A female less than 3 years old, her intercourse is not considered as intercourse, and her virginity returns.
Weird thing to sneak into your holy book no?
What does the talmud say about 3 year old girls?
Sure, of course, but that doesn’t change the facts that:
-
they are on the box
-
presumably they are “default” choices
Both are dogshit
“Whoever”?
Instead they’re all fat ugly disabled POCs
That’s isn’t an accident
Anyone have a link to the full video/context? Can’t find it
The algorithm will delist any video using a “hard W”
“To except leftist rhetoric about jews”
Learn the fucking language of the people you’re trying to subvert, or better yet DON’T because it makes you so much easier to notice
Pretty sure it nullifies the tag so the other person doesn’t actually get notified, not sure though never been much of a twit
I think we can trust Moriarty on his take here
Like when people say X-men was a “coded” discussion of the different approaches to the civil rights movement (prof x = mlk, magneto = malcolm x)
The story of AC is unironically closer to real life than “anatomically modern humans sat around jerking off in caves for 290,000 years until inventing agriculture 10,000 years ago”.
I’ve been asking the admins for over two years now for a setting which would let communities sort their front page by /active...it might finally be coming now that the legacy sites have been switched over to the system
.win limitation... mods can filter posts from new accounts, but it’s all or nothing (someone correct me if I’m wrong - the filter is written in YAML so it could be possible I just don’t really know the language’s limitations)
The argument that math and the complex symbol systems required by chemistry, physics, and so forth MUST have been existing out there in the ether
Is that not the obvious case? The universe developed for billions and billions of years according to these physical laws with no humans around to write them down symbolically. Simultaneously, these laws don’t physically “exist” in the sense that they aren’t written down anywhere. Protons aren’t labeled “this side up”, yet somehow the universe knows just how to proceed, in all respects.
Math, physics, chemistry are highly effective maps of the natural world, so effective you can make predictions about how some stuff will act or behave.
Can you think of anything “real” which can’t be explained/modeled by math? How could a mindless universe be so totally governed by something which is synonymous with mind? It’s (LITERALLY) illogical
And just so you know, this post isn’t suggesting any specific God over another, it’s about trying to find common ground where everyone can congregate to through logical argument, from where the discussion could branch off in many interesting directions
Tell me which part of the argument makes a mockery of math:
There are, according to the standard model, 27 independent and fundamental variables which underpin “the laws of physics”
There is no reason for these variables to have the value they do (hence independent), or any other value, beyond the logical necessity that they must have some value
One of these 27 variables is lamda, the cosmological constant, which has been determined to posses a value on the order of 1x10^-122 (unitless)
Should the value of this number change, a variety of effects would occur depending on the degree of change. A very very very very small change would result in galaxies never forming. A very very very small change would result in stars never forming. A very very small change would result in the universe collapsing in on itself nearly instantaneously after the big bang.
That same reality applies to each of the 27 independent fundamental variables, and while I may not be able to actually produce this equation which multiplies the acceptable error bounds, it is clearly logically possible to produce it.
If you want to, from this point, make some Anthropic Principle-esque rebuttal along the lines of “well who says these variables can take any other value than the one they hold in our universe” / “there could be infinite universes, we just happen to be in the one where they take these values”, congrats on shutting down the conversation, but I and Roger Penrose alike assure you, you haven't actually responded to the argument, merely attempted to avoid it (Dip, Dodge, Duck, Davoid, and Dip right? Been a while since school)
It is implausible to the degree of practical impossibility to suggest that this is the result of chaos, chance, and meaninglessness (“beyond a shadow of a doubt”? We execute people on less grounds than you seem to be demanding from a fucking forum conversation lol).
Go back to your first statement, where you effectively claim everyone who perceives existence as possessing meaning is stupid. You’re the one who kicked things off on a poor foot. I made a logical argument to start a discussion, you made a judgement and placed yourself above everyone with a different understanding. The fact you don’t understand limits is just the cherry on top.
- If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
Still waiting for you to deal with that argument. If you recall, all you’ve done so far is bitch, spout non-sequitors, and insult the intelligence of others
If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different?
Well, for starters, math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic. Existence would be truly meaningless in every sense of the word. There would be no correspondence between cause and effect. So on and so forth.
I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave.
I’m wrapping the “Laws of Physics” into the broader umbrella concept of “Applicability of Mathematics to Reality”. The star functions the way it does (mostly) because of the interplay of gravity, nuclear fusion, and electromagnetism. The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.
But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted
I’m not trying to be tautological, though I understand how these arguments could be interpreted that way. The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality that it has long been called “the language of nature”, unless you include the possibility of intelligent design. You could say, “I believe in the thing so mind bogglingly implausible that it could be rightly said that the possibility of its occurrence is approaching 1/∞” but that is just an inferior answer in my opinion.
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know
So two things:
Firstly - even the parts of math we think don’t apply to reality often end up astoundingly showing up in some theretofore poorly understood realm. A great example of this are the imaginary numbers and their associated operations.
Secondly - “Math” isn’t a physical thing right? It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right? So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe?
Oh it’s good stuff. Basically what you describe and variations on the theme usually dealing with changes in scale. One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves, in an assumed multiversal situation. I can look for the link if you’re interested, I think I posted it a while back.
I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better.
Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!
No offense, but did you take any math classes in college?
Yeah about a quarter of my STEM program, you?
Very large numbers multiplied by very small numbers end up being somewhere between the two. This isn't complicated stuff.
You don’t seem to understand the argument if this is your response. Start again with the logical proposition in the title and disprove it if you can. From there we can move on to the fine tuning argument on the other side of the cross-post.
And it's all a moot point anyway, because the probability of an even that has already happened happening is 1.
Lol, all you’ve done, like the vast majority of people who’ve summoned what they think is a “counter argument” is restate the Anthropic Principle in other words. Here is Sir Roger Penrose on your “rebuttal”:
[The Anthropic Principle] tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."
Seems like reading isn’t your strong suit, I see how this could tucker you out
That’s what we observe.
Debunk the observation.
Equations don't create the universe, they describe it.
Do humans invent math or discover it?
Effect can suggest a cause
Effect: an ordered, non-random universe which appears to contain meaning and operate based on the principles of math and logic, all hallmarks of intelligence
Suggested cause: an intelligent design
and then you go off and prove that's indeed the cause of the effect
Elaborated proof: the post I linked to in the first place
How many universes are there
One, hence “uni-verse”
Do you understand the reason now why you can't answer any of these questions I've posed? You shouldn't feel bad about not knowing; nobody has answers other than the universe exists (to us) and is how it is.
Again, just restating the Anthropic Principle.
So explain that verse to me, why are they worried about the virginity of 3 year olds?
Yeah I’ve learned how to preemptively avoid many of the pilpulous pitfalls parlayed against the truth