Thursday, January 03, 2013

Rawlings' Bawlings

In the comments sections of the previous three entries on my blog (beginning with the most recent: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude, My Discussion with Michael Rawlings, and Is Math Christian?), we have had the opportunity to observe the spectacle of a most pompous individual.

From the beginning, Rawlings has come to us wielding multi-syllabic jargon and point-missing braggadocio in a most characteristic fashion. But according to Rawlings and the defenses he’s provided, what does the Christian worldview have to offer in terms of philosophical value? Let the reader decide, but the reader should be informed before settling his opinion prematurely. So here is an overview (but I caution the reader: this is by no means an exhaustive catalogue of Rawlings’ indiscretions and deficiencies – not by a long shot!):

- In metaphysics, Rawlings has explicitly affirmed the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the metaphysics which reduces to “wishing makes it so.” At root, this is what Christianity is all about: out there, beyond the knowable universe, there exist, according to believers, a super-consciousness to whose wishes and dictates the realm of existence conforms. And yet, at the same time, he acknowledges (how could he not) that “human consciousness” (he repeatedly ignores all the other types of consciousness we find in reality) does not have metaphysical primacy over existence, but yet he fails to produce an epistemology which is consistent with this recognition. Indeed, his own behavior is indicative of a person who struggles against the primacy of existence, apparently never having grasped that reality is not going to re-order itself in response to his tantrums and meltdowns. To top it off, he cannot explain what he as a Christian could possibly mean by ‘objective’ when he uses this term (and he has used it numerous times, and I’ve asked him several times to explain it – he never does).

- In epistemology, the fulcrum upon which all “knowledge” rests according to Christianity is eloquently summed up by John Frame’s open admission (speaking on behalf of believers) that “We know without knowing how we know” Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)). This is at best the epistemology of self-inflicted ignorance, at worst an admission to having no epistemology whatsoever. Rawlings has not improved on this at all; instead, he has affirmed the view that conceptualization is an “automatic” process, the mechanics of which he cannot articulate or explain, and in spite of insisting that Christianity has its own theory of concepts, he speaks of knowledge in long chains of referenceless and convoluted abstractions which are clearly not intended to inform his readers with understanding, but rather to lose them in in a maze of go-nowhere complexity (indeed, Rawlings offers himself as an example of a victim who’s been utterly lost in its endless labyrinths – acting as though complexity in and of itself were a sign of a system’s virtues). Meanwhile, he has failed to connect any talk of the conceptual level of cognition to anything we can read in the bible. I have asked Rawlings to explain what Christianity has to say about the nature and formation of concepts, but he doesn’t even provide us with Christianity’s definition of ‘concept’, let alone point to where we can learn about the conceptual level of cognition in the bible. It is something which its authors and subsequently its believers take completely for granted, clearly believing that the whole process “just happens” – i.e., it’s “automatic,” meaning: there’s nothing to know about it. So much for “Christian epistemology.” We’ve seen enough to know that such a notion is, fortunately, nothing but a vanishing chimera.

- Rawlings’ only angle for securing any semblance of rationality (and that’s using the term exceedingly broadly) on behalf of his god-belief is to somehow conceive of the concept of ‘infinity’ as though it necessarily implies the existence of an “infinite consciousness.” But investigation of this line of “reasoning” has proved that it is nothing of the sort; indeed, merely probing Rawlings’ claims on this matter has set him off in a rage of straw-manning the opposition, non sequiturs, reification of stolen concepts, full-scale launches of insults and innuendoes, and tirades of bawling and invective. To make matters worse for his position, it was pointed out to Rawlings early on that the meaning of ‘infinity’ is conceptual and in fact derives from the nature of conceptual reference as such. Far from pointing to some supernatural “divine perfection” which exists only in the believers’ imaginations, the concept of infinity finds the impetus of its meaning in the nature of human cognition, specifically in the open-endedness of conceptual reference given the operation of measurement-omission. There’s nothing mysterious or otherworldly here. But to grasp this, Rawlings would need to know something about the nature of concepts, but again he doesn’t know anything about concepts (again, he thinks they’re “automatic” and has no explanation for the mechanics of their formation; he does not even offer a definition of ‘concept’). The deficiencies of his argument can be traced directly back to the deficiencies of his “epistemology,” which, as we’ve seen, is nothing but a mirage mistaken by Rawlings as something “unique and profound,” even though there’s certainly nothing unique or profound about it (the various mystical cults throughout history have produced the same thing in terms of essentials). When confronted with a defense of Peikoff’s view that the actual is always finite, he blatantly mischaracterizes it, completely ignoring the defense I assembled for it (even after he asked for one several times), and insists that his straw-man is what Peikoff really means. If Rawlings had a rationally defensible position, would he need to rely on such tactics? I trow not.

- Rawlings exhibits a repeating pattern of interaction throughout his discussion, and it has no redeeming virtues whatsoever. In the beginning he was fairly cordial and presented himself as though he were serious about intellectual interests and curious about Objectivism. (Of course, this turned out merely to be a front. We will see below that Rawlings is no stranger to internet discussion forums, and his behavior on this blog is in no way “unique” or “profound.”) At the same time he believed (or wanted us to believe that he believed) that certain mistakes were being made in attempts to interact with what Christianity teaches, and thereby sought to correct those mistakes. (Of course, this is quite odd in itself, since the chief perspective from which I have consistently critiqued Christianity is by exposing its basis in the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which Rawlings himself explicitly affirmed when hoping to defend Christianity.) When Rawlings’ assertions were challenged, he suffered a meltdown, presumably since we were not accepting him as some kind of credentialed authority on the topic (yes, don’t forget he made a big deal, very oddly I might add, early on about his “credentials,” which he never identified). Clearly he wants his say-so to be accepted as the final word on matters, as if it were unimpeachable, unquestionable, unchallengeable. It’s not. Throughout the discussion, the more Rawlings was challenged on any point, the more he resorted to insults and other types of childish behavior, including re-posting entire series of previously submitted comments of his, even after they had been addressed and demolished, as though they were beyond scrutiny.

- When confronted with my argument that the Christian god does not and cannot exist because it is imaginary, Rawlings does not challenge the premise that the Christian god is imaginary. Rather, he curiously focuses on the premise that the imaginary is not real, apparently but not explicitly angling that something he imagines actually exists (he famously used the DVD cabinet he apparently wants to build as an example). According to Rawlings, the DVD cabinet he imagines somehow exists, and yet he still needs to buy parts in order to build it. It never seems to dawn on our genius guest that one does not need to build something when it already exists. In substantiating his case, he produced a mock dialogue in which the individual he encounters readily accepts that the DVD cabinet he’s imagining is real. Rawlings is so accustomed to being surrounded by members of his cult who share in his fantasies, that he projects the same indiscriminate and uncritical acceptance of the imaginary as real onto the characters of his mock dialogue to make the point that the imaginary is in fact actual. If his god’s existence is in any way analogous to the DVD cabinet that Rawlings imagines, there’s certainly no hope for rescuing his theism.

Off-list several interesting facts have been brought to my attention about Michael David Rawlings. Apparently Rawlings runs his own blog, which I have never visited. But from what I have learned, Rawlings has posted on his blog a commenting policy which reads:
Comment Policy (Due to the restructuring of this blog, comments posted prior to November 6, 2012 are longer available. I apologize for the inconvenience, but the new format is permanently fixed, and future comments will be secure.) 1. Debate. Discuss. Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. This doesn't mean that satirical or sardonic remarks won't be allowed, but rude or hurtful epithets, particularly those launched without substance, will be deleted. 2. Irrationally slanderous or sexually explicit comments will be deleted. Comments containing threats of physical violence will be deleted. Comments containing excessive or gratuitous profanity will be deleted. I will not delete a post simply because someone finds it to be offensive, but boorish behavior will not be tolerated. It's really simple, folks. Be decent. Be mature. 3. Spam, advertisements or comments whose sole purpose is to direct traffic to other sites will be deleted. 4. Stay on topic. 5. Anonymous comments will not be allowed. Finally, I reserve the right to delete comments or close comments on posts for any reason, regardless of whether or not they conform with the above.
This does not need any additional editorial comment. Also it is pointed out to me that Rawlings’ pattern of juvenile behavior is not unique to his commenting activity on my blog. One observer notified me of Rawlings’ posting activity on another forum where he has unleashed a similar display of tantrums and meltdowns. At one point he wrote:
Liars. You've all been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research. LOL! But we all know why you phonies evade the findings of abiogentic research, don't we? Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority. Your response is to simply repeat the same questions over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. None of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall. So too-da-loo, loopy-doos!
So apparently Rawlings is an advocate of so-called “Intelligent Design” – a design which human beings, curiously, are continually improving. How could that be? In another thread on the same message board, Rawlings writes:
And I will always be civil to persons who present their ideas in a civil tone, no matter how much I may disagree. Most times I ignore incivility. What I have no tolerance for are the moral outrages and flagrant lies of bootlick statists. A man who will abuse language or logical categories, that is, a man who will lie, twist and pervert reality, slander truth, will murder too given the power.
We must never lose sight of the fact that Michael David Rawlings’ words, since they are so conspicuously bereft of substance, are primary autobiographical. Just as when Christian apologist Phil Fernandes states in his debate with Jeffery J. Lowder that
I just believe that we are very good about lying to ourselves, and only accepting, uh, or interpreting the evidence the way we would like to.
Michael David Rawlings is speaking for and about himself. A comment which Robert Bumbalough recently quoted states:
Being hostile toward #atheism is basically like having a hissy fit because I won't play "make believe" with you. Sorry. I'm not 5.
Indeed. Let’s face it: in the theist’s experience, the mere existence of atheists is cause for panic. Atheists are for religious believers essentially spoil sports. We aren’t going to play “make believe” with the believer, and what really riles someone like Michael David Rawlings is the fact that we don’t think philosophy is the handmaiden to make-believe. This is what prompts what in other contexts might appear to be an otherwise nominally capable adult to showing his true colors: suffering temper tantrums and breakdowns in public, melting down at the slightest resistance to his presumed “authority,” and unleashing his entire arsenal of insults and bad attitude, all the while undermining any shred of credibility he might claim to have as a thinker. Since his pattern of behavior has been positively reinforced by probably years of habit, I expect that none of this will matter to Michael David Rawlings, and that he’ll just continue showing himself to be pompous bawling ass he really is.

by Dawson Bethrick

680 Comments:

Blogger photosynthesis said...

Well, Michael said that a handful of his imaginary friends have asked him "to round out just a few more points." Which means we might see more of his nonsense.

January 04, 2013 7:16 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

One of the many things I don't understand is why would Michael insert a "LOL" in the middle of an angry outburst. Looks wacko.

January 04, 2013 12:33 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Well, gee, all those many imaginary discretions. . . .

Give it a rest, Dawson, no one but your band of dingbats believes a single word of your trash. You and all of yours are pathological liars. Indeed, come to think of it, none of you Rand-worshiping cultists believe it either.

Heck, you know you're lying.

January 04, 2013 2:25 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Nah, photozero (a.k.a., photosynthesis), we ain't done with your idiocy just yet. . . .
__________________________________

photozero,


Note the lack of quotation marks around this stupidity that you keep deceitfully attributing to me:

[T]he quotient of dividing a number by infinity is an indivisible immutable infinity with no beginning and no end. —photozero

What happened to the quotation marks, photozero? How come you never quote me directly, photozero? It's really odd how this obvious stupidity keeps popping up in your posts as attributed to me but never has any quotation marks around it, photozero. By the way, photozero, you forgot to put a comma between YOUR "indivisible" and "immutable," photozero.

LOL!


photozero pretends: "all he [Michael] could come up with was the very same procedure I showed him above, only in terms of a limit theorem."

No, photozero. You are a liar, photozero.

You claimed that n was divided forever, and that 0 was the quotient, which is utterly nonsensical, photozero.

There’s no friggin’ zero in the set, photozero. Zero is never a quotient in this calculation, photozero. You thought it was, photozero. In fact, that was the whole point of your stupid allegation regarding MY supposed error, photozero.

EVERYBODY ON THIS SITE KNOWS YOU CLAIMED THAT THE ULTIMATE QUOTIENT IS ZERO, PHOTOZERO.

You've never heard of limiting functions in your life until now, photozero. In fact, yesterday, according to you, my explanation of the calculation was still all wrong, photozero.


Recall what you stupidly and sarcastically wrote, photozero, as if I were the dufus, you dufus:

"What would be the quotient if we divided ‘without end’? Let's try it!

6/infinity = 0

Hey! ‘0’ is a quotient .…"


LOL!

January 04, 2013 2:30 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Now you're admitting I was right, photozero, albeit, in a deceitful, obfuscating fashion, aren’t you, photozero?

So you did find the full expression of the calculation, eh? You did learn that "= 0" in the shorthand expression does not mean "equals zero," but "the limit is zero" just like I told you, didn't ya, photozero? The only one who had to do some consulting was you, photozero.


You’re a pathological liar, photozero.

You had no clue, photozero. Shut up, photozero!

And the limiting functions of infinite division are not theorems, photozero. They're indispensable, axiomatic functions, photozero, as one cannot divisionally divide anything into nothingness, photozero. The only thing conceptually theoretical is the number of infinitely, but not because it’s indefinable or has no identity like the standing alone expression “n/oo,” but because it means “no beginning and no end” or “limitless,” photozero. Hence, it is merely indeterminable, photozero. It’s calculi require definitive limits (two, in fact) in order to accurately express the fact that it has no limits and is not a nothing, photozero, or a zero, photozero, but a something, photozero. Indeed, it encompasses every friggin’ number there is at once, photozero.

Theorems? LOL! More subterfuge.


photozero writes: "Then this poor guy had to mistake a procedure for finding a limit with the limit itself".

Finding a limit or finding two limits? Aren't you leaving one of them out? LOL!

The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless as opposed to the stupid absolute end of the operation you imposed as a result of asserting an absolute end on the lower range of the operation, placing it at zero, rather than eternally approaching zero, photozero, while contradictorily declaring that n was divided forever, photozero.

And I did not find the limits of the function, photozero. Your claim is meaningless, photozero. It’s utterly nonsensical, photozero. We know what they are, photozero. The functions themselves are constants, photozero, with variables, photozero, in which you plug values, photozero . Nobody has to find them, photozero. They are self-evident, photozero. I directly applied them, photozero. There’s no intermediate step whatsoever, photozero. More subterfuge, photozero. You are stark raving mad, photozero.

January 04, 2013 2:32 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

[continued . . .]

However. . . .

photozero writes: "[He] lied about me putting quotients in the place of dividends."

No. I just assumed you were doing some such stupid thing based on other confused statements in which you confounded the operation of division itself with what would be the sequential outcomes in the set, a technical aspect of the actual function about which you were utterly unaware until I pointed that out to you, photozero, which could readily lead to such an error, photozero. Notwithstanding, since you protested so loudly, I went back and looked at your stuff. Like I said, I haven’t paid you any mind on that topic ever since you did that. Okay, so you didn’t.

Feel better, photozero? But let’s get something straight, the essence of my assumption was in fact due to your ignorance compounded by your deceitful misrepresentation of my argument, which in your case was intentional!

See, the difference between you and me, photozero, is that I'm sane, and you're not. I have no problem correcting errant assumptions, photozero, and you can’t stop compounding yours stupidity and ignorance ad infinitum, photozero. But then you’re a sociopath, photozero. You’re a pathological liar, photozero.

I’d give you an F for trying, photozero, but we both know that your blather is one big fat ZERO after another big fat ZERO, photozero, which is no surprise as you have zero integrity, photozero, and zero sense, photozero.

In fact, you’re one big fat lying ZERO, photozero.

Let us behold what you stupidly wrote once again, photozero:

“What would be the quotient if we divided "without end"? Let's try it!

6/infinite = 0

Hey! ‘0’ is a quotient .…”


Yeah, let’s try getting that friggin’ zero out of the set, photozero, as there is no friggin’ zero for the quotient, photozero.

No, photozero, this latest installment of psychopathy demonstrates that you still don’t properly understand the matter. And it cannot hide your stupidity. It cannot blot it out. You clearly did actually believe that the conclusive quotient of infinite division was zero, photozero. Duhson believed it. What a dunce he is too. Let’s call him “Duhsonzero.”

Shut up, you pathetic liar, photozero.

January 04, 2013 2:35 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

[continued . . .]

Special treatment. . . .

But this is the most blatantly depraved statement of them all:

But we can't expect much from Michael, he is so mathematically illiterate that after a month, and after consulting a lot. . . . —photozero


After a month? Richard has been telling you all these many days what anyone with an IQ above that of gnat should know: the quotient is not friggin’ zero! I don’t need to be told that. And who do I need to consult with in order to know what I’ve known since I learned how to share as a child? Putting aside the meaningless or undefined division of numbers by 0, any real number divided by any other number is a partition or a distribution of a whole into parts. Dividing 5 by 2.5, for example, does not make any part of the original whole dissolve into nothingness. Dividing a whole into an infinite number of parts means you have an infinite number of parts of a whole, not a friggin’ zero number of parts of a whole lot of nothing’.

My seven-year-old grandson understands that!

Wait a minute! Maybe you’re right. Let me consult with my grandson again. Maybe he slipped me mickey. LOL!

January 04, 2013 2:36 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

END

January 04, 2013 2:36 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 04, 2013 2:50 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 04, 2013 2:54 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 04, 2013 2:55 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Phot: “Well, Michael said that a handful of his imaginary friends have asked him ‘to round out just a few more points’."

Michael has on several occasions referenced anonymous “friends” of his who he says are “laughing” and unanimously shaking their heads over the “stupidity” allegedly being proffered by myself and others commenting on my blog. This strikes me as rather odd. It seems that if “the word has gone out,” we should expect to see at least a couple of these folks coming to rescue Michael, or at any rate to join in the fun. But so far that hasn’t happened. We should never forget that Christians are concerned about numbers as well as authority. In fact, one of the books of their bible is called “Numbers.” They like to think they have the numbers on their side. They like to think that “everyone” accepts what they say as a matter of obvious fact, and we non-believers are a bunch of misfits on the margin deluded and wallowing in the stupor of idiocy. The delusion of having the masses on their side makes them feel comfortable. It’s very important to them. Well, so far as I see it, they can have the unthinking masses. They can have the thoughtless herds. They can have the decapitated flocks. I am an individual, I have a mind, and I have convictions. I have no problem standing alone. Unlike Christians, I don’t need a coterie of “followers” – men turned into schools of fish – to give me confidence in what I know and what I have learned. Never have, never will. That’s one of the reasons why I would make a terrible Christian – I’m not a joiner, I’m not a follower. Cults need joiners and followers – they need thoughtless masses of herdlike sheeple who nod in uncritical agreement with what the cult’s leadership says. Michael can have that to his heart’s content. The religious collective is all about squelching out the voice of the individual. Everyone’s supposed to be “of one accord” – that’s the biblical ideal: everyone united in their departure from their own minds as they swallow indiscriminately load after load of bible bullshit.

Meanwhile, where are all these “friends” of Michael’s? So far, he’s got one “friend” so far as I can see: Nide. Well, Michael, you can have him. He’s been searching for a friend like you for over a year.

Photo: “One of the many things I don't understand is why would Michael insert a ‘LOL’ in the middle of an angry outburst. Looks wacko.”

This is just another intimidation tactic. Like the impression he wants us all to have that he’s got all the numbers on his side, he also wants us to think that he and everyone else are sneering at us as though we were too stupid to know which end of a paper bag is the open side. Of course, he doesn’t realize that it has exactly the opposite effect: it makes him look very childish. But don’t tell him that – let him believe it’s working in his favor. He probably does!

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 2:59 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 04, 2013 3:00 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Michael: “Give it a rest, Dawson, no one but your band of dingbats believes a single word of your trash. You and all of yours are pathological liars. Indeed, come to think of it, none of you Rand-worshiping cultists believe it either. Heck, you know you're lying.”

Okay, so I’m “lying” – and I “know” I’m “lying” – when I affirm that there is a reality, that I am conscious of objects, that there is a distinction between my conscious activity and the objects which I am conscious of, that the relationship between my consciousness and its objects is properly identified by the primacy of existence, that there is a fundamental distinction between reality and imagination, that reason is man’s means of identifying and integrate the objects of his awareness, that man requires values in order to live, that each individual has the right to exist for his own sake, etc., etc., etc.? All these are lies, and I know they’re lies? Really?

