| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"*nemo*" |
| Date: |
27 May 2004 04:16:14 PM |
| Object: |
aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
I'm already ready for a vacation. But it will be close to another month
till I can get away. Drat. Oh well, at least we can all sit back and
enjoy the Quote of the month contests, eh?
Here are the nominations for Theist Quote of the Month for May 2004.
Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, May. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
Email me.
* * * * *
1) For some reason I think athiest just don't want to believe we have a
creator.
By: Osprey
Nominated: Doc Smartass
Seconded: Callipygian Nullifidian
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
------------
3) The rate of sex crimes in the Church is far less than general
society.
By:
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: jwk
------------
4) Oh, yes, and right "machines can detect oxygen and then we can
manipulate it." Well dear, God is a person, not to be manipulated.
However He made a device which can actually recognize God in the world
and in a person. It is called a Human Being. Now you seem to think that
people are hallucinating God as they would Donald Duck on a bad acid
trip. What you fail to logically postulate is that our ability to
hallucinate at all, or dream, or to have out of body experiences, etc.
are indeed physical attributes in the human brain, but they were PUT
there precisely for the act of DETECTING GOD.
By: Anatid Bonecki
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: Liz
------------
5) In response to:
So why weren't the rodents that died in the Great Flood preserved as
fossils?
Deviation tactic, you are not addessing the issue. You can't prove
evoution theory by questioning creational issues.
By: Roadrunner
Nominated: Gregory Gadow
Seconded: Harry F. Leopold
------------
6) You want specific when all you do is regurgitate ignorance?
By: Mary Hogan
Nominated: Sara Brum
Seconded: bogie
------------
7) You're right - I believe in God with evidence You believe in the
romans with roads. I win.
By: duke
Nominated: Iain
Seconded: Vic Sagerquist
------------
8) Right; but we're not talking about whether your or I exist, but
whether the 'collection of everything that exists' exists. You've said
that, if it did not, then 'we would not be here'; and I questioned that
assertion, precisely because I don't see the sense in it myself.
By: George Dance
Nominated: Ron Baker
Seconded: Dixit
------------
9) You might like to start with just thinking. You might improve with
time-say millions and millions of years as in the fairy tales of goo to
you by way of the zoo...
By: IKnowHimDoYou
Nominated: W. Syme
Seconded: Douglas Berry
------------
10) It has nothing to do with data. What data can distinguish between
the 2 hypotheses?? It's a question of *reason*. The materialist
metaphysic only entails p-zombies, not real people.
By: Interesting Ian
Nominated: John M Price PhD
Seconded: Denis Loubet
------------
11) No, evidence does not need to be objective.
By: Interesting Ian
Nominated: John M Price PhD
Seconded: Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here are the rules for the Quote of the Month Contests.
RULES
1. Only atheists and agnostics may participate in the contests.
2. A quote is a valid entry for the contests if:
a. The quote is a brief piece of text;
b. The quote has recently been written in alt.atheism (verifiable);
c. Nomination of the quote is made by an atheist or agnostic
in alt.atheism
d. Nomination of the quote is supported by at least one other
atheist or agnostic in alt.atheism;
e. The quote is not nominated or seconded by the person who wrote it
in
the first place (no one is allowed to nominate him- or herself,
but a person
can vote for the quote he or she wrote.)
3. There will be two categories: 'Atheist Quote of the Month'
and 'Theist Quote of the Month'. The category for which a
quote must be nominated must be mentioned by the atheist or
agnostic who wants to nominate it.
If a quote is miscategorized (e.g. an atheist quote is mistakenly
nominated in the Theist QOTM category), the quote will be re-directed
to appear in the correct category, with approriate notification.
4. Nominations can be made until five days before the first of the
next month. If quotes are nominated after this period, they will be
considered as entries for the contest of the next month.
* When making a nomination, please use this format for the subject
line:
"aa - <A or T as applicable>QOTM Nomination (was: <original thread
name>)"
5. Each atheist or agnostic who visits alt.atheism has one vote to
cast for each category (two votes total).
6. Voting starts 5 days before the end of the month. During the month,
votes will be ignored. This way, all nominees will have equal chance of
winning.
7. The two winning quotes will be published in the QOTM Archive.
SUMMARY
A nomination must contain the following information:
1. The lines of the quote.
2. Who wrote it.
3. Who nominates or seconds the nomination of this quote (that's you!)
4. Which category this nomination is for.
5. The word "nomination" MUST appear somewhere in the subject line!
6. The original thread title must appear in the subject line.
Publish the nomination or support for a nomination in a designated
thread, preferably called "[T/A]QoTM Nomination for [month]." You can
also e-mail it to me (see below).
VOTING
1. In the last five days of the month you can cast your vote in both
categories.
2. Votes must either be placed in the designated thread.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
07 Jul 2004 09:40:43 AM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message >
Which is a valid enough argument; but I'd question its soundness. The
one major problem I have is that energy is apparently being defined in
two different ways - in 1 the way I'd defined it, to include 4-D
existents (physical phenomena) only [energy1], and 4 as any force able
to affect any 4-D existent [energy2]. Which is mere equivocation.
Force and energy are well defined by physics, and that is the
definition that must be used here. Force is defined by
Newton's law, force equals mass times acceleration. work is
defined by force through a distance. Energy is the
ability to do work. So you see, anything that can move
matter by definition is energy. Energy can be controlled,
by either matter or energy, that is you can control
a large amount of energy with a smaller amount, this is
known as amplification. Thus the tiny energy used by
my brain is amplified many times to move my body.
You can repair the argument by adding a further explicit premise,
"Anything able to affect a 4-D existent must be a 4-D existent," but
that's one I'd challenge; as I think it's possible for something to be
energy2 without being energy1, for precisely the reason you allude to
below:
Still we do know that the universe is
here and thus at some point, energy must have been created.
Larry
Exactly. Given that we know there's a 4-D continuum, and even
assuming that all the matter and energy in it is perfectly conserved;
there's still the apparent fact that the continuum, and the matter and
energy in it, had a beginning: either they just started from nothing
(a true miracle!),
Your statement implies that there was a consciousness behind the
creation, and that has not been demonstrated or even implied with the given
definition of God.
or that they originated from other forces that were
not 4-D energy.
Even if the universe cycles from big bang to crunch I do agree
that something must have started the cycles. It is too big
a leap to define this start as God, because we do not know
if it was conscious, self creating, or benevolent. That is to
say we do not know whether or not it would fit the commonly
held ideas of what God is supposed to be.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
07 Jul 2004 05:20:42 PM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0407070640.6e8ec0da@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message >
Which is a valid enough argument; but I'd question its soundness. The
one major problem I have is that energy is apparently being defined in
two different ways - in 1 the way I'd defined it, to include 4-D
existents (physical phenomena) only [energy1], and 4 as any force able
to affect any 4-D existent [energy2]. Which is mere equivocation.
Force and energy are well defined by physics, and that is the
definition that must be used here. Force is defined by
Newton's law, force equals mass times acceleration. work is
defined by force through a distance. Energy is the
ability to do work.
Not quite. "Energy" is "the capacity *of a physical system* to do
work" forms"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn <*emphasis added>
ie, energy2.
So you see, anything that can move
matter by definition is energy.
And that's energy1 (anything that can possibly affect matter, either
directly or by affecting energy2).
Energy can be controlled,
by either matter or energy, that is you can control
a large amount of energy with a smaller amount, this is
known as amplification. Thus the tiny energy used by
my brain is amplified many times to move my body.
You can repair the argument by adding a further explicit premise,
"Anything able to affect a 4-D existent must be a 4-D existent," but
that's one I'd challenge; as I think it's possible for something to be
energy2 without being energy1, for precisely the reason you allude to
below:
Still we do know that the universe is
here and thus at some point, energy must have been created.
Larry
Exactly. Given that we know there's a 4-D continuum, and even
assuming that all the matter and energy in it is perfectly conserved;
there's still the apparent fact that the continuum, and the matter and
energy in it, had a beginning: either they just started from nothing
(a true miracle!),
Your statement implies that there was a consciousness behind the
creation, and that has not been demonstrated or even implied with the given
definition of God.
Actually, the given definition did imply consciousness; but this
alternative doesn't. All that 'true miracle!' was meant to imply is a
physical event that it's impossible to explain, because nothing can
explain it - nothing caused it or originated it.
or that they originated from other forces that were
not 4-D energy.
Even if the universe cycles from big bang to crunch I do agree
that something must have started the cycles. It is too big
a leap to define this start as God, because we do not know
if it was conscious, self creating, or benevolent.
Certainly, for 'conscious' (the other two as well, but they're not
part of the given definition).
That is to
say we do not know whether or not it would fit the commonly
held ideas of what God is supposed to be.
Larry
I agree that one can't simply say at this point something like,
"...and this everyone understands to be God". Contrary to some of the
claims made about me here, I've never said anything like that. (I
hope that's clear at least.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
09 Jul 2004 12:48:00 PM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0407071420.700eb28e@posting.google.com>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0407070640.6e8ec0da@posting.google.com>...
(George Dance) wrote in message >
Which is a valid enough argument; but I'd question its soundness. The
one major problem I have is that energy is apparently being defined in
two different ways - in 1 the way I'd defined it, to include 4-D
existents (physical phenomena) only [energy1], and 4 as any force able
to affect any 4-D existent [energy2]. Which is mere equivocation.
Force and energy are well defined by physics, and that is the
definition that must be used here. Force is defined by
Newton's law, force equals mass times acceleration. work is
defined by force through a distance. Energy is the
ability to do work.
Not quite. "Energy" is "the capacity *of a physical system* to do
work" forms"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn <*emphasis added>
ie, energy2.
So you see, anything that can move
matter by definition is energy.
And that's energy1 (anything that can possibly affect matter, either
directly or by affecting energy2).
actually it follows from the definition of energy2. In order to
move something, its velocity must change relative to something else.
Since an object has kinetic energy equal to one half its mass times
its
velocity squared, the change in velocity must be accompanied by a
change in kinetic energy. Using either Newtonian or Einstein's
relativity, the said
object can be a velocity defined as zero, therefore, energy must be
required
to move any matter.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jul 2004 04:41:03 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<4nNCc.985$pE1.594@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Non sequitur. The only conclusion can be validly drawn from
everything written above is that "Anything that can affect matter
must, by definition contain and/or produce energy." Fallacy of
conflating containment/production with identity.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise: god can affect reality.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
Fallacious, as above.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory,
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Likewise. One piece of matter can't affect another piece. But the energy
that one piece has (such as momentum, etc.) can affect the other one.
Perhaps you've got a hidden "conservation of energy" premise up your
sleeve? Do tell.
Jeff
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
03 Jul 2004 08:27:43 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<PDkFc.1562$Su4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<4nNCc.985$pE1.594@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Non sequitur. The only conclusion can be validly drawn from
everything written above is that "Anything that can affect matter
must, by definition contain and/or produce energy." Fallacy of
conflating containment/production with identity.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise: god can affect reality.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
Fallacious, as above.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory,
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
That's like saying no person can throw a baseball, only arms can.
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Likewise. One piece of matter can't affect another piece.
I'll just let that speak for itself.
You haven't addressed the counterexample either, BTW. Note: it deals
with "something that can produce energy", and you're just going on
about matter, which isn't necessarily part of the counterexample.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
03 Jul 2004 09:38:12 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<PDkFc.1562$Su4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
That's like saying no person can throw a baseball, only arms can.
No, that's like saying that it takes work to affect a piece of matter and
work requires energy. A stationary piece of matter can do no work.
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Likewise. One piece of matter can't affect another piece.
I'll just let that speak for itself.
Next time try not snipping what was written and thus trying to make it read
differently. Here, I'll put it back in:
<unsnip>
But the energy
that one piece has (such as momentum, etc.) can affect the other one.
</unsnip>
See above. Only energy can affect a piece of matter.
You haven't addressed the counterexample either, BTW. Note: it deals
with "something that can produce energy", and you're just going on
about matter, which isn't necessarily part of the counterexample.
The energy is what affects the matter and not the piece of matter itself.
Matter can't "produce energy" in the strictest sense; it can only convert
energy or be converted into energy but even then it's still the energy that
affects the other piece of matter.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
04 Jul 2004 05:42:30 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<o4KFc.3840$w56.2607@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<PDkFc.1562$Su4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
That's like saying no person can throw a baseball, only arms can.
No, that's like saying that it takes work to affect a piece of matter and
work requires energy. A stationary piece of matter can do no work.
But a stationary being can contain energy, without being energy
itself. You have failed to address that counterexample to the bogus
original argument. Hint: the (bogus) conclusion was "must _be_
energy".
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Likewise. One piece of matter can't affect another piece.
I'll just let that speak for itself.
Next time try not snipping what was written and thus trying to make it read
differently. Here, I'll put it back in:
<unsnip>
But the energy
that one piece has (such as momentum, etc.) can affect the other one.
</unsnip>
But a piece of matter still can't affect another piece, according to
you. Nothing you've unsnipped there attenuates the utter absurdity of
what you wrote.
See above. Only energy can affect a piece of matter.
And no matter can affect other matter, according to you.
You haven't addressed the counterexample either, BTW. Note: it deals
with "something that can produce energy", and you're just going on
about matter, which isn't necessarily part of the counterexample.
The energy is what affects the matter and not the piece of matter itself.
Matter can't "produce energy" in the strictest sense; it can only convert
energy or be converted into energy but even then it's still the energy that
affects the other piece of matter.
Again, I'll just let that stand as is; it's a complete self-indictment
afaiac. Your understanding of physics is abysmal.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
04 Jul 2004 06:41:33 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<o4KFc.3840$w56.2607@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<PDkFc.1562$Su4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
That's like saying no person can throw a baseball, only arms can.
No, that's like saying that it takes work to affect a piece of matter and
work requires energy. A stationary piece of matter can do no work.
But a stationary being can contain energy, without being energy
itself.
And it's the energy IN the stationary object that affects the other matter
and not the matter that contained the energy.
You have failed to address that counterexample to the bogus
original argument. Hint: the (bogus) conclusion was "must _be_
energy".
I don't need to address it because it's invalid. If god affects matter, then
he must be energy. One of the premises was that god affects matter and not
that the energy IN god affects matter. Only energy can affect matter. So the
counterexample countered nothing. But even if you'd say that god was matter,
it'd still be contradictory to the first premise (that god is immaterial,
i.e. that god is not matter or energy.) So the reduction to absurdity still
stands.
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Likewise. One piece of matter can't affect another piece.
I'll just let that speak for itself.
Next time try not snipping what was written and thus trying to make it read
differently. Here, I'll put it back in:
<unsnip>
But the energy
that one piece has (such as momentum, etc.) can affect the other one.
</unsnip>
But a piece of matter still can't affect another piece, according to
you. Nothing you've unsnipped there attenuates the utter absurdity of
what you wrote.
And you have yet to show that one piece of matter CAN affect another.
See above. Only energy can affect a piece of matter.
And no matter can affect other matter, according to you.
Correct. A piece of matter with NO energy (no potential, kinetic, etc.
energy) in it can't do didly to another piece of matter.
You haven't addressed the counterexample either, BTW. Note: it deals
with "something that can produce energy", and you're just going on
about matter, which isn't necessarily part of the counterexample.
The energy is what affects the matter and not the piece of matter itself.
Matter can't "produce energy" in the strictest sense; it can only convert
energy or be converted into energy but even then it's still the energy that
affects the other piece of matter.
Again, I'll just let that stand as is; it's a complete self-indictment
afaiac. Your understanding of physics is abysmal.
No, Jeff, yours is. You can't show how one piece of matter with no contained
energy can affect another in any way. If you can, I'd like to see the
equations. In order to affect a piece of matter, you must change it's
position or momentum. To do either requires work. Work requires energy.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
08 Jul 2004 10:13:57 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<NA0Gc.6953$o62.2923@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<o4KFc.3840$w56.2607@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<PDkFc.1562$Su4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
That's like saying no person can throw a baseball, only arms can.
No, that's like saying that it takes work to affect a piece of matter and
work requires energy. A stationary piece of matter can do no work.
But a stationary being can contain energy, without being energy
itself.
And it's the energy IN the stationary object that affects the other matter
Incorrect. Energy is not separable from its object (matter) that way.
And in any case, you've utterly failed to address the fact that an
object _containing_ energy is not energy itself, under any
interpretation.
In short, energy is not a _separately_ distinguishable entity from the
matter that possesses it, and your attempt to argue from such a
position marks you as a complete Physics illiterate, as I've already
previously noted.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
08 Jul 2004 12:39:23 PM |
|
|
In article <6f553a4.0407080713.386c5e7a@posting.google.com>,
(Jeff Young) wrote:
Incorrect. Energy is not separable from its object (matter) that way.
And in any case, you've utterly failed to address the fact that an
object _containing_ energy is not energy itself, under any
interpretation.
I was under the impression that electromagnetic waves were seperable
from matter and were energetic. For example, the sun heats the earth by
transmission of electromagnetic energy through high Torr vacuum. Is my
impression wrong, then?
In short, energy is not a _separately_ distinguishable entity from the
matter that possesses it,
What "matter" possesses light waves?
and your attempt to argue from such a
position marks you as a complete Physics illiterate, as I've already
previously noted.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
08 Jul 2004 07:12:19 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<NA0Gc.6953$o62.2923@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<o4KFc.3840$w56.2607@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<PDkFc.1562$Su4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
That's like saying no person can throw a baseball, only arms can.
No, that's like saying that it takes work to affect a piece of matter and
work requires energy. A stationary piece of matter can do no work.
But a stationary being can contain energy, without being energy
itself.
And it's the energy IN the stationary object that affects the other matter
Incorrect. Energy is not separable from its object (matter) that way.
Yes, it is. You can cool something (in theory) to absolute zero and thus
remove all heat energy. If it's explosive, you can explode it and remove the
chemical energy. You can place it into a state of gravitaional equilibrium
and thus remove all potential energy, etc.
And in any case, you've utterly failed to address the fact that an
object _containing_ energy is not energy itself, under any
interpretation.
No, I have addressed it several times in that it's the contained energy that
does the work. Just like saying "water is what erodes the rocks." It doesn't
matter if that watter is contained in a vessel or if it's free-running, it's
still the water that does the eroding (yes, I know that rocks can erode via
other means. I'm assuming that only water can erode them in this example.)
In short, energy is not a _separately_ distinguishable entity from the
matter that possesses it,
Yes, it is. Energy can be quantisized into packets and can be removed from
the matter and thus IS a seperate entity.
and your attempt to argue from such a
position marks you as a complete Physics illiterate, as I've already
previously noted.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damned, you're funny, Jeff. Go read some real physics
books.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
09 Jul 2004 01:15:04 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<DplHc.26548$o62.21573@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<NA0Gc.6953$o62.2923@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<o4KFc.3840$w56.2607@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<PDkFc.1562$Su4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
That something doesn't affect matter itself but the contained energy might.
That's like saying no person can throw a baseball, only arms can.
No, that's like saying that it takes work to affect a piece of matter and
work requires energy. A stationary piece of matter can do no work.
But a stationary being can contain energy, without being energy
itself.
And it's the energy IN the stationary object that affects the other matter
Incorrect. Energy is not separable from its object (matter) that way.
Yes, it is. You can cool something (in theory) to absolute zero and thus
remove all heat energy.
Heat, being defined as the movement of matter (molecules), cannot
possibly be separated from matter, _by_definition_. Thanks for
proving _my_ point for me. (To remind again, the point being that
when an object _has_ heat energy, that heat energy is conceptually
_inextricably_ bound to the matter; it's not some separate thing; the
fact that an object can shed heat is _irrelevant_; it's a _conceptual_
inseparability I refer to.)
<snip another irrelevant example>
And in any case, you've utterly failed to address the fact that an
object _containing_ energy is not energy itself, under any
interpretation.
No, I have addressed it several times in that it's the contained energy that
does the work.
That doesn't address the fact that the object is not energy itself (at
least not the energy that "does the work" (that phrase is further
evidence of your Physics illiteracy, BTW); we're not talking about
Einstein's matter-energy equivalence here).
In short, energy is not a _separately_ distinguishable entity from the
matter that possesses it,
Yes, it is. Energy can be quantisized
^^^^^^^^^^^
I rest my case:
marks you as a complete Physics illiterate, as I've already
previously noted.
Do keep proving my points for me, by all means.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
09 Jul 2004 06:22:01 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<DplHc.26548$o62.21573@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
And it's the energy IN the stationary object that affects the other matter
Incorrect. Energy is not separable from its object (matter) that way.
Yes, it is. You can cool something (in theory) to absolute zero and thus
remove all heat energy.
Heat, being defined as the movement of matter (molecules), cannot
possibly be separated from matter, _by_definition_.
Heat, being defined as the "average kinetic energy of the molecules" CAN be
removed from the molecules by leaving them with zero kenetic energy. Go
learn some real physics.
Thanks for
proving _my_ point for me. (To remind again, the point being that
when an object _has_ heat energy, that heat energy is conceptually
_inextricably_ bound to the matter; it's not some separate thing; the
fact that an object can shed heat is _irrelevant_; it's a _conceptual_
inseparability I refer to.)
And no point was proven for you since, as usual, you used a strawman.
<snip another irrelevant example>
I.e. "snip another example that I can't respond to", eh?
And in any case, you've utterly failed to address the fact that an
object _containing_ energy is not energy itself, under any
interpretation.
No, I have addressed it several times in that it's the contained energy that
does the work.
That doesn't address the fact that the object is not energy itself (at
least not the energy that "does the work" (that phrase is further
evidence of your Physics illiteracy, BTW);
Jeff, you're an idiot, you know that? If the object had no energy, then it
could not affect another piece of matter. You have yet to show any
equations, etc that would show otherwise. Work is defined as a change in
energy over time. In order to change the amount of energy, you must add or
remove energy. How do you do that? By imputting energy of the same or
opposite value. I.e. you must have energy to affect the matter.
we're not talking about
Einstein's matter-energy equivalence here).
Did I say we were?
In short, energy is not a _separately_ distinguishable entity from the
matter that possesses it,
Yes, it is. Energy can be quantisized
^^^^^^^^^^^
I rest my case:
You rest your case on a spelling error?
marks you as a complete Physics illiterate, as I've already
previously noted.
Do keep proving my points for me, by all means.
The only point being proven for you is the one on the top of your head. All
you're proving is how stupid you are.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
10 Jul 2004 10:26:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
Heat, being defined as the movement of matter (molecules),
cannot possibly be separated from matter, _by_definition_.
Heat, being defined as the "average kinetic energy of the
molecules" CAN be removed from the molecules by leaving them with
zero kenetic energy. Go learn some real physics.
I find myself disagreeing with both of you, but, since I haven't
read the backthread to find out what point you two are trying to
settle, all of the following may be irrelevant. Oh, well. If
you don't find my contribution useful, you may find it
interesting.
-- Defining heat as the movement of molecules is surely too
restrictive, since JY wants to use it to exclude something or
other. If all you wanted was to provide an example of heat,
then I have no problem with that. However, the concept of heat works
just fine without any reference to molecules. One of the classic
thermodynamic systems is black body radiation. This is cavity
with a tiny hole in it, and the spectrum of the radiation coming
out is a function only of the temperature of the photons inside
the cavity.
If you wanted to use a wider definition of matter, to include
anything in the physical universe, then a discussion of heat could
not be separated from a discussion of matter, but neither is there
any other discussion in physics that could be separated from this
broader definition of matter.
-- It's not clear to me that we can remove all the disordered
kinetic energy. It seems like it should be like accelerating
a particle all the way to light speed. The closer you get, the
harder it is to get even closer, and you never get all the way
to absolute zero or light speed. These interesting new states
of matter, Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC), are reported
with temperatures in the neighborhood of 100 nano-Kelvins, or
billionths of a degree above absolute zero.
I suppose we could imagine what a crystal of silicon at absolute
zero (for example) would be like and describe it using our best
physics. Actually, that would probably be easier than describing
it with a real temperature. It looks to me like more of an
exercise in real philosophy than real physics, though.
(Side note: Superfluid helium atoms still have kinetic energy
even in their lowest energy state, so there would be no
possibility of zero kinetic energy, even in a hypothetical
absolute zero state. Of course, that's not the same as no
disordered motion.)
-- I don't understand this idea of "separating" heat from
matter by bring the heat of some sample down to zero, but
I suspect that, if I did understand, I would disagree. Some
sample that currently had zero heat would be no more disconnected
from the reality of heat, temperature, thermodynamics and so on
than someone standing on a seashore with altitude zero is
disconnected from altitude, gravity and so on.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
10 Jul 2004 03:49:15 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
Heat, being defined as the movement of matter (molecules),
cannot possibly be separated from matter, _by_definition_.
Heat, being defined as the "average kinetic energy of the
molecules" CAN be removed from the molecules by leaving them with
zero kenetic energy. Go learn some real physics.
I find myself disagreeing with both of you, but, since I haven't
read the backthread to find out what point you two are trying to
settle, all of the following may be irrelevant. Oh, well. If
you don't find my contribution useful, you may find it
interesting.
The whole issue was "can a piece of matter, devoid of any energy, affect
another piece of matter?" I.e. I say that only energy can affect matter
(affect as in changing it's position, momentum, tempurature, etc.) and Jeff
claims that "matter can affect matter." My position basically amounts to
"affecting matter requires work and work is a function of energy."
-- Defining heat as the movement of molecules is surely too
restrictive, since JY wants to use it to exclude something or
other. If all you wanted was to provide an example of heat,
then I have no problem with that. However, the concept of heat works
just fine without any reference to molecules. One of the classic
thermodynamic systems is black body radiation. This is cavity
with a tiny hole in it, and the spectrum of the radiation coming
out is a function only of the temperature of the photons inside
the cavity.
If you wanted to use a wider definition of matter, to include
anything in the physical universe, then a discussion of heat could
not be separated from a discussion of matter, but neither is there
any other discussion in physics that could be separated from this
broader definition of matter.
-- It's not clear to me that we can remove all the disordered
kinetic energy. It seems like it should be like accelerating
a particle all the way to light speed. The closer you get, the
harder it is to get even closer, and you never get all the way
to absolute zero or light speed. These interesting new states
of matter, Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC), are reported
with temperatures in the neighborhood of 100 nano-Kelvins, or
billionths of a degree above absolute zero.
I suppose we could imagine what a crystal of silicon at absolute
zero (for example) would be like and describe it using our best
physics. Actually, that would probably be easier than describing
it with a real temperature. It looks to me like more of an
exercise in real philosophy than real physics, though.
(Side note: Superfluid helium atoms still have kinetic energy
even in their lowest energy state, so there would be no
possibility of zero kinetic energy, even in a hypothetical
absolute zero state. Of course, that's not the same as no
disordered motion.)
-- I don't understand this idea of "separating" heat from
matter by bring the heat of some sample down to zero, but
I suspect that, if I did understand, I would disagree. Some
sample that currently had zero heat would be no more disconnected
from the reality of heat, temperature, thermodynamics and so on
than someone standing on a seashore with altitude zero is
disconnected from altitude, gravity and so on.
Jim Burns
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
11 Jul 2004 05:36:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
wrote:
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
Heat, being defined as the movement of matter (molecules),
cannot possibly be separated from matter, _by_definition_.
Heat, being defined as the "average kinetic energy of the
molecules" CAN be removed from the molecules by leaving them
with zero kenetic energy. Go learn some real physics.
I find myself disagreeing with both of you, but, since I haven't
read the backthread to find out what point you two are trying to
settle, all of the following may be irrelevant. Oh, well. If
you don't find my contribution useful, you may find it
interesting.
The whole issue was "can a piece of matter, devoid of any energy,
affect another piece of matter?" I.e. I say that only energy can
affect matter (affect as in changing it's position, momentum,
tempurature, etc.) and Jeff claims that "matter can affect
matter." My position basically amounts to "affecting matter
requires work and work is a function of energy."
Thank you for explaining the context. I could have looked it up,
but I was being a lazy *****.
Looking upthread, I see that this is a product of George Dance's
definition of God, "an immaterial agent able to affect material
reality," which may or may not exist. I suppose this is part of
an attempt to work out what is meant by "material" and "immaterial",
as part of an attempt to prove/disprove the possible/necessary
existence of such a being.
I don't see much hope for the over-all enterprise. "Material"
and "immaterial" are really George's terms. It seems kind of
pointless to decide for him what he means by them.
In physics, "matter" is an informal term, useful in developing
an intuition about how things operate, but one which disappears
as you zoom in on the details. My own preference would be to label
every particle "matter", including photons, which are often
described as "made of energy" for some reason that escapes me.
"Energy" is very well-defined in physics, differently in lots of
different contexts but with well-understood links between those
contexts. I think it is always seen as an attribute of something,
rather than a thing in its own right.
Probably the best (deepest) definition comes from Noether's Theorem:
if you have a description of a physical system that does not
explicitly mention time, then there is this thing we call "energy"
that will remain unchanged. The energy is a certain function of
the positions and motions of the parts of the system that is
determined by the description of the system.
Energy shows up as a constraint on the behavior of the system,
as in, a ball thrown into the air with a certain energy cannot
rise above this point. Why it constrains the system is that
the laws of physics do not change over time.
I don't expect what I've written to help settle anything,
but I just wanted to share my point of view.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
13 Jul 2004 10:30:48 AM |
|
|
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message news:<40F11830.C9F15DEB@osu.edu>...
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
Heat, being defined as the movement of matter (molecules),
cannot possibly be separated from matter, _by_definition_.
Heat, being defined as the "average kinetic energy of the
molecules" CAN be removed from the molecules
<piggyback>
Incorrect. No molecules, no heat; _by_definition_ (by that definition
anyway). Whatever you think you've got which is _independent_ of
molecules _cannot_ be heat by that definition.
by leaving them
with zero kenetic energy. Go learn some real physics.
<piggyback>
Go read Jim Burns' refutation of your presumption that molecules can
be left with zero kinetic energy.
I find myself disagreeing with both of you, but, since I haven't
read the backthread to find out what point you two are trying to
settle, all of the following may be irrelevant. Oh, well. If
you don't find my contribution useful, you may find it
interesting.
The whole issue was "can a piece of matter, devoid of any energy,
affect another piece of matter?"
<piggyback>
Strawman Fallacy, of course (as to "devoid of any energy"). And the
issue is whether an _immaterial_ agent is able to affect material
reality. Heck, you seem to answer "yes, because energy is
immaterial". But our disagreement is whether matter can affect other
matter. I say yes, because energized matter is still matter. An
object or being does not need to _be_ energy in order to affect
matter, it merely needs to _contain_ or _produce_ or _control_ energy
to do so.
I.e. I say that only energy can
affect matter (affect as in changing it's position, momentum,
tempurature, etc.) and Jeff claims that "matter can affect
matter." My position basically amounts to "affecting matter
requires work and work is a function of energy."
<piggyback>
And you keep ignoring the fact that something can _use_ energy without
_being_ energy itself.
Thank you for explaining the context. I could have looked it up,
but I was being a lazy *****.
Looking upthread, I see that this is a product of George Dance's
definition of God, "an immaterial agent able to affect material
reality," which may or may not exist. I suppose this is part of
an attempt to work out what is meant by "material" and "immaterial",
as part of an attempt to prove/disprove the possible/necessary
existence of such a being.
I don't see much hope for the over-all enterprise. "Material"
and "immaterial" are really George's terms. It seems kind of
pointless to decide for him what he means by them.
Good point.
In physics, "matter" is an informal term, useful in developing
an intuition about how things operate, but one which disappears
as you zoom in on the details. My own preference would be to label
every particle "matter", including photons, which are often
described as "made of energy" for some reason that escapes me.
Wow, a very reasonable position.
"Energy" is very well-defined in physics, differently in lots of
different contexts but with well-understood links between those
contexts. I think it is always seen as an attribute of something,
rather than a thing in its own right.
Exactly!
Probably the best (deepest) definition comes from Noether's Theorem:
if you have a description of a physical system that does not
explicitly mention time, then there is this thing we call "energy"
that will remain unchanged. The energy is a certain function of
the positions and motions of the parts of the system that is
determined by the description of the system.
Energy shows up as a constraint on the behavior of the system,
as in, a ball thrown into the air with a certain energy cannot
rise above this point. Why it constrains the system is that
the laws of physics do not change over time.
I don't expect what I've written to help settle anything,
but I just wanted to share my point of view.
By all means! Thanks for injecting some much needed Physics expertise
into the discussion. It's like a breath of fresh air. Whew!
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
16 Jul 2004 08:55:33 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message news:<40F11830.C9F15DEB@osu.edu>...
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
Heat, being defined as the movement of matter (molecules),
cannot possibly be separated from matter, _by_definition_.
Heat, being defined as the "average kinetic energy of the
molecules" CAN be removed from the molecules
<piggyback>
Incorrect.
No, correct.
No molecules, no heat; _by_definition_ (by that definition
anyway). Whatever you think you've got which is _independent_ of
molecules _cannot_ be heat by that definition.
The heat was removed by converting it to other forms of energy. So there are
still molecules there but without the heat energy.
by leaving them
with zero kenetic energy. Go learn some real physics.
<piggyback>
Go read Jim Burns' refutation of your presumption that molecules can
be left with zero kinetic energy.
He didn't refute it as much as he clarified that heat isn't simply "the
average kinetic energy" since heat energy can be transmitted in a vacuum
(although there it's actually that the heat is converted to EM radiation and
then back to heat.) Heat is defined in physics as:
"A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and
capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid media by conduction,
through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation."
If there's no molecules, then there's no heat energy. But if the molecules
aren't moving, then there's still no heat energy.
I find myself disagreeing with both of you, but, since I haven't
read the backthread to find out what point you two are trying to
settle, all of the following may be irrelevant. Oh, well. If
you don't find my contribution useful, you may find it
interesting.
The whole issue was "can a piece of matter, devoid of any energy,
affect another piece of matter?"
<piggyback>
Strawman Fallacy, of course (as to "devoid of any energy").
No, it's not a strawman. The original claim was "only energy affects
matter." You claimed that's not true and said that matter can affect other
matter. So now it's your claim that's in question.
And the
issue is whether an _immaterial_ agent is able to affect material
reality.
That was the original question but not the one I was arguing about. The
secondary question that I was arguing about was: can matter affect matter?
Heck, you seem to answer "yes, because energy is
immaterial".
No, I haven't even addresses that issue. BTW, energy is not 'immaterial'
based on the definition of 'immaterial' given originally. Energy is not
MATTER but is material.
But our disagreement is whether matter can affect other
matter.
BINGO.
I say yes, because energized matter is still matter. An
object or being does not need to _be_ energy in order to affect
matter, it merely needs to _contain_ or _produce_ or _control_ energy
to do so.
Then it's not the thing doing the affecting but instead is the energy that
does the affecting. Your (il)logic would say "This glass got the carpet wet
because it contained water that got the carpet wet." The glass did nothing
of the sort. The water got the carpet wet and had nothing to do with the
glass.
I.e. I say that only energy can
affect matter (affect as in changing it's position, momentum,
tempurature, etc.) and Jeff claims that "matter can affect
matter." My position basically amounts to "affecting matter
requires work and work is a function of energy."
<piggyback>
And you keep ignoring the fact that something can _use_ energy without
_being_ energy itself.
And you keep ignoring the fact that it's the energy itself that does the
affecting.
Thank you for explaining the context. I could have looked it up,
but I was being a lazy *****.
Looking upthread, I see that this is a product of George Dance's
definition of God, "an immaterial agent able to affect material
reality," which may or may not exist. I suppose this is part of
an attempt to work out what is meant by "material" and "immaterial",
as part of an attempt to prove/disprove the possible/necessary
existence of such a being.
I don't see much hope for the over-all enterprise. "Material"
and "immaterial" are really George's terms. It seems kind of
pointless to decide for him what he means by them.
Good point.
In physics, "matter" is an informal term, useful in developing
an intuition about how things operate, but one which disappears
as you zoom in on the details. My own preference would be to label
every particle "matter", including photons, which are often
described as "made of energy" for some reason that escapes me.
Wow, a very reasonable position.
Unfortunately, it's only his preference and not the one taken by physicists
in general. Matter is generally defined as "has mass and takes up space."
Photons are massless. They also act as waves in some ways, unlike particles
of matter such as electrons and protons.
"Energy" is very well-defined in physics, differently in lots of
different contexts but with well-understood links between those
contexts. I think it is always seen as an attribute of something,
rather than a thing in its own right.
Exactly!
If energy is an attribute of something, then what is light (or other EM
energy) an attribute of?
Probably the best (deepest) definition comes from Noether's Theorem:
if you have a description of a physical system that does not
explicitly mention time, then there is this thing we call "energy"
that will remain unchanged. The energy is a certain function of
the positions and motions of the parts of the system that is
determined by the description of the system.
Energy shows up as a constraint on the behavior of the system,
as in, a ball thrown into the air with a certain energy cannot
rise above this point. Why it constrains the system is that
the laws of physics do not change over time.
If that's the case (if energy is simply a description or a constraint on
matter,) then how can matter be converted into energy and visa
versa?
I don't expect what I've written to help settle anything,
but I just wanted to share my point of view.
By all means! Thanks for injecting some much needed Physics expertise
into the discussion. It's like a breath of fresh air. Whew!
With all the ***** you're spreading, we need some fresh air.
Jeff
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
11 Jul 2004 09:30:26 AM |
|
|
Jim Burns wrote:
Looking upthread, I see that this is a product of George Dance's
definition of God, "an immaterial agent able to affect material
reality," which may or may not exist.
I can't agree at this point that you or George (or anyone else) knows
that there is a probality that the hypothetical thing may exist. Saying
there is a probability that such a thing might exist is taking George's
conclusion for granted (begging the question). What is needed is for
you, George, or anyone else to show your work, show how you computed
that probability, so that anybody outside the religion can check your
math. In any case the only reasonable beginning presumption is "There is
no X" whatever X is imagined to be, but is not in evidence. George
cannot define his hypothetical God into evidence, he has to say
precisely what he observes that leads to a conclusion his hypothetical
thing might exist, so that anybody else can check and replicate his
observations.
But in this case of a hypothetical 'immaterial agent', a hypothetical
entity that is not material, is not detectable, is spiritual, or
anything similar, appears to be just another fallacy of ad hoc
hypothesis, as the true believers always try to get away with, since
they have never been able to demonstrate how it is that they know it is
true that their hypothetical thing might exist, so that others who do
not subscribe to their religion can test and replicate their observations.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
11 Jul 2004 11:07:22 AM |
|
|
Dixit wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
Looking upthread, I see that this is a product of George Dance's
definition of God, "an immaterial agent able to affect material
reality," which may or may not exist.
Hi, Septic -- Haven't read you for a while. This is a pretty polite
response, for you. Thanks.
I can't agree at this point that you or George (or anyone else)
knows that there is a probality that the hypothetical thing may
exist.
Would you agree that at least one of the following is true?
(1) "An immaterial agent able to affect material reality
may exist."
(2) "An immaterial agent able to affect material reality
may not exist."
If you agree with one of those, then, yes, you do agree with what
I wrote, that an immaterial agent able to affect material reality
(hereinafter IAATAMR) may or may not exist.
I put it in those terms to emphasize that neither George nor I
were making any existential claims at that point. George wanted
to define "God" as an IAATAMR. That's not a universal choice of
definition, but as long as you remember that any conclusions drawn
are about IAATAMRs, there shouldn't be any confusion.
It's a separate question whether these IAATAMRs exist, don't exist,
possibly exist, possibly don't exist, etc, etc. If you google for
my earlier contribution to this thread, about a month ago, you
will see that, given my own understanding of what "material" and
"immaterial" meant, I had decided that IAATAMRs are logically
impossible beings, not unlike the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed
Be Her Horniness!) Please note that even in this case, IAATAMRs
(and IPUs) may or may not exist.
George gives different meanings to "material" and "immaterial" than
I do, so my conclusion would not necessarily follow for him.
Saying there is a probability that such a thing might exist is
taking George's conclusion for granted (begging the question).
What is needed is for you, George, or anyone else to show your
work, show how you computed that probability, so that anybody
outside the religion can check your math.
ONLY saying that an IAATAMR might exist would indeed be taking
George's conclusion, that an IAATAMR might exist, for granted.
As I recall, George did a lot more than that, arguing extensively
for that conclusion.
I remember at least once showing my math by which I calculated that
P(god) > 0. You referred to it as a "shitstorm of symbols" or
words to that effect, which I took to mean (in part) that you were
not interested in checking my math. Has that changed?
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
11 Jul 2004 01:03:10 PM |
|
|
In article <6acIc.58352$IQ4.28295@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
Looking upthread, I see that this is a product of George Dance's
definition of God, "an immaterial agent able to affect material
reality," which may or may not exist.
I can't agree at this point that you or George (or anyone else) knows
that there is a probality that the hypothetical thing may exist.
At least they are honest enough to admit that they do not know that it
can not exist.
Saying
there is a probability that such a thing might exist is taking George's
conclusion for granted (begging the question).
Not so. Probabilities can be zero.
What is needed is for
you, George, or anyone else to show your work, show how you computed
that probability, so that anybody outside the religion can check your
math.
Actually, what is needed is for Septic, the Magically Invisible Pixie,
to show how he knows that gods are impossible, so that anybody outside
Septic, the Magically Invisible Pixie's religion can check his work.
In any case the only reasonable beginning presumption is "There is
no X" whatever X is imagined to be, but is not in evidence.
But a presumption is no more that a presumption, and presumptions can be
wrong.
George
cannot define his hypothetical God into evidence
And has not tried to. Only Septic, the Magically Invisible Pixie,
misreads George this way.
, he has to say
precisely what he observes that leads to a conclusion his hypothetical
thing might exist,
What leads anyone to say that something "might" exist is lack of
certainty that it does not. Such certainty could only be a result of
logically convincing evidence of impossibility which, in the matter of
whether a god might exist, is noticeable only by its absence.
so that anybody else can check and replicate his
observations.
Anybody can replicate noticing that lack of evidence against, wqhich is
even more obvious because Septic, the Magically Invisible Pixie, would
be providing it if it existed.
This is all about Septic, the Magically Invisible Pixie's Gnostic
religious belief that an invisible god cannot exist anyway, even though
there is no evidence of it (Anti-theists), the reverse Gnostic
religious belief (theists), or, to go one step further, the outright
denial and repudiation of both such Gnostic religious belief as a
matter of principle (agnostics).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
