| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Freshwater Spaceman" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2005 06:26:03 AM |
| Object: |
Proof for Supremre Being |
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
It is a metaphysical statement about causality. Causality is embedded
in science - without it there could be no order. If everything just
happens randomly, there is no relationship between the events and
therefore there is no order possible. Physics claims otherwise. It
better claim otherwise because if it didn't there would be no such
thing as Physics.
That causality is embedded in the physical universe is almost
self-evident. The fact that there are truly random aspects of physical
reality that come from quantum mechanics, like the precise time when a
redioactive atom will decay, does not mean the event is totally
acausal. Even though the time of the decay is unknowable according to
quantum mechanics, and therefore appears to happen randomly, does not
mean that the process responsible for decay is acausal. In fact,
because the process responsible for decay is subject to the
Schrodinger Equation, which itself if deterministic (causal) because
it used Unitary operators, guarantees that the underlying process for
radioactive decay is most definitely causal.
Now, it's time to make the leap from physics to metaphysics. That
means we move from the everyday world of physical events to the level
where we try to understand the most fundamental underpinnings of those
events. The most fundamental underpinning is Existence - Being - ESSE.
Without ESSE things would not exist.
We then postulate that just as physical causality is in operation so
is metaphysical causality, that things which exist are caused to
exist. That is, things don't just happen to exist in an acausal sense
- they are caused to exist. This is consistent with the picture
provided by quantum field theory whereby particles come into existence
from the quantum vacuum by the action of so-called creation operators,
and they go out of existence by the action of so-called destruction
operators. An electron, for example, comes about when two fluctuations
of the electromagnetic field of precisely the right frequency collide.
These photons disappear and an electron appears.
Thus quantum mechanics supports the ontological necessity of causality
at the level of existence. Electrons don't just happen - they are
caused, and most importantly their very Existence is caused.
OK, now that we have this issue of causality worked out, albeit in
very rudimentary form, we can move on. Either you accept causality at
the ontological level or you do not. I cannot prove it to you - that's
why it is axiomatic. You either consider it to be intuitively obvious
upon casual inspection or you consider it absurd. If you consider it
absurd and believe things come into existence without cause, then you
must accept that order is not possible, and therefore you cannot exist
as a separate entity in your random world. IOW, if you reject
causality, even at the ontological level, you cannot prove that you
exist. So why am I attempting a conversation with you?
2) The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence.
Why not?
If the Universe were the source of its own existence then it would
have to have Existence as part of its essence. An object cannot be the
cause of an effect unless it possesses the principle (power) for that
effect. If the Universe is the cause of its own Existence, then it
must have Existence as part of its essence.
But if that were the case then the Universe could not be mutable.
Having Existence as part of its essence, it would be forced to exist
as originally specified in its design. And once it came into existence
as a particular entity with a particular nature, it would have to
continue in the same way - it could not change because Existence
forces it to be what it is and not something different.
But we know that the Universe is mutable, therefore it cannot have
Existence as part of its essence and cannot be the source of its own
existence.
3) Therefore there must be an separate entity which is the source of
the existence of the Universe.
So what is the source for this entity?
The Supreme Being is the only entity in reality whose essence is
Existence. It is Pure Being. It is the cause of all existence,
including the Universe.
The Quantum Vacuum comes close to satisfying that requirement but we
still do not know enough because the Planck length is so small. In any
event if you want a physical analog to the Supreme Being it would be
the thing that causes the quantum vacuum to exist and behave the way
it does.
If the Universe can not be it's own source
of existence,
then it follows that neither could this entity.
That does not follow because you are assuming that the only thing that
can exist is the physical universe. But that is not true. There must
be a higher order or the Universe would not exist - could not exist.
If you are going to make an assumption that anything that
exists must have another source,
I am not making that assumption. I am accepting the fact shown to us
by science that all effects have a cause. But I did not say "another
cause". There is the entity that causes itself. That entity cannot be
material like the Universe for the exact reason that the Universe
cannot be the source of its own Existence. The Supreme Being is
completely different from the physical order, albeit imitmately
connected to it in the sense that the very existence of the physical
order depends on the Supreme Being every instant of time.
then it follows from the same logic that
God can not be his own source. Otherwise, your assumption about the Universe
is inconsistent with the rest of your arguement.
Your major premise is fatally flawed.
4) That entity must have existence as its essence.
Circular logic.
It is not circular.
5) That entity is called the Supreme Being.
Nothing circular there.
Except that your conclusion is based totally on unfounded and unsupported
assumptions,
You have not been paying attention.
which assumptions you then ignore for that entity.
The physical order is not the same as the metaphysical order.
In short your argument is based on assertion
Backed up by physics.
and is internally inconsistent since it
denies the very assumptions you make to establish the argument.
You are confusing the physical order with the metaphysical order.
Existence, Being, Esse - the principle of existence, is metaphysical.
It's what makes metaphysics what it is:
http://www.utm.edu/research/ie p/a/aristotl.htm#Metaphysics
+++
For Aristotle, the subject of metaphysics deals with the first
principles of scientific knowledge and the ultimate conditions of all
existence. More specifically, it deals with existence in its most
fundamental state (i.e. being as being), and the essential attributes
of existence. This can be contrasted with mathematics which deals with
existence in terms of lines or angles, and not existence as it is in
itself.
The axioms of science fall under the consideration of the
metaphysician insofar as they are properties of all existence.
Aristotle argues that there are a handful of universal truths. Against
the followers of Heraclitus and Protagoras, Aristotle defends both the
laws of contradiction, and that of excluded middle. He does this by
showing that their denial is suicidal. Carried out to its logical
consequences, the denial of these laws would lead to the sameness of
all facts and all assertions. It would also result in an indifference
in conduct. As the science of being as being, the leading question of
Aristotle's metaphysics is, What is meant by the real or true
substance? Plato tried to solve the same question by positing a
universal and invariable element of knowledge and existence -- the
forms -- as the only real permanent besides the changing phenomena of
the senses. Aristotle attacks Plato's theory of the forms on three
different grounds.
