/lit/ - Literature

>prove me wrong

th...that is impossible...you win, you and wittgenstein

Don't you get banned on here any more for 'prove me wrong' bollocks?

Anyway. Yes, he was very clever but ---> /phil/, etc.

>define genius
>implying wittgenstein didnt steal all of his ideas
>he thinks he can prove anything

>>3644178
if he was so smart why did he believe in god?

>>3644187

>>3644182
lold

>>3644186

hrhr what did he steal and who did he steal it from

>>3644191

>>3644246
did they not teach you literacy and writing in school?
that's a shame.

>>3644191
What does the big bang have to do with atheism? One does not necessitate the other.

>>3644269

i think it thinks its trolling, just ignore

>>3644269
Atheists believe in the big bang. Theists believe in god. What do you not understand?

>>3644278
>Can't defend muh absurd belief
>'Ts Trolling Guise

>>3644269
>What does the big bang have to do with atheism?

>>3644316
>dat pic
trumps the ludicrousness of the anthropomorphized gods of religion

>>3644336
lul

>>3644353
nee gij

>>3644178
>language game
>'greatest' suggests an hierarchical binary opposition which favours a type of intellect
>arbitrary
>arbitrary
>arbitrary
>define define define define

we post-structuralism now

>>3644378
le champagne magnificent house face.bitmap

People smarter than this philosopher:
>[insert any nobel prize winning scientist here]

>>3644384
Wittgenstein tells us what 'smart' is.

>>3644393

So does merriam webster, among others.

>>3644384
what a retard

>>3644384
Do you even know what he worked on?
Protip: lot of that nobel prize winning scientists were using it later

Newton single-handedly discovered Calculus. He was 24 years old at the time. Wittgenstein is up there, but nobody has shit on Newton.

>>3644460
Sup.

P.S. Newton is/was an over-hyped retard

>>3644467
Gottfried pls go

>>3644467
Yo, Gottfried, I really liked bohemian rhapsody dawg.

>>3644364
lol'd.
een medevlaming?

>>3644467
Feeling terrible, my wife is studying trains way too close.

>>3644546
Dietsman

Wittgenstein was a genius, and most of the posters deserve this look <---

>>3644599
nobody disputes he was a genius

inb4 you quote someone who does

>being this structuralist

lel

>>3644460

Oh don't mind me, just integratin' shit ~2000 years before that faggot Newton was born.

Arghebaghral

Stop avoiding the obvious answer.

1. Couldn't hold a steady job.

2. Thought solipsism was right

3. Thought the model of formal logic could fit and work in informal reasoning.

He was very mindful and introspective, he made some very strong points, influential even. But the greatest?

>>3644178
The greatest genius ever to have lived in the west.

*Completed for accuracy.

And yes, all you need is to dive into all his writings, specially his very late stuff.

>>3644186
mm well yes, his ideas can be traced back, even outside the west, but that does not prove that he stole them; but that is not the point anyway, cause even if he had, that changes nothing to the fact that he gave them a new and very fertile form. He even admitted this, he said something like "i'm not original when it comes to the seed, but if you put your seed in my soil it will grow in a very unique way".

>>3644203
mainly all the viennese fin de siècle generation that was at its highest point when wittgenstein was growing up.

Leibniz was the best, no doubt about it. However, one colossal mind that is often ignored is that of Parmenides. He derived a profound truth from a rather sophisticated (for the time) semantically based argument, all while sounding cryptic and mysterious.

>>3644178

No.

Make way, untermenschen

>>3644336

That pic is God. Where is your God now.

He's up there, but I think Tesla, Einstein, and Goethe are greater geniuses.

>>3644556
Yeah, thought about that too when i encountered that name in Anna Karenina.

>>3644671
This.

But I would add most of the grandiose-ness about Witt is from clarification, people trying to defend what he really meant. That's not a genius, that's bloke who said some clever things to the right people at the right time.

>>3644817
>>>/theoatmeal/

>>3644833
>picking goethe as your non-scientist genius
>not Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Cervantes, etc.

>ctrl +f "Godel"
>0 results

Much disappointment. Chatted with Einstein in spare time and propounded ideas concerning time travel, as well as revolutionising maths and whose work contributed to computer science, but also which holds implications for philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language. He also put forward a proof of God's existence, but we can't all be perfect (although it's too advanced for me to refute, so call me edgy)

>>3644886

I didn't pick Goethe just to pick a non-scientist genius. Anyway, Goethe was a scientist, among other things. His genius far surpasses those you just listed. Those on your list may have been of greater influence but none had the intellectual capabilities of Goethe. He was influential among scientists, philosophers, poets, novelists, et al. And he is said to have had the largest vocabulary of all time, though there's really no way to verify such a claim.

>>3644178
>Prove me wrong.

