Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In my analogy of the ROOM, how would you know there was an empty room if it weren't for physical matter (the four walls, roof and floors) delineating that "empty" space? Remove the physical matter that defines the room and you have no thing, i.e. no room. (Before you reply with one of you patently foolish knee-jerk responses, just try really hard to remember, I'm using the room as an analogy to the universe.)

The debate is about the empty SPACE within the room. Not the boundaries of the room. Light and radio waves can be used to measure it's dimensions, and prove it exists without your silly claim or any claim about it's walls or lack thereof. A fence is not needed to prove the existence of the are it contains whether empty or not. A fence is not required to "prove" anything but itself.

The science of astronomy grew out of man's ability to detect light waves. Electromagnetic phenomena is not matter. First the unaided human eye, then the telescope, and then the radio telescope. Today astronomy is a very mature science that proves the space surrounding us is mostly empty.

Celestial bodies represent a tiny amount of matter within space and is not needed to measure it.or demonstrate it exists.

And are these "fields" something or nothing? And how did these "fields" come into existence?

Fields are not matter. Once again your nonsense that started this absurd conversation was.

Originally Posted by You#3080

How could we know Space existed unless Matter (in Motion) was in it to reveal Space to us? It's meaningless gibberish to talk about "empty" space because at best it's only conjecture, since there is no way for any scientist to observe "empty" space. There is no empirical evidence

Do you wish to change your claim to electromagnetic waves instead of "matter in motion"

Hows any thing came into existence is a different topic then whether or not we can measure and observe empty space.

[hcap]

Oh yeah...one more thing...what really makes this little dialogue between us very sweet to me is that you, like Actor, are an atheistic-materialist. You believe all that there is in this universe is purely physical matter. Since this is the case, how can you deny that physical matter and only physical matter is capable of revealing space to us?

We just got through telling you about electromagnetic waves. Neither of us believe ALL there is in this universe is purely physical matter.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

PS: Mr Wizard so we can "illuminate empty space with electromagnetic waves.
and unlike a mechanical wave, an electromagnetic wave does not require a medium to travel. It can travel in completely empty space.

See the Michelson–Morley experiment:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi...ley_experiment

There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. And I predict the high priests of your scientism will never be able to produce such a thing. The very best they'll ever be able to do is what they are doing now -- redefining nothing or nothingness in order to con the world into believing their fairy tale.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The debate is about the empty SPACE within the room. Not the boundaries of the room. Light and radio waves can be used to measure it's dimensions, and prove it exists without your silly claim or any claim about it's walls or lack thereof. A fence is not needed to prove the existence of the are it contains whether empty or not. A fence is not required to "prove" anything but itself.

The science of astronomy grew out of man's ability to detect light waves. Electromagnetic phenomena is not matter. First the unaided human eye, then the telescope, and then the radio telescope. Today astronomy is a very mature science that proves the space surrounding us is mostly empty.

Celestial bodies represent a tiny amount of matter within space and is not needed to measure it.or demonstrate it exists.

Fields are not matter. Once again your nonsense that started this absurd conversation was.
Do you wish to change your claim to electromagnetic waves instead of "matter in motion"

Hows any thing came into existence is a different topic then whether or not we can measure and observe empty space.

The discussion is about both. The empty room is the universe. What kind of room is it is defined by its furnishings. But the empty room itself is defined or delineated by physical matter -- again...its four walls, roof and floor. Remove this physical matter and you no longer have a room. Likewise, if the sun, moon and stars and all physical celestial objects were removed from space, we'd no longer have a universe. And it matters not how "tiny" a percentage of Matter you think comprises the universe. Or how most Space is empty. Most is not all!

Finally, we could not have electromagnetism apart from the physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles!

