How is atheism more rational than deism?

[Daedalus685]

Infinity is not a "point" where things arrive or begin. Numbers don't eventually "reach infinity" if we count long enough. Sets of numbers are either infinite or they are not.

So, no, nothing in your question made a ounce of sense.

Oh give him a break.. It is certainly frustrating when folks try to use false info to argue but many simply don't understand. I think he can come around.

I don't think he understands that infinity is not a value, and two infinite things need not be equal.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Gnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Agnostic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Bam, you're wrong. The world does not agree with you.

You need to actually read the things that I write, and in the future strive for comprehension. And I quote myself thusly, and like so...

I know how the term has been used popularly, but I'm what I'm telling you is that your usage is not the most accurate, nor the most descriptive, and therefore it is the less useful. (emphasis added)

Anybody that thinks that Wikipedia is a source of "true definitions" lacks a very fundamental understanding of the mechanics of language.

Only the uninformed uses the simplistic definition of Gnostic and Agnostic, both of which are, were, and will always be related to the discussion of God/Religions. PERIOD.

Absolutely false. The definitions I have presented are demonstrably more useful, and as I also said before the only reason to restrict a word to a less useful meaning is ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[Matthiasa]

Infinity is not a "point" where things arrive or begin. Numbers don't eventually "reach infinity" if we count long enough. Sets of numbers are either infinite or they are not.

So, no, nothing in your question made a ounce of sense.

I don't think he understands that infinity is not a value, and two infinite things need not be equal.[/QUOTE]

Eh something like the limit (x->&#8734😉 (3x^2+x+n)/x^2= 3...
Slightly more relevant would be something that has say a energy per b volume taking up c volume with c being infinite would leave c volume filled with infinite energy.
Yes I know two infinite values need not be equal but dispersion from it would still take an infinite amount of time.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...dispersion from it would still take an infinite amount of time.

"Dispersion" from what?

 

[Matthiasa]

"Dispersion" from what?

The singularity?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The singularity?

Are you asking me or telling me? You made the claim; answer the question. Answers generally take the form of declarative statements.

Let me rephrase the question, also:

"Dispersion" of what, from what? What does "dispersion" mean, as you have used it?

 

[Matthiasa]

Are you asking me or telling me? You made the claim; answer the question. Answers generally take the form of declarative statements.

Let me rephrase the question, also:

"Dispersion" of what, from what? What does "dispersion" mean, as you have used it?

Going from a higher concentration of energy to a lower concentration. 😛

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Going from a higher concentration of energy to a lower concentration. 😛

So, since you appear unable to form reasonably interpretable statements on your own, when you said "dispersion from it would still take an infinite amount of time," was it rather your claim that "Going from a higher concentration of energy to a lower concentration" from "the singularity" "would still take an infinite amount of time"?

If that is your question, then the answer is no. Total entropy always increases.

If you mean to say that the so-called "heat death" of the universe is unreachable in a finite time, then the answer is most likely yes. The total useable energy of the Universe (capital U) will likely never evaporate, or at least, we have no basis on which to assert that "heat death" for the Universe is an inevitability.

 

[Matthiasa]

So, since you appear unable to form reasonably interpretable statements on your own, when you said "dispersion from it would still take an infinite amount of time," was it rather your claim that "Going from a higher concentration of energy to a lower concentration" from "the singularity" "would still take an infinite amount of time"?

If that is your question, then the answer is no. Total entropy always increases.

If you mean to say that the so-called "heat death" of the universe is unreachable in a finite time, then the answer is most likely yes. The total useable energy of the Universe (capital U) will likely never evaporate, or at least, we have no basis on which to assert that "heat death" for the Universe is an inevitability.

Well yeah I know, last I checked the universe will "die" a very cold death a very very long time from now. 🙁

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well yeah I know, last I checked the universe will "die" a very cold death a very very long time from now. 🙁

What part of "the so-called 'heat death' of the universe is unreachable in a finite time" do you take to mean the same as what you said above?

