katsucats's Profile


Anime Stats
Days: 135.1
Mean Score: 5.53
  • Total Entries493
  • Rewatched2
  • Episodes8,107
Anime History Last Anime Updates
Shokugeki no Souma: Ni no Sara
Shokugeki no Souma: Ni no Sara
Sep 24, 3:29 PM
Completed 13/13 · Scored 6
Tenshi no Tamago
Tenshi no Tamago
Sep 19, 11:50 PM
Plan to Watch · Scored -
Sep 19, 11:49 PM
Watching -/12 · Scored -
Manga Stats
Days: 0.0
Mean Score: 0.00
  • Total Entries0
  • Reread0
  • Chapters0
  • Volumes0
Manga History Last Manga Updates

No updates yet.


All Comments (356) Comments

Would you like to post a comment? Please login or sign up first!
Kasper_ Oct 19, 3:34 AM
How the fuck did a retard like you get into UCLA?

Makes absolutely no sense. This shit is actually triggering me
VagueClarity Sep 3, 11:48 AM
"There is no reason why an omnipotent being would not be able to act in finite time. If it cannot act in finite time, then it cannot act. But if the being transcends time, then any description of its actions in terms of time is moot."
It is true that there is no reason why an omnipotent being would not be able to act within a finite time frame; however, if this being has no will but rather acts according to a set of conditions, then time would have no meaning for its actions if it exists on a higher plane. That is to say, it has no reason to limit its actions to a finite frame of time. Again, it can act within a finite time frame, it is simply that, as time bears no relevance to it, the chances of it acting within a finite time frame are infinitely small. Can't and won't are two different things. A description of its actions in terms of time is only moot if we are trying to predict future actions. If we look at past actions in retrospect, however, we see that this transcendent being acted within a finite time frame, despite the fact that, if it has no will, it would have an infinitely small chance of doing so.

"If (2), then the universe is a set comprising all possible space. Since there cannot be space beyond all possible space, it is meaningless to say that the set, or the universe, could expand."
∞ + 1 = ∞
I think we can agree on that simple statement. What does this mean? Amazingly enough, it means that finite expansion can add onto infinity. It merely serves no purpose, or rather, has no effect. The universe can be expanding while remaining a true mathematical infinite. That's not impossible.

"Your logic is invalid when supposing the infinite plane, but the existence of a plane higher than the third dimension is not predicate for an infinite dimension."
I made that supposition in direct reply to your claim that, if there is a being on a higher plane of existence, if there is a plane above that, it must have been created by a being on that higher plane, as it is not omnipotent and therefore does not wield infinite power. If there is an upper limit to the number of existent dimensions, then there is an absolute omnipotence. If there is not an upper limit to the number of existent dimensions, then there is an absolute omnipotence residing transcendent of an infinite number of dimensions.

"I think therefore I am begs the question of existence. You must exist before you think, so you cannot logically conclude that you exist based on the precondition of existing. This is circular."
Either you think, so you exist, or you do not think, in which case you might exist. Because I know that I think, through thinking, I know that I exist. This is not a circular logic, but rather a set of two mutually inclusive facts.

"That is exactly what you said, and I even directly quoted your original passage."
A quote of "this is impossible" taken from several sentences after the previous quote does not mean that that direct quote is valid. Rather, it just shows how desperate you are to "prove" your point.

"If we are talking about true infinite, then to say that the being created the universe an infinite time ago is to say that the being never created the universe at all, since as you preluded to, the edge of infinite is never reached."
And that doesn't support my point in what way? The universe was not created an infinite amount of time ago, one way or the other.

"I don't see why any higher plane requires a will if entities in the 3D plane cannot have a will. Especially if you accept randomness as a factor in the creation of the universe."
Okay, well, here's the thing. I explained why a being in a higher plane requires a will in my argument, if you actually want to take the time to read it. I also explained why randomness cannot be a factor in the creation of the universe, again in this argument you should really read at some point.

"If, according to your prior paragraph, a sole creator of the universe requires a will, then a being that creates the universe must have a will. And if, as you say now, that a being that created the universe could not be present in the 3D plane, then that is succinctly summed up as "a being that created the universe cannot reside within it". Exactly as you've said it."
You're the one who's changing your argument here, not me.

"Either this sentence shows the result of the previous argument, or it is non sequitur and you have no argument."
The sentence you quoted followed after the previous argument. Because the previous argument showed that the other possibilities were impossible, this possibility was addressed. It does not show the result of the previous argument, nor is it non sequitur. It is related to the previous arguments, and indeed reliant on them, but it does not show their result, because the result was shown before that.

