your saying but your logic still fails. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius depending on barometric pressure or if you are in a low or high pressure system. The temp at which water boils is contingent on high or low pressure systems as well as barometric pressure and it of course needs to have heat applied to water. So these properties of barometric pressure as well as high or low pressure system, necessitate the temperature at which water will boil. Right now you might think you’re winning the argument because the reactions are an innate result of their properties. You are right to believe this and the person you quoted is also correct. Reactions are dependent upon the properties involved therein. I see why you are so confused to think that abstract laws are dependent on material. However even when water was subsequently far from coming to be… the rule by which water would boil within it’s subsequent properties was still plausible even before the universe began.

 

[australopithecus]

Big problem here with your objection to my first premise. “you cannot have one without the other” is a propositional fallacy.

No it isn't. This is the second time you've stated this, so perhaps you could point out exactly which propositional fallacy you're referring to?

So you then go, from making positional fallacies, to making this new informal fallacy?

Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Don’t fret! It’s ok to commit fallacies because anyone can commit them and still have a conclusive argument. You can have an entire argument that consists of no fallacies and still have a false conclusion.

Except I didn't treat an abstraction as if were a concrete, real event or physical entity. So, seeing as you're so fond of pointing fallacies, would recognise as a straw man. I said abstract concepts are depended on a physical frame of reference in which to infer their meaning. I never treated abstractions as real or physical. That would be a problem with your reading comprehension.

In order to refute your hypothesis all I need to do is point out that concepts can exist without objects to attribute them to. Humans have imagination. Imagination is the ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or experienced directly.

Which is entirely dependent physical reality.

The fact that we have imaginations proves God exist. Non sequitur though I suppose.

You finally got one right! Well done.

Yet I believe it stands to be tested.

Then propose a methodology we can use to test it.

How does evolution explain were imagination came from? It doesn’t, does it? Not that someone out there is not extrapolating an explanation from something to try to.

Evolution doesn't have to explain where imagination comes from. Evolution explains how populations of organisms change over time. Want an explanation for imagination? Look into neuroscience.

Never mind asking evolution to explain human behavior. We know it doesn’t.

Argument from ignorance. Evolutionary psychology explains quote a lot of human behavior, actually. Including morality.

Abstract maths and material entities you claim….

I've already covered how you don't have the first fucking clue what it is I claimed.

Abstract mathematical concepts and material are mutually inclusive?

The understanding on abstract concepts is dependent on our frame of reference, which is material.

Do you lack imagination? Given your hypostatization at the top you clearly don’t.

You lack an argument. That much is evident.

If I may be allowed to use the same logic you used, numbers have a form then? That’s funny because I thought numbers were abstract! I realize of course I just totally straw manned you right there, but however, that straw man is not far from the truth.

A straw man is, by definition, no where near the truth of the argument you're straw manning.

What really you in fact claim, is that mathematical concepts cannot exist without something concrete existing in order to develop and execute a mathematical concept.

My claim is that 2 = 2 means nothing unless your frame of reference includes anything that couple be described as 2.

If I have understood you correctly the latter is exactly what you have been postulating. Without two rocks we cannot know about the abstract mathematical concept of two!? Unless we see the cohesion of 3 atoms we cannot know of the abstract mathematical concept of three!? Without 10 fingers we could never know about the abstract mathematical concept of 10! That is what you postulate. However I am about to show how this is wrong.

Be still my beating hearts.

If I were to be allowed to make propositional and informal fallacies as well(in a more coherent manner), in order to support my hypothesis, I would say: If I live in a spacecraft and the universe is devoid of material substance I could still use the laws of mathematics and say that there is “zero” form to the universe!

And by what frame of reference would you judge zero to be nothing?

Nothing! Nothing is 0! Nothing is an abstract mathematical concept! Even if concrete objects in the universe were to be obsolete, it still does not mean that the laws of logic and mathematics are devoid also. If you were all alone. It was just you and nobody and nothing else existed…you could still have the capacity for math. You could imagine another person to keep you company. Or a ball that you could hold or throw up into nothingness.

Again, if your only frame of reference was nothing then how would you infer something?

They’re abstract! They are not mutually inclusive as you posit. Even if our minds are non existent, mathematical laws as well as moral law and laws of logic still exist without our existence!

