Chomsky On The "New Atheism" - Religion (3) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Chomsky On The "New Atheism" (2854 Views)
Atheism Is Frustrating. / My Atheism And Its Effect On My Mum! / Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) (2) (3) (4)
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 12:24pm On Jun 16, 2013 |
Mr anony: Yes. Have you already forgotten? Mr anony: Physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. Mr anony: That example perfectly demonstrates the difference between physical possibilities and logical possibilities. I'm simply pointing out to you that a coin transmuting into a rock is neither a necessary condition nor a physical possibility but it is a logical possibility. That example clearly contains the terms that you seem to find difficult. The laws are physical. You asked for what physical meant and I presented it to you. You just stated what the relationship is. I highlighted it in your statement yet you're wondering what the relationship is? Mr anony: It is an actual speed at which photons can travel not a made up number, it is 299,792,458 m/s what on earth makes you think it was just made up? This just shows that once again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. That is why your statement that the constant known as the speed of light can be different simply shows your ignorance of the topic at hand. Based on your reasoning, one can conclude that it is physically possible for a body to move faster than the speed of light and that is just saying rubbish. Mr anony: When you're blowing up a balloon, the balloon is expanding into the surrounding space. What is the universe expanding into? This is yet another sign of your ignorance. Mr anony: I know that because as you've said nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, there was always something. And the idea of energy makes more sense than the idea of a magical person it also has the property of neither being created nor destroyed but transmutes. Now, what did this person cause? Mr anony: As you can see from the images, I've outlined the roads in black and you'll notice that the buildings are constructed within those boundaries. You'll also notice that the St. Charles' group of schools are relatively close to each other and that the base station is located at the edge of the town rather than at the center. I couldn't make out the descriptions of the buildings in Rubia but you'll notice that there too, the buildings are constructed within boundaries formed by features like roads and trees/bushes just like in Kibera. My conclusion is that they're both designed. One is just better planned and laid out than the other. Mr anony: No you've not. You've said time was an alternative and timelessness was another. The point is that timelessness isn't an alternative because a decision cannot be made in timelessness. The very idea of decision making requires time. Mr anony: Mr anony: Read your own statement and tell me if it means the same as what I said. Mr anony: How is anything I said begging the question? Mr anony: You said the mere presence of alternatives indicates a will. I was simply showing you that the presence of alternatives is orthogonal to the presence of a will. Mr anony: And I've told you that just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean that it could physically be some other way. The point of the magnets was again to show you that the mere presence of alternatives doesn't mean there is a will involved. Mr anony: How did you determine that he was a person at all in the absence of time and a body? Mr anony: And I asked you to pick 2 out of those people you listed that you think would best demonstrate your point and I'll let you know about their bodies.
|
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by Mranony: 12:04pm On Jun 17, 2013 |
thehomer:Lololol, so it appears I do know what physical possibilities are. That example perfectly demonstrates the difference between physical possibilities and logical possibilities. I'm simply pointing out to you that a coin transmuting into a rock is neither a necessary condition nor a physical possibility but it is a logical possibility. That example clearly contains the terms that you seem to find difficult.Lololol, interesting. I hope you know that all that needs to happen is the chemical reactions and voila! there you have it your coin becomes a rock. Dead plants and animals under the right conditions get to change to crude oil and with further refinement kerosene. I am sure that before we knew how kerosene gets formed you would probably have argued that it is physically impossible for an animal to become kerosene. Now what your question really was about is the process by which this coin could become a rock i.e. throwing it in the air. But that is totally different from the point I was making which is that the physical constants that define the physical laws of our universe do not exist necessarily i.e. The thing that determines what is physically possible in the first place can easily be different. You also agreed that this was true. So asking me whether it is physically possible for the thing that determines what is physically possible to be different is an incoherent question to me. It is just like asking whether the laws that define logic are logical. [size=8pt]I'm assuming that you believe that the universe is the only physical space if you believe that the multiverse theory is a possibility at all i.e. our universe is not the only physical place, then your question wouldn't be incoherent but then you would have conceded that it is physically possible that the laws that define our universe can be different.[/size It is an actual speed at which photons can travel not a made up number, it is 299,792,458 m/s what on earth makes you think it was just made up?That was precisely what I asked you whether you think it is just a made up number to solve an equation. Since you seem to believe that it is impossible for an actual speed of a particle in space to be different from what it currently is. This just shows that once again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. That is why your statement that the constant known as the speed of light can be different simply shows your ignorance of the topic at hand. Based on your reasoning, one can conclude that it is physically possible for a body to move faster than the speed of light and that is just saying rubbish.Lol, I am really beginning to wonder how you think. My argument is that the photon just happens to be the fastest moving particle. It is not an impossibility for the fastest speed in the universe to be a little less or a little more than 299,792,458 m/s. When you're blowing up a balloon, the balloon is expanding into the surrounding space. What is the universe expanding into? This is yet another sign of your ignorance.Hahahahaha, I remember asking precisely this question sometime ago when we argued about multiverses. So today are you arguing that the universe is expanding into a spaceless, timeless void? If yes, how do you know it is expanding? How do you know that the universe is expanding since in order to expand, space has to increase within the universe. What is this new space being gained from? and why do you think it is impossible for it to gain this space at a different rate? I know that because as you've said nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, there was always something. And the idea of energy makes more sense than the idea of a magical person it also has the property of neither being created nor destroyed but transmutes. Now, what did this person cause?Hahahahaha, this is just you repeating "scientific" dogma. You have claimed that an energy exists somewhere that cannot be observed or measured (how do you even know that this energy exists?) and that this mysterious energy changed into a myriad of specific law abiding particles. How do you explain this change without a cause for it? Now to answer your question what did this "person" cause? If in the beginning there is absolutely no matter. Things will continue to stay that way unless some force acts. Now a force does not act if there is nothing to generate it and nothing for it to affect. The only way matter can pop out of non-matter is if there is a conscious will that brings it to be. So there you have it. The universe can only exist by the will of an eternal being (God). If you have an alternate explanation, I'd like to hear it. As you can see from the images, I've outlined the roads in black and you'll notice that the buildings are constructed within those boundaries. You'll also notice that the St. Charles' group of schools are relatively close to each other and that the base station is located at the edge of the town rather than at the center. I couldn't make out the descriptions of the buildings in Rubia but you'll notice that there too, the buildings are constructed within boundaries formed by features like roads and trees/bushes just like in Kibera.This is very interesting. Let us see how you did 1. You outlined boundary rivers and roads. Outlining an actual road network within the district would have helped your case better. 2. If you think that the fact that roads and trees surround buildings is evidence of design, then you might as well say that the fact that your body is within the boundary of your skin is evidence for design 3. If you think that the St Charles group of schools' proximity is an evidence of design, then you might as well say that the fact that your two eyes are in close proximity to each other is evidence of design 4. If you think that the fact that the base center is at the edge and not the center of the district is evidence for design, then you may as well say that the fact that your brain is in your head and not your large intestine is evidence for design My conclusion is that they're both designed. One is just better planned and laid out than the other.This is the part of your quote that I love. You have claimed they are both designed however you think one is better designed than the other. May I ask which one it is and why you think so? And more importantly what was the criteria you used to come to that conclusion? Please answer honestly No you've not. You've said time was an alternative and timelessness was another. The point is that timelessness isn't an alternative because a decision cannot be made in timelessness. The very idea of decision making requires time.The very idea of decision making for temporal beings such as humans and animals is what requires time. The same cannot be said for a being that is itself not subject to time. Read your own statement and tell me if it means the same as what I said.I think it is. Why do you think it isn't? How is anything I said begging the question?We are arguing that a person evidenced by a will exists before time i.e. brings time into existence. You are asking me which came first a person or the characteristic of a person. By doing this you have sneaked "time" into the question. Furthermore the question itself is faulty because it tries to distinguish between a thing and it's characteristics. kinda like asking which came first; a liquid or wetness? You said the mere presence of alternatives indicates a will. I was simply showing you that the presence of alternatives is orthogonal to the presence of a will.I said the presence of alternatives indicates choice. specifically picking a choice indicates a will How did you determine that he was a person at all in the absence of time and a body?How did you determine that it was energy at all in the absence of space, time and matter? And I asked you to pick 2 out of those people you listed that you think would best demonstrate your point and I'll let you know about their bodies.Pick any two you like. Preferably one fictional and one non-fictional. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 2:02pm On Jun 17, 2013 |
