Author Topic: A Christian Challenge to Empirical Science; Ten Questions for a Secularist  (Read 2626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Olivianus

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

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

These are not realities on your model. They are abstractions. Second, you didn't define anything you needed to define.


Quote
Well, Zeno's Paradox pretty much refutes itself since it posits an infinite series (which cannot exist in nature)

Your opinion doesn't make it so. Assertions are not arguments.

Quote
along with the fact that you can move from A to B, then the idea of an infinite series cannot be correct here.

Dito. Define motion. Define space.

Quote
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.


I'm fascinated by the party spirit here because earlier Azdgari refused to believe that Planks had any substantial to say on these points and now he's not even correcting you.

Quote
Define god

Be glad to. succession.

With the Nicene Creed, I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. Strictly speaking, God is the Father (1 Cor 8:6) and with the Father is his Word (John 1:1-4) and Spirit. God is not beyond being and predication and so I do not blush as to affirm that the Father God is an eternal mind with a divine will and a principle of operation. Being a mind, God therefore has real distinctions in his thoughts.   There are consubstantial generic divine natures in each of the three minds, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not three gods but One God-specifically the Father-A concreted eternal intellect.  God's nature is the necessary set of eternal predicates that the three persons affirm in their minds. Dr. Clark says, “God is his thinking.  God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity…God is a living God.” (The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, ed. Ronald Nash [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968], pg. 68) There is a Scriptural subordination of persons but not of nature. The nature in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the same in character but not in number. This is generic unity, not numerical unity. That is, there are three things in eternity: three distinct persons. The Father is the One God while the Son and Spirit are eternally with the one God and are ontologically identified with him at the level of nature.   The Father is the source of the Son and Spirit and all Trinitarian operations. Therefore, the Son is said to obey these commands and operations of the Father (John 10:18, Heb 10:7). The Son never commands the Father but the Father commands the Son. Jesus said in John 14:28 that the Father was greater than he was. The very terms Father and Son require a filial subordination.


Quote
Strings are a hypothesis, but sure.

I love how many contradictory responses i am getting to this stuff. I've got three of you who can't agree on whether we understand how the brain works. Two of you can't agree on whether Plank units answer Zenos' Paradox and now you are disagreeing with the validity of the string theory as a solution to the split atom. Oh the joy of it.

Quote
I admit that Aristotle or whoever came up with the idea of an unsplittable atom was wrong.

Originally Democritus.

 
Quote
But that wasn't science, it was philosophy.

Oh yes it was. That was why the splitting of the atom was so significant. It had been science for a few centuries at that point. Just because you don't consider it science. Science has asserted so many explanations of the world and continues to replace them one after the other. The way you view it will be different from someone else a hundred years from now, but I believe the exact same view of the Trinity that Athanasius taught 1700 years ago.


Quote
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.

You are avoiding what I am demanding. Where are the books where the contemporaries of Fermi and Einstein are admitting that the previous theory of atomism was wrong, connected the dots with its connection to Christianity and the Enlightenment and  admitted they now had no basis to continue the anti-christian revolution. An honest man. And I don't want your opinion about it. I want a book from a professional atheistic scientist. 

Quote
Christianity was overthrown?  WTF!  Guys!  Tell me these things!

Protestant Christianity. Protestantism has been suppressed.  Romanism will twist and mold whatever you want to keep their influence.

Offline Olivianus

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

Yes:

1. The Counter-Reformation and the Establishment of the Jesuit Order.

2. The Ratio Studiorum

3. A timeline I wrote out in detail here:http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-roman-catholicism

The pdf is attached to the bottom: JesuitIntriguepdf.pdf

Turn to the timeline section. I go century by century from the 1500's to today.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
These are not realities on your model. They are abstractions. Second, you didn't define anything you needed to define.

Ah, but the Plank Length is neither a model, nor an abstraction.  It is an absolute.  It is define exclusively by three universal constants. (a trinity)  It isn't the smallest unit defined by man, it is the smallest unit definable by physical contingency, reality.   According to the Universe, made manifest in the universal constants.  (There's some atheist woo-factor, right back at ya)

Since the value of the Plank Length is greater than zero, an infinite series of points between A and B cannot exist in reality.  I don't need to define anything, I only need to show that the premise used by Zeno is false.  The infinite series of Zeno's Paradox cannot exist in reality; Paradox Resolved.