"I would suggest that you consider your blatant equivocation fallacies so you can gain a more exact clarity, rather than be satisfied with a vague clarity and get offended when people put you on more detail."
I must say, I found your attack on my username to be extremely comedic. This name has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument, so thank you for presenting yet another amusing fallacy. I am not offended that you ask for more detail, but rather that you seem convinced that context does not apply to these arguments.

"You admit that infinite(THREE) = infinite(ZERO)."
Could you please show me where I said that? Because I can't find it anywhere.

"It seems like you're trying to fit your argument with some scientific facts to make it seem more convincing, but you failed at doing so."
This sentence shows me the pointlessness in arguing with you. Scientific facts. In other words, sheer idiocy and blatant ignorance.

"But once we realize that your argument does not pertain to scientific facts, it is neither sound nor valid, is it?"
Once you show me a single scientific fact, I'll throw my entire argument away as trash.
VagueClarity Sep 3, 9:00 AM
"An omnipotent being transcends any dimension. If the existence of a being requires the existence of a higher dimension (such that the three dimensional universe requires a fourth dimensional being, and a fourth dimensional entity requires a fifth dimension, and so on), then it is impossible for any being residing in any dimension to be transcendent of the dimensions above him."

What if an omnipotent being resides transcendent of an infinite number of dimensions? Please don't say that there would still be a dimension higher. We could say that if the being transcends the increasing number of dimensions given by any particular number set, but once infinity is reached, it is infinite.

"There is no concept of infinite in nature. You've said yourself that it would take a very long time before the being acts again. If it were infinite time, the being would be incapable of acting again. That is a very good contradiction of omnipotence."

If it were an infinite amount of time before the being would act again, it would be capable of acting again. Just because it doesn't doesn't mean it can't. If it doesn't act with regards to the third dimension within a specific time frame doesn't mean it never acts. It just doesn't act within a specific time frame in the third dimension.

"Also, consider that it didn't create those rules, that it merely acted according to them. Why is that obviously impossible?"

I'm beginning to find this amusing. I specifically speculated that the being was "always" that way, not referring to time but rather to its existence, which we cannot entirely imagine. If it was always that way, surely it is not impossible for it to have always been that way. Thank you for again taking my arguments out of context.

"A being that created the universe does not necessarily grant that it could have created the universe any other way, meaning it does not require infinite amount of change in the 3D plane; nor does infinite power in the 3D plane mean infinite power in the total set of all planes, which is what omnipotence is regarded to mean."

The creation of the universe required an infinite amount of change in the three-dimensional plane, regardless of whether or not the universe was created according to any particular schematic. If a being transcendent of an infinite number of dimensions were to exert power to change the third dimension, it obviously has the capability of exerting power to change any other dimension, because all dimensions are equally far below it, meaning the same infinite, transcendent power could act equally on all dimensions.

"If the universe was truly infinite, then there would be no rate of expansion, since infinite cannot expand"

As I said before, the universe is infinite and never deviates from it, but it can still expand. The expansion would have no effect, because no finite expansion can have any effect on an infinite measure. Once something is infinite, it cannot be effected by any increase, but that is not to say that it cannot, technically, increase. Merely that it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever. It is pointless to say that it is expanding, because it makes no difference, but we can still say it.
VagueClarity Sep 3, 8:41 AM
"I think, therefore I am."

"I can imagine sets of dimensions."

"I can imagine a three-dimensional plane."

"Assuming this body is real, it resides in this three-dimensional plane."

"If this body moves to the edge of the three-dimensional plane, what lies beyond it?"

"Either empty space or matter must lie beyond this 'barrier' that is the edge of the three-dimensional plane. If it is empty space, the three-dimensional plane continues. If it is matter, the three-dimensional plane continues."

"If this body continues further, and reaches another 'edge' of the three-dimensional plane, the previous argument shows that the three-dimensional plane continues."

"No matter how many 'edges' we come across, the three-dimensional plane continues."

"If we come across an infinite number of 'edges', the three-dimensional plane continues beyond an infinite number of these 'edges'."

"If the three-dimensional plane continues beyond an infinite number of 'edges', it must continue for an infinite distance."

"If this body could move infinitely fast, it still would be able to pass through these 'edges'. Beyond any barrier or 'edge', there must lie either nothing or something. Therefore, even at infinite velocity, those 'edges' cannot restrict the three-dimensional plane."