Mr anony: I just told you once again what the differences are. Mr anony: No I did not agree that was true. And you do not seem to understand how to show that something is incoherent neither do you even realize what you need to do in order to demonstrate your own idea that the laws could be different. With this long post, you've just tried to sidestep something that I presented clearly. I used that example to demonstrate the differences between a physical possibility, a logical possibility and necessity. Showing you that the fact that something isn't necessarily some way doesn't mean it could physically be some other way you're thinking. And nothing I've said can be related to what you're thinking about logic because laws of logic are axiomatic. The physical laws aren't. Mr anony: This is just absurdly false. I said: thehomer: You on the other hand seem to think that the constant known as the speed of light can be just about anything because you see particles moving at various speeds. Mr anony: And I'm wondering why you persist in such ignorance. It is physically impossible for a particle to move faster than the constant known as the speed of light. It is not logically impossible. Please take the time to educate yourself. Mr anony: I'm really baffled at your degree of ignorance and your poor attempts at self confusion. I was simply pointing out to you the fact that the expansion of the universe itself is conceptually different from the expansion of an object within the universe and you just start confusing yourself as usual. All I did was to point out the conceptual difference. Since you think they're relevantly similar, then you're supposed to answer the questions you're posing because that is what would help you counter my point. Mr anony: More ignorance on display. Can't we observe energy today? Opposite poles of magnets attract, energy changes from one form to another. Mr anony: So your explanation is that magically, some eternal person just "willed" matter into existence. When did this person decide to "will" matter into existence? How did he even do make the decision without time? How does this even make any sense to you? Mr anony: And you've just began to make all sorts of absurd comparisons. You've successfully compared your human body to a slum in an attempt to show design? Talk about category error. Mr anony: I think the city is better designed than the slum because when it comes to humans living in close proximity, the city has all sorts of amenities that would benefit people. Now do you think any of those two cities was designed? And why do you think so? Please answer honestly. Mr anony: All people you know are temporal in some way except this special person you're calling God and that is a textbook demonstration of special pleading. Mr anony: You got this: Mr anony: From this? thehomer: How did anything I wrote imply that you're not justified in thinking that I'm a person? When you in fact do think that I have a body? Was it "encountered" that threw you off? Mr anony: How on earth do you not see this? I just showed you using magnets that the presence of alternatives didn't indicate a choice. That alone destroys this chain you're holding up. Let me make it more explicit and show you your poor logical line of thought. Alternatives -> Choice -> Will -> Person. I presented you with alternatives (the magnet) that had no choice but you of course side stepped that. You then went on to say that the will is actually an attribute of the person and not separate despite the fact that you separated them yourself in drawing your chain. If it is not separate, then why include it on this causal chain? (It would be begging the question.) The chain would actually be: Alternatives -> Choice -> Person. My question here was basically how exactly do you know that God made any choice and that the process wasn't actually like the poles of a magnet attracting. Mr anony: And here, you try to sidestep the main problem with your idea of God being a person. I'll answer in good faith. You should answer my question too. I determined it based on these simple assumptions. Energy is neither created nor destroyed and nothing cannot exist. Your turn. How did you determine that God is a person in the absence of time and a body? Mr anony: You had these preferences but decided not to pick. Well, too bad about your preferences then. Napoleon was situated in time between the years 1769 and 1821. He had a body as we can see from representations of him in portraits and accounts of his deeds. He also had family members. Julius Caesar was situated in time at least between the years 100 BCE and 44 BCE. He also had a body as we know from his accounts and accounts of his conquest written by people who knew him. He had other family members too. Now, the person you're referring to as God, does he exist in time of any sense like the two examples above? Or does he have a body in any sense like the two examples above? |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by Mranony: 5:40pm On Jun 17, 2013 |
thehomer: I just told you once again what the differences are.Yeah you sure did. . .by quoting me from another thread.No I did not agree that was true. And you do not seem to understand how to show that something is incoherent neither do you even realize what you need to do in order to demonstrate your own idea that the laws could be different. With this long post, you've just tried to sidestep something that I presented clearly. I used that example to demonstrate the differences between a physical possibility, a logical possibility and necessity. Showing you that the fact that something isn't necessarily some way doesn't mean it could physically be some other way you're thinking.And with this you have carefully evaded my answer. I have explained to you how your question is simply incoherent. subject to being physically possible the very thing that determines physical possibility. Let me illustrate to you why your argument really doesn't make any sense to me. There is a law that can be stated as: It is physically impossible for any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,792,458 m/s Anony and the homer agree that the law does not exist necessarily and could be different i.e. The law might as well be that: It is physically impossible for any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,790,001 m/s However, thehomer contests by arguing that it is physically impossible for it to be physically impossible for any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,790,001 m/s Thehomer then demands that Mr Anony should prove that it is physically possible for it to be physically impossible for any particle to any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,790,001 m/s Anony still cannot understand what thehomer is talking about. I'm really baffled at your degree of ignorance and your poor attempts at self confusion. I was simply pointing out to you the fact that the expansion of the universe itself is conceptually different from the expansion of an object within the universe and you just start confusing yourself as usual. All I did was to point out the conceptual difference. Since you think they're relevantly similar, then you're supposed to answer the questions you're posing because that is what would help you counter my point.Lololol, I love it when you call me ignorant especially when you don't know what you are talking about. We observe expansion when we see particles in a system concentrically moving further apart from each other. We see the same within space and about space itself. We know our universe is expanding because particles of matter are moving further apart from one another. The rate at which a thing is expanding can very well be different depending on the initial conditions by which it expands. We also know that these initial conditions do not exist by necessity. More ignorance on display. Can't we observe energy today? Opposite poles of magnets attract, energy changes from one form to another.Lol, But we only observe and measure energy by considering space time and matter. You on the other hand are talking about an energy that exists devoid of space, time and matter. How can such an energy be observed and measured please? So your explanation is that magically, some eternal person just "willed" matter into existence. When did this person decide to "will" matter into existence? right about when time began How did he even do make the decision without time?The same way time began without time How does this even make any sense to you?How does it even make sense to you that time began? And you've just began to make all sorts of absurd comparisons. You've successfully compared your human body to a slum in an attempt to show design? Talk about category error.Abeg keep quiet make I hear word joor. I am comparing what you consider design to another entity that can be considered design based on the same