You're using a logical fallacy of argument by assertion. Therefore your argument is incorrect. Therefore we have no reason to accept your assertion has any merit until a proof is demonstrated of your claim.

I don't know if he was a genius, but Witty sure is /lit greatest new fad. Also, the greatest geniuses were the guys who invented the alphabet and writing.

These threads are kinda retarded anyway. Nowadays genius boils down to a buzzword, we have no clear way to assess it, and discussions about it generally devolve into a circlejerk about who you admire most and why.

Wittgenstein can deliver the towels.

>>3644904

Goethe, the greatest polymath who ever was.

>>3644931
>Witty sure is /lit greatest new fad
>new fad
He's part of the furniture.

>>3644931
>but Witty sure is /lit greatest new fad

That would be spooks, not ol' Witty.

>>3644886
>goethe as your non-scientist
Just like Witty was a non-engineer?

silly goyim, that's not shakespeare!

bloom.exe

>>3644931
>Witty sure is /lit greatest new fad

The only thing new here is you, good sir.

Has anyone on /lit/ actually read and understood Tractatus?

>>3645015
>analytic penishead still masturbates to an out-dated piece of logical positivism

>>3645015
...Because unless you are really well versed in formal logic and mathematical functions, you aren't going to understand anything.

>>3645047
>loog at me
>i versed in fake languge
>i smart u stupid

>>3645060
>Writing the entire field of mathematics off as a 'fake language'.

>>3645060
Wow. I am genuinely impressed that you managed to switch your computer on today.

>>3645036

>Implying Ludwig Wittgenstein was a logical positivist...

>Implying you even know what logical positivism is.

Most social science and humanities scholars have crazy ideas about logical positivism. They also tend to cite each other instead of actually reading primary literature.

I have been in a cultural anthropology seminar where they acted as if logical positivism was the same as scientific realism.

>>3645067
>he thinks mathematics is a real language
>any language for that matter

>>3645047

You do understand that he didn't solve Russel's Paradox right?

>>3645080

shh i've been laughing at the post for a good ten minutes now.

>>3645060
Its actually readable if you read the preface of the section. It doesnt just drop you in the middle of nowhere.

Of course it takes practice to even see and use the methods described.

>>3645086
>2013
>thinks shallow sophistry is interesting

>>3645083
>Implying Ludwig Wittgenstein was a logical positivist...
yes he was you fucking cock-mongering faggot
the tractatus is a seminal work and was the meridian of logical positivism, but its dead now

>>3645103
>yes he was you fucking cock-mongering faggot
Someone can't into picture theory. He's showing what can't be outright said, and what he shows pretty much fuck logical positivism in the arse.

>>3645111
you mean he stole that shit off of daoism? ok bro if it makes you feel any better

>>3645103

The Tractatus was popular with the Vienna Circle. However, it was not well understood by them. Wittgenstein read poetry at the meetings of the Vienna Circle he attended instead of philosophy.

>Get your history straight before you insult people.

>>3645125
>you mean he stole that shit off of daoism?
Taoism also fucks logical positivism in the arse, but that's just a happy coincidence.

>>3645125

Correlation and causation...

He might be advocating a similar position to what some people think taoism means but you cannot make case that he took his ideas from it.

>>3645007
There has been a surge lately. It's like Nietzsche or Ayn Rand, except we're alaways having a surge about those two.

>>3645168
Camus threads seems to fluctuate a lot. As do existential crisis and objective morality threads.

>>3645098
>think there's a spectrum of deepness
>not realising all languages babbles on the same flatline

>>3645168

I think it has to so with the semester being almost over so people in Phil 102 (or whatever survey course they are in) are now looking at the 20th century. They are probably being exposed to Wittgenstein for the first time.

The beginners mistakes in this thread certainly support this explanation.

>>3645190
Fucking EETS.

>>3645220

Electrical Engineering Technology? I doubt the tech students would take philosophy as one of their humanities electives. There are much easier A's in the history or english department. Science students tend to be uniformly poor at philosophy... same with arts students too

:P

The actual greatest genius to have ever lived...

>>3645234
:P:P:P:P kill yourself

>>3644902
No amount of edginess can refute this

>>3645268

ad hominem in philosophy thread...

Kill yourself (or at least quit philosophy since you are clearly terrible at it).

>>3645273

Kurt Godel starved himself to death and thought that Princeton was controlling his mind...

Wow, you fucking plebs.

The greatest genius human being(homo erectus) ever was probably born in some prehistoric time. But greatest known genius is Lao Tzu, the author of Tao Te Ching.

>>3645305

Care to offer any support to your series of bold claims?

>>3645315
don't engage the easternfags, they're just here to jerk it off to how cool they are

>>3644902
Shitting yourself over the ontological proof of God?