Read that back again, see if you spot the error.

Our brains do not need concrete objects in order for laws of morality, mathematics and logic to exist!

Our brains our concrete objects by which we infer abstract concepts. Spotted the irony yet?

If we did not know that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius would that implicate that water does not boil at 100 degree Celsius?

The boiling point of water is relative, you couldn't have picked a worse analogy.

Likewise the laws by which abstract thought follows have always existed. Even before the universe began! Far out, right!? It’s true! We discovered mathematics and the rules by which they follow. Your logic suggests that maths were invented. But math, science, logic, morality are not things that were invented. They were all discovered. Once we make a discovery we expound upon that discovery until we make the next discovery.

You can stop shoe horning morality in to there whenever you want, and I refer you to my previous points above, seeing as you insist on repeating yourself.

I get what your saying but your logic still fails. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius depending on barometric pressure or if you are in a low or high pressure system. The temp at which water boils is contingent on high or low pressure systems as well as barometric pressure and it of course needs to have heat applied to water. So these properties of barometric pressure as well as high or low pressure system, necessitate the temperature at which water will boil. Right now you might think you’re winning the argument because the reactions are an innate result of their properties. You are right to believe this and the person you quoted is also correct. Reactions are dependent upon the properties involved therein. I see why you are so confused to think that abstract laws are dependent on material. However even when water was subsequently far from coming to be… the rule by which water would boil within it’s subsequent properties was still plausible even before the universe began.

[/quote]

Which, again, is just a property of the of physical reality. You've done nothing to evidence a giver of physical laws.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Josephhasfun01 wrote:Big problem here with your objection to my first premise. “you cannot have one without the other” is a propositional fallacy.

No it isn't. This is the second time you've stated this, so perhaps you could point out exactly which propositional fallacy you're referring to?

Affirming the Consequent (if A then B) “you cannot have one without the other” You cannot have A without B.

Making fallacies is the least of your worries.

So you then go, from making propositional fallacies, to making this new informal fallacy?

If you lived in a universe devoid of material substance then by what frame of reference would you infer the concept of 2 + 2 = 4 from exactly?

Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Don’t fret! It’s ok to commit fallacies because anyone can commit them and still have a conclusive argument. You can have an entire argument that consists of no fallacies and still have a false conclusion.

Except I didn't treat an abstraction as if were a concrete, real event or physical entity. I said abstract concepts are depended on a physical frame of reference in which to infer their meaning. I never treated abstractions as real or physical. That would be a problem with your reading comprehension.

So by your logic the number two needs to have a physical frame in which to infer it to. My reading comprehension is fine. However your logic is in hot water! Your claim is: Abstract concepts need to have something physical by which to infer meaning. So one cannot think about two plus two equals four unless they have something by which to infer the meaning…so you must not be able to add 11+11 because you don’t have enough fingers and toes to count up that far? Interesting that you can‘t do simple math in your head. What I would do in that situation is use my imagination and add one extra finger to one hand and add one extra toe to one foot. Wait a minute! I can do that arithmetic in my head. But how is that allowed because according to your reasoning I can’t add 2+2 in my head without something physical in which to infer it to. I guess that we can’t do math without a bowl of marbles to use to count out abstract mathematical concepts.

In order to refute your hypothesis all I need to do is point out that concepts can exist without objects to attribute them to. Humans have imagination. Imagination is the ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or experienced directly.

The next thing you said is entirely false. I am sorry but I don’t know what you are even thinking to say the following quote: Imagination:

Which is entirely dependent physical reality.

Imagination is not entirely dependent on physical reality. If our imaginations depend on physical reality that would refute the definition of imagination; ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or experienced directly.
You can imagine 2 pretend starships in a pretend galaxy. I could imagine 4 trillion stars in a imagined galaxy without ever knowing about galaxies.



How does evolution explain were imagination came from? It doesn’t, does it? Not that someone out there is not extrapolating an explanation from something to try to.

Evolution doesn't have to explain where imagination comes from. Evolution explains how populations of organisms change over time. Want an explanation for imagination? Look into neuroscience.

Neuroscience can only tell us what part of the brain imagination works from. It does not tells us what entails imagination.

