Ruby is the king

[juji]

shit, i hate these posters who discuss about pointless topics

[xoxo]

then discuss your thoughts on Cartesian existentialism?

you'll have to give me a few mins to refresh course myself

[xoxo]

shit, i hate these posters who discuss about pointless topics

LOL

but that's the point... I think

[blumpkin blownuts]

Higher order machines create those of lower order, more often than vice-versa - this is the law of entropy. Stars built the earth. Mind developed on earth. And thus there was God, in the universe we know. The creatures of mind quickly began to use Force, in it's basest form, and were to build machines to master greater force.

[Genital Doli]

whats that in lizard years

past expiration date

[Genital Doli]

shit, i hate these posters who discuss about pointless topics

it is very anoyieng elz.

[xoxo]

you'll have to give me a few mins to refresh course myself

you can refer to my previous post

[xoxo]

Higher order machines create those of lower order, more often than vice-versa - this is the law of entropy. Stars built the earth. Mind developed on earth. And thus there was God, in the universe we know. The creatures of mind quickly began to use Force, in it's basest form, and were to build machines to master greater force.

how embarassing for you that I just saw that as a copy and paste

[blumpkin blownuts]

ah but I do not believe in a prime mover as it simply begs more questions of what came before

positing a prime mover is a failure to concieve of infinity

every machine with driven elements has a prime mover. It is folly to attempt conception of infinity from even an ideal flywheel, by default.

What came before the prime mover was the machine that built it, and the mind that deigned it.
So it is then possible to conceive of negative infinity, working further backwards.

[xoxo]

you cannot philisophically prove the existence of God to me

I got high distinctions in finding the flaws of logic on philosphers who tried to do just that

[Genital Doli]

hm... you beleve in god? [chuckles] I believe ... in flying spaghetti monster [smriks until smirk covers entire face]. By the way I am a very prolific poster on the YTMNSFw Forums, I'm known as the "Zany" one there.

[blumpkin blownuts]

how embarassing for you that I just saw that as a copy and paste

im playing your game. if you wanna spoil it, then post where it was copied from.
i didn't copypaste anything, so i'm hoping you'll find someone whom i've never read wrote this before me. it could be quite an ego stroke

[xoxo]

every machine with driven elements has a prime mover. It is folly to attempt conception of infinity from even an ideal flywheel, by default.

no the necessity of your mind to posit a prime mover results from your mind's failure to concieve of infinity and eternity which if you continue to "up" questions in philosophy you must ultimately reach and be unable to answer

if at any stage you liken the universe to a man made machine or need to posit a prime mover or god in your conceptions then you have failed in "upping" your philosophical questions

you see infinity falls in on itself when we try to concieve of it and so many who cannot properly concieve of infinity must posit a prime mover... however this is only a backstep and backpeddle in your philosophy because it still begs the question of what is the "prime mover" ... because if nothing moved the prime mover and nothing was before the prime mover then the prime mover is infinate and so therefore cannot even be a prime mover

[blumpkin blownuts]

I personally claim that God was present long before humanity. I can't prove it though.
What I can consistently prove, is that God, sure as shit, has existed since man became self-aware.

[boobz]

tldr thread summary please

[xoxo]

hm... you beleve in god? [chuckles] I believe ... in flying spaghetti monster [smriks until smirk covers entire face]. By the way I am a very prolific poster on the YTMNSFw Forums, I'm known as the "Zany" one there.

blownuts is arguing that you can philosphically prove the existence of God, I am arguing that you cannot and that it is a fundamental flaw in philisophical logic

[blumpkin blownuts]

That involves a huge workup with alot of empeirical and technical constructs, and I'm not sure you have the technical acumen to process my thesis. And if you could prove that you did, what gain I from you to make this worth my time?

I'd prefer you reach your spiritual connection when the city bus has just crushed your lower legs and still moving 80kmh.

[xoxo]

I personally claim that God was present long before humanity. I can't prove it though.
What I can consistently prove, is that God, sure as shit, has existed since man became self-aware.

I believe in a unverse, and super universe and super super universe and so on... I believe in infinity and do not believe in a prime mover

[xoxo]

I believe in macro and micro infinity

if there was ever a definate point of beginning or end then things could not move at all

[xoxo]

buddhism has no need of a prime mover

so you'd be wrong to think all religions need one

[blumpkin blownuts]

Define "prime mover", before I give you my definition. You're getting lost in a detail or trying to say I'm claiming something I never did. If we find this bottle-neck is due to your poor reading comprehension, then this game ends IMMEDIATELY.

if at any stage you liken the universe to a man made machine or need to posit a prime mover or god in your conceptions then you have failed in "upping" your philosophical questions

In a physical machine, the prime mover is moderated by the input Force (aka the excitation) to the initial driving element, e.g. a water wheel, a lightning bolt, an automotive starter assy. the prime mover is then the piece that transfers, at a predictable level, Force to all attached components of the machine.