criteria you used to make your decisions. I think the city is better designed than the slum because when it comes to humans living in close proximity, the city has all sorts of amenities that would benefit people.Like what amenities exactly did you see? And by the way which one is the slum and which one is the city? they have names you know. Just so I'm not mistaken which you are referring to. Now do you think any of those two cities was designed? And why do you think so? Please answer honestly.I think Rubia was designed and Kibera was not. Kibera shows no specific settlement pattern in the arrangement of it's buildings. Rubia on the other hand shows a more methodological layout with it's buildings showing regular spacing and access to roads, regular road width as well as a balanced distribution of trees and shrubs. Also the building types show evidence of zoning. All people you know are temporal in some way except this special person you're calling God and that is a textbook demonstration of special pleading.All energy you know is a function of matter. Somehow you are specially pleading for an energy devoid of matter. You got this:Yeah. you were saying that I am not justified to hold that a body is not a necessary attribute of a person even after I had made it clear to you that a person is not deduced from a material body but from the presence of an active will. How on earth do you not see this? I just showed you using magnets that the presence of alternatives didn't indicate a choice. That alone destroys this chain you're holding up. Let me make it more explicit and show you your poor logical line of thought.This is simple really. every thing that begins to exist is caused to exist by something else. If there is indeed a first uncaused cause that starts the causal chain, it has to be a choice independent of any preceding influence because if it isn't then nothing can actually begin to exist. The poles of a magnet already exist within a system of preceding causes. Point of correction. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system such as is the universe. The energy you are describing however is not in a closed system. So how do you know it is neither created nor destroyed? How do you know it is even existing especially since energy is calculated by a relationship between mass, distance, time and force. Before the beginning of the universe, you had no force, no mass, no distance, no time yet you claim there was energy. How did you calculate this? Your question by the way is already answered above meh Napoleon was situated in time between the years 1769 and 1821. He had a body as we can see from representations of him in portraits and accounts of his deeds. He also had family members.The grim reaper also had a body and accounts of his deeds in the middle ages. How exactly is Napoleon different? Do you have any tangible evidence of Napoleon other than hearsay. Julius Caesar was situated in time at least between the years 100 BCE and 44 BCE. He also had a body as we know from his accounts and accounts of his conquest written by people who knew him. He had other family members too.So did Jesus Christ exist. We also know he had a body, did miracles, and died and rose from the dead as written by people who knew Him. He had family members too. Now, the person you're referring to as God, does he exist in time of any sense like the two examples above? Or does he have a body in any sense like the two examples above?You are arguing that God is merely a metaphor for explaining what we see in nature and can't be shown to actually exist but you haven't shown that Julius Ceasar and Napoleon actually existed and are not metaphors for explaining the ruins of ancient cities. 1 Like |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 7:50am On Jun 18, 2013 |
Mr anony: Is that the difference or isn't it the difference? If you've said this before, then it just shows that you didn't understand what you were saying. Mr anony: This is why I wonder if you've been paying any attention at all. I demonstrated to you using the example of a coin changing into a rock to show you that the fact that something isn't necessary doesn't make it physically possible to be some other way. You didn't show how my question was incoherent. You don't even seem to understand what it means for an idea to be incoherent. Mr anony: Yet another demonstration of your ignorance. Physical laws aren't axiomatic, they're measurements or formalizations of measurements. Mr anony: More ignorant misunderstanding. The c represents neither of the options you've presented above. c is a constant while the speed of a photon can vary. You on the other hand seem to think that because the speed of a photon can vary, then the constant too can. That is an example of an incoherent idea. Just go and study some physics. Mr anony: Another example of your confusion. Do you know of any other universe where the constant known as the speed of light is different? If you don't, then you're not justified in saying it just happens to be that way because it is logically possible for it to be otherwise. Mr anony: That is Mr anony's problem because for some reason, he doesn't seem to realize that something not being necessary doesn't mean it is physically possible for it to be some other way. Something not being necessary means it is logically possible for it to be some other way but it may not be physically possible. This is why Mr anony would need to first grasp the concepts of logical and physical possibility. After understanding those concepts, then he should have realized that the way for him to demonstrate his point would be for him to have access to some other universe. Mr anony: Still with the necessity when you have no idea of what you're talking about. Again, I said they're conceptually different do you know why I said so? Let me tell you. It is because space itself expanding is conceptually different from a balloon expanding. A balloon expands by having matter inserted into its membrane but space itself expands not by the injection of matter, but by the intrinsic increase in the distance between particles. Again, they're conceptually different. Mr anony: We can infer it again based on these simple premises. 1. There was always something. 2. Energy is neither created nor destroyed but changes from one form to another. We can neither observe it nor measure it because we couldn't have been present when it happened. We can simply infer it. Mr anony: So how can you call what happened "making a decision" without time? Mr anony: It makes sense based on the evidence we have before us. Look up the big bang cosmology. Though what you've proposed is even worse than magic. Mr anony: Criteria? Do you have schools built on your body? Or do you have a base station somewhere on your skin? You're just being ridiculous again. Mr anony: What is so confusing to you? I'm not using some strange idea of "slum" and "city". Mr anony: So according to you, Kibera isn't specifically complex despite the fact that it fits within its borders, doesn't encroach on roads and has amenities like schools found in other places where people live? Mr anony: Again, take a look at the big bang cosmology. Mr anony: Have you forgotten how you deduce the presence of an active will? You deduce it from the presence of alternatives. And I showed you how that made no sense. Mr anony: Another classical case of special pleading that will be the undoing of your God. Other than God, do you know of any other person that did not begin to exist? Or do you think people have always existed? Mr anony: The energy I'm describing is isolated from any other source. Its neither being created nor destroyed is a physical law. I know energy exists because we exist. Again, it was inferred from simple premises. Mass, distance and time are formed or can be conceived when it expanded. Please take the time to read up on the big bang theory. Mr anony: Please show me the accounts of the grim reaper that implied it had a body. Show me evidence of his relatives and companions. So you wish to deny historical evidence? Do that at your peril. Mr anony: And you've successfully explained why Jesus isn't God. If he had a body worked in time and had relatives, then he couldn't be God who had didn't have a body, didn't work in time and had no relatives. Good job there. Mr anony: Err I did that using historical evidence. I could refer you to articles on them if you want more detail. It looks to me like you just want to deny historical evidence just to keep your concept of a God that is not really different from the concept of the Grim Reaper. Since you're already denying historical evidence (which would also kick your Jesus to the curb), out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would show you that Julius Caesar and Napoleon were people? Or are you going for your own incoherence and confusion? |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by Mranony: 10:53am On Jun 18, 2013 |
thehomer:Lol, it just shows you don't know what you have been talking about when you accuse me of ignorance only to quote me in the end. You are such a funny chap. This is why I wonder if you've been paying any attention at all. I demonstrated to you using the example of a coin changing into a rock to show you that the fact that something isn't necessary doesn't make it physically possible to be some other way. You didn't show how my question was incoherent. You don't even seem to understand what it means for an idea to be incoherent.I also wonder if you have been paying attention too because you haven't shown how your question is coherent Yet another demonstration of your ignorance. Physical laws aren't axiomatic, they're measurements or formalizations of measurements.Lololol, let us see if you even know what you are talking about. What do you mean when you say that something is "axiomatic". Explain in your own words because you seem to be confusing yourself More ignorant misunderstanding. The c represents neither of the options you've presented above. c is a constant while the speed of a photon can vary. You on the other hand seem to think that because the speed of a photon can vary, then the constant too can. That is an example of an incoherent idea. Just go and study some physics.Lol, This is a gross and purposeful misunderstanding of my point. I did not say C can vary in this universe but that C could have been different therefore resulting in a possible different universe. Learn to comprehend. Another example of your confusion. Do you know of any other universe where the constant known as the speed of light is different? If you don't, then you're not justified in saying it just happens to be that way because it is logically possible for it to be otherwise. Hahahahaha. Now I know what your real problem is, you don't understand the meaning of possibility. So if I told you it is possible for Anony to be in Tokyo right now, you'll ask me whether I know of any other Anony in Tokyo and therefore it is not possible for Anony to be in Tokyo. Your thinking is warped my friend. That is Mr anony's problem because for some reason, he doesn't seem to realize that something not being necessary doesn't mean it is physically possible for it to be some other way. Something not being necessary means it is logically possible for it to be some other way but it may not be physically possible. This is why Mr anony would need to first grasp the concepts of logical and physical possibility.Lolololol, I think Anony has grasped it and thehomer is only being purposely irrational just so he can hold out on the argument till it dies. In fact Anony remembers thehomer strongly arguing for the possibility that other universes exist in a multiverse once upon a time. But today he denies that possibility because it doesn't help his argument. Here are a selection of thehomer's comments from that thread: https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory/1 thehomer:I am quite sure he didn't think he was talking about physical impossibilities then because he went into a great deal of effort to explain the physics of why other universes are possible. After understanding those concepts, then he should have realized that the way for him to demonstrate his point would be for him to have access to some other universe.And this is what shows me that you have no idea what physical possibilities are. By your argument; at the time the first car was invented it was physically impossible to have another type of car to exist until another type of car was actually observed. I can now see that you have thrown rationality and honesty out of the window in your desperate bid to persevere through the argument. By the way I didn't fail to notice that you didn't even bother to tell us what you mean by the physical possibility of a law that defines physical possibilities to be different. Still with the necessity when you have no idea of what you're talking about. Again, I said they're conceptually different do you know why I said so? Let me tell you. It is because space itself expanding is conceptually different from a balloon expanding. A balloon expands by having matter inserted into its membrane but space itself expands not by the injection of matter, but by the intrinsic increase in the distance between particles. Again, they're conceptually different.Lol, but this is where you are simply wrong because the amount of matter in the universe has increased as it expanded since the big bang. We can infer it again based on these simple premises.1. true, 2. Only true in a closed system. What you are describing isn't a closed system. We can neither observe it nor measure it because we couldn't have been present when it happened. We can simply infer it.This is simply nonsense because we have no matter, space or time with which to infer anything. So how can you call what happened "making a decision" without time?As I said time is not necessary to decisions, choices/alternatives are. It makes sense based on the evidence we have before us. Look up the big bang cosmology. Though what you've proposed is even worse than magic.Lol, I think you really should look up big bang cosmology and explain how a universe magically popped up from nothing. Criteria? Do you have schools built on your body? Or do you have a base station somewhere on your skin? You're just being ridiculous again.Lol, this is just you messing around. so in thehomerverse criteria means same components? so if I say that my house and my television are designed, I must mean that my television is therefore made made of brick and cement? This just you being purposely irrational again. What is so confusing to you? I'm not using some strange idea of "slum" and "city".I wasn't confused really, I just don't trust you. Knowing you, you'll probably start pretending not to know the difference between city and slum very soon if you think it will help you escape. For now I'll say Kibera is the slum and Rubia is the city. If you disagree, correct me if not I'll just take that to be what you mean. So according to you, Kibera isn't specifically complex despite the fact that it fits within its borders, doesn't encroach on roads and has amenities like schools found in other places where people live?Fitting into borders is not the reason why a thing is specifically complex. Water is not specifically complex because it fits within a cup. That's why I said if you think that Kibera is designed because it fits within boundaries, then you must also hold that you are designed because you fit within your skin. Secondly, having a school and other amenities does not make a city designed rather it is how those amenities are in relationship to each other that tells us if there is a design. It appears you don't even know what design is. Have you forgotten how you deduce the presence of an active will? You deduce it from the presence of alternatives. And I showed you how that made no sense.And I showed you how it did in fact make sense Another classical case of special pleading that will be the undoing of your God. Other than God, do you know of any other person that did not begin to exist? Or do you think people have always existed?This is really weird coming from you. Do you even know what special pleading is? I have made an argument to justify why God is a unique and necessary being yet you are shouting special pleading. You may as well say that logical laws that lead us to things like 2+2=4 is special pleading because we don't know of any other universal and necessary body of laws. . . .yeah wait you'll probably say they are "axiomatic" of which I'll ask you to provide other axiomatic laws you know. Or better still you have been arguing for a mysterious energy that exists devoid of matter space and time. Is that also special pleading? The quality of your argumentation so far has been falling steadily it is no longer as amusing as it used to be. The energy I'm describing is isolated from any other source. Its neither being created nor destroyed is a physical law. I know energy exists because we exist. Again, it was inferred from simple premises. Mass, distance and time are formed or can be conceived when it expanded. Please take the time to read up on the big bang theory.Lol, so the energy is isolated from any other source? (wouldn't this be special pleading according to you?) It is also now a physical law?(lol seriously you didn't say that). You know energy exists because you exist?(doesn't let you off the hook. If I had said I know God exists because I exist, you wouldn't have been satisfied). It was inferred from simple premises(like?). Mass, distance and time are formed when it expanded?(So the mysterious impossible to observe energy expands? Right) Dude, please take time to read up on the big bang theory what you have said so far is incoherent. Please show me the accounts of the grim reaper that implied it had a body. Show me evidence of his relatives and companions. So you wish to deny historical evidence? Do that at your peril.I'm not denying historical evidence only pointing out to you how irrational you are being. If you are going to say I am not justified to deduce a person because I don't have evidence of a material body, you have effectively thrown all historical characters under the bus because all they really are to us now are stories and stories of a body don't count as evidence of a body. And you've successfully explained why Jesus isn't God. If he had a body worked in time and had relatives, then he couldn't be God who had didn't have a body, didn't work in time and had no relatives. Good job there.Lololololol, very poor attempt at a red herring. The point you are trying hard to evade is that Jesus Christ has better historical evidence than Julius Ceasar. I won't chase your red herring for you. I've had breakfast this morning Err I did that using historical evidence. I could refer you to articles on them if you want more detail. It looks to me like you just want to deny historical evidence just to keep your concept of a God that is not really different from the concept of the Grim Reaper. Since you're already denying historical evidence (which would also kick your Jesus to the curb), out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would show you that Julius Caesar and Napoleon were people? Or are you going for your own incoherence and confusion?What sort of evidence will prove that Julius Ceasar and Napoleon were people? Ah that's very simple. You claim that a person must have a body. The physical bodies of Julius Ceasar and Napoleon would be sufficient. If they only exist in stories, then I have no reason to believe they are persons. P/s: If you think the above is an irrational demand, you would be right because that's exactly the same kind of irrational demand you and yours make all the time. The point I'm making is the presence of a physical body is not necessary to deduce person if you still don't think so, feel free to provide the bodies I have demanded. 1 Like |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 12:56pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
