Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED - William-Lane Craig
77
INTRODUCTION
I received a request from someone challenging me to debunk William-Lane Craig’s version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. I couldn’t care less for creationist arguments since they all die at the moment of their inception – i.e. the conceptual level. But I will do a very thorough analysis so that everyone understands just how ridiculous all Creationist arguments and theories are, whether peddled by Traditional Priests, or by Contemporary Priests like Lemaitre, Hawking, Penrose, Krauss, et all.
This article will clearly demonstrate in no ambiguous terms, the reasons why GOD DOESN’T EXIST; in the form of a detailed analysis accompanied by rational explanations. It’s important to realize that the objective here is NOT to “prove” or give “evidence” for why God doesn’t exist. Such endeavours are irrational and instantly debunked because they are based on emotions and opinions. So if you are looking for such nonsense, I suggest you join an Atheist Club.
This article will use the Scientific Method to analyze and rationally explain why Creation from God is impossible. In particular, it will explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to have existed before, during, and after the supposed event of Creation, and hence conclude that God (The Creator) does not exist.
This article is not meant to convert theists from their BELIEF that God exists, just as it’s not meant to convert atheists from their BELIEF that God doesn’t exist. But if both groups are particularly sensitive to this issue, I will warn them in advance to skip this article altogether. It is not my intention to rock the foundation of people’s faith, especially the faith of theists, atheists, and agnostics alike.
WHAT IS A RATIONAL ARGUMENT?
When it comes to creation, or any argument claiming to apply to REALITY, it had better be a rational one without any ontological contradictions. An argument that is objective and rational has NO provision for knowledge, wisdom, truth, lies, proof, absolutes, right/wrong, correct/incorrect, faith, belief, experiment, observations, evidence, testimony, credentials, authority, etc....as these are all OPINIONS whose resolution is dependent upon the subjective interpretations of an observer. Any statement, argument, or Theory about reality is either rational or irrational. It is either objective or it isn’t. It either has contradictions or it doesn’t. It either makes sense or it doesn’t. It can either be understood or it can’t. That is the only reliable basis by which we can possibly judge the multitude of claims made by the opportunistic and self-serving human species.
If such arguments:
- Use ambiguous, undefined, or misunderstood KEY terms.
- Reify concepts into objects.
- Propose objects with dualities (i.e. something is both an object AND a concept).
- Perform VERBS on concepts, rather than on real objects.
- Use concepts that perform VERBS.
- Rely on surrealistic or supernatural mediators for descriptions and explanations.
- Cannot be conceptualized and visualized as a movie on the big screen.
- Cannot be understood by the audience because they violate logic, grammar, reason.
- Embody ontological contradictions.
....then such arguments are IRRATIONAL, they are not objective, and they certainly cannot be understood by anyone, not even their author. They have no purpose other than to use deception to sway mindless followers in their favour.
I promise that I will be as objective as possible in my analysis of Craig’s argument. In fact, I will be so objective and analytical, that you will hate me!
THE LEIBNIZIAN COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was searching for some type of explanation for existence. He wanted to explain why anything exists at all. What was this “anything” that Leibniz was referring to? Well, according to William-Lane Craig, it was ‘the’ Universe. Craig agrees with Leibniz that God was that reasonable explanation for the existence of ‘the’ Universe. But merely asserting that God is THE explanation doesn’t make it so. An explanation must present all the ontological details demonstrating how it is possible for a being such as God, to move and “create” out of nothing, or out of Himself.
It should also be noted that Craig is an avid supporter of mainstream science and Big Bang Cosmology, as he authoritatively references them in his arguments. He claims that the Big Bang supports the “theistic” position of God’s first-cause creation, rather than the “atheistic” position of acausal creation. After I analyze Craig’s argument, I will proceed to explain why both the “theistic” and “atheistic” positions of CREATION are not only irrational, but are also the hallmark of lunacy!
William-Lane Craig has reformulated Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument in the following manner:
P1: Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
P3: The universe exists
P4: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
P5: Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4)*
*From William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (3rd ed.), 106.
In 1979 Craig published the Kalam Cosmlogical Argument (below), which is considered by theologians all over the world as one of, if not, the BEST Cosmological Argument. In fact, Craig has boasted that nobody has been able to refute his argument from the countless debates he has had over the years. But what Craig doesn’t boast about, is that he always turns down MY requests for a debate!
P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P(2): The universe began to exist.
P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Kalam and Leibnizian arguments are similar in that they make the same irrational claim: objects BEGIN to exist, and in particular....the word “Universe” refers to an object that began to exist.
Why did Craig reformulate Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument? He wanted to formulate it into a logically sound and airtight deductive argument, where each premise logically follows from the previous one. He is delusional if he thinks that any logical argument, whether it is sound, valid, airtight or otherwise; somehow applies to nature’s reality. But what Craig hasn’t learned all those years as a Scholar, Logician, and Philosopher, is that logical arguments have nothing to do with nature’s reality. Nothing!!
Here is Craig himself boasting that his Leibnizian argument is so airtight, that it is unavoidable and MUST be accepted:
“Now this is a logically AIRTIGHT argument. That is to say, if the 3 premises are true, then the conclusion is UNAVOIDABLE. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if you have other objections to God’s existence. So long as you grant the premises, you HAVE TO ACCEPT the conclusion.” -- William-Lane Craig
You can view his presentation here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36cKSRVojRE
Well Dr. Craig.....here is another example of a logically airtight deductive argument that you HAVE TO ACCEPT, even if you don’t like the conclusion:
P1: The human body is made up of cells.
P2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
C: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.
P1 is true, and P2 is true.
Does the conclusion make sense even though this is a scholarly argument that is logically “airtight” according to Dr. Craig? YEAH RIGHT!!
In fact, almost ALL, if not all, logical arguments, no matter how logically airtight and logically unavoidable they are claimed to be,....have inherent fallacies built into them. These fallacies are “unavoidable” due to the artificial nature of logic, especially when rigging-up premises in order to obtain your desired conclusion. My argument above, and Craig’s cosmological arguments are no exception. Can you spot the fallacies in both? Keep reading and you’ll see how I expose the major fallacies and ontological contradictions built into Craig’s cosmological arguments.
REMEMBER: Nature is not based on systems of logic. Nature is NOT asserted axiomatically. Nature never went to school, never managed to acquire a Ph.D, and couldn’t care less about the petty logical, philosophical, religious, and mathematical arguments that humans prove to each other. Nature’s job is to perpetually move atoms from one location to another. As such, we can only rationally EXPLAIN nature’s events, and NOT inject our OPINIONS and EMOTIONS into nature.
As humans, we can only conceptualize nature’s reality. Then we must use language to exemplify reality into an objective, unambiguous, contradiction-free, and rational discourse that we can comprehend. If we cannot objectively comprehend Craig’s argument, or if it is based on contradictions, then it has nothing to do with reality.
As we unravel Craig’s argument, you will be SHOCKED to discover his irrationality in the most basic fundamental areas of Physics 101, especially the Scientific Method. You will be SHOCKED to discover that he doesn’t even understand that ‘cause’ is a verb, and that an object (wrapped by space) is necessary to mediate a causal action upon another object. You will be SHOCKED to discover that Craig is peddling irrational arguments which even “he” doesn’t understand. So how can YOU possibly understand them?
So let’s analyze Craig’s Leibnizian argument line-by-line, and as you shall see, we will refute not only the Leibnizian, the Kalam, and all cosmological arguments, ....but we will summarily refute ALL Creation arguments, including the Big Bang theory, in one fell swoop! Sounds too good to be “true”? Just keep reading....
DEFINITIONS:
We first start by defining the key terms which exemplify nature’s reality. We understand that nature is composed of objects (matter) and space (nothing). Without objects and their background of space, we can’t even begin to talk about reality. But ever since humans came on board and started communicating with formal language, they have also conceived of and expressed their concepts as “noun terms” in ordinary speech. Since we are trying to analyze Craig’s argument as objectively as possible, Craig will appreciate that we will avoid ordinary speech and focus instead on unambiguous scientific language. The following are unambiguous definitions for the key terms that will be referenced in this analysis.
Object: That which has shape.
Concept: A “relation” between objects (that which doesn't have shape).
Space: The static distance between objects (that which doesn't have shape; synonym: nothing, void, vacuum).
Universe: A concept that relates objects (matter i.e. atoms) and space (nothing).
Location: The set of static distances to all other objects.
Exist: Physical presence (referring to an object that has location; synonym: real).
Theologians, Philosophers, Logicians, and Mathematicians are always under the impression that they have communicated their ideas effectively when in fact nothing of the sort has occurred. The presenter cannot have any idea of what he is talking about if he takes the KEY terms of his argument for granted. When he extrapolates the definitions of ordinary speech into a context, which he claims, applies to reality, he doesn’t even realize that a rigorous definition of the same key terms destroys his entire argument. Those who peddle such petty logical arguments have no idea what their terms mean, or how they apply to reality, or how important they are for an objective and rational discourse.
The reason why ordinary speech pervades all logical arguments, is because these people depend on poetry, euphemisms, metaphors, colloquialisms, emotion,....along with the deliberately-injected confusion of multiple ambiguous definitions. And all for the purposes of peddling their logical wares and proving everything under the Sun. But I will NOT let them get away with murder.....that I promise you! I am setting a criterion of utmost objectivity so that all of us can understand what we are talking about when we use such key terms as: ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘space’.
Nonetheless, if the reader feels that the definitions of these key terms are too rigorous for their tastes, the onus is on them to provide their own unambiguous definitions that can be used consistently within their argument. In that case it would be extremely easy to identify any inconsistencies or contradictions associated with my terms above. A definition doesn't just become ambiguous or inconsistent because you or I say so. If it can be used in more than ONE context, it is ambiguous no matter what I or anyone else claims. If a term is ambiguous, inconsistent, irrational or contradictory, then it has no use in a rational argument, especially one that exemplifies nature’s reality.
WHAT IS GOD?
God is a Hypothesis: Let us “assume” God exists.
Without exception, this is what all theologians assume whenever they reference the word God. God cannot be proven to exist as it is impossible to prove that anything exists, like your right arm for instance, much less an assumed object, like God.
Since Craig makes vacuous reference to the word ‘God’, we must first unambiguously resolve whether God is an object or a concept. The big 3 Monotheistic Religions purport an ETERNAL anthropomorphic intelligent BEING which they have named God. God is assumed to be “The Creator” in an ontological situation where there was NO space, atoms or time before His Creation.
Since God is a ‘being’, He must necessarily have some type of structure. Without a doubt, He has the intrinsic property of ‘shape’ to give him,.....what else.....but FORM! Without form, God cannot possibly exist, as existence without form is impossible in ANY context. Why? Because He would otherwise be inseparable from the background that surrounds Him. He would blend and become continuous with, and actually “be” the background!
Regardless, God is often illustrated (see attached image) to have ‘shape’, so we will assume that for the purposes of Craig’s argument, that the above image is a “reasonable” illustration of God. So God is clearly an object, but this does not imply that God is visible. God can most certainly be invisible and extremely elusive, like the many real existing things in nature which are invisible and elusive to us. The issue here is: Can we conceive whether God is an anthropomorphic being, a rock, a cube, liquid, gas, etc. We can certainly conceive how an invisible atom looks like, right? So there is no reason whatsoever not to conceive of a reasonable depiction of God. Accuracy is irrelevant for our purposes, as God can be female for all we care.
The bottom line is that most theologians will tell you that God IS an anthropomorphic being; and that we are made in His image i.e. form. No complaints there.
Yet many others prefer to hide and protect their God in a veil of mystery, and thus will claim that God is one of the following concepts: spirit, infinite entity, transcendent being, dimensionless being, transcendent mind, incorporeal mind, intelligence, absolute truth, love, energy, force, force-field, quantum particle, space-time, etc. God CANNOT ontologically be ‘a’ concept. All concepts are artificial as they were conceived by man, and they do not exist in nature. No matter how hard He and His followers try.....God cannot elude being an entity with form i.e. an OBJECT!
For those who disagree that God is an ‘object’, then by necessity they concede that God is either ‘space’ or a ‘concept’ (both nothing), and doesn’t exist. Otherwise the onus is on them to rationally explain their position or provide a positively-predicated definition for God. And I am all ears if they wish to go this route.
Since we are able to point to, and conceptualize the God object (a necessary requirement for all objects), then we have reasonably enunciated Craig’s Hypothesis. This is effectively what Craig “assumes” or “hypothesizes” whenever he uses the word ‘God’. Note that the specific details and attributes of God are of no significance for the purposes of this presentation. The issue at hand is whether God is an object or a concept. And God MUST be an object for the purposes of Craig’s argument otherwise it he has no argument. So I am being very generous by elucidating Craig’s God Hypothesis, and avoiding, what could have been an instant self-refutation for Craig’s argument.
ANALYSIS of P1:
In reference to “Anything that exists”, we must understand that only real objects which have the intrinsic property of ‘shape’, and the extrinsic property of ‘location’, can be said to ‘exist’. This is what gives them ‘form’ and ‘presence’ to perform causal actions in nature. There is nothing else in nature which can be said to ‘exist’. Those who disagree, should be able to conceptualize and demonstrate just one example of something which doesn’t have shape and location, but can rationally be said to exist.
Now this doesn’t mean that objects invisible to the human eye cannot exist. Air atoms exist and are invisible, even though they have shape and location, which allows the aggregated SURFACE of the atoms to come in contact with a tree and push it to the ground during a hurricane. Similarly, nature is composed of many invisible objects which are the mediators of phenomena such as: light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.
So clearly, existence has no dependency on what we can see or touch. Existence is observer-independent. Either something exists or it doesn’t, all on its own, and pursuant to the definition of ‘exist’; irrespective of what anybody claims. This is a black or white issue. There is no grey area, no probabilities, no experiments, no evidence, and no axiomatic systems of logic when it comes to the reality of nature. Existence is not a predicate, and not a property of real objects, as real objects already exist. The only intrinsic observer-independent property that objects have all on their own, is ‘shape’ – nothing else.
In reference to “has an explanation for its existence”, it is irrational to claim that an object, any object, has an explanation for its existence. Existence and objects have nothing to do with explanations. We point to objects and name them. We formulate explanations of consummated events by using the objects as ACTORS in the explanation. Craig is definitely not a Scientist! He confuses a Hypothesis (assumption) with a Theory (explanation). Existence can never be a “Theory” in the Scientific Method; it can only be an assumption in the “Hypothesis” stage.
Existence can only be conceptualized by us humans; it can never be explained nor proven by any mechanism. It is IMPOSSIBE to prove that an object exists, as any such attempt will lead to observer-dependent subjectivity, absurdities, and contradictions. This is why existence can only be DEFINED, and NEVER PROVEN – because it is observer-independent!
If we can conceive of objects and illustrate them, then they certainly “can” exist in nature; as long as they are not embodied with ontological contradictions. Such hypothetical objects, like God for instance, will comprise the assumptions of the Hypothesis stage. Then the Theory will use these objects to rationally explain the claim of Creation, or Noah’s Flood, for example.
In reference to “either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause”, it is irrational to claim that existence is “caused”, externally or otherwise. Objects exist by the very nature of their atoms. Existence, and in particular, atoms, have no beginning and no end. Existence cannot be caused. Those who disagree are welcome to explain their grievances.
There is no such thing as ‘a’ CAUSE. Cause is a verb, it necessarily alludes to the motion of an already existing object. Cause is what ‘something’ does, not what something is. All verbs (creation, motion, cause, action) are predicated upon the existence of objects in space.
In order to CAUSE an event, there must necessarily be a real object which “mediates” causal action upon another real object. There are NO object-independent or even space-independent causal actions. Only real objects in space can possibly perform/mediate their causal actions upon other real objects by way of physical surface-to-surface contact. Without physical contact, it is impossible to mediate causes.
Craig is irrationally reifying the word “cause” from a concept (verb) into a object (noun) by referencing it as: ‘an’ external cause, all on its own....like ‘an’ apple. Concepts like “love” don’t move mountains or mediate actions, only objects like “bulldozers” can move mountains. He is introducing surrealism by treating “cause” as an independent thing/object which runs around the Universe performing events.
So clearly, in the present context of “external cause”, it is only possible for an object acting as a mediator, to physically ASSEMBLE a new object from other pre-existing objects (matter). Absolutely ALL verbs (causes/actions) require a physical object to mediate their action. This means that existence is a definite necessity and it precedes any cause/action.
It is impossible to realize any scenario where an object A, imparts causal action upon another object B, without at least 2 real objects, A and B, existing. Such notions are ontological impossibilities.
This means that in order for God to be able to perform an external causal activity, one or more objects MUST be present in addition to God. God cannot perform motion (cause) on nothing. The only option available to God is that He performs causal action on Himself! We will discuss this option below.
First and foremost, creation is a metaphysical contradiction. It defies rational thought. It's not a matter of "knowing" or “proving”. It is a matter of conceptualizing a rational mechanism by which an ontological scenario of no space and no matter, gives rise to space and matter. But since creation means “something from nothing” or a Universe from nothing, then it is an ontological contradiction as well, and as we shall see, it’s impossible.
But if creation means “something from God”, where God performs causal actions on Himself, then clearly, God MUST be an object from which all the matter (atoms) in nature came from – no exceptions! Let’s assume that God sacrificed a portion of his matter in order disperse it in nature. But BEFORE God can perform such a generous loving action, He MUST first meet one crucial criterion: GOD MUST HAVE SHAPE!
It’s irrelevant how powerful or invisible God is. If God is an object that moves (to perform causal actions), God cannot elude being surrounded by space. It is space that ultimately encloses God “the object”, grants Him form, and allows His structural being the freedom to move and perform actions. If God is an object residing outside of space, what medium does Craig propose that God moves through? What medium is it that contours and gives shape to God during those crucial moments when He has yet to create space and matter?
The medium can either be matter or space (nothing); there is no other option. If the medium is matter (any type of substance), then God would forever be frozen in a solid block of matter without the ability to move, or even think, as no displacement of matter is possible without space. If God wants to move, then space is the ONLY option which He can be surrounded with. Otherwise God is permanently immobilized.
Since space must necessarily enclose and contour God, this makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The God Hypothesis assumes God to be eternal, but space is already OMNIPRESENT AND ETERNAL! There is no other way about it. Space is there without God, but God can’t exist without space. Had it been possible for God to even attempt to escape this eternal omnipresent prison we call space, He would have lost His most precious superpower: FORM; and be reduced to nothing.
God can be as all-powerful as He wants, but since space doesn’t have a border, even He cannot cross that which has no boundaries. It is absurd to propose that God is outside of space (transcends it), looking in at space AND matter from a bird’s-eye perspective. Therefore, God cannot do without the background of space that grants Him form & being.
Q: For what would God be otherwise?
A: Nothing!
The theist can kick and scream all he wants that: “You can’t see, touch, hear, smell, or taste God. We can never know His greatness. God is something that goes beyond what you see and what you realize by physical observations.”
But that’s NOT the issue. God can be as invisible and as elusive as He wants to be. Whether we are “blind” to His greatness is irrelevant! Since God is said to be SOMETHING rather than NOTHING, He is necessarily some type of entity with structure and shape that are irrelevant to our knowledge or understanding. Hence He has ‘form’ & ‘being’ all on His own, just as all entities do, otherwise He wouldn’t exist.
Since space is eternal and omnipresent, and God cannot exist without space contouring Him, it rationally follows that God did NOT create space!!!!!
So God is NOT all powerful as He is so blindly asserted by theologians and theists! Since Craig maintains that God “created” space, then this is clearly an ontological contradiction. Space is IMPOSSIBLE to create as it is omnipresent and necessarily wraps all objects. God MUST be IN space in order to move and perform causal actions, like “create”. God’s omnipotentcy is irrelevant....this particular magic trick He CANNOT do.....NO WAY!
Even still....how does one create ‘nothing’? What is it that they are going to create anyway? Space was already there! Neither God, nor a singularity, nor a primeval atom, can create that which is necessary to give them form and the ability to move.
Ontologically speaking, there are TONS of things which God cannot do, some of them are:
- God cannot make something be itself and NOT itself, at the same time, or even conceive of such a scenario.
- God cannot conceive of a square circle, let alone make one.
- God cannot conceive of parallel-intersecting objects, let alone make one.
- God cannot create something that has form and doesn’t have form, or even conceive of such a scenario.
- God cannot make discrete “causes” that perform actions. All causes are mediated by objects wrapped by space (verbs cannot “perform” events on their own, only objects can).
- God cannot perform causes, or even move and think, without the omnipresent background of space surrounding His being.
- God cannot, have shape and yet be shapeless at the same time.
- God cannot be an object and a concept.
- God cannot alter the speed of light.
- God cannot create time. Just like us, He can only “conceive” it.
So “omnipotence”, “transcendence”, and “eternal being” are clearly impossible for the God Hypothesis.
It is painfully obvious that the more we critically analyze God and His alleged creation, the more of His superpowers God loses. God is clearly humbled by space’s obsessive persistence to “omnipotently” wrap “omnipresent” nothingness around ALL objects, including Himself. Space has no border, no beginning and no end. So space forbids any object, including God, to transcend it. God cannot plead or bargain with that which is nothing (space). Omnipresent space couldn’t care less for authorities, idols, status symbols, or anything else that humans can conceive of.
And now that we have rationally explained WHY God cannot “transcend” space AND “create” space at the same time, since space preceded God, the natural question arises: WHO or WHAT CREATED GOD?
If there is a God, then God was definitely created “within” space. This means that matter necessarily preceded God. It had to, because space forbids God to be a ‘creator’. So if God is said to exist, then it follows that God was naturally ASSEMBLED by matter and not created from nothing. This means that matter is indeed eternal......and as for God.....He would just be a simple being, either like us, or some other life form. But God’s ontology is irrelevant. The key issue is that God would not be an eternal being, nor a Creator. God would be no different (purpose-wise) than any other living creature in the Universe.
Therefore these contradictions show the God Hypothesis to be INVALID in accordance with the Scientific Method. The God Hypothesis is invalid not because I say so. It is invalid because it is impossible for God to precede omnipresent space, which must necessarily contour Him. Consequently, God is not eternal, and the only way He could exist, is if He was naturally assembled from eternal matter. These ontological contradictions cannot be avoided in any conceivable creation context. This exact same argument summarily debunks the singularity, primeval atom, infinite mass point, etc. purported by its religious followers who BELIEVE that it gave “birth” to the Big Bang.
If Craig wants to salvage his God, then he needs to propose another God Hypothesis where God is not an “eternal creator” if He is to be an intelligent being like us. Then God would still have the freedom to write Bibles and pass them on to us. Otherwise, the moment God is conceptualized to be an eternal being; He instantly gets reduced to nothing more than an irrelevant being. I have rationally explained why an Eternal Creator is an ontological contradiction and therefore IMPOSSIBLE.
Therefore: P1 = FAIL
Remember: There are no ontological contradictions in nature’s reality. There can be no "new objects" that can be created from nothing, or from an assumed eternal Creator. And no objects can be annihilated into nothing. All objects are necessarily wrapped by the background of space before they can exist. An object cannot "begin to exist". Such notions are completely IMPOSSIBLE, as we have demonstrated above.
But Craig finds this notion absurd, and surely will PROTEST:
“....have I always existed? That is so absurd, to think that I never began to exist, even though the material stuff out of which I am made, existed before me....it’s just irrational....” -- William-Lane Craig
His comments can be viewed here at the 2:00 min mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeD_6Gq63Tk
Either Craig is not cut out to be a critical thinker, or he is equivocating by using the term ‘exist’ ambiguously in order to intentionally mislead us. He is misrepresenting the term ‘life’ with the term ‘exist’. We can say that Craig’s LIFE began at conception and ended at death, but the atoms that make up his body are eternally existent. Atoms cannot be created or destroyed. New objects can only be “assembled” from eternal atoms. The word “creation” implies “from nothing”. As far as nature is concerned, objects only ‘exist’ in PRESENT MODE. Nature is static and stateless – it has no memory. Nature does not know of any objects that ‘existed’ in the past or that ‘will exist’ in the future.
The Greeks had already reasoned and understood that existence does not have a beginning or an end. Parmenides said: “there can be no such things as coming-into-being, passing-out-of-being or not-being”. Aristotle was the first to document an argument for the reasons why matter and space are eternal.
So under Craig’s context, at which point did Craig “begin” to exist? As an egg; at conception; as an embryo, etc? None! We can define ‘life’ as beginning at any such point. But the matter we are made from is eternally existent in present mode. The carpenter did not "create" the table; he just moved wood atoms around to “assemble” a continuous solid block of matter (object). Did the table “begin” to exist? No! The best we can do is establish a point where the table’s “assembly” began.
Religion has brainwashed humanity with the ILLUSION OF SEPARATION. Religion has forced upon humanity its doctrine of Discrete Objects and Discrete Concepts. It is irrational to think of reality as DISCRETE under any context. Reality can only be described as a ‘unity’ rather than a ‘multiplicity’. Reality can only be described as a “seamless continuum” rather than a subjectively sliced domain of sub-domains.
The boundaries that humans subconsciously project onto reality are NOT really there. Separation is ultimately an illusion. Reality is rationally described as an uninterrupted process which has NO beginning or end. No matter where we decide to draw the line for a beginning, it will always be an arbitrary decision on our part. Humans are in the habit of projecting their own subjective mental construct of consciousness onto their proceedings. In reality there is only a continuum of “causal actions” and “change effects”. The effects are not separated from their causes, and the causes are not separated from their effects. An object, like a human, never comes INTO existence, except as an illusion to an observer. Nothing in the Universe has a beginning or an end. The causal processes imparted on any specific object CANNOT be separated from the totality of continuous causal processes in the Universe. It’s only observers who conceptualize and incessantly slice up the continuum of reality into discrete objects and concepts. It takes an observer to decide where one event ends and another begins. The way in which humans subjectively delineate reality into discrete entities, is similar to how they delineate the Earth’s surface into lines of longitude and latitude, or even into boundaries between nations and states. Such notions are not part of reality, existence, or the Universe!
It is very useful for humans to slice up reality into discrete notions and use them in appropriate contexts within society. But we must not forget that the independentness of these supposed ‘discrete’ notions is only an ILLUSION projected by our own conceptions of these issues. But alas, people like Craig do forget, and end up making fools of themselves in public when they dogmatically assert that “objects begin to exist”. The boundaries and contracts we subjectively perceive in reality are “appearances” only! They are notions which are conceived by an observer with a particular kind of perspective. In Craig’s case, it would be the perspective of his Religion and agenda. Outside of this observer-dependent perspective, Mother Nature couldn’t care less – reality is always observer-independent!
The way in which humans carve up reality into beginnings and endings is so subjective and arbitrary, that we could have easily chosen to slice it up in a different manner altogether. But for the most part, we have chosen to slice up reality in a manner that is more natural and practical for cohabitating in societies where we have common goals and values. And this in turn directly affects the kind of reality that we “perceive”; unless of course, you are able to understand that the basis of these perceptions have no direct bearing on reality.
The important issue to understand here is:
Only concepts, like motion (verb) can have a BEGINNING (verb) or an ENDING (verb). Exist is not a verb, as it implies no motion/action. Exist is an “ADJECTIVE”, and in reality it describes that which is objectified by its static presence i.e. physically real. Exist does not predicate motion (causal action). Exist is STATIC and NOT dynamic!
So then how is it possible for Craig’s God to “cause” objects to exist? I will be happy to entertain ANY rational explanation on this issue. See First Cause Argument REFUTED for further details.
Craig gets an “F” in grammar. He doesn’t understand the grammatical scope, usage, and meaning of word ‘exist’. In particular, he doesn’t understand the difference between static concepts (object, exist), and dynamic concepts (causality, action, motion).
You can say: “the marathon began”, “the service began”, “his work began”....
But you cannot say: “the car began”, “his body began”, “the tree began”....
Sorry Dr. Craig, you really need to get an education not only in Philosophy, Logic, and Physics,.....but also in GRAMMAR!
Dr. Craig is not qualified to lecture or educate anybody on issues of ontology/existence, much less have an opinion on them.
It is painfully clear, that “knowledge”, “proof”, “evidence”, or “authority” (whether decorated by Ph.D’s or Nobel’s), has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of “creation”. The issue of creation is easily resolved and debunked at the conceptual level....no matter what the context!
Can you explain how something can be created from complete nothingness? Better still, please explain WHAT complete nothingness IS, if it is not space.
Nothingness cannot surreptitiously acquire Length, Width, and Height and form an atom. Atoms are eternal, they were neither created, nor can they be destroyed.
ANALYSIS of P2:
In reference to “the universe has an explanation for its existence”, the word “Universe” refers to a CONCEPT, not an object!!
Concepts do not exist, and the only explanation they have is that they are artificially conceived by humans. We “conceive” the relation between space and matter, where matter has shape and location. This relation is what we call “UNIVERSE” – a concept! When using scientific language, there is no ‘the’ before this term, as it is not an object (noun) for the purposes of Physics. Anyone who says “the Universe”, is only treating it as a noun for the purposes of ordinary speech, and not scientific language. So it is irrational to treat the Universe as an object, or to perform actions on it like, “create” it or “move” it or “transcend” it.
Craig is using sleight-of-hand here to reify the concept “Universe” into the object he calls “the Universe”. Then he covertly performs the action of “create” to make this supposed object pop into existence (ie. “begin to exist” in his Kalam argument). This is misleading and intellectually dishonest.
Existence is circumscribed by nature’s reality which only includes objects within space. Nature has no provision for the artificial conceptions of human brains. So it is IMPOSSIBLE for this word, “Universe”, to resolve to any object that can be conceived or illustrated. Only objects exist. Space and ‘the’ Universe DO NOT exist! The nouns of Physics are all, without any doubt, objects, and not concepts. In Physics, it is irrational to claim that “the Universe exists”.
For those who disagree, the onus is on them to illustrate a rough diagram of an object they call Universe, or reference one on the Internet. Only then can they claim that such an object can possibly exist. You can illustrate an apple, a car, a ghost,....and even God! But any attempt to illustrate ‘a’ so-called “Universe object”, will always lead to absurdities and contradictions. Why? Because all objects have shape, and the backdrop for ALL objects, without any doubt, is SPACE! Space is omnipresent. This is the only way an object can exist. An asserted ‘shapeless’ object is an abstract concept which does not exist.
I have already debunked such nonsense as “Universe object” in my hubs on the Big Bang Religion.
So Craig’s argument FAILS at this point because ‘the’ Universe is not a discrete object that can be created by God, or assembled from eternal matter. What Craig has to demonstrate via a rational explanation, is that SPACE and ATOMS can indeed be created. He has no explanations. He only has irrational and surrealistic assertions.
So what is the “explanation” that Craig has given? None!
In reference to “that explanation is God”, part of his argument, since Craig provided NO explanation which uses the God object as an “actor”, to rationally account for the “existence” or “creation” of ‘the’ surrealistic Universe object, either “causal” or otherwise,....his argument FAILS miserably at this point.
Existence can neither be explained nor proven. Such notions are artificial, observer-dependent, and irrational. Existence is always defined so that we can unambiguously understand what it means: “to exist”. But the existence of objects is always assumed as part of one’s Hypothesis, so they can later be used as actors in an explanation of a Theory.
Objects, such as God, in and of themselves are never explanations in any context. They are only actors who perform causal actions upon other objects.
The actor (God) alone cannot be used as a vacuous explanation for the creation of ‘the’ Universe object, nor of ‘space’ and ‘matter’. Craig has already proposed the God Hypothesis. Craig’s Hypothesis has assumed the existence of God. But unfortunately he has NOT provided a Theory. The Theory is the EXPLANATION which uses the actor, God, to rationally explain how ‘space’ and ‘matter’ can possibly be created via this “external cause” which he asserts. Craig always uses science to give weight and authority to his arguments, but when it comes down to it, he eludes the Scientific Method by completely dodging the explanations which underlie his theoretical claims.
Therefore: P2 = FAIL
For those who wish to help out poor Craig, and salvage his reputation,......they can fill in the blanks of his Theory below. I will be very happy to entertain such an explanation.
Hypothesis: Assume God exists. For the exhibits stage of my hypothesis, I have illustrated God (image attached). The initial scene only includes God. There is NO space (nothing) and NO matter (atoms). There is no Universe.
Theory: I will now use God, from my Hypothesis, as a mediator/actor to rationally explain the creation of ‘the’ Universe, or space (nothing) and matter (atoms) as follows_____________________________________________
But before anybody is foolish enough to attempt to fill in the blanks, they should first read ANALYSIS of P1 in order to understand the lunacy inherent in Craig’s Creation argument. Since space is necessarily required to give God form & being, God cannot create space. If God wants to exist, then He is already in the eternal prison we call space, just like the rest of us. And if He does exist, then matter necessarily preceded Him, as He was ASSEMBLED from eternal atoms, just like the rest of us!
ANALYSIS of P3:
In reference to “The universe exists”, the word UNIVERSE refers to a concept. So this statement has the same contradictions discussed above.
Therefore: P3 = FAIL
ANALYSIS of P4:
In reference to “the universe has an explanation of its existence (from P1, P3)”,....NOT SO FAST!......ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED!!! Both P1 and P3 have failed.
But the reader is welcome to fill in the blanks for Craig’s missing explanation above.
Therefore: P4 = FAIL
ANALYSIS of P5:
In reference to “the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from P2, P4)”,....NOT SO FAST!......ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED!!! Both P2 and P4 have failed.
But the reader is welcome to fill in the blanks for Craig’s missing explanation above.
Therefore: P5 = FAIL
CONCLUSION: EPIC FAIL!!
Craig has conveniently used the following sleights-of-hand as “loopholes” in his argument....
1) Begging the Question (“Why does the something exist instead of nothing?”),
2) Ambiguous terms (Universe, something, nothing, exists, external cause, explanation),
3) Unresolved objects (God, Universe),
4) Reification of concepts into objects (‘the’ Universe, ‘an’ external cause),
5) Contrary to reason, he claims that his God Hypothesis is an explanation,
6) Poetic and “unscientific” language (“explanation for its existence”, “external cause”, “explanation is God”, “The universe exists”, “something rather than nothing”)
These loopholes allow Craig to introduce dualities that fool you into believing that he has an “explanation” for existence,....specifically, that God is ‘the’ EXPLANATION for the existence of a surrealistic and impossible object he calls ‘the’ UNIVERSE.
This is pure LUNACY!
Logicians, Philosophers, Mathematicians, and Theologians are one and the SAME. They irrationally claim that a Hypothesis IS a Theory. They claim that a ‘singularity’ or a ‘God’ IS an explanation, when in fact; no such explanation has been provided to rationally account for their wild claims. And in order to peddle their silly opinions to their blind followers who are eager to swallow up this nonsense, they underhandedly introduce DULATIES in their arguments by purposely leaving the key terms which make or break their arguments, as undefined. If these key terms (object, concept, space, exist, Universe) are left undefined, then people are left to use their IMAGINATION and EMOTIONS to fill-in the blanks, and blindly accept the argument as proven truth in their hearts.
People need to understand the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory. Any object, such as God, can only be an ASSUMPTION in your Hypothesis. Craig must conceive of, and rationally explain HOW it is possible for an object like God, to create space and matter. Especially since any object, including God, necessarily requires SPACE to give it form and the ability to move. And this is in accordance with the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory), which Craig wholeheartedly supports. Otherwise, he is just making irrational assertions which belong in the garbage!
It is painfully obvious that Craig is unable to use language to express his argument in rational terms, or even illustrate his argument in a movie. Let’s assume that we can rewind the universal movie tape and arrive at the VERY FIRST bit of matter and space “allegedly” created billions of years ago. There should be no reason why we cannot go to the previous frames or to the first frame of that film, and conceptualize an explanation of how God could have done it. Who is he trying to fool with such nonsensical and contradictory assertions? Does Craig think that everyone will swallow this garbage without even thinking about it? That stuff just doesn't fly among critical thinkers.
Craig is not alone in this arena. Even the mainstream mathematical physicists are creationists themselves, because they were taught to parrot the irrational ideas of Priest Lemaitre, who envisioned the Big Bang as God’s creation. So Craig should not be arguing or debating with atheists, as the typical atheist is no different than a religious creationist! Atheists freely admit that God IS a “possibility”, but they need evidence (i.e. the opinion of an authority) in order to believe the God Hypothesis. A scientist doesn’t believe in a Hypothesis. A scientist uses the objects of his Hypothesis to provide rational explanations of clams. Craig and the Big Bang apologists have failed miserably to provide a single rational explanation for their claim of Creation. And they know they can’t, because the they are proposing surrealism and ontological contradictions which are impossible in nature.
Creation, whether from a God, a singularity, or from nothing (ex nihilo), is IMPOSSIBLE because:
1) Creation is an action requiring motion. Only objects which are surrounded by space, can act as mediators for motion (actions). Thus matter AND space precedes ALL actions, including Creation!
2) God and the Big Bang singularity cannot create space since they both need the background of space in order to exist.
3) God cannot transcend space when space has no borders to cross. Space is borderless, shapeless, non-finite, non-physical, unbounded....it is nothing!
It’s very easy to demonstrate and understand why the irrational claim of Creation is pure BUNK!
But yet Creationists (Theologians & Big Bang Apologists) continue marching forward with their nonsense, oblivious to the impossibility of their position, and just for the sake of tradition and saving face. Nature doesn’t care about human tradition. Nature doesn’t care if humans are too embarrassed to admit that they didn’t have a clue when they made up this “creation” nonsense 2500 years ago. Nature just keeps going about its business.
Nature ensures that atoms can’t lose their shape, and that they always have location. It also ensures that space cannot acquire shape. Nature has no miracles, no magic, and definitely no contradictions. If you have to invoke any of these 3 irrational methods to justify your assumptions, then you are elucidating that you haven’t thought of the problem critically, and that you haven’t understood the ramifications of your assumptions. A contradiction always implies that we, as humans, have taken the easy way out by forming an invalid hypothesis and an irrational explanation. And Craig has clearly demonstrated that with his irrational arguments. He should be ashamed to portray himself as a “Logician”, a “Philosopher”, and a “Scholar”, when he didn’t even use an ounce of grey matter to think through his arguments, before pushing them to the public.
Nobody can conceive, understand, and illustrate in a movie the creation of space & matter being created by a God, a singularity, a primeval atom, or from nothing. Nobody can imagine a square circle, creation, annihilation, or objects/entities without form or without space, much less be qualified to discuss it. These contradictory ideas can only remain in the realm of fantasy, lunacy, and the irrational – they belong in the trash!
Leibniz: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
First,....the natural response to such a question is: What is “nothing”? Is it the absence of ‘space’ and ‘matter’, as Craig and his creationist buddies who believe in the Big Bang Religion, assert?
Space is ALREADY nothing! You can’t create space from space. As we’ve demonstrated, Creation is not only contradictory and impossible, but it’s pure lunacy.
Homework: Please conceptualize and explain for me what ‘nothing’ means in the context of “the absence of space & matter”. Come back and post your explanation of how space is “different” from nothing.
Second,....such grand cosmic questions beginning with WHY, already presuppose PURPOSE. They are logical fallacies because they implicitly assume the answer within the question itself. This is a classical example of Begging the Question.
Why is there matter in the first place? Where did the matter come from? Why is matter & space created? Why is nature fine-tuned to support life?
It’s like asking: “Did you stop beating your spouse?” The answer is already presupposed in the question itself. Leibniz’s question is already invoking an intelligent being that created space & matter for a purpose,....to support human life!
So I would like to ask these Devil’s Advocates the following question: Can you CONCEPTUALIZE and describe for us the scenario where there is no matter AND no space??
Just what exactly is this ‘nothingness’ they speak of? How can this situation be even ontologically possible? The notion of no space and no matter is an ontological impossibility. Such a notion can’t even be pondered in the realm of abstract mathematics. What can they put in their equations....nothing?
Mother Nature does not ask irrational WHY’s. Nature is static; it has no state, no memory, no time, and no opinions. Nature just makes sure that every single atom has SHAPE and LOCATION. As far as nature is concerned, matter EXISTS at the cutting edge of natural events; it only exists in the present. By using shape & location to ensure existence, nature also ensures that atoms cannot escape space (no boundary), and cannot convert into space (lose Length, Width and Height), and that the amount of matter in the universe remains constant (space cannot acquire Length, Width and Height).
So here is how we rationally put Leibniz’s, Craig’s, Big Bang’s, and all creationist arguments to rest:
1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.
2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.
3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
4) Space is formless, shapeless, unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing!
5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object. Existence without space is impossible!
6) There is NO object that can occupy all of space, or enclose space - including a supposed “Universe object”.
7) Matter cannot escape or “transcend” space, because space has no boundary. There is no structure, surface, or edge to cross. We are all trapped in “here” (space) for eternity.
8) The Creationist’s assumed scenario where there once was no matter AND no space is inconceivable and ontologically impossible.
9) If there is a God, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even He can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of and NO cracks to slip through. So He'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Formless & borderless space humbles the most arrogant of gods, even the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – it’s impossible! We have “free will” because God does not, as even ‘He’ cannot escape this prison ‘He’ is credited for building. So if God exists, He is just another insignificant being that satisfies the human involuntary compulsion to worship....He may very well be Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, or some Hollywood Celebrity. Mindless beings are obsessed with worshipping conceptually-important (authoritative, celebrity, idol) characters.
Therefore, we rationally conclude that matter & space are ETERNAL. God and the Singularity are Hypotheses that die at inception!
a) The God Hypothesis of the big 3 monotheistic religions is invalid not only because it leads to absurdities and contradictions, but because it is ontologically impossible for it to be used in a Theory to rationally account for the Creation of space and matter.
b) The Religion of the Big Bang is absolutely NO different than that of God’s Creation, sans the intelligent being. The Big Bang hypothesizes a 0D singularity having no Length, Width, or Height, and definitely no background to contour it and give it form and existence. This 0D singularity supposedly created not only space and matter, but an artificial concept known as ‘spacetime’. So it is even MORE surrealistic and irrational than any Hypothesis that has ever been conceived by any religion!
The nonsense of Creation under the guise of God, the singularity, or by ANY other mechanism has been put to rest. It is impossible. We’re done!
Nature had no beginning and will have no end. Rocks, gases, stars and atoms recognize no past or future, which are conceptions of a human brain. Nature only functions in PRESENT MODE, and as such, nature is effectively the only perpetual recycling machine – it is non-entropic! Atoms have no ability to rub their elbows against space, grind to a stop, and die. They float in space and interact with each other eternally. God cannot create atoms from scratch. And as such, even He cannot alter the eternal activity of atoms.
MY CHALLENGE TO YOU!
For those who disagree, you are free to refute any of the points 1 to 9, or conceptualize for me the creation of matter in any way that you can imagine. Or better still, please conceptualize for me the creation of SPACE!
a) For the Traditional Theists, explain how God can exist without that which gives Him form i.e. space, and yet be able to create space.
b) For the Contemporary Big Bang Theists, explain how your singularity or “whatever you wish to call it”, can exist without that which gives it form i.e. space, and yet be able to move…..go BANG!....EXPAND…...and create space.
These are the tough questions we ask in physics.
So, the ball is in your court, and you need to rationally explain your case. I have already justified why you cannot conceive of, or even imagine the creation of matter and space.
In reality, ‘something’ either has shape or it doesn't. There is NO grey area. God and the Singularity cannot have, and not have, shape simultaneously. God can be invisible like air or like gravity. But even air and gravity are mediated by invisible objects which have shape.
The “burden of explanation” shifts to those who argue that God can or does exist outside the Universe. They need to rationally explain that space has boundaries (i.e., that space is a physical object with shape). Only then can we conceptualize that space is capable of being ‘transcended’ and exited. Does God convert from noun to verb, from structure to action, from finite to incessant when He departs space? What is the meaning of the phrase ‘God exists’ in the context of ‘transcendence’? How does God exist outside of space if He has no form? These are the questions proponents of a transcendent God must answer.
My challenge to all Theists, including Big Bang Apologists, is to provide a physical mechanism that we can all conceptualize, visualize, and understand. A mechanism that we can all watch unfold as a movie on the big screen. And you will have to start from frame #1, and show how NO space and NO matter, can morph into space and matter, or however else you imagine the 'creation of space & matter'. I don't want to put any words in your mouth or influence your thoughts in any way. Be as 'creative' as you want.
REMEMBER: ALWAYS THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
It's religion at its worst when someone blindly believes in authority without asking for an explanation. But don’t feel bad, as not even the proponents of these irrational arguments can understand or explain what they are saying. They don’t have the slightest clue. But they are crossing their fingers and hope that you believe them!
CommentsLoading...
Thanks Winston. Craig is a good talker and a fabulous debater. It's quite shocking that nobody has been able to crush his simplistic arguments in his debates.
(Craig is a good talker and a fabulous debater.)
Fatfist,
Yes, Craig is a professional debater. He debated in high school and college and has continued with numbers of debates each year for many, many years.
The reason he prevails so often is that he typically goes against someone who is not as proficient in debate. As I'm sure you are aware, it is much easier to refute in writing than to do so immediately after feverishly jotting notes about what was just said.
It takes a great deal of preparation to debate, and I doubt anyone takes the time to prepare adequately against Craig.
5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object – no exceptions!
Amen
Fatfist vs Lane= fatfist wins.
Fatfist vs Einstein= fatfist wins.
Fatfist vs dawkins= still waiting.
Fatfist vs Aka Winston Tie= Both understand logic.
Fatfist vs NothingToSomething The End of Humanity.
Nemesis hello fatfist you think you understand this concept you call space how do you know it has no barrier? how do you know there is not another universe? You believe that the universe will last forever nothing last forever fatfist aka winston. God created the first Atom and created the big bang God is science and religion together. There is no other explanation good bye sir. I know this to be truth because God told me when i was sleeping.
Nothing last forever only diamonds. lol
PrometheusKid,
(space how do you *KNOW* it has no barrier?)
This is the very issue I raised in the hub...
How do we KNOW 1+1=2?
How do we KNOW the Earth is a spherical object?
How do we KNOW we are not a brain in a vat?
How do we KNOW the Sun is hot?
Once somebody can unambiguously define this magical word "KNOW", so that KNOWLEDGE can be resolved OBJECTIVELY, without opinion,....then I challenge them to post here just ONE statement that WE KNOW to be the TRUTH!
Sounds simple.....doesn't it?
Surely WE must KNOW something!
Knowledge, truth, and proof, is what Astrologers, Palm Readers, Psychics, Gurus, and Theologians have. Their followers swallow up this "knowledge" without so much as blinking.
Rational humans do things a little differently....
We ask for the WHY's and HOW's.
We ask for rational explanations before we even "consider" a claim.
There are NO "true" claims. Just rational or irrational ones.
Such issues regarding space, objects, creation, universe,...are instantly resolved at the conceptual level. We don't run experiments or measure space to determine whether it is a solid block of matter or not.
We leave such asinine activities to religion.
If we cannot conceptualize and understand what the religious are telling us about space and matter, then they are full of BS, as they can't even understand what they parrot.
Diamonds? Forever?
Every atom in 'the' Universe is gravitationally bound to every atom in your wife's diamond ring. Even if you left it locked up in a safe in outer space, atomic interactions will eventually rip the carbon atoms out of the diamond. Her diamond is being pulled apart right this very second. Just don't tell her that or she'll divorce you.
Remember: Gravity cannot be blocked. It goes through everything!
Thanks
For those theists who claim they "know" this, they "know" that, they "know" God, etc....might want to corner their Pastor like I did.
It was after my friend's wedding ceremony many years ago. I cornered the good Pastor behind the scenes and asked him what God was. He gave me the usual spiel about how everybody KNOWS that God is the creator of 'the' universe, blah blah,...and he was quite surprised how I didn't "know" this.
But when I pressed him on how he KNOWS all these things about God, he finally admitted that:
"Well, if we actually KNEW these things, then God wouldn't be so great. We need to have faith!"
Yep, I agree....it's best not to "know" anything about God whenever it best suits your arguments. Just protect Him under a veil of mystery to ensure that He never dies.
Do thoughts exist?...No shape...no location...
No they don't, cheaptrick.
Thought is a VERB - to think.
All verbs are concepts, they don't exist. Love doesn't move mountains. Only bulldozers can do that.
The object that mediates the verb "think", obviously exists. Depending on the context and level of resolution, we can say that object is you or your brain. Your brain can be resolved from neurons down to atoms. It is the atoms which are in "motion", acting as mediators for events with other atoms. That's what thought is - a verb, not a noun, as it necessarily implies the motion of object(s) participating in cause/effect interactions.
Using ordinary speech, we have committed the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, to reify THOUGHT (verb) to the following nouns:
- 'a' thought
- thoughts
- 'the' thought(s)
Imagine doing that with the verb, "run". What would it mean if we were to say "runnings exist"?
Of course all of us, including MYSELF use these noun-verb terms haphazardly in daily ordinary speech. It's unavoidable.
But objective and unambiguous (scientific) language which applies to reality, will have none of that. We have to be "precise" of the ideas we convey when we are giving a scientific presentation. That's the only way we can ensure that the PRESENTER and the AUDIENCE understand the presentation.
Fatfist vs dawkins= still waiting.
When and were is it going to be HBO?
Dawkins is a creationist who believes that there is a 2% chance that the God of the Bible exists, and that there is a 98% chance the Big Bang was caused by a singularity.
Yet he has the balls to write a book about "God Delusion", and call theists blind uneducated fools!
He can't have it both ways. Either he is a scientist or a fool himself.
But he is NO scientist. For if he was, he would understand that it is irrational to BELIEVE in the existence of God, or of any object. We only define existence, and assume that "God exists" in our Hypothesis. Then we explain His good deeds in our Theory.
Dawkins is a fool. William-Lane Craig would eat him for breakfast!
Prometheus,
Please don't go around HP, posting my ID and causing trouble for me.
I already have a warrant out for my arrest.
thanks
I already have a warrant out for my arrest.
thanks
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh now im sad fatfist.
Now what to do?
Don't worry, just keep it cool.
It's MY head they want on a silver platter,... so they can take it in the middle of a square, hang it from a tree, so everybody can throw stones at it.
As long as you keep your mouth shut and don't publish articles similar to mine, they won't come after you.
I expect to be tried for heresy, just like Cornelius in the Planet of the Apes. Like myself, he had begun to question the infallibility of the Sacred Scrolls (Creation, OT, NT, Relativity, Quantum, Big Bang, String Theory), which supposedly accounted for the traditional KNOWLEDGE of the ape society. He was instead objectifying nature's stateless & timeless objects, and formless space, in order to scientifically explain the gaps in the Sacred Scrolls.
I need to come back to this hub of yours and read it completely and in a focused way. It looks very interesting.
In my view, space is not nothing. Space is something too, or space could not exist. Space is a relative tenuousness of stuff between greater densities of stuff.
There are big gaps between the various sized scales of reality, so there are various SPACES, where each "space" is not really the same space.
There really is no universal space -- it is all relative to what we talk about.
Robert,
The only thing I can say to you is to really take your time reading this hub. It requires thinking from a "natural" perspective, rather than from "mathematical", "logical axiomatic", or even "authoritative" perspectives. Hope you understand what I mean here.
(In my view, space is not nothing. Space is something too, or space could not exist.)
I welcome any rational explanation you have to support your position.
In particular, before you present your case, I would like these terms defined unambiguously by you, or you can choose to accept the ones I have provided:
space:_________
nothing:________
something/object:________
exist:___________
Unambiguous definitions are imperative!
We both need to understand what the other person is saying before we can have a rational exchange about the universe.
thanks
In my view, space is not nothing. Space is something too,
hahahahahaha and they still dont get it.
Prometheus, I am waiting for your fist hub. What do you plan on doing, a refutation or a discussion about some topic?
I have my head on the chopping block every day. It's about time some more people participate.
I have my head on the chopping block every day. It's about time some more people participate.
They wont come they are still in the darkness. They are scared of your simple logic and they cant refuted. I dont argue I dont debate I let them be.
Prometheus, I am waiting for your fist hub. What do you plan on doing, a refutation or a discussion about some topic? Prometheus was cool, so was Jesus and Kukulkan,Osiris, Isis, Horus, Atys, Cybele, Adonis, Venus, Cabiri, Dionusos and the little serpent in the garden. But i dont like Adonai and The Tiara Of Rome. I also dont like The Legend Of The Masons.
Thoughts do not exist...Hmmm Do bosons exist?,no shape,no location.Dose Information exist?no shape no location.Please forgive me if these questions are simplistic.I am not formally educated and fail to understand that there are no none physical nouns.The constraints of the english language when expressing science are difficult.a bit like wearing a semantic straight jacket.
Cheaptrick,
(Do bosons exist?,no shape,no location.)
You need to understand that in science we use the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory). The boson is a hypothesis, an assumption that this discrete particle is an object that exists. The mathematicians have hypothesized that there are particles of mass called Higgs Bosons. Since ‘mass’ is a concept (i.e. the quantity of...), the Higgs is a particle of a concept, something like a particle of love, or a particle of justice. They cannot even conceive of and illustrate a rough picture of what this boson looks like which they have imagined. A boson, is an invalid and irrational hypothesis. That’s why bosons do not exist. It is just an abstract mathematical model of various irrational ideas. That's how irrational these mathematics are. Then, they tell you that their theories have been confirmed by experiment and that all celebrities of mathematics believe in them. Science is about explaining rationally, not about believing. You reach your own conclusions.
(Dose Information exist?no shape no location.)
Information is a concept. Does the information of my post right here, exist? Look at your monitor VERY carefully and think about it.
Your monitor exists. The circuitry inside it exists. The atoms making up these objects exist. But what is happening, is the atoms inside your monitor are vibrating and pumping signals to each other, which makes them line up in a certain configurations.
The light from your monitor reaches your retina, which pumps atomic signals to your brain. Your brain interprets (conceives) these collections of light signals in those configurations as images & characters. It is the atomic activity of your brain which conceives these arranged light signals as images, characters, words, sentences and assigns linguistic meaning to them. This is a concept which humans call: information.
Concepts do not exist.
concept: a word that invokes or embodies two or more objects; a relation.
The word ‘concept’ is predicated on the word ‘object’. A concept also requires a living entity and lacks shape, whereas on object has ‘shape’ all on its own.
Information requires 2 objects to be conceived: You and the medium (monitor, paper, book, etc).
(Please forgive me if these questions are simplistic)
No problem. The only stupid questions are the ones that don’t get asked. The fact that you are asking these things indicates that you care and want to understand. Most people like to swallow things because they are authoritative and popular. They don’t care about understanding. Feel free to ask me whatever you want, and hopefully I can help you find some understanding.
(fail to understand that there are no none physical nouns)
You must first understand the difference between ordinary speech (“I was hit by a force”) and scientific speech (“I was hit by a rock”).
From a language perspective, absolutely ALL words are TERMS, and thus, ALL “can” be conceptually treated as nouns! People have taken these terms out of the context of CONCEPTUAL LANGUAGE, and into REALITY. This is called: reification. So they have the capability to treat all verbs, adjectives and adverbs as nouns or real objects in nature’s reality. Does this make any sense????
Example: ‘the’ running.
Running is treated as a NOUN. But is it a real object that exists in nature??? Can you draw an image of an object you can call “running”? The best you can do is draw an image of a person. Think of an object as a photograph, and “running” as a movie (dynamic concept).
Eg. “The running of water between adjacent houses is prohibited”
That’s an example of ordinary speech. It can be interpreted that “running” is a REAL OBJECT THAT EXISTS. But it is only the ‘water’ which is the object, not “running”.
In scientific language we say: “It is prohibited for water to flow between adjacent houses”.
Now there are NO ambiguities and we BOTH understand what we are talking about.
In summary, all words in language are TERMS, thus they ALL, without exception, have the capability to be irrationally treated as nouns or ‘objects’.
In science, only OBJECTS (with shape) can be nouns, nothing else. Scientific language is precise and avoids confusion.
(The constraints of the english language when expressing science are difficult.)
I just showed you that there is NO difficulty whatsoever. Before we present our ideas about reality, we must ensure that the only nouns in our speech are objects, and not concepts. It’s that simple.
Unfortunately, Logicians, Philosophers, and Mathematicians prefer NOT to use scientifically precise speech, because they want to introduce DUALITIES in their presentation so they can treat concepts (ideas) as real objects that exist in nature.
This enables them to achieve their goal of PROVING whatever they set out to prove. This is dishonesty to the N-th degree, and totally unacceptable!
(I exist)
Are you sure? I mean, how do you go about proving such a profound claim?
Why don't we first start with something simple....can you prove to us that you have at least 1 arm?
I am willing to bet $10,000 that you can't!
(but the universe is beyond this concepts it only cares about the physical.)
It couldn't give a sh** about anything, much less what is dear and loving to idiotic apes like us.
It just makes sure that each atom has shape & location, and space has none. That is all it does 24/7 eternally.
(your tellimg me that love does not exist then why do I love my wife my children. If love did not exist than why do people care about each other?)
It has nothing to do with "love". It is called "survival". If each of us did not do our BEST for our family then bye-bye goes the stupid human apes species for eternity!
Now if you want to say survival = love, that is YOUR business and opinion.
My girlfriend says to me that love = "ME spending lots of money on her for shoes, purses, jewelry, lobster dinners, etc."
But I say to her that love = "ME and YOU gettin' down to do the dirty and nasty!!"
Love is a VERB - every single human ape does it DIFFERENTLY!
Different strokes for different folks....bottom line.....LOVE = OPINION!!!!!
(love does not exist )
exist = object + location
Fatfist love does not exist.
Nemesis but it does inside of us. And everyone that loves. I was riding a bike last week my tire pop and some guy from nowhere told me he had a spared tube he gave it to me and I was happy and I continue my journey. But if you say is all about survial then why would he do such i nice act of generosity?
Another time my car battery was death and some guy jump start my car that was really cool. I had done this to others my self but if you say is all about survial then why would he do such and act of generosity?
Human beings, naturally love each other, until their behavior is studied, and modified to fit specific intent...I dont like Sigmund Freud.
(I exist)
Are you sure? I mean, how do you go about proving such a profound claim?
I am tallking to you and you responded so I know I exist and you also.
Why don't we first start with something simple....can you prove to us that you have at least 1 arm?
Im looking at right now is more dirty than the right one.
But I say to her that love = "ME and YOU gettin' down to do the dirty and nasty!!" http://cdn.mademan.com/chickipedia//www/images/5/5
(I was riding a bike last week my tire pop and some guy....Another time my car battery was death )
Oh please, you are so full of yourself....just stop it....you can't be THAT good looking that guys just drop from the sky to help you out all the time!
Whenever I see these idiots stopped at the side of the road I help them too.....I curse, yell, and scream at the top of my lungs at them to get the f*** off the road before they cause an accident and kill somebody.
(I am tallking to you and you responded so I know I exist and you also)
Ok, I just went outside and talked to a tree for a while.....but it DIDN'T RESPOND. So according to YOUR reasoning, it doesn't exist!!!
(arm...Im looking at right now)
Well I can't SEE your arms and neither can my neighbor. So according to your reasoning, they DON'T EXIST!
So when you go blind, then your whole body will cease to exist, huh?
(http://cdn.mademan.com/chickipedia//www/images/5/5
+1
Ok, I just went outside and talked to a tree for a while.....but it DIDN'T RESPOND. So according to YOUR reasoning, it doesn't exist!!!
Nemesis but if you saw the tree that makes it real. Or is it object or a concept?
(Nemesis but if you saw the tree that makes it real. )
Pay attention!!!
YOU DID NOT SEE THE TREE IN MY BACK YARD.
So according to YOUR reasoning, which is based on the see/touch/hear/smell/taste criteria....the tree DOES NOT EXIST!
The Sun and the Moon existed before you were born and able to SEE them, right?
Obviously then, existence does NOT depend on a person's 5 senses.
Existence is NOT dependent upon a human's subjective opinion or belief, truth or lies, knowledge or wisdom, observation or experiment, evidence or proof,....right??
The tree, sun, and moon, exist all on their OWN, right?
So there must be an OBJECTIVE and OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT criterion by which nature's secret formula of existence depends upon, right?
So.......in order for the Sun to exist on its very OWN, it must have **properties** by which existence depends upon.
These properties.....THE ONLY PROPERTIES.....are SHAPE & LOCATION!!
SHAPE is the ONLY intrinsic property which governs an object's PHYSICALITY, nothing else.
LOCATION is the ONLY extrinsic property which governs an objects PRESENCE, nothing else.
Anything else you can dream of is observer-dependent and has nothing to do with nature's existence.
exist = physical presence = object + location
Don't ever forget nature's secret formula which is infinitely more important than Einstein's stupid bullsh** E=mc^2.
Nemesis I was only saying that when I die the tree will die with me because I die. But the tree will be there alot longer than I or you. When I die the moon will die and the sun for me because I die.
PrometheusKid but the atoms are eternal just like space and when i die they will remain.
Nemesis love,happy,sad,angry,running,feeling will die with me.
Amen
(Nemesis love,happy,sad,angry,running,feeling will die with me.)
Oh, cheer up!
You gotta give some credit to Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. They say a lot of dumb things, but there still is a teenie weenie little bit of merit. They claim you live forever in heaven.
Well, yeah, sorta....
Heaven is right here. Your atoms are eternal and will be reused for...forever! You will be reincarnated into something else, again and again....eternally....just like you've always been...guaranteed!
And for this to happen you don't need to pay money to the church, so the Pastor's teenage girlfriend can get breast implants and spandex tights to cover her luscious curves.
Amen to that!
Is anyone else going to join this conversation.
Fatfist is really bored he want's to argue with some Atheist and Theist bring it on.
Hello somebody out there please start arguing with fatfist. Call him smelly or something.
I'm going to but out of this running battle but before I go I'd like to thank you for giving me so much food for thought and a look into two extraordinary minds.I assume you are a couple of our young men on the rise and hope you find the wherewithal to solve the problems of the world.
