Some of the biblical God's greatest bloopers

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well now I'm totally confused. Alls I'm saying is that with a set of something that has infinite things in it it's impossible to prove that a particular thing isn't in there.

Well....yeah....by definition.

So it's impossible to prove that 17 is not in the infinite set of real numbers less than 1?

[Seth]

It's not a matter of removing mosquitoes from the ecosystem. God should not have created them in the fist place. And if he created other animals that had to rely on them for survival, well more bloopers then, right? God really is an incompetent fool. In Soviet Russia he would have been made #1 Kommissar. If he existed, of course.

And now you're trying to tell God what he should and should not have created? Talk about your anthropocentric arrogance and hubris...

[Seth]

Well now I'm totally confused. Alls I'm saying is that with a set of something that has infinite things in it it's impossible to prove that a particular thing isn't in there.

Well....yeah....by definition.

So it's impossible to prove that 17 is not in the infinite set of real numbers less than 1?

If the set is "less than" something, it's by definition not infinite.

[Seth]

Created an immense universe for us to live in (it seems clear from the Bible that that was his reason for creating the universe, right?), most of which is not just uninhabitable, but downright lethal.

To you....

Could be anthropocentric hubris to assume that God didn't create the universe with lots of other species in mind, including ones that can survive in the vacuum of intergalactic space.

Or perhaps interstellar vacuum is God's Level 1 biohazard containment method.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well now I'm totally confused. Alls I'm saying is that with a set of something that has infinite things in it it's impossible to prove that a particular thing isn't in there.

Well....yeah....by definition.

So it's impossible to prove that 17 is not in the infinite set of real numbers less than 1?

If the set is "less than" something, it's by definition not infinite.

You really don't get this maths thing, do you?

[Seth]

Well now I'm totally confused. Alls I'm saying is that with a set of something that has infinite things in it it's impossible to prove that a particular thing isn't in there.

Well....yeah....by definition.

So it's impossible to prove that 17 is not in the infinite set of real numbers less than 1?

If the set is "less than" something, it's by definition not infinite.

You really don't get this maths thing, do you?

There's maths and then there's common sense. If something is infinite, it by definition includes everything, otherwise it's not infinite. I do understand that when it comes to math it may be convenient to create the fiction of an infinite limited set, but that's an abstract concept having little to do with reality. A thing is either infinite or it is not. Binary choice.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There's maths and then there's common sense. If something is infinite, it by definition includes everything, otherwise it's not infinite. I do understand that when it comes to math it may be convenient to create the fiction of an infinite limited set, but that's an abstract concept having little to do with reality. A thing is either infinite or it is not. Binary choice.

Twaddle! There are an infinite number of negative integers. All are by definition less than 1. You are making no sense and should really stop digging...

[Seth]

There's maths and then there's common sense. If something is infinite, it by definition includes everything, otherwise it's not infinite. I do understand that when it comes to math it may be convenient to create the fiction of an infinite limited set, but that's an abstract concept having little to do with reality. A thing is either infinite or it is not. Binary choice.

Twaddle! There are an infinite number of negative integers. All are by definition less than 1. You are making no sense and should really stop digging...

Sorry, but if you limit the set to negative integers you are ipso facto limiting infinity, making it less than infinite. Now it is useful in the mathematical sense to think of an abstract thing like a number as being part of an infinite set of other abstract ideas because numbers have no actual existence, they are cognitive labels created by the mind. Therefore one can philosophize and say that there is an infinite number of negative integers, but one cannot, of course, prove that this is the case, one can only speculate. There may in fact NOT be an infinite number of negative (or positive) integers, it may merely be a number so large that you can't comprehend it and therefore have to label that mystery as "infinite."

Just as the universe may not be infinite (merely very, very large and expanding all the time), numbers may not be infinite either.

[piscator]

Jesus fucking christ.

out.png (58.05 KiB) Viewed 3292 times

[Sean Hayden]

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There's maths and then there's common sense. If something is infinite, it by definition includes everything, otherwise it's not infinite. I do understand that when it comes to math it may be convenient to create the fiction of an infinite limited set, but that's an abstract concept having little to do with reality. A thing is either infinite or it is not. Binary choice.

Twaddle! There are an infinite number of negative integers. All are by definition less than 1. You are making no sense and should really stop digging...

Sorry, but if you limit the set to negative integers you are ipso facto limiting infinity, making it less than infinite. Now it is useful in the mathematical sense to think of an abstract thing like a number as being part of an infinite set of other abstract ideas because numbers have no actual existence, they are cognitive labels created by the mind. Therefore one can philosophize and say that there is an infinite number of negative integers, but one cannot, of course, prove that this is the case, one can only speculate. There may in fact NOT be an infinite number of negative (or positive) integers, it may merely be a number so large that you can't comprehend it and therefore have to label that mystery as "infinite."

Just as the universe may not be infinite (merely very, very large and expanding all the time), numbers may not be infinite either.

You have a very long way to go to even approach misunderstanding.

[pErvinalia]

So just to be clear with what Hermit is babbling on about in the OP... Seth often asks us atheists to prove that god doesn't exist. He thinks he's having a win, even though no atheist on this site that I know of asserts that god doesn't exist. Instead of playing his idiotic game, I like to point out to him that you can't prove such a negative (that a deistic god doesn't or didn't once exist), so it's a retarded question. And that of course says absolutely nothing about the likelihood of such a god existing.

Except of course you all know perfectly well none of you believe that God exists, and many, if not all Atheists will at one time or another make the pronouncement that God does not exist...even you rEv. Though you deny it now, were I interested in combing through the old RD archive I'd find you saying exactly that.

For you to maintain that a positive disbelief in God is not a tenet of the Atheist religion is ridiculous.

To wit...

Fuck you're retarded. Choosing to operate one's life on the belief that there is no god is not the same thing as positively asserting that there is no god. It's exactly the same thing as you choosing not to operate your life on the belief that Marx is out to get you. Oh wait...

[pErvinalia]

Well now I'm totally confused. Alls I'm saying is that with a set of something that has infinite things in it it's impossible to prove that a particular thing isn't in there.

Well....yeah....by definition.

It's apparently not obvious to some, like you.

[pErvinalia]

Well now I'm totally confused. Alls I'm saying is that with a set of something that has infinite things in it it's impossible to prove that a particular thing isn't in there.

Well....yeah....by definition.

So it's impossible to prove that 17 is not in the infinite set of real numbers less than 1?

If the set is "less than" something, it's by definition not infinite.

It could be infinite. It has infinite numbers less than 1 in it. But this is a red herring anyway. I'm not talking about a set with a qualification on it. A set that has infinite members of any number, prove that the number 42 doesn't exist in it. Can't be done.

[pErvinalia]

There's maths and then there's common sense. If something is infinite, it by definition includes everything, otherwise it's not infinite. I do understand that when it comes to math it may be convenient to create the fiction of an infinite limited set, but that's an abstract concept having little to do with reality. A thing is either infinite or it is not. Binary choice.

Twaddle! There are an infinite number of negative integers. All are by definition less than 1. You are making no sense and should really stop digging...

You may as well expect God himself to float on down than expect Seth will stop digging.