Author Topic: A Christian Challenge to Empirical Science; Ten Questions for a Secularist  (Read 2457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
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

Then what was the point? Is it, as I suspect, pointless?

See the link above.

I did. No evidence there either. Try again.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline Olivianus

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

Your insolence feeds me. Please keep typing. When you refuse to deal with my questions and arguments and are forced to resort to insolence, abusive speech and insults, it feeds me.

Offline Olivianus

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

Then what was the point? Is it, as I suspect, pointless?

See the link above.

I did. No evidence there either. Try again.

That's for you to prove. Asserting that my arguments are wrong is not an explanation of how or why they are wrong?

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
That's for you to prove. Asserting that my arguments are wrong is not an explanation of how or why they are wrong?

No. I have to prove nothing. It is for you to present evidence that these questions for secularists somehow prove god.

To put it simply for you and to pick on only one of your 'arguments'; you need to demonstrate that Zeno's paradox proves a god exists. I'll leave it at that for the moment. If you can succesfully prove your point we can then move onto the question of whether any such god is zeus or thor or vishnu.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
That's for you to prove. Asserting that my arguments are wrong is not an explanation of how or why they are wrong?

No. I have to prove nothing. It is for you to present evidence that these questions for secularists somehow prove god.

To put it simply for you and to pick on only one of your 'arguments'; you need to demonstrate that Zeno's paradox proves a god exists. I'll leave it at that for the moment. If you can succesfully prove your point we can then move onto the question of whether any such god is zeus or thor or vishnu.

I admitted that Zeno's paradox does not prove my God. i never said it did. It was intended to disprove that science or any empirical enterprise can give knowledge. My Daniel prophecies were given as evidence for the divinity of Christianity. You have yet to touch them so until you do I am not replying to any more of your posts.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • 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.
There are two fallacies in this statement.  First is attempting to use philosophical paradoxes to define reality, instead of taking reality on its own terms.  For example, it is possible to imagine many things which are impossible (of which Zeno's paradox is but one), yet nothing that is impossible can happen.  It is impossible to exhaust an infinite series, yet movement is quite possible, therefore movement does not require the exhaustion of an infinite series to happen (infinities themselves are not possible in reality, therefore any argument predicated on them is invalid when used to describe something in reality).  And Zeno's statement about ocean waves and atoms is simply wrong.  Sound is by definition the motion of atoms against other atoms.  Whether a sound is inaudible to humans or not is irrelevant, as many sounds are inaudible to humans, yet can still be proven to exist with sensitive enough detectors.  Therefore, it stands to reason that even two atoms can make a "sound" if they move against each other, and could be detected with a sensitive enough instrument.

The second fallacy is your assumption that Christian belief (the source of knowledge coming from the "Trinity") has any bearing on anything.  Even if you were able to disprove something possible with something impossible, it would not demonstrate any alternate belief in any way.  The fact that you could not discover truth would not justify believing that you could get truth from some unproven source.

Quote from: Olivianus
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.
Science was not predicated on atomism in the first place.  Science was predicated on discovery of things which are progressively more true.  Even if it is impossible to absolutely confirm something as true beyond the shadow of any doubt, you can prove it true beyond any reasonable doubt based on existing knowledge, and thus approximate truth even if you cannot actually reach it.  The fact that it is not unchangeable is irrelevant, as science does not depend on "objects of knowledge" to begin with.  It simply depends on observing something, then coming up with an explanation that is not contradicted by anything previously known.  If it is later contradicted, then you come up with a new explanation that is non-contradictory, and so on.  And thus, you more closely approximate truth.

Quote from: Olivianus
3. How can the planet earth qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion?
Because an object need not be in uniform motion to be affected by the laws of physics.

Quote from: Olivianus
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?
Again, you repeat the fallacy of assuming that Christian belief has any bearing on anything.  As for the universe, it can have always existed (in the sense that the energy that is bound up in everything that exists cannot be created or destroyed, only altered).  Or, contrary to your statement, it can have come into being in the same way that virtual particles come into being, as in a zero-sum universe.  In fact, the entire universe could have happened because of a virtual particle-pair which lasted long enough to initiate the inflationary process which allowed matter to exist, and which we can still observe today.

Quote from: Olivianus
5. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?
Sensation is simply something that triggers receptors in the human body.  Perception is the ability of the consciousness to observe sensations.  Abstract ideas represent things which can be conceived of but not sensed.

