Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour", "sarcasm is a weakness", those are canned responses from people that don't know how to respond to sarcasm or just don't like when it is used on them. Not different from "oh yeah? oh yeah? I'm rubber you're glue". Congrats on showing your true side.

Oh no, it's an excellent form of humour, when used humourously. It's just not constructive neither does it make you look "smart" when used as an argument, rather the other way around. It's not coincidental that sarcasm is so often used by the (pre)pubescent human population. Take any wise (wo)man from history and check the amount of sarcasm (s)he displayed. I'm merely trying to save you from losing face more often. Also, it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Next time, you could suffice with "I disagree". That says it all, has just as many arguments, and is just as funny. From there, you might grow into "I respectfully disagree".


Infinite numbers are doable because they are abstract, but infinite anything else is a lot harder. Imagine infinite apples. That's not a whole lot of apples, it's infinitely more. Imagine you can see all those apples, a sea, nay, a universe of apples. Compared to real infinite apples, that amount is still infinitely small.

[Neruz]

You cannot see infinitely far, so it would be impossible to see infinite apples.

So, in fact, it is quite easy to imagine what infinite apples would look like; red.

[RAM]

Yeah, the apples in front would get in the way, so seeing infinite apples would be pretty easy, imagining and properly interpreting an infinite universe that consists solely of apples, and that one island of oranges that exists solely to be improbable, and, though a very good landmark, in spite of the fact that it is moving, most certainly is not the centre of this universe, given that it doesn't actually have a centre, is a little more difficult, but certainly doable...

Thus, I say, that infinity is not a sufficient example to prove the incapacity of humans to comprehend a god, but I prefer arguing hypothetically and leaving the examples behind, although examples do make things easy, and I am lazy...

[Siquo]

You cannot see infinitely far, so it would be impossible to see infinite apples.

So, in fact, it is quite easy to imagine what infinite apples would look like; red.

Oh no, that universe of red you see there, is just an infinitely small speck of the total infinite apples.

[Neruz]

You cannot see infinitely far, so it would be impossible to see infinite apples.

So, in fact, it is quite easy to imagine what infinite apples would look like; red.

Oh no, that universe of red you see there, is just an infinitely small speck of the total infinite apples.

Nope, because the apples are an infinite distance away, i can see all of them.

We did have a little physics hiccup with the speed of light, but because this is a theoretical scenario i just used light that is infinitely fast to get around that problem.

[chaoticag]

I think this has hit infinately semantic at this point. Not being able to imagine something and its truth have no bearing on each other. They are completely unrelated. Otherwise, you are saying "I cannot imagine something, therefore it must be true".

[Areyar]

Didnt we already conclude it is impossible to see infinately far because of our observation sphere being limited by speed of light + age of universe + light attenuation due to expansion of space-time?
This precludes seeing infinite apple.

infinate apple begets universal worm equals ouroboros, which is again reality biting its own ass. 

 

[Forumsdwarf]

Hey, I thought it was the Kohr-Ah who had genocidal intentions; the Kzer-Za only wanted to enslave.

[Areyar]

Hey, I thought it was the Kohr-Ah who had genocidal intentions; the Kzer-Za only wanted to enslave.

True enough. I could change it to [SPHERE: ENSLAVEMENT]
The Eternal Doctrine, how appropriate to this thread.

[Neruz]

Didnt we already conclude it is impossible to see infinately far because of our observation sphere being limited by speed of light + age of universe + light attenuation due to expansion of space-time?
This precludes seeing infinite apple.

infinate apple begets universal worm equals ouroboros, which is again reality biting its own ass. 

I did mention that problem; if you'd read my post you'd realise i solved it in this theoretical scenario by using light with infinite speed.

Ovbiously that won't work in the real world, but it works just fine in a theoretical.

[Forumsdwarf]

The Path of Now and Forever would seem to also apply to both religion and religious discussion threads ...

"Surrender or die, foolish human!"

[Ampersand]

Increasingly, this thread reminds me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

This isn't an argument, this is just contradiction.

[Urist McOverlord]

A) Ampersand just won. At life.
B) He is completely wrong in every way. Ever.

C) (also referred to as "flying inevitable-return-to-the-topic-at-hand of the yard") :

It seems to me that the traditional christian interpretation of God falls apart when you attempt to counterbalance omnibenevolence and forgiveness versus the concept of Divine Justice (sinners --> hell) and the observed phenomena of human suffering.

How can God permit sinners to suffer for eternity if He supposedly forgives? And if He permits such suffering among the innocent, then that would make God... well, a bit of a jerk (read: NOT omnibenevolent)

Consider my two cents in the debate.

[Grakelin]

I say that the consistent resurrection of this thread just as we think it's finally down is allegorical proof enough that Jesus could have been real.

[MrWiggles]

I contest good sir. Your analogy is flawed. A dead thread is not akin to a dead person.