It wasn't Godel's idea exactly, his point was that you could put it in symbolic terms.

Fuck your idolatry

>but also which holds implications for philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language.

Do you have any clue who Wittgenstein is?

And to the thread in general, don't try to quantify intelligence, and don't conflate it with 'I like what this guy says the most'. If you must, intelligence peaks with Schopenhauer.

>>3645354

You mean that _od doesn't exist simply since I cannot imagine anything greater than him?


Also the incompleteness theorems taken together suggest that P may =/= NP. This is trouble for those would try to use mathematics as a tool to bridge the explanatory gap between mind and body. Seems like a huge implication for the phil of mind to me...

I do agree that intelligence is likely unquantifiable... but still you should support the points you make.

feynman
von neumann
newton
galileo
archimedes

>>3645412
pop-sci fag detected

>no einstein
>no rienmann
>etc

Wittgenstein said that he didn't think anyone would truly understand his ideas any time soon, and I think this thread proves he was correct.

I don't personally claim to understand his ideas, but I also haven't studied him. We can't really know if he's the greatest genius ever to have lived until we fully understand the implications of his ideas.

Possible contenders for the title (though I think I'm echoing what's already been said): Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche, Leibniz, Lao Tzu.

>>3644282
YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON.

Reading your post is like being bukkaked with stupid.

The big bang DOESN'T PROVE THERE IS NO GOD. Why in the actual FUCK do people believe this?

I'm wasting my time typing this, but it's simple causality. Everything has a cause. If a blue rabbit appeared out of nowhere you wouldn't say, "Blue rabbits just happen." You'd think something caused it. Even the Greeks didn't say, "Thunder just happened" they ascribed some cause at least to it, like Zeus.

Sit down in the corner and think of this, WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG?

"Science caused it. Atoms caused it." Ok, what caused the atoms? In the history of mankind, there has never been a case where something came out of nothing without a cause.

Kill yourself; improve the world population's IQ.

spinoza, and not just for his ethics

>>3645260
him too. nobody ever talks about him or hegel here i wonder why

>>3645472

All this glorious mad.

>>3645414
>rienmann

riemann's ok but goat

>>3645497
*not goat

>>3645472

i wish you could be my daddy.

>>3645472
Babby's first 'first cause' dilemma

>>3645488
he's right though and I'm not even religious.

>>3645472

>>3645505
neither is feynman

>>3644269
>>3644278
the big bang and atheist are one in the same---they're overwhelmingly filled with shit

>>3644902
The existence of god is more logically sound than the absence

>>3645472

Hey smart guy...what caused god?

This thread is retarded. You people would cuddle anything if you thought it made a part of some intellectual-superior-big-penis-alpha-male-holier-than-thou gang.

Kripkean Dogmatists, you all are.

>>3645668
We make him later. Then we die and he makes us. Then he dies and we make him, etc.

>>3644905

Implying an argument is wrong due to a fallacy is also a fallacy....

Wow to fail.

>>3645668
you're an intelligent fellow or at least I hope you are. But surely you, whose sole belief is something appearing in the nothingness that was without provocation, must appreciate the truth of God always existing.

A growing theory among your atheist is a belief that the universe was always here, and simply restarts itself when its cosmic engine grinds to halt.

another theory is our brane after ten trillion years shrivels due to the activity of dark energy, and once shriveled we're drawn to a more massive brane and the energy from this collision causes another big bang. and according to m theory this has happened and will happen into infinity.

so to say where does your god come from is rather silly coming from an ahteist

>>3644626
Legit decent answer. Dude was out of control, no one approached mathematics like this guy.

Gauss would be up there, his natural cognitive ability was frightening, the shit he could do. Stunning that the human brain can actually evolve in such a way. Speaking of cognitive freaks of nature re: mathematics, Ramanujan. The pure inexplicable intuition he had for mathematics is ridiculous.

Outside math, Leibniz was clearly mad prolific in all fields of intellectual endeavor. Same w/ Leo d.V.

>>3644773
>put your seed in my soil

what a flamer

>>3645688

No, it is not silly to ask you where god comes from.

You argued that everything must have a cause and hinted that god was the cause of the big bang.

I refuted the central premise of your argument.

>How do you not understand this and why do you assume I am an atheist?

>>3645681

The argument is wrong. The conclusions may indeed be right. However, saying "prove me wrong" is bad form.

>>3645725
everything physical has a cause. God is a spirit, as is Jesus, as is the Holy angels, as is Satan and his demons. they're not physical they're spiritual. To explain, in the bible, when it said the spirit of God moved over the waters, the actual hebrew used is wind. God and his spirit in human terms, is not unlike wind; They're there, but unseeable, untouchable.

God being the only being alive, sought to create life, and that he did. But, the scriptures says that God existed from Infinity to Infinity, now what does that mean? Well, it means just that, he was always here.

THEORETICAL scientist are implying the concept of infinity into antiquity even now to bolster the big bang theory.

To them, and us, and eventually to you, the big bang, as is, is pure donkey shit.

to say, where does your god comes from, implies that your belief is solid, which it isn't, and can never be. Science says God isn't real because he can not be replicated or observed, but here's the 800 pound gorilla, and that is, the big bang as is, will never, ever be proven.

>>3645749

Wow. Just wow.

I don't think you have a very good grasp on religion, philosophy, or science.

Science is not monolithic. It is not univocal. However, it is understood that empirical science cannot make claims about the existence of god.

You are dead wrong that "science" only deals with the observable and the repeatable. Please, look up "formal science" on wikipedia. Doing so might spare someone the frustration I experienced after reading your ignorant drivel.

>>3644563
Better than the two faggots who appropriated and twisted his legacy.

Wittgenstein was a pedophile. Just like most theists and atheists.

>>3644886
>>3644904
I thought that was Gauss.
Who's the guy whose brain racists use to try to make Black people brains look like ape brains, even though it make white people's brain look like ape brains too?

>>3645784
atheist are the masters of retcon bundled in near unyielding jargon. And not unlike a turtle pulling its fat head into its pathetic shell while being digested by a shark, whenever something exceeds your intellect you create a discipline that grants your woeful foolishness credence. "formal science"?

So basically you've created a bunch of shit that says you don't have to actually prove the big bang is real, so as long as you don't believe in anything other than events happening without provocation then you're okay. so that's what it's about uh?


as you were anon, as you were.

>>3645784
>Please, look up "formal science" on wikipedia.
>first on the list is Logic
>A branch of science and not philosophy

stopped reading there.
thanks for the laugh though, kiddo

>>3645828
But science is the application of logic to the material.

>>3645839
logic can only be applied when all bits of the material is known. when one knows not how we came to be, how can that one apply logic to what is logically and what isn't. if one doesn't know the facts, at least not all of them, how can that one make a clear decision

>>3645819

What?

The Formal Sciences deal with a priori propositions. Mathematics and logic both deal with subjects that are not knowable through experience. They are not empirical.

The Empirical Sciences deal with a posteriori propositions. This is physics, biology, even sociology

This is not new jargon...its been around since Kant.

I showed your argument of first causes to be internally inconsistent.

I also showed that your ignorance of science to so profound that you are unable to argue about it with any credibility.

Also, for the record. I am a falliblist. I think (following Wittgenstein) that human knowledge is very impoverished. Mind you not just regarding "scientific" knowledge. Religion is even worse at getting at justified, true, belief.

>>3645874

No. Your statement "logic can only be applied when all bits of the material is known" is false. Logic can still be applied successfully without complete causal decomposition.

>I am not sure that you know what logic even is at this point.

>>3645146
I like the story of him patting their shoulders and basically saying, "You'll get it, someday."

>>3645890
can your math that deals with things that are not empirical successfully explain to you how a singularity smaller than a particle yet having more mass than our universe several times over appeared within the nothingness that was without provocation bringing with it space and time finally expanding trillions of times faster than a fraction of second, then slowing down just enough to mix and form more complex bits then speed up again thanks to a new thing called dark energy, continually expanding to our self same day?

you have an equation that explains all of that?

because if not, the math you're chasing is no different than the predictive equations those incorrigible quants used that led to the housing collapse.

post collapse those advanced mathematicians claimed the math wasn't infallible so wasn't their fault.

as you were anon. would have gotten to you sooner but i was watching an emotional scene in Battle for Los Angles.

>>3645901
clearly logic is anything that supports the dogma of atheist. logic apparently doesn't mean anything other that what atheist says it does, so if you say logically God can't exist, and we say because you're not sure of how it all began then you can't say he exist or not, then you'd say that we have no concept of what being logic actually means......

lets cut the bullshit, by this statement

>I am not sure that you know what logic even is at this point.


that there is a logic fallacy. logic isn't you personal pet that dances when you play you favorite tune, the edict of logic is based upon knowing fully what ever matters that holds sway over a situation or state

>>3645937
Yes.
>>3644316
And don't tell me it's all hogwash. The delegation of thought is necessary in any society where the sum of knowledge exceeds what a man can learn in two decades. I leave the ideas of God to the theologists (many of whom, by the way, are paradoxically atheist).

>>3645937

>now he is attacking a priori knowledge

Will you at least grant that 2+2=4 is knowable?

If indeed you are rational and found it to be knowable, how did you know it?

Did you experience it? No you didn't.

Hence, not all science is empirical. You claimed earlier that "science only deals with the observable and the repeatable." I showed this to not be the case.

