Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

alltimetens    

Rank #2873 on Content
alltimetens Avatar Level 312 Content: Wizard
Offline
Send mail to alltimetens Block alltimetens Invite alltimetens to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Interests: Interesting things
Date Signed Up:2/07/2012
Last Login:9/06/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#2873
Comment Ranking:#8065
Highest Content Rank:#14
Highest Comment Rank:#1365
Content Thumbs: 120656 total,  132053 ,  11397
Comment Thumbs: 4953 total,  8654 ,  3701
Content Level Progress: 3.11% (311/10000)
Level 312 Content: Wizard → Level 313 Content: Wizard
Comment Level Progress: 97% (97/100)
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:27
Content Views:4756252
Times Content Favorited:7248 times
Total Comments Made:4313
FJ Points:110116
Favorite Tags: The Game (2)
Just an average Funny Junk user who shares images. I am not accepting any trade requests. You can have my items, however, I am not giving/trading my FJ points. Feel free to subscribe.

latest user's comments

#70412 - Your alternatives do not have any definite solutions.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70413 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
The alternatives provide evidence that god isn't needed for a universe to come into existence.
User avatar #70431 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, the alternatives only indicate that the universe can be indirectly created by the creator.

Meaning, the apparatus such as virtual particles themselves are not definite.
#70408 - So what exactly are you doing by throwing out all of these cou…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70410 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You asked for an alternative explanation with evidence so i gave you one. What you're doing is side-stepping the fact that you failed to provide logically proof that god exists.
User avatar #70412 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Your alternatives do not have any definite solutions.
User avatar #70413 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
The alternatives provide evidence that god isn't needed for a universe to come into existence.
User avatar #70431 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, the alternatives only indicate that the universe can be indirectly created by the creator.

Meaning, the apparatus such as virtual particles themselves are not definite.
#70407 - These "what ifs" aren't useless at all. That means t…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70409 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That doesn't mean that causality isn't violated you dumbfuck, that just means that you're special pleading. Like i said there is no such thing as before and after in empty space.
#70403 - But isn't applicable to this argument. I'm giving a p… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70401 - Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70399 - Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative …  [+] (2 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
#70398 - I know that they come from empty space. But that does…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70395 - Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
#70394 - You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70391 - Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.  [+] (6 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70390 - If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide …  [+] (6 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
#70387 - I already explained to you that they describe what is going on… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70385 - I already refuted your zero energy fields argument. A…  [+] (16 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70383 - You do realize that these energy fields only describe what is … 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70382 - I'm not saying quantum mechanics isn't substantiated; I'm sayi…  [+] (18 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70384 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except i have provided evidence of the fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields. Just because you're to stupid to understand this doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence. What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof because you know you have no arguments for your irrational god position.
User avatar #70385 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted your zero energy fields argument.

And of course I'm going to have to demand evidence from my adversary who has criticized my lack thereof.
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70380 - Because you cannot prove that virtual particles violate caus… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70377 - Oh, so when I make unsubstantiated arguments it's a sin but wh…  [+] (20 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70379 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except quantum mechanics isn't unsubstantiated.
User avatar #70382 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not saying quantum mechanics isn't substantiated; I'm saying that the small portion of quantum mechanics that you used as the basis of your argument is contradictory.

Why is it contradictory?

Because you criticize my arguments for believing in something with no evidence, yet your ideologies are based off of just as much evidence.
User avatar #70384 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except i have provided evidence of the fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields. Just because you're to stupid to understand this doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence. What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof because you know you have no arguments for your irrational god position.
User avatar #70385 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted your zero energy fields argument.