Yep, you’re a true authoritarian, Michael. You want to deny existence, you want to deny consciousness, you want to deny the primacy of existence, you want to deny the distinction between reality and imagination, you want to say that reason is for the dogs, that values are unimportant, that life is unimportant, that human beings should be collectivized by your cult into unthinking herds of decapitated fish netted by chicanery and sophistry, that ignorance is the doorway to “knowledge” (i.e., your god-belief), that getting lost in the labyrinth of your delusions is “unique and profound” and atheism is somehow stupid.

Your entire worldview is about negating, wiping out, destroying what is real, true and proper for man. This is what you’re telling us by your comments like these.

So how do you know what you’re talking about, Michael? Ah, that’s right – you know without knowing how you know. Well, that’s the epistemology of a cult, Michael. In a cult, it’s not knowledge that’s important, it’s belief and obedience that are important. Why would cults discourage their members from getting an education, for instance? Why would they discourage independent thought? Why would they discourage their members from reading certain types of books? Nide already pointed out several times that one of his mentors explicitly told him not to read Rand, and he’s proud of this!!! And notice it’s not us who’s always telling others to “shut up” – it’s you who does this. You want to silence those who don’t agree with you. And you think that’s “intellectual”?

What are you folks afraid of? Well, we know what you’re afraid of – you’re afraid of that the collective might break up and its members abandon the cult and start thinking for themselves. Open your eyes to yourself, Michael – it’s clear as day to us standing on the outside. But to you, your head is, as photo has indicated before, so far up someone’s “poop chute” that you’re delirious from the fumes and unable to think for yourself.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 3:00 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

I'll wait 'til you're finished spewing lies, Duhsonzero, as I see you're trying to bury my post continuations.

How's that division of something into nothin' workin' out for ya, DuhsonZero?

January 04, 2013 3:08 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Rawlings bawled: “I see you're trying to bury my post continuations.”

Oh, you’re such the victim here, Michael!

Okay, everyone, let’s all get out our tiny violins for Michael. He’s starting to cry.

Here is the first rule from Michael’s own comment policy:

<< Debate. Discuss. Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. This doesn't mean that satirical or sardonic remarks won't be allowed, but rude or hurtful epithets, particularly those launched without substance, will be deleted. >>

If I applied this rule on my blog, I estimate that about 80 to 90% of Michael’s comments would have to be deleted.

Christianity sure does produce a lot of broken minds. Encountering someone like Michael makes me really, really, really glad I’m not a Christian. Of course, there are already many reasons to be glad for this, but a specimen like Michael only underscores how wonderful it is to be free of the authoritarian delusions of Christianity.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 3:13 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Keep talking, DuhsonZero. It always comes down to the personal with you, character assassination. You people don’t actually directly exchange the logic of dialogue and reason. Instead, you spout slogans and call that debate. In the meantime, the facts are on my side and the lies are all on yours. Hence, I'll call you out for what you are, backed by the facts.

How's that impossible, Romper-Room, pseudo-mathematical zero of a quotient working out for you?

Ya got egg all over your face, DuhsonZero, more at, ya got photozero’s excrement all over your face. You should have listened to Richard and I when we warned you that photo was lying.

By the way, DuhsonZero, how do you manage to compose music and yet be so mathematically incompetent otherwise. How did you fail to recognize such a rudimentary mathematical insight, that of a child’s really, i.e., the mathematics of “sharing” parts of a whole?

I've been rendering limiting functions of higher mathematics, including those of infinity's calculi, since the age of 10. Where the hell did you people go to school?

Shut up!


January 04, 2013 3:54 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Back on 10 Nov., in a comment to this blog, recall that Michael wrote:

<< I’m just another theistic yahoo who has stumbled into your midst. >>

He just “stumbled” onto Incinerating Presuppositionalism’s comments. This is after he wrote back on 5 Nov. in the same comment thread:

<< I've been reading you for a awhile. Just never commented before. >>

So at least he got the “yahoo” part right. (Of course, “theistic yahoo” strikes me as rather redundant.)

Also in his 10 Nov. comment, Michael wrote:

<< I didn’t come here to teach or to prove God’s existence to you. I’m here to learn and make new friends if you wish. >>

Well, he has in some ways fulfilled his intentions, for there’s nothing new to learn from Michael. So if he “didn’t come here to teach,” he’s done well. But he does not show much willingness at all to learn. And if calling people “idiots,” “imbeciles” and “liars” and telling them repeatedly to “shut up” are the ways in which Michael makes friends, then I’m not surprised that the anonymous “friends” he says he’s in communication with are not coming here in droves to rescue him from his own self-defeating protuberations.

But then, on 7 Dec., in a comment to this blog, Michael wrote:

<< Atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, you know, and dishonest too boot. After all, atheism is a form of psychopathy. >>

I don’t get the impression that this was a newly formed opinion for Michael. Rather, it seems that he had been thinking this all along, but hid this opinion in order to maintain a false front when he first began his commenting here. It surely does not serve to endorse his earlier statement that he is “here to learn and make new friends.”

He says that “atheism is a form of psychopathy.” Again, this does not seem to be a newly formed opinion of Michael’s. And yet, consider what it is saying. It’s essentially saying that non-belief in invisible magic beings whose existence cannot be proven but must be accepted on faith along with an entire cultish worldview which destroys man’s spirit and chokes his chances for intellectual independence, is a form of “psychopathy,” while belief in such things is not a form of psychopathy?

Really?

And we’re supposed to accept this from somebody who puts on a false front from the very beginning, who scolds others for thinking their own thoughts, who ridicules others for not accepting his claims on his say so, who apparently thinks meaningless phrases full of nonsensical theological jargon like “divine perfection” and “the eternally existing now!” have some kind of magic capable of leaping across wide gulfs in one’s “logic” in order to overcome criticisms which, after attempts to help him learn, he clearly does not understand?

[continued…]

January 04, 2013 4:01 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Then, in the very same comment, he wrote:

<< Dawson apparently thinks his song and dance is something I've never seen before. I too was being coy when I earlier said that I’d never seen anything quite like Dawson’s stupidity before. LOL! >>

So let’s get this straight: Michael says that he had “been reading [my blog] for a awhile” [sic], but had “just never commented before”; then he says he “has stumbled into [our] midst” (which is strange – the previous statement suggests he thought about it for a while and made a calculated decision to initiate his conversation here); he says he “didn’t come here to teach or to prove God’s existence to you” but rather was “here to learn and make new friends if you wish,” which makes his decision to join the discussion here seem very innocent and open to new perspectives; then he announces that “atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, and dishonest to boot” – which is most likely an opinion he’s held for years – his activity on other forums which we’ve seen, and which predate his activity here on my blog, is sufficient to indicate that he had such opinions before coming here; then he says he’s already familiar with everything that’s come out in these discussions (so much for his statement that he was “here to learn”).

And he says I’m “stupid” and “dishonest”?

Wow! Just wow!!

This guy Michael is a real piece of work (or perhaps some other four-letter word would be more appropriate).

Special thanks to Observer #948 for reminding me of these comments of Michael’s.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 4:01 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

In a comment which begins with the imperative, “Keep talking, DuhsonZero,” Michael closes with the opposite imperative “Shut up!”

Over and over, this guy shows us that he doesn’t know if he’s coming or if he’s going.

He then wrote: “It always comes down to the personal with you, character assassination.”

How so? I’m not the one who’s been writing things like “Moron! Dimwit! Braying jackass! LIAR! (Oops! Sorry. Slip of the tongue.) Retard. Meathead. Dolt. Idiot. Oaf. Simpleton.” (Michael David Rawlings, 7 Dec., on this blog.) I’ve been at pains to keep the discussion on-topic while you repeatedly suffer meltdowns and go off launching entire strings of insults in the form of one-word sentences. I have to say I’ve never seen anything quite like it before.

Michael: “You people don’t actually directly exchange the logic of dialogue and reason. Instead, you spout slogans and call that debate.”

I see. So, is that why you keep coming back to me, posting several hundred comments saturated with contempt, bad attitude, insults and sneerings? If you’re interested in debate, Michael, and you don’t think anyone here is capable of debate (which is what you’re saying here), why in the world would you continue to involve yourself here? Again, your actions and your words don’t add up. Are you coming or are you going? You yourself don’t seem to know.

Michael: “In the meantime, the facts are on my side and the lies are all on yours.”

If you say so, Michael. Believe what you like.

Michael: “Hence, I'll call you out for what you are, backed by the facts.”

There there, Michael. Feel better now?

Michael: “How's that impossible, Romper-Room, pseudo-mathematical zero of a quotient working out for you?”

Not really sure what you’re talking about. Are you talking about the “math” which essentially goes: “infinity, therefore God”?

[continued…]

January 04, 2013 4:16 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Dawson the fool,

No, chump, the dude that told to me stay away from randnuts is not my mentor. However, I know that denigrating people is your favorite pastime.


Photo aka zero is infinity,

shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!

January 04, 2013 4:16 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Michael: “Ya got egg all over your face, DuhsonZero, more at, ya got photozero’s excrement all over your face.”

I see. Okay, whatever you want to believe. Run along now, dear.

Michael: “You should have listened to Richard and I when we warned you that photo was lying.”

Oh, I’ve listened to Nide before. If you want laughs, he’s delivered them (see for example here and here). Again, you can have him. Please take him with you when you finally do leave.

Michael: “By the way, DuhsonZero, how do you manage to compose music and yet be so mathematically incompetent otherwise.”

Well, for one, I’m not mathematically incompetent. This is another of your self-inflicted delusions, right up there with your “God talks to me” bullcrap.

Also, I’ve been composing music for over 30 years. There is nothing I have to gain from a discussion with you about music. This I already know.

Michael: “I've been rendering limiting functions of higher mathematics, including those of infinity's calculi, since the age of 10.”

So, for a whole year now? Wow, Michael. I’m impressed.

Michael: “Where the hell did you people go to school?”

Why do you want to know?

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 4:16 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “No, chump, the dude that told to me stay away from randnuts is not my mentor.”

Then why do you follow his advice?

Nide: “However, I know that denigrating people is your favorite pastime.”

How do you know?

Oh, that’s right, don’t tell me: you know without knowing how you know.

See, I know when someone is applying “Christian epistemology.” It results in ignorance every time.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 4:19 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Revision:

Dawson the old fool.

So, what kind of music do you make, dawsy, fool's music?

January 04, 2013 4:20 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Dawson,

how do those randnuts taste?

January 04, 2013 4:23 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “So, what kind of music do you make, dawsy, fool's music?”

Many, many kinds, Nide. And in many, many styles.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 4:28 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “how do those randnuts taste?”

How’s that “Christian theory of concepts” coming? Still in the dark, aren’t you?

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 4:30 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

What a rooty-poot you are DuhsonZero. “The numbers" were just fine with you the other day . . . when you stupidly thought they proved you right. No you don’t like them so much anymore. What gives? LOL!

In the meantime, the fact that photozero stupidly ends a calculation at zero in which there is no end, one begins to wonder why it didn't occur to you that photo was describing not an indeterminable process, but a process well within the range of a finite conclusion.

So much for Peikoff's claim! LOL! Of course, Peikoff's malarkey is all wet either way, as the proof does not point to the finiteness of consciousness, but the finiteness of human consciousness and the apparent necessity of an infinite consciousness beyond.

All of the axiomatic elements of mathematical calculi and geometric forms shout God's existence!
__________________________

P.S., photozero, I see you're begging for more punishment. Not so fast. I have the post written. I'm going to rub this in first.

January 04, 2013 4:39 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

That should be: "now you don't like them so much anymore."

Psst. What gives?

What a fortuitous typo. I got to ask the question again. LOL!

January 04, 2013 4:43 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Michael: “What a rooty-poot you are DuhsonZero. ‘The numbers’ were just fine with you the other day . . . when you stupidly thought they proved you right.”

What exactly are you talking about here? Please, give some quotes to substantiate what you’re attributing to me. Try this at least for once.

Michael: “No you don’t like them so much anymore. What gives? LOL!”

Again, what makes you think I don’t like numbers? You’re reading into my words something I never said. I know it’s hard to break your life-long habit of eisegeting your way to your preferred conclusions, but it doesn’t do anything to help your position.

Michael: “In the meantime, the fact that photozero stupidly ends a calculation at zero in which there is no end, one begins to wonder why it didn't occur to you that photo was describing not an indeterminable process, but a process well within the range of a finite conclusion.”

Photo has already corrected you on all your misunderstandings on all this. I don’t know why you keep redirecting the focus of the discussion back to your own failures.

Michael: “So much for Peikoff's claim! LOL! Of course, Peikoff's malarkey is all wet either way, as the proof does not point to the finiteness of consciousness, but the finiteness of human consciousness and the apparent necessity of an infinite consciousness beyond.”

Whatever you want to believe, Michael. I won’t get in the way of your delusions. Clearly neither will your “character.” It’s already been shown that you came here with premeditated pretenses. Your credibility here is zero.

Michael: “All of the axiomatic elements of mathematical calculi and geometric forms shout God's existence!”

Okay, Michael. Believe what you want.

Michael: “P.S., photozero, I see you're begging for more punishment. Not so fast. I have the post written. I'm going to rub this in first.”

Gee, he must surely be shaking now.

Michael, I just want to say thanks for all the entertainment you’ve provided. Please, please, do not delete your comments from my blog. I’m really hoping they will be here for future readers of my blog to marvel at.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 4:48 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

In the meantime, the fact that photozero stupidly ends a calculation at zero in which there is no end, one begins to wonder why it didn't occur to you that photozero wasn’t describing an indeterminably endless process, but a process well within the range of a finite conclusion . . . albeit, contradictorily, babbling about how the numerator was divided without end while the quotient brought everything to a screeching halt at zero.

LOL!

By the way, that’s akin to adding -1 to 1, yielding 0. A is B. No wait! B is A. No wait! A cancels out B, or is it B cancels out A. Oh well, either way, it’s one big fat ZERO of a nothing. Man. There is a sort of weird rhyme to photozero’s reason (insanity). Too bad it’s all wrong.

January 04, 2013 5:23 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Michael,

I'll say it again so that you have a chance to read it and understand once and for all:

Your credibility is zero.

I take it that your credibility is zero on other forums you've visited. That's why you're here instead of there. Eventaully, you'll move on and repeat the whole process. We've seen it all before. It's nothing new.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 5:29 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Come on, Robert Goal-Posts, let’s have some answers!

You write: “This is true, and humanity knows its true because information (whether in context of classic signal or alogarithmic theories) only occurs as an encoding embodied in material particles. Consciousness can only be awareness of information. It's not a thing in and of itself that somehow exists apart from existence. Inasmuch as any theist posits a contrary, they are wrong.”


Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough, photozero is not stating what biblical Judeo-Christianity actually holds. In fact, everything in the statement of his that you quoted is flat-out wrong. How can photo be right when he doesn’t rightly understand what he’s arguing against? In other words, how can his argument against B be refuting, let alone disproving, A? In fact, virtually none of photo’s responses resemble anything like the A he was presented.

Do you understand the question?

Also, your statement in the above is interesting as it reflects essentially the same conceptualization of consciousness as that espoused by Judeo-Christianity regarding the physiological aspect of human consciousness, for example. But most interestingly, you’re describing a consciousness that Dawson told me was all wrong when I presented the very same idea regarding my understanding of the Objectivist view of it.

Perhaps Dawson doesn’t understand the broader and ultimate implications of what Objectivism is asserting as you and I do. Nevertheless, this is very confusing. Which is it?
_____________________________

Come on, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough, I want to hear more on those “encoding[s] embodied in material particles”.

Recall what I wrote:

Actually, ya dingbat, all humanity knows that if the constituents of consciousness are ultimately “encoding[s] embodied in material particles”, the elements of mathematical calculi and geometric forms are actual in precisely the sense that you mean: data, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough, concrete, biochemical data. —Michael David Rawlings



And don’t forget that DVD cabinet I put in your brain. That’s actual too! It’s encoded, ya know, embodied in the material particles in your brain. I put it there. How ya likin’ me now?

Encode mahogany, 10’ long, 5’8’’ high, 2’ deep, 8 shelves, framed glass doors.

Psst. Duhson, it’s a really sweet DVD cabinet, ain’ it?

LOL!

January 04, 2013 5:31 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Oh shut, Dawson. You've never had your ass handed to you like this before.

And it's not about me; it's about exposing you.

January 04, 2013 5:34 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Michael “I will always be civil to persons who present their ideas in a civil tone, no matter how much I may disagree” Rawlings wrote: “Oh shut, Dawson.”

Yes, I know you want those with whom you disagree silenced. Hitler was the same way.

Michael “we know without knowing how we know” Rawlings wrote: “You've never had your ass handed to you like this before.”

Whatever you say, Michael.

Michael “you’re trying to bury my post continuations” Rawlings wrote: “And it's not about me; it's about exposing you.”

Ah, I see. Okay, Michael.

Michael: “And don’t forget that DVD cabinet I put in your brain.”

Actually, you didn’t “put” anything in my brain at all. You symbolized certain concepts denoting something that you have imagined, I perceived those symbols and conceptually grasped their meaning, and did my own imagining. What I imagined is as imaginary as what you imagined.

But you insist that the imaginary is actual. Just like your “infinite consciousness.”

Michael “what I imagine is actual!” Rawlings wrote: “Encode mahogany, 10’ long, 5’8’’ high, 2’ deep, 8 shelves, framed glass doors.”

I can imagine this, too. But what I’m imagining is still imaginary. It’s not actual. But I realize that I’m talking to someone who has embraced a worldview which systematically blurs the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination.

Face it, Michael Bawlings, you've never had your ass handed to you like this before. You’ve lost face, and you’re trying desperately to get it back. But with every attempt you make, you’re putting it further out of reach. It’s quite funny.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2013 5:46 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Isn't it curious that it took almost a month for Michael to consult and come back with a limit theorem (which now he calls an axiom! Note Michael's stupidity here!), which only confirmed my own presentation and contradicted his own claim about infinities being actual, and contradicted his own claim that the quotient was an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end ... but I digress, it took him almost a month to play this self-defeating stunt. It took me minutes to start answering him after he posted that part he said would end it all. Yet he gets all huffy because I caught him on his mathematical illiteracy, and he has to claim that he is an expert since he was ten! (A whole year already! Wow, we are soooo impressed!)

You are so much fun Michael. Tell me when you are finished "rubbing it in," so that can have more fun shovelling that shit back up your ass. You are doing quite a good job about it yourself already, but I will help you a bit once you get tired.

(Seems like Richard's licking and kissing your ass did relieve you, since you came back so enthusiastically for more.)

January 04, 2013 6:46 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

(For more punishment that is. Of course, Richard will be there to lick and kiss again. No worries.)

January 04, 2013 6:55 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo the deceiver,

Sore loser.


January 04, 2013 9:07 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

photodimwit aka zero is infinity,

I was going to stay out of this one, but Dawson, the old fool, can't resist mentioning me. In fact, photoidiot, Dawson, the old fool, told me sometime ago that he cared about me. That lead to one of the most hilarious convos ever. So, if you wanna keep getting pounded, all you have to do is keep up your stupidity and keep mentioning me. I know it's hard not to but try.

Later alligator.

January 04, 2013 9:17 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

I told you already: What must be sore is Michael's ass. Yes, the one you are kissing and licking. Did you think that the redness was all natural? Or was it covered with shit that you've been cleaning up with your mouth and you did not notice? Did he give you a "cherry" yet?

January 05, 2013 7:08 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael,

Seems like your rubbing in consisted on yourself basting in your own shit. Yet again.

Note the lack of quotation marks around this stupidity that you keep deceitfully attributing to me:

Mike here refers to his stupid assertion that the quotient of dividing "with no end" was an indivisible, immutable, infinite with no beginning and no end. Yet, had he a minimum of computational skills, he would have found plenty of quotations, one of them in the comments he is supposed to be answering here. Should we give him those once more? OK, OK, let's do that:

Michael's own words: The mathematical abstraction here, from the perspective of finite consciousness, is the unknown quantity of infinity, i.e., the quotient. The quotient of division is not the mathematical operation of division. It’s the outcome. [bold added by me]

Let's not forget that he did that after I asked him how he got this: It follows, infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end. From: any divisible entity may be divided without end.

