Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The universe is not expanding

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 7:57:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now for a brief word on sets. Mathematicians view set theory as fundamental. Anything can be considered an object, even a space or a process, and wherever there are objects, there is a set to contain them. This "something" may be a relation, a space or an algebraic system, but it is also a set; its relational, spatial or algebraic structure simply makes it a structured set. So mathematicians view sets, broadly including null, singleton, finite and infinite sets, as fundamental objects basic to meaningful descriptions of reality. It follows that reality itself should be a set"in fact, the largest set of all. But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction). The obvious solution: define an extension of set theory incorporating two senses of "containment" which work together in such a way that the largest set can be defined as "containing" its powerset in one sense while being contained by its powerset in the other. Thus, it topologically includes itself in the act of descriptively including itself in the act of topologically including itself..., and so on, in the course of which it obviously becomes more than just a set.

An act is a temporal process, and self-inclusion is a spatial relation. The act of self-inclusion is thus "where time becomes space"; for the set of all sets, there can be no more fundamental process. No matter what else happens in the evolving universe, it must be temporally embedded in this dualistic self-inclusion operation. In the CTMU, the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion and occurs at the distributed, Lorentz-invariant conspansion rate c, a time-space conversion factor already familiar as the speed of light in vacuo (conspansion consists of two alternative phases accounting for the wave and particle properties of matter and affording a logical explanation for accelerating cosmic expansion). When we imagine a dynamic self-including set, we think of a set growing larger and larger in order to engulf itself from without. But since there is no "without" relative to the real universe, external growth or reference is not an option; there can be no external set or external descriptor. Instead, self-inclusion and self-description must occur inwardly as the universe stratifies into a temporal sequence of states, each state topologically and computationally contained in the one preceding it (where the conventionally limited term computation is understood to refer to a more powerful SCSPL-based concept, protocomputation, involving spatiotemporal parallelism). On the present level of discourse, this inward self-inclusion is the conspansive basis of what we call spacetime.

Every object in spacetime includes the entirety of spacetime as a state-transition syntax according to which its next state is created. This guarantees the mutual consistency of states and the overall unity of the dynamic entity the real universe. And because the sole real interpretation of the set-theoretic entity "the set of all sets" is the entire real universe, the associated foundational paradoxes are resolved in kind (by attributing mathematical structure like that of the universe to the pure, uninterpreted set-theoretic version of the set of all sets). Concisely, resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox requires that (1) an endomorphism or self-similarity mapping D:S-->r"S be defined for the set of all sets S and its internal points r; (2) there exist two complementary senses of inclusion, one topological [S "t D(S)] and one predicative [D(S) "d S], that allow the set to descriptively "include itself" from within, i.e. from a state of topological self-inclusion (where "t denotes topological or set-theoretic inclusion and "d denotes descriptive inclusion, e.g. the inclusion in a language of its referents); and (3) the input S of D be global and structural, while the output D(S) = (r "d S) be internal to S and play a syntactic role. In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets).

http://www.ctmu.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 8:00:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
...The Principle of Conspansive Duality then says that what appears as cosmic expansion from an interior (local) viewpoint appears as material and temporal contraction from a global viewpoint. Because metric concepts like "size" and "duration" are undefined with respect to the universe as a whole, the spacetime metric is defined strictly intrinsically, and the usual limit of cosmological regress, a pointlike cosmic singularity, becomes the closed spacetime algebra already identified as SCSPL.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 8:18:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Consider a simple arithmetical analogy: 1/2 = 1000/2000 = 1(109999)/2(109999) = (").
Where the numerator and denominator of a fraction are both multiplied by a given number, the
value of the fraction does not change; it is independent of distinctions involving the size of the
multiplier. Similarly, the intrinsic proportionality of a self-contained system is independent of
distinctions involving any external measure. This implies that with respect to a self-contained
universe for which no external measure exists, no distinction can be made between the
expansion of the system with respect to its contents, and the shrinkage of its contents with
respect to it. In fact, because that which is undefined cannot change " there is nothing definite
with respect to which change would be possible " apparent expansion of the container cannot be
extrinsically defined, but implies a conspansively-equivalent intrinsic shrinkage of its contents.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 8:37:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