You atheists brag about the existence of only this physical universe in one breath and then out of the other side of your mouth try to mitigate the irreparable damage that a finite universe does to your naturalism by appealing to Nothing as your almighty god -- in fact, as your uncaused cause to Everything. You guys are better that the best magicians. At least magicians need a hat out of which to pull their rabbits -- but all you need is not a thing!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

A vacuum is a macroscopic concept. It has no meaning at the quantum level.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

What is certain and evident is that Aquinas knew nothing of the principle of relativity. Living over two centuries before Copernicus he undoubted believed the Ptolemaic geocentric theory of the universe. In other words his world was a privileged frame of reference. When he says "some things are in motion" he errs. All things are in motion. The exact nature of any one thing's motion depends on which reference frame you choose, and that choice is completely arbitrary.

Aquinas may have stood in the doorway of his church and believed that said church was not in motion. But the earth rotates on its axis so the church is in motion. Further, the earth is in orbit about the sun, there's another motion. The sun orbits a super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy which is hurtling through space toward the Andromeda galaxy. Etc., etc., etc.

Aquinas built upon Aristotle, who was responding to Parmenides and Heraclitus. Motion refers to change of any kind, e.g., growth in knowledge of how to read a Racing Form, temperature fluctuations, becoming a grandfather, becoming flushed at misunderstanding an initial premise, locomotion, etc.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Upon starting this series of posts I considered making a request that all questions and comments be withheld until after I had finished addressing all 12 sentences. I decided against it because I thought such a request would be ignored. I am now faced with the choice between responding immediately to questions and comments or waiting until I'm done with all 12 sentences. I choose the latter since I am certain that the other option would lead to a series of digressions which would, in turn, threaten the completion of the series. To paraphrase the bard "Patience ... I will be faithful."


The buzz words in this sentence are "potentiality" and "actuality." I take potentiality to mean "potential energy" and actuality, "kinetic energy."

In every first year physics course the student is presented with this problem (or its equivalent). Galileo drops a 1 kg weight from a 100 meter tower. How fast will the weight be traveling when it hits the ground? The solution the student is expected to arrive at, and the one the teacher accepts, involves a simplifying assumption that the mass of the earth is effectively infinity, thus the student ignores the effect of the weight's gravitational attraction on the earth and only considers the effect of the earth's gravitational attraction on the weight. This is not the case.

Thus, in his third sentence Aquinas continues his fallacious reasoning. What has "potentiality" and what is "actuality" depends entirely on one's choice of frame of reference. Relativity clearly proves that all frames of reference are equal; the is no privileged frame. Like the student who ignores the effect of the weight's mass, Aquinas concentrates on the specific while ignoring the general.

Potentiality equals "the acorn can become an oak tree". Actuality denotes the actual small acorn, or the now mature actual oak tree.

In the example, the Scholastic is interested in the explanation for how the weight, potentially able to fall to the ground, is now actually relocated on the ground. Under the umbrella of the philosophy of nature, a middle ground 'tween metaphysics and empirical science, the empirical data describe the gravitational pulls of the secondary causes. The primary cause is ol' Galileo himself.

"For motion (change) is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality (the weight's possibility of falling to the ground) to actuality (positioned on the ground). Or, "Whatever is changing is being changed by something else".

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The discussion is about both.

Bull! You were the one that claimed walls are necessary to deliminate empty space after I demonstrated most of spce is very close to empty. You proposed this idiotic non applicable analogy of a gigantic room without walls.

The empty room is the universe. What kind of room is it is defined by its furnishings. But the empty room itself is defined or delineated by physical matter -- again...its four walls, roof and floor. Remove this physical matter and you no longer have a room.

No you no longer have your non-applicable dumb analogy

Likewise, if the sun, moon and stars and all physical celestial objects were removed from space, we'd no longer have a universe.

No not this universe

And it matters not how "tiny" a percentage of Matter you think comprises the universe. Or how most Space is empty. Most is not all!

You do not remember your multiplication tables nor any algebra or any statistics. Above the Planck level the average density of matter is about 1 atom per cc. Average here MUST mean there is much MORE empty space than not. Do you understand what density means?

Finally, we could not have electromagnetism apart from the physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles!

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein ‪MISQUOTED by a Ivanka Trump

You are only partially correct. And we are speaking about all electromagnetic phenomena not just "electromagnetism"
Nevertheless even if some fields originate with charged particles, these fields ARE NOT MATTER.

Focus on these facts bunky, in general
1 an oscillating electric field generates an oscillating magnetic field
2 an oscillating magnetic field generates an oscillating electric field
3 gravity is also considered a field.

And one again although a gravitational field is produced by matter, the waves and all electromagnetic waves themselves ARE NOT MATTER


You are a waste of my time. Your made up science, crazy philosophy and hateful religion are all turning my stomach.

Bye bye.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

As I have already pointed out, what is "potentiality" and what is "actuality" depends on your frame of reference. All frames of reference are equal, thus ones choice of frame is totally arbitrary.

Putting aside the irrelevant response for now...

"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality".

...i.e., one way for modern science to be in conflict with or disprove Aquinas' arguments is if it could be shown that a potential ( a non-existant thing) caused a contingent thing to change (actualize).

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

It's tempting to point out that Aquinas was totally ignorant of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. He also knew nothing of the nature of combustion (fire). But I will simply point out that this sentence brings nothing new to the table and move on.

I echo the last sentence, but for a different reason.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Potentiality equals "the acorn can become an oak tree". Actuality denotes the actual small acorn, or the now mature actual oak tree.

In the example, the Scholastic is interested in the explanation for how the weight, potentially able to fall to the ground, is now actually relocated on the ground. Under the umbrella of the philosophy of nature, a middle ground 'tween metaphysics and empirical science, the empirical data describe the gravitational pulls of the secondary causes. The primary cause is ol' Galileo himself.

"For motion (change) is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality (the weight's possibility of falling to the ground) to actuality (positioned on the ground). Or, "Whatever is changing is being changed by something else".

In a paragraph or two, how do Aristotle and Aquinas not fall into an infinite regress of the "first cause"?

If nothing comes from nothing, then God cannot exist, because God is not nothing. If that premise is true that “nothing comes from nothing,” and if God is something, then you have just shot yourself in the foot.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm making a single response to these two sentences because they address the same thing, and they are both false. Something can be both potentially hot and potentially cold at the same time. Take a glass of water. At the same time it is potentially hot (it could become steam) and potentially cold (it could become ice). End of story.

6."Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects.
7. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold".

Aquinas agrees with your statement in blue. It's foundational, due to the example you cited. Read #7 again, very closely.

Steam can't be potentially steam, and ice can't be potentially ice.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

In a paragraph or two, how do Aristotle and Aquinas not fall into an infinite regress of the "first cause"?

May I respond tomorrow or a bit later? I'm way past, and working on my wife's PC in a very uncomfortable sitting pos. (my motherboard fried yesterday). I'm not stating that scholastic metaphysics is without serious challenges, but most stuff is caricature for several reasons.

Thanks for the interest, hcap.

[Actor]

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

It is by no means necessary to arrive at a first mover. I think I demonstrated this in post #2746 (which nearly everyone has ignored).

Furthermore, Aquinas' claim "this everyone understands to be God" is a complete non-sequitur. Not everyone understands this to be God. What is God? If we go with this definition ..

“a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”

.. then Aquinas has utterly failed to give any evidence that the "first mover" (assuming for the sake of argument that there is/was one) requires any intelligence.

I will make one additional post to summarize and then address the reclamas.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actyor

It is by no means necessary to arrive at a first mover. I think I demonstrated this in post #2746 (which nearly everyone has ignored).

Western religious philosophy is stuck on deities. Not so much eastern thinking. And as we have just seen western religious thinking is also dependent on guys like Aristotle and Aquinas neither of whom had modern data and experimental techniques to formulate their philosophies.

I posted quite a bit about the quantum flux and how virtual particles pop in and out of existence without a deliberate "first mover" involved in the process. Possibly a microcosm of the big bang, then the expansion phase of the big bang giving rise to positive matter and not so much anti-matter.