| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2004 07:54:29 AM |
| Object: |
A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html:
"In logical debate, the burden of proof is always upon the person
making the positive assertion. This principle is rather simple,
but also rather deceptive. There exists a standard formation of a
question to determine whether or not the proposition is indeed
a positive assertion. As a common example, many people claim that
those who claim that gods do not exist have the burden of
proof, just as much in fact as those who claim that gods do exist.
First of all, it should be perfectly clear to all that those who
claim that "gods exist" have the burden of proof.
However, **********those who claim that "gods do not exist"
----------are in fact making an assertion--------, but a negative
one**********.
************The standard formation of the ----------assertion--------
is Not There Exists gods.**************
From this formation, it becomes clear that although it is indeed an
assertion, it is not a positive assertion and does not in argument
have the full burden of proof.
However, *********the burden of proof may be --------properly
shifted------- to such a person********** however if a prima facie
case is established, which brings us to the next point.
Some people do not really understand the why on that last point, so I
shall attempt to explain further. The reason that a negative claim
does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that
they are claiming something to be false. To prove that in science is
nearly impossible.
While *************that hardly excuses a proposition************, it
is however a form of default position.
If one assumes that things are false until shown otherwise, one is not
likely to believe a positive assertion without reason, and that
is part of the point of having the burden of proof--to avoid believing
something is established when it has not yet been so.
However, ************one is in danger of believing something false
that is true**********, for this reason, there ********is some burden
of proof on the belief in the negative***********.
Again, the burden is to establish a prima facie case in support of
ones position. Once one has done that, then one has established at
least a reasonable reason for ones position. The phrase Burden of
Proof is deceptive, for it doesn't mean rock solid proof, it means
establishing of a rational case in defense of the position. "
=============
I have observed that the universe behaves just like the human mind - on a
larger scale, of course. Since both harbor life, environments, and events, I
conclude that God is a life form outside of the universe - with the universe
serving as its mind.
My evidence is
(1) the universe (it's there)
(2) the human mind (it's there)
(3) both (1) and (2) harbor life, environments, and events (via thought)
(4) both (1) and (2) behave similarly
(4a) biologists have witnessed chemicals bursting/exploding/released
in the brain during thought (birth of a thought)
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/home_i.htm
(4a.1) astonomers have photographed similar bursting/explosions/releases
in space (birth of a solar system or galaxy)
(4b) biologists have identified chemicals contained in thought matter
(in particular, the chemical Na - which burns with a yellow flame
and reacts violently in water)
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/home_i.htm
(4b.1) astonomers have identified planets (which lo' and behold) are
comprised of one or more main chemicals (as its core)
(4c) scientists claim that (all) chemicals contain a nucleus and
revolving
electrons/protons/neutrons, whatever.
(4c.1) astronomers have observed that solar systems contain a nucleus
(sun) and
revolving planets.
It's important to remind yourself at this point that both the universe and
human mind harbor life, environments, and events via thought. Apparently,
both containers (the human mind and the universe [behaving similarly) have
living things in them.
I also developed a case for God using logic (in progress). It can only be
rebutted by questioning whether or not the human brain contains life,
environments, and events, and if so, are they real. To that rebuttal, I
return a question to the doubter, "Do you think the people in your dreams
believe they're real?!"
So anyway, here is my (modified) logic:
Let The Universe = A
Let Human's mind = B
Let Life, Environments, and Events = C
Let God's mind = D (or BIG B)
1. To establish that the human mind is an appropriate model
for the universe...
-> If A contains C, and B contains C, then A = (congruent to) B.
2. To establish that the larger model of the human mind is the universe...
-> If small B behaves like A, then A is -a- BIG B. (See 4a - 4c.1 for
behavior)
3. To establish that Space is a creative thing (a mind).
-> If A is a BIG B, and B can create C, then A can create C.
Do NOT ask me what God LOOKS like. WE are INside it's mind. *I* can NOT see
OUTside of its mind. I conclude that it has an outside, because it's mind is
a model of our mind - which is INside of our heads!
I could be wrong about God's physical (not mental) properties though. God
could just be.... "spacey."
.
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 08:43:08 AM |
|
|
"Flying Naked People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:1046fugr7nveh47@corp.supernews.com...
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html:
Brain farts of this caliber are rare and particularly
notable for their inanity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 08:54:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:43:08 GMT, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
"Flying Naked People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:1046fugr7nveh47@corp.supernews.com...
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html:
Brain farts of this caliber are rare
Not from Turd Gurl they aren't.
and particularly
notable for their inanity.
True and didn't this individual fart the very same stuff just a day or so ago or
am I suffering from an intense case of deja vu.
JPG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 12:44:13 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:54:29 -0800, "Flying Naked
People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> let us all know that:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html:
=============
I have observed that the universe behaves just like the human mind - on a
larger scale, of course. Since both harbor life, environments, and events, I
conclude that God is a life form outside of the universe - with the universe
serving as its mind.
Non sequitur.
My evidence is
(1) the universe (it's there)
(2) the human mind (it's there)
(3) both (1) and (2) harbor life, environments, and events (via thought)
Grand equivocations.
(4) both (1) and (2) behave similarly
(4a) biologists have witnessed chemicals bursting/exploding/released
in the brain during thought (birth of a thought)
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/home_i.htm
(4a.1) astonomers have photographed similar bursting/explosions/releases
in space (birth of a solar system or galaxy)
False analogy.
(4b) biologists have identified chemicals contained in thought matter
(in particular, the chemical Na - which burns with a yellow flame
and reacts violently in water)
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/home_i.htm
(4b.1) astonomers have identified planets (which lo' and behold) are
comprised of one or more main chemicals (as its core)
Ignorantio elenchi.
(4c) scientists claim that (all) chemicals contain a nucleus and
revolving
electrons/protons/neutrons, whatever.
(4c.1) astronomers have observed that solar systems contain a nucleus
(sun) and
revolving planets.
Stretched metaphor.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 09:24:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon 01 Mar 2004 07:54:29a, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> kicked back with a beer,
ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell
asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html:
"In logical debate, the burden of proof is always upon the person
making the positive assertion. This principle is rather simple,
but also rather deceptive. There exists a standard formation of a
question to determine whether or not the proposition is indeed
a positive assertion. As a common example, many people claim that
those who claim that gods do not exist have the burden of
proof, just as much in fact as those who claim that gods do exist.
