Author Topic: A Christian Challenge to Empirical Science; Ten Questions for a Secularist  (Read 2771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Ten Questions for a Secularist

1. What is your answer to the Pre-Socratic era of Greek Philosophy, and Zeno’s Paradox? Zeno of Elea (490-430 B.C.) brought the Pre Socratic era to a close with his devastating arguments against sensation, space and motion. First, was his famous Paradox. To be brief, Zeno’s argument, in essence, is that in order for Achilles to move from point A to point B he must come at least half the space. If so then he has to come at least a tenth; a hundredth; a millionth, etc.  He must pass through an infinite number of points in a finite segment. Motion is therefore impossible and space is indefinable. (The essence of his argument is not a relation of motion to time but the impossibility of exhausting an infinite series. Neither is his argument that Achilles has to exhaust the series to the last point for there is no last point. Also, one cannot divide an infinite series. To do so one must assume that the object in motion stops in mid-motion to create a mid-point. The mid-point then is only potential and not actual. I admit that it is possible to exhaust an infinite series of potential points, but not actual points. Also, you cannot appeal to imaginary, indemonstrable units of measurement like Plank Units to answer this paradox.) In a further complaint against the concept of space, Zeno argued that if atoms and motion required space there must also be super-space for space to exist in and another super-space for that, ad infinitum. Zeno also refuted the idea of sensation in the Atomistic system which denied qualities to atoms. In an exposition of Zeno’s criticism of Democritus’ Atomism (Later to dominate the Scientific Revolution) Dr. Clark says,

“When an ocean wave ‘thunders’ against the rocks, no atom produces an audible sensation; but the wave is nothing but atoms; therefore, it produces no sound.” (Ancient Philosophy, 272)

This failure to construct a material/corporeal reality was the formal cause of the atheistic Sophist movement that immediately followed. Protagoras’ Man Measure Theory was the new fad and the idea of truth was buried as impossibility. If Zeno cannot be refuted, the entire Anti-Christian scientific secular enterprise is impossible to demonstrate and should be removed from the category of demonstration and kept in the category of operation.

The Christian answer to the Pre-Socratics is found in Saint Augustine’s Book Concerning the Teacher, where he admits the impossibility of empirical knowledge and asserts that knowledge comes from the Second Person of the Trinity (The Teacher): an immediate and uncreated revealed light.

2. How did science recover from the second refutation of atomism (Zeno produced the first) in the 1930s, namely the splitting of the atom? This question is by no means intended to question the existence of atoms. Atomism is a philosophy of reality developed early in Greek philosophy primarily by Democritus to buttress the possibility of corporeal unchanging objects of knowledge. If you want to say something that means the same thing 5 minutes after you say it you need something changeless through qualitative change. My question hits at science’s objects of knowledge. What are they now, post-split? The question has to do with the nature of reality and the objects of knowledge.

3. How can the planet earth qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion?

4. How do you explain the universe? Dr. Clark in an exposition of Parmenides presents an ancient dilemma for all philosophies saying,

“Being cannot have originated or come into being. It cannot have come from non-being, for non-being never has existed for anything to come from it. Nor can Being have come from Being, for Being is Being without any coming. Therefore origination is impossible and Being is eternal, immutable, and changeless.” (Ancient Philosophy, 269)

The Christian answer is found in the Trinitarian debate with the Arians where Athanasius distinguishes between God’s nature and God’s will. How do you answer this?

5. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?

6. What language should we use to talk about the material world? Mary Louise Gill refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle (Making Logic [The Law of Contradiction] impossible; thus making language impossible.) in her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” (Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

i. If we take matter to be the principle of individuation how do we individuate one unit of matter from another? Some will say, “the spatio-temporal location”. Yet this is circular. How do we individuate spatio-temporal locations? By the matter contained in that space. So the matter is individuated by the space and the space by the matter.

ii. Some have tried to use matter and quantity as the principle of individuation. Gill replies, “this criterion will not work for identical twins, two drafts of water from the same fountain, or Max Black’s pair of spheres, which have qualitatively identical matter.” (pg. 62)

iii. Another attempt has made material continuity the principle of individuation. Gill speaks to this issue on page 66,

“If two statues of Socrates are made out of the same bronze at different times, the statues are distinct because the time during which the matter constitutes the two is interrupted. In the interval the bronze survives the destruction of the first statue and the generation of the second…If this is Aristotle’s answer to the puzzle about material migration, then continuity of matter is not sufficient even to account for weak individuation. Continuity of time is also required.”

iv. Some have tried to use form as the principle of individuation. Gill replies,

“But it is not very good evidence…Some defenders of the thesis will respond that the forms of Callias and Socrates differ because they are realized in different parcels of matter. But then form is not after all the principle of individuation, since the matter, rather than the form, differentiates the particulars.” (pg. 68-69)

7. How the philosophy of science known as Operationalism (My position as a Protestant Christian) would eliminate the possibility of utility in the different fields of science?