Mr anony: I wasn't quoting you, I was telling you something I knew that you happened to have said but just didn't and still don't comprehend. Mr anony: I asked a question, you claimed it was incoherent so, you're to show it is incoherent. Mr anony: Suddenly, you don't know what axiomatic means? Again, consult a dictionary. Axiom: An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. Mr anony: I see. You don't even understand what you're saying or what I've said. I've told you several times that logical possibilities don't indicate that something could have been some other way but you just persist in making statements without backing it up. Mr anony: You've just said rubbish because if you said it was possible for you to be in Tokyo right now, I'll accept that it was possible both logically and physically. Mr anony: These sorts of comments show that you don't actually understand the concepts of logical possibilities and physical possibilities because what I was showing you there was the logical possibility of this universe being in a multiverse (the actual idea under consideration). You can go through the thread and quote me saying either that the multiverse hypothesis was true or that the universe could physically have been some other way. Failing to do that would be you just quote-mining as usual. On a side note, I enjoyed that thread but you still fail to understand now as you failed to understand then that the multiverse is a logical possibility. I don't know whether or not it is a physical possibility. Once you choose to have a discussion on it, it is presumed that you understand you're now discussing logical possibilities probably with some physical constraints. Mr anony: No you cannot make that conclusion from my argument because e.g when the first car was invented, it was still physically possible to make it a two single seater, two seater or let it have any other configuration by just attaching a cab to it. You on the other hand still cannot tell the difference between physical possibilities and logical possibilities. Mr anony: What I mean is that you'll have to show us a universe with different constants since the constants in this universe are constant. Mr anony: The amount of energy has remained the same. Mr anony: Why do you think it isn't isolated? Mr anony: But we have energy and that is enough to make the inference. In fact, that is what actual scientists did. Mr anony: Then you don't know what it means to make a decision. Please take the time to look up decision theory and let me know if anything it says makes sense without time. Mr anony: That is exactly what I've not said. Energy is not nothing. Mr anony: You were already being irrational when you were comparing the slum to yourself. Mr anony: This comes from the person who suddenly gets confused about what physical and axioms refer to. Mr anony: I did not say it was the reason, I said it was one of the criteria. You just picked up on that and ignored the fact that it was separated from other criteria by a comma. How should they be in relationship to each other to tell you that there is design? Since you're the design expert, why don't you tell me if water, the moon, electrons, viruses and a mill-stone are designed. Mr anony: No you didn't. You just made an incoherent assertion of decision making and persons without time. Mr anony: A simple question that would demonstrate to you that once again, you're just lost. Other axioms include: 1. If equal numbers are added to equal numbers, then the wholes are equal. 2. If equal numbers are subtracted from equals numbers, then the remainders are equal. There are many more available. thehomer: Of course you're not amused when you get so flustered and confused. Mr anony: Now you're just clutching at straws and asking questions that have already been addressed or that I would expect to have been addressed in elementary physics classes. 1. It isn't special pleading to say the singularity was actually a singularity. It is what it means to be a singularity. 2. The point is that energy and matter can be converted into each other i.e you're made of matter from that energy. You cannot make that claim for God because it has no matter nor energy. 3. I listed the premises before would you like me to repeat them? 4. As I said, we already observe the energy so your question is just confused. Finally, you just don't understand what it means to talk about incoherence. I'll show it to you with your own claims. Mr anony: This is just a false equivalence and you should know it. The God you're talking about never had a body and didn't work in time (just like the good old Grim Reaper) but the people I picked had bodies and worked in time. I demonstrated this using historical evidence but now you're denying that evidence. Mr anony: Here, the very evidence you're denying is what you wish to use to support a Jesus God? That is incoherent. Showing you that you effectively killed your Jesus is a red herring when you introduced Jesus? That is your self confusion. Mr anony: This is another demonstration of you being incoherent. You began by saying you're not denying historical evidence that those people existed. But with the evidence you're asking for, it would amount to denying historical evidence that they existed. Now that is incoherent. Mr anony: Where did I make such a demand? All I've asked you for is that you demonstrate your claims to knowledge. You on the other hand are requesting that I demonstrate my claims using what you've admitted as being an irrational demand. That is of course unreasonable. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 1:12pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
Going through that thread again, I realized again just how clear what I was saying is but for some reason, you just kept missing it as usual. Take a look at this post of mine. My final paragraph there says it all. thehomer: Of course what follows is you as usual getting confused about the implications of what you proposed as the topic of the discussion. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 2:51pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
thehomer: Actually, the physical world could be different. There is a reason for this. thehomer:. Interesting. Because, if I recall properly, in the thread, free thinking, you opposed my idea that physical laws could be different. thehomer: Okay then. So how do we seperate logical, from physical impossibilities ? thehomer: Nonsense. Energy is an indirectly observed quantity which materially acts. Hence pole magnets attract energy is coined to explain this attraction. thehomer: There is a functional correlation of parts that can, in theory, be discerned. thehomer: And this isn't a bald-faced assertion ? thehomer: Free-Will and determinism are not isolated, they are intertwined. To the extent that there are alternatives to choose from, I believe free-will holds sway. To the, the extent that, alternatives are already chosen I understand there is determinism. thehomer: If energy is neither created or destroyed, how does it exist ? If nothing cannot exist how could you know this ? All the physical world connotes an underlying intelligence assumed to be God. Of course, certain people simply shred the notion of intelligence, and say the world is non-contingent. thehomer: In theory, fictional characters could, and have been said to exist in time have bodies and we read of their accounts and accounts by people these fictional character know. We also see these fictional characters in portraits. thehomer: God like time is abstract and immaterial as known by humans. God like bodies is seen and percieved in the physical world. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 3:22pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
thehomer: Evident I take to mean believed. thehomer: But every instance of logical possibility you made (eg faster than light or multiverses involve things occuring differently.) thehomer: Physical possibilities are concieved by a mind. Hence, the need to use logic. thehomer: Do you look at the time before making every decision ? No. thehomer: Then try and state a material example of energy . thehomer: They are. thehomer: No they are not. thehomer: No they are not. thehomer:. God is conscious energy expressed as matter. thehomer: No. We infer energy from behaviour of matter. thehomer: Yeah. But where are the bodies and is it the same time ? thehomer: That's one way of looking at it. The other way is to note that such stories involve people supposedly with physical bodies. If the physical bodies can't be shown your story is open to the term lie, because it claimed to involve people with physical bodies. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by Mranony: 7:10pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
thehomer:I've lost my interest in this babble. You have just shown that it is either you don't know the meaning of the so called physical possibilities you have been hammering on about or you are simply a dishonest fellow. Is it physically possible for another galaxy other than the Milky Way to have a planet that permits life? Or do I have to actually show you such a planet before it becomes possible? The amount of energy has remained the same.Lol, So does the amount of energy in a closed system of expanding gas due to heat increase. You have made no point Why do you think it isn't isolated?Please rephrase But we have energy and that is enough to make the inference. In fact, that is what actual scientists did.How did we infer this energy in the absence of matter? Then you don't know what it means to make a decision. Please take the time to look up decision theory and let me know if anything it says makes sense without time.Neither does it make sense for time to have a beginning. Yet here you are. That is exactly what I've not said. Energy is not nothing.Then what is energy? Please define it in the absence of space time and matter. You were already being irrational when you were comparing the slum to yourself.You were the one saying that a thing was designed because it had a boundary so it was perfectly reasonable to ask you if you were designed because you fit into your skin. You can't eat your cake and have it you know. This comes from the person who suddenly gets confused about what physical and axioms refer to.For the same reason, because I don't trust you to stick to rational arguments that's why I ask you define your terms. At least it puts you in check whenever you try hard to be deliberately vague I did not say it was the reason, I said it was one of the criteria. You just picked up on that and ignored the fact that it was separated from other criteria by a comma. How should they be in relationship to each other to tell you that there is design?I think I explained that when I talked about why Rubia is designed Since you're the design expert, why don't you tell me if water, the moon, electrons, viruses and a mill-stone are designed.Asked and answered No you didn't. You just made an incoherent assertion of decision making and persons without time.I'm sorry, I can only but speak, I can't force comprehension upon you. A simple question that would demonstrate to you that once again, you're just lost. Other axioms include:Basically all you've done is a long winded way of saying 1. if p then q, p therefore q 2. if p then q, ~q therefore ~p Of course you're not amused when you get so flustered and confused.Nah, I only lose my amusement when your already bad arguments drop below a certain threshold of silly. Now you're just clutching at straws and asking questions that have already been addressed or that I would expect to have been addressed in elementary physics classes. 