But Michael loves making "assumptions" rather than reading. Or maybe it is just his computational illiteracy, so he rather "assumes" than check before embarrassing himself with such wordings as:

What happened to the quotation marks, photozero? How come you never quote me directly, photozero?

Note the stupid self-righteous tone of his remark, despite he did not take care to check if I quoted him anywhere or not. He just "assumes" as he openly admitted later. But knowing himself that he is just "assuming" does not stop him from acting as if he knew. Isn't that cute? Now we know something we did not know before, namely that Christians excuse their dishonesty behind such words as "assume." News for you Michael, talking as if you knew when you are "assuming" is also dishonest. It's also lying.

You claimed that n was divided forever, and that 0 was the quotient, which is utterly nonsensical, photozero.

Well, again, have it your way. It never reaches zero, therefore no division without end, therefore your construct for divine perfection does not even go beyond the math. Thanks for making my point. Still, the quotient is not infinity, let alone an indivisible, immutable, one with no beginning and no end. Thanks!

You've never heard of limiting functions in your life until now, photozero. In fact, yesterday, according to you, my explanation of the calculation was still all wrong, photozero.

Well, since it took you almost a month to come with that "explanation," I would venture that it is you who never heard of limiting functions before. I would not be surprised since you tend to project into others your own deficiencies and incompetence. Also, since you provided your "explanation" yesterday, and since I answered yesterday, you should know that I did not say that such explanation was wrong. You truly need to learn to read Michael. You are embarrassing yourself enormously here just because you won't go to the previous thread and actually read what I answered. You are showing yourself to be intellectually deficient, lazy, and dishonest.

Recall what you stupidly and sarcastically wrote, photozero, as if I were the dufus, you dufus:

You are the dufus Michael. You said that the quotient was an infinite which was indivisible, immutable, with no beginning and no end. You pushed the issue so many times, that I finally showed you, and when you noticed your mistake you panicked and ran asking for help, until you came with this red-herring of yours. Trying to distract from your mistake by pointing that "it's never zero! It's never zero!" Which, of course, works in my favour, because it is not any kind of infinite, and you deny the idea that dividing without end is possible. Thanks for making my point(s)!

[and there's more ...]

January 05, 2013 7:35 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photoasshead,

How is there " no division without end" when we can't even reach an end?

dimwit.

January 05, 2013 7:54 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

[... continuing, number 2 ...]

Oh, but it gets better, because now you are trying to rescue your infinity by smuggling it into the operation of figuring out a limit. Yet, you said before, as I quoted above, that:

The mathematical abstraction here, from the perspective of finite consciousness, is the unknown quantity of infinity, i.e., the quotient. The quotient of division is not the mathematical operation of division. It’s the outcome. [bold added by me]

Nicely done Michael! You sure can't keep your stupidity straight! This is what happens, Michael, because you started wrong, and, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you built a castle of lies to cover it up.

But it's even better (or worse).

Now you're admitting I was right, photozero, albeit, in a deceitful, obfuscating fashion, aren’t you, photozero?

Nope. You were never right that the quotient would be an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end. Not then, not now, not ever.

And now for the excuse about "assumptions":

photozero writes: "[He] lied about me putting quotients in the place of dividends."

[Michael here] No. I just assumed you were doing some such stupid thing based on other confused statements in which you confounded the operation of division itself with what would be the sequential outcomes in the set ...


Let's see what an "assumption" looks like in the words of Michael:

You were vaguely thinking the irrational and utterly useless idea that it was a successive division of a successively derived quotient, which then becomes the next dividend and so on. . . . LOL!

See? It reads as if he know what he is talking about. Just as everything he writes. So we have to wonder if Michael is always assuming here that he said "A" there that he said "B," here that any of us said "C," there that any of us said "D." For all we know all his comments, as strongly as they are written, are just assuming one thing here, another, even opposite thing the next. If Michael's credibility has ever been in question, here you have it. Michael has, ahem, zero credibility. None whatsoever. Thanks Michael.

With that maybe we should just stop it here. Right? Why bother with his insane bawlings? He is just "assuming." He went on in this comment projecting his inadequacies, pathologies, and incompetence on me. But there might be a few more things to show him ...

Hum, not much. He admitted that he is mistaking a limit function with the limit itself. Only he makes another mistake there, but I do not care, then he keeps mixing reality with abstractions when he tried to "rub it in" about sharing, and how we would necessarily have an infinite of somethings, rather than of nothings, not realizing that this is precisely the point, the problem with the conceptual division to infinity and reality. In actuality we could not possibly have an infinite number of parts to "share" because an infinite number of particles of any size other than zero would necessarily be "larger than the Heavens" (as Aristotle puts it in his Metaphysics), therefore you have three options Michael: division by infinity is impossible, it reduces everything into nothing, or it gives you something larger than the whole of what exists. This is why division by infinity is not an axiom Michael. After all, calculus was not developed until the 17th century, and it is mostly about finding ways to get around the paradoxes brought about by certain operations involving infinities and zeroes.

[is there more? ...]

January 05, 2013 8:23 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

[... continuing 3 ...]

Hum, not much more. Michael promised to rub something in. But he erased four or five comments instead. Also said this to Dawson:

I'll wait 'til you're finished spewing lies, Duhsonzero, as I see you're trying to bury my post continuations.

Which illustrates again Michael's computational illiteracy. This is why he does not read my comments properly. If they occur before something else, or if a commnt by somebody else interrupts the "continuation," he gets lost. He is so incompetent that he thinks that the same would happen to any of us. Poor Michael the computationally, logically, scientifically, mathematically, illiterate.

Then he starts "assuming" stuff about Dawson, showing again, and again, that he can't read and keep ideas in order. Then he reposted something he said before to Robert.

Nope. Not a lot to say, except that Michael has lots of trouble. I shall finish repeating this part:

What Michael writes reads as if he knows what he is talking about. So we have to wonder if Michael is always assuming here that he said "A" there that he said "B," here that any of us said "C," there that any of us said "D." For all we know all his comments, as strongly as they are written, are just assuming one thing here, another, even opposite thing the next. If Michael's credibility has ever been in question, here you have it. Michael has, ahem, zero credibility. None whatsoever.

Hey Richard, here, come and continue licking and kissing Michael's ass. He needs more relief before continuing making a fool of himself.

ENDED

January 05, 2013 8:32 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 05, 2013 8:35 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

You just "buried my post continuations." Michael will now have too much difficulty reading them ... but no worries, he can't read any way.

He needs you Richard, go keep kissing and licking his ass. He must be in lots of pain.

January 05, 2013 8:38 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

dimwit.

January 05, 2013 9:12 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

How is there " no division without end" when we can't even reach an end?

You are missing Michael's target, which was that dividing without end yields an indivisible, immutable, infinite with no beginning and no end. No matter how much you want to play, if infinity cannot be reached, there's no infinite to talk about. I know you've been trying to get me out of track asking where numbers start and end, but that's a distraction from the issue Richard. And the issue is that an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end does not follow from the "intuition" that any divisible object "may" be divided without end.

I know it frustrates you that I won't go for the red-herrings. That I won't lose sight of what Michael pretended to be axiomatic (that division without end yields such a kind of infinite, or that he claimed that it was the quotient).

Now that you want to make this a game of semantics, here I come. In abstracto, there's no end. The problem, as I have insisted, is that there's no way to put that into an actual infinite. This is why Michael's "construct" uses the division instead. Those Michael copied this from knew that claiming there to be actual infinite numbers of anything lead nowhere. An infinite number of anything would be larger than everything in existence, leaving no space for anything else. That destroys any claim for actuality from the get go. This is why those Michael copied from used division. But Michael does not know this because he had never thought about it. See how much he insists on me to follow on what you say. Because he did not know why the "construct" uses division. It uses it to find an infinite in cutting a finite object, rather than fill the universe with something. This is why it took him a month to find help and figure out a way out, which missed his target nonetheless.

Got it Richard? Of course not. You can't read. Let see how much effort you will put to this. My bet, none. But now you have an excuse not to follow. You are busy kissing and licking Michael's irritated ass.

January 05, 2013 9:19 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael also brayed,

P.S., photozero, I see you're begging for more punishment. Not so fast. I have the post written. I'm going to rub this in first.

Punishment? So far all you have shown is such a desperation to save "cheeks" that you've given me nothing else but entertainment. There's much more of your shit to shovel back up your ass. Do you want it?

January 05, 2013 9:41 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Dawson also provided lots of examples of Michael contradicting himself. I am sure those are easily explained. Michael just "assumed" that he came for one reason, then he just "assumed" that he came for another. Michael "assumed" that he had read this blog for a while, then he "assumed" that he just stumbled upon it. And so on and so forth ...

January 05, 2013 9:48 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

But that's infinity:

The fact that numbers have no beginning or end.

But Do numbers take up space, photo?

Are they material in nature?

January 05, 2013 10:42 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Missing the point again Richard?

Numbers are conceptual. Michael problem is finding a connection between a conceptual infinite and an actual one. But that's a secondary problem for him. He can't even find an infinite as an infinite as a quotient that's indivisible, immutable, with no beginning and no end in that division problem.

You on the other hand have the problem that, thought you can find a conceptual infinite in the numbers, you have no way of connecting that to actuality. So even by changing the math proposal, thus creating a distraction from the fact that Michael was wrong, you are leading nowhere near what divine bullshit needs.

January 05, 2013 11:01 AM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

I see that photoZero is still nancing about in the nude as if he were clothed in truth and sanity, and DuhsonZero is trying to reason with me as if deceit and insanity, not to mention the utter lack of respect for the actuality of other’s ideas, warranted something other than contempt.

Hence, let me grab my shovel. . . .

photozero,

Note the lack of quotation marks around this stupidity that you keep deceitfully attributing to me:

[T]he quotient of dividing a number by infinity is an indivisible immutable infinity with no beginning and no end. —photozero

What happened to the quotation marks, photozero? How come you never quote me directly, photozero? It's really odd how this obvious stupidity keeps popping up in your posts as attributed to me but never has any quotation marks around it, photozero. By the way, photozero, you forgot to put a comma between YOUR "indivisible" and "immutable," photozero.

LOL!


photozero pretends: "all he [Michael] could come up with was the very same procedure I showed him above, only in terms of a limit theorem."

No, photozero. You are a liar, photozero.

You claimed that n was divided forever, and that 0 was the quotient, which is utterly nonsensical, photozero.

There’s no friggin’ zero in the set, photozero. Zero is never a quotient in this calculation, photozero. You thought it was, photozero. In fact, that was the whole point of your stupid allegation regarding MY supposed error, photozero.

EVERYBODY ON THIS SITE KNOWS YOU CLAIMED THAT THE ULTIMATE QUOTIENT IS ZERO, PHOTOZERO.

You've never heard of limiting functions in your life until now, photozero. In fact, yesterday, according to you, my explanation of the calculation was still all wrong, photozero.


Recall what you stupidly and sarcastically wrote, photozero, as if I were the dufus, you dufus:

“What would be the quotient if we divided ‘without end’? Let's try it!

6/infinity = 0

Hey! ‘0’ is a quotient .…”


LOL!

January 05, 2013 11:32 AM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

[continued . . .]

Now you're admitting I was right, photozero, albeit, in a deceitful, obfuscating fashion, aren’t you, photozero?

So you did find the full expression of the calculation, eh? You did learn that "= 0" in the shorthand expression does not mean "equals zero," but "the limit is zero" just like I told you, didn't ya, photozero? The only one who had to do some consulting was you, photozero.


You’re a pathological liar, photozero.

You had no clue, photozero. Shut up, photozero!

And the limiting functions of infinite division are not theorems, photozero. They're indispensable, axiomatic functions, photozero, as one cannot divisionally divide anything into nothingness, photozero. The only thing conceptually theoretical is the number of infinitely, but not because it’s indefinable or has no identity like the standing alone expression “n/oo,” but because it means “no beginning and no end” or “limitless,” photozero. Hence, it is merely indeterminable, photozero. It’s calculi require definitive limits (two, in fact) in order to accurately express the fact that it has no limits and is not a nothing, photozero, or a zero, photozero, but a something, photozero. Indeed, it encompasses every friggin’ number there is at once, photozero.

Theorems? LOL! More subterfuge.


photozero writes: "Then this poor guy had to mistake a procedure for finding a limit with the limit itself".

Finding a limit or finding two limits? Aren't you leaving one of them out? LOL!

The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless as opposed to the stupid absolute end of the operation you imposed as a result of asserting an absolute end on the lower range of the operation, placing it at zero, rather than eternally approaching zero, photozero, while contradictorily declaring that n was divided forever, photozero.

And I did not find the limits of the function, photozero. Your claim is meaningless, photozero. It’s utterly nonsensical, photozero. We know what they are, photozero. The functions themselves are constants, photozero, with variables, photozero, in which you plug values, photozero . Nobody has to find them, photozero. They are self-evident, photozero. I directly applied them, photozero. There’s no intermediate step whatsoever, photozero. More subterfuge, photozero. You are stark raving mad, photozero.
______________________________

However. . . .

January 05, 2013 11:36 AM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

[continuted . . .]

photozero writes: "[He] lied about me putting quotients in the place of dividends."

No. I assumed you were doing some such stupid thing in your head based on statements in which you confounded the operation of division itself with what would be the sequentially listed outcomes in the set of the quotient, which, if improperly treated, could lead to just such an error, photozero.

But since you protested so loudly, photozero, I went back and looked at your stuff, photozero. Like I said, I haven’t paid much attention to you on this matter ever since you intentionally confounded the constituents of my argument, photozero. But I see that you did in fact use the same numerator after all, photozero . . . only to conclude that which is logically impossible, photozero.

Feel better, photozero? But let’s get something straight: the essence of my assumption was your deceitful misrepresentation of my argument, which in your case was consciously intentional, photozero!

See, the difference between you and me, photozero, is that I'm sane, and you're not. I have no problem correcting errant assumptions—the human condition, photozero. On the hand, you can’t stop compounding ignorance and deceit ad infinitum, photozero. But then you’re a sociopath, photozero. You’re a pathological liar, photozero.

I’d give you an F for trying, photozero, but we both know that your blather is one big fat ZERO after another big fat ZERO, photozero, which is no surprise as you have zero integrity, photozero, and zero sense, photozero.

In fact, you’re one big fat lying ZERO, photozero.

Let us behold what you stupidly wrote once again, photozero:

“What would be the quotient if we divided "without end"? Let's try it!

6/infinity = 0

Hey! ‘0’ is a quotient .…”


Yeah, let’s try getting that friggin’ zero out of the set, photozero, as there is no friggin’ zero for the quotient, photozero.

No, photozero, this latest installment of psychopathy demonstrates that you still don’t properly understand the matter. And it cannot hide your stupidity. It cannot blot it out. Clearly, you actually did believe the irrational and mathematically impossible: that the conclusive quotient of infinite division was zero, photozero. Duhson believed it too. What a dunce he is too. Let’s call him “Duhsonzero.”

Shut up, you pathetic liar, photozero.

January 05, 2013 11:38 AM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

[continued . . .]

Special treatment. . . .

But this is the most blatantly depraved statement of them all:

But we can't expect much from Michael, he is so mathematically illiterate that after a month, and after consulting a lot. . . . —photozero


After a month? Richard has been telling you all these many days what anyone with an IQ above that of gnat should know: the quotient is not friggin’ zero! I don’t need to be told that. And who do I need to consult with in order to know what I’ve known since I learned how to share as a child? Putting aside the meaningless or undefined division of numbers by 0, any real number divided by any other number is a partition or a distribution of a whole into parts. Dividing 5 by 2.5, for example, does not make any part of the original whole dissolve into nothingness. Dividing a whole into an infinite number of parts means you have an infinite number of parts of a whole, not a friggin’ zero number of parts of a whole lot of nothing’.

My seven-year-old grandson understands that!

Wait a minute! Maybe you’re right. Let me consult with my grandson again. Maybe he slipped me a mickey. LOL!

END

January 05, 2013 11:40 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 05, 2013 11:52 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael jus repeated the set of "answers" I just showed to be more of his own shit shovelled up his own ass. But he warned us this time that he would be shovelling it back his own ass by saying:

Hence, let me grab my shovel. . .

Go ahead and shovel that crap up you ass yet again Michael. Other people here are not as computationally illiterate as you. They will notice that you had posted that above, and that I answered that. So go ahead and repeat the procedure. It's your ass that gets all filled up with your crap.

Man you are truly truly desperate to save cheeks. Truly truly desperate if you think that repeating your self-inflicting shovelling back up your ass has any benefit. I am not surprised though. Your computational illiteracy won;t help you find my answers, and your lack of reading comprehension skills, coupled with your mathematical illiteracy, won't let you understand them even if you were able to find them. Man, you keep embarrassing yourself and embarrassing yourself by not even trying to read those answers. Poor Michael, you are so full of shit, and you keep putting more shit back up your ass. That's Christianity for you. Intellectual dishonesty, laziness, incompetence, illiteracy. All together. Keep at it Michael. Keep "assuming." That's all you have left.

January 05, 2013 11:53 AM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Uh . . . photoZero, my wrongful assumption about your cognitive processes, that which you're so desperately clinging to, has absolutely no substantive relevance. All it amounts to is that instead of stupidly compounding your error, you stupidly concluded that which is irrational: just one colossally stupid error, instead of two colossally stupid errors.

Feel better, photoZero? LOL!

My error was the stuff of "best guesses." Yours is the stuff of suicide.

January 05, 2013 12:00 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Of course, in real time, via the operation of infinite division predicated on the standard numeric value system, we can’t affirmatively test/check for the value of indeterminate numbers. All we know is that the quotient cannot be zero in the standard numeric value system, photozero. However, we may reasonably infer from the infinite ranges on either end of the calculation, regardless of the value of the constant numerator, that the ultimate quotient is actually 1 per the logical proof of oo/oo = 1, i.e., a single whole divided into an infinite number of parts.

There’s no friggin' ZERO in the set, PHOTOZERO!

You cannot divide something into nothing, PHOTOZERO! Division is not the process of eradicating something, PHOTOZERO!. It’s the process of partitioning something, PHOTOZERO!.

However, in the numeric value system of symmetry mathematics, 0 does not equal nothing, but infinity. That is, it contains all the numbers there are at once, and 1 equals (or contains) all the numbers there are at once, but (-1). Further, the calculi of symmetry mathematics trans-dimensionally obtain to everything; therefore, symmetry mathematics metaphysically encompasses everything that exists, including the standard numeric value system, albeit, as a numerical and metaphysical inversion. For example, 9 < 1; indeed, 9 < (-1). In this system, 0 is the numeric symbol for everything that exists, and there is no numeric value/symbol that means/equals nothing. In this case, the something-nothing dichotomy is not germane, as nothing is a truly impossible absurdity.

January 05, 2013 12:04 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hi again, Michael,

We've come a long way since your first post back on, I believe, November 4th, 2012. A lot of ground has been covered.

But there are many things I'm still wondering about, one of which is the following.

Way back then, you wrote: “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality.”

Dawson followed up by asking: “Where does ‘Christianity’ state this? Is it in the bible? What about faith? What about prayer? What about belief unto salvation? What about soothsayers and workers of evil wonders?”

I haven't seen a specific answer to these questions. More specifically, I wonder to this day how a Christian who holds such a view, [i.e., “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality”], squares this with what we read in Matthew 17:20, as well as with what we read in numerous other biblical passages.

Additionally, given this view, would the Christian say that Satan is finite or infinite? If the Christian says “finite,” does this not stand in contradiction to the claim that “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality”? For are we not told that the devil has done and can do supernatural wonders?

On the other hand, if the Christian maintains Satan is infinite, does this not stand in contradiction to scripture, and place Satan on the same level as the ruling consciousness as far as being an infinite consciousness is concerned?

I'm no math wiz by any stretch of the imagination, (although I didn't do too bad in accounting -- take note, presuppositionalists!), so I'm not equipped with the knowledge necessary to fully grasp much of the math that's flying around on this thread, but I'll ask this question anyway, no matter how naive it may seem:

With all this talk about the infinite serving (my words >) as evidence for a divine being and another realm, could not such formulations also serve as evidence for the existence of an infinite Satan, Allah, reincarnation, or Blarko the Wonderbeing?