8. If all knowledge comes through sensation, and if behavior and genetic progression is caused by universal laws, why is it that humans (Whose sensory capacity is often inferior to other creatures) are the only species that has the rational capacity to have written language, grammar books, dictionaries and mathematics, etc.? This was the fundamental problem Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913 A.D.) faced. He was a British Naturalist who proposed the first theory of natural selection that Darwin, a colleague through correspondence, praised and used to promote his own theory of natural selection. In the year 1858, Wallace was thoroughly convinced of natural selection. In 1861 he wrote a letter to his brother-in-law, stating his utter disbelief in God and the soul stating they were not beliefs from “intelligent conviction”. However, Wallace began studying Spiritualism in 1865 and soon after rejected the theory of Natural Selection. Outside of the racist implications of the theory which Wallace was very troubled by, Wallace argued that natural selection could not explain a number of phenomenon in the world and Darwin was quite distressed by it.

9. Do you have a complete theory? Traditionally, human Philosophy is divided into 4 main heads: 1. Metaphysics (Theory of Reality-Includes the Philosophy of Science) 2. Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge- Includes the Philosophy of Language) 3. Ethics 4. Politics (Includes a Philosophy of History). As a Protestant Christian, with the writings of Early Greek Christian Fathers, Protestants like Gordon H. Clark, the Protestant Westminster Assembly (1640s) and the accompanying Political Revolutions that Presbyterianism produced (The exposing of the tyranny of Roman Catholicism [Which has again been openly vindicated by their cruel and unforgivable protection of child predators in America in the last 10-15 years], the refutation of the Divine Right of Kings, and the affirmation of representative rule: that rulers must have the consent of the people to rule lawfully through lawful elections-per Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex) I have a complete Philosophy to guide, protect, progress and unify a human civilization. Our country is fragmented into thousands of confused pieces. We live in a nation that has no clue what to believe and its politicians deceive the people as they argue over arbitrary tastes and opinions with no absolute objective standard of law (Protestant Absolutism) to appeal to. This has left the door wide open for the Roman Catholic Church (Tyrannical Absolutism) to once again gain influence in our country. This leads to my next question.

10. How you are going to unify the American people in an effort to remove the Roman Catholic Church from our country? The Roman Catholic Church with its Jesuit Assassins has been kicked out of dozens of countries in the past few centuries for political intrigue and attempts to overthrow these nations’ governments. They are doing the same thing again, as their Roman Catholic, once Professor at the Jesuit Georgetown University, Viet Diem wrote his tyrannical Patriot Act which was passed by that Papal coadjutor George W. Bush. This legislation basically overturns Basic Human Rights that have been acknowledged in both The United Kingdom and the US for over 300 years. Right before our war of Independence we had the Great Awakenings, which were Protestant Christian religious revivals. This was important to identify what King George was up to with his Papal coadjutating Intolerable Acts, which clearly revealed to colonialists (Now revived by Protestant principles) that he had been bought by Rome; especially his Quebec Act. Protestant revivals provided the unifying energy to overcome Roman Catholic tyranny over 200 years ago in our country. Do you seriously believe that Secularism is going to do this for our country? If you cannot provide a principle of unification for our country, you should again see how inhuman it is. How are you not taking us back to the dark ages? Also, if you take Bart Ehrman’s criticisms of the New Testament how is this not a complete denial of human literature and historiography in toto?

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
BM



You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
1. What is your answer to the Pre-Socratic era of Greek Philosophy, and Zeno’s Paradox? Zeno of Elea (490-430 B.C.) brought the Pre Socratic era to a close with his devastating arguments against sensation, space and motion. First, was his famous Paradox. To be brief, Zeno’s argument, in essence, is that in order for Achilles to move from point A to point B he must come at least half the space. If so then he has to come at least a tenth; a hundredth; a millionth, etc.  He must pass through an infinite number of points in a finite segment. Motion is therefore impossible and space is indefinable.

For a rigorous response, I would answer it with calculus.  They didn't have calculus back then in order to calculate the results of infinite iterations.  Nowadays, we know more.

(The essence of his argument is not a relation of motion to time but the impossibility of exhausting an infinite series.

And it fails to demonstrate this.  Define each moment to be an infinitely short span of time; a second still passes.  Infinity/infinity.

Neither is his argument that Achilles has to exhaust the series to the last point for there is no last point. Also, one cannot divide an infinite series.

If this was true then arithmetic would be impossible, for we would be unable to identify any particular part of the infinite series of integers.  The range "1-5" would be indistinguishable from the range "6-10".

To do so one must assume that the object in motion stops in mid-motion to create a mid-point. The mid-point then is only potential and not actual. I admit that it is possible to exhaust an infinite series of potential points, but not actual points.

This is just an unsupported claim that, on its face, makes no sense.  Are you sure you understand what you're saying?

Also, you cannot appeal to imaginary, indemonstrable units of measurement like Plank Units to answer this paradox.