By definition, that which is real is contained within reality (the universe). Thus, either God is synonymous with reality, in which case this is false, or he external to reality, in which case he is unreal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 10:31:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The acceleration of this expansion can be explained by the fact that as the universe continuously tries to engulf itself, the increase is exponential. Eg 1.01 ^ infinity. But since this process is "circumscribed" by "non-reality", the universe remain the same "size" because there is nothing to be compared to but itself (its size is undefinable). Thus, the contraction (but perceived expansion) is exponential as well.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 11:13:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 8:37:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

By definition, that which is real is contained within reality (the universe). Thus, either God is synonymous with reality, in which case this is false, or he external to reality, in which case he is unreal.

Why think the universe is the only reality? Are you simply defining all of reality as the universe? If so, then even Heaven conceivably exists within the universe.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 11:24:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 11:13:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:37:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

By definition, that which is real is contained within reality (the universe). Thus, either God is synonymous with reality, in which case this is false, or he external to reality, in which case he is unreal.

Why think the universe is the only reality? Are you simply defining all of reality as the universe? If so, then even Heaven conceivably exists within the universe.

When I get to a comp, ill explain
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 1:39:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 7:57:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Now for a brief word on sets. Mathematicians view set theory as fundamental. Anything can be considered an object, even a space or a process, and wherever there are objects, there is a set to contain them. This "something" may be a relation, a space or an algebraic system, but it is also a set; its relational, spatial or algebraic structure simply makes it a structured set. So mathematicians view sets, broadly including null, singleton, finite and infinite sets, as fundamental objects basic to meaningful descriptions of reality. It follows that reality itself should be a set"in fact, the largest set of all. But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction). The obvious solution: define an extension of set theory incorporating two senses of "containment" which work together in such a way that the largest set can be defined as "containing" its powerset in one sense while being contained by its powerset in the other. Thus, it topologically includes itself in the act of descriptively including itself in the act of topologically including itself..., and so on, in the course of which it obviously becomes more than just a set.

An act is a temporal process, and self-inclusion is a spatial relation. The act of self-inclusion is thus "where time becomes space"; for the set of all sets, there can be no more fundamental process. No matter what else happens in the evolving universe, it must be temporally embedded in this dualistic self-inclusion operation. In the CTMU, the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion and occurs at the distributed, Lorentz-invariant conspansion rate c, a time-space conversion factor already familiar as the speed of light in vacuo (conspansion consists of two alternative phases accounting for the wave and particle properties of matter and affording a logical explanation for accelerating cosmic expansion). When we imagine a dynamic self-including set, we think of a set growing larger and larger in order to engulf itself from without. But since there is no "without" relative to the real universe, external growth or reference is not an option; there can be no external set or external descriptor. Instead, self-inclusion and self-description must occur inwardly as the universe stratifies into a temporal sequence of states, each state topologically and computationally contained in the one preceding it (where the conventionally limited term computation is understood to refer to a more powerful SCSPL-based concept, protocomputation, involving spatiotemporal parallelism). On the present level of discourse, this inward self-inclusion is the conspansive basis of what we call spacetime.

Every object in spacetime includes the entirety of spacetime as a state-transition syntax according to which its next state is created. This guarantees the mutual consistency of states and the overall unity of the dynamic entity the real universe. And because the sole real interpretation of the set-theoretic entity "the set of all sets" is the entire real universe, the associated foundational paradoxes are resolved in kind (by attributing mathematical structure like that of the universe to the pure, uninterpreted set-theoretic version of the set of all sets). Concisely, resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox requires that (1) an endomorphism or self-similarity mapping D:S-->r"S be defined for the set of all sets S and its internal points r; (2) there exist two complementary senses of inclusion, one topological [S "t D(S)] and one predicative [D(S) "d S], that allow the set to descriptively "include itself" from within, i.e. from a state of topological self-inclusion (where "t denotes topological or set-theoretic inclusion and "d denotes descriptive inclusion, e.g. the inclusion in a language of its referents); and (3) the input S of D be global and structural, while the output D(S) = (r "d S) be internal to S and play a syntactic role. In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets).

http://www.ctmu.org...