Never mind asking evolution to explain human behavior. We know it doesn’t.

Argument from ignorance. Evolutionary psychology explains quote a lot of human behavior, actually. Including morality.

Evolution is sociological in it‘s explanations of behavior and morality. However telling how something develops does not tell it’s of how it originated.

Abstract maths and material entities you claim….

I've already covered how you don't have the first fucking clue what it is I claimed.

You’re angry a lot aren’t you? Particularly when you are struggling to support an assertion you’ve made.

Abstract mathematical concepts and material are mutually inclusive?

The understanding on abstract concepts is dependent on our frame of reference, which is material.

It is as if you think that there are physical numbers out there!

Do you lack imagination? Given your hypostatization at the top you clearly don’t.

 

[australopithecus]

Affirming the Consequent (if A then B) “you cannot have one without the other” You cannot have A without B.

That's not affirming the consequent.

Making fallacies is the least of your worries.

When you successfully point one one, I'll be worried.

So you then go, from making propositional fallacies, to making this new informal fallacy?

You've yet to successfully identify any fallacy.

Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.

This is the second time you've incorrectly label this as that specific fallacy. Perhaps spend a little more time reading the wikipedia logical fallacy page is in order?

Don’t fret! It’s ok to commit fallacies because anyone can commit them and still have a conclusive argument. You can have an entire argument that consists of no fallacies and still have a false conclusion.

So by your logic the number two needs to have a physical frame in which to infer it to. My reading comprehension is fine. However your logic is in hot water! Your claim is: Abstract concepts need to have something physical by which to infer meaning. So one cannot think about two plus two equals four unless they have something by which to infer the meaning…so you must not be able to add 11+11 because you don’t have enough fingers and toes to count up that far? Interesting that you can‘t do simple math in your head. What I would do in that situation is use my imagination and add one extra finger to one hand and add one extra toe to one foot. Wait a minute! I can do that arithmetic in my head. But how is that allowed because according to your reasoning I can’t add 2+2 in my head without something physical in which to infer it to.

Of course you can do that arithmetic in your head, your frame of reference allows for it.

I guess that we can’t do math without a bowl of marbles to use to count out abstract mathematical concepts.

Straw man. Dismissed.

In order to refute your hypothesis all I need to do is point out that concepts can exist without objects to attribute them to. Humans have imagination. Imagination is the ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or experienced directly.

Visualisation that is dependent on our frame of references.

Imagination is not entirely dependent on physical reality. If our imaginations depend on physical reality that would refute the definition of imagination; ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or experienced directly.

The mind being a physical thing, in a frame of reference by which the material is common. Wookiees don't exist, but without a material reference frame they could not be imagined.

You can imagine 2 pretend starships in a pretend galaxy. I could imagine 4 trillion stars in a imagined galaxy without ever knowing about galaxies.

Space craft, galaxies and stars exist. If they didn't what reference would you use to infer them?

Neuroscience can only tell us what part of the brain imagination works from. It does not tells us what entails imagination.

So we can add neuroscience to the list of sciences you clearly know fuck all about, but feel the need to make claims about.

Evolution is sociological in it‘s explanations of behavior and morality. However telling how something develops does not tell it’s of how it originated.

Same argument from ignorance.

You’re angry a lot aren’t you? Particularly when you are struggling to support an assertion you’ve made.

the only struggle is trying to explain basic concepts to a brick wall; i.e you. It's like talking to a tree.

It is as if you think that there are physical numbers out there!

Straw man.

Do you lack imagination? Given your hypostatization at the top you clearly don’t.

It was unfunny the first time you posted this. It doesn't fare better upon repetition.

 

[tuxbox]

I shall respect your wishes. If you ever wish to pick this up again, I'll happily share a debate topic with you.

My apologies, I did not mean I did not want you to respond to my last post. In fact I was looking forward to your response.

One last thing that should be said: you may very well be right. Keep looking, and if you find something, please share. I'm not afraid of being wrong, just that no one will tell me when I am.

Edit: wording changed for clarity.

I have never been in a formal debate before and I am not really sure how they work. That said, I would be willing to try, but at the moment I do not have a lot of time to devote to such an endeavor.