I'm fascinated by the party spirit here because earlier Azdgari refused to believe that Planks had any substantial to say on these points and now he's not even correcting you.

Azdgari is arguing that mathematics now has tools which can evaluate an infinite series successfully.  Paradox Refuted.  Zeno assumed his infinite series was a show-stopper, and it was for a while, but not for centuries now.

Azdgari's argument is stronger than mine because regardless of the validity of my argument, he's right.  Although if my argument holds, we don't even have to fall back to Azdgari's position.


Quote
Define god
With the Nicene Creed, I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. Strictly speaking, God is the Father (1 Cor 8:6) and with the Father is his Word (John 1:1-4) and Spirit.

Can God make a rock so heavy even He cannot move it?
Can God do something different than what he sees Himself doing in the future?
Can you explain the Problem of Evil?


Quote
Strings are a hypothesis, but sure.
and now you are disagreeing with the validity of the string theory as a solution to the split atom.


No, I'm saying it is A solution to the split atom problem you invented.  I cannot confirm nor deny it's validity.


Oh the joy of it.

Trust me, we're enjoying your responses too.


Quote
But that wasn't science, it was philosophy.

Oh yes it was. That was why the splitting of the atom was so significant. It had been science for a few centuries at that point. Just because you don't consider it science. Science has asserted so many explanations of the world and continues to replace them one after the other. The way you view it will be different from someone else a hundred years from now, but I believe the exact same view of the Trinity that Athanasius taught 1700 years ago.

Science is a search for truth, religion is an assertion of truth.  As such the former will grow, adapt and evolve, the latter will not. 


Quote
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.

You are avoiding what I am demanding.

As are you of me.


Where are the books where the contemporaries of Fermi and Einstein are admitting that the previous theory of atomism was wrong, connected the dots with its connection to Christianity and the Enlightenment and  admitted they now had no basis to continue the anti-christian revolution. An honest man. And I don't want your opinion about it. I want a book from a professional atheistic scientist. 

No such books exist because your theory is crazy-talk.  Atomism was suggested around 400 BC, how can it be anti-christian, let alone anti-protestant?  It wasn't a scientific theory, it was a philosophical one.  The scientists were the ones trying to make an actual scientific Atomic Theory.  They weren't disappointed by the discovery of the electron, proton and neutron, they were excited.


Protestant Christianity. Protestantism has been suppressed.  Romanism will twist and mold whatever you want to keep their influence.

Well I guess the RCC did burn a bunch of you guys at the stake.  You react to the RCC like Muslims react to the word "crusade".  :)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:31:18 AM by Cyberia »
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
My beef with Rome is part of a complete philosophy of history... I have three books on this issue... {emphasis Mine}

Three books?

Three books?

Heeheeheeheehee!  This is obviously some strange new definition of "complete philosophy of history" that I wasn't previously aware of.  Heck, My Dragonlance collection is bigger than that.

But in all seriousness, Olivianus, it really doesn't matter what the RCC did in the past, what they have intended for the future, or whether or not Martin Luther was a swell guy or a total asswipe.

The important thing is this:  How do we -- Believers and non-believers alike -- set things up to ensure the highest possible quality of life for the greatest number of sentient beings on this planet?  History is useful to tell us what mistakes not to make in the future, but history is not some immutable destiny crafted by a crafty cleric in a pointy hat many centuries ago.  Do you have any sensible recommendations that don't involve throwing ourselves upon the mercy of someone else's imaginary friend?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Olivianus

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

Quote
The infinite series of Zeno's Paradox cannot exist in reality; Paradox Resolved.

Did the universe have a beginning? If yes, you are pretty much stuck with some kind of theistic system. If no, then you are stuck inside of some kind of infinite series. If you say an infinite series cannot exist in reality, then there cannot be infinite time. If there cannot be infinite time, you are stuck inside of some creation and annihilation system that no one has thought of yet as far as my studies go.


Quote
Azdgari is arguing that mathematics now has tools which can evaluate an infinite series successfully.


Didn't you just say there is such thing as an infinite series?

Quote
Zeno assumed his infinite series was a show-stopper, and it was for a while, but not for centuries now.


First, I have already given a quote from Clark here that makes your task of acquiring numbers impossible. Your assertions of no infinite series, and then assertions that calculus can deal with infinite series is completely fascinating. I have rarely read a writer contradict himself so clearly in successive paragraphs.   