First of all, it should be perfectly clear to all that those who
claim that "gods exist" have the burden of proof.
However, **********those who claim that "gods do not exist"
----------are in fact making an assertion--------, but a negative
one**********.
Right. So, since I don't "claim" anything of the sort, but merely
withhold belief until I see good evidence, we can nicely wrap up this
part of the discussion right here. Until I make a claim, I don't have
the burden of proof. I don't intend to make that claim.
************The standard formation of the ----------assertion--------
is Not There Exists gods.**************
From this formation, it becomes clear that although it is indeed an
assertion, it is not a positive assertion and does not in argument
have the full burden of proof.
However, *********the burden of proof may be --------properly
shifted------- to such a person********** however if a prima facie
case is established, which brings us to the next point.
Some people do not really understand the why on that last point, so I
shall attempt to explain further. The reason that a negative claim
does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that
they are claiming something to be false. To prove that in science is
nearly impossible.
While *************that hardly excuses a proposition************, it
is however a form of default position.
If one assumes that things are false until shown otherwise, one is not
likely to believe a positive assertion without reason, and that
is part of the point of having the burden of proof--to avoid believing
something is established when it has not yet been so.
However, ************one is in danger of believing something false
that is true**********, for this reason, there ********is some burden
of proof on the belief in the negative***********.
Again, the burden is to establish a prima facie case in support of
ones position. Once one has done that, then one has established at
least a reasonable reason for ones position. The phrase Burden of
Proof is deceptive, for it doesn't mean rock solid proof, it means
establishing of a rational case in defense of the position. "
=============
I have observed that the universe behaves just like the human mind -
on a larger scale, of course. Since both harbor life, environments,
and events, I conclude that God is a life form outside of the universe
- with the universe serving as its mind.
My evidence is
(1) the universe (it's there)
(2) the human mind (it's there)
(3) both (1) and (2) harbor life, environments, and events (via
thought)
Sounds like you're stretching a point a bit here -- what do you mean by
"life, environment, and events"? If you mean what I think you mean, I
do believe I can prove that the universe is a rock.
(4) both (1) and (2) behave similarly
(4a) biologists have witnessed chemicals
bursting/exploding/released
in the brain during thought (birth of a thought)
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/home_i.htm
But you see, that's what chemicals *do*. They do things like that.
Anything that's made up of chemicals going through reactions will show
that kind of behavior in the chemicals it contains.
(4a.1) astonomers have photographed similar
bursting/explosions/releases
in space (birth of a solar system or galaxy)
(4b) biologists have identified chemicals contained in thought
matter
(in particular, the chemical Na - which burns with a yellow
flame
and reacts violently in water)
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/home_i.htm
(4b.1) astonomers have identified planets (which lo' and behold)
are
comprised of one or more main chemicals (as its core)
There ain't no such thing as "thought matter". The link you posted
doesn't say anything about "thought matter". What the heck are you
talking about, girl?
(4c) scientists claim that (all) chemicals contain a nucleus and
revolving
electrons/protons/neutrons, whatever.
(4c.1) astronomers have observed that solar systems contain a
nucleus
(sun) and
revolving planets.
The sun isn't a nucleus, nor are the planets electrons. The sun is not
even remotely similar to a nucleus in any way, and the planets are not
even remotely similar to electrons. In fact, the only similarity is the
orbital patterns of the electrons around the nucleus, which looks like
the orbital pattern of planets around a sun in popular diagrams.
However, those popular diagrams are wrong. They show the electrons
orbiting like that because it's an easy way to draw them -- but in
actual reality, the atom is more like a cloud made of electrons
surrounding a central nucleus. The planets aren't anything like a cloud
made of planets around the sun.
It's important to remind yourself at this point that both the universe
and human mind harbor life, environments, and events via thought.
Apparently, both containers (the human mind and the universe [behaving
similarly) have living things in them.
That's not true. The human brain, unless it's infected by microbes,
doesn't contain any living things -- it's part of a living thing. What
do you mean?
Also, that's still no case for congruency between the universe and the
human mind! A desert has life in it, as does a rainforest. Is a desert
a rainforest?
I also developed a case for God using logic (in progress). It can only
be rebutted by questioning whether or not the human brain contains
life, environments, and events, and if so, are they real. To that
rebuttal, I return a question to the doubter, "Do you think the people
in your dreams believe they're real?!"
So anyway, here is my (modified) logic:
Let The Universe = A
Let Human's mind = B
Let Life, Environments, and Events = C
Let God's mind = D (or BIG B)
1. To establish that the human mind is an appropriate model
for the universe...
-> If A contains C, and B contains C, then A = (congruent to) B.
Right here, your proof fails. If I put tea in a cup, and also put tea
in a kettle, does that mean that the cup = the kettle?
2. To establish that the larger model of the human mind is the
universe...
-> If small B behaves like A, then A is -a- BIG B. (See 4a - 4c.1
for
behavior)
This is also false. A dog behaves like a wolf in more ways than the
universe behaves like a mind. Is a dog a wolf?
3. To establish that Space is a creative thing (a mind).
-> If A is a BIG B, and B can create C, then A can create C.
Shaky, but ok. This still doesn't tell me anything, though.
Do NOT ask me what God LOOKS like. WE are INside it's mind. *I* can
NOT see OUTside of its mind. I conclude that it has an outside,
because it's mind is a model of our mind - which is INside of our
heads!
I could be wrong about God's physical (not mental) properties though.
God could just be.... "spacey."
Or, he could just not exist ;)
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 02:16:45 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote in message ...
Right. So, since I don't "claim" anything of the sort, but merely
withhold belief until I see good evidence, we can nicely wrap up this
part of the discussion right here. Until I make a claim, I don't have
the burden of proof. I don't intend to make that claim.
Why call yourself an athiest then?
Sounds like you're stretching a point a bit here -- what do you mean by
"life, environment, and events"? If you mean what I think you mean, I
do believe I can prove that the universe is a rock.
Really? I'd like to see that.
There ain't no such thing as "thought matter". The link you posted
doesn't say anything about "thought matter". What the heck are you
talking about, girl?
Everything that exists is made of matter. If a thought exists - it is made
of matter. You need to take some time out and read the website. You won't
grasp anything in 20 seconds!
(4c) scientists claim that (all) chemicals contain a nucleus and
revolving
electrons/protons/neutrons, whatever.