First, Aristotle argues, forms are powerless to explain changes of
things and a thing's ultimate extinction. Forms are not causes of
movement and alteration in the physical objects of sensation. Second,
forms are equally incompetent to explain how we arrive at knowledge of
particular things. For, to have knowledge of a particular object, it
must be knowledge of the substance which is in that thing. However,
the forms place knowledge outside of particular things. Further, to
suppose that we know particular things better by adding on their
general conceptions of their forms, is about as absurd as to imagine
that we can count numbers better by multiplying them. Finally, if
forms were needed to explain our knowledge of particular objects, then
forms must be used to explain our knowledge of objects of art;
however, Platonists do not recognize such forms. The third ground of
attack is that the forms simply cannot explain the existence of
particular objects. Plato contends that forms do not exist in the
particular objects which partake in the forms. However, that substance
of a particular thing cannot be separated from the thing itself.
Further, aside from the jargon of "participation," Plato does not
explain the relation between forms and particular things. In reality,
it is merely metaphorical to describe the forms as patterns of things;
for, what is a genus to one object is a species to a higher class, the
same idea will have to be both a form and a particular thing at the
same time. Finally, on Plato's account of the forms, we must imagine
an intermediate link between the form and the particular object, and
so on ad infinitum: there must always be a "third man" between the
individual man and the form of man.
For Aristotle, the form is not something outside the object, but
rather in the varied phenomena of sense. Real substance, or true
being, is not the abstract form, but rather the concrete individual
thing. Unfortunately, Aristotle's theory of substance is not
altogether consistent with itself. In the Categories the notion of
substance tends to be nominalistic (i.e., substance is a concept we
apply to things). In the Metaphysics, though, it frequently inclines
towards realism (i.e., substance has a real existence in itself). We
are also struck by the apparent contradiction in his claims that
science deals with universal concepts, and substance is declared to be
an individual. In any case, substance is for him a merging of matter
into form. The term "matter" is used by Aristotle in four overlapping
senses. First, it is the underlying structure of changes, particularly
changes of growth and of decay. Secondly, it is the potential which
has implicitly the capacity to develop into reality. Thirdly, it is a
kind of stuff without specific qualities and so is indeterminate and
contingent. Fourthly, it is identical with form when it takes on a
form in its actualized and final phase.
+++
An amusing thread i came across - opinions?
(http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.guns/browse_frm/thread/a1507c050ad9a536/06a0b7032d6fc2e9?lnk=st&q=God&rnum=10&hl=en#06a0b7032d6fc2e9)
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
01 Sep 2005 12:37:48 AM |
|
|
"Freshwater Spaceman" <Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> said:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
It is a metaphysical statement about causality. Causality is embedded
in science - without it there could be no order. If everything just
happens randomly, there is no relationship between the events and
therefore there is no order possible. Physics claims otherwise. It
better claim otherwise because if it didn't there would be no such
thing as Physics.
That causality is embedded in the physical universe is almost
self-evident. The fact that there are truly random aspects of physical
reality that come from quantum mechanics, like the precise time when a
redioactive atom will decay, does not mean the event is totally
acausal. Even though the time of the decay is unknowable according to
quantum mechanics, and therefore appears to happen randomly, does not
mean that the process responsible for decay is acausal. In fact,
because the process responsible for decay is subject to the
Schrodinger Equation, which itself if deterministic (causal) because
it used Unitary operators, guarantees that the underlying process for
radioactive decay is most definitely causal.
Now, it's time to make the leap from physics to metaphysics.
But the leap has already been made, illegitimately, in the language
used above.
"Causality is embedded in science" is an epistemic fact but this does
not imply that causality is "embedded" in physical reality in any
special ontological sense. Science is not concerned with the
metaphysical aspects of reality, if there are any such. For all it
cares, everything just happens. (There is also an error in the
relation ascribed above to "random", "deterministic" and "causal" --
but this error is ancillary to the main, fatal problem with this line
of argument.) Science is all about being able to say we *know* things,
but the meaning of "know" is quite specialized in science. When we say
we know, based on scientific inquiry, that X will always follow Y, we
do *nothing more nor less* than assert causality in the relation
between Y and X. When we assert causality in the relation between Y
and X, we assert *nothing more nor less* than our confidence that we
know X will always follow Y. "Y causes X" is the epistemic claim, "I
know X will follow Y", dressed up to look ontological.
Basically, your argument tries to sprinkle magic fairy dust on
causality in science, and then export the magic to something that is
outside science. The person with a lay understanding of science might
not see this, in fact, he might even have a metaphysical view of
science that your argument takes advantage of.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 08:03:50 AM |
|
|
"Freshwater Spaceman" <Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> said:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
<...>
OK, now that we have this issue of causality worked out, albeit in
very rudimentary form, we can move on. Either you accept causality at
the ontological level or you do not. I cannot prove it to you - that's
why it is axiomatic. You either consider it to be intuitively obvious
upon casual inspection or you consider it absurd.
It seems like you want to establish some agreed facts and then deduce
the existence if the Supreme being from them. if one of the agreed
facts is admittedly axiomatic, then I would say that the deduced
conclusion might as well be taken at the git-go as axiomatic, in terms
of the strength of epistemic conviction and commitment warranted for
it. My own attitude toward axiomatic systems -- like geometries -- is
completely without conviction or commitment.
...If you consider it
absurd and believe things come into existence without cause, then you
must accept that order is not possible, and therefore you cannot exist
as a separate entity in your random world. IOW, if you reject
causality, even at the ontological level, you cannot prove that you
exist. So why am I attempting a conversation with you?
These last 3 sentences seem to be a very strange finish to this
section and are not at all supported by what goes before. The second
sentence is not an "IOW" of the first. The final question is not at
all triggered by the first or second sentence.
<snip rest of interesting discussion>
I see it as follows:
1, The universe (all that exists) changes, here and there, more or
less, from time to time.
2. The period about which we can in principle construct a history of
these changes, or predict future changes, is the period in which we
can assume that the universe has operated with regularity, such that
when a particular set of conditions is seen to occur, the resulting
outcome is predictable. The regularities are called "laws". We can
extrapolate backward and forward in time from current conditions, just
as far as we can verify or reasonably assume these laws are
operational. In so doing we treat the regularity of cause and effect,
or causality, as operational.
3. According to current theory, at some time in the past, the universe
changed from a state of affairs about which we cannot in principle
construct a history as described above, to one whose history we can
construct.
4. There is nothing we can say about the universe prior to that time
point. We cannot even say there was time, or space, or that anything
existed or did not exist. Does this mean that nothing existed? We
can't say. We simply can't extrapolate.
5. Any conclusion that the universe had a cause, and any speculation
on the nature of that cause, seeks to extrapolate a cause-and-effect
history where this cannot be done, by assuming a degree of regularity
we cannot, according to current theory, assume applies.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 01:42:01 PM |
|
|
"Freshwater Spaceman" <Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124709963.861734.16110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If you consider it
absurd and believe things come into existence without cause, then you
must accept that order is not possible, and therefore you cannot exist
as a separate entity in your random world.
That is a non-sequiter. In fact, it is the fallacy of Illicit Major. It
does not follow that because some events have no cause, that no order is
possible. The universe may well be mostly causal, with some uncaused
events.
There are other problems with your First Cause argument, e.g., the same
objections you make to the uncaused universe apply just as well to God. The
distinctions you try to make are purely *ad hoc*.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 06:43:15 PM |
|
|
"Freshwater Spaceman" <Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124709963.861734.16110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
Dead on arrival. Any argument made regarding a first cause boils down to
the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Freshwater Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 11:15:45 PM |
|
|
(I don't believe in this mumbo jumbo, but being a undergrad chemistry
student I don't yet have the ability yet to rebute or frankly apprehend
some of the contentions presented. I just noticed some of these threads
in my local ng and would like some expert opinion on them )
The guy elucidates further -
The main argument:
The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is
mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
To understand why the Universe cannot be the source of its own
existence consider what would be the case if it were. For the Universe
to be the source of its own existence, Existence (the act which causes
things to exist) must be part of its Essence.
Since, by assumption, Existence is part of the Essence of the
Universe, then the Universe must always be the way it is now. After
all, Existence is part of the Essence of the Universe, therefore
Existence forces the Universe to Be what it is forever. IOW, because
the Universe has Existence as part of its Essence, it cannot be
something other than that which it is.
Therefore, by assumption, the Universe is immutable. But that is not
what we observe. Physicists observe a mutable Universe. Therefore the
Universe cannot have Existence as part of its Essence, and therefore
it cannot be the source of its own existence. Therefore there must be
a Supreme Being whose Essence is Existence and is the source of the
existence of the Universe.
===
One of the surest ways to start a big argument in philosophy is for
two people to adopt different Worldviews. According to Webster, the
Worldview (aka " Weltanschauung") is
Worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world
especially from a specific standpoint
More specifically the Worldview is the epistemological basis, plus its
supporting ontology, for your rational system. It is the set of axioms
about how you view reality. It should be obvious that if your view of
reality is fundamentally different from my view of reality, we can
never argue our points to one another even though we may adhere to
rational arguments within the framework of our separate systems.
The two most promiment Worldview can be understood in terms of
"objectivity" and "subjectivity". We call the Worldview that claims
reality is objective by the name Realism. We call the Worldview that
claims reality is subjective by the name Idealism. I do not pretend to
know everything about Worldviews so I am not going to go any further
with this. But I do know enough to point out that certain rational
systems of thought are based on an objective Realist Worldview (eg,
Physics) and some are based on a subjective Idealist Worldview (eg,
Mathematics).
Physics is based on the Worldview of Objective Realism. There is no
doubt in the mind of the Physicst that electrons actually do exist in
objective reality. If you don't believe that - if you think electrons
are subjective constructs like the tooth fairy, then you will allow
yourself to be hooked up to a high voltage source. After about 1
millisecond you will decidethat electrons are very real.
Mathematics is based on the Worldview of Subjective Idealism. There
are no such things as "numbers" in objective reality. There is no such
thing as a circle in objective reality. If you don't agree, then I
will let you connect me to a number or to a circle. I guarantee that
nothing will happen, because numbers, circles and everything in
Mathematics are subjective constructs that reside completely in the
mind of the Mathematician.
One of the most fundamental axioms of Objective Realism (aka
"Existential Realism") is the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This
is also known as the Authority of the Senses. Something exists in
objective reality precisely because there is something out there that
can affect your senses - like the shock from a high voltage source.
The Apprehension of Being - the awareness of something out there - is
very primitive. A new born infant puts his hand on a hot stove burner
and immediately becomes aware of "something out there". He does not
know what it is, but he definitely knows it is there.
This Principle is not found in Mathematics. There is no "thing out
there" in Mathematics. Everything in Mathematics is contained in your
mind, subjectively. So the very first distinction between Objective
Realism and Subjective Idealism is that Realism adopts the Principle
of Apprehension of Being, and Subjective Idealism does not. This is
critical to deciding on which Worldview you must adopt for any
particular rational system.
Next there is the Principle of Consistency. This is Aristotle's
terminology for the notion of Non-Contradiction. This principle states
that there cannot be both "A" and "Not-A" in existence at the same
time. Either "A" exists or "Not-A" exists. Remember we are talking
about things out there - what we apprehend as Being. Something can
either Be or Not-Be. It cannot both exist and not exist at the same
time.
The third fundamental principle of Existential Realism is the
Principle of Causality. In Physics we realize that without Causality
there could be no Order. The reason is simple - for you to describe
the Order inherent in something, you must connect the ojects by
Causality. If you merely describe objects without connecting them
Causally, then you cannot describe the Order they exhibit because
there is no heirarchy to provide the disctinctions needed to describe
the Order.
Try describing an atom without invoking Causality. You will not be
able to talk about the Order inherent in an atom, in which case you
are forced to describe as a glob of amorphous matter. But we know
better than that because we know that an atom is a highly ordered
entity capable of doing very ordered things, like emitting a photon of
very precise wavelength. That can happen only if an atom is Ordered,
and it can be Ordered only if there is Causality with which to create
the Order based on the heirarchy of cause and effect.
From here we move on to Metaphysics, which is the Science that
explains Being. That is what Aristotle meant by it - the Science of
Existence. But whatever it is, it is critical to realize that it is
based on Physics ("Meta-Physics", after Physics, about Physics) - and
that Physics is based on the Worldview of Existential Realism.
Assuming that you adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism, we can
now present the argument that the Supreme Being exists. In fact we
will also show that the Supreme Being *must* exist or reality would
not exist.
This argument was first given by Thomas Aquinas in his book on
Metaphysics entitled "On Being and Essence". This argument is not
taken from his religious book entitled "Summa Theologica". The famous
"five-fold ways" from the Summa are religious arguments. The arguments
we give below are based on Existential Metaphysics and not on faith.
The Universe is mutable. Not only is that intuitively obvious but it
is codified in Physics. Physics is the science which explains how
physical objects can exist at one moment and can cease to exist at
another. That's what is meant by "mutable" in Existential Metaphysics.
Mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence. The reason
requires some thinking, so either put away whatever is distracting you
and pay close attention - or this will go completely over your head.
There are several kinds of causes in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Here we
are talking about the "Efficient Cause", the one which is responsible
for an object to exist in an essential way. If I hit a baseball with a
bat, the bat is the efficient cause of the baseball flying thru the
air.
The baseball cannot spontaneously fly - it does not possess "Flying
Thru The Air" as part of its Essence (its Nature, its Design, its
Internal Construction, its Intrinsic Behavior, etc.). If it did
possess Flying Thru The Air as part of its Essence, then it would
always be Flying Thru The Air - it could never stop Flying Thru The
Air because that is its Nature.
Therefore in order for the baseball to Fly Thru The Air, some separate
object which possesses the Efficient Cause to make the ball Fly Thru
The Air must act on the ball - like a bat. This relationship between
the bat (Cause) and the ball Flying Thru The Air (Effect) is what we
call Causality.
The critical point here is to understand that mutable objects cannot
be the source of their own Existence, because if they were, they would
be forced for all time to be the same thing they were when they were
created.
---
Consider what it means "To Be". Don't get bogged down in what it means
to be a particular kind of being, just focus on the "Act of Being",
the "Act of Existence".
One way to do that is to consider what it means not To Be. You as a
person were once non-existent. What was it like? Of course if you did
not exist you did not have an essence therefore you can't consider
what kind of being you were not. You were not any kind of being when
you did not exist.
OK, now that you have had time to consider Being and NonBeing, do you
get the idea that there must be some kind of entity that has always
existed in order to explain how you and the whole Universe can exist?
You cannot possibly be the cause of your own existence because before
you existed, you did not exist. It would be absurd to claim that a
nonexistent could cause itself to exist.
But even if you existed for all eternity, you still cannot be the
source of your own existence or else you would always be the same kind
of being that you were for all eternity. You could not die, for
example. You could not grow, for example. But that is not how it works
- you will die one day, you did grow from an embryo to an adult.
Therefore you cannot be the source of your own existence.
The same kind of reasoning applies to the Universe as a whole. Whether
the Universe came into being at a moment in time or whether it has
always existed, it is a mutable entity and therefore cannot be the
source of its own existence. If it makes a transition to a new state,
which according to Physics it does constantly, how is this new state
going to be if it was not before? How can this new state come into
existence if it had no existence prior to its coming into existence?
---
Mutable objects cannot have Existence as part of their Essence. Their
Existence must come from a separate entity, one which is the cause of
their existence. This entity causes mutable objects to exist since
mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence - or else
they would not be mutable.
The entity that causes mutable objects to exist must itself possess
Existence as its Essence. It is fundamentally different from all other
entities in objective reality. It is the one and only entity that has
Existence as its Essence. If it did not have Existence as part of its
Essence, it would not be able to cause the existence of mutable
objects.
This entity that causes the existence of mutable objects does not
require a cause of its existence because IT IS EXISTENCE. That's what
is meant by saying that its Essence is Existence.
No where in this argument have I mentioned anything about this entity
other than that its Essence is Existence, because we need to have an
entity that causes the existence of mutable objects. No where have I
referred to this entity as God or Supreme Being. Therefore I have not
gone in circles, I have not begged any question.
I started with the Worldview of Existential Realism and a few of its
most fundamental axioms. Then I argued that the mutable objects of
physical reality (the Universe) could not be the cause of their own
existence. Then I argued that some entity must exist that causes these
mutable objects to exist, and that the Essence of this entity must be
Existence itself. This entity is immutable because its Essence is to
Be only one kind of entity, namely Existence. Furthermore, this entity
- called the Supreme Being - *must* exist, or else nothing in reality
would exist. The Supreme Being is known as the Necessary Being.
No real event in Physics has ever violated Causality because it is
literally built in to the laws of Physics. If Causality were violated,
all of Physics as we know it would be invalid and then we would be in
a lot of trouble because all those predicitions we made using that
invalid Physics would also be invalid. That means the world as we
lived in it was one huge lucky happening. Clearly that is absurd.
The first man to walk on the Moon or the first man to build a fission
reactor did not accomplish those tasks by blind luck. They were
carefully planned using the accurate predictions of Physics. Those
predictions were valid because it would be absurd to claim things just
happened that way. Therefore Causality is here to stay - there can be
no extension of Physics where Causality is not valid.
If you want you can claim that the reason the existence of the Supreme
Being is contained in the Worldview of Existential Realism is because
of the Order inherent in the objective world. That Order - Symmetry
-causes objective reality to be a certain kind of reality, one with
the constraints that are imposed by Existential Realism.
The Principle of Apprehension of Being, the Principle of Consistency
and the Principle of Causality all result in constraints on objective
reality. That's what separates the ordered objective world from the
chaotic subjective world. Things in objective reality are constrained
to behave in an Orderly manner - in a Symmetric manner. It is the
Supreme Being who enforces those laws because they are part of what is
meant by Existence. Existence is Ordered, Symmetric.
OK, there you have it - the argument for the necessary existence of
the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics. And all it required was
for you to adopt the same Worldview that scientists must adopt to be
productive, such as when they put men on the Moon and build nuclear
reactors without vaporizing half of Chicago in the process.
===
Definitions
realism: Belief that universals exist independently of the particulars
that instantiate them. Realists hold that each general term signifies
a real feature or quality, which is numerically the same in all the
things to which that term applies.
metaphysics: Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a
comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a
whole; the study of being as such. Questions about the existence and
nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity,
and the world are all metaphysical issues.
ontology: Branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the
most general terms, the kinds of things that actually exist. Thus, the
"ontological commitments" of a philosophical position include both its
explicit assertions and its implicit presuppositions about the
existence of entities, substances, or beings of particular kinds.
The Four Causes: Causes of all four sorts are necessary elements in
any adequate account of the existence and nature of the thing,
Aristotle believed, since the absence or modification of any one of
them would result in the existence of a thing of some different sort.
Moreover, an explanation that includes all four causes completely
captures the significance and reality of the thing itself.
The material cause is the basic stuff out of which the thing is made.
The material cause of a house, for example, would include the wood,
metal, glass, and other building materials used in its construction.
All of these things belong in an explanation of the house because it
could not exist unless they were present in its composition.
The formal cause is the pattern or essence in conformity with which
these materials are assembled. Thus, the formal cause of our exemplary
house would be the sort of thing that is represented on a blueprint of
its design. This, too, is part of the explanation of the house, since
its materials would be only a pile of rubble (or a different house) if
they were not put together in this way.
The efficient cause is the agent or force immediately responsible for
bringing this matter and that form together in the production of the
thing. Thus, the efficient cause of the house would include the
carpenters, masons, plumbers, and other workers who used these
materials to build the house in accordance with the blueprint for its
construction. Clearly the house would not be what it is without their
contribution.
The final cause is the end or purpose for which a thing exists, so the
final cause of our house would be to provide shelter for human beings.
This is part of the explanation of the house's existence because it
would never have been built unless someone needed it as a place to
live.
--
(http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/60b36528547f0b55/e2dd6a10ad59cb3f?lnk=st&q=%22Existential+Realism%22&rnum=2&hl=en#e2dd6a10ad59cb3f)
NN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 08:38:07 AM |
|
|
"Freshwater Spaceman" <Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> said:
(I don't believe in this mumbo jumbo, but being a undergrad chemistry
student I don't yet have the ability yet to rebute or frankly apprehend
some of the contentions presented. I just noticed some of these threads
in my local ng and would like some expert opinion on them )
The guy elucidates further -
It is bad manners to post other people's writing without saying who
they are.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 12:07:46 AM |
|
|
"Freshwater Spaceman" <Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124770545.623089.57760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
(I don't believe in this mumbo jumbo, but being a undergrad chemistry
student I don't yet have the ability yet to rebute or frankly apprehend
some of the contentions presented. I just noticed some of these threads
in my local ng and would like some expert opinion on them )
The guy elucidates further -
The main argument:
The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is
mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
Turn the argument around. If the supreme being is not mutable. Then it can
not act. Case dismissed.
Klazmon.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 01:18:06 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96BBAE407C9A8Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Freshwater Spaceman" <Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124770545.623089.57760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
(I don't believe in this mumbo jumbo, but being a undergrad chemistry
student I don't yet have the ability yet to rebute or frankly apprehend
some of the contentions presented. I just noticed some of these threads
in my local ng and would like some expert opinion on them )
The guy elucidates further -
The main argument:
The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is
mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
Turn the argument around. If the supreme being is not mutable. Then it can
not act. Case dismissed.
Klazmon.
Nicely summarised.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 09:21:03 AM |
|
|
Turn the argument around. If the supreme being is not mutable. Then it can
not act. Case dismissed.
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act. The Supreme
Being creates the ability to act by creating the immutable speed of
light, or limit of motion. Although the physical Universe appears to
be mutable at the complex level we perceive, ultimately we are still
just a bunch of immutable electrons, protons, force laws, and
environment. The perception of mutability is just that, a perception.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 11:47:37 AM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124806863.077715.207990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Turn the argument around. If the supreme being is not mutable. Then it
can
not act. Case dismissed.
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act. The Supreme
Being creates the ability to act by creating the immutable speed of
light, or limit of motion. Although the physical Universe appears to
be mutable at the complex level we perceive, ultimately we are still
just a bunch of immutable electrons, protons, force laws, and
environment. The perception of mutability is just that, a perception.
Dave
Is not the creation of the immutable speed of light an act?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 12:11:48 PM |
|
|
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act. The Supreme
Being creates the ability to act by creating the immutable speed of
light, or limit of motion. Although the physical Universe appears to
be mutable at the complex level we perceive, ultimately we are still
just a bunch of immutable electrons, protons, force laws, and
environment. The perception of mutability is just that, a perception.
Is not the creation of the immutable speed of light an act?
Not necessarily. The immutable speed of light is not a material thing.
It would take action to build something mutable, but there is no
inherent need to take action for creating something immutable. The
immutable creation would actually be an extension of the immutable
Creator. It falls in the same category as joy being the result of
practicing unconditional love. Joy is different from unconditional
love. Nonetheless, joy is created without any particular action and as
a result of experiencing unconditional love.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 02:57:40 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124817108.850885.155300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act. The Supreme
Being creates the ability to act by creating the immutable speed of
light, or limit of motion. Although the physical Universe appears to
be mutable at the complex level we perceive, ultimately we are still
just a bunch of immutable electrons, protons, force laws, and
environment. The perception of mutability is just that, a perception.
Is not the creation of the immutable speed of light an act?
Not necessarily. The immutable speed of light is not a material thing.
It would take action to build something mutable, but there is no
inherent need to take action for creating something immutable. The
immutable creation would actually be an extension of the immutable
Creator. It falls in the same category as joy being the result of
practicing unconditional love. Joy is different from unconditional
love. Nonetheless, joy is created without any particular action and as
a result of experiencing unconditional love.
The speed of light is a changeable quantity (depending on gravitational
fields etc).
The is tentative evidence the fine structure constant was slightly different
in the early universe.
Protons are mutable - decay happens over massive time scales.
Is unconditional love not an "action" albeit one that requires no movement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 04:05:24 PM |
|
|
The speed of light is a changeable quantity (depending on gravitational
fields etc).
Not according to Einstein. The speed of light is always constant,
otherwise his SR theory would never work.
The is tentative evidence the fine structure constant was slightly different
in the early universe.
Tentative evidence? You mean evidence that doesn't yet exist, or which
might exist? Besides, the fine structure is a non-material quantity.
It doesn't even have dimensions. Are you telling me that you believe
the fine structure is made from physical matter, too? Or are you, once
again, admitting the reality of non-material existence?
Protons are mutable - decay happens over massive time scales.
No they don't. Destruction can happen, but not decay. If protons
decayed over massive time scales, and it has been 15 billion years
since they were *created*, we would start seeing some proton decays by
now. The empirical data shows that only high speed collisions,
antimatter, and black holes are capable of destroying protons.
Is unconditional love not an "action" albeit one that requires no movement?
You mean to say that unconditional love is actionless action? That
sounds Zen. You would not deny the existence of unconditional love,
but you would deny non-material existence. Think about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:18:26 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124831124.607566.163820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The speed of light is a changeable quantity (depending on gravitational
fields etc).
Not according to Einstein. The speed of light is always constant,
otherwise his SR theory would never work.
Speed of light in a vaccum.
The is tentative evidence the fine structure constant was slightly
different
in the early universe.
Tentative evidence? You mean evidence that doesn't yet exist, or which
might exist? Besides, the fine structure is a non-material quantity.
It doesn't even have dimensions. Are you telling me that you believe
the fine structure is made from physical matter, too? Or are you, once
again, admitting the reality of non-material existence?
Tentative as in not yet fully proven.
Do you know what the fine structure constant is?
It is non-material in the fact it is simply a method of describing the
relation ship between forces. If it was different x years ago then there is
a sign that what we (you) see as "Immutable forces" today may not be so.
Protons are mutable - decay happens over massive time scales.
No they don't. Destruction can happen, but not decay. If protons
decayed over massive time scales, and it has been 15 billion years
since they were *created*, we would start seeing some proton decays by
now. The empirical data shows that only high speed collisions,
antimatter, and black holes are capable of destroying protons.
If the half life of the proton is 5x10^11 years it is very probable we would
not have seen any decays take place. While we may think we are looking at a
large quantity of protons at any one time, compared to the scale of the
universe we have access to an insignificant amount.
In additon we have only been able to test for it happening over the last 50
or so years.
Is unconditional love not an "action" albeit one that requires no
movement?
You mean to say that unconditional love is actionless action? That
sounds Zen. You would not deny the existence of unconditional love,
but you would deny non-material existence. Think about it.
You are the one who decided unconditional love was relevant to the
conversation. I am responding to your question. Is your basis that all
actions require movement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:54:43 PM |
|
|
Not according to Einstein. The speed of light is always constant,
otherwise his SR theory would never work.
Speed of light in a vacuum.
Exactly.
Tentative as in not yet fully proven.
What evidence do you have that a variable speed of light *will* be
fully proven?
Do you know what the fine structure constant is?
It is non-material in the fact it is simply a method of describing the
relation ship between forces.
Exactly.
If it was different x years ago then there is
a sign that what we (you) see as "Immutable forces" today may not be so.
If it was different x years ago, then that would mean one or both of
the forces have changed. The forces, of course, are non-material, no
matter what. But as of now, this idea you are putting forth is pure
fantasy. There is no proof that the relative strength of the forces
have changed over time. It is merely an interpretation of the data for
physicists who absolutely refuse to accept the explanation of a
non-material Creator of the physical Universe.
If the half life of the proton is 5x10^11 years it is very probable we would
not have seen any decays take place. While we may think we are looking at a
large quantity of protons at any one time, compared to the scale of the
universe we have access to an insignificant amount.
That is a silly argument. You might as well be arguing how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin, if you could see them. If we haven't
seen a single proton decay in 50 years, by hundreds of engineers and
physicists, at the cost of billions of dollars, then even if we did see
one tomorrow, the event would be so rare and unreproducible that it
would be useless data. Compare this to the average decay time of a
neutron at about 17 minutes.
It is your view that if you can't see God, the God does not exist.
Well, the same logic should apply to the decay of the proton. If you
can't see a proton decay, then it does not exist. Until you have proof
to the contrary, your view about proton decay holds no more water than
someone else who believes in unicorns.
Is your basis that all actions require movement?
Define "actions." Is thinking a thought an action that you are talking
about? Or are you specifically talking about physical objects?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 06:02:36 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124837683.471774.236990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Not according to Einstein. The speed of light is always constant,
otherwise his SR theory would never work.
Speed of light in a vacuum.
Exactly.
Not in any other material.
Tentative as in not yet fully proven.
What evidence do you have that a variable speed of light *will* be
fully proven?
The same evidence you have that it will never be fully proven.
Do you know what the fine structure constant is?
It is non-material in the fact it is simply a method of describing the
relation ship between forces.
Exactly.
Which is why it has no dimensions.
If it was different x years ago then there is
a sign that what we (you) see as "Immutable forces" today may not be so.
If it was different x years ago, then that would mean one or both of
the forces have changed. The forces, of course, are non-material, no
matter what. But as of now, this idea you are putting forth is pure
fantasy. There is no proof that the relative strength of the forces
have changed over time. It is merely an interpretation of the data for
physicists who absolutely refuse to accept the explanation of a
non-material Creator of the physical Universe.
Nonsense. If the fine structure constant was different than the relationship
between your immutable forces was different.
If the half life of the proton is 5x10^11 years it is very probable we
would
not have seen any decays take place. While we may think we are looking at
a
large quantity of protons at any one time, compared to the scale of the
universe we have access to an insignificant amount.
That is a silly argument. You might as well be arguing how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin, if you could see them. If we haven't
seen a single proton decay in 50 years, by hundreds of engineers and
physicists, at the cost of billions of dollars, then even if we did see
one tomorrow, the event would be so rare and unreproducible that it
would be useless data. Compare this to the average decay time of a
neutron at about 17 minutes.
That is an equally silly argument. Compare the weight of an apple to a
battleship.
It is your view that if you can't see God, the God does not exist.
Well, the same logic should apply to the decay of the proton. If you
can't see a proton decay, then it does not exist. Until you have proof
to the contrary, your view about proton decay holds no more water than
someone else who believes in unicorns.
Yes I agree. I never said it was scientifically sound to believe in the
decay of a proton - and was implying that its ability to decay is as
believable as the existence of God.
Is your basis that all actions require movement?
Define "actions." Is thinking a thought an action that you are talking
about? Or are you specifically talking about physical objects?
I don't know - you are the one who brought up the action point. I was trying
to find out your meaning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 06:34:13 PM |
|
|
Not in any other material.
We were never talking about any material to begin with.
What evidence do you have that a variable speed of light *will* be fully proven?
The same evidence you have that it will never be fully proven.
The evidence, as it currently stands, tells us that the speed of light
is always the same. I don't have to worry about the future, you do.
Which is why it has no dimensions.
No dimensions means no physical reality. If the fine structure has any
reality at all, it is non-material reality. See, I was right to begin
with.
There is no proof that the relative strength of the forces
have changed over time. It is merely an interpretation of the data for
physicists who absolutely refuse to accept the explanation of a
non-material Creator of the physical Universe.
Nonsense. If the fine structure constant was different than the relationship
between your immutable forces was different.
But that's the whole point, isn't it? The fine structure has not been
measured to have changed at any time. You're working from speculation
and not from fact.
Compare this to the average decay time of a
neutron at about 17 minutes.
That is an equally silly argument. Compare the weight of an apple to a
battleship.
It is not a silly argument in your system of physics. According to the
SM and QCD, both the proton and neutron are nucleons; two versions of
the same particle. I do, however, agree that the decay rates are
highly disparate, which is exactly the point I was making.
Yes I agree. I never said it was scientifically sound to believe in the
decay of a proton - and was implying that its ability to decay is as
believable as the existence of God.
And yet you can read about the decay of the proton in the peer reviewed
journals, right?
As for the existence of God, I don't claim that God exists, I claim
that a non-material source of the physical Universe exists. This
non-material source can be quantifed as a huge force by analyzing the
empirical data. Yes, it is possible that some people could call this
huge force, "God." But whatever you call it, the physics shows it can
exist.
Is your basis that all actions require movement?
Define "actions." Is thinking a thought an action that you are talking
about? Or are you specifically talking about physical objects?
I don't know - you are the one who brought up the action point. I was trying
to find out your meaning.
Action is one of those words that has multiple meanings, and same
meanings, but in different contexts. A movie director calls "action"
on the set to synchronize the actors and crew. As for actions that
require movement, only physical actions could require movement.
Non-material actions are metaphors. To say that a non-material Creator
creates physical existence is a metaphor. The non-material Creator is
the source of the physical existence, but it doesn't use physical means
for making it.
That is where you and Bob are having your difficulty in following the
logic of the immutable existence creating the mutable existence. In
your mind, you are still thinking of creation in the sense of building
a bookcase with lumber, tools, fasteners, and your hands. But if you
think about it, you really built the book case in your mind. You
created the concept in your mind, and then somehow your body was put to
work to build the bookcase with various resources.
Actually, the group of electrons and protons that you call your body
were motivated by a non-material existence you call your mind. If you
can see this process occurring in your own life, why would you deny
that it happens on the grandest scale of existence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 06:39:08 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124840052.990952.228590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not in any other material.
We were never talking about any material to begin with.
No material was stated. You stated the speed of light is invarient otherwise
SR is falsified.
What evidence do you have that a variable speed of light *will* be fully
proven?
The same evidence you have that it will never be fully proven.
The evidence, as it currently stands, tells us that the speed of light
is always the same. I don't have to worry about the future, you do.
There is no worry, either way it makes no different to my thoughts.
Which is why it has no dimensions.
No dimensions means no physical reality. If the fine structure has any
reality at all, it is non-material reality. See, I was right to begin
with.
I never doubted you. The fine structure is simply a way of describing the
relationship between forces. Saying it would ever have a material reality is
like saying the word cousins has a material reality.
There is no proof that the relative strength of the forces
have changed over time. It is merely an interpretation of the data for
physicists who absolutely refuse to accept the explanation of a
non-material Creator of the physical Universe.
Nonsense. If the fine structure constant was different than the
relationship
between your immutable forces was different.
But that's the whole point, isn't it? The fine structure has not been
measured to have changed at any time. You're working from speculation
and not from fact.
Again, although I dislike New Scientist as a reference source this is one of
the first Google.co.uk showed me:
Compare this to the average decay time of a
neutron at about 17 minutes.
That is an equally silly argument. Compare the weight of an apple to a
battleship.
It is not a silly argument in your system of physics. According to the
SM and QCD, both the proton and neutron are nucleons; two versions of
the same particle. I do, however, agree that the decay rates are
highly disparate, which is exactly the point I was making.
Yes I agree. I never said it was scientifically sound to believe in the
decay of a proton - and was implying that its ability to decay is as
believable as the existence of God.
And yet you can read about the decay of the proton in the peer reviewed
journals, right?
As for the existence of God, I don't claim that God exists, I claim
that a non-material source of the physical Universe exists. This
non-material source can be quantifed as a huge force by analyzing the
empirical data. Yes, it is possible that some people could call this
huge force, "God." But whatever you call it, the physics shows it can
exist.
Is your basis that all actions require movement?
Define "actions." Is thinking a thought an action that you are talking
about? Or are you specifically talking about physical objects?
I don't know - you are the one who brought up the action point. I was
trying
to find out your meaning.
Action is one of those words that has multiple meanings, and same
meanings, but in different contexts. A movie director calls "action"
on the set to synchronize the actors and crew. As for actions that
require movement, only physical actions could require movement.
Non-material actions are metaphors. To say that a non-material Creator
creates physical existence is a metaphor. The non-material Creator is
the source of the physical existence, but it doesn't use physical means
for making it.
That is where you and Bob are having your difficulty in following the
logic of the immutable existence creating the mutable existence. In
your mind, you are still thinking of creation in the sense of building
a bookcase with lumber, tools, fasteners, and your hands. But if you
think about it, you really built the book case in your mind. You
created the concept in your mind, and then somehow your body was put to
work to build the bookcase with various resources.
Actually, the group of electrons and protons that you call your body
were motivated by a non-material existence you call your mind. If you
can see this process occurring in your own life, why would you deny
that it happens on the grandest scale of existence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 08:01:17 PM |
|
|
No material was stated. You stated the speed of light is invarient otherwise
SR is falsified.
That is a fact. Have you ever heard of SR being based on the speed of
light through a material?
But that's the whole point, isn't it? The fine structure has not been
measured to have changed at any time. You're working from speculation
and not from fact.
Again, although I dislike New Scientist as a reference source this is one of
the first Google.co.uk showed me:
You have to be grasping for straws to bring that article into the
discussion. Ten years ago all the popular magazines talked about the
Higgs Boson as though it was already discovered. We're still waiting,
aren't we? We have huge, expensive particle accelerators and despite
the best technology, no isolated quark has ever been observed. Even
though I think SR is a fraud, I can't imagine a single scientific
institution giving up SR for Stephen Lamoreaux guessing the parameters
of a 2 billion year old uncontrolled nuclear reaction in a contaminated
ground. Water flowed through that area over a period of 2 billion
years. The reaction would have caused steam, which would have had to
escape somewhere if water was flowing. They have no clue what other
minerals were present at the time of the reaction.
Here is a page on the Oklo natural nuclear reactors:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
Here is a picture of the actual "natural reactor."
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021016.html
It is said that water was necessary to cool the reactor, but there is
no place the water could have flowed through. The rock is solid.
There are no signs of steam vents or water channels. The uranium ore
in this photo doesn't look any different from the uranium ore in the
uranium mines of Uravan, Colorado. The fact that heavy uranium is
surrounded by ancient sea sand is also suspect. And the guy standing
in the mine with lots of skin exposed to the ore could only be planted
as job security for an OSHA inspector. The dust from hot ore is loaded
with alpha particles.
Before they start reformulating the foundations of physics based upon a
bunch of wild assumptions, they need to get a qualified team of
geologists over there and figure out how the uranium got there in the
first place. The scenario that is being assumed that caused the
assumed nuclear reaction doesn't make sense. If nuclear reactions were
that clean we could just dig a hole, toss in some uranium and water,
and have a safe hot spring.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 09:37:27 AM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124806863.077715.207990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Turn the argument around. If the supreme being is not mutable. Then it
can
not act. Case dismissed.
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act. The Supreme
Being creates the ability to act by creating the immutable speed of
light, or limit of motion. Although the physical Universe appears to
be mutable at the complex level we perceive, ultimately we are still
just a bunch of immutable electrons, protons, force laws, and
environment. The perception of mutability is just that, a perception.
So the universe is the bottom turtle.
And God is the turtle under the bottom turtle.
Sure. That must be it.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 10:19:38 AM |
|
|
So the universe is the bottom turtle.
And God is the turtle under the bottom turtle.
Sure. That must be it.
1+1=2, and the numbers 1 and 2 appear in the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, therefore it must be true. See, I can understand your
logic, too.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 10:27:56 AM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
So the universe is the bottom turtle.
And God is the turtle under the bottom turtle.
Sure. That must be it.
1+1=2, and the numbers 1 and 2 appear in the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, therefore it must be true. See, I can understand your
logic, too.
Hint: the quote you responded to was plagiarized from Stephen Hawkings
"A Brief History of Time".
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 10:57:38 AM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
So the universe is the bottom turtle.
And God is the turtle under the bottom turtle.
Sure. That must be it.
1+1=2, and the numbers 1 and 2 appear in the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, therefore it must be true. See, I can understand your
logic, too.
Hint: the quote you responded to was plagiarized from Stephen Hawkings
"A Brief History of Time".
Thanks, I'll bring this to his attention when I see him.
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:59:06 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in news:1124806863.077715.207990
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Turn the argument around. If the supreme being is not mutable. Then it can
not act. Case dismissed.
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act.
If it cannot act, then it cannot create.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 06:36:37 PM |
|
|
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act.
If it cannot act, then it cannot create.
Who said the Supreme Being could not act?
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 07:41:50 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in
news:1124840197.407950.326810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act.
If it cannot act, then it cannot create.
Who said the Supreme Being could not act?
The earlier poster made the claim that the supreme being was imutable.
Action implies change therefore the imutable being cannot act.
Klazmon.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 10:14:09 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in
news:1124840197.407950.326810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
There is no requirement for the Supreme Being to act.
If it cannot act, then it cannot create.
Who said the Supreme Being could not act?
The earlier poster made the claim that the supreme being was imutable.
Action implies change therefore the imutable being cannot act.
This is an old Greek chestnut that has never been answered.
God never changes. But he created the world and so must
have changed. It has never been answered.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 10:20:21 PM |
|
|
It does not take God's will to create only his intention
Intelligent design?
You have to be intelligent to see it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
24 Aug 2005 01:11:56 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124853621.334938.324660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It does not take God's will to create only his intention
How do you logically justify this statement?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
24 Aug 2005 01:10:46 AM |
|
|
On 23 Aug 2005 20:20:21 -0700, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
It does not take God's will to create only his intention
What on earth does that twisted sentence mean?
(If anything at all)
Intelligent design?
You have to be intelligent to see it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