Quote
Azdgari's argument is stronger than mine because regardless of the validity of my argument, he's right.  Although if my argument holds, we don't even have to fall back to Azdgari's position.

Am I hallucinating? Didn't Azdgari's just a number of hours ago deny that the Plank unit could even be introduced to this issue? Yes, in this thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21668.0.html, Reply #2 he says,


Quote
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.


Then in reply #6 he says,

Quote
The Planck length has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasoning behind that supposed paradox.  So he's wrong.


Quote
Can God make a rock so heavy even He cannot move it?

Define rock. How do you tell the difference between a rock and a mountain range?  Define heavy. Define Move.


Quote
Can God do something different than what he sees Himself doing in the future?

The word future has no meaning for God. God is never in time only in eternity. He has no past or future.

Quote
Can you explain the Problem of Evil?

What problem? There is no problem. All is as God decrees it to be.

Quote
No, I'm saying it is A solution to the split atom problem you invented.  I cannot confirm nor deny it's validity.

So then you have no answer. That's honest thank you.


Quote
Science is a search for truth, religion is an assertion of truth.  As such the former will grow, adapt and evolve, the latter will not.

You still don't get the problem with that do you?  Let me break it down for you. Heraclitus proved his Flux theory early in the Pre-Socratic era and I am going to flesh it out for you. Everything physical is constantly changing. If that is the case, how can you have a memory? How can you speak of anything at all? As soon you grasp some physical object with your mind, the image is inserted into your consciousness; but wait, it is now something different and you are something different from the time you had the sensation. 



Quote
No such books exist because your theory is crazy-talk.  Atomism was suggested around 400 BC, how can it be anti-christian, let alone anti-protestant?

Do I really have to go through the enlightenment for you? Because it would make events like Jesus walking on water, the Sun standing still, Joshua 10:13 etc. impossible.

Quote
It wasn't a scientific theory, it was a philosophical one.


Define the difference between something scientific and something philosophical.


« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 04:39:35 AM by Olivianus »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
BM
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
Demonstrating where philosophy, science or mathematics are wrong (and I don't concede that you have done so) is not equal to proving the existence of a god, let alone a particular flavour of christian god. When you have some irrefutable proof of the existence of a god please do share it but, at the moment, you simply have an elaborate 'god of the gaps'.

Your assertion that the universe having a beginning therefore god is a perfect example of your 'god of the gaps' position as well as demonstrating that you are as guilty of making unsupported assertions  as anyone else here. As you point out, such assertions are not arguments.

Similarly, having hundreds of years of 'evidence' for catholic plots at best only proves the existence of catholic plots, it does not prove god. In fact, given bible god's penchant for smiting his enemies, the continued existence of these jesuit plotters over hundreds of years suggests that either that god is on their side or doesn't care or doesn't exist. It could equally well suggest that the plots don't exist. Again, it has no bearing on the question of the existence of god(s).



« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 05:48:44 AM by hickdive »
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Without wishing to appear arrogant, I don’t usually take questions from the terminally ignorant
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.
Xeno simply confused arithmetic progressionWiki and geometric progressionWiki  – I often wonder if he did it intentionally, as any well-educated Greek could have explained it to him at the time

Quote
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)
Dr Clark is a twat – it is the effect of the atom (properly ‘molecules’) on the eardrum and ultimately the nerves that creates the sensation of sound.

It is not much different from heating an iron bar – a question of energy transfer.

[irrational garbage deleted]
Quote
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?
Well, it isn’t.

Case Closed.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
You win, olivianus. It's true. In the third grade, my teacher, who lived less than three blocks from a catholic church, made a little model mountain out of playdough, put a hole in the middle, spooned in some baking soda and then poured in some vinegar. When foamy stuff spewed out she said "This is how a volcano works. You must now recant jesus." So each of us repeated after her three times "I recant jesus".

If you can split strings, I will take christ back.

By the way, in your post to me, you first said Hitchens wasn't that smart, then you provided a video of Hitchens backing up what you said. Does that mean he was so stupid he agreed with you?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Isn't it amusing that a person who scrutinizes science and philosophy to such intricate levels ardently believes in a medium sized barge that contained the specimens of all life species we know of and sustained them for six months in Waterworld!