"Since this body moves infinitely fast but does not come to a single, impassable edge, due to the above argument, the universe must also be completely infinite."
VagueClarity Sep 3, 8:29 AM
You are taking those arguments out of their context. If you take anything out of context, you can make it seem like something entirely different.

"In other words, what you said was that an entity would only exist in three dimensions if it was not an omnipotent being."
Again, that is not what I said. I said that if the omnipotent entity that created our universe was a random, will-less entity existing within the three-dimensional universe, it would have acted in its randomness to create the universe an infinite amount of time ago, and likewise, if it was an entity that acted according to a set of pre-set reactions, it would have reacted to create the universe an infinite amount of time ago. Just because that omnipotent entity that created the universe couldn't have been existent solely in the three-dimensional plane as a will-less entity, that does not mean that an omnipotent entity could not exist within the three-dimensional plane. Merely that it could not have been the sole source of the creation of the universe if it lacked a will.

"However, since this thing is already the universe, it must have either been created or been in existence eternally, because once the universe is present, time is also present."
This is true. One of those two options must be the case if the first clause is met.

"Therefore, it could not be a three-dimensional entity."
Again, I did not say that there could not be a three-dimensional, omnipotent entity. Merely that one that acted without a will could not be present in the three-dimensional plane while still having been the force that created the universe.

"Now let's make the assumption that it was created by an omnipotent entity existing beyond the three dimensions."
That is a completely different argument, started after the previous arguments were shown to be impossible.

And I did reread the proof. I know you're taking it out of context, and I would ask that you stop.
VagueClarity Sep 3, 8:20 AM
"Are each of those infinities {1, 2, ..., ∞}? Because then you'd find that infinite(THREE) = infinite(ZERO)."

Didn't I just say that wasn't the case?
"...this set is a set wherein the first part is made up of the sum of all infinite sets, and the following parts are sums of multiple sums of all infinite sets."
VagueClarity Sep 2, 4:34 PM
Also, I can give you an arbitrary definition of infinite(THREE). It'll just be an example, so bear with me.
∞ + (∞+∞) + (∞+∞+∞) + ... + (∞+∞+∞+∞+...+∞)

Basically, what I'm saying is that there are sets wherein the starting point is infinite and it expands infinitely fast into infinity.

You could also say, if you wanted, that this set is a set wherein the first part is made up of the sum of all infinite sets, and the following parts are sums of multiple sums of all infinite sets.
VagueClarity Sep 2, 4:12 PM
I'm not sure where you got those first three points. I didn't say that a being within the universe cannot be omnipotent, nor did I say that an omnipotent being cannot reside within the universe. That makes no sense. I said that if the being resided within the universe and acted according to chance or a set series of reactions, it would necessarily have created the universe an infinite amount of time ago. The first two points don't have anything to do with the third. The being is omnipotent because it initiated an infinite amount of change in the three-dimensional plane, meaning it caused an infinite amount of change, meaning it has the ability to cause an infinite amount of change, meaning it has an infinite amount of power, meaning it is omnipotent.

To answer the second set, yes, it would have the ability to reject a will. However, it cannot reject a will that is not present, so in order to reject it, it must be present. Because of this, no matter how often the will is rejected, random action would cause the will to be recreated. I'm not sure how well I've explained this part, but I also mention it later.

A being with a will would not need to become perfect. Rather, as I defined it, perfection is the point at which no further change is necessary. Being omnipotent, it could very well have no reason to change, so it would be perfect by default. Because it is absolutely excellent in every respect, being perfect, it would necessarily possess absolute excellence. That is not a necessity, but rather a state of being. On to the argument on benevolence. Benevolence being part of perfection is a human idea. However, what is this human idea? If God is perfect, then what is our imagination of perfection based on—rather, if it is not based on God, then what is it based on? God possesses absolute excellence in an infinite number of aspects. This defines perfection. Wouldn't this, then, say that our definition of perfection is based on perfection? Which would itself indicate that this perfection includes the things we hold as perfect, which is absolute excellence, which includes benevolence. Although whether or not it is benevolent does not change the fact that it is God.