(4c.1) astronomers have observed that solar systems contain a
nucleus
(sun) and
revolving planets.
The sun isn't a nucleus, nor are the planets electrons. The sun is not
even remotely similar to a nucleus in any way
How is it not? Address that question in the purpose that nuclei serve.
and the planets are not
even remotely similar to electrons.
How are they not? Address that question in the purpose that
electrons/protons/neutrons serve.
In fact, the only similarity is the
orbital patterns of the electrons around the nucleus, which looks like
the orbital pattern of planets around a sun in popular diagrams.
Yes - BEHAVIOR - Key word!
However, those popular diagrams are wrong. They show the electrons
orbiting like that because it's an easy way to draw them -- but in
actual reality, the atom is more like a cloud made of electrons
surrounding a central nucleus. The planets aren't anything like a cloud
made of planets around the sun.
No - electrons DO revolve. They do NOT stand still. Go look it up. Keyword:
"electrons revolve." They revolve so fast they appear to form a cloud. If
you slowed it down, you would see a similarity in it and a solar system. If
you sped up the orbits of the planets, they too would form a cloud around
the sun because (what you didn't mention), the paths change. Paths of
planets *do* change, but they occur so slowly, it's not noticeable until
centuries of scientists record it.
That's not true. The human brain, unless it's infected by microbes,
doesn't contain any living things -- it's part of a living thing. What
do you mean?
Thoughts. Your thought is alive in it's dimension. That sexy (insert sexual
preference here) is alive the moment you create it in your mind. Dreams come
alive without much effort on your part. Do you think the characters in your
dreams know believe they aren't real??
Also, that's still no case for congruency between the universe and the
human mind! A desert has life in it, as does a rainforest. Is a desert
a rainforest?
For the purpose they serve (harboring life), YES.
I also developed a case for God using logic (in progress). It can only
be rebutted by questioning whether or not the human brain contains
life, environments, and events, and if so, are they real. To that
rebuttal, I return a question to the doubter, "Do you think the people
in your dreams believe they're real?!"
So anyway, here is my (modified) logic:
Let The Universe = A
Let Human's mind = B
Let Life, Environments, and Events = C
Let God's mind = D (or BIG B)
1. To establish that the human mind is an appropriate model
for the universe...
-> If A contains C, and B contains C, then A = (congruent to) B.
Right here, your proof fails. If I put tea in a cup, and also put tea
in a kettle, does that mean that the cup = the kettle?
For the purpose it serves, YES.
2. To establish that the larger model of the human mind is the
universe...
-> If small B behaves like A, then A is -a- BIG B. (See 4a - 4c.1
for
behavior)
This is also false. A dog behaves like a wolf in more ways than the
universe behaves like a mind. Is a dog a wolf?
YES - they are part of the same family. <jeez!>
3. To establish that Space is a creative thing (a mind).
-> If A is a BIG B, and B can create C, then A can create C.
Shaky, but ok. This still doesn't tell me anything, though.
It says, Space is a creative thing (a mind).
Do NOT ask me what God LOOKS like. WE are INside it's mind. *I* can
NOT see OUTside of its mind. I conclude that it has an outside,
because it's mind is a model of our mind - which is INside of our
heads!
I could be wrong about God's physical (not mental) properties though.
God could just be.... "spacey."
Or, he could just not exist ;)
--
"Behind every great man, is a woman telling him what to think."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 11:16:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon 01 Mar 2004 02:16:45p, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> kicked back with a beer,
ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell
asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Mekkala wrote in message ...
Right. So, since I don't "claim" anything of the sort, but merely
withhold belief until I see good evidence, we can nicely wrap up this
part of the discussion right here. Until I make a claim, I don't have
the burden of proof. I don't intend to make that claim.
Why call yourself an athiest then?
Because I am one. I don't believe in God. However, I don't absolutely
state that God *does not* exist, just that it does not appear that he
does, and that it seems very unlikely that he does. Now, I *can*
support the claim that it is unlikely that God exists, and I will gladly
do so if you like. I *cannot* support the claim that God absolutely
*does not* exist, and so I do not make that claim and do not intend to.
Sounds like you're stretching a point a bit here -- what do you mean
by "life, environment, and events"? If you mean what I think you
mean, I do believe I can prove that the universe is a rock.
Really? I'd like to see that.
But you haven't told me what you mean by "life, environment, and
events" yet, so I can't. Explain yourself first, and then I'll get to
my facetious "proof" that the universe is a rock.
There ain't no such thing as "thought matter". The link you posted
doesn't say anything about "thought matter". What the heck are you
talking about, girl?
Everything that exists is made of matter. If a thought exists - it is
made of matter. You need to take some time out and read the website.
You won't grasp anything in 20 seconds!
Not everything that exists is made of matter. Light is not made of
matter. Space is not made of matter (although it certainly exists, in
the form of physical dimensions). Time is not made of matter. And
thought is not made of matter. I read the website, and understood it
quite well, as the website discusses subjects that I am well-educated
in. You (and I mean no offense by this) apparently did not really
understand what they were saying. I'd suggest that you read it again
and ask questions about anything you're not educated in.
(4c) scientists claim that (all) chemicals contain a nucleus and
revolving
electrons/protons/neutrons, whatever.
(4c.1) astronomers have observed that solar systems contain a
nucleus
(sun) and
revolving planets.
The sun isn't a nucleus, nor are the planets electrons. The sun is
not even remotely similar to a nucleus in any way
How is it not? Address that question in the purpose that nuclei serve.
What purpose, exactly, do you think nuclei serve? If you think that
they provide a central force pulling electrons towards them in the same
way that the sun pulls planets towards it and holds them in orbit...
you're wrong. There is a force between the nucleus and the electrons --
in fact, there are two forces. However, the "orbits" of the electrons
are not defined by these forces. The "orbits" are not really orbits at
all, but regions in which the electrons exist as a kind of cloud form
that are defined by certain rules of quantum mechanics. In fact, the
nucleus really doesn't have any of the same functions the sun has.
and the planets are not
even remotely similar to electrons.
How are they not? Address that question in the purpose that
electrons/protons/neutrons serve.
Again, electrons, protons, and neutrons don't behave in any way like
planets. I'm not sure what misconceptions you're operating under, but
they're some pretty big ones. If you'd like, you can email me at my
email address (take out "remove", "this", and "toreply" from the email
address to make it work) and I'll gladly give you a quick-and-dirty
course in quantum mechanics and cosmology, which will illustrate for you
what is different between an electron and a planet, for example.