This must be one of the specimens Velkyn mentions in her signature.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Did the universe have a beginning? If yes, you are pretty much stuck with some kind of theistic system.

How did you come to that conclusion?  Essentially all you've done is create an unproven category called "Something which had no beginning and is capable of creating universes," and arbitrarily assumed it to have characteristics which make it "theistic" rather than a natural process.

Quote
If you say an infinite series cannot exist in reality, then there cannot be infinite time.

So what's this "eternal life" rot we keep hearing about from believers?

Quote
Do I really have to go through the enlightenment for you? Because it would make events like Jesus walking on water, the Sun standing still, Joshua 10:13 etc. impossible.

Have you ever considered the possibility that they are impossible, or at least so ludicrously unlikely that they almost certainly did not happen?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
olivianus

I was pissed writing my last post. I'm calmed down. Time to try again.

It's not your holier than thou attitude that bothers me. Christians always win that one with atheists. But your obscure references and dependence upon conspiracy theories automatically defines you as whacko. You may or may not be, but I interpret you that way.

Just as it has been shown that homophobes get more turned on by gay porn than do straight people, it has been shown that conspiracy theorists are more likely to want to be a part of some conspiracy than those of us who don't take such things seriously. I'm guessing you want to be in on protestant conspiracies. Good luck with that.

Asking me to take catholic conspiracies seriously when Rick Santorum is running for president is laughable. They've had over 1500 years to take over the planet, and he's the best they can do?

I don't doubt that there are catholics who want to control everything. I know there are protestants who want to. You've admitted that yourself. It's our only hope, etc. Yea, right. Marching my ass to church by gunpoint every Sunday is going to make me a better person? Or will shooting me fulfill that wish?

I don't trust anyone who thinks his way is the only way. They aren't taking me into consideration. And they're assuming I'm wrong in way too many ways. There is no way for you to be right about everything, just as there is no way for me either. The difference between us is that I don't pretend to have all the answers.

On top of the other problems, you don't have a good way of getting your other points across. You are all excited about tiny details in science and philosophy that you think contradict each other and help point to your god. A catholic could be here arguing all but items 9 and 10 and claim it was his god that did it, and our argument would be the same. And hindu, a muslim, all could claim their god has done it. We atheists can't tell the difference, which is quite consistent with out assumption that there is no god in the first place.

You get all excited because Aristotle said an atom couldn't be split and then when atoms are invented, they are given the name atom in honor of Aristotle, and then they get split. How do you know that Aristotle wasn't talking about quarks and such instead of atoms, and it's just a translation thing? Don't take that stuff so seriously.

Doesn't it bother you that great thinkers like Zeno and Aristotle, or even back to Thales of Miletus, were putting out such deep frickin' thoughts while old testament writers were putting stuff into the bible like Genesis 5:15 (And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared) on paper? Impressible thinkers intuiting incredible wisdom, and you're all hung up on guys all excited about family trees? I don't get that part either.

This is obviously not the place for you to espouse your various hangups about reality. We'll give you a hard time, and most of us won't take you seriously. I've no doubt you consider this a good thing, because if atheists hassle you, you must be on the right track. But there are other explanations. Like you're wrong. If you can't take that possibility into account, your ideas have a fatal flaw.

I could be wrong. If god ever stands in front of me and says "I am real!" I might reconsider. If it's just you standing in front of me saying "God told me to tell you he is real", it ain't gonna work. No matter how many big words you work into your argument.

And i was lying about accepting jesus if science splits strings (and obviously about the science teacher too). But that's okay. I'm allowed. I don't have a hell to burn in.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2067
  • Darwins +222/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Be glad to. succession.

With the Nicene Creed, I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. Strictly speaking, God is the Father (1 Cor 8:6) and with the Father is his Word (John 1:1-4) and Spirit. God is not beyond being and predication and so I do not blush as to affirm that the Father God is an eternal mind with a divine will and a principle of operation. Being a mind, God therefore has real distinctions in his thoughts.   There are consubstantial generic divine natures in each of the three minds, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not three gods but One God-specifically the Father-A concreted eternal intellect.  God's nature is the necessary set of eternal predicates that the three persons affirm in their minds. Dr. Clark says, “God is his thinking.  God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity…God is a living God.” (The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, ed. Ronald Nash [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968], pg. 68) There is a Scriptural subordination of persons but not of nature. The nature in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the same in character but not in number. This is generic unity, not numerical unity. That is, there are three things in eternity: three distinct persons. The Father is the One God while the Son and Spirit are eternally with the one God and are ontologically identified with him at the level of nature.   The Father is the source of the Son and Spirit and all Trinitarian operations. Therefore, the Son is said to obey these commands and operations of the Father (John 10:18, Heb 10:7). The Son never commands the Father but the Father commands the Son. Jesus said in John 14:28 that the Father was greater than he was. The very terms Father and Son require a filial subordination.