It sure does, and you know what made me come to the realization that it does? When I took a look at the length of your post and I decided to myself, I am not going to read all of that.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 1:40:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 1:39:45 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/27/2014 7:57:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Now for a brief word on sets. Mathematicians view set theory as fundamental. Anything can be considered an object, even a space or a process, and wherever there are objects, there is a set to contain them. This "something" may be a relation, a space or an algebraic system, but it is also a set; its relational, spatial or algebraic structure simply makes it a structured set. So mathematicians view sets, broadly including null, singleton, finite and infinite sets, as fundamental objects basic to meaningful descriptions of reality. It follows that reality itself should be a set"in fact, the largest set of all. But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction). The obvious solution: define an extension of set theory incorporating two senses of "containment" which work together in such a way that the largest set can be defined as "containing" its powerset in one sense while being contained by its powerset in the other. Thus, it topologically includes itself in the act of descriptively including itself in the act of topologically including itself..., and so on, in the course of which it obviously becomes more than just a set.

An act is a temporal process, and self-inclusion is a spatial relation. The act of self-inclusion is thus "where time becomes space"; for the set of all sets, there can be no more fundamental process. No matter what else happens in the evolving universe, it must be temporally embedded in this dualistic self-inclusion operation. In the CTMU, the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion and occurs at the distributed, Lorentz-invariant conspansion rate c, a time-space conversion factor already familiar as the speed of light in vacuo (conspansion consists of two alternative phases accounting for the wave and particle properties of matter and affording a logical explanation for accelerating cosmic expansion). When we imagine a dynamic self-including set, we think of a set growing larger and larger in order to engulf itself from without. But since there is no "without" relative to the real universe, external growth or reference is not an option; there can be no external set or external descriptor. Instead, self-inclusion and self-description must occur inwardly as the universe stratifies into a temporal sequence of states, each state topologically and computationally contained in the one preceding it (where the conventionally limited term computation is understood to refer to a more powerful SCSPL-based concept, protocomputation, involving spatiotemporal parallelism). On the present level of discourse, this inward self-inclusion is the conspansive basis of what we call spacetime.

Every object in spacetime includes the entirety of spacetime as a state-transition syntax according to which its next state is created. This guarantees the mutual consistency of states and the overall unity of the dynamic entity the real universe. And because the sole real interpretation of the set-theoretic entity "the set of all sets" is the entire real universe, the associated foundational paradoxes are resolved in kind (by attributing mathematical structure like that of the universe to the pure, uninterpreted set-theoretic version of the set of all sets). Concisely, resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox requires that (1) an endomorphism or self-similarity mapping D:S-->r"S be defined for the set of all sets S and its internal points r; (2) there exist two complementary senses of inclusion, one topological [S "t D(S)] and one predicative [D(S) "d S], that allow the set to descriptively "include itself" from within, i.e. from a state of topological self-inclusion (where "t denotes topological or set-theoretic inclusion and "d denotes descriptive inclusion, e.g. the inclusion in a language of its referents); and (3) the input S of D be global and structural, while the output D(S) = (r "d S) be internal to S and play a syntactic role. In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets).

http://www.ctmu.org...


It sure does, and you know what made me come to the realization that it does? When I took a look at the length of your post and I decided to myself, I am not going to read all of that.

Sorry wrong post.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 1:57:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The universe is not expanding; we're just getting smaller. Seriously, though, this is also very dumb. Way to go crazy over the universe being ordered, which is like absolutely nothing new. Dylan buys the first cause argument when the universe having walls is brought up, which entails zero difference to prior argument. Random could still be the mother of all things. It only takes random to repeat to become something that's not random. QED. Stop sperging please.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 3:33:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 11:13:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:37:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

By definition, that which is real is contained within reality (the universe). Thus, either God is synonymous with reality, in which case this is false, or he external to reality, in which case he is unreal.