1. It isn't special pleading to say the singularity was actually a singularity. It is what it means to be a singularity.It isn't special pleading either to say that God is actually God. 2. The point is that energy and matter can be converted into each other i.e you're made of matter from that energy. You cannot make that claim for God because it has no matter nor energy.In the same way a first uncaused cause must exist for matter and energy to begin to exist (or for your mysterious eternal undetectable energy to become the first particle of matter). Therefore you know God exists because you exist. 3. I listed the premises before would you like me to repeat them?Please do 4. As I said, we already observe the energy so your question is just confused.As I said, we never observe energy devoid of matter. So your answer is ignorant. Finally, you just don't understand what it means to talk about incoherence. I'll show it to you with your own claims.I can't wait This is just a false equivalence and you should know it. The God you're talking about never had a body and didn't work in time (just like the good old Grim Reaper) but the people I picked had bodies and worked in time. I demonstrated this using historical evidence but now you're denying that evidence.And what exactly is historical evidence rather than stories told by ancient folks? I don't deny the stories I am only pointing to you that they do not prove they had bodies in any scientifically testable way. Here, the very evidence you're denying is what you wish to use to support a Jesus God? That is incoherent. Showing you that you effectively killed your Jesus is a red herring when you introduced Jesus? That is your self confusion.Another red herring. I never said anything about Jesus being God in this thread. I only pointed out to you that if you believe Julius Ceasar's historical deeds you'll believe Jesus rose from the dead. The accounts are present in the stories about them. This is another demonstration of you being incoherent. You began by saying you're not denying historical evidence that those people existed. But with the evidence you're asking for, it would amount to denying historical evidence that they existed.Reading out of context again are we? I pointed out to you that I have no problem with historical evidence but since you claim that you can only deduce person if there is the presence of a body, I will have to demand that you provide physical bodies for anyone you think is a person or else you are not justified to think they are. That is not incoherent. Where did I make such a demand? All I've asked you for is that you demonstrate your claims to knowledge. You on the other hand are requesting that I demonstrate my claims using what you've admitted as being an irrational demand.I have explained to you how I deduced Person without necessarily observing a body. Once you have rejected that, you have locked yourself out of any deduction of person if you cannot provide proof of a body. . .and no, stories don't count as proof. When you set irrational criteria by claiming that material bodies are necessary for a person to exist, I think it is only fair then to make similarly irrational demands that you provide proof of material bodies of anything you consider to be a person. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 10:00pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
This will be my final response to you on this thread because frankly the ignorance and duplicity that you're showing here simply cannot permit a serious discussion. Mr anony: Yes it is physically possible for another galaxy other than the Milky Way to have a planet that permits life. We already know of one that does. Mr anony: No it doesn't and I didn't say it did. This too is elementary physics. Mr anony: What didn't you understand? Mr anony: You should have read up on the big bang theory as I said. See this source for example. Mr anony: It doesn't make sense to you because of your ignorance. Again, read up on the big bang theory. Mr anony: The term energy describes the capacity to produce certain changes within a system, without regard to limitations in transformation imposed by entropy. You should really learn to picture entire concepts rather than trying to chain yourself to some definition. Since you love definitions so much, please go on to define God. Mr anony: You're still quote-mining I see. I already told you on that paragraph that there were commas showing you the criteria I was considering but you happily ignored it as usual. Mr anony: Define my terms? As if I use some strange concepts when I'm making my arguments unlike you. This is another reason why I say you don't know what you're doing. Mr anony: No you didn't. You said there were relationships you didn't say what the relationships were supposed to be. Mr anony: No you didn't. You've now decided to start avoiding direct questions that expose your confusion. Mr anony: You don't understand what you're saying. Mr anony: You asked for axioms, I provided them and now you're whining that I directly answered your questions? Mr anony: It is now silly expecting you to answer direct questions that show the absurdity of your position. Don't run away, the question still awaits you. Here it is. thehomer: Please answer this question at least for yourself. Mr anony: This just stupidly absurd. You said God was a person and was trying to show this by some argument. Now, you've shifted to God is God? This is why I say you're just not ready. Mr anony: Do you know of any other person other than this God that was uncaused but used its will to create a universe? Mr anony: Go back and read my posts. This is just laziness on your part and another example of your unseriousness. Mr anony: This is why you need to first rectify your ignorance on elementary physics. Mr anony: This is another example of your unseriousness. You're denying the fact that the characters being spoken about were being spoken of as having bodies and working in time unlike your God-person. Mr anony: Wow. This has to be one of the most ridiculous methods of demonstrating the resurrection that I've come across. Based on that reasoning, you may as well believe that Mohammed rode a flying horse to some place. Sheesh. And you're talking about red-herrings while introducing the claim of the resurrection as a red-herring. You really don't know what you're doing. Mr anony: More incoherence and quote-mining on display. Please learn to read what I actually write in order to address them. I said: thehomer: I really don't see how you can misconstrue what I've said to whatever the rubbish is that you're saying. Mr anony: Just take the time to read what I've actually said because you're just addressing your own strawman. You never deduced a person. You said God is God. I asked you a simple question that shows you that your God is not a person in the way we use the word (should I ask for a definition) but you just avoided it. Here it is one more time. thehomer: In summary, you've managed to actually show nothing. 1. You failed to present how you knew that there were different universes with different constants. 2. You failed to show how decision making could occur without time to make decisions. Seriously, take a look at decision theory. 3. You were unable to counter the fact that mere alternatives doesn't imply conscious decision making. 4. You failed to show how exactly this God of yours was actually a person. 5. You failed to show how he actually created the universe beyond mere assertion. 6. Your general ignorance of elementary physics of course prevented you from having the background knowledge to address anything I said. 7. Your failure to understand what I even actually said in response to you was just the icing on the cake. When you started denying historical evidence I knew there was no more hope. When you've actually learned something, you can look me up. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 10:27pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
Lets see if you'll act better here or if you'll do better than Mr anony. I hope you've read through a few posts to know what you're trying to defend. Uyi Iredia: Can the laws be physically different? Uyi Iredia: I don't care about the logical impossibilities. What is relevant to this discussion are the physical possibilities. Uyi Iredia: This is a useless response. What do you understand by what I said? Uyi Iredia: That doesn't answer the question that was asked. Uyi Iredia: Is there something non-obvious to you that all people you know are temporal? Uyi Iredia: The north pole of a magnet has three alternatives. It can attract the north pole of another magnet, repel it or not react at all. Does the magnet have free-will? Uyi Iredia: This is irrelevant. The fact is that it exists. Uyi Iredia: Simple. Nothing can come from nothing. Since something already exists, that means it didn't come from nothing. Uyi Iredia: Do you have evidence for your claim here? Uyi Iredia: Unlike God. So what is your point? Uyi Iredia: This doesn't answer the questions raised. I'll just repeat them again to you. hehomer: |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 10:37pm On Jun 18, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: No, by evident, I mean obvious, clear, apparent, unmistakable. Uyi Iredia: The point is that they're not physical possibilities. You need to show physical possibilities for your argument to get off the ground. Uyi Iredia: Just take the time to understand the difference between logical and physical possibilities. Uyi Iredia: This is your failure of understanding. The question is "Can you make a decision without time?" Uyi Iredia: You are a material example of energy. So are the rays of the sun. Uyi Iredia: Who designed them? Uyi Iredia: Denying those axioms amounts to denying mathematics. And if you're going to be denying mathematics, then you're not ready for a serious conversation. An example of the first is: A: 4 + 2 = 6 B: 4 + 2 = 6 To deny the above, you'll be saying that 4 + 2 ≠ 6 Uyi Iredia: So God is actually physical? That's an interesting step. Are you willing to go where it leads? Uyi Iredia: This doesn't contradict what I said. Uyi Iredia: More irrelevant points. Again, keep your focus on the relevant differences between the usual ideas of what it means to be a person and God being a person. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by Mranony: 12:16am On Jun 19, 2013 |
thehomer: This will be my final response to you on this thread because frankly the ignorance and duplicity that you're showing here simply cannot permit a serious discussion.Lol, the awkward moment when a duplicitous and ignorant person describes someone else as duplicitous and ignorantYes it is physically possible for another galaxy other than the Milky Way to have a planet that permits life. We already know of one that does.Really? And it wasn't physically possible until this planet was found? Your ignorance is really sad.No it doesn't and I didn't say it did. This too is elementary physics.Good, then you have just shown that the expansion of the universe is not conceptually different from the expansion of gas therefore you have admitted the possibility of the rate of expansion of the universe to be different. But of course you'll deny it and dance again.What didn't you understand?I didn't understand how it responds to my comment.You should have read up on the big bang theory as I said. See this source for example.I just read it. Would you like to prove you actually understand your link by explaining what it means in your own words? or are you just copypasting again?It doesn't make sense to you because of your ignorance. Again, read up on the big bang theory.Same way a first uncaused cause doesn't make sense to you because of your ignorance. Unfortunately for you there is you common sense is not in a book. You either have it or you don't. I really wish I could have helped you.The term energy describes the capacity to produce certain changes within a system, without regard to limitations in transformation imposed by entropy.Lol, so these things and systems are not necessarily spatial, timebound or material? Or wait energy is a concept not an actual thing? Your confuse yourself much? In summary, you've managed to actually show nothing.So to recap1. You failed to present how you knew that there were different universes with different constants.I never even claimed to know that there are different universes anywhere, I said it was possible. but of course you cannot tell the difference between a "could be" and an "it is"2. You failed to show how decision making could occur without time to make decisions. Seriously, take a look at decision theory.I never had this burden since we where talking about how time itself was specified3. You were unable to counter the fact that mere alternatives doesn't imply conscious decision making.And again I explained how this has no bearing on the beginning of a causal chain that starts up the whole system4. You failed to show how exactly this God of yours was actually a person.I did, and I pointed out to you that material bodies are not necessary components of persons5. You failed to show how he actually created the universe beyond mere assertion.I did repeatedly by logical deductions.6. Your general ignorance of elementary physics of course prevented you from having the background knowledge to address anything I said.Lololol...And interestingly your "great knowledge of physics couldn't explain anything other than shout "ignorance!". Calling someone ignorant is not a demonstration of knowledge you know7. Your failure to understand what I even actually said in response to you was just the icing on the cake. When you started denying historical evidence I knew there was no more hope.I never denied historical evidence, I just showed you that by your own arguments you were not justified in believing any history.When you've actually learned something, you can look me up.Lol, surely, there is nothing worse than an arrogant know-nothing who knows not that he knows nothing, refuses to learn yet recommends learning for everyone he meets. 1. You have shown that you lack an understanding of what the word "possible" means. 2. You failed to show any understanding of the term "design" 3. You have shown a poor understanding of basic physics 4. You have shown a poor understanding of simple logical deduction 5. Finally you have shown an excellent ability to look a point in the eye and yet dubiously miss it. For reasons of the above, I have been unable to have a rational discussion with you on this thread. Since the above was your last response, I will also make this my last. Goodnight |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 2:57am On Jun 19, 2013 |
thehomer: Lets see if you'll act better here or if you'll do better than Mr anony. I hope you've read through a few posts to know what you're trying to defend. Only the one's I replied. thehomer: Can the laws be physically different? Yes. If they can be physically different they had to be logically different. thehomer: I don't care about the logical impossibilities. What is relevant to this discussion are the physical possibilities. Playing blind man's buff. Because last I checked to be physically possible it had to be logically poSsible. thehomer: This is a useless response. What do you understand by what I said? That energy is matter. An asinine proposition. thehomer: That doesn't answer the question that was asked. I see. So the electrons, nucleus, protons etc in all matter have no function eh ? thehomer: Is there something non-obvious to you that all people you know are temporal? All people, fictional or not, are temporal. thehomer: The north pole of a magnet has three alternatives. It can attract the north pole of another magnet, repel it or not react at all. Does the magnet have free-will? Yes. You outlined its pre-determined alternatives. thehomer: This is irrelevant. The fact is that it exists. It is relevant. If it was not created, in the first place, how did it exist ? thehomer: Simple. Nothing can come from nothing. Since something already exists, that means it didn't come from nothing. Okay. I infer you take the material universe to be eternal. Since there had to be something. thehomer: Do you have evidence for your claim here? First, note this axiom (belief): Physical objects, are MENTALLY CONSTRUED as evidence or not. If you disagree with this, end this discussion and I'll carry on a monologue. If you agree then here's the logic: Our world exists. We have physical senses (eyes, ears, nose etc) to percieve our world. It is the mental capacity to use our senses that truly counts (that's why we have blind painters, deaf composers, blind machinists etc who overcome limitations of physical senses) Without sufficient mental capacity (as in lesser intelligent animals or humans) we can't possibly explain our world. This connotes an underlying intelligence, I take it to be God. As for evidence of the latter part: we both know you are an atheist who sees no need to proscribe intelligence as the cause of our world. thehomer: Unlike God. So what is your point? Didn't I make it ? God, like those fictions, is a concept that exists in time. thehomer: This doesn't answer the questions raised. I'll just repeat them again to you. Don't bother. You've started with your trash-talk. I asserted God exists as the physical world (its body) We use events in the physical world to measure time (hence it exists in time). |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 3:54am On Jun 19, 2013 |
thehomer: All the above involve belief. It's obvious, clear, apparent, unmistakable since you believe it. I need not tell you how God is evident to believers or evolution is evident to its believers. thehomer: Oh, you mean they haven't physically occurred. Okay. thehomer: State your definition of the terms. I may work with them. thehomer: You failed to understand the point. You don't look up the time to make every decision, ergo, you DO make decisions without time. thehomer: No. I am a material. So is the sun. The energy behind both, I don't see. thehomer: God. thehomer: Precisely. Maths involves rationalizing a set of contradictions. That's why it can be abstruse for learners. 4 + 2 = 6 violates the law of identity which requires A = A. Hence 4 + 2 = 4 + 2, not 6. Now we can have a funny conversation, or end it. thehomer: I recall saying energy is indirectly observed, or energy expressed as matter. Anyway, let's see the familiar path you wanna take. thehomer: That energy is matter and is observed. Hmmph ! thehomer: Unashamedly dense. You forget that reason demands if someone make a claim about a person I don't see. He shows me the person. Could you show me Napoleon or would you admit you depend on my faith that there was a Napoleon ? |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 6:46am On Jun 19, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Yes. If they can be physically different they had to be logically different. Uyi Iredia: Playing blind man's buff. Because last I checked to be physically possible it had to be logically poSsible. Uyi Iredia: So you disagree with the mass-energy equivalence? This just demonstrates an ignorance of basic physics. Uyi Iredia: Another failure of understanding a simple question and how to respond. Here's the question again. thehomer: You answer the first question with a yes or no, then go on to state why you think yes or no with respect to each city. Uyi Iredia: So for God to exist, he has to exist in time. Good. Uyi Iredia: And according to you, a magnet has free-will. Uyi Iredia: It exists because nothing cannot exist. Uyi Iredia: I'm not saying this either. Uyi Iredia: What is the point of this series of statements? We know that 30 million years ago, there were no humans with the mental capacity to explain our world. Did that also connote an underlying intelligence? Uyi Iredia: So God is actually physical. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 7:07am On Jun 19, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Now you find it difficult to accept the concept of axioms. God is not an axiom neither is the theory of evolution an axiom. Uyi Iredia: No I mean showing that it is physically possible. Uyi Iredia: You should have read through a few posts before jumping in. Physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. Physical possibilities: Something is physically, or nomically, possible if it is permitted by the laws of physics. Uyi Iredia: Are you deliberately failing to understand something straightforward? Let me see if I can help you with a few simple questions. How do you decide which book to buy out of a collection of 5 books if you can only afford one? Do you consider the books one after the other or do you instantly buy one as soon as it occurs to you to buy a book? Uyi Iredia: You're still denying elementary physics. That is a problem you'll have to solve for yourself by getting some education in physics. Uyi Iredia: Is there anything not designed? Uyi Iredia: That statement of yours in bold is just absurd. There's nothing funny in denying basic arithmetic. I'm simply not interested in playing such pointless games with you. Uyi Iredia: Since you accept that God is physical and works in time, how exactly could he have created the universe or designed elementary particles? Uyi Iredia: Again, not a contradiction. Uyi Iredia: I see you've just not learned to train your potty mouth. You're still showing your childish petulance. If you wish to also deny historical evidence in addition to basic arithmetic, then you're just not ready for a serious conversation. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 8:04pm On Jun 20, 2013 |