To use your own words here... 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 God looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like or sounds like you are just asserting nothing. It is just as imaginary as I affirmed.

Long story short, God is fake.  Sorry.

Have a nice day. 
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 rickymooston

So until you can tell me what Pong God looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like or sounds like you are just asserting nothing. It is just as imaginary as I affirmed.

What does an electron look like, feel like or sound like? What about a gravitational field?
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
What does an electron look like, feel like or sound like? What about a gravitational field?

I can get 1.5 volts when I want, where I want and that is good enough feeling for me.
Anyone interested in checking out gravity can jump from any tall building and hit the ground with timings consistent with the equation s= ut + 1/2at2

Besides it was Olivianus who made that statement, JeffPT made the appropriate substitution.

Offline rickymooston

4 questions for you:

1) How can you write such long posts? Did you actually write it yourself?
2) Do you believe all the claims?
3) Have you read and understood all the claims
4) If your questions are true, why do Christian engineers and doctors exist?

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Ten Questions for a Secularist
1. Zeno’s Paradox?
Really? A mental exploration of infinity supposedly trumps reality?

Olivi anus
Quote
2. ancient idea of atomism coupled with false premise.
Again, really? Do you genuinely believe this junk?

Olivi anus
Quote
3. How can the planet earth qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion?
Again, really? Do you genuinely believe this junk?

Olivi anus
Quote
4. How do you explain the universe?
Via science - it works very well. For example, it has provided us with computers.

Olivi anus
Quote
5. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas??
You should study some biology. Our bodies are stimulated by our environment and that produces signals that are transmitted into the brain. The abstract idea production is more complex than you appear to be able to process since you prefer ancient ideas to modern knowledge.

Olivi anus
Quote
6. What language should we use to talk about the material world?
Well, normal people just use normal language. Just because someone made up some supposed refutation of language doesn't change the fact that it works. You couldn't be posting your very strange world-view without language.

Olivi anus
Quote
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?
This would be something you would need to prove.

Olivi anus
Quote
8. If all knowledge comes through sensation, ...
Let me stop you there since you are already wrong at this point in #8.

Olivi anus
Quote
9. Do you have a complete theory?
What sort of theory? You seem to refer to philosophy in the paragraph. There are many philosophies and not everyone here holds to the same philosophy. So you could ask specific people or just go study philosophy in general.

Olivi anus
Quote
10. How you are going to unify the American people ... How are you not taking us back to the dark ages?
Well, we don't want to remove the RCC; we would like to eliminate every church and religion. Please try to understand that does not mean the people. Many of us think that the best way to eliminate every church and religion is to educate people. Of course, you serve as an example of education gone very, very wrong. The religions would be what take us back into the dark ages and our ideas (of good education) would advance us.

Regarding your name: I was going to shorten your name to Olivia but then I noticed you are a guy so I adjusted the break. You seem to like more formal presentations so I'm guessing you would object to being addressed as Olivi - should I call you Mr. Anus instead?    ;D
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Olivianus

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

Quote
Demonstrating where philosophy, science or mathematics are wrong (and I don't concede that you have done so) is not equal to proving the existence of a god, let alone a particular flavour of christian god.

You are exactly right. That was not the point of this thread. I have done that here on your forums. Fresh off the press: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21680.0.html

Quote
When you have some irrefutable proof of the existence of a god please do share it but, at the moment, you simply have an elaborate 'god of the gaps'.


See the link above.


Offline Olivianus

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

Quote
Xeno simply confused arithmetic progressionWiki and geometric progressionWiki  – I often wonder

Typing the words don't make it true. Can you summarize this for me here in your own words? If the well educated knew this, why did the age of the Sophists dominate the next century of philosophy? They all agreed that Zeno had made knowledge impossible thus Protagoras' man-measure theory dominated the next century. You are re-writing history sir.