Furthermore, a priori knowledge (if it exists... some philosophers have argued that it cannot) is how you get your typical proofs of gods existence...cf the ontological argument.

>>3645962
just my luck the r takes a bit more pressure to work. don't want to punch all of my keys with this much force but what the hey.

hizenberg uncertainity matrix can't prove an event that existed before the very laws that dictated hizenberg's uncertainty principle.

>>3645959
Tell me the logic behind God creating the universe.
So far it seems like your deduction goes:
1) all physical things must be created
2) the universe is a physical thing
3) therefore, the universe was created
and
4) all physical things must be created
5) god is not physical
6) therefore, god may not need to have been created
1) and 4) assumptions with no proof, and 6) is a non-sequitor. At best we can say that we do not know whether or not it is necessary for God to have been created for him to exist.
And I still haven't seen any logic supporting the jump in logic that a thing which does not need to have been created is capable in itself of creation.

>>3645959

10/10 had me going for a while

>>3645977
it is true because i know that one plus one plus one plus one is four, or to put it another way, one plus one, is two, plus one and plus another one is four, or put another way, one plus one is two, two plus one is three, three plus one is four, or put another way, one plus one is two, and in my other hand, i add, one plus one is two. bringing my hands together I now have two in one hand that mixes with the two in the other which equals to four. so yes, all things can be known if they've been used and congealed within our minds.

>>3645983
God created the Universe for humanity.
But as you are, you'd look up and say it is impossible that God would create all of that for us, but he did, and then YOU'D ASK WHY, well because he's God, because he can. To you, its a bit much, to him, it's nothing. His power is infinite so creating all of that for us is a small thing.

you're following how my mind works in conceding creationism over atheism, but it doesn't work that way. i'd spend a million comments in an attempt to convince you but it won't work because you've closed your eyes to the truth, because as you are your life makes sense when it doesn't have to answer to other People.

they're not assumptions anon, they are facts. a simple chain of DNA has billions of tifecta tiers that are more complicated than windows 8, and yet, you claim such complexities happened by chance. for your prehistoric goop to create a single protein molecule would take the a small amount of well over a hunded different amino acid molecules that exist, and of that number, it has to be the correct sequence of right and left handed molecules to form a singular protein molecule, and it would take billions upon billions of complexities from a simple protein molecule to form the simplest DNA

But you'd forgo all of these holes in you theories and call out believes in God?

You people...

I've read Tractatus -- and need to restart PI -- how is Ray Monk's book on Wittgenstein?

which book? the biography? It's a great biography. One of the best I've ever read.

obviously not the most advanced statement of Wittgenstein thought's ever...but it's still pretty fluent.

>>3646039
I should've specified his How To Read book; but, comment on the biography is appreciated.

>>3646017
>>3645992

>first argues that a priori knowledge is really a posteriori then says that science/a posteriori knowledge is neither true nor justified....THEN says that God is knowable but not empirically.

Machinitou...wtf...seriously

/lit/ does this namefag always post like this or is he trolling?

>>3645992

Please read these. The idea that mathematics terminates into finger-counting is absurd!

http://www.iep.utm.edu/math-app/#H1
http://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

The worst threads always start with prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong.

>>3646091
i find it fascinating that you're as greedy as you are. It's fascinating that term Lehman isn't one of those disciplines they teach you Leet speakers. or are you intentionally unyielding in your jargon to confuse the minds of the volatile?

>>3646165


mathematics can terminate into finger counting anon. were you one to hold in mind a value, and add that value to a finger, with enough fingers and enough values held in your mind, you can count, add, or devise anything. Interpretation as used by Mathematics is a tool that aides them because they hadn't enough solidified values in mind, nor could they hold it there, nor had they enough fingers on hand to deduce, add, or devise a proper evaluation of the problem before them. so they take shortcuts. it's unbelievably funny that you're of the mind that everyone holds these training wheels dignified as diagnostic tools when interpreting the unknown, as the end all and be all in intuitive mathematics.

>>3646196
>term Lehman
>laymans terms

Is English not your first language?

Furthermore, I thought we were having a philosophical discussion so I used the correct terms. Their meanings are easily arrived at by looking at the context they were used in. However, if you had problems with this you should have googled them at least. A child could understand the a priori/a posteriori distinction.

In plain english:

A priori = knowable through reasoning

A posteriori = knowable through experience


What I think you mean by "science" evaluates a posteriori knowledge claims. All I tried to do was to show that not all sciences are empirical (same meaning as a posteriori). The formal sciences are knowable by reasoning. For some reason you tried to shoot that down. This makes NO sense for you to do.

You should have jumped on the possibility of there being a priori knowledge as a potential way to support the existence of God. He sure isn't empirically observable.

