| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2004 01:00:26 PM |
| Object: |
God is just a theory |
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:56:03 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote
No, it's valid to conclude that (if there are no infinite causal
chains), then, because there is at least one caused thing,
there is at least one uncaused thing.
The argument goes that this "uncaused thing" must be God!
Hold on. It's not valid to conclude from the above that there are any
"uncaused things," let alone how many of them there are and what they
must be.
Aquinas was not a polytheist, nor are others who use >the argument.
What do Aquinas's religious beliefs have to do with the validity of
the argument? To conclude that an argument's invalid, because it was
made by a Catholic (or even because it's only made by Catholics) is
mere ad hominem.
Therefore there could only be one of these uncaused >things, or gods.
No. Aquinas said that there could only be one uncaused thing, "and
this all men call God." But neither is a valid conclusion from the
above; the first is an implicit premise that's not obviously true, and
the second's an explicit premise that's obviously false.
So it
does come down to a special pleading for just one case.
One can turn the argument into a special pleading for one case, by
adding extra premises. (Aquinas added the above two, plus a third,
"Infinite causal chains are absurd", which he did try to support.)
But to say that the argument that I just gave was 'special pleading'
is attacking a strawman, because mine didn't have any of those
premises, and certainly didn't have the same conclusion.
However, I see no reason why a first cause has to be God.
Do you see any reason why there has to be any first cause at all?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Dec 2004 04:40:13 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that you
and
Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything there is at
any
given time, considered as a whole) without a beginning, only God, who
is
special? That's fallacy of special pleading.
Well, no; one can imagine your set having no beginning; but not how it
could be a First Cause of anything.
With no beginning there is no First Cause. That's precisely the point.
The very idea of a First Cause is summarily rejected due to the fatal
problem (special pleading, logical inconsistency) inherent in it, as
pointed out by Russell. (Try to keep up, George.)
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Dec 2004 07:49:50 PM |
|
|
In article <hZJvd.234958$HA.181805@attbi_s01>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
That is precisely what the poverty of your imagination is, that
you and Aquinas are not able to imagine the universe (everything
there is atany given time, considered as a whole) without a
beginning, only God, who is special? That's fallacy of special
pleading.
Well, no; one can imagine your set having no beginning; but not how it
could be a First Cause of anything.
With no beginning there is no First Cause. That's precisely the point.
The very idea of a First Cause is summarily rejected due to the fatal
problem (special pleading, logical inconsistency) inherent in it, as
pointed out by Russell. (Try to keep up, George.)
Actually, it is Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, who has the problem
of keeping up. Russell never rejects the possibility of a first cause,
or even the actuality of one. What Russell actually rejects is the
argument that there MUST be one.
And special pleading for an idea can never prove it false.
Arguing that special pleading is disproof, used so often here by Septic
X. Troll, the Craven Capon, is a classic example of that fallacy of
_argument to ignorance_ , which Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, is
so fond of falsely accusing others of committing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Dec 2004 05:02:28 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a beginning it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything, considered as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy (e=mc^2). What else is there you
can point out other than space, time, energy and matter in one form or
another? Is there anything more than that? Oh yeah, I forgot, you are
one of those who believe there must have been a beginning of the
universe, and therefore there must have been a First Cause already in
existence to get it all started, aren't you?
Where did that hypothetical First Cause stand before she created the
univeerse, on the elephant? 8^)
" ... the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. [To be logically
consistent] if everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It
is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested
upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they
said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the
subject." The argument is really no better than that." -- Russell "Why I
Am Not a Christian" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
When Hawking talks about the boundary conditions are that there are no
boundaries in any direction the only thing he could possibly be talking
about is everything considered as a whole (the universe).
If not, then there would be things outside the universe, and therefore
boundaries of the universe for those things to be outside, which is an
absurd idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
15 Dec 2004 11:39:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
wrote:
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a beginning
it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything, considered
as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy (e=mc^2).
No it isn't, but that's an irrelevant comment anyway.
What else is there you
can point out other than space, time, energy and matter in one form
or
another?
You can't point out any of those but space; the others aren't observed,
but only inferred. The same reasoning implies that there are more
dimensions than the 4 of the continuum.
Is there anything more than that? Oh yeah, I forgot, you are
one of those who believe there must have been a beginning of the
universe,
If you mean what everyone but you calls the 'universe,' so's Hawking,
as you'd know if you'd actually read him; so is virtually everyone
familiar with the evidence. The best estimate is that that 'universe '
(the continuum etc.) is app 1.5 x 10^10 years old.
and therefore there must have been a First Cause already in
existence to get it all started, aren't you?
No; there needn't have been a First Cause, as you'd know if you'd read
anything I've written on that. Infinite causal chains are not
impossible.
Where did that hypothetical First Cause stand before she created the
univeerse, on the elephant? 8^)
A First Cause would have to be a 'necessary existent: 'something
existed, because it couldn't not exist; like your particular 'universe'
(the set of all existing things).
" ... the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. [To be
logically
consistent] if everything must have a cause, then God must have a
cause.
Irrelevant.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
False. The planet had only a finite existence, as did the continuum.
Your 'set of everything' would be a 'necessary existent' to be a First
Cause, except: there's no evidence that it's anything more than an
idea; and no reason for it to cause anything. (How can a set cause
matter, eg?)
It
is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world
rested
upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when
they
said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change
the
subject."
Shows how old the piece is. Nowadays, we all know that it's tortoises
all the way down.
The argument is really no better than that." -- Russell "Why I
Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Interesting historical piece, but not of much philosophical value.
When Hawking talks about the boundary conditions are that there are
no
boundaries in any direction the only thing he could possibly be
talking
about is everything considered as a whole (the universe).
No, he's talking about the continuum etc.
If not, then there would be things outside the universe, and
therefore
boundaries of the universe for those things to be outside,
No, there need be no boundaries other than the one we know about (the
Bang); other things could exist in other dimensions, which is
consistent with no spatial boundaries (and, perhaps, no temporal one).
which is an
absurd idea.
But it's your absurdity, due entirely to the poverty of your
imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Dec 2004 01:47:33 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
... First Cause ...
The theist idea of God®, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for God®)
so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as
Bertrand Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Dec 2004 02:29:56 PM |
|
|
In article <p4bwd.201792$V41.107058@attbi_s52>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... First Cause ...
The theist idea of God®, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for God®)
so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as
Bertrand Russell points out:
If by that Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, means the argument by
some theists that there MUST be a First Cause and that it MUST be God,
he is correct, though why Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, indicates
that God is registered at the US patent office escapes me.
On the other hand, if Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, means that
Russell, or anyone else, has any evidence or valid against the
POSSIBILITY of a First Cause, or a God, ® or otherwise, he is dead wrong.
Neither Russell, nor anyone else who knows the facts says anything more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 08:38:27 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
POSSIBILITY of a First Cause
Not unless you can come up with a work-around for the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the idea of First Cause.
See, the way critical thinking works (you really ought to try critical
thinking - it works a lot better than religious belief with no basis in
fact) is that your idea of First Cause being possible has an inherent
fallacy of special pleading in it, and is summarily rejected as logical
fallacy. So unless you can find a work-around for that issue, your First
Cause program has a fatal error and crashes on startup. Do you have a
work-around, or are you just going to keep trying to suck-start this
same dead "There might be a First Cause" program of yours forever?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 11:46:15 PM |
|
|
In article <DKMwd.589427$D%.289535@attbi_s51>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
POSSIBILITY of a First Cause
Not unless you can come up with a work-around for the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the idea of First Cause.
What allegedly fatal problem is that? The one that Russell does not
point out?
What Russell points out is flaws in an argument that there MUST be a
First cause, but to claim that the failure to prove there is a First
Cause invalidated any possibility that there might be one is a classical
example of the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
See, the way critical thinking works (you really ought to try critical
thinking - it works a lot better than religious belief with no basis in
fact) is that your idea of First Cause being possible has an inherent
fallacy of special pleading in it, and is summarily rejected as logical
fallacy.
That argument is just another version of the classical example of the
fallacy of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, arguing that because a special
pleading cannot has its existence, that is prof of its non-existence.
The one who need s to study up on critical thinking here is clearly
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, himself, whose best arguments
invariably turn out to be classic fallacies.
So Septic X. Troll, the egg man, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 01:32:06 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <DKMwd.589427$D%.289535@attbi_s51>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
POSSIBILITY of a First Cause
Not unless you can come up with a work-around for the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the idea of First Cause.
What allegedly fatal problem is that?
As I said, the logical fallacy of special pleading inherent in the idea
of an uncaused First Cause. What part of that do you not understand?
That there might be an uncaused First Cause, a Creator, was an
interesting idea, but the idea there might actually be such a thing
fails the first test, the test for logical consistency.
The idea is that everything must have a cause except for one thing, the
uncaused First Cause, for which a logically inconsistent special
pleading in entered that this one thing is special and does not need a
cause. As Russell says, we need not waste any more time on the idea
there might be a first cause; that idea is summarily rejected due to the
logical fallacy (special pleading for one thing)inherent in it.
Unless, of course, you can find a work-around. Can you?
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 01:22:48 PM |
|
|
In article <W1Rwd.677068$mD.381913@attbi_s02>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <DKMwd.589427$D%.289535@attbi_s51>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
POSSIBILITY of a First Cause
Not unless you can come up with a work-around for the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the idea of First Cause.
What allegedly fatal problem is that?
As I said, the logical fallacy of special pleading inherent in the idea
of an uncaused First Cause. What part of that do you not understand?
I do not understand how failure to prove the necessity of a First Cause
eliminates the possibility of one.
That there might be an uncaused First Cause, a Creator, was an
interesting idea, but the idea there might actually be such a thing
fails the first test, the test for logical consistency.
Since Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is, based on much past
evidence, no judge of logical consistency, his opinion on matters of
logical consistency isn't worth a tinker's dam.
The idea is that everything must have a cause except for one thing, the
uncaused First Cause, for which a logically inconsistent special
pleading in entered that this one thing is special and does not need a
cause.
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, musst explain how failure to prove
that a first cause must exist manages to prove that it cannot exist.
Real logicians would immediately identify any such argument as the
fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam that it is.
As Russell says, we need not waste any more time on the idea
there might be a first cause;
Actually what Russell said was that we need not waste any more time on
the idea there MUST be a first cause.
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is equivocating again by trying to
equate "might" with "must".
Unless, of course, you can find a work-around. Can you?
Yes! And the two of the "work arounds" are:
(1) the fact that Russell never said what Septic XL Troll, the Craven
Capon, claimed he said. Russell argued that the sometime Christian
argument that there MUST be a first cause may be rejected, but never
argued, at least publicly, against the possibility of a first cause, and
publicly argued that there could be no proof against such things as
first causes of gods.
(2) Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's arguments Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam and ad Nauseam that failure to prove existence of a First
Cause proves non-existence, is notoriously fallacious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 03:32:16 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E39D90.12224818122004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <W1Rwd.677068$mD.381913@attbi_s02>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <DKMwd.589427$D%.289535@attbi_s51>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
POSSIBILITY of a First Cause
Not unless you can come up with a work-around for the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the idea of First Cause.
What allegedly fatal problem is that?
As I said, the logical fallacy of special pleading inherent in the idea
of an uncaused First Cause. What part of that do you not understand?
I do not understand how failure to prove the necessity of a First Cause
This doesn't have anything to do with the necessity of a First Cause. It is
your idea there is a possibility there might be one that is being summarily
dismised due to the logical fallacy (double standard) inherent in the idea
of First Cause.
I do not understand how failure to prove the necessity of a First Cause
eliminates the possibility of one.
Why do you keep insisting there is a possibility there might be an uncaused
First Cause? As I have told you repeatedly, the idea that there is a
possibility there might be an uncaused First Cause is summarily rejected due
to the logical fallacy inherent in that idea, unless of course you can come
up with a work-around for the issue of logical fallacy (special
pleading/double standard) inherent in the idea of an uncaused First Cause.
What part of that do you still not understand?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 08:19:41 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a beginning
it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything, considered
as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy (e=mc^2).
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then, it was all a hoax? 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
17 Dec 2004 11:38:00 PM |
|
|
In article <1tMwd.279381$R05.16381@attbi_s53>, XL <XL@XL.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a beginning
it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything, considered
as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy (e=mc^2).
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then, it was all a hoax? 8^)
It is just as reasonable to say that energy is an extrememly
uncompressed form of matter, and that Abombs merely release a small
amount of matter from its contraints.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
18 Dec 2004 07:11:02 PM |
|
|
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a
beginning
it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything,
considered
as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no
boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then,
Not by 'compressing' energy into matter, or 'decompressing' matter into
energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 03:08:29 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1103418662.646102.54400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a
beginning
it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything,
considered
as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no
boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then,
Not by 'compressing' energy into matter, or 'decompressing' matter into
energy.
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time. Matter IS highly
compressed energy. A substantial increase in the amount of energy evident in
the area goes with nuclear fission in the atoms of a relatively small amount
of matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 11:29:34 AM |
|
|
XL wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1103418662.646102.54400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum
and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then,
Not by 'compressing' energy into matter, or 'decompressing' matter
into
energy.
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time.
Which is not the same as saying that:
Matter IS highly
compressed energy.
Which is the point you wanted to talk about.
A substantial increase in the amount of energy evident in
the area goes with nuclear fission in the atoms of a relatively small
amount
of matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
The same thing happens when you burn coal. In neither case does one
turn the matter into energy; what one gets is other matter, and a
release of energy as a byproduct.
The only time matter is annihilated completely is when a particle meets
its antiparticle; in which case there's a release of energy according
to the formula e=mc^2. Which is consistent with the hypothesis that
the particle contains energy, as well as your hypothesis that the
matter is nothing but energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 01:03:33 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1103418662.646102.54400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum
and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then,
Not by 'compressing' energy into matter, or 'decompressing' matter
into
energy.
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time.
Which is not the same as saying that:
Matter IS highly
compressed energy.
Yes it is. The energy is still there, it hasn't been eliminated, it is
just highly compressed. e=mc^2
You do the math.
The energy is released when nuclear fission occurs.
A substantial increase in the amount of energy evident in
the area goes with nuclear fission in the atoms of a relatively small
amount
of matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
The same thing happens when you burn coal.
When I burn coal? That's not true, George. No nuclear fission has ever
happened when I have burned coal. Has any coal fired furnace ever gone
up in a mushroom cloud of nuclear fission that you know of? 8^) Coal
isn't fissile material is it? Doesn't' one have to have uranium or
something?
fission : the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of
large amounts of energy
www.m-w.com
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics, you poor boy? 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 04:50:43 PM |
|
|
In article <8gkxd.220527$V41.204555@attbi_s52>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1103418662.646102.54400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum
and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then,
Not by 'compressing' energy into matter, or 'decompressing' matter
into
energy.
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time.
Which is not the same as saying that:
Matter IS highly
compressed energy.
Yes it is. The energy is still there, it hasn't been eliminated, it is
just highly compressed. e=mc^2
You do the math.
The energy is released when nuclear fission occurs.
A substantial increase in the amount of energy evident in
the area goes with nuclear fission in the atoms of a relatively small
amount
of matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
The same thing happens when you burn coal.
When I burn coal? That's not true, George. No nuclear fission has ever
happened when I have burned coal.
But a miniscule fraction of the mass of the oxygen chemical bonds and
carbonchemical bonds is released as heat energy by the exothermic
reaction turning the carbon and oxygen into carbon dioxide.
Has any coal fired furnace ever gone
up in a mushroom cloud of nuclear fission that you know of? 8^) Coal
isn't fissile material is it? Doesn't' one have to have uranium or
something?
It is the conversion from mass to energy that is under consideration.
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is apparently under the mistaken
impression that such conversions require either fission or fusion at the
atomic level. The amounts of mass converted to energy or the reverse in
chemical reactions is much smaller, and IIRC has been experimentally
verified.
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics, you poor boy? 8^)
My daddy taught me enough so that my education did not cease when I
graduated from 3 cornered pants. Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's
daddy seems not to have done.
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
19 Dec 2004 05:35:49 PM |
|
|
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1103418662.646102.54400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum
and
its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy
No it isn't
So atom bombs don't really work then,
Not by 'compressing' energy into matter, or 'decompressing' matter
into
energy.
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time.
So's the matter. All you have, in a fission reaction, is one form of
matter being changed into another, with a release of energy.
Which is not the same as saying that:
Matter IS highly
compressed energy.
Yes it is.
The energy is still there, it hasn't been eliminated,
it is
just highly compressed.
What are you talking about? When is 'the energy still there'? When
you turn energy into matter? You don't have a scrap of evidence that
can be done.
e=mc^2
You do the math.
That is not a formula for turning energy into matter (much less by
'compressing' it).
The energy is released when nuclear fission occurs.
A substantial increase in the amount of energy evident in
the area goes with nuclear fission in the atoms of a relatively
small
amount
of matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
The same thing happens when you burn coal.
When I burn coal? That's not true, George.
There's no 'substantial increase in the amount of energy evident in an
area' when one burns coal? Your evidence of that being ... ?
No nuclear fission has ever
happened when I have burned coal. Has any coal fired furnace ever
gone
up in a mushroom cloud of nuclear fission that you know of? 8^) Coal
isn't fissile material is it? Doesn't' one have to have uranium or
something?
To increase the amount of heat or light in an area? No.
fission : the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release
of
large amounts of energy
www.m-w.com
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics, you poor boy? 8^)
You're daddy taught you atomic theory? No wonder you're ignorant of
that subject, as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
20 Dec 2004 11:51:47 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time.
So's the matter.
Precisely. That is what e=mc^2 says, dolt.
As I said, matter is highly compressed energy.
You do the math, if you can. Or didn't your daddy teach you the basics
like how to do simple math, you poor boy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
20 Dec 2004 07:27:44 PM |
|
|
In article <TiExd.604108$D%.190488@attbi_s51>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time.
So's the matter.
Precisely. That is what e=mc^2 says, dolt.
As I said, matter is highly compressed energy.
Convert some for us then, to show that it can be done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
21 Dec 2004 04:24:21 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3C675D.18274320122004@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <TiExd.604108$D%.190488@attbi_s51>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
XL wrote:
Matter into energy? No, the energy is there all the time.
So's the matter.
Precisely. That is what e=mc^2 says, dolt.
As I said, matter is highly compressed energy.
Convert some for us then, to show that it can be done.
Nuclear fission has been done to death. 8^)
Since your daddy didn't teach you the basics, see:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission1.shtml for an explanation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Dec 2004 07:53:13 PM |
|
|
In article <8iKvd.235014$HA.133357@attbi_s01>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
Think of it this way: If there can be anything without a beginning it
has to be the universe, since that includes everything, considered as
a
whole, and the boundary conditions are that there are no boundaries
in
any direction, as Hawking points out.
As I told you before, Hawking is talking about the continuum and its
matter and energy
Matter is just highly compressed energy (e=mc^2). What else is there you
can point out other than space, time, energy and matter in one form or
another? Is there anything more than that?
There are thoughts, ideas, language, none of which are material in
nature, but have existence in any human understanding of "universe".
But those are things that Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, has to
ignore, since his universe is too small to contain them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Dec 2004 04:23:23 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Russell:
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the
poverty of our imagination.
GD:
Ridiculous; Aquinas was perfectly able to imagine something that
didn't have a beginning.
eggs@nospam:
Yeah, as long as that imaginary something without a beginning is God,
the hypothetical First Cause, and nothing else. 8^)
One example is enough to show Russell wrong here.
Except that it is not an "example" of anything, it is merely logical
fallacy of special pleading for God: Everything must have a beginning,
except for God, because God is a special eternal entity. See what I mean?
To be logically consistent and avoid the logical fallacy of special
pleading, if anything can be eternal in all directions then everything
(the whole universe) can be eternal in all directions. Maybe particular
instances of stars, or planets, or people come and go, but the basic
stuff of the universe, the matter, can be eternal if anything can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re:Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, is special-pleading again |
14 Dec 2004 07:40:49 PM |
|
|
In article <vJJvd.186641$5K2.54494@attbi_s03>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Russell:
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the
poverty of our imagination.
GD:
Ridiculous; Aquinas was perfectly able to imagine something that
didn't have a beginning.
eggs@nospam:
Yeah, as long as that imaginary something without a beginning is God,
the hypothetical First Cause, and nothing else. 8^)
One example is enough to show Russell wrong here.
Except that it is not an "example" of anything, it is merely logical
fallacy of special pleading for God: Everything must have a beginning,
except for God, because God is a special eternal entity. See what I mean?
No! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, haws it backwards, as usual.
Since George is only saying that there is no reason to suppose that
everything is caused by other things, but is not speculating on on the
nature, or frequency, of things that might be without a cause, it is
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, who is doing ALL the special pleading
here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
12 Dec 2004 11:21:05 PM |
|
|
In article <Ik8vd.227613$HA.223199@attbi_s01>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Russell:
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
GD:
... If there can be
anything without a cause, it cannot be the world, even if by world he
meant the cosmos, because the cosmos evidently did have a beginning ...
How is it that it is known to be true that the universe (or cosmos, if
you will, everything there is, considered as a whole) had a beginning
Georgie?
It is not known absolutely that the cosmos had a beginning, but it is
not known that it did not, and there are several theories which posit a
beginning to that cosmos.
Wouldn't that mean that God would have had to have a beginning
too if God is among all the things the total of which comprize
everything there is, considered as a whole (universe)?
That would only bother those who insist that there actually is a God,
not those who righteously reject the impossibility of gods, on grounds
that it is unproven.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
12 Dec 2004 10:58:43 PM |
|
|
If God is a theory, who has tested it and how?
http://filmstripinternational.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
13 Dec 2004 11:12:04 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
If God is a theory, who has tested it and how?
http://filmstripinternational.com
God does not even a theory. God is a myth.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,is just a theory |
12 Dec 2004 04:43:25 PM |
|
|
In article <a%%ud.249376$R05.99337@attbi_s53>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
What do Aquinas's religious beliefs have to do with the validity of
the argument?
First Cause is an argument that cannot have any validity, as Russell
points out.
Ambiguous. The need for a first cause cannot be established but neither
can the need for no first cause.
The very idea of First Cause, Prime Mover, or whatever, has
a fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in it
Which only fails to establish a need for its presence but does not
establish a need for its absence.
and is therefore
summarily rejected,
Only by, Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, and not by anybody who can
think clearly about it.
as Russell points out:
"... you can see that the argument that there MUST be a First Cause
is one that cannot have any validity..."
-- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still insists that there
cannot be a first cause. All they have to do is find some authority with
more believability than Russell to say so. But, of course, appeal to
authority is fallacious.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
08 Dec 2004 05:54:20 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <6312c50b.0412081100.6bc8088e@posting.google.com>,
George Dance lept out of the bushes shouting:
God is just a theory
Not even...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