Err, the Planck length is a real number.  It's not imaginary.  It's  1.616199(97)×10-35m.[1]  How this unit can be "(in)demonstrable", I have no idea; did you mean "(im)measurable"?  Otherwise this seems to me to be a category error.  Regardless, there's no reason to bring up the Planck length in this context in the first place.

EDIT:  Superscript fail.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 08:29:21 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Please redo this post with proper quoting. The post you did make was incomprehensible due to very poor quoting.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 09:05:04 PM by HAL »

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Azdgari,

" Regardless, there's no reason to bring up the Planck length in this context in the first place."

I just finished having a very long conversation with an atheist dude who ran with this dude: http://www.youtube.com/user/anubis2814 who demanded that the Planck length answered this paradox, but he admitted that it was an im-perceivable length that must be abstracted.


Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I answered your reply Azdgari in perfectly understandable quoting, The moderator removed it. I am not doing it again.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
The Planck length has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasoning behind that supposed paradox.  So he's wrong.

Regarding the removal of your post, try hitting "back" with your browser a few times.  It should bring you back to what you typed at some point, unless you've closed the window.  I can't really comment on it further, as I didn't see the allegedly poor quoting job before HAL edited it out.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
If the quote-job was something akin to what you did in THIS post, then I can understand why HAL chose to delete it.  You can do better than that.  There's a test-area if you need to practice.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7315
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
If the quote-job was something akin to what you did in THIS post, then I can understand why HAL chose to delete it.  You can do better than that.  There's a test-area if you need to practice.

That quote had potential as art.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
If he can spend hours making videos (which we let him post) then he can make a properly quoted post - that's my stand.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Ten Questions for a Secularist

1. What is your answer to the Pre-Socratic era of Greek Philosophy, and Zeno’s Paradox? ...

Also, you cannot appeal to imaginary, indemonstrable units of measurement like Plank Units to answer this paradox.

I am going to appeal to Plank Units, and I dispute your assertion that they are imaginary and indemonstrable.  Units of length can be arbitrarily defined.  I could say 3 meters = 1 Pong, and then measure the distance to a star in Pongs, and I would be perfectly just in doing so provided it accurately represented reality. 

Einstein showed that matter, space and time are quantizable, and this has been confirmed to the nth degree.  That is to say these quantities are discrete, not continuous, and therefore minimum units exist.  Right there the premise of an infinite regress is defeated.

Reality possesses minimum units of both space (Plank length) and time (Plank Time), so while the distance between point A and point B might consist of a very, very large number of Plank Units, it is not infinite and you cannot move a fractional amount of a unit.


2. How did science recover from the second refutation of atomism (Zeno produced the first) in the 1930s, namely the splitting of the atom?...  What are they now, post-split? The question has to do with the nature of reality and the objects of knowledge.

By accepting that the premise of an atom as indivisible as incorrect.  The smallest units we can confirm are Quarks.  We don't know how deep this rabbit hole goes, but String Theory posits an indivisible unit (a string), and certainly reality is limited by Plank units again.


3. How can the planet earth qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion?

I don't understand the question, please elaborate.


4. How do you explain the universe? Dr. Clark in an exposition of Parmenides presents an ancient dilemma for all philosophies saying,

“Being cannot have originated or come into being. It cannot have come from non-being, for non-being never has existed for anything to come from it. Nor can Being have come from Being, for Being is Being without any coming. Therefore origination is impossible and Being is eternal, immutable, and changeless.” (Ancient Philosophy, 269)

This one is simple.  The ancient philosophers either didn't know about, or forgot about negative numbers.

The universe started with, and still contains, ZERO ENERGY.  All the matter/energy of the universe are balanced out by the negative energy of Gravity.  That's how gravity attracts:  it reduces the energy of things it affects.  to get caught in a gravity well is like saying you are caught in a negative energy potential, and do not have enough positive energy to escape.  It also explains the symmetry between matter and gravity:  Matter emits gravity, Gravity works on matter.  The price of matter is gravity.

For example 0 = 0.  Correct?

But also 0 = 3 - 3

Nothing has been violated, from "nothing" one can get a 3 and a -3.  We are a part of the 3.


5. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?

The brain is an undiscovered country.


6. What language should we use to talk about the material world? Mary Louise Gill refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle (Making Logic [The Law of Contradiction] impossible; thus making language impossible.) in her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” (Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

Math and logic.


i. If we take matter to be the principle of individuation how do we individuate one unit of matter from another? Some will say, “the spatio-temporal location”. Yet this is circular. How do we individuate spatio-temporal locations? By the matter contained in that space. So the matter is individuated by the space and the space by the matter.

Spatio-temporal locations are specified by coordinates, not by the matter at the coordinates. (x, y, z, t)  The coordinate system can is arbitrary, but as long as it is consistent, it's valid.


The rest of your questions make no sense to me.  Especially in light of the fact that the RCC is probably the least problemsome religion for us atheists.  They accept the BB theory and Evolution, and science in general.  They're only "mildly deluded" compared to Evangelicals, Fundies of all types.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Olivianus - a properly quoted post above ^^^.