Quote
it is the effect of the atom (properly ‘molecules’) on the eardrum and ultimately the nerves that creates the sensation of sound.

That would be a quality sir. Democritus denied that atoms had qualities. There is no quality-cause for a sensory effect.

 
Quote
Well, it isn’t. Case Closed.

LOL! I love it! Overturning atheism in my city is going to by like melting butter with a flamethrower.

Offline Olivianus

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

Quote
By the way, in your post to me, you first said Hitchens wasn't that smart, then you provided a video of Hitchens backing up what you said. Does that mean he was so stupid he agreed with you?

No, no. I think Christopher Hitchens was one of the most brilliant people on the late pathetic planet. In the context I was saying he knew some ancient philosophy but not that much. I have a couple of his books and I try to listen to him regularly because he was such a good speaker and writer.

Offline Olivianus

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

Quote
Did the universe have a beginning? If yes, you are pretty much stuck with some kind of theistic system.

How did you come to that conclusion?  Essentially all you've done is create an unproven category called "Something which had no beginning and is capable of creating universes," and arbitrarily assumed it to have characteristics which make it "theistic" rather than a natural process.

Can you then show me a religion/philosophy that teaches creation but has no God?


Quote
So what's this "eternal life" rot we keep hearing about from believers?

You are not even following the conversation. I was drawing an inference from the others persons assertion. It was not a positive affirmation of my own.


Quote
Have you ever considered the possibility that they are impossible, or at least so ludicrously unlikely that they almost certainly did not happen?

Sure. Until my questions have been answered and a full atheist/scientific construction has been produced it is not impossible.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Be glad to. succession.

With the Nicene Creed, I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. Strictly speaking, God is the Father (1 Cor 8:6) and with the Father is his Word (John 1:1-4) and Spirit. God is not beyond being and predication and so I do not blush as to affirm that the Father God is an eternal mind with a divine will and a principle of operation. Being a mind, God therefore has real distinctions in his thoughts.   There are consubstantial generic divine natures in each of the three minds, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not three gods but One God-specifically the Father-A concreted eternal intellect.  God's nature is the necessary set of eternal predicates that the three persons affirm in their minds. Dr. Clark says, “God is his thinking.  God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity…God is a living God.” (The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, ed. Ronald Nash [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968], pg. 68) There is a Scriptural subordination of persons but not of nature. The nature in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the same in character but not in number. This is generic unity, not numerical unity. That is, there are three things in eternity: three distinct persons. The Father is the One God while the Son and Spirit are eternally with the one God and are ontologically identified with him at the level of nature.   The Father is the source of the Son and Spirit and all Trinitarian operations. Therefore, the Son is said to obey these commands and operations of the Father (John 10:18, Heb 10:7). The Son never commands the Father but the Father commands the Son. Jesus said in John 14:28 that the Father was greater than he was. The very terms Father and Son require a filial subordination.

To use your own words here... 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 God looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like or sounds like you are just asserting nothing. It is just as imaginary as I affirmed.

Long story short, God is fake.  Sorry.

Have a nice day.

Wrong. I am not a logical positivist. They were traditionally empiricists I am not. Slight variations maybe. That was an ad hominem argument. Not a positive affirmation of my own.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
So until you can tell me what Pong God looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like or sounds like you are just asserting nothing. It is just as imaginary as I affirmed.

What does an electron look like, feel like or sound like? What about a gravitational field?

Wrong. I am not a logical positivist. They were traditionally empiricists I am not. Slight variations maybe. That was an ad hominem argument. Not a positive affirmation of my own.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Can you then show me a religion/philosophy that teaches creation but has no God?

All of them.
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
4 questions for you:

1) How can you write such long posts? Did you actually write it yourself?
2) Do you believe all the claims?
3) Have you read and understood all the claims
4) If your questions are true, why do Christian engineers and doctors exist?

1. The first question is a bit strange: uh, typing? Yes.

2. What claims?

3. What claims?

4. Questions, true? That makes no sense. You can operate, or use something without knowing what you are using. As I said before, I don't know what or how an internal data bus works and I gave it many months of effort. But I can use it. I'm using it right now.




Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Ten Questions for a Secularist
1. Zeno’s Paradox?
Really? A mental exploration of infinity supposedly trumps reality?

Olivi anus
Quote
2. ancient idea of atomism coupled with false premise.
Again, really? Do you genuinely believe this junk?

Olivi anus
Quote
3. How can the planet earth qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion?
Again, really? Do you genuinely believe this junk?

Olivi anus
Quote
4. How do you explain the universe?
Via science - it works very well. For example, it has provided us with computers.

Olivi anus
Quote
5. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas??
You should study some biology. Our bodies are stimulated by our environment and that produces signals that are transmitted into the brain. The abstract idea production is more complex than you appear to be able to process since you prefer ancient ideas to modern knowledge.

Olivi anus
Quote
6. What language should we use to talk about the material world?
Well, normal people just use normal language. Just because someone made up some supposed refutation of language doesn't change the fact that it works. You couldn't be posting your very strange world-view without language.

Olivi anus
Quote
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?
This would be something you would need to prove.

Olivi anus
Quote
8. If all knowledge comes through sensation, ...
Let me stop you there since you are already wrong at this point in #8.

Olivi anus
Quote
9. Do you have a complete theory?
What sort of theory? You seem to refer to philosophy in the paragraph. There are many philosophies and not everyone here holds to the same philosophy. So you could ask specific people or just go study philosophy in general.

Olivi anus
Quote
10. How you are going to unify the American people ... How are you not taking us back to the dark ages?
Well, we don't want to remove the RCC; we would like to eliminate every church and religion. Please try to understand that does not mean the people. Many of us think that the best way to eliminate every church and religion is to educate people. Of course, you serve as an example of education gone very, very wrong. The religions would be what take us back into the dark ages and our ideas (of good education) would advance us.

Regarding your name: I was going to shorten your name to Olivia but then I noticed you are a guy so I adjusted the break. You seem to like more formal presentations so I'm guessing you would object to being addressed as Olivi - should I call you Mr. Anus instead?    ;D

To reply to the serious points in one statement: Operation is not demonstration. You can operate, or use something without knowing what you are using. As I said before, I don't know what or how an internal data bus works and I gave it many months of effort. But I can use it. I'm using it right now.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2067
  • Darwins +222/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
To use your own words here... 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 God looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like or sounds like you are just asserting nothing. It is just as imaginary as I affirmed.

Long story short, God is fake.  Sorry.

Have a nice day.

Wrong. I am not a logical positivist. They were traditionally empiricists I am not. Slight variations maybe. That was an ad hominem argument. Not a positive affirmation of my own.

Why would you use a position that you don't support in order to counter someone else's argument?  That doesn't make any sense. 

If you recall, you used the principal of logical positivism to refute the notion that Cyberia's self-described measurement of 'pong' was valid.  But now you are saying it is not a valid refutation of her notion of pong?  I don't understand what you're doing here.  Are you trying to say that Cyberia's notion of 'pong' really is fine?  Or that it's not fine?  Or that the principal of logical positivism can be used to refute her notion of pong, but not your ridiculous notion of God?  What are you going for here? If you are not a logical positivist, then why would you use it? 

Or are you trying to say that your response was nothing more than an ad hom attack on Cyberia?  That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?  Seeing as it doesn't look anything like an ad hom attack. 

BTW, I'm not wrong about God.  The Christian God is fake. 
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 Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
He refuted nothing.  He's just using sophistry to play peek-a-boo.


Wait, I'll answer that for him:

Define sophistry, define peek-a-boo, define nothing.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
To reply to the serious points in one statement: Operation is not demonstration. You can operate, or use something without knowing what you are using. As I said before, I don't know what or how an internal data bus works and I gave it many months of effort. But I can use it. I'm using it right now.

Bold mine - highlights a nonsense claim; many principles can be demonstrated by "operation".

I was being flip earlier when playing with your name. I am not being flip or sarcastic now: you have convinced me you genuinely have a disfunctional mental outlook.

Since you have a severe disconnect with reality, you should refrain from talking about it until you get sufficient psychological help that you can understand such basic concepts. Please be aware that any such therapy depends upon you being willing to learn how and where your thinking is wrong. Even people willing to get help can take a while to correct their thinking. Your mental distortions are extensive and you do not seem to have any willingness to accept that so you should be aware you need to change that before seeking help.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther