What created God?

Originally posted by tomtom232
You call it nonsense and that is your only argument. You sound like a Christian.

I am sorry, but I have made arguments, and what you have come back with is nonsense.

I don't know how I am supposed to come up with a reasoned rejoinder to something that
doesn't make any sense because I have no clue what it is you are talking about.
And from what you have said I don't think you do either.

This is pretty basic stuff that you seem to have no grasp of.

Originally posted by tomtom232
We picked the point at the exact same instant. Prove your point is zero and mine is not.

I step back and allow your point to be the zero - job done.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am sorry, but I have made arguments, and what you have come back with is nonsense.

I don't know how I am supposed to come up with a reasoned rejoinder to something that
doesn't make any sense because I have no clue what it is you are talking about.
And from what you have said I don't think you do either.

This is pretty basic stuff that you seem to have no grasp of.

It is not nonsense lol.

I have a grasp of maths in fact quite a good enough grasp to realize that I wish I had never learned them because they are nonsensical.

You just called this nonsense


We walk an equal distance away from something if you call this zero then our numbers combined equal this something but if you call that number 1 now our numbers combined are magically 1 away from this something even though we are equal distance from it.

I knew very well that -14 + 16 didn't equal 1 I also knew very well that you would catch it .

Originally posted by Agerg
I step back and allow your point to be the zero - job done.

You just proved your point not zero and just failed to defend yourself. Your brain then explodes. 😛

Originally posted by tomtom232
We picked the point at the exact same instant. Prove your point is zero and mine is not.

Again you are talking about a physical infinite line.

The number line is an abstraction and contains all the numbers in order.
on that line 0 is the only one on which the numbers on either side are mirror symmetrical.
You can't define any point on it as being 0. 0 is one point on the line in between all the
positive and the negative numbers.

If you are talking about a physical line that extends infinitely in either direction then while
you can define a point on it as 0 (the middle) for whatever reasons as are convenient,
there is nothing special about it other than that.

In the same way that if you happen to live on a sphere and want to give coordinates you
have to decide some point as being 0:0 lat long.
If it's spinning then you have a logical reason for 0 latitude.
But longitude is arbitrary, and was defined in our case by Great Britain ruling the worlds largest
empire and the seas more than long gun shot from anyone else's coast and so we defined
0 longitude as running through our capital city.

And everyone has stuck with that because otherwise they would have to redraw all the maps.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You just proved your point not zero and just failed to defend yourself. Your brain then explodes. 😛

I don't need to defend myself - I'm happy enough that you have pointed to somewhere on the number line and said "I put zero here". Adhering to that convention from now on all is safe.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Again you are talking about a physical infinite line.

The number line is an abstraction and contains all the numbers in order.
on that line 0 is the only one on which the numbers on either side are mirror symmetrical.
You can't define any point on it as being 0. 0 is one point on the line in between all the
positive and the negative numbers.

If ...[text shortened]...

And everyone has stuck with that because otherwise they would have to redraw all the maps.

Abstract or not the line still extends infinitely from every number. It is nonsense precisely because 0 is the only "number" that you can fold it and have symmetry.

When you fold it where does 0 go?

Originally posted by tomtom232
Abstract or not the line still extends infinitely from every number. It is nonsense precisely because 0 is the only "number" that you can fold it and have symmetry.

When you fold it where does 0 go?

Having a single point of symmetry is not problematic.

And the zero doesn't go anywhere.


I don't know what you are trying to get at.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Having a single point of symmetry is not problematic.

And the zero doesn't go anywhere.


I don't know what you are trying to get at.

...I don't know...

At least you finally admit it... this is the first step along the path to enlightenment.

Originally posted by tomtom232
[b]...I don't know...

At least you finally admit it... this is the first step along the path to enlightenment.[/b]

There are many things I don't know, and I admit that freely.
This is why science hasn't finished, there are still (many) things it hasn't discovered or explained.

However in this particular instance what I am saying is that I don't know what the hell 'you'
are talking about because most of what you are saying is nonsensical.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are many things I don't know, and I admit that freely.
This is why science hasn't finished, there are still (many) things it hasn't discovered or explained.

However in this particular instance what I am saying is that I don't know what the hell 'you'
are talking about because most of what you are saying is nonsensical.

He's trolling...I suspect he actually agrees with us ;]

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are many things I don't know, and I admit that freely.
This is why science hasn't finished, there are still (many) things it hasn't discovered or explained.

However in this particular instance what I am saying is that I don't know what the hell 'you'
are talking about because most of what you are saying is nonsensical.

Information isn't knowledge.

Knowledge isn't understanding.

Information isn't understanding.

You don't need information nor knowledge to understand. What is wrong then with admitting you don't know anything when all you have is information created by men and women through language? As I said before numbers can only define numbers.... that is the true nonsense.

Originally posted by Agerg
He's trolling...I suspect he actually agrees with us ;]

Either that or he really does know so little maths and logic that we have no reference frame
in which we can actually meaningfully converse.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Information isn't knowledge.

Knowledge isn't understanding.

Information isn't understanding.

You don't need information nor knowledge to understand. What is wrong then with admitting you don't know anything when all you have is information created by men and women through language? As I said before numbers can only define numbers.... that is the true nonsense.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I definitely don't know what you are trying to say.

I am not convinced we are actually speaking the same language.

Thus I am bowing out of the discussion until such time as we can agree on a common
reference frame in which we can discuss these concepts because without it we might
as well be speaking gibberish to one another.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I definitely don't know what you are trying to say.

I am not convinced we are actually speaking the same language.

Thus I am bowing out of the discussion until such time as we can agree on a common
reference frame in which we can discuss these concepts because without it we might
as well be speaking gibberish to one another.

You just love to be smarter than people. I know your type. You love being smarter than others more than you are scared of an afterlife.

If you have to sacrifice an actual search for truth to comfort your ego then so be it, I will also bow out.

My last piece of advice. Eat a magic mushroom.