BTW...I really chuckle at your ability to jump from high intellect to"get down and dirty"in an instant Fatfist.Thanks
Dean
Cheaptrick,
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, neither I or anyone else can solve the world's problems. That would take the mutual cooperation of humanity. History has demonstrated that humans are just not cut out for cooperation. If 2 people cannot make a marriage work, then how can it be possible for 7 billion people to make a marriage work?
The best we can do is try to understand this place, nature, universe, or whatever you want to call it. We can only hope for mutual cooperation.
Unfortunately, neither I or anyone else can solve the world's problems.That would take the mutual cooperation of humanity.
Amen
He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me.
Wait what Jesus to take my own cross and not follow yours so why the hell im i going to church and praying to you and god?
Because you never understood what i really stood for. Salvation does not come from praying but from understanding, reasoning, logic not from idols.
People dont let me rest in peace i get made fun from Atheist and Theist. I only try helping them. But now they only ridicule me.
"The entire Christian teaching as to what shall be believed, the entire Christian "truth," is idle falsehood and deception; and precisely the opposite of what inspired the Christian movement in the beginning."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Amen
(P2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.)
Fatfist,
The William-Lane Craig argument breaks apart here at P2. God is a meaningless term, as shown.
The Argument fron Non-Cognitivism:
1.There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
A.Primary Attributes
B.Secondary Attributes
C.Relational Attributes.
2.B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3.The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4.Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5.However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6.Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7.Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.
This argument fits in nicely with the idea of rational explanations. For example, examining the term "table" we have shape + location, so it exists. But we also have primary attributes in that a table is furniture, it has legs, and it is used to hold other objects. As such it can also have secondary attributes, (it is a brown table, or wooden table) and it can have relational attributes (a kitchen table or a small table).
However, Lane cannot explain the necessary primary attributes of God - no theistic claim can do so. The only attributes that can be shown are secondary or relational (or negative, i.e., what God is not), but no primary attributes of God can be explained.
Without primary attributes, the God concept is DOA, a totally meaningless term. The second premise is thus gibberish and the argument is an epic failure at that point.
Lane should have listened to Hannibal Lecter: "Of every living thing we should ask what is its nature? What does it do?"
Winston,
You may be surprised by my response and you may not like it, but read it anyway and let’s discuss any issues.
(God is a meaningless term)
I have updated this hub so you may want to read the WHAT IS GOD section again.
For the purposes of science, an object like God needs no meaning whatsoever. All it needs is an illustration, a description, and a list of events is has performed.
Either God is an object, space, or a concept. Ontologically speaking, there is no other category.
From a scientific perspective, if God is a concept then the argument instantly dies.
I will not be that harsh on poor little Craig. I GRANTED him the God Hypothesis so that his argument won’t fail, as you can see in that section.
I will publish a new hub soon.....”What is God?”......to clear up these issues.....so stay tuned.
(The Argument fron Non-Cognitivism)
I used to mess around with philosophical arguments in the past, and I couldn’t stomach how retarded they all are, especially when both atheists and theists use the same philosophical tools to talk in circles. And they don’t understand each other’s irrational arguments because they have no application in nature’s reality. Systems of logic are a double-edge sword. They may be good for winning arguments.....but what good is that when the gibberish stemming from the argument has no application in reality?
This is why I gave Craig the Royal Treatment by using a very simple and unique Physics argument to debunk his crap. There is absolutely no response that any theologian can ever hope of posting here to save themselves.
(There are three attributes of existants)
Exitants?
This is an ambiguous philo term. It presupposes “existence” and it makes it PRECEDE an object. Totally irrational.
Let’s be precise and use OBJECT. Objects can either be 2D or 3D, but only 3D objects can have location, and hence exist. The God Hypothesis of course illustrates a 2D God object. If the Creation Theory can use the God object to explain how space and matter can be created by God, then it is rational to conclude that God MAY exist as a 3D object/entity/being who could very well have created space and matter. And God certainly doesn’t have to look exactly like the illustration I gave.
Objects only have ONE attribute/property that is observer-independent -----> SHAPE!
Shape is the ONLY property that is inherent to the object itself. There is NO other....EVER!!
That’s why we call it: intrinsic property.
Shape cannot be measured, as it is qualitative, never quantitative.
Just like ‘length’ and ‘distance’ (remember my length contraction hub?) are qualitative physics concepts. It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure the static length of an object, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure the static distance between objects.
Shape is an essential characteristic of the nature of objects. It is unavoidable and irreducible. Shape is not a ‘thing’. Shape does not exist. You cannot touch shape. You can either “see” or “not see” an object, and still be able to conceptualize that it MUST have shape. The Sun had shape before humans evolved.....not because we “KNOW” or because we can “PROVE”......but because we can conceptualize it and reason it.
If objects didn’t have shape, they wouldn’t have form, or a finite boundary, then they would be ‘space’ (ie. nothing).
A rational person must be able to distinguish between objects and concepts because religious fanatics are in the business of attributing motion and special powers to concepts!
So, I hope that you understand.....that if we GRANT the theist that GOD IS INDEED A BEING.....who has ANY SUPERPOWER THAT HE WANTS......and then when we place God in his environment of NO space and NO matter, He FAILS because SPACE IS INFINITELY MIGHTIER THAN GOD!!
This is how powerful SHAPE is. It needs no proof, no observations, no evidence, no knowledge, no truth, no wisdom, no experiment, no authority, etc.
The human brain can conceptualize and reason why creation is impossible, and certainly why God is impossible. There is no question about it!
I am sick and tired of listening to stupid idiotic atheists like Dawkins who claim that it is very minutely possible (approx 1%) that God exists. What a f*****g moron!
Please re-read this hub again because I recently made additions, and changes for greater clarity.
(But we also have primary attributes in that a table is furniture, it has legs, and it is used to hold other objects. .....secondary attributes, (it is a brown table, or wooden table) .......relational attributes (a kitchen table or a small table)
And Jesus has long hair, brown eyes, a beard, speaks Aramaic, wears a white robe and sandals, walks on water, gives life to the dead,......all “true” statements, just like your statements about the table which I cannot see, right?
So clearly, when we give human-dependent attributes to objects (small, large, brown, etc), we are WITHOUT A DOUBT, practicing RELIGION.
This is why we currently have 6 Billion stupid apes on this planet who BELIEVE all the crap they hear coming from every direction.
Objects can only have shape. All the other descriptions about the table and Jesus belong in the Hypothesis, and what the table or Jesus did, belong in the Theory (must be explained).
(However, Lane cannot explain the necessary primary attributes of God - no theistic claim can do so.)
He doesn’t need to. This is the “evidence” argument that atheists ask of theists, and it is completely irrational. Atheists claim that if they have SUFFICIENT evidence, they will believe in God. And they get this stupid nonsense from Carl Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
Evidence is a creature of religion. Religious people claim that their theories have been proven and try to prove their theories to others thru evidence. That's where Black Holes and warped space come from....opinionated evidence!
Winston, if you SEE God flying down from the sky, landing in front of you, giving you a hug and a kiss, telling you how much He loves you and that you will live forever in heaven with Him and Jesus, and gives you an updated version of His Bible before He flies back into the skies and off to heaven......this does not mean that you saw God!
David Copperfield has done some amazing feats such as that.
Craig only needs to place the God object in the Hypothesis and explicitly tells that God is a being (has shape). God can have ANY superpower that a theologian can imagine. When God is used in the Theory, He has TONS of explaining to do. But as my hub has shown.....God is immobilized by space. Space takes away ALL of God’s superpowers and reduces Him to a little mouse!
Nature has NO ontological contradictions. The idiots who claim it does, just haven’t put any thought into their arguments.
(Without primary attributes, the God concept is DOA, a totally meaningless term.)
The thing to remember about objects, is that we NEVER explain them. Only religion does such nonsense. We only POINT to them and utter a sound.....table!......Jesus!......God!
We only explain Theories where objects are the ACTORS who have a ROLE to perform ie. creation, great flood, walking on water, etc.
If the theologian cannot produce God during his presentation, he MUST illustrate Him on the board and describe him and his superpowers in the Hypothesis. Then he must explain all of Gods good deeds in the Theory. Evidence doesn’t help his argument in any way......even if he brought God in the presentation and showed everyone what God can do!
(Hannibal Lecter: "Of every living thing we should ask what is its nature? What does it do?")
Sure, we’ve known for over 2500 years EXACTLY what God can do. That’s why the Romans and Arabs were so fascinated with that proposition, they couldn’t wait to use and abuse it for all forms of control.
Winston,
The theologian can positively predicate God all he wants. He can give you the EXACT measurements of his body. He can BRING God to the White House and have a WORLD WIDE conference with God and all the major news stations on the planet, and show evidence of what God can do.....etc.
This does absolutely NOTHING to validate or improve the theologian's position in any way....over just asserting that God did it, as they currently do.
Stupid mathematicians have used the Hubble telescope to view BLACK HOLES. And they'll tell you that they swallow up matter, light, space,...everything!
And these black holes are 0D, have infinite mass, infinite gravity, and light cannot escape them.
They are now creating mini black holes daily in the CERN Hadron collider.
All this bulls**t is debunked at the conceptual level.
There is nothing 0D.
There are no sub-atomic particles.
Light is NOT affected by gravity.
the list goes on....
EVIDENCE = RELIGION!
(You may be surprised by my response and you may not like it, but read it anyway and let’s discuss any issues.)
Fatfist,
As I see it, these are two distinct issues, rationality and logic. I was pointing out the lines become close - not crossed, but close, as in something without shape cannot exist versus something without primary attributes has no meaning.
(something without primary attributes has no meaning)
For a human, yes!
But what does it mean for nature that you "perceive" the table to be brown? Nature has absolutely no clue what brown is. In fact, nature has absolute no clue what COLOR is. Nature has NO colors!
Each atom in nature transmits the whole EM spectrum to every single atom in the universe. That each being in the universe has evolved to SEE a tiny chunk of that EM spectrum does not mean that the color they see, is actually an "attribute" of that object.
You can say primary, secondary, relational attributes.....but these are all subjective standards invented by man.
We need to think outside the box if we are going to understand nature's world. Our personal world is artificial.....we invented it.....we adore it.....it has meaning to us.....and thus we protect it!
Nature couldn't care less about what we perceive.
If we are going to understand nature, we need to kill all observers. Personal opinions are outlawed. If we are going to discuss attributes/properties, we can only discuss them from nature's perspective, not ours.
From nature's perspective, objects only have ONE intrinsic observer-independent property.....SHAPE....not mass, not color, not size, not purpose, not meaning, not weight, ....or any other category you can conceive of.
A table, a chair, or God,....even if they exist....have absolutely no meaning whatsoever to nature. They only have meaning to us....because we artificially GAVE meaning to them.
What is the meaning of a star, like the Sun? What meaning could this object possibly have in nature's realm?
We attach meaning to the Sun because we are "here". When we are gone, the Sun is absolutely no different than an asteroid as far as nature is concerned!
Remember: nature's job is to only move atoms around from one location to another. What these atoms have assembled to is completely irrelevant.
Anything else you can conceive of as a possible property of an object, will always require ANOTHER object to realize it. Thus establishing an observer-dependent relation.
So my question is:
How can we possibly understand nature, when every definition and analysis we use is rooted in observer-dependent opinions and conjecture?
(these are two distinct issues, rationality and logic)
What good is a logical argument that uses observer-dependent and unscientific ambiguous definitions?
Who are we trying to impress and convince with such an argument?
(From nature's perspective, objects only have ONE intrinsic observer-independent property.....SHAPE)
Fatfist,
Nature cannot recognize shape, can it? Shape is how humans define a property of a real object in order to have a rational discourse about that object, but shape itself is a verb (to shape), is it not?
The best we can do is use inductive reasoning to explain what is most probably correct - but it can never be absolutely correct.
(What good is a logical argument)
A deductive argument? Probably little, as the premises are critical to its value.
However, inductive reasoning has predictive value - we can't "prove" that if we plant corn it will grow and we can eat it, but we can assume that if it happened before there is a high probability it will happen again and the corn will not be poisonous.
(Who are we trying to impress and convince with such an argument?)
I don't think it is a matter of impressing, but of language. If they refuse to speak yours, then the only options left are to ignore the debate or converse in their language.
I had this happen where a theist refused to accept definitions I proposed and thus the debate never got off the ground.
Winston,
(Nature cannot recognize shape, can it?)
I certainly hope not, otherwise “consciousness” would exist, right?
Nature doesn’t recognize -– it has no memory, it has no time, it has no motion, it has no cognition.
(Shape is how humans define a property of a real object)
No. We conceive of 'shape' in order to differentiate an object from the background. It has nothing to do with defining for the sake of defining. But a definition of object is a direct "side-effect" of our conceptualization and reasoning of shape.
We can define a meter to be 520cm and 8077mm. But we cannot define 'shape', we can only conceptualize shape.
(but shape itself is a verb (to shape))
No, it's only a verb for ordinary speech.
Shape is a concept. When humans first open their eyes to “see” the world around them, their brain immediately starts to work on a mechanism that it will utilize to distinguish objects from the background. That mechanism is the “conceptualization” of what?
It is the conceptualization of SPATIAL ARRANGEMENT. Without spatial arrangement, your brain cannot distinguish anything! If you think it can, then please explain what visual mechanism it will use to distinguish objects from the background.....
Will it be color, mass, size, weight, motion, direction, or any other relation?
To realize and visualize any of these notions requires additional objects. So clearly, this is circular, as they are not the defining factor of ‘object’.
Our brain works out form, boundary, outline, contour,.....which we conceptualize and give it the name, SHAPE!
Shape does not exist. An object does not HAVE shape like you HAVE a ball in your hand. Shape is a unique property, the only intrinsic property an object has: the defining property.
You cannot “touch” shape.
You cannot “see” shape.
You cannot “measure” shape.
You cannot “get rid of” shape. Not even all the atomic bombs or God can make an object lose shape!
You can only “conceptualize” shape.
You cannot even “shape” (verb context) an object to GIVE it shape. Why? Because the object already had this essential intrinsic property to begin with. Without shape there are no objects to be had as they would blend with the background of space and be inseparable and synonymous with “nothing”.
Shape is a static concept, like ‘length’ and ‘distance’. So ‘shape’ (in this context of properties) is NOT a verb! "Color" and "shape" don't exist, they are ways used to describe things that DO exist. They are ADJECTIVES. Adjectives describe properties of objects. That's why those words are followed by "of" and then a noun – the shape of X., the color of X. As adjectives, they embody predicates or properties of objects. Hence they are concepts. Conceptual ideas and descriptions have no actual existence. Only the objects they predicate/describe exist.
So clearly, ‘shape’ is not what we invented. Like space (a concept itself), shape is what we DISCOVERED. We discovered: shape, space, length, distance,......by conceptualizing them, and then we named them.
You can “shape” a statue in ordinary speech and that usage is indeed a VERB. But we are talking apples and cars......as you can “shape” (verb) a statue all you want, remove or add as much material as you want, but you will NEVER change its static shape (adjective). Not even God can perform that magic trick.
Winston, ‘shape’ is the only “essential” AND “observer-independent” property common to ALL objects. If you think there are other properties, I am open to any discussion.
(use inductive reasoning to explain what is most probably correct)
Probably correct?
There is no correct or incorrect in nature’s realm, much less probabilities. Such notions necessarily require an observer and other objects and abstract concepts to set up one or more systems of RELATIONS to ascribe “meaning” and inject OPINION into the reasoning. This extrapolation and prediction nonsense is what Karl Popper introduced into science, this is why we can bend and stretch space and time now, whereas we couldn’t before.
Mathematicians can’t explain squat. But they can predict to 18 decimal places that SPACE is what is holding the Earth in orbit around the Sun, as the Earth ROLLS on curved space. So why aren’t you SQUASHED when you go outside?
The Sun will NOT rise tomorrow because it rose yesterday, last week, last year, and 4.5 billion years ago. Predictions are only made by astrologers, palm readers, and psychics.
The Earth may be shattered to bits by an asteroid tomorrow and the Sun won’t rise. Poof goes the prediction!
(high probability it will happen again and the corn will not be poisonous)
But you didn’t take into account that microscopic mould growing on the kernels, and 400 died after ingesting it last weekend.
Science does not make predictions, only religion does. Science only explains.
(You can only “conceptualize” shape.)
Fatfist,
That is my point - conceptualization requires someone to do the conceptualizing. Maybe this is simply nitpicking semantics, but it appears to me that an object cannot have an intrisic shape without an observer as the observer is required to conceptualize and name shape.
As you said, nature does not recognize shape, and shape is a concept, meaning before biological brains were around there could be nothing called shape - so even the intrinsic property of shape must be considered observer-dependent in that sense.
But what I believe you are saying is that the object has the property that we as humans have conceptualized and named shape - the property is the key issue, not what we have elected to name it.
(The Earth may be shattered to bits by an asteroid tomorrow and the Sun won’t rise. Poof goes the prediction!)
Perhaps I am being unclear but that is exactly what I thought I said, too, that inductive reasoning cannot lead to any concrete 100% conclusions. The reasoning is that the sun will rise - but it is no guarantee. Nor is the reason that it rose yesterday the CAUSE of it rising tomorrow - that it rose yesterday is reason to assume it will rise tomorrow, and the more times it does this the greater the chances are that it will do so again, unlike the chances of heads or tails in a coin flip.
But no matter how high we reason the chances to be, we cannot call it a certainty.
On the other hand, deductive reasoning can solve the dichotomy of which proposition is true or false, and thus come to a definitive answer - that does NOT mean that deductive logic is beneficial or correct, though, as the conclusions reached are only as trustworthy as the premises upon which the conclusions are built.
In this sense science is like inductive reasoning, as it does not provide 100% conclusions but instead offers rational explanations (theories) built from premises (which science calls hypothesis).
When we get down to the basics, the foundational statements such as matter cannot be created or destroyed are axiomatic, and no matter what we do we can never illustrate 100% that these axiomatic assumptions have forever been and will forever be accurate else we are making our own claim of absolutism.
The reason that science is so superior is that it can claim "with a high degree of confidence", because it relies on observation and extrapolation from observations instead of making up premises in order to create a logical explanation for a concept.
That, to me, is the beauty of science, in that it DOES NOT TRY to PROVE, but to explain, knowing from the start that the explanation can never be considered concrete 100% fact.
Winston,
(it appears to me that an object cannot have an intrisic shape without an observer as the observer is required to conceptualize and name shape.)
Before we can talk about our environment, we MUST first conceptualize it.
But you are confusing what we “conceptualize” via our sensory system and our reasoning system, versus the inherent observer-independent property common to all ‘things’.
We utter a sound to name the former. The latter is what IS the case that differentiates objects from their background, irrespective of us existing.
WE are required to conceptualize every single word in language. All words are concepts. Some resolve to objects, others to verbs, adjectives, etc.
You are now saying that the Moon does not have shape, unless there is somebody present to SEE it and conceptualize its shape. Does this make sense to you?
Winston, I want you to please explain to me WHAT is it that differentiates SOMETHING from NOTHINIG. How do you do it? You certainly don’t touch/see it cause I can tell you that I have a device that beeps, how do you conceptualize when reading this post, that it is something rather than nothing??
NOTE: This has absolutely NOTHING to do with an observation. I only TOLD you I have a device in this post. When you read this, and process it in your brain,...WHAT criteria will your brain use to differentiate “this device” from nothing?
You can go thru a million categories, but the only observer-independent non-circular category you will always fall back on is shape!
But I would love to hear any other category you have and your reasoning.
(As you said, nature does not recognize shape)
And nature doesn’t recognize space either, as space IS a concept! It is OUR conception of nothing!!
Similarly, are you gonna tell me now that there was NO space before humans came and conceived it?
So humans came, conceived of space and shape, and POP!....suddenly there was space and objects from the void? This is exactly the nonsense that Quantum asserts, except they claim that we have to SEE something before it can pop into existence.
You are attributing intelligence to nature. Nature never recognizes. Nature is atoms and space (nothing).
BUT WHAT IS IT EXACTLY THAT SEPARATES AN OBJECT FROM ITS BACKGROUND?
This is the formidable question that people always have problems answering. And it is not surprising. We’ve had our brains drilled with so much BS taught in the public school system that almost nobody today can tell you unambiguously, the difference between an object and a concept.
I am not trying to put you down Winston, so please don’t take what I say the wrong way. But just to give you some examples, it not unusual for people to take 2 years or more to understand the diff between object and concept. I have seen some people take over a year to truly understand the significance of this simplistic word: SHAPE.
This may seem simplistic:
Object: that which has shape
exist = object + location
But I guarantee you, that absolutely NOBODY understands its significance for several months after being introduced to it. Level of intelligence or IQ has nothing to do with understanding those 2 terms. Unfortunately, that’s just the way it is....
So Winston, can you please attempt to answer the question above? I’m not trying to put you on the spot, I am just trying to understand what you conceive is the separating factor between an object and its background.
(before biological brains were around there could be nothing called shape)
Of course... No words, numbers, truth, love, evil, morals, motion, time, speed, acceleration, etc.
(so even the intrinsic property of shape must be considered observer-dependent in that sense.)
Why? Please explain. What is it about the separation between something and nothing,....that depends on an observer??
What is it about the gap between the Moon and the Sun, and those 2 objects, that depends on an observer??
So the Moon did not have a spatial arrangement with other objects and space in order for it to be a distinct entity that can participate in interactions with other objects, before humans conceptualized shape??
The Moon did not have form, it didn’t have a boundary, it didn’t have an outline, .....required to ensure the Moon is a separate object from the Sun and is separate from the background (space)??
Can you please justify your position?
(the property is the key issue, not what we have elected to name it)
You can name it FOO. Names are irrelevant. When it comes to concepts, we give them NAME and MEANING or explanations. When it comes to objects, we can only point to them and give them NAME. Objects have no meaning whatsoever. What is the meaning of a coconut? In science, we don’t define or explain objects. In science, we visualize them. We point to an image of an object and name it, ideally with a single syllable.
(that it rose yesterday is reason to assume it will rise tomorrow)
Here is the problem.....An assumption is a hypothesis. Your statement above confuses hypothesis with theory. You have an irrational assumption. Assumptions are static, not dynamic. You cannot assume what WILL happen. You can only assume objects exist and describe the initial scenes of the situation before your theory provides an explanation.
This is commonplace in the irrational world of mathematical physics where WARPED SPACE actually IS AN EXPLANATION for the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Because the establishment uses hypothesis and theory interchangeably, they completely lost track of the sci method.
This is how it’s rationally done:
Hypothesis: space is an object that can be warped dynamically
Theory: We have seasons because the earth rolls on this physical curve highway of space.....blah blah....and the sun’s magical force field grabs space by the balls and twists it until physical atoms come together and form a physical highway of sorts.....
In science, we dont say God exists (or God doesnt exist) (i.e., conclusion, evidence, proof, no chance for rebuttal, done deal). In science, we say Let us ASSUME that God exists. With this proposal I will explain how the Universe came to be.
(and the more times it does this the greater the chances are that it will do so again)
No way!! How did you come up with this? What do the opinions of chances (human notions of idealized models and scenarios) have to do with nature?
Just from a non-scientific perspective, I would personally say that the more times the earth continues to motor around the sun, the GREATER the chances it will get hit by a large object and destroyed to bits. Then no sun will rise again!
(science is like inductive reasoning)
In Science, we don't prove or have evidence for ANY theory! Science is NOT in the business of proving or looking for evidence. Those who believe otherwise are stuck to 17th Century 'induction' 'science', an amusing religion created by mathematical morons such as Descartes, Newton, and Halley who ran experiments to prove their theories.
The problem is that Science has NOTHING to do with 'works / usefulness' or with predictions. This is the nonsense they teach in colleges around the world. 'Works' has to do with Technology. It gives us no insight into WHY a given phenomenon occurred. And predictions are what astrologers and palm readers do. They have nothing to do with Science.
Science is about EXPLAINING a phenomenon of Nature. That's what Science is about. The 'scientific method' devised in the 17th Century -- induction -- has nothing to do with Science. It has to do exclusively with RELIGION! i.e. the universe is fine-tuned to support life, therefore an intelligent being was the designer!!
Induction is religion to the N-th degree.
Science has to do with explaining a theory. In order to do so rationally, the theorist must go through 3 phases: hypothesis, theory and conclusions.
The hypothesis is where Math fails utterly. There is not a single valid hypothesis in the entire religion of Mathematics.
Science has no use for Mathematics, especially, for any of the alleged 'mathematical objects' devised by the mathematicians. Science deals with physical objects that exist. These are the physical mediators that will be used to explain your theory. Science doesn’t deal with conceptualized mathematical objects, like 0D point-particles, singularities, black holes, QM particles, warped-space, time dilation, etc.
Remember: The inductive method emphasizes the detective (lab researcher running tests) and not the prosecutor (scientist using sci method). It has to do with how a detective came across his knowledge and not with WHY a phenomenon happened. Induction will NEVER tell you WHY the Earth goes around the Sun. It only gives you a petty description, and is so brazen to call it a prediction. Total lunacy!!
We never left the Dark Ages. We only changed biblical fundamentalism for inductive/mathematical fundamentalism.
(When we get down to the basics, the foundational statements such as matter cannot be created or destroyed are axiomatic)
How so?
What are the axioms you refer to?
(assumptions have forever been and will forever be accurate else we are making our own claim of absolutism.)
You have blended and confused hypothesis with theory with philosophy in that statement. Such notion has nothing to do with science.
(that it can claim "with a high degree of confidence", because it relies on observation and extrapolation from observations)
And Jesus walked on water and raised the dead and is the son of God, and his father created the universe and.............and we can claim "with a high degree of confidence", because it relies on observation and extrapolation from observations.
Those who assign petty opinionated observations to science, MUST ABSOLUTELY ACCEPT ALL OBSERVATIONS MADE BY ALL RELIGIONS. There is no way for them to decree as one being better over the other, unless they use dogmatic authority to twist your arm.
Winston, only religions do observations and claim to have an explanation.
How did you observe or measure the bending of space? How about the bending of time?
Please draw a picture of your observation of ANY quantum particle.......ANY!
Understand what I’m getting at?
No? Ok, please give me any observation performed by math physics today and I will easily show exactly where it fails.
(it DOES NOT TRY to PROVE, but to explain)
If that was the case, I wouldn’t be here ;-)
That, to me, is the beauty of science, in that it DOES NOT TRY to PROVE, but to explain, knowing from the start that the explanation can never be considered concrete 100% fact.
Amen
Science has its nights and its dawns, because it gives the intellectual world a life which has its regulated movements and its progressive phases. It is with Truths, as with the luminous rays: nothing of what is concealed is lost; but also, nothing of what is discovered is absolutely new. God has been pleased to give to Science, which is the reflection of His Glory, the Seal of His Eternity.
Amen
Fatfist,
We seem to be talking two separate languages. I am talking about logic, most specifically inductive logic, and I am in total agreement that it is assumption.
(What are the axioms you refer to? )
Axiom #1: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Why do I call this an axiom? Because it cannot be shown to have been fact infinitely in the past nor can it be known to be a fact infinitely into the future.
Therefore, it is assumed to be fact. If we build a rational explanation off this assumption, we have done something quite similar to building a logic from an axiomatic foundation.
If we claim it an absolute fact, we are asserting absolute is possible, when it is not.
Basically, all I am doing is restating the David Hume argument that nothing can be 100% known.
What I am saying is that your presentation of science as a rational explanation is superior to logic, but as all of us are in the same boat when it comes to not knowing 100%, we cannot make statements of absoluteness, even in science.
(Induction will NEVER tell you WHY the Earth goes around the Sun. It only gives you a petty description, and is so brazen to call it a prediction. Total lunacy!!)
Lunacy is a bit strong, as without the first observation that the Earth orbits the Sun we might have a hypothesis and a theory concerning a geocentric solar system. :-) What eventually caused the collapse of the geocentric claim was observation - the facts reached a point where geocentrism simply could not provide a reason.
Induction is all we have to establish some type of reliable data - even Bill's theory of light is based on observation of light. Observation tells me the I will see the sun tomorrow - Bill explains why this might be so. If we didn't see light, none of it would matter.
(You cannot assume what WILL happen. You can only assume objects exist and describe the initial scenes of the situation before your theory provides an explanation)
I am not trying to explain science - I am explaining inductive logic. Inductive logic is all about probabilities. Probabilities by their nature deal with future events.
Again, I am not attacking rational explanations. But if you want to know where on a Friday night to find the hottest babes in town then inductive logic can get you to a high-possibility hangout, whereas rationality can only tell you that where you are right now ain't it, and then explain why it was that on a Friday night you once again did not get laid. :-))
Winston,
I am glad you brought up this discussion because it showcases how most people don’t understand the difference between logic, science, and religion. I’m not trying to put you on the spot or ridicule you in any way, so don’t even go there......you should know by now the type of responses I give.
I assume you came from a fundamentalist background, as it is almost impossible to avoid it if you are American. It’s pretty sad for me to make such a blanket statement in this day and age, but that’s the state of affairs. And these are the same arguments I’ve had with theists and atheists who are ex-fundamentalists. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.....there is absolutely NO difference between a theist and an atheist. The God thing is irrelevant and is only a minor distinction between these 2 camps. The inseparable issue is they both have the EXACT SAME worldview: THEY ABSOLUTELY “BELIEVE” IN EXISTENCE!!!! Both of their worldviews are based on faith, belief, knowledge, truth, facts, proof, wisdom, predictions, guesses, assertions, opinions, creation (t=0, begin, end), observations, evidence......and no rational thinking. If humans were taught to be critical thinkers, there wouldn’t be a single religion (traditional or math physics) left standing today......as ALL the wares they peddle are instantly debunked at the conceptual level.....NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF REQUIRED!!
(Axiom #1: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Why do I call this an axiom? Because it cannot be shown to have been fact infinitely in the past nor can it be known to be a fact infinitely into the future.)
Axiom?
You are confusing the sci method with axiomatic systems of logic. Science doesn’t deal in systems of logic, axiomatic or otherwise, nor the truths, facts, and proofs that are implicitly bound to them. There are definitely NO axiomatic systems in science. If you disagree, please show me exactly where in the sci method (Hypothesis + Theory) there is provision for axiomatic systems of logic.
“Fact?”
Please explain to me what a “fact” is. Then please post here just one fact....any one fact....that you ‘know’.....
And before anybody can say that they KNOW a fact, they first have to explain what they mean by the word “KNOW”. Does it mean that you can prove it? Or does it mean that it is in your memory?
Unlike philosophy (the study of concepts), science (the study of existence) defines knowledge as follows....
Knowledge: the ability to predict the outcome of a specific experiment without error
Science doesn’t work like religion. We don’t “know” any facts in science. Facts are only known in religion. The statement of the facts is part the Hypothesis stage. If they are irrational, then the Hypothesis is invalid and rejected. The theory can only explain iff there is a valid hypothesis.
“Infinitely in the past”
What sense can this clause possibly make?
I have said this before.....anybody who uses the word “infinity”, has no clue of what they are talking about, as it is impossible to assign any meaning to this word and use it rationally or even grammatically correct. This word was invented by Religion and it made its way into Mathematics, and was last resurrected by Cantor, and it died with him!
The word infinite is an adjective, the opposite in context of “finite”. Past is a verb, not an object, so the clause “infinite past” has NO meaning. This is pure religious church talk and it sounds exactly like one of William-Lane Craig’s arguments. There is no such anything as infinite in nature. Infinities are irrational adjectives stemming from abstract mathematical objects – NOTHING ELSE! This is why Cantor, the inventor of different infinities, was locked up in the insane asylum and committed suicide. He was trying to reconcile infinity with Nature. If he had only asked FATFIST, he would still be alive & well today, as I would have told him that it is only an adjective and it doesn’t exist :-)
Exist = object + location
There is NO infinite past or infinite future. Such notions don’t even make sense and nobody understands what they mean. There is only NOW in nature. Nature has no memory. Nature is eternally at the cutting edge of universal events. Nature is akin to a perpetual recycling machine. So there is only NOW! Anybody who disagrees.....I more than welcome their rational argument....trust me!
In science, we don’t prove PAST or FUTURE events with any level of certainty or level of probability. The Scientific Method can ONLY be used to EXPLAIN CONSUMMATED EVENTS. There is no provision for certainty, validity, truth, proof, guess, prediction, probability, etc. There is only a rational explanation of WHY the event occurred as it did.
Most don’t understand what the sci method entails and what it concludes. People think it concludes truth. But it only concludes that it HAS a rational explanation. This doesn’t mean that’s how mother nature performs her business. It only means that we have an explanation of how she MAY perform her business. This is the best we can do.
(Therefore, it is assumed to be fact.)
No, it’s not. It is not an assumption and it is not an absolute fact, or any claim thereof. You have it all backwards because you have confused hypothesis with theory.
That matter & space cannot be created is not an assumption and not a hypothesis. It is a theory.
That matter & space is created is not an assumption, it is a theory.
The assumption is: that there was an ontological situation where there was NO space and NO matter.
Winston,
(David Hume argument that nothing can be 100% known.)
Nothing can even be 0.00000000000001% known. We can’t KNOW anything....period! Knowledge is an irrational word. But to claim that science purports ‘knowledge’ or ‘probabilities’ is irrational. It does none of the sort. Only religion purports such beasts, such as asserting to know that God exists is more probable than not. This is the type of insanity that is believed by both theists and atheists alike.
Nature has nothing to do with probabilities or with knowledge. Such activities belong exclusively to the dynamism of human beings and their wild imagination with unlimited MEMORY to store nonsense, such as opinions, feelings, emotions, anger, biases, etc.
Winston, you will have to show that nature somehow STORES MEMORY of the past in order to use any statements of knowledge, fact, truth, proof, absolute, or probabilities to describe it.
Mother Nature has no memory. She wakes up, looks out and sees every object at a given location. Then she goes back to sleep and loses her memory. Mother Nature recognizes no such thing as motion or time. As far as she's concerned, all objects merely have location. Objects exist in a Static Universe. It is humans and video cameras which have memory.
It is this mysterious word 'time' which has clogged the minds of the mathematicians for the last 5000 years. It is time to get rid of it
Therefore, Mother Nature neither recognizes the past nor the future. She works in present mode. In this sense, She is definitely perpetual. The present is not an interval. We don't live in a dynamic Universe (memory, interval). Atoms exist in a static Universe (merely have location). Only humans are dynamic beings because they have memory, and tons of it!!
Mother Nature's world is ONLY a world of objects. There are no observers, second guesses, opinions, testimonies, probabilities or witnesses. In her world, the asteroid did NOT travel at 100 mph. This is an observer phenomenon. In her world, the asteroid is a real object: it has shape and location. That's all! Time absolutely requires an observer: memory (i.e., opinion, subjectivity). That's why time is not a part of Science.
Mother Nature's physical world consists solely of objects (ultimately, atoms). She doesn't understand this bullshit the mathematicians invented called time.
Time absolutely requires an observer. Without an observer, we have no memory: only location, a static Universe. It is memory and memory alone which has misled Man to believe that there is an independent 'entity' called time, which facilitates all events, past & future, and which must have had a beginning which we call creation t=0.
Since matter only exists in the present, it had no beginning, and it will have no end as there is no such thing as time, or a t=0 start. But people have been brainwashed to think that time exists. And this is the reason why they attach a beginning (t=0) and an end (Armageddon) to everything, including Mother Nature and its supposed irrational creation. But creation has nothing to do with nature, creation only resides within the human realm of emotions, biases, and brainwashings.
Winston,
Humans only have memory of past consummated events. And they use the sci method to explain them.
So here is the Hypothesis of CREATIONISTS:
“There was an ontological situation where there was NO space and NO matter and NO time.”
*****So Winston......Please conceptualize for me any mechanism that pleases you, which explains how SPACE and MATTER can arise from an ontological assumption of non-space and non-matter.
Better still, explain how time can arise when there was no time!
And don’t give me any nonsense about evidence, observations, 100% certainty, or stuff like that....as such subjective sensory ramblings belong to religion.
This issue at hand is:
1) Can we conceive of an ontological situation without space and matter? If so, please describe that situation in detail.
2) What is the ontological difference between space and ‘without space’?
3) Assuming that ‘space’ = ‘without space’, can we conceptualize how SOMETHING (matter,atoms) can arise from space?
That matter cannot be created from ‘nothing’ is NOT an assumption and NOT an axiom. Such notions are utterly ridiculous. It has to do with what is irrational and contradictory. It’s like saying:
“It is axiomatic that you cannot create a square circle”
“It is axiomatic that you cannot maintain 2 objects in parallel alignment, while making them cross at the same time”
“it is axiomatic that an object cannot lack shape, form, boundary, and surface”
“it is axiomatic that a cause cannot exist without a mediator”
Such arguments stem only from religion, and belong to insanity.
This BS did not fly at all during the time of the ancient Greeks. It was the monotheistic religions who adamantly opposed Greek thought and did everything they could to destroy it, including burning 99% of Greek texts.....nevermind the inquisitions.
So the monotheistic religions have succeeded in BURNING IN PEOPLE’S BRAINS that the default position is t=0, time began, space began, matter began.....there MUST be a beginning......repeat after me and memorize it by rote!
But such BS as creation from nothing, can be explained to be contradictory (square circle) with Junior Kindergarten reasoning.....
Before ‘nothing’ can CREATE (verb), there had better be MATTER present.
Why??
Because MATTER ALWAYS PRECEDES MOTION (create verb). Motion necessarily requires a MEDIATOR to mediate it. For those who disagree, please explain any motion or cause without a mediator. Seriously.....I double-dog-dare ya!!!!!!!
Creation is an event that requires the motion of the mediator which mediates the event.
What is it exactly that MOVED in order to facilitate the CREATION OF MATTER? What is this mediator that moved?
Only MATTER can move. Nothingness cannot move!
So the mediator is without a doubt, MATTER, and not ‘nothing’.
Therefore, Creation from nothing is a contradiction as matter always precedes motion.
Therefore MATTER ALWAYS EXISTED and the creation of matter is IMPOSSIBLE!
.......if only children’s brains were allowed to flourish in JK, we would not need to be having these silly discussion as adults in this day and age. But I guess it’s never too late to grab life by the horns and undo the damage that religion has done to people’s brains.
But I already explained this in this hub, Winston. Either you didn’t read it or it didn’t quite sink in. In this hub I have already explained why the assumption of a God or a Singularity/whatever, as a MEDIATOR, cannot perform the verb CREATE. It is also IMPOSSIBLE!
This summarily debunks the BS of quantum fluctuations. ‘Nothingness’ cannot fluctuate (verb). Matter always precedes motion.
So Winston, all you’ve said in your above statements regarding axioms, is:
“Fatfist, I don’t like the notion that space & matter cannot be created from nothing, because it destroys MY and EVERYONE else’s religion! How dare you do that? I am going to dismiss it as an AXIOM. So please stop regurgitating YOUR axioms and uncertain assumptions. How can we possibly KNOW all this stuff you preach? Humans have limited understanding and reasoning. The universe is very mysterious and you are even making it MORE mysterious with your religious nonsense. Only God can possibly KNOW the absolute facts!!!!!”
I am not picking on Winston.....this is a wake-up call to everyone.
It is this covert religious ideology that is prevalent in ALL sectors of society, not just in church,.....which DECLARES on behalf of everyone that ‘a’ CAUSE is a NOUN! And William-Lane Craig takes full advantage of people’s naivety by reifying ‘creation’ into a noun, rather than a verb,.... and ‘a’ ‘cause’ into a noun rather than a verb,.....and ‘a’ time into a noun rather than a verb.
And Pastor Hawking is no different, as he performs the exact same religious services as Pastor Craig, ....treating ‘creation’, ‘cause’, and ‘time’, as real existing ENTITIES which posit a BEGINNING t=0.
And this is exactly why everyone is brainwashed to think that you can have a CAUSE WITHOUT A MEDIATING OBJECT TO FACILITATE THE CAUSE. Total lunacy!!!
So people are deluded into thinking that creation is SOMETHING, and that ‘a’ cause is SOMETHING. Hence, they have been conditioned to envision in their brain a beginning of time t=0 (because time is also something, rather than nothing), when SOMETHING came to be. And when you mention to them that matter cannot be created, they laugh at you and think that you are so stupid and delusional...LOL!
This is the oldest trick in the book, and I can’t believe that people are soooooooo uneducated and sooooooo naive today to still fall for this crap that was peddled by the Jews who were pushing the Torah over 2500 years ago!!!!
Come to think of it.....I take my last statement back.....as people still believe in Jesus today, and others will sacrifice their life to protect the cartoon image of Mohammed.
(but as all of us are in the same boat when it comes to not knowing 100%, we cannot make statements of absoluteness)
Winston, I hope you realize by now that such a statement is irrational and has nothing to do with science.
Yours is actually a cookie-cutter statement made by fundamentalist theists in forums on a daily basis. And that’s how they INDUCTIVELY justify the existence of their God!
Winston,
(inductive logic, and I am in total agreement that it is assumption.)
An assumption is part of the Hypothesis, and has nothing to do with induction. Inductive logic is an ad-hoc system used by philosophers to blindly extrapolate guesses into the future from the past. What does that have to do with science? This is the stuff peddled by astrologers and Sylvia Brown.
Science doesn’t extrapolate and it certainly doesn’t guess. Science only explains consummated events, nothing else.
(inductive reasoning has predictive value)
No! This is where your confusion lies. Induction only extrapolates guesses.
A prediction is foolproof. There is no error whatsoever. Otherwise, it is called a guess (intelligent or otherwise)! If you, backed by your equations, predict that Mercury is going to be at a given point at 2:00 pm tomorrow and a solar flare suddenly jumps out and destroys Mercury at 1:00 pm, your prediction did not materialize. You lost the bet. You were guessing all along. You may argue some BS about not knowing (certainties, probabilities, or other lame excuses) that the Sun would hickup or that there was a comet in the vicinity and that that did not disprove your equation. Irrelevant! You made a guess, not a prediction. Regardless, guesses and predictions are irrational and have nothing to do with science. Maybe you can use them to pick-up chicks.....but the last time I did that I was in shock when my detailed observations discovered a very hard bone between her legs. That’s why I promised God that I will never induce again!
(without the first observation that the Earth orbits the Sun we might have a hypothesis and a theory concerning a geocentric solar system)
We have been observing for the past 5000 years. And now with computers and technology that give 100’s of decimal places. Not a single idiot of the establishment can tell you why the Earth orbits the Sun – NOT ONE!!
Clearly, observations have nothing to do with science – especially after 5000 years.
(Induction is all we have to establish some type of reliable data....even Bill's theory of light is based on observation of light.)
No. Bill did not perform observations and use the results to induce a theory. He strictly stuck to the sci method.
A theory, especially Bill’s is NOT based on observations.....no way! This is what 17 th century priests did and declared light was ‘a’ wave or a discrete particle, two thoroughly debunked notions.
Scientific Method = Hypothesis + Theory
Theory = explanation of consummated events.
There is no provision for direct-consequential observations in a theory.
Please talk to Bill directly about how he came about this stuff. You’ll be surprised by what he says.
(Probabilities by their nature deal with future events.)
You might as well practise Astrology as it is more accurate and you will make a LOT more money from suckers who will hand it over.
There are NO future events in nature. There is only NOW. Nature gave humans memory, and now they think they are God, with the ability to make predictions about the future. Such activities serve no purpose in science and are only used to control people.
(where on a Friday night to find the hottest babes in town then inductive logic can get you to a high-possibility hangout)
You are confusing science with engineering......you are confusing an explanation with what is practical/useful.
Science doesn’t care what is useful, it only explains consummated events. Whereas engineering uses the probabilistic TRIAL & ERROR paradigm to invent and innovate over time: radios, computers, vibrators, cell phones, medicine, etc.....none of which can be explained with mainstream science!
Apples vs Automobiles comparison.
In fact, Ptolemy made tons of inductive predictions on the positions of the stars and planets, and astronomical events based on an Earth-centric universe. His predictions were even MORE accurate than those of Copernicus 1000 years later. So how is it that Ptolemy had it all wrong, but with greater accuracy of prediction of orbits in the sky, but Copernicus had it right, with less accuracy? Science hasn’t explained anything for that past 2000 years. Any little 16 yr old geek wiz can do predictions with a computer these days that trumps those of supposed scientists. But just as the supposed scientist, the 16 yr old wiz cannot explain why the Earth orbits the Sun.
In 2010 Hawking finally broke down and admitted: “God did not create the Universe!”
His latest comments from his book “The Grand Design” show him breaking away from previous beliefs he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang. Hawking believed in God, but only as far as Him designing and fine-tuning the Laws of Physics so as to let creation occur on its own.
He wrote in A Brief History of Time: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun, helped deconstruct his same view as held by Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos and random chance but was created by God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings…..God did not create the universe and the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.." he writes.
So this clown who had earlier used Inductive reasoning to conclude the Universe was created by God, suddenly finds a planet orbiting a Sun other than ours, and now claims the Universe was not created by God, but was instead created by LAWS OF PHYSICS (concepts reified into objects)??
And now theists are offended that Hawking has left their camp and respond as follows: “But what "laws of physics" are in play at t=0? If we're talking about the beginning of all physical reality after that point, that would include the laws of physics. But the laws of physics can't exist until they come into being!”
So the LUNACY CONTINUES…..Are we supposed to take such Tarot Card Reading clowns as Hawking seriously? Where is Sylvia Brown to set him straight?
Clearly, observations, predictions, induction, probabilities, etc,.....have nothing to do with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Anybody and their farting aunt can do predictions and guesses with 80 decimals of accuracy, even though they have it all backwards!!
NOTHING EXISTS per se EXCEPT ATOMS AND THE VOID
But, now again to weave the tale begun,
All nature, then, as self-sustained, consists
Of twain of things: of bodies and of void
In which they're set, and where they're moved around.
Titus Lucretius Carus
Amen
The sea and the River-these are each One; but the drops of each are many. The tree is one; but its leaves are a multitude: they drop with the frosts, and fall upon his roots; but the tree still continues to grow, and new leaves come again in the spring. Is the Human Race not the Tree, and are not the individual men the leaves? How else explain the force of will and sympathy, and the dependence of one man at every instant of his life on others, except by the oneness of the race? The links that blind all created things together are the links of a single Unity, and the whole Universe is One, developing itself into the manifold.
Albert Pike
Amen
Fatfist you sound just like them, but they used poetry instead. I know you must read alot OF THE NATURE OF THINGS, but you never read Dogma And Morals is a really good book. Is funny you are the only one that understands what i wrote everyone else hahahaha please keep trying.
Grown-up adults should adopt reason as their guide and never become slaves of anybody. But they refused to be free they rather make idols from fools.
Amen
(you must read alot OF THE NATURE OF THINGS)
I used to read a lot of stuff like that when I was younger.....lots of claims.....lots of theories.....lots of authorities. Many things didn’t add up. They didn’t make sense, but they came from really smart people with lots of decorations in their name and much high praise......so I had to “believe” them....I guess.
But we can’t continue like that. We need to wake up at some point. We are people, not dumbed-down puppets for authority.
Luckily I never was into religion and I didn’t have a religious upbringing.....so I was very eager to learn without any predisposition to biases.....thank God!
(Grown-up adults should adopt reason as their guide)
People today like to think of themselves as smarter than their ancestors in the Dark Ages. They believe that technology and education somehow makes them “brighter”. But it’s just not the case. People have only expanded their level of education laterally. We have more academia into greater categories, but in general, people are no smarter today. They still engage in irrational behavior such as “believing” and “proving” the existence of objects. And they believe in impossible “matterless motion” such as:
- Theologians ascribe motion to ‘a’ CAUSE (verb). Essential for establishing a beginning and proving “creation”.
- Relativity ascribes motion to 0D particles, space, and concepts such as ‘length’, ‘mass’, ‘time’.
- Quantum ascribes motion to 0D particles, space (quantum fluctuations), concepts such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and the various Standard Model particles.
- String Theory ascribes motion to 1D string concepts.
According to G.W.F Hegel, “Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion.” In other words, all phenomena may be classified as either matter or the motion of matter. The opposing assumption is separability, the popular idea that motion could occur without matter. Matterless motion is especially popular among logical positivists and theologians.
Yes, we “should” do a lot of things....and that doesn't include making idols from fools.
Amen
(Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Why do I call this an axiom?)
Fatfist,
Trying to stick to one point only. The basis of your previous statement begins with the claim that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
I point out that the claim you make is an assertion (in that no one can understand, know, observe, or do anyting other than assume this claim is accurate.)
In the sense that it must be assertion it is axiom-like. That does not mean that a hypothesis is part of a logical system - but, at the same time, the whole construction of your rational explanation relies on the initial asserted premise - that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In that none of us have been around forever and will not be around forever then it is impossible to see if this concept is 100% valid, although it is certainly rational.
Like you say, rational is the best we can do - but it is not 100% - nothing can be.
(A theory, especially Bill’s is NOT based on observations.....no way!)
I did not say that. The point is that if light could not be observed (or its effect on objects) any theory about light (regardless of how it came about) would be pointless.
The theory of dark? I don't think so.
In that none of us have been around forever and will not be around forever then it is impossible to see if this concept is 100% valid, although it is certainly rational.
Rational explanation is good enought for me.
The normal condition of man is that of progress. Philosophy is a kind of journey, ever learning, yet never arriving at the ideal perfection of truth.
I like Albert Pike, But I dont like Frederick Taylor Gates.
Winston,
(The basis of your previous statement begins with the CLAIM that matter cannot be created or destroyed.)
You ask the GOOD questions Winston. So we went from axiom to claim, which are 2 different ideas, and now I understand the issue that is bothering you.
So let’s dissect this “claim” issue in detail because almost everyone has been conditioned into thinking that:
Hypothesis = proven claim = absolute fact = 100% valid and testable
So it’s not surprising that theologians, theists, agnostics, atheists, and mathematical 'scientists', cannot tell you whether Creationism is Scientific, or whether Evolution is “JUST A THEORY”, or vice versa. The clowns of mathematical physics have embodied so many irreconcilable notions in what they call a hypothesis and a theory, that they can longer differentiate them and end up perpetually chasing their tails in circles.
“That matter & space was created”, is not an assumption, it is a theory. The assumption (hypothesis) is that there was once an ontological situation of no space and no matter.
Q: Why is it a theory?
A: First and foremost, because it posits a CONSUMMATED EVENT (“was created”). It is a positive CLAIM that “the U was created”, already happened in the past. Second, since it is THEORIZED that “the U was created”, IT IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS UNLESS IT IS RATIONALLY EXPLAINED TO BE A VIABLE CLAIM. If it can’t, it is no better than a claim that somebody vomited that brand new LCD TV hanging on their wall, at which case we disregard it and throw it in the trash with all the other millions of claims.
Theories only deal with consummated events (verbs). So theories deal with positive claims (i.e. some phenomenon that allegedly happened).
The “theory” takes the initial scenes and assumptions directly from the hypothesis, and proceeds to rationally explain how the universe was created. And remember: you DON’T KNOW, nor can you demonstrate, or prove, or provide a single shred of evidence that the universe was created. Why? Because the past is NOT available for anyone to provide a proof, a demonstration, an observation, or even any sort of objective evidence. Only religion does these things.
For those idiots who have been brainwashed to “prove” with evidence, they have already tied their own arms & legs behind their back. But they are too embarrassed to tell you that, so I will tell you here and now:
1) Let’s first analyze the pieces of evidence gathered and stored in the vault of when there was no space and no matter.
2) Then let’s analyze the pieces of evidence gathered after the t=0 creation event.
3) Then let’s analyze the pieces of evidence gathered now.
4) Let’s compare 1 and 2 and 3 to reach a conclusion that the universe was created.
Do you see the stupidity of the above? Is this something that they can even do? So what do they do? They use INDUCTION to GUESS that the universe was created, and then they claim to have PROVED it as follows:
Space gives birth to more space and expands faster than the speed of light.......except....um...um.....well....to put it mildly......the space between the Earth and the Sun that is easily amenable to observation, is an extremely special space protected by God, so that space obviously won’t expand......only the space really far away, that we can’t see, .....that’s what expands. And we have PROVEN it with redshift of light,.....even tho we haven’t the slightest clue what light is.....but it’s a DONE DEAL and it can’t be questioned!
Winston, do you not see the stupidity of induction?
Anyway........Since guesses, proof, or anything definitive, let alone practical, is out of the question for Creation...... what are our options for “at least” conceptualizing that Creation “could” have happened in the past.....that it is at least VIABLE?
The only available rational option is this:
Hypothesis: Assume the ontological situation of no space and no matter at some point in the past.
Theory: I can now rationally explain how space was created and how matter was created as follows..........
So........AFTER 2500 YEARS, WHAT HAVE THE MONOTHEISTIC THEOLOGIANS AND MATHEMATICIANS MANAGED TO FILL IN FOR THE BLANKS IN THE THEORY ABOVE?
1) The only answer that we have from Theologians is that: God did it! With absolutely NO explanation.....nada!
2) The only answer that we have from Mathematical Physics is that: The 0D (inexistent) Singularity did it! With absolutely NO explanation.....nada!
And since the above 2 statements came from authorities on the subject, like William-Lane Craig and Stephen Hawking, who were given the facts by God himself, ......the idiot apes of planet Earth swallow this nonsense without so much as blinking. Both of these religious clowns know that they are pushing nothing but stinky BS. But they have a career and their celebrity status to maintain at the expense of messin’ with your brain and turning you into a vegetable!
In science we don't test or prove assumptions or claims. These are not statements of factual reality. But for the purposes of science, we take them at face value because that's what they are: make believe that..., pretend that..., suppose that....
It is the explanation (theory) which determines whether your assumption (no space and no matter) was rational or irrational, as it does for the theory of CREATION. If your theory of creation is irrational or if it has any ontological contradictions......IT BELONGS IN THE GARBAGE!!!!! It’s very hard for people to understand the ramifications of this statement. When people have had their BRAINS DRILLED since childbirth that reality is “created”, they will do anything to not let go of this heart-warming fantasy. And some people are inclined to kill over it.
Obviously, the sci method is the BEST objective method we have that can determine whether the theory of CREATION, or ANY theory, is a rational one, and a viable one. If anybody thinks they have a better method, I am all ears!
Winston,
Now let us now consider what I said......”That matter & space cannot be created, and was not created”.
That is clearly not an assumption and not a hypothesis.
At face value, we are inclined to call it a theory. But is it really a theory??
Well, it’s quite easy to determine this. Upon closer inspection, we determine that:
1) It does not posit a consummated event.
2) It does not posit a positive claim.
3) It actually NEGATES the positive claim of creationism.
So what is there to theorize about? What is there to explain? We can only theorize and explain that space and matter was created – not its negation!
So....... is MY statement that “matter & space cannot be created” a CLAIM that requires rigorous explanation, and must be proved, and mush show evidence for, .......otherwise I am blowing smoke out of my ass???
It is a claim only for the layman, the philosopher, the logician, the theologian, and for the regular everyday folks who use ordinary speech and don’t quite understand the difference between a positive claim and its “negation”...... but it’s definitely not a claim for the purposes of science.
The philosopher, the logician, and the theologian will battle in a bloodbath of sorts whether the supposed “CLAIM”, that “matter & space cannot be created”, is valid, true, false, proven, fact, 100% reality, backed up by science, whether agreed by Dawkins and Hawking, .......and all sorts of BS.
What these idiots argue about in their religious discussions does not concern science. They don’t even have a clue of what they are arguing about. So whatever opinion or conclusion they have is irrelevant to a rational person. They are in fact doing what is often called....”shifting the burden of proof”. And this happens EVERY SINGLE DAY in forum discussions without anybody realizing the contradiction in putting the burden of “proof” on the negation of the positive claim. It’s truly hilarious to watch people irrationally defend such negated claims by attempting to PROVE them. LOL
So WHY is it NOT a claim?
Because nature is already composed of matter with the background of space wrapping every single atom. Existence already exists!!! What is it that we are trying to establish? That it was not created? That existence didn’t exist in the past? What sense could that possibly make?
It’s like saying......you are wrongly accused of murder, but it is up to YOU to establish an argument to convince the jury that you did NOT commit the crime. What sense could this possibly make? How can you possibly demonstrate that you didn’t do it?
It’s like saying......your employer is accusing you of moonlighting for the competition, and you take it upon yourself to go to extreme lengths to convince your employer otherwise (the negation is true). What sense does that make? How can you possibly explain your position of defence?
In science its simple.......The onus is on the positive claimant of a consummated event to produce a rational explanation (theory) that demonstrates that their claim is a VIABLE one. If they can’t, then THEIR CLAIM GOES IN THE TRASH HEAP along with the millions of other claims. We’re done!
In summary, that “matter & space cannot be created”, logically follows DIRECTLY FROM THE ONTOLOGICAL CONTRADICITON INHERENT IN THE POSITIVE CLAIM.
Winston, you did read the contradiction of CREATION I posted in my previous post (regarding “creation” verb & mediators), right?
Did that make sense or not?
Did it definitively show that CREATION is an ontological contradiction, or not?
Did my argument in this hub show that CREATION is an ontological contradiction, or not?
If not, please let me know what the issue of grievance is and I can elaborate further.....
(no one can understand, know, observe, or do anyting other than assume this claim is accurate)
Winston, can we OBSERVE that you are NOT moonlighting for the competition? How do you propose we do that....with 24 hr surveillance on you? What about the time the camera is not on you, couldn’t you be covertly sending proprietary company secrets to the competition? What about before the surveillance starts? What about after the surveillance ends?
Obviously, what anybody claims they know, observe, prove, have evidence for, etc., is utterly ridiculous and unscientific. It is religion at its worst.
An ontological contradiction demonstrates WHAT IS NOT THE CASE. Its conclusion is that it NEGATES the positive claim. i.e. the positive claim is BUNK, BS, caca, garbage, .....
What is it that you don’t understand about this??
Winston,
(none of us have been around forever and will not be around forever then it is impossible to see if this concept is 100% valid)
There are ABSOLUTELY NO OBSERVERS IN SCIENCE. IN FACT, IT IS OUR DUTY TO EXECUTE ANYBODY WHO GOES OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION AND INTRODUCE IT INTO THEIR THEORY.
If SEEING is the criterion that makes something 100% VALID, then all the claims of YAHWEH, ALLAH, and JESUS must be valid according to that line of reasoning......and for 99.999999% of the population, they are indeed valid! So you are certainly OUTVOTED on this issue Winston, and if I were you, I’d start going back to church real soon otherwise you will be deemed as a heretic.
It is a sad state of affairs for beings who are purported to be the most intelligent species on this planet, to make subjective observations in order to PROVE REALITY, don’t you think?
Induction is the DEATH of science.
All such claims: God, Jesus, Creation, Big Bang, black holes, bent space, stretched time, light particles, light waves, gravity waves, Quantum particles, etc......are easily put to rest and die at the conceptual level, using rationality and critical thought to elucidate their inherent ontological contradictions. Understand?
(although it is certainly rational)
It doesn’t matter what is rational. In the case of the asserted claim of CREATION......Rational does not equate to fact or truth. Rational thought allows us to utilize our critical thinking skills to unravel a claim and expose its ontological contradictions WHICH SPECIFY WHAT IS NOT THE CASE. This is how we demonstrate that the claim is, without question, IMPOSSIBLE. We’re done!
A rational exchange allows for an objective exchange of ideas.....it is a tool and a process. Without it, we are talking gibberish.
Whereas a CONCLUSION, is easily reached from an ontological contradiction.
If the proponent of the claim doesn’t like their impossible assertion, they are free to modify their claim as they wish to get around all the impossibilities and contradictions. THIS CANNOT BE DONE FOR CREATION....NO WAY!!
That’s why the charlatans of the past 2500 years have been reifying CAUSES into REAL OBJECTS, so they can drill Creationism into your brain from ALL POSSIBLE ANGLES. And the latest one, as you know, is Intelligent Design which “proves” Creation. These religious clowns will never rest, they will find millions of angles and loopholes to DRILL CREATION INTO YOUR BRAIN, FOREVER AND EVER AMEN!!
Winston, this is why WE can make the following statements (not axioms, not assertions, not claims!!) and not have any fear whatsoever that we are offending God:
- It is IMPOSSIBLE that space and matter were ever created.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a causal action without an object acting as a mediator.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an object without a background “medium” that gives it “objecthood”.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE to create time.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE to transcend space.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE for space to convert into matter.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE for matter to convert into space.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE for parallel-maintaining objects to intersect.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE for anything 0D to exist.
- It is IMPOSSIBLE to travel in a straight line (Newton was indeed a fool’s FOOL!!!).
......and God forbid.....are you ready for this one.....this one is a biggie.....and it’s an extremely hard pill to swallow.....but here it goes:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ENTITY (GOD) TO CREATE SPACE AND MATTER, OR EVEN A UNIVERSE OBJECT......NO MATTER HOW OMNI-POWERFUL THIS ENTITY IS PURPORTED TO BE.....NO MATTER WHAT ANY AUTHORITY, EVIDENCE, OR OBSERVER SAYS!
Any questions?
Post your grievances here........I welcome them ALL.
So there is no debate about Creation whether from a God or from nothing, or from some mathematical abstract object. The debate of whether matter & space were created, was a DEAD ISSUE at conception, over 2500 years ago when Abraham had his very first encounter with God.
And the atheists who are debating the theists on creation, ID, evolution, Big Bang, quantum fluctuations, etc. are brainwashed beyond comprehension, with absolutely no ability to reason or think critically. This is why everyone is so caught up on the emotional and political aspects of the theism-atheism debate, that they have lost touch with reason, critical thought, and the ontology of reality.
Humans have made no progress since the days of Abraham, Moses and the burning bush. They still think that Existence and Creation are a matter of belief and debate because we have no way knowing the absolute FACTS of what happened in the past. And they will drill this irrational religious statement in your brain every time you converse with theists/theologians, or even atheists and agnostics.