Ydemoc

January 05, 2013 12:08 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

So Michael, I won;t repeat my answers above, but I will give other examples of your incompetence (seems like you want that):

The only one who had to do some consulting was you, photozero.

Right. I answered immediately, Michael took a month to answer. And yet, he claims that it is me who had to consult. There, your shit back up your ass Michael! As you requested!

You can take more? OK

you actually did believe the irrational and mathematically impossible: that the conclusive quotient of infinite division was zero

Well, Michael, it's you who claimed that your imaginary friend called "God" could do this, get to a conclusive quotient that you now claim to be mathematically impossible, remember?

He created the universe out of nothing but his sheer will! And He can divisionally reduce it back down--bit by bit--from its most comprehensibly complex expression, past the infinitesimal, to the nothing it was before.

Which, by the way, contradicts your own claim that it is ridiculous to think that something can come from nothing. Well done Michael! More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!

But have it your way, there's no way to get zero, therefore no way to get that infinity, therefore no way to get your "construct" past the math. Well done Michael! More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!

The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless

What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!

The functions themselves are constants, photozero, with variables, photozero, in which you plug values, photozero

Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them. More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!

Dividing a whole into an infinite number of parts means you have an infinite number of parts of a whole

How could it if you just said that it is impossible to divide anything into an infinite number of parts? See Michael? You can't keep anything straight. You can't help but continue shovelling your own shit back up your ass. Time and again.

My seven-year-old grandson understands that!

Obviously you kept the mentality of a seven year old then. Though I bet that if you explained to your this seven year old the paradoxes implied, this seven year old would notice that the problem is not that easy to solve. Even more of your own shit back up your ass.

Continue "assuming" Michael. Continue shovelling the shit back up your own ass. You are quite entertaining in your desperation.

January 05, 2013 12:21 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael finally brays something kinda new. But he only makes it worse for him in the mathematical illiteracy it displays. In Dawson's immortal words: wow, just wow!

the ultimate quotient is actually 1 per the logical proof of oo/oo = 1

Holy shit Michael! What a spectacular way of putting your own shit back up your own ass! That must have hurt! It was painful just to observe it! oo/oo is indeterminate Michael, as per the mathematical proof! What a mathematical illiterate you are.

0 does not equal nothing, but infinity

Holy shit! I had to look elsewhere when you so spectacularly shovelled that crap up your own ass Michael. If the previous was spectacular, this one dwarfed it "infinitely."

I bet that now you will say that all this contradictory and self-defeating crap of yours, as shovelled up your own ass, is "axiomatic."

You truly are incredibly desperate to save cheeks Michael. But truly, it would work better if you admitted your many errors. At least you would be left with some honesty.

January 05, 2013 12:35 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

PhotoZero, you idiot, it did not take me a month to respond to your ANSWER THAT IS WRONG. Richard responded to your ANSWER THAT IS WRONG.

I ignored you, Dingbat.

More subterfuge. More desperation.

January 05, 2013 12:52 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael,

PhotoZero, you idiot, it did not take me a month to respond to your ANSWER THAT IS WRONG.

Oh, yes you took a month to answer. It's evident.

Richard responded to your ANSWER THAT IS WRONG.

Yes, it was wrong for him to try and answer because he made my point.

I ignored you, Dingbat.

Nah. You had no answer, you panicked, and only after you found something you thought would "get me" did you respond. Ignoring that you were obliterating your own claims. You lost focus of your claims Michael. You have so many contradictions in your worldview that you can't tell what you said one day compared to the next. Hey, you lose track within comments, within paragraphs, and within sentences.

More subterfuge. More desperation.

On your part for sure. It shows. Now what? WIll you repost the very same crap that I helped you shovel back up your own ass? Will you continue to show such desperation? Are your "friends" laughing that much at you that you had no option but to denigrate yourself that low just to try to "get me"?

In Dawson's immortal words: I'm so glad those aren't my problems.

:)

January 05, 2013 1:59 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

Infinity is indivisible.

But are concepts material in nature?

January 05, 2013 2:40 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Okay, back again. . . .

photoZero stupidly writes: "Well, Michael, it's you who claimed that your imaginary friend called "God" could do this. . . ."

No. I didn't. That's what you told yourself. LOL! The process of dividing something by infinity via the math of the standard numeric value system is not the same thing as the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing. (More on that later: think symmetry mathematics.) I knew if I stated the distinction that way, it would fly right over your heads and lead to the exposure of Peikoff’s malarkey.

When exposing pathological liars, the only ones moving the goal posts, you have to set traps.

And you just fell into another.

So first you were trying to argue that standard numeric division by infinity ends at zero, photoZero, and, therefore, I was wrong.

Now, you’re necessarily arguing that I’m wrong about something else . . . because you’re math was all wrong. A confession.

But, photoZero, the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing would ultimately be the process of eradicating something, not the mere process of partitioning something. The duration of the latter is eternal, just like God, and the duration of the former is electively arbitrary . . . after the first instance of division. Indeed, the insertion of the term divisionally is gratuitous. The operative outcome of reduction (i.e., subtraction) is not division!

*crickets chirping*

When exposing psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty: first, set a trap and then spring it . . . at the most exquisitely sweet moment of irony. It’s all in the timing.

I’ve been miles and miles down the road ahead of you clowns from the beginning.

How ya likin’ me now?
_____________________________

Psst. DuhsonZero, sure, by all means, have it your way. How are the various of aspects of those DVD cabinets you described and those of the one I describe hangin’ in your brain, you know, those “encodings embodied in material particles”? How about an update. LOL!

Keep talking DuhsonZero. It’s real hoot.

January 05, 2013 2:45 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

photoZero stupdity writes: "Which, by the way, contradicts your own claim that it is ridiculous to think that something can come from nothing. Well done Michael! More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!"

But that's not what I said at all, is it? I wrote: ". . . to the nothing IT was before . . ."

Well, done, photoZero, thanks for confirming God isn't nothin'.

LOL!

January 05, 2013 2:50 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Photo wrote: “Numbers are conceptual. Michael problem is finding a connection between a conceptual infinite and an actual one. But that's a secondary problem for him. He can't even find an infinite as an infinite as a quotient that's indivisible, immutable, with no beginning and no end in that division problem.”

Excellent, excellent points, Photo. This strikes at the core of the matter. Mystify infinity, and voila, an “infinite mind.” Michael has yet to produce any evidence whatsoever that an actual can be infinite. Even his attempts to validate such an idea crumble into fallacies and worse, utter nonsense which he presents in all-caps and follows with a series of exclamation points, as though he could simply wish his conclusions into fact.

Michael wrote: “He created the universe out of nothing but his sheer will! And He can divisionally reduce it back down--bit by bit--from its most comprehensibly complex expression, past the infinitesimal, to the nothing it was before.”

Photo replied: “Which, by the way, contradicts your own claim that it is ridiculous to think that something can come from nothing. Well done Michael! More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Exactly! It’s entertaining to watch Michael try as he may to undo his many elementary blunders and explain away the chicanery he’s been called on, since it’s all so futile. There is no recovery for the guy.

And this was so good, it bears repeating:

<< In abstracto, there's no end. The problem, as I have insisted, is that there's no way to put that into an actual infinite. This is why Michael's "construct" uses the division instead. Those Michael copied this from knew that claiming there to be actual infinite numbers of anything lead nowhere. An infinite number of anything would be larger than everything in existence, leaving no space for anything else. That destroys any claim for actuality from the get go. This is why those Michael copied from used division. But Michael does not know this because he had never thought about it. See how much he insists on me to follow on what you say. Because he did not know why the "construct" uses division. It uses it to find an infinite in cutting a finite object, rather than fill the universe with something. This is why it took him a month to find help and figure out a way out, which missed his target nonetheless. >>

Great work, photo!

Regards,
Dawson

January 05, 2013 3:27 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael!

Please stop it with your desperation, you blowed up your ass into smithereens with that one!

When exposing pathological liars, the only ones moving the goal posts, you have to set traps.

So your desperate move now is that you have been lying all this time!? Wow, how desperate you are to try and save cheeks. How fucking desperate you are indeed. Richard, aren't you outraged that your friend Michael here thinks that lying is the proper way to represent Christians?

But, photoZero, the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing would ultimately be the process of eradicating something, not the mere process of partitioning something ... Indeed, the insertion of the term divisionally is gratuitous.

Well, this is curious because for one, you are admitting again to lying, you inserted the term gratuitously. Yet, both you and "Kyle" made the very same claim specifically relating it to the process of division:

["Kyle" here] All Peikoff is really saying is that the maxim has no real value because we can’t divide something forever. As Michael pointed out, the maxim actually does have practical mathematical applications, and a timeless creator can do that from nothing to a divisible something and back down to nothing again easily.

So you are doing two things here:

1. You admitting that "Kyle" was you. Otherwise how could you both agree on what to lie about? Therefore more admission to lying.

2. You are trying to make it appear as if you are not talking about actual division when that's precisely what "Kyle" is talking about, division. "Both" of you citing that the problem of dividing without end was not problem for "God." Amazing that you can create such convoluted contradictions and cram that unimaginable load of your own shit back up your ass regardless of your intentions. All by yourself.

When exposing psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty: first, set a trap and then spring it . . . at the most exquisitely sweet moment of irony. It’s all in the timing.

And indeed it sprang up your own ass, and indeed it exposed your psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty. Richard, are you sure you want to keep kissing Michael's blown up ass? He has admitted to lying for Christianity and blown up his own ass in the process!

I’ve been miles and miles down the road ahead of you clowns from the beginning.

You sure have. I would have never dreamed of blowing up your ass that hard when shovelling your crap up your ass. Not for a second. Yet, you managed to blow your ass that hard yourself. I bow to you.

January 05, 2013 3:31 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael tried to save his already blown up ass.

Well, done, photoZero, thanks for confirming God isn't nothin'.

Well, since you also ridiculed explicitly the notion of creatio ex nihilo, you are left in the same place anyway, namely, finding your own notions and beliefs ridiculous. That I worded it one way does not take away your own wordings in many other ways. So thanks for admitting that your beliefs are ridiculous.

But you also admitted to being an intentional liar. What have you left in your desperation Michael? Your self blown up ass attests to you having nothing to gain anymore. Anyway you put anything, readers will have to ask, is he lying now, or is he trying to make a point? You have reduced yourself miserably. By your own account you have become a mere clown, with a blown up ass, for Christianity. You have helped confirm, with alarming realization, that Christianity destroys anything that we humans might have of value. Congratulations!

January 05, 2013 3:40 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo the deceiver,

I know you have decieved Dawson the old fool. But how is it that you haven't tried to decieve us?

January 05, 2013 3:55 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

At this point, it would be better for you to follow your own advice and shut up. Michael made a display of open dishonesty, open, self-confessed dishonesty, that blew up his own ass. You better think carefully before continuing making it the case that Christianity is all about destroying both your intellect and your integrity as a human being.

So stop it. If anybody has tried to deceive everybody else here, and admitted to have done so, it's your friend Michael.

Now think about it instead of continuing making an complete ass out of yourself.

January 05, 2013 4:07 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Early in the discussion with Michael, he wrote: “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality.”

As Ydemoc reminds us, I asked: “Where does ‘Christianity’ state this? Is it in the bible? What about faith? What about prayer? What about belief unto salvation? What about soothsayers and workers of evil wonders?”

Ydemoc writes: “I haven't seen a specific answer to these questions. More specifically, I wonder to this day how a Christian who holds such a view, [i.e., ‘Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality’], squares this with what we read in Matthew 17:20, as well as with what we read in numerous other biblical passages.”

Thank you, Ydemoc. And of course, you’re right: you haven’t seen an answer to my questions because Michael has not addressed them. Since they are inconvenient for his position, he has put my questions on ignore. In fact, he cannot answer them. He will find no passage in the bible which states that “finite consciousness” does not have primacy over reality. And even if he could find some statement which, perhaps by means of eisegesis, he could finagle such an interpretation, it would directly clash with the many passages which do in fact grant metaphysical primacy to human consciousness in various context, such those which have already been cited.

The primacy of consciousness, which is self-destructive metaphysics, is all over Christianity. Michael has already admitted this when he famously stated “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence.” As freddies_dead stated, “You've stated that your worldview affirms that consciousness holds primacy and I deny it on that basis.”

[continued…]

January 05, 2013 4:26 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

So, without further delay, I bring you the unaltered version of my 14 Dec. comment to this blog in which I wrote:
[SNIP]

Michael affirmed (as he does, over and over again) the nonsense notion “construct of divine perfection.”

freddies_dead asked: “Is this construct ‘divine’ (or ‘perfect’) due to conscious activity, or is it as it is irrespective of what anyone (or anything) else wants/wishes?”

This is an excellent question as it points to the construct’s orientation with respect to the issue of metaphysical primacy. Is the construct ‘divine’ because of conscious activity (the primacy of consciousness)? Or, is the construct ‘divine’ independent of any conscious activity (the primacy of existence)?

We have already seen (as I explained in the main entry of this blog, above) that no Christian – even Michael, with all his huffing and puffing and throwing around of insults and bad attitude – can consistently maintain the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, in spite of his admission that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence.” Michael still has not overcome this criticism, and freddies_dead’s question helps show why he never will be able to overcome this criticism.

In response to freddies_dead’s question, Michael replied:

<< It's the latter. >>

So, put together with with freddies_dead’s question, Michael’s answer means: the construct is ‘divine’ “irrespective of what anyone (or anything) else wants/wishes.” In other words, the construct is ‘divine’ independent of any conscious activity, which affirms: the primacy of existence.

As Jim Gardner would say, “We have a goal!”

Thus, in the final analysis, Christianity cannot consistently maintain the primacy of consciousness, as I had already explained.

Likely sensing the fundamental conflict internal to his system (but likely not grasping just how devastating it really is for his position), Michael couldn’t just answer the question; he had to attack freddies_dead personally:

<< But you already know that. You're just pretending not to see the inescapable alternatives inherent to the problem of origin. Right?”

freddies_dead replied: “Nope, just highlighting your inability to maintain consistency with your claim that ‘ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence’.”

Freddies_dead is correct: he was not pretending anything having to do with what Michael calls “the inescapable alternatives inherent to the problem of origin.” His question had nothing to do with the so-called “problem of origin” to begin with. Freddies_dead’s question is expressly in regard to the issue of metaphysical primacy. Given Michael’s response, his baseless accusation against freddies_dead, and his apparent failure to integrate his response to the question with his earlier affirmation of the primacy of consciousness, I can only suspect that all of this is whizzing right over Michael’s head. But in actuality, it’s another Blagojevich-caught-on-tape moment.

Hey, don’t get sore at us if your worldview is fundamentally flawed!
[UNSNIP]

Regards,
Dawson

January 05, 2013 4:26 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Photo wrote to Nide: “Now think about it instead of continuing making an complete ass out of yourself.”

Nide, if you would just pull the reins on yourself a little bit and think about it as photo has suggested, you’d see that he’s actually trying to help you here. Michael has lost all credibility here (and then some!). Your little snipes here and there which have absolutely no substance, only show you to be the sore loser here. You thought Michael was going to be your savior in these discussions. That hope has turned out to be an illusion. The more you try to root for this defeated bawling sot, the more you show yourself desperate to cling to an illusion.

But I’m guessing you won’t take sound advice from either me or photo. So go ahead and continue playing the court jester if you like. It only reflects on you.

Regards,
Dawson

January 05, 2013 4:33 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Thanks Dawson,

There's a reason why the first thing I liked about your blog was this bit:

I am a Man, and I think with my own mind.

See ya later alligators.

January 05, 2013 4:46 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Dawson the old fool,

shut up.

January 05, 2013 5:02 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo the deceiver,

liar, liar, pants on fire.

January 05, 2013 5:08 PM  
Blogger freddies_dead said...

I see Michael is still talking shite while failing to maintain consistency with the worldview he professes to hold. It never gets old.

January 06, 2013 12:46 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

@Michael

Michael’s own comment policy:

Debate. Discuss. Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. This doesn't mean that satirical or sardonic remarks won't be allowed, but rude or hurtful epithets, particularly those launched without substance, will be deleted.


Dude, this sort of hypocrisy gives away your game. You're not interested in a conversation, but rather you want a flame war so as to shut down Dawson's blog.

In some ways, you remind me of a particularly vile street preaching sack of shit with whom I had an encounter several years ago. The mother fraker would'nt take "No." or "I'm not interested." for an answer. I had to show him my concealed carry piece to convince him it was in his interest to leave me alone. At least he wasn't so deranged that I might have had to put him down. I hope that isn't more than can be said for you.

January 06, 2013 8:44 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Michael you asked Come on, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough, I want to hear more on those “encoding[s] embodied in material particles”.

My reply > What's there to hear? You either accept reality or you don't. FWIW, I think you prefer your delusional fantasy world to actual existence perhaps because you're a failure as a man, as a person, as a thinker, as a doer.

As best as I can ascertain from your rantings, you have no actual evidence that your alleged God or god is possible. Is this the case? Or are you only interested in a fight?

January 06, 2013 9:19 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Robert

I saw this on a bumper sticker this morning, thought you would like it

"Atheism, not a religion. A personal relationship with reality."

January 06, 2013 9:39 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

@Photosynthesis Hello friend. You wrote to Michael

Poor Michael the computationally, logically, scientifically, mathematically, illiterate

That's just what he wants, and why he's all about a flame war. He wants to feel victimized, so he can stroke off his delusional fantasy of being a martyr for his faith. Why else would he come with such bad arguments as teleological design from Platonic universal forms unless he really is that mentally deficient?

January 06, 2013 10:14 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Hello friend Justin: Thank you. I love that bumper sticker. I gotta get me one.

What do you think Richard?

"Atheism, not a religion. A personal relationship with reality."

January 06, 2013 10:17 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Robert,

it's kinda funny.

January 06, 2013 2:24 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Robert wrote: “You're not interested in a conversation, but rather you want a flame war so as to shut down Dawson's blog.”

Indeed. You might even say he’s trying to “bury my post continuations.”

I still can’t contain my laughter when I see that one. Whew! One of ripest whines I’ve ever sampled!

Regards,
Dawson

January 06, 2013 2:51 PM  
Blogger Negative Entropy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 06, 2013 3:00 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Friends,

I still can’t contain my laughter when I see that one. Whew! One of ripest whines I’ve ever sampled!

It revealed a very low level of maturity, and that he thinks so high of himself that he thinks that everyone is as computationally incompetent as himself. He thought that readers would not find his "brilliant and devastating" comments, because a broken flow makes it impossible for him to follow other people's comments.

I am still expecting to have his mother commenting to tell us that we should not talk to her 11 year old, Michael, this or that way ... I am not being facetious.

January 06, 2013 3:02 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Photo wrote: “It revealed a very low level of maturity, and that he thinks so high of himself that he thinks that everyone is as computationally incompetent as himself. He thought that readers would not find his ‘brilliant and devastating’ comments, because a broken flow makes it impossible for him to follow other people's comments.”

It suggests that he thinks my blog is *his* mouthpiece, and that we’re trespassing on his property when we post our comments. After all, we're supposed to "shut up," remember? (This is where I'm supposed to type "LOL!" Right up there with "He must have died while carving it.")

Photo also wrote: “I am still expecting to have his mother commenting to tell us that we should not talk to her 11 year old, Michael, this or that way ... I am not being facetious.”

Now that you mention it, it’s quite possible that he got this “infinity, therefore infinite consciousness” argument from his mother. He had to get it from somewhere.


Nide says “it's kinda funny” – “kinda”???? “kinda”????

Don’t you know genuine hilarity when it smacks you up side the head?

“…you’re trying to bury my post continuations” – that’s going to live on in infamy right here on my blog.

Just beautiful!

Regards,
Dawson

January 06, 2013 3:10 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

It suggests that he thinks my blog is *his* mouthpiece

Oh, I suspect that he thinks that the whole blogosphere is his mouthpiece. He has delusions of grandeur this one.

