| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2005 10:33:11 PM |
| Object: |
Theophobia |
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
10 Apr 2005 08:12:31 PM |
|
|
SOB wrote:
Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
[...]
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe
things without evidence." -- Thomas Huxley
No, the deepest sin is to deny that things exist when there
is ample evidence that they do.
Ample evidence, so spill it Bob. Don't keep us in suspense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
11 Apr 2005 10:26:54 AM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2005 18:12:31 -0700, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, the deepest sin is to deny that things exist when there
is ample evidence that they do.
Ample evidence, so spill it Bob. Don't keep us in suspense.
The Universe (totality of material reality).
Look up that long post I put on these forums.
--
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: Theophobia |
10 Apr 2005 06:22:16 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
No, the deepest sin is to deny that things exist when there is ample
evidence that they do.
No such evidence exists. Any evidence you bring up can equally be
"explained" by an alternative hypothesis. You are probably going to
bring up the trite and hackneyed argument of design. We are the
designers. Nature provides the dots. We humans connect them.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
11 Apr 2005 10:25:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:22:16 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
No, the deepest sin is to deny that things exist when there is ample
evidence that they do.
No such evidence exists. Any evidence you bring up can equally be
"explained" by an alternative hypothesis.
Of course if you adopt a Worldview other than Existential Realism, you
are going to be able to "explain" whatever you want.
The problem with adopting a different Worldview in the context of
Physics and Metaphysics is that Physics doesn't work properly and
Metaphysics is not consistent. In fact you can't even prove you exist
to someone else. Russell discovered that the hard way.
You are probably going to
bring up the trite and hackneyed argument of design. We are the
designers. Nature provides the dots. We humans connect them.
That's mystical.
--
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: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 08:04:11 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:21:46 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
I fail to see the sense in this argument.
Read my post which explains it.
That won't work ..... it still doesn't make any sense ....
yeah...... I know ....... < yawn> ...... you've obviously conceded the
argument I see ....
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 03:55:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:04:11 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey59_remove@yahoo.com> wrote:
Read my post which explains it.
That won't work ..... it still doesn't make any sense ....
Sorry you are too dull to undertand it.
yeah...... I know ....... < yawn> ...... you've obviously conceded the
argument I see ....
<YAWN>
--
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: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 12:32:27 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
Read my post which explains it.
That won't work ..... it still doesn't make any sense ....
Sorry you are too dull to undertand it.
yeah...... I know ....... < yawn> ...... you've obviously conceded the
argument I see ....
<YAWN>
What a maroon....and you seem to think 'your' stale comments of <yawn>
and "you are too dull to understand" repeated ad infinitum are
brilliantly clever witticisms ....... and they aren't exactly
original......all they indicate is you have no argument ...... it must
be lonely up there in your Ivory Tower ......
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 07:44:05 AM |
|
|
"Masked Avenger" <cootey59_remove@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d3554f$u9a$1@austar-news.austar.net.au...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
<YAWN>
What a maroon....and you seem to think 'your' stale comments of <yawn> and
"you are too dull to understand" repeated ad infinitum are brilliantly
clever witticisms ....... and they aren't exactly original......all they
indicate is you have no argument ...... it must be lonely up there in your
Ivory Tower ......
He is not completely alone in there. He has
Septic to keep him company.
If you don't understand the reference, I'll explain
it is less figurative terms:
Sweet Ol' Bob is just like Septic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 09:49:07 PM |
|
|
Scotmc wrote:
"Masked Avenger" <cootey59_remove@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d3554f$u9a$1@austar-news.austar.net.au...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
<YAWN>
What a maroon....and you seem to think 'your' stale comments of <yawn> and
"you are too dull to understand" repeated ad infinitum are brilliantly
clever witticisms ....... and they aren't exactly original......all they
indicate is you have no argument ...... it must be lonely up there in your
Ivory Tower ......
He is not completely alone in there. He has
Septic to keep him company.
If you don't understand the reference, I'll explain
it is less figurative terms:
Sweet Ol' Bob is just like Septic.
Sockpuppet ?
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 10:11:51 PM |
|
|
"Masked Avenger" <cootey59_remove@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d37fu5$27b$1@austar-news.austar.net.au...
Scotmc wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob is just like Septic.
Sockpuppet ?
Naw. Sweet and Septic have different material.
Septic's repertoire is fairly limited and doesn't include
"Existential Realism".
By the way, Septic changes his name regularly and is
currently going by the name of Incubus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pedro" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 12:21:45 PM |
|
|
Steve Mading wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:05:26 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:30:08 GMT, Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) <sob@sob.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity. At the very minimum, even if you adopt the Worldview of
Idealism, you know that you exist. You cannot prove it to anyone esle
within the Worldview of Idealism, because that world is entirely
subjective, but that does not matter. You know that you exist, and
therefore the Supreme Being must exist.
By the very same logic, a supremer being to craete that
supreme being must exist, and a more supremer being to
create that supremer being must exist, and so on forever.
Therefore there is obviously something wrong with that logic.
Not necessarily. The definition of a supreme being embodies the concept
that it exists without creation.
Alright then - Can I define the universe as including the concept that
it exists without creation, thereby getting rid of the need to invent
god to be the creator of it?
Yes.
If not, then why do YOU get to say
"Everything needs a cause except for the thing I'd like to stop
questiniing at" and I don't? The notion that a god must exist purely
because everything needs a cause is self-contraditory. If everything
needs a cause then there can be no first cause.
That's limited thinking merely because you can't get your head around
the idea of an existence without a cause.
If not everything
needs a cause then you lost that reason for insisting there must be
a god.
I never insisted that. I was addressing the definition 'supreme being'.
Perhaps you didn't notice.
If there exists a god, it has to be for a reason other than this
threadbare already-debunked argument.
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'So many pedestrians, so little time '
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 06:40:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:21:45 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:05:26 GMT, pedro <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:30:08 GMT, Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) <sob@sob.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 08:59:05 -0700, wrote:
Whether you should believe in things you have no evidence
for is another question.
If you are talking about the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics,
then there is plenty of evidence. The Universe is evidence that the
Supreme Being *must* exist.
If the Supreme Being did not exist, nothing would exist - which is an
absurdity. At the very minimum, even if you adopt the Worldview of
Idealism, you know that you exist. You cannot prove it to anyone esle
within the Worldview of Idealism, because that world is entirely
subjective, but that does not matter. You know that you exist, and
therefore the Supreme Being must exist.
By the very same logic, a supremer being to craete that
supreme being must exist, and a more supremer being to
create that supremer being must exist, and so on forever.
Therefore there is obviously something wrong with that logic.
Not necessarily. The definition of a supreme being embodies the concept
that it exists without creation.
Alright then - Can I define the universe as including the concept that
it exists without creation, thereby getting rid of the need to invent
god to be the creator of it?
Yes.
If not, then why do YOU get to say
"Everything needs a cause except for the thing I'd like to stop
questiniing at" and I don't? The notion that a god must exist purely
because everything needs a cause is self-contraditory. If everything
needs a cause then there can be no first cause.
That's limited thinking merely because you can't get your head around
the idea of an existence without a cause.
What? What the hell gave you the idea that I can't get my
mind around it? What I said is that IF everything needs a
cause... IF that, then there can be no first cause. If you
believe that existence without a cause is possible, that's
fine, but it does rule out using the premise "everything
needs a cause" - which is a fundamental premise of the first
cause argument for god existing.
I'm just pointing out the internal inconsistency that renders
the argument a fallacy.
If not everything
needs a cause then you lost that reason for insisting there must be
a god.
I never insisted that. I was addressing the definition 'supreme being'.
Perhaps you didn't notice.
Then the definition of "supreme being" violates the premise
that everything needs a cause, and thus cannot be used inside
the same argument that uses that premise if you want to be
an honest person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 08:24:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:40:03 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
That's limited thinking merely because you can't get your head around
the idea of an existence without a cause.
What? What the hell gave you the idea that I can't get my
mind around it? What I said is that IF everything needs a
cause... IF that, then there can be no first cause.
There is no such thing as a "first cause".
"everything needs a cause" -
That is not correct. "Every finite, mutable thing needs a cause".
which is a fundamental premise of the first
cause argument for god existing.
Wrong again.
The Supreme Being does not need a cause.
I'm just pointing out the internal inconsistency that renders
the argument a fallacy.
You are erecting strawmen.
Then the definition of "supreme being" violates the premise
that everything needs a cause,
You finally got something right for a change.
and thus cannot be used inside
the same argument that uses that premise
I have told you repeatedly that the so-called "first cause" argument
comes from theology and is therefore not metaphysically correct.
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?
--
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: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 10:05:45 AM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:42553149.5342542@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:40:03 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
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.
If you didnt exist, you didnt exist. Let's leave "essences" for another
day.
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?
Of course not. There may be or there may not be. But nothing can be said
about the necessity of such entity.
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.
No, it would not be absurd. We would find it surprising because in our daily
experience entities appear to have causes. However, our everyday experience
is powerless when it comes to domains such as quantum mechanics or
relativity. So, we should not boldly extrapolate our meagre everyday
experiences to other domains.
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.
This is of course unsupported. Again, for the same reasons as mentioned
above. We have no idea whether uncaused entities may change or not.
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.
This is all bollocks, of course, based on unsupported premises.
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?
Blah, blah, blah.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 04:04:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:05:45 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let's leave "essences" for another day.
You can if you want, but I cannot if I am going to adopt the Worldview
of Existential Realism.
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?
Of course not. There may be or there may not be. But nothing can be said
about the necessity of such entity.
There can most definitely be something said about the necessity of the
Supreme Being, but you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism
or you will not be able to make a rational argument for it.
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.
No, it would not be absurd. We would find it surprising because in our daily
experience entities appear to have causes. However, our everyday experience
is powerless when it comes to domains such as quantum mechanics or
relativity. So, we should not boldly extrapolate our meagre everyday
experiences to other domains.
Good try but that won't work.
Your claim that we would find it surprising is not an argument, but a
pontification.
We have no idea whether uncaused entities may change or not.
There are no finite, mutable uncaused entities in the Universe.
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.
This is all bollocks, of course, based on unsupported premises.
That's called the Big Lie, first used by the Nazis. The idea is to
accuse someone of doing the very same that you are doing in order to
misdirect attention. It is you who is using "unsupported premises"
here, not me. Your claim about "uncaused entities" is a prime example.
Blah, blah, blah.
<yawn>
--
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: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 12:07:54 PM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:42559ee6.1052563@news-server.houston.rr.com...
There can most definitely be something said about the necessity of the
Supreme Being, but you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism
or you will not be able to make a rational argument for it.
But if the Worldview of Existential Realism is faulty
then by using that Worldview.you would still not be able
to make a rational argument for a Supreme Being.
(Just an observation.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 04:34:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Scotmc"
<scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:42559ee6.1052563@news-server.houston.rr.com...
There can most definitely be something said about the necessity of the
Supreme Being, but you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism
or you will not be able to make a rational argument for it.
But if the Worldview of Existential Realism is faulty
then by using that Worldview.you would still not be able
to make a rational argument for a Supreme Being.
It would seem so.
It all comes down to whether the Worldview of Existential Realism is
valid. In particular if comes down to whether the Principle of
Causality is valid.
Causality is obeyed rigorously in Physics across the entire spectrum
of real events. Just because some events exhibit randomness or
unknowability does not mean they disobey Causality. Causality is built
into Classical Physics, Quantum Physics and Relativistic Physics.
In fact, without Causality Physicists would not be able to present an
Ordered presentation of how the Universe operates. Furthermore it
would not be possible to make accurate predictions of the outcome of
certain events without Causality.
Imagine that Causality is not operative for a particular event. How
are you going to calculate the outcome of that event? There is no way
to conserve energy because you do not know the cause of the event and
therefore you do not know the initial energy. When asked what was the
process that led to the final event, you have to say you do not know
anything.
Even with events that possess some amount of randomness, there is a
lot of information available about the cause of the event. For example
with radioactive decay, even though we are not able to decide when a
particular atom will decay, we do know that when it does the decay was
caused by a transition from an excited state to a lower energy state,
and therefore we know the energy of the transition. That is, we know
the cause of the decay, just not when it happens.
Quantum Mechanics does disclose information about the time of the
decay - the only thing is that it tells us that we cannot calculate
the time because the probability per unit time is a constant for all
time intervals.
So accepting Causality as one of the axioms of Existential Realism is
not all that difficult if you know Physics.
--
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: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 07:44:19 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in
news:4256f660.31628529@news-server.houston.rr.com:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Scotmc"
<scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" < > wrote in message
news:42559ee6.1052563@news-server.houston.rr.com...
There can most definitely be something said about the necessity of
the Supreme Being, but you must adopt the Worldview of Existential
Realism or you will not be able to make a rational argument for it.
But if the Worldview of Existential Realism is faulty
then by using that Worldview.you would still not be able
to make a rational argument for a Supreme Being.
It would seem so.
It all comes down to whether the Worldview of Existential Realism is
valid. In particular if comes down to whether the Principle of
Causality is valid.
Causality is obeyed rigorously in Physics across the entire spectrum
of real events. Just because some events exhibit randomness or
unknowability does not mean they disobey Causality. Causality is built
into Classical Physics, Quantum Physics and Relativistic Physics.
In fact, without Causality Physicists would not be able to present an
Ordered presentation of how the Universe operates. Furthermore it
would not be possible to make accurate predictions of the outcome of
certain events without Causality.
Imagine that Causality is not operative for a particular event. How
are you going to calculate the outcome of that event? There is no way
to conserve energy because you do not know the cause of the event and
therefore you do not know the initial energy. When asked what was the
process that led to the final event, you have to say you do not know
anything.
You got that entirely backwards. The event takes place without a cause.
Once the event has taken place, it is itself the cause of other events.
We know that mass-energy is conserved in uncaused events like
radioactive decay because we can measure the mass-energy of a
radioactive isotope and we can measure the mass-energy of the decay
products. The ratio of those totals is one, to as great a level of
accuracy as we can measure.
Even with events that possess some amount of randomness, there is a
lot of information available about the cause of the event. For example
with radioactive decay, even though we are not able to decide when a
particular atom will decay, we do know that when it does the decay was
caused by a transition from an excited state to a lower energy state,
and therefore we know the energy of the transition. That is, we know
the cause of the decay, just not when it happens.
We know the previous state, and we know the final state. What we do not
know, is what causes the transition. We don't know that because there
isn't anything that causes the transition.
Quantum Mechanics does disclose information about the time of the
decay - the only thing is that it tells us that we cannot calculate
the time because the probability per unit time is a constant for all
time intervals.
So accepting Causality as one of the axioms of Existential Realism is
not all that difficult if you know Physics.
Actually, if you know physics it is *very* difficult to accept
Causality.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 10:29:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 00:44:19 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
You got that entirely backwards. The event takes place without a cause.
Once the event has taken place, it is itself the cause of other events.
That makes no sense, and is certainly not supported by Physics.
We know that mass-energy is conserved in uncaused events like
radioactive decay
Radioactive decay is not an "uncaused event". You are confusing
randomness with acausality. This confusion comes from Mathematicians
who operate in the subjective world. They do not have the restrictions
placed on them by objective reality, so they allow their fantasies to
get the upper hand and then try to project those fantasies onto the
objective world without considering the consequences.
We know the previous state, and we know the final state. What we do not
know, is what causes the transition.
Wrong again, Einstein. According to Heitler's theory of spontaneous
emission, the cause of a transition is the Quantum Vacuum. You would
know that if you knew any Physics. It's all there in perturbation
theory. The Vacuum couples to the nucleus and causes fluctuations
which activate the transition. That's why the energy spectrum is a
Lorentzian - it comes straight from 2nd order perturbation theory. Do
you know why 1ts order terms are ignored? Because there is no magnetic
monopole. Radiation is basically magnetic dipole.
We don't know that because there
isn't anything that causes the transition.
Complete rubbish. Only someone who does not know any Physics would
make such an absurd statement.
I have wasted enough time on you. You are an idiot.
--
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: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 07:59:26 AM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:42574a75.53152999@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 00:44:19 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Wrong again, Einstein. According to Heitler's theory of spontaneous
emission, the cause of a transition is the Quantum Vacuum. You would
know that if you knew any Physics. It's all there in perturbation
theory. The Vacuum couples to the nucleus and causes fluctuations
which activate the transition. That's why the energy spectrum is a
Lorentzian - it comes straight from 2nd order perturbation theory. Do
you know why 1ts order terms are ignored? Because there is no magnetic
monopole. Radiation is basically magnetic dipole.
Close, but no cigar. Vacuum fluctuations are believed to cause the
emissions. But the vacuum fluctuations themselves are random. What causes
the vacuum fluctuations, Aquinas?
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:14:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:59:26 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wrong again, Einstein. According to Heitler's theory of spontaneous
emission, the cause of a transition is the Quantum Vacuum. You would
know that if you knew any Physics. It's all there in perturbation
theory. The Vacuum couples to the nucleus and causes fluctuations
which activate the transition. That's why the energy spectrum is a
Lorentzian - it comes straight from 2nd order perturbation theory. Do
you know why 1ts order terms are ignored? Because there is no magnetic
monopole. Radiation is basically magnetic dipole.
Close, but no cigar. Vacuum fluctuations are believed to cause the
emissions. But the vacuum fluctuations themselves are random.
Randomness and Causality are separate matters in Physics.
What causes the vacuum fluctuations, Aquinas?
Zero Point Motion, Einstein.
Any productive Physicist knows that.
--
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: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:29:28 AM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:4257e2fd.92205985@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:59:26 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wrong again, Einstein. According to Heitler's theory of spontaneous
emission, the cause of a transition is the Quantum Vacuum. You would
know that if you knew any Physics. It's all there in perturbation
theory. The Vacuum couples to the nucleus and causes fluctuations
which activate the transition. That's why the energy spectrum is a
Lorentzian - it comes straight from 2nd order perturbation theory. Do
you know why 1ts order terms are ignored? Because there is no magnetic
monopole. Radiation is basically magnetic dipole.
Close, but no cigar. Vacuum fluctuations are believed to cause the
emissions. But the vacuum fluctuations themselves are random.
Randomness and Causality are separate matters in Physics.
What causes the vacuum fluctuations, Aquinas?
Zero Point Motion, Einstein.
And who causes the zero point motion?
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 11:46:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 15:29:28 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Zero Point Motion, Einstein.
And who causes the zero point motion?
There are 4 different kinds of cause. Which one do you mean?
--
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: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 01:05:56 PM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:425806a2.101330886@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 15:29:28 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Zero Point Motion, Einstein.
And who causes the zero point motion?
There are 4 different kinds of cause. Which one do you mean?
LOL. You are a pillock. But we knew that already.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:41:54 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
Any productive Physicist knows that.
Are you a productive Physicist? Do you know any productive Physicists
who confuse there models with the reality that the models describe.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 06:52:11 AM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in
news:42574a75.53152999@news-server.houston.rr.com:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 00:44:19 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
You got that entirely backwards. The event takes place without a
cause. Once the event has taken place, it is itself the cause of other
events.
That makes no sense, and is certainly not supported by Physics.
Maybe not, but it is supported by physics.
We know that mass-energy is conserved in uncaused events like
radioactive decay
Radioactive decay is not an "uncaused event". You are confusing
randomness with acausality. This confusion comes from Mathematicians
who operate in the subjective world. They do not have the restrictions
placed on them by objective reality, so they allow their fantasies to
get the upper hand and then try to project those fantasies onto the
objective world without considering the consequences.
Drop the doubletalk already. And stop mixing medieval philosophy with
even medievaler science and trying to pass the mess off as Science.
We know the previous state, and we know the final state. What we do
not know, is what causes the transition.
Wrong again, Einstein. According to Heitler's theory of spontaneous
emission, the cause of a transition is the Quantum Vacuum. You would
know that if you knew any Physics. It's all there in perturbation
theory. The Vacuum couples to the nucleus and causes fluctuations
which activate the transition. That's why the energy spectrum is a
Lorentzian - it comes straight from 2nd order perturbation theory. Do
you know why 1ts order terms are ignored? Because there is no magnetic
monopole. Radiation is basically magnetic dipole.
Oh, please, drop the doubletalk. What a load of crap.
We don't know that because there
isn't anything that causes the transition.
Complete rubbish. Only someone who does not know any Physics would
make such an absurd statement.
<YAWN>
I have wasted enough time on you. You are an idiot.
Good, then you won't be posting any more of your crap?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:13:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:52:11 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
That makes no sense, and is certainly not supported by Physics.
Maybe not, but it is supported by physics.
Causality is a requirement of Physics. Try to solve a differential
equation without boundary conditions.
Events don't just happen in Physics, even those that are considered
random because there aspects that are unknowable.
If events just happened, there could be no Physics, because there
would be no way for the wave function to evolve - it would have no
starting point.
Good, then you won't be posting any more of your crap?
I do not post crap.
--
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: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:39:47 AM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in news:4257e236.92006778@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:52:11 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
That makes no sense, and is certainly not supported by Physics.
Maybe not, but it is supported by physics.
Causality is a requirement of Physics. Try to solve a differential
equation without boundary conditions.
Non sequitur.
Events don't just happen in Physics, even those that are considered
random because there aspects that are unknowable.
Non sequitur.
If events just happened, there could be no Physics, because there
would be no way for the wave function to evolve - it would have no
starting point.
And again, non sequitur.
Good, then you won't be posting any more of your crap?
I do not post crap.
That's crap.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 12:02:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:24:05 GMT, Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) <sob@sob.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:40:03 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
That's limited thinking merely because you can't get your head around
the idea of an existence without a cause.
What? What the hell gave you the idea that I can't get my
mind around it? What I said is that IF everything needs a
cause... IF that, then there can be no first cause.
There is no such thing as a "first cause".
Good then. No God.
"everything needs a cause" -
That is not correct. "Every finite, mutable thing needs a cause".
Tautology. Just define the stopping point as being whatever
you like and claim that it's immutable.
which is a fundamental premise of the first
cause argument for god existing.
Wrong again.
The Supreme Being does not need a cause.
I'm just pointing out the internal inconsistency that renders
the argument a fallacy.
You are erecting strawmen.
I apologise for trying to make your argument more intelligent
than it really is. I didn't realize you would argue an
obvious tautology.
Then the definition of "supreme being" violates the premise
that everything needs a cause,
You finally got something right for a change.
and thus cannot be used inside
the same argument that uses that premise
I have told you repeatedly that the so-called "first cause" argument
comes from theology and is therefore not metaphysically correct.
If by "repeatedly" you mean "just this once", then yes.
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".
Nonsense gibberish.
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?
No.
Nonsense gibberish.
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.
Like God?
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?
An interesting conundrum that is not solved by positing God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 04:08:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:02:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
There is no such thing as a "first cause".
Good then. No God.
No God of religion.
The Supreme Being does not need a cause because its Essence is
Existence. It simply Exists. It simply IS. There are no moving parts
that had to be assembled by some other cause.
That is not correct. "Every finite, mutable thing needs a cause".
Tautology. Just define the stopping point as being whatever
you like and claim that it's immutable.
You clearly do not understand what mutability involves.
An interesting conundrum that is not solved by positing God.
Then what is the source of the existence of the Universe?
If you say it is its own cause you are wrong because the Universe is
mutable.
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