A fact is ONLY past tense, it is a CONSUMMATED EVENT, not an alleged 'present' one. In science, we don't HAVE or USE 'facts' (consummated events). Facts belong exclusively to religion. It means that the pastor of Mathematics has already decided for all of us what exactly happened, and it is a done deal that can’t be questioned!
In science, we have “statements of the facts”. A statement of the fact is an assumption. The proponent PROPOSES a scenario: what COULD have happened in the past......for example, the creation of space & matter.
Whereas a blatant ‘fact’ that cannot be supported in the ‘explanation stage’ (theory) by a rational explanation, is simply forced down our throats as authoritative unquestionable BELIEF! No different than what Religion (William-Lane Craig) and Mathematical Physicists (Hawking) do.
Therefore, Jesus walking on water is NOT a fact as alleged by Craig’s religion. His religion claims that if 12 disciples in a boat saw Jesus walking on water, their 'observation of this event', and any evidence provided, now converts it into an ACTUAL PHENOMENON OF NATURE. And if all the Archbishops and George W. Bush’s Spiritual Advisor vote for this phenomenon, it is now a FACT. And since the 12 disciples were willing to die for this FACT, well then....that just seals the deal even further, so that anybody who challenges it, is NOW MAKING A BALD ASSERTING CLAIM.
Sorry to break the news to everyone.....but it doesn’t work that way!!!!
In science, we make an ASSUMPTION, "Let us ASSUME that Jesus walked on water." It is a positive claim for an event that happened as make-believe. Now we move to do Science: a rational explanation based on this assumption.
Can you now rationally explain how an object can walk on water? If not, then what can possibly make it a ‘statement of fact’?
But we can even go a step further with their claim......since Jesus is an object (flesh & blood, has shape, can be nailed on a cross), and since the effect of gravity cannot be blocked, it goes through all objects, including water,....and since space (nothing) is omnipresent, it wraps all atoms. This allows the effect of gravity to pull Jesus and displace the water molecules, and pull Jesus into the water. Therefore, it follows that it is an ontological contradiction that Jesus blocked or defied the effect of gravity, and thus did not walk on water....IMPOSSIBLE.
Therefore the claim “Jesus walked on water” is pure bunk; belongs in the trash, along with Creation.
If theologians like to revise the claim that Jesus walked on water, in a way as to avoid these contradictions, like for example.....Jesus made use of stilts, or there was a floating/supporting plank under the water line,....then the claim becomes untouchable!
Note: We do not need to demonstrate with OBSERVATIONS, EVIDENCE, and ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE that Jesus did not in FACT walk on water. That is just the stupidity parroted by theists, atheists, and mathematicians alike, who are for the most part, brain dead. This is the ONLY TACTIC these clowns have as ammunition, in order to prevent us from destroying their religious claims in an instant.
The Jesus claim, the creation claim, like ANY claim,.....if it is based on concocted BS, then its ontological contradictions will spill out when we begin to conceptualize the scenario and critically analyze the claim.
This is the only reliable and consistent way we can assess the difference between Scientific Theory and Religion.
Humans have made no progress since the days of Abraham, Moses and the burning bush.
Yup
Therefore it is that we shall often be discomfited in combating error before the people. Antaeus long resisted Hercules; and the heads of the Hydra grew as fast as they were cut off. It is absurd to say that Error, wounded, writhens in pain, and dies amid her worshippers. Truth conquers slowly. There is a wondrous vitality in Error. Truth , indeed, for the most part, shoots over the heads of the masses; or if an error is prostrated for a moment, it is up again in a moment, and as vigorous as ever. it will not die when the brains are out, and the most stupid and irrational errors are the longest-lived.
Trying to stick to one point only. The basis of your previous statement begins with the claim that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Good Luck fatfist will write a book.
No need to write a book Prometheus. It's all quite simple.
Creation is based on the notion that: a "CAUSE" did the creation. It comes in various flavors with many fancy names, the most common being: "the first cause argument".
People (theists, atheists, and mathematicians) instantly swallow up this bullsh** and lick up any remnants left over because it absolutely makes sense to them. After all, it's been drilled into their brains in the womb, when their mothers put headphones on their bellies playing the Audio version of the Bible. And when they went to University, Pastor Hawking confirmed this FACT in their lectures.
So what exactly is 'a' CAUSE?
It is a ghost, a spirit?
No, silly. It is a verb: CAUSE IS WHAT SOMETHING DOES, NOT WHAT SOMETHING IS.
So that 'something' i.e. object, is present before even creation begins. It is the mediator of the causal event. And that 'something' is wrapped in space before even creation begins.
It's easy to see that matter & space are eternal, and creation is what the CON ARTISTS want you to believe is the DEFAULT position.....and that I am just blowing wild assertions out of my butt.
These con artists have done such a good job, that practically 100% of the people on this planet are currently parroting that reality is created, without even having the slightest clue. So we are actually back in time, even way before the Greeks began to think. All progress has been undone by monotheism.
Pastor Hawking
Pastor Einstein
Pastor Bill O'reilly
Pastor Dawkins
Pastor Obama
hahahahaha
So a verb is like PrometheusKid when he is reading. Not what he is. oh
Somebody out there refuted fatfist call him stinky or something or that he is just making things up as he goes along. Go watch his youtube channel and make fun of him or something.
Explain to fatfist why black holes exist.
Explain Gravity to him.
Explain Light to him.
Explain that something can come from nothing.
Explain why the big bang is the only way to understand the universe.
Explain to him why dawkins, hawking, einstein are better than him.
Explain to him that Atheist and Theist are diffrent.
Explain how multiverse exist.
Christianity, it is said, begins from the burning of the false gods by the people themselves. Education begins with the burning of our intellectual and moral idols.
It was the Sophists of Ancient Greece, like Protagoras , Prodikos , Hippias, Eleios, and Gorgias from Leontini, etc. who persistently advanced the principle that “truth is what suits the individual’s interests”. They had the rationality to understand that truth does not exist. But it is rather a human invention that is at best, self-serving.
Then we enter Christianity, where Jesus = Truth....the rest is history.
That's why our intellect has been WIPED CLEAN....and we are starting all over today, .....with our first baby steps....and learning the basics,....that all verbs (creation) are predicated on objects AND space!!
It might take a few thousand years or so for that to sink in.....to 0.000000000001% of the population!
I think i should ask this question in philosophy class.
Why is that Genesis and The Big Bang Theory had a creation story. But both never explain why they happend in the first place? I would also like know why in both theories The Earth is in the center of the universe? How did they determined the center of space? Did they find the edge of space, and if they did find the edge of space what did they find beyond space? More Space?
I dont quite understand will somebody in my class help answer this questions.
Aka Winston i ask you.
Fatfist i ask you but may you please answer in two forms. Atheist answer and then a Theist answer.
I like Spinoza but i dont like Charles Galton Darwin.
HISTORY OF CREATION:
Humans have been trying to figure out what matter is for over 3000 years. The Greeks had proposed the 4 classical elements: air, earth, fire, and water.
The Greeks held that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form. Aristotle (384-322 BC), the foremost natural philosopher of his day, had developed a philosophical argument for the eternity of the world (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3). Philosophers of other schools such as the Stoics and the Epicureans also reasoned that the world or its underlying reality is eternal. All these thinkers were led to this conclusion because they reasoned that "nothing can come out of nothing”.
“there can be no such things as coming-into-being, passing-out-of-being or not-being” -- Parmenides
As for the Greek Gods, NONE were “creator” gods. The Greeks did do irrational things.....but they were not stupid enough to believe in CREATOR gods.
The Greeks conceived of the 12 Gods of Olympus because, at that time (the dawn of scientific thought), they had no explanations for natural phenomena. Each god was used to explain different phenomena in nature. The Greeks claimed that the gods had “evolved” in nature, just as everything else evolves. It was the Greeks (Empedocles) who had discovered evolution of the species, not Darwin.
The Hebrews and other cultures subjectively reorganized matter into equivalence classes of recognized objects (i.e. animals, humans, rocks, air, water, etc.) has led to the conceptual ideas of “beginning” and “end”. When applied to “existence”, humans have forced rigid boundaries to the ideas of “beginning” and “end”, where no clear boundaries are evident. These irrational boundaries have predicated a paradox for existence which has mentally tortured the theologians of monotheistic religions. Their only option was to apply their perfect God as a “creator” entity to solve their paradox for existence. It is clear that this idea of “beginning” has been incorrectly extended to yet another concept they call “creation”. But where did they get the idea of “beginning” from? It is from Genesis in The Old Testament: “In the beginning...” Since a beginning is “ASSUMED” rather than “reasoned”, then naturally this beginning must have had a “creation” from a previous state of nothingness (creatio ex nihilo). So we are presented with the following concepts which theologians to this day are unable to define or explain: object, nothingness, beginning, creation.
Against the Greek reasoning of an eternal cosmos, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam reasserted their biblical doctrine of creation. They asserted that God did not form the world out of a pre-existent matter, but spoke into being ("Let there be!") that which literally did not exist before. Initially, it was Judaism that had a HUGE problem with the eternal universe the Greeks had reasoned. They also had a problem with the Hellenistic Jews who believed in the Greek gods. The Jews wanted their own PERSONAL God who created everything and only existed for them and their culture, and customs, as they were to be “God’s Chosen People”. In the mis-translations of the Bible, it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth."
But actually, in the Torah, Genesis 1:1 does say, "created from nothing". The Hebrew word is "bara," which means exactly that: "Created from nothing."
Then Christianity came along and offered salvation, eternal life, eternal hell, sin, and cleansing of sins (none of which Judaism offered) through Yahweh’s son Jesus. I’m sure you know the rest.
This doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is not a teaching dependent upon particular biblical passages, except for Torah Genesis 1:1. It is solely dependent upon Theologians, who constantly drill the word CREATION into your brain. And they don’t even know what this word CREATION actually means, nor can they offer any explanation!!
Creatio ex nihilo is a principle drawn from an “interpretation” of biblical revelation, not a conclusion drawn from scientific or philosophical reasoning.
From the Christian perspective, Creation is the dogma of the Catholic Church, as they declared that the universe was created by God, in ‘time’ and ‘out-of-nothing’. The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced CREATION as an official teaching almost 800 years ago.
Christians in Isaac Newton's day believed that the universe was a few thousand years old — created in six days in nearly its present condition. Cosmic history and human history seemed one and the same. Some clerics, and even Newton himself, made calculations based on their study of Bible passages, and announced an age of about 6000 years (they disagreed on the exact number). Other cultural and philosophical traditions thought the universe was much older, perhaps eternal. But most Europeans believed the universe was created recently.
(But both never explain why they happend in the first place?)
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN DESCRIBE CREATION, SO NEVER MIND AN EXPLANATION.....YOU ARE ASKING FOR WAY TOO MUCH!
IT IS AN IRRATIONAL ASSERTED CLAIM THAT INSTANTLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF.....NOTHING MORE.
CREATION IS ONLY THEORIZED, .....LIKE SANTA CLAUS.....LIKE MOSES PARTING THE SEA......LIKE JESUS WALKING ON WATER AND RAISING THE DEAD.
ANYBODY WHO THINKS CREATION IS MORE THAN THAT NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP IN THE NUT HOUSE!!!
(I would also like know why in both theories The Earth is in the center of the universe?)
2700 years ago, existence was special and personal to their locality. Alien life was not an option back then. They thought they were the only beings in existence. People looked in the night sky and induced that the heavens revolved around the earth. That’s why the Bible has the firmament around the flat earth, which is in the center of existence.
BIG BANG:
Many big scientists at the time flat out rejected the Creation of the universe. Even Einstein, with his relativity nonsense, instantly knew creation was BS. Einstein rejected Lemaître to his face, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories and that "your physics is abominable" and your conclusions unjustifiable.
Lemaître's predictions, however, were contradictory and Einstein continued to complain that Lemaître's understanding of physics was "abominable". Lemaître's physics, as Lemaître admitted, had a spiritual foundation. Monsignor Lemaître firmly believed that Jesus Christ was God, and that God created the universe, as dictated by Catholic Church dogma and as described in the Bible. Lemaître was in fact an honorary prelate with the rank of Bishop in the Catholic Church, a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven and president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which is under the direction and authority of the Pope of the Catholic Church. Lemaître's "big bang" theory was in complete accordance with the teachings of the Church and was supported by the Pope and backed by the authority of the Bible.
Hence, the "creation-event" which gave rise to the universe required a creator, an all powerful omnipotent Lord God who existed prior to and is responsible for the creation event; exactly as described in the Bible.
Einstein and other big names at the time eventually caved in due to peer pressure and risk of being outcast.
Lemaître believed it his duty as a Christian, Catholic, and soldier of Jesus Christ, to defend his religion against the inherently atheistic doctrine of an infinite, eternal universe. Thus, Lemaître used math and a flawed understanding of physics to make his religion scientific. The theory of the "big bang" is in fact, religion masquerading as science, it is the Biblical story of Genesis, dressed up in the language of science.
The theory has the backing of the Church and has captured the imagination of the Jewish-Christian scientific and media establishment. Religion is a powerful and pervasive sociological and cultural force, influencing scientists, teachers, parents, children, the media, and even the most liberal and progressive of thinkers. Moreover, the nature of the human brain and mind requires beginnings and endings because all of life has BEGIN and END. So they induced and EXTRAPOLATED (without putting any thought into it), that REALITY also has beginnings and endings. In consequence, religious beliefs and faith in supernatural forces, including "endings and beginnings" are repackaged in the language of science, often with the covert backing of the Catholic Church and the Jewish-Christian establishment.
Thus the "big bang" is fraudulently promoted as accepted fact by the scientific, political, and media establishment, as it supports their religious beliefs and the Jewish-Christian Bible. Nevertheless, this theory was not only rejected by Einstein and many others, but it is refuted in an INSTANT, as I did in this hub and my Big Bang hubs.
Because it is based on religion, the magical, supernatural theory of the big bang has been deified, and it is not to be questioned or criticized on pain of excommunication by the scientific establishment. However, it is the proponents of this theory who are the true heretics for they are guilty of the biggest fraud in the history of science.
CREATION IS AN ONTOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION ....PERIOD!!!
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." -Stephen Hawkins, a Brief History of Time
Hawking got his interest in creation from a visit to the Vatican:
“Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican.“ -- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 115-16
Isn’t he such a genius?????
(But both never explain why they happend in the first place?)
Again, no matter what model you choose for creation: God, big bang, singularity, primeval atom, out of nothing, .....whatever.......it cannot even be described rationally. So you can FORGET about an explanation, as there isn’t one at all for the big bang – NONE!!
(I would also like know why in both theories The Earth is in the center of the universe?)
Because Priest Lemaintre put it there for the Big Bang!!!!!!!
But ever since the days of Lemaintre, you get different opinions depending on who you talk to.
Some BB theorists say there is NO center to the universe and there never was one because the universe wraps around in an abstract mathematical shape which cannot be drawn nor conceptualized. What idiots!
Some say that the BB universe is FLAT, like a flat earth, and all galaxies are located on a flat pancake plane. Priest Lawrence Krauss makes this stupid claim, and with a straight face too!
Personally, I wouldn’t be able to face the public if this shit came out of MY mouth!
But Hawking is an extremely confused and troubled person......Just read these contradictions:
Hawking has stated that if the universe has no boundary, it would have no creation.
"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simple be. What place, then, for a creator?" -- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 140-141.
Hawking has always stated that space has no boundaries, no borders to cross,
“...neither does space have any boundary.” -- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Wiki also states space is boundless:
“Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.” -- wiki
So then......since this genius claims that space has NO boundaries, is unbounded, is boundless.......then naturally, any idiot would conclude that there was NO Creation!!!!!
Hello!! Anybody home in that head of yours, Mr Hawking????
........as for atheists......they BELIEVE in existence. The numbskull Dawkins scientifically claims that God exists 1% of the time. Atheists are still waiting for science to prove that God exists 100% of the time, and that Jesus will return to save their souls.
Let me repeat. There is no difference between a theist, an atheist and an agnostic. The three believe in the existence, nonexistence, or that it’s not possible to know the existence/nonexistence of X. Some go even as far as saying that they can prove or disprove the existence of X.
Of course some atheists see themselves as so smart, that they claim they have a LACK of BELIEF in a God so as to completely detach themselves from a belief system......while not even realizing that “lack of” defies all logic and reason.
Saying X lacks Y, says what X does not have, or what X is not. It does not say what X is. Such atheists CANNOT TELL YOU WHAT THEY ARE. Nothing is what it is not.
It is true they do not believe in a god, and it was also true even when they did not exist. The statement is not about them. It is about what they do not do, about what they are not.
Remember: rocks lack belief in God too, but it doesn’t make them atheists!
If you lack a spouse, does that mean you are not married? A polygamist who has 10 wives can say he “lacks a wife”. He means that he had 11 before and now has 10.
Or he can say: I lack wives. He had 10 before, and now 7.
It’s the same thing as negative theism: God is incorporeal, non-physical, non-spatial,.......God is basically nothing!
Fantastic
I think your next hub should be about God's Chosen People.
........as for atheists......they BELIEVE in existence. The numbskull Dawkins scientifically claims that God exists 1% of the time.
hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I'm glad you find the history of the human ape very entertaining, prometheus.
Almost everybody else takes it extremely seriously, and "believes" that we have gained "knowledge and wisdom" ever since the wild apes burned all the heretics and started to follow God.
The time has not yet arrived when average man has become wise enough or strong enough to rule himself. Never will? peace reign upon the earth until we are ruled by the fit.
Im still waiting for aka winston to answer my question. If he doest i am going to die. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I think my first hub is going to be about how Black holes exist. And that humanity is going to die in 2012 from a black hole near are solar system.
Look at the power fatfist http://www.cedcc.psu.edu/khanjan/europe_images/022
Hey fatfist this guy say's time travel is possible what do you think. But i think time is concept.
Kaku has no more brain cells than an Amish Born Again Christian.
I hate to spoil it for all of those who think that after they die, their future relatives will visit them when they travel back in time to year 2010.
Just think about what it means ‘to travel’. It means to perform a VERB on an object. The object is you. The verb is the action of moving you, or changing your location. In physics, verbs pertain to movement, and nouns pertain to objects. The only nouns in physics are those which have shape. It’s that simple.
So what is motion?
In order to move, an object has to occupy 2 or more locations.
However, nature does not recognize motion. It takes a biological brain with memory to recognize motion. As far as nature is concerned, objects only have location. A planet can be here or there, it cannot be here AND there.
So in order to conceptualize motion, you need memory. Humans recognize motion because they have a built in data bank of neurons. We remember an object’s previous locations and hence we call this dynamic concept: motion.
Can we travel ‘on’ time or ‘in’ time??
Well....what the heck is time?
Hawking writes a Book called "A brief history of TIME" and nowhere will you find the definition of the subject matter. He states that while he has no evidence of time travel, it is theoretically possible; and that it's possible that we have been visited by more technologically advanced people from the future! Hawking obviously has NO CLUE what time is.
And guess what? Nobody, from Newton to Hawking, has ever defined this word.
This is what we read in wiki about TIME:
‘Time is an essential part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.’
You see, time is a concept, and NOT an object. It is a scalar used to quantify motion. We invented time. Time is a VERB.
Time requires MOTION and MEMORY to be realized. Nature recognizes no such thing as time.
Just like a scale is used by us to conceptually QUANTIFY the tension of gravity on an object, by assigning meaning & purpose to a particular number (scalar)......so does a clock with the motion of the second, minute, and hour hands. We conceptually QUANTIFY the motion of the Earth around the Sun, and relate it to the motion of the clock’s hands, and assign meaning & purpose to these numbers (scalar quantities). From this, we can derive purpose to our lives with hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc.
Only biological brains with memory can realize such concepts as time and motion. We have these notions in order to add purpose and meaning to our lives. Nature has no clue what either motion or time is. We remember how to go from location A to location B. This process we call ‘going to work’ (motion). We remember the hour hand moving from 9AM to 5PM. This means it’s quitting time.
So going back to your question: Can we travel ‘on’ time or ‘in’ time??
It’s like asking: Can we travel ‘on’ weight or ‘in’ weight?
Time is not an object we can travel ON or IN.
Time is a VERB we quantify with a scalar quantity. It is nothing but a concept us humans conceived (invented), and only because we have the capability of MEMORY!
Think about it: without memory, can there be any notion of time??
Without memory, can a computer do computations using previous results??
Not even God can perform such magic tricks as: creating time, traveling in the past, traveling in the future, or hitching a ride in time.
God can only travel on objects....for example, He can use your church donations to go on vacations with planes and cruise ships....in case you didn't know!
Unfortunately, the only time travel any human will be able to do, is to sit on the hands of a huge clock and go for a nice ride!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg
What if your wrong Heretic fatfist hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Heretic Fatfist is the audience as he ask Pastor Dawkins a question, and the question is ______________________________________________________?
I wish Kant could have written in plain language but ever since I managed to 'translate' some of it I've no longer been confused about 'time' and 'space' being of-ourselves, not anything 'out there'.
Einstein, amongst others, is purported to have read Kant - which has left me wondering what's wrong with him/them.
prometheus,
Dawkins is a good talker, and he makes some pretty good emotional arguments against theism. This is the kind of stuff that atheists eat up and see him as an idol.
But unless he grabs the bull by horns and scientifically analyzes the God Hypothesis, and rationally explains why GOD DOESN'T EXIST, then I will continue to consider him as a theist!
Anybody who claims that there is a "chance" that God exists, is most definitely a theist.
Gerry,
I've tried reading Kant in the past, but I gave up. I prefer reading the "massaged" and "condensed" version.
But as for time, Einstein was a copycat. He got his ideas from Lorentz, who had developed the time, mass, and length contraction equations because he irrationally opted to WARP reality in order to accommodate the PARTICLE HYPOTHESIS for light.
Einstein just copied this mistake by assuming that a beam of light should behave like a baseball. When it didn't, he came up with time dilation. If someone pitches a baseball on a moving train, the baseball is already on the train. But a beam of light is not realized until it is propagated from its medium via the torch. The light cannot gain speed from the train because it is never "on" the train. It has no motion imparted from the train.
It's not in the torch either. It actually propagates on the medium connecting every single atom of the torch to every single atom of the train.
No theory needed to explain why the speed of light is constant for every frame of reference. The connecting MEDIUM for light ensures a constant and consistent physicality of propagation.
Heretic Faffist are you telling the audience that light is constant and that gravity is also constant.
I remember Einstein told me that nothing is faster than the speed of light. So that means gravity is slower than the speed of light. So that means if i was as fast as the speed of light i would not have gravity. COOL!
Prometheus has a torch.
I like Themistocles but i dont like Obama.
The speed of light is indeed constant. It is mandated by the physical medium connecting atoms. God can't do anything to alter the speed of light.
Gravity is a concept (an effect), it has no speed.
Gravity is mediated by the tension of the same medium connecting all atoms. Tension (verb) does not have speed. Only objects can move and thus have speed.
The effect of gravity does not propagate or move in any way, like idiots Newton, Einstein, and Hawking claim.
Q:What is it that moves in gravitation between Earth and Sun?
A: The Earth and the Sun.
The "effect" of Gravity does NOT move. The "effect" of Gravity does NOT have speed.
Only objects in motion have speed and a “transit” time to their destination. The effect of gravity doesn’t have a destination to reach because “effect” is not an object.
Effects are always instantaneous! If I punch you in the nose, isn't that "punch effect" instantaneous? Gravity doesn't have a reaction time, like human apes do.
That's why the effect of gravity is instantaneous - Action At A Distance (AAAD).
You can be 5000 Billion Light Years away from me. If you shake your fist in anger towards me, my body, and everybody else's on the planet, will IMMEDIATELY react to this gravitational effect!
Remember: Gravity is not 'a' force. It is the effect of TENSION between objects.
Try doing the Cavendish experiment at home and you'll be able to see this process before your eyes. It's quite remarkable.
(i dont like Obama)
Then you are not an atheist I gather...
People anybody out thre please challenge the Heretic Faffist he thinks he is smart but he is not. Dont be scared by his really long and boring answers he knows nothing. He is trying to prove his religion on you. Stop him before the world blows up.
Fatfist is a scientology follower.
I figure out how much Dark matter there is in the void there is 92 percent according to my calculations but the problem is i cant prove it because it cannot be seen, touch, smell, taste, hear. lol
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326757,00.html
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
(Nature recognizes no such thing as time.)
Fatfist,
Nature, though, is not immune from the consequences of the concept we named time. Today the comet found by Halley is not close to the earth and cannot be seen. Sometime it will again be close enough to be seen with the naked eye.
Reality is that its elongated orbit returns it toward earth periodically, regardless of whether or not nature has an understanding of the phenomenon or recognizes the passage of time.
Although I do not disagree at all that time is a concept and that concept requires memory to understand, that explanation of itself does not suffice to explain the phenomenon of changing conditions, i.e., of stars running out of fuel, of tectonic plates shifting, of comets plowing into Venus.
Actually, time is simply man's expression of increments of now. I have 60 seconds per minute. That means simply that now will occur 60 incremental times before my bigger now named minute occurs. If I know the speed of the comet and its distance from Venus, I can calculate how many increments of now I will have to wait before the comet really does slam into the planet - because it will not hit in the future or the past - it will hit in the now.
Time, then, seems to be a definition of a relationship. But surely some type of causitive action occurs, also, does it not? If I place a teapot full of water on a lighted gas burner, and if nature only recognizes now with no time change, how can the water ever boil?
Of course it is the heat source exciting the molecules that eventually causes the change, but it cannot happen all at once, so time (or a series of nows if you prefer) must be involved, at least as a catalyst that allows enough heat to be transmitted to the water molecules to cause boiling.
See, the question is if nature does not have a memory, why is the water molecule warmer this instant than the previous instant, and how does nature know to continue this process until the water boils?
This idea breaks down into an infinite amount of tiny incremental changes - graduated transfer of heat alters the present. But which present and for how long? How long does it take the water to rise from 100 degrees F to 101 degrees F? How many increments of now separate that 1 degree of change?
See what I am saying? No matter how small one makes the increments of the present, nature has to remember the preceding present (carry it forward) in order to add the effects of heat on the current present.
If all nature could carry forward were the present, the water would be stone cold no matter how long we left it sitting on the stove.
Or so it seems.
PrometheusKid,
To answer your question above: assumed to be true.
Winston,
(Nature, though, is not immune from the consequences of the concept we named time.)
Let’s be more precise, cause this statement has more to do with observers than with nature. We need to understand that ‘concepts’ don’t cause consequences/effects/events. Objects precede all motion/events.
When we conceive of a relation, for example, a periodicity, between two locations of an object or between the trajectories of two objects, we call this relation TIME.
Relations (ie. time) don’t cause consequences; they already DESCRIBE consummated events in a way that is useful for us to make comparisons....before/after, cause/effect, etc.
Time is ‘descriptive’, and not ‘prescriptive’, as nothing depends on time. Events only depend on pre-existing objects.
The day we remove ‘time’ from the vocabulary of physics, is the day that we can begin to understand reality. But that will never happen. Reality is extremely boring without Relativity to bend time and space and shrink length and increase mass. Reality is very boring without black holes to swallow up spaceships, and wormholes to take us to another dimension where we can see 0D particles flying everywhere.
Reality is very boring, as it only has objects that perpetually change location. When we remember their previous locations and time it with a stopwatch, we start to hallucinate and claim that ‘time exists’, and that we can travel back in time, and all that bullshit.
(the phenomenon of changing conditions, i.e., of stars running out of fuel, of tectonic plates shifting, of comets plowing into Venus.)
Phenomena are consummated events. They are either movies that we can watch, or they are claims made by people. Either way, they need to be explained. If we have a rational explanation for a claim, then that claim is indeed VIABLE, but it doesn’t mean that the events of the claim actually occurred.
Changing conditions imply motion which necessitates objects. Absolutely ALL objects are in motion. There is not a single object in the universe which is not in motion. Actually, it is impossible to stop the motion of any object.
(I can calculate how many increments of now I will have to wait before the comet really does slam into the planet)
Sure, that is useful so we can make preparations to watch the actual event unfold. But that is only descriptive. Calculations have nothing to do with physics and have no explanatory power to tell us WHY the comet is orbiting the Sun.
Mainstream physics cannot tell you WHY a comet or a planet orbits the Sun. But they can sure give you calculations that describe the orbit to many decimal places. But so what? Who cares? The ancient Greeks had developed the first mechanical computer, the Antikythera mechanism, which did the same calculations based on the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. But of course, it had precision, but not to the amount of decimal places silicon computers can spit out.
But that's not the point. The point is that this ancient Ptolemaic computer was able to mathematically calculate the exact orbits of the planets and the positions of the stars, even though it was based on an EARTH-CENTRIC universe! Math, equations, calculations, calculus, etc. can give us the correct numbers, even though it HAS IT ALL WRONG!
So what have we learned? Nothing!
We still don’t understand what makes the Earth orbit the Sun. No amount of math can tell us that. Math is not the language of physics. Physics has absolutely no use for math.
(If I place a teapot full of water on a lighted gas burner, and if nature only recognizes now with no time change, how can the water ever boil?)
(See, the question is if nature does not have a memory, why is the water molecule warmer this instant than the previous instant,)
It is not warmer. You are constantly vibrating the atoms of water.
To understand your question, we need to understand the key word ‘boil’ – verb, motion/vibration of atoms up to some PREDEFINED STANDARD.
When the atoms of water shake and vibrate to the frequency which makes us HAPPY, we call this event: BOIL.
(Of course it is the heat source exciting the molecules)
There is no heat source, no such beast anywhere in the universe. There is only atoms changing location.
(and how does nature know to continue this process until the water boils?)
It doesn’t!
The cold water exiting your tap right now is actually BOILING in some context other than what YOU are used to hearing when you boil water for your tea.
The ice cubes in your freezer are actually BOILING in some context of atomic vibration that we can define.
Altitude lowers the boiling point (we have defined) of water because of lower atmospheric pressure.
Water will boil without releasing heat in a vacuum of extremely low pressure. And in this situation the atoms vibrate MUCH less than water boiling scolding hot at 100 C.
It all depends what YOU define BOIL to mean in terms of atomic vibration. Hot/cold/boil/etc. are observer-dependent notions/concepts, and they can have different definitions depending on context. They have nothing to do with nature!
Nature only runs now, and it runs now by perpetually changing locations for every single object in the universe.
The atoms of water only have location. With our memory, we have remembered that these atoms have changed gazillions of locations (via shakes/vibrations/motion) until their rate of change that we conceive of and measure (ie. temperature), satisfies OUR notion of the word BOIL! And in the context of our TEA, that context of BOIL has to satisfy our sensory mechanism when our lips touch the tea. It cannot satisfy us if we use the context of water boiling in a vacuum under low pressure, right? We would not sense a HOT tea in that case.
There is no such thing as heat or cold or boil in the universe. That is only the conceptual garbage that humans have INVENTED!
There is only atomic or object motion. The rate of change of atomic motion that YOU conceive as HOT, an alien may conceive as EXTREMELY COLD!
Contrary to popular belief, Temperature has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. It originated from engineering (practical human usage applications), and some moronic idiots injected it into physics as some stupid bullshit law they call Thermodynamics, entropy, etc.
(infinite amount of tiny incremental changes.......If all nature could carry forward were the present, the water would be stone cold no matter how long we left it sitting on the stove.)
Winston, sorry to complain to you again......but your vocabulary is all over the place. How can we understand each other when no human on the planet can understand the meaning of this evil word: “infinite”?
Infinite = adjective
Changes = verb
The clause “infinite changes” has absolutely no meaning!
Nature doesn’t “carry forward” the present like you carry your wallet. Only objects can carry other objects, not concepts.
Present = concept
Sorry Winston, when we talk physics, it is important to get our language straight.
Let’s try it this way.....
All objects, whether atoms, molecules, planets, stars (mereology is not used in physics), are perpetually changing their location due to their interactions with each other, whether it is via “touch/contact”, or via gravitation, or via light , or via magnetism, etc.
Nature (all of objects in universe) is the ONLY perpetual motion machine. Nothing is cold. Nothing is hot. Nothing is boiling. Nature is non-entropic i.e. non-orderly. All objects only have location. They are either HERE or THERE. When us humans use our sensory system (hot/cold sensation) coupled with our memory, we notice the HEAT RISING in the tea pot to some pre-defined point we call BOIL.
What our brain has done, is detect a rate of change of motion (using our memory) of atomic vibrations. When this rate satisfies our definition (ie. 100 C measured), or our sensation of scalding hot, then we call this event BOIL.
Winston,
I hope this discussion about hot/cold leads you to a better understanding of why we have Creation and Intelligent Design. It doesn't necessarily have to do with a supernatural entity (God), although this is the Religious/Political (Politics = Religion) reason. And it's used as a FORMAL mechanism to entice people to choose sides, join a group/club/cult and have a sense of common belonging and mutual understanding.
Even without the political dogma and control of "Religion", humans still gravitate towards a HUMAN-CENTRIC Universe which functions according to what WE see/hear/feel/smell/taste. And this has been going on for as long as there have been intelligent beings/animals on this planet.
I mean, just look at all the silly talk today about the Universe having "consciousness", like I have a wallet in my pocket. People genuinely believe that this Universe was made specifically for THEM and is endowed with a substance they call "consciousness". Whenever I ask anybody to illustrate this substance/object with a picture, they look at me like I'm from another planet, and they think that "they" are the sane one when they believe in magical spirits floating in the universe.
Bottom line: people will invent their own ideas of what 'exists', based on how they perceive the universe; specifically, as a personal extension of themselves, and endowed with all the qualities they possess.
You are trying to push an eternal universe but the past cannot be infinite. If the past was infinite then we could not reach the present time we have today. And in that case we wouldn’t exist because that infinite regress cannot be traversed to reach the present where we are now.
Karl,
The proponents of Creationism (theists and atheists) make the following irrational argument against an eternal Universe:
They argue that if the past was “infinite”, then you cannot traverse an infinite set of events from the past in order to reach NOW. They are saying that there couldn’t have been an infinite amount of time in the past because the present could not have been reached in order to realize our present existence. Since infinity cannot be realized and it is not real, they conclude that the Universe is not eternal.
This irrational “infinite regress” argument only belongs in religion (traditional AND mathematical physics).
Here are the 5 MAJOR problems with “infinite regress”:
1) The illiterate mathematician/theist combines an adjective (infinite) with a verb (regress) and claims that the clause “infinite regress” makes sense to him. It’s like saying that the term “triangular laughing” makes sense.
2) Since “infinite” is an adjective, in order for it to be used in a sentence it necessarily demands an object! But there are NO infinite objects in the Universe, under any context. So it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to use the word “infinite” in any context concerning reality.
3) Eternity refers to the time metric of motion, so it necessarily demands an object. Eternal is NOT the same as “infinite”; they are two different concepts
4) Since the mathematician/theist has nicely setup a STRAWMAN, he now proceeds to attack & stab this straw puppet to death by claiming that there are NO actual infinites in the Universe. Well, duh! If there aren’t, then why did you bring up this argument?
5) Then they attempt to begin to traverse “infinity” from the opposite direction (past), in order to reach the initially defined (present), which gives them yet another STRAWMAN to attack!
But then the “theist” and the “atheist” BOTH contradict themselves because they ALLOW for an “infinite regress” in order to support the special pleading of THEIR Religions, so they can twist your arm and get YOU to believe them:
a) The theist first claims that infinite regress is an impossibility so it’s a DEAD issue. But then RESURRECTS it by saying that it’s okay for God to exist in His own “bubble” of infinite regress in the past, and somehow traverses infinity into the future when He creates the Universe. So God waited an infinite amount of time until He decided: “Hey! I’d like to create a Universe!” So if God was thinking in His own infinite bubble about creating the Universe, then WHY didn’t He create it instantaneously, at which point the Universe would be ETERNAL, instead of traversing an infinite amount of time (which is impossible) and claiming to have created it the infinite future?
b)The atheist first claims that infinite regress is an impossibility so it’s a DEAD issue. But then RESURRECTS it by saying that it’s okay for the Singularity to exist in its own “bubble” of infinite regress in the past, and somehow traverses infinity into the future when it creates the Universe without a cause. So the Singularity waited an infinite amount of time until it decided: “Hey! I’d like to create a Universe acausally!” So if the Singularity was waiting in its own infinite bubble before creating the Universe, then WHY didn’t it create it instantaneously, at which point the Universe would be ETERNAL, instead of traversing an infinite amount of time (which is impossible) and claiming to have created it the infinite future?
Talk about playing Double-Dutch! Talk about having your own cake and eating it too! These are the typical irrational theist-atheist arguments.
Well guess what? This is a classic example of using the proponents own Bibles and scriptures in order to refute their arguments in one fell swoop.
Of course infinity is not real. There is no point of contention here. Infinity, after all, is an adjective, which resolves to an abstract concept, and an irrational one too! Only objects which have ‘shape’ and ‘location’ can be said to be real (i.e. exist). There are no infinite objects.
Concepts cannot be traversed like you traverse a road from one town to another. Only physical objects can be traversed. But the “infinite regress” argument is talking about traversing concepts, like events, time, causes, etc. Concepts CANNOT be traversed because they have no physical structure to traverse, and because they necessarily requires a dynamic observer with memory to conceive them. Concepts do not exist.
No matter what idea the proponents of the Creation claim use in an attempt to justify their position, whether it is infinite regress, first cause, etc., they always end up chasing their tails in circles. There is not a single Creationist argument which does not lead to ontological contradictions. This includes the proponents of the Big Bang religion, as this idea is even more surrealistic and more supernatural than positing a Creator God, because it irrationally proposes self-creation out of nothing.
Bottom line: The claim of Creation is unfounded and unsupported by any conceptual analysis, whether from traditional religion, or from contemporary religions like the Big Bang. It is the case that we presently have matter that is separated by space. This is in fact the DEFAULT POSITION, right? So, what we actually have from the Religionist and the Big Bang Apologist is the CLAIM that there was no matter and no space at some instant in the past. This is the positive claim they are presenting which is akin to the claim that a square-circle can be realized.
1) The proponent of such a claim has to explain HOW it could be possible that there was NO matter and space at some instant in the past. How is that even a possibility?
2) WHY wouldn’t there be matter and space in the past? What is the reason?
3) What rational explanation can they provide that can elucidate whether it is viable to CLAIM that matter and space were not around in the past?
Once they are able to rationally answer the questions above, they will have demonstrated that it is indeed “viable” that matter and space were not present at some instant in the past.
1) Now they will have to justify their CLAIM that there was no matter and space in the past by describing in detail the ontological situation of no matter and no space. How is that situation any different than just “omnipresent space” without any matter? What is the difference between space and non-space? Please explain in detail.
2) They will also have to explain the process by which matter and space can arise from the ontological situation described in 1).
So it is actually the Creationists, the theists and the atheists, who have to grapple with the irrational notion of “infinite regress” in order to remedy their contradictions and their own special pleading of God and the Singularity. It is obvious that they are BOTH peddling their own version of the worst kind of religion imaginable: religion without faith or belief, but instead, religion WITH CONTRADICTIONS!!
Those who posit the claim of Creation have absolutely nothing but a baseless bald assertion that is contradictory at best. Theists and atheists always fall back on TRADITION, RELIGION, and AUTHORITY to make their arguments and self-validate their own irrational claim. They have NO rational argument whatsoever, and they NEVER will have one because Creation is total bull.
(What our brain has done, is detect a rate of change of motion (using our memory) of atomic vibrations. When this rate satisfies our definition (ie. 100 C measured), or our sensation of scalding hot, then we call this event BOIL.)
Fatfist,
Although I don't have a complaint against this explanation, it still doesn't get to the point that the change is graduated - there is no zero-to-100C instant.
See? I don't care how tiny the change is, but let us simply call the starting point 0, and the incremental changes +1 and +2, and the length of time to change from 0 to +2 is to be determined by nature. Nature cannot go from 0 to +2. It cannot even go from 0 to +1. It has to work its way toward +1 and then +2.
In other words, how short of period is now. If Nature only recognizes the present, what is that and how long does it last?
Winston,
(the change is graduated - there is no zero-to-100C instant.)
You are talking about a “change” in temperature you felt. But what is the objective issue before us? Is there such a thing as heat, cold or temperature in the Universe? If there is, then we should be able to conceptualize and illustrate it. Otherwise, it is just our conception of atomic motion.
The objective issue is that this notion of “change” you are describing, stems from the CHANGE in location of the atoms. If an atom rotated slightly, or vibrated, or is now located elsewhere, from one moment to the next during our observation of the water temp, then all it has done is changed location. The change in temp is simply the RATE of these changes in location. Rate is a concept that is qualitatively measured by US, by our memory of our previous sensations of the heat of the water. We don’t even need a thermometer for this.
Do you think there is something else at play here, other than atomic motion, regarding temp, heat, cold? Tell me what you think.
(the length of time to change from 0 to +2 is to be determined by nature)
Again, there is no such thing as “time”. Nature does not determine anything. Nature (all of atoms separated by space) just IS,....and it just is in the present, in the NOW. Nature is stateless and static. There is no dynamism in nature. Objects and space have no memory, so there is no time. Without memory, there is no time and no motion.....there is only location. We CONCEIVE of motion because we have retained in memory a MOVIE or a set of static images of previous locations of objects. Just try to conceptualize nature without any humans and their ideas present. Just pretend all humans are dead. Try to conceptualize nature from the point of view of a plant or a rock which have no memory. The plant is living and rock is not living.....yet they both only have location in the present only.
(Nature cannot go from 0 to +2. It cannot even go from 0 to +1. It has to work its way toward +1 and then +2. )
You can conceive of any number of intervals from 0 and 2, let’s say 1000 of them. Let’s say they represent 1000 changes of location for an atom. All of these locations are the PRESENT when they are realized, as there is NO memory in nature other than OURS; that’s why we are able to talk about these 1000 states we thought of. There is no past and no future in nature. These are only our ideas. Again, pretend you are a plant life form and think about this situation without humans present.
(If Nature only recognizes the present, what is that and how long does it last? )
Ahhhhhh.....the present is the cutting edge of universal events. All atoms in nature have location in the present. That is all nature has. Nature is eternally in the PRESENT. That’s why nature is the only conceivable perpetual motion machine.....an eternal recycler of atoms. Nature can only be eternal. Existence is eternal; it just gets recycled from one form to another due to the change in location of atoms.
Existence is present NOW, right?
Can anybody provide a rational reason why existence was not present at some instant in the past?
Or even why existence may not be present at some instant in the future?
I mean, this is the objective issue that MUST be addressed by those claiming Creation. But they NEVER address this issue. They only dodge it and parrot their mantra.
It takes a sentient being with memory to conceive of such past & future situations and provide some type of an inductive argument to give at least some viability to their claim. You realize that a deductive argument is impossible because NATURE and WE (the human objects) are perpetually in the PRESENT, as nature has no memory available in order for us to deduce from. Of course we have our own brain memory, but unfortunately, we have a very limited life span and our memory is wiped clean!
You see, Winston.....here are the issues that need to be addressed:
1) Creationists are claiming that not only was matter created, but so was space.
2) Creationists are claiming that every atomic interaction reduces the LIFE of the atom (whatever the hell that means).
3) Creationists are claiming that with every atomic interaction, atoms slow down, they get cooler. And not only that, but that space is getting colder too.
4) Creationists are claiming that all matter and space will have a heat death in the future. The universe will DIE!
But how do they justify any of these claims?
What would cause an atom to "slow down" and not "speed up" its motion ever again?
How can an atom lose heat, when it doesn't even have it to begin with?
How can space (nothing) lose heat, when it doesn't even have it to begin with?
But what is disappointing, is that this nonsense is parroted by atheists and mathematicians too. The only point of contention between Creationists is the issue of God. They are in full agreement with most everything else.
Fatfist,
I do not disagree that rationality must conclude that no creation is possible, hence no creator is needed, even if such a creator could be rationally explained.
At the same time, using a rational argument against a logical conclusion is like a German and a Greek debating each other, but using their own language of which their opponent does not speak.
Where the problems lie with many is in that understanding - because logic is tautological it cannot be disproven as long as it is a valid argument - you can only argue against the premises. Refutations should exist within the format, i.e., rational explanation versus rational explanation and logic versus logic.
This is why for 2000 years or more the debates have raged on, as there is no total refutation possible of a valid tautology.
Your refutations are in reality rational explanations that attack a premise. It may be irrational to assume invisible flying dragons but it may be completely logical to do so, if we accept that they are indeed possible in some world.
Agree?
Winston,
(even if such a creator could be rationally explained)
Again, by mere reason alone, it is completely impossible to conceptualize a creator. And this is so, for MANY reasons, which would take pages to write......but the most obvious one being: A creator cannot create without being surrounded by space.
Space is omnipresent and unbounded. And this is unavoidable under any context.
(using a rational argument against a logical conclusion is like a German and a Greek)
But we are back to the issue of: what is logic?
It certainly isn’t absolute and transcendent like Matt Slick AND Matt Dillahunty claim it is.
It is nothing but a conceptual axiomatic system based on the concept of assertions and truth.
How do we determine truth objectively without the sensory system of an observer? Impossible! Cannot be done! Observers always have subjective and limited sensory systems. Empiricism is subjective. Only our conceptual system is objective because contradictions instantly kill ones reasoning.
The BEST system of reasoning we have is: critical thought, without assertions, without contradictions, and only with rational explanations.
(as long as it is a valid argument)
William-Lane Craig says that he has a VALID argument for Creation, because everything began to exist.......and he says that YOU, Winston, are WRONG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnpa_kQaCgA&p=916E1
And by just looking at the strength of his logical argument (all logically valid & sound premises), a layman like me may actually side with Craig on this issue.
So who should I “believe”, you or Craig?
What OBJECTIVE way do we have that can allow us to showcase the contradictions in either YOUR argument, or in Craig’s argument?
You can only go OUTSIDE of logic to showcase the errors in logic, Winston!
And the only method is reason and rationality. Unfortunately, there is no other magic pill in the human experience.
(This is why for 2000 years or more the debates have raged on, as there is no total refutation possible of a valid tautology.)
No. Absolutely ALL the philosophical and theistic arguments are shown to be founded upon ontological contradictions.
Do you know why?
Because not a single idiot has defined the key terms of their arguments: ‘object’, ‘concept’, ‘exist’
The stupid atheists of the past 2000 years have instead decided to use the EXACT SAME Religious Philosophical debating techniques to justify their position. Not a single atheist or mathematician on this planet understands the difference between an object and concept.
This is why they parrot:
- morals exist
- consciousness exists
- free will exists
- love exists
- the singularity exists
- black holes exist
- the universe is an object that exists
That last sentence was SO important, that it warrants repetition.
NOT A SINGLE ATHEIST OR MATHEMATICIAN ON THIS PLANET UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OBJECT AND A CONCEPT!
That’s why atheists do not understand how the claims of God and Jesus can be applied to the scientific method and resolved instantly. Nor do they care. They would rather parrot the emotional nonsense of Richard Dawkins.
(we accept that they are indeed possible in some world.)
What does “some world” mean?
And we don’t accept what is “claimed” to be possible. Only the scientific method (rational hypothesis + theory) can demonstrate what is possible. Nothing else.
(Because not a single idiot has defined the key terms of their arguments)
Yes, and that is why the argument dies on the vine. The ONLY way they have of making their argument is to rely on common-language definitions and tautology.
BUT, the best we can do to contradict is to challenge the authenticity of their premises via rational thought.
In my own experience, when I tried to pinpoint definitions with a theist pre-debate, the debate never got off the ground as he refused the definitions and I would not accept ambiguous ones.
Because of the nature of logic, we are wrong to make a claim that theism or the like is illogical - when in fact it is irrational.
The trick is that the theists have promoted logic as its own Nirvana, with people like Spock on Star Trek espousing the blessing of logic when in fact Spock used rational thought.
Btw, I liked your idea of Matterverse, as that is the closest I came come to envisioning what the expanding universe boys have thought up.
My idea is like I said - a hollow, ball-like object, interspersed with some space(the matterverse) surrounded by endless space - which then gives the matterverse shape - and it is the boundless void into which the most distant parts of the matterverse are encroaching, thus giving an appearance of expansion when in fact the idea is movement away from a central stationary location, which by definition must be the sun?
Winston,
(when I tried to pinpoint definitions with a theist pre-debate, the debate never got off the ground as he refused the definitions)
No problem!!
Don’t ever feel discouraged when someone REFUSES your definitions. I never do. I always make sure that everyone understands that they are more than welcome to provide their OWN observer-independent definitions, which don’t depend upon the 5-senses, evidence, etc.
Guess what?
Absolutely nobody will provide their own defns. They would rather continue the debate as usual......nudge nudge, wink wink......”you know what I mean”.
Then of course, they are able to reify concepts into objects and prove everything under the sun.....without even their opponent noticing the con job.
(the theists have promoted logic as its own Nirvana)
They quote the TAG argument as proof that logic existed before humans.....it was created by God. So their arguments are all true....of course!
Since the atheists have conceded that logic is ABSOLUTE and TRANSCENDENT, by parroting idiot Matt Dillahunty, ......not a single atheist has been able to successfully refute the TAG argument.
(I liked your idea of Matterverse, as that is the closest I came come to envisioning what the expanding universe boys have thought up.)
Actually, you are giving them waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit!
This is not what the mathematicians reasoned. As far as they are concerned, the whole Universe is an object with a definite border that encloses all of space. Space and matter are both created inside this object bubble. This is an ontological contradiction.
Mathematical physics is no different than Religion because it proves using observations. They observed red light, they interpreted it a Doppler Shift. And in doing so, they assumed that space is a physical object, like air. Since Einstein said that space can bend/warp.....then the mathematicians figured they could say that space can also stretch forever, and with Einstein’s disapproval. Einstein hated that because it violated his speed of light limit of Special Relativity. But he was powerless to do anything about it, because Relativity was owned by mainstream science.
As you can see, one leap of faith leads them to the next leap of faith.....and so on.
NOT A SINGLE ATHEIST OR MATHEMATICIAN ON THIS PLANET UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OBJECT AND A CONCEPT!
AMEN
AMEN
AMEN
Winston,
Going back to our discussion about the existence of HEAT/COLD....
Here is a prime example of the ambiguous nonsense that we humans discuss in riddles when we haven't defined our terms....when we don't understand the difference between an object and a concept:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/54279
Just read the discussion. Just look at how all the science-minded atheists try to attack the argument by first accepting all the undefined terms:
"Uh duh.....yeah.....heat is the lack of cold....and um....duh.....cold is the lack of heat.....duh!"
Nobody has a clue of what they are talking about. But yet they ramble on as if they are discussing sophisticated scientific matters....
This is a VERY famous argument, and I'll be the first to admit that I was a bit stumped by it when I first heard it over a decade ago.
But if we accept peoples terms on the basis of.....nudge nudge, wink wink,...yeah...I KNOW what you mean...
then we'll keep chasing our tails in circles forever, and without understanding anything.
Fatfist
I was watching Star Treak J.J Abrams and Spock was going to save the Galaxy using Red Matter to prevent a supernova from destroying the Galaxy. This movie proves dark energy and anti matter and Red matter exist.
Fatfist you are a liar and a fraud.
("Uh duh.....yeah.....heat is the lack of cold....and um....duh.....cold is the lack of heat.....duh!")
Fatfist,
My reason for bring up inductive reasoning was simply to point out that we do have to acknowledge that it is the observation of a phenomenon that leads us to theory.
In other words, we have to see light before we are interested in what it is and how it acts. We (as humans)observed changes in the night sky that led to posited theories about planetary movement - had we never witnessed the change we would not have cared about Newton.
In my opinion, the problem we see today in science is exactly the same problem we had when geocentricity was the prevalent thinking - we have BB as prevalent thinking, and therefore any observed phenomena (think redshit and cosmic background radiation) will have a theory posited to make the observation conform to the belief system (BB).
The discussion about heat/cold was actually my lame attempt to talk about the concept of time.
My thinking is this: prior to man inhabiting the earth, lightning strikes a tree in the forest, setting the tree on fire and knocking a fiery branch from the tree onto the ground were is falls next to a rock the has a shallow depression in it in which a small amount of rainwater has collected.
Now, our concept of time goes by for two hours, and the fire excites the atoms of H2O and makes them agitated to the point where the surface is bubbling.
The point I was trying to make is that the fiery branch had to stay in contact with the rock for a period of time in order for the final condition to occur, so although time did not act directly on the outcome it did act as a conveyor of incremental changes that led to the final outcome.
That's why I pointed out that the change in the excitement of the H2O molecules could not go from dormant to bubbling without graduated change.
Comments?
Winston,
(My reason for bring up inductive reasoning was simply to point out that we do have to acknowledge that it is the observation of a phenomenon that leads us to theory.)
Actually, your argument for inductive reasoning, the way you presented it to me, has its roots in the “traditional” philosophical/logical realm.
But what mainstream science has been doing for the past 100 years is anything but inductive reasoning.
They have skipped the hypothesis stage and moved right to the theory stage. BUT.....they do NOT explain in the theory, they only DESCRIBE! And they describe directly from an observation, which is an OPINION!
For example:
Maxwell identified EM orthogonality in light, and ever since then everybody said light was ‘a’ WAVE based on Maxwell’s observation. Well guess what? There is no such thing as ‘a’ wave. So Michelson & Morley thought that space was a physical substance much harder than steel – an aether. So they set up their experiment to “prove” it. But they failed.
So Lorentz and Poincare came along and claimed that light was instead a particle (a baseball), and claimed that when that particle passed an object, like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer, it CONTRACTED one of the arms of the interferometer device. They used the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the Lorentz transformation that shrunk objects in order to account for the results of the M&M experiment.
Then Einstein took the idea of stretching/warping reality in order to describe observations, and developed Relativity, where light is now a 0D particle (photon) – something which doesn’t even exist!!!!!
All this nonsense is based on observations.
Winston, can you really “observe” light?
It’s impossible!
Light is invisible to us. What we “observe/perceive” (for lack of a better term) is the physical interaction when light agitates our retina from reflections, which sends a signal to our brain, which “draws” the image in our memory (neural bank).
If light was actually VISIBLE and observable, then we would NOT be able to see anything. We would be completely blinded by it.
Why?
It would be like being in fog where light=fog and you can’t even see your nose, or anything else.
Same goes with gravity. Let a ball fall to the floor. What did you see that you didn’t already know?
Can we “observe” gravity in any way?
Nope, impossible?
Same with magnetism & electricity.......can you see it?
Nope! But there are physical objects which mediate all of these phenomena we observe. It is impossible to observer these physical objects. We can only CONCEPTUALIZE them and analyze their behaviour via critical thought only!
So then, what is this nonsense about making “observations” in order to develop a theory?
This doesn’t make sense in any way, but everybody keeps parroting this because that’s what the mathematicians have been saying for the past 100 years.
Before you develop a theory, you develop a hypothesis, where you hypothesize WHAT is the physical ‘object’ that MEDIATES the phenomenon of what we see and call light. Then your theory will explain reflection, refraction, constant speed, ray retraceability, double-slit exp, polarization, etc.
Once the theory can explain ALL of the phenomena we “understand” for light, without any contradictions, then the theory is said to be: rational.
What does this mean?
It means that nature could very well implement light the way your theory describes. There is no proof and no right or wrong. There are only rational theories or irrational ones.
Observations or logical induction play no role in the Scientific Method.
Observations can indeed add more “validity” and “prowess/pride” to YOU and your theory, and manage to convince the jury in the process that your theory may be the way nature does it. But a theory is NOT about accolades or winning people’s votes. A theory is about a rational explanation WITHOUT a single contradiction!
(The discussion about heat/cold was actually my lame attempt to talk about the concept of time.)
Your discussion wasn’t lame because that’s what you were taught in school. So was I, and everybody else. So this is what people parrot because it has a mathematical foundation from the Theory of Thermodynamics. What is LAME, is the theory of thermodynamics, because it treats energy (concept) as a real object. And nobody is the wiser!
(The point I was trying to make is that the fiery branch had to stay in contact with the rock for a period of time in order for the final condition to occur)
And you are making these statements from your experience and memory of past events and descriptions. This is purely a high level abstract thought that treats heat and time as objects, not the useless concepts that they are.
The real world is based on objects (atoms) which continually change location, which we call motion. If we are ever going to understand nature, we need to explain what objects, like atoms, are doing......and not what “time” and “heat” are doing. Because “time” and “heat” are magical words like God......they do not exist.....they certainly can’t do anything!
So Winston, you are doing what you, me, and everybody else was taught in school.....describe a phenomenon using concepts like: time, heat, cold, energy, mass, force, field, etc.
You are not explaining WHY it happened.
You are only describing HOW it happened.
And that's what mathematical equations do.....they "describe" dynamic concepts. Not a single math equation in the history of the human can be used to explain anything.....including the famous E=mc^2 nonsense.
Interesting discussion....
Fatfist,
You make an excellent point about light not being visible! At the same time, there have been observations that piqued our interest as mankind - the movement of objects in the night sky that did not fit with a geocentric theory.
O.K., I will bite: if not heat and time, what raises the temperature of water in a beaker held above a lighted Bunsen burner to 100C?
Catholic Fatfist I was watching this video today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_HrQVhgbeo
I was wondering if a field is a concept or a object? I think is and concept but what do I know. This guy knows more than I. May you explain the God particle so my simple Christian mind may understand it.
Winston,
(if not heat and time, what raises the temperature of water in a beaker held above a lighted Bunsen burner to 100C?)
Forget about this evil word ‘time’. Don’t even go there. It will always mess you up!
Time = Devil
You are FAR better off believing in Jesus, than believing in the existence of ‘time’.
Mathematical physics relies exclusively on ordinary speech and thus gets away with nonsensical statements such as 'transfer heat.' In reality we can ONLY transfer objects. Heat is NOT an object. Heat is a concept. Only math idiots claim to transfer concepts. In science it is irrational to say transfer energy, carry a force, move the center of mass, accelerate a charge, go through a field, dilate time, contract length, travel through or in space. This language is unscientific. These are nothing but EUPHEMISMS, figures of speech, poetry, analogy. They don’t explain anything. They are all, without exception, Ptolemaic descriptions. They will kill your brain cells!
So how do we explain this behavior we have named, heat?
Certainly not with degrees or with numbers like you attempted to do before.
Hot is either an adjective (ordinary speech) or an adverb (sci language). We use “hot” to CHARACTERIZE behavior.
But what the mindless mathematicians have done, is reified the word ‘hot’ (adverb) into ‘heat’ (noun). Then they combined it with the law of thermodynamics (an engineering rule that came from steam engines in the 1800’s but somehow made it into science) and claimed to convert heat to energy (another fictitious noun) and vice versa.
Now people think that ‘heat’ and ‘energy’ are things that exist. We should never use these stupid words ‘heat’ and ‘energy’ in science. Heat and energy do NOT exist! There is no energy in the universe, none. There are only objects in the universe, nothing else.
Anyway, to make a long story short......this ‘hot’ (adverb) behaviour (verb) of an object (noun) stems directly from LIGHT! Specifically, when an object emanates from the infrared (low freq) to the ultraviolet (high freq) of the EM spectrum, an object feels hotter, right? I mean, we DID learn this stuff way back in school, didn’t we? But everybody misinterpreted it because they NOW use the word HEAT or ENERGY which they treat like a noun i.e. a fictitious object.
So the ‘hotness” of an object is directly related to the RANGE of the EM spectrum “emanating” from the object, which our body senses, and our brain interprets. The more to the ultraviolet, the more ‘hot’. The more to the infrared, the more ‘cold’.
But that was just a petty DESCRIPTION I gave you. Mathematical physics stops RIGHT HERE and claims to have explained ‘heat’ and that we should now decorate the presenter with a Nobel Prize. Let’s break out the champagne!
Not so fast.......Now let’s get into the explanation using the Thread Hypothesis:
Remember, all atoms are gravitationally bound via a physical object connecting them. Let’s call it an EM rope (EM threads).
Light is indeed a physical object. It is actually the EM rope between all atoms in the universe. Every atom in the universe is connected to all the atoms in your retina with these EM ropes. When the rope is torqued by an atom, the signal travels to your retina, your retina sends it to your brain. It’s NOT your eyes that see, it’s your brain!
How do atoms torque the ropes? Necessarily by their motion/vibration.
So what happens when you put a Bunsen burner under a beaker of water?
- The gas atoms of the burner, as they combust with air atoms, are vibrating fast (high freq, ultraviolet range).
- The beaker atoms and water atoms are vibrating slower (low freq, infrared range).
- All the atoms of the combusting gases are physically connected to all the atoms of the beaker via the EM ropes.
- The gas atoms of the burner are torquing the atoms of the beaker really fast (high freq).
- The beaker atoms are now torquing the atoms of the water really fast (high freq).
- Eventually, the thermometer will read 100C and you will SEE the water boil at sea level.
- If you left the beaker there, the atoms of the beaker would be torquing at the same rate as the atoms of the burning gas, that is, if the beaker hasn’t exploded by then; and the water would have turned into steam by then.
A rational person never gives this bullshit explanation for phenomena:
“Duh, cold is the absence of heat......and dark is the absence of light......and hate is the absence of love......God=heat=light=love.....therefore God exists!”
(May you explain the God particle so my simple Christian mind may understand it.)
Oh, it's quite simple, Prometheus......even you can understand this one:
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DISCRETE PARTICLE IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!!
None. Nada. Zippo.
The idiotic clown who claims there is, had better be able to explain the phenomena known as "gravitational attraction" between atoms with their stupid 0D inexistent particles, which have NO length, NO width, and NO height.
Even if I offer $1 million, there is no explanation to be had. There is not even a hypothesis or a simple Kindergarten illustration of these 0D particles.
Quantum Theory belongs in the trash!
Quantum Theory belongs in the trash!
Apostle Fatfist
lol
I cant believe people actually fall for this 0d idea wtf. It makes no sense in any way. Is even more funny when they try to defend it, and my only question is defined 0d for me? And it becomes a shouting match, with ideology and no Intelligence.
There is no need to write any hubs. Plutarch wrote a Hub a long time ago and no one reads it, or even comes closed to understanding it. This hub Plutarch wrote is for the very fit.
Plutarch "de Iside et Osiride"
Microcosm, or Little World, of the creative law that incessantly peoples the great Universe.
And for the Atheist that have new claims that God of The Bible does not Exist. Dante wrote a old hub called Divine Comedy about the Dogma of the Tiara Of Rome, but few understand it.
And Heretic fatfist reach heaven with the ladder the devil gave him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6j8EiWIVZs
The best part is 0:15
Winston,
(But that was just a petty DESCRIPTION I gave you. Mathematical physics stops RIGHT HERE and claims to have explained ‘heat’ and that we should now decorate the presenter with a Nobel Prize.)
Sorry, that was MY description only.
The Mathematical Physics description goes a follows:
1) ENERGY GETS TRANFERRED TO AN OBJECT (JUST LIKE FATFIST TRANSFERS MONEY FROM HIS HOUSE TO THE BANK USING HIS PURSE OR EUROPEAN CARRY-ALL).
2) THE OBJECT HAS NOW GAINED ENERGY (JUST LIKE FATFIST GAINED 20 LBS AFTER EATING 5 DOZEN DONUTS).
3) THE OBJECT NOW HAS “HEAT” (JUST LIKE FATFIST HAS MONEY IN HIS PURSE).
4) THEREFORE IT FEELS “HOT” WHEN YOU TOUCH IT.
This is no different than the Christian saying: “The spirit (energy) of Jesus was resurrected and got transferred to Heaven.”
Just like the magical God can be used by the theist to explain all phenomena in nature......So can the following magical God terms be used by atheists and mathematicians to explain everything: energy, time, force, field, mass, quantum particle, spacetime, singularity, black hole, dark energy, dark matter, vacuum state, infinity, heat, cold, etc.
These words are no different than “souls” or “spirits”. They mean the EXACT same thing!
Obviously, I have not prioritized my time to focus on this hub to the degree it deserves. Sorry that I have not been able to accept the challenge of defining terms set out by one of the commentators.
I had a stroke on June 15, and I am still in the life-crisis aftermath of that. I hope to spend some quality time here soon.
Robert
(I had a stroke on June 15, and I am still in the life-crisis aftermath of that. )
Robert,
I hope you are making a positive recovery and feeling better. Don't worry about these arguments here. I don't want them to stress you out. It's not worth it. Forum discussion can be very stressful to people. You don't have to respond here.
Spend a lot of quality time in your recovery and I wish you all the best.
Good luck!!
Hi,
I’m just now getting around to answering this:
“The only thing I can say to you is to really take your time reading this hub. It requires thinking from a "natural" perspective, rather than from "mathematical", "logical axiomatic", or even "authoritative" perspectives. Hope you understand what I mean here.
(In my view, space is not nothing. Space is something too, or space could not exist.)
I welcome any rational explanation you have to support your position.
In particular, before you present your case, I would like these terms defined unambiguously by you, or you can choose to accept the ones I have provided:
space:_________
nothing:________
something/object:________
exist:___________
Unambiguous definitions are imperative!
We both need to understand what the other person is saying before we can have a rational exchange about the universe.”
I tried all this once in a rambling that I've put under the button, "esoterica" on my website:
Robert,
Your “rambling” as you call it, makes a lot of sense. You use mostly ordinary speech in your analysis, but I can understand what you are getting at.
All that exists is substance: exist = physical presence (object having a location)
Consciousness and mind are all mediated by matter/atoms.
(CONTINUOUSLY CONNECTED STUFF.)
You also have an understanding that all atoms are interconnected.
Here is a nice snippet from your site:
------------------------------------------
All that "is" or "exists" is substance. Substance is the primal precursor to all else.
BODY is an arrangement of SUBSTANCE. MIND is an arrangement of BODY. MIND, therefore, is an arrangement of SUBSTANCE via BODY. SPIRIT is an arrangement of MIND,... is an arrangement of BODY. SPIRIT, therefore, is an arrangement of substance via MIND. SPIRIT, MIND, BODY ... all are forms or actions of SUBSTANCE - the primal substrate of everything. This way of thinking gives a firm sense of grounding to REALITY. This way of thinking is how human beings feel most satisfied about KNOWING.
Where there is no sense of substance, we loose our footing. We loose our foundation, and we dangle in confusion.
SUBSTANCE > BODY > MIND > SPIRIT
This means: SUBSTANCE evolves to BODY. BODY evolves to MIND. MIND evolves to SPIRIT.
or
SUBSTANCE leads to BODY,... leads to MIND,... leads to SPIRIT.
SPIRIT is SUBSTANCE-dependent.
-----------------------------------------
Robert,
(BEING is MOTION.)
Yes, it is impossible to have matter without it being in motion. Check out my new hub where I explain why.
(SPACE is what we call the ungraspable stuff surrounding body.)
Yes, space is omnipresent. You cannot have matter without it being wrapped in space. It gives shape and structure to matter via spatial separation from the background.
Here is a snippet from your site:
--------------------------------------------
EXISTENCE never ends. EXISTENCE never began. EXISTENCE simply is, always has been, always will be - moving, changing, organizing, stabilizing, disorganizing, reorganizing again and again and again. There can be no NON-existence ultimately, because there is no place outside of existence for existence to be, since existence is all there is. "Existence" names a quality of substance. "Existence" cannot apply to non-substance, non-thingness, non-objectiveness. Eventually, the mind begs for the THING that existence is, or the THING from which existence derives its meaning. The mind requires this word, "existing", to have a subject, and the project here is to accomodate mind with the most useful subject.
Here let's review. Let's repeat again. Repetition fortifies and clarifies.
BEING is SUBSTANCE.
BEING is MOTION.
BEING simultaneously and indivisibly is both substance and its motion - both noun and its activating verb.
--------------------------------------
Robert,
My only point of contention would be that you think space is also a type of matter, an object, that space is like a container for matter, and that it exists.
Here is what you say:
--------------------------------------------
SPACE = STUFF
SPACE is another name for the all-encompassing, all-expansive SUBSTANCE of BEING.
SPACE is thinness of SUBSTANCE in which various greater densities of SUBSTANCE exist and move.
SPACE is NOT EMPTY. SPACE is NOT VOID.
SPACE EXISTS.
EXISTS means SUBSTANCE.
SPACE, therefore, is a form of SUBSTANCE . We might say that SPACE is the same as the ONE SUBSTANCE of BEING. Remember: BEING = EXISTING = SUBSTANCE. We now can include another "equals" sign to give us BEING = EXISTING = SUBSTANCE = SPACE.
BEING cannot be, without substance.
EXISTING cannot exist, without substance.
SUBSTANCE cannot subsist, without itself.
SPACE cannot hold substance, unless it IS substance of a more tenuous form, because how could NOthing hold SOMEthing?
SPACE = SomeTHING
How are we to think of this thing that space is? How best should we think of it?
As human BEINGs, we seem to have a need to think of space as a thing similar to a thing we can grasp with our hands. What feels right? Solid? Liquid? Gas? Animal? Vegetable? Person? Strange questions, for sure, but our sense of MEANING seems to force a choice.
SPACE, therefore, cannot be void.
SPACE cannot be empty absolutely. SPACE is only relatively empty, by comparison to denser forms against which thinner forms appear invisible at the bigger form's scale. Why can SPACE not be void? ANSWER: "Void" means non-existing of anything. Again, a void space places us in severe contradiction, by requiring something to exist in non-existence, or something to exist in nothing. SPACE has to be something itself, in order to hold anything else. The SPACE of BEING is a SUBSTANCE, and this substance is best considered FLUID. FLUID is a concept with both boundaries and infinite extent to accommodate the greatest malleability of reality.
----------------------------------------
Robert,
My only point of contention would be that you think space is also a type of matter, an object, that space is like a container for matter, and that it exists.
You seem to be taking the approach of Aristotle who thought space was an aether substance. He only assumed that because he didn’t understand that matter is all interconnected at the atomic level as dictated by its gravitational attraction. He assumed matter was comprised of discrete particles (atoms) which bounced around. This he thought, could give them unlimited speed if space was an empty void. But clearly this isn’t the case. Atoms are not discrete entities. The discrete entity model has been thoroughly debunked as it cannot support light or gravity.
This is strictly a conceptual issue. If you say that space is substance, you are saying that space has shape and that something is TACITLY on the outside of 'it' providing contour! You are saying that space is an object. Absolutely all substances are wrapped with the nothingness of space.
And if space was indeed a substance, then motion would be completely impossible. Consider an ocean. It is a substance medium. But the reason you can dive and move underwater is because your body is able to displace the water substance because every single atom of water is wrapped with “nothing” (space). It is the void that allows motion, that allows water molecules are able to be displaced, and the whole ocean level rises when you dive in the atlantic ocean.
So if space is a substance, how can you possibly change your location within this solid brick substance when you are continuously "molded" within it?
Perhaps you are suggesting that space is a void, but also has substance particles floating in it. But this would be a completely separate issue for discussion, as space would still be a void in this case.
Unlike in the religion of Mathematics, in Physics, space is not a physical object. Therefore, it is irrational to qualify 'it' as either finite or infinite. Indeed, space has the opposite properties that objects have. Space 'is' perfectly transparent, intangible, friction-less, unmovable, colorless, temperature-less, etc.
It is neither small nor large nor wide nor tall. It cannot move nor be occupied (e.g., like a fish occupies an ocean: by displacing water molecules).
Space is the static distance between objects. Space is a place. It is not a what, but a where. Space is the antithesis of the word object. We cannot contain space with a physical entity or medium (vacuum chamber, astronaut box, etc.). The Universe is a binary system, a true dichotomy....space & matter. There is nothing else.
Consider this: If we put space in a hermetic box and take the box away, then WHAT will be left behind at the previous location (we call X)? According to you, there will be NO space at X, right? You claim space is substance and can be CUT and REMOVED. But what is left at that place after we remove it? A door to another dimension perhaps?
The reason why objects exist, is because space does not exist, it is nothing.
Exist = object having a location
If space was a substance, there would be no objects and no locations because there would be no motion due to the fact that objects cannot displace the substance of space. It takes a complete void to allow a substance to be displaced. In your scenario, the universe would be one solid brick of continuous indisplaceable matter.
Thanks for responding!
Hi again,
I am not saying that space is a "container" at all. I am saying that for practical, human, conceptual, logical, consistent purposes, SPACE is best conceived and modelled mathematically as a higher-level fluid dynamic medium -- NOT as the classical, rigid aether that supposedly was disproved, and probably NOT as the ancient aether of Aristotle, but close to it.
The word, "aether" simply has too much argumentative baggage to it, so I simply avoid it, when I can, so people will be less likely to bristle from their solidified conceptions of what an "aether" might otherwise be.
I'm impressed that you took the time to delve into my plain-language rant. People operate in the practical world with plain language, so that's why I did it that way -- more common manly, artistic, with feeling.
Space is infinite, eternal possibility for fluid substance to exist. Their is no container, because there is no boundary. Space flows on forever as a collection of subspaces, which are little fluid oceans within "littler" fluid oceans ad infinitum.
Space has no beginning and no end in either time or, ... uh ..., space. And nothingness cannot "surround" somethingness. Space is a relative point of view about what we know in a particular situation of varying substance densities. Thin that surround thick means object within a particular level of space -- this is our device of perception.
All spaces are not equal, just as all times are not equal.
Robert
Hey Robert,
(SPACE is best conceived and modelled mathematically as a higher-level fluid dynamic medium )
Sorry, I don't understand what that means.
Perhaps you are metaphorically treating space as "something", because we can use it as a noun in language, where all terms are ultimately nouns.
But out there, in the universe, in reality, you must concede, that without an absolute nothingness surrounding every single object, that object motion would be impossible. All objects would be permanently FROZEN in a hypothesized space-substance.
There is no fluidity without a nothingness. Without space, it would be impossible to bend steel, much less melt it. If you disagree, please explain how steel would bend when there is a substance surrounding all its atoms.
Water flows and all liquids flow because there is much more void surrounding their molecular structures. The more fluidity a substance has, the more void is surrounding its atomic structure. This is basic stuff.
When the background of an object is also a substance, then ultimately, that substance MUST have shape. And in that case, there would be NO spatial separation of the object from its background. It would be impossible for life to form because motion would be impossible.
Pollyannalana,
As promised, I am a person of integrity. I already told you in your hub that I will PayPal you $10,000 US if you can explain that CREATION is the remotest of extremely remote possibilities.
You decided to CENSOR my comment, so I post it here for the record.
Nobody can now say that "Fatfist is a LIAR", right??
(You decided to CENSOR my comment, so I post it here for the record.)
Fatfist,
She censored my comment, too. And all I did was recite part of George Washington's farewell speech.
I bet if I had quoted Pat Robertson, instead, it wouldn't have been banned. :-))
Yeah, it's typical religionist BS.
They pretend to be "Battered, Tortured, and Punished by Non-believers".
But when you call them up on their claims, they censor you so they can hype their own FAKE AGENDA!!
I knew it would be only a matter of time before I ended up reading this hub. I knew that once I did I would end up commenting. I am drawn to you like a moth to a flame. The only real difference is that I know what that flame can do to my well being.
Since my last contact with you, I have been haunted by your words. I cannot escape the reality that you have changed my thinking. I cannot unread what I have read. I almost wish I could. This is the greatest challenge of my life. Either accept what you said as fact, or find reason to believe otherwise. 2 days after my last comment I wrote a hub called "In the beginning...God or matter" It started with the assumption that matter was eternal. I tried to make sense from there. I concluded that it could never result in life.
I'm reading a book called "The case for creation" By Lee Strobel. He interviews Craig in chapter 5 of the book. I weighed his words against yours. His words were not enough to convince me on their own. I haven't finished the book yet, but Strobel also interviews Jonathan Wells concerning Darwinism, Stephen C Meyer concerning science, Robin Collins concerning physics, Guillermo Gonzales and Jay Wesley Richards concerning astronomy, Michael J Behe concerning biochemistry and J.P. Moreland concerning consciousness. I'm about halfway through it. The evidence is compelling. When added together it seems insurmountable. Yet one thing remains constant. The haunting memory of your words. Your words have not lost their power over me. I hope that by the end of my reading, my faith will make complete sense to me. I don't want to live in a world without God. I also don't want to live in a lie.
I saw your post on Polly's hub. That's what led me here. I was suprised to see you there. I was hoping that you wouldn't make sport of her. I don't mind that you named me in your comment, but that suprised me too. I don't mind if you read my hubs, but I do ask you as a friend, will you please refrain from commenting? I ask that because I know the importance faith has in the lives of those who read me. I also know that to engage you in debate on one of my hubs would be very foolish on my part.
I think very highly of you. I will have some questions for you after I finish this book. Until then, I wish you and winston well.
Hi Fred, nice of you to drop by!!
(The only real difference is that I know what that flame can do to my well being....Since my last contact with you, I have been haunted by your words.)
Fred, from the last few exchanges I’ve had with you, I’ve noticed that my hubs are really stressing you out. They are tormenting you. And that’s not my intention. My hubs are meant for those theists and atheists who make outrageous claims of creationism, proof, and all that jazz.
Please listen to me Fred.....IT’S NOT WORTH IT. It’s best that you forget about what I write here and concentrate on your life, your beliefs, and your family. I know that relationships can deteriorate over religious issues. You told me before you have a wonderful family.....keep it that way!
(hope that by the end of my reading, my faith will make complete sense to me. I don't want to live in a world without God.)
Fred, I see you as a nice person and I want what is BEST for you. And what is best for you has to come from YOU, not from me or my hubs. Just remember that I am NOT forcing anything down your throat. You are coming here out of your own will. And if my words are causing you harm, then how do you think that makes me feel? My hubs are meant to challenge the mind and wake up people.....not to upset them. Those who feel my hubs upset them should not be reading them.
(I saw your post on Polly's hub.)
Yeah, Polly has a really FRESH mouth, but when I cornered her about her hub.....she decided to take the vow of silence and censor my comments. You know me, Fred.....I am to the point and I like to peel back the layers and get to the root of the issue with all its glorious details. Polly saw me as a reincarnation of SATAN. I truly feel sorry for people who mentally torture themselves in this manner. And it’s also very sad for their children who have to grow up fearing other well-meaning human beings.
(but I do ask you as a friend, will you please refrain from commenting?)
Fred, you don’t have to worry about me. I have no business posting in your hubs.
I don’t equate you with Polly. In fact, you are more respectful. I understand that in your faith you see non-believers as people who are lost and will likely go to Hell......but to equate non-believers with SATAN or as Satan-worshippers.....well....that is WAAAAAAAY over the edge!
You can write a hub that non-believers will go to Hell according to your beliefs. That is normal. It’s in the Bible, right? But to say they worship Satan......c’mon Fred......I know you don’t believe this yourself.
In fact, I’m the type of person who, if I caught a Satan worshipper torturing animals, like they do in their rituals.......I would get medieval on their ass!
(I will have some questions for you after I finish this book.)
Oh Fred.....oh my.....are you sure you wanna go through this again? I don’t understand why you like to torture yourself. Do you know that many people have fallen into depression over such issues?
Now if you are doing this as a challenge to me, that’s fine......I welcome all challenges. But if you are going to hurt yourself in the process, I would think twice about going down that path.
You know me, Fred. I don’t hold back. My methods are unconventional and realistic. You will not find these types of arguments about creation and eternal universe anywhere on the Internet.
If you bring an argument here and ask me to critique/refute it, you’re not going to be happy of the results. I have analyzed all arguments from all apologists out there. None of them hold water.
In fact, I have invited many Christian Apologists to comment in my hubs and none of them want to step in.
You are welcome here anytime, Fred. But please, just take what I say with a grain of salt. It’s not worth getting upset over my hubs.
"If my words are causing you harm, how do you think that makes me feel"
I want you to know that I really appreciate your concern. I've never met anyone like you. I cannot unread what I have read. Pandora's box is open. Wherever the truth leads is where I want to follow. If faith is in vain, like Paul the apostle said "we are to be pitied above all men". If God cannot stand against logic, reason, and critical thinking... then He is not God. I believe I was led to you through winston. I wanted to hear the very best arguements against faith and see if faith could stand. You are right, I could not have gotten this ANYWHERE else. What I asked for, I got. In spades. My questions will be similar to the ones asked of the "experts" by Strobel. I wouldn't be suprised if you had very different answers than they. I simply want to find the real truth and live the rest of my life knowing that truth. I decided after being on the ropes so to speak, that I would continue to act and speak as if nothing had changed for the sake of those I love. I would rather live a lie that brings them comfort and hope than take what is precious to them and flush their hope down the drain. Some things are worth living a lie for.
As for your hubs upsetting me, it is true. Some things are worth risking getting upset over. discovering Truth is one of them. As always, I thank you for your patience, time, and above all, for your concern.
(I would rather live a lie that brings them comfort and hope than take what is precious to them and flush their hope down the drain.)
You know best, Fred. I would prefer if you forget about my hubs, but if you don't want to listen to me then it's your choice. I have to be fair to you and respond to your questions. You come here in good will and you have the right to participate in any discussion here and ask any pertinent question about existence. My hubs are a place where you won't be harassed or ridiculed by a frenzy of atheists. In fact, most atheists don't want to step in here because I call them Creationists..LOL. Winston is a rational atheist and is one of the few who post here.
But your choice of words is really kreeping me out. I would rather have people who come here to beat me up, swear at me, call me a fool, an idiot, and moron, and diss my hub.....rather than people who talk about living a lie and having their hope getting flushed down the drain.
(Some things are worth risking getting upset over.)
Yeah, but if you are going to be miserable all your life, then it ain't worth it.
(discovering Truth is one of them.)
Fred, you keep using this troublesome word TRUTH. I am going to ask you to do me a big favour. I want you to do some research on truth and please post here a definition of truth. And I want you to tell me if truth is SUBJECTIVE (based on the opinion of an observer) or OBJECTIVE (opinionless, observer-independent). If you cannot understand this concept of truth, then I can see you as having lots of doubts, pain, and torment in your life.
You really need to understand the meanings of these terms (object, concept, truth, proof, knowledge). Cause if you DID understand them, then you wouldn't be coming here to my hubs to ask these questions you've been asking. You would be in a position to answer them yoursef, quite easily.
Anyway, you are a big boy, Fred. Just take it easy and be well. And remember.....sticks and stones will break your bones.....but Fatfist's words can NEVER hurt you!
Hi Fred,
You sound so much like the thoughts in my head when I was in high school and my belief system was initially challenged by reason - some kid who was a Professor's son asked me some hypothetical I couldn't answer without real, original thinking. I had been reared and exposed to only Evangelical Christian thinking, but there was no cut and paste Evangelical Christian answer I could find to give to solve his problem.
I was lucky. He helped me initiate my own critical thinking abilities.
If I may suggest, what you are searching for with your books and "experts" is "evidence". But, Fred, you should understand that evidence only leads to an opinion.
Evidence is used in trials. Remember what Tom Cruise said in A Few Good Men? "Trials are won by the lawyers."
It is the one who can present the more compelling argument, can "sell" his evidence that gets the conviction.
What does salesmanship have to do with truth?
And how many innocents are sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit? And all sent by lawyers who won their case based on "evidence", and the juries thought it all true.
Atheists will present evidence slanted by their view that there is no god. Theists will present evidence slanted by their belief in god.
Who cares what either group believes? The bottom line is simply this: What is the basis for YOUR thinking?
As I have said before, it is NOT illogical to believe in God, as a logical argument can be constructed that shows God is p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e. But one has to understand that the God that is possible can only be possible within the confines of the argument and not in the real world.
Logic is tautology. If God exist, he exists is the most logical argument that can be made for God, and even that possibility of God is held captive within the confines of the words of the argument itself - the possibility in logic of a logically proven God cannot be reified into an actual being - because it is all contingent on the BIG WORD: IF...
The best we can hope for, then, instead of the meaningless drivel of "Anything is possible IF" is to grasp that we can only explain in a rational manner as we presently understand the nature of reality.
You don't have to believe that matter is eternal. All you have to do is recognize that matter exists and that there is no other rational explanation for how it got here. That's not belief - that is reason.
Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis are my favorite actors. At age 47 I can benchpress twice my weight. I can run 4.6 miles in less than 40 minutes and do so 4 times a week. I can take it. If I have to live without faith I will do so with dignity and self sacrifice. I understand truth as you described it with one caveat, if there is a creator and He fills that which cannot be filled and can do the impossible by creating something from nothing, and is eternal, and omnipotent that would make truth whatever He says it is. He said we could know the truth. The information I am learning has really opened my eyes to my ignorance. Again, I would rather know the truth. While you contend that truth is subjective, I see it as what is factual. Not something that is subjectively arrived at by a preponderance of the evidence. FACT. When I said I would follow my pursuit of it wherever it leads me, I didn't mean that it would be something "proven to be" factual since proof is also considered subjetive. Just curious, if you hit someone with your right arm, and it causes them pain does that MEAN that your right arm exists, since it ACTUALLY inflicted the damage? I understand your position that definitions are important but as you say the sun would exist even if I denied it, doesn't the same principle apply to your right arm? Since the sun exists, isn't it true the sun exists? Please bear with me in my ignorance, I only wish to learn.
Winston- Nice to see you again! You were my first contact as far as critical thinking is concerned. I am grateful for that. Still love the profile pic! It seems to fit you as i know you. I hear that voice when I read your words. I say that respectfully.
I contend that if the evidence (which I understand is subjective) points overwhelmingly to design instead of naturalism, I, like an impartial jury will side with that. Just as if the evidence supports naturalism , I would side with that. It's all we can do, short of God Himself showing us that He does in "Fact" exist. Would "reason" lead you to conclude differently if you were to see a miracle or hear the audible voice of God? If you had a Damascus road experience would the parameters of what is fact and truth change for you?
Again, I thank you both for patiently and graciously explaining what you see as rational. I am obviously searching for reason to believe what I believe and willing to put ALL to the test. If there is a God, could He have led me to a better place to put Him to the test?
(Would "reason" lead you to conclude differently if you were to see a miracle or hear the audible voice of God? If you had a Damascus road experience would the parameters of what is fact and truth change for you?)
Fred,
We should thank Fatfist for letting us use his hubs like this - hats off to FF!
To answer your question, Fred, reason would lead always to looking for a rational explanation. I don't know if you are old enough to remember Uri Geller, but when I was in my youth he fooled the paranormal investigators of the "scientific community" of those times with a simple magic trick - people used to think he could actually bend a spoon with his mind. I saw him do it on t.v. I admit it looked real.
And then another guy showed up, a magician calling himself the Great Randi, and he did the same trick with the spoon and then showed the world how it was done. After that Uri Geller went off to die in fraud hell, while James Randi went on to a career as a fraud-buster.
So you see, Fred, if I had a Damascus road experience, I would suspect any rational explanation in lieu of a supernatural one - I would look for the trick that makes it look like the spoon was bent when I know it cannot be so.
And there is a reason for that besides cynisism - before there can be a supernatural, there must be a rational explanation for how the supernatural mediates events. How did an immaterial-bodied being move sound through the air in waves to make a voice come out of the sky when in doing so this supernatural being violates the Law of Causation? What part of nothing (the immaterial) contacted and pushed the air molecules (the material)?
See, Fred, it is not unlikely that it happened - it is impossible to have happened. God is no different than the Tooth Fairy, an invisible immaterial being who interacts with the physical world. There is no Tooth Fairy, Fred. Not because I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, but because the claims of what he does are impossible - they are frauds. To accept the reality of the Tooth Fairy is to accept the impossible as possible.
But this violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, if P then not-P at the same time. The impossible cannot be possible. If I can show that an immaterial god who can interact with the physical world is impossible, then I have proven there is no such God, because he cannot be possible and impossible at the same time. What would compel me to continue to believe the impossible, then?
Please explain to me why I should believe in fairies instead of insisting on rational reasoning consistent with the known laws of nature and logic.
What is the basis for belief? What necessitates God?
I can tell you the answer, Fred, but I am afraid you won't like it - the answer is fear. We believe in the impossible because of fear.
If you are familiar with Kubler-Ross and the stages of grief, you will recognize the first stage as denial. You tell someone reality - you have terminal cancer - invariably the first thoughts in his head will be, no, not me, you read the wrong tests. That is denial.
Belief in God is the ultimate form of denial.
I once believed as you do, Fred, but I no longer need God to protect me from the demons in hell or monsters in the closet. Or reality. See, Fred, these are childish fears.
When I became a man, I put away childish things.
Fred,
(can benchpress twice my weight. I can run 4.6 miles in less than 40 minutes and do so 4 times a week.)
We have a lot in common. I work out too. I kill everyone at the gym with my wide grip pull-ups....and behind the neck too. I also run, but only short distances.
(If I have to live without faith I will do so with dignity and self sacrifice)
But isn’t your family or friends watching you post your comments here? Don’t they know what you are up to?
(I would rather know the truth)
Fred, if you came to my hubs to find TRUTH, then I’m sorry to tell you.....you will have the shock of your life!
You still don’t understand what my hubs are about.
You still don’t understand what Fatfist is about.
Reality has no truths, proofs, beliefs, opinions or knowledge. Reality just is. As humans, the best we can do is to use our BRAINS for critical thought and reason in order to understand and explain reality without contradictions. This is the ULTIMATE in human achievement. This is what humans will take to their graves. This is what humans will take with them to extinction from this planet. Humans will never take TRUTHS to their graves!
You may think that my hubs have to do with ATHEISM. You’d be wrong. I used to be what I THOUGHT was an atheist. It didn’t work out for me. It left a bitter taste in my mouth. I found myself arguing more with atheists than with theists. I really don’t care for all that bullshit pseudo-science atheists preach.
My hubs have nothing to do with ATHEISM. In reality, there are no theists, atheists, conservatives, or republicans. Reality only has humans, other life, matter, and space.
Reality is SIMPLE......it is the stupidity of humans which make it complex!!
(if you hit someone with your right arm, and it causes them pain does that MEAN that your right arm exists, since it ACTUALLY inflicted the damage?)
You can easily answer this yourself, Fred!
Just read your sentence again. Does EXISTENCE have anything to do with PAIN or DAMAGE?
My TV exists.....but it hasn’t caused me pain or damage.
So obviously, EXISTENCE has nothing to do with VERBS!!
The word ‘exist’ is not a verb for the purposes of REALITY, as it implies no action. It is an adjective, since it describes an object. It describes that which is objectified by its presence i.e. physically real.
Exist = object + location
In order for something to exist it absolutely MUST be an object – it must have spatial separation from the background....we call that SHAPE. It MUST also have a location wrt all other objects. There must be a static distance between your arm and my nose.
Your arm exists BY DEFINITION, not by any evidence, truth, proof, opinion, or observation. It is impossible for you to OBJECTIVELY prove the existence of your arm.
The theist and theologian posit that GOD IS A BEING/ENTITY. Their hypothesis is that God exists!!
Of course, God is assumed to be an OBJECT. God is something rather than nothing.
Object: that which has shape. Synonym = entity, being, substance, matter, particle, structure, physical, etc.
It is impossible for God to be in between an object and nothing.....this is meaningless gibberish!! Either God is something (OBJECT) or nothing (SPACE).....take your pick! There is absolutely NO other option that can be positively predicated. I understand this stuff INSIDE & OUT, Fred.....there is NO other option. You wouldn’t even begin to believe how much thought I’ve put into this.
Understand?
(isn't it true the sun exists?)
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no provision for truth in existence. The Sun exists irrespective of whether you have a TRUTH statement or not.....or proof of it or not. Remember existence is an ADJECTIVE....it describes an objects properties or criteria for existence.
EXISTENCE IS ONLY DEFINED!
EXISTENCE ONLY HAS A MEANING!
EXISTENCE IS NOT A CIRCUS SHOW OF HUMAN ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOURS!!!
Winston,
(We should thank Fatfist for letting us use his hubs like this)
That’s what my hubs are here for.....knock yourselves out guys!
(Uri Geller, but when I was in my youth he fooled the paranormal investigators of the "scientific community")
Hey.....tell me about it! I used to believe this guy was for REAL. I also believed in James Hydrick’s abilities when he first appeared in that 80’s TV show That’s Incredible. Hydrick impressed me the most. He was able to move objects with his mind. He even moved objects encased inside an aquarium enclosure. He still has a cult following to this day, even though James Randi showed him to be a fraud.
Of course......I had to have these special powers too. So I didn’t eat, drink, or sleep until I acquired them. But I NEVER acquired them!!! I was very disappointed. So to make a long story short.....I finally figured out that humans have the capability to be easily fooled. It is in ALL of us.
(I can tell you the answer, Fred, but I am afraid you won't like it - the answer is fear. We believe in the impossible because of fear.)
AMEN!!
(While you contend that truth is subjective, I see it as what is factual.)
Fred,
I can't help but comment at times. Do you truly not see that your statement above is subjective? Let's rewrite it without destroying the meaning:
(While you contend that truth is subjective, my opinion, what I believe, is that truth is factual.)
So, truth is factual because you belief it to be factual...and the definition of subjective is ?????
(Not something that is subjectively arrived at by a preponderance of the evidence. FACT)
Fred, what is a FACT? Do you mean empirical evidence? O.J.'s DNA? The bloody gloves?
Fred, your problem stems in my opinion from your religious training - what you mean by fact is that you want absolute, inviolate proof. There is no such thing, Fred. It isn't real. The Ten Commandments are not absolute truths. There is no such thing as absolute morality.
Here is the best you will ever do, Fred. If P, then not-P. The Law of Non-Contradiction. Impossible cannot be possible.
Reason. It is all we have.
Or as Sherlock Holmes said, If you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
There is your truth, Fred - that which is not impossible.
I get lots of TRUTHS, PROOFS and FACTS for the existence of God sent to me by Christian Apologists. I always let them know that I don’t converse via email. I only converse in public where the conversation stays on the record for everyone to see. Once they hear this, they shit their pants. They get scared and run away with their tails between their legs. They don’t want me to make a fool out of them in public. They have something to HIDE.....their DECEPTIVE WAYS!!!!!
Here is a snippet of the many messages I’ve received from the 13th Apostle of Jesus, Apostle Troy Brooks @ biblocality.com. Of course, he says that I have it all WRONG.....he almost had a seizure when he saw all the ERRORS in my hubs. It’s a good thing God was beside him to prevent the seizure. He apparently read my hubs but didn’t even understand 1% of the content. He was only pissed off at my hubs. He didn’t understand what INFINITY or ETERNITY means. He didn’t understand that INFINITE REGRESS and ETERNAL REGRESS are contradictory gibberish clauses. He didn’t even understand the Law of Causality.
Anyway.....this clown’s clown is scared shitless to come here and post a single ontological error with my hubs. He read the comments section and knows he will be skinned alive!
Here is the PROOF FOR GOD he sent me over 10 times so he could increase the chances of me BELIEVING it:
----- BEGIN PROOF FOR GOD From Apostle Troy Brooks ------
God does not exist in infinite regress for there is no time with God. Just another one of your many mistakes. It's illogical to ask what caused the uncaused for it is is uncaused. This is the beginning of humility to accept this.
Just know when someone says infinite or eternity or eternal or infinite regress, they are simply referring to cause and effect going on for eternity (forever) in the past, that's all. And it can't be true because we would have occured already having had an eternity to do so. Also eternity would continue for forever so we would never reach this point we are at. These contradict and neither can be true showing infite regress is false.
Infinite regress is the proper term because is not forward in time but looking backward. Infinite because it is forever.
In becoming a new creation of God you will find one needs to be delivered from both their petty self and good self.
Since nature can't always have existed in an eternity of the past of cause and effects, logic tells us since nature is not the never ending answer, then it must be true that which is outside of time and space is the answer. And don't be dumb in saying God self-created himself. No! Always existing means He always existed, He doesn't create himself dimwit. So there we have the uncreated Creator who brings time into existence even though we don't know how, but necessarily must be true since nature can't always have existed. And there you have it. Your article has at least 100 errors and is a piece of junk with you imposing all kinds of arbitrary and ad hoc rules to corner yourself in a box. You've made so many ontological errors I almost had an epileptic seizure even though I don't have epilepsy. Basically what I said in my first email response stands: your petty self does not allow for interchanging of words but the meaning not changing. The English language does this all the time because it feels good, and that's ok. Infinite regress sounds better than eternal regress but we still mean eternal regress even though we say infinite regress. That you didn't realize shows me what an idiot you really are. So deal with the proof...
Like I said before, you are just letting your petty self get the better of you because when infinite and eternal are interchanged, it is better to recognize when rather than deny the argument. You can have an infinte (eternal) amount of numbers even though you can't traverse them all, but you can't have infinite regress becuse it would have happened already having an eternity to do so AND we would never have happened with an eternity never to be fully reached before reaching us.
The universe is an object not some concept. This place is real. Now eternal regress just doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely as infinite regress so though there may be some truth to your qualification of terms, for sake of nice rolling tongues, we can interchange the words for their meanings, so you don't need to get your bonnet all up in a whirl.
The universe is not infinite in size, nor is it eternally regressing, for it if it was, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so AND you would have never happened because that eternity would never be fully reached before reaching you. Inherent contradiction of infinite/eternal regress.
So, like I said, your petty self is on a rampage but you need to be delivered from it as well.
You've created a silly rule for yourself objects can't be infinite. The universe if eternal or infinite regress was true would be infinite in size theoretically, but that contradicts your very view that objects can't be infinite in size. Anyway the proof stands...
I have said enough. Proof for God has been given which I don't know how to overturn. You're still avoiding. You'll have to show how your words counter the...
http://biblocality.com/forums/irc.php
Perfect Proof for God
Since nature has been proven to always have a cause by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of trillions and trillions of cause and effects, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, this necessarily leads to an infinite regress, but you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so; so therefore, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Pure and simple! Since nature can't always have existed, that which is outside of nature-time, space and matter-necessarily must be the cause. This is whom we call God.
So the question then becomes who is God? Many can claim to be God or make claims about who God is, but unless they have some evidence they need not be considered. Forget about any claims where God is not intelligent, personal and accessible, for how can God's standards be lower than our own? Any belief system that does not effectively address sin would be deficient. By holding out for the future there could be some evidence to prove God does not exist eventually requires that you be all-knowing but only God could be all-knowing.
Only does Jesus prove He is God! After saying He is God and predicting His death and resurrection, the original disciples testified to having seen Him alive from the dead in various group settings. Since all naturalistic explanations are impossible, then no naturalistic explanation can account for their testimony. Hence, Jesus rose from the dead proving His deity as the uncreated Creator, that He died on the cross for the sins of the world and salvation is only through Him. No atonement would be satisfactory unless it was God Himself. If a person is unwilling to come to the cross as a helpless sinner, they are saying they want to be eternally separated from God. So unless you are willing to come to the cross as a helpless sinner you surely will go to Hell.
------ END PROOF FOR GOD From Apostle Troy Brooks -----
First let me echo the words of winston, I TRULY appreciate this forum for debate. That being said, let me ask my first question. Is it your contention that life "miraculously" began by having precisely the exact (I know redundant, but for emphasis)ingredients and conditions aided by sheer chance? Is it also your contention that self awareness is the result of simply having the "correct" alignment of atoms that form the human brain? And that also the result of blind chance? As I said before, I respect your thoughts as much as ANY man on this planet, based on my contact with you thus far. This is the first time I have broached the issue of naturalism vs. creation from this angle with you. I truly look forward to your response. I am certain you will be cordial and thorough. For this I thank you in advance. Most people with your intellect wouldn't have the kind of patience you have shown me. Regardless of where this leads, I think you and winston are awesome.
Hi Fred!!
Fred, you are going all over the place. You are grasping at straws and trying to make excuses for yourself in order to save faith. I’m sorry, I cannot help you with this. I can only give you honest responses.
You need to stay FOCUSED, Fred!
First and foremost, the paramount issue here is CREATION; whether by a God or by a Big Bang is irrelevant. Let’s just stick to basic simple CREATION.
CAN MATTER & SPACE BE CREATED?
THAT IS THE QUESTION!!!
Creation, by definition, is a VERB! This means that MOTION is required!!
Absolutely all verbs must be mediated (acted upon) by an object. Objectless or matterless motion is completely IMPOSSIBLE.
Creation is “causal action” (verb, motion). Absolutely all objects and all verbs are subject to the Law of Causality:
A Mediator (object A) imparts causal action to a Target (object B)
Target object B is said to have “change effect” imparted upon it. Hence every cause leads to effect!
This means that CREATION requires at MINIMUM 2 objects!
If one object is God (object A), then WHAT is the other (object B)???????
This is the ontological contradiction that instantly kills Creation Theory, as matter is absolutely eternally existent. And since matter is impossible to exist without space,.....then space was ALWAYS there as well. And since it is impossible for matter to be motionless (due to gravitation), then motion is eternal as well.
In summary.....
1) Space is eternal
2) Matter (atoms) is eternal
3) Motion of matter is eternal
There is no other option......none.......nada......nothing else is even conceivable......not now.....not ever!!
Creation is impossible! That’s what ONTOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION means, Fred. Please try and understand this.
I don’t know how else to say this to you, Fred, except to tell you to re-read my 4 hubs on the impossibility of creation. Please, don’t think that I’m implying that you are stupid or anything.....don’t even think about going there. But I am compelled to tell you that you really didn’t understand those hubs. And you are not alone. Most people have been conditioned not to understand them. It may take reading them 5 or 10 or 20 times to completely understand them. I will admit that when I was younger I had to read some things 10 or 20 times before I completely understood them. There is no shame in admitting this. It is natural and perfectly human. We (INCLUDING ME) have been brainwashed by society and authority from a young age to think in EXTREMELY LIMITED TERMS. We have been brainwashed to be brain-dead zombies that can only parrot authority!!!!!!!
It takes a man,....a REAL MAN.....to admit this!
It takes a human.....a REAL HUMAN.....to take charge of their life and want to wake up from the society-induced NIGHTMARE!!
But it is FOOLISH for one to claim that they understand something, when it is clear that they don’t.....extremely foolish!
You, Fred, seem very sincere. You are asking all the right questions and I congratulate you.
BUT......you did not understand the answers (and hubs) to the questions you asked me a few weeks ago. I am 100% sure of this. I am willing to put my head on the chopping block that you didn’t understand my hubs.
So now, you prefer to change course to a completely different and IRRELEVANT direction.....one of human development and cells and randomness, etc.
Why are your new questions IRRELEVANT?
Because CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE!
This means, that however LIFE managed to arise on this planet, it is necessarily via natural processes within nature.....whether you agree with it or not.....whether you like it or not.
Nature couldn’t give a rat’s ass what us petty humans think, know, or believe. Nature just keeps going about its business eternally. Existence is eternal. This is the default situation.
Creation is a CLAIM, a THEORY, because it ASSUMES an event took place in the past. And as a THEORY, it necessarily needs a RATIONAL EXPLANATION......otherwise it is a BARE ASSERTION that belongs in the TRASH with all the other irrational assertions about Alien Abductions, etc, etc...
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A THEORY FOR AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE!!!!
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ETERNAL IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A CLAIM!!!!
Why?
Because it does not posit an event in the past. There is nothing to explain. Eternal means no beginning and no end. Eternal negates the positive CLAIM of creation. Existence exists. This is the default situation. It always has and it always will. Anybody who WISHES TO DEVIATE from this default, MUST EXPLAIN THEIR CREATION THEORY!!
Understand??
The only way that you can possibly divert from the eternal universe ......is to explain WHY creation could even be the remotest of extremely remote possibilities....i.e. even extremely less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
And even if you put a quadrillion zeros followed by 1% (which I’m not going to do :-)
Do you understand the gravity of the situation?
Do you understand the significance of what I am saying?
This is PARAMOUNT.
My words should be ringing like THUNDER in your ears!
My words should be ringing like ATOMIC BOMBS in your ears!
I don’t know how else to express the importance of what I am trying to say to you.
Fred, you are trying to have a rational discussion with me, right?
If that’s the case, then you need to understand what I am saying to you. You need to spend a lot of time to yourself thinking about these things.
If you think that there is even the TINIEST thing wrong with my hubs....then you need to POST it here!!
If I am lying or being irrational in my hubs,.....then you need to CALL me out on it. You need to hold me accountable for what I say.
But I will (very briefly) answer the new questions you asked. I will answer them in DETAIL only when you understand and EXPLAIN exactly WHY the Universe is eternal, or if it is even possible to be CREATED.
Because if you have any doubt in your mind about the Universe being eternal, then it is IRRELEVANT what my answer is to your new questions.
If there is even a remote possibility (a quadrillion zeros followed by 1%) that the Universe was Created, then natural evolution, naturalism, etc. goes in the trash!!!
Either the Universe was created or it wasn’t.......there is no middle ground!
A human being has to understand and be able to rationally explain one or the other. If you CANNOT explain either case, then I’m sorry Fred......you have no business asking questions about evolution, life, or nature, so early in your quest in understanding the Universe. As these questions are the LEAST of your worries. You have MUCH BIGGER FISH TO FRY!
Fred,
(This is the first time I have broached the issue of naturalism vs. creation from this angle with you.)
naturalism vs. creation???
What does one have to do with the other??
Fred, no disrespect, but you really don’t have a clue of what you are talking about here. You are simply parroting the irrational ideas of others.
Creation is not even related to naturalism or even to nature. There is no comparison here.
REMEMBER: Creation is a CLAIM. Creation is a THEORY. Creation is not a condition or a state of being or a fact.
Naturalism refers to NATURE.....space (nothing) and the motion of matter (atoms)....that’s it. There is no other context.
Please Fred, explain to me.....how is that related to your THEORY of Creation? And just what are we trying to compare here? Creation is a THEORY. Naturalism is the Universe. You are trying to compare apples with fireplaces.
Your Theory of Creation stands alone, as a claim of a supposed consummated event (space & matter creation) in the past.
Your approach is a strawman-type of query that is often parroted by Christian Apologists in order to get atheists to go on the defensive and go on a wild goose chase. And those stupid atheist MORONS, who haven’t a freaking clue what Creation or Naturalism even means, happily comply and drown themselves in the toilet!
BOTTOM LINE: It is YOUR job, as a CLAIMANT, to rationally explain that Creation is even a POSSIBILITY. Otherwise, you are on a wild goose chase yourself, and you have no argument. You have no leg to stand on if you cannot demonstrate that Creation is even possible.
I’m sure you can appreciate Fred, that I don’t let a discussion degenerate into a circus show. I stay on track. I am direct and to-the-point. We rationally deal with the primary issues first, then we can discuss the other issues.
This is why Christian Apologists do not want to debate me on Creation. I will skin them alive. I will turn these idols into instant fools!!
Fred,
(Is it your contention that life "miraculously" began by having precisely the exact (I know redundant, but for emphasis)ingredients and conditions aided by sheer chance?)
No. There are no miracles or blind chances, ever! These are mere concepts which stupid idiotic humans have conceived because of their inability to understand and explain nature.
But, before I answer your question, you MUST unambiguously define this ELUSIVE term “life”. I will provide an observer-independent definition just to get moving along. If you disagree with it, then the onus is on YOU to provide an observer-independent definition, ok?
life: the ability an object has naturally developed to move of its own volition against gravity
This definition of LIFE circumscribes all of life: amoebas, bacteria, viruses, plants, animals, fish, insects, etc.
There is nothing random in the Universe. Every event is absolutely mandated by the Law of Causality (discussed earlier). Random is a concept invented by man. The fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to even develop a real random number generator, serves to show you that even WE cannot defy the Law of Causality. Not even a God can defy causality.
Fred, a living object is composed of atoms wrapped by space. Every single atom in the Universe is interconnected with all other atoms. This is mandated by matter's gravitation. This means that all atoms have the capability to attract each other. This means that motion is perpetual. There is no matter without motion and there is no motion without matter. Understand?
When atoms come close together, the effects of magnetism, electricity, e-shell expansion/contraction, atomic vibration, and atomic bonding are realized. These processes allow atoms to combine into objects, whether life or lifeless.
This is straight-forward stuff, Fred. We are able to explain exactly how each individual atom is attracted and comes together to form a life object. All life objects are composed of atoms!!
Consider a puzzle composed of quadrillions and quadrillions of pieces. Is it impossible to explain how this puzzle can be put together? Given enough time, we could write a RECIPE of how to put this puzzle together. And given enough time, we could write a RECIPE of how to put a human together from individual atoms.
Fred, mother nature has been doing this for ETERNITY, non-stop, 24/7. Do you honestly think that it is impossible for a collection of atoms to come together and form a bacterium or even a single-cell life?
We can quite easily explain how specific Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, and Oxygen atoms come together via the processes I outlined above to form a single-cell life.
After that, forming a dinosaur is a piece of cake!! It only takes time and natural evolution......and nature has eternity to do it!!!!
We are not the first life in the Universe, nor the last. Life has been arising and going extinct for ETERNITY!
(Is it also your contention that self awareness is the result of simply having the "correct" alignment of atoms that form the human brain?)
A rational person operates within the confines of reality, not within a magical fairyland where a fairy converts Cinderella from rags to riches so she can go to the Ball and meet a magical Prince who ‘has’ awareness.
In reality, awareness is a VERB – to be aware! Awareness involves the motion of objects, not the motion of nothing. Absolutely ALL verbs require a physical mediator (i.e. object) to mediate their action. It is impossible to have verbs without OBJECTS. Objectless or matterless motion is impossible.
Awareness is what something DOES (i.e. verb, motion), not what something IS (i.e. entity, object, thing, substance, matter, etc). It is the motion of atoms in the brain, which mediate the verb we call: awareness.
Objects (atoms), without a doubt, ALWAYS precede awareness.....objects precede all verbs.
Objects necessarily PRECEDE motion, right?
That’s why existence exists…..and it’s eternal.
Fred, if you had paid attention to your very OWN example of “awareness”, you would have understood that it clearly demonstrates exactly why matter & space are eternal. It is impossible for matter to have a beginning because it is impossible for nothingness to impart motion, and mediate the CREATE verb (just like the AWARENESS verb), in order to magically pop objects with Length, Width, and Height into existence.
(Regardless of where this leads)
It is not my intention for our discussions to lead anywhere. I provide a safe environment (free from trolls and harassment) for both theists and atheists to discuss their issues, no matter what they may be. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussions here. What they take with them when they leave, is their business, not mine.
My hubs are only meant to dispel all the irrational myths and beliefs that the human race has been forced to accept by authority. My intent is to make these hubs the voice of reason! My hubs are not meant to convert or brainwash people. My hubs are not a vehicle for me to make assertions and spread a system of belief.
My hubs encourage rational discussion and disagreement through rational explanation. I expect people who come here to challenge me as well. I expect people to ask me for explanations for whatever I say. I also expect people to rationally respond to MY questions as well. I don’t accept assertions without a rational explanation. No rational human does, nor should they be forced to.
(Is it your contention that life "miraculously" began...?)
Hey, Fred,
This crap sounds like it comes straight from the pages of the introductory booklet for Supernatural Design at the Discovery Institute - Dr. Behe and his bunch.
Frankly, I'm with Fatfist on this one - the whole idea has been so thoroughly debunked that only a hardcore fundamental apologist would still be quoting this nonsense - and there is no win debating those types.
Here is the bottom line: if you want to sit around in what is basically a "clique of purposeful ignorance" working out rationalizations for irrational beliefs based on ancient Jewish legends because it makes you feel safe to be part of the crowd, then just go do it.
But for your own sake, don't bring a dull-witted knife to a gunfight.
(a hardcore fundamental apologist .....and there is no win debating those types.)
That;s because the Creationist atheist morons who debate Christian Apologists are complete ignorant fools. They are Big Bang Creationists themselves. They will just come up with any lame excuse to remove God from the equation of Creation and substitute the Singularity. What a bunch of f***tards!!
These Creationist Atheists don't even understand the Scientific Method, nor that Creation is a Theory, nor that God is a Hypothesis. Like I said.....stupid ignorant fools who don't even deserve to have an opinion on these matters. That's why they lose most of their debates.
(if you want to sit around .... working out rationalizations for irrational beliefs)
They are not even rationalizations. Fred's questions and methods are completely irrational because you cannot explain the creation of space & matter with LIFE or AWARENESS. These are completely IRRELEVANT issues.
Atheists who mindlessly dive right into such questions, may just as well dive into the TOILET and flush themselves. They will always lose the argument because the argument was already SET UP for them by the Apologist who is controlling the strings. And the atheists are his puppets!!!!
Fred has to either:
1) Explain WHY Creation is even possible.
OR,
2) Explain WHY Creation is impossible.
Fred CANNOT hide behind the fence and throw his arms in the air and say: "I'm sorry, I don't know, nor can I explain".
Fred has to grab the bull by the horns and make HIS argument right here!
Fred has to explain to Fatfist exactly how the Universe is (either created or not).
Only then can Fred bring up arguments about LIFE and AWARENESS. If Fred explains creation to be impossible, then such arguments are moot issues anyway....since atoms came together by the methods I listed.
Wow! I smiled as I read your entire responses. Not sure if I touched a nerve, or if you are simply tired of playing with me. One thing is certain, your patience is not as longsuffering as I thought it would be. You continue to define the debate with the parameters you firmly put in place and that is fine. I was simply moving beyond the basic of matter being either eternal or created, into another (what I would call) enigma, that being the transforming of lifeless, thoughtless atoms, into complex living organisms. I wanted your perspective on how that is even possible. It seemed reasonable to me to go further in the debate from the point of matter being eternal, to how this lifeless thoughtless matter could possibly produce life. I'm spending considerable time on trying to understand. You have quite a headstart on me. Not only that, you started with an advantage based on your capacity for processing and understanding information. Sorry if my questions are considered dull witted by winston. I was just introduced to the views of Dr. Behe and believed them to have some merit. I don't wish to have to resort to the attributes ascribed to God to bring the possibility of Him being responsible for all that exists. While I may not have your hubs memorized, I understand what you are saying. You say creation by God is IMPOSSIBLE. You say matter is ETERNAL. You invite anyone who can refute these claims to come to your hubs so they can be your lunch. That's fine. I didn't come here to be the main course. I came here to see if I could learn by asking questions and reading your responses. If you think my questions are stupid, I'm sorry.
P.S. I'll grab the bull by the horns. You'll see me again soon. Until then... kindest regards to both you and winston.
Fred,
(Not sure if I touched a nerve, or if you are simply tired of playing with me.)
Not at all Fred. My issue with creationists is that they either:
1) Don’t understand their theology. Don’t understand that God is a hypothesis and that Creation is a Theory that requires explanation.
2) Don’t understand what “Creation” means.
3) Don’t fully understand what I am saying to them via our discussion or thru my hubs.
4) Or.....they pretend not to understand.
I’m pretty sure you fall in #3, Fred. I have the same problem with atheist creationists....but those guys are usually are a deceptive bunch and pretend not to understand what I say so they can push their pseudo-science agenda on me.
(You continue to define the debate)
No, I don’t define.....and if I did, it would be irrelevant to the underlying issue.
The underlying issue which automatically kills secondary debates, is that we must establish whether matter & space were possibly created or not. And this is where Christian Apologetics and Big Bang Apologetics fail. They prefer to ASSERT creation, and then go off into irrelevant issues of life, evolution, morals, free will, etc.
Does this make sense to you Fred?
If a creationist theist or atheist cannot FIRST and foremost demonstrate that Creation is even remotely possible, then whatever they ramble about life & evolution is moot.
Most Christians believe that God created the Universe with the Big Bang. Most Christians believe that God created life via the process of Evolution. These are the standard doctrines of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But their argument goes in the trash if a Creator is deemed to be impossible, and then these processes are explained by natural means.
(I was simply moving beyond the basic of matter being either eternal or created, into another (what I would call) enigma, that being the transforming of lifeless, thoughtless atoms, into complex living organisms.)
And that is PERFECT! I welcome such discussions.
BUT......one cannot explain the creation of space and matter with any argument relating to life, awareness, morals, free will, evil, love, etc. One cannot demonstrate the existence of God with such discussions.
Ohhhhh.....the Christian Apologists would like for you to think so, because they have no arguments to explain if Creation is even remotely possible.....their basket is empty. They need to grasp at whatever straws the can.....they need to divert your ATTENTION away from the PRIMARY issue of Creation, and send you on a WILD GOOSE CHASE of completely irrelevant topics about life, awareness, etc. Magicians call this MISDIRECTION!
I’ve had both theists & atheists try to misdirect me and take our discussion off to irrelevant tangents. I tell them right away that I know all these tactics & tricks. I don’t let the discussions in my hubs degenerate into the circus show discussions you see in the forums. I expect complete honesty from people.
(I'm spending considerable time on trying to understand.)
Good for you. Consider yourself extremely lucky. Most theists & atheists don’t care about understanding....they just concentrate on BELEIVING authority.
(You have quite a headstart on me. Not only that, you started with an advantage based on your capacity for processing and understanding information.)
I already told you......when I was younger I had to read some topics 10 or 20 times before I fully understood them. I never thought I would be so persistent in trying to understand complex topics. But it was a teacher in school who told me about this. He said that I can either give up or take charge. He told me that no teacher can open up my head and dump information in there and hope to understand it. Understanding can only come from me. Teachers are only there to present the information, explain it, and help with any questions. No teacher can MAKE you understand.
(Sorry if my questions are considered dull witted by winston.)
Winston understands these issues because he has been there and done it. He has learned life’s lessons the hard way. As do most of us. Winston has been thru a lot, and if you see him a little agitated, it’s because he understands what dogmatic belief does to people and society.
(I was just introduced to the views of Dr. Behe and believed them to have some merit.)
I will give Dr. Behe lots of merit and accolades if he can come here as an honest person and explain to me WHY the Creation of space & matter is even remotely possible.
If Dr. Behe simply ASSERTS or ASSUMES that matter & space were created......and then proceeds to explain that God also created life out of atoms, then he fools no one except the poor gullible folks out there.
Dr. Behe (and others) is not a rational or reliable source of information on these scientific issues because:
1) It is irrational/nonsensical to ASSUME an event (creation of space & matter) took place.
2) An event is a THEORY (a claim), not an assumption. We NEVER assume CLAIMS! We only EXPLAIN claims!
3) Only a hypothesis is an assumption.
4) We do not hypothesize or assume events/theories/claims. It is irrational to do so. It does not make sense.
5) We only hypothesize or assume the existence of objects, or entities, like God, leprechauns, Big Foot, Aliens, etc.
6) Using our ASSUMPTION that God exists, we now proceed to explain our CLAIM: The Theory of Creation.
7) After we rationally explain our THEORY without contradictions......then we have shown that Creation of space & matter is indeed possible!!!!
Fred, please reference any of Dr. Behe’s works (or anybody else’s works on this planet) which demonstrate point #7 above. This should be your #1 priority, Fred.
If you can’t do that, then these PhD’s really don’t have the slightest clue of what they are talking about. Sure, they can bring up strawman arguments about RANDOM CHANCE and nonsense like that. But there is nothing random in nature. Humans have the BAD HABIT of calling things which they don’t understand, as random. That doesn’t make them so. Every action has a re-action. Every cause has an effect.
(While I may not have your hubs memorized, I understand what you are saying. You say creation by God is IMPOSSIBLE. You say matter is ETERNAL.)
Fred, it is IRRELEVANT what I say. My stupid ramblings are not meant to be taken on BELIEF. If the CLAIM of Creation has ontological contradictions.....then Creation is IMPOSSIBLE by definition!
I can blow smoke out of my ass. I can ramble day & night that the Universe is eternal until they lock me up in an asylum. Me and Winston can go picket your Church on Sunday and attempt to convert as many people as we can on OUR side. These things are completely irrelevant to the underlying issue.
The issue of Creation is based on the utmost objective criterion......the demonstration of ontological contradictions. That is what kills creation......not MY stupid ramblings!
The idea of Creation died the moment it was conceived and uttered by the first human a few thousand years ago. So this has nothing to do with ME. I am just the voice of reason. I only explain and put these issues into perspective.
(I didn't come here to be the main course. I came here to see if I could learn by asking questions and reading your responses. If you think my questions are stupid, I'm sorry.)
Excuse me, Fred.....but where did you get the idea that your questions are stupid??
I never said anything like that. I only said they were “irrelevant” to the issue of Creation. I only said that answering such questions cannot explain whether space and matter could have possibly been created.
I said that you need to be able to demonstrate to me (but mostly to yourself) that Creation is even a remote possibility. That Creation is an event that “could have” happened in the past. I didn’t mean to upset you by this. But, I hope you can appreciate, that it is the ULTIMATE question that all humans should be able to answer. I just cannot fathom a human being, alive in this wonder of nature, and not be able to at least give a high level explanation of our existence.
And in fact, I did briefly answer your questions in my previous post, right? I said that gravity and the effects of magnetism, electricity, e-shell expansion/contraction, atomic vibration, and atomic bonding are responsible for the assembly of objects. These processes allow atoms to combine into objects, whether life or lifeless.
Everything is made of atoms, which are objects. Nothing is made from concepts.
If atoms have the capability to come together.....life will most certainly arise. After all, life has an eternity to form. There is no time limit. Only humans have a time limit. That’s why humans cannot give you the exact recipe on how to build a human atom by atom. But given enough time, we can. Understand?
A plant is life, but it doesn’t have awareness. A plant leads a STATIC life without memory or notion of time. Sentient beings have a brain and thus awareness (verb, brain activity). They have memory, which allows them to lead a DYNAMIC life with notions of time....before/after.
The Universe is STATIC, as it has no memory of past events. Only sentient beings with memory do. The Universe has no time. The universe is not alive.
These are valid questions, and we can discuss them all you want. But like I said, they cannot help anybody establish whether space & matter were created or not.
Don’t get discouraged or upset, Fred. I think you misunderstood the message of primary vs secondary issues I raised earlier. I know you haven’t been exposed to this type of reasoning before, and it may offend you. I didn’t mean to offend you, and I apologize if I did.
Didn’t I tell you before not to get offended by what I say? Ahhhhh....you forgot what I said...tsk tsk ;-)
Fred,
I think that the BEST arguments that theists have, come from William Lane Craig. He is VERY convincing to the layman. Winston can correct me on this or offer alternatives.
I don't know if you just recently got interested in such questions of existence, or if you've been researching for years. But I would recommend you to find the BEST arguments for Creation out there. This means going on youtube and watching theist debates.
There are many debates where theists just slaughter atheists on Creation. You need to watch this stuff and understand why the theist won the debate. Then try to reconcile it with what I say. If you like, bring this topic here for discussion.
Another fabulous debater who uses logic is Matt Slick of carm.org. He has banned me from his site, for obvious reasons. But he has a radio show where he kicks atheist butt on a daily basis. Slick is well-versed in logic and a tough cookie to crack, and this is the reason why not a single atheist has managed to refute his TAG argument for the existence of God.
You can watch the Atheist Experience show on youtube where Matt Slick calls in. The atheists spent 45 minutes trying to refute his TAG argument and failed. The reason why they failed is because they didn't understand the difference between an OBJECT and a CONCEPT. It's that simple!
Anyway, your mission, as I understand it, is to reconcile your BELIEFS with reason, rationality, and reality. You have a lot of homework ahead of you before you can convince yourself whether it is possible or impossible to accomplish this task.
I will be up-front, and tell you that it is impossible to do so. There is no way that any theistic belief system can be reconciled with reality. And the reason being is that all systems of belief are based on contradictions. The only thing one can do is to have faith....that's it.
Fred,
This is the issue and it is simple. You either have to be in the camp of "anything is possible" or in the camp of "anything is not possible".
If you are in the "anything is possible" camp, then you have to accept that leprechauns are possible, square circles are possible, demons and devils are possible, married bachelors are possible, and singularities are possible, God is possible, on and on and on.
I am in the camp that says square circles and married bachelors are impossible; therefore, unless you can rationally explain leprechauns, demons, devils, Gods, or singularities, they, too, are impossible.
It is inconsistent to say "Square circles are absurd, but God is a reality." Both must be possible if "anything is possible". If anything is possible then nothing can be impossible.
Here's the way reality works. Let us assume there is a 1% chance that life began spontaneously. That does not then concede that there is a 99% chance that it was God who caused life. It only means that there were 99 times out of 100 when LIFE WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURED! It's like winning the lottery - the 13,999,999 other numbers combinations you could have chosen makes NO difference to your good fortune if you hold the winning ticket.
Life is here. The lotto ticket hit. It doesn't matter what the odds were. Whatever the mechanism that jump starts chemicals into an RNA chain is unknown, but whatever it is and no matter how unlikely it is, that chance is always incalculably greater than the ZERO percent chance that the impossible occured, that a married bachelor existed, that a creator god did it.
Let me also briefly address Behe and his Discovery Institute Bunch of IDers. Behe likes to claim irreducible complexity as a reason for creation - but you know the impossibility of creation from Fatfist - but it is even dumber coming from Behe as his arguments don't hold. Evolution is based on tiny graduated incremental changes, and the entire flagellum is not evolved in one swoop, and neither is the eye. Each have lesser stages that are not complete but are still of value to lifeforms.
The classic refutation is the mousetrap. The ID argument say that in a complexity like the mousetrap that all the parts must participate for it to be useful - but that is untrue. Take away the latch, and it can be used for a tie clasp. Take away all but the wood base, and it is a paperweight. It is only looking at the finished product that causes a presumption of a designed mousetrap, when nature had no ultimate target or goal to begin with of building a mousetrap.
ID is no different than claiming God did it when seeing a cloud that appears to have formed into the shape of an elephant - it is only the observer who sees and claims an end-stage product of design.
This ID nonsense was found in a court ruling by a Bush-appointed Republican Judge to be nothing more than Creationism repackaged - and by the Discovery Institue who tried to hide that little fact and whose mission still is to instill ID into science classes as an equal "theory" with evolution.
And then when the judge made his ruling against the Dover Board of Education and against ID, Pat Robertson said on his t.v. show that the court's finding would bring punishment from God to the citizens of Dover!
There is no way to say this nicely - if you think that God would punish the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvannia, for standing up for their constitutional rights and having Creationism banned from being taught in their schools, then you are an inbecile, a total moron and further discourse is simply a waste of time.
Now do you have some inkling of why I get so infuriated with such banal stupidity as Intelligent Design and when sources like Behe, who Pat Robertson adores, are mentioned as somehow an idea and a person worth listening to?
Here is the kicker, Fred. A fundamentalist Christian Ph.D. is nothing but a fundamentalist Christian. Don't get wrapped up in the supposed authority.
PBS had a great special on this - you can probably find the show to watch on the PBS website: Citizens of Dover vs Dover Board of Education or something like that.
Fred,
I am so happy that you are “grabbing the bull by the horns” and doing your OWN research into these matters. I don’t want Winston or me to put any words into your mouth or twist your arm in any way.
I’m sure you understand by now that assertions, opinions, beliefs, truths, falsehoods, proofs, revelations, knowledge, and authority have absolutely nothing to do with reality.....nothing to do with existence.....nothing to do with science.
I don’t care what your beliefs are, Fred. People’s beliefs do not concern reality and science. But, if you wish to bring your beliefs into the realm of reason and rationality, then of course, you understand that the only objective way to reach any conclusions is with the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is very simple. It is able to reach 2 objectively rational conclusions:
1) Either that a CLAIM/THEORY is possible.
Or,
2) That a CLAIM/THEORY is impossible.
That is the ultimate in human achievement. There nothing as objective or more objective than this.
So, before we all get misdirected and confused by questions about life, evolution, design, awareness/consciousness, morals, ethics, evil, love, homosexuality, sex before marriage, birth control, abortion, free will, divine inspiration, absolute truth, etc........we have no other choice but to deal with the primary issue.....the issue of Creation!
A human being’s PRIMARY priority is to be able to rationally explain whether the Creation of space & matter is......1) possible......or.......2) impossible. It just blows my mind how a human can live on this planet, and NOT be able to explain either 1 or 2......I am speechless!!!!!!
Proofs and truths are in the eye of the beholder. People prove that they were abducted by Aliens and participate in sexual orgies with them, on a daily basis. And they have more evidence for their claims than is in the Bible for the Jesus claim. In science, we do things much differently. I think you can appreciate that.
Don't have much time right now. Getting ready to go out with the fam. Just wanted you both to know that I have read your replies, and I am very grateful for them. I have been watching craig and strobel on youtube. I have just finished the book "the case for creation" by strobel. I will continue my search for understanding and get back with you soon. If I need to be staightened out at that time, I will take it like a man.
Hey Fred,
You take your time on these issues. This is your quest, not ours. Craig's videos are excellent btw!
You have a GREAT time with the family!!
Fred,
You also need to check out Matt Slick. He claims to have PROVEN that God exists with his TAG argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLWm_123lZU&feature
Ha ha...this guy is real slick! To this day, not a single atheist has been able to refute this proof. You will not find a single refutation of Slick's argument anywhere.
Just look at these clowns from the Atheist Experience fall on the faces for over a half hour trying to refute it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo
A rational person can refute the TAG argument in 10 seconds flat! That's why Slick banned me from his site and deleted all my comments.
Fatfist,
Analyzing the argument itself shows its flaws. It can be shown to be circular even within its own system of logic without going to the bother of showing the conceptual impossibility inherent in any creation claim.
(P1: Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.)
But in this argument, Craig excludes "it is eternal" as an explanation for matter and space. The clause "in the necessity of its own nature" should certainly include the nature of being eternal, but the rest of the argument excludes this possibility by his use of the "common meaning of God, without defining it). So he is somewhat "begging the question" of a necessary external cause in P1 because he does not allow for a non-god "necessity of its own nature" that would include a non-creation, non-causitive eternal nature.
(P2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.)
Even if we substitute matter for the word "universe", this premise is O.K. as it is contingent.
The problem comes with the definition of God. What is this thing Craig calls God that is the cause IF...All he has done is use the word God to cover all the possibilities in P1! If matter and space are eternal then that explanation is named God. He says so right in this premise. Every possibility is now covered - the answer will always be God, whatever that word means!
The entire argument becomes redundant as it is meaningless. Craig's position is this: If P then not-P but both P and not-P are God. Talk about a safe bet!
(P3: The universe exists)
I'll even let him use loose language - Matter and space exist. Fine.
(P4: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3))
O.K. I buy this if we specify universe as all matter and all space.
(P5: Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4))
Whoop de doo da. Craig has simply shown that you can define God to be (eternal matter and space) or (an invisible entity) depending on the resolution of P1.
So once again, all this logic says is that there must be an explanation for space and matter, and regardless of what that explanation is, I am going to claim it as God.
What a crock....
Winston,
Yes, Craig's arguments are quite easily shown to have logical fallacies. But that's what Craig's game is all about....logic!
It is impossible to combine logic and God and not expect your argument to have at least one fallacy.
Matt Slick, on the other hand....is much smarter! Slick uses misdirection.
Slick managed to brainwash atheists that Aristotle's Laws of Logic are called LOGICAL ABSOLUTES. Not only did everybody swallow that they are "absolute" (eternally true), but they also swallowed that they TRANSCEND time and space (i.e. are spirit-like). Now all the moronic atheists on youtube call them "logical absolutes",....even the idiots on the AE show.
That's it. There is no way to refute the TAG argument once you are blind enough to accept those 2 bullshit conditions. Once these laws of logic are reified into magical eternal spirit-like entities (absolute & transcendent).....what else could they possibly be other than God?
Fatfist,
How could anyone buy into a proposition that a concept would continue to survive even without the necessary biological means (a brain) that makes a concept possible in the first place?
Again, this Slick argument is "begging the question", as the logical necessity for logical absolutes is an eternal mind, but without an eternal mind the initial preminse cannot be true. The conclusion is assumed in the premise, a classic case of "begging the question".
(How could anyone buy into a proposition that a concept would continue to survive even without the necessary biological means (a brain) that makes a concept possible in the first place?)
Ha Ha Ha!!
Because they don't understand the difference between a concept and an object. It always boils down to this. All religions boil down to this.
Hi Fatfist- I know that you have dilligently looked into all the possibilities to explain existence. This is exactly why I continue to come back to your hubs. You try to be objective as far as I can tell. I want to ask the questions that I have pressing in on my heart as best I can. I have a couple more.
Is the universe expanding? If so is it expanding at escape velocity?
Can you explain why irreducable complexity is not an accurate assesment?
Why does the DNA code not compel you to at least give intelligent design credibility?
I know I'm all over the board here and I also know that you have been MOST helpful in giving me understanding from an opposing point of view. I CANNOT thank you enough for your patience and your ability to convey what you reason in detail in a way that I can understand.
No matter what, even if we never agree, I will always consider you a friend.
I watched the first video. While his circular reasoning may have merit, that in itself does not "Prove" the existence of God. He used the power of misdirection in my opinion. Using the words athiestic belief and opposing it with the term logic, caused me to believe his reasoning could have been better presented without the obvious bias with which he presented it. We report, you decide is my favorite approach.
Hi Fred,
(Is the universe expanding? If so is it expanding at escape velocity?)
The Religion of the Big Bang claims to have proven it. They claim it is expanding at an incessantly increasing speed, which by now, is GAZILLIONS (we cannot even name this number) of times faster than the speed of light. And the speed is increasing by leaps and bounds every second. Do you believe this nonsense, Fred?
I already have 2 hubs on the Big Bang which debunk these myths.....check them out.
(Can you explain why irreducable complexity is not an accurate assesment?
Why does the DNA code not compel you to at least give intelligent design credibility?)
I hope Winston can chime here cause he knows this stuff inside out.
Tomorrow I will post a response to these questions (kinda late now), which will be from a totally different perspective than what Winston would post (if he could be so kind).
(I CANNOT thank you enough)
Don’t mention it....you are welcome ;-)
(No matter what, even if we never agree, I will always consider you a friend.)
Ha, ha! Fred, I am willing to bet anything that this planet has never seen 2 people fully agree 100% on all aspects of Christianity, or on any religion. This is what would concern me the most if I were in your shoes.
Labels aside......you will find that all humans disagree. This doesn’t mean they can’t be friends. Most of my friends are Christian, believe it or not. They don’t see me as evil or amoral or anything like that. We hardly ever discuss religion. We just agree to disagree on these specific issues.
I consider you a friend as well. I am not here to ridicule you or to convert you or to argue and fight with you. You came here to test your faith or perhaps enlighten yourself. No problem.
I’m glad you watched Matt Slick’s video. That is probably the most debated argument for God because it has stumped so many atheists.
See you tomorrow.
Fred,
Sorry for being late in my response. I've been quite busy the last few days.
(Can you explain why irreducable complexity is not an accurate assesment?)
The term “complexity” is a human concept that embodies abstract ideas and emotions. Without a conscious observer offering his OPINION on an issue, there is no such concept as complexity. If you show a lighter or a flashlight to head-hunters on a remote Pacific island who have been disconnected from civilizations, they will automatically think you are a God. The instant flame and light stemming from those devices make them “irreducibly complex” in their mind and only Gods can possess such formidable powers. Why? Because they still rub sticks together to make fire and light. It is human IGNORANCE & LAZINESS which makes notions and ideas SEEM complex.
Complexity is not even a valid assessment of anything in the universe, much less an “accurate” assessment. There is no such anything as “complexity”.
If I were God I certainly would not assemble matter and living beings from component parts. I would use my omnipotence to create beings that are alive based on their magical spirit which I put in them. I would certainly not create atoms, molecules, DNA, cells, etc. What’s the purpose of all this nonsense? What end goal will it achieve in my creation? A human being would be made out of matter that is given “life” by the person’s SPIRIT, and NOT by component parts similar to what you would find in a robotic assembly plant.
Life created by a God would not be explainable. It would be impossible for us to break down human beings into component parts (atoms/molecules) and be able to explain how all these parts fit and work together. We certainly would not be able to manipulate God’s creation and cure diseases at this supposed irreducibly complex level, using surgery and medications. Are we Gods too? We MUST BE if we are able to tinker and tweek this supposed irreducibly complex level of design!!
As a God, I would do things much differently. I would put a magical SPIRIT into every being that would do all this work covertly in the background without the intervention of any specific part, like a cell or a DNA molecule, or a hormone molecule. Only an UNINTELLIGENT system is composed of component parts.....like cars, computers, tv’s, etc. An intelligent system created by God would necessarily have the INTELLIGENCE built into the SPIRIT force that drives the material body. It definitely would not use electricity, magnetism, light, atomic bonding, and gravitational attraction to synergistically allow for the functioning of a human or any life form at the “atomic level”. Why would it need to use all these petty things in order make the human body function?
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS ONLY POSSIBLE IN A NON-MATERIAL LEVEL - THE SPIRITUAL LEVEL....assuming such a level can be explained to be possible.
Only when something has NO COMPONENT parts, can it be deemed as "irreducibly complex".
If we currently don't understand how something works or formed, it can only be classified as: NOT UNDERSTOOD, YET!
Anybody who sings the "irreducible complexity" jingle, has nothing but an AGENDA to push!
Fred,
(Why does the DNA code not compel you to at least give intelligent design credibility?)
DNA is not a code or a message!!
One popular argument for God-the-Creator is the DNA-code analogy. The mathematicians and their allies, the religionists, propose that DNA is a coded message that an intelligent being mailed to us so that we could decipher it:
“ intelligible messages must come from intelligent sources… DNA, like polypeptides, contains information. In fact, DNA’s chief function is information storage… The information content of DNA… leads to the inescapable conclusion that an Intelligent Designer with purpose in mind is responsible for life… All codes require an intelligent agent to develop the set of rules defining the code… the genetic code offers every indication that a Creator deliberately and purposefully shaped the message.” (F. Rana, Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code, Facts for Faith 8, Reasons to Believe 2002).
Who else if not the Omniscient would take the trouble of configuring a message for humans to understand? So what is DNA?
DNA is an inert molecule. It contains the basic genetic constituent that makes up life on THIS planet. It would be by sheer chance that any other life form in the universe shares a similar DNA molecule as life on Earth. Regardless how college Christians and mathematicians try to twist and turn the thing, a DNA molecule objectively consists of lifeless hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms patterned painstakingly over hundreds of millions of years. That’s all that a DNA molecule is. Just because it is a basic building block for life on this planet is irrelevant to the grand cosmic scheme of life elsewhere in the universe.
Were rocks designed? They must be, because they also share common elements and common mineral molecular structures we could just as easily call: ROCK DNA! Why would God design rocks? What purpose do they serve? They are lifeless and useless. Why not just design life? Why not design planets, like Earth, to be ALIVE rather than be dead rock?
Therefore, the first question we should address is whether it makes sense to say that lifeless atoms constitute a code. Is a virus a code? What tidings does the flu virus bring, good or bad? How about a red-blooded sickle cell? Is its message that you’re terminally ill? How about the AIDS virus; did God send this code here to teach gays, lesbians, and poverty-stricken Africans a lesson?? Is a human being a message? After all, if DNA is a message and we are constituted by DNA, each individual must be an entire computer program! Is the entire solar system a message? Designed for and directed at whom? What is the message? What is its meaning? For instance, what is the Andromeda Galaxy telling us? Did God make Andromeda specifically for us so that we would one day ‘get’ the message?
ALL CODES, MESSAGES, AND INFORMATION ARE CREATED BY HUMANS FOR HUMANS!!!
In their zeal to convince the masses at all costs, the scientific establishment has created the buzz word information/code/message and popularized jingles and one-liners such as ‘DNA is a message.’ The rest of the brain-dead humanity picks up on this jargon, and the popes and cardinals and nuns use them to prop up their doctrines. Everyone can now officially use this ‘scientifically’ substantiated phrase to justify their particular religion – no matter WHAT it may be!
DNA contains no information in itself because information is what an extrinsic observer derives. The mathematicians confuse what DNA does on its own with what they get out of it. The ‘information’ they talk
about has to do with the fact that they understand that DNA will make a carbon copy of itself. But so what? ROCKS MAKE CARBON COPIES OF THEMSELVES! And they do so via natural means involving gravity, electro-magnetism, and atomic bonding. If life is so specialized and designed to replicate itself, then WHY is there more rocks and gases, rather than living beings in the universe? Why don’t rocks and gases have “life”? Is it because they have no DNA CODE? Ok, let’s cut a human’s head off and go bury it on top of the Rocky Mountains. Will the Rockies now get “seeded” with life from this self-replicating DNA code inside the dead human? Why not???????
Information has to do with the observer and not with the thing itself. Objectively, the book merely consists of paper and ink. Understanding is what the reader derives from it. Likewise, before humans came around, DNA was nothing but a group of atoms that was twisting and replicating itself via natural means. Think of a barber’s pole, the one which has the red and white stripes coiled around it. Imagine it twirling. You see the waves moving along it from A to B. But these waves have meaning only to you, the observer. You recognize the sign as a place they give haircuts. To your dog it’s just a pole. And to each stripe on the pole there is no message whatsoever. As far as each crosssection of the pole is concerned, it is just spinning at the same latitude and going nowhere, surely not spiralling from south to north as it seems to you. Mother Nature doesn’t send messages to humans. She is a very objective parent and just pushes atoms to new locations every second of the day. That’s all nature does and all it ever did. The only existing things are atoms. Anything beyond this is merely in the mind of the individual who is allowing nature to fool him, or whom will use this supposed INFORMATION to FOOL OTHERS for the purpose of self-benefit!!
Let’s begin by asking whether a rock had a Rock-maker. Is the answer no because a rock is not sophisticated? Then who put the little atoms together, who carved the groove we see on one side of it, who gave it overall shape, and who put it on top of the mountain where you found it? Was it God? Did He take the trouble of climbing the mountain for this purpose? Or was it gravity? Did God make Mars and Pluto, or just
our beautiful blue Earth with all of Noah’s creatures? What was the Maker’s purpose for making the Moon? Was it so that we would land on it some day? How about the asteroid Ceres? Are ‘crop circles’ proof that aliens are here? Is a pot of gold proof that leprechauns exist? These are the types of conclusions that teleological arguments lead to.
Like information and codes, order is an issue which is solely in the eye of the beholder. Order is like beauty: it is an opinion. There is no such thing as beauty as there is no such thing as order. A dog does not think that Miss Universe is anymore beautiful than his bone, and the atoms of DNA are just as ordered as they need to be to carry out their functions. There are only arrangements of atoms in space. Whatever an observer makes of
them is mere opinion.
These arguments are used by theologians for the purposes of generating ever more fantastic assumptions to keep their God Hypothesis from dying. That’s asking for quite a lot considering that theists have don’t have a single rational explanation for any of the theories they push in their public debates. This means that they don’t even understand their own statements they are pushing onto others. They are only using EMOTIONAL TACTICS to win over their audience. So how could these theologians have any merit? Can anybody tell me with a straight face that these people are credible?
Apologists like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel need to explain to their followers, that before you can have a BANG! and an expanding universe, there had better be “something” prior. And that “something” MUST have underwent some changes (motion) in order to impart “creation”. If they say that God existed prior, then they have NO clue of what they speak. They are only making up nonsense to appeal to the emotions of their followers. God CANNOT impart motion on space (nothing) and make it acquire shape. Craig himself claims that God is NOT OMNIPOTENT. He claims that God is BOUNDED by logic and rationality. But Craig instantly makes himself look stupid by claiming that God can indeed do anything, like make “nothing” acquire shape. Religionists have been selling nothing but a circus show of “snake oil” claims for millennia. It’s about time people starte
Fatfist,
Sorry, but I just now saw this exchange. You covered well the idea of DNA. It only appears complex from the observer end, but DNA is simply chemicals doing what chemicals do. There are only 4 nitrogenous bases in use in DNA: thymine, adanine, quanine, cystocine.
These pair off in twos, on a double helix, so you have two sets of two. Whoopee. Not so very complex looked at from the starting end.
And the finished product isn't all that great.
When DNA is recreated, there can be errors made in reproduction (mutations)and errors made in replication (like cancer cells) and then you can see that this wondrous God-given code isn't very God-damned accurate, after all, because it's given us things like Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, Sickel Cell Anemia, Cancer, and on and on. But no one talks about that.
Besides, the IDers aren't even current with their lame argument about DNA - it has been shown in the lab that RNA is capable of reproduction and the RNA-World model is now the better explanation for the origins of life. In this model, DNA is not even necessary and it came later from RNA.
Fred,
If you really want to learn this stuff, go take a good introductory course in biology for science majors at the local city college or take an online course or at least buy the textbook and read it.
Just a final word on complexity. We can look at the computer programming necessary to send spacecraft to distant planets and think how incredibly complex it seems - but we forget that a computer uses binary code, that the circuit is either open or closed, and all that complexity really is is a staggering amount of yes - no questions, none of which by itself is complex in the least. On/Off. How complex it that?
Complexity is added by the observer.
Now a comment on irreducilbe complexity. First, let me say that there is the argument from ignorance, which ID uses, and then there is the argument of ignorance, which is different. I, myself, am ignorant of many things - but if I am interested I dig in and learn about it.
That said, I will be fairly brief and hope that any holes from ignorance will be filled by inquisitiveness.
The eye. First, do we agree that the eye is one of the organs that ID uses to claim irreducible complexity?
Well, here are some facts. There is not one type of sight (eye) in nature, but 4 distinct types, and each one varies from the other in fundamental ways. Bats actually "see" with something similar to sonar.
In sight, the ability for the human-type eye to focus is not an ability all human-type eyes possess, yet this inability has not hindered the species with poor comparitive eyesight to benefit over species with no eyesight.
The ability even to sense light without seeing gives an advantage over completely "blind" creatures. Take, for an example, a creature whose main enemy is the owl, a night feeder. This creature would surely benefit from simply a membrane that allows a sensation of light and dark to tell it when it is safe to leave its burrow.
And then we have the human eye, which of course has an optic nerve situated exactly where you would expect if it had evolved, but which is in a silly and quite dumb place (causing a blind spot) had it been designed.
As I said earlier, this same type eye (the human type) is in other creatures, but not all of those creatures have the ability to focus the light. Why, if this eye is designed, did the designer forget to put in the Fabulous Focus Feature in Every model????
That's all I will go into now - suffice it to say, The Discovery Institute won't give you these facts - they will withhold facts to suit their agenda.
Thank you for the input, Winston.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been quite busy as well. I want to thank both of you for your patience in answering my questions. The detail in which you answer is quite amazing. I am very much impressed with your knowledge. I'm still stuck on "Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability?" I am also having trouble understanding how the complexity of even a single celled LIVING organism could have evolved from a "chance" mixture of non living chemicals under any condition. You two are a much better resource than ANY college course.
Again... I thank you both.
Fred,
I am sorry if I get short at times but I simply have no tolerance of ID or any proponent of ID even suggesting it has any validity whatsoever.
ID is a bigoted religious movement pushing an agenda of ignorance. You may as well go to the KKK for civil rights advice as read Discovery Institute publications.
(I'm still stuck on "Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability?")
That is understandable, but wrongheaded. Regardless of the naturalistic answer, it is always exponentially greater than the supernatural one.
Reality=100% chance of having occured.
Fantasy=0% chance of having occured.
(I am also having trouble understanding how the complexity of even a single celled LIVING organism could have evolved from a "chance" mixture of non living chemicals under any condition.)
Again, you put the cart in the wrong position - the horse goes in front. (see my hub).
We are. Existence exists. What you are doing is like trying to figure out how Ol' Charlie figured out how to play those exact winning numbers in last night's lotto contest.
The fact that it happened=100%
The fact that God made it happen=0%.
Hi Fred, nice to see you back!
(I'm still stuck on "Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability?")
Fred, you really need to understand the “meaning” of your questions. If you can do that, then you are half way to the answer.
Your question above is no different than asking:
Q: why should a bunch of atoms have MOVING ability?
The general nature of “WHY SHOULD X HAVE Y?” questions alludes to “purpose”. You question already ASSUMES an intelligent being who put Y into X for a grand purpose. i.e. God decided that He should have done that way, as opposed to another way.
Why should the sky be blue?
Why should water be a liquid?
Why should magnets attract each other?
Any SHOULD type-of-question implies purpose,.....in that it SHOULD do it “this way”, instead of “that way”. Any such question is irrational and completely meaningless. Any attempt to answer such questions leads a person to chase his tail around in circles because he doesn’t understand what he is asking. The person is so off-course from the important issues that he missing the primary point of his epistemology......that being.....is it possible for a God to exist?
We can explain WHY the sky is blue.....WHY water is a liquid at certain temps......WHY magnets attract each other and WHY they repel....etc.
But why they SHOULD exhibit this phenomena......ummm......I give up, your guess is just as good as mine. Why SHOULD they?? Is it because God made them do it THIS WAY in order to please us??
I don’t think so, Fred. Humans who were created by God don’t need any magnets,.....don’t need any blue skies......and they certainly don’t need any water or food in order to survive. The God-given SPIRIT inside humans should be all that is required to maintain life. After all, this spirit is eternal and indestructible, right? I mean, this is the jingle that most Christians sing to me whenever I converse with them.
Why should a God-created human need to replace the atoms inside his body with food atoms??
And why did God put fat & cholesterol in our food? So He can POISON and KILL us off sooner??
I mean, just look at all these poor God-loving Christians dying from heart-attacks, clogged arteries, and strokes each and every day. Why did God make their food supply clog up their arteries even though they truly worship their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Even though they go to church and read their Bibles and are “true” believers?
You get where I’m going, Fred? I have thousands of these type of “WHY SHOULD” questions I can ask you of your God & Jesus. These questions will crush any Christian apologist and send him running 100 miles per hour in the other direction! Nobody can dance around these type of questions when someone like me fires them off one-by-one and demands a rational answer!
I NEVER ask these questions, Fred, because that would only show that I have no rational counter-argument to the theistic position. Any question which changes the course of the discussion to “purpose”, only shows that the proponent really has no argument to support his case.
So let’s go back to your question and show exactly WHY it is irrational:
Q: “Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability?"
Atoms don’t have any thinking ability.
“Thinking” is a verb. It is what something does....specifically, a sentient being: human, dog, cockroach, fish, fly, ant. All these beings have a brain with memory and the ability to think, reason, and make decisions.
When the atoms in a brain align themselves in specific configurations, and are able to mediate electrical impulses, magnetic attraction/repulsion, atomic bonding, atomic expansion/contraction, and other forms of motion.....we give this SYSTEMIC MOTION a name. We call it: THINKING.
That is all that “thinking” is. We are able to manipulate groups of neurons in specific areas of the brain and affect a person’s thinking and memory ability. We can either do this with surgery or with electro-magnetic stimulation of atoms.
How can humans possibly “mess around” with another human’s thinking ability? Theists always claim that it is your SPIRIT which gives you consciousness and thinking ability, right? But if I am able to electro-magnetically induce a CHANGE in thought in a human brain, without even physically touching him, .....doesn’t that mean that thought is only mediated by the MOTION of atoms? An electro-magnetic signal alters the MOTION of atoms. That’s how it altered a person’s thinking.
This is straight-forward, Fred.
Every single atom in the universe is physically connected to every other atom. This is the ONLY rational way we can explain the effects of gravity and light. This is the ONLY rational way we can explain WHY gravity is INSTANTANEOUS to an object no matter what the distance is to another object. This is the ONLY rational way we can explain the CONSTANT speed of light.
And with this hypothesis, we can now explain the reason why electromagnetic stimulation of a person’s brain activity is possible without using invasive means.....because all atoms are already connected! If I send a signal down the connective medium, the atom on the other end will always be AFFECTED and respond accordingly.
Thinking is mediated by the MOTION of atoms. Atoms don’t think, they only move, perpetually, forever and ever. Atoms and their motion are eternal. It is impossible to stop an atom from moving.
Fred,
(I am also having trouble understanding how the complexity of even a single celled LIVING organism could have evolved from a "chance" mixture of non living chemicals under any condition.)
I already explained to you previously, Fred......”complexity” is in the eye of the beholder.
Just take a flashlight with you next time you get stranded on a Pacific island and watch how all the tribes will worship you as the God of light! They certainly won’t understand the complexity in this incredible feat you perform.
Fred, listen VERY carefully.......any phenomenon which involves the interaction of physical objects having shape & location, has absolutely no complexity. It you don’t understand how it works, then all that means is that.....you don’t understand how it works!!!
If we haven’t yet discovered why air, which is invisible, can blow down a tree.....it doesn’t mean that it is complex. It only means that we haven’t discovered what air consists of.
Complexity is only a matter of opinion.
(a single celled LIVING organism could have evolved from a "chance" mixture of non living chemicals)
Chance? Random?
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, Fred. But there is absolutely NO chance or random event in the Universe. All events are mediated by cause & effect. I already discussed this in a previous comment.
Humans have been trying for ages to generate “chance/random” numbers. It is an impossible task. It will never be done!
And a single cell is made of component parts. Like the parts in a robotic assembly plant. It consists of atoms which are all connected to each other via a medium that is perpetually in tension because atoms are perpetually in motion and tugging and pulling at this medium. This causes all atoms to instantly attract each other. When they get close, depending on their alignment, spin, contraction/expansion.....certain atoms can physically connect together via a process we call: atomic bonding.
There you have it, Fred! It is EXTREMELY EASY for lifeless atoms to connect with each other and form larger structures. And this is absolutely NOT random. It is NATURAL. It uses nature’s effects of gravity, atomic bonding, electricity, magnetism, e-shell expansion, etc. There is nothing complex or “chance” about it.
How can it possibly be complex when it is made of component parts?
Is the Rubik’s cube complex? According to 99% of the population, yes! Most haven’t a clue how to solve it.
But there are people who can solve with their feet in under 10 seconds. So how can it possibly be complex?
Complexity is a matter of opinion ONLY!!
Besides, we are able to explain how all those atoms attracted each other in order to form a cell. Nobody can FORCE those atoms to come together....not man....and not even God! Atomic bonding occurs by a natural system of processes.
But you gotta give this credit to nature, Fred.......nature is ETERNAL!
Atoms and their motion are ETERNAL. I explained WHY in LABORIOUS DETAIL in my hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIBLE-Spa
Eternal atoms have been attracting and repelling each other forever. So don’t get surprised when they come together to form a dinosaur, a human, a leprechaun, a virus, or a hopping alien with 5 heads and only 1 leg. And still..... don’t be surprised when these atoms get disconnected from each other and all these life forms perish. They have all of eternity to come together again just as they were before.
Indeed they do!
Indeed they can!
There are no time limits or constraints. Time is only the conception of a being who has MEMORY.
There is nothing that created atoms, and there is nothing that can stop them or destroy them.
Fred,
Although you are only now "discovering" Behe and Dembski, rest assured that their 15 minutes of fame died a number of years ago within the scientific community when their hypothesis was shown to be wrong. A disproven hypothesis doesn't live long in the scientific world, but carries on in message boards postings and call-in talk radio shows and old Discovery Institute sponsored book publications.
The argument made by Behe was that irreducible complexity was proof that design occured, and he pointed to the bacterial flagella as an example. Trouble with that is that research biologists have found a simpler system that uses the flagellum model to inject toxins, so the flagella is NOT irreducibly complex.
To visualize what this means if you are not familiar with biology, imagine a two-sided ladder, the kind that you spread apart to form a triangular base for support. Suppose you found something like that in a cell that was being used as a bridge - cells were moving electrons up one side and down the other, crossing a divide. You may think this unit "irreducibly complex" as if you removed any parts it ceases to function as a bridge.
The problem is that you can take away 1/2 of this device, and it is still a perfectly functioning ladder, the kind that you lean against the house for support before you climb on it. Older bacterial were using this ladder to move electrons in just this way, up one side, switch the ladder, then down the other side.
And THAT is how natural selection works. A mutation occurs, doubling the ladder apparatus from a single to a double, and it is found to be useful to speed up the movement of electrons (or whatever). So the bacteria with this double ladder can reproduce faster, move further and compete for food better, and this type function over time replaces the earlier versions, which may have evolved a different mechanism like an ability to utilize types of chemicals as food that others cannot ingest and that makes them viable or they may die out.
Dembski, on the other hand, simply created a strawman argument and proved it wrong - and this is the argument many get confused about and still use, as Dembski likes to calculate odds of occurences. But his "likelihood of a random assembly of a full-fledged flagella" is simply strawman, as the evolutionay process has never been argued from that approach - evolution is based on graduated change.
Again, the fact that proteins can be removed from the flagella and yet nature still provides a completely functioning toxin injection system as the result completely destroys the argument by Behe of irreducible complexity, and shows Dembski as a builder of sleight-of-hand strawman targets at which he then shoots.
Winston,
Thanks for posting explanations that appeal to the "theistic & atheistic" perspectives of the debate.
Now Fred has two different perspectives on the issues of complexity and I.D.
The bottom line is, that humans will ALWAYS appeal to their "emotion" and "subjectivity". Humans will ALWAYS argue in circles such as:
- X should have Y.
- why shouldn't X have Y?
- why does X have Y?
- X has Y for a reason.
....and many other variants.
All these "should'a/would'a/could'a" type of questions are directed towards weak-minded folks who would rather suspend their thought processes in favor of emotional appeals and authorities.
Nature has no complexity! Complexity is no different than the “flavour of the month” – it is an OPINION!
Nature is extremely simple!
Nature is only ELUSIVE to living beings. Why? Because sentient beings have a LIMITED sensory system.
Since light is INVISIBLE to all life in the universe, then so are atoms, the effects of gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.
Therefore, the non-thinkers will attribute such phenomena to God or Gods. They would rather waste their precious life in churches and reading man-made bibles, instead of using their brain to think and get educated. It’s MUCH easier to get SPOON-FED information, rather than to physically go after it yourself.
But you gotta understand.....nature will absolutely NOT sustain any life that can see or sense 100% all of nature’s invisible objects and their interactions!
Why?
Because such life would not be able to survive. It would not be able to see anything since it would be totally blinded by the WHOLE light spectrum (infrared to ultraviolet). Its nervous system would be constantly bombarded by the sensations of the movements of every single atom in the universe. Such life would not be able do anything else but deal with GAZILLIONS of stimuli from every single atom in the universe.
This is why life can only evolve to have a LIMITED sensory system! And because of this, stupid human apes will attribute the “undetected” aspects of reality to an invisible God. When in fact, it is a large portion of REALITY itself that is INVISIBLE and not sensed by us!!!!!!!
Again, if I were God, I would not have created all these stupid-idiotic atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, comets, meteors, water, food, etc., which serve absolutely no PURPOSE!!!
I would just create MY people to be only spiritual beings....not atomic beings composed of parts. The ones who complete their worship task, will go to Heaven. The ones who don’t, will go to Hell.
My creation would be that simple! After all, this is the SAME simplicity which Christians attribute to the supposed “complexity” of nature, right??
I tell ya, ......all these arguments coming from Christian apologists are double-edged swords. They are easily used against them to slice & dice their very own arguments.
Fatfist,
Sorry, but I was only showing Fred (in his own language) the reason I get miffed when someone starts tossing out ID Creationism arguments that were blown out of the water before the ink had time to dry at the Discovery Institute Publishing House, and before Martin Luther had time to nail the freshly printed copies of "Darwin's Black Box" to the church door.
Behe, Dembski, et al are only considered relevant within the subset of irrational Creationist believers, as even modern biological research which relies on induction has investigated their claims, found the ideas wanting (a rehash with a twist, actually) and discarded the ideas as not only useless but deceptively orchestrated as an agenda.
It should be telling that I could pinpoint the source of Fred's information gathering (Behe, The Discovery Institute) before he acknowledged it. The internet is crammed full of information that debunks ID - the fact that Fred has returned with new arguments from old debunked sources has me thinking Shakespeare: There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Winston- I appreciate you putting your response "in my own language". There may very well be something rotten in the state of Denmark. You may choose to turn a beautiful sunset into the rotation of the Earth. Or a first kiss as 2 sets of mandibles coming together with the possible exchange of saliva, but what you put under a microscope and describe in cold hard scientific terms, I would prefer to gaze at that same thing in wonder and amazement and describe in words that capture the essence of the feelings they invoke. Does this make me stupid? Does it make me a stupid ape because I believe it would be the creulest irony that a universe without purpose accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose? I came here to ask questions. I was prepared to recieve the most compelling answers from a naturalist point of view. If ridicule was included in the price of admission, so be it. You both have a big headstart on me in this arena. If I am considered weak minded for holding onto eternal purpose so be it. If my questions are originated from debunked arguements, perhaps my sources are outdated, This is why I brought them here. So I could seek information that would help me reach a conclusion. You have (for the most part) graciously provided just that. For this I am in your debt.
(You may choose to turn a beautiful sunset into the rotation of the Earth...I would prefer to gaze at that same thing in wonder and amazement and describe in words that capture the essence of the feelings they invoke)
Fred,
Why be trapped by constructing an artificial dichotomy where there is no dichotomy? Why is it so difficult to admire a beautiful sunset but at the same time UNDERSTAND that it is caused by the rotation of the earth? There is no reason to segregate rationality from irrationality, thinking from feeling, as it is the height of arrogance to believe one who relies on rationality is inferior in ability to feel or that one who is sensitive is inferior in mental capabilities. It is simply a matter of what one allows to dominate his character - a feeler can become a thinker and vice-versa, as both are common attributes of mankind.
I personally think you are being disingenuous with your own beliefs (and I feel that I have the right to make the rather harsh comments because you apparently are walking in the same shoes I have worn.) Please note that when I criticize it is a criticism as those made in AA meetings - it applies to every alcoholic in the room. When a alcoholic calls BS on another alcoholic it is because he has done exactly the same thing - how else does he know it is BS? - therefore, it is not personal criticism but systemic criticism.
I very much tried in the past to "defend the faith". It is indefensible, a losing battle. Frankly, the consistent attempts by the faithful to coerce reality and spirituality to conform by deceptive means (as ID no doubt is all about) is tiring to deal with, and after a while all you really want to do is brush it aside like an annoying pesky gnat and deal with rational people engaged in rational discussions.
Want to argue over how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, let's get drunk first or pop some peyote. There is nothing wrong with playing make believe, making up "what if" games, and imagination - creativity thrives on just those uses - but when the imaginative cannot be seperated from the real, you are talking pschosis such as the condition suffered by the schizophrenic who cannot distiguish the reality of the words of God his neighbor's dog just spoke and the words of the cop, "You have the right to remain silent", who slaps on the handcuffs and hauls his sick ass off to jail for murdering that nice Mrs. Clevenger who lived upstairs in the loft.
We all have this dual capacity to feel and think. That you allow one or the other to dominate your personality does not make you in any way "special".
You, me, Fatfist - we have no greater claim on life than does the amoeba. Is is you who are special, or is it the bacteria in your bowels that are required for you to remain alive? And in this symbiotic relationship with our environment, which part is "fred" and which part is not?
(Does this make me stupid? Does it make me a stupid ape)
Fred, please, .....try to read what is said than trying to read between the lines.
Nobody is calling you stupid.
It is the human species as a WHOLE, that are stupid.
It is the human species as a WHOLE, that are lazy ignorant apes who prefer to get their information from a can.
And yes, I will be the first to admit that INCLUDES ME!!
We all do stupid things and act irrationally at times. I am no exception. I am human, am I not?
Do I have some special powers or intellectual abilities?
I am an authority on these issues? Is any person on this planet an AUTHORITY on these issues?
NO! There are no authorities. There are only those who wish to understand reality and be able to explain it rationally.
We are ALL on the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF INTELLECT. Some choose to exercise it, but for the MOST PART, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY will instead prefer to be SPOON-FED. Most humans use less than 5% of the capacity of their brains. Isn’t that stupid of them?
It is part of human-nature to be spoon-fed. Laziness and stupidity is an activity performed by all sentient beings. And this is the reason why our stupid human race has IQ scores, Nobel Prizes, authoritative titles, and beauty pageants. The only purpose for these kind of biased activities is to demean the rest of the human race. Humans have evolved within them the desire to worship and praise conceptual meaningless authorities for the purposes of passing their time. THERE IS NO OTHER PURPOSE TO THESE STUPID HUMAN ACTIVITIES!!
But, let’s please stay on topic and not turn this discussion into an emotional one.
Fred, you cannot come here and tell me that your brain is deficient in some way. You cannot come here and tell me that there are people on this planet who are SMARTER than you. I don’t buy this kind of bullshit and there is no argument you can provide to give merit to any such case. You don’t have any mental illnesses, right? You don’t have Down’s, right? There are people who are born with such natural brain problems and my argument excludes such individuals. But everybody else has no excuses. They are simply lazy and don’t care about their ignorance concerning matters of reality.
(You both have a big headstart on me in this arena.)
So what? Everybody has a head start in some aspect of life. Big deal. You are on a mission to educate yourself, right? And this will take time. You can’t do this overnight.
You came here to have an intellectual discussion. So please, Fred, if you feel that my arguments have no merit......I ask you to please rationally explain the reasons why.
Let’s please keep emotions out of it.
(You may choose to turn a beautiful sunset into the rotation of the Earth. Or a first kiss as 2 sets of mandibles coming together with the possible exchange of saliva, but what you put under a microscope and describe in cold hard scientific terms, I would prefer to gaze at that same thing in wonder and amazement and describe in words that capture the essence of the feelings they invoke.)
YES!
I enjoy the beauty of nature too. I go on vacations to experience the beauty of this fine wonderland we call Earth. And yes, I love exchanging saliva and lots of bodily fluids with many beautiful women!
But these are separate issues.
Let’s not inject these personal emotional issues into the universe.
The universe has only matter wrapped by space. There is either something or nothing. Objects have shape. Space lacks shape. Reality is a binary system. There is no other option.
Please......let’s keep our emotions where they belong.
In here, we must be as objective as possible when discussing reality.
Fred, I appreciate your comments here and I welcome any discussion you can bring to rationally explain your position.
But please, when I say “stupid human apes”, you need to understand that this statement includes all of humanity. Humanity cannot help but to be biased and PURPOSELY IGNORANT. I am biased in many aspects of my life. And I enjoy that because it is part of who I am and I will have it no other way. The SAME can be said of every human on this planet.
But, when discussing reality, we cannot afford to be biased. Reality is objective and could care less of our emotions. So please, let’s differentiate our emotions from objective reality.
Fatfist,
My suspicions turned out to be right, after all. I knew old Fred was acting odd if he was what he claimed - a suspect believer suffering cognitive dissonance.
I ran into him on a hub he had published - he came across as a deeply fundamental Evangelical with no doubts about his beliefs.
You are on your own with this guy - I won't be responding to any further questions from him - I don't know what his agenda is, but I find his questioning to be insincere.
Hi Winston,
Wow! I’ve never seen Fred that upset before.
He claimed that he asked you to stay out of his hubs. But actually, it was ME who he asked. And I don’t care either way......theist hubs don’t interest me one bit. I don’t remember him specifically asking you to stay away.
Your questions dealt a heavy blow.....one he could not defend. And even still, as I read thru that hub, he keeps asking “Where was God?” Doesn’t he even understand his own contradictory position on this God issue? I mean, just enter a sick children’s hospital and watch all those helpless children suffering horrible deaths.....then you’ll truly “understand” why there is no God! It’s incomprehensible in this day and age that people keep making excuse after excuse to defend their God delusion with respect to murder, rape, death, etc.
Yeah, it seems that Fred likes to play on both sides of the fence. He likes to serve “faith” to his followers, and he likes to question his faith. I don’t know what his motives are, as this is confusing to me as well. I understand your frustration though..... as you thought you could offer some help to someone who “seemed” to be in your shoes. I agree, it’s best you don’t get involved any further.
But if Fred wants to continue to have exchanges with me....I don’t mind. As long as he is rational. As long as I don’t have to keep repeating myself like a broken record. And if he thinks that I am wrong or irrational.....then I would like him to explain, and not quote “jingles” and “one-liners” about creationism and ID.....especially when they have already been debunked.
I have rationally explained to him WHY creation under any context is impossible. So this is what Fred needs to come here and attack. Fred really needs to find a way to kill my arguments and my hubs. This is what Fred needs to do his research on. Unless Fred can show that creation of space & matter is POSSIBLE......then any other argument about ID, complexity, morals, loves, etc. are all moot issues.....totally irrelevant under any context. But I have explained this to him several times. Oh well....
Thanks for being sincere and helpful, Winston!
Fatfist,
You are right that I thought I was dealing with someone who was walking a similar path. But my quills began to quiver about the same time my responses to him starting showing signs of agitation. Something indeed was rotten in the state of Denmark.
That Shakespeare was a smart guy.
Yep, something is rotten alright. These theists hate science, logic, reason, and rationality so much, that they can't wait to come here and attempt to reconcile their FAITH with science and rationality...LOL.
How hypocritical is that?
First they claim that materialism is evil, then they turn around and use materialism as PROOF for their God hypothesis. They still don’t understand that God is only an ASSUMPTION, and a very irrational one on their part.
Well, it actually goes beyond that. They claim that their FAITH is rooted in logic and reason. But they only parrot this nonsense because they haven’t the slightest clue what the meaning of “faith” is.
FAITH:
A faith statement is a positive proposition which is inherently contradictory. It is far worse than an opinion because it blindly asserts what is IMPOSSIBLE. It even goes beyond mythical.
So here is a statement of “faith” from theists:
“It is possible that intelligent design is responsible for creation. Therefore God exists!”
To all theists: Creation is IMPOSSIBLE. Get over it and try to work on making this world a better place for all of us,.... instead of brainwashing others for your own selfish needs.
Fatfist,
The theist has it backwards. Kant explains,
"'existence' is not a quality that a thing can either have or lack. A thing must first exist, and then, as a condition of its existence, have X or Y quality."
An immaterial mind is a concept and not a thing (object) and thus cannot exist, and if it cannot exist it can have no qualities (onmiscience, omnipotence, etc.)
That Kant was a smart guy.
Winston,
('existence' is not a quality that a thing can either have or lack)
No shit! Try telling that to so many philosophers who claim that existence is a “property” of objects. Try telling that to so many theists and atheists who claim to have intimate knowledge of the “existence” or “inexistence” of objects, like God or 0D particles.
1) As far as mother nature is concerned, either an object exists or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground.
2) As far as sentient beings (like us) are concerned, either a PROPOSED object can POSSIBLY exist, or it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to exist.
We are not mother nature......we can never “KNOW” that a proposed object exists or doesn’t. We can only work with what is GIVEN to us.....namely, the “proposition” (the claim). It is the claim which we critically analyze in order to weed out any ontological contradictions.
(An immaterial mind is a concept and not a thing (object))
.....and more importantly, anything suggested to be immaterial resolves to NOTHING....i.e. space!
The universe is a binary system. There is either something (with shape) or nothing (no shape). There is no middle ground between the spatial separation of physical objects and space....ever! For if there was, it would be an object with shape. This is such a basic concept, that it has eluded all the supposed "greatest minds" of the last 2000 years. Not a single Ph.D. idiot coming out of university today can tell you what the difference is between an object and nothing....not one!!
Hi Fred.....what happened?
I thought you were going to rationally explain to me if the alleged creation of space & matter is even the remotest of remote possibilies.
I've emailed Lee Strobel for such an explanation over a dozen times and I've had no response from him either. Yet I see him boasting many asserted CLAIMS in youtube apologetic videos all the time.
So naturally, one has to ask this realistic question:
Is God's supposed creation of space & matter based on irrational BELIEF alone, or is it based on reason and what is rational?
I can't get an answer from anyone....
When thoughts and concepts are defined in such ways as I see in the discussion, you are creating a scenario that does not allow them to exist because of one's definition. These types of thoughts of yours (nothing, according to you) usually result from one's own held philosophies and beliefs. Usually a person that has a materialistic world view will try to gain the upper hand in arguments in such ways as I see happening in many of your hubs. Forcing a held belief or philosophy into what words can be defined as (as well as concepts) gives a feeling of a false "win." This is why I think many are really dissatisfied with their own views, and feel such a strong need keep going up against what they are so "sure" isn't true or can't be true. That is fine if its ok with the person holding such beliefs and/or philosophies.
Thanks for sharing your views.
Hi oceansnsunsets,
“concepts... you are creating a scenario that does not allow them to exist because of one's definition.”
No, that is not the case at all. Only in religion do people define objects into existence. And I am very happy you brought up this issue. So let’s both critically analyze it, ok?
Every term in language is always defined, right? Otherwise, how can we possibly convey its meaning to others, right?
If you are going to tell the audience that a term, any term, is applicable to reality.....then it is imperative that you provide a consistent, unambiguous, and non-contradictory definition of that term, right?
Otherwise, how can the audience possibly understand what that term means.
So, if you cannot tell the audience what it means to “exist”, then you really haven’t said anything at all. All you’ve done is try to get the audience to swallow your “ideas”, your “worldviews”, and your “religion”.
I assume that you “believe” that concepts ‘exist’, right?
Does this belief of yours have anything to do with reality, or is it just your opinion?
Well, the only way to definitively resolve this issue is for you to explain your “claim” to us.
Ok, then the onus is on YOU to explain to the audience what you mean by ‘exist’. Makes sense? So now we will put YOU on the podium and hand you the microphone.
Now is your chance to define this term ‘exist’ in an unambiguous and non-contradictory manner so that it can be used consistently and realistically for the existence of ‘objects’ and ‘concepts’.
Here you go:
oceansnsunsets version of exist: _____________________________
Please fill in the blanks so that it addresses what it means for objects & concepts to exist.
If you can do that, then I promise to upgrade to YOUR definition of exist. I will re-write ALL my hubs. I am on the record!
That makes sense, right? The better, and most rational, and most consistent definition is what should be used, right? This is what conveys the realistic meaning, right?
This is what I support. Is that what you support? Or do you support the notion of not defining terms, and letting every person get their own opinionated heart-felt “feeling” of what a term means to “them”?
Now if you cannot accomplish this task, then obviously, you don’t have an argument. And more importantly, you cannot assert or claim that “concepts exist”. Is that fair enough?
I am sincerely trying to be as fair as possible with you, oceansnsunsets. And I look forward to your reply. So please, provide me with the definition which can enlighten us what it means for a concept to ‘exist’, ok?
Thank you for raising this very important issue!
Hi oceansnsunsets,
No response in over 24 hours....and I completely understand why.
Your quote crystallizes the essence of your position quite eloquently:
“These types of thoughts of yours (nothing, according to you) usually result from one's own held philosophies and beliefs. .....a person with your world view will try to gain the upper hand in arguments in such ways as I see happening in many of your posts. Forcing a held belief or philosophy into what words can be defined as (as well as concepts) gives a feeling of a false "win." This is why I think many are really dissatisfied with their own views, and feel such a strong need keep going up against what they are so "sure" isn't true or can't be true.”
Thanks for sharing your unsupported opinionated worldviews. I always like to give people a fair chance to express their opinions, no matter how irrational they are. Your baseless opinions which fly in the face of reason are always welcome here.
Thank you for your comment which reinforces the STRENGTH of my arguments ;-)
Hello fatfist hope you can answer my questions on this god concept. I tried to understand your terms as best I can.
I have questions on the "space + matter is eternal" part
1) god is made up of matter (atoms) - you mentioned that this god must be made up of matter to exist. What if this god has a different characteristic?
I mean WHAT IF as you say space + matter is eternal. This matter created god. Then god created the other matters from itself to form the planets, sun, etc? Possible? Impossible?
Got another question for what you said: "Motion necessarily requires a MEDIATOR to mediate it"
So space + matter is eternal and matter is constantly moving.
Wouldn't this go in a circular reasoning too? Who or what is the MEDIATOR for matter to move?
Isn't this what Aristotle suggested by "unmoved mover"?
nonbeliever,
Your posts and activity here on hubpages are representative of someone who is trolling or has an agenda.
So I'm gonna ask you nicely: if you have an issue, just spit it out and give it to me straight, ok?
I don't play games.
1) god is made up of matter (atoms) - you mentioned that this god must be made up of matter to exist. What if this god has a different characteristic?
What of waste of hub pages. Fatfist has eliminated Atheist and Theist that come here and preach there ideology.
I love it.
@fatfist
--Your posts and activity here on hubpages are representative of someone who is trolling or has an agenda.--
If I were just "trolling" fatfist I'd be posting endlessly and antagonizing theists left & right, wouldn't I? How many posts have I made so far? Go ahead count them. I've only posted here, answered 1 question and asked you 1 question too since you erased our previous discussion.
Where did you get your info that I am just "trolling"?
Interestingly, I even THANKED YOU for taking the time to answer my questions earlier didn't I? So where is your paranoia coming from fatfist?
I'd like to hear your conspiracy theory. What agenda are you implying? I am simply asking you questions.
@PrometheusKid
Nobody is preaching anything. If you saw my previous statements to fatfist I explained to him/her that the reason why I signed up at hubpages is because I saw this blog and wanted to understand what he/she was talking about.
Nonbeliever,
Everyone is free to ask questions here without fear of offending anybody’s religion. If I can’t offer a rational response to them, then I will be upfront about it and plea no contest.
But when you come to my hubs, and raise issues and accusations of AD HOMINEM’S on my part, then either:
1) You haven’t a clue what the concept of “ad hominem” refers to, even though this idea somehow offended you.
2) You are trying to single me out because I destroyed somebody’s (or possibly your) religion.
3) You are trolling.
Or
4) You have some previous agenda (i.e. bone to pick) with me but don’t have the guts to come out with it, address it rationally, and hopefully put it behind us.
“How many posts have I made so far? Go ahead count them. I've only posted here”
Well that’s what I’m talking about. You have some “fixation” with me, which clearly offends you. So you made ad hominem accusations on my part, and in the hopes of riling up others....which worked quite well....and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that.... because it proves that the evolved human apes will always censor anything which destroys their religion :-)
So when I follow your own protocol, and pay you back in kind,.....you have the nerve to complain that I deleted your comments. Well Jesus Friendly Christ.....I don’t know what to do to please you.
And yet still, you proceed to ask irrational questions such as:
1) “Fatfist, what is it that you believe? I believe my arm exists, how come you don’t?” And you ask such a nonsensical questions while your ID is “nonbeliever”. If you are a non-believer, then why would you ask such questions which defeat your position?
2) Now you ask: “Who or what is the MEDIATOR for matter to move?”
So if there was a “WHO” or a “WHAT” acting as a mediator for motion, then isn’t that “who” or “what” already in motion before it can even begin to mediate motion?
Do you see where I’m coming from, nonbeliever?
Religionists (atheists + theists + agnostics) have been obsessed with trying to censor my articles ever since I posted my first article on the Internet many years ago. It hasn’t worked back then, and it certainly won’t work now.
Like I said, I don’t like to play games. If people have genuine questions or issues of concern, I welcome a discussion to address them. I always hand over the microphone to the next person and expect them to rationally explain their claims and provide me with their own definitions which apply to reality. This is only fair. This is the Scientific way.
But human apes have this innate evolutionary disposition which precludes them to fairness and rationality. And this is quite evident in the comment sections of my hubs.
So anybody who comes here and claims to be "offended" by what I say, is only making up excuses to protect their religion. People who are offended need just to close their eyes and surf elsewhere. If they stick around.....they have an agenda!
--Everyone is free to ask questions here without fear of offending anybody’s religion.--
I thought so too. Why are you insinuating I'm offended? Do you want me to be offended so we can start insulting each other and totally forget the issue at hand?
--1) You haven’t a clue what the concept of “ad hominem” refers to, even though this idea somehow offended you.--
Your #1 answer is partly correct. What I meant to say was you don't have to insult anyone to prove a point. And no I was not offended. I was merely explaining that you can be CIVIL with people who come to your blog and don't have to resort to petty insults.
With some comments, you just say "PARROT" and don't explain anything. You seem to be "fixated" with this issue fatfist. Did I post again after your reply? I dropped it and proceeded to ask you questions that were MORE IMPORTANT.
--You have some “fixation” with me, which clearly offends you.--
LOL. Fixation? I told you I signed up at hubpages to ask you questions. I think that was CLEAR from the very start. Why you would think I was offended when I signed up is beyond me.
I did follow billgaedes since you have this same "argument". If you can point me in the right direction and suggest who else I can follow that shares this same "argument" with you then I will thank you again for your time and leave you alone then.
--because it proves that the evolved human apes will always censor anything which destroys their religion :-)--
That's funny. You were the one who CENSORED my posts. What are you talking about? I can delete posts? I don't even know how.
Let's state the facts shall we?
1) I posted that "ad hominem" comment since you like to insult people who does not understand your point.
2) I asked questions on your articles. You answered some.
3) When I asked questions about this "DEFAULT POSITION" and about "SOLID STATE" they mysteriously disappeared.
4) I didn't delete them obviously as they were MY QUESTIONS.
5) It was either YOU or a MODERATOR who deleted my question and your answers to some of my questions.
DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M COMING FROM FATFIST? It makes you look dishonest. That's why I asked you a question which was deleted by a moderator.
--And yet still, you proceed to ask irrational questions such as: my arm exist how come you don't believe--
Please do not put words in my mouth. That is not how I asked it. I asked you WHAT word should I use to say that my arm exists.
I was still trying to understand your definition of words. I stated that too didn't I? The question may seem irrational for you. Didn't you consider that it's not irrational for people who come to your blog?
--If you are a non-believer, then why would you ask such questions which defeat your position?--
Is that a trick question? Errr... to strengthen my position? I like to play devil's advocate to my own arguments to see if I make sense. And what other possible holes I can plug.
--So anybody who comes here and claims to be "offended" by what I say, is only making up excuses to protect their religion.--
All your accusations about me fatfist mirrors your paranoia.
1) I was not offended. You were.
2) If my "ad hominem" comment offended you. I'm sorry. Actually, I did say sorry didn't I? I said "Sorry fatfist but I have to agree with X"
3) Censorship. I didn't censor anything. I didn't delete my posts. I don't know how. Why should I? It was my UNANSWERED QUESTION?
So how do you want to proceed fatfist? Do we endlessly point fingers about who is offended or not? I'm not. You seem to be. Do we stop talking now? Before we do can you please answer my questions which disappeared MYSTERIOUSLY?
1) Is the solid state theory rational? Irrational? Based from your arguments "the universe is not expanding" it refutes this theory too.
2) I forgot my other questions from the one that got deleted. I'll try to remember them then post back.
--So if there was a “WHO” or a “WHAT” acting as a mediator for motion, then isn’t that “who” or “what” already in motion before it can even begin to mediate motion?--
How did you come to the conclusion that this mediator was already in motion? I mentioned Aristotle's "unmoved mover". Is that irrational too?
"Motion necessarily requires a MEDIATOR to mediate it"
If as you say there is no MEDIATOR for these eternal matter to move. Then aren't you giving a SPECIAL PLEADING to matter too?
So if you look at it from a theist POV ... matter is your god?
Singularity is the atheist's god.
The ONE GOD is the theist's god.
nonbeliever,
"It was either YOU or a MODERATOR who deleted my question and your answers to some of my questions."
It was me! I’m honest about it. I’ve got nothing to hide. But I only did it after my posts were deleted by the moderator in the hub which you opined to be "offensive".
I am a true "believer" in the Bible: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". That's why God always loves me!
"It makes you look dishonest."
Nobody is forcing you to interact with dishonest people like ME. People call me all sorts of things, but yet they still come back. Go figure.
I have posted to some atheist hubs where the owner deleted my comments because they offended their religion. I will never post to such dishonest hubbers again - I ignore them. But you don't.
Anyway, the primary reason I called your behavior "trolling", is because my comments and the comments of other posters were nuked after you complained about "ad hominems". Coincidence?
I’ll give it another try with you, nonbeliever. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will continue to converse with you.
nonbeliever,
“1) Is the solid state theory rational? Irrational? Based from your arguments "the universe is not expanding" it refutes this theory too.”
Steady state theory is a rival theory to the Big Bang, whose goal was to divorce itself from the religious idea of CREATION and its association with Priest Lemaintre. They wanted the universe to be eternal. It was advocated by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle, who developed it to explain the alleged expansion of the Universe. This required the continuous (real-time) creation of matter to produce new galaxies as the universe expanded (gave birth to space), ensuring that the Universe could be expanding. So it turns out that they avoided a “beginning” to the universe, but they still couldn’t avoid the irrationalities associated of creation of space and matter.
The universe is a concept which relates space and matter. The universe cannot expand – concepts don’t move. So, what is expanding?
Space? How can “nothing” expand?
Matter? How can an atom expand? Why aren’t we giants by now?
It’s all rubbish!
“How did you come to the conclusion that this mediator was already in motion?”
An object which is motionless, or even an atom which is motionless (with respect to all other objects/atoms in the universe), has no possibility whatsoever to instantly have a beginning motion. To claim that an object is a MEDIATOR for the motion of the other objects, necessarily implies that this object was already in motion.
“So space + matter is eternal and matter is constantly moving. Wouldn't this go in a circular reasoning too? Who or what is the MEDIATOR for matter to move?”
Let us a assume, for augment’s sake, that there once was a single object, call it A, which acted as the “mediator” or “mover” that injected motion to all other matter. Let’s also assume that all the other matter (atoms/objects) in the Universe was motionless with respect to each other.
A rational person would ask: If this object A was indeed the mediator which began motion for all the other matter/atoms/objects, then HOW did object A acquire motion itself? What it by God? Did this motionless object A suddenly begin to move by its own volition? If so, the how? By magic? Motion from no-motion is impossible.
The Universe has no magic and no contradictions. It is impossible for matter to be eternal and motionless. It is impossible for a single motionless object A to surreptitiously acquire motion and become the mediator for the motion for the rest of matter.
Absolutely ALL matter/atoms/objects are in perpetual motion. There was never a “start” to motion!
It is irrational to postulate or to theorize that motion had origin. We cannot even imagine an object moving for the first time any more than we can imagine all atoms of the Universe coming to a complete halt. You would necessarily have to invoke an external source to set things in motion, which in turn also needs to have an external source for its initial motion, and so on. You end up with a perpetual iteration, which is an ontological contradiction.
There are no such notions in the Universe as 'Creation' or 'Primordial Motion'. These notions were invented by traditional religions and the more modern religion of Mathematical Physics in order to tie into the traditional beliefs of mankind.
“I mentioned Aristotle's "unmoved mover". Is that irrational too?”
I completely analyzed the Unmoved Mover scenario in this hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIBLE-Spa
Read it and post any concerns there.
nonbeliever,
“If as you say there is no MEDIATOR for these eternal matter to move. Then aren't you giving a SPECIAL PLEADING to matter too?”
How so?
Only in religion do we specially plead for Baby Jesus so nobody can grab him by the neck and strangle him out of existence.
In physics we use the sci method to hypothesize what atoms are. And we rationally explain in the Theory why all atoms in the universe attract each other.
The only rational explanation for attraction is that all atoms are physically interconnected with each other via a medium. It is impossible for alleged “discrete” atoms to attract each other. What would they do, shoot 0D graviton balls at each other? Attraction cannot be mediated by discrete entities, especially instantaneously over any distance (IAAAD).
“So if you look at it from a theist POV ... matter is your god?”
Actually, it is the theist who is the MATERIALIST.
1) Matter is the God of the theists. Without matter (that which has shape), there is no God!
2) Nothing (the 0D Singularity) is the God of the atheists.
3) Ignorance is the God of the agnostics.
The theist worships a being, an entity with form. The theist worships ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. The only possible ‘something’ is that which has shape/form and internal structure.....a MATERIAL ENTITY.
Matter is the God of the theist!!
But they do a good job of brainwashing the casual observer with all that lovely poetry in their Bibles, and getting the observer’s attention away from the fact that their God is an alleged physical entity for the purposes of their theory.
--But I only did it after my posts were deleted by the moderator in the hub which you opined to be "offensive".--
You deleted my posts because somebody else deleted yours? I don't see the logic in that dude.
--Absolutely ALL matter/atoms/objects are in perpetual motion. There was never a “start” to motion!--
I am having a hard time getting past this perpetual motion. Probably because you argued that objects CANNOT move without a mediator to mediate it.
Just to be clear did I get the characteristics right?
OBJECT - made up of matter
MATTER - made up of atoms
ATOM - smallest animal possible? is there a smaller version?
So matter is made up of atoms correct? Let's use the word atom or atoms (plural). These atoms are EXEMPTED from your rule above and is in perpetual motion.
You say that these atoms are always moving. They have always existed, they are eternal. Isn't this just a rephrase of the theist/atheist argument?
FATFIST: space + atom is eternal. atom is perpetually moving.
THEIST: god is eternal. god is perpetually moving.
ATHEIST: singularity is eternal. it's continuous movement caused it to explode? i'm not sure what the bangers say?
From above we can say the ff:
1) atom, god, singularity is always moving.
2) atom, god, singularity does not require a "START".
3) atom, god, singularity is eternal.
4) atom, god, singularity formed the sun, planets, etc. from itself.
Nonbeliever,
“Probably because you argued that objects CANNOT move without a mediator to mediate it.”
If the universe only consists of objects which have no motion, it is impossible for an object to magically acquire motion from a non-existing mediator. A mediator must exist AND must already be motion, in order to impart motion to other objects. If you disagree, please explain.
Object – that which has shape
Matter is a synonym for atoms.
Atom – a hypothesized indivisible unit object. What all objects are comprised of.
“You say that these atoms are always moving. They have always existed, they are eternal. Isn't this just a rephrase of the theist/atheist argument?”
You missed the point entirely!
You have sidestepped the Scientific Method and inadvertently steered yourself into an argument rooted in faith.
I am not making an argument for eternal matter and eternal motion. It is impossible to CLAIM that matter & motion are eternal. WHY? Because they are not consummated events. They do not comprise a Scientific Theory. A Theory is a rational explanation of a supposed consummated (PAST) event.
The theist hypothesizes God exists and CLAIMS God created space & matter.
The atheist hypothesizes 0D singularity existed and CLAIMS created space & matter.
I made no claim. Do you even understand that?
Existence exists. What is there to claim? That it doesn’t?
The only CLAIM is that in the past, there was no space & matter. This CLAIM refers to a supposed consummated event called “creation”. The Theory (God or Big Bang) must rationally explain if this supposed creation event is even a possibility. If it can’t, then the CLAIM goes in the trash, along with the other 5000 claims humans posit on a daily basis.
Matter and space are eternal by the DEFAULT position of the primacy of existence! Anybody who is offended by this default position, will immediately be handed the microphone and placed on the podium where the audience can listen to his dissertation explaining IF creation is even a remote possibility. If he can't, then we throw eggs at him and ridicule him off the podium. Understand?
It is the CLAIMANT who posits creation who is deviating from the DEFAULT of eternal matter & motion.
That space & matter is eternal is NOT a claim. Do you now understand why?
That matter is in perpetual motion is NOT a claim. I already explained why in my previous post.
Nonbeliever,
[1) atom, god, singularity is always moving.
“2) atom, god, singularity does not require a "START".
3) atom, god, singularity is eternal.
4) atom, god, singularity formed the sun, planets, etc. from itself.]
If God is “the creator”, such an alleged entity is impossible to exist, be eternal, or to “create”, as explained in detail in:
http://hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-IS-IMPOSSIBLE-Fir
A singularity is 0D. It is not an object. It has no dimensions. It has no shape. I has no structure. It is impossible for it to exist or existed or to create. A singularity is only a mathematical concept you plug into the equations.
An atom does not “create”. An atom is the fundamental constituent of an object. Atoms don’t create. They only attract each other and come together in the formation of objects.
--A mediator must exist AND must already be motion, in order to impart motion to other objects.--
Yes that's what I'm saying. I am creating a totally different hypothesis for the concept of god. Let's forget the word "CREATE". What IF this god is a perpetually moving object? What IF the creationist got it all wrong that their god came out of nothing? God=Atom?
--The theist hypothesizes God exists and CLAIMS God created space & matter.--
What IF we change it and say god did not create space & matter. Space is eternal. God is THE matter? So God is eternal too? I thought of this since theists like to say "god is everywhere". Well the atom IS everywhere. What IF the atom/atoms IS god?
--It is the CLAIMANT who posits creation who is deviating from the DEFAULT of eternal matter & motion.--
Yes I get your point. But what I am suggesting is a totally different scenario. There is no more creation. Atoms came together to form the sun, planets, etc.
I could only assume this is what DEISTS are thinking about? They do not believe in a god that literally talks to you or chooses your daughter's name. A god that is just there.
DOING NOTHING AND JUST ENJOYING THE SHOW? LOL
What IF the atom/atoms IS god? yup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(symbol)
Yes that's what I'm saying. I am creating a totally different hypothesis.
nonbeliever
You did not created a hypothesis the ancients already new.
It is not in the books of the Philosophers, but in the religious symbolism of the Ancients, that we must look for the footprints of Science, and re-discover the Mysteries of Knowledge.
Amen
LOL kid I'm not claiming I literally "CREATED" the hypothesis on my own.
This "MONAD" in wikipedia is a different animal. They refer to this Monad as god or the CREATOR. Monad then begat Dyad (Matter).
I asked fatfist this scenario too if it was logically possible. Space + matter is eternal. Let's assume this matter has a different characteristic and call it "MATTER-1"
This MATTER-1 is the start of everything. From it MATTER-2 was formed and this is the MATTER that we refer to which is what made everything around us the sun, planets, moon, etc.
In any case, if there was a god or supreme architect as DEISTS would call it, it wouldn't make any difference. He/She/It is not actively participating in what is happening around us. It does not control anything at all. So the whole concept of prayers, belief is useless.
Well, 2 hours to go before the clock strikes 12. Kids already running around asking to open gifts. Merry XMAS to the xtians and happy holidays to everybody else :)
Nonbeliever,
“I am creating a totally different hypothesis for the concept of god. Let's forget the word "CREATE"
So I guess your god will not create space & matter.
“What IF the creationist got it all wrong that their god came out of nothing?”
Actually, the 3 monotheistic religions have “hypothesized” that their God is eternal, had no beginning and will have no end. Other religions have their own ideas. For example, most people don’t know that the Greek gods of Olympus were not eternal and were not “creator” gods. They were hypothesized to have “evolved” in nature just like every other living thing. The Greeks understood the universe to be eternal. They never claimed any point of creation.
When Aristotle wanted to explain the eternal motion of atoms, he had no clue what gravity was. Remember, those times were the “dawn” of scientific thought. So we need to cut him some slack. This is why he conceived of the Unmoved Mover, which was a robot-god who set all atoms in motion. This was never a “personal” god, nor a “creator” god......it was just a robot. If Aristotle understood that all atoms “must” be interconnected (otherwise we cannot explain attraction), then he would have no use for such a robot to set atoms in motion.
The irrational idea of “creation” has proliferated 99.9999% of the global society due to the global spread of monotheism. When Christians claim that “most” scientists believe in “God”, they are right....regardless if atheists want to butt heads with them in disagreement.
“What IF we change it and say god did not create space & matter. Space is eternal. God is THE matter?”
Then you may want to talk to PrometheusKid. He is in that camp.
Since the dawn of human civilization, when the first human species grouped together in small tribes dispersed here and there.....even before the first spoken & written language.....these sentient beings regarded NATURE as their god. It is nature who fed them, gave them fire, shelter, and each other for companionship. They feared, loved, acknowledged, respected and worshiped “nature”.
nonbeliever,
“What IF the atom/atoms IS god?”
This is your choice. You can use the term “god” to refer to whatever you like. You see, people get hung up solely on the term “GOD”. This is the troublesome word for atheists which gives them nightmares and sleepless nights.
Most people don’t understand the difference between Hypothesis and Theory. Atheists have NO problem with the irrational idea of “creation” of space & matter. But they so desperately want this creation to happen out of NOTHING (0D singularity).....and only because the Mathematicians say so! You mention that “God did it”, and they will chew your head off!!
So, you can use the term “god” to refer to whatever you like. But if you attach a Theory to your hypothesis of God, which posits irrational explanations for natural phenomena, then obviously, both your theory and hypothesis go in the trash. Other than that, nobody can get in your face about it.
I have more respect for people who acknowledge nature and respect it, than those who think that a monotheistic God created it all in order to TEST their lives to see who is worthy to go to heaven. I have more respect for people who are able to think for themselves and really research the idea of “creationism” and try to understand why it is only a CLAIM. A rational human needs to be able to explain to others WHY is it that current existence was not around at some instant in the past. If they cannot do that, then they must concede the default position of “eternal” existence, specifically, eternal atoms separated by space.
Now, the issue of what exactly an atom is.....is an issue that must be addressed rationally by the Scientific Method. We need a rational hypothesis of WHAT an atom could look like in mother nature’s “hidden” realm. We will also need a set of “theories” which will use this “hypothesized” atom to rationally EXPALAIN phenomena mediated by atoms.....such as light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, atomic reactions, etc. Once we have these rational and non-contradictory explanations in place, then we can conclude that: mother nature MAY run her shop in this manner.
Our conclusion is NOT an arrogant one. We can NEVER conclude “truth”, “proof”, or “fact”. Such notions are impossible and unscientific. The Scientific Method can only take a CLAIM (hypothesis + theory) and conclude whether it is POSSIBLE (rational) or IMPOSSIBLE (irrational/contradictory).
That is the BEST we can ever hope to accomplish. Truths, proof, and facts are only asserted by the religious, and those who are divorced from reality.
“I could only assume this is what DEISTS are thinking about?”
Not really. Deists usually “believe” that some god created space & matter, but this god may not care about us, may not be personal, or this god may have “died”. And there are many variations to deism.
But the point is, most people have been raised as children to BELIEVE in the idea of creation. They have been brainwashed by others who don’t understand the fundamental issues and physics concerning existence and creation. They don’t understand the difference between a “claim” and reality. And when these kids grow up and understand that religion is only a human myth, they become atheists, agnostics, or deists. But they still cannot understand nor get past the idea of “creationism”, especially when a celebrity and idol, like Stephen Hawking, believes in it.
You can put a gun on Hawking's head and your finger on the trigger....he will NOT be able to explain to you how space & matter can possibly be created. He only has "belief" in this idea, because that's what he was taught by others.
I encourage you to read John Armstrong’s site. He is a deist who has analyzed & debunked the myths of monotheism and has a free book on his site.
Yes, MONAD is a different animal.
The Pythagorians gave us valuable math tools. But they were also a sect who worshiped numbers and a bunch of other irrational ideas, like monads, which were divorced from traditional Greek thought.
--They feared, loved, acknowledged, respected and worshiped “nature”--
Are these the very same people who sacrificed virgins to appease the volcano god? And danced to the rain god during summer?
--This is your choice. You can use the term “god” to refer to whatever you like.--
I think I've been playing too much devil's advocate. LOL. So this atom god do we consider it an object? Or is it a concept? God embodies all those atoms?
--I have more respect for people who acknowledge nature and respect it, than those who think that a monotheistic God created it all in order to TEST their lives to see who is worthy to go to heaven.--
Yeah I share this same "non-belief" of a monotheistic god.
Thanks for the link to John Armstrong's videos. I do however have some problem with this intelligent designer argument too. Do you "believe" in an intelligent designer? Not with the "creation" from nothing mumbo jumbo but the evidence they claim that everything around us is somehow designed?
hey fatfist got this from following the link you gave
http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm
"The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.
"It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.
"The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion."
Any comment on what Thomas Paine suggested? That it is impossible for this matter to be in perpetual motion?
Nonbeliever,
“Are these the very same people who sacrificed virgins to appease the volcano god? And danced to the rain god during summer?”
No. That was 100’s of thousands of years after, when the human ape became more evolved, and more arrogant, and claimed to have proven that a concept exists by merely running an unrelated experiment, and giving his subjective opinion as “truth” and “proof”, and forcing down everybody’s throat. Before this breathtaking evolution of the human ape’s arrogance, these beings were very humble,... they only worshiped that which fed them and gave them shelter. They had very simplistic conceptions back then.
“So this atom god do we consider it an object?”
In your presentation, you have used the word “god” as a SYNONYM for the word “atom”. No problem, it’s your right. You can use the words “love” and “breakfast” as synonyms for “atom” too. You do have such freedoms of expression in your country, right?
And yes, it IS an object for the purposes of science because we can illustrate it in our hypothesis. We can point at it and name it. It has shape. And we can use this hypothesis to theorize (explain) the phenomena of chemical reactions. Therefore it is an object.
“Or is it a concept? God embodies all those atoms?”
If, for the purposes of your presentation, you hypothesize that “god embodies all atoms”, then your term “god” becomes a CONCEPT. Unless of course, you can illustrate this alleged “god” object as comprising all atoms and forming an object with a continuous surface or border....ie. one that has SHAPE!
Can you do that?
You have to ask yourself....do these atoms form a conglomerate that we can hypothesize and illustrate to be an object (with shape) with a discernable border.....or are they “randomly” dispersed?
What sense can you make of it for the purposes of your presentation?
“Do you "believe" in an intelligent designer? Not with the "creation" from nothing mumbo jumbo but the evidence they claim that everything around us is somehow designed?”
I don’t believe. I only look for explanations.
To claim that objects like stars, planets, etc. were “designed”, you are necessarily invoking a “designer being” with intelligence, who possibly handled atoms and used them as building blocks.
Again, the question arises.....who designed the designer?
Such notions of “a designer” are irrational because it is impossible for any such being to handle or even SEE individual atoms. If a being did somehow evolve or assembled which was indeed capable of “seeing” atoms, then this automatically means that this being would be 100% incapable of seeing anything. Such notions are self-contradictory!
Why?
Because in order to SEE an atom, a being’s eyes would have to be capable of seeing the whole EM spectrum, which is comprised of the vibrations of atoms in the whole range of infrared to ultraviolet frequencies.....which is the domain of the atoms existence and dynamic behavior.
And if that was the case, then this “designer” being’s vision would consist of a complete and total WHITEOUT from all the atomic vibrations (frequencies) in the universe. Absolutely no object/shape or spatial separation would be discernable in the being’s field of vision. And not only his vision, but the being's sensory system would be flooded with a total "whiteout" of sensory effects. Such a being would drown by all these stimulative effects and would not be able to survive in the universe.
Any such DESIGNER as conceived by humans is an impossibility. Mother Nature absolutely prohibits the survival of beings with the capability to “peek” under her dress and see what she has under there. It wouldn’t be nice to do that to a lady....now would it?
Nonbeliever,
“Any comment on what Thomas Paine suggested? That it is impossible for this matter to be in perpetual motion?”
To claim that it is impossible for atoms to be in perpetual motion, then this assertion necessarily implies that atoms were in complete rest at some instant in the past.
So the question arises: How did the first atom begin to move?
Now we are back to the issue which I explained to you earlier, the ontological contradiction, where it is impossible to go from no motion to motion.
He says: “Motion is not a property of matter..... Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.”
He has NO CLUE what he is talking about because he has not defined the terms which make or break his argument.
MOTION: Two or more locations of an object (synonyms: change, movement, vector, displacement, or ANY VERB)
LOCATION: The set of static distance between the test objects and the remaining objects in the universe.
Motion is a DYNAMIC concept. It requires an observer with memory to conceive it.
Location is a STATIC concept. It requires NO observer.
Motion is NOT a property of matter (atoms, objects). Objects have only one intrinsic property: SHAPE! There is no other intrinsic property.
Motion is an observer ILLUSION of fluidity – it is a movie. In reality, there is no “motion”. Objects have no “motion”. Only an observer can use the term “motion” to describe the MOVIE that he “sees”.
In order to move, an object must simply occupy two or more locations. If it does, then it moves BY DEFINITION and not because we have an opinion about it!
Objects in the universe have the extrinsic property of location. The Moon can either be here OR there. In order to conceptualize motion, a living entity must have MEMORY and record the Moon's previous location (now he has a movie). Without that reference, the Moon only has location: it merely exists.
So, when we say that atoms are in perpetual motion, we are using ordinary speech to describe our conception of reality...we are describing the MOVIE we see. But in REALITY, atoms perpetually change LOCATION...they are either here OR there. Location is the only extrinsic property of an object which we take for granted in our dynamic memory and term it: motion.
And this makes sense,.... because if a single frame in a movie is static (ie. location) and we build a movie with many frames (ie. motion), then it follows that the definitions of static concepts (location) must necessarily precede the definitions of dynamic concepts (motion).
Objects have the extrinsic property of LOCATION only....not motion. Objects only exist in present mode only and they have location. The existence of atoms is not time-dependent. Location is NOT time-dependent. Space is nothing. Atoms have no friction with space and cannot come to a grinding halt. This is why the existence of atoms is eternal AND their location always changes (ie. have perpetual motion, using ordinary speech).
I understand that part fatfist. What I do not understand and keep coming back to is:
nonbeliever: How did the atom "start" to move?
fatfist: They don't have a "start". They don't have a beginning and an end.
I find this interesting since theists say this:
nonbeliever: Who created the creator(ie god)?
Theist: God did not have a start. He does not have a beginning and an end.
When you say that atoms do not "require" a beginning for it's movement, it would also be the very same argument of theists for their god.
Theist: Your atom does not require a beginning. My god doesn't too.
fatfist: No, the eternal atom is the DEFAULT POSITION.
Theist: No, the eternal god is the DEFAULT POSITION.
Nobody wins right? I need something more to win them over to the dark side fatfist. LOL
Well, thanks for your time fatfist. I have learned a lot from our discussion.
I'll have to search more bloggers that share this kind of thinking that you have. It is very fascinating on how you discussed "EXISTENCE" and "FAITH" which I have a hard time explaining to theists.
I also liked your "REIFICATION" of concepts too and will raise those points with my theist friends next time.
I have more respect for people who acknowledge nature and respect it, than those who think that a monotheistic God created it all in order to TEST their lives to see who is worthy to go to heaven.
Amen
The powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Amen
But the fools claim Thomas is a Deist.
In the Ancient Orient, all religion was more or less a mystery and there was no divorce from it of phylosophy. The popular theology, taking the multitude of the allegories and symbols for realities, degenerated into a worship of the celestial luminaries, of imaginary Deities with human feelings, passions, appetites, and lust, of idols, stones, animals, reptiles.
Amen Amen Amen
Prometheus,
The bottom line is that every single religious clown is a MATERIALIST. But they will do their best to dance around the issue and throw you words which they don't even understand, like: God, spirit, soul, energy, power, force, consciousness, blah blah....
But when you grab this clown's fool by the neck and slam them against the wall and put your fist right in their face and ask them:
"Either these terms resolve to SOMETHING REAL or to NOTHING....there is no other option.....so which is it??"
The clown's fool will always reply that they are SOMETHING REAL!!!
The clown's fool is explicitly saying that all of these terms resolve to something which has shape/form and 'location'...ie. is a real OBJECT!
BOTTOM LINE: All theists are Rock Worshippers!
nonbeliever,
“What I do not understand and keep coming back to is: How did the atom "start" to move?”
Ok, let’s try again....
1) Assume there are only 3 atoms in the universe and all the others “magically” vanished forever.
2) Space must be there because space necessarily precedes any object. Without space, it is impossible to have an object because it would not have shape/form.....it would have no spatial separation from its background (there would be no background). It is impossible to make space vanish.
3) Assume that YOU are God, and that YOU magically appeared in front of those atoms and arranged them so that each atom is 100 trillion light years away from each other....ie. each atom would be like the corner of an equilateral triangle.
4) Assume that YOU also simultaneously held each atom in place (hey, you are God!) and prevented it from moving, vibrating, shaking, expanding & contracting its e-shell, etc.
5) Now all 3 atoms are 100% motionless.
6) Now YOU magically vanished at the instant you finished arranging these atoms.
Q: What would happen? Would these atoms stay motionless forever?
A: No!
Every single atom attracts each other. Why? Because every single atom must be interconnected by a physical medium. The whole interconnected web of atoms is under “tension”. There is no other rational explanation. It is impossible for attraction to happen between ‘discrete’ entities.
An example analogy would be to use a huge spring and coil 3 sections of it into sub-springs (represented as atoms) and stretch them out as a triangle and fuse the ends together. Now hold the whole system in place so that it has no motion. Then let go of it.
What happens? Does it stay there? No! It moves and comes together (attraction). Who started this motion? Was it God?
There is NO ‘start’ to motion. The whole interconnected system is under tension. This explains WHY all atoms attract each other instantaneously at ANY distance. This is a physical explanation that is rational and non-contradictory. It requires no use of magic. No God is required to start motion. All matter is an interconnected web of atoms under tension.
Is this exactly how Mother Nature runs her shop??
Maybe. It IS a possibility!!
That’s what the Scientific Method is about.....POSSIBILITY....not Religious arrogance!
“Theist: God did not have a start. He does not have a beginning and an end.”
IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Why?
Because theists “theorize” God as THE CREATOR of space & matter. But God cannot create space. Space necessarily precedes ALL objects. Without space, it is impossible to have objects, like God, as He would not have His most important superpower: form! God would be NOTHING. SPACE WAS ALREADY THERE.....GOD WASN’T!!
This is basic Physics 101. Reality has NO contradictions.....only humans apes do.
Do you now understand WHY it is impossible for the theist’s hypothesis of a God being, to CREATE space? Their hypothesis cannot be used to rationally explain their Theory of Creation. Therefore, the God Hypothesis + Theory go in the trash. Finished! Done!
“Nobody wins right?”
I don’t think you really understood what I’ve saying to you. Please re-read our discussions. Let go of your pride and old ways of thinking and try to critically analyze what I said to you. I’m not trying to say anything negative about you, so please don’t take it as such. But you need to understand that ALL humans have been brainwashed by the social system to think in terms of belief, faith, truth, and proof. These are all irrational and impossible notions. You seem to be confused about the difference between a CLAIM and a RESPONSE which negates & contradicts the claim. Religion treats them BOTH as claims. A negation of a claim, IS NOT a claim. This is what you are struggling with.
“"EXISTENCE" and "FAITH" which I have a hard time explaining to theists.”
Forget it. Don’t even bother. You are wasting your time. They will never understand reason. They will never be critical thinkers.
The evolution of the species has conditioned MOST of the human apes to "worship" OBJECT idols....to be mindless robot followers that gravitate towards a "leader" - an authority.
Fatfist you need some L. Ron Hubbard in your life.
http://www.scientology.org/l-ron-hubbard.html
Once you understand your place in the universe you will finally be happy.
I pray to Adonai and he answer my prair. I said to Adonai please give me life tomorrow, i dont want to die in my sleep. And here i am.
"Fatfist you need some L. Ron Hubbard in your life."
I tried that a few years ago. They found me EXTREMELY offensive. In fact, more offensive than a baby killer.
Now they have a file on me along with my picture and video footage of me. Yeah, I also received their standard death threats. But I'm still here. That Adonai must love me too ;-)
Fatfist, you are a moron. I like how you try to prove that matter is eternal. You should get a nobel prize for refuting the big bang... Or look up what reductio ad absurdem means.
Further you say: If such arguments:
1- Use ambiguous, undefined, or misunderstood KEY terms.
2- Reify concepts into objects.
3- Propose objects with dualities (i.e. something is both an object AND a concept).
4- Perform VERBS on concepts, rather than on real objects.
5- Use concepts that perform VERBS.
6- Rely on surrealistic or supernatural mediators for descriptions and explanations.
7- Cannot be conceptualized and visualized as a movie on the big screen.
8- Cannot be understood by the audience because they violate logic, grammar, reason.
9- Embody ontological contradictions.
....then such arguments are IRRATIONAL, they are not objective, and they certainly cannot be understood by anyone, not even their author"
I'm not saying I disagree with you about all of these. But since you propose that ALL 9 of the above listed are irrational, then it is YOU who have the BURDEN OF PROOF to show with sound arguments why all of these are irrational as otherwise your foundation for argument is merely based off "belief" and not sound argument, thus self refuting.
Next you say: "An explanation must present ALL the ontological DETAILS demonstrating how it is possible for a being such as God, to move and “create” out of nothing, or out of Himself."
But if this were true, String-Theory wouldn't stand as a theory as all the ontological details of how these invisible strings affect the universe is unprovable.
Further, this point that you make relies on positivism/verificationism. Which states that everything that can't be falified or proven to be true is meaningless.
But the problem with this is three-fold. 1) Such a belief is so problematic that it leaves most language not just in the world but even in the scientific community as meaningless. 2) You can't prove the statement that "everything must be verified to be true" to be true, thus it is self refuting. This is why 3)Positivism fell apart in the 60's and was abandoned by science and why you need to study the Philosophy of Science.
Next you say:
Well Dr. Craig.....here is another example of a logically airtight deductive argument that you HAVE TO ACCEPT, even if you don’t like the conclusion:
P1: The human body is made up of cells.
P2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
C: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.
And then try to make this prove that logical arguments are weak and untrustworthy. But really all this proves is that you need to take a logic course or if you have that you must have failed.
Just because one cell is too small to be viewed by the naked eye, doesnt mean that increasing the mass by adding millions of cells would still leave them invisible. Of course not! Whenever you create the mass of something by adding more it becomes bigger and bigger which is why you CAN see the human body and why your argument is not sound.
You're a moron. Just smart enough to fool someone with the average IQ, but still dumb enough to be fooled into thinking that these people should be your reference for intelligence.
How about consulting with the experts? How about consulting with Craig? I don't even claim to be an expert. But your material is just pathetic. I have only begun to read your material and I can't get through one of your points without finding logical fallacies. Your arrogance has blinded you.
If you ever logically respond to all my points then email so we can have further correspondence. Otherwise, shut down this site as it merely stands on a vacuum.
my email is: markisfamily@yahoo.com
Dj,
(I like how you try to prove that matter is eternal.)
In Science, we don't prove anything at all, much less the DEFAULT position that matter is eternal. Anyone who attempts to ‘prove’ any position that is obviously a default one, simply doesn't have a clue. Go learn the basics of claims, events, hypotheses, and theories.
But proof is nothing except YOUR OPINION. What is PROOF to you is a lie to everyone else. Maybe your Priest proved God to you while he was doing you in the confession box, but he has yet to prove God to other Christians, who only have faith.
(I'm not saying I disagree with you about all of these.)
Then what is your beef with them? Please explain with the luxury of detail.
(YOU who have the BURDEN OF PROOF to show with sound arguments why all of these are irrational)
This argument is obviously waaaaaaaaay over your head. Let me give you a hint: “please define IRRATIONAL”. Then we’ll both understand whether your above statement is legit or nonsense!
I already did, but you have not a single refutation on my definition.
And what does ‘proof’ have to do with anything....especially concerning definitions?? Do you even know the basics of language & communication?
(But if this were true)
What is ‘truth’? Can you objectively define this crucial term which makes or breaks your argument??
Can you even post here a single objective truth after you provide your definition? The audience is waiting for you to redeem yourself and showcase your superior ‘knowledge’ over fatfist.
Oh, this one will be good.....real good!!!
Science has no ‘truths’, lies, sex or videotape. In science we only explain, and we do so rationally. Got it?
(String-Theory wouldn't stand as a theory)
Exactly! That’s the first rational thing you said. ST is an irrational theory and not indicative of reality.
A string is a supposed 1D entity. There is no such beast in the universe. It is impossible for a 1D object to exist.
Do you disagree?? Oh, I am hoping that you would. Would you do me the favour?
Please illustrate how this supposed 1D string would look like. Reference any image of this 1D object on the Internet.
(positivism/verificationism)
What is that? Is it an ‘object’ or a ‘concept’?
If it is an object, then you should have no trouble illustrating how it would look like. Otherwise, it is an abstract concept which does not concern science, much less reality.
Dj,
(Just because one cell is too small to be viewed by the naked eye, doesnt mean that increasing the mass by adding millions of cells would still leave them invisible.)
This argument is way over your head, dj. You should stick to mopping floors and cleaning out latrines, or maybe cleaning your Pastor’s behind when he takes a dump, ok?
So just because one air molecule is invisible to the naked eye, it doesn’t mean that adding gazillions of air molecules together will still maintain their invisibility to the naked eye? How about for cells? Is THIS your argument?? Is this guy for real? Do you even have a brain in that tin can of yours?
Please draw a picture of an air molecule. Or better yet, let’s go with YOUR example: Please draw a picture of ‘a’ cell as YOU can “see” it while you look at your hand. If you cannot do that, then you have no clue what the hell you are saying or arguing about. Got it?
My God, are all religionists this dense?
(How about consulting with the experts? How about consulting with Craig?)
Oh, the authority and democracy arguments, the last resort of those who have no valid explanations or clue of what they’re parroting. The Earth is spherical irrespective of whether your church cuts off the heads of people who don’t believe in their Flat Earth dogma. Got it?
Science isn't about raising your hand or voting at the ballot box. Mother Nature pisses on majority rule. Authority is for gullible idiots like you who look around to see how many stand behind him. And if they have a Nobel, you get down on your knees and drool all over their shoes.
Again, you're drooling over my shoes, dj. Pleeeeze! Get a hold of yourself. Have a little self-respect.
The onus is on you to shut your gawking trap and specify what any of these clowns you reference have explained. It's not unreasonable to ask you for ONE explanation out of all those luminaries, now is it? I mean, if you can't recall a single explanation of how SPACE can be created, then what the hell are you doing running your mouth here??
(email so we can have further correspondence.... markisfamily@yahoo.com)
Sorry to break the news to you, but this site is about having rational discussions so everyone can see both sides of the argument. Can you handle the heat? Can you explain how space can be created when it is already ‘nothing’?
Can you refute even a single statement in this article?
Can you provide even a single rational explanation for your case regarding the creation of space & matter?
Can you explain if creation is even a remote possibility? Let's see if you can...
If you wish to talk behind closed quarters, please go on a date with your Pastor!
(I don't even claim to be an expert.)
Amen! Just stick to cleaning your Pastor’s behind, ok?
Mother Nature pisses on majority rule. Authority is for gullible idiots like you who look around to see how many stand behind him. And if they have a Nobel, you get down on your knees and drool all over their shoes.
Amen
Dj,
(shut down this site)
I will gladly do so. Trust me, I don't need the constant headache of responding to stupid clowns who don't know their ass from a hole in the wall.
So do me a huge favor, Dj, so I can just pack it in and delete all the articles from this site.
Either,
1) Post a response which explains that the creation of space and matter is even a REMOTE POSSIBILITY,
OR
2) Post a response which explains why eternal space & matter is not 'the' default position.
I'll be waiting for either (1) or (2) so I can shut down this site asap....
Fatfist,
Love that admonission: (shut down this site). Reminds me of some dumb evangelical who got his cookies pestering me and left this comment on one of my hubs: (you lose. Delete the hub.)
His handle was Hanging Out, but I'm pretty sure he also used the label of brotheryochanan as well as others - they/he/it always wanted people to contact them/him/it by email - sound familiar or like a familiar?
Hi Winston,
Yeah, these types come here thinking they are partaking in a pissing contest. They post some gibberish logic semantics which they read in a YouTube comment section, and automatically proclaim themselves to have won their argument.
They never come back to define their terms or explain their assertions.
I remember Hanging Out. He never answered a single question I posed to him. Too funny :-)
Fatfist,
It occurs to me that the concept of infinity requires an action - or a movie to make it occur. Take the idea of an infinite set. It seems to me that an infinite set can only be described as infinite the moment something is either added to it or something is taken away from it - it is the action of +/- that establishes infinity. Without the addition or subtraction, the set can only be considered finite, so the concept of infinite requires perpetuity.
Hi Winston,
Everybody is confused about this concept. So please bear with me as I run thru it so we can understand what it “means”. The concept of infinity has its roots in religion. This word is responsible for brainwashing more people than all of the monotheistic religions combined.
Infinity is a profound notion, holding a powerful emotional appeal to idiots who have used it throughout mathematics, science, cosmology, theology, and even everyday discourse. But remember.....it only has an EMOTIONAL appeal, never a logical or rational one. But while infinity is certainly a popular notion, it is simply taken for granted that infinity makes sense, merely assumed that infinity is a logically coherent concept. Such an assumption is not only unwarranted, but necessarily impossible. As it is traditionally defined & used in mathematics, infinity does not make sense—it’s not only a logical absurdity, but an ontological impossibility. It is divorced from reality, and should be rejected as such.
The reason infinity is often assumed to make sense is because the REIFIED noun “infinity”, its adjective “infinite”, and its REIFIED adverb “infinitely”, can be used to make grammatically correct sentences, and notions of infinity and infinite amounts can also be symbolized for making structurally correct equations in tautological applications. However, not all grammatically correct sentences make logical sense, and not all structurally correct equations do either. For example, consider this sentence:
“The sound of one hand clapping is orange.”
That’s a grammatically correct sentence, but it is meaningless if taken literally. Then too, consider 0/0 – 1 = 0/0 – 2, a structurally correct equation (0/0 can either be 0, 1, or undefined) which is also meaningless due to its ambiguity. Not all grammatically correct sentences or structurally correct equations are logically meaningful. Even worse, there are some formally correct sentences and equations that only seem to make sense because it is taken for granted that their meanings are coherent when, in reality, they don’t actually make sense at all.
Any statement about “infinity” or “the infinite” are like these nonsensical sentences and equations. Any notion of infinity is irrational—it doesn’t make sense at all; rather, it only seems to make sense when its users divorce themselves from reality and ASSUME that it’s a meaningful notion. Since infinity is self?contradictory, like postulating a 4-sided triangle, then infinity is logically and ontologically absurd – it is meaningless!
In REALITY, ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ are opposite adjectives that describe objects ONLY! You can try to say that a board is finite or infinite, but you must realize that it is impossible for any object to be ‘infinite’, because all objects have ‘shape’, and thus are ALWAYS WITHOUT QUESTION, finite! In common everyday speech, people always say that objects, concepts, and verbs are infinite, but this is not only irrational, but impossible. Not to mention that it violates grammar when applied to reality.
In physics, we don’t use common everyday parlance, we are “precise” with our use of terms. It is irrational to say something is infinite, especially the Universe or space. Adjectives like infinite, cannot describe concepts. Only adverbs can describe verbs and concepts. So you can say that, ‘running’ (motion, verb) is incessant (adverb). But you cannot say, ‘running’ is infinite (adjective). Such sentences are meaningless.....pure gibberish.
If you say that space is “finite”, you are saying that space has shape and that something is TACITLY on the outside of 'it' providing contour! You are saying that space is an object. But space cannot be an object....it cannot have shape.....for what is outside the border of this alleged object?
If you say that the Universe is expanding, then you are claiming that it is a finite object by default. And it must be surrounded by empty space to give it contour or shape. Again, this is an ontological contradiction. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to expand...Hawking needs to check himself into an insane asylum!!
Remember, only finite objects, like my pants or my penis, can expand.....and they do!!
Einstein said it well:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein
Winston,
(It occurs to me that the concept of infinity requires an action - or a movie to make it occur.)
Since “infinity” is an alleged noun which is REIFIED from the adjective “infinite” (opposite of finite), then it implies no action at all. It only implies “architecture”. That is, it necessarily implies an object with shape, which is so big, that this object is not finite in SIZE. Well, I’m sure you can understand by now that such an object is a complete IMPOSSIBILITY.
Why?
Because this alleged “infinite” object must have shape and a border, AND, something must necessarily be surrounding its border, like space! So actually, it is impossible to have infinite objects. They are self-contradictory and die at conception.
(Take the idea of an infinite set. It seems to me that an infinite set can only be described as infinite the moment something is either added to it or something is taken away from it - it is the action of +/- that establishes infinity.)
The mathematician begins his presentation by claiming that there are infinite numbers and infinite sets:
" A set is infinite if and only if for every natural number the set has a subset whose cardinality is that natural number."
The problem with infinity is simple. The mathematicians have somehow morphed 'incessant counting' into 'infinite numbers.' Then they converted 'infinite numbers' into the noun 'infinity.' The problem is similar to rectilinear being converted into straight, or continuous being converted into continuum. Mathematics has no use for nouns or adjectives. Mathematics is exclusively a language of adverbs. Mathematicians only study motion. In their context, the Mathematicians allege that Infinity means that you count incessantly. Counting incessantly, like not counting at all, does not qualify as a number. Therefore, whenever a mathematician uses the word infinite (or infinity), he has no clue of what he is talking about. He is talking religion and not science. The famous 'infinite set' means that the number of elements in it is so great that we would count them incessantly.
In Science, there is no such notion as infinity. Even the number of atoms in the Universe is finite. This is easy to 'prove.' Space does not have borders because it is not a physical object. In fact, that is the scientific definition of space: no shape. This is the only manner in which we can use the words object and space consistently (i.e., scientifically). Physical objects cannot spontaneously lose length, width, and height and suddenly become nothing (i.e., space). Likewise, the mathematician would run into serious problems trying to convince the audience that there is a physical process by which space suddenly acquires length, width, and height and becomes something (i.e., a shape). Therefore, space has no borders and an atom can float freely within space, but it can neither convert to space nor cross that which has no boundary. Not even God can cross that which has no borders!
We're done! We must conclude that the amount of matter in the Universe is constant. It never had a moment of creation and will never have an end. Father Universe does not know how to convert objects into space and space into objects.
In the real world, in the Universe out there, everything is countable if we only had enough time. Matter does not convert into space or leave the Universe to go to heaven. Conversely, space does not surreptitiously acquire three dimensions locally and convert to matter. The idiots working at accelerators around the world may claim that they have an equation or an experiment to back their claims that they produced matter from an absolute void (i.e., no dimensions, 0D). The trick is not to describe what they THINK happened or they INTERPRETED. The trick is to EXPLAIN it. That's what Science is about. When you interpret, like people do with the Bible, you are doing Religion, not science. Explaining is the key! Anyone can describe & interpret without understanding anything.
Only the brain-dead clowns of Mathematics & Religion use the word infinity. There is no context in which to use the words infinite or infinity in Science. For the purposes of Science, the term 'infinite object' is a logical contradiction and the term 'infinite counting' is irrational. The correct term is 'incessant counting.'
Winston,
(so the concept of infinite requires perpetuity.)
We already understand why any notion of motion has no rational context when applied to the adjective 'infinite'.
We can only use the adverbs 'incessant' or 'perpetual' to qualify motion, and at the same time, understand what the heck we are talking about, right?
The notion of 'perpetuity' can only applied to non-living fundamental objects in motion. A human's actions can never be perpetual or incessant. Neither can a rock's, a planet's or a star's.
Only the motion of atoms can be said to be perpetual or incessant. It is impossible for atoms to cease motion because they are all gravitationally bound at some physical level of connectivity. It is only possible if there was a single lonely atom in the universe.
Fatfist,
Yes, that was my idea, that conceptually infinite can only be an attempt to describe an action - the adding to or taking away from a series that can be done repeatedly - for once that action stops the series is finite again.
Winston,
(to describe an action - the adding to or taking away from a series that can be done repeatedly)
We describe that action as an "incessant" one. i.e. incessant counting.
(for once that action stops the series is finite again)
Actually, there was always a finite amount of elements. There can never be any situation where the number of elements in any set can be anything other than finite.
Any life form in the universe has a limited time before it goes extinct, so they can never realize perpetuality in any endeavor, nomatter what technology they invent. Nature does not allow it.
Cosmic objects like planets have a limited existence, so there are a finite amount of extraterrestrial objects that can fall on them and add to the series.
1) Anything in existence can have no other option but to be 'finite'.
2) At best, object-based motion can only be described as 'incessant', but it will always come to an end.
3) Whereas fundamental atomic motion can only be described as eternal/perpetual.
Hey Fatfist, I'm addicted to your articles!
A question arose after reading this article, which I agree debunks the Leibnizian & Kalam arguments.
What do you think of Stef Molyneux's arguments here? >> http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/Againstth
Got to hand it to the man he releases all his stuff for free, love that.
poignant,
I'm glad your addicted to these articles and not on something else :-)
Me...why I'm addicted to booze, women and sex!!
Sorry, but I don't have the time to read Stef's book. But I'm pretty sure he approaches the God issue from the similar position that others do.
My articles are completely unorthodox. The issue of God and creation are approached solely from a scientific perspective. Not from an atheistic/logic/philosophical perspective. Big difference here!
No problem, dude! I think Stef has debunked the idea of god-as-concept pretty thoroughly (i.e. arguments like why omniscient & omnipotent contradict, also the self-detonating statements of agnosticism, etc). But of course it really only matters if we think it's possible for concepts to exist! So I'm trying to get the word out about consistent definitions & the "argument from science" (i.e. god doesn't exist BY DEFINITION of the word exist.) No-one's bitten so far... :(
(Then again, there are "physicists! on that forum who probably see their beloved GR/QM evaporating into hot air if scientific definitions are used).
Anyway, keep up the great work. A request (if you take them!): an article please on teleportation. Quantum mechanics claim to have "teleported" some "qubits" through space AND time! No, seriously!
poingnat,
Actually, the idiots of Quantum CLAIM to have teleported a photon, which is an ALLEGED 0D dimensionless particle. So really....how can you teleport something ALLEGED, much less something dimensionless which doesn't exist. Think about it!!
Also, time is a CONCEPT. It impossible to teleport something thru time. You can only teleport something thru an OBJECT, like a house for example.
Time does NOT exist. Time is not real.
Time is a measure of the motion of an object. Time necessarily requires a sentient observer with memory to measure and record previous events in memory. The universe has NO memory....and thus...NO time!!
Again, think about it.
Accidental Ode to Fatfist by The Guess Who
"No time left for you
On my way to better things
No time left for you
I found myself some wings
No time left for you
Distant roads are calling me
No time left for you
Da-n-da-n-da-n-da-n-da
No time for a summer friend
No time for the love you send
Seasons change, and so did I
You need not wonder why
You need not wonder why
There's no time left for you
No time left for you"
Or as they might say, No time, no time, I got, got, got, got, got no time.
Ha ha....I love it, Winston :-)
[[We don't live in a dynamic Universe (memory, interval). Atoms exist in a static Universe (merely have location). Only humans are dynamic beings because they have memory, and tons of it!!]]
Can you please explain this a bit more? I'm confused, because on the one hand we can say that objects move around, but on the other hand you're saying that the U is static? Also, slight tangent perhaps, but what do you think memory is? I've seen the (shorthand) definition "motion + memory" Bill uses. But how come we get to be able to store some many dynamic movie clips inside our heads? That seems to me to be an extraordinary mental feat.
[[Mother Nature's physical world consists solely of objects (ultimately, atoms).]]
What about the EM threads? Don't we ultimately have a single closed-loop mega-thread?! I was under the impression that atoms were the pesky knots in the "fabric" of the threads. And that the threads become knots because of something to do with speed, but Bill didn't seem to eloborate much on this in his book...
[[And don’t give me any nonsense about evidence, observations, 100% certainty, or stuff like that....as such subjective sensory ramblings belong to religion.]]
(1) Wouldn't what the mainstream call "evidence" count as just items of the Hypothesis stage under Bill's (or your) version of the SM? E.g. the exhibits. Don't we explain using the evidence/objects?
(2) Would something like Newt's Grav Const. (equation) count as a fact, statement of the facts, assumption, or exhibit?
(3) Lastly; isn't a statement like 'there are no absolutes or absolute truths', itself an absolute statement (of truth)? Can we be certain that nothing's for certain (and so on)?! If not, what does true/false really mean, logically speaking?
(FYI; my own current amateurish/layperson's thinking on this is that we can only make absolute statements about concepts/tautologies/logic, etc, but not about objects or nature/existence.)
[[Scientific Method = Hypothesis + Theory]]
What about the Conslusion stage?
[[When people have had their BRAINS DRILLED since childbirth that reality is “created”, they will do anything to not let go of this heart-warming fantasy.]]
Interestingly or not, my own idea about this is that what you just said is more literal than you may think! In psychology, they say people can unconsciously "project" their own illusions onto the world. So I think all creation stories (god, BB) come from the trauma of birth. The womb is that mysterious and comforting pre-conscious place. But I digress...
[[It is IMPOSSIBLE for parallel-maintaining objects to intersect.]]
Not quite sure I grasp this one... (apologies)
[[ ]]
One other semi-random final question (and thanks so much for your time & attention): ***Are all senses (touch, taste, smell, sound, sight) basically a variation on touch?***
I got a bit lost around there in WGDE (I purchased it after seeing your articles & finding out about Bill's work). Also, I'm still struggling with understanding how things like emotions & sensations (like colour, taste and whatnot) are such powerful experiences that seem as "real" as shape itself, when all there is... is shape! It seems like the closest thing to a genuine miracle to me — that essentially a bunch of threads/atoms/molecules/cells and whatnot can spontaneously organise in such a way to produce what we consciously experience. The actual experience seems to be a qualitatively separate aspect to the actual makeup of the experience itself (matter in motion). OK maybe I'm just off on waffle-tangent philosophy land...
Anyway, many many thanks in advance Maestro FatFist! ;)
Oh also (might be too much for one post!):
How are the single threads different from the ropes... i.e. how do the threads entwine and become ropes? If it's one single thread, how does one become E and the other M?
How do the magnetic strips loop around intersections if threads can go through one another? Why are atoms atoms at all if the threads comprise the atoms — yet Bill says the atoms are interconnected via threads? How did the threads end up that way? Is a criss-crossed thread "double" the "solidness" of a single strand?
How does speed play a part in threads criss-crossing do you think; is it like macro-world friction? Is it like two rivers crossing through eachother (i.e. neither really "breaks apart"?
Robotix,
“I'm confused, because on the one hand we can say that objects move around, but on the other hand you're saying that the U is static?”
The confusion lies in the crucial word we are trying to understand: MOTION.
What does it mean to move? How can we define this crucial term objectively (unambiguously, consistently, without synonyms or verbs) and without contradictions???????
THAT IS THE BIG QUESTION.
Neither Newton, Einstein, Hawking....or any celebrity has been able to define this term. They haven’t the slightest clue what motion is. No wonder they move 0D ghosts, gods, and goblins all over the place and claim to warp and dilate them.....rolleyes!!!
Motion: two or more locations of an object
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects
Object: that which has shape
Since motion requires objects to occupy various locations, then how could the universe possibly be dynamic??
Dynamism necessarily requires TIME. Time is but an illusion. Time is a concept which requires the memory of a sentient observer to make comparisons and decisions. Without a sentient living entity (with memory), time cannot be realized.
Remember....location is static within any cross-section in time (i.e. an instant). An instant is STATIC and observer-independent.
An analogy is always helpful here: If time (dynamism) is a movie, then an ‘instant’ (static) is a photograph.
An instant comprises but one frame in the universal movie and is conceptually a cross-section of 'time'. This image consists solely of static objects. An instant is synonymous with existence: all objects at a fixed location with respect to each other. Said otherwise, location is conceptually a cross-section of time whereas an event requires an interval of time. An instant is not a 'when’, it is a WHERE!!! An instant has nothing to do with time, it has to do with location. The term “instant of time” is an oxymoron. It has an irrational meaning similar to ‘static motion’ or ‘dynamic location.’
“what do you think memory is?”
Memory is a verb – an action. This action is accomplished by the atoms in our brain which are lined up in specific configurations comprising neurons, etc. and which spin in unison in certain groups. I mean, memory results from ATOMIC activity, rather than SPIRITUAL activity, right??
Memory is something that WE do. We memorize the times tables, a person’s face, an event in our calendar, etc. We do not memorize what doesn’t interest us. So memory is indeed an action where we line up the atoms in our brain as I briefly described above.....either consciously or subconsciously.
“I was under the impression that atoms were the pesky knots in the "fabric" of the threads.”
The underlying Hypothesis is that there is a SINGLE closed-loop thread. That's all there IS. This thread converges into tiny knots called atoms. Between atoms, it twines around another portion of the thread extending this way. We refer to the signal propagating in this short stretch of the highway as 'light'.
The rope is comprised of two threads, which, to stay with convention, we label them 'electric' and 'magnetic'. Thus, the infamous EM 'field' (concept) is now the EM rope (object). This model explains inter alia:
a. Why the E runs orthogonally to the M 'field' (Faraday/Maxwell Laws) and twine around an imaginary axis.
b. Why light is sinusoidal (i.e., wave nature of light. Remember, a ‘wave’ is a concept, that we use to relate observable behaviors with variations ie. up/down, left/right, compress/decompress, etc.)
c. Why light 'travels' rectilinearly (taut rope).
d. Why light is so fast. (Torque a rope. You can't even film the speed of propagation... unless, of course, the rope is tied between the Earth and the Moon).
The E and M threads fork out at the surface of the electron shell, a balloon-like entity which encompasses the H atom. The M thread curves around and forms the e-shell. The E thread, instead, continues straight to the center of the atom. Now imagine gazillions of EM ropes arriving from EVERY atom in the U. The M threads weave the e-shell. All the E threads converge upon the center of the atom.
Thus, the proton is a dandelion or sea urchin type architecture whereas the electron is what Chemistry has held for years and uses daily: an actual balloon. QM would have you believe, rather, that the electron is a tiny particle that orbits a proton bowling ball.
Bohr's planetary model is what the idiots of Math still use to explain ionization and electricity: a discrete electron which leaves its atom. Then, at the end of the presentation, the mathematician denies the planetary model and tells you that he doesn't have any clue what an atom looks like... despite the fact that the idiots of Math boast that they have taken pictures of individual atoms!!!
Robotix,
“Wouldn't what the mainstream call "evidence" count as just items of the Hypothesis stage under Bill's (or your) version of the SM? E.g. the exhibits. Don't we explain using the evidence/objects?”
Evidence has absolutely nothing to do with a Hypothesis. The hypothesis is a non-contradictory assumption where we propose all the objects, their architecture, the initial scenes, and all the scientific definitions.
We NEVER explain using any sort of evidence. The explanation is called the THEORY. The theory explains exactly WHY a natural phenomenon happens the way it does in accordance with the Hypothesis. That is all.
Now....we can supply all the evidence we want to attempt to CONVINCE OURSELVES of this or that....just like they do in court. But remember.....like in court....evidence is ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE because it MUST BE INTERPRETED and WITNESSED VIA THE EXTREMELY LIMITED HUMAN SENSORY SYSTEM.
Evidence has no bearing on reality, nor can it prove or dogmatically dictate reality.
“Would something like Newt's Grav Const. (equation) count as a fact, statement of the facts, assumption, or exhibit?”
None of the above. Equations are only descriptions, and not explanations. They are solely used to describe observations. They can never explain WHY the phenomenon happened the way it did.
“Lastly; isn't a statement like 'there are no absolutes or absolute truths', itself an absolute statement (of truth)? Can we be certain that nothing's for certain (and so on)?! If not, what does true/false really mean, logically speaking?”
That question is answered in my article on absolutes. Do a search and you’ll find the answer. It is repeated all over the comment section too.
Nature has no truths or absolutes. Nature only consists of SOMETHING (objects) or NOTHING (space)......there is no other option, ever!
“What about the Conslusion stage?”
It’s straight-forward.....for example, from the Theory of Gravity, we can conclude that all matter in the universe is interconnected because that is the only way matter can attract each other.
“[[It is IMPOSSIBLE for parallel-maintaining objects to intersect.]]..Not quite sure I grasp this one... “
Simple, is it possible for 2 parallel sticks to ever intersect without intervention?
“***Are all senses (touch, taste, smell, sound, sight) basically a variation on touch?***”
YES!!!!!!!!!!
They all require TOUCH.....the surface-to-surface contact of atoms. Go thru each one and think about it.
There is only ONE human/alien/etc sense: touch.
“Also, I'm still struggling with understanding how things like emotions & sensations (like colour, taste and whatnot) are such powerful experiences”
Our brain plays lots of tricks on us. It is an evolutionary issue we have inherited. All these experiences are mediated by our brain via the sensory stimuli which are input into the brain. For example, our eyes DO NOT see.....the atoms of the retina torque EM signals to atoms in our brain. It is the brain which “draws” the successive images we see as a “movie” :-)
Robotix,
“How are the single threads different from the ropes... i.e. how do the threads entwine and become ropes? If it's one single thread, how does one become E and the other M?”
It is not a question of HOW....it is a Hypothesis. This is what we need to understand. The hypothesis proposes that all matter consists of one closed-loop thread which interconnects every single atom as a dna-like intertwined rope.
We arbitrarily call one thread of the rope M and the other E.....but these are only labels....they can be called anything.
This closed loop thread is in perpetual motion.....eternally! There is no start to motion. There is no creation. This closed loop thread was already there!
“How do the magnetic strips loop around intersections if threads can go through one another?”
The short answer is that they 'interact' with both. The question is whether they do so 'physically'. This term needs to be defined precisely, specifically, the exact meaning of 'touch'.
We need to decide whether a thread has the ability to touch another one, which leads us to the underlying question of, "What constitutes matter?" In Quantum/Relativistic language: "What is 'energy' and at what point does 'energy' become 'mass'." It's a complex issue which Bill explains in detail in the book.
“Why are atoms atoms at all if the threads comprise the atoms — yet Bill says the atoms are interconnected via threads? How did the threads end up that way?”
That is described in detail in the book.....but in short, an atom is simply woven from threads, like a spool. Atoms are perpetually in motion. As one atom moves, it winds up new thread and releases other thread. This is one of the ways we can explain that motion has the ability to affect objects at the atomic level. Another way is by the gravitational effect when distances between objects change.
“How does speed play a part in threads criss-crossing do you think; is it like macro-world friction?”
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “speed” in relation to what you are asking.
First of all, thank you so much for your responses so far, I really appreciate it and think your articles are great; really powerful and well written.
Re: that last point about speed of threads...
Bill writes in WGDE about how the threads can go right through eachother, i.e. this is a way to explain two lasers passing undisturbed.
But, he says that the threads "pull" on one another (i.e. two magnets attracting) and alludes to this being *something* about speed, but doesn't go into much detail (...yet! As I haven't finished the book).
The way I visualize it (rightly or wrongly) is like two rivers meeting; i.e. there's a new fundamental rule of physics that says while the threads can pass through undisturbed, they CAN affect eachother i.e. tangle, etc.
I had *assumed* this meant the more threads and the faster they went, the more "drag" this created. This explains to me why the criss-crossing of so many threads becomes a proton/atom. Otherwise threads would just drift around without any aggregation.
But my thoughts are not clear on this, so I was hoping for your clarification... thanks again!
Robotix,
"Bill writes in WGDE about how the threads can go right through eachother, i.e. this is a way to explain two lasers passing undisturbed."
Of course, shine 2 laser or flashlight beams at each other and there is absolutely NO interference whatsoever. If light was little balls/particles, they would interfere and disperse all over the place. Whatever physical object mediates light, absolutely goes thru itself.
This has to do with the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUENT OF MATTER (the thread), and not with the atom. Bill explains why this fundamental constituent of matter is different than the matter which we physically interact with in our everyday experience. He calls this "TOUCH" and what it means for atoms to touch and for individual threads to touch.
This is evident in nature, for example, light goes right through each other with no interference. So really, at the fundamental level of the thread, the term "touch" is not the same we, the atomic beings, experience with our evolved sensory system.
"But, he says that the threads "pull" on one another (i.e. two magnets attracting)"
No, that's not what he says. Threads do not pull. The EM rope is always under tension as insured by the perpetual motion of the atom. The architectural configuration of a magnet insures that threads interact with each other to mediate "pull" and "push".
Again, this topic is explained in the book starting p.343. I cannot spill the contents of his book here. I'm sure if you read it and ask specific questions to Bill, he is very willing and easy-going about clearing it up for you.
youstupidrelativist.com/files/Magnets.swf
This is the mechanism I was referring to. Here the two magnets' spinning threads are coming into contact & inducing attraction/repulsion depending on direction/rotation — and yet they're also passing right through one another. So this was what I was asking about, concerning "speed". But I'll take another look through the book tonight. Thanks.
Robotix,
“attraction/repulsion depending on direction/rotation — and yet they're also passing right through one another”
It is not the threads that are passing thru each other...it is the EM rope. The spinning threads on magnetic materials are not spinning EM ropes.....they are only the individual thread which is inherently unlooped in the architectural makeup of those substances.
There are 3 issues here: the thread, the EM rope, the atoms. And what constitutes matter as we experience it is aggregates of atoms. We cannot experience the EM rope nor the closed loop thread. Why? Because it is part of our fundamental intrinsic makeup. This issue of touch is addressed in p. 343-359
The fundamental constituent of matter does not behave like the atom. Remember, the atom is comprised from the fundamental constituent of matter as part of the hypothesis. But take a look on p.357 where he talks about these issues. Bill also has tons more work on this issue which is not published in the book. He may or may not be publishing an additional book to address these specific details.
Bill's main issue with all this is....if people cannot understand the difference between an object and a concept, then all this stuff is pointless because it will go over people's heads.
fatfist- Would you agree that the whole world is full of contingent states of affairs? If so than the only potential explanation for the world would be a necessary object.
Chris,
"the only potential explanation for the world would be a necessary object"
Of course! An object is necessary for any explanation of any phenomenon in nature. Without objects there can be no events.
And this necessity of objects is why matter is eternal.
Thank you for your rationality, Chris.
//P1: The human body is made up of cells.
P2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
C: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.//
This commits the fallacy of Composition
//Only concepts, like motion (verb) can have a BEGINNING (verb) or an ENDING (verb)//
Concepts are not verbs, they are abstract entities. They are potency without action. Motion is the actualization of the concept of motion
In order for an abstract to become actualized, there must be a Will which acts to bring about that actualization. So in a sense, you are proving God. Thanks.
I can't handle any more of this...
PhilosoRaptor,
"This commits the fallacy of Composition"
Exactly! And this argument is just as logically "air-tight" as Craig's argument, because his argument has an ontological contradiction.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for anything to begin to exist. Existence is eternal.
You CANNOT give a single example of anything that allegedly "begins" to exist.
PhilosoRaptor,
“Concepts are not verbs, they are abstract entities.”
All verbs are concepts. But not all concepts are verbs. All Cognacs are brandies. But not all brandies are Cognacs......got it?
Abstract entities are concepts. Abstract entities do NOT have shape AND location. They do NOT exist.
We learn this lesson on the first day of grade 1. Did you make it to school that day?
“Motion is the actualization of the concept of motion”
Rhetoric. Unless you can unambiguously define the word ‘motion’, then you’ve said nothing.
“So in a sense, you are proving God.”
What is PROOF to you, is a LIE to someone else. Proof is naught but opinion.
Is God an object? Does God have location? Yes or No? These are the only Q’s you need to answer.
God can only exist if He passes these 2 criteria with flying colors.
“I can't handle any more of this”
I know; you only like conversing with people who parrot the same contradictory arguments which priests have been parroting for the past 1200 years. My articles crush all such arguments.
1. In some of your notions you say the Nature is motionless, which means that atoms have always the same location in space (i.e., same relations between them). But in other places you frequently talk about "atomic vibrations", "interactions between the objects", effect of the gravity etc. So this means that the objects do have motion. So, in order to be rational and without contradiction, you either have to say that there is indeed no any motion of the objects in the universe and they all eternally occupy the exactly the same location in the space (and therefore, our perceived concept of motion has nothing to do with reality) or there is motion irrespective of the observer. Please note that I am not asking about measurement of the motion but simply ask whether you assume/assert that there is such a thing like change in location in space or every object eternally occupies the same location. I suppose that you will agree with the notion that every object in the present occupies a specific location in the space (all the definitions of object, location and space being yours) then my question is whether this location of a specific atom is eternally the same? (eternity is again as you define it).
If you say that there is no motion at all, please explain how the concept of time can be at all useful (again - useful in your "engineering definition") as it should be mere illusion that does not have anything to do with reality.
2. You require strict definitions of every term used by others. I have not seen your definition of the "consummated event" the term you use very frequently - please define.
3. What is your basis for claiming that atoms do exist but subatomic particles do not?
4. In your explanations of the speed of light and gravity you use a word "medium" and such terms as "tension in the medium". Please define what is this medium
Vladimir,
“In some of your notions you say the Nature is motionless, which means that atoms have always the same location in space “
No I don’t. Motion is a concept which requires an observer with memory in order to be realized. We define this concept as at least 2 locations for an object. Nature has no memory. Only sentient beings have memory. Only sentient beings can perceive motion. Nature does not recognize motion. All the atoms of nature are in present mode only, since there is no time. There is no past or future as far as they are concerned. And all atoms have “location”, not motion. Motion is what we (sentient beings) PERCEIVE because we have remembered the previous location of an object. This difference has to do between what WE perceive and call “motion”....and what atoms in nature have, which is “location”.
We say that atoms are in eternal motion because they perpetually change location from nature’s perspective. There was no start to motion, and there will be no end to motion.
“If you say that there is no motion at all, please explain how the concept of time can be at all useful “
Again, motion is what SENTIENT BEINGS perceive. From the perspective of the Moon or a plant, there is no motion at all, there is only location. Non-sentient objects are perpetually in present-mode since they have no memory. Nature has no memory. Nature has no time. Hence nature does not recognize motion. Nature only recognizes objects which are wrapped by the nothingness of space. And each of those objects have location with respect to each other.
Our notion of time is predicated upon us remembering the previous locations of objects and counting pre-defined ticks to their new locations. Time is just an artificial concept of a sentient being. Time is nothing real. Time is a useful “conceptual” tool for us to live our lives here on Earth which has sunrises and sunsets. If you lived on a lonely planet far far far away without any visible stars or stellar objects, then you would have no notion of time as we do here on Earth. You would have to invent a new method for keeping track of time.....perhaps counting sheep jumping over a fence.
“I have not seen your definition of the "consummated event" the term you use very frequently - please define.”
event: something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence
An event is a verb, not a noun and thus not an object. As such, it requires at least 2 frames in a universal movie in order to be realized. And guess what.....there has to be at least one object in that universal movie that is doing something in order to be regarded as event....fair enough?
All events are mediated by objects. Matter exists. Events happen. Events cannot happen without matter, and there are no events that can happen in one frame i.e. zero time.
Consummated means “completed” from start to finish....I’m sure you know what that means, right?
“What is your basis for claiming that atoms do exist but subatomic particles do not?”
Subatomic particles? You mean those 0D dimensionless and sizeless alleged particles they collide at the LHC?? Why, these are nothing but concepts.
They don’t exist by definition! So this is certainly not a “claim” on MY part. This is a CLAIM by the Religion of Quantum Mechanics. Theists always have a hard time distinguishing between a CLAIM and the DEFAULT position. Theists say that it is a CLAIM that God does not exist.....lol, go figure...
Exist: object having a location
0D concepts and spirits and ghosts do not exist. Not even God Almighty can make them exist.
It is IMPOSSIBLE (yes, IMPOSSIBLE) for DISCRETE particles, in 0D or even 3D versions, to exist. Do you understand why or should I explain it to you?
“Please define what is this medium”
Medium: an object that exists.
1. You are talking about "recognition" and "perceiving". These things definitely can be applied only to objects with consciousness. However, I am asking a totally different question: do objects (as you define them) in the space (again, as you define it) occupy the SAME location ETERNALLY or this location changes? And I am asking it irrespective of the observer/memory. You can definitely state that a tree in your backyard exists whether you look on it or you do not (or you do not agree with this statement??). Then I ask you: whether a rat in your backyard occupies the same location in the space eternally or it occupies different locations whether you perceive this or not?
Either changes in locations are reality and then those changes I define as "motion" and it occurs independently of my perceiving or they are brain illusion and there is NO ANY CHANGE in reality meaning there are no any interactions between objects (since interactions can only be defined in terms of change. So please answer simply - do you agree with the first (changes exist independent of perceiving the changes) or the second (in the universe there are no changes at all) statement as tertium non datur.
2. You say that "science is about explaining consummated events". But according to the definition of a consummated event you gave me it is something that "happened from the beginning to the end" to (at least) a pair of objects. So, its definition involves time as you (at least to my opinion) cannot define "happen" and "end" without using a concept of time (or can you - please try then). Therefore, it means that (to your claim) science is about something in the "past" (or what else do you mean by "happened from the beginning to the end"?). But "past" (if I interpreting right your claims) is only in our heads and has nothing to do with reality. So, please explain now what is this "science" is about at all???
3. Considering the atoms and subatomic particles - I will make my question sharper. I ask why you agree with existence of atoms and disagree with existence of subatomic particles? Protons and neutrons are not 0D and they do have location. Atoms are not directly seeable and you cannot touch them. Based on what you state that atoms exist and their constituents are not?
4. Considering the medium: you stated that gravity is "tension in the medium between the objects", now you defined "medium" as an object. So please explain what is this object in between the objects that has this "tension"???
I recognize that may be my question about the atoms is not clear enough: I ask what is in the atoms that makes you claim they exist that is not in proton/neutron?
And BTW, I am a strict atheist, i.e. I agree with you that God's existence is impossible. But quantum mechanics: I think it is a good explanation of the consummated event of nuclear bomb explosion and nuclear plant action. Are there better ones?
And, by the way, you stated that all key concepts should be properly defined. "Shape" and "memory" are key concepts in your notions. Please define them.
I am sorry for making several comments instead of one, but your notions cause many thoughts in my brain so I am writing them as they are formulated.
You wrote several sentences that do not make any sense to me as again you use terminology without definition.
What does it mean "in order to realize motion you need an observer"??? What is the meaning of "realize" here? Is it to occur in reality or to occur in the brain of an observer?
What do you mean by "Nature does not recognize motion but recognizes objects and there locations"? Can Nature "recognize" anything at all? Does Nature has something which can be defined "recognition"??? What do you mean by "Nature"? Is it Universe? is it a concept or an object? If it is an object - what shape does it have (you require shape for every object)? If it is a concept - how you dare to ascribe anything to it as existing outside an observer? You claim that concepts do not exist - then Nature does not exist?
To summarize, you fell down to the same fallacies that you ascribe to Craig and other theists - you use terms without proper definition all over your notions.
Vladimir,
“do objects (as you define them) in the space (again, as you define it) occupy the SAME location ETERNALLY or this location changes?”
Objects and space have nothing to do with how I personally define them. Either ‘object’ and ‘space’ are defined unambiguously and rationally or they aren’t. I have defined them rationally.....do you have any other definition which is scientific?
And since all atoms are interconnected and under tension, then of course they don’t have the same location eternally. Their location perpetually changes. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
“Then I ask you: whether a rat in your backyard occupies the same location in the space eternally or it occupies different locations whether you perceive this or not?”
A dead rat in your backyard or a statue on your fireplace mantle are perpetually changing locations since every single atom in the universe is under tension and perpetually attracts each other.....we call this “gravity”.
“So please answer simply - do you agree with the first (changes exist independent of perceiving the changes) or the second (in the universe there are no changes at all) “
But my dear Vladimir......”change” is a verb which requires MEMORY of a previous state. The universe has no such memory. Nature is always in PRESENT mode.....all objects, atoms, etc., are in present mode. But sentient beings, like humans, can actually remember the previous locations of objects and make a statement that a CHANGE has taken place. Remember: all atoms are interconnected and under tension, so they are under perpetual locations.....and each specific location is the “present”....which is what NATURE operates on.
“ But according to the definition of a consummated event you gave me it is something that "happened from the beginning to the end" to (at least) a pair of objects.”
Yes, science is about explaining consummated events. This is what the “theory” stage of the sci method is about. So what is the explanation of the alleged Big Bang? What is the explanation of the 2-slit experiment? What is the explanation of why a pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling? What is the explanation of why 2 magnets attract each other but repel when one is reversed? These are consummated events which have take place....are they not?
“But "past" (if I interpreting right your claims) is only in our heads and has nothing to do with reality.”
Of course the PAST has absolutely nothing to do with REALITY. Real is a synonym for the word “exist”. What exists is what is real. Only objects can possibly exist. The “past” is not an object. The past is not real. The past does not exist. We need to get our terms right if we are going to talk rationally, right?
“So, please explain now what is this "science" is about at all???”
Science is the study of existence. We only study ‘things’ which either exist or can possibly exist....i.e. objects! Scientific study is predicated solely on the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory). Hence, science embodies rational explanations for natural phenomena....and natural phenomena is mediated by objects, not concepts.
“Protons and neutrons are not 0D and they do have location. “
Great! Please illustrate for me how a proton or neutron looks like, or just post a link of one anywhere on the internet. I would like to see an image of these little critters with my own eyes before I believe in ghosts and souls.
And while you’re at it....for the record... please tell the audience which MODEL of the atom you are referencing for your claim... Thomson’s berries, Bohr's bead, Debroglie's ribbon, Born's cloud, Lewis shell... etc. Will the real electron, proton and neutron please stand up? Which model represents the real electron, proton and neutron as far as you are concerned??
But, if you do some reading on the subject, you will realize that electrons, protons and neutrons are verbs which describe the BEHAVIOUR of the atom...i.e. they don’t exist. That’s why not a single clown of Quantum has been able to illustrate one for the past 80 years. Quantum is a Religion which ascribes motion to 0D particles, space (quantum fluctuations), concepts such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and the various Standard Model particles....most of which are 0D. The Scientific Method demands that you illustrate all the OBJECTS of your hypothesis. Electrons, protons and neutrons are HYPOTHESIZED entities which are embodied by MANY MODELS by the establishment. Which model has a picture of one??
“Atoms are not directly seeable and you cannot touch them. “
The Moon and the Sun are not directly seeable and touchable to a blind man or to a yet-to-be-evolved human species on Earth.....does that mean that the Moon and Sun do not exist? I surely hope not.
The moon and sun exist because they are objects with location....not because some human ape decided to give an opinion on the issue.
“Based on what you state that atoms exist and their constituents are not?”
Before you can CLAIM that an atom has constituents or sub-components, you will have to illustrate these entities as part of your HYPOTHESIS....right? Again, for the record... please tell the audience which MODEL of the atom you are referencing for your claim... Thomson’s berries, Bohr's bead, Debroglie's ribbon, Born's cloud, Lewis shell... etc.
And before you can CLAIM that these alleged constituents are responsible for phenomena such as light, gravity, magnetism, etc....you will must have a THEORY which rationally explains why....right?
I mean, we are either following the Scientific Method to do science....or we are following the Religious Method to do Religion....which is it??
So, don’t keep us in suspense any longer......use your atomic constituents, like 0D gravitons, to explain to the audience WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Do 0D bullets emanating from the Earth, pelt the bodies of human beings and magically attract them to the floor? Don’t hold back now, give us the real scoop, ok?
“So please explain what is this object in between the objects that has this "tension"???”
This is not a theory (explanation)....this is a hypothesis. I mean, we are following the sci method, right? The Hypothesis illustrates the objects. The Theory explains the phenomenon. Are you with me so far?
So, the hypothesis is that every atom in the universe is connected to every other atom via twined, double stranded, taut electromagnetic rope. The electric thread of the rope terminates at the center of an atom and the magnetic thread wraps around the center like a ball of yarn. When the atom expands (i.e. quantum jump) it must do so at the expense of a few links of rope. This compresses the rope near the atom, thus decreasing its "wavelength" (fewer links per length). This torsion wave propagates along the rope to the next atom and so on and so forth. This is why light always travels rectilinearly but also has a finite velocity as determined by its medium. It also explains why light always retraces its path, torsion waves propagate in both directions.
This also explains universal gravitation and why gravity acts "instantaneously" at any distance....even at 5000 quadrillion light years away and further! Fundamentally, every atom in the universe is connected to every other atom, so there is nothing to transmit; no bullet to shoot! The connection is already there.
Now it’s your turn.....please explain why 2 atoms perpetually attract each other. You can use ANY of the establishments various MODELS of the atom you like, ok?
Vladimir,
“But quantum mechanics: I think it is a good explanation of the consummated event of nuclear bomb explosion and nuclear plant action.”
Vladimir, please be honest with me.....do you actually think that nuclear reactors split atoms into pieces....into little discrete particles? Does this even make sense to you when these idiots cannot even draw an atom or a particle for you?
Vladimir,
“What does it mean "in order to realize motion you need an observer"??? “
I already told you earler.....motion necessarily requires the MEMORIZATION of an object’s previous location. This means that only a sentient being can be there to do this and declare that something moved. Motion is an observer-dependent verb because a memory of previous locations is required. Whereas LOCATION is observer-independent and STATIC.....this is why the moon or a plant only has location from their perspective. Nature only has the location of objects from its perspective.
“What do you mean by "Nature"
The universe....all matter wrapped by the nothingness of space. Nature is memoryless, timeless, stateless and static.
“Nature.... If it is a concept - how you dare to ascribe anything to it as existing outside an observer? You claim that concepts do not exist - then Nature does not exist?””
Nature (universe) is a concept which embodies matters and space. The universe is not an object. The universe does not exist. Space does not exist. Space is nothing. Only matter (atoms) exist. So, nature and universe talk about a RELATION between matter and space. Relations are concepts which do not exist.
“you use terms without proper definition all over your notions.”
Oh, and which are those, my dear Vladimir?
1. You repeat your claims but do not answer my simple question.
So do the atoms change their location if there is no observer at all? On the one hand you say that they do change location irrespective of the observer (as you said the dead rat changes the place even if you do not look at it) but then you claim that "change" is something only attributable to the observer. So there is a contradiction - either change occurs irrespective of the observer or it is occuring in the observers head only. Please answer this specific and simple question by "yes" or "no": do changes in the location occur irrespective of the observer? If "yes" - how you can claim that "change" only belongs to the consciousness of the observer???
2. Again - about consummated events you are pulling sentences out of the argument and comment them without answering the real question.
I put it shortly again: you define that the science is about consummated events; consummated events belong (by your definition "happened to the end") to the past; past (by your definition) does not exist; therefore, all these together means that science is about something that does not exist.
3. I am not proposing any model of the atom. I am just trying to understand what is YOURS. What is the basis of your claim/hypothesis/whatsoever that atoms exist? Why do you prefer this hypothesis over one that says that atoms are simply concepts to explain behavior of the molecules? And molecules are simply concepts to explain behavior of macroscopic objects?
4. You use terminology "please explain why the pen fell to the floor and not to the ceiling". But you said that science is only about explaining "existence". And "fell" is a verb therefore, according to your own claims is a concept. Therefore, I do not have anything to explain. If you reformulate "please explain WHY the pen is on the floor in the present" - what do you mean by that WHY? Do you mean that there is a need to draw a sequence of events IN THE PAST that led to the current situation with the pen and propose what interactions between the pen and other objects happened? But then - this is irrelevant since you claim that PAST is irrelevant. So there is no such thing as WHY because WHY necessarily means "as a result of something in the past". Therefore, all your statements which include WHY are total garbage and nonsense.If you have any other meaning of WHY - please enlighten me. If you state that it is about "explaining relations between the objects in the present" then "pen fell" cannot and should not be explained at all - since it does not fell in the present.
Please note that I am not assuming anything of my own - I am just sequentially applying your own statements and what is produced out of it is complete irrational nonsense (sofar).
If you disagree - please specify exactly where I am misunderstanding your statements.
“you use terms without proper definition all over your notions.”
Oh, and which are those, my dear Vladimir?
1. "recognition by the Nature/Universe"
2. "shape"
3. "memory"
Those three you did not define despite my direct question.
4. Nature and Universe: you define them as concepts. Concepts do not exist. Nature does not exist. So your sentences "Nature does not recognize motion" are about what? About concepts in your head that do not exist?
You should avoid any mentioning of Universe or Nature in all your statements. What in heck does it mean "Nature has only location of the objects from its perspective"? What is "Nature's perspective"??? Nature does not even exist - how it can have perspective??? What is 'Moon's perspective"?? This is anthropomorphism of the worst sort as "perspective" by its definition comes from the Latin root meaning "to see". How then Nature and Moon can "see"??? After your using those sentences in a supposedly rational and scientific discussion I am really do not understand how you can dare to critisize theists...
Vladimir,
“do changes in the location occur irrespective of the observer? “
No. ”Change” is a verb which requires MEMORY of a previous state. The universe has no such memory. The universe has no verbs. The universe only has objects. Objects have perpetual multiple locations by virtue of the effect of gravity, independent of any observer.
I will say it again since I know you didn’t read it last time..... Objects have perpetual multiple locations by virtue of the effect of gravity, independent of any observer. Which part don’t you understand?
Motion and any change, NECESSARILY requires a PREVIOUS state for COMPARISON. “Change” is a comparison which necessarily requires an observer. What part are you having trouble understanding????
“how you can claim that "change" only belongs to the consciousness of the observer???”
This is NOT a claim......this is a DEFINITION. See above!
“consummated events belong (by your definition "happened to the end")” to the past;
No, consummated events do not belong. Consummated events are occurrences which happened.
“past (by your definition) does not exist;”
What do you mean by ‘exist’??
Past is a concept. Concepts do NOT exist. Only objects exist. Which part is confusing you?
“therefore, all these together means that science is about something that does not exist.”
Huh? How do you reach such ludicrous conclusions? Is science the study of concepts ....or the study of objects which exist? Does Evolution study beings (objects) or their love (concepts)?
“What is the basis of your claim/hypothesis/whatsoever that atoms exist?”
Huh? Are you one of those people who claims that we don’t exist? Are we here or are we not? Are we made by some fundamental matter or are we a single human entity? If we are made by some fundamental matter, then a scientific hypothesis is required to illustrate what this matter is. We call this the ‘atom’. Are you with me so far?
“Why do you prefer this hypothesis over one that says that atoms are simply concepts”
It is IRRELEVANT what I, you, or God prefers. What is relevant is what is rational. If your arm is made by some fundamental matter that is common to other matter in the universe, then this matter CANNOT be a concept.....understand?
Concepts do not exist. Only objects can possibly exist. All concepts are preceded by objects....this means that an object (like a sentient being) is required to CONCEIVE of a concept.
Human beings are not made of concepts.....do you understand this much?
“And molecules are simply concepts”
So a molecule of air is concept to you? Was it a concept which caused the Katrina devastation in the US? Please explain.
“But you said that science is only about explaining "existence"
Strawman. I never said that. It is impossible to explain existence. Please explain the existence of this chair.
Science is the STUDY of existence. Science studies that which only exists, or can possibly exist...i.e. objects!!
Do yourself a big favour and learn the Scientific Method (hypo + theory) before coming here to argue with the mirror.
"please explain WHY the pen is on the floor in the present"
That the pen is on the floor is a hypothesis.....NOT a theory. There is nothing to explain in a hypothesis. Only theories are about explaining events which are actions. The pen on the floor is a static concept....a photograph......not a movie (dynamic). Do you understand the difference?
Learn the diff between hypothesis and theory before you continue to argue with the mirror.
“what do you mean by that WHY?”
Why did the pen fall to the floor instead of the ceiling? Please explain this event! Which part of this sentence are you having trouble with? Did you make it past Junior Kindergarten?
“propose what interactions between the pen and other objects happened?”
Yes! What object came in contact with the pen and pulled it to the floor instead of the ceiling? Was it a 0D graviton ghost? Was it God? Do you even know?
“Please note that I am not assuming anything of my own - I am just sequentially applying your own statements and what is produced out of it is complete irrational nonsense (sofar).”
We are in 100% agreement here. When you ask someone to explain objects and static concepts such as photographs of pens on the floor, then yeah....it is total nonsense!
It would be to your advantage to get educated with the Scientific Method BEFORE coming here to argue your nonsense with yourself....got it?
Vladimir,
“And BTW, I am a strict atheist”
Well I am very sorry to hear that. I hope you get better soon. I will make sure to send you flowers. Would be so kind as to tell me which ward in the asylum they keep you locked up?
I thought for a moment there that you were a scientist!
An atheist is an individual who does not believe in the existence of God. He is no different than a theist, who believes in the existence of God.
In contrast, a scientist is an individual who invokes existence ONLY in a hypothesis. Never in a theory!
Both theists and atheists have it backwards....no wonder you two continue to argue with the mirror! In Science, we don't prove or believe in the existence of X. In Science, we postulate the existence of X: "Let us ASSUME that X exists. With this hypothesis I will now explain..."
When you go to high school, remind yourself to take a course in science.
1. "I will say it again since I know you didn’t read it last time..... Objects have perpetual multiple locations by virtue of the effect of gravity, independent of any observer. Which part don’t you understand?"
What meaning do you ascribe to the term "perpetual"? You said that "objects have perpetual multiple locations irrespective of the observer", so "perpetual" is by your definition is somwthing irrespective of the observer. No please be so kind and define "perpetual". Last time I look in the dictionary this word is defined using the concept of "time. I will be glad to hear what is your definition of perpetual that does not include time. And you cannot include time in this definition since the the concept of time as you claim is dependent on the observer, but "perpetual" you claim - does not.
2. “propose what interactions between the pen and other objects happened?”
Yes! What object came in contact with the pen and pulled it to the floor instead of the ceiling? Was it a 0D graviton ghost? Was it God? Do you even know?"
OK, so the "pen fell onto the floor". I do not propose any explanation. I am using your statements to understand what YOU can possibly mean by "explain this event". So please, do everybody a favor and explain: you are using a term "consummated event" or "what came in contact with the pen" - but by your own definition "consummated event" is something that "happened" or "came to an end". Therefore, consummated event is by definition is not a relation between the objects that happens in the present. Otherwise, what do you mean by using past tense of the verb "to happen" and the concept "came to an end"??
So, consummated event is not happening in the present - otherwise how you can define it as something that came to an end? Did it happened in the past? If it neither happened in the past nor is happening in the present - what are you talking about???
3. And again - you continue not to provide definitions of "shape" "memory" and what it is "recognition by Nature" or "recognition by Moon".
Probably you simply cannot define these things properly - otherwise I will be glad to read your definitions.
Considering my question about atoms: again, I am not proposing any theory/hypothesis. I am just trying to understand what is yours. If I understand right, your hypothesis is that atoms are the smallest parts of which matter is constucted. OK. Why then you do not make a rational hypothesis that the smallest parts of matter are atoms and not molecules? I do not claim that molecules do not exist, I just ask you what basis do you have to claim that molecules can be divided into atoms? What consummated event the theory of atoms explains that cannot be explained based on the molecules as the smallest parts of matter?
Vladimir,
“What meaning do you ascribe to the term "perpetual"?”
Perpetual simply means no beginning and no end. Location is static, not dynamic, and hence cannot be an event. Location is not something that happens....location is the set of static distances between all objects. There is no “start” to an atom’s location...got it? So this has nothing to do with time and keeping track of before or after clock ticks in memory for comparison by a sentient being.
There is no past or future, these are just conceptions of a human brain which remembers. Atoms only have static locations. An atom can either be here or there. Atoms exist, so to speak, at the cutting edge of universal events: the 'present'....always the present. This is what observer-independent is all about. Once you introduce an observer, he will tell you that he remembers that the Big Bang self-created matter, or that God did it....even though there is no start to location of atoms, ...much less a start to the “motion” of atoms from the idiotic observer’s perspective.
Why are you having so much difficulty understanding this?
“by your own definition "consummated event" is something that "happened“
What does this have to do with my or your definition?? Don’t you understand basic grade-school language?? You let go of the pen in class (start of event) and it fell and hit the floor (end of event). Can you even comprehend that?
Were you ever hit on the head as a child by your parents???
“Therefore, consummated event is by definition is not a relation between the objects that happens in the present.”
A consummated event ALREADY completed. We have a movie of it or can mock up a movie of it. We can illustrate this movie on the big screen in the physics conference. Can you understand simple kindergarten-level ideas such as this? Did you ever drop your crayon from your little desk in kindergarten? Did your crayon fall to the floor? Wasn’t that a consummated event?
“what do you mean by using past tense of the verb "to happen" and the concept "came to an end"??”
Obviously you need to pass Junior Kindergarten if you don’t understand simple words. Physics is the least of your worries!
“definitions of "shape" "memory" and what it is "recognition by Nature" or "recognition by Moon".
Shape is a root word which has been discussed ad nauseum in most of my hubs. Take a look at the 4 th last comment in my hub Big Bang the big lie. I am not reposting here.
If you don’t know what basic words like “memory” means, then either go back to school or seek psychiatric help....you have bigger issues to deal with than physics.
And the last 2 clauses you queried about are not words....they are CLAUSES. Do you understand the difference? Did your teacher or pastor ever tell you? Clauses cannot be defined...only words can. Did you learn in grade school what these individual words mean: recognition, by, nature, moon?
“your hypothesis is that atoms are the smallest parts of which matter is constucted.”
Again, you are not reading or not comprehending simple words and sentences. Matter is a synonym for atoms. Didn’t you learn that in school?
If you are alluding to the fundamental constituent of matter, then of course, the hypothesis is that there is a single closed-loop thread. That is all there is. That is the fundamental constituent of all atoms. This thread converges into tiny knots called atoms. If you start at the atom of your choice and follow along one of the threads that constitutes the EM rope and go thru every atom in the universe, you will arrive via the other thread to your original atom.
“I just ask you what basis do you have to claim that molecules can be divided into atoms?”
Do atoms attract each other...yes or no? If they attract, do they form collections of what we call “molecules”...yes or no? Is water (H2O) an atom or a molecule in your Religion? Does water have any matter that is common with meat/protein, like H or O?
If you do not know the answers to these questions, then get educated. I am not here to hold your hand and teach you the basics.
“What consummated event the theory of atoms explains”
Again, you are pissing outside the pot. You don’t understand a single word coming out your mouth. That’s why all you are doing here is trolling and arguing with yourself in front of the mirror!
Atoms is NOT a theory...Atoms is a HYPOTHESIS. Did your Pastor teach you this much, or no?
“.....that cannot be explained based on the molecules as the smallest parts of matter?”
Oh, please explain how 2 molecules of water ATTRACT each other in your Religion? And please explain why a molecule of water can be separated via electrolysis. Do you remember what your Priest told you while you were kneeling before him in the confession box? Did he tell you that 0D gravitons make this magic happen.....or perhaps warped space...or perhaps spirits....or perhaps black holes....or perhaps God? Do you remember, or was it all fun & games in the confession box?
Do you have basic reasoning abilities?
To summarize, fatfist:
You continue to ascribe to me OPINIONS while I am only asking QUESTIONS using exactly your teinology and showing that it is either poorly defined, not defined at all or contradictory (irrational).
You are not a scientist, you only can write offensives about other people when they ask you clear questions about a bunch of totally irrational BS that you pour on this pages. You with your lunatic and psychotic ideas would not be accepted even into kindergarden since even 3 year old child is more rational than you are. So this is my hypothesis "fatfist is psychotic lunatic" and it perfectly explains the BS that you wrote.
Vladimir, you don't even know what a contradiction is. You have not showed a single one.
What you have shown, is your ignorance in basic language skills, grammar and the Scientific Method.....and your lack of comprehension of ultra-basic words....and no reasoning skills whatsoever.
You are constantly chasing your tail in circles and arguing with the mirror because you don't understand the diff between an object and a concept.
So don't get angry with the messenger, it makes your face red and pops veins in your forehead. I am sure that either:
a) Your Priest will make you feel better when he does you again in the confession box.
b) You will feel better when you re-enter your treatment program in the Insane Asylum.
So don't say you don't have choices....
I perfectly understand the difference between objects and concepts. The problem is that your concepts are irrational and your statements are psychotic.
Examples:
"Perpetual simply means no beginning and no end. It has nothing to do with time". You use words "beginning" and and "end" here as well as in the definition of a consummated event. But "beginning" and "end" require two different frames IN TIME - even a 3 year old kindergarten student comprehends it, words "beginning" and "end" are meaningless without time - do you have a brain tumor that makes you so stupid??? So your definition of "perpetual" is actually "occurring ALL THE TIME" and it has EVERYTHING to do with time. Here is a dictionary definition of "perpetual": "lasting forever or indefinitely long time", "continuing uninterrupted" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perpetual).
So the one who is lacking basic linguistic abilities is you! Please refer to ANY dictionary that defines "perpetual" without using "time" or directly time-related concepts such as "beginning" and "end".
"Science is about consummated events" But consummated events according to your definition are non-existing concepts so science is about non-existing concepts.
"A consummated event ALREADY completed. We have a movie of it or can mock up a movie of it. We can illustrate this movie on the big screen in the physics conference."
So consummated events have beginning and end. Words beginning and end have meaning only with respect to the concept of time (see above). Time is (according to you) something that is only in our mind. So consummated events are concepts in our minds - or as you put it "a movie".
So your definition of science means "explaining consummated events which is something that is only in our minds, not objective, not real". And again - this is not MY opinion - this is WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY WRITING. How after this definition you can claim that science is about existing objects
More pseudointellectual garbage:
"If you don’t know what basic words like “memory” means, then either go back to school or seek psychiatric help....you have bigger issues to deal with than physics."
I asked the question NOT because I do not know what it is but since I think that YOU do not comprehend what is memory. So please make a definition so everybody can see that you DO have a minimal comprehension of what YOU are talking about. Memory may have different meanings. I would like to comprehend whether (according to what you define by memory) worms have memory? What about bacteria? What about viruses? Do you regard as memory only activity of nervous system or also genetic memory? What about memory of the immune system? You see - there are many concepts that include memory and I would like to know which of them YOU mean by memory and which of them YOU discard. You wrote that memory is present only in sentient beings. "Sentient" according to a dictionary is "capable of sensing" (from Latin "sentire" - to sense). Bacteria have the capability of sensing. Do they have memory? What is the underlying structural basis of the memory? Is it a certain combination of atoms in the brain?
What is your theory of formation of a specific frame in the memory?
I am asking this questions because I think that your answers will further unveil your contradictions, irrationality and stupidity.
Your linguistic abilities are worse than ones of a newborn:
For example you do not comprehend what is "recognition" - it comes from a root "cogito" assuming presence of consciousness. So "recognition by Nature" that you use assumes Nature has consciousness - irrational garbage!!
Another example - you do not comprehend what is "perspective" - the root is "to see" so "Moon's perspective" assumes that Moon can "see" - irrational garbage again.
I hope that some psychiatric ward will soon hospitalize you and make an effort to heal your insanity (but I am very pessimistic about their chances).
And I am not angry with you - you cannot be angry about very mentally ill person, you just feel pity for him and his incurable lunacy
Vladimir,
“But "beginning" and "end" require two different frames IN TIME “
In time?? Are you sure about this? In ‘time’ like in a ‘car’? Is time an object? Does time exist? Let’s see if you have the faintest clue of what you are talking about. Please define TIME. Then we shall see whether an event is DEPENDENT upon this critter you call ‘time’, in order to happen. If I hold the pen above the floor, is it your critter of ‘time’ which stops it from falling to the ground? Is that what your Pastor told you?
If you don’t define what ‘time’ means, then you’ve said nothing! You are incessantly arguing with mirror...this is getting old.
“Please refer to ANY dictionary....”
Dictionaries list definitions as per popular use (i.e., ordinary speech). Dictionaries do not unambiguously define words. Definitions are entered in dictionaries without consideration of their scientific consistency, just that they are popularly used that way in ordinary speech....not scientific speech. That makes any dictionary written subject to the fallacy of "an argument by populism", and those who refer to a dictionary to make an argument are committing that fallacy as well.
Why not look up a word like ‘truth’ in the dictionary and settle a 3000 year long standing debate in philosophy? What happens when you open a new dictionary that uses a different definition? That isn't thinking, that is doing exactly what theists do in blindly submitting to what the bible says. I can't reach someone who is that lost.
A definition is always objective. In Science, observers and their opinions cannot be embodied in a definition.
Vlad: “definition of "perpetual" is actually "occurring ALL THE TIME"
Define this ‘time’ thingy of yours in an observer-independent fashion. Was there such a thing as ‘time’ before your God created Adam & Eve?? Or was time invented by your God’s creatures? Your definition of “perpetual” is UNSCIENTIFIC...got it?
Vlad: “perpetual": "lasting forever or indefinitely long time", "continuing uninterrupted"
Lasting forever? What does forever mean?
Long time? Is ‘time’ a stick that has LENGTH in your Religion? Did your Pastor make contact with your brain while he was raping you from behind?
Vlad: “your concepts are irrational and your statements are psychotic”
We agree 100% here!!! You cannot for the life of you define this thing you call ‘time’ in a scientific manner (i.e. observer-independent). And yet you come here to argue in circles for this God-like thing of yours which you call ‘time’. You are nothing but a THEIST, Vlad...and I’m glad you agree that you are psychotic as well. See....I told you that atheists are no different than theists.
“so science is about non-existing concepts”
Of course a theist such as yourself would make such a sweeping statement. Your God is TIME...and you cannot even define Him because He is a concept which doesn’t exist. So in your monastery your priest brainwashed to believe in ‘time’.
“science means "explaining consummated events which is something that is only in our minds, not objective, not real"
So when the pen falls to the floor, it actually didn’t? This is all in our heads, huh?
You are a now TROLLING. If you continue to troll, you will be banned from posting here...understand?
You haven’t answered a single question posed to you. Enough of your trolling games.
Vladimir,
If by your NEXT POST you do not scientifically (observer-independent) define this critter you call TIME, then it is end-game for your trolling here...got it? So don't say you weren't warned.
I have answered all your questions in TRIPLICATE...enough is enough....it's your turn. You had better explain exactly how events cannot happen without this critter you call 'time'. What does time do to the pen...pull it down to the floor?
If you don't answer these questions....your trolling is finished!
I bet he can't/won't do it!
Ten bucks on it!
ThinFist - you lost your bet.
Fatfist - if you carefully read my statements you will not find ANYWHERE that I said that time exists. I totally agree with your statement that time is something in the sentient's observer head as a result of his neuronal memory and non-sentient objects like Moon do not have neuronal memory. Satisfied?
Now let's look again on your statements.
1. "objects have perpetual multiple locations irrespective of the observer" Excellent! I absolutely agree.
2. Then you wrote "Perpetual simply means no beginning and no end."
Words "beginning" and "end" are used in normal human language always with an additional word. The only place I know of where the word "beginning" is used alone is Bible (Genesis 1.1). Location cannot have either beginning or end - location is static (your words - I totally agree). So it is legitimate to ask "perpetual simply means no beginning and no end OF WHAT?" So please answer this question.
Now
I wrote “science means "explaining consummated events which is something that is only in our minds, not objective, not real" not as MY OPINION but as something that directly follows from your definitions.
You said that "event" is not an object but a "concept", and "concepts" do not exist in the Universe. Concepts (again according to you - and please correct me if this is wrong) - are only in our heads. So, consummated events (as one type of events) - according to YOUR definition - are also concepts and as such they do not exist. Please tell me if you agree with this statement.
So if - again I am only citing you not expressing any opinion - science is about consummated events it is actually is about something that does not exist.
It indeed sounds like non-sense but it directly follows from YOUR definitions.
"So when the pen falls to the floor, it actually didn’t? This is all in our heads, huh?"
"Fall" is a verb. You said that "The universe has no verbs." So what is YOUR answer to the question "did the pen actually fall on the floor"??? I am trying to strictly follow your definitions and statements but according to them I cannot ascribe a verb ("fall") which is a concept to something that is in the Universe (a pen).
And again to clarify - in all my postings I NEVER said anything ABOUT your definitions - I am only asking questions within your framework.
Vladimir,
“time is something in the sentient's observer head as a result of his neuronal memory and non-sentient objects like Moon do not have neuronal memory”
Great, thanks for finally starting to talk rationally. Yes, time is indeed a concept. It is a number line; a scalar quantity used by observers for quantifying motion (ie. measuring movement of objects). So of course we need to keep track or remember the previous locations or states of objects. Time is certainly not an object. We INVENTED time!
Fat: “"Perpetual simply means no beginning and no end."
Vlad: “Words "beginning" and "end" are used in normal human language always with an additional word.”
And that additional word that I used was ‘location’. Matter is indeed perpetually located “somewhere”....matter may be here or there, and so on. So, location is not something that can come into being, it is not something that can just happen,....location just IS. Location is a static concept which allows us to conceptualize where matter resides...ie. is located. This is what I meant by location having no beginning and no end. Matter cannot pop from the void or disappear into the void. Matter always has location....there is no other way about it. This means that matter is eternal....it always existed, and will always exist. So for example, to say that “the universe is perpetual”, we mean that matter and space did not come into existence and they will not disappear. Is this clearer now?
“So, consummated events (as one type of events) - according to YOUR definition - are also concepts and as such they do not exist.”
Correct! This makes sense...only objects exist! Events do not exist, and are impossible to ‘exist’. You are struggling with this because you cannot define the word 'exist'.
“science is about consummated events”
Here is what I said from the record:
Fat: “Science is the STUDY of existence. Science studies that which only exists, or can possibly exist...i.e. objects!!”
Fat: “Yes, science is about explaining consummated events. This is what the “theory” stage of the sci method is about.”
So, let’s clear up your confusion below....
“science is about consummated events it is actually is about something that does not exist. It indeed sounds like non-sense but it directly follows from YOUR definitions.”
No! It does not directly follow from my definitions. And it SOUNDS like nonsense because YOU present it as such. So nobody is fooled by this sleight of hand trick. This is a non-sequitur trick on your part, and I know these games that theists & atheists play in order to put words in other people’s mouths. I know all the tricks. You DECIDED for all of us that it “follows” from my definitions....just like a theist decides for all of us that we will go to Hell if we don’t repent. It doesn’t work that way.
So, by looking at my statements above, a rational human will understand that Science is a field of study....the study of existence. Science specifically studies that which exists i.e. objects! Science does not study concepts....only Religion & Philosophy do that. Religions study gods, souls, demons, heaven, etc. Philosophy studies truth, lies, energy, time, multiple universes, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
This means that in science, the actors you illustrate in your Hypothesis must be nouns which can possibly exist..ie. they must be objects. Hence, in your Theory, you must use those actors (objects) in your hypothesis to explain WHY some natural phenomena occurred (consummated event). The consummated event does NOT exist because that is our conceptual description of what happened. For example, we can make a movie showing a pen falling to the floor. Now, in our Theory we must rationally explain WHY the pen fell to the floor by invoking object(s) in our Hypothesis. So if the object is an ‘angel’, we say that the angel came in contact with the pen and pulled it to the floor.
So, the consummated event is our conceptual description of WHAT happened to the pen....as we need to describe what happened using language, words, concepts, etc.
But the Theory is a rational explanation of WHY it happened...of WHY the pen was attracted to the floor. And we use our object, the angel, to explain exactly how the angel managed to get the pen to the floor. But in the Theory, ONLY ACTORS/OBJECTS can perform events. Concepts cannot pull pens from the air to the floor....only objects which exist can possibly do that.
Concepts like energy and 0D graviton spirits and warped space cannot pull pens to the floor. Only religions propose such nonsense!
This is what the sci method is about....from hypo to theory.
“"Fall" is a verb. You said that "The universe has no verbs." So what is YOUR answer to the question "did the pen actually fall on the floor"???”
Yes, there is only matter wrapped by space...there are no verbs floating out there in space and colliding with stars and planets. Verbs like “fall” and “running” do not fall to the floor....only objects which exist fall to the floor. Verbs cannot perform actions; only objects can.
Is a pen an object?
Does a pen have location? Is there a static distance between your nose and the pen?
If so, then the pen exists. If it exists, then of course it can fall to the floor when your cat pushes it off the desk.
I cannot understand why you are having so much trouble with these basics. You seem to be struggling so hard to show contradictions here, and that’s why you are making so many errors. You need to take a deep breath....relax....and try to comprehend what is said before jumping into strawman arguments and non-sequiturs.
“I cannot ascribe a verb ("fall") which is a concept to something that is in the Universe (a pen).”
Of course you can’t because you don’t understand the diff between object and concept, and you clearly don’t understand the Scientific Method.
You do not understand that when you release the pen from your hand, the pen undergoes multiple locations before it makes contact with the floor....irrespective of human observers. But humans call this process “motion” because of...er...um...ya know....the memory thing-a-majingy which you said you understood....right? We humans conceptualize the pen in “motion” and we call this concept FALL (one of our verbs)....understand now? But the universe is static, not dynamic because it has no state....only we have state and can remember the pen’s previous locations on its way to the floor. That is the difference.
OK, may be I misunderstood your definition of concept/object.
In order to make clear what I do not understand and what you do not understand (or both, or neither) let's proceed in small steps without lecturing or giving examples - short questions and short answers.
1. Concepts
Your definition: "Concepts are "relations" between objects, concepts do not have shape and do not exist".
You said that any word that can be used in many different contexts is ambiguous. You use the word "relation" in definition of concepts. Moreover, you put this word in quote marks which usually in linguistics is used to imply some specific or unconventional meaning. Clearly the word relation is used in many different contexts of human conversation - it can mean some static property (for example position of one building "relative" to another) or it can mean belonging to a same class of things (like presence or absence of relation between two humans with respect to a certain family) or it can mean physical connection. I think that your aforementioned definition of concept is therefore ambiguous.
So can you please in 1-2 clear and short sentences define "relation" or rewrite the definition of "concept" without using the word relation.
And you do not need to give examples or lengthy explanations. It is very clear to me that both me and you refer to "pen" as an object and "fall" as a concept and "green" as a concept and "happen" as a concept. But in order to prevent further misunderstanding I still ask you to provide unambiguous definition.
Maybe somewhere else in your arguments with others you already gave this another definition and I missed it - in this case I apologize and ask you to simply rewrite it.
2. Objects
a. You state that all atoms in the universe are connected via EM ropes and actually constitute a sort of a ONE huge mesh. Do you agree?
b.In this case any specific division of this mesh into parts (that we can then define as objects) is actually arbitrary and is a product of our perception. Then any specific definition of an "object" is also arbitrary and observer-dependent. Do you agree?
Vladimir,
“define "relation" or rewrite the definition of "concept" without using the word relation.”
My dear Vlad, it really doesn’t matter whether I define the word “relation”, “memory”, “the”, “but”, “have”, or every single word in the English dictionary. The bottom line is that you will still COMPLAIN that you don’t understand the definition of some word in the sentence. So we will be going down that path of endlessly defining words til the universe ends! If you wish to have a rational discussion with me, then please do so....but games, I do not play.
Nonetheless, the ordinary meaning of “relation” will suffice here. Just like when you were born, your parents (objects) established a relation with you (object)...called “child”. And you have further established relations in your family tree with relatives, friends, etc. It’s that simple.
So...what distinguishes a concept from an object is that a concept is artificial (man-made) and invokes a minimum of two objects. In other words, the definition of the word concept is predicated on the definition of the word object. If you are marooned on an island in the middle of nowhere with an ET, before you can communicate concepts to him, you must teach him the name of the objects. You point and say “rock,” “tree,” “coconut.” Before he understands verbs such as climb, knock, break, eat, and survive you must absolutely have a physical intermediary. Only then can you communicate to him sophisticated dynamic concepts, for example, that he should climb the tree and knock the coconut to the ground where you will break it with a rock so that you can both eat and thus survive.
You see, that is why concepts relate objects.....they depend on objects in order for them to be conceived. The concept “run” relates an object, the person performing the action, to another object, the ground. Concepts invoke objects in order to establish some kind of relationship between them which gives some kind of meaning to us....like “running”. This is why concepts can be defined, while objects cannot. This means that objects precede concepts. You cannot have concepts without objects. Concepts do not perform actions....only objects do. Therefore, time cannot dilate and space cannot bend/warp.....only objects can dilate and bend.
“You state that all atoms in the universe are connected via EM ropes and actually constitute a sort of a ONE huge mesh. Do you agree?”
Yes, this is the hypothesis.
“In this case any specific division of this mesh into parts (that we can then define as objects) is actually arbitrary and is a product of our perception.”
No. To say that an object is made of parts is called Mereology. Mereology is not a part of Science. It is a branch of religion....ie. God is made of up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit...and love and morals and righteousness and punishment...and .... This is perception and is irrelevant in science. The critical question which must be answered is: Is God an object, yes or no?
It’s that simple!
In Physics, all objects are ASSUMED to be made of a SINGLE PIECE. When you point to a table and say "table" there is no second guessing that it is made of pieces. This is how we distinguish one object from another and therefore have the capability to do Physics, which is the study of objects...specifically, objects that exist.
In Physics, an object is your exhibit in your Hypothesis which will be an actor in your Theory. The only requirement for a valid exhibit is that your proposed object has shape and location. All matter nouns qualify as objects in this sense. We point to a gold bar and call it gold, and we point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET does not yet know whether gold or butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment. He's just trying to learn a word and determine whether it resolves to something real, like an object which exists, or to something artificial, like a concept.
“Then any specific definition of an "object" is also arbitrary and observer-dependent. Do you agree?”
No way, absolutely not.
In physics we deal with objects in context. This means that we can do physics with a car colliding with another car. We can do physics with the molecules of the respective cars.....we can do physics with the atoms in the respective cars....etc. Car, molecule, atoms, EM rope, thread.....are all objects in their own right. We only do physics with ONE context at a time....it is in Religion where they intermix contexts and thus, creating RELATIONS i.e. concepts....like God, black hole, energy, time, spacetime, electron, proton, neutron, quark, singularity, photon, etc. And what’s worse, is that they now REIFY these relations into objects and move them around and transfer them...ie. the energy was transferred to the other car.
This is why Religionists like Relativists, Quantum Theorists, String Theorists, Born Again Christians, etc....are all LOST and haven’t a clue of what they are talking about or what they are observing. They think that a concept exists and can hit them over the head. Why? Because they have REIFIED it into an object. Fallacy of Reification!
Mereology plays no role in the definition of the word “object”. The definition of 'object' is NOT 'what it is made/composed of'.
You are right that we indeed can continue to try to define word by word indefinitely. However, I was not playing any game - you see that I did not ask you to define "nothing" "verb" "motion" etc. I ask only about very few and very key words. So please do not see it as a game. I am much better satisfied with your definition of "concept" as "something that is secondary to objects, it is artificial and invented by human-kind". Can we conclude that this is a definition of "concept"?
Now, if this is the definition, let's continue.
And please - we both proved to each other that we can use offensive language, let's not continue with it. If you disagree you can simply say that, and if I ask something again then it is because I probably missed something (and I quote from your argument with another person):
Fatfist:"The only stupid questions are the ones that don’t get asked. The fact that you are asking these things indicates that you care and want to understand."
1. Concepts
Statement A: ALL concepts are in our heads ONLY, they are not real and they are not objective, they ALL observer-dependent. There are absolutely NO observer-INdependent concepts.
Do you agree?
Statement B: Shape is a concept.
Do you agree?
Statement C: Can we define something that will be called "properties" as relations (see your definition of "relation") between the objects which are objective, real, OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT and upon presence of observer he/she PERCEIVES this properties as "concepts". Obviously, if this definition is rational, same properties can be perceived by different observers as different concepts and different properties can be perceived as the same concept.
If you agree that the definition is rational I will continue to use it, otherwise please show what is irrational about it.
(I had to ask you about the word "relation" before in order to use it in this definition. You see - I never ask questions just to bother or mock or irritate people, only to better understand and make the conversation more fruitful.)
2. Considering composition of objects.
Fatfist: "We point to a gold bar and call it gold, and we point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET does not yet know whether gold or butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment."
This is exactly what I am talking about as being "observer-dependent" - we (observers) name objects in order to communicate with another observer.
Lets assume we are on Moon and there we met ET. We point to Earth and say "Earth".
All the atoms which constitute an object which we call "Earth" exist absolutely independently of any observer - it makes sense. This is also rational to state that all the atoms in the immediate vicinity of the Earth (air) exist independently of the observer. However, the border between "what we call Earth" and the huge amount of atoms in the immediate vicinity of what "we call Earth" is absolutely dependent on the mechanism of the vision of the observer. And please note that I am not talking about a border between matter and space (nothing, vacuum) I am talking about an area in the space that is occupied by millions of atoms, but the distances between atoms in different subareas are different, we see (perceive) a border of the Earth since inside it interatomic distances are smaller than outside the Earth.
Let's suppose that ET has much better vision and can see air. Then he will probably tell as that the Earth is much bigger than we thought and includes the atmosphere (until a certain location where air molecules are so sparse that even he cannot see it).
Now let's assume that ET's vision is even better. He can see that the whole space between the Sun and the planets is filled with atoms (which is indeed so). Therefore, he perceives the Solar system as one object and when we sit with him in his space shuttle just outside the Solar system and point to Earth and Sun and say these are different objects he simply cannot perceive what are you talking about.
Fatfist:"In physics we deal with objects in context. This means that we can do physics with a car colliding with another car. We can do physics with the molecules of the respective cars.....we can do physics with the atoms in the respective cars....etc. Car, molecule, atoms, EM rope, thread.....are all objects in their own right. We only do physics with ONE context at a time...."
Please explain how you came to this strange conclusion of one context only. We definitely may rationally talk on at least two context levels. For example, two cars crush into each other (contexts of cars), one is completely damaged and the other one is not. Can you use their composition from different molecules (plastic, metal, etc) to explain this fact? Why not?
How you OBJECTIVELY determine what is one context and what is another? Suppose our vision is much better and we can simultaneously see both the car and car-composing molecules (it can be easily imagined if one of the two eyes you have has two lenses with muscles that adjust the distance between the lenses). Now molecules and cars are one context?? So do you define context based on the observer's vision acuity?
BTW
Fatfist: "In Physics, all objects are ASSUMED to be made of a SINGLE PIECE."
When two cars crash each into another and decompose into pieces which fly over the highway and those pieces damage other cars - can you physically explain this consummated event without ascribing all these pieces as being parts of a car??
Vladimir,
“definition of "concept" as "something that is secondary to objects, it is artificial and invented by human-kind"”
That is not a definition...that is a description. We define before we describe. A description just gives further qualifications.
A concept is a relationship between objects. I already gave you multiple examples, one was of kinship....this is simple and easy to understand. Concepts depend on objects,... this is why they establish relationships. What those relationships are, and what they mean, is up to the individual concept in question to define..ie. we define “running”. Understand?
“If you agree that the definition is rational I will continue to use it”
As I explained, it is not. Just think about what I said.
“There are absolutely NO observer-INdependent concepts.”
Yes, concepts are conceived by beings.
“Shape is a concept.”
Yes, it is a static concept...no question about it!
And before we go any further....let’s understand that the word OBJECT, is actually a concept!! All words are concepts. That is why we are able to define the term ‘object’.
“Can we define something that will be called "properties" as relations (see your definition of "relation") between the objects which are objective, real, OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT”
Real is a synonym for exist. So we can’t say they exist. But we can say they are objective. For example, “distance” is a relation between objects. Distance is our conception of the separation between objects. Objects have distance between them irrespective of an observer. The Earth and Moon were separated before humans evolved and conceived of the concept “distance”.
“we (observers) name objects in order to communicate with another observer.”
Yes, we do this before we present our theories to others. It is impossible to objectively define any object. All a human can do is point to an object (or illustrate it) and give it a name. If this object can possibly have location.. i.e. exist...then this object can now be regarded as an ACTOR in physics...in a hypothesis and theory. It’s that simple.
“However, the border between "what we call Earth" and the huge amount of atoms in the immediate vicinity of what "we call Earth" is absolutely dependent on the mechanism of the vision of the observer. “
In science we don’t care about observers and their opinions of what they can see or not see. In science we make things crystal clear in the Hypothesis stage by illustrating all of our objects. So if the ET has bad vision, we will draw for him a large image of the Earth and the Air surrounding it on a blackboard. We point to the ball and call it Earth...we point to object surrounding Earth and call it Air. These are now objects...they both have shape.
“Let's suppose that ET has much better vision and can see air. Then he will probably tell as that the Earth is much bigger than we thought and includes the atmosphere (until a certain location where air molecules are so sparse that even he cannot see it).”
Air is the name we give to a finite bundle of gas. It is an object. We can illustrate it on the blackboard. Air takes the shape gravity confers upon it. The foot of a Chinese woman takes the shape of the little shoe her husband wants her to wear. And the neck of the African woman takes on the shape according to the number of rings she puts between her chin and her shoulders.
It is irrelevant if we can take a microscope and show great distances of space between air molecules. This is Mereology, it has no place in science...as I explained before.
For example, you can be blind and water would still be a physical object. It just needs to have shape. If you can enclose these atoms with land and decide to call the entire thing a lake, then lake is an object. We have shape before us.
Can't see the edges? No problem! Let's go to the mountain and see the shape of the object from there.
“Therefore, he perceives the Solar system as one object and when we sit with him in his space shuttle just outside the Solar system and point to Earth and Sun and say these are different objects he simply cannot perceive what are you talking about.”
Irrelevant. If he cannot see what we are talking about, then we draw it for him on the blackboard and make it crystal clear. This is what the Hypothesis stage of the sci method is all about. This stage ensures that there is no ambiguity of what we are talking about before we even go to the Theory stage where we begin to rationally explain WHY natural phenomena occur the way they do.
“For example, two cars crush into each other (contexts of cars), one is completely damaged and the other one is not.”
Great! Now we are dealing exclusively with one context...the one which deals only with the object ‘car’. Now we can explain why the other car wasn’t damaged. Was it because it had a superior rigidity, shock absorption.....was it because....blah blah.
“Can you use their composition from different molecules (plastic, metal, etc) to explain this fact?”
Great! Now we are dealing exclusively with one context...the one which deals only with the object ‘molecule’. Now we can explain why the molecules lost their bonds or why they changed locations.....or why they collided the way they did....etc.
The point is....once we mix cars and molecules together, we do not have an object....we have a concept....a RELATION. A car and a molecule is not an object. They are 2 different objects. Once we relate them in a sentence, then we invented some concept with some meaning.
“Now molecules and cars are one context??”
If your hypothesis makes this statement, then it is alluding to a concept.
“So do you define context based on the observer's vision acuity?”
No, this is not an issue catering to opinions. We simply illustrate the object in our hypothesis. And we illustrate it at the contextual level we wish to deal with for the purposes of OUR theory. For example, the car insurance companies deal with physical collisions at the contextual level of a ‘car’. They do not deal with molecules or atoms of cars. But this doesn’t mean that they cannot rationally explain WHY the collision occurred. They often do.
“When two cars crash each into another and decompose into pieces which fly over the highway and those pieces damage other cars - can you physically explain this consummated event without ascribing all these pieces as being parts of a car??”
In order to explain such complexities, in physics we break them down into sub-events. The main event was the collision. We explain why it happened. After pieces started flying and hitting other cars, we deal with each piece as a separate sub-event. Like I said....keeping things in context ensures that we present our theory rationally, and without ascribing causes to concepts.
1. Properties
You agreed that object can possess observer-independent properties which are perceived by sentient beings as concepts. For example these are properties of "separation between an object and another object or an object and vacuum" (enabling us to define concepts of shape and distance). Are there other objective observer-independent properties rationally possible except shape and distance? For example, mass is our concept. However, do you agree that there is a possibility of a certain observer-independent property of objects that underlies this observer-dependent concept?
If shape is a concept AND concepts are definitely observer-dependent (both these claims agreed by you above) then shape is observer-dependent. Sequetur or non-sequetur? If non-sequetur please point where is the logical flaw.
It is also evident from your example of the lake: depending on the observer (one on the mountain and one in the valley) they will draw the same lake on the blackboard differently. So do they refer to the same object or not? How they can unambiguously agree?
2. Objects
a. Is hurricane an object? It has no any definable objective border that can be drawn even if you are on the mountain. So can we state that hurricane exist?
What about wind? Is wind an object?
b. Simply calling a theory "mereology" or any other name does not make it irrational. You have to point specifically where the rationality is lost. You nicely defined all the requirements for rationality. Please tell me what is irrational in a theory that states "this car consists of doors, chassie, motor and ..." - I can find a specific drawing in the book the manifacturer usually supplied with a car. It just relates one type of objects with another, it does not assume concepts performing verbs or verbs performing on concepts, there are no supernatural beings involved. It is also very frequently used by insurance companies to calculate how much many to pay you for the damaged car. What is irrational?
c. You said that objects can not begin to exist and not stop to exist. I can now take a "table" from my backyard and put it on fire and after very short time there will be no "table". Obviously, the atoms that this table was consistent of continue to exist, but not the table. So in order to explain apparent "disappearance" of the table (which is a consummated event) I use the theory of composition of the table from the atoms which can be precisely shown as a movie or a picture. Again - what is irrational in this argument?
d.If you still maintain that the above examples are irrational arguments, please refer me to a textbook of physics where it is explicitly stated that physics deals with objects only as a whole single pieces and throughout the textbook this rule is consistently applied. This will save me a lot of time. I myself unaware of such a textbook.
Vladimir,
“You agreed that object can possess observer-independent properties which are perceived by sentient beings as concepts.”
An object, in and of itself, has only one observer-independent property...shape. This is the only intrinsic property an object can possibly have. That's what the ETs are conceptualizing when you say “ball”. So far, this ball thing is not made of parts (description, mereology). It doesn't have size (comparison). It doesn't have mass (relation). It doesn't have color (comparison), or any other attribute you can possibly think of. To the ET, there is conceptual difference between a ball and a cube, and this difference first and foremost has to do with “shape”, and not with the physical properties of the objects.
Any other properties we attribute to objects are extrinsic because they invoke a second object.
For example, mass requires an extrinsic object -- a scale of sorts -- and an observer. Mass also requires the observer to define an artificial standard (e.g., the kilogram).
“If shape is a concept AND concepts are definitely observer-dependent (both these claims agreed by you above) then shape is observer-dependent. Sequetur or non-sequetur?”
There is only one intrinsic property that an object can have...shape! Shape is the only observer-independent property an object has. The Moon had better have “shape” before any being evolved on the Earth....otherwise we have a LOT of explaining to do....specifically, how did the Moon acquire shape at the instant the first being looked at it.....ridiculous....
“they will draw the same lake on the blackboard differently. So do they refer to the same object or not? How they can unambiguously agree?”
Irrelevant. The question is not WHAT the shape of the lake is.....the question is: Does the lake have shape? Yes or No? We are not looking for any accuracy or proper scale in the illustration. We are simply trying to understand what the lake generally looks like and if it has shape....so we can determine if it is an object of physics or not.....so we can determine whether the lake can be an ACTOR in our Hypothesis and Theory.
“hurricane....wind”
We cannot draw or take a picture of a hurricane or wind. Unlike atom and air, which have shape, hurricane and wind are dynamic concepts. Atoms and air are objects which can be presented in our Hypothesis. Hurricane and wind does not refer to an object we can illustrate or point to. In order to understand the meaning of the words hurricane and wind, we must watch a movie. Hurricane and wind is not a hypothesis, but a theory, i.e. a rational explanation for how the object air behaves.
“Please tell me what is irrational in a theory that states "this car consists of doors, chassie, motor and ..." - I can find a specific drawing in the book the manifacturer usually supplied with a car.”
First of all, you still don’t understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A car is a hypothesized object, never a theory. Similarly for doors, motor, drawings, etc. A theory rationally explains a consummated event using the proposed objects in the hypothesis.
“this car consists of doors, chassie, motor and ........It just relates one type of objects with another, it does not assume concepts performing verbs or verbs performing on concepts”
This is not a relation. This is a description. You are describing the composition of the object car and all of the objects involved. You are not defining any concepts. This belongs in the hypothesis stage. This is not a theory.
“I use the theory of composition of the table from the atoms..... “
No you don’t. There is no such theory. This is a hypothesis. You must ASSUME in your hypothesis that the table is made from atoms, and be able to illustrate what an atom looks like for the purposes of your presentation. Since you are dealing with atoms in this context, then your Theory will now rationally explain WHY the atoms separated from each other during this event, and what happened to the atoms after completion of the event.
“which can be precisely shown as a movie or a picture”
You hypothesis must show an illustration of what an atom looks like. Then for the purposes of your theory, you should be able to make a movie which rationally explains why the atoms separated.....and show the whole event without missing frames.
Hypotheses have illustrations of all objects, definitions of key terms, and set the initial scene.
Theories are movies which rationally explain the event.
“please refer me to a textbook of physics where it is explicitly stated that physics deals with objects only as a whole single pieces and throughout the textbook this rule is consistently applied.”
What if I did show you one textbook? Would that satisfy you? Or would you say that there are thousands of textbooks which outnumber this one, therefore we should discount it because it is out-voted?
You see what you are doing? You are making an argument from popularity and authority.....you are using confirmation bias. You are using consensus of opinion to confirm your personal bias. This is a fallacy in any argument. Your argument needs to have merit on its own. This means that you need to use critical thinking to rationally explain your position...not rely on the opinions of some High Priests to support your argument. This is what they do in Religion.
The bottom line is.....these are the questions you need to answer:
1) Is Physics the study of objects, specifically objects that exist? Yes or No?
2) Does the DEFINITION of the term OBJECT say anything about what it is made of, composed of, or what parts it has? If yes, how can it be when we are not talking about a specific object? You should know, that it is impossible to define any specific object...like ‘coconut’ for example. We only point at objects and utter a sound to label them i.e. name them.
3) Define the term OBJECT scientifically ie. Unambiguously, rationally, observer-independently.
Vladimir,
The definition of 'object' is NOT 'what it is made of'. The definition of ‘object’ is predicated on the whole object itself. There is no provision for parts or components, as this is ludicrous in an observer-independent definition.
1. Objectivity of shape
"There is only one intrinsic property that an object can have...shape! Shape is the only observer-independent property an object has. The Moon had better have “shape” before any being evolved on the Earth....otherwise we have a LOT of explaining to do....specifically, how did the Moon acquire shape at the instant the first being looked at it.....ridiculous...."
It is definitely ridiculous to assume that Moon acquired shape after being looked at IF the shape is observer-independent property. But this is a very big IF. I can claim that shape is observer-dependent and only perceived by sentient beings as a border separating two areas with different density of matter. So matter existed before observers, all the atoms existed before observers, the dense collection of atoms in the "what we call Moon" existed before observers, the less dense collection of atoms surrounding the "what we call Moon" existed before observers, but "what we call Moon" itself is a result of our arbitrary (due to our vision) perceiving of the border between the areas of atoms with two different densities. In this sense "what we call Moon" is actually a result of comparison between two things - two areas of matter with very different density of atoms. This will be ALWAYS the case with shape - you cannot point to anything and claim it is an object unless you can perceive this comparison of two areas of the matter. Therefore, I can claim that the only objects that exist observer-independently are atoms constituting the matter, matter density is different in different areas of space and areas with higher density are arbitrarily called "objects" by the sentient beings. Those objects are observer-dependent as well as their shape and they did not exist before observers looked at them (despite all the atoms constituting them did exist).