In fact, the only similarity is the
orbital patterns of the electrons around the nucleus, which looks like
the orbital pattern of planets around a sun in popular diagrams.
Yes - BEHAVIOR - Key word!
I didn't use the word "behavior". They do not behave similarly.
Diagrams for the layman of an atom tend to appear similar in some ways
to diagrams of a solar system. However, in reality the two don't even
"look" (you can't exactly "see" an atom, but you can find out what it's
shaped like) slightly similar.
However, those popular diagrams are wrong. They show the electrons
orbiting like that because it's an easy way to draw them -- but in
actual reality, the atom is more like a cloud made of electrons
surrounding a central nucleus. The planets aren't anything like a
cloud made of planets around the sun.
No - electrons DO revolve. They do NOT stand still. Go look it up.
Keyword: "electrons revolve." They revolve so fast they appear to form
a cloud. If you slowed it down, you would see a similarity in it and a
solar system. If you sped up the orbits of the planets, they too would
form a cloud around the sun because (what you didn't mention), the
paths change. Paths of planets *do* change, but they occur so slowly,
it's not noticeable until centuries of scientists record it.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Yes, paths of planets change. Electrons
do not technically "orbit". It is easy to think of them that way, but
they do not orbit the nucleus. It's simply a useful and convenient
construct for explaining the shape of an atom to a layman.
That's not true. The human brain, unless it's infected by microbes,
doesn't contain any living things -- it's part of a living thing.
What do you mean?
Thoughts. Your thought is alive in it's dimension. That sexy (insert
sexual preference here) is alive the moment you create it in your
mind. Dreams come alive without much effort on your part. Do you think
the characters in your dreams know believe they aren't real??
The characters in my dreams *aren't* real. They are nothing but
mindless simulations. Have you any reason to believe otherwise, besides
faith?
Also, that's still no case for congruency between the universe and the
human mind! A desert has life in it, as does a rainforest. Is a
desert a rainforest?
For the purpose they serve (harboring life), YES.
But you are not saying that a mind and the universe do some of the same
things, you are saying that the universe *is* a mind. Not to mention,
they *don't* do any of the same things. You're really stretching
semantics to say that they do, but they don't.
I also developed a case for God using logic (in progress). It can
only be rebutted by questioning whether or not the human brain
contains life, environments, and events, and if so, are they real.
To that rebuttal, I return a question to the doubter, "Do you think
the people in your dreams believe they're real?!"
So anyway, here is my (modified) logic:
Let The Universe = A
Let Human's mind = B
Let Life, Environments, and Events = C
Let God's mind = D (or BIG B)
1. To establish that the human mind is an appropriate model
for the universe...
-> If A contains C, and B contains C, then A = (congruent to) B.
Right here, your proof fails. If I put tea in a cup, and also put tea
in a kettle, does that mean that the cup = the kettle?
For the purpose it serves, YES.
See above.
2. To establish that the larger model of the human mind is the
universe...
-> If small B behaves like A, then A is -a- BIG B. (See 4a - 4c.1
for
behavior)
This is also false. A dog behaves like a wolf in more ways than the
universe behaves like a mind. Is a dog a wolf?
YES - they are part of the same family. <jeez!>
Ok then, how about a fish and a dolphin? A fish isn't a mammal, but a
dolphin is.
3. To establish that Space is a creative thing (a mind).
-> If A is a BIG B, and B can create C, then A can create C.
Shaky, but ok. This still doesn't tell me anything, though.
It says, Space is a creative thing (a mind).
But your proof that space is a mind has, so far, failed. Until you can
demonstrate that space is a mind (which you haven't), you can't argue
that space can create anything.
Do NOT ask me what God LOOKS like. WE are INside it's mind. *I* can
NOT see OUTside of its mind. I conclude that it has an outside,
because it's mind is a model of our mind - which is INside of our
heads!
I could be wrong about God's physical (not mental) properties
though. God could just be.... "spacey."
Or, he could just not exist ;)
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 12:02:55 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote in message ...
Sounds like you're stretching a point a bit here -- what do you mean
by "life, environment, and events"? If you mean what I think you
mean, I do believe I can prove that the universe is a rock.
Really? I'd like to see that.
But you haven't told me what you mean by "life, environment, and
events" yet, so I can't. Explain yourself first, and then I'll get to
my facetious "proof" that the universe is a rock.
Don't worry about it. It's over your head.
Not everything that exists is made of matter. Light is not made of
matter.
Yes it is. If it occupies space, it's matter. Matter has mass and occupies
space.
Space is not made of matter (although it certainly exists, in
the form of physical dimensions).
Yes it is. Air is matter.
Time is not made of matter.
Time doesn't exist.
And
thought is not made of matter.
I think you need to re-evaluate what matter is before you go around saying
things like that.
How is it not? Address that question in the purpose that nuclei serve.
What purpose, exactly, do you think nuclei serve? If you think that
they provide a central force pulling electrons towards them in the same
way that the sun pulls planets towards it and holds them in orbit...
you're wrong.
What does "pull" mean to you?
There is a force between the nucleus and the electrons --
in fact, there are two forces.
What does "force" mean to you?
However, the "orbits" of the electrons
are not defined by these forces.
<sarcasm> Of course - *negative* electrons ORBITING a nucleus are just not
influenced by the *positive* force of the nucleus at all! </sarcasm>
The "orbits" are not really orbits at
all, but regions in which the electrons exist as a kind of cloud form
that are defined by certain rules of quantum mechanics.
Here we go again with the "orbits."
In fact, the
nucleus really doesn't have any of the same functions the sun has.
You have tremendously failed to demonstrate that. What does "in fact" mean
to you?
Look, you obviously don't know beans about what you're talking about, so
this conversation (on a serious level) with you simply can not continue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 12:42:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue 02 Mar 2004 12:02:55p, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> kicked back with a beer,
ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell
asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Mekkala wrote in message ...
Sounds like you're stretching a point a bit here -- what do you mean
by "life, environment, and events"? If you mean what I think you
mean, I do believe I can prove that the universe is a rock.
Really? I'd like to see that.
But you haven't told me what you mean by "life, environment, and
events" yet, so I can't. Explain yourself first, and then I'll get to
my facetious "proof" that the universe is a rock.
Don't worry about it. It's over your head.
Well. I replied in a friendly, open, honest way, in an attempt to have
a positive exchange of ideas. You, on the other hand, respond with rank
insults. Tell me, please, why should I continue to talk to you? You've
come into an atheist newsgroup to have a debate, I would think that a
little courtesy is warranted, wouldn't you? I think you owe me your
deepest apologies.
Not everything that exists is made of matter. Light is not made of
matter.
Yes it is. If it occupies space, it's matter. Matter has mass and
occupies space.
*sigh* NerdGerl... you're operating under a good deal of misconceptions.
Would you like to learn, or would you simply prefer to limit discussions
to "imrightyourewrong"? Light is not made of matter. Light has mass,
yes (energy has mass much like matter does). Light does not "occupy
space", however, and consists of photons -- which are energy quanta, not
matter.
Space is not made of matter (although it certainly exists, in
the form of physical dimensions).
Yes it is. Air is matter.
Air isn't space. Air is a mixture of gases that fills the space around
this planet.
Time is not made of matter.
Time doesn't exist.
Care to support that assertion? If time doesn't exist, then huge parts
of modern scientific thinking are entirely wrong. Are you prepared to
offer evidence that you are right and every trained physicist is wrong?
And
thought is not made of matter.
I think you need to re-evaluate what matter is before you go around
saying things like that.
I don't think you know what matter is. I think you just think matter is
"stuff". And since everything is "stuff", then everything is matter,
right? Except matter isn't "stuff".
How is it not? Address that question in the purpose that nuclei
serve.
What purpose, exactly, do you think nuclei serve? If you think that
they provide a central force pulling electrons towards them in the
same way that the sun pulls planets towards it and holds them in
orbit... you're wrong.
What does "pull" mean to you?
Why, it's what a force does! (That or push, anyway)
There is a force between the nucleus and the electrons --
in fact, there are two forces.
What does "force" mean to you?
Why, it pulls! (Or pushes)
However, the "orbits" of the electrons
are not defined by these forces.
<sarcasm> Of course - *negative* electrons ORBITING a nucleus are just
not influenced by the *positive* force of the nucleus at all!
</sarcasm>
Why certainly they are! They're most definitely affected!
Now you're thinking, why then, a nucleus *does* do the same thing a sun
does! It has force, it pulls, it affects electrons! You know, a claw
hammer can apply force, it pulls, it affects nails. Is a claw hammer
basically the same thing as a sun?
The "orbits" are not really orbits at
all, but regions in which the electrons exist as a kind of cloud form
that are defined by certain rules of quantum mechanics.
Here we go again with the "orbits."
Do you have a problem with the word?
In fact, the
nucleus really doesn't have any of the same functions the sun has.
You have tremendously failed to demonstrate that. What does "in fact"
mean to you?
Look, you obviously don't know beans about what you're talking about,
so this conversation (on a serious level) with you simply can not
continue.
Lady, I was hoping for an honest, open debate with you. Since you've
shown you cannot have any such debate (despite the fact that I gave you
a perfectly good chance), I'm going to be honest and open with *you*.
You, ma'am, don't know fuckall in a thimble about physics. You
apparently don't care to find out. But in case you'd like to test your
knowledge, you ignorant *****, why don't you go to sci.physics and post
your little pet "theories"? I'll give you about five minutes before
you're permanently deafened in both ears by the resounding peals of
laughter. Try it. I dare you.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 03:21:03 PM |
|
|
at news:10476bnpni8r905@corp.supernews.com "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
news:10476bnpni8r905@corp.supernews.com:
Mekkala wrote in message ...
(4c) scientists claim that (all) chemicals contain a nucleus and
revolving electrons/protons/neutrons, whatever.
(4c.1) astronomers have observed that solar systems contain a
nucleus (sun) and revolving planets.
The sun isn't a nucleus, nor are the planets electrons. The sun is
not even remotely similar to a nucleus in any way
How is it not? Address that question in the purpose that nuclei serve.
In physics we do not talk about purposes.
and the planets are not
even remotely similar to electrons.
How are they not? Address that question in the purpose that
electrons/protons/neutrons serve.
In physics we do not talk about purposes.
I've have never seen a planet going into another planets orbit. Nor are
the planet's orbits quantified. Thus for rational people, planets are no
electrons.
If planets would behave like electrons, people certainly would also. To
test your 'hypothese', run into a door really hard. If you tunnel through
the door, your idea of 'planets are like electrons' is correct. (if you
break the door, you did not tunnel through it). Please repeat this
experiment as many times as possible, while your tunnel chance can be a
bit low.
However, those popular diagrams are wrong. They show the electrons
orbiting like that because it's an easy way to draw them -- but in
actual reality, the atom is more like a cloud made of electrons
surrounding a central nucleus. The planets aren't anything like a
cloud made of planets around the sun.
No - electrons DO revolve.
But they don't. If they would revolve (in the sense you think), they would
lose energy, and the electrons would collide with the nucleus, and only
neutrons would exist. Nor do atoms stand still.
They do NOT stand still. Go look it up.
Keyword: "electrons revolve." They revolve so fast they appear to form
a cloud. If you slowed it down, you would see a similarity in it and a
solar system. If you sped up the orbits of the planets, they too would
form a cloud around the sun because (what you didn't mention), the
paths change. Paths of planets *do* change, but they occur so slowly,
it's not noticeable until centuries of scientists record it.
Please stay away from physics as far as possible. Don't butcher it to
death with your stupidity. It makes me sick to see this drivel you post.
Bye,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 03:50:16 PM |
|
|
Arjen Klaver wrote in message ...
The sun isn't a nucleus, nor are the planets electrons. The sun is
not even remotely similar to a nucleus in any way
How is it not? Address that question in the purpose that nuclei serve.
In physics we do not talk about purposes.
Oh, you don't discuss reasons? How comical.
and the planets are not
even remotely similar to electrons.
How are they not? Address that question in the purpose that
electrons/protons/neutrons serve.
In physics we do not talk about purposes.
Oh, you don't discuss reasons? How comical.
I've have never seen a planet going into another planets orbit.
Poor thing. I guess you've never heard of Pluto - or Planet X.
Nor are
the planet's orbits quantified. Thus for rational people, planets are no
electrons.
Rational??
If planets would behave like electrons, people certainly would also.
Is that why people have a natural negative charge?
To
test your 'hypothese', run into a door really hard. If you tunnel through
the door, your idea of 'planets are like electrons' is correct. (if you
break the door, you did not tunnel through it). Please repeat this
experiment as many times as possible, while your tunnel chance can be a
bit low.
Is that the best you can come up with?
However, those popular diagrams are wrong. They show the electrons
orbiting like that because it's an easy way to draw them -- but in
actual reality, the atom is more like a cloud made of electrons
surrounding a central nucleus. The planets aren't anything like a
cloud made of planets around the sun.
No - electrons DO revolve.
But they don't.
Yes they do.
If they would revolve (in the sense you think), they would
lose energy, and the electrons would collide with the nucleus,
And your reasoning for this is?
Funny tho - that you can't put 2 and 2 together to realize that same
postulation applies to solar systems. Any 'bright' ideas of why our planets
are NOT losing energy and have NOT run into the sun???
and only
neutrons would exist. Nor do atoms stand still.
Who said anything about atoms standing still? Having problems reading?
Please stay away from physics as far as possible. Don't butcher it to
death with your stupidity. It makes me sick to see this drivel you post.
Hee hee. It's hilarious to see idiots like this misread things, avoid direct
questions, refuse to think, bring up crap that was never mentioned, yet call
ME stupid. What a crock of ***** these people are! What's even more comical
is that this theory, although original to me, has been developed YEARS ago
by hundreds of others - Yet, *I* am the one who's stupid. LOL
They're no different than the Christians they cry over. "Your beliefs don't
fit in with what I've been told to believe. So you're wong! And... and... go
away."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 05:33:15 PM |
|
|
at news:1047bqjp37i9te8@corp.supernews.com "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
news:1047bqjp37i9te8@corp.supernews.com:
<snip you trolling around>
No - electrons DO revolve.
But they don't.
Yes they do.
If they would revolve (in the sense you think), they would
lose energy, and the electrons would collide with the nucleus,
And your reasoning for this is?
Larmor
<snip you trolling around>
Bye,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 08:36:48 PM |
|
|
Arjen Klaver wrote in message ...
Larmor
Terwoid
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 11:21:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon 01 Mar 2004 03:21:03p, Arjen Klaver <chips@stack.nl> kicked back
with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint,
then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Please stay away from physics as far as possible. Don't butcher it to
death with your stupidity. It makes me sick to see this drivel you
post.
Don't be too terribly hard on her. She's simply demonstrating some of
the same misconceptions that many non-physicists fall prey to.
Unfortunately, she's drawing conclusions from these misconceptions, and
so her conclusions are greatly flawed. If she'll listen, perhaps I can
teach her something. *If* she'll listen, that is -- people aren't
always so great at the whole "listen and learn" thing :P
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 12:37:31 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote in message ...
On Mon 01 Mar 2004 03:21:03p, Arjen Klaver <chips@stack.nl> kicked back
Please stay away from physics as far as possible. Don't butcher it to
death with your stupidity. It makes me sick to see this drivel you
post.
Don't be too terribly hard on her. She's simply demonstrating some of
the same misconceptions that many non-physicists fall prey to.
Unfortunately, she's drawing conclusions from these misconceptions, and
so her conclusions are greatly flawed. If she'll listen, perhaps I can
teach her something. *If* she'll listen, that is -- people aren't
always so great at the whole "listen and learn" thing :P
You fail to understand the very BASICS! How can you teach me *anythng*??
Until you recognize the flaws in your own thinking, (for example: a force is
not the same thing as a pull, electrons do not orbit HA), you are
unqualified to comment on your perceptions of flaws in others.
Good luck with whatever you do - and get back to the basics.
http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/class13.html
Atomic Structure and Processes, and the Nature of Light. We briefly
mentioned the structure of the atom during the
last class. ... are the particle in orbit--like the planets, the
electrons orbit the nucleus because they are the less
massive objects ...
ganymede.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/class13.html
Electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom.
www.physics.open.ac.uk/~mms28/Lecture%204%20The%20nature%20of%20light%20and%
20matter/sld019.htm
Plastics Chemistry
... the sub-atomic particles of protons and neutrons. Electrons orbit
the nucleus. The number of electrons equals
the number ...
www.online.sfsu.edu/~jge/html/body_plastics_chemistry.html
Minerals
... nucleus as the sun is in the solar system and the electrons orbit
the nucleus similar to the planets which orbit
the sun ...
www.courses.smsu.edu/ejm893f/creative/glg110/minerals.html
The atom
... are know as shells and are where the electrons orbit the nucleus,
the static charge between protons and
electrons is ...
www.compworks.faithweb.com/electronics/theory/atom001.html
http://www.david.childress.net/sci3ch4.txt
... being positively charged and said that the electrons orbit the
nucleus like the planets orbit the sun. Niels Bohr
said that electrons orbit the nucleus at certain distances and ...
www.david.childress.net/sci3ch4.txt
BIOLOGY 151 - GENERAL BIOLOGY I
... The nucleus of an atom contains protons and neutrons. The
electrons orbit the nucleus at various distances ...
www.usd.edu/biol/genbio/151/ken/L3.html
Chapter 1. Materials for Engineering (MICROSOFT POWERPOINT)
CSU, Chico 1 Chapter 2. ... 5 Quantum Mechanics Electrons orbit the
nucleus of the atom ...
www.csuchico.edu/~jpgreene/itec104/m104_ch02-02/m104_ch02-02.ppt -
172k
Nuclear Chemistry QUIZ I
... of electrons, called the electron cloud, in which electrons orbit
the nucleus in quantized energy levels. ... the
nucleus called the electron cloud (where electrons orbit the nucleus).
....
www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/mhs/science/Teachers/Holmes/ChemCom%20Materials/Nuc
lear%20Unit/nuclear_chem
An Atomic Description of Silicon - The Silicon Molecule
The silicon atom has 14 electrons ... The much lighter electrons orbit
the nucleus at very high velocities ... The
electrons orbit the nucleus at different distances, depending on their
energy level; an electron with less ...
www.inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsolar4.htm
AMOLF Scientific Highlights 2001
... In any atom electrons orbit the nucleus like planets in a
miniature solar system ... of electrons and a nucleus.