Quote from: Olivianus
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)
You can determine whether something is individual by observing it.  If you can observe it as a separate entity, no matter what that entity is, it is individual.  It does not matter if you lose track of that individual entity later on, as long as you can observe it at some point.  For example, if you take a cup of water from a fountain, you can observe it as separate from the water in the fountain.  If you then dump it back in, it stops being separate, but that does not mean it was never separate.  If you then take another cup of water from the fountain, you can observe it as separate as before; the fact that you could not observe it as separate before then does not mean it is not then separate.

Quote from: Olivianus
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?
First, you must define operationalism for this question to matter.  Second, you must explain how operationalism has anything to do with science.  Third, you must then state why operationalism would eliminate the possibility of utility in scientific fields, as it is your position and your philosophy.  At that point, you can ask us a question based on those things, but until then, this question is so poorly-phrased that it is effectively invalid - you are asking us to make your point for you, it seems.

Quote from: Olivianus
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.
Because humans have historically eliminated or subjugated competitor species.  It is certainly possible that there may have been other species with the rational capacity you describe, but they would have gone extinct or been subsumed into the homo sapiens genome over the 200,000 or so years since humans came onto the scene.

Quote from: Olivianus
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.
Science does not need a complete theory, and the concept that there can be a complete theory in the first place is unnecessary and in fact dangerous.  I am quite sure that the Roman Catholic Church, which you excoriate here, also has a "complete philosophy" to guide, protect, progress, and unify a human civilization.  I am also quite sure that your own "complete philosophy" can be abused in a similar manner as the RCC's in order to create a tyranny.  This is because a "complete philosophy" presumes that there is nothing more to be learned, and this is and has never been true, nor is it likely to ever be true.  It is the error of pretending that one's answer is The Answer, with no further discussion required.

Quote from: Olivianus
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?
If this is the result of your "complete philosophy", I question whether it has any bearing on reality whatsoever.  You seem to have made the mistake of assuming that the symbolism you use to describe things is an accurate descriptor of the actual and complete nature of those things.  It is not; this is the error of The Answer.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2931
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Can you then show me a religion/philosophy that teaches creation but has no God?

I suspect that there may be one or more schools of Hindu thought that have this concept, but My knowledge of Hinduism is rather sketchy.  I would like to offer Ásatrú as a candidate, though.  In the Norse creation myth, no gods were involved at the very beginning.  For no apparent reason, a cow and a giant trapped in a block of ice spontaneously emerged from the primordial chaos.  The gods showed up later and engaged mainly in terraforming rather than creation ex nihilo.

However, even if no philosophies exist that speak to the possibility of spontaneous, non-guided matter/energy formation, it might just be because no philosophy has yet bothered or needed to address the possibility.  I think that scientific research, particularly in physics, may one day be able to support or rule out this concept.

Quote from: Astreja
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.

Yes, in reviewing the context I see that:  You were responding to Cyberia's critique of Zeno's paradox.  The way I see the paradox, though, there are ever-smaller units of movement and time, approaching but never arriving at one hypothetical point in the near future.  That's hardly what I would call "infinite time"; more like infinitesimal time.  It was your use of the word "infinite" that led to My puzzlement regarding eternal life.

Quote from: Astreja
Have you ever considered the possibility that {various Biblical miracles} 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.

It's still darned unlikely, IMNSHO, and I see no reason to waste time believing in such things until there's some empirical evidence on the table.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Grogs

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
  • Darwins +9/-0
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.)

The thing is that Zeno's points aren't real, they're arbitrary. That is, there's no reason for picking a particular set of points, be they finite or infinite. If Achilles is moving at 1 m/s, and the points are 1 meter apart, he takes 1 second to travel between them. If you make them 1 mm apart, it take him 0.001 seconds between points, and if you make them 10-100 m apart, it will take 10-100 seconds between points. The fact that we can arbitrarily divide up the path into smaller and smaller pieces shows that the points aren't real. A real series of points might be something like "every X meters, Achilles must stop and call his mother" or "every 10-26 meters Achilles collides with an air molecule," but those points are always going to be finite.

2500 years ago, Zeno's paradox made sense in a way - it essentially asked "What is the sum of an infinite number of infinitesimally small distances?" It's not surprising the ancient Greeks would find the concept difficult. They lacked the concept of numbers bigger than a few thousand, decimal points, or 0. It's not ancient Greece anymore, and Isaac Newton showed us how to solve that problem with integral calculus back in the 18th century.

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.

First, your history is not really accurate. Scientists knew that an atom of one element could become another shortly after Becquerel discovered radioactivity in the 19th century. And they knew that there were electrons and "something heavy and positively charged" since Rutherford's scattering experiments in about 1905. The actual fissioning of the uranium atom was a big deal for practical reasons (we can generate power / blow each other up) but it wasn't on the level of scientific revelation as Rutherford's scattering, Chadwick's discovery of the neutron, or Gell-Mann's discovery of the quark.