Why think the universe is the only reality? Are you simply defining all of reality as the universe? If so, then even Heaven conceivably exists within the universe.

"Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.

The concept of syndiffeonesis can be captured by asserting that the expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax, i.e. the rules of state and transformation characterizing the medium. It is from these rules that the relation derives its spatial and temporal characteristics as expressed within the medium. Thus, a syndiffeonic relation consists of a difference relation embedded in a relational medium whose distributed rules of structure and evolution support its existence."

If the difference between two realities were real - that is, if they were not the same reality- they would reduce to a more fundamental existence, and that would be reality. Since there is a single reality, there can be only one "infinite expanse of space". This is true because space requires reality to recognize it and reality requires space to resolve the paradox it embodies and must actively resolve.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 3:53:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 3:33:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:13:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:37:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

By definition, that which is real is contained within reality (the universe). Thus, either God is synonymous with reality, in which case this is false, or he external to reality, in which case he is unreal.

Why think the universe is the only reality? Are you simply defining all of reality as the universe? If so, then even Heaven conceivably exists within the universe.

"Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.

The concept of syndiffeonesis can be captured by asserting that the expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax, i.e. the rules of state and transformation characterizing the medium. It is from these rules that the relation derives its spatial and temporal characteristics as expressed within the medium. Thus, a syndiffeonic relation consists of a difference relation embedded in a relational medium whose distributed rules of structure and evolution support its existence."


If the difference between two realities were real - that is, if they were not the same reality- they would reduce to a more fundamental existence, and that would be reality. Since there is a single reality, there can be only one "infinite expanse of space". This is true because space requires reality to recognize it and reality requires space to resolve the paradox it embodies and must actively resolve.

I have no clue what you are talking about, sorry lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 3:54:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 3:33:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:13:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:37:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

By definition, that which is real is contained within reality (the universe). Thus, either God is synonymous with reality, in which case this is false, or he external to reality, in which case he is unreal.

Why think the universe is the only reality? Are you simply defining all of reality as the universe? If so, then even Heaven conceivably exists within the universe.

"Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.

The concept of syndiffeonesis can be captured by asserting that the expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax, i.e. the rules of state and transformation characterizing the medium. It is from these rules that the relation derives its spatial and temporal characteristics as expressed within the medium. Thus, a syndiffeonic relation consists of a difference relation embedded in a relational medium whose distributed rules of structure and evolution support its existence."


If the difference between two realities were real - that is, if they were not the same reality- they would reduce to a more fundamental existence, and that would be reality. Since there is a single reality, there can be only one "infinite expanse of space". This is true because space requires reality to recognize it and reality requires space to resolve the paradox it embodies and must actively resolve.

Reality is just whatever exists.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 3:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 1:57:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Random could still be the mother of all things. It only takes random to repeat to become something that's not random. QED. Stop sperging please.

Randomness that exists can obviously produce almost anything given enough time. But since existence itself must provide and recognize its own means of existence, randomness cannot emerge from undifferentiated potential on its own.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:03:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dylancatlow, but in science we measure things based on our instruments and measuring devices. With respect to our rulers and measurements like the parsec, the universe is indeed physically expanding. I understand your argument that it can actually be doing the opposite of what we perceive, that things are actually shrinking, and this gives the appearance that at the largest known scale things are expanding.

But this hypothesis doesn't sit well with me because there is no underlying basis to explain why it would be doing this. I'm a philosopher and scientist that places great significance on the expanding nature of the universe, and I have reached very satisfying and rational conclusions as to why the universe would be expanding.

I simply cannot find a satisfying answer that would explain why everything in the universe is shrinking. This is why I reject this hypothesis.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:05:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 3:56:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 1:57:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Random could still be the mother of all things. It only takes random to repeat to become something that's not random. QED. Stop sperging please.