January 06, 2013 3:27 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Hey Robert,

That's just what he wants, and why he's all about a flame war. He wants to feel victimized, so he can stroke off his delusional fantasy of being a martyr for his faith. Why else would he come with such bad arguments as teleological design from Platonic universal forms unless he really is that mentally deficient?

He clearly is mentally deficient. In any event, I doubt that he wanted to pass for a martyr. He would aim to be the Saint George who slew the Dragon of atheism. He thinks too highly of himself. That's why he puts the bar on intelligence and skills at his level as the maximum. He does not think that anybody in the whole planet could have better preparation, intelligence and/or skills than him in any possible area. Let alone an atheist.

January 06, 2013 3:48 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

"Don’t you know genuine hilarity when it smacks you up side the head?"

Yea, calling you an old fool is definetely funny.

January 06, 2013 4:02 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 06, 2013 4:50 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hi again, Michael,

I was reviewing some older comments from previous threads, and I noticed that on December 17 you mentioned that, "He [Kyle] and I [Michael] are discussing Judeo-Christianity's epistemology on my blog now."

I went on over to your blog today to check it out, but I couldn't find the thread. (Granted, I didn't examine every single blog entry you have, partly because my computer is so old and slow, and your blog was taking a long time to load.)

In any event, would you mind telling me where on your blog I might locate this discussion regarding Judeo-Christianity's epistemology that you and Kyle had? (I did locate the discussion you had with him in your entry, "Labsci and I Discuss Evolution" -- but that discussion didn't pertain to "Judeo-Christianity's epistemology" as far as I could tell.

Thanks.

Ydemoc

January 06, 2013 4:58 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Adding to the collection of things Michael lied about. Since he didn't mean that his god could actually yield a zero from dividing to infinity "because zero is never in the set damn it!" And he worded it a certain way just to mislead us, a lie for short:

In other words, Aristotle emphatically notes that a line (or any divisible entity for that matter) may be divided indefinitely. That is an indispensable mathematical axiom that is objectively and universally apprehended by all, one that applies to finite entities only. However, finite consciousness cannot perform said division to its conclusion; hence, Aristotle concludes that there must be a consciousness of infinite perfection (indivisible and immutable) that can divide finite entities down to nothing, otherwise we have an indispensable mathematical axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitous. [Bold mine]

Oh but he meant subtraction, which is not the same as division. Sure.

By the way guys, did you notice that in saying that he did not mean that his god would reduce the whole into nothing by division, but by subtraction, he also denied his construct of "divine perfection" as would be noticeable from the above? This means that Michael would have been all anger and insults and "contempt" and everything else, just to defend what he knew to be a lie?

His desperate move "it was a trap, a trap and you fell! muahahahahahahaaaa!", "I lied! I put the word divisional gratuitously there!" has enormous repercussions. Michael's ass is exploding with the domino effect over the number of "arguments," insults, lies, assumptions, and everything else he has written here. All exploding inside his ass, one after another. I am left with no words to describe it. It's by far the most spectacular self-ass-blowing-up I have ever witnessed in my life. Michael's ass will continue to explode for a good while. Incalculable how long. Maybe forever. I almost feel sorry to continue posting about it (almost).

January 06, 2013 5:23 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Ydemoc,

I think it's better if you ask Michael over at his blog. Also, I think he must be at the hospital under sedatives waiting for his ass to stop exploding. No way to know how long will that last. The M.D.s might have some way to stop the explosions though.

But, if I were you, I would be worried about whether Michael is just "assuming" something about what you said, what others said, what he himself said, then assuming the opposite; then if he is really trying to explain, or "argue," something or if he is lying and wording something in a certain way just to set a trap for you, or for other onlookers. There's no point in asking anything from him. It's your decision of course, but you have been warned.

I hope you'll have time to read this thread.

January 06, 2013 5:30 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

ya dimwit get it over it.

how about you point out all your evasions and deceptions.

You should begin with the way you deceived
Dawson ie the old fool.

January 06, 2013 7:55 PM  
Blogger freddies_dead said...

photosynthesis said...

He thinks too highly of himself. That's why he puts the bar on intelligence and skills at his level as the maximum. He does not think that anybody in the whole planet could have better preparation, intelligence and/or skills than him in any possible area. Let alone an atheist.

He is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

January 07, 2013 2:22 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

freddies_dead said,

He is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I always forget the name of this thing. Thanks.

January 07, 2013 10:51 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Hello Photosynthesis

Thank you for your comment, and chalk up another score for this.

His desperate move "it was a trap, a trap and you fell! muahahahahahahaaaa!" "I lied! I put the word "divisional" "gratuitously" there!" has enormous repercussions. Michael's ass is exploding with the domino effect over the number of "arguments," insults, lies, assumptions, and everything else he has written here. All exploding inside his ass, one after another. I am left with no words. It's by far the most spectacular self-ass-blowing-up I have ever witnessed in my life. Michael's ass will continue to explode for a good while. Incalculable how long. Maybe forever. I almost feel sorry to continue posting about it.

I think I see a similarity between Michael and Rand's "Anthem" characters with which she populated the ruling council antagonists opposing Equality 7-2521. Those villains embraced ignorance while claiming to have summitted Everests of learning. Michael seems to be of the same sort of stuff Rand identified and described in her fiction.

Best and Good

January 07, 2013 11:36 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

Don't worry. Though there's more to unearth, I will leave it there unless otherwise necessary.

I have not deceived anybody. I have not evaded either. Whenever I have left your questions aside it has been to avoid derailing the conversation. I explained to you above the problem(s) with your line of questioning, which I left aside for a little while just to keep the focus on Michael's problem(s). It is a classic maneuver in apologetics to jump to another question as soon as they notice that their previous question was answered, and that it is not going the way they planned. That's evading Richard, and you do this all the time. Instead of following you make another question, or declaration, as if our answers and questions did not matter. Well, I did not want to derail. I focus for good reasons. You defocus, you blur, for apologetics tactical reasons. Apologetics is not about learning, but about derailing and winning by rhetorics. For example above, I told you the problem of trying to gain ground with the conceptual infinity of numbers. Yet, you come back and just declare that infinity is indivisible. You are not there yet, but you declare nonetheless because you want to continue with your trick. This means that my answers don't matter to you. All that matters to you is whether you can make your tricks or not. Therefore, if anybody here is evading, it is you.

Have a great week.

January 07, 2013 11:42 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

whatever.

Adios.

January 07, 2013 1:06 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Hasta lueguito.

January 07, 2013 1:43 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Robert,

"That's just what he wants, and why he's all about a flame war. He wants to feel victimized, so he can stroke off his delusional fantasy of being a martyr for his faith. Why else would he come with such bad arguments as teleological design from Platonic universal forms unless he really is that mentally deficient?"

Robert, the only ignorance and stupidities--whether they be mathematical, logical, scientific--that have been exposed here are those of yours and your pals. And there's more to come.

Martyr.

Victim.

Delusional.

What a limp-wristed sissy you are, given the substantive arguments we both know you’re running from.

LOL!



January 07, 2013 3:59 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Okay, back again. A family emergency interrupted my annihilation of photoStupid’s latest bout of psychopathy.
____________________________

First things first, I just noticed that in the above I wrote: “n/x -->oo = yA.

Whereby A is the set of the successive quotients of n divided by x approaching infinity, wherein the smallest quotient y in the set at any given moment during the process of said division is the extant quotient tending toward zero.”

Of course, this is partially wrong, though “the extant quotient tending toward zero” is correct. Strike “oo” from the equation and “infinity” from the sentence and replace them with “zero.” I was thinking zero crossed with the infinite number of quotients in the set. Rushing. Being the magpies that you are, I’m sure you guys sneered over this even though you probably ascertained the true essence of the error, given the fact it was stated correctly immediately above and below this.

January 07, 2013 4:01 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 07, 2013 4:03 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

So let us review what I wrote before I was interrupted. . . .

photoZero stupdity writes: "Which, by the way, contradicts your own claim that it is ridiculous to think that something can come from nothing. Well done Michael! More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!"


But that's not what I said at all, was it? I wrote: ". . . to the nothing IT [the material realm of being] was before . . ."

Ya know what, just shut up! You know I’m not talking about something from nothing. The whole point is that God, the eternal Something, created the material realm of being. Romper Room.

Well, done, photoZero, thanks for confirming God isn't nothing, but, once again, the Something you pretend not to understand.

January 07, 2013 4:05 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

photoZero stupidly writes: "Well, Michael, it's you who claimed that your imaginary friend called "God" could do this. . . ."

No. I didn't. That's what you told yourself. LOL! The process of dividing something by infinity via the math of the standard numeric value system is not the same thing as the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing. (More on that later: think symmetry mathematics.) I knew if I stated the distinction that way, it would fly right over your heads and lead to the exposure of Peikoff’s malarkey.

When exposing pathological liars, the only ones moving the goal posts, you have to set traps.

And you just fell into another.

So first you were trying to argue that standard numeric division by infinity ends at zero, photoZero, and, therefore, I was wrong.

Now, you’re necessarily arguing that I’m wrong about something else . . . because you’re math was all wrong. A confession.

But, photoZero, the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing would ultimately be the process of eradicating something, not the mere process of partitioning something. The duration of the latter is eternal, just like God, and the duration of the former is electively arbitrary . . . after the first instance of division. Indeed, the insertion of the term divisionally is gratuitous. The operative outcome of reduction (i.e., subtraction) is not division!

*crickets chirping*

When exposing psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty: first, set a trap and then spring it . . . at the most exquisitely sweet moment of irony. It’s all in the timing.

I’ve been miles and miles down the road ahead of you clowns from the beginning.

How ya likin’ me now?

January 07, 2013 4:09 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

REVIEW OVER, POINT OF INTERRUPTION.

Gee, photoDunce, I didn't even plan this delay. Look at all the fodder of arogance based on ignorance you rattled off.

You did it again, this time over functions, just like that big fat zero of yours.

LOL!

January 07, 2013 4:17 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Back on 10 Nov., in a comment to this blog, recall that Michael wrote:

<< I’m just another theistic yahoo who has stumbled into your midst. >>

He just “stumbled” onto Incinerating Presuppositionalism’s comments. This is after he wrote back on 5 Nov. in the same comment thread:

<< I've been reading you for a awhile. Just never commented before. >>

So at least he got the “yahoo” part right. (Of course, “theistic yahoo” strikes me as rather redundant.)

Also in his 10 Nov. comment, Michael wrote:

<< I didn’t come here to teach or to prove God’s existence to you. I’m here to learn and make new friends if you wish. >>

Well, he has in some ways fulfilled his intentions, for there’s nothing new to learn from Michael. So if he “didn’t come here to teach,” he’s done well. But he does not show much willingness at all to learn. And if calling people “idiots,” “imbeciles” and “liars” and telling them repeatedly to “shut up” are the ways in which Michael makes friends, then I’m not surprised that the anonymous “friends” he says he’s in communication with are not coming here in droves to rescue him from his own self-defeating protuberations.

But then, on 7 Dec., in a comment to this blog, Michael wrote:

<< Atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, you know, and dishonest too boot. After all, atheism is a form of psychopathy. >>

I don’t get the impression that this was a newly formed opinion for Michael. Rather, it seems that he had been thinking this all along, but hid this opinion in order to maintain a false front when he first began his commenting here. It surely does not serve to endorse his earlier statement that he is “here to learn and make new friends.”

He says that “atheism is a form of psychopathy.” Again, this does not seem to be a newly formed opinion of Michael’s. And yet, consider what it is saying. It’s essentially saying that non-belief in invisible magic beings whose existence cannot be proven but must be accepted on faith along with an entire cultish worldview which destroys man’s spirit and chokes his chances for intellectual independence, is a form of “psychopathy,” while belief in such things is not a form of psychopathy?

Really?

And we’re supposed to accept this from somebody who puts on a false front from the very beginning, who scolds others for thinking their own thoughts, who ridicules others for not accepting his claims on his say so, who apparently thinks meaningless phrases full of nonsensical theological jargon like “divine perfection” and “the eternally existing now!” have some kind of magic capable of leaping across wide gulfs in one’s “logic” in order to overcome criticisms which, after attempts to help him learn, he clearly does not understand?

[continued…]

January 07, 2013 4:20 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Then, in the very same comment, he wrote:

<< Dawson apparently thinks his song and dance is something I've never seen before. I too was being coy when I earlier said that I’d never seen anything quite like Dawson’s stupidity before. LOL! >>

So let’s get this straight: Michael says that he had “been reading [my blog] for a awhile” [sic], but had “just never commented before”; then he says he “has stumbled into [our] midst” (which is strange – the previous statement suggests he thought about it for a while and made a calculated decision to initiate his conversation here); he says he “didn’t come here to teach or to prove God’s existence to you” but rather was “here to learn and make new friends if you wish,” which makes his decision to join the discussion here seem very innocent and open to new perspectives; then he announces that “atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, and dishonest to boot” – which is most likely an opinion he’s held for years – his activity on other forums which we’ve seen, and which predate his activity here on my blog, is sufficient to indicate that he had such opinions before coming here; then he says he’s already familiar with everything that’s come out in these discussions (so much for his statement that he was “here to learn”).

And he says I’m “stupid” and “dishonest”?

Wow! Just wow!!

This guy Michael is a real piece of work (or perhaps some other four-letter word would be more appropriate).

Special thanks to Observer #948 for reminding me of these comments of Michael’s.

Regards,
Dawson

January 07, 2013 4:20 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

photoSociopath writes: “How could it if you just said that it is impossible to divide anything into an infinite number of parts?”

No. Never said that. I said it was impossible for finite consciousness to do it. But you know that, you lying snake. You atheist dingbats are the only ones saying that it’s impossible, except when you’re unwittingly contradicting yourselves, claiming that the division of any given real number by infinity equals zero, bringing the calculation to a screeching halt, albeit, while compounding your idiocy with the notion that n continues to be divided without end. LOL!

What a retard.

Ya Can’t even keep your lies straight within the span of the few seconds of time it takes to write that the quotient is zero while n is divided endlessly. Again, what a retard.

Recall what you stupidly and sarcastically wrote, photozero, as if I were the dufus, you dufus:

“What would be the quotient if we divided ‘without end’? Let's try it!

6/infinity = 0

Hey! ‘0’ is a quotient .…”

And you wrote: “This is 'n' divided without end. The quotient is zero.”



Psst. photoJackass, why are you talking about dividing n without end, when in fact you atheist dingbats are the only ones who said this is impossible, not I. But more to the point, why are you still dividing n when there’s nothing left to divide? Are you doing division or subtraction? Subtraction or division?

Never mind, you’re doing neither. You’re doing crazy raised to the infinite power of duh.

DuhsonZero, you went right along with this! What an idiot you are.

January 07, 2013 4:24 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 07, 2013 4:27 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...


PhotoZoom-Right-Over-His-Stupid-Head writes: “Though I bet that if you explained to this seven year old the paradoxes implied, this seven year old would notice that the problem is not that easy to solve.”

Uh . . . jackass, once again, the eternally self-subsistent God exists. He can divide any divisible entity without end. There are no paradoxes. Poof! They completely disappear when you recognize the fact and actually obey the fact that finite consciousness does not have primacy over existence. You’re imagining things that aren’t real.

You have mathematical axioms that are cogent, not at all paradoxical if God exists, and yet you opt for the notion that God doesn’t exist and turn them into paradoxes. You assert your finite consciousness against the logic of existence and call it the primacy of existence. As I said before, Peikoff’s argument amounts to nothing more than: infinite consciousness does not exist because finite consciousness is the only consciousness that exists, irrationally begging the question without a shred of evidence. You’re not fooling anyone but yourselves.

And what’s the result of irrationally turning the logical conclusion into a paradox?

“Your foolish hearts are darkened. . . . Thinking yourselves to be wise, you become fools” and start babbling absurdities like division is not the partitioning of something, but the eradication of something: zero parts of a whole lot of nothin’! Ah! But n is still divided without end sans infinite consciousness. Duh! Zero is the quotient! Duh. You tell lie after lie after lie to cover your stupidities even after you admit that everything you just claimed about division by infinity, let alone about the nature of division itself, is utter crap.

You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that’s all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


But you can’t help yourself. Your foolish heart is darkened. You’re a fool. You’re a spiritual sociopath trying to save face with more lies instead of simply admitting you know next to nothing about higher mathematics.

But why should the Objectivist’s ignorance about the elements of mathematics and geometric forms surprise us. He despises their implications at every turn.

Like I said if Objectivism had somehow controlled the history of thought all these many years of human history, we’d still be living in caves and humping aardvarks.

Like Richard’s professor says: “Don’t read Objectivism, read real philosophy.”

Snap out of it, photoWingnut. Objectivism is just a fragmented collection of zeros of a whole lot of nothing’.

January 07, 2013 4:29 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

What do you think of your stupidly dishonest friend now? he has such low self-respect that he came back to repost his admission to lying. His admission to be an ass-hole. his self-ass-blowing comments. Do you still have respect left for him?

Is this what Christianity is all about? Being proud to be liars? Repeat to see if you can confuse readers? desperate self-defeating moves? Really? If so you can keep it.

January 07, 2013 4:29 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael,

How sick you have to be in order to come back and repost that crap? That admission to lying? You have self-anhihilated any possibility for respect for you around here.

In what kind of sick mind do you think you have any respect left for you to come back? Are you crazy? Read what I answered! Read how much you have defeated yourself ass-hole. After that just go and fuck yourself. Never to return imbecile. Have at least a little of self-respect. At least that minimum to go and hide forever in shame.

January 07, 2013 4:34 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that’s all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to interminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say the are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

January 07, 2013 4:48 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

i.e., "that are all wrong. . ."

January 07, 2013 4:49 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Correction: "Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?"

January 07, 2013 4:57 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Before I expose the utter stupidity of your blather, I want this to sink in for all to see.

Once more. . . .

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

January 07, 2013 5:00 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael,

If that's what you want, then once more:
______________
Michael!

Please stop it with your desperation, you blowed up your ass into smithereens with that one!

When exposing pathological liars, the only ones moving the goal posts, you have to set traps.

So your desperate move now is that you have been lying all this time!? Wow, how desperate you are to try and save cheeks. How fucking desperate you are indeed. Richard, aren't you outraged that your friend Michael here thinks that lying is the proper way to represent Christians?

But, photoZero, the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing would ultimately be the process of eradicating something, not the mere process of partitioning something ... Indeed, the insertion of the term divisionally is gratuitous.

Well, this is curious because for one, you are admitting again to lying, you inserted the term gratuitously. Yet, both you and "Kyle" made the very same claim specifically relating it to the process of division:

["Kyle" here] All Peikoff is really saying is that the maxim has no real value because we can’t divide something forever. As Michael pointed out, the maxim actually does have practical mathematical applications, and a timeless creator can do that from nothing to a divisible something and back down to nothing again easily.

And this one is even more evident that you were talking about division precisely:

[Michael here] In other words, Aristotle emphatically notes that a line (or any divisible entity for that matter) may be divided indefinitely. That is an indispensable mathematical axiom that is objectively and universally apprehended by all, one that applies to finite entities only. However, finite consciousness cannot perform said division to its conclusion; hence, Aristotle concludes that there must be a consciousness of infinite perfection (indivisible and immutable) that can divide finite entities down to nothing, otherwise we have an indispensable mathematical axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitous. [Bold mine]

So you are doing four things here:

1. You are denying your own "construct" for divine perfection, meaning that all this time you have been angry and insulting defending what you knew to be a lie.

2. You are saying that the quotient is nothing (aka zero). And that this is the result of infinite division (despite you had previously affirmed that it was infinite, and that now you say that zero is never there)

3. You admitting that "Kyle" was you. Otherwise how could you both agree on what to lie about? Therefore more admission to lying.

4. You are trying to make it appear as if you are not talking about division when that's precisely what "Kyle" is talking about, division. "Both" of you citing that the problem of dividing without end was not problem for "God." Amazing that you can create such convoluted contradictions and cram that unimaginable load of your own shit back up your ass regardless of your intentions. All by yourself.

When exposing psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty: first, set a trap and then spring it . . . at the most exquisitely sweet moment of irony. It’s all in the timing.

And indeed it sprang up your own ass, and indeed it exposed your psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty. Richard, are you sure you want to keep kissing Michael's blown up ass? He has admitted to lying for Christianity and blown up his own ass in the process!

I’ve been miles and miles down the road ahead of you clowns from the beginning.

You sure have. I would have never dreamed of blowing up your ass that hard when shovelling your crap up your ass. Not for a second. Yet, you managed to blow your ass that hard yourself. I bow to you.

[Original posted in January 05, 2013 3:31 PM]

January 07, 2013 5:02 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael,

How sick you have to be in order to come back and repost that crap? That admission to lying? You have self-anhihilated any possibility for respect for you around here.

In what kind of sick mind do you think you have any respect left for you to come back? Are you crazy? Read what I answered! Read how much you have defeated yourself ass-hole. After that just go and fuck yourself. Never to return imbecile. Have at least a little of self-respect. At least that minimum to go and hide forever in shame.

January 07, 2013 5:04 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...


One more time. I'm going to let these posts hang for awhile before I post the refutation, which will be done tomorrow. Let's make sure these are you're positions. I'll give you 'til tomorrow to retract them. Let's make sure it sinks in first. Ya want to take any of this back? Last chance!

Of course, you didn't actually say some of the things I'm asking you about. They are rhetorical, intended to hint a certain realities about functions that you are obviously unaware of.

Last chance. Want to take any of this back?

January 07, 2013 5:10 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

I guess not. Sick, eh?

Let's do it again. . . .

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

January 07, 2013 5:12 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Michael,

I don't know if you saw my earlier comment, but I inquired about the discussion you said that you were having with Kyle over on your blog regarding Judeo-Christianity's epistemology. I saw the "Labsci and I Discuss Evolution" thread, but from what I could gather that discussion didn't pertain to Judeo-Christianity's epistemology.

Could you please let me know where I might find this discussion on your blog? I'd like to check it out.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2013 5:12 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael,

It's over. Stop being such a self-delusional ass-hole. Stop with your self-righteousness. You are not going to take away what you already did. The only way would be to ask for forgiveness. Even then nobody could possibly trust you ever again. You talk categorically, but you are just ""assuming" that we said this or that. You talk categorically, but you were yourself thinking of zero as the result of infinite division, yet now you deny such to be possible. Even though that kills your argument for divine perfection from the get go. You now say that you used "divisionally" gratuitously to set a trap. In other words, you lied. yet, I found at least two instances where it is clear cut that you were talking about division. You ridicule that something could be created out of nothing, yet you say that your god does precisely that, create from nothing. You contradict yourself just to "get me." But you annihilated any credibility you could possible have. Even in the eyes of those who thought well of you, like Richard who begged me to stop showing your stupidity off. He thought too that you had retired in shame. But you have no shame. You are so furious that you really want to show that I am mathematically illiterate even if that means denying everything you said before. What does that say about you? About your honesty? About "orthodox" Christianity?

I repeat, it's over. Have a little dignity, a little self-respect, and go fuck yourself. Hide forever in shame. Become a monk and make a vow of silence. Learn to be humble. Learn to be honest. Learn to have dignity.

January 07, 2013 5:13 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

And again. Remember dividing to ZERO, photoZEROIDIOT? More of the same. . .

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

January 07, 2013 5:14 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

You're lying, photoZero. You told yourself those things. You get some dignity, punk.

Once again. . . .

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

January 07, 2013 5:16 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

photoZero: "You talk categorically, but you are just ""assuming" that we said this or that. You talk categorically, but you were yourself thinking of zero as the result of infinite division, yet now you deny such to be possible."

LIAR. Still trying to put your words into my mouth, eh?. I see that you're not directly quoting me again. Just telling others what I supposedly said, what I supposedly thought. You can't quote me directly and make it stick, can you photoLIAR?

January 07, 2013 5:20 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Yes, Ydemoc, I did. One moment, please.

January 07, 2013 5:22 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Not directly quoting you ass-hole? Look below:
________________
Michael!

Please stop it with your desperation, you blowed up your ass into smithereens with that one!

When exposing pathological liars, the only ones moving the goal posts, you have to set traps.

So your desperate move now is that you have been lying all this time!? Wow, how desperate you are to try and save cheeks. How fucking desperate you are indeed. Richard, aren't you outraged that your friend Michael here thinks that lying is the proper way to represent Christians?

But, photoZero, the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing would ultimately be the process of eradicating something, not the mere process of partitioning something ... Indeed, the insertion of the term divisionally is gratuitous.

Well, this is curious because for one, you are admitting again to lying, you inserted the term gratuitously. Yet, both you and "Kyle" made the very same claim specifically relating it to the process of division:

["Kyle" here] All Peikoff is really saying is that the maxim has no real value because we can’t divide something forever. As Michael pointed out, the maxim actually does have practical mathematical applications, and a timeless creator can do that from nothing to a divisible something and back down to nothing again easily.

And this one is even more evident that you were talking about division precisely:

[Michael here] In other words, Aristotle emphatically notes that a line (or any divisible entity for that matter) may be divided indefinitely. That is an indispensable mathematical axiom that is objectively and universally apprehended by all, one that applies to finite entities only. However, finite consciousness cannot perform said division to its conclusion; hence, Aristotle concludes that there must be a consciousness of infinite perfection (indivisible and immutable) that can divide finite entities down to nothing, otherwise we have an indispensable mathematical axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitous. [Bold mine]

So you are doing four things here:

1. You are denying your own "construct" for divine perfection, meaning that all this time you have been angry and insulting defending what you knew to be a lie.

2. You are saying that the quotient is nothing (aka zero). And that this is the result of infinite division (despite you had previously affirmed that it was infinite, and that now you say that zero is never there)

3. You admitting that "Kyle" was you. Otherwise how could you both agree on what to lie about? Therefore more admission to lying.

4. You are trying to make it appear as if you are not talking about division when that's precisely what "Kyle" is talking about, division. "Both" of you citing that the problem of dividing without end was not problem for "God." Amazing that you can create such convoluted contradictions and cram that unimaginable load of your own shit back up your ass regardless of your intentions. All by yourself.

When exposing psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty: first, set a trap and then spring it . . . at the most exquisitely sweet moment of irony. It’s all in the timing.

And indeed it sprang up your own ass, and indeed it exposed your psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty. Richard, are you sure you want to keep kissing Michael's blown up ass? He has admitted to lying for Christianity and blown up his own ass in the process!

I’ve been miles and miles down the road ahead of you clowns from the beginning.

You sure have. I would have never dreamed of blowing up your ass that hard when shovelling your crap up your ass. Not for a second. Yet, you managed to blow your ass that hard yourself. I bow to you.

[Original posted in January 05, 2013 3:31 PM]

January 07, 2013 5:23 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

One more time, photoZERO-I-Don't-Have-The-First-Clue-I-Just-Make-Things-Up-As-I-Go-Along-Like-The-Operational-Aspects-Of-Identity.

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

January 07, 2013 5:27 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Forget about the fucking math Michael. It's over. I am not going to be distracted explaining to you that you now hold to one sub-discipline in math, then to another. Or the historical problems with deciding about infinity and its role in different operations. It's useless to explain that to you because you are mathematically illiterate and you just can't read. But it does not matter. You have admitted to lying. You have admitted that you talk categorically when you just assume what we said instead of reading what we said. You have destroyed all your arguments. the math is nothing now. It's inconsequential. What matters is that you can't get your act together, and that now you can't possibly get it together.

Where is your damn fucking dignity Michael? Will you continue to baste in your putrid egomania? Will you continue pretending to be wise and become such an incommensurable fool you ass-hole? Do you supposed beliefs mean anything to you at all? Because you sure show a complete lack of respect for them and for yourself. It's all about Michael's hurt ego. It's not about truth, or about your beliefs. It's just you the egomaniacal ass-hole. Now please just go fuck yourself and hide in shame.

January 07, 2013 5:37 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

I have no idea what Kyle had in mind.

But in this instance: what you’re quoting goes against the way I typically expressed the distinction. Obviously, I left "reduction" out. It was an error. Why aren't you quoting the passages depicting the way I typically stated the distinction, typically together, mind you: divisionally reducing something to nothing or down to nothing/reducing the material realm to nothing/divisionally eliminating/systematically reducing to nothing/divisionally reducing past the infinitesimal to nothing?

Hmm?

So you take a badly written statement, one that goes against the logic, the rhetoric and the arguments, including those against your stupidity about division, Zero, “n” divided without end . . . The fact that I never went into the technicalities of the mathematics until you kept pushing zero as a contradiction against my firm stance that division cannot ever end. . . . You ignore my correction of the misimpression that Dawson either had or left regarding Aristotle’s position in which I clearly stated that division is endless. All that, you just ignore?

That's your case? That’s what you’ve been barking about while I was gone? A poorly written distinction?

How pathetic.

You’re like the guy surrounded by a million red roses, but you pick the incongruently black rose and declare that to be the prototype.

Shut up, photoZero-n-divided-without-end-functions-are-variables. You’ve got so many stupid things said on this blog that were clearly not inadvertent. Dignity? You’re just desperately trying to save face anyway you can.

What a whore.

January 07, 2013 6:02 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Yeah, if I were you, I wouldn't want to see tomorrow's post either.

Shut up! Clearly my error was rhetorical, not actual!

And once again. . . .

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?



January 07, 2013 6:05 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

I'll tell ya what, I'll give ya a sneak peak:

In our case, the issue is not a matter of analysis or an unknown probability, for example, relative to any given, previously/circumstantially unknown inputs and outputs. The issue is the undeterminable value of infinity per the basic mathematical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. Regardless of the nature of the values, i.e., positive or negative, these operations are known to be the processes of relationally increasing wholes, reducing wholes or partitioning wholes. The theorems of these mathematical operations are presupposed, and in the case of dividing any given real number by infinity, the axiomatic limits of the function are discrete proofs for certain asseverations of the more general and complex limit theorems regarding the nature and practical applications of the indeterminable value of infinity itself.

Though it was not an easy search, I did finally find what I was looking for: the basics of what a function and its various parts are and how they are related. From the page at the other end of the following link, we may all clearly see that the variable(s) of any given function are just that, the variables (or inputs) of the function, not the function itself, which is constant and relates “the function of the variable,” not to be confused with the framework of the larger function’s calculation, to an output(s).

See the top of the page: http://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html

Shut up, photoBuffoon!

January 07, 2013 6:11 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Don't be that much of a dishonest ass-hole Michael, the "divisionally reduce down to nothing" bit you stated again and again and again after talking about the problem of division for "finite consciousness." You were implying dividing to its "conclusion" you even used those fucking words. Otherwise you are not making a case for divine perfection. Much later trying to save "face" you came to learn about limits and tried that just to ridicule me and forgetting what you said and how it related to divine perfection. It does not make sense to talk about division in the first part as referred to "finite consciousness" only to change the game in the last part. It would be ridiculous even for you. In any event, if you were lying then there goes your argument for divine perfection. Evaporated into being a mere lie. A lie defended to the extremes. To the point of insulting us because we would not accept your non-sequiturs. because we would not accept your jumps.

So again, forget about the fucking math Michael. It's over. I am not going to be distracted explaining to you that you now hold to one sub-discipline in math, then to another. Or the historical problems with deciding about infinity and its role in different operations. Or that you don;t understand the meaning of mathematical terms. It's useless to explain that to you because you are mathematically illiterate and you just can't read. But it does not matter. You have admitted to lying. You have admitted that you talk categorically when you just assume what we said instead of reading what we said. You have destroyed all your arguments. The math is nothing now. It's inconsequential. What matters is that you can't get your act together, and that now you can't possibly get it together ever. You are a self-proclaimed liar.

Where is your damn fucking dignity Michael? Will you continue to baste in your putrid egomania? Will you continue pretending to be wise and become such an incommensurable fool you ass-hole? Do you supposed beliefs mean anything to you at all? Because you sure show a complete lack of respect for them and for yourself. It's all about Michael's hurt ego. It's not about truth, or about your beliefs. It's just you the egomaniacal ass-hole. Now please just go fuck yourself and hide in shame.

January 07, 2013 6:12 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Oops. . . This paragraph goes above the rest in the post above:

"As for your nonsense about limit theorems. . . .

Limit theorems, as opposed to limit proofs, pertain to the evaluation or analysis of the nature of the limits of the various functions of infinitesimal values of calculus. In other words, they’re functions of a greater hierarchical order with limits of their own. These are also referred to as “theorems of limits” or “theorems on limits.” There are in fact a number of limit theorems of infinity expressed as functions. Also, functions that serve to demonstrate various findings in regard to the problems of probability, convergence, differentials or polynomials, for example, are said to be limit theorems."

January 07, 2013 6:13 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

I can't help it if that's what you told yourself, jackass. But you sure went for it, and started babbling about zero, trying to refute my insistence that division is endless, while some other process was not. Clearly, Richard correctly understood me. How long was he trying to tell you that division is endless while affirming my argument?

Shut up! You can't save face over a badly written distinction that goes against the entire flow of the dispute.

PhotoZERO-yet-n-divided-without-end.

January 07, 2013 6:27 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

January 07, 2013 6:28 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

SNEAK PEAK

As for your nonsense about limit theorems. . . .

Limit theorems, as opposed to limit proofs, pertain to the evaluation or analysis of the nature of the limits of the various functions of infinitesimal values of calculus. In other words, they’re functions of a greater hierarchical order with limits of their own. These are also referred to as “theorems of limits” or “theorems on limits.” There are in fact a number of limit theorems of infinity expressed as functions. Also, functions that serve to demonstrate various findings in regard to the problems of probability, convergence, differentials or polynomials, for example, are said to be limit theorems.

In our case, the issue is not a matter of analysis or an unknown probability, for example, relative to any given, previously/circumstantially unknown inputs and outputs. The issue is the undeterminable value of infinity per the basic mathematical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. Regardless of the nature of the values, i.e., positive or negative, these operations are known to be the processes of relationally increasing wholes, reducing wholes or partitioning wholes. The theorems of these mathematical operations are presupposed, and in the case of dividing any given real number by infinity, the axiomatic limits of the function are discrete proofs for certain asseverations of the more general and complex limit theorems regarding the nature and practical applications of the indeterminable value of infinity itself.

Though it was not an easy search, I did finally find what I was looking for: the basics of what a function and its various parts are and how they are related. From the page at the other end of the following link, we may all clearly see that the variable(s) of any given function are just that, the variables (or inputs) of the function, not the function itself, which is constant and relates “the function of the variable,” not to be confused with the framework of the larger function’s calculation, to an output(s).

See the top of the page: http://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html

Shut up, photoBuffoon!

January 07, 2013 6:29 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 07, 2013 6:31 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Michael,

It's quite fitting of your personality to try now and reverse your egomania and project it into me. It does not make sense to talk about division by finite consciousness, only to say that your god can do that, but by subtraction.Since now you deny the second part as being about division, there's no divine perfection to talk about. Fine by me.

As I said, forget about the fucking math Michael. It's over. I am not going to be distracted explaining to you that you now hold to one sub-discipline in math, then to another. Or the historical problems with deciding about infinity and its role in different operations. Or that you don't understand the meaning of mathematical terms. It's useless to explain that to you because you are mathematically illiterate and you just can't read. But it does not matter. You have admitted to lying. You have admitted that you talk categorically when you just assume what we said instead of reading what we said. You have destroyed all your arguments. The math is nothing now. It's inconsequential. What matters is that you can't get your act together, and that now you can't possibly get it together ever. You are a self-proclaimed liar.

Where is your damn fucking dignity Michael? Will you continue to baste in your putrid egomania? Will you continue pretending to be wise and become such an incommensurable fool you ass-hole? Do you supposed beliefs mean anything to you at all? Because you sure show a complete lack of respect for them and for yourself. It's all about Michael's hurt ego. It's not about truth, or about your beliefs. It's just you the egomaniacal ass-hole.

Post as much as you want. It's not my blog. The record is there for all to see that it's you who has lost any sense. Who only cares about saving face. You no longer know what you wanted to do. You have forgotten in exchange to mis-dignify your hurt ego. You care more about being perceived as the mathematical illiterate that you are, than about attaining anything regarding those beliefs you said you came to talk about. Fine. I can't talk more to you. It was fun destroying your arguments and bullshit. It was fun to show that you were illiterate at so many levels. But now it's just nauseating to watch the spectacle of Michael the egomaniacal ass-hole holding to misinformed and deformed math just to presume of math literacy even at the cost of his previous arguments. Even at the cost of having admitted that instead of reading you assume what we said. That you lie to put traps even if that denies your precious "constructs."

Thus, since you have no dignity you can, again, go fuck yourself for all I care. Blow your ass off in front of everybody. I shall not respond any more. Let your words stand as witnesses of your sickening egomania.

January 07, 2013 6:33 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Ydemoc,

How can finite consciousness have primacy over existence in the face of “I AM that I AM,” which is to say, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the Creator of all things that exist apart from Myself.

What do you mean? What are you thinking?

So, according to you, the Bible holds that human consciousness has primacy over existence?!

Put your “knowledge” and your “understanding” of scripture into evidence. What do you think Matthew is saying?

Come, Ydemoc, I don’t know what’s in your mind unless you tell me.

January 07, 2013 6:34 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Hook. Line. Sinker. It's you who read that into it. What ya blaming me for? LOL! You're the one who makes crap up as you go along. . . . You're the one always moving the goal posts. How ya likin' me now? Marytodom, photoLiar?

Psst. Tomorrow.
__________________

This is very important, for it is the basis of your latest rash of arrogance: the stupidity of a little knowledge and an utter lack of sense. . . .

I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.

And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.

It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.


These statements are all wrong. . . .

In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”


photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”

Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

________________

You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?

You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?

_________________

This is the stupidest of all. . . .

But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”

You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?



January 07, 2013 6:40 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

LOL! You're the one who nonsensically claimed that division by infinity ends in zero, yet the division of the dividend goes on forever! That was the whole point of you trying to make me out to be a dufus, dufus. Now ya want to move the goal posts again to save face against the overwhelming flow of my obvious intent and logic.

You're the one who read that into my observations. Your ignorance, photo, your wont to make an argument over everything and nothing. Well, that landed you in the middle of saying Zero is the quotient, yet the dividend is divided forever. Don't blame me.

See what your constant misrepresentations get ya. See what your lies get ya? You just endlessly pretend not to understand when caught out. That’s all. More of the same.

Like your crap about functions. Just make it up as you go along. Pathetic.

January 07, 2013 6:53 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Michael,

I thought I was pretty clear about what I was asking in my earliest(?) inquiry on this thread (okay, maybe it was a little clunky in places, here and there). I'll give it another look and clarify if need be.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2013 7:09 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Michael stated as part of one of his typical insults that given the substantive arguments we both know you’re running from.

What substance is that? I don't recall that you've made any arguments. You've issued plenty of insults, derogatory insinuations and innuendos sometimes approaching towards ad hominems as well as other informal logical fallacies. But for the most part, I've found your rants almost incoherent.

If you have an argument for the existence of whatever immaterial magic-totem dude in the sky you think you believe exists, then please present it. It would be good, however, if first you spill a little ink informing us about any Judeo-Christian-Islamic theory of concepts and epistemology. Inquiring minds what to know.

After that why don't you inform us of what you define what it is you think your magic-totem-dude-in-the-sky to be in the sense of its primary attributes rather than what you belief by faith it does or did or in what manner it relates to reality. In case you believe your magic totem-dude to exist in some transcendent reality, I'd be most interested in reading your explanation of how your magic totem-dude communicates with sentient organisms in this cosmic domain when information transfer is limited to the speed of light.

Additionally, why don't you take a run at Dawson's argument about God being imaginary. After all that which is imaginary is not real. For instance, when Popeye the Sailor eats his spinach just prior to kicking Bluto's ass, no real cans of spinach were damaged nor was any real spinach consumed. N'est-ce pas.

January 07, 2013 7:34 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Michael,

I also wanted to know if you could tell me where on your blog I could find that discussion you mentioned having with Kyle regarding Judeo-Christianity's epistemology. If you wouldn't mind posting the link, I'd like to check it out. I tried to find it, but was unable; I only found the "Labsci and I Discuss Evolution" thread. (But, as I said before, I didn't examine every entry on your blog, so perhaps I missed it.)

Thanks.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2013 8:21 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

it's a simple question:

Since you claim that the infinite is not actual, then where do numbers begin and end?

Look Dude, this is not about apologetics or trying to play word games. You're the one that keeps trying to talk your way out of these problems.

A classic sleight of hand.


Oh yea, Ydemoc, shut up already.


January 07, 2013 8:44 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Robert Bumbdummy,

Shut it.

You're the one that confessed about the possibilty of you being deceived by a demon.

Good job renouncing your objectivism. They all fall sooner or later. Just look at Randnuts, she smoked herself to death while collecting social security. How hilarious!!!!!!!

Now, go cry with Dawson in his little corner.

January 07, 2013 8:50 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

That's right, photoZero-Fell-Right-Into-The-Trap. Other than the rhetorical error, your black rose in the field of reds, the distinction was also expressed using the phrase "to it's conclusion".

But what’s the "conclusion" of mere division (the partitioning of something) without end?

Zero, photoZERO? Nothing, photoZero?

Every time I turned around you were changing what I said, pretending not to understand. . . . Fine. So after just about enough of that, I started putting vaguely connected phrases in your heads, like "to its conclusion" or "division without end" or "divisionally reduced to nothing". But, alternately, which operation was I talking about? What were the antecedents? What does it all mean? LOL!

You filled in the blanks for yourself. Imagined things. Things that aren’t true. Things that don’t exist.

Being the nick-picking magpies that you are, always looking for an argument, never discussing or exchanging real ideas, I was certain you’d extrapolate a contradiction that wasn’t there, imagine it, unwittingly confound division with subtraction and expose Peikoff’s stupidity for me.

But then! Dude! After saying endless division wasn’t possible you used the common expression of division by infinity, no doubt informed by some stupid thing said on Yahoo Answers! or Ask Jeeves or whatever.

It ends at zero! The quotient is zero. The quotient is nothing, yet the dividend is divided without end.

Bonus!

You used this as an argument against my staunch position that it went on without end. Now ya got me saying something different relative to God. Goal posts. Psst. The extrapolation is yours. It doesn’t actually follow. You’re connecting the dots whichever way gives you something to argue about, ya dingbat.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

How ya likin’ me now? How ya like it when people screw with your head.

And now to save face you’re trying to change the topic, babbling things about functions that are all wrong, once again trying to make me out to be the dufus, dufus. Another argument based on made up crap, imagined tripe. You’re goanna pay for that too, photoVariables-Are-Functions-Limit-Theorems-And-Limit-Proofs-Same-Thing-Limits-Aren’t-Operationally-Limitless-Dingbat.

Remember the DVD cabinet? LOL! I threw that in the mix after Robert blathered about how “all of humanity knows . . . encodings embodied in material particles” and “all of humanity knows . . . mathematical ideas and numbers”. Oops! Slogan spouters. Right now, Robert’s trying to move the goal posts away from that problem. LOL! And Plato? Christianity utterly eschews Plato’s epistemology. More ignorance, more made up crap. More imagined things. Things that aren’t true. Things that don’t exist. The stupidities of a little knowledge. No doubt he thinks that’s true based on Aquinas’ over-reliance on Plato. What does that have to do with the Bible? Nothing! Aristotle was wrong about a myriad of things too. So what?

Psst. Robert, you contradicted DuhsonZero over Hume and consciousness. LOL!

Objectivism: what a crock.

January 07, 2013 8:57 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

After reading some of the latest back-and-forth between Michael and photo, I decided to go back and check the record, to see if photo’s statements were accurate.

And what did I find?

The answer is: Yes, indeed, photo’s statements have been accurate. Observe:


Who wrote the following (on 11 Dec., in the comments of this blog)?

<< As Michael pointed out, the maxim actually does have practical mathematical applications, and a timeless creator can do that from nothing to a divisible something and back down to nothing again easily. That’s an obvious function or ability of a creator. It’s elementary. >>

It was someone posting under the name “Kyle Jamison.”

Who wrote the following (on 12 Dec., in the same blog entry)?

<< The divisibility and limited intellectual capacity of the finite verses the indivisibility and immutability of the Creator Who can will something into existence apart from Himself and divisionally reduce it back down to nothing again is asserted outright! >>

That was none other than Michael “you’re trying to bury my post continuations” Rawlings.

Then on 19 Dec., again in the same blog’s comments, who wrote the following?

<< However, finite consciousness cannot perform said division to its conclusion; hence, Aristotle concludes that there must be a consciousness of infinite perfection (indivisible and immutable) that can divide finite entities down to nothing, otherwise we have an indispensable mathematical axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitous. >>

Yes, you guessed right: it was Michael Rawlings who wrote this.

Notice the consistent similarities in these statements?

All of this corroborates photo’s points in this regard beyond question.

Regards,
Dawson

January 08, 2013 12:31 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Michael asked: “How can finite consciousness have primacy over existence in the face of ‘I AM that I AM’, which is to say, ‘I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the Creator of all things that exist apart from Myself.”

It is odd that Michael would direct this question to someone who holds consistently to the primacy of existence metaphysics. Such a thinker recognizes that the very idea that any consciousness could have metaphysical primacy over existence is self-refuting in the first place.

We also recognize that once one accepts the primacy of consciousness, all absolutes are out the window (since absolutes would necessarily have to be based in fact, but on the primacy of consciousness facts are “contingent” to whatever consciousness wills). Assuming the premise of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, one cannot consistently state anything to the effect of “X cannot obtain because Y and Z reasons,” for such a position borrows from the primacy of existence, even if the content of what is being claimed is false or arbitrary. Such a claim is attempting to make use of a principle borrowed from a worldview which it in fact rejects by virtue of its affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.

Furthermore, Michael asks a question pertaining to the issue of metaphysical primacy while never having demonstrated that he actually understands this issue in the first place. Indeed, Objectivism explicitly and consistently affirms the primacy of existence metaphysics, and yet Michael says that “if Objectivism had somehow controlled the history of thought all these many years of human history, we’d still be living in caves and humping aardvarks.” (I’m not aware of any historical documentation which shows human cave-dwellers to have been “humping aardvarks”; perhaps Michael is speaking of his own family lineage – that might explain a lot!)

So let me get this straight: Advocacy of the primacy of existence, of reason as the proper epistemology for man, of biologically based values, of man’s right to exist for himself (individualism), etc., would somehow prevent human beings from developing their knowledge, technology and mastery over nature? How so? Michael nowhere explains this.

Michael seems more concerned with smearing Objectivism than he is with endorsing a philosophy which consistently recognizes the metaphysical primacy of existence (a principle which he continually borrows, even when he affirms the “truth” of his cartoon universe worldview) and the importance of reason in human cognition (which he tries, albeit unsuccessfully, to simulate in his attempts to defend his theistic jargon – and yet drastically undercuts given the fact that his worldview’s “epistemology” essentially reduces to “we know without knowing how we know”).

Of course, if one adopts a worldview which holds that “ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence” (i.e., the view that wishing does make it so) and whose “epistemology” is in fact nothing but an illusion of jargon attempting to mask chronic, self-inflicted ignorance, one can pretty assume that he can say pretty much anything and believe that it’s true simply because he’s said it. This of course can include pronouncements denigrating worldview which affirm the primacy of existence, the importance of reason in human cognition, the role of values in moral judgment, the right of each individual to exist for his own sake, etc. So ironically, Michael finds “consistency” in his worldview’s endorsement of metaphysical subjectivism and his rejection of a worldview premised on objectivity: Objectivism is “bad” because he doesn’t like it.

[continued…]

January 08, 2013 1:08 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Michael asked: “So, according to you, the Bible holds that human consciousness has primacy over existence?!”

It’s not according to any of us that the bible does this. The bible clearly does this regardless of what we say or think. We just point it out, and evidence has already been presented on behalf of this point So far Michael has been ignoring it, even after repeated attempts to get him to address it.

Michael: “Put your ‘knowledge’ and your ‘understanding’ of scripture into evidence.”

The passages cited from the bible speak very plainly for themselves.

Michael asked: “What do you think Matthew is saying?”

Hmmm… Well, in Mt. 17:20, the author is saying the following: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

So that’s what I think Matthew is saying.

So, Michael, if you don’t recognize the assumption of the primacy of consciousness in this and many other passages in the bible, you clearly don’t understand what the primacy of consciousness is. But I can’t understand why: numerous attempts to explain it all to you have been made, and it’s not a difficult concept to grasp. Indeed, you show that you grasp it implicitly every time you say something is true. But you repeatedly fail to demonstrate that you have explicitly grasped it. Indeed, your worldview does not explicitly affirm any of the axioms. I asked you about just this earlier in the discussion. You ignored my questions. I’m not surprised; in fact, you delivered precisely what I’ve come to expect from mystics: evasion.

Regards,
Dawson

January 08, 2013 1:08 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Ydemoc wrote: “I also wanted to know if you could tell me where on your blog I could find that discussion you mentioned having with Kyle regarding Judeo-Christianity's epistemology.”

I too would be interested in examining this discussion between Michael and “Kyle Jamison” on “epistemology.” From what I’ve seen from Michael here on my blog, there’s precious little that qualifies as “epistemology” informing anything he’s written here. (And even here, I’m being most generous!)

For one, there’s nothing that I can find in anything Michael has written here which explains how the human mind discovers and validates knowledge of the world in which we live. To the extent that he has written anything on this topic, it consists of extremely vague generalities couched in strings of indistinct abstractions which together seem to say nothing in particular and anything in general, essentially in the manner of a grand effort to hedge one’s position in order to play any side that eventually promises viable fruition on the matter. Such a move does not encourage much confidence in anything Michael has to say on the topic.

Meanwhile, Michael has expressed agreement with the view that the conceptual level of cognition is “automatic,” which can only imply that epistemology is a moot exercise in ultimately pointless academics. Also, he has not provided anything qualifying as an improvement over John Frame’s admission that (for Christians) “We know without knowing how we know” (see Frame’s Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)), which again can only mean that Christianity has nothing of substance to offer in response to the kinds of questions which are raised in philosophical inquiries into epistemology.

So I’m very curious what could possibly have occupied “Kyle” and Michael in their “discussion.”

So Michael, please provide the relevant links to your blog where you and “Kyle” discussed “epistemology.” We are eager to learn more.

Regards,
Dawson

January 08, 2013 1:29 AM  
Blogger freddies_dead said...

Bahnsen Burner said...

Yes, you guessed right: it was Michael Rawlings who wrote this.

Notice the consistent similarities in these statements?

All of this corroborates photo’s points in this regard beyond question.


Ah, but Dawson, you forget, Michael was setting up a lie, oops sorry, a trap.

Unfortunately for Michael, photo isn't mathematically illiterate and when he pointed out the problems with Michael's lie/trap, Michael then spent a month adamantly defending his lie/trap - going so far as to mention a mathematician and a physicist to try and support his lie/trap. Finally, when he can no longer defend his lie/trap, he springs it! Only for it to backfire on him most spectacularly. For now he's admitted that his trap is false i.e. it's a lie, and therefore can't possibly support his claim that a theoretical mathematical infinity means his infinite consciousness (God) exists. Of course it doesn't help that the mathematics he says he should have been using - not the lie/trap version - doesn't help him explain how we go from theoretical mathematical infinity to infinite consciousness either but he seems to be at pains to avoid tackling that little problem.

So we're left with a liar who still doesn't have an explanation of how we can go from theoretical mathematical infinity to infinite consciousness. I'm not sure when he decided to destroy his own argument so thoroughly but I'm glad he decided to carry it through to the end.

Of course all of this has been totally moot as we know that he's claiming that his unsupported arguments - both the lie/trap version and the allegedly correct version that theoretical mathematical infinity = infinite consciousness - are what they are regardless of what anything wants or wishes, so affirming the primacy of existence. Which is odd when he's attempting to defend a worldview that is premised on the primacy of consciousness! His inability to make an argument that is consistent with the worldview he professes to hold is far more damaging than he seems to realise.

As you say, I'm glad these aren't my problems.

January 08, 2013 3:01 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Photo wrote: “As I said, forget about the fucking math Michael. It's over. I am not going to be distracted explaining to you that you now hold to one sub-discipline in math, then to another. Or the historical problems with deciding about infinity and its role in different operations. Or that you don't understand the meaning of mathematical terms. It's useless to explain that to you because you are mathematically illiterate and you just can't read. But it does not matter. You have admitted to lying.”

I find myself in complete agreement with photo here. It was obvious from the beginning that the “concept of infinity, therefore an infinite consciousness” route to Christian apologetics is a dead-end maze of meaningless rabbit trails that never produce the lifting power it is portrayed as having. I recognized this because such a means of arguing for mystical conclusions not only takes the primacy of consciousness for granted, it also depends expressly on ignoring the conceptual nature of infinity, as I pointed out. (Recall the quote I cited from Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology on the matter? Michael never interacted with this explanation of the nature of the concept of infinity.) Again, the fallacies inherent in Michael’s approach to apologetics can be traced to his lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of concepts.

It’s clear now that Michael has nothing to gain in the interest of defending his theism by pursuing his chicanery regarding the notion of infinity, regardless of its importance to mathematics. Mathematics is a conceptual discipline, which means that any talk of the concept of infinity with regard to its significance to mathematics only confirms the account Rand gives in her thesis pertaining to the nature and formation of concepts (again, something we will never learn about by reading the bible).

Even worse, photo has already exposed numerous flaws in Michael’s presentation regarding infinity, and those flaws have in various respects turned around to bite Michael’s own position sorely in its rear end, sending system-wide shockwaves throughout his entire “case” to the extent that he can be said to have assembled one.

So if Michael thinks he has a clearly logical case for something that is in fact “infinite” also being actual, he needs to present it once and for all in its essentialized form – i.e., in terms of clearly stated premises which clearly support their intended conclusion. There’s no reason for anyone to get lost in the labyrinthine meanderings of his comments which are laden with insults, bad attitude, contentless jargon. If he cannot relate his case to what the things we are directly aware of in a conceptually sound fashion, then he has no case to begin with.

If Michael decides not to take up this final challenge, then he forfeits the entirety of his efforts here.

Regards,
Dawson

January 08, 2013 3:14 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Richard/Nide. You're bat-shit fraking crazy, so nothing you write carries any argumentative weight. BTW, shouldn't you be at some sort of religious service rather than conversing with grown ups?

January 08, 2013 6:00 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Ydemoc requested: Ydemoc wrote: “I also wanted to know if you could tell me where on your blog I could find that discussion you mentioned having with Kyle regarding Judeo-Christianity's epistemology.”, and Michael has mentioned several times Judeo-Christianity.

I think this is an example of another red herring Michael has tossed because Judaism entails a belief in the God of Classical Theism while Christianity adheres to the doctrine of the Trinity. In the former, the ruling consciousness is imagined as purely a mono-entity with only a single center of consciousness and initiation of libertarian free will while in the later , Christians hold the fantasy of a three in one being with three separate centers of consciousness and initiation of libertarian free will. Christianity holds that the second member of the Trinity, the Logos or Jesus, has a primary epistemological function as creator/conservator of existence and mediator/revealer between humans and the first member of the Trinity, YHWH. Contra that, in Judaism (and Islam), YHWH (or Allah) neither reveals itself nor desires personal interaction with men. The relationship is to the collective of Israel (or all Muslims), and thus Judaism's (and Islam's) epistemology is something men discover in a nature created by the ruling consciousness.

Amongst Abrahamic mythologies, Christianity stands alone in having adopted a mystical-magic epistemology (ref. 1 Cor 12:4-11), so there really is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian or Christian-Islamic epistemology.

As for the doctrine of the Trinity, I think one reason why third or fourth century Christian leaders adopted it despite its obvious contradiction with reality, was that it allowed them to deflect problem of evil charges. If the Logos, or word of God, created and conserved existence, then creation was no longer a metaphysical action but transitioned into an epistemological predication. That then became the medieval motivation to construct modal logics for linguistic analysis that resulted in such absurdities as a necessary antecedent not entailing a necessary consequent.

As a reminder, Michael, Richard and those like them bear the onus of any burden of proof in the God debate. To win, they must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their contentions with extraordinary evidence because claims of magic, immaterial, transcendent consciousness are extraordinary. Whereas for unbelievers to justify their unbelief, all they must do are show plausible alternatives that are more likely under naturalism than theism or deism.

January 08, 2013 6:58 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Robert,

shut up!!! you old fool.

January 08, 2013 7:05 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard/Hezek/Nide,

It's a simple question that goes to the root of what you claim to believe:

Do you really agree with Michael's approach to lie, misrepresent, open dishonesty, convoluted red-herrings, "assuming," and extremely crazy egomania to represent Christianity?

Why won't you answer a question that goes to the very core of what you claim to believe? It would not harm you unless Michael is really the kind of representation that you want.

So? Is Michael the representative Christian? Is Christianity all about Michael's hurt ego? Is truth last in Christians' minds?

January 08, 2013 7:10 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

That's not for me to answer.

Ask Michael.



January 08, 2013 8:26 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 08, 2013 8:53 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Michael's attempt to show that imaginary notions or ideas, stemming from the subject of thought, are actual entities in reality was identified as a package deal fallacy by Rand and Peikoff. Michael's DVD cabinet example is a package deal. Here's Anton Thorn on package deals.

Package Deal: An improper and suspicious equation of essentially distinct terms or concepts. A package-deal is "the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or ‘package,’ elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value." (Leornard Peikoff, editor’s note to Ayn Rand’s "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.) A package-deal uses "the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting non-essentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating the differences." ("How to Read (and Not to Write)," The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 26, 3.)
This fallacy is more often encountered than is usually detected, and detecting its occurrence sometimes requires great acuity. Since the fallacy is not restricted to any one particular level of conception, package-deals can be discovered between particulars as well as between broad abstractions, or even entire doctrines.

Common instances in today's culture is the equation of the vague, over-used bromide "family values" with the concept morality, often asserted when the speaker probably means virtue, which is the means of achieving values. Another instance is the equation of the "common good" with the concept just policy. Yet another instance would be the equation of economic power with political power. Each of these package-deals has been repeated and emphasized with the endorsement of high-standing politicians and media spokespersons so frequently that to question them seems socially blasphemous.

In more sophisticated religious apologetics, a frequently met package-deal is the equation of concepts with their referents. This package-deal finds its roots in Platonic intrinsicism in that it is an attempt to erase the distinction between an object and the concept identifying it. The catchphrases to watch out for might be terms like 'immaterial entities', 'conceptual entities', or 'abstract universal entities' (cf. Plato's non-material 'Forms'). Such package-dealing results from the attempt to treat concepts as if they were concretes existing externally, rather than abstractions or mental integrations. Acceptance of this distortion of reality allows the religionist to posit knowledge independent of man's consciousness, knowledge whose source does not belong to this world, but to another, supernatural point of origin. The famed Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen is well noted for his heavy dependence on this particular fallacy in his debates with non-Christians, calling the Laws of Logic examples of 'immaterial entities'. The root of this error is a package-deal.

January 08, 2013 8:59 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Richard: Why is it for Michael to say what's in your mind? Does he think for you? Are you capable of thinking for yourself or at all, or should you be institutionalized into a State Mental Hospital?

January 08, 2013 9:05 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Michael's failed attempt to show that imaginary notions or ideas, stemming from the subject of thought, are actual entities in reality fits the criteria identified as a package deal fallacy by Rand and Peikoff. Here's Anton Thorn on the matter.

Package Deal: An improper and suspicious equation of essentially distinct terms or concepts. A package-deal is "the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or ‘package,’ elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value." (Leornard Peikoff, editor’s note to Ayn Rand’s "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.) A package-deal uses "the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting non-essentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating the differences." ("How to Read (and Not to Write)," The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 26, 3.)
This fallacy is more often encountered than is usually detected, and detecting its occurrence sometimes requires great acuity. Since the fallacy is not restricted to any one particular level of conception, package-deals can be discovered between particulars as well as between broad abstractions, or even entire doctrines.

Common instances in today's culture is the equation of the vague, over-used bromide "family values" with the concept morality, often asserted when the speaker probably means virtue, which is the means of achieving values. Another instance is the equation of the "common good" with the concept just policy. Yet another instance would be the equation of economic power with political power. Each of these package-deals has been repeated and emphasized with the endorsement of high-standing politicians and media spokespersons so frequently that to question them seems socially blasphemous.

In more sophisticated religious apologetics, a frequently met package-deal is the equation of concepts with their referents. This package-deal finds its roots in Platonic intrinsicism in that it is an attempt to erase the distinction between an object and the concept identifying it. The catchphrases to watch out for might be terms like 'immaterial entities', 'conceptual entities', or 'abstract universal entities' (cf. Plato's non-material 'Forms'). Such package-dealing results from the attempt to treat concepts as if they were concretes existing externally, rather than abstractions or mental integrations. Acceptance of this distortion of reality allows the religionist to posit knowledge independent of man's consciousness, knowledge whose source does not belong to this world, but to another, supernatural point of origin. The famed Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen is well noted for his heavy dependence on this particular fallacy in his debates with non-Christians, calling the Laws of Logic examples of 'immaterial entities'. The root of this error is a package-deal.

January 08, 2013 9:08 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Robert,

that's not for me to answer.

But I am curious as to what you think about Randnuts collecting social security?

January 08, 2013 9:33 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Michael, the reason you don't have a Christian theory of concepts or epistemology is that there isn't any. You and all other Christians regardless of sect must steal epistemology from some naturalistic philosophy to avoid being identified as bat shit loony like you guys are when you claim that evil spirits cause sickness or mental illness.

If Michael, Richard and any other ostensive Christian rejects the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus' ministry as primarily occupied with excising devil or demon spirits, then they must also, at least if they are honest, reject the other miracles and resurrection accounts as fictional. Here's Robert Ingersol, "Superstition" part 2, section 4.

The man of sense knows the history of this belief, and he knows, also, that for many centuries its truth was established by the Holy Bible. He knows that the Old Testament is filled with allusions to the Devil, to evil spirits, and that the New Testament is the same. He knows that Christ himself was a believer in the Devil, in evil spirits, and that his principal business was casting out devils from the bodies of men and women. He knows that Christ himself, according to the New Testament, was not only tempted by the Devil, but was carried by his Satanic Highness to the top of the temple. If the New Testament is the inspired word of God, then I admit that these devils, these imps, do actually exist and that they do take possession of human beings.

To deny the existence of these evil spirits, to deny the existence of the Devil, is to deny the truth of the New Testament. To deny the existence of these imps of darkness is to contradict the words of Jesus Christ. If these devils do not exist, if they do not cause disease, if they do not tempt and mislead their victims, then Christ was an ignorant, superstitious man, insane, an impostor, or the New Testament is not a true record of what he said and what he pretended to do. If we give up the belief in devils, we must give up the inspiration of the Old and New Testament. We must give up the divinity of Christ. To deny the existence of evil spirits is to utterly destroy the foundation of Christianity. There is no half-way ground. Compromise is impossible. If all the accounts in the New Testament of casting out devils are false, what part of the Blessed Book is true?

As a matter of fact, the success of the Devil in the Garden of Eden made the coming of Christ a necessity, laid the foundation for the atonement, crucified the Savior and gave us the Trinity.

If the Devil does not exist, the Christian creeds all crumble, and the superstructure known as "Christianity," built by the fathers, by popes, by priests and theologians—built with mistakes and falsehoods, with miracles and wonders, with blood and flame, with lies and legends borrowed from the savage world, becomes a shapeless ruin.

If we give up the belief in devils and evil spirits, we are compelled to say that a witch never lived. No sensible human being now believes in witchcraft. We know that it was a delusion. We now know that thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children were tortured and burned for having been found guilty of an impossible crime, and we also know, if our minds have not been deformed by faith, that all the books in which the existence of witches is taught were written by ignorant and superstitious men. We also know that the Old Testament asserted the existence of witches. According to that Holy Book, Jehovah was a believer in witchcraft, and said to his chosen people: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."


http://www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/01/superstition-part-2-by-robert-ingersoll.html

January 08, 2013 9:39 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Michael and Richard: Do you believe in the Devil? Do you think evil spirits (consciousness) takes over some people's bodies and then controls them as would an alien homunculus? If you do believe this, do you do so because you think the stories reliable because the New Testament is the inspired Word of God?

January 08, 2013 9:45 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Robert,

What Richard's question to you has to do with the questions that were posed to him, I have no idea.

But he asked a question regarding Ayn Rand collecting social security.

Can you see any reason why people should should turn down money which was confiscated from them against their will? I can't. In fact, to so, now *that* would be immoral.

In fact, Rand addresses this very point in "The Voice of Reason," writing: "“Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money — and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.” (The Question of Scholarships, The Objectivist, June, 1966, 11, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon government_grants_and_scholarships.html)

Just because a robber one day returns your money to you (or even more than he took), this does not make the act of taking it, just; nor does the fact that it was done by a law enacted through a democratic process.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2013 9:50 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Robert,

Remember:

You're the one that said that there is a chance that you may be tricked by a demon.

So, Robert, do you believe in demons?

January 08, 2013 9:52 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Ydemoc,

shut up. you're an idiot.

Randnuts was a lying deluded hypocrite.

January 08, 2013 9:54 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

The idiot list with 1 being the dumbest:

1. Ydemoc

2. Robert

3. Photo

4. Dawson. Well, Dawson isn't dumb. He's just delusional.

Any body else want to be put on the list?



January 08, 2013 10:14 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Richard wrote: "shut up. you're an idiot. Randnuts was a lying deluded hypocrite."

Richard tells me to: "shut up" -- something I believe,in all this time, I've never requested of him.

Well, we can at least presume one thing: At one time, Michael thought highly enough of at least one thing Ayn Rand wrote:

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

In fact, he, evidently, thought so highly of this particular quote that he chose to place among other quotes from thinkers such as: John Locke, Justice Louis Brandeis, [himself], Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich August Hayek, Tom Clancy, Thomas Sowell.

I actually agree with many of the quotes he uses, like this one by Thomas Jefferson:

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/256450-fed-up-with-the-womanish-talk-of-security-and-fairness-of-obamanean-social-democracy.html

It certainly makes one wonder how Richard feels about Michael, and such quotes.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2013 10:20 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Ydemoc,

Congrats on being number 1 on the idiot list.

Michael have you ever collected social security?

January 08, 2013 10:52 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 08, 2013 11:27 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

Of course this is yours to answer. I am not asking if Michael agrees with Michael, look again:

Do you, Richard, really agree with Michael's approach to lie, misrepresent, open dishonesty, convoluted red-herrings, "assuming," and extremely crazy egomania to represent Christianity?

Is Michael the representative Christian? Is Christianity all about Michael's hurt ego? Is truth last in Christian minds?

The only way this is not for you to answer is if you are not a Christian.

So, there again, your opportunity to show whether you have any little bit of integrity. My bet is that you don't have any. We will see.

January 08, 2013 11:32 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

See Michael.

By the way congrats for being third on the idiot list.

However, I'm not really sure what you are talking about.

If you want, lay it out. And then I may answer.

January 08, 2013 11:35 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

shit, I didn't make the list at all... How Richard... how can you forget about all those wonderful "discussions we had back in 2011? If I had feelings they would be hurt.

January 08, 2013 11:46 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Justin,

We've somewhat reconciled. That's why I kept you out.

But if you really want to be on the list, pick a spot.

January 08, 2013 11:58 AM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

I missed your question, Ydemoc.

I can’t tell you much about that. Kyle said that he wanted to know more about Christianity’s epistemology on this blog and, presumably, started a conversation on my blog to that end.

Apparently, one aspect of his interest regarding Christianity's epistemology goes to its presupposition for the assimilation of scientific knowledge as it relates to evolution.

He has yet to get back to me with any questions or comments regarding the theological aspects of its epistemology. So as of yet, I don’t know what he had in mind.

????????????????

You will find it here: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/02/labsci-and-i-discuss-evolution.html?showComment=1355596274296#c7600100891732268491

January 08, 2013 11:58 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

You know what I am talking about. Yesterday you were begging me to stop it already.

Since now you play the ignorant, you show yourself as a liar. Therefore not only do you agree with Michael's representation of Christianity, you both endorse it and follow it. You have no integrity. Thanks for letting us know.

January 08, 2013 12:03 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo,

you're nuts.

However, congrats on making the list.

later pal.

January 08, 2013 12:06 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Ups, now suddenly this insufferable stench ... reminds me Michael and his blown up ass. Ups! He's here. I bet to display what he just mislearned about math. Took him a full month, so he has to display his misinformation.

January 08, 2013 12:07 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

... just like it took him somewhere between a week or two to learn the word "quotient" ... he had to say something with "quotient" expecting us to feel inferior (and he made such a display of idiocy! He thought that the "quotient" of dividing with no end was an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end!). He thought we were as ignorant as him. Michael the idiot thought that by saying "quotient" we would get intimidated by his math. That's his bar guys, remember? So, now that he spent a month to get more math to misunderstand, besides his misunderstood basic arithmetic, he has to use it even if his ass is already blown up. Well, we should not be surprised. After all, he thinks that Richard's Calculus course in college, which Richard probably failed, makes Richard an expert [TM]. Since his worldview is about wishing makes it so, maybe he expects that his faith will make his ass rebuild, and presto! Brand new ass to blow up again! Or maybe he thinks that by his faith he can realign math to his misunderstandings and misuse of terms and concepts!

January 08, 2013 12:26 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

The new idiot list. 1 is the biggest idiot:

1. Photo the deceiver

2. Ydemoc

3. Robert

4. Dawson. Actually, Dawson is not dumb. He's just delusional.


Congrats Photo.

January 08, 2013 2:10 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Photo the number 1 idiot,

Infinty is indivisible and immutable. Plus it has no begin or end.

January 08, 2013 2:15 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Absolutely, I give Rand her due with regard to liberty in and of itself. I have no argument with her on that point. I am a staunch defender of individual liberty, having nothing but utter contempt for the tyranny of collectivism.

My argument with her goes to her nonsense of conflating the distinction between humanist altruism and Christian love. It goes to her historical ignorance, her lack of scholarship regarding the source of the theory of natural law of the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition: the Bible, namely, the socio-political theory extrapolated from Judeo-Christianity’s ethical system of thought. Historical fact.

As for Richard, I would guess he’s probably alluding to the hypocrisy of her personal life, wherein she treated her followers like cattle, literally requiring her inner circle to smoke, excommunicating those who did not toe her ideological line to the letter. Of course, she certainly had the right to freely associate with whomever she pleased, so in the grander theme of things, these bizarre practices did not constitute a violation of individual liberty. But man is that weird, certainly a violation of the spirit of liberty, particularly against the intellectual openness that might have improved her philosophy.

But hey, each to their own. She didn’t put a gun to their heads . . . though she did try to use lawsuits quite a bit against those who criticized her works. Oh, well, she was a sociopath.

January 08, 2013 2:16 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

Michael,

"As for Richard, I would guess he’s probably alluding to the hypocrisy of her personal life, wherein she treated her followers like cattle, literally requiring her inner circle to smoke, excommunicating those who did not toe her ideological line to the letter. Of course, she certainly had the right to freely associate with whomever she pleased, so in the grander theme of things, these bizarre practices did not constitute a violation of individual liberty. But man is that weird, certainly a violation of the spirit of liberty, particularly against the intellectual openness that might have improved her philosophy."


ahhahahahhah.....Mich could not have been said better.

I wonder how the randidiots like you now?


January 08, 2013 2:28 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

No, DuhsonZero. The material realm of being is divisible. You read division into those phrases.

Played like a violin.

You have one badly composed expression, the same one photoDishonest is trying to use to save face, that goes against the flow and the logic of everything else written by me on this matter.

And once again, I am not Kyle. Kyle is not I. I don’t know what he had in mind beyond the actual essence of Aristotle’s argument in Metaphysics.

You punks are desperately trying to save face over your embarrassing stupidity of zero with one badly written expression.

No. Get this straight. You were played. And I did not lie. You imagined things that weren’t there. You did it to yourselves.

In fact, I wouldn't even have to explain this further if not for that one badly written statement.

Now watch this. . . .

January 08, 2013 2:29 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Dude, I didn't get my math from Richard or anyone else. Richard and I have never discussed the matter here or anywhere else.

I see that you're still lying. Well, I'll post the fuller exposure of your made up crap in a moment.

Keep hanging yourself.

Justin, I want to get with you on that bumper sticker. I have a few suggestions that are more accurate.

January 08, 2013 2:36 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

@Ydemoc : Good post, and here's a related AR quote from aynrandlexicon.com under Welfare State.

Since the things man needs for survival have to be produced, and nature does not guarantee the success of any human endeavor, there is not and cannot be any such thing as a guaranteed economic security. The employer who gives you a job, has no guarantee that his business will remain in existence, that his customers will continue to buy his products or services. The customers have no guarantee that they will always be able and willing to trade with him, no guarantee of what their needs, choices and incomes will be in the future. If you retire to a self-sustaining farm, you have no guarantee to protect you from what a flood or a hurricane might do to your land and your crops. If you surrender everything to the government and give it total power to plan the whole economy, this will not guarantee your economic security, but it will guarantee the descent of the entire nation to a level of miserable poverty—as the practical results of every totalitarian economy, communist or fascist, have demonstrated.

Morally, the promise of an impossible “right” to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don’t. “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.” (“Man’s Rights” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.


The Christian ideal of communism as depicted in Acts 5 expresses another package deal where the distinction between human rights and rational cooperation for economic security is blurred beneath religious totalitarianism.

January 08, 2013 2:36 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Richard,

I wonder how the randidiots like you now?

I do not know what a "randitiot" would be, but you sure like licking "Mich's" putrid, self-blown-up, ass. You love its continuous delivery of "cherries" for you to eat. Careful that you could drown in that shit Richard. Be even more careful because "Mich" has this tendency to stridently shovel it back up his ass, and if it's in your stomach things might get ... let's say messy for lack of better words.

January 08, 2013 2:38 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Stick around, Richard, the real fun begins. . . .

January 08, 2013 2:39 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

DuhsonZero claims that photo-The-Quotient-Of-Infinite-Division-Is-Zero-Confusing-Division-With-Subtraction "isn't mathematically illiterate".

LOL!

But not just that: In an attempt to make me out to be the dufus, photoConfusion claimed that the variables of functions are the functions.

But he's not mathematically illiterate, eh?

Trying to make me out to be the dufus, photoConfusion conflated limit theorems with proofs.

But he's not mathematically illiterate, eh?

Trying to make me out to be the dufus, photoConfusion claimed that its a contradiction to hold that limits are defined, yet operationally limitless by definition.

But he's not mathematically illiterate, eh?

But of course the real truth in all this is that photoConfusion is not only mathematically illiterate, he's a liar who makes things up as he goes along about things he really knows next to nothing about, just like he made things up about the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression as he mangles the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Shut up, DuhsonZero. You have no case, DuhsonZero. You stupidly went along with every bit of that malarkey.

But most embarrassingly, you stupidly went along with photoZero about the supposed quotient of infinite division, DuhsonZero. And what was the whole point behind that bit of dufusness. Why, it was an attempt to make me out to be the dufus, you gaggle of mathematically illiterate dufuses!

January 08, 2013 2:41 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Dude, I didn't get my math from Richard or anyone else. Richard and I have never discussed the matter here or anywhere else.

No, of course not. It took him a couple of weeks to learn the word "quotient," and a month to get aware of, and misunderstand, limits, about one more week to find more concepts and terms to misunderstand, that he is about to display, but no, he did not consult ... right.

I never said he consulted with Richard, but now that he admits to it, well, if Richard is the best source Mich could have used to get his misinformation ... we should expect another spectacular, and useless, display of mathematical illiteracy. Useless because the first questions by any reader should be to ask Michael to re-post that crap, indicating which terms is he serious about; which ones are traps; which concepts did Michael eisegete to mean whatever he wanted them to mean; which parts is he "assuming" to mean or to have been said by his sources, and which ones he actually read ... even then it will be hard to know if his answers to those questions are, or are not, also loaded with "assumptions" of what others say; lies to trap; eisegetes; et cetera, et cetera ...

January 08, 2013 2:49 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

Are you watching, DuhsonZero?

Pay attention this time.

What's the problem, photoZero?

You all kept reading back to me things I never said, never argued.

All of you are still pretending not to rightly understand Christianity's finite consciousness-infinite consciousness dichotomy so that we might move forward regarding Christianity's epistemology in an orderly, adult-like fashion.

(Are you paying attention, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough? This goes back to what was going on before you showed up.)

So I set a trap for you all. But I didn't move the goal posts. (What an apt metaphor. Thanks, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough.) Nope. Never lied. Never changed nothin', photoNothin', a.k.a., photoZero. You moved 'em for me, imagined things, told yourself things, and DuhsonZero stupidly went right along with ya.

That’s right, photoZero, when talking strictly about the endless process of division by infinity I did write that God, unlike finite consciousness, could bring the matter to its conclusion. And as I said, the matter was accurately expressed in the other instances.

But what’s the “conclusion” of any divisible entity divided by infinity, photoZero? Is it zero, photoZero?

No. It’s not zero, photoZero. There’s no friggin’ zero in the set, photoZero. Division is the process of partitioning a whole, not reducing it. The latter process is subtraction.

PhotoSilly, the conclusion of infinite division is an infinite number of pieces of a whole, not a zero number of pieces of a whole lot of nothing’, photoNothin’. God can divide forever.

Why are you calling me a liar? Why are you blaming me for your stupidity? You imagined that which was never there. You plugged in the wrong quotient, photoZero, not I. You stupidly mistook the zero in the common expression of infinite division to mean “equals zero” instead of “the limit is zero,” not I. I never even mentioned zero, photoZero. You did, photoZero. You imagined things, photoZero. Told yourself things that aren‘t true, photoZero. And now you’re blaming me, due to one poorly written expression that goes against the flow and the logic of everything else I wrote above and below it in which I still did not say anything about zero, photoZero. Recall, you were trying to make me out to be the dufus, dufus, insisting that the quotient was zero, photoZero, that the process of division was not endless as I claimed it to be, photoZero. Of course, you also nonsensically claimed that while the quotient was zero, photoZero, the dividend went on being divided without end.

You told yourself this silly thing, photoSilly. You asserted this silly thing, photoSilly. All I did was put suggestions, “encodings of embodied material particles,” in your brain, photoPlayed-Like-A-Violin. You did the rest to yourself, photoLike-Taking-Candy-From-A-Baby. And I knew you would! Hook. Line. Sinker. Ya made an ass of yourself, didn’t ya, photoCry-Baby? And DuhsonZero stupidly went right along with ya. LOL!

All I kept saying was that the process of dividing any divisible entity by infinity was an endless process, one that could not be brought to its conclusion by finite consciousness. At the same time, here and there, when making the distinction, I emphatically asserted that the process of dividing any divisible entity by infinity was an endless process, and that God could divisionally reduce any divisible entity to nothing.

Psst. All entities from which some amount of them may be subtracted are divisible. Are you saying that’s not true? Did I lie? Indeed, all entities to which some amount may be added to them are divisible. All entities that may be multiplied are divisible.


I didn’t tell you anything that wasn’t true. The DuhsonZero crew of ObjectivismZero, including you, photoZero, imagined the rest, things that aren’t true, things that aren’t there, all by yourselves as you unwittingly exposed precisely why PeikoffDingbat’s argument is utter malarkey.

January 08, 2013 2:53 PM  
Blogger Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...

[Continued . . .]

Of course, you probably still haven’t made that connection yet, photoClueless. I’ll help you with that momentarily, photoDingbat.

How ya likin’ me now? How ya like it when someone screws with your head? Only I didn’t lie, photoLiar. You did. I didn’t imagine things that aren’t true. You did. I didn’t make things up about basic math. You did. I didn’t go on and on about zero being the quotient of infinite division. You did. And I didn’t go on to lie about the fundamentals of functions, trying to save face. You did. I didn’t say that the variables of functions are variables. You did. I stated the matter correctly. I didn’t conflate limit theorems with proofs. You did. I didn’t say that it was a contradiction to note that the limits of functions are defined, yet operationally limitless by definition. You did.

Your entertainment? LOL! No. You have been my entertainment all the while. Played like a violin. The sweet sounds of irony.

END

January 08, 2013 2:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home