Second, show me the scientific papers from the 19th century that claim that the knowledge in them was dependent on the indivisibility of the atom. Most of science does assume that the laws of physics are the same today and in this corner of the universe as they were somewhere else billions of years ago. The discovery of subatomic particles didn't affect that one bit. Just because we didn't know about neutrons or quarks or (maybe) strings 100 years ago doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

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

Can you show me where this is listed as a requirement? Scientists certainly don't claim this. In fact, we make corrections for non-uniform acceleration (not motion) millions of times per day with our GPS satellites. The math is too complex for most physics undergrads, much less the typical layperson, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
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.

Reading Legends is definitely more productive than reading this thread.  Raistlin's contrivings concern me more than Olivanus does.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Reading Legends is definitely more productive than reading this thread.  Raistlin's contrivings concern me more than Olivanus does.

Damn, I always forget I have a trunk full of those books sitting in my attic.  It's so nice every once in a while to revisit that series. 
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 Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
No amount of philosophical debate or even appeal of position alters reality.     

You are trying to get people to agree with you, Olivianus.      You are doing an absolutely terrible job of persuasively framing an appeal to reason, as your deliveries presume a smugness you do not warrant and attempt a degree of intellectualism and erudition you have clearly acquired your (lack of) understanding for in a hasty, uncomprehending manner.

In short, you seem every inch the man that was blown away by a brief study of history and apologetics, cannot contrive of any other way to perceive a matter and are now abundantly given over to banging your drum as though repetition of failure will somehow metamorphose into success...and that is unlikely given that you do not seem aware of the magnitude or nature of your failure.

Just stop.   Have mercy on yourself and drop the attitude while you're at it; you're not going to 'save' anybody here, and you're certainly not going to browbeat anybody into 'coming back to jesus' with your conceitedly insular, doubtlessly Google-supplied rhetoric.

Good day.
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
If this is the biggest challenge a Christian can give to empirical science, I don't think there's many worries for the future.

It isn't just that Olivianus is wrong in trying to put philosophy above reality.  It isn't even that he's also apparently allergic to disagreement.  It's that he burned out after less than a week of posting.

In fact, the only real problem is the sheer number of people who espouse things like this.  It gets tiresome to have to refute the same nonsensical arguments over and over again.

Online Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6431
  • Darwins +460/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Forgive me for being away, I was researching how many other people were stuck in the Bronze Age thought pattern
Graybeard

Quote
Xeno simply confused arithmetic progression Wiki and geometric progression Wiki  – I often wonder

Typing the words don't make it true.
I’m not sure what that means, and I doubt you do. For one thing, were it true, your statement could be untrue…

Quote
Can you summarize this for me here in your own words?
Well, if I have to summarise arthimetic and geometric progression for you, I doubt you will understand the answer; nevertheless:
We all know that Xeno’s arrow reaches the target, we must therefore conclude that Xeno (may be on purpose) chose the wrong way of looking at the problem.

If we look at Xeno’s arrow (in a vacuum for ease of calculation) we know that the forces on it can be divided into the forward force and the vertical force (this was known since before 1611).

If the arrow leaves at say 120mph, in the vacuum it will not slow down (we know this as there is nothing acting against it) It therefore hits the target 220 yards away in 1/16th of a minute.

You can try this at home. Speed = distance /over time – simple calculation.

Even if we introduce air resistance, it will reach the target.

The infinite division is an error – It is as elementary as chopping a 6 foot stick into infinite pieces and then putting them back together to form an infinitely long stick – a reasonable 11 year old will laugh if you suggest it.

Quote
If the well educated knew this, why did the age of the Sophists dominate the next century of philosophy?
Why did people think the earth was flat? Why were there people claiming that even in the 19th century? Why do people believe in gods?
Quote
They all agreed that Zeno had made knowledge impossible thus Protagoras' man-measure theory dominated the next century. You are re-writing history sir.
Ridiculous! Do you think that knowledge ceased to grow just because of faulty maths? Do you think that the whole world suddenly sat on its collective arse and said, “That’s it then! Science has come to an end – we are powerless before such logic!”

I don’t know where you went to college, but I suggest you try and get your money back.


Quote
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.
No, it would be a physical effect – atoms have mass and energy. You are quoting a long dead Greek as proof of present day science?

Have you genuinely no idea how the human ear works? Or are you of the “Tide Comes In; Tide Goes Out” persuasion? Are you really so ignorant that you would accept this outmoded and erroneous twaddle? Shame on you sir; I shall take it as my crusade to drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Once there we will discuss your previous follies in the light of modern knowledge.