Pay heed please.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Olivianus - a properly quoted post above ^^^.

Pay heed please.

If that is your policy why didn't you mention it in the rules section?

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5382
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
REMOVED a completely unfair and inaccurate accusation

(thanks for the heads up Pony)

« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 10:25:46 PM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male

If that is your policy why didn't you mention it in the rules section?

Finally, any situations not covered by these rules will be dealt with as they arise, using the best judgment of the forum staff.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Kin Hell, that is his website.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Azdgari

Quote
For a rigorous response, I would answer it with calculus.  They didn't have calculus back then in order to calculate the results of infinite iterations.  Nowadays, we know more.

Typing the word calculus and asserting you know more is not an answer. An assertion is not an argument.


Quote
And it fails to demonstrate this.  Define each moment to be an infinitely short span of time; a second still passes.  Infinity/infinity.

You just re-asserted what I told you was not essential to the paradox.


Quote
If this was true then arithmetic would be impossible, for we would be unable to identify any particular part of the infinite series of integers.  The range "1-5" would be indistinguishable from the range "6-10".

I am willing to admit this.    In empirical mathematics when one uses a numeral such as 1 or 2 do these units and their relationship to others reflect laws of nature and reality?  Can these be units of anything? Are the units distinguished from each other as water is distinguished from acid? It appears not. Clark says, “Two pints of water and three pints of sulfuric acid do not make five pints.”[41] Clark says again,
 
“Teachers of small children may think that ‘two and two are four’ is taught by playing with marbles.  Does not the teacher show the pupil how two marbles and two marbles make four marbles?  Roll them together into a corner and see that there are four marbles.  Then, after this is done with different colored marbles, and different sized marbles, and with pencils and erasers, the child generalizes or abstracts from his experience that truth that two and two are four.  However, this explanation of the learning process seems to be unsatisfactory.  In the first place, the child would have to recognize one marble before he could count two of them.  Where did the concept of a unit come from?  From the marble also?  But would not the pupil have to have the concept of a unit before he recognized a marble as one?  If he did not know one he could not count one. He has to know the numbers in order to count.  And in the second place, this consideration holds for four as well as for one.  He must know four before he can count four marbles. Perhaps this can more clearly be seen if large numbers are used.  Let the teacher try to teach the young child that 356 marbles and 791 marbles are 1147 marbles.  Everyone has heard children say their numbers: one, two, three. four, seven, sixteen, five, twenty-one, sintillion. The young child who so counts cannot learn the example by counting marbles because he cannot count numbers.  He can count marbles only after he can count numbers.  And since numbers are not marbles or anything else sensory, it follows that arithmetic is not abstracted from experience. So much for mathematics.”[42]
 
         
                Einstein said: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." 

[41] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957,  Fourth edition 2000), 299
[42] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005), 214-215


Quote
This is just an unsupported claim that, on its face, makes no sense.  Are you sure you understand what you're saying?

Your assertion doesn't make it so. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?




Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
If mathematical reasoning isn't going to be assumed to apply to reality, then Zeno's Paradox by the same token cannot be assumed to apply to reality.

Do you know what an integral is, by the way?  I said "calculus" under the assumption that you knew something about it.  If you don't, then I apologize, as more explanation was needed.  What does the term "integral" mean to you?

EDIT:  missed a word

EDIT2:  I said we know more now.  As in, we know more than the ancient Greeks knew.  Specifically, we (humanty) know how to do calculus, whereas the ancient Greeks did not.  Do you disagree?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 11:10:57 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member

Cyberia

Quote
I am going to appeal to Plank Units, and I dispute your assertion that they are imaginary and indemonstrable.  Units of length can be arbitrarily defined.  I could say 3 meters = 1 Pong, and then measure the distance to a star in Pongs, and I would be perfectly just in doing so provided it accurately represented reality. 


So the question, is how do you speak about Pong? According to the first principle of Logical Positivism, "a sentence has no meaning unless it can be verified (in principle at least) by sensory experience". So until you can tell me what Pong looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like or sounds like you are just asserting nothing. It is just as imaginary as I affirmed.


Quote
Einstein showed that matter, space and time are quantizable, and this has been confirmed to the nth degree.  That is to say these quantities are discrete, not continuous, and therefore minimum units exist.  Right there the premise of an infinite regress is defeated.


An assertion is not a demonstration. So then define space. Define motion. Define matter. Define time.



Quote
By accepting that the premise of an atom as indivisible as incorrect.  The smallest units we can confirm are Quarks.  We don't know how deep this rabbit hole goes, but String Theory posits an indivisible unit (a string), and certainly reality is limited by Plank units again.

So then strings are now the changeless objects of knowledge? So then, do you admit that the theory of science used to overthrow Christianity and the possibility of miracles was refuted by the splitting of the atom? If so, if in case a string is split will you relinquish your views of science and return to the Christian faith? Also, what prevented an honest scientist at the moment of the splitting of the atom to not admit Science's attack on Christianity was incorrect and come back to Christ?



Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
There's a "Preview" button, eh?

EDIT:  Cool.  That can avoid posts getting moderated, for the record.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 10:51:57 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6763
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
So then strings are now the changeless objects of knowledge? So then, do you admit that the theory of science used to overthrow Christianity and the possibility of miracles was refuted by the splitting of the atom? If so, if in case a string is split will you relinquish your views of science and return to the Christian faith? Also, what prevented an honest scientist at the moment of the splitting of the atom to not admit Science's attack on Christianity was incorrect and come back to Christ?

Okay, this is where I loose my cool. "Science used to overthrow christianity?" Are you under the impression that a bunch of curious fellows sat around looking at the world and started finding things and decided it was high time to overthrow christianity? This was a frickin' plot? That people splitting the atom were out to prove no god and destroy the christian faith? Is that what this is about?

My personal reasons for being an atheist haven't got a damned thing to do with science or atoms or Zeno or even things you forgot to mention, like the viscosity of pancake batter. Science did not influence me in any way, shape or form to dismiss religion. Granted, when I found out that science had explanations that made a trillion times more sense than biblical stories, it helped. But I did not choose to ignore the concept of god over frickin' trivia.

Now if you think there is some huge plot to overthrow the church by conspiratorial dudes and their mistresses or something, then you're starting from the wrong place, and talk about not being able to measure something, if you start at the wrong place you can't possibly end up with the right answer. Never in my 50 years as an atheist have I been asked to go to a meeting where we can plan our next dastardly plot against the truth. The world doesn't work like that.

What's with this "come back to christ" crap. Do you have it in your head that I and others consciously decided to deny christ when we became atheists? Do you think we each, individually, rejected your god and your jesus in some structured way? Where do you get this mindset? What the heck is your source?

I am not in the mood to make the mysterious more mysterious by imagining that I have the answers. That's like adding rubber cement to my Pepsi because I think stickier is better. It is nonsense.

Your reliance on ancient philosophy to back up your modern stance: what's with that? It's not that Zeno and Aristotle and others don't have anything to offer. They do? But what the f**k did they know. Everything they came up with was mind games or early math. If they had the same information available to you and me today, they would have reached very different conclusions. Aristotle thought an atom couldn't be split. He had no idea what an atom was. What it consisted of. How it worked. Nothing. A couple of millennia later we figured enough of it out to blow things up and heat our houses and pollute our environment. There is no philosophical stance that can undo Hiroshima or Fukushima. If we could go back in time and show Aristotle that the atom could be split, he would come up with an altered philosophical stance. And enroll in a major university and learn as much as he could about it.

There is no christ for me to go back to. You can play all the philosophical games you want, I have way too many brain cells to fall for any silly tales of jesus, or vishnu, or allah. It doesn't have diddly to do with metaphysics or plots by the catholics to overthrow the planet. They can't even molest kids very well. Where is their competence in world wide domination going to come from. And surely the other sources of money and power in the world aren't going to let them go it alone anyway.

Don't bother me with this crap. I understand that it is incredibly important to you, but you might as well be trying to explain that that hot dancing chick in one your favorite movies, "Scent of a Woman", is proof that there is a god. Well, actually I'm glad you didn't use that card, because it would almost work.

Atheism isn't a plot. Like anything else in life, different people become atheist for their own individual reasons. I know you think we don't have sensations, but what should I call my reaction to what you've written if not a sensation. I'm irked, and whether I have the unsplit atoms to experience that sensation or not, I am. And that's all that matters.

We don't like catholics any more than you do, but you're not giving protestants a good name right now. I suggest you go back to the drawing board, find a way to get your point across without pissing off every human within a hundred miles, and try again. Any legitimate content in your spiel is overshadowed by your oversimplifications and erroneous conclusions about how and what I and others think, and that dooms it. Dooms it completely.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2128
  • Darwins +253/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
So then strings are now the changeless objects of knowledge? So then, do you admit that the theory of science used to overthrow Christianity and the possibility of miracles was refuted by the splitting of the atom? If so, if in case a string is split will you relinquish your views of science and return to the Christian faith? Also, what prevented an honest scientist at the moment of the splitting of the atom to not admit Science's attack on Christianity was incorrect and come back to Christ?

Olivianus,

I tend to think that if science was a man, he would look at your argument, throw up his hands, and say, "Who the fuck is this Christ guy and why are we talking about him again?"  In other words, science doesn't give a shit about Christ.  It plods along quite well without a single thought toward any god at all, including yours. 

I really have a hard time thinking you are serious about it.  It is completely ridiculous to think of science as some sort of conspiracy theory with the main purpose of getting rid of Christianity.   It's an idea unworthy of respect, and highly deserving of ridicule.  I respect your right to have a belief in the matter, but your belief is stupid.  Now, I'm not calling YOU stupid; but this particular belief here, if it's what you really think, is stupid. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are

Olivianus,

I tend to think that if science was a man, he would look at your argument, throw up his hands, and say, "Who the fuck is this Christ guy and why are we talking about him again?"  In other words, science doesn't give a shit about Christ.  It plods along quite well without a single thought toward any god at all, including yours. 

I really have a hard time thinking you are serious about it.  It is completely ridiculous to think of science as some sort of conspiracy theory with the main purpose of getting rid of Christianity.   It's an idea unworthy of respect, and highly deserving of ridicule.  I respect your right to have a belief in the matter, but your belief is stupid.  Now, I'm not calling YOU stupid; but this particular belief here, if it's what you really think, is stupid.

IF science ever gives a damn, Christ will be way back in the line of deities science will be looking into. Zeus, Odin, Ra, Vishnu, Abzu, ... (quite a long list). Christ isnt the only fairy tale to "go back to"

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Azdgari

Quote
If mathematical reasoning isn't going to be assumed to apply to reality, then Zeno's Paradox by the same token cannot be assumed to apply to reality.

That still doesn't get your view off the ground. You believe mathematics does apply to reality.

Quote
Do you know what an integral is, by the way?  I said "calculus" under the assumption that you knew something about it.  If you don't, then I apologize, as more explanation was needed.  What does the term "integral" mean to you?

Your entire scientific enterprise goes into a singular category in my mind: A measurement that people use to operate. You are never going to get this stuff into the category of demonstration so I don't bother with it because I make no money using it. I can understand why someone who wants to make money using it would study it but I just don't have the time, inclination or incentive to waste my life studying things I know can never be justified.


Quote
EDIT2:  I said we know more now.  As in, we know more than the ancient Greeks knew.  Specifically, we (humanty) know how to do calculus, whereas the ancient Greeks did not.  Do you disagree?

This is getting off topic because I would have to give you my theory of knowledge to answer this question and I'm not done sticking your nose in your impossibilities. After you guys have admitted you can't answer my questions, then I'll let you attack my view.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
So the question, is how do you speak about Pong? According to the first principle of Logical Positivism, "a sentence has no meaning unless it can be verified (in principle at least) by sensory experience". So until you can tell me what Pong looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like or sounds like you are just asserting nothing. It is just as imaginary as I affirmed.

I told you, 1 Pong = 3m.  Likewise 1 Plank = 1.616199(97)×10-35m


An assertion is not a demonstration. So then define space. Define motion. Define matter. Define time.

Well, Zeno's Paradox pretty much refutes itself since it posits an infinite series (which cannot exist in nature) along with the fact that you can move from A to B, then the idea of an infinite series cannot be correct here.

Plank units simply represent modern understanding of what is actually going on at that level.  If it is wrong, we'll replace it with something which better represents reality.

Define god.


So then strings are now the changeless objects of knowledge? So then, do you admit that the theory of science used to overthrow Christianity and the possibility of miracles was refuted by the splitting of the atom? If so, if in case a string is split will you relinquish your views of science and return to the Christian faith? Also, what prevented an honest scientist at the moment of the splitting of the atom to not admit Science's attack on Christianity was incorrect and come back to Christ?

Strings are a hypothesis, but sure.  I admit that Aristotle or whoever came up with the idea of an unsplittable atom was wrong.  But that wasn't science, it was philosophy.  Science didn't really care either way, either way we got closer to understanding reality.  You understand we test things and use that knowledge to refine our theories, don't you?  Why would any scientist come back to Christ if an experiment or theory failed?  Why not come back to Islam?  Or Judeaism?  Or Thorism?  Just because Case A is false, doesn't make Case B (or C or D) true.

Christianity was overthrown?  WTF!  Guys!  Tell me these things!
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 12:50:05 AM by Cyberia »
Soon we will judge angels.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
That still doesn't get your view off the ground. You believe mathematics does apply to reality.

Math is designed to apply to reality.  That's how we actually use it.  It's a tool.  It applies to reality in the sense that it can be used to make predictions about reality.  For example, let's say I have a metre-stick.  I'm told that a motorbike is 2 metres long from tire to tire.  That lets me predict that if I took two metre-sticks and stuck them end-to-end, they'd be visibly as long as the motor-bike.

The metre-stick objectively exists.  The motor-bike objectively exists.  The distance between the front of its front tire and the back of its back tire is objectively real, and can be directly compared to the pair of metre-sticks.

This isn't to say that "metre" is some sort of metaphysically real measurement.  It's a subjective standard, decided upon by a bunch of humans because it's useful.  It's a tool.

Is this different from how you understand the concept of "metre"?  If so, then how?

Quote
Do you know what an integral is, by the way?  I said "calculus" under the assumption that you knew something about it.  If you don't, then I apologize, as more explanation was needed.  What does the term "integral" mean to you?

Your entire scientific enterprise goes into a singular category in my mind: A measurement that people use to operate. You are never going to get this stuff into the category of demonstration so I don't bother with it because I make no money using it. I can understand why someone who wants to make money using it would study it but I just don't have the time, inclination or incentive to waste my life studying things I know can never be justified.

