| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2005 05:01:16 PM |
| Object: |
Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
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.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
| User: "Loadnlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
19 Apr 2005 10:09:06 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
Theism is based on accepting statements that one alleges need not be
proved ...
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the
process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other
statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See www.m-w.com
That's why your idea there might be a magic invisible space leprechaun is
rejected, moron. There's no proof it's true.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
19 Apr 2005 10:23:23 PM |
|
|
In article <n8udnRbSkNhOWvjfRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Theism is based on accepting statements that one alleges need not be
proved ...
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the
process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other
statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See www.m-w.com
That's why your idea there might be a magic invisible space leprechaun is
rejected, moron. There's no proof it's true.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
One ought not reject any hypothesis of either true or false unless that
truth or falsehood is contradicted by actual.
So that Simple Septic's hypothesis of the possibility of magic invisible
leprechauns and the agnostic hypothesis of the possibility of gods
should not be rejected without evidence.
The point of view of science is never to reject an hypothesis unless
there is either contrary evidence or a better hypothesis.
While ther are plenty of hypotheses better than Simple Septic's there
are none better than the agnostic one, and neither have any contrary
evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 06:50:54 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-48C160.21232319042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n8udnRbSkNhOWvjfRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Theism is based on accepting statements that one alleges need not be
proved ...
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or
the
process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from
other
statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See www.m-w.com
That's why your idea there might be a magic invisible space leprechaun
is
rejected, moron. There's no proof it's true.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
One ought not reject any hypothesis of either true or false unless that
truth or falsehood is contradicted by actual.
So that Simple Septic's hypothesis of the possibility of magic invisible
leprechauns and the agnostic hypothesis of the possibility of gods
should not be rejected without evidence.
The point of view of science is never to reject an hypothesis unless
there is either contrary evidence or a better hypothesis.
While ther are plenty of hypotheses better than Simple Septic's there
are none better than the agnostic one, and neither have any contrary
evidence.
There is no such thing as the "agnostic hypothesis". Agnosticism is a
declaration of the impossibility of acquiring knowledge about a certain
domain. A hypothesis is a statement based on evidence. Agnosticism declares
that evidence cannot be acquired therefore we should abstain from proposing
hypotheses. Agnosticism is simply a cop out.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 10:38:51 AM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
There is no such thing as the "agnostic hypothesis". Agnosticism is a
declaration of the impossibility of acquiring knowledge about a certain
domain.
Not true. Agnotsticism says "I don't know" not "I can't know". There is
simply insufficient evidence to imply the existence of a god, gods,
creator intelligence etc. The hypothesis that the kosmos always was and
always will be fits the facts just as well.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 11:23:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:38:51 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Milan wrote:
There is no such thing as the "agnostic hypothesis". Agnosticism is a
declaration of the impossibility of acquiring knowledge about a certain
domain.
Not true. Agnotsticism says "I don't know" not "I can't know". There is
simply insufficient evidence to imply the existence of a god, gods,
creator intelligence etc. The hypothesis that the kosmos always was and
always will be fits the facts just as well.
Bob Kolker
Fine. But is "I dont know" a hypothesis about the existence of god(s)?
If we consider that a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a
certain phenomenon, that can be tested by further investigation, then
the "agnostic hypothesis" is not a hypothesis because it denies that
we can even get to the stage of putting forward a hypothesis.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is no such thing as an "agnostic
hypothesis" about the existence of god(s).
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 03:23:19 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
Fine. But is "I dont know" a hypothesis about the existence of god(s)?
If we consider that a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a
certain phenomenon, that can be tested by further investigation, then
the "agnostic hypothesis" is not a hypothesis because it denies that
we can even get to the stage of putting forward a hypothesis.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is no such thing as an "agnostic
hypothesis" about the existence of god(s).
There is insufficient evidence to carry the assertion. Anything you can
explain with a god or gods can be explained without them.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 06:45:00 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3cns1nF6mrqhnU2@individual.net...
Milan wrote:
Fine. But is "I dont know" a hypothesis about the existence of god(s)?