Fail your test and I will sell your immortal soul to the pope.
 
Quote
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.
[/quote]I treated your comment with the contempt it deserved. Good luck with your attempt to halt the swelling tide of progress and knowledge. Do you know King Knut?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Olivianus

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


Quote
The thing is that Zeno's points aren't real, they're arbitrary.

All language is arbitrary. So what?


Quote
It's not ancient Greece anymore, and Isaac Newton showed us how to solve that problem with integral calculus back in the 18th century.

Wow. I have never read that before. An atheist asserting and not explaining how newton answered this.



You completely avoided the atomism question and provided us with no changeless object of knowledge through qualitative change.


Quote
Can you show me where this is listed as a requirement?

The laws of physics apply to all objects in uniform motion. The earth is not in uniform motion. Therefore, the earth does not qualify for the laws of physics, ergo, no demonstrable scientific laws, ergo, you have no theory.


Quote
Scientists certainly don't claim this. In fact, we make corrections for non-uniform acceleration (not motion) millions of times per day with our GPS satellites. The math is too complex for most physics undergrads, much less the typical layperson, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is classic atheist hypocrisy. So then you admit that you BELIEVE in the laws of physics, and I would argue, you believe it more blindly than most religious people believe the Bible. But I thought John Loftus taught you that Faith Fails.

Offline Olivianus

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



Quote
We all know that Xeno’s arrow reaches the target

What is the arrow? How do you know the arrow and the target are not the same thing? How do you know one thing from another?

You keep asserting your worldview and using terms without defining them. What si motion? What is space? What is time?


Quote
The infinite division is an error – It is as elementary as chopping a 6 foot stick into infinite pieces and then putting them back together to form an infinitely long stick

So you have done that? Can I watch or read the research?

Quote
Ridiculous! Do you think that knowledge ceased to grow just because of faulty maths? Do you think that the whole world suddenly sat on its collective arse and said, “That’s it then! Science has come to an end – we are powerless before such logic!”

You have never read a single paragraph on this period of philosophy have you?

Quote
I don’t know where you went to college, but I suggest you try and get your money back.

For your insolence don't expect me to reply to another one of your comments until you  define these terms:

Sensation: and show how it produces perception and abstraction

Individual units of Matter

Space

Time

Motion



Quote
No, it would be a physical effect – atoms have mass and energy. You are quoting a long dead Greek as proof of present day science?

Your movement re-asserted him not mine. You have yet to define physical as to individuate it from sensory.  Your half assed assertion system isn't going to fly sir.


Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6124
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Oh, oh, I have a question.

Olivianus, if you and I fell off a cliff together, would our experience of sensation, space, time and motion be the same of differ greatly, depending on which philosophy books we'd read?

When we hit bottom, would your individual units of matter, splattered all over the place, be similar or different from mine. Philosophically speaking, of course.

(Removed the last paragraph, which alluded to how happy I would be to have you with me. That was low.)
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
All language is arbitrary. So what?
He was not talking about the language, but about the fact that Zeno's points are imaginary ones instead of real ones.

Quote from: Olivianus
Wow. I have never read that before. An atheist asserting and not explaining how newton answered this.
Zeno's dichotomy paradox (divide by 2 infinitely) is actually a description of an asymptomatic curve which constantly approaches its limit more and more closely, but never actually reaches it.  It is actually fairly easy to show with basic calculus how this represents a finite value and not an infinite one.  Basically, this is a geometric series proceeding as follows:  0 + x + x2 + x3 + ... + xn.  This series breaks down to 1/(1-x), which is the mathematical equation which represents this asymptomatic curve.  Since x = 1/2, the equation ultimately breaks down to 1/(1-1/2), which becomes 1/(1/2), or 2.  Therefore, since the sum of infinite numbers adds up to a finite value, Zeno's paradox is resolved, and motion can be mathematically proven to occur.

Quote from: Olivianus
You completely avoided the atomism question and provided us with no changeless object of knowledge through qualitative change.
So, if you really need a "changeless object of knowledge through qualitative change", why not simply use math?  The words and symbols we use to describe numbers and operations might change, but the fundamental meanings do not.  For example, if you divide the number 1 by 2, you get a different quantity, 1/2.  Yet the quantity described by 1 still exists.  It remains changeless even though it has been changed (by a math operation).  If you multiply 1/2 by 2, you will get 1 again.

