GLASGOW "EU" QUISLINGS BAN SCOTTISH FLAG
Scott
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
news:3dfe3c6d....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:09:54 -0000, "Scott"
> <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >Theists are people who never got over the shock of finding out that
the
> >> >father Christmas and the tooth fairy don't exist. So they invented god
to
> >> >fill a tooth fairy sized hole in their life.
>
> >> Childish.
>
> >Yes a belief in god certainly is childish.
>
> It would appear that way to a child like you.
>
> But to someone with the ability to engage in critical thinking it is
> not.
>
A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
faculties.
Moja
<nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
>faculties.
How would you possibly know?
Moja
--
In a mature society, "civil servant" is semantically
equal to "civil master".
--Robert Heinlein
RF
"Scott" <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:atlfpv$nhe$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
RF
Moja
wrote:
>> A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
>> faculties.
>And denial begins with none?
You are asking that people suspend their rational faculties and accept
your fantasies when they contradict reality. That's asking too much.
It is you who is denying reality.
Scott
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:05:51 -0000, "Scott"
> <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
> >faculties.
>
> How would you possibly know?
>
Either god contradicts reality or has no effect on it. The former is
unsustainable, the later is redundant.
simon
"RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote in message
news:yGsL9.12706$lO.103...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Scott" <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:atlfpv$nhe$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> > news:3dfe3c6d....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:09:54 -0000, "Scott"
> > > <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > But to someone with the ability to engage in critical thinking it is
> > > not.
> > >
> >
> > A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
> > faculties.
> And denial begins with none?
Ok then it should be simple to find some verifiable proof god exists so
provide some
Simon
Moja
<nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
>> >faculties.
>> How would you possibly know?
>Either god contradicts reality or has no effect on it. The former is
>unsustainable, the later is redundant.
That is merely an hypothesis. You must prove it consistent with the
Realist Worldview.
Moja
<si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> > A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
>> > faculties.
>> And denial begins with none?
>Ok then it should be simple to find some verifiable proof god exists so
>provide some
For me the existence of the Universe is all the evidence I need.
The Laws of Physics demand that the Principle of Causality be
rigorously obeyed. Causality is built into the very fabric of
Classical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Therefore there
must be a Supreme Being whose essence is existence, since the Universe
cannot have existence as part of its essence or otherwise it would be
immutable.
That is the basic argument given by Thomas Aquinas in his book "On
Being and Essence". Of course, you are free to reject such arguments
but in order to do so you are forced to abandon the Worldview of
Realism, in which case you will have also abandoned Physics as well as
the ability to proved that anything exists at all, including yourself.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> The Laws of Physics demand that the Principle of Causality be
> rigorously obeyed. Causality is built into the very fabric of
> Classical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Therefore there
> must be a Supreme Being whose essence is existence, since the Universe
> cannot have existence as part of its essence or otherwise it would be
> immutable.
And what causes a particular radioactive atom to decay when its
neighbour does not? Your statement above is false. Causality is
explicitly not built into the fabric of quantum mechanics. Why else do
you think Einstein objected that 'god doesn't play dice'? All atempts to
show causality in either atomic decay or slit choice in the classic wave
duality experiment for light have failed. If you can demonstrate
causality then submit your paper for peer review in Nature or Science,
oh and include your calculated unified field theory while you are at it.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The Laws of Physics demand that the Principle of Causality be
>> rigorously obeyed. Causality is built into the very fabric of
>> Classical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Therefore there
>> must be a Supreme Being whose essence is existence, since the Universe
>> cannot have existence as part of its essence or otherwise it would be
>> immutable.
>And what causes a particular radioactive atom to decay when its
>neighbour does not?
The Vacuum. Study Heitler's Theory.
>Your statement above is false.
What are your credentials to make such an assertion?
>Causality is
>explicitly not built into the fabric of quantum mechanics.
The Schrodinger Equation is unitary and therefore preserves strict
causality. You do not know what you are talking about.
>Why else do you think Einstein objected that 'god doesn't play dice'?
Because he did not accept the Copenhagen Interpretation.
And because he rejected any claims that the Law of Causality was not
obeyed in QM.
>All atempts to
>show causality in either atomic decay or slit choice in the classic wave
>duality experiment for light have failed.
But not because the Law of Causality is not obeyed. The reason is that
QM is a non-local phenomenon, as demonstrated by the entanglement
experiments and Bell's Theorem.
>If you can demonstrate
>causality then submit your paper for peer review in Nature or Science,
If you can demonstrate that the Law of Causality is not obeyed in QM,
then you submit your paper, assuming you have the credentials to get
one published.
>>oh and include your calculated unified field theory while you are at it.
Troll. Let me guess: You are one of those moron atheists who tries to
do away with causality because then there is no reason to have a
Supreme Being. Well, you are wrong on that count too, because the
reason for the existence of the Supreme Being goes way beyond mere
physcial causality. But to understand that you would have to
understand Metaphysics, and you clearly don't even understand Physics.
simon
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:06:41 -0000, "simon"
> <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
> >> > faculties.
>
> >> And denial begins with none?
>
> >Ok then it should be simple to find some verifiable proof god exists so
> >provide some
>
> For me the existence of the Universe is all the evidence I need.
That doesnt prove existence merely that a supreme being as you put it once
existed could we have some proof it still does.
Simon
Moja
<si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Ok then it should be simple to find some verifiable proof god exists so
>> >provide some
>> For me the existence of the Universe is all the evidence I need.
>That doesnt prove existence merely that a supreme being as you put it once
>existed could we have some proof it still does.
I did not say that the existence of the Universe proved the existence
of God, only that the existence of the Universe provided the empirical
evidence needed to prove the existence of God.
Moja
>And you are one of those creationists who cannot see the difference
>between complex design and intelligent design.
I am not a creationist. I am not even a fundamentalist Christian. I am
a Jesuitical Heathen.
>Just because there is
>complex design is not an argument for a designer since we have a proven
>mechanism for the emergence of complex design.
I did not say anything about the need for a designer. That's Behe and
Demski who say that.
>Similarly just because an
>object will not change its momentum unless something causes it to, is
>not an argument for an ultimate causer who caused the first celestial
>sphere to rotate.
I never said that. That is one of the theological arguments in the
Summa, none of which I consider worthy of consideration.
The argument I give is metaphysical. Since Metaphysics is based on
Physics, I rely on our understanding of the Laws of Physics to build a
Metphysical agrument. The crux of the argument centers around the
Worldview called Existential Realism, which is the only Worldview that
meets the needs of Physics.
Put in a slightly different way, if Physics works correctly then there
must be a Supreme Being. If there is no Supreme Being then nothing
exists in the objective world and we have lasped into Idealism where
we can't even prove we ourselves exist although we know we do.
If you want to indulge in Idealism where only the subjective world
exists then go ahead. Just be prepared to pay the intellectual price
that such an indulgence costs. And while you are at it you can try to
explain the incredible success of Physics based on Realism compared to
the abysmal failures of all other systems that purport to explain the
nature of the Universe.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>
> I did not say that the existence of the Universe proved the existence
> of God, only that the existence of the Universe provided the empirical
> evidence needed to prove the existence of God.
>
There is emprical evidence for god? In which peer reviewed publication
is this evidence presented?
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> The argument I give is metaphysical. Since Metaphysics is based on
> Physics, I rely on our understanding of the Laws of Physics to build a
> Metphysical agrument. The crux of the argument centers around the
> Worldview called Existential Realism, which is the only Worldview that
> meets the needs of Physics.
Says who? Since we don't have a unified field theory yet, just which
version of physics do you subscribe to? string theory, the multiverse or
some other?
> Put in a slightly different way, if Physics works correctly then there
> must be a Supreme Being.
Please explain the logic of that statement. That is unless your argument
is other than the 'if everything is caused there must be a causer' type.
If there is no Supreme Being then nothing
> exists in the objective world and we have lasped into Idealism where
> we can't even prove we ourselves exist although we know we do.
Ah, I think we in uk.philosophy.atheism have been here before. So let me
ask you a question: are you a dualist?
> If you want to indulge in Idealism where only the subjective world
> exists then go ahead. Just be prepared to pay the intellectual price
> that such an indulgence costs. And while you are at it you can try to
> explain the incredible success of Physics based on Realism compared to
> the abysmal failures of all other systems that purport to explain the
> nature of the Universe.
I think you need to justify your leap of faith which says that physics
requires a supreme being. While you are at it you might light to explain
the role(s) you perceive this being to play or to have played.
Ærchie
>On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:42:51 -0000, "simon"
><si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> >Ok then it should be simple to find some verifiable proof god exists so
>>> >provide some
>
>>> For me the existence of the Universe is all the evidence I need.
>
>>That doesnt prove existence merely that a supreme being as you put it once
>>existed could we have some proof it still does.
>
>I did not say that the existence of the Universe proved the existence
>of God, only that the existence of the Universe provided the empirical
>evidence needed to prove the existence of God.
I refuse to prove I exist, says God, For proof denies faith, and
without faith I am nothing.
But, Man says, the Universe provides the empirical proof that you
exist. In fact it could not have evolved by chance. It proves you
exist and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont. QED
Oh dear, says God, I hadn't thought of that. And promptly vanishes in
a puff of logic.
Ærchie
Scott
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-DB7AF...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> In article <3dff3ebd...@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>
> > The argument I give is metaphysical. Since Metaphysics is based on
> > Physics,
Rubbish. Metaphysics is an attempt to construct a reality which transcends
the phenomenal world. As such all metaphysical assertions are nonsensical;
they are devoid of factual content expressing neither a tautology nor an
empirical hypothesis.
> >I rely on our understanding of the Laws of Physics to build a
> > Metphysical argument.
Then you make an error. Metaphysical arguments have long been shown to be
nonsense.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The argument I give is metaphysical. Since Metaphysics is based on
>> Physics, I rely on our understanding of the Laws of Physics to build a
>> Metphysical agrument. The crux of the argument centers around the
>> Worldview called Existential Realism, which is the only Worldview that
>> meets the needs of Physics.
>Says who?
Says Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger and de Broglie - to name just a
few. The modern theory of information (cf. Sante Fe Institute and
LASL) also supports the Realist Worldview as it pertains to QM (cf.
Jaynes, Cerf and Adami, op. cit.)
>Since we don't have a unified field theory yet, just which
>version of physics do you subscribe to? string theory, the multiverse or
>some other?