2. You say that "car being consistent of doors, chassie etc" is a description belonging to hypothesis phase as well as "table consists of atoms". OK. Please note that I am not trying to DEFINE this objects by their composition. I am claiming that they have parts - that's all. As far as I can draw all the objects and all the parts, I am asking you again - what is irrational about these claims according to your definition of rationality and why you are opposing these claims calling them "mereology" if I am not using the parts for definition but for description? And please note that here I am pursuing a different argument from one I described in the previous section.
3 "What if I did show you one textbook? Would that satisfy you? Or would you say that there are thousands of textbooks which outnumber this one, therefore we should discount it because it is out-voted?"
You are ASSUMING why I am asking for the textbook without any basis!!! Please stop to ascribe to me things I never told as you do not like when others do this to you. I asked for a textbook reference only in order to see how the approach proposed by you fully and consistently explains all the "consummated events" known to us since trying to get this information from you on the web is quite time-consuming and inefficient (as I explicitly pointed out in my note). Then I can myself decide whether the explanation is indeed rational and consistent throughout. Whether this textbook is 1 or 1000 and how many "authorities" are involved is irrelevant for me exactly for the reasons you brought.
3. May I ask you what is your primary occupation? This is just for my curiosity. Mine is medicine (I am a physician).
Just to make a clarification of the claim "macroscopic objects did not exist before the observer but the atoms did" - it is equivalent to the claim "all the matter included in and between the stars in the Orion constellation existed before observers" BUT "Orion constellation" is an irrelevant clause without an observer - only observer "picks up" 7 stars and names them Orion. "Orion" is purely observer-dependent and has no sense objectively despite the notion that all the matter INCLUDED in Orion IS objective.
It is actually quite similar to your own notion in another hub:
Fatfist:
"Personally, I can only conceive of atoms always existing, and not more complex objects than that.
Why?
Because a complex object (aggregate of atoms) can always be broken down into its atom constituents."
Fatfist: "Define the term OBJECT scientifically ie. Unambiguously, rationally, observer-independently."
Definition: "Object: that which has shape and location AND exists eternally."
Atoms are objects according to this definition, but any specific GROUP of atoms is an arbitrary perception by the sentient beings of a specific small PART of the total existing objects.
Then "groups of objects" can be defined in each hypothesis (with exact specification of its parts and inerrelations between them) and further used for explanations.
You see - I do not use parts description for definition of what is object, I only use it in Hypothesis - and you already agreed that this usage is OK.
Vladimir,
“ I can claim that shape is observer-dependent and only perceived by sentient beings as a border separating two areas with different density of matter. “
Shape refers to spatial separation....i.e. in the universe there is either something (has shape) or nothing (has no shape)....there is no other option...ever! There are no spirits or souls that are half-way between shape and no-shape.
And this has nothing to do with observers...it has to do with critical thinking. Shape is intrinsic and observer-independent to any object. This is what distinguishes the object (something) from nothing. Any other distinguishing property your can think of is always observer-dependent.
“what we call Moon" itself is a result of our arbitrary (due to our vision) perceiving of the border between the areas of atoms with two different densities. “
Density is an observer-dependent concept which requires a being to make a comparison.
Did the Moon exist before a being first looked at it...yes or no? If yes, then the moon had shape all on its own, without any observer to see and give an opinion about it.
“you cannot point to anything and claim it is an object unless you can perceive this comparison of two areas of the matter.”
Irrelevant. A blind man cannot point at the moon and cannot see it.....so does the moon not have shape...does the moon not exist? Ridiculous argument.
And we don’t need to see any matter or any physical object in front of us. You still don’t understand the sci method. All objects are illustrated at the Hypothesis stage of the sci method. If the proponent cannot bring God to the Physics Conference for show & tell, does that mean that God does not exist? Ludicrous. In science we illustrate God on the blackboard. Then there is no question of whether God has shape or not, and whether God can be the actor in a theory.
“Therefore, I can claim that the only objects that exist observer-independently are atoms constituting the matter”
Ridiculous claim! Cars are objects and they collide. Car collisions are the subject matter of physics; so are planets, asteroids, stars, etc. Physics studies objects.
“Those objects are observer-dependent as well as their shape and they did not exist before observers looked at them”
So the Earth did not exist before Adam looked at it from the Garden of Eden, huh? Then please explain how the Earth BEGAN to exist....did it acquire Length first, before it acquired Width and Height...or vice versa?
“why you are opposing these claims calling them "mereology" if I am not using the parts for definition but for description? “
I am not. You can describe all you want....it remains a description....not an object, nor a definition, nor a theory. A description is not an object. An object is that which has shape. An object is what we point at in the Physics Conference and give it a name. Then we use that object as an actor in our theory to explain a phenomena....never to describe a phenomena. It is irrelevant whether the object has parts. If it has parts, then those objects will be separate actors in another theory.
"Object: that which has shape and location AND exists eternally."
So then the Moon is not an object according to your definition. A car is not an object either. Therefore planets, moons, rocks, stars, cars, billiard balls are not the subject matter of physics because they are not eternal. We cannot do physics with these entities because they are not objects....according to you.
So car A and car B cannot possibly collide together because they are not objects...according to you. So car insurance companies should shut down their doors and go out of business soon.
Interesting....
And what is more interesting....is that when a physicist goes to the Physics Conference and illustrates an atom on the blackboard, or even a proton, neutron, electron, etc......this illustration is NOT an object. This illustration is NOT the subject matter of Physics. It cannot be part of any hypothesis or theory.
Wanna take another shot at rationally defining object?
Fatfist:
"So then the Moon is not an object according to your definition. A car is not an object either. Therefore planets, moons, rocks, stars, cars, billiard balls are not the subject matter of physics because they are not eternal. We cannot do physics with these entities because they are not objects....according to you."
This is not what I claim. I did not claim that we CANNOT DO PHYSICS. Please try to follow:
1. Atoms are eternal observer-independent objects.
2. Matter is eternal observer-independently exists and it is defined as an aggregate of all the atoms.
3. Nothing else exists.
4. Atoms are eternally occupy multiple different locations and therefore the distances between them can be different.
Note, that I completely agree with your definition of objective shape - something that is used in the definition of the term "object". Object must be surrounded ONLY by nothingness. Then you can say that the shape is objective and observer-independent. BUT, lake, air, your brain, all other so-called objects are not surrounded by nothingness while you are pointing to them! They are surrounded by other objects. Lake is surrounded by ground, not by nothingness!
Only atoms are truly surrounded by nothingness accordingly only them are the only observer-independent objects.
So now lets look how our perception works and what physics is about.
1. We interact with the environment and arbitrarily "pick up" out of it aggregates of objects. These aggregates do exist since each and every one of the atoms in this aggregate do exist. This is a Hypothesis: aggregates of atoms do exist. The fact that stupid human ape can draw things on the blackboard or utter meaningless sounds has nothing to do with objects and their existence. All these pictures and names are purely our brain's products. We name or draw different aggregates of atoms, that's it. Then those aggregates of atoms are treated as actors in theory. They collide, pay premiums, write in the blogs, etc.
And see - everything is absolutely rational according to your criteria. No verbs on concepts, no concepts performing verbs, my definitions are observer-independent and unambiguous.
Please try to follow my example of Orion constellation - it is very clear.
Fatfist: "Interesting...."
Yes!!!
PS: still waiting for your advice on a physics textbook and hope you will not mind to tell me your occupation.
Physics and Science is only about things that exist eternally or about aggregates of them. Anything else is different types of "engineering" - useful (helps survive) for human apes for their interaction with the environment. So car collisions, billiard, rocks... - engineering, not Science.
If you want to argue - tell me where exactly MY argument is irrational according to your criteria. Anything else is non-sequeturs, strawmen and your opinion (i.e., irrelevant).
"Moon" is ape's conceptualization of a certain (arbitrary picked up by the ape) aggregate of atoms. Aggregate of atoms (the one that invoked the concept of "Moon" in the ape) exists in reality independently of ape (this is a hypothesis). "Moon" is in the ape's brain only (by definition).
Vladimir,
Vlad: “This is not what I claim. I did not claim that we CANNOT DO PHYSICS.”
Vlad: "Object: that which has shape and location AND exists eternally."
Cars, planets, stars, chairs, asteroids, etc.. do NOT exist eternally. Do you understand this much? Read your defn of object again. It disqualifies these things as ‘objects’. Your definition contradicts all you’ve said.
Please feel free to provide a scientific definition of ‘object’. I am willing to give you as many tries as you like.
“Matter is eternal observer-independently exists and it is defined as an aggregate of all the atoms.”
What do you mean by ‘exist’?
Exist: object having a location
Matter is a collection of atoms. Thus, matter is NOT an object as per YOUR definition....just as a CAR is NOT an object like you’ve stated. Hence, matter does NOT exist...according to you!
Obviously, defining ‘object’ is not as simple and haphazard as you think it is.
Your defn of ‘object’ is not consistent....it is ambiguous and irrational at best.....therefore it is unscientific.
Please feel free to provide a scientific definition of ‘object’
“BUT, lake, air, your brain, all other so-called objects are not surrounded by nothingness while you are pointing to them!”
Irrelevant. This is not an observer-dependent issue. This is an issue of rationality. Is a ‘brain’ an object....yes or no? I don’t give a shit if you put this brain inside a box, under the sea, or in a freezer. If I cut a person’s head open, can I remove a brain?...an object with shape all on its own? Can I draw a brain on the blackboard....or is the person’s head, blood and veins preventing me from drawing it? Do you understand what a scientific Hypothesis is about? Surely, a physician PhD such as yourself should understand these very basic matters of science.
Surely you have performed a biopsy to remove some little OBJECT from a person’s body....and we can illustrate this object on the blackboard so other medical students can see and conceptualize the object of the biopsy....right?
If an irregular malignant mole you removed from the person’s body is NOT an object....according to YOU....then how can it be possible for a surgeon to conceptualize it, locate it, cut an outline of its shape, and remove it in a biopsy??
That mole was not eternal....but it is indeed an object....that which has shape. It’s that simple.
All objects in human language are pointed at and named. And the reason why we can do this is because they have shape, ...or we can hypothesize them to have shape and illustrate them on the blackboard (in case our poor eyes cannot see them, like you said). And this is why a physicist will illustrate his objects in a movie in order to explain his theory....for if he didn’t, then what is the ‘subject’ of his theory...nothingness?
A PhD should know these basics of human language and the sci method.
“Only atoms are truly surrounded by nothingness accordingly only them are the only observer-independent objects.”
Nonsense to the N-th degree!!!
To moon is an object....it has shape on its own.....and it is surrounded by nothingness (space), for if it wasn’t, it would not be able to change locations. Which part are you having trouble with?
“This is a Hypothesis: aggregates of atoms do exist. “
This is NOT a hypothesis. This is a DESCRIPTION! For the N-th time, do you understand the difference??
A hypothesis of the atom will illustrate the atom. A theory will explain WHY atoms attract each other and aggregate together. We never assume attraction in a hypothesis. You should already know this. A hypothesis is static. A Theory is dynamic. A PhD physician should know the basics of the scientific method!
Why would atoms attract each other and aggregate? What causes them to do this? You need to explain this in the THEORY....not hypothesize it. Understand?
“The fact that stupid human ape can draw things on the blackboard or utter meaningless sounds has nothing to do with objects and their existence.”
Of course it doesn’t. But it has to do with PHYSICS and RATIONALY explaining events with objects...like planets, stars, asteroids, cars, hammers.....are u with me? This is EXACTLY what the scientific method is all about. Without objects....we cannot do physics!
The physicist who works with Car Insurance Claim Adjusters, does NOT do physics with atoms....he does physics with objects we call CARS! This single example contradicts your defn of ‘object’. You defn is NOT Scientific and it has nothing to do with Physics! Which part don’t you understand?
“So car collisions, billiard, rocks... - engineering, not Science.”
Bullshit to the N-th degree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Science is about rationally explaining theories. There has to be a consummated event to be explained. This event was mediated by objects, not concepts. The pen fell to the floor is an event. Pen is the object.....not atom or aggregates of atoms. A pen is not an atom. A pen is NOT an ‘aggregate’ of atoms. An aggregate is NOT an object...it is a CONCEPT. Concepts only move in Religion, not science.
God is the ‘aggregate’ of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Mereology has to do with Religion....not science. Repeat this until you learn it.
“"Moon" is in the ape's brain only (by definition).”
Yep....makes sense. When an asteroid lands on the moon, it has actually landed inside an ape’s brain......uhhh....duh...for sure!
Vladimir,
Vlad: “I totally agree with your statement that time is something in the sentient's observer head as a result of his neuronal memory and non-sentient objects like Moon do not have neuronal memory. Satisfied?”
Vlad: “It is very clear to me that both me and you refer to "pen" as an object “
Vlad: “All the atoms which constitute an object which we call "Earth" exist absolutely independently of any observer - it makes sense. “
Vlad: "Moon" is in the ape's brain only (by definition).”
My dear Vladimir.....your PhD ain’t worth a bucket full of crap. When a shoe-shine boy (my profession) like me can showcase your contradictions and make you out to be an idiot and a troll, then you should not be bragging about having a medical degree. It makes you look like a damn fool.
You see, Vlad, I have been doing this level of critical thinking a lot longer than you have. I eat idiots like you for breakfast here day in and day out. And when you say that the moon, the earth, a pen, etc are OBJECTS.....then you retroactively amend your definitions in order to protect your Religious Argument and claim that the moon is a CONCEPT (in our brain).....then you are an idiot who is out of here. You are soooooo done man!!!!!
1. If any macroscopic thing is placed in nothingness (in vacuum)it is not surrounded actually by nothingness but by gas that is produced by sublimation of the molecules and atoms from its surface. This is why I wrote that your claim that objects (according to your definition of object) are surrounded by nothingness looks to me wrong. You used this "surrounding by nothingness" in your definition of the object (please correct me if I am wrong) but this is not what reality is. Only we while looking at them perceive them as surrounded by nothingness.
2. I asked about your occupation not to make any comparisons with myself or anybody else, I have respect to all people irrespective of their occupation, and I already explicitly wrote that I do not have any taste for authorities. I just thought that maybe you are involved in writing some textbooks that more systematically apply your framework to the physical phenomena explanations (I will appreciate if you point to one if such exists). I do not have PhD. You wrote in some place that medicine is not a science - here I agree with you for many different reasons.
3. I take for granted that you have much more time spent in reasoning. This is why it is interesting for me to have the dialogue. I am thinking along the lines and if you see the contradictions or problems with the argument - I accept it and trying to fix what has to be fixed. I am not trying to prove anything to anybody or to "trick" – I simply trying to follow a certain rational line of reasoning and to share it with an experienced person and if I make mistakes – I try to fix them. That's all.
"Objects are only those things that have shape (i.e. surrounded by nothing and not by other objects) and are eternal."
This definition of the object I gave is not irrational by itself and is not ambiguous. You point out that cars, planets etc are not objects according to this definition. You are right, they are not according to this definition. This is still not something irrational if the definition is rational, unless you a priori ASSUME that car is an object (which by itself is a rational hypothesis). But it does not make all other hypotheses irrational. There (theoretically at least) can be many different rational hypotheses and theories. So the fact that my definition of "object" does not include things which are "objects" according to another definition is by itself is not irrational.
What about explanation of consummated events such as car collisions, asteroids landing on Moon, pen falling on the floor? My definition has to allow for a rational theory that will successfully explain these events, I agree. What you are rightly pointed out is that using word "aggregate" was ambiguous as it has a meaning of attraction and therefore is a verb and a concept. This was not my intention – I was wrong in using it in a hypothesis, I should use it in a theory.
So in order to explain a consummated event conceptualized by us and car insurance guys as "car collision" I will hypothesize that atoms exist, then I will draw all the atoms involved in the aforementioned event (collision) and make a movie of how each and every one of them (atoms) is moving during the collision, I will also have to describe all the interactions between the atoms involved. The same can be done with Moon and asteroid. What moves and interacts is not an aggregate, you are right, but atoms.
Do you agree that the sentence "groups of atoms are moving" is rational?
4. The "contradictions" you pointed out in your last passage are not WITHIN one argument: we were having two different discussions. One is within the framework of your definitions. Then I said we bth agree that pen and Moon are objects. The OTHER discussion is whether the definition of object I later in our conversation proposed is another rational ALTERNATIVE and can be used for rational hypotheses and theories as well. I asked this question and made some claims within this different framework. Clearly, if the definitions are different many other concepts will be different. This is not a contradiction within one framework but a difference between two frameworks. This difference is legitimate.
Vladimir,
“If any macroscopic thing is placed in nothingness (in vacuum)it is not surrounded actually by nothingness but by gas that is produced by sublimation of the molecules and atoms from its surface.”
Irrelevant. You can put a coin in your pocket and it will be surrounded by another object – the lining material of your pocket. The coin still remains an object. The Earth is surrounded by air, but is still an object. The coin and the earth do not lose their shape once they are surrounded by another object.
But most importantly, the coin and the earth and air are surrounded by space (nothingness)...for if they weren’t, then they would not be able to change location.....the Earth would not be able to move around the Sun and the atmosphere would not be able to move and mediate weather phenomena. All these objects are surrounded by nothingness. That’s why they have shape – they are ‘something’ rather than nothing.
I will repeat it again since I know you skipped over this crucial part...... But most importantly, the coin and the earth and air are surrounded by space (nothingness)...for if they weren’t, then they would not be able to change location.....the Earth would not be able to move around the Sun and the atmosphere would not be able to move and mediate weather phenomena. All these objects are surrounded by nothingness. That’s why they have shape – they are ‘something’ rather than nothing.
“your claim that objects (according to your definition of object) are surrounded by nothingness”
This is NOT a claim, because it is not a theory, nor a consummated event. The Big Bang is a claim. God’s creation is a claim. Again, misuse of the sci. Method. This is a rational definition stemming from critical thought (which nobody wishes to do anymore). We don’t need evidence for this. If absolutely ALL objects in the Universe were not surrounded by space, then there would be no motion (we would be frozen in one location forever) and there would be no objects. In this scenario which you propose (objects are not surrounded by space), the Universe would be a single solid brick of matter and no object, much less an atom, would move. Clearly, this is not the case. So your definition of ‘object’ is irrational.
Vlad: "Objects are only those things that have shape (i.e. surrounded by nothing and not by other objects) and are eternal."
Vlad: “This definition of the object I gave is not irrational by itself and is not ambiguous. “
Yes it is irrational, for many reasons:
1) If by this definition you say that an atom is an object. Then a group of atoms bunched together are not individual objects as per your defn. Why? Because it circularly contradicts itself. If atom H is surrounded by other atoms, then your defn states that that atom H is no longer an object.
2) Regardless, to have shape means to have spatial separation...i.e. to be something rather than nothing. Absolutely all objects are surrounded by nothingness, as explained above.
3) The word eternal has to do with existence. Existence never belongs in a definition. Existence belongs strictly in a hypothesis: Let us assume that gravitons exist and are eternal. Theory: Now I will explain why atoms perpetually attract each other....
4) Definitions of key terms have to be objectively scientific and have the ability to be used consistently. Yours is circular and contradictory. And worse still, it embodies existence within it.
“You point out that cars, planets etc are not objects according to this definition. You are right, they are not according to this definition.”
Then we cannot do physics with this definition of object you have given us.
Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects! Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification). It is Philosophy which studies concepts... and religion which deals with the motion of concepts.
In Physics, only nouns are objects. This is the subject of study. Everything else is a concept. Only objects can be referenced by articles of grammar. Hence, the ‘asteroid’ collided with the ‘moon’ is an event studied by physics. Asteroid and Moon are objects in and of themselves. It is irrelevant what their composition is. In this context, we are not studying the collision of atoms. We can only hypothesize collisions of atoms, and this is part of a separate context and theory. But in the present context, it is the objects asteroid and moon which collided...the nouns of our study.
“unless you a priori ASSUME that car is an object (which by itself is a rational hypothesis). “
This has nothing to do with a priori or a posteriori. Assuming the car is an object is NOT a hypothesis. This is what stems from the DEFINITION of object.
“So the fact that my definition of "object" does not include things which are "objects" according to another definition is by itself is not irrational.”
And this is where you do not understand science. In science there is only ONE definition which can be used consistently. Scientific terms are objective and rational. They cannot have multiple definitions, like they do in Religion.
“So in order to explain a consummated event conceptualized by us and car insurance guys as "car collision" I will hypothesize that atoms exist, then I will draw all the atoms involved in the aforementioned event (collision) and make a movie of how each and every one of them (atoms) is moving during the collision”
Please tell me EXACTLY how many and what kind of atoms my car has. It is a 2006 Opel Astra. Please illustrate all these atoms for the jury. My car was just in an accident. Should I leave it in the middle of the road until YOU come and COUNT & CATALOGUE all the atoms of my car? How long will it take you to do this before you can explain the collision of the ‘atoms’ to the insurance company? I mean, I would like to be compensated for my car in this lifetime! Do you think you can illustrate all the atoms in my car before you die?
It is not a hypothesized entity, like an atom, which collided for the purposes of Car Insurance Physics. It is a real entity which we have before us – the car! The term ‘object’ has to be used consistently across ALL contexts. Otherwise it is unscientific. And physics most certainly does deal with many contexts depending on the discipline. But the term object is used consistently.
Clearly, we don’t do car physics with atoms. We do it with the OBJECT car!
“I will also have to describe all the interactions between the atoms involved. The same can be done with Moon and asteroid. “
Great! Please tell me EXACTLY how many atoms the Moon has right this very second. We need to know this before we can do any sort of physics with the Moon at the atomic level. We need to illustrate each and every single atom of the Moon, its change of locations, its interaction with other atoms, etc. Can you do that? If not, then you are not doing physics. You are doing Religion. Talking about it and doing it, are two different issues.
“What moves and interacts is not an aggregate, you are right, but atoms.”
Great! Please tell me EXACTLY how many atoms the moon has. Label each atom and tell us what kind it is (H, C, N, Fe, etc). Please show the jury an image of this, or reference one anywhere on the internet. Should we ask NASA to prepare a Moon mission to send you there, so you can COUNT and CATALOGUE each atom of the Moon BEFORE we can explain its collision with the asteroid?
How about the collision of 2 stars....should NASA prepare a mission to land you on both stars to count their atoms and catalogue them?
How many billions of years will it take you to complete your mission? We need to know, because we need an explanation of this collision event. Do you even realize how ridiculous your argument is?
Clearly, we don’t do Moon-Asteroid physics with atoms. We do it with the OBJECTS moon and asteroid!
“Do you agree that the sentence "groups of atoms are moving" is rational?”
No, you are sti
Fatfist,
You raised several issues that I would like to address, I will do one at a time.
BTW, if you happen to visit Los Angeles - I invite you for a lunch in a restaurant of your favorite cuisine - I pay. The only condition - we will NOT speak of definitions, space and all this sh*** - only about chicks, entertainment and travel.
Back to the argument.
Fatfist: "The Earth is surrounded by air, but is still an object."
Fatfist: "But most importantly, the coin and the earth and air are surrounded by space (nothingness)"
I do not understand how both are physically possible. So both air and nothingness surround the Earth? Is it in layers - a very thin layer of nothingness just around the Earth and then comes air? Can you draw a picture for me and point out "here is Earth", "here is air" and "here is nothingness that surrounds Earth"? Of course nothingness cannot be drawn by itself, but only as something that separates the drawn objects. So does a layer of nothingness separate earth and air? Or do you imply different meaning to the term "surround" when it refers to air versus nothingness?
Again - I am not trying to mock or make fun, just to understand better.
Sorry....remainder of chopped off last post:
“Do you agree that the sentence "groups of atoms are moving" is rational?”
No, you are still moving concepts. This is a relation of atoms and their bonds...a concept. Concepts do not move in physics. Only individual objects (single atom in this case) can possibly move. You need to illustrate every single atom and how it changes location. Can you do that for my car and the Moon? How many billions of years should we wait for you to do this? And who will verify your results? Otherwise you are stuck illustrating the objects car and Moon!
“if the definitions are different many other concepts will be different. This is not a contradiction within one framework but a difference between two frameworks. This difference is legitimate.”
This is Religion!!!!!
Science is about defining your terms consistently across all contexts/frameworks. This is what makes definitions objective i.e. scientific. You are not allowed to redefine your terms to self-righteously serve your various biased arguments. I hope you realize this about definitions.
I hope to see your comment on my previous post then I will make another one.
Vladimir,
“BTW, if you happen to visit Los Angeles - I invite you for a lunch”
I have been there before, but I may visit again. Thanks for the offer....and yeah, I love talking about chicks, fun, travel over drinks.....oh shit do I ever!!
“So both air and nothingness surround the Earth? Is it in layers - a very thin layer of nothingness just around the Earth and then comes air?”
Yes, both.
No, air and nothingness do not surround the Earth in layers. Space (nothingness) is nothing...it is not something...it is not an object...it’s shapeless....it cannot be layered. Space is dimensionless, sizeless, colorless, temperatureless, ....insert any negated word here!
Space is the antithesis of the word object. We cannot contain space with a physical entity or medium (like a vacuum chamber) or with a concept (thought, dimension, etc.) because there is nothing to contain. We cannot escape space because there is no boundary to cross.
The void is the opposite of being, it is not-being. So space is just another concept. Space is a synonym of 'nothing' (as opposed to 'something'). Hence, space cannot layer an object...only another object can do this.
There are only objects and concepts, nothing else. An object is 'that which has shape', and a concept doesn’t. Space falls into the latter category. Space is a subset of the category called 'concepts'. Space is nothing real...it does not exist. It is the antithesis of existence.
Unlike other concepts such as love or beauty or intelligence, space is one of the two conceptual components of the word 'Universe': space and matter. Matter consists of the totality of objects, specifically, atoms. Space provides the background, contrast... but only to the observer. The Moon does not recognize space. It moves merrily along without friction until it crashes against an asteroid. And it can move because there is the void of space which allows objects the capability to change location without crashing into space and stopping permanently in their tracks, so to speak. Understand?
An object cannot displace or occupy space. You do not 'occupy' or 'inhabit' space the way a fish 'occupies' or 'inhabits' the ocean: by displacing atoms and molecules. When an object is figuratively said to 'occupy' space, it does not displace anything. We mean that the object merely has a location with respect to the remaining objects in the Universe. An object does not displace space as it is said to wade thru Sagan's metaphoric Cosmic Ocean.
Space has thoroughly confused the philosophers, religionists and mathematicians for the last 10,000 years. Until they get a 'grip' on space, they will never understand our Universe. This is why they invent ridiculous notions like gods, dark matter and black holes to plug up holes in their theories.
In summary, our universe is a binary system: space and matter. There is only something surrounded by nothingness. The word something is a synonym for object...having shape (spatial separation)....and hence is not nothing. This is an issue of critical thinking and analysis, not a rule made by humans. There is either something (with shape) or nothing (no shape). There is no in-between shape and no-shape. There is no outside shape and no-shape. The nature of matter and space makes them complementary. This realization has the interesting implication that the amount of matter in the Universe does not vary...there is a constant amount of matter. Matter cannot be created from space or space from matter, and matter cannot leave space or disappear because space has no boundaries to cross.
“Can you draw a picture for me and point out "here is Earth", "here is air" and "here is nothingness that surrounds Earth"?”
This is an issue of critical thinking, not of illustration. Space is a concept, it lacks shape....hence you cannot illustrate it. We reason that every single object, whether atom, molecule, planet, star, car, pen, coin, pocket....whatever....MUST absolutely be surrounded by nothingness because all objects are in motion. All objects are attracted to each other. This would not be possible if objects were not separated by nothingness....and we certainly would NOT be here and alive and having this discussion. So even though the Earth is surrounded/enveloped by air molecules, those air molecules can move (i.e. wind, tornado, hurricane) because they are themselves swimming in a conceptual sea of nothingness, just like the Earth is.
“So does a layer of nothingness separate earth and air?”
Space is not in layers, it lacks shape and cannot be layered...it merely encapsulates every single object in the universe. No matter whether it is an atom or a planet, or any possibly entity you can hypothesize. Otherwise motion would be impossible. There is either something or nothing (spatial separation ie. shape)....there is NO other option in the universe. This is an unavoidable rational realization of what constitutes nature. This is not a theory nor a claim.
So space separates earth and air. And space surrounds, wraps, encapsulates all objects.
I understand the term "surrounds" or "encapsulates" as "exists in the immediate vicinity of...". Do you agree or there is another meaning?
"Surround" is a verb. Concepts cannot perform verbs on objects.
So the combination of statements "air surrounds the earth" and "space surrounds the earth" has two problems:
1. In the second one a concept performs a verb on an object.
2. If air surrounds the earth then (according to the aforementioned definition of "surrounds") there is nothing BETWEEN air and earth. They cannot be separated - unless you introduce another object.
Another example: a leg and a trunk are two objects and there is nothing between them until I put there a knife (another object). If I understand right your definition, there should be space separating a leg and a trunk while I am walking. I would not like this to happen to me.
Hope you will make this clearer to me in your next post.
Vladimir,
“I understand the term "surrounds" or "encapsulates" as "exists in the immediate vicinity of...". Do you agree or there is another meaning?”
Space has no shape. It doesn’t exit. The only reason I have to use the word ‘it’ for reference, is for grammatical correctness only. Space is absolutely everywhere, since it has no borders. If we hypothesize that all objects are made from molecules, atoms, right down to em threads, then space is wrapping all em threads, and consequently, all objects....whether atoms, molecules, planets, stars, air...whatever.
“"Surround" is a verb. Concepts cannot perform verbs on objects..... "space surrounds the earth" has two problems”
Concepts do no perform anything. Space does not perform anything. Space is nothing. All we are doing is describing it as a backdrop to all objects, because it has no borders, no shape. We are restricted by language and grammar to describe nothingness, which isn’t even a noun. We have no problem with grammar when dealing with objects. But with a concept like space which can only be described in negative terms, we will inevitably reach the limits of grammar. This is why you need to critically reason why nature is a binary system.....something and its antithesis (nothing).
“there should be space separating a leg and a trunk while I am walking.”
And here is where we must use the sci method to hypothesize what ultimately constitutes matter. This is the context of this analysis. We hypothesize what an atom is, and what it is composed of.....and what is connecting all matter together. This is where we understand that the fundamental constituent of matter, the thread, is an object in space. This means that absolutely all objects (no matter what context of granularity) are ultimately wrapped by space since their em threads are wrapped by space. So leg and trunk are physically connected to each other via em threads, which are wrapped by space. Space is unavoidable. You cannot exit space.
So in this case, theoretically speaking, each and every phenomenon in nature CAN BE in principle described and explained on the fundamental level - say atoms. You are right that for human beings to follow this type of explanation will take billions of years, but this is irrelevant on the conceptual level. This is just a limitation of a specific type of observer and as such cannot be taken into account while talking rational/irrational.
There are clearly things that cannot be done IN PRINCIPLE - like drawing a round triangle or performing an infinite regress. The proposition to do this is irrational. But explaining a collision between the cars on the level of atoms is not the same. It is very impractical, it can take billions of years and billions of tons of paper, it is completely useless to car insurance companies but it is not irrational or in principle undoable by ANY sentient being.
Do you agree?
And BTW, the way I understood your passage on space is actually that use of the verb "surround" with respect to space and air is different. Using ANY word with respect to space will be different than the use of the same word for all other contexts. Do you agree?
Vladimir,
“each and every phenomenon in nature CAN BE in principle described and explained on the fundamental level - say atoms.”
It can be explained with any respective object....whether atom, thread, molecule, car...as long as it has shape.
The point is, we are doing physics right now with cars, planets and stars which are objects. So what is an object anyway? We must define it in a consistent manner so we can stay within the realm of physics and not cross into the realm of religion. It is ludicrous to say that an atom is an object, but a car is a concept. Some people believe that energy, gravitons, photons, space and time are also objects. Obviously this is not the case.
“Using ANY word with respect to space will be different than the use of the same word for all other contexts.”
Space is a special word. It is a synonym for “nothing”. Space is impossible to define in positive terms. Space can only be described in negative terms i.e. no thing. This means that we treat the word space as a noun for the purposes of grammatical correctness only...we have no other choice. When we talk about existing objects, which are nouns of reality, then space is not a noun of reality....it is nothing....it doesn’t even exist. Again, this is due to the limitations of language and grammar. And because space doesn’t exist, this nothingness allows for the atmosphere to be displaced when we run through it....and it allows water to be displaced when we scuba dive in the ocean. Without space, the universe is said to be just one infinite solid block of matter, where no motion is possible, let alone life.
OK. The things become more clear. So I am continuing.
When I wrote that the car is not an object I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was talking about HOW we perceive and conceptualize real objects that exist around us and my claim is that this process of perception cannot be done in an observer-independent way in principle as it always involves the observer. I am not talking about definitions but about the theory of perception. But lets do it step by step so there will be no further misunderstanding.
In reality objects are always surrounded by space, but never ONLY by space. Say objects A and B exist. They are non-continuous, i.e. there is a gap between them. By definition the answer to the question “what exists between object A and object B?” cannot be space as space does not exist. The answer will be always “object C”. This is not to REPLACE the concept of space – I am just adding a description. Objects are always surrounded by space but IN ADDITION by other objects as well. What we are conceptualizing and illustrating on the blackboard is always some objects on the backdrop of other objects that surround it. The backdrop of the space is assumed, is in definition, is absolutely necessary for motion, but is not in an illustration (space as you pointed out is nothing and cannot be illustrated). So when I draw Sun and Earth – the “gap” between them is also an object (say “interstellar gas”).
I would summarize, that all objects swim in a conceptual sea of space AND in an actual sea of other objects (medium).
Is this argument rational? I would say it is a reasonable hypothesis.
Vladimir,
“real objects that exist around us and my claim is that this process of perception cannot be done in an observer-independent way in principle as it always involves the observer.”
An observer is necessarily required to do physics. We cannot have a field of study without having observers participating in that study.
Q: What is the topic of discussion in the study of Physics?
A: Objects....not concepts, spirits, souls or ghosts....but objects!
Now our task is to determine what is an object. Obviously cars, planets, stars, people, houses, ...and all the stuff we can see are objects. But how about the stuff we cannot see? How about air, molecules, atoms, God ...are these objects? Of course they are; they can be hypothesized to mediate natural phenomena i.e. make surface-to-surface contact with some other objects. So if an object can be seen and touched in front of us (ie. car), and another object cannot be seen and touched (ie. God), ....and both of these types of objects can actually mediate natural events in nature, then what is a CONSISTENT and rational (scientific) definition of object?
Object: that which has shape
Does God have shape? He most certainly does....we are allegedly of His image. So God is a valid object of our Scientific Hypothesis because we can draw Him on the blackboard or make a statue of Him and bring it to the Physics Conference for show & tell. Whether God can possibly exist or not is a completely separate issue which is rationally explained in a specific Theory...like the Theory of Creation, for example.
So yes, the definition of object is indeed observer-independent. It can be used to reference a multitude of objects which we cannot even SEE or TOUCH....like God for instance.
“I am not talking about definitions but about the theory of perception.”
Perception plays no role in objects. This is strictly an issue of critical reasoning....not an issue of seeing or touching!
Either an object is something or it’s nothing. This is what the term “shape” allows us to reason. And once we reason that God MUST absolutely have some type of shape in order for Him to come in surface-to-surface contact with other objects, like grabbing a person and sending him to Hell, then God can now be conceived by us to have some SPECIFIC shape....ie. a man, a burning bush, etc. And now God is a valid object in our Hypothesis.
“I would summarize, that all objects swim in a conceptual sea of space AND in an actual sea of other objects (medium).”
You can metaphorically say that all objects swim in a conceptual sea of nothingness (but this is not necessary once you realize that motion is impossible without space). And of course objects physically interact via surface-to-surface contact with other objects.
I do not have any disagreement with you about all the definitions and descriptions of object and space. I want to proceed to critically think HOW exactly we as observers conceptualize objects BEFORE doing physics theories in the process of hypothesis description. You concisely summarized this by "pointing to an object" and/or "drawing an illustration". I want to critically think about it in more detail.
But before I proceed, do you agree with the hypothesis that absolutely ALL real objects are fully surrounded surface-to-surface by other objects?
Vladimir,
"do you agree with the hypothesis that absolutely ALL real objects are fully surrounded surface-to-surface by other objects?"
Please give me an example. What is the moon surrounded with?
If I aim a laser toward the moon and fire a beam 1 km above the surface of the moon, what will the laser hit? The moon has no atmosphere. I do not expect a reflection to come back, like when I hit the moon's surface. The space around the moon is nothing, and cannot reflect light back to the earth. So what is the object that surrounds the moon, and consequently must reflect light back?
I will try to do it on the level of low granularity. If this proves to be problematic I will try to switch to high granularity.
the gaps between the sun, the earth, the moon and all other astronomical objects is filled with interstellar gas that is equivalent of the earth's atmosphere but with very low density of atoms. laser is reflected from different objects differently: it is fully reflected from a brick wall, partially reflected from a transparent glass and very insignificantly reflected from upper layers of the earth's atmosphere. I am not a professional physicist so maybe something in this description of reflection is not fully rigorous - I will be glad to correct if needed.
Vladimir,
“the gaps between the sun, the earth, the moon and all other astronomical objects is filled with interstellar gas that is equivalent of the earth's atmosphere”
Fine, you are free to assume that (even though it is NOT the case) since this scenario has been troubling you,....but follow my next line of thought....
Assume the moon is kicked out of our solar system and ultimately out of our galaxy by some collision.....or we can assume that God grabbed it with His hand, and took it far far away, say 9x10^999999999999999999999999999999999999 Billion light years away from any other matter.
Now God shoots his laser 1 km above the surface of the moon. Same question.... what will the laser beam hit to reflect light back to God? Remember, there is no other object around the moon, just space. Is the moon still an ‘object’ in this case? I mean, it has to be, because God can point at it with His laser.
Remember, the definition of object has to be consistently applicable across all contexts. Does the moon have shape all on its own? If so, it must be an object irrespective of any other object in the universe.
So, what is this alleged object that surrounds the moon?
Excellent question!
Please note that we are not in the definition phase - we are in the hypothesis phase (description of objects to be taken care of). I did not DEFINE any object by its neighbors. I simply stated a hypothesis that every object is surrounded surface-to-surface by other objects. The definition of each and every one of them individually is - presence of shape, and therefore in the very beginning of my previous post I specifically stated that I accepted already your definition.
So your question is not about my definition but about my hypothesis. I still have to answer it.
Q: If the Moon is taken out of the context of our metagalaxy into Far-Far away and left there what will be the object that surrounds it?
A: I do not give a sh***! I have never been there, I am not sure that such a neighborhood is at all real (maybe everywhere there are some galaxies surrounded by intergalaxial gas). But most importantly, my hypothesis is formulated (as I already explained) in order to make a theory of human perception and providing an explanation how exactly we (humans) formulate hypotheses and theories and what it has to do with real objects.
In contrast to definitions, that has to be applicable in all contexts, hypotheses and theories can be applicable in only part of contexts. So for the context of human perception and the way humans do physics your question is irrelevent.
Nevertheless, to be consistent, I will amend my description:
"In all observable by humans consummated events so far being studied all the involved macroscopic objects are fully surrounded by other objects".
I inserted "macroscopic" since probably my hypothesis does not hold not only in the Far-Far away scenario, but also in case of atoms, which are probably truly surrounded by nothingness (I am actually surprised you did not ask me about atoms). But this is something I would like to discuss with you separately and it is again irrelevant for the context of human perception so we can leave it for time being.
So if you do not have any further objections to my amended description-hypothesis, I will proceed.
Vladimir,
Fat: “God grabbed the moon with His hand, and took it far far away, say 9x10^999999999999999999999999999999999999 Billion light years away from any other matter. So now, what is this alleged object that surrounds the moon?”
Vlad: “I do not give a sh***! I have never been there”
Your opinion or observation is irrelevant! This is an issue of critical thinking and rational analysis, ONLY!!
You have never been to the Moon either, not even in Space,...yet YOU claim that: “the gaps between the sun, the earth, the moon and all other astronomical objects is filled with interstellar gas that is equivalent of the earth's atmosphere”. You can’t have it both ways. You are giving the audience contradicting answers.
All you’ve said is: “I have never been to Andromeda, so I don’t know if there are solar systems with planets in there. But I do know that it has a perimeter made with 100% real Hershey’s Chocolate....and outside that perimeter is some sort of mysterious interstellar gas.”
Rubbish.
“I am not sure that such a neighborhood is at all real”
Neighbourhood is not real, that is a concept. The Moon is real, and is far out in space where there is NO other object for 9x10^999999999999999999999999999999999999 Billion light years away!!! This is the ACTUAL scenario. This is simple to understand. Since there is NO other object around, then exactly WHAT could possibly be the OBJECT that FULLY SURROUNDS the Moon surface-to-surface ???
A: Nothing!
What if we took the Earth out there.... WHAT could possibly be the OBJECT that FULLY SURROUNDS the Earth surface-to-surface ???
A: Air!
CONCLUSION: The Earth may be surrounded by an object we call “air”....but the moon clearly isn’t. So your claim is irrational since it cannot be generalized.
“maybe everywhere there are some galaxies surrounded by intergalaxial gas”
Maybe???
Maybe the Bad Wolf will throw up Little Red Riding Hood alive!! Did you ever think of that?
This is NOT an issue of “maybe”. This is an issue of the scene described in the above scenario. There are NO other objects around the Moon. So.... WHAT could possibly be the OBJECT that FULLY SURROUNDS the Moon surface-to-surface ???
A spirit?
A soul?
A 0D particle?
A black hole?
Dark matter/energy?
“But most importantly, my hypothesis is formulated (as I already explained) in order to make a theory of human perception”
Scientific Hypotheses have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with stupid human perceptions and their OPINIONS. Observation and witness testimony are subjectivities which belong in court.....never in science! This is why all scientific definitions are OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT....they are not meant to warm up your soul or confirm your religion. This is what I have repeated to you for over 127 times....and you STILL don’t understand it.
Regardless, your hypothesis is irrational and invalid, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO interstellar gas “atmosphere” or “ether” between the Moon and the Earth, or anywhere in the universe....and for MANY MANY MANY reasons, and I will only list a few here:
a) Interstellar gas is only localized in pockets throughout galaxies only....never outside galaxies because the HUGE gravitational pull of galaxies always attracts any gas or matter which may be ejected. That’s why galaxies are often called “island universes”.
b) The Michelson-Morley experiment was performed tons of times since 1887 and it has REFUTED your claim of an atmosphere/ether surrounding the Earth, Moon, solar system, etc.
c) If space was an atmosphere/ether, then space would have shape....it would be an object. So the question is: what is outside of the perimeter of this alleged object you call ‘atmosphere/ether’? If the moon is BOXED by this object you call atmosphere/ether, then WHAT boxes this atmosphere....and WHAT boxes that....and WHAT boxes that....and so on??? This is infinite regress....which is irrational and impossible...similar to who made God...and who made Him...and who made Him....
d) But the kicker is.....If space was an atmosphere/ether of gas or whatever object YOU propose.....then the Earth’s atmosphere would be RIPPED right off the planet as it swam through this sea of alleged gas collisions while orbiting the Sun. Clearly, this is NOT the case. When bees are swarming all around you, then swimming under water will eject all of them off you since each object “bee” collides with the object water.
"In all observable by humans consummated events so far being studied all the involved macroscopic objects are fully surrounded by other objects".
REFUTED!
See a to d above.
“I am actually surprised you did not ask me about atoms”
It doesn’t matter. Your claim fails at the atomic level too. Let’s take the standard Bohr Model of the atom. The electron is said to magically orbit the nucleus. What is the electron surrounded by via surface-to-surface contact? Interstellar gas? Gas is already an atom, so this is circular. If the electron is hitting something while orbiting the nucleus, then it would slow down and eventually FALL into the nucleus.
How about the fundamental constituent of matter (whatever that may be...quark, smork, whatever)....what is it surrounded by via surface-to-surface contact?
So you see, your CLAIM (macroscopic objects are fully surrounded by other objects) fails at all levels....whether macroscopic, microscopic...or any possible combination/scenario you can imagine.
An object is that which has shape....NOT that which is wrapped by other objects (circular and contradictory, this is why all your examples are so easily refuted).
1. I agree that definitions of the basci terms have to be observer-independent. It is clear. In my last posts I did not use surrounding for definitions.
2. Nowhere in my post I said that "space=gas/ether". Clearly, the propostion that Moon and stars are surrounded by interstellar gas does not mean that the space is gas. I specifically stressed that an object is surrounded by space AND by other objects, so refutation of the space being an object (by M&M) has nothing to do with my hypothesis.
3. I accepted your scenario: if the Moon is taken to far-far away it will be surrounded by nothingness. This is irrelevant for the argument, since I already accepted that definition of the object is independent of the surrounding and therefore you do not have to take it there to determine whether it IS an object or it is not. It is also irrelevant to the question whether the Moon is surrounded by something HERE in the solar system. You can take the earth far-far away (without the atmosphere) and THERE it will be surrounded by nothingness, but this does not mean that HERE it is not surrounded by atmosphere.
4. So yes, theoretically each and every object CAN be surrounded by nothingness ONLY. Atoms are surrounded by nothingness. Macroscopic objects are surrounded by nothingness IF you take them to that Far-Far away place.
The supermetagalaxy that combines all the stars is surrounded by nothingness (so there will be no regress). The question I ask is whether there was one consummated event we studied (not a theoretical scenario but a consummated event that happened in reality) where a macroscopic object was not surrounded other objects.
5. Do you really think that around the Moon there is ONLY space? Space surrounds Moon, no disagreement, but NOTHING else? No even single atom? So there is no sublimation of atoms from the Moon surface that produces a gas of atoms around it with very low density?
6. Hypothesis should not be absolutely general, it can describe only part of objects. For example, "all human beings have heads" is a legitimate hypothesis. It is not generalizable to worms, but this lack of generalizability does not make it irrational.
7. I want to think critically about the natural phenomenon of (a) human perception and (b) how exactly we make theories. This is a natural process (thinking) that needs explanation. This is what I am discussing with you for the last 5 posts. I am not trying to make new DEFINITIONS - all the definitions stay the same!!!! Can you "switch the gear"???
Vladimir,
“I accepted your scenario: if the Moon is taken to far-far away it will be surrounded by nothingness.”
Great! Then your claim that ALL objects are surrounded by other objects, is clearly not the case.
“The question I ask is whether there was one consummated event we studied (not a theoretical scenario but a consummated event that happened in reality) where a macroscopic object was not surrounded other objects.”
A consummated event we study actually is a theory....it is a theoretical scenario. It has allegedly ALREADY taken place. So now we are just left “theorizing” about it. We have studied Voyager 1 which is outside our solar system, and as luck would have it, Voyager 1 has no gas or objects surrounding/enveloping it. Same goes for asteroids and other objects we have studied out there.
“Space surrounds Moon, no disagreement, but NOTHING else? No even single atom? So there is no sublimation of atoms from the Moon surface that produces a gas of atoms around it with very low density?”
Irrelevant. If the moon emits a single atom or even gases from its core or not, is irrelevant to your argument that ALL objects are necessarily wrapped by gas and that our solar system is filled with gas. Gases are only localized within galaxies due to gravitational attraction...they are not pervasive in the universe. Obviously if our solar system is filled with a sea of gas, then it would rip out the earth’s atmosphere right now.
“Can you "switch the gear"???”
Yes we can, since not all objects are wrapped/surrounded by gas or other objects.
1. I just searched the internet and found out that direct measurements have shown that the solar system is filled with molecules and atoms at a very low density. This is a consummated event. This is described (hypothesis) as "interplanetary medium". This is indeed irrelevant to the question whether IN PRINCIPLE a macroscopic object can or cannot be surrounded by other objects - which I already agreed it can, and it is also irrelevant to the definition of what the object is. But it is very relevant to the question whether the Moon is surrounded by space only or by space AND something else. As far as there are trillions of billions of particles between the Moon and the Sun (which IS the case) I can rationally name it "interplanetary medium" and use it in my theory as an object.
Now, considering "ripping off" the planets. Tsunami/hurricane will rip off the shore of houses but slight breeze won't. If the interplanetary medium was sufficiently dense it obviously would slow down the planets to an observable degree. However, this medium has very low density and therefore its interactions with planets is extremely weak and does not slow them down to any discernable degree. So the consummated event "planets are not being ripped off" CAN be rationally explained after I made a hypothesis "all the planets in the solar system are surrounded by interplanetary medium". As the solar system is not eternal, it is absolutely rational in the theory explaining the motion inside it to claim that the speed of motion of the planets around the sun was just a little bit higher several billions years ago.
Conclusion: The rationality of the hypothesis "all macroscopic objects in the solar system, our galaxy and all other galaxies" IS NOT YET REFUTED.
To put it in other words, macroscopic area of space devoid of ANY objects in it is clearly theoretically possible, but was never achieved nor observed in consummated events so far. As there is a smallest "grain" of substance (be it atom or thread), clearly it is rational that on the MICROscopic level of atoms it is indeed nothingness that surrounds them.
2. BTW in the thread theory that you mentioned each and every pair of atoms is connected by a EM rope. EM rope is an object (if I understood right your description), therefore even an area in our galaxy devoid of any atoms will be packed with EM ropes which connect distant all the atoms in the galaxy.
Eagerly waiting for your comments.
Oops... The wording of the hypothesis messed up...
"all macroscopic objects in solar system, our galaxy and all other galaxies as well as all other consummated events so far observable were always surrounded by other objects"
And I stress again: theoretically, each and every one of them could be placed in pure nothingness, but this so far was not the case in consummated events.
Vladimir,
“I just searched the internet and found out that direct measurements have shown that the solar system is filled with molecules and atoms at a very low density.”
The establishment’s gold standard of this experiment is the Michelson-Morley one. They have concluded that there is no medium of ANY density in between planets in the solar system, just space. Even Einstein and Relativists tried to show that was such a medium in order to give weight to his theory on GR...they failed. So you can go argue over this issue with the establishment if you like, ok?
Regardless, if there was such a medium, it would tear off the Earth’s atmosphere and cause friction on the planets. And the moon’s orbit would slow down, decay, and the moon would approach the earth. Clearly, this is not the case, as the moon is getting further away from the earth every year.
“Tsunami/hurricane will rip off the shore of houses but slight breeze won't.”
The houses are set in the earth in footings....the atmosphere isn’t. Did you know this? The slight breeze you talk about does indeed MOVE and DISPLACE the atmosphere, and so would your alleged medium in the solar system. The earth’s atmosphere is pelted all the time with small particles, meteors, etc. This stuff is indeed floating around in the solar system. But these are dispersed objects, not a medium filling the void between planets in the solar system. A medium would take the atmosphere with it.
“So the consummated event "planets are not being ripped off" CAN be rationally explained after I made a hypothesis "all the planets in the solar system are surrounded by interplanetary medium".”
"planets are not being ripped off" is NOT an event. Do you understand this much??
So whatever the hell you are explaining to yourself, God only knows!
"all macroscopic objects in solar system, our galaxy and all other galaxies as well as all other consummated events so far observable were always surrounded by other objects"
...and if that was the case, the atmosphere of the earth would be displaced. It has no footing like a house does. Even the slight breeze coming out of a mouse’s nose when it breathes, displaces the atmosphere. If the Earth was moving thru a sea filled with particles in the solar system, it would take the atmosphere with it. So your claims are clearly refuted. But you are free to argue with the establishment’s Michelson-Morley experiment if you like. Good luck.
Like I said, the Relativists over at The General Relativity Department would LOVE to talk to you, because what you are claiming here can make their theory of warped space in our solar system a reality. You are guaranteed to win a Nobel Prize for this novel discovery. So, don’t waste your time posting here about this discovery of yours.....someone like me may steal your idea and become famous, ok?
Recently I became involved in a discussion about WLC and the Kalam here:
http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50
The distinction between exists and 'begins' to exist came up and so I came across your hub in my research. I typically don't fall into the WLC trap, but was interested to see their take on it.
A couple of questions came up as I am reading through it.
WLC's 'Begins' to Exist is not refuted. Is this because you grant that god exists and go directly to defining terms? Please explain. Is it because as you say later, that WLC's argument has refined Leibniz' to make it "airtight?"
Also., you make this statement:
From the Christian perspective, Creation is the dogma of the Catholic Church, as they declared that the universe was created by God, in ‘time’ and ‘out-of-nothing’. The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced CREATION as an official teaching almost 800 years ago.
I can't find it in the 20 or cannons listed in various sources. Can you you tell me where you found this?
I have quoted you in another thread as well, and am afraid I am about to be caught up in it big time. I want to give justice to your ideas, and so I am mostly quoting you. Care to drop by? At least take a look at it and see what you think.
Monkeyminds,
“WLC's 'Begins' to Exist is not refuted. Is this because you grant that god exists and go directly to defining terms? Please explain.”
The existence of God is granted (Hypothesized) by the Theologian. Remember that in Science, existence is ALWAYS a Hypothesis....NEVER a Theory. The existence of God (an object) is always ASSUMED by the Theologian. This is fine and dandy.....and in accordance with the Scientific Mehtod. The problem arises when the Theologian attempts to form his Theory (i.e. rational explanation) that matter and space were “created” by God, as founded on their Hypothesis (i.e. God exists). You see....creation, under any context is impossible. I have many articles dealing with all the aspects of creation and explaining in detail why creation is impossible.
As for WLC’s assertion of “begins to exist”.....please read in this article where I address Craig’s statement:
“....have I always existed? That is so absurd, to think that I never began to exist, even though the material stuff out of which I am made, existed before me....it’s just irrational....” -- William-Lane Craig
I explain in detail why it is impossible for anything to “begin” to exist.
“I can't find it in the 20 or cannons listed in various sources. “
Google “The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced creation as an official teaching” and you will get tons of hits showing this.
Sounds like you have your hands full with those Religionists. Be careful....any dissidence against William Lane Craig and they will ban you. But I think that you can handle these thugs on your own. Nonsense can never overthrow rationality. If you like, feel free to invite these thugs here so they can teach ME a thing or two about Craig’s creation claims. I can’t wait....
Google "The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced creation as an official teaching” and you will get tons of hits showing this
Thanx! I found the reference under confessions of faith:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.
Don't know how I missed it before.
Sounds like you have your hands full with those Religionists. Be careful....any dissidence against William Lane Craig and they will ban you.
I'll order the WGDE tomorrow. Will need to get a grip on it for my other forum. "Why Won't God Heal Amputees."
If you like, feel free to invite these thugs here so they can teach ME a thing or two about Craig’s creation claims. I can’t wait.
I did because of this post:
The man is barking mad.
"I'll order the WGDE tomorrow. "
An awesome book. The author is Bill Gaede who also has hubs here and a channel on youtube. He is also the inventor of Thread Theory. I send a lot of people his way after they stumble on my hubs.
Careful monkeyminds. That Bill Gaede is a SINNER in the eyes of our Lord. And in the mind of Arch Bishop Stephen Hawking and the Church of Quantum Fizzix. And they see into the Eleventh Dimension, so that proves them right and good.
WGDE is deeply blasphemous. Pesky Bill and naughty Fatfist are heathens both; heathens I tell you! Don't let them convert you to sense and rationality.
"Careful monkeyminds. That Bill Gaede is a SINNER in the eyes of our Lord. And in the mind of Arch Bishop Stephen Hawking and the Church of Quantum Fizzix."
Sinner, yes. This does not disturb me however, and neither does the fact that BG is called a pseudoscientist, or profiled by Ted Coppel as a Corporate spy working with the FBI. What disturbs me is that I could not find a paper copy of the book on the comments section of his YouTube page(s) as directed by the WGDE WebSite. NOr could I find a method of contact.
Alas, I dl'd the ebook and will scour the 500 plus pages for understanding this week. If it is anything like the website, it will be fascinating at least.
Monkeyminds,
Glad to see that you are interested in educating yourself about the sci method.
Most people think they know what science is about because they claim their Pastor proved "this" or proved "that" to them during Sunday service.
But when I offer them $1000 or even $10,000 in PayPal cash to come here and "prove" that their arm "exists"....they find every single excuse to run away from the argument. They can’t even define “proof”, much less “exist”.
These kinds of folk are enamoured by authority. They collect signed posters of their favorite Priests and hang them on the wall....they parrot all their tacky catchy phrases....they are all starry-eyed and drool all over themselves at the thought of meeting their favorite Pastor, like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, the Dalai Lama, William Lane Craig, Deepak Chopra, etc.
But these parroting followers don’t realize that they are committing an Appeal to Authority....a fallacy. They quote their favorite scriptures and verses from Einstein or Benny Hinn, but they haven’t a clue what their Celebrity Priest is even talking about....whether reality or fantasy. These little people live in a world of faith which was carved out by their favorite Priests.
Utter Trash
@AuroraJoy
"Utter Trash"
We are in full agreement.
Posts without any arguments to back them up are UTTER TRASH!
I'm glad we're on the same wavelength, Aurora.
"Glad to see that you are interested in educating yourself about the sci method."
Yea, it looks like I am going to have to unlearn a lot. I'm having a discussion right now with a deist, a theist, and an atheist Here:
Hope it is OK to post links. Feel free to delete them. I just think you will it hilarious if you find the time to see how it is going.
The discussion is now about an atheist who said he would punch Fatfist in the face proving he has an arm.
I have made it clear that I am not presenting my own argument, but yours. Mostly everything is cut n paste so that I don't misrepresent you.
Funny thing is, the more they say the more they are showing me that you are right on the money. So I will probably soon be using my own arguments in my own words.
monkeyminds,
I have noted this problem and I think it comes down to these people are so busy thinking about what they are going to say next they do not listen and comprehend what Fatfist says.
Your above note about punching to prove an arm made me think of that - how much further from Fatfist's position can you get than thinking proof applies and punching somehow is proof.
It is so simple they just don't get it.
Here it is so you can delete it w/o deleting my whole comment:
What Is A Rational Argument?
It just shows how a belief system is screwed up regardless of weather you are a theist an atheist or an agnostic!
"atheist who said he would punch Fatfist in the face proving he has an arm."
So I guess this atheist was punched in the face by Sun, thus proving that the Sun exists, huh?
I wonder why he doesn't come here to collect his $10,000 in PayPal cash for making such an intellectual discovery? Perhaps this guy was our dear friend, Aurora, who agreed with me...
His eyes are all glazed over because his mind is in cognitive dissonance as he wonders why I haven't caved into his superior intellect and powerful arguments. He has to shake that off and then he'll be back to rag on me some more.
Here's what he told me:
"I have no interest in proving fatface wrong, I am arguing with you, not him. If he wants to join the Forum then he can play too. "
People are welcome to come here and lay it on the line....they can put all their cards on the table....and if they win, I promise to take down this article.
I am not interested in playing dancing games with children who are using their parent's laptop to troll the net. If they have a rational argument, if they understand it, if they can back it up by reason & critical thinking....then they are welcome to post it here. Otherwise it's obvious they don't have one. Trolls have no arguments anyway...just hot air.
It's like pulling hens teeth to get someone to define EXIST and PROVE. I couldn't live with myself if I was that intellectually dishonest.
I've told these people several times now. I am not here[there] to debate. I am here[there] to learn. I don't like being wrong, but I want to be corrected, so then I no longer have to be wrong!
ADDED:
Or More Wrong!
I've seen it all, monkeyminds, and I know all their arguments. They were taught by Priests. They went to university for 4 years to only warm up a seat, and get a Certificate of Knowledge, just like the Scarecrow did in the Wiz of Oz. No wonder they come here and try to define words with SYNONYMS (i.e. aliases).
They have no clue what the difference is between a DEFINITION and a synonym. That's why they attempt to define EXIST as: to be; being; what is; etc...
They've never used their heads for anything all their lives other than to bow down to authority (their Priests). That's why they think that the Moon never existed before humans landed on it and touched (i.e. punched) it. Too funny!
Just when I was settling into having my mind cleared of all the years of religious beliefs, I find I have to remove a whole bunch of atheist and science dogma.
Atheism is a Religion, monkeyminds....sorry to break the news to you, but I promised God that I would never tell a lie.
Yeah, you make some pretty good sense there (for a shoe shine boy!).
monkeyminds
I wun to come to USA an learn Engwish from Faafist. He soo good at word an disco party here. Yoo funny guy monkeymine. Monkey brain is good fo you not in mind but my brotha make special cook time in wok with brain and sing song. Faafist teach you grasshoppa good engwish talk. I come USA sune, okee dokee.
zài jiàn
If yer gonna speak Engrish, you need to learn Texican. It's Okey Dokey!
Fatfist
what is the microwave background radiation? I know scientist talk about cold spots or bruising, and theorize the multiverse. Bullshit? What is the picture of microwave background radiation showing?
EM threads crisscrossing the U.
Alan,
monkeyminds gave you a hint.
Before you can even begin to talk about radiation, you must first understand what light actually is. It is impossible for light to be a photon because photons are 0D and hence are impossible to exist. Light is not a wave either because waves are concepts, not objects.
The only rational theory which explains the phenomena of light is Thread Theory. Google thread theory and Bill Gaede, and you will finally understand what light is.
The phenomena of background radiation is actually all the atoms in the universe (including the atoms in your body) perpetually torquing their interconnected EM threads. There is no start or end to motion. Atoms are in perpetual motion. Hence the phenomenon of "background radiation". There was no Big Bang or any such magic as alleged by the High Priests of Math Fyzics. Magic, belief and faith belong exclusively to Religion, not to objective reality.
AKA Winston Level 5 Commenter 21 months ago
Fatfist,
Shredded, dude. You have shredded the inane once again. Well done.