God is not a prime mover. God is related via it's own extension, Mind, to the input phase of an existential machine, or even a modern machine.

Think: UserInput:Mind::EngineControls:Force

[xoxo]

for example some say that mass cannot be infinite because if space and mass are both infinite then the mass would take up all the space... this again is a failure in the concept of infinity

I can explain this by using an analogy (as much as I hate analogies as they are cop out BUT...) if I had a piece of string that went for infinity and every 1 cm along that piece of sting I tied a knot, the string would still go for infinity, there would be an infinte amount of knots and and still an infinite amount of space in between those knots

[blumpkin blownuts]

oops dbl

[xoxo]

Define "prime mover", before I give you my definition. You're getting lost in a detail or trying to say I'm claiming something I never did. If we find this bottle-neck is due to your poor reading comprehension, then this game ends IMMEDIATELY.

if at any stage you liken the universe to a man made machine or need to posit a prime mover or god in your conceptions then you have failed in "upping" your philosophical questions



In a physical machine, the prime mover is moderated by the input Force (aka the excitation) to the initial driving element, e.g. a water wheel, a lightning bolt, an automotive starter assy. the prime mover is then the piece that transfers, at a predictable level, Force to all attached components of the machine.

God is not a prime mover. God is related via it's own extension, Mind, to the input phase of an existential machine, or even a modern machine.

Well a "prime mover" is a concept/THEORY in physics.... everything that is is in motion in the universe it in motion from being moved by another object... some theorists need to posit a "prime mover" as the idea that this movement is infinite is too much for their earthly bound physist mind to conceieve of

it's all about potential and kinetic energy and shit however a "prime mover" really doesn't solve this conundrum in physics, is a mere theory and cannot be proven... it is also not even necessary to many a mind to have to posit for movement in the universe

and so some in philosophy have adopted the THEORY of a prime mover as "proof" of a god... it does not prove a god and it does not even necessarily exist

[xoxo]

also the fact that energy never dies, it just changes form is sometimes used as philosophical proof of god

however I believe it can also be proof that there is in fact no prime mover

[xoxo]

simple fact of the matter is there is no proof

[blumpkin blownuts]

for example some say that mass cannot be infinite because if space and mass are both infinite then the mass would take up all the space... this again is a failure in the concept of infinity

what about volume?
suppose space and mass both are infinite, mass is still less than space in any differential frame of the universe
space and mass are indeterminate, but not necessarily infinite
only time is infinite. and space, and matter, are tangential functions of time (e.g. we have been here before, we will soon leave, and much later we will all be here again)

I can explain this by using an analogy (as much as I hate analogies as they are cop out BUT...) if I had a piece of string that went for infinity and every 1 cm along that piece of sting I tied a knot, the string would still go for infinity, there would be an infinte amount of knots and and still an infinite amount of space in between those knots

but there's room for "infinite" knots and "infinite" string. they simply have slightly different determinations of infinity

[xoxo]

what about volume?
suppose space and mass both are infinite, mass is still less than space in any differential frame of the universe
space and mass are indeterminate, but not necessarily infinite
only time is infinite. and space, and matter, are tangential functions of time (e.g. we have been here before, we will soon leave, and much later we will all be here again)



but there's room for "infinite" knots and "infinite" string. they simply have slightly different determinations of infinity

YES!

[xoxo]

I just came in my pants a little

[blumpkin blownuts]

Well a "prime mover" is a concept/THEORY in physics.... everything that is is in motion in the universe it in motion from being moved by another object... some theorists need to posit a "prime mover" as the idea that this movement is infinite is too much for their earthly bound physist mind to conceieve of

it's all about potential and kinetic energy and shit however a "prime mover" really doesn't solve this conundrum in physics, is a mere theory and cannot be proven... it is also not even necessary to many a mind to have to posit for movement in the universe

and so some in philosophy have adopted the THEORY of a prime mover as "proof" of a god... it does not prove a god and it does not even necessarily exist

i'm starting small with closed machines.
in a machine the prime mover is the plant of Force. On a bicycle, the prime mover is the pedal blade which turns the chain, which turn the wheels. The prime mover's excitation is your feet pushing the pedals.