There are many different interpretations:
+++++
1. The Copenhagen Interpretation #1. There is no deep reality. Our
physical world is real enough, but its quantum foundations are not
real (Segrč, 1980). This interpretation was favored by Niels Bohr and
Werner Heisenberg.
2. The Copenhagen Interpretation #2. Reality is created by
observation. The world has a phenomenal reality, but we each create
our own reality through our observations (Wolf, 1984). John Wheeler’s
famous maxim states that "no elementary phenomenon is a real
phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon" (Herbert, 1985, p. 18).
3. The Undefined Wholeness Interpretation. Quantum wholeness suggests
that everything is inherently interconnected. This connection is
unaffected by time or space. Adherents include David Bohm, Fritjof
Capra, and Walter Heitler.
4. The Many-Worlds Interpretation. Reality in an increasing number of
parallel worlds. Every possible outcome of every decision actually
occurs, but it does so by splitting off into new, parallel universes
(Wolf, 1988). Formulated in 1957, by Hugh Evertt, one of its chief
adherents today is Paul Davies (1980).
5. The Quantum Logic Interpretation. The world obeys a reasoning which
is non-human. In the same way that Einstein’s relativity requires a
new way of logic from the old Newtonian universe, so the quantum world
requires a new logic in order for us to understand it. Its chief
adherent today is quantum theorist David Finkelstein.
6. The Neorealism Interpretation. The world is composed of ordinary
objects and is ruled by logic and reason and order. The champions of
this view were several pioneers in quantum mechanics including Albert
Einstein, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, and Prince Louis de Broglie.
7. The Consciousness Creates Reality Interpretation. In this view, it
is not enough to observe phenomena, such as a camera or recording
device, but the observer must be conscious. Adherents include Nobel
laureate Eugene Wigner and the famous mathematician John von Neumann.
8. The World as Duality Interpretation. The world consists of
potentials and actualities. Our everyday world is real, but atoms and
subatomic particles only exist in the form of possibilities. This
interpretation was described by Werner Heisenberg.
+++++
Of those I subscribe to the orthodox interpretation #6 posited by
Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger and de Broglie.
There are several reasons I choose that one over all the others. First
and foremost it is a Realist interpretation and does not require the
epistemological leap of faith that mental contructs are real, which
all other interpretations require because they are Idealist in nature.
I reject Idealism as a Worldview outright based on its dismal record
both in Physics, Metaphysics and Epistemology.
Second, the Realist interpretation meets the requirements of Occam's
Razor, being the simplest to understand without having to add a
seemingly endless number of contrivances to shore it up. Simply
stated, QM is a statstical measure of the average state of a system,
similar to the ensemble average of statistical mechanics only it does
not operate on phase space, but Hilbert space instead. Information
theory builds on this notion of a statistical measure.
For example, before his early death Jaynes was in the process of
deriving a classical Physics to account for quantum phenomena using a
straightforward entropy maximization principle. He claimed to have
succeeded in several cases including the Casimir Effect.
Cerf and Adami, among others, claim that they can understand quantum
entanglement from a negative entropy principle, again relying on an
objective Realist interpretation of QM as a statistical measure of the
average state of a system.
I believe the interpretation of QM is an approximation of what is
really going on - a model if you will - and that as new understanding
is gained, it will add onto our current knowledge, not contradict it.
Nothing in Realist QM contradicts Classical Physics.
>> Put in a slightly different way, if Physics works correctly then there
>> must be a Supreme Being.
>Please explain the logic of that statement. That is unless your argument
>is other than the 'if everything is caused there must be a causer' type.
No, as I mentioned before, I do not subscribe to those kinds of
theological arguments. And neither did Aquinas. He only included them
in his Summa Theologica for completeness. His real hardcore
Metaphysical work was contained in other books, in particular "On
Being and Essence".
I have presented the detailed argument following the guidelines of
Aquinas' argument elsewhere. You can find it in a very long thead on
the atheist forums. Just look for keywords "Dark Magus", "Essence",
"Existence", "Esse", "horseness", "Trigger".
> If there is no Supreme Being then nothing
>> exists in the objective world and we have lasped into Idealism where
>> we can't even prove we ourselves exist although we know we do.
>Ah, I think we in uk.philosophy.atheism have been here before.
I do not get that newsgroup on Road Runner.
>So let me
>ask you a question: are you a dualist?
Absolutely not. That is a form of Idealism - and I am not an Idealist.
Rene Descartes began the tradition of believing that mental constructs
had ontological reality in the objective world. This is a form of
Idealism. I am an Existential Realist (Neo-Realist, Physical Realist,
whatever flavor suits you) who believes that only the concrete
objective world exists in our Universe. Mental contructs are
subjective objects limited solely to the brain because they are
manifestations of brain activity and nothing else.
>I think you need to justify your leap of faith which says that physics
>requires a supreme being.
I cannot develop the argument adequately in a few posts. You can look
it up, complete with lots of objections and questions from diehard
atheists on those forums mentioned above.
But in a very sketchy way, the argument starts with the observation
that everything in the Universe is capable of change - that is the
Universe is completely mutable. It is impossible to conceive of
anything in the Universe that is immutable because that would violate
the particulate nature or the wave nature of the Universe. If there is
anything that cannot participate in change then it is not a part of
the Universe.
But, mutable objects cannot have their existence as part of their
essence (nature, specification, description) because if the did then
they would be immutable. If I ask you to design an object that has its
existence as part of its essence, then by the very specification I
just gave you, that object could never change - after all, its
existence as specified included the specification that it exist that
way and only that way and no other way. Therefore it would be
immutable, and cannot be part of the Universe.
Given that objects that are part of the Universe cannot have their
existence as a component of their essence, then their existence must
come from some other entity, namely that entity whose existence is its
essense, that is, whose essence is existence. That we call the Supreme
Being, at least we use that term in Existential Metaphysics.
Because all of known creation is contained in the Universe, and
because the Universe cannot be the source of its own existence, the
Universe owes its existence on the Supreme Being. That is why the
Supreme Being is called the Necessary Being without which reality as
we know it would not exist.
You can try to push the problem off onto vague hypotheses like Big
Bang (which is not a theory) but even if you succeed you still have to
explain the source of the singularity that generated the Big Bang. All
that energy did not just happen, because all that energy is mutable
and therefore cannot have existence as part of its essence.
BTW, of those atheists on the forums who were intellectually capable
of following metaphysical arguments and were also intellectually
honest, agreed that I had succeeded in proving the existence of the
Supreme Being. Their objection was that I had not proven the existence
of the religious God people are accustomed to in Christianity.
But I had made it clear at the outset that I had no intentions of
attempting to prove the existence of an entity that I did not even
believe in myself. God is not some white-beared old fart concocted in
myth for people too dull to think critically.
> While you are at it you might light to explain
>the role(s) you perceive this being to play or to have played.
That is much easier to state. In the Existential Metaphysics the
Supreme Being is the Act which is the source of Existence for all
reality. The Supreme Being is the sole entity in reality whose Essence
is Existence, whose Nature it is to Exist and only to Exist. The
Supreme Being is the Necessary Being because without the existence of
the Supreme Being, nothing would exist - there would be no reality.
It all comes down to accepting the principles of Existential Realism,
which are the ones needed for the Realist intepretation of QM, as well
as Relativity and Classical Physics.
The only other alternative metaphysically is to embrace one or the
other forms of Idealism, in which case there is no Physics, no
Metaphysics, no Epistemology, no rational system of thought, no proof
of the existence of anything, including yourself - although you alone
know you exist. If you indulge in Idealism, then the entiriety of
reality exists solely in you mind and there is nothing else.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I did not say that the existence of the Universe proved the existence
>> of God, only that the existence of the Universe provided the empirical
>> evidence needed to prove the existence of God.
>There is emprical evidence for god? In which peer reviewed publication
>is this evidence presented?
One you are too dull to understand.
Moja
wrote:
>I refuse to prove I exist, says God, For proof denies faith, and
>without faith I am nothing.
>But, Man says, the Universe provides the empirical proof that you
>exist. In fact it could not have evolved by chance. It proves you
>exist and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont. QED
>Oh dear, says God, I hadn't thought of that. And promptly vanishes in
>a puff of logic.
What a concise piece of sophistry that is.
Keep up the good work.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:45:00 +0800, Ærchie <arch...@pphotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I refuse to prove I exist, says God, For proof denies faith, and
> >without faith I am nothing.
>
> >But, Man says, the Universe provides the empirical proof that you
> >exist. In fact it could not have evolved by chance. It proves you
> >exist and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont. QED
>
> >Oh dear, says God, I hadn't thought of that. And promptly vanishes in
> >a puff of logic.
>
> What a concise piece of sophistry that is.
It is a response to the sort of assertion you made that your supreme
being exists but nothing which exists can have its essence as its
existence. So therefore your being cannot exist. I suspect your being is
just shorthand for 'the universe' or 'nature'. Anyway its still a god of
the gaps formulation, that you start from what is unknown in physics is
ample evidence of that. Which means your supreme being has been
gradually diminishing as physics discovers more and more mechanisms.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> Given that objects that are part of the Universe cannot have their
> existence as a component of their essence, then their existence must
> come from some other entity, namely that entity whose existence is its
> essense, that is, whose essence is existence. That we call the Supreme
> Being, at least we use that term in Existential Metaphysics.
So your supreme being is by that definition not part of the universe.
> Because all of known creation is contained in the Universe, and
> because the Universe cannot be the source of its own existence, the
> Universe owes its existence on the Supreme Being. That is why the
> Supreme Being is called the Necessary Being without which reality as
> we know it would not exist.
But if everything is contained within the universe and your supreme
being has its essence within its existence then it cannot be part of the
universe. Therefore the supreme being cannot exist.
> You can try to push the problem off onto vague hypotheses like Big
> Bang (which is not a theory) but even if you succeed you still have to
> explain the source of the singularity that generated the Big Bang. All
> that energy did not just happen, because all that energy is mutable
> and therefore cannot have existence as part of its essence.
Ok so if you do not subscribe to any sort of 'big bang' type theory, how
do you propose the universe came into being? Are you therefore a steady
stater?
> BTW, of those atheists on the forums who were intellectually capable
> of following metaphysical arguments and were also intellectually
> honest, agreed that I had succeeded in proving the existence of the
> Supreme Being. Their objection was that I had not proven the existence
> of the religious God people are accustomed to in Christianity.
>
> But I had made it clear at the outset that I had no intentions of
> attempting to prove the existence of an entity that I did not even
> believe in myself. God is not some white-beared old fart concocted in
> myth for people too dull to think critically.
Ok, so your supreme being is a god of the gaps construction. Glad we got
that one straight. BTW I make no apology for coming to this discussion
late, this thread has only just appeared in uk.philosophy.atheism, I
don't know who was responsible for the crosspost.
> > While you are at it you might light to explain
> >the role(s) you perceive this being to play or to have played.
>
> That is much easier to state. In the Existential Metaphysics the
> Supreme Being is the Act which is the source of Existence for all
> reality. The Supreme Being is the sole entity in reality whose Essence
> is Existence, whose Nature it is to Exist and only to Exist. The
> Supreme Being is the Necessary Being because without the existence of
> the Supreme Being, nothing would exist - there would be no reality.
You now have me potentially confused, is your supreme being necessary
only for the universe to begin to exist or is it also necessary for
existence in the here and now? You say you are not a dualist. So what
role does your supreme being play in thought then? If this being is
necessary for existence then it follows that it must also be necessary
for thought. In what way?
> It all comes down to accepting the principles of Existential Realism,
> which are the ones needed for the Realist intepretation of QM, as well
> as Relativity and Classical Physics.
>
> The only other alternative metaphysically is to embrace one or the
> other forms of Idealism, in which case there is no Physics, no
> Metaphysics, no Epistemology, no rational system of thought, no proof
> of the existence of anything, including yourself - although you alone
> know you exist. If you indulge in Idealism, then the entiriety of
> reality exists solely in you mind and there is nothing else.
That is a charicature of Idealism. It doesnt' state that nothing exists
outside of our heads, only that we cannot absolutely prove reality
exists. So tell me, outside of your messianic assertions of the
rightness of Existential Realism how do I from inside my head and via my
senses prove that reality exists?
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:32:12 +0000, Peter Ashby
> <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> I did not say that the existence of the Universe proved the existence
> >> of God, only that the existence of the Universe provided the empirical
> >> evidence needed to prove the existence of God.
>
> >There is emprical evidence for god? In which peer reviewed publication
> >is this evidence presented?
>
> One you are too dull to understand.
Ah, so your statement above has no substance then. I thought not.
Moja
<nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > The argument I give is metaphysical. Since Metaphysics is based on
>> > Physics,
>Rubbish. Metaphysics is an attempt to construct a reality which transcends
>the phenomenal world. As such all metaphysical assertions are nonsensical;
>they are devoid of factual content expressing neither a tautology nor an
>empirical hypothesis.
You are unaware that you just made a metaphysical pronouncement, so
according to you it is rubbish. But then that's easy to see since you
didn't say anything rational.
>> >I rely on our understanding of the Laws of Physics to build a
>> > Metphysical argument.
>Then you make an error. Metaphysical arguments have long been shown to be
>nonsense.
By people too dull to understand.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Given that objects that are part of the Universe cannot have their
>> existence as a component of their essence, then their existence must
>> come from some other entity, namely that entity whose existence is its
>> essense, that is, whose essence is existence. That we call the Supreme
>> Being, at least we use that term in Existential Metaphysics.
>So your supreme being is by that definition not part of the universe.
Not part in the sense of a physical object. The Supreme Being is an
Act which is the source of existence and therefore does not have to be
part of it.
>> Because all of known creation is contained in the Universe, and
>> because the Universe cannot be the source of its own existence, the
>> Universe owes its existence on the Supreme Being. That is why the
>> Supreme Being is called the Necessary Being without which reality as
>> we know it would not exist.
>But if everything is contained within the universe and your supreme
>being has its essence within its existence then it cannot be part of the
>universe. Therefore the supreme being cannot exist.
Read what I said. I said "all of known creation is contained in the
Universe". The Supreme Being is not a creation.
>> You can try to push the problem off onto vague hypotheses like Big
>> Bang (which is not a theory) but even if you succeed you still have to
>> explain the source of the singularity that generated the Big Bang. All
>> that energy did not just happen, because all that energy is mutable
>> and therefore cannot have existence as part of its essence.
>Ok so if you do not subscribe to any sort of 'big bang' type theory,
Read what I said. I never said that I rejected the Big Bang hypothesis
(which is not a theory).
>how do you propose the universe came into being?
The Universe is an act not a thing. It came into being when the
Supreme Being acted to create it. But however it came into being, it
still requires the Supreme Being for its continued existence.
There are other hypotheses as to the origin of the Universe, such as
M-Brane theory, which postulates that our Universe is a rupture in a
black hole, kinda like a hernia.
>Are you therefore a steady stater?
I am not qualified to take a position. The little I know about
cosmology is that it is a very unsettled field.
>> God is not some white-beared old fart concocted in
>> myth for people too dull to think critically.
>Ok, so your supreme being is a god of the gaps construction.
Read what I said. I never said that.
>Glad we got that one straight.
Only in your mind.
>BTW I make no apology for coming to this discussion
>late, this thread has only just appeared in uk.philosophy.atheism, I
>don't know who was responsible for the crosspost.
I wish I could get that newsgroup because I enjoy this subject. Of the
approximate 150 semester hours I took in undergraduate school under
the Jesuits, fully half was in philosophy, theology and metaphysics. I
have more hours in those subjects than in my major, Physcis, and my
minor, Mathematics, combined. Ad just as I have kept up with Physics
and Mathematics over the years I have kept up with Metaphysics too,
primarily thru the books written my Gilson and other contemporary
Scholastics.
>You now have me potentially confused, is your supreme being necessary
>only for the universe to begin to exist or is it also necessary for
>existence in the here and now?
Both. In Existential Metaphysics there is no difference because the
Universe is not a thing but an act. BTW, that point of view is amply
supported by Quantum Field Theory which maintains that the entire
Universe is made up of objects (particles, waves) that originate in
the Vacuum. But this Vacuum is not some static thing just sitting
there like a cookie jar. It is a violent random entity made up of pure
energy - pure action. In fact the Lagrangian equations of QFT are
action equations, where here the term "action" is a Physics
construction.
The Universe made up from the action of the Vacuum which is itself
made up of the act of pure energy. There is no such thing as a hard
particle as we imagine it by analogy with rocks and such.
>You say you are not a dualist. So what
>role does your supreme being play in thought then?
Thought is a subjective phenomenon - it is the result of brain
activity. There are Physicists, who believe thought and consciousness
are manifestations of quantum gravity. The British Physicist and
Mathematician, Roger Penrose, is a vocal proponent of that. Penrose
has the distinction of having been a collaborator with Hawking, so he
has the credentials.
>If this being is
>necessary for existence then it follows that it must also be necessary
>for thought. In what way?
As I just said, thought and consciousness is a manifestation of brain
activity, which some believe is in turn a manifestation of quantum
effects, such as quantum gravity.
In one interpretation of the Vacuum, namely Quantum Electrodynamics
(QED), it is believed that the electromagnetic field is the sole form
of energy. Electro-weak unification appears to support that. All that
remains is to unify the strong and gravitational forces with the
electro-weak force and you have your Grand Unification.
The point here is that the brain is an active electromagnetic device
that is believed to behave in a way described by QED. If so, then our
consciosuness is a direct connection to the Vacuum, which in turn is
the source of all matter and energy in the Universe. IOW, in this
interpretation, consciousness is a connection with the very act which
constitutes the Universe.
But the Vacuum cannot exist without the act of the Supreme Being to
make it exist (existence) and to make it exist in the way that it
exists (essence). I bet you never thought of it that way, that your
conscious mind is tapping off of the very soul of the Universe.
>That is a charicature of Idealism. It doesnt' state that nothing exists
>outside of our heads, only that we cannot absolutely prove reality
>exists.
Idealism does admit of something existing outside the mind, but it is
an amorphous random matter that has no order to it.
>So tell me, outside of your messianic assertions
What are you talking about? There has been absolutely no appeal to any
religion in anything I said. You are trying to put things into this
discussion that simply do not exist.
>of the
>rightness of Existential Realism how do I from inside my head and via my
>senses prove that reality exists?
You must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism, which among other
things posits the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This ought to
excite the heart of any emiricisit/positivist because the Apprehension
of Being is based purely on empirical reality. But that's another
thread.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >There is emprical evidence for god? In which peer reviewed publication
>> >is this evidence presented?
>> One you are too dull to understand.
>Ah, so your statement above has no substance then. I thought not.
To someone who is as dull as you, it doesn't.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >I refuse to prove I exist, says God, For proof denies faith, and
>> >without faith I am nothing.
>> >But, Man says, the Universe provides the empirical proof that you
>> >exist. In fact it could not have evolved by chance. It proves you
>> >exist and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont. QED
>> >Oh dear, says God, I hadn't thought of that. And promptly vanishes in
>> >a puff of logic.
>> What a concise piece of sophistry that is.
>It is a response to the sort of assertion you made that your supreme
>being exists but nothing which exists can have its essence as its
>existence. So therefore your being cannot exist.
You really do suffer from reading comprehension impairment.
I did not say that "nothing which exists can have its essence as its
existence". I said that mutable objects cannot.
The Supreme Being is immutable.
>I suspect your being is
>just shorthand for 'the universe' or 'nature'.
No because the Supreme Being is that entity whose essence is existence
and that cannot be the case for the "universe" or "nature" because
they are mutable.
>Anyway its still a god of
>the gaps formulation, that you start from what is unknown in physics is
>ample evidence of that. Which means your supreme being has been
>gradually diminishing as physics discovers more and more mechanisms.
You simply do not understand how Physics works. Nothing that is newly
discovered diminishes existing Physics. In fact it enhances existing
Physics.
You really are a dull person when you come down to it.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> >Then you make an error. Metaphysical arguments have long been shown to be
> >nonsense.
>
> By people too dull to understand.
>
Ah, recourse to lack of authority. Evasion in place of argument. I must
remember that one, when in danger of having your assertions exposed
simply adopt a superior air and declare your opponents too simple to
understand the deep and profound subtlety of your arguments. I must try
that next time a reviewer makes a comment on one of my papers. I very
much doubt it will get me anywhere.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:41:08 +0000, Peter Ashby
> <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> >But if everything is contained within the universe and your supreme
> >being has its essence within its existence then it cannot be part of the
> >universe. Therefore the supreme being cannot exist.
>
> Read what I said. I said "all of known creation is contained in the
> Universe". The Supreme Being is not a creation.