The electrons orbit the nucleus, while the latter, due to its ...
www.amolf.nl/main/highlights/highlights_2001/2001_09.html
Electro - Principles I (PDF)
... haveProtons & neutrons collect in the nucleus.The electrons orbit
the nucleus.The number oforbiting the atomthe
www.technology.niagarac.on.ca/courses/etec1120/Files/Unit2.pdf
Electrical Systems Electrical Systems Electrical Systems Electrical Systems
Electrical Systems (PDF)
... of electrons, protons, and neutrons. The. electrons orbit the
nucleus. Certain types of force can cause ... parts of an
atom. Electrons orbit the nucleus.J.Electromotive force?The ...
www.iml.coe.missouri.edu/Autotech%20Samples/m2.pdf
chemical bonds, ions, organic elements
... Electrons have a negative electrical charge. Electrons orbit the
nucleus in a three dimensional orbit often described as ...
www.geocities.com/j31645/13.html
NASA's Cosmic and Heliospheric Learning Center -- Basics -- Composition
... atom contains the protons and neutrons, while the electrons orbit
the nucleus. The number of protons determines to
which ...
www.helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/compos.html
atoms,protons,neutrons,electrons,quarks,gluons,isotope
atoms,molecules,atomic bomb,uranium
bomb,hydrogen bomb,cobalt bom
Atomic Bomb. Atoms are like a universe in miniature: Atoms are
comprised of three sub-atomic particles. ... to form the
nucleus (central mass) of the atom while the electrons orbit the
nucleus much like planets around a sun. ...
www.biblia.com/space/atom.htm
ATOMIC STRUCTURE
FIGURE 1-2 The two simplest atoms, hydrogen helium ... Electrons orbit
the nucleus of an atom at certain distances from
the nucleus ...
www.kmitl.ac.th/~s2064511/English/L1-intro/h1-1a1.html
dc electricity
... electrons: negatively charged: electrons orbit the nucleus.
protons: positively charged: part of the nucleus ...
www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/4_6/Electricity/dc_electricity.htm
Particle Physics
... the protons and neutrons in the atom, while the electrons orbit
the nucleus in quantized distances from the nucleus, i.e ...
www.people.ucsc.edu/~erowland/particle.htm
Lecture 4: Basic Chemistry
... forces that hold atoms together in molecules. Electrons orbit the
nucleus of the atom in specific regions called "shells ...
www.unk.edu/acad/biology/hoback/2002fbio103/103lecture4.html
elecbasc
... Electron Shells. Electrons orbit the nucleus in shells. The
innermost shell will contain ...
www.gworobec.users.50megs.com/elecbasc.htm
hole - a whatis definition
... atom to atom in a semiconductor material. Electrons orbit the
nucleus at defined energy levels called bands or
shells ...
www.whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0%2C%2Csid9_gci214516%2C00.html
Dr. Hing Kan Department of Engineering (PDF)
... Electron Shells and Orbits?. Electrons orbit the nucleus of an
atom at certaindistances from the nucleus. ...
www.geocities.com/hingkan/en221l2.pdf
Science Education - Zoology - Tim Hebert
... The nucleus is made of positive protons and uncharged neutrons. 2.
Electrons orbit the nucleus and are
negatively charged ... C. Electrons orbit the nucleus in electron
shells or clouds ...
http://www2.cajun.net/~ths/science/zoon2.htm
Electrical Fundamentals - Basic Electrical Principles
Electrical Fundamentals. 13 of 36. ELECTRON ORBITS. Electrons rotate
around the atom at different orbits
called Rings, Orbits, or Shells. BOUND ELECTRONS orbit the nucleus on
the inner rings.
www.autoshop101.com/trainmodules/electricity/elec113.html
WATER CHEMISTRY FUNDAMENTALS REVIEW (PDF)
... given, or shared during chemical interactions.2) Electrons orbit
the nucleus of their respective atoms while
occupying ...
www.mdstwp.com/waterstore/water-Chem/water-Chem_DEMO.pdf
General Science 2310 - Atoms and Light
... one elementary unit of negative electric charge. Electrons orbit
the nucleus in an manner analogous to planets
orbiting ...
www.lakeheadu.ca/~physwww/courses/Astro/2310/Light/light-Atoms.htm
FM 55-509-1 Chptr 2 Fundamentals Of Electricity
... called protons, electrons, and neutrons. The electrons orbit the
nucleus, which contains the protons and
neutrons ...
www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/55-509-1/Ch2.htm
The Structure of an Atom
... there are usually the same number of electrons as protons. The
electrons orbit the nucleus in what are known
as shells ...
www.brakenhale.bracknell-forest.sch.uk/student/projects/science/electron/ato
m.htm
Chapter 1
... composed of positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons. 2.
Electrons orbit the nucleus and are
negatively charged ... C. Electrons orbit the nucleus in electron
shells or clouds ...
www.vernoncollege.edu/~dtaylor/z1/z1c2.htm
Atoms and Magnetism
Atoms and Magnetism. Nucleus contains protons and neutrons. Protons
have a positive charge. Neutrons have no
charge. Atomic Mass = # protons + # neutrons. Electrons orbit the
nucleus and have a negative charge. All
particles are in motion ... about their axis - like planets. Electrons
orbit the nucleus and spin about their axis ...
www.psychiatry.uiowa.edu/ipl/local/workshops/brainscamp/mr_physics/txt005.ht
ml
Atoms
Atoms are composed of positive (protons) and neutral (neutrons)
particles that are combined into a nucleus.
Around this nucleus, negative particles (electrons) orbit the nucleus
www.washburn.edu/cas/biology/landrum/lecture2/tsld002.htm
CHAPTER 7: ENERGY
... The shells are paths where the negative charged electrons orbit
the nucleus in an elliptic manner ...
www.schoolofwisdom.com/ChanceandChoice/chapter7.html
Nelson Thornes Online
... of the hydrogen atom which is a single proton . One or more
electrons orbit the nucleus, like planets orbit the
Sun ...
www.modularscience.co.uk/one_prac_mod6_act5.htm
Planet Earth I Minerals
... Electrons orbit the nucleus in certain "shells", each of which is
capable of accommodating a particular number
of ...
www.rpi.edu/dept/geo/pe1/chapter5.html
Forensic SEM/EDX
... only 0.05% as heavy as a proton, orbit the nucleus. The electrons
orbit the nucleus of an atom in a series of
levels ...
www.forensicevidence.net/iama/sem-edxtheory.html
Lecture #4: Earth Materials I: Atoms and Elements
... isotope = one of 2 or more forms of a single element. Electrons
orbit the nucleus, occupying discrete energy
levels ...
http://mercury.atmos.albany.edu/geo100/LectureNotes/04.MineralsI.html
Anything that has mass and occupies space is matter
... Recall that electrons orbit the nucleus in an atom ...
http://comp.uark.edu/~brahana/class6.htm
Chapter 2 - The Chemical Level of Organization - Part I
... Electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom in what is called the
electron cloud ...
www.newebzone.net/pm/chapter2a.htm
I GOT A THOUSAND MORE!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 02:02:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue 02 Mar 2004 12:37:31p, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> kicked back with a beer,
ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell
asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Mekkala wrote in message ...
On Mon 01 Mar 2004 03:21:03p, Arjen Klaver <chips@stack.nl> kicked
back
Please stay away from physics as far as possible. Don't butcher it
to death with your stupidity. It makes me sick to see this drivel
you post.
Don't be too terribly hard on her. She's simply demonstrating some of
the same misconceptions that many non-physicists fall prey to.
Unfortunately, she's drawing conclusions from these misconceptions,
and so her conclusions are greatly flawed. If she'll listen, perhaps
I can teach her something. *If* she'll listen, that is -- people
aren't always so great at the whole "listen and learn" thing :P
You fail to understand the very BASICS! How can you teach me
*anythng*??
Until you recognize the flaws in your own thinking, (for example: a
force is not the same thing as a pull, electrons do not orbit HA), you
are unqualified to comment on your perceptions of flaws in others.
Good luck with whatever you do - and get back to the basics.
<snip links that NerdGerl doesn't understand>
Hate to break it to you, but you don't have the first clue what those
papers are talking about. You see the words "orbit" and "electron" in
the same sentence, and you think, "Oh, ok, I get it! Electrons and
nuclei do like planets and suns!" I'd gladly explain it to you, but you
see, you've proven yourself a mindless twat, and so I see no point in
enlightening you. Have you taken your theories to sci.physics yet, or
are you afraid of what they'll say? Afraid, maybe, that they'll say
exactly what I've said?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 05:10:08 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote in message ...
Hate to break it to you, but you don't have the first clue what those
papers are talking about. You see the words "orbit" and "electron" in
the same sentence, and you think, "Oh, ok, I get it! Electrons and
nuclei do like planets and suns
Proof that your lazy ***** didn't even click the links.
I GOT A THOUSAND MORE
--
"Behind every great man, is a woman telling him what to think."
.
|
|
|
| User: "cooper1" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 07:15:49 PM |
|
|
"Flying Naked People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:104a4s8pd70jv72@corp.supernews.com...
Mekkala wrote in message ...
Hate to break it to you, but you don't have the first clue what those
papers are talking about. You see the words "orbit" and "electron" in
the same sentence, and you think, "Oh, ok, I get it! Electrons and
nuclei do like planets and suns
Proof that your lazy ***** didn't even click the links.
I GOT A THOUSAND MORE
--
"Behind every great man, is a woman telling him what to think."
Behind every fundy there is a preacher telling him what to parrot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 06:25:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:54:29 -0800, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote:
I have observed that the universe behaves just like the human mind - on a
larger scale, of course.
I havent observed any such thing.
Since both harbor life, environments, and events, I
conclude that God is a life form outside of the universe - with the universe
serving as its mind.
Your mind harbors life?
Your *Brain* could harbor life (Your own + Multicellular? Bacterial?
Fungal? pathogens.)- but your mind harbors symbols, thoughts, memories
and ideas.
Clearly your mind does not harbour life.
My evidence is
(1) the universe (it's there)
(2) the human mind (it's there)
(3) both (1) and (2) harbor life, environments, and events (via thought)
(3) is false.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
01 Mar 2004 08:27:07 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote in message
<77h7409bdkelgcg5dqmdndn4c1gc848ba1@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:54:29 -0800, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote:
I have observed that the universe behaves just like the human mind - on a
larger scale, of course.
I havent observed any such thing.
Since both harbor life, environments, and events, I
conclude that God is a life form outside of the universe - with the
universe
serving as its mind.
Your mind harbors life?
Your *Brain* could harbor life (Your own + Multicellular? Bacterial?
Fungal? pathogens.)- but your mind harbors symbols, thoughts, memories
and ideas.
Clearly your mind does not harbour life.
What are those people, buildings, cars, etc. that you imagine, made out of?
Have you *ever* thought about that???
My evidence is
(1) the universe (it's there)
(2) the human mind (it's there)
(3) both (1) and (2) harbor life, environments, and events (via thought)
(3) is false.
(3) is true.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 12:17:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:27:07 -0800, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote in message
<77h7409bdkelgcg5dqmdndn4c1gc848ba1@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:54:29 -0800, "Flying Naked People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote:
I have observed that the universe behaves just like the human mind - on a
larger scale, of course.
I havent observed any such thing.
Since both harbor life, environments, and events, I
conclude that God is a life form outside of the universe - with the
universe
serving as its mind.
Your mind harbors life?
Your *Brain* could harbor life (Your own + Multicellular? Bacterial?
Fungal? pathogens.)- but your mind harbors symbols, thoughts, memories
and ideas.
Clearly your mind does not harbour life.
What are those people, buildings, cars, etc. that you imagine, made out of?
Thought.
Have you *ever* thought about that???
Yes of course I have.
My evidence is
(1) the universe (it's there)
(2) the human mind (it's there)
(3) both (1) and (2) harbor life, environments, and events (via thought)
(3) is false.
(3) is true.
So you have real people, animals buildings inside your mind.
Gosh!
You are a lunatic lady.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Naked People http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: A Case For God (Work-In-Progress) |
02 Mar 2004 12:33:56 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote in message
<3h6840to98tluaftt9fsk85p697joqm79v@4ax.com>...
Clearly your mind does not harbour life.
What are those people, buildings, cars, etc. that you imagine, made out
of?
Thought.
What is thought made of?
My evidence is
(1) the universe (it's there)
(2) the human mind (it's there)
(3) both (1) and (2) harbor life, environments, and events (via thought)
(3) is false.
(3) is true.
So you have real people, animals buildings inside your mind.
Gosh!
You are a lunatic lady.
Lol - (laughing AT you, not *with* you.)
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