"There is questionable benefit to an omnipotent being to develop an ego and seek "perfection" if it is already omnipotent. Nor does benevolence have any meaning since it is the only being (and there is no society)."
Well, isn't that the entire point? If it does not have a will, an "ego," then it would only act in randomness. In randomness, it contains the ability to give itself a will. In randomness, it has the ability to reject a will. However, if that will is not present, what is there to reject? It can reject nothing, but that nothing is nothing. Therefore, it would only reject the will after gaining one. Which means that it is not necessarily benefiting from developing a will, but as it is acting in randomness, it would not act only in ways that benefit itself. Regardless of the initial benefit of it gaining a will, once it has one, a state wherein no change is necessary is the state it will be in. It could remove its will at that point, but would there be a purpose? First, it would be a change, of which none is necessary, and second, removing its will would mean returning to randomness would mean giving itself a will would mean removing its will, and so on. This would not occur on the three-dimensional plane, nor would it be carried out with respect to time, so it would not lack a will.

"The being cannot create those rules."
I didn't say that. Regardless of whether it happened, I said, this being would not be bound by time, and would therefore not act randomly wholly within the scope of time.

"Due to the nature of infinite, none of these beings need to be omnipotent."
It is precisely because of the nature of infinite that "God" must be omnipotent.

"Infinite really means "very long", and a very long time has passed since the start of the universe."
Infinite means infinite. "Very long" is the only way we can conceptualize it, but infinite is infinite, meaning there is no end.

"It might make sense now to introduce the idea that, according to quantum mechanics, it is nonsense to separate space from time, such that thinking about time in the typical sense is invalid without also talking about where."
That is why I mentioned the argument about time not existing before matter or energy existed within the three-dimensional plane. I gave a counterargument to it.

"This is scientifically false. The universe is finite."
Why do people keep using this argument? Science cannot prove anything. There are no scientific facts. Philosophy can prove things. There are philosophical facts. If philosophy can prove that the universe is infinite, scientific indication otherwise only shows that our observations within the realm of science are not adequate for the task of measuring the infinite universe.

"However, we know philosophically that the universe is not expanding."
That is not what I said. I said that we know philosophically that the universe is infinite beyond the scope of expansion. That does not mean it is not expanding, merely that it is infinite regardless of its expansion rate.

"Because P1, we can rule out "infinite(ONE)" and "infinite(TWO)"."
That is not what I said. I said that because movement can occur at any scope, these cannot be the case, because infinite(ONE) would limit finite movement, that is to say movement could not occur on an infinitely small scale, and infinite(TWO) would limit infinite movement, that is to say movement on an infinitely large scale.

After reasoning the existence of another omnipotent being, I did speculate somewhat. However, the primary points remain—there might not be a Heaven, but so what? That doesn't mean there is no God. It doesn't disprove the argument.

As I said, the paradoxes I mentioned are not illogical. There are no lapses in logic. Rather, these things can occur beyond the scope of what our finite conceptualizations can handle.

I would urge you to reread the proof, because it seems there were some points you missed.
teruu Sep 2, 8:06 AM
Where is my H bitch?
MellowJello Aug 19, 1:58 AM
I see what you're implying. Well, at the moment I have no plans of upheaving my lifestyle. Maybe when I'm older and jaded.
MellowJello Aug 17, 2:16 PM
Do tell me what you're idea is. Anywho, people who end up learning all the games either end up dealing tiles, or becoming supervisor. In the unlikely event that happens, I guess supervisor is a nice thing to tack onto a resume.
Cigarette Jul 28, 10:42 AM
Like fishing and going out 24/7 like I used to. (Not that I didn't before) Just this time without less alcohol involved. And parties.

They're good, man. Baby sis is growing up fast, and I think I have a general idea of what I want to do before I get too old. Not that I am old, mind you!

How 'bout you? Things going smooth?
SuperHands Jul 21, 6:54 PM
Congratz. If I'm ever in cali we should link up. Just been here frustratingly stagnant. I think I have bpd. Might do some light traveling around Europe or spend a few months in NZ or Japan 'cos I'm a weeb. That's about it.

What are you studying?
Cigarette Jul 19, 1:33 PM
Not entirely. If you consider not drinking as much an improvement.

Got back into old hobbies as well. I hope you have been faring well yourself.
Autocrat Jul 6, 8:47 AM
Nothing too exciting. Been getting into my exercise more lately, mostly cycling and football. Trying to shift a few pounds before I go on holiday in 5 weeks. Me and my family are going to Portugal, I'm really looking forward to it. Own private villa, private pool... Bliss, ha.

You watched any new anime lately? You know I don't think I've ever talked about anime with you once, which is a bit ironic considering this is an anime listing site lol.