So how did your supreme being come to Be? In this formulation your
supreme being is simple then unkown before. Yet the Big Bang theory has
it that there was no before the big bang since time started with the big
bang. How do you square this? and if you reject this aspect of physics
on what basis do you do so other than consistency with your metaphysics?
> >how do you propose the universe came into being?
>
> The Universe is an act not a thing. It came into being when the
> Supreme Being acted to create it. But however it came into being, it
> still requires the Supreme Being for its continued existence.
Ah, for its continued existence. Thankyou for that. If then the supreme
being is not part of the universe how can it be required for the
continued existence of it? Since it is outside of the universe it cannot
act within it since it would then cease to be.
> There are other hypotheses as to the origin of the Universe, such as
> M-Brane theory, which postulates that our Universe is a rupture in a
> black hole, kinda like a hernia.
Yes I am aware of this, it is a form of the multiverse hypothesis.
Interesting but not very testable.
> >Are you therefore a steady stater?
>
> I am not qualified to take a position. The little I know about
> cosmology is that it is a very unsettled field.
I don' think the inflation of the visible universe is untested.
> >> God is not some white-beared old fart concocted in
> >> myth for people too dull to think critically.
>
> >Ok, so your supreme being is a god of the gaps construction.
>
> Read what I said. I never said that.
No, it is implicit in your formulation whether you wish to acknowledge
it or not.
> >Glad we got that one straight.
>
> Only in your mind.
In your own formulations.
> >You now have me potentially confused, is your supreme being necessary
> >only for the universe to begin to exist or is it also necessary for
> >existence in the here and now?
>
> Both. In Existential Metaphysics there is no difference because the
> Universe is not a thing but an act.
So you need to explain both why and how the being can act in the
universe without ceasing to be.
BTW, that point of view is amply
> supported by Quantum Field Theory which maintains that the entire
> Universe is made up of objects (particles, waves) that originate in
> the Vacuum. But this Vacuum is not some static thing just sitting
> there like a cookie jar. It is a violent random entity made up of pure
> energy - pure action. In fact the Lagrangian equations of QFT are
> action equations, where here the term "action" is a Physics
> construction.
The quantum vaccum energy is a postulate of string theory. I am not
aware that it had been empirically demonstrated beyond the casimir
effect.
> The Universe made up from the action of the Vacuum which is itself
> made up of the act of pure energy. There is no such thing as a hard
> particle as we imagine it by analogy with rocks and such.
Yes, yes, spare us the popular physics lecture. I am aware that e=mc2
thankyou.
> >You say you are not a dualist. So what
> >role does your supreme being play in thought then?
>
> Thought is a subjective phenomenon - it is the result of brain
> activity.
Activity encoded in the movement of charged particles. If you disagree
you are a dualist. So it is within the universe in your formulation.
There are Physicists, who believe thought and consciousness
> are manifestations of quantum gravity. The British Physicist and
> Mathematician, Roger Penrose, is a vocal proponent of that. Penrose
> has the distinction of having been a collaborator with Hawking, so he
> has the credentials.
Yes, we have had much discussion on quantum consciousness over in
uk.philosophy.humanism, before u.p.a. was started. There are many
objections to this belief, chief among them being that it has not been
demonstrated to be necessary to explain consciousness and that
decoherence of macromolecules in saline at 37C has not been demonstrated.
> >If this being is
> >necessary for existence then it follows that it must also be necessary
> >for thought. In what way?
> The point here is that the brain is an active electromagnetic device
> that is believed to behave in a way described by QED. If so, then our
> consciosuness is a direct connection to the Vacuum, which in turn is
> the source of all matter and energy in the Universe. IOW, in this
> interpretation, consciousness is a connection with the very act which
> constitutes the Universe.
Do you subscribe to this interpretation? This skates perilously close to
dualism and in particular Berkleyism in which god is argued to be
dreaming our consciousness. We had someone in here arguing just this
some months ago. He has since slunk off to continue his PhD on the
subject, we don't give him much hope by the standards of his arguments.
> But the Vacuum cannot exist without the act of the Supreme Being to
> make it exist (existence) and to make it exist in the way that it
> exists (essence). I bet you never thought of it that way, that your
> conscious mind is tapping off of the very soul of the Universe.
I'm assuming you are using the term 'soul of the universe'
metaphorically here. I have indeed thought of this, and discussed it to
death as I explain above. So according to this your supreme being is
merely the personification of an extreme form of the anthropic
principle. An answer to the question of why the universal constants are
at the values they are which are consistent with our forms of life. A
god of the gaps formulation.
So your being causes the universe to begin and sets the parameters.
Fine, but this is not an explanation for why it is necessary for the
continuing existence of the universe unless this is again simply a
personification of the constants and if they changed well we would no
longer exist.
> >That is a charicature of Idealism. It doesnt' state that nothing exists
> >outside of our heads, only that we cannot absolutely prove reality
> >exists.
>
> Idealism does admit of something existing outside the mind, but it is
> an amorphous random matter that has no order to it.
That is one form of idealism, but not a general statement of it.
>
> > >So tell me, outside of your messianic assertions
>
> What are you talking about? There has been absolutely no appeal to any
> religion in anything I said. You are trying to put things into this
> discussion that simply do not exist.
Your assertions here, starting from your particular take on physics and
assuming existential realism have somehting of the messianic in them,
whether you intend it or not, that is how I perceive it.
> >of the
> >rightness of Existential Realism how do I from inside my head and via my
> >senses prove that reality exists?
>
> You must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism, which among other
> things posits the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This ought to
> excite the heart of any emiricisit/positivist because the Apprehension
> of Being is based purely on empirical reality. But that's another
> thread.
I see, so how does the adoption of existential realism suddenly prove
that reality exists outside of my head? this is coming closer and closer
to simple assertion without argument or evidence.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:42:08 +0000, Peter Ashby
> <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >There is emprical evidence for god? In which peer reviewed publication
> >> >is this evidence presented?
>
> >> One you are too dull to understand.
>
> >Ah, so your statement above has no substance then. I thought not.
>
> To someone who is as dull as you, it doesn't.
LOL! thankyou for confirming it.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> >Anyway its still a god of
> >the gaps formulation, that you start from what is unknown in physics is
> >ample evidence of that. Which means your supreme being has been
> >gradually diminishing as physics discovers more and more mechanisms.
>
> You simply do not understand how Physics works. Nothing that is newly
> discovered diminishes existing Physics. In fact it enhances existing
> Physics.
Unsupported assertion. Just because I do not agree with your
'metaphysic', it does not follow that I do not understand physics
sufficiently to follow your attempts at argument which break down into
assertion.
> You really are a dull person when you come down to it.
Another assertion. I assert that you are an invisible pink hippo named
Janice. This assertion has as much validity as yours above.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >Then you make an error. Metaphysical arguments have long been shown to be
>> >nonsense.
>> By people too dull to understand.
>Ah, recourse to lack of authority. Evasion in place of argument. I must
>remember that one, when in danger of having your assertions exposed
>simply adopt a superior air and declare your opponents too simple to
>understand the deep and profound subtlety of your arguments. I must try
>that next time a reviewer makes a comment on one of my papers. I very
>much doubt it will get me anywhere.
<yawn>
RF
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:43:42 GMT, "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz>
> wrote:
>
> >> A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
> >> faculties.
>
> >And denial begins with none?
>
> your fantasies when they contradict reality. That's asking too much.
>
> It is you who is denying reality.
What are you on about? I was querying whether denying God involved any
logical or reasoned thought.
RF
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>So how did your supreme being come to Be?
The Supreme Being did not come to be. The Supreme Being is that entity
whose essence is existence. That means that the Supreme Being is.
>In this formulation your
>supreme being is simple then unkown before. Yet the Big Bang theory has
>it that there was no before the big bang since time started with the big
>bang. How do you square this? and if you reject this aspect of physics
>on what basis do you do so other than consistency with your metaphysics?
That makes no sense. I make no attempt to reconcile Metaphysics with
hypotheses that even Physicists can't accept as theory.
>Ah, for its continued existence. Thankyou for that. If then the supreme
>being is not part of the universe how can it be required for the
>continued existence of it? Since it is outside of the universe it cannot
>act within it since it would then cease to be.
That makes no sense. When you bake a cake, do you become part of it?
>> There are other hypotheses as to the origin of the Universe, such as
>> M-Brane theory, which postulates that our Universe is a rupture in a
>> black hole, kinda like a hernia.
>Yes I am aware of this, it is a form of the multiverse hypothesis.
>Interesting but not very testable.
It is not the same as the MWI interpretation. It is more like the
Inflation Theory.
>I don' think the inflation of the visible universe is untested.
It is nonetheless still an hypothesis.
But no matter if it were a full-blown theory. The Universe still
requires a source for its existence for all the time that it exists.
>No, it is implicit in your formulation whether you wish to acknowledge
>it or not.
You are not qualified to read your misinterpretations into my
comments. Make your own separate comments. There is no "god of the
gap" in the description of the Supreme Being.
>> Both. In Existential Metaphysics there is no difference because the
>> Universe is not a thing but an act.
>So you need to explain both why and how the being can act in the
>universe without ceasing to be.
No, I do not because I do not claim any such thing. If you want to
claim it then the burden of proof is with you.
>The quantum vaccum energy is a postulate of string theory. I am not
>aware that it had been empirically demonstrated beyond the casimir
>effect.
It has been a standard part of QM since the days of Dirac and his sea
of negative energy positrons. It is the source of electromagnetic
photons in Quantum Electrodynamics of Dirac and Feynman. String theory
is much more recent.
>Yes, yes, spare us the popular physics lecture. I am aware that e=mc2
>thankyou.
Are you?
>> Thought is a subjective phenomenon - it is the result of brain
>> activity.
>Activity encoded in the movement of charged particles. If you disagree
>you are a dualist. So it is within the universe in your formulation.
Thought is within the Universe indeed.
>> >If this being is
>> >necessary for existence then it follows that it must also be necessary
>> >for thought. In what way?
>> The point here is that the brain is an active electromagnetic device
>> that is believed to behave in a way described by QED. If so, then our
>> consciosuness is a direct connection to the Vacuum, which in turn is
>> the source of all matter and energy in the Universe. IOW, in this
>> interpretation, consciousness is a connection with the very act which
>> constitutes the Universe.
>Do you subscribe to this interpretation? This skates perilously close to
>dualism and in particular Berkleyism in which god is argued to be
>dreaming our consciousness.
I did not equate God with the Vaccum, you did. God is not the Vacuum.
>> But the Vacuum cannot exist without the act of the Supreme Being to
>> make it exist (existence) and to make it exist in the way that it
>> exists (essence). I bet you never thought of it that way, that your
>> conscious mind is tapping off of the very soul of the Universe.
>I'm assuming you are using the term 'soul of the universe'
>metaphorically here.
Yes, I had a momentary lapse into the poetic.
>I have indeed thought of this, and discussed it to
>death as I explain above. So according to this your supreme being is
>merely the personification of an extreme form of the anthropic
>principle.
No, the Supreme Being is the source of existence.
>So your being causes the universe to begin and sets the parameters.
>Fine, but this is not an explanation for why it is necessary for the
>continuing existence of the universe unless this is again simply a
>personification of the constants and if they changed well we would no
>longer exist.
The necessity of sustaining the existence of the Universe is the same
as the necessity for creating it in the first place. The Universe is
mutable and therefore does not have existence as part of its essence.
It must rely on an entity outside itself for its existence, not only
in terms of its original creation but also in terms of its continuing
existence. Without the Supreme Being, the Universe would simply not
exist now or at any time in the past.
>> Idealism does admit of something existing outside the mind, but it is
>> an amorphous random matter that has no order to it.
>That is one form of idealism, but not a general statement of it.
I never claimed otherwise.
>Your assertions here, starting from your particular take on physics and
>assuming existential realism have somehting of the messianic in them,
>whether you intend it or not, that is how I perceive it.
Messianic? There is no religious belief in any of this. Aquinas prided
himself in being able to divorce his religious beliefs from his
Metaphysical works.
>> You must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism, which among other
>> things posits the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This ought to
>> excite the heart of any emiricisit/positivist because the Apprehension
>> of Being is based purely on empirical reality. But that's another
>> thread.
>I see, so how does the adoption of existential realism suddenly prove
>that reality exists outside of my head? this is coming closer and closer
>to simple assertion without argument or evidence.
I did not ever say that adoption of Existential Realism proved that
reality exists outside your head. I said that it "posits" it.
You are able to apprehend being with your senses. A new born infant
can do that. When that infant places his hand on a hot burner, he
apprehends being immediately, that is, he becomes aware that there is
something out there (the objective world). Apprehension means to
become aware. The infant does not know what it is, so apprehension of
being does not require any knowledge of the essence of reality, only
the realization that something exists out there - that there is an
external world.
That is one of the most important postulates of Existential Realism.
In fact Aquinas never bothered to develop an Epistemology because for
him the Authority of the Senses was enough to explain how we know that
there is an objective world.
Of course we could always lapse into solipsism like the movie The
Matrix, but we know better than to do that, don't we. We know from our
senses that there is an objective world that we learn to understand
thru our senses. If that is unacceptable, then you reject the most
important epistemological tenet of Existential Realism.
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> You simply do not understand how Physics works. Nothing that is newly
>> discovered diminishes existing Physics. In fact it enhances existing
>> Physics.
>Unsupported assertion.
Actually it is not unsupported at all. If you had pursued an advanced
degree in Physics you would have had to demonstrate that in the limit
of large quantum number the equations of QM become the equations of
Classical Physics. You would have learned that it is called
Erhenfest's Theorem.
Then if you had studied Special Relativity you would have had to
demonstrate that the Lorentz Transformation reduces to Newton's Laws
in the limit that the relative speed between source and observer is
small compared to the speed of light. You would have had to show that
Dirac's relativistic equation from which spin emerges reduced to the
standard equation of quantum mechanics in the same limit.
>Just because I do not agree with your
>'metaphysic', it does not follow that I do not understand physics
>sufficiently to follow your attempts at argument which break down into
>assertion.
Believe me, you don't understand Physics well enough to be able to
contribute meaningfully to this discussion. Accept you limitations and
move on.
>> You really are a dull person when you come down to it.
>Another assertion. I assert that you are an invisible pink hippo named
>Janice. This assertion has as much validity as yours above.
You have demonstrated just how dull you are when it comes to Physics
and Metaphysics.
RF
"simon" <si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3dfe6...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote in message
> news:yGsL9.12706$lO.103...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> > "Scott" <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:atlfpv$nhe$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:09:54 -0000, "Scott"
> > > > <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> snip
>
> > > > But to someone with the ability to engage in critical thinking it is
> > > > not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
> > > faculties.
> > And denial begins with none?
>
> provide some
RF
RF
> In article <3dfeeca9...@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>
> > The Laws of Physics demand that the Principle of Causality be
> > rigorously obeyed. Causality is built into the very fabric of
> > Classical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Therefore there
> > must be a Supreme Being whose essence is existence, since the Universe
> > cannot have existence as part of its essence or otherwise it would be
> > immutable.
>
> And what causes a particular radioactive atom to decay when its
> neighbour does not? Your statement above is false. Causality is
> explicitly not built into the fabric of quantum mechanics. Why else do
> you think Einstein objected that 'god doesn't play dice'?
So you are saying that Einstein believed there is a God?
RF
> All atempts to
> show causality in either atomic decay or slit choice in the classic wave
> duality experiment for light have failed. If you can demonstrate
> causality then submit your paper for peer review in Nature or Science,
> oh and include your calculated unified field theory while you are at it.
RF
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:06:59 +0000, Peter Ashby
> <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Troll. Let me guess: You are one of those moron atheists who tries to
> >> do away with causality because then there is no reason to have a
> >> Supreme Being. Well, you are wrong on that count too, because the
> >> reason for the existence of the Supreme Being goes way beyond mere
> >> physcial causality. But to understand that you would have to
> >> understand Metaphysics, and you clearly don't even understand Physics.
>
> >And you are one of those creationists who cannot see the difference
> >between complex design and intelligent design.
>
> I am not a creationist. I am not even a fundamentalist Christian. I am
> a Jesuitical Heathen.
You need to a least discard the Jesuitical part.
> >Just because there is
> >complex design is not an argument for a designer since we have a proven
> >mechanism for the emergence of complex design.
>
> I did not say anything about the need for a designer. That's Behe and
> Demski who say that.
So creation isn't a design?
RF
RF
"Ærchie" <arch...@pphotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6huvugkq5m69ja1q...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:12:12 GMT, moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) :
>
> >On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:42:51 -0000, "simon"
> ><si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> >Ok then it should be simple to find some verifiable proof god exists
so
> >>> >provide some
> >
> >>> For me the existence of the Universe is all the evidence I need.
> >
> >>That doesnt prove existence merely that a supreme being as you put it
once
> >>existed could we have some proof it still does.
> >
> >I did not say that the existence of the Universe proved the existence
> >of God, only that the existence of the Universe provided the empirical
> >evidence needed to prove the existence of God.
>
> I refuse to prove I exist, says God,
How would you know God said that? If you heard it coming from Him, you would
therefore know He exists. QED
> For proof denies faith,
Faith first, then proof. Faith is not the absence of fact, just the absence
of understanding of the fact.
> and without faith I am nothing.
You've clearly got your POV wrong.
RF
RF
>
> "Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:05:51 -0000, "Scott"
> > <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
> > >faculties.
> >
> >
>
> Either god contradicts reality or has no effect on it. The former is
> unsustainable, the later is redundant.
Prove it's redundant.
RF
John Sharman
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <3dff6e06...@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
[..]
>> You really are a dull person when you come down to it.
>
>Another assertion. I assert that you are an invisible pink hippo named
>Janice. This assertion has as much validity as yours above.
Surely not. ".. invisible pink .." cannot be valid. ".. dull .."
might be valid.
--
Regards,
John Sharman
<jay...@john-sharman.co.uk>
Tel: [+44] (0)1603 452142; Fax: [+44] (0)870 0521703
Ærchie
:
One of the reasons I gave up my ingrained-from-birth belief in a great
big nasty God who was going to punish the Hell outa me if I didn't do
what he said was the fact that there is a sense of humour, and a sense
of the absurd in this universe. The God of the Bible, of the Koran, of
the Talmaud and Torah has no sense of humour. I would much rather
spend eternity with Loki!
Ærchie
Ærchie
:
It is repetitively redundant!
Ærchie
Reg Hems
In article <atlfpv$nhe$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk> Scott wrote:
> In message <3dfe3c6d....@news-server.houston.rr.com> Moja wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Dec Scott wrote:
How did this get X-posted to this NG? And what EU Quislings are these?
5th columnists from England or other parts of the EU? Certainly in
continental Europe nobody would dream of abolishing their national and
provincial flags. De Gaulle said: "l'Europe des Nations" but this would
better be expressed by "l'Europe des Régions".
>>>>> Theists are people who never got over the shock of finding out that
>>>>> the father Christmas and the tooth fairy don't exist ....
Of course Santa Claus\Father Christmas do not exist.
Santa Claus is a fake. 17th century Political Correctness :-(
Dutch Calvinist colonists (of Theodore Beza's persuasion) in New Amsterdam
USA concocted "Santa Claus" (== bastardised "Sinterklaas") because they
could not possibly be seen to celebrate the feast day (5\6 Dec) of the
'Roman Catholic' St.Nicholas (4th century Bishop of Myra). The red tunic of
Santa Claus is a recent (in the 20s or 30s) introduction by Coca Cola :-(
However, Calvinists in the Netherlands (mainly Calvin's capitalist
persuasion) are far too pragmatic to let a small detail like this stand in
the way of a celebration for the children (and adults ;-)
St.Nicholas visits children in homes, schools ...... of *all* religions and
non-religions (Jewish, Calvinist, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Muslim,
bouddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic ......). Although he wears all the
paraphernalia of a RC bishop (fish miter, royal red tunic, shepherd's
staff, cardinal's ring.....) the non RC communities just see it as
/the uniform/ of St.Nicholas.
The transformation of St.Nicholas into "Father Christmas, Father January"
began first in Germany, then those countries where the reformed churches
were in the majority and finally in France (Père Noël, Père Fouettard)
and the feast day moved to 25 Dec or the new year.
>>>>> .... So they invented god to fill a tooth fairy sized hole in their
>>>>> life.
>>>> Childish.
>>>Yes a belief in god certainly is childish.
>> It would appear that way to a child like you.
>> But to someone with the ability to engage in critical thinking it is
>> not.
> A belief in god can only be achieved with an abrogation of critical
> faculties.
Belief, as in faith, does not require critical faculties. One believes or
one doesn't. All other uses of the terms belief\to believe are erroneous
substitutions for "I think, I am of the opinion, I guess....." and the most
misused terms in the language, and not just English.
* I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it - attributed erroneously to Voltaire
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
BBC B Micro Iss.3&7 \_
Atomwide Serial board \_
Diamond SupraExpress 56 \_
ARM3 PC A420 IDE-SCSI 8Mb \_
reg...@argonet.co.uk |
Scott
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:02:05 -0000, "Scott"
> <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > The argument I give is metaphysical. Since Metaphysics is based on
> >> > Physics,
>
> >Rubbish. Metaphysics is an attempt to construct a reality which
transcends
> >the phenomenal world. As such all metaphysical assertions are
nonsensical;
> >they are devoid of factual content expressing neither a tautology nor an
> >empirical hypothesis.
>
> You are unaware that you just made a metaphysical pronouncement, so
> according to you it is rubbish. But then that's easy to see since you
> didn't say anything rational.
I think you'll find I wrote an empirical statement and not a metaphysical
one. However what you wrote in reply demonstrated that you don't know the
difference between the two, consequently your reply is a demonstrably false
assertion.
>
> >> >I rely on our understanding of the Laws of Physics to build a
> >> > Metphysical argument.
>
> >Then you make an error. Metaphysical arguments have long been shown to be
> >nonsense.
>
> By people too dull to understand.
>
Everything I wrote was a direct quote from A. J. Ayer, one of the foremost
philosophers of the late 20th century. Are you saying he was too dull to
understand?
Scott
If god has no effect on reality, it is unnecessary to hypotheses the
existence of god and no observable contradiction arises when it is removed.
God is equivalent to the herd of invisible magic unicorns in my back garden.
RF
you'll find it humourous.
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
Ærchie
:
My bad - that damned humour bug attacked my keyboard again.
Ærchie -
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
I must be serious at all times when discussing religion
And next time it will be 50 lines!
Moja
wrote:
>So you are saying that Einstein believed there is a God?
Of course he did. He was a devout Jew and a Metaphysician as well as a
Physicist.
Moja
wrote:
>> I am not a creationist. I am not even a fundamentalist Christian. I am
>> a Jesuitical Heathen.
>You need to a least discard the Jesuitical part.
Why should I?
>> I did not say anything about the need for a designer. That's Behe and
>> Demski who say that.
>So creation isn't a design?
I leave that for another thread.
Moja
>Faith first, then proof. Faith is not the absence of fact, just the absence
>of understanding of the fact.
Spoken like a truly dull person.
Ærchie
:
Oh, I'm sorry. I should have realised that we are here to take life
seriously. Laughter is as much a mortal sin as incorrect sex.
Seriously, I dont think I want to spend eternity with a God who
demands that I bow down and worship him. A lifetime of sacrifice
followed by an eternity of servile gratitude for havng had the
privilige of being created. Providing always that I happen to
accidentally chose the correct God to worship.
Sorry, I'll settle for a fun lifetime of existence, I don't need an
eternity of serious serfdom as well.
Ærchie
Moja
wrote:
>I would much rather
>spend eternity with Loki!
There is not an option. Once you die, you will return to the state of
non-existence from which you came.
Such is the nature of creation. Things come, things go.
Enjoy it while you have it - existence that is.
When you think about it, although existence is a big rush, you would
not want to experience it for all eternity. Non-existence is the
Heaven we seek after having had our fill of existence.
Moja
<nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Everything I wrote was a direct quote from A. J. Ayer, one of the foremost
>philosophers of the late 20th century. Are you saying he was too dull to
>understand?
No, just too dull to be relevant.
RF
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:19:08 GMT, "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz>
> wrote:
>
> >So you are saying that Einstein believed there is a God?
>
> Of course he did. He was a devout Jew and a Metaphysician as well as a
> Physicist.
RF
RF
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:21:54 GMT, "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz>
> wrote:
>
> >> I am not a creationist. I am not even a fundamentalist Christian. I am
> >> a Jesuitical Heathen.
>
> >You need to a least discard the Jesuitical part.
>
> Why should I?
were against them? If so, why do you use that associative phrase?
RF
RF
"Ærchie" <ha...@it.com> wrote in message
news:juhvvu8qrpal6vh3l...@4ax.com...
Yet since he created you, don't you think he deserves it? At least he's
given you the choice to say no, as he gave you the choice to say yes.
Especially when he wants to bless you throughout eternity with only good
things?
> A lifetime of sacrifice
> followed by an eternity of servile gratitude for havng had the
> privilige of being created. Providing always that I happen to
> accidentally chose the correct God to worship.
>
> Sorry, I'll settle for a fun lifetime of existence, I don't need an
> eternity of serious serfdom as well.
But if the "serfdom" wasn't onerous, and he gave you an eternal life better
than any you could ever imagine? Sounds like a bargain to me and a better
offer than any other you think you'd be able to get. After all, who could
give you a better eternity than God?
RF
Scott
That is not a requirement of my original hypothesis; which was "Either god
RF
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:22:33 +0800, Ærchie <arch...@pphotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I would much rather
> >spend eternity with Loki!
>
> There is not an option. Once you die, you will return to the state of
> non-existence from which you came.
Been there done that eh? And you've come back to tell us?
> Such is the nature of creation. Things come, things go.
And things go on for ever.
> Enjoy it while you have it - existence that is.
>
> When you think about it, although existence is a big rush, you would
> not want to experience it for all eternity.
Why not?
> Non-existence is the Heaven we seek after having had our fill of
existence.
You haven't got a death wish, you've got an annihilation wish. Now if only
you spoke with even a modicum of authority, but you don't. You have set
yourself up as an alternative to Christ, claiming that you know better than
him what happens when a person dies. I know whom I'd rather believe.
RF
RF
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:29:07 GMT, "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz>
> wrote:
>
> >Faith first, then proof. Faith is not the absence of fact, just the
absence
> >of understanding of the fact.
>
> Spoken like a truly dull person.
RF
Scott
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:19:08 GMT, "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz>
> wrote:
>
> >So you are saying that Einstein believed there is a God?
>
> Of course he did. He was a devout Jew and a Metaphysician as well as a
> Physicist.
>
Whatever he was, he was most certainly not a _devout_ Jew.
RF
RF
Ærchie
>On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:22:33 +0800, Ærchie <arch...@pphotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I would much rather
>>spend eternity with Loki!
>
>There is not an option. Once you die, you will return to the state of
>non-existence from which you came.
>
>Such is the nature of creation. Things come, things go.
>
>Enjoy it while you have it - existence that is.
>
>When you think about it, although existence is a big rush, you would
>not want to experience it for all eternity. Non-existence is the
>Heaven we seek after having had our fill of existence.
>
>
>
>Moja
Which is exactly what I said before you selectively snipped to the
perverted humour throw-away line.
Ærchie - do I hear an echo?
Ærchie
:
<atropos attack>
>> Sorry, I'll settle for a fun lifetime of existence, I don't need an
>> eternity of serious serfdom as well.
>But if the "serfdom" wasn't onerous, and he gave you an eternal life better
>than any you could ever imagine? Sounds like a bargain to me and a better
>offer than any other you think you'd be able to get. After all, who could
>give you a better eternity than God?
>RF
>
An eternity determined by a selfish and jealous being?
"Thou shalt have no Gods other than me"
"Believe in me or I will send you to Hell."
"That nation believes in another God - destroy it, men women and
children."
"That olive tree doesn't have any olives on it for Me - ZAP!!!"
No thanks - you can have it, I'll just have a rest from an enjoyable,
guilt-free life.
Ærchie
Peter Ashby
> Prove then, that God has had *no* effect on reality.
As you are no doubt aware it is not possible to prove a negative.
However I can say that unless there is evidence for a god's effect on
reality that can only be ascribed to a supernatural entity then why
should I pay attention to cliams of that god's existence? Surely a
realist should not expect me to accept that god exists without evidence?
I asked Moja which peer reviewed journal this evidence was published in
and he declined to answer. As Scott said, without evidence the god
assertion has as much validity as his herd of invisible magic unicorns,
or my assertion that Moja is an invisible pink hippo called Janet.
Peter
Peter
Peter Ashby
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:46:54 -0000, "Scott"
> <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Everything I wrote was a direct quote from A. J. Ayer, one of the foremost
> >philosophers of the late 20th century. Are you saying he was too dull to
> >understand?
>
> No, just too dull to be relevant.
Again, we have bald assertion instead of argument. Who are you to
arbitrarily declare relevance? Or are you simply scared to demonstrate
that you are to dull to understand the point?
Peter
Peter Ashby
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:48:15 +0000, Peter Ashby
> <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <3dff6e06...@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> > moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> You really are a dull person when you come down to it.
> >
> >Another assertion. I assert that you are an invisible pink hippo named
> >Janice. This assertion has as much validity as yours above.
>
> Surely not. ".. invisible pink .." cannot be valid. ".. dull .."
> might be valid.
Ah, invisible pink animals are a much used metaphor in uk.philosophy.* I
could counter by pointing out that it is possible for the hippo to be
invisible at ultraviolet, infrared or lang wave radio wavelengths. Thus
it could be both invisible and pink at the same time. I did not specify
either the wavelengths or the visual range of the observer, augmented or
otherwise.
Peter
Jonathan Bratt
Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
This is 'Bob's' stock in trade: bald assertion that we are supposed to
accept because.....well, because he says so I assume. If you do not on,
agree, you are by definition wrong, and a pervert, or a moron, or
whatever.
It is a self-referential, insular world, constructed for someone to
fragile to bear any form of rational enquiry or criticism.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Moja
Ashby) wrote:
>> No, just too dull to be relevant.
>Again, we have bald assertion instead of argument. Who are you to
>arbitrarily declare relevance? Or are you simply scared to demonstrate
>that you are to dull to understand the point?
Irrelevant.
Moja
wrote:
>>Again, we have bald assertion instead of argument. Who are you to
>>arbitrarily declare relevance? Or are you simply scared to demonstrate
>>that you are to dull to understand the point?
>This is 'Bob's' stock in trade: bald assertion that we are supposed to
>accept because.....well, because he says so I assume. If you do not on,
>agree, you are by definition wrong, and a pervert, or a moron, or
>whatever.
>It is a self-referential, insular world, constructed for someone to
>fragile to bear any form of rational enquiry or criticism.
This coming from a queer.
Moja
Ashby) wrote:
>> Prove then, that God has had *no* effect on reality.
>As you are no doubt aware it is not possible to prove a negative.
Talk about insular - that bullshit comes straight out of those atheist
forums.
Physicists have been proving negatives ever since the beginning of
science in Greece 4,500 years ago. But you would not know that,
because you are too dull to understand science.
One of the most illustrious negatives that Physicists proved is the
non-existence of the Ether. By performing experiments such as the
Michaelson-Morley experiment, Physicists were able to demonstrate
conclusively that the medium they called the Ether cannot exist,
thereby proving a negative.
The first poster's implication is correct - these atheists cannot
prove that God has no effect on reality. If they attempt to do so, as
Bertrand Russell once did, they discover that they also cannot prove
the existence of anything, including themselves.
But that is to be expected because if you can prove that God has no
effect on reality, then you have just proven that there can be no
reality. God is the source of reality. God is the Being whose essence
is existence, which is the Act that causes things to be and to be what
they are.
Without God, there is no reality.
John Sharman
Ashby) wrote:
>John Sharman <{jayshar}@norvic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:48:15 +0000, Peter Ashby
>> <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3dff6e06...@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
>> > moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> You really are a dull person when you come down to it.
>> >
>> >Another assertion. I assert that you are an invisible pink hippo named
>> >Janice. This assertion has as much validity as yours above.
>>
>> Surely not. ".. invisible pink .." cannot be valid. ".. dull .."
>> might be valid.
>
>Ah, invisible pink animals are a much used metaphor in uk.philosophy.* I
>could counter by pointing out that it is possible for the hippo to be
>invisible at ultraviolet, infrared
In either of which cases the inconsistency would not arise.
> or lang wave radio wavelengths. Thus
In this last case the hippo, presumably (by inference), being
Scottish as well?
>it could be both invisible and pink at the same time. I did not specify
No part of the electromagnetic spectrum (or mixtures of parts
thereof) to which (in the English language) may be ascribed the
attribute "pink" lies outside that part of the spectrum which is
"visible", assuming your species to be human.
>either the wavelengths or the visual range of the observer, augmented or
>otherwise.
You did - by use of the word "pink".
--
Regards,
John Sharman
<jay...@john-sharman.co.uk>
Tel: [+44] (0)1603 452142; Fax: [+44] (0)870 0521703
Ærchie
And is Janet wearing fish-net stockings, red suspenders and crotchless
knickers? That sort of outfit culs make an invisible pink hippo quite
attractive. Unlike Moja's logic.
Ærchie
Cynic
>One of the most illustrious negatives that Physicists proved is the
>non-existence of the Ether. By performing experiments such as the
>Michaelson-Morley experiment, Physicists were able to demonstrate
>conclusively that the medium they called the Ether cannot exist,
>thereby proving a negative.
There is no such proof. The Ether may well exist, and in fact there
is a theory that it is the *only* thing that exists, with matter being
formed by eddies within the frictionless Ether. The non-acceptance of
such theories has more to do with occum's razor than any proof to the
contrary.
>The first poster's implication is correct - these atheists cannot
>prove that God has no effect on reality. If they attempt to do so, as
>Bertrand Russell once did, they discover that they also cannot prove
>the existence of anything, including themselves.
>
>But that is to be expected because if you can prove that God has no
>effect on reality, then you have just proven that there can be no
>reality. God is the source of reality. God is the Being whose essence
>is existence, which is the Act that causes things to be and to be what
>they are.
>
>Without God, there is no reality.
You are completely wrong, because I happen to know as a fact that
reality is controlled by an invisible homosexual rabbit who normally
lives in Wales.
If you disagree with me, you must prove that the rabbit does not
exist.
--
Cynic
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:54:51 +0000, Jonathan Bratt <Jona...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Again, we have bald assertion instead of argument. Who are you to
> >>arbitrarily declare relevance? Or are you simply scared to demonstrate
> >>that you are to dull to understand the point?
>
> >This is 'Bob's' stock in trade: bald assertion that we are supposed to
> >accept because.....well, because he says so I assume. If you do not on,
> >agree, you are by definition wrong, and a pervert, or a moron, or
> >whatever.
>
> >It is a self-referential, insular world, constructed for someone to
> >fragile to bear any form of rational enquiry or criticism.
>
> This coming from a queer.
>
You claim that your god is not the xian god. So on what basis does your
existential realism encourage homophobia? BTW I take it you agree
wholeheartedly with Jonathan's post since you have so eloquently and
succinctly confirmed it?
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:43:26 GMT, pas...@blueyonder.co.uk (Peter
> Ashby) wrote:
>
> >> No, just too dull to be relevant.
>
> >Again, we have bald assertion instead of argument. Who are you to
> >arbitrarily declare relevance? Or are you simply scared to demonstrate
> >that you are to dull to understand the point?
>
> Irrelevant.
>
Thankyou kindly for yet again confirming my post. It is so nice to
debate with a gentleman who is not beneath admitting when his opponents
are right. And in such a pithy, forthright way. Well done that
man/boy/creature.
Peter Ashby
John Sharman <{jayshar}@norvic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >either the wavelengths or the visual range of the observer, augmented or
> >otherwise.
>
> You did - by use of the word "pink".
Yes, but I didn't by use of the word invisible. As I explained. I am
invisible to solar neutrinos. Were i to stand in front of say, super
kamiokande (IIRC) it would see solar neutrinos as though I weren't
there. I could still be pink though.
Peter Ashby
Ærchie <ha...@it.com> wrote:
>
> And is Janet wearing fish-net stockings, red suspenders and crotchless
> knickers? That sort of outfit culs make an invisible pink hippo quite
> attractive. Unlike Moja's logic.
I don't think we should get into the nature of the hippo's attire.
Doctrinal disputes are made out of such things and we can do without
that sort of nonsense in atheism. We can leave it to the theists.
Anyway, logic? what logic? I hadn't realised bald assertion was being
classified as logic.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:43:28 GMT, pas...@blueyonder.co.uk (Peter
> Ashby) wrote:
>
> >> Prove then, that God has had *no* effect on reality.
>
> >As you are no doubt aware it is not possible to prove a negative.
>
> Talk about insular - that bullshit comes straight out of those atheist
> forums.
>
> Physicists have been proving negatives ever since the beginning of
> science in Greece 4,500 years ago. But you would not know that,
> because you are too dull to understand science.
I see, I earn my living by doing science. I am a scientist, it is my job
description. What's yours? I don't suppose you have heard of the black
swan problem? That is I don't suppose you have read any philosophy of
science.
> One of the most illustrious negatives that Physicists proved is the
> non-existence of the Ether. By performing experiments such as the
> Michaelson-Morley experiment, Physicists were able to demonstrate
> conclusively that the medium they called the Ether cannot exist,
> thereby proving a negative.
To borrow from you, bullshit. The Michaelson-Morley experiment proved
that local space is devoid of the aether. Or maybe you are confusing the
lack of empirical data in favour of the aether from their experiment
with the theory? Even the theory does not rule such things out. It only
describes the conditions under which the aether does not exist. We know
for eg that normal physics breaks down within black holes and in the hot
soup at the very start of the big bang. Can you prove that nowhere in
the universe does anything corresponding to the aether exist? I put to
you that it is you who do not understand science.
Peter Ashby
moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>
> There are many different interpretations:
Snip rehash of new scientist article.
>
> Of those I subscribe to the orthodox interpretation #6 posited by
> Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger and de Broglie.
Fine, you may swing whichever way you choose.
> There are several reasons I choose that one over all the others. First
> and foremost it is a Realist interpretation and does not require the
> epistemological leap of faith that mental contructs are real, which
> all other interpretations require because they are Idealist in nature.
> I reject Idealism as a Worldview outright based on its dismal record
> both in Physics, Metaphysics and Epistemology.
This argument is circular. In another post you say that your metaphysics
derives from physics. Yet in the above you say that you choose your
flavour of physics because of your metaphysics. So the whole basis of
your supreme being conjecture is circular. It is elemental logic that
you cannot draw valid arguments from a circular premise.
Peter Ashby
Cynic <cy...@none.none> wrote:
>
> You are completely wrong, because I happen to know as a fact that
> reality is controlled by an invisible homosexual rabbit who normally
> lives in Wales.
>
> If you disagree with me, you must prove that the rabbit does not
> exist.
Minor doctrinal point. I happen to know that the rabbit is actually
bisexual. And his name is Daffyd. He also supports Pontypridd. If you
disagree with me I will have you excommunicated from the church of the
invisible rabbit. Oh, and you will burn in hell for all eternity (iow
live in London).
John Sharman
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <lts00vk7jo88992h9...@4ax.com>,
> John Sharman <{jayshar}@norvic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >either the wavelengths or the visual range of the observer, augmented or
>> >otherwise.
>>
>> You did - by use of the word "pink".
>
>Yes, but I didn't by use of the word invisible.
Your denial was not so limited.
>As I explained.
You did not so explain.
>I am invisible to solar neutrinos.
Neither of us is a solar neutrino. No solar neutrino is possessed of
vision.
>Were i to stand in front of say, super kamiokande (IIRC) it would see solar neutrinos as though I >weren't there.
Super kamiokande is not possessed of vision.
>I could still be pink though.
And, ipso facto, not invisible.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-63E6D...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> In article <3g410vg7hg50vsbis...@4ax.com>,
> Cynic <cy...@none.none> wrote:
>
> >
> > You are completely wrong, because I happen to know as a fact that
> > reality is controlled by an invisible homosexual rabbit who normally
> > lives in Wales.
> >
> > If you disagree with me, you must prove that the rabbit does not
> > exist.
>
> Minor doctrinal point. I happen to know that the rabbit is actually
> bisexual. And his name is Daffyd. He also supports Pontypridd. If you
> disagree with me I will have you excommunicated from the church of the
> invisible rabbit. Oh, and you will burn in hell for all eternity (iow
> live in London).
>
you can call it that) in 'the smoke' is an altogether more nasty horror.
--
I wish that baby Jesus had never been born - Samaritans
Paul Hyett
>
>I refuse to prove I exist, says God, For proof denies faith, and
>without faith I am nothing.
>
>But, Man says, the Universe provides the empirical proof that you
>exist. In fact it could not have evolved by chance. It proves you
>exist and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont. QED
>
>Oh dear, says God, I hadn't thought of that. And promptly vanishes in
>a puff of logic.