Randomness that exists can obviously produce almost anything given enough time. But since existence itself must provide and recognize its own means of existence, randomness cannot emerge from undifferentiated potential on its own.

Agreed. Where does divine will come into this?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:09:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:03:23 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Dylancatlow, but in science we measure things based on our instruments and measuring devices. With respect to our rulers and measurements like the parsec, the universe is indeed physically expanding. I understand your argument that it can actually be doing the opposite of what we perceive, that things are actually shrinking, and this gives the appearance that at the largest known scale things are expanding.

But this hypothesis doesn't sit well with me because there is no underlying basis to explain why it would be doing this. I'm a philosopher and scientist that places great significance on the expanding nature of the universe, and I have reached very satisfying and rational conclusions as to why the universe would be expanding.

I simply cannot find a satisfying answer that would explain why everything in the universe is shrinking. This is why I reject this hypothesis.

The reason that reality does this is because it has to in order to exist. And of course it appears like reality is expanding. That is not the point.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:11:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:09:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:03:23 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Dylancatlow, but in science we measure things based on our instruments and measuring devices. With respect to our rulers and measurements like the parsec, the universe is indeed physically expanding. I understand your argument that it can actually be doing the opposite of what we perceive, that things are actually shrinking, and this gives the appearance that at the largest known scale things are expanding.

But this hypothesis doesn't sit well with me because there is no underlying basis to explain why it would be doing this. I'm a philosopher and scientist that places great significance on the expanding nature of the universe, and I have reached very satisfying and rational conclusions as to why the universe would be expanding.

I simply cannot find a satisfying answer that would explain why everything in the universe is shrinking. This is why I reject this hypothesis.

dylancatlow said: "The reason that reality does this is because it has to in order to exist. And of course it appears like reality is expanding. That is not the point."

Can you explain why it has to in order to exist?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:15:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dylancatlow, I can provide an explanation as to why the universe is expanding and expanding more rapidly as time elapses. I believe the answer is simple and has to do with a conclusion I've reached about energy. Energy isn't of a constant value in the universe. It's actually being constantly supplied to the universe from something that's going on at the universe's boundary. (Energy, in other words, is constantly increasing in the universe.)

But I would like to read your explanation for the shrinking universe.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:09:34 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The existence of random is, in itself, random.

This merely pushes the problem somewhere else.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:27:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:21:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:09:34 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The existence of random is, in itself, random.

This merely pushes the problem somewhere else.

And I refer you back to that age-old argument of where did your "divine will" come from? Laughing my f*cking a-ss off, mate. Except I'm not. I'm embarrassed for you.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:43:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:27:51 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:21:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:09:34 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The existence of random is, in itself, random.

This merely pushes the problem somewhere else.

And I refer you back to that age-old argument of where did your "divine will" come from? Laughing my f*cking a-ss off, mate. Except I'm not. I'm embarrassed for you.

....logic can only be violated where the distiction between existence and non-existece is made... which can only be maintained by existence.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:46:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:43:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:27:51 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:21:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:09:34 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The existence of random is, in itself, random.

This merely pushes the problem somewhere else.

And I refer you back to that age-old argument of where did your "divine will" come from? Laughing my f*cking a-ss off, mate. Except I'm not. I'm embarrassed for you.

....logic can only be violated where the distiction between existence and non-existece is made... which can only be maintained by existence.

Wow.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:52:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

I have a question. When you post forums dierected to the atheists, you're trolling us mostly right?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:54:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:52:49 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

I have a question. When you post forums dierected to the atheists, you're trolling us mostly right?

It's argument in itself, but yes.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 4:56:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:54:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:52:49 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

I have a question. When you post forums dierected to the atheists, you're trolling us mostly right?

It's argument in itself, but yes.

Right... I need his word though.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 5:06:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 4:56:13 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:54:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/27/2014 4:52:49 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 1/27/2014 8:09:14 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The universe is expanding relative to GOD.

I have a question. When you post forums dierected to the atheists, you're trolling us mostly right?

It's argument in itself, but yes.

Right... I need his word though.

Not gonna happen.