>>3646196
mathematics isn't reducible to finger counting you twit

>>3646237
hey, hey, you're spouting jargon, leet speak and ridiculous equations to explain something so simple the bible does in but a few pages, and you're asking me if English is my fist language.

simplify your gospels and then speak to me of what can be called English and what sounds silly.

>>3646196

There are many excellent arguments against mathematical Platonism. Please read them before trying to argue from what I can only guess is "common sense" to you that equations are empirical knowledge,

>>3646251
computers do it all the time anon, they add, one to another one, to another.

so yes, math can be reduced to finger counting. hold enough values and using enough fingers, it can be.

>>3646237
A priori really just means "self-evident".

A posteriori means there are requisites one must obtain for it something to be evident.

>>3646258
a priori = indifferent to experience; knowable through reasoning alone; follows logically

a posteori = anything else; anything vulnerable to being otherwise

>>3645749
You have to be a troll, no one is this stupid

>>3646270
self evident makes more sense to English speakers than Priori

>>3646262
well, those arguments means nothing because a computer does this all the time. so to say, it is impossible to use finger counting to describe mathematical complexities is deceptive because our computers are doing so even now.

>>3646258

Yes the bible is simple. It was written by simple bronze age people. Its simplicity does not guarantee its truth.

I find it hard to believe someone who seems more or less educated has never encountered the words empirical or a priori before.

I have good reason to question your English skills...coupled with the whole lehman/layman thing.

>>3646278
O you mean no one challenges your foundation that was built upon a seed of an event that cannot be proven, not with all your deductions and whatnot?


>>3646271
so why not say knowable through self evidence

and everything else but what you believe

doesn't the above fit better than priori and posteori

>>3646270
this guy is a huge douche who is probably just now reading kant (and reading supplements at that)

this guy probably also reads about obscure thinkers like deleuze on wikipedia and spouts everything he memorized in conversation. alas, he's never actually read them, worked through their ideas, felt their rhythm and the like; yet he still speaks for them every chance he gets, and so, he always sounds entirely out-of-joint.

heidegger, etc

laffd pretty hard fatboy /10

>>3646284
NO, its facts of the wold being round, and the earth hanging upon nothing, and a perfect description of water evaporating to the heavens to fall again and its description of the water cycle, thousands of years before everyone else, says its real and everything else is so much trolling


You're on about English when you haven't explained how your belief in an unprovable event is real regardless if its proven to be donkey shit.

>>3646295

>Implying working through Deleuze's thought would make one not appear out-of-joint...

>>3646324
that's not what i was implying

i was implying he has a wikipedia understanding of the various people he's talking about (and insists upon talking about at every possible — socially acceptable — moment). a 'recognition' rather than a really, truly felt understanding as such

probably goes to stanford encyclopedia to write his undergrad (grad?) papers. he probably copies down what is said on there in other, more convoluted words.

>>3646298

Friend, I am not a scientific realist. That is a hell of an assumption on your part.

I don't think the Big Bang is anything more than a model. I do however think it is more useful (but still incorrect) than a creator god in explaining the origin of the universe.

>>3646333

I know what you were really saying. Still it is funny trying to picture Deleuzian thought as anything but out-of-joint.

>>3646270
>A priori really just means "self-evident".

Of course, then I'll assume that the Gödel's incompleteness theorems, for example, are "self-evident".

>>3646338
You thinking it is more useful is logic for you, and you alone, or do you deem it logical for all of us?
So am I illogical for not following your model, or am I logical in as much as one who has an alternative and equally believable beginning as you have.

and is it actually logical in the classical sense, or is it simply your truth as an atheist?

no need to answer because all questions are rhetorical

your bang happened in an environment void of space or time, thus, any to repeat it as it happened would call for you to recreate the nothingness that was, and then leave the newly created nothingness for however long for the big bang to appear there in without provocation.

but this model, though incorrect is more plausible than a being made of other stuff than the substance he used in the creation of the universe?

>>3646365
goodness, I must apologize, i'm sleepy and my autist is showing. from here on i'm going to read over my comments before posting them

>>3646351
well. haha, yeah.

Philosophical investigations > tractus

schopenshit is also a overrated dunce (same for nitshit)

>>3645674
>hating on kripke because he doesn't believe your physicalist bullshit

>>3646365

I think that the cosmic background radiation observed in the 1960s is better justification than an internally inconsistent and poorly translated ancient document whose only justification is "Trust me. I'm true."

>>3644191
Science is starting to try prove or prove, that matter can come from nothing. I have no idea how it's possible but apparently that's how they can prove the beginning of existence.

That image is exactly the same as if you were trying to mock a god.

Nothing existed, then somehow a god popped into existence from nothing and started making stuff

>>3646389
i liked thinking of the tlp and the pi in terms of baudrillard's simulacrum (which i was working through independently and concurrently)

i won't go into specifics but we can talk about an easier to understand analogy for anyone who hasn't read baudrillard. think of the map and the territory (the blueprint and the building; to be crass, the virtual and the actual)

the tlp depicts the relationship between reality and language as being isomorphic: that is, they relate to each other in form at the atomic level: they look alike and are structured alike. so the portrait of reality, which is in other words the proposition (language), corresponds directly to reality as being a representation of it, as it is. it ignores the distinction between actual and virtual, to be crass. but i also like to think that this is what wittgenstein shows by the end: the need for this distinction (to be crass).


the pi is an in-depth reflection on this idea, and introduces the importance of cybernetics, thinking machines, desires, and play: in and through the concept of language-games. now 'apple' doesn't correspond directly to the apple i'm holding, but to a series of other words ('orange', 'pear', etc), as being NOT that other fruit (the 'apple' has meaning in and through being 'NOT an orange', 'DIFFERENT FROM a pear', etc).
you don't say an orange a day keeps the doctor away


still, a lot of things are missing from wittgensteinian thought. and something might be an explicit psychoanalytical approach. he doesn't really deal explicitly with desire.

>>3646402
autist away

you can't create matte from nothing. and God always existed. THEORETICAL scientist are gradually beginning to theorize of an infinite universe with an infinite number of bangs.

>>3646397

>Actually it is more like "Trust me. I'm True...or else!"
>Which makes it even more suspect

>>3646425
Would you not think that something even infinite, still needs a beginning, it still needed to come from something?

You're supposed to not be able to create something from nothing, nothing not existing and all but science is starting to show that it somehow is possible.

Something always existing seems like it has to be the only solution, it just doesn't seem that logical and I have no idea how science is starting to believe matter can pop into existence from nothing.

>>3646465
science cannot prove that it is some how possible that something can come from nothing because science can't even say what the nothingness that existed was composed of.


remember, space and time didn't exist, so for your experiment to be sterile, you'll have to remove space and time. saying you created something from nothing in a universe that is flooded with space and time isn't in actually doing anything as it was to have happened.

Science is beginning to realize that things popping into existence without provocation is not only impossible, but it's rather silly.


but it's rather silly that they'd say that they know God doesn't exist, then change their theory into something else other than the big bang. soo all those people who fought vehemently to prove that God is a lie and the big bang is right will be left holding the poo bag

>>3646485
I mostly agree with you. I just wonder how it's possible for God to have always been around?

>>3646485

>People do not do astrophysics because they have a vendetta against Christianity.

>Physics makes no claims about God.

>Why do you think it does?

>>3646499
I think it has something to do with a scripture that says a thousand years to God is yesterday when it has passed. then we read further that God is the alpha and omega. So we know that a very long time to him is no time at all if he's not paying attention to it, and that, his time stretches into the infinite past. so instead of the past being a line with a beginning for God, could it be a whirling table with thousands of diamond faceted like proves that if you were to trace each of the groves it leads to another grove that takes you along the entire area of the seemingly infinite faceted area.


>>3646523
I have read comments made by physicst who sees the universal complexity and lament that it had to have a creator, then i've read comments by atheist who disputes their comments because they're disregarding the big bang.

faith infects everything. so either you're a believer in a bang or a believer in God, but you're a believer non the less.

that's like saying a woman who interviews rapist shouldn't feel revulsion for her quarry.

>>3646541
groves not proves, groves

multi faceted groves

>>3646541

There are other ways to think of God...

To me if one exists it must be in the sublime since its existence cannot be well reasoned or observed.

Also what makes your version of God correct? Why not Spinoza's God or Descartes? Both of their concepts of the divine are hugely at odds with traditional theology. I don't see how Spinoza God is incompatible with the Big Bang (since for him god IS the universe).

>>3644264
are you retarded?

>>3646541
That whirling table of thousand of diamond faceted like groves is still just something that came from something.

>>3646561
there are biblical facts that are not easily explained otherwise

Job 26:7
Isaiah 40:22
Job 26:10
Job 38:8-11

>>3646567
But how would you find where the needle began if as you trace the needle groves all you ever encounter is more and more groves, so you don't find the beginning just more groves until eventually some of the loops happen upon themselves. At which point in this revolving loop would you decree the discovery of the beginning.

>>3646548

This might be a better metaphor than your whirly diamond table for infinity...doesn't look too holy to me though. Sure you haven't been tricked into Satan worship through pondering what infinity means?

>>3646584

So you are saying 4 vague "facts" mean your personal interpretation of the bible is correct? You must realize that MANY people have read the bible and have come up with MANY interpretations as to what it means. Descartes and Spinoza included.

Also, how do these "facts" promote your immaterial god over Spinoza's dual material/immterial version.

Your "facts" have no bearing on the substantive nature of God and his purported incompatibility with their having been a Big Bang.

>>3646586
I like this one for the mathematical and mythological symbolism.

>>3646586
the bible has truths that speaks to the human heart, and those that appeals to our scientific cuiousity. We're not to waste time trying to prove of where God first appeared for we have enough evidence to show that God not only exist, but that we are all involved in a vital issue. earth quakes will increase is a part of the prophecy, and as is, earthquakes are more severe in our day that it has ever been in human recorded memory.
>>3646607
the earth hangs upon nothing is not an interpretation. the scientific mentions in the scriptures are the same over the many dozen translations.

When a biblical writer wrote that the earth is round, and that the earth hangs upon nothing and that the clouds and raid exist only so high and doesn't float off into space and that droplets of water return to the skies to return as rain again. those are not guesses. because if they were, others would have guessed them. even the greeks got the earth hung upon nothing wrong. even the greeks did not know about evaporation or the water cycle. just a few centuries ago people thought the earth was flat

>>3646619

Yup you are a nut. I'm going to stop engaging in discussion at this point.

You should probably get some sleep. I bet you have a busy day planned educating other's of this prophecy, buying new nikes, and solo cups.

Also you are dead wrong about people thinking the earth was flat until a few centuries ago. I know this is "common knowledge" but it is also mistaken knowledge. It was known since Pythagoras that the earth was round.

>>3646637
you can logically say i'm a nut so as long as your belief has a foundation provable in reality, which it doesn't, because it can't be proven. regardless, i'm afraid that some of you will only believe once you've been shown the truth directly from the father of us all.

until laterz, gnite

>>3646652
>http://www.youtube.com/user/Machinitou

>Confirmed as a schizophrenic through youtube comments. Now I understand...

>>3646637
Because you had to talk to you. I give you a gift. Billy Connolly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4SdAVr3uYk

>>3644178
You prove a positive, not a negative.
Doing it wrong.
/thread

>>3646756
>You prove a positive, not a negative.

So, determining a improbability is impossible?

>>3646791
Still doing it wrong.
Less rhetoric if you want to "prove" something.

>>3646798
In other words, because you don't understands how the question points at your erroneous line of thinking, you're justified in dismissing it? That is to say: everything that disagrees with you is just noise.

Can't into the process of elimination?

>>3644178
What is your criterion for determining levels of genius?

>>3644467
>Aristotle

>>3644599
My professor knew Von Neumann.
He considered him to be the smartest person wo ever lived.
True story, I can give details if any anon so wishes.

>>3644939
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

>>3646972
Do tell us, Aristotle.

>>3646973
>The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
>The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

You're, like, ~2450 years late, dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

>>3646987
Dude, my shizo English prof mentioned this in my survey of lit class that I took two years ago.
I ain't even mad.
>pic related

>>3646983
He could out-think computers, for starters.
He would have browsed /lit/

>>3647043
This place is a shit hole, no he would not have browsed here.

>>3646987
I hope you don't think those phrases mean similar things

>>3646987
>time

>>3646987
Nigga that's like the buzzword- or phrase of discussions on Heidegger.

>>3644191
That's a scientistic belief. Atheism = Indifferent to any theisms

>>3647471
>Atheism = Indifferent to any theisms
In the sense of Hume or Bradlaugh, yeah. It's use in the past 100 years or so is different though.

>>3647471
That's apatheism.

>>3644951

wrong


>Benjamin Franklin

>>3647536

ya mums wrong.

>>3647536
Only in America will flying a kite in a lightning storm get you out on a list of geniuses.

>>3647547
Where is Summerfield?

>>3647547
This is a strange list.

>>3647555
Yeah well it's objective

>>3647547
>Miles Davis
hue

>>3647563
0/10

>>3647555
Scaruffi is truth

>>3645800

>I thought that was Gauss.

That's another guy entirely, though he's also a greater genius than Wittgenstein.

>>3647547
The most stupid thing I've seen recently

>>3647573
It's important to take pride in your appearance, maybe you should look in the mirror more often.

>>3647565
I am very impressed that he did not include himself in his list.

>>3647539

thats folklore. look into his real accomplishments

>>3647587
He hasn't achieved as much as Kim Jong Il did.
Unless having a propaganda machine with slightly more realistic expectations is an achievement.

>>3647590

He founded Penn and the American Philosophical Society. What University do you go to?

>>3647547
>Kafka is number two

>>3647547
But where's Kanye?

>>3647592
Well, in the country I founded they all believe I actually invented the concept of University. It's in their interest to believe it.

>>3647575
>It's important to take pride in your appearance
Thanks, I didn't know that

>>3647575

And I wondered why rolling in animal excrement resulted in no one talking to me.

>>3647601
>>3647642
WHOOSH