And of course I'm going to have to demand evidence from my adversary who has criticized my lack thereof.
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70376 - Are you dense? Yes it does. Because if you can't prov… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70374 - I already proved that your counterargument has just enough evi…  [+] (31 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70405 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't want to prove it wrong at all, i never said that. I asked for evidence, that's not trying to prove anything wrong.
User avatar #70408 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
So what exactly are you doing by throwing out all of these counterclaims that are aimed at disproving my argument?
User avatar #70410 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You asked for an alternative explanation with evidence so i gave you one. What you're doing is side-stepping the fact that you failed to provide logically proof that god exists.
User avatar #70412 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Your alternatives do not have any definite solutions.
User avatar #70413 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
The alternatives provide evidence that god isn't needed for a universe to come into existence.
User avatar #70431 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, the alternatives only indicate that the universe can be indirectly created by the creator.

Meaning, the apparatus such as virtual particles themselves are not definite.
User avatar #70404 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You completely missed the point, what i'm talking about is that you're adding a whole bunch of useless "what ifs" at a substantiated fact in science that doesn't need anything added. Just like basic biology doesn't need fairies added.

What you're doing is the god of the gaps argument, basically even if i showed you an origin before this you're going to ask for another origin and then i give another one and you ask for another one and we're going on forever, that's not how science works that's special pleading.

Principles such as "before and "after" in a phenomena that violated time makes no sense, there's no logical reason to apply a possible origin before empty space because empty space violates time, it's like asking that there must be something that is south of the south-pole, it's stupid.
User avatar #70407 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
These "what ifs" aren't useless at all. That means that no matter what evidence you give me, you cannot prove the me that the Law of Causality is violated.

If we go on an endless chain of "what ifs" then that means that energy/matter is recycled throughout.
User avatar #70409 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That doesn't mean that causality isn't violated you dumbfuck, that just means that you're special pleading. Like i said there is no such thing as before and after in empty space.
User avatar #70375 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No it didn't you merely said that we don't know if it comes from ex nihilo which is an irrelevant statement because i was merely talking about cause and effect which quantum mechanics violates.
User avatar #70377 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, so when I make unsubstantiated arguments it's a sin but when you do the same your argument is plausible? That's not how it works, my friend.
User avatar #70379 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except quantum mechanics isn't unsubstantiated.
User avatar #70382 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not saying quantum mechanics isn't substantiated; I'm saying that the small portion of quantum mechanics that you used as the basis of your argument is contradictory.

Why is it contradictory?

Because you criticize my arguments for believing in something with no evidence, yet your ideologies are based off of just as much evidence.
User avatar #70384 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except i have provided evidence of the fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields. Just because you're to stupid to understand this doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence. What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof because you know you have no arguments for your irrational god position.
User avatar #70385 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted your zero energy fields argument.

And of course I'm going to have to demand evidence from my adversary who has criticized my lack thereof.
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#160 - I'm not really a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on alltimetens's profile 0
User avatar #161 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
and when you wanted answer, all you found is some new atheism bitches and cock sucking tranny faggots trolling you with nonsense
right?
#70318 - I really don't feel like reading all of that so please give me…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70319 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
You can just read the first portion
I don't agree with the soft determinism mentioned later.
#70316 - Why don't you believe in free will?  [+] (3 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70317 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
Read this please
I feel as if it quickly sums up the argument
webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freewill.html
User avatar #70318 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I really don't feel like reading all of that so please give me the basic principles.
User avatar #70319 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
You can just read the first portion
I don't agree with the soft determinism mentioned later.
#70314 - You can't use the "why doesn't God help us" argument…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board +1
User avatar #70315 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
why not?
I don't object to the possibility of an ambivalent god.
I just make the subjective observation that the world is far too corrupted for a perfect being to be directly responsible for it's state of being
It may help to know that I don't believe in free will
User avatar #70316 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Why don't you believe in free will?
User avatar #70317 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
Read this please
I feel as if it quickly sums up the argument
webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freewill.html
User avatar #70318 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I really don't feel like reading all of that so please give me the basic principles.
User avatar #70319 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
You can just read the first portion
I don't agree with the soft determinism mentioned later.
#44 - I started masturbating in 2nd grade when I was 8. I felt a ver…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on Who hasn't? +1
User avatar #67 - chrispoot (05/31/2014) [-]
ITT: Masturbation story

>Be me
>Be 14 years old
>Never masturbated
>Have watched porn several times during the years
>Never let the tenison flow out
>Eventually decide to experiment with this 'Masturbating' Thingy
>Go to shower
>Nervous beacuse new experience
>Start fappin slowly
>Take 5 sec
>BOOOM
>Best feeling I ever had
>Continues to masturbate to this day
Allthough, my sessions now are not as good as the first time I had ana orgasm. Jeez, 14 old fapless. God, that was the best fucking orgasm ever holy shit
#70311 - The reasoning behind a god in the first place! The u…  [+] (33 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70336 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted that oversimplistic argument. Your argument implies a linear timeline of cause and effect, time doesn't work that way.
User avatar #70374 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already proved that your counterargument has just enough evidence as my initial argument.

You have refuted nothing.
User avatar #70405 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't want to prove it wrong at all, i never said that. I asked for evidence, that's not trying to prove anything wrong.
User avatar #70408 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
So what exactly are you doing by throwing out all of these counterclaims that are aimed at disproving my argument?
User avatar #70410 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You asked for an alternative explanation with evidence so i gave you one. What you're doing is side-stepping the fact that you failed to provide logically proof that god exists.
User avatar #70412 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Your alternatives do not have any definite solutions.
User avatar #70413 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
The alternatives provide evidence that god isn't needed for a universe to come into existence.
User avatar #70431 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, the alternatives only indicate that the universe can be indirectly created by the creator.

Meaning, the apparatus such as virtual particles themselves are not definite.
User avatar #70404 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You completely missed the point, what i'm talking about is that you're adding a whole bunch of useless "what ifs" at a substantiated fact in science that doesn't need anything added. Just like basic biology doesn't need fairies added.

What you're doing is the god of the gaps argument, basically even if i showed you an origin before this you're going to ask for another origin and then i give another one and you ask for another one and we're going on forever, that's not how science works that's special pleading.

Principles such as "before and "after" in a phenomena that violated time makes no sense, there's no logical reason to apply a possible origin before empty space because empty space violates time, it's like asking that there must be something that is south of the south-pole, it's stupid.
User avatar #70407 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
These "what ifs" aren't useless at all. That means that no matter what evidence you give me, you cannot prove the me that the Law of Causality is violated.

If we go on an endless chain of "what ifs" then that means that energy/matter is recycled throughout.
User avatar #70409 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That doesn't mean that causality isn't violated you dumbfuck, that just means that you're special pleading. Like i said there is no such thing as before and after in empty space.
User avatar #70375 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No it didn't you merely said that we don't know if it comes from ex nihilo which is an irrelevant statement because i was merely talking about cause and effect which quantum mechanics violates.
User avatar #70377 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, so when I make unsubstantiated arguments it's a sin but when you do the same your argument is plausible? That's not how it works, my friend.
User avatar #70379 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except quantum mechanics isn't unsubstantiated.
User avatar #70382 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not saying quantum mechanics isn't substantiated; I'm saying that the small portion of quantum mechanics that you used as the basis of your argument is contradictory.

Why is it contradictory?

Because you criticize my arguments for believing in something with no evidence, yet your ideologies are based off of just as much evidence.
User avatar #70384 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except i have provided evidence of the fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields. Just because you're to stupid to understand this doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence. What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof because you know you have no arguments for your irrational god position.
User avatar #70385 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted your zero energy fields argument.

And of course I'm going to have to demand evidence from my adversary who has criticized my lack thereof.
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Comments(138):

[ 138 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#162 - syrianassassin ONLINE (05/31/2014) [-]
because you are new in the religion board, you must know what your enemy will do to your opinions

this is my first post in the religion board i talked with ethics and total respect and look what happened

www.funnyjunk.com/religion/54159#54159


now i am a troll who troll atheist trolls using their own logic and piss them off using their own life system and belief

new atheism =/= atheism

new atheism mean you shall be a total asshole against religion no matter how logical the answer is given

the board is full of heretics and you shall take care
#159 - syrianassassin ONLINE (05/31/2014) [-]
i see you are a christian who came for some question in the religion board, and all you saw is some faggots trolling and ************
User avatar #160 to #159 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not really a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic.
User avatar #161 to #160 - syrianassassin ONLINE (05/31/2014) [-]
and when you wanted answer, all you found is some new atheism bitches and cock sucking tranny faggots trolling you with nonsense
right?
#149 - anonymous (04/08/2014) [-]
hey your the guy from youtube
i like your videos dude
User avatar #154 to #149 - tranquilizer (04/20/2014) [-]
He's not them
User avatar #155 to #154 - badmotorfinger (05/02/2014) [-]
get the euthanization needle. they're becoming aware.
User avatar #156 to #155 - tranquilizer (05/02/2014) [-]
Wait
Where did you come from
The future?
#157 to #156 - nickypickle (05/23/2014) [-]
I dunno if all this charade about being the one on youtube or not is all part of a 'sekretu klub' thing but its really getting to the point where someone needs some answers

yes? no? why is this such an issue I dont understand
User avatar #158 to #157 - tranquilizer (05/23/2014) [-]
Where do you people keep coming from I'm scared ;_;
#143 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
And with the mildly aroused Karasu picture, I am finished. Sorry for the spamish stuff, but you did ask me to and they do make good reaction images.
User avatar #145 to #143 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
No problem, man.

I appreciate all these reaction pics. Fukken savin' all of em'. I'm glad there are others here who have enjoyed the same anime as I.
User avatar #146 to #145 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Might be an odd thing to say, but you might want to join Tumblr. A lot of us are actually males who enjoy certain fandoms and have deep discussions about them, especially with Yu Yu Hakusho.

Might I suggest Kill La Kill or HunterXHunter? The latter apparently takes place in the future of Yu Yu Hakusho. Of course, Inuyasha is said to take place in the past, with Kikyo being Raizen's original daughter.
User avatar #147 to #146 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
Damn... I better get watching.
User avatar #148 to #147 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Go for Inuyasha first. I feel like Yu Yu Hakusho took a lot from that show. "Ooohhh we're losing viewers during the Dark Tournament, better show them Kurama's true form!" Fricken love child of Sesshomaru and Inuyasha (Which given Sesshomaru's mother isn't entirely out of the question even though they are a different species). Also, character types for both Toguro brothers, Bui, Karasu, and others were in that show.
#142 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Sometimes I edit a strikethrough over the 'not' to make a joke.
#140 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#139 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This is my wallpaper and icon
#138 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This too.
This too.
#137 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#136 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
#150 to #136 - toguro (04/17/2014) [-]
You like telling everyone that don'tcha?
User avatar #151 to #150 - zafara (04/17/2014) [-]
Well, we were talking about Toguro anyway. You usually pop up whenever Toguro is mentioned, so I wanted to let him know that you would probably show up. I also wanted to warn him that you don't really watch the show and named yourself Toguro after something else so that they didn't ask you questions about Yu Yu Hakusho you don't know.

Basically, I wanted to save some time by warning him that while you have the name, you don't know the show.

You know what I'm trying to say?
#152 to #151 - toguro (04/17/2014) [-]
Yeah I understood the 4th time you did it - I dont mind really
User avatar #153 to #152 - zafara (04/17/2014) [-]
I didn't think I was mentioning you that much. Sorry.
#135 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This works as a good, I am mildly confused and/or disturbed by what I see
#132 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#130 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#129 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Remember this scene?
Remember this scene?
User avatar #134 to #129 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
this **** was creepy
User avatar #144 to #134 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Yep. You know what's even more creepy? Elder Toguro decapitated himself into a small aquarium and swam around in there as a head for a while without anyone really noticing.
#128 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
When someone doesn't get the joke and gets offended so you have to explain it.
#127 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
[ 138 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)