 

[Matthiasa]

What part of "the so-called 'heat death' of the universe is unreachable in a finite time" do you take to mean the same as what you said above?

Eh the universe cooling off... something along those lines.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Eh the universe cooling off... something along those lines.

Ok, but I'm talking about time intervals here. The time interval between now and the hypothesized "heat death" of the universe is infinite. That is not the same thing as saying the future "heat death" of the universe is "a very very long time from now." Rather, it is saying that the "heat death" of the universe is unreachable. The universe will always approach it, but never arrive.

 

[Matthiasa]

Ok, but I'm talking about time intervals here. The time interval between now and the hypothesized "heat death" of the universe is infinite. That is not the same thing as saying the future "heat death" of the universe is "a very very long time from now." Rather, it is saying that the "heat death" of the universe is unreachable. The universe will always approach it, but never arrive.

It doesn't need heat death for it to still be "dead", a "big freeze" type event would still have a similar effect.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It doesn't need heat death for it to still be "dead", a "big freeze" type event would still have a similar effect.

Ok, I give up. You are obviously incapable of apprehending even the simplest of statements and holding up your end of a rational discussion, and so I'm done wasting my time trying to remedy you of your infirmity.

We now return to your regularly scheduled retard. Babble on... 🙄

 

[Matthiasa]

Ok, I give up. You are obviously incapable of apprehending even the simplest of statements and holding up your end of a rational discussion, and so I'm done wasting my time trying to remedy you of your infirmity.

We now return to your regularly scheduled retard. Babble on... 🙄

Sorry you fail to realize the difference between the two. 🙁
There really is a difference but whatever.

The universe still ends either way with protons decaying, and if they don't decay everything becoming iron and then neutron stars and black holes... 😛

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The universe still ends....

No, you unbelievable imbecile, it doesn't. It doesn't end at all. That's what an infinite future timeline means! No end.Did your hampster fall off the wheel or what? Fuck's sake you're stupid. You seem like you're just putting scientific words together because you think that if they sound like they make a sentence then it must be a true one.

I tried to give you some leniency, but you're just rambling on about shit we debunked 3 pages ago in this very thread. Is English even your first language? Did you not read the explanations given you which say precisely the opposite of the bullshit you're still prattling on about? Shut the fuck up already. You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and you sound like a blubbering jackass.

 

[manowar821]

Nobody needs to prove there isn't a god. No "proof-negative" does not equate to "proof-positive".

Agnostic Atheist = "There is no proof so why believe?"

I don't make shit up and then expect you to prove me wrong, so why do these people expect the same of atheists? To me, the word "atheist" describes those who do not fall prey to superstitions and faulty, circular logic.

The gnostic, and theistic type argues in circles. There's no reason to take them seriously if they continue to do so.

This stupid argument has been going on for as long as people have been making shit up instead of accepting that it takes time and EFFORT to figure out how shit works. Since human beings are weak minded, cowardly creatures, the circular logic just fell into place in order to back up and defend those comforting yet shitty, made-up explanations.

Prove the super-being(s) exists, and stop crying about it.

 

[Matthiasa]

No, you unbelievable imbecile, it doesn't. It doesn't end at all. That's what an infinite future timeline means! No end.Did your hampster fall off the wheel or what? Fuck's sake you're stupid. You seem like you're just putting scientific words together because you think that if they sound like they make a sentence then it must be a true one.

I tried to give you some leniency, but you're just rambling on about shit we debunked 3 pages ago in this very thread. Is English even your first language? Did you not read the explanations given you which say precisely the opposite of the bullshit you're still prattling on about? Shut the fuck up already. You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and you sound like a blubbering jackass.

The is not the kind I mean and you know it, it's a doing nothing interesting kind of end. It's a everything has decayed kind of end. A boring, lifeless, cold, possibly even matterless kind of end.
Not a it suddenly ceased to exist kind of end.
With that everything that you responded to is actually true, that is what is current;y theorized to actually happen.
Just look it up if you have doubts.