thehomer: Okay. thehomer: Good. So faster-than-light travel could be physically possible. thehomer: You mean your ignorance. Because Einstein's equation doesn't tell us what energy is - only its relation to matter. thehomer: I did that. thehomer: He does. I doubt you KNOW what this means. thehomer: According to you, magnets have 'alternatives'. Maybe lights have alternatives too - on or off. thehomer: That doesn't explain anything. You state energy can't be created (come into existence) nor destroyed (pass out of existence). If it can't be created, how does it exist ? thehomer: Okay. thehomer: Yes, especially when I consider that it is an intelligent person supposing such a world. thehomer: Yes. However, I understand God to be conscious energy, and the substance of the physical world and, by extension reality. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 8:20pm On Jun 20, 2013 |
thehomer: You are dull you know. Axioms are believed in, aren't they ? thehomer: Okay. thehomer: I suspected the above was the case. What you probably haven't considered is that this implies that extant physical possibilities were arbitrated. thehomer: I choose the one I want. thehomer: That's your quandary, not mine. You hardly think, as the humans Russell was alluding to. thehomer: God. It is non-contingent. thehomer: You are being silly. 4 + 2 = 6 contravenes the law of identity. As far as the law is concerned A = A or 4 + 2 = 4 + 2. Now get lost. thehomer: Time is a function of thought. I proposed that God is conscious, intelligent energy, as energy it perforce effected matter. There is no 'how' because how strictly applies to material events. thehomer: It is. Energy is matter is confuted by the proposition that energy is indirectly observed, through matter. thehomer: Then quit the conversation. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 8:08am On Jun 21, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: No. And that is not what I said. I said it is logically possible but not physically possible. Please take the time to understand those concepts. Uyi Iredia: This is getting bogged down again due to your ignorance. You said: Uyi Iredia: This implies that you disagree with the mass-energy equivalence. Uyi Iredia: No you didn't. You really should learn how to have a conversation because what you're doing is just ridiculous. This was my question: thehomer: This was your response. Uyi Iredia: I showed you how to answer questions and you claimed to have done that. Where is the "yes"? Which city were you talking about in your response? Uyi Iredia: I take it that he exists just as humans exist in time. If you think it is something different, you're welcome to expatiate. Uyi Iredia: Of course those are alternatives. But I won't say a magnet has free-will as you do. Uyi Iredia: It always exists. Uyi Iredia: Then you've successfully shown nothing. Let me explain as usual. You said the presence of intelligence today indicates a mind. You also said the absence of intelligence millions of years ago also indicate a mind. You're basically saying that whatever the situation was, you would always assume a mind was behind it. Uyi Iredia: If you're making this assumption, then why are you complaining about my point that energy always existed? |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by thehomer: 8:26am On Jun 21, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: This is just stupidly fallacious. Not all beliefs are axioms. Uyi Iredia: Well go ahead and show it don't just mumble okay. It doesn't imply that our physical laws are arbitrary. I'm saying we don't know enough to make that conclusion. You think we do so go ahead and show that we do have enough information to make that conclusion. Uyi Iredia: Why on earth do you guys find it difficult to answer simple questions? I asked: thehomer: The two options there end up with you choosing the one you want. The question is how do you make the decision? Uyi Iredia: It is my problem that you don't have the background knowledge to have a discussion involving physics when you injected yourself into the conversation? This just keeps getting worse. When you're ignorant about physics, why did you decide to join a conversation that requires it? Uyi Iredia: Other than this God, is there anything else not designed? Uyi Iredia: You must be an ignoramus. I see no other reason for such a stupidly asinine and fatuous response. Uyi Iredia now declares mathematics null and void because he doesn't realize that 4 + 2 = 6. What a mindless response. Uyi Iredia: Yes. Time is a function of thought. Why don't you use your thought to manipulate time such that you appear 2000 years ago? Just how ridiculous can you be? Uyi Iredia: Your problems with physics and equations in general runs deep indeed. The equation you have in mind is E = mc2 not E = m Uyi Iredia: Thanks for the invitation. I've ended this conversation because you fail to accept facts about physics, mathematics and history. Maybe it isn't that you're not ready to have a conversation, but you're just incapable of having one due to profound ignorance and idiocy. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 4:12pm On Jun 21, 2013 |
thehomer:. Define them here. thehomer: This is getting bogged down again due to your ignorance. You said: I don't. I think the mass-energy equivalence shows how matter is related to energy, not that matter is energy, which I maintain, is asinine. thehomer: No you didn't. You really should learn how to have a conversation because what you're doing is just ridiculous. Says the clown in a sack. thehomer: I showed you how to answer questions and you claimed to have done that. Where is the "yes"? Which city were you talking about in your response? Yes. They are designed since a functional relation of parts eg. sewer systems, roads, power systems, ventilation and heating systems can be inferred or discerned. thehomer: I take it that he exists just as humans exist in time. If you think it is something different, you're welcome to expatiate. First clarify what you mean by humans exist in time ? I take it to mean we live within given periods. thehomer: Of course those are alternatives. But I won't say a magnet has free-will as you do. Yes. I think electrons, avalanches, doors also have alternatives going by your logic. thehomer: It always exists. A classic instance of special pleading. You sound very much like the theist you condemn. thehomer: Then you've successfully shown nothing. Let me explain as usual. Why not ? Isn't a mind that considers such situations. You were the one proposing there was no mind millions of years ago. thehomer: If you're making this assumption, then why are you complaining about my point that energy always existed? You don't see the implications. Like wiegraf, like plaetton, like logicboy. Just note that your talk of energy not created or destroyed is an assumption to. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 7:19pm On Jun 21, 2013 |
thehomer: You have comprehension problems. I didn't say all beliefs are axioms, I said all axioms are believed in. Do you perchance 'lack a belief' in axioms ? thehomer: It does. If physical possibilities are contingent on logical possibilities, it implies that they were arbitrated for. thehomer: I choose the one I want. It could be instantly (if I want one in particular) or by consideration (when thinking of options). thehomer: Good. Dwell in your 'Uyi lacks background knowledge in physics' delusion. thehomer: Nope. thehomer: Lol. Just keep in mind you are saying A = not A when saying that. The symbols are very clearly different. thehomer: You, Dawkins and his ilk are masters at doing that with wondrous tales of our evolutionary past. thehomer: This doesn't confute what I stated. thehomer: It takes an idiot to talk to one. What makes your case the more sorry is that you (I suspect) are the elder one. Wallow in your stupidity, d#ckhead. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 11:36am On Jun 23, 2013 |
Logicboy03: As is your logicboyism. No attempt to even discourse comprehensively - merely short points that evade the substance of an argument, like the 'strawman of Chomsky's argument'. Chomsky didn't use the Iraq war to discount New Atheism, he pointed out that those were the issues to be addressed for New Atheism to be serious. His supporting arguments were along the lines that New atheists arguments are the 'same old' and they didn't have a worthy audience. |
| Re: Chomsky On The "New Atheism" by UyiIredia(m): 11:49am On Jun 23, 2013 |
thehomer: They could be logically different. thehomer: God is generally understood to be the Creator of the universe. Though of course, one wonders why natural selection doesn't personify a Nature that simply doesn't care about anything to favor. beneficial mutations. |
Good And Evil Don't Exist. / Christ Existence; Any Evidence Aside The Bible? / Ill-fitting/hillarious Qualities Of God In The Bible
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 590 |