I take that to mean that you are ignorant of what calculus is and how it can be used.  That's okay, but since you admittedly don't know much (if anything) about it, why do you feel you are competent to judge its utility?  Math is a tool that's used to, among other things, design machines.  The machines work.  We use them in our day to day lives.  This doesn't make math "true".  It makes it "useful".  You don't have to know about it, but you're a hypocrite if you take advantage of modern technology (*cough*computer*cough*) while calling it useless.

Quote
EDIT2:  I said we know more now.  As in, we know more than the ancient Greeks knew.  Specifically, we (humanty) know how to do calculus, whereas the ancient Greeks did not.  Do you disagree?

This is getting off topic because I would have to give you my theory of knowledge to answer this question and I'm not done sticking your nose in your impossibilities. After you guys have admitted you can't answer my questions, then I'll let you attack my view.

It was a yes-or-no question that deserved an honest answer.  I'll outline my reasoning for you:

Premise A:  Modern people do calculus.
Premise B (from premise A):  Modern people know how to do calculus.
Premise C: The ancient Greeks didn't know how to do calculus.
Conclusion from B and C:  Modern people know something (how to do calculus) that the ancient greeks didn't.

Whether you think that calculus (or any other math) applies to reality is irrelevant to this.  Do you disagree with any of my premises?  Is there a fallacious logical link in there?  Do tell.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
ParkingPlaces

Quote
Okay, this is where I loose my cool. "Science used to overthrow christianity?" Are you under the impression that a bunch of curious fellows sat around looking at the world and started finding things and decided it was high time to overthrow christianity?


Yes, Protestant Christianity in specific. The enlightenment specifically rode the back of Atomismistic mechanism. It has not changed in 400 years ish. It just has a different name today: Liberalism.

Quote
This was a frickin' plot?

That is another can of worms but yes, i spell the plot:  J E S U I T S.

Quote
That people splitting the atom were out to prove no god and destroy the christian faith?

I didn't say that.

Quote
My personal reasons for being an atheist haven't got a damned thing to do with science or atoms or Zeno or even things you forgot to mention, like the viscosity of pancake batter. Science did not influence me in any way, shape or form to dismiss religion. Granted, when I found out that science had explanations that made a trillion times more sense than biblical stories, it helped. But I did not choose to ignore the concept of god over frickin' trivia.

So it is an appeal to emotion?

Quote
Now if you think there is some huge plot to overthrow the church by conspiratorial dudes and their mistresses or something, then you're starting from the wrong place, and talk about not being able to measure something, if you start at the wrong place you can't possibly end up with the right answer. Never in my 50 years as an atheist have I been asked to go to a meeting where we can plan our next dastardly plot against the truth. The world doesn't work like that.

Actually the Roman Catholic Church was pretty open about it. It was such common "knowledge" that an entire name was given to it as a well known movement: It was called the Counter Reformation of which I believe you are a direct product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation

Quote
What's with this "come back to christ" crap. Do you have it in your head that I and others consciously decided to deny christ when we became atheists? Do you think we each, individually, rejected your god and your jesus in some structured way? Where do you get this mindset? What the heck is your source?

The United States atheist constitution and its pluralistic secularist Jeffersonian/Paine principles, which the Puritans warned would lead to widespread religious scandal and skepticism, operate right off of The Enlightenment and a devout Roman Catholic named Rene Descartes who was trained by Jesuit priests operating right off their mandate to destroy the Protestant Reformation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_studiorum


Quote
Your reliance on ancient philosophy to back up your modern stance: what's with that? It's not that Zeno and Aristotle and others don't have anything to offer. They do? But what the f**k did they know. Everything they came up with was mind games or early math.

Every professional empiricist I know is Aristotelian. One of my mentors was educated at John Hopkins and his Atheist Philosophy professor was a strict Aristotelian. Who else has a more comprehensive system of speaking about the physical world than Aristotle? You have probably never even given a moments thought to this question. I don't mean any personal attack by this, but atheists as a whole don't study history and don't study philosophy. Hitchens is a rare exception, and he still didn't know that much.

Quote
If they had the same information available to you and me today, they would have reached very different conclusions. Aristotle thought an atom couldn't be split. He had no idea what an atom was. What it consisted of. How it worked. Nothing. A couple of millennia later we figured enough of it out to blow things up and heat our houses and pollute our environment. There is no philosophical stance that can undo Hiroshima or Fukushima. If we could go back in time and show Aristotle that the atom could be split, he would come up with an altered philosophical stance. And enroll in a major university and learn as much as he could about it.

Maybe, but one thing he would hammer you on is your objects of knowledge. I still don't think you get this and you didn't answer my questions.

Quote
There is no christ for me to go back to. You can play all the philosophical games you want, I have way too many brain cells to fall for any silly tales of jesus, or vishnu, or allah. It doesn't have diddly to do with metaphysics or plots by the catholics to overthrow the planet. They can't even molest kids very well. Where is their competence in world wide domination going to come from. And surely the other sources of money and power in the world aren't going to let them go it alone anyway.