Quote from: Olivianus
The laws of physics apply to all objects in uniform motion. The earth is not in uniform motion. Therefore, the earth does not qualify for the laws of physics, ergo, no demonstrable scientific laws, ergo, you have no theory.
What do you mean by "the earth is not in uniform motion"?  Are you saying the Earth does not revolve around the sun?  Because that is a type of uniform motion.  So, too, is Earth's rotation about its axis.  Simply put, uniform motion is motion that is constant.

Quote from: Olivianus
This is classic atheist hypocrisy. So then you admit that you BELIEVE in the laws of physics, and I would argue, you believe it more blindly than most religious people believe the Bible. But I thought John Loftus taught you that Faith Fails.
He admitted no such thing.  Your mistake is in assuming that unless he understands every single piece of science, he is taking what he does not personally understand on "faith".  That is not true.  Science can be explained in ways that can be understood by anyone, regardless of prior understanding or experience.  That is why it is not "faith" - faith is belief in something that cannot be understood or explained and must be taken as is.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
What is the arrow? How do you know the arrow and the target are not the same thing? How do you know one thing from another? You keep asserting your worldview and using terms without defining them. What si motion? What is space? What is time?
Oh how I do want to see you live your life with this supposed philosophy.  You are such a hypocrite.  ;D
Quote
So you have done that? Can I watch or read the research?
Hey, you think you can do this, so do it or will you find an excuse why you can't?   It seems that when the rubber meets the road, you are a quite a coward, Oliv. 

I do love how you declare that all language is abitrary.   So, we can safely assume you have no idea what you've written or what it says, per your own claims.  Hilarious.   ;D



« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 10:41:43 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2931
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Reading Legends is definitely more productive than reading this thread.  Raistlin's contrivings concern me more than Olivanus does.

Ah, Legends!  Já, that's a cracking yarn.  Much more believable than the Bible, and I actually cared what happened to... Well, just about all of the characters.[1][2][3]
 1. Well, not Fistandantilus.
 2. Or Elistan.
 3. Everyone else, though.  Even Kit.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2931
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
The laws of physics apply to all objects in uniform motion. The earth is not in uniform motion. Therefore, the earth does not qualify for the laws of physics, ergo, no demonstrable scientific laws, ergo, you have no theory.

Congratulations, Olivianus!  This has got to be one of the most egregiously ignorant statements I have ever read in all of My nearly 55 years on planet Earth.

Kindly procure a baseball bat, axe or sledgehammer and attempt to smash your current computing device forthwith.   Using your own illogic, as the bat or axe or sledgehammer will not move "uniformly," hypothetically your action will not "qualify for the laws of physics" and your computer will escape unscathed.

And if not, I'm sure you can buy yourself another one.  ;D
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline IAmFirst

WTF?? Did Anders Breivik escape from Norway? Olive, if you're not schizophrenic, then I guess there's no theory for schizophrenia either.

HIJACK: Re: your website, your belief in the original Nicene creed is also bunk from the first statement, "We believe in one god." Sorry, the existence of this board fails to prove that. :D
2nd of all, if all you believe in is peer-reviewed papers, you won't go very far in life...

-- Shin :D

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Olivianus just keeps vomiting up old arguments that have already been defeated.

What he doesn't seem to get is this:

Even if science was proved wrong, and I mean all of it, every single scientific theory and discovery all disproven, and suddenly all of our phones and satelites and computers and cars stopped working (because science created them) and all of our buildings collapsed (because engineers built them) and we were left in the dark with no understanding of anything...

...there would still be zero evidence for God.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6431
  • Darwins +460/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Graybeard
Quote
We all know that Xeno’s arrow reaches the target

What is the arrow? How do you know the arrow and the target are not the same thing? How do you know one thing from another?

You keep asserting your worldview and using terms without defining them. What si motion? What is space? What is time?
Quote
The infinite division is an error – It is as elementary as chopping a 6 foot stick into infinite pieces and then putting them back together to form an infinitely long stick

So you have done that? Can I watch or read the research?

Quote
Ridiculous! Do you think that knowledge ceased to grow just because of faulty maths? Do you think that the whole world suddenly sat on its collective arse and said, “That’s it then! Science has come to an end – we are powerless before such logic!”

You have never read a single paragraph on this period of philosophy have you?

Quote
I don’t know where you went to college, but I suggest you try and get your money back.

For your insolence don't expect me to reply to another one of your comments until you  define these terms:

Sensation: and show how it produces perception and abstraction

Individual units of Matter

Space

Time

Motion

Quote
No, it would be a physical effect – atoms have mass and energy. You are quoting a long dead Greek as proof of present day science?

Your movement re-asserted him not mine. You have yet to define physical as to individuate it from sensory.  Your half assed assertion system isn't going to fly sir.
Have you ever been offered treatment for a psychological disorder?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce