An infinite series of finite causes.

[mattbballman31]

I don't give a rat's behind how many times you squirt the same retarded bile, no matter how many time's I've addressed this. You're a dishonest little twerp, as everyone can see. No one on these threads should take anything you say seriously. You're nothing but a pitiful troll.

Already answered this. If you're not going to address the points of contention and advance the discussion, go back and attend to cleaning your room in your mommy's basement, troll.

Uh, don't tell me what to do. Off? What would I care, loser?

And don't forget the laxatives for all the mental constipation stopped up in your retarded skull!!

[MaxVel]

Look it up yourself, you lazy sod.

Homophobe.

[shunyadragon]

Do you just pull this stuff out of your back-end? Don't you want to progress beyond your trite, disgustingly simple analyses of complex issues? Will you ever wake up and discover that you're ideas are a jumbled school of blind fish?

First, 'eternal' isn't defined. Past-eternal? Future-eternal? BOTH are against the cosmological evidence.
Second, even your vocabulary is sloppy and soaked with hopeless generalities. The possibility of an eternal universe? Possibility? Huh? Nothing is defined. Nothing is precise. One can't progress in dialogue with you. Your slippery, conniving method of communication bespeaks a disorganized and stunted mind. What KIND of possibility? What on earth are you talking about? How does this move the discussion forward? You know what else is possible? A string of fairies, hands interlocked, orbiting around all the red dwarfs in every odd-numbered galaxy in every second galactic quadrant in every galaxy, doing the "macarena" with rainbow-colored kilts. Wow. Cool. So interesting. It's possible!

Possibility is nothing but the thin veneer of a necessary condition for the methods of theoretical physics to even get started in attempting to confirm the reality, not to mention the probability, of such a fairy-tale thesis of a past-eternal multi-verse, let alone a solitary universe. There is absolutely no cosmological evidence of a multi-verse. None. Zilch. The past-eternality is our universe, let alone a multiverse, is completely out of the question ever since the BVG theorem pretty much made it disappear over night.

The only kind of eternality left on the table is Guth's eternal inflation, which needs mechanisms that have NEVER been confirmed or verified. Your mania for verification, I guess, only applies when the supernatural is on the table; but when it helps your pet theories, insecurities, biases, and prejudices, I guess treat methodology like a darn safety-blanket, and wish-fulfillment, cognitive dysfunction like an old, used pacifier. NO ONE CARES WHAT'S POSSIBLE in theoretical physics, ultimately. A cyclic universe is against so much cosmological evidence that I almost had milk coming out of my nose I was laughing so hard. Ever heard of cosmological eschatology? That probably wasn't discussed in the coloring books you peruse, or maybe it wasn't caught by that uncritical filter you have bolted onto that ideological fishing net you use like a goofy twat in your sorry excuse for a waterlogged canoe, where those block-quotes you try to catch are nothing but the drippy, moldy remnants of mistranslated and misapplied piffle that critical minds snicker at, due to the heedless fatuousness with which the subject-matter is clownishly handled.

But keep it going! See if I care! Spend your whole life in the dark. Be a rotten turkey no one will remember. Actually, I bet a lot of people on here will remember you for being the mouth-breathing schlemiel you always were on these threads.

AND ONE AMEN FROM WORLD-CLASS SCHOLAR, Dr. Dumbo Tassman. Must be so proud!

Phfffft! Splat!!! Dribble, Dribble . . .

[Tassman]

Phfffft! Splat!!! Dribble, Dribble . . .

Exactly right. It's all the bombastic, grandiloquent bluster of a blowhard.

Homophobe.

???

[mattbballman31]

Phfffft! Splat!!! Dribble, Dribble . . .

Dribble, dribble, fast break, the lane is free, shunya goes to block, not knowing he accidentally tied his shoe laces together (while lecturing everyone on how to tie their own shoes), and matt steps on shunya's fake beard, tongue out, SLAM DUNK. The crowd goes wild!!!!!

Exactly right. It's all the bombastic, grandiloquent bluster of a blowhard.

Shunya's one-man cheerleader, with no one in the stands, grabs his Pom Pons anyway!

[MaxVel]

???

You don't even know the meaning of what you said?

Look it up yourself, you lazy hypocrite!

[Tassman]

You don't even know the meaning of what you said?

Look it up yourself, you lazy hypocrite!

[MaxVel]

What's the origin of 'sod' in your expression "lazy sod"?

It's a shortening of 'sodomite' - you're implying that mattballman is gay, and using that implication as an insult. That's homophobic behaviour, you hypocrite.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sod?s=ts


[sod] Chiefly British Slang.
Spell Syllables
noun
1.
sodomite; homosexual.

[shunyadragon]

Dribble, dribble, fast break, the lane is free, shunya goes to block, not knowing he accidentally tied his shoe laces together (while lecturing everyone on how to tie their own shoes), and matt steps on shunya's fake beard, tongue out, SLAM DUNK. The crowd goes wild!!!!!



Shunya's one-man cheerleader, with no one in the stands, grabs his Pom Pons anyway!

As usual no coherent response!

[shunyadragon]

What's the origin of 'sod' in your expression "lazy sod"?

It's a shortening of 'sodomite' - you're implying that mattballman is gay, and using that implication as an insult. That's homophobic behaviour, you hypocrite.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sod?s=ts


[sod] Chiefly British Slang.
Spell Syllables
noun
1.
sodomite; homosexual.

Your being worse than picky. Tassman's definition is common usage. Get over it.

[MaxVel]

Your being worse than picky. Tassman's definition is common usage. Get over it.

You complaining about someone else being picky is irony at it's finest.

Matt has comprehensively shown you to be ignorant on this topic, and instead of being a true 'scientist', and learning something from someone more knowledgeable than you, all you can do is mock and insult. What a pathetic spectacle you make of yourself. It would be sad if you weren't such a self-important and pompous fool.

[mattbballman31]

A gag-reel of Tass-mania and Shunya-doggie making fools of themselves, dodging, running away, and being the intellectual cowards that they are.

In post #4, Shunya asks a stupid question that completely misunderstands 37818's point, which I point out in post #5. In post #6, Shunya swivels, predictively, into asking about the 'assumptions' of classical cosmology, not admitting his mistake, per usual. I point this out, while simultaneously answering his point that cosmological arguments have a priori premises, in post #7.

Tass comes stumbling in in post #10, spewing out his tired idiotic point that the entire argument is an argument from ignorance, that the premises are unverified, and mentions that, per contemporary physics, the universe is possibly infinite (hint: irrelevant). I argue that such arguments certainly don't commit such a fallacy in post #11, calling Tass out to carry his burden of proof regarding blanket statements about there being 'no proof' that the universe has a cause, and that his presuppositions regarding 'verification' assume epistemological scientism.

Oblivious, Tass drops my point in post #12 regarding the burden of proof and surreptitiously changes

[Tassman]

A gag-reel of Tass-mania and Shunya-doggie making fools of themselves, dodging, running away, and being the intellectual cowards that they are.

In post #4, Shunya asks a stupid question that completely misunderstands 37818's point, which I point out in post #5. In post #6, Shunya swivels, predictively, into asking about the 'assumptions' of classical cosmology, not admitting his mistake, per usual. I point this out, while simultaneously answering his point that cosmological arguments have a priori premises, in post #7.

Tass comes stumbling in in post #10, spewing out his tired idiotic point that the entire argument is an argument from ignorance, that the premises are unverified, and mentions that, per contemporary physics, the universe is possibly infinite (hint: irrelevant). I argue that such arguments certainly don't commit such a fallacy in post #11, calling Tass out to carry his burden of proof regarding blanket statements about there being 'no proof' that the universe has a cause, and that his presuppositions regarding 'verification' assume epistemological scientism.

Oblivious, Tass drops my point in post #12 regarding the burden of proof and surreptitiously changes

[mattbballman31]

What a load of pretentions crap.

You're a load of pretentious crap!

Wrong! Stop visiting RationalWiki and actually do some real homework. It doesn't have to do with the hypotheses, numbskull; it has to do with the methodology of formulating and confirming a hypothesis as a theory or a law. You're so dumb. And, as usual, you missed the point, idiot. Your CONSTANT plea that I 'show', or that I need to 'verify', or that I need to 'test', or that I need to 'falsify' a premise, not just in order for it to be demonstrated or confirmed, but in order for that methodology to qualify as science, IS TO BEG THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT METHODOLOGIES COUNT AS SCIENTIFIC OR NOT, and BEGS THE WHOLE QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER METHODOLOGIES THAT 'show', or 'verify', or 'demonstrate' IN THEIR OWN WAY, RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY, within the scope of the particular discipline.

As I already said in post #33, any defense or rejection of something as scientific or unscientific respectively requires a definition of science, and there are no universal necessary and sufficient criteria in the offing for this purpose.

I've said this four billion times, and you've never responded. You just keep repeating your main point over and over and over again. This is too easy to see through!

In general, hypotheses must be falsifiable, consistent, and reproducible to be verified as true.

NO, TASS! Falsifiability has been SHOWN to NOT be necessary nor sufficient for scientific methodologies (the same goes for testability!). WILL YOU RESPOND TO THIS?

Consistency is stupidly broad! Am I doing science when I consistently draw a darn cartoon?

And I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED REPRODUCIBILITY! Some sciences study repeatable phenomena; some do not (the historical sciences that study unobservable, unrepeatable singularities!). WILL YOU RESPOND TO THIS, you lazy scumbag?

Something an axiomatic premise such as we have in a metaphysical argument cannot do.

And as I JUST demonstrated (AGAIN), an axiomatic premise DOESN'T HAVE TO in order to generate new truths about reality (WHICH YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED). The premise just has to be a universal generalization, substantiated by the methodologies of a priori metaphysics and the methodologies a part of the deductive-nomological model of explanation in the context of the covering-law model of explanation, and is completely sync with the realist, causal model of explanation (WHICH YOU'VE IGNORED).

Axioms are assumed without proof by metaphysicians for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from them and are useful as far as they go.

Blatant lie that I've corrected you on numerously. The methodologies I've given you thousands of times imply, BY DEFINITION, that the axioms are NOT assumed without proof (and you haven't defined proof; there are MANY times when scientists postulate hypotheses, not because they have direct proof, but because they fulfill various criteria of hypothesis acceptance!).

Tell me, Mr. Smarty Pants. Does the Special Theory of Relativity have any unproven assumptions? DON'T EVADE. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I eagerly await your next 20 paragraph snow job; you seem to think, erroneously, that lots of words and mockery make your argument right.

I know you're not taking any of this seriously, you pathetic scumbag. That's why I'm not doing it for you.

[Tassman]

Wrong! Stop visiting RationalWiki and actually do some real homework. It doesn't have to do with the hypotheses, numbskull; it has to do with the methodology of formulating and confirming a hypothesis as a theory or a law. You're so dumb. And, as usual, you missed the point, idiot. Your CONSTANT plea that I 'show', or that I need to 'verify', or that I need to 'test', or that I need to 'falsify' a premise, not just in order for it to be demonstrated or confirmed, but in order for that methodology to qualify as science, IS TO BEG THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT METHODOLOGIES COUNT AS SCIENTIFIC OR NOT,

Do you REALLY

and BEGS THE WHOLE QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER METHODOLOGIES THAT 'show', or 'verify', or 'demonstrate' IN THEIR OWN WAY, RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY, within the scope of the particular discipline.

NO, TASS! Falsifiability has been SHOWN to NOT be necessary nor sufficient for scientific methodologies (the same goes for testability!). WILL YOU RESPOND TO THIS?

Shown by whom?

And as I JUST demonstrated (AGAIN), an axiomatic premise DOESN'T HAVE TO in order to generate new truths about reality (WHICH YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED). The premise just has to be a universal generalization, substantiated by the methodologies of a priori metaphysics and the methodologies a part of the deductive-nomological model of explanation in the context of the covering-law model of explanation, and is completely sync with the realist, causal model of explanation (WHICH YOU'VE IGNORED).

DO "have to be correct in order to generate new facts about reality".

Blatant lie that I've corrected you on numerously. The methodologies I've given you thousands of times imply, BY DEFINITION, that the axioms are NOT assumed without proof (and you haven't defined proof; there are MANY times when scientists postulate hypotheses, not because they have direct proof, but because they fulfill various criteria of hypothesis acceptance!).

See four elements and celestial spheres above.

Tell me, Mr. Smarty Pants. Does the Special Theory of Relativity have any unproven assumptions? DON'T EVADE. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ivity-alok-jha

I know you're not taking any of this seriously, you pathetic scumbag. That's why I'm not doing it for you.

I know, it's for the untold masses hanging on your every word.