Shouldn't that be 'Babel Fish' rather than universe? :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>The Michaelson-Morley experiment proved
>that local space is devoid of the aether.
That's what I said. They proved that the Ether does not exist. They
proved a negative.
Now how about you proving that God does not exist.
Moja
--
The opinions expressed by the poster are his own.
If you are too dull to understand them, please dial
1-800-EAT-SHIT, or be sure to visit our website at
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/kinho/youare.swf
Moja
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>In another post you say that your metaphysics
>derives from physics. Yet in the above you say that you choose your
>flavour of physics because of your metaphysics.
I never said that.
Reg Hems
In article <c6huvugkq5m69ja1q...@4ax.com> Ærchie wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2002 Moja wrote:
>> I did not say that the existence of the Universe proved the existence
>> of God, only that the existence of the Universe provided the empirical
>> evidence needed to prove the existence of God.
> I refuse to prove I exist, says God, For proof denies faith, and
> without faith I am nothing.
> But, Man says, the Universe provides the empirical proof that you
> exist. In fact it could not have evolved by chance. It proves you
> exist and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont QED
> Oh dear, says God, I hadn't thought of that. And promptly vanishes in
> a puff of logic.
Ah yes. 42, tHe answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.
A 13th century sage, Rabbenu ("Our Rabbi") Bachya ben Asher of Saragossa,
wrote in his commentary on the Torah:
"You may also know that we have a Qabbalah, that has been passed down to
us, that beginning from the verse "In the Beginning..." the 42-lettered
name that hints at God's activities before the creation emerges up to
the letter BET of Bohu [the 42nd letter in Genesis] but only by means
of "many permutations".
Bachya attributed much of his knowledge to a Quabbalist, Nechunya ben
HaKanah, who lived in 1st century Judah, just after the destruction of
Israel by the Romans.
Ancient qabbalistic tradition maintains that these passages not only
described the Creation in overview but, properly decrypted, revealed
explicit details about God's activity during - and even before - the
Creation, in particular the 'exact' duration of critical astronomical
events and cycles.
Nechunya specifically asserted that the 42-letter name allowed one to
deduce the correct age of the universe i.e. the time elapsed between the
origin of the universe and day one of the beginning of the world (the
6th day of Creation when God made man).
42,000 Divine Years (365.250 solar years) == 15.3 billion years.
First suspected only in the 20th century in the light of certain
features of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Boom, boom!!
* A good deed is its own reward - Revised Ferengi rule 285 of acquisition (the heretic Board of Fair Trading)
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
BBC B Micro Iss.3&7 \_
Atomwide Serial board \_
Diamond SupraExpress 56 \_
ARM3 PC A420 IDE-SCSI 8Mb \_
reg...@argonet.co.uk |
Steven X Brown
Mmmmm... Babel... now why does *that* ring a bell? ;-)
--
Steven X Brown
http://www.davidfincher.net/index.html
Daffyd
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> :
>In article <5r310vkl7rlsbq4q0...@4ax.com>,
> Ærchie <ha...@it.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> And is Janet wearing fish-net stockings, red suspenders and crotchless
>> knickers? That sort of outfit culs make an invisible pink hippo quite
>> attractive. Unlike Moja's logic.
>
>I don't think we should get into the nature of the hippo's attire.
>Doctrinal disputes are made out of such things and we can do without
>that sort of nonsense in atheism. We can leave it to the theists.
:)
As an Independent Atheist, I had always thought that Atheism would be
wracked by the same doctrinal differences as the religious groups are.
The splitting of hairs is a human trait.
I bet you are one of those Consensual Atheists.
>Anyway, logic? what logic? I hadn't realised bald assertion was being
>classified as logic.
>
>Peter
In Texas it seems to be. They have re-written Descartes -
"I think - therefore I am right about everything."
Ærchie
RF
"Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fnds59.1ufjfc1efcpgqN%pas...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> RF <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote:
>
> > Prove then, that God has had *no* effect on reality.
>
> As you are no doubt aware it is not possible to prove a negative.
If so, then there is no proof that there is no God. Therefore, the
possibility must exist that He does exist.
RF
Daffyd
<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> :
>In article <3g410vg7hg50vsbis...@4ax.com>,
> Cynic <cy...@none.none> wrote:
>
>>
>> You are completely wrong, because I happen to know as a fact that
>> reality is controlled by an invisible homosexual rabbit who normally
>> lives in Wales.
>>
>> If you disagree with me, you must prove that the rabbit does not
>> exist.
>
>Minor doctrinal point. I happen to know that the rabbit is actually
>bisexual. And his name is Daffyd. He also supports Pontypridd. If you
>disagree with me I will have you excommunicated from the church of the
>invisible rabbit. Oh, and you will burn in hell for all eternity (iow
>live in London).
>
>Peter
I'm sorry about the confusion here - Daffyd is actually a dragon
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/daffyd/whois.html
Ærchie - splitting doctrinal hairs
RF
"Ærchie" <ha...@it.com> wrote in message
news:58mvvukqv0d1c6rve...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:26:40 GMT, "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz>
> :
> <atropos attack>
>
> >> Sorry, I'll settle for a fun lifetime of existence, I don't need an
> >> eternity of serious serfdom as well.
> >But if the "serfdom" wasn't onerous, and he gave you an eternal life
better
> >than any you could ever imagine? Sounds like a bargain to me and a better
> >offer than any other you think you'd be able to get. After all, who could
> >give you a better eternity than God?
> >RF
> >
> An eternity determined by a selfish and jealous being?
>
> "Thou shalt have no Gods other than me"
>
> "Believe in me or I will send you to Hell."
>
> "That nation believes in another God - destroy it, men women and
> children."
>
> "That olive tree doesn't have any olives on it for Me - ZAP!!!"
>
> No thanks - you can have it, I'll just have a rest from an enjoyable,
> guilt-free life.
So you were never grateful that your parents gave you life? What is wrong
with being selfish over your *own* creation? Or demanding something in
return for all the many benefits you have received?
If God had to suddenly remove our sun, I wonder how long it would be before
you were imploring him to put it back? You may think you are the master of
your own destiny, when in fact you are only one heartbeat away from
eternity, over which you then will have no say.
RF
Daffyd
<reg...@argonet.co.uk> :
Thanks for the information :)
That one is a keeper!
Ærchie
Daffyd
<steven...@tiscali.co.uk> :
I admit it - I altered some of the most important words in the
Universe
Words that were written when spirits were brave, the stakes were high,
men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures
from Alpha Centuri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centuri.
Ærchie
O freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblochits on a lurgid bee
Groop I implore thee My foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon, see
if I don't.
Ærchie
:
My parents exist/ed and so have/had reality.
"God" is a null term.
Ærchie
RF
in his heart there is no God.
RF
Ærchie
:
>The bible
A carefully edited selection of ancient writings, containing subtle
contradictions and errors, drawn from a much larger number of ancient
writings which contained obvious errors and contradictions.
> says that - and Christ did not contradict this
Why is he more of an authority than the Buddha, Gilgamesh, Thutmose
the first, Mahomet, Confucius, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Robert
Heinlein, Ron L Hubbard or me.
>- the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
The coward needs a god to calm his fear of mortality.
>RF
Reg Hems
In article <p.r.ashby-DB7AF...@dux.dundee.ac.uk> Peter Ashby
wrote:
> In article <3dff3ebd...@news-server.houston.rr.com> Moja wrote:
>> The argument I give is metaphysical. Since Metaphysics is based on
>> Physics, I rely on our understanding of the Laws of Physics to build a
>> Metphysical agrument. The crux of the argument centers around the
>> Worldview called Existential Realism, which is the only Worldview that
>> meets the needs of Physics.
>> Put in a slightly different way, if Physics works correctly then there
>> must be a Supreme Being.
> Please explain the logic of that statement. That is unless your argument
> is other than the 'if everything is caused there must be a causer' type.
>> If there is no Supreme Being then nothing exists in the objective world
>> and we have lasped into Idealism where we can't even prove we ourselves
>> exist although we know we do.
> Ah, I think we in uk.philosophy.atheism have been here before. So let me
> ask you a question: are you a dualist?
Yes, this was in Feb 2001. At the time I blundered into this Newsgroup
uk.philosophy.atheism through X-postings and hit on a poster "Bob Knauer"
who tried to discuss 'Western Realism' and 'Supreme Being'. As I didn't
know much about philosophy I started to cross 'pens' with him and he
replied:
--8<-------------------------------------------------------------------
"I remind you all that when I am discussing "God", I am doing it in a
metaphysical, not a religious sense.
I have made it abundantly clear that the only "God" I am interested in
discussing is the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics. I am not
interested in discussing religion when it comes to the existence of
God, because with religion everything is based on faith.
[...]
"Any philosophical debate begins with first principles, not religious
anecdotes. That is why I began by insisting on knowing the worldview
(epistemology plus supporting ontology) of the participants, because
that is where the axioms are found."
--8<-------------------------------------------------------------------
It was at this point that I realised that I was posting to a
'philosophical' NG but gave up when the floor was covered with just about
every volume of the Enc.Brit., trying to fathom the meaning of epistemology
and ontology. I then downloaded some 1500 posts (from 7 Feb onwards),
hoping to retrieve Bob's original explanation of Western Realism. I didn't
find it and wading through all these posts was not made any easier by some
atroceous lack of snipping and formatting :-((
My worldview???? This became clearer (but only a little) when I twigged
that 'worldview' stood for 'Weltanschauung'. Now, worldview may be the
literal English translation but Weltanschauung originates from a German
culture and does not have the same 'flavour' as worldview in English.
Not knowing anything about philosophy it seemed to me that this Bob Knauer
posited a Supreme Being (which sounded perilously close to a God to me),
then proceeded to 'prove' its existence by referring to Aristotle and
Thomas of Aquinas, even though he stated himself that any philosophical
debate begins with first principles. A kind of cart-in-front-of-horse
scenario. But then I don't know the rules. So what would I know ;-\
Anyway, I think he did not want to start to explain it all over again to an
'ignorant' like me and he walked off as nobody wanted to discuss his
Western Realism his way.
Incidentally, since we are now discussing philosphy should we not cut the
Xposting and set follow ups to u.a.p? And change the Subject Title as this
is now well off-topic.
* Never trust a man that wears a better suit than your own - Ferengi rule 47 of acquisition