This is hilarious. You obviously know nothing about Catholicism. Even Hitchens and Dawkins get this stuff. Read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/richard-dawkins-arrest-th_n_533837.html

Maher acknowledges it here:



Quote
Atheism isn't a plot. Like anything else in life, different people become atheist for their own individual reasons. I know you think we don't have sensations

Yes atheism is a plot. The secualr way of life was specifically designed and implements by the Jesuits, through the ratio studiorum to secularize Protestant nations that they had lost from their Un-Holy Roman Empire, to open them up again to the Catholic Church so that over a long period of time, the Pope could regain his power over these nations. This is standard history, you have lived and been educated in a system specifically to keep you from these points of history. After I graduated from college and got a decent job, I asked every employee at my place of work (most had college degrees)  if they knew who Martin Luther was. NOT A SINGLE PERSON KNEW WHO HE WAS! If that is not systematic Roman Catholic brainwashing, I don't know what is. Luther is the Patriarch of free educated humanity and for a western educated person to not know who he is, reeks of conspiracy beyond denial. 

Second, i did not say we don't have sensations. I am saying I don't know what a sensation is.

Quote
We don't like catholics any more than you do, but you're not giving protestants a good name right now. I suggest you go back to the drawing board, find a way to get your point across without pissing off every human within a hundred miles, and try again. Any legitimate content in your spiel is overshadowed by your oversimplifications and erroneous about how and what I and others think, and that dooms it. Dooms it completely.

You don't get the point. My beef with Rome is part of a complete philosophy of history. I can interpret every century of human history due to my view of who the Pope is and I can interpret every major piece of american foreign policy for the past century. Can You? I have three books on this issue: Edwards' History of the Work of Redemption, Nigel Lee's John's Revelation Unveiled, and Eric John Phelps Vatican Assasins.  All three of these works make up a complete interpretation of human history and all interpret the Pope as the Antichrist as their contemporary interpretive grid. Until you can provide a complete theory of history you are just kicking against a huge stone wall.


Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
So then strings are now the changeless objects of knowledge? So then, do you admit that the theory of science used to overthrow Christianity and the possibility of miracles was refuted by the splitting of the atom? If so, if in case a string is split will you relinquish your views of science and return to the Christian faith? Also, what prevented an honest scientist at the moment of the splitting of the atom to not admit Science's attack on Christianity was incorrect and come back to Christ?

Olivianus,

I tend to think that if science was a man, he would look at your argument, throw up his hands, and say, "Who the fuck is this Christ guy and why are we talking about him again?"  In other words, science doesn't give a shit about Christ.  It plods along quite well without a single thought toward any god at all, including yours. 

I really have a hard time thinking you are serious about it.  It is completely ridiculous to think of science as some sort of conspiracy theory with the main purpose of getting rid of Christianity.   It's an idea unworthy of respect, and highly deserving of ridicule.  I respect your right to have a belief in the matter, but your belief is stupid.  Now, I'm not calling YOU stupid; but this particular belief here, if it's what you really think, is stupid.

Read my last response to Parking Places.

Offline Tinyal

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Darwins +26/-1
  • Gender: Male
"Yes atheism is a plot. The secualr way of life was specifically designed and implements by the Jesuits, through the ratio studiorum to secularize Protestant nations that they had lost from their Un-Holy Roman Empire, to open them up again to the Catholic Church so that over a long period of time, the Pope could regain his power over these nations. This is standard history, you have lived and been educated in a system specifically to keep you from these points of history. After I graduated from college and got a decent job, I asked every employee at my place of work (most had college degrees)  if they knew who Martin Luther was. NOT A SINGLE PERSON KNEW WHO HE WAS! If that is not systematic Roman Catholic brainwashing, I don't know what is. Luther is the Patriarch of free educated humanity and for a western educated person to not know who he is, reeks of conspiracy beyond denial.  "

Olivianus, you're entire paragraph I quoted above is , should I put it kindly, hogswash.  I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any gods.  I don't believe in any because I've never seen the slightest shred of evidence that any god(s) exist, nor that they are in the least bit necessary for me or anything else real to exist.
"The secular way of life was designed" <clip meaningless conspiratorial theory>...are you kidding?  Are you a poe?  I work in higher education, I frequently interact with hundreds of people each month, and I'd have to say at least 1/4 know who Martin Luther was in great detail, with another 4th having somewhat less of an understanding, but still know who he was.  I feel these numbers are saddingly poor, as the people I'm talking about are supposed to be working on their degree - and so should be farther along, knowledgewise/critical thinking wise.  But here in the USA, the state of education for most of our citizens is the laughingstock of the industrial world, and so such poor numbers are so common as to be the norm.  As to all of that adding up to RCC brainwashing....ummm, a response fails me.

You got anything like, hmm, ummm, I don't know.....something like evidence of this conspiracy?

Have you any actual evidence of anything you're saying in your posts??
Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water?