If we consider that a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a
certain phenomenon, that can be tested by further investigation, then
the "agnostic hypothesis" is not a hypothesis because it denies that
we can even get to the stage of putting forward a hypothesis.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is no such thing as an "agnostic
hypothesis" about the existence of god(s).
There is insufficient evidence to carry the assertion. Anything you can
explain with a god or gods can be explained without them.
Bob Kolker
Of course. But your reply has as much to do with my post as "It is raining
in California" or "penguins are cute".
Thanks anyway.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 08:12:47 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker Apr 20, 8:38 am wrote:
Milan wrote:
There is no such thing as the "agnostic hypothesis". Agnosticism is
a
declaration of the impossibility of acquiring knowledge about a
certain
domain.
Not true. Agnotsticism says "I don't know" not "I can't know".
Incorrect. There are different varieties of Agnosticism.
There are indeed "strong" agnostics who claim that any form of
impirical knowledge of the spiritual is impossible. Not "I dont know"
but "no one can know".
"I dont know" could be called weak aggnosticism.
There is
simply insufficient evidence to imply the existence of a god, gods,
creator intelligence etc.
IF either
(1) There is no God.
or
(2) God exists and being omnipotent can arrange things to be hidden
forever if he wishes.
THEN
it is impossible for there to be evidence of God's existence.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 08:15:49 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
THEN
it is impossible for there to be evidence of God's existence.
There it is. The question is not resolvable by empirical means. So let
us go on to more profitable pursuits. If there is no way of knowing then
it really does not matter.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 05:27:39 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
One ought not reject any hypothesis of either true or false unless that
truth or falsehood is contradicted by actual.
That something is possible does not imply that it is true.
It is correct to say that the impossible must be false. It is not
correct to say that the possible must be true.
The point of view of science is never to reject an hypothesis unless
there is either contrary evidence or a better hypothesis.
That is true in principle, but one is not obliged to spend much time on
a hypothesis which lacks a scintilla of empirical evidence that it
-might- be true. The is the issue of plausibility which has a subjective
aspect to it. If I say to you, my hypothesis has never been disproved
therefore you should believe it, you can reply to me that my hypothesis
has never been show to have true instances so why should it be believed?
While ther are plenty of hypotheses better than Simple Septic's there
are none better than the agnostic one, and neither have any contrary
evidence.
Lack of contrary evidence is not sufficient for plausibility.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loadnlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 03:39:48 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <n8udnRbSkNhOWvjfRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Theism is based on accepting statements that one alleges need not be
proved ...
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the
process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other
statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See www.m-w.com
That's why your idea there might be a magic invisible space leprechaun is
rejected, moron. There's no proof it's true.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
One ought not reject any hypothesis of either true or false unless that
truth or falsehood is contradicted by actual.
No, you cannot have a default presumption an hypothesis like yours, 'There
might actually be an X', like in the example below, is true unless proven
false. That would be begging the question and argument _ad ignorantiam_,
moron. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are
filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which
saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the same
kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent
crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the equally probable
hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope
on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus
invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be' imagining
with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 06:28:26 PM |
|
|
In article <ebSdnQA4ZpOII_vfRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <n8udnRbSkNhOWvjfRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Theism is based on accepting statements that one alleges need not be
proved ...
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the
process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from
other
statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See www.m-w.com
That's why your idea there might be a magic invisible space leprechaun is
rejected, moron. There's no proof it's true.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
One ought not reject any hypothesis of either true or false unless that
truth or falsehood is contradicted by actual evidence.
No, you cannot have a default presumption an hypothesis like yours, 'There
might actually be an X', like in the example below, is true unless proven
false. That would be begging the question and argument _ad ignorantiam_
Actually. it is neither, but Simple Septic's daddy was too stupid to
teach his son enough to distinguish between valid arguments and
fallacies. So Simple Septic cannot, to this day, tell the difference.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
20 Apr 2005 05:22:14 AM |
|
|
Loadnlock wrote:
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or
the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation
from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See
www.m-w.com
There is proof and there is proof. If you are talking about mathematical
or logical proof, sure enough, if you accept the premis and follow the
argument you must reach the conclusion. If you are talking about
empirical proof, that is a completely different story. No finite set of
emprically observed facts can force one (logically) to accept a
universally quantified propostion. This is none other than the so-called
problem of induction. The fact is that induction is not a logically
valid mode of inference. Having seen a billion black crows one is still
not oblidged to conclude all crows are black. Why? Because you have not
seen the very last crow that will ever be. There is always the
possibilithy of a non-black crow showing up.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 04:32:40 AM |
|
|
Incubus wrote:
the time.
Let me repeat, nobody ever has to prove that something does not exist.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation).
One can prove there do not exist two integers m, n relatively prime such
that (m/n)^2 = 2.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 09:11:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:12:48 -0700, Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
Nobody ever has to
prove that something does not exist.
You are so completely idiotic that attempting to discuss anything with
you is a total waste of time. You are not even a decent foil because
your stupid pontifications are so absurd they detract from the main
stream of the discussion.
You moron - have you ever heard of the famous Michaelson-Morley
experiment which proved that the Luminiferous Ether does not exist?
That was a perfect example of "someone proving that something does not
exist."
You atheists pretending to know Physics are an abomination. No wonder
you are to stupid to know there is a Supreme Being. You have allowed
your anti-religious bigotry to overwhelm any possibility of plain old
fashioned common sense.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 03:01:27 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
You moron - have you ever heard of the famous Michaelson-Morley
experiment which proved that the Luminiferous Ether does not exist?
Actually Lorentz hypothesized the motionwise contraction to explain the
lack of movement detected wrt to the aether. So, either the aether does
not exist or something happens to hide it. In any case one cannot detect
aether so FAPP aether does not exist.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 05:16:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:01:27 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
You moron - have you ever heard of the famous Michaelson-Morley
experiment which proved that the Luminiferous Ether does not exist?
Actually Lorentz hypothesized the motionwise contraction to explain the
lack of movement detected wrt to the aether. So, either the aether does
not exist or something happens to hide it. In any case one cannot detect
aether so FAPP aether does not exist.
The simple fact of reality is that if the Luminiferous Ether exists,
then the experiments in electromagnetism would come out differently,
including the MM experiment.
BTW, in case anyone is interested, Maxwell's Equations are not
Galilean invariant - they are Lorentz invariant. That shows that the
speed of light is a constant independent of the relative speed of
source to observer.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 07:05:14 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
BTW, in case anyone is interested, Maxwell's Equations are not
Galilean invariant - they are Lorentz invariant. That shows that the
speed of light is a constant independent of the relative speed of
source to observer.
Maxwell's equations are Lorentzian invariant, right out of the box. The
genius of Einstein was to make mechanics conform to Maxwell's equations
rather than the other way around.
Lorentz proposed his epynomious contraction as an actual physical
effect, rather than a Tyrel rotations between the spatial and temporal
axis. So the resolution of the null outcome of the MMX was to account
for the lack of moation detected by means of the contraction. Loretnz
transforms were proposed by Lorentz as a means of -saving- the aether.
Einstein's approach made the aether moot.
If one is a true die-hard aetherist he can instaist that Einstein
spacetime (in the presence of matter) is really an aether. Afterall it
bends and curves like some kind of elastic substance. I consider this
way of "saving the aether" to be perverse and unnecessary, but there are
some who do it.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 12:38:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:05:14 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
If one is a true die-hard aetherist he can instaist that Einstein
spacetime (in the presence of matter) is really an aether.
The true diehard Etherist, like Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek portrayed
in Physics Today a while back, will insist that the Quantum Vacuum is
really an Ether. In Quantum Field Theory it is the source of
electromagnetic fluctuations, which is what the Luminiferous Ether is
all about.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 12:00:22 PM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:42634705.237185825@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:05:14 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
If one is a true die-hard aetherist he can instaist that Einstein
spacetime (in the presence of matter) is really an aether.
The true diehard Etherist, like Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek portrayed
in Physics Today a while back, will insist that the Quantum Vacuum is
really an Ether. In Quantum Field Theory it is the source of
electromagnetic fluctuations, which is what the Luminiferous Ether is
all about.
Not the source, but the medium, moron, like water being the medium for
transmission of waves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loadnlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 11:36:03 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:12:48 -0700, Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
Nobody ever has to
prove that something does not exist.
You are so completely idiotic ...
That argument _ad hominem_ might be true, but that would not alter the
principle that nobody ever has to prove that something does not exist; the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation) of any
existential proposition:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the
burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy
of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the
assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is
true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
... Michaelson-Morley
experiment which proved that the Luminiferous Ether does not exist?
That's not true. Nobody ever has to prove that something does not exist. The
only reasonable default presumption in any case, like the default rpesumption
of 'No guilt' in court, is 'No X', whatever X is hypothesized to be.
What M-M found was that there was no evidence to support the hypothesis of an
all-pervading aether as a medium for transmission of light waves as had been
hypothesized, so the hypothesis was rejected as not supported by the evidence.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 01:58:41 PM |
|
|
In article <3KKdnT9HAJXoDf_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:12:48 -0700, Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
Nobody ever has to
prove that something does not exist.
You are so completely idiotic ...
That argument _ad hominem_ might be true,
And is!
but that would not alter the
principle that nobody ever has to prove that something does not exist;
If everybody believes that something does exist, then failure to prove
it does not will leave everybody still believing it exists. e.g., the
luminiferous aether prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment.
the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation) of any
existential proposition
... Michaelson-Morley
experiment which proved that the Luminiferous Ether does not exist?
That's not true.
That IS true! That experiment, and the sequence of similar experiments
which it sparked, disproved the then generally accepted hypothesis of a
luminiferous aether as the medium supporting electro-magnetic wave
propagation.
What M-M found was that there was no evidence to support the hypothesis of an
all-pervading aether as a medium for transmission of light waves as had been
hypothesized, so the hypothesis was rejected as not supported by the
evidence.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html
What the experiment showed was that the aether hypothesis was
contradicted by the evidence of the experiment, so that the hypothesis
was falsified. Falsification of an hyoithesis = disproof of the
hypothesis.
In this case, it amounted to proof that the hypothesized aether did not
exist.
So much for Simple Septic's false claim that non-existence is never
proved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loadnlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 07:28:26 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <3KKdnT9HAJXoDf_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:12:48 -0700, Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
Nobody ever has to
prove that something does not exist.
You are so completely idiotic ...
That argument _ad hominem_ might be true,
And is!
but that would not alter the
principle that nobody ever has to prove that something does not exist;
If everybody believes that something does exist,
Not everybody does in this case, moron. Some people are atheist!
"Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument
supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do
with that conclusion." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
then failure to prove
it does not will leave everybody still believing it exists.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
17 Apr 2005 09:50:28 PM |
|
|
In article <NK2dnbzZ9puwYv_fRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <3KKdnT9HAJXoDf_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Loadnlock <lnl@nospam.net> wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:12:48 -0700, Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
Nobody ever has to
prove that something does not exist.
You are so completely idiotic ...
That argument _ad hominem_ might be true,
And is!
but that would not alter the
principle that nobody ever has to prove that something does not exist;
If everybody believes that something does exist,
Not everybody does in this case
In this case (the crux of which Simple Septic snipped), every scientist
did believe the luminiferous aether existed prior to the
Michelson-Morely experiment. And the Michelson-Morely experiment
provided the falsification of that hypothesis.
So that, contrary to Simple Septic's foolishness, proofs of
non-existence are possible, and can be, as in the case of the
Michelson-Morely experiment, great advancements to science.
then failure to prove
it does not will leave everybody still believing it exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 12:45:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:50:28 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In this case (the crux of which Simple Septic snipped), every scientist
did believe the luminiferous aether existed prior to the
Michelson-Morely experiment. And the Michelson-Morely experiment
provided the falsification of that hypothesis.
So that, contrary to Simple Septic's foolishness, proofs of
non-existence are possible, and can be, as in the case of the
Michelson-Morely experiment, great advancements to science.
Atheists live in a special world - the world of contradictions. They
do not believe in Causality, therefore anything can just "happen",
which results in all sorts of contradictions. The fact that do not
understand Physics is not at all surprising - Physics requires the
acceptance of a set of principles that are totally foreign to the
atheist.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 01:32:15 PM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:426348ef.237675028@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:50:28 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In this case (the crux of which Simple Septic snipped), every scientist
did believe the luminiferous aether existed prior to the
Michelson-Morely experiment. And the Michelson-Morely experiment
provided the falsification of that hypothesis.
So that, contrary to Simple Septic's foolishness, proofs of
non-existence are possible, and can be, as in the case of the
Michelson-Morely experiment, great advancements to science.
Atheists live in a special world - the world of contradictions. They
do not believe in Causality, therefore anything can just "happen",
which results in all sorts of contradictions.
This is hilarious. Anything can happen in a universe run by gods, because
the "god" hypothesis is consistent with any outcome. The Ionian enlightment
taught us that the universe is not the playground of the gods. It is
governed by laws. It is surprising that somebody supposedly knowledgeable of
physics can spew such nonsense. It is the consequence of religious
indoctrination, I imagine, that wreaks havoc with your brain
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 01:40:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:32:15 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is hilarious.
Yes, you are most definitely hilarious.
Anything can happen in a universe run by gods, because
the "god" hypothesis is consistent with any outcome. The Ionian enlightment
taught us that the universe is not the playground of the gods. It is
governed by laws. It is surprising that somebody supposedly knowledgeable of
physics can spew such nonsense. It is the consequence of religious
indoctrination, I imagine, that wreaks havoc with your brain
You think you are oh so clever in twisting things around, but anyone
with an iota of intelligence can see right thru your silly
manipulations.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 07:34:30 PM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:4263feb9.24896399@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:32:15 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is hilarious.
Yes, you are most definitely hilarious.
Anything can happen in a universe run by gods, because
the "god" hypothesis is consistent with any outcome. The Ionian
enlightment
taught us that the universe is not the playground of the gods. It is
governed by laws. It is surprising that somebody supposedly knowledgeable
of
physics can spew such nonsense. It is the consequence of religious
indoctrination, I imagine, that wreaks havoc with your brain
You think you are oh so clever in twisting things around, but anyone
with an iota of intelligence can see right thru your silly
manipulations.
No twisting, no manipulations. Simple facts. Your sophistry was fun for a
while but it's high time you gave up on this silly game. The problem is dont
know how to play. If at least you tried to defend your inane views with some
arguments, but you dont. You just insult, yawn or repeat your mantras ad
nauseam. On top of being stupid you are boring.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 11:57:15 AM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:426348ef.237675028@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:50:28 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In this case (the crux of which Simple Septic snipped), every scientist
did believe the luminiferous aether existed prior to the
Michelson-Morely experiment. And the Michelson-Morely experiment
provided the falsification of that hypothesis.
So that, contrary to Simple Septic's foolishness, proofs of
non-existence are possible, and can be, as in the case of the
Michelson-Morely experiment, great advancements to science.
Atheists live in a special world - the world of contradictions. They
do not believe in Causality, therefore anything can just "happen"
Aren't you in fact describing YOUR situation, in which you believe your
hypothetical 'Supreme Bean' just happened to be in existence, the only thing
in existence without a cause? Google special pleading.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrsib" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
21 Apr 2005 12:52:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:50:28 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In this case (the crux of which Simple Septic snipped), every scientist
did believe the luminiferous aether existed prior to the
Michelson-Morely experiment. And the Michelson-Morely experiment
provided the falsification of that hypothesis.
The belief in a luminiferous 'meduim' was based on available evidence: all
of the types of waves that scientists knew of needed a medium, so they just
deduced that light waves must also travel through one.
Strictly speaking, Michelson-Morely experiment did not disprove the concept
of ether as such, it just showed that it lacked certain properties. Some
great scientists, such as H. Lorentz, Dutch physicist and Nobel laureate,
kept believing in a modified version of ether (so called 'partially
dragged-along ether'). The others abandoned the hypothesis on the basis of
Occam's Razor, since the new version of ether concept was no longer
necessary for scientific explanations.
So that, contrary to Simple Septic's foolishness, proofs of
non-existence are possible, and can be, as in the case of the
Michelson-Morely experiment, great advancements to science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
