73 replies to this topic

[TehKiller]

Well the irony I see is that a single priest is preaching about God's existence while in contrast atheists seem to swarm like flies on turd to preach how God doesnt exist.

If you converted to Atheism because of "getting your head filled" then its kinda dumb for you to start filling other peoples heads with bollocks they dont want to be annoyed with.

[CJ]

TehKiller, on 14 Aug 2010, 18:20, said:

Well the irony I see is that a single priest is preaching about God's existence while in contrast atheists seem to swarm like flies on turd to preach how God doesnt exist.

If you converted to Atheism because of "getting your head filled" then its kinda dumb for you to start filling other peoples heads with bollocks they dont want to be annoyed with.

You aren't make any sense, how could I have "got my head filled" if I believed in god? I mean, no one would try to convince me that god exists if I already believed that...
And maybe you're only seeing that atheists are swarming you because you believe in god? I am atheist, and all I see is that everyone (friends included) are always judging me for that and trying to convert me.

[GuardianTempest]

And thus religious wars begun, how many throats can you shove your beliefs in, how many people converted, if we, like my best friend(atheist) IRL, respect each others belief and leave each other alone, then peace is restored.
---------------------------
We got derailed again.

[Zhao]

Meh just play it safe by believing there's a god but don't get sucked into peoples way "God "Intended"

Human idea of religion is silly

[Chyros]

Aaron, on 15 Aug 2010, 1:55, said:

Meh just play it safe by believing there's a god

I.e. the Ancient Greek way. With mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam that trick doesn't work though .

[Genrail]

this has gotten horribly off track... But the First Question still stands, in witch I found my question,

Can god make a rock so heavy that he himself,(God), can't lift?

[Alias]

The first question was answered long ago.

Yes, an omnipotent God can create an infinitely heavy rock.
But an omnipotent God also has infinite strength, so the omnipotent God can lift the said infinitely heavy rock.

When dealing with infinites they do not have to cancel each other out.

Edited by Alias, 15 August 2010 - 06:42.

[BeefJeRKy]

You could probably prove that fact mathematically but that would take the fun out of God no?

[GuardianTempest]

Or he could just remove the paradox applying to him and instead imply it on Chuck Norris.

[Camille]

GuardianTempest, on 15 Aug 2010, 9:23, said:

Or he could just remove the paradox applying to him and instead imply it on Chuck Norris.

right... no.

god could never create a rock of infinite weight because he doesn't physically exists.

it's goddamn religion, what is there to argue about? just keep that to yourself and enjoy it if you must.

OP could have handled this paradox without the involvement of a deity.

[Golan]

Without a deity, there isn't a paradox, as an infinite mass and the creation of it wouldn't make sense in the boundary of our university, making the question void.

[Camille]

which makes me wonder if this 'discussion' is really of any value at all...

[Golan]

It's about burritos and time manipulation... so yeah, pretty sensible.

The real problem though is that not only is the issue void for a non-deity, it is also undefined regardless of any actual deity, as the current concept of mass/heat/whatever is used in this question does not support an "infinite" quality of any kind in our understanding of existence. For example, an infinitely heavy stone (as well as an infinitely hot burrito, due to mass–energy equivalence) would simply break the rules known to us, thus it's impossible to predict what would actually happen.

Edited by Golan, 15 August 2010 - 22:05.

[GuardianTempest]

Golan, on 16 Aug 2010, 6:04, said:

It's about burritos and time manipulation... so yeah, pretty sensible.

The real problem though is that not only is the issue void for a non-deity, it is also undefined regardless of any actual deity, as the current concept of mass/heat/whatever is used in this question does not support an "infinite" quality of any kind in our understanding of existence. For example, an infinitely heavy stone (as well as an infinitely hot burrito, due to mass–energy equivalence) would simply break the rules known to us, thus it's impossible to predict what would actually happen.

So let's say Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked an infinitely hot and infinitely heavy rock-hard burrito in front of the whitehouse, then what?

[CJ]

GuardianTempest, on 16 Aug 2010, 9:30, said:

Golan, on 16 Aug 2010, 6:04, said:

It's about burritos and time manipulation... so yeah, pretty sensible.

The real problem though is that not only is the issue void for a non-deity, it is also undefined regardless of any actual deity, as the current concept of mass/heat/whatever is used in this question does not support an "infinite" quality of any kind in our understanding of existence. For example, an infinitely heavy stone (as well as an infinitely hot burrito, due to mass–energy equivalence) would simply break the rules known to us, thus it's impossible to predict what would actually happen.

So let's say Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked an infinitely hot and infinitely heavy rock-hard burrito in front of the whitehouse, then what?

You're aware that you're in a subforum which is supposed to hold serious discussions? Babbling around random things which doesn't even amuse the other users would normally lead to getting a warning.

[GuardianTempest]

Ok fine, but I want to know why physics won't allow that and what will happen if it did.


EDIT: Just curious.

Edited by GuardianTempest, 16 August 2010 - 13:18.

[Golan]

It's not per se not allowed, it's simply undefined - with our understanding of mass and energy, it doesn't make sense to have either being infinite. Heat and mass are defined by quantifiable features - infinity is not quantifiable. The models we use to describe the phenomenon of heat and mass simply do not cover this case, so no sensible information can be derived from them.
Anyways, in a mathematical sense, in the newton'ian model an infinitely heavy object would be by definition impossible to accelerate. Which kinda clashes with infinite heat, as infinitely fast Brownian motion (a direct result of infinite heat in the kinetic theory) also requires infinitely fast trajectory reflection, read acceleration. Not to speak of the fact that an infinitely heavy object would create an infinitely strong gravitational field that a) crushes the entire universe infinitely fast and b) makes every single physical law invalid anyways. It's also very likely that you won't get invited to the next party of Quantum Physicists. So yeah...

Edited by Golan, 16 August 2010 - 13:57.

[GuardianTempest]

Golan, on 16 Aug 2010, 21:38, said:

It's not per se not allowed, it's simply undefined - with our understanding of mass and energy, it doesn't make sense to have either being infinite. Heat and mass are defined by quantifiable features - infinity is not quantifiable. The models we use to describe the phenomenon of heat and mass simply do not cover this case, so no sensible information can be derived from them.
Anyways, in a mathematical sense, in the newton'ian model an infinitely heavy object would be by definition impossible to accelerate. Which kinda clashes with infinite heat, as infinitely fast Brownian motion (a direct result of infinite heat in the kinetic theory) also requires infinitely fast trajectory reflection, read acceleration. Not to speak of the fact that an infinitely heavy object would create an infinitely strong gravitational field that a) crushes the entire universe infinitely fast and b) makes every single physical law invalid anyways. It's also very likely that you won't get invited to the next party of Quantum Physicists. So yeah...

Thank you very much.

[Shirou]

Necro



A very nice video from this nice atheist guy who does his very best in many videos trying to tell everyone why religion is nonsense, using the question of 'omnipotence' as well.

Please take 15 minutes of your time for this (or 12, the ending is a music vid)

Edited by Shirou, 07 November 2010 - 12:28.

[SquigPie]

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

[Alias]

He generalises quite a lot, but I do agree with him quite a bit (he pulls from Sagan quite a lot), and I'm a religious person.

Organised religion as a whole is what he is against, "personal religion", or what my beliefs tend to lean on conform with his reasoning. His points do not discredit the possibility of a creator. I agree with him on points such as 'hell' being an invention of fear and the like, though.

[Shirou]

SquigPie, on 7 Nov 2010, 13:55, said:

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

Opinions are nonsense by definition because they are opinions, and not facts, and if an opinion differs from yours then what else would you do to it, than to deem it untrue?

Edited by Shirou, 07 November 2010 - 14:31.

[TehKiller]

Shirou, on 7 Nov 2010, 15:28, said:

SquigPie, on 7 Nov 2010, 13:55, said:

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

Opinions are nonsense by definition because they are opinions, and not facts, and if an opinion differs from yours then what else would you do to it, than to deem it untrue?

It works both ways. My opinion would be nonsense, by your definition, but so is his also considered nonsense.

That is if your definition isnt nonsense by itself.

[Golan]

Shirou, on 7 Nov 2010, 14:28, said:

SquigPie, on 7 Nov 2010, 13:55, said:

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

Opinions are nonsense by definition because they are opinions, and not facts, and if an opinion differs from yours then what else would you do to it, than to deem it untrue?

An opinion can be true and thus isn't nonsense by definition, nor is it compulsory to label differing opinions as untrue - one could *ghasp* even go so far as to reflect on one's own.

Besides, labeling something as nonsense or untrue are a whole different caliber of claiming something isn't correct.

Edited by Golan, 07 November 2010 - 15:44.