Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I could move into "essence and existance", and the need for an actualizer to conjoin them in matter.

Define essence, existence, actualize and conjoin.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

F-

You said we can not observe the DIMENSION of space unless matter moves thu it.

Therefore any portion of space regardless how small not meeting that definition must not exist

Man...are you dishonest! I never said anything about "dimension". I said that apart from physical matter we would not know that such a thing we call "space" exists! I have repeatedly stated that Matter is what REVEALS the existence of Space.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Jesus did not include the virtue of love in the Beatitudes.

Wrong. One of the eight Beatitudes is Blessed are the pure of heart,for they shall see God.

You cannot be pure of heart without love. Love IS what makes the heart pure.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since the worship of the living God is also beneath you, this also proves that God has not sought you out.

I communicate with God every day in meditation. Meditation is listening to God. Prayer is talking to God. If you were in God's physical presence I'm pretty sure you would STFU and listen.

Your statement above is merely to boost your own ego as the holy one here. What you are actually doing is debasing yourself with such talk. Because in order to put someone down, as you try to do with me, there has to be a part of YOU that is already on that very low level and you show it with statements like these.

A true born again Christian would never debase his fellow man the way you do constantly to everyone who disagrees with you. That's how I know you are a fake. A born again Christian has the internal strength NOT to go there because it makes his heart impure and that takes him further away from God.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Aquinas built upon Aristotle, ...

Bertrand Russell on Aquinas.

He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Man...are you dishonest! I never said anything about "dimension". I said that apart from physical matter we would not know that such a thing we call "space" exists! I have repeatedly stated that Matter is what REVEALS the existence of Space.

Ok, I should not used the word "dimension" when I was referring to your absurd faith based original silliness. I was actually using the physics based definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime

Here are your exact words and what started your totally false nonsense this time:

Originally Posted by MR WIZARD

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 for such a thing.

As I have told you repeatedly MATHEMATICALLY the probability that most of the smaller portions of space-less than 1 CC- MUST be empty of matter or a vacuum if in interstellar space the average density of matter is 1 atom per cubic centimeter.

I and others have also told you electrodynamic waves which are not matter but a form of a wave that travels in vacuum at the speed of light and exist in a wide spectrum of wavelengths nay exist in space devoid of any matter

So I will re-do the explanation of your dismal grade on your latest math test.

F-

You said we can not know if space exists unless matter moves thu it.

Therefore any portion of space regardless how small not meeting that definition must not exist

So all of your babble about "something versus nothing" is besides the point when we speak of a vacuum. Interstellar space contains plenty of electrodynamic waves which are not matter.

[hcap]

One more time. I will ask you again. A math problem which you did not answer.

Given:

1-The diameter of a hydrogen atom is app 2 hundred-millionth of a centimeter.

2-Atoms can only exist at one point in space at one time.


Solve:

1-How many hydrogen atoms can fit in our specified 1 cubic centimeter of space

2...... and therefore what is the percentage of empty space to filled space in that cubic centimeter ?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

Bertrand Russell on Aquinas.

The late John McLeish, a distinguished scholar, found 14 errors in one chapter alone of Russell's History of Western Philosophy and concluded that he was a man who knew not where of he spoke.
No one should base their own evaluation of Aquinas on only Russell's views.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Ok, I should not used the word "dimension" when I was referring to your absurd faith based original silliness. I was actually using the physics based definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space



Here are your exact words and what started your totally false nonsense this time:
As I have told you repeatedly MATHEMATICALLY the probability that most of the smaller portions of space-less than 1 CC- MUST be empty of matter or a vacuum if in interstellar space the average density of matter is 1 atom per cubic centimeter.

I and others have also told you electrodynamic waves which are not matter but a form of a wave that travels in vacuum at the speed of light and exist in a wide spectrum of wavelengths nay exist in space devoid of any matter

So I will re-do the explanation of your dismal grade on your latest math test.

So all of your babble about "something versus nothing" is besides the point when we speak of a vacuum. Interstellar space contains plenty of electrodynamic waves which are not matter.

But Space itself is NOT empty of Matter. Just because a container is 90% empty does not mean the container is empty. The unoccupied, unused space in the container does not prove that the container contains nothing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

One more time. I will ask you again. A math problem which you did not answer.

Given:

1-The diameter of a hydrogen atom is app 2 hundred-millionth of a centimeter.

2-Atoms can only exist at one point in space at one time.


Solve:

1-How many hydrogen atoms can fit in our specified 1 cubic centimeter of space

2...... and therefore what is the percentage of empty space to filled space in that cubic centimeter ?

Atoms shmatoms. Spare me you equivocation and your mathematical mental gymnastics. Here is the problem in a nutshell with your inane theory of Nothing: The problem is that you and your loony high priests of scientism tell us that from Nothing comes Something. Nothing, therefore, must have causal power in this view. But non-existent entities or things can have no causal power. Therefore, it's implicit in this moonbat theory of yours that Nothing must have been Something at the same time in the same sense, which of course violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. After all, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. On the other hand, if you agree that Nothing (No Thing, Not Anything) has no causal power, then it must be explained how the universe was able to come into existence without any cause behind it, which of course would violate the Law of Causality. This sir, is much more than a mere conundrum. The Theory of Nothing is caught in a nasty Catch-22 dilemma from which there is no escape.

And by the way, all your brainiac scientists who buy into this lame theory intuitively know all this which is precisely why they must always, without fail, perform a magic trick that transforms Nothing into Something, e.g. gravity, quantum energy, quarks, etc., etc. and these somethings are the things which caused the universe to come into existence. These caused the Big Firecracker.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The late John McLeish, a distinguished scholar, found 14 errors in one chapter alone of Russell's History of Western Philosophy and concluded that he was a man who knew not where of [sic] he spoke.
No one should base their own evaluation of Aquinas on only Russell's views.

What makes you think I'm basing my evaluation "on only Russell's views?" My views are my own. I happen to think that this particular observation of Russell's hits the mark, not only regarding Aquinas but apologists in general.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What makes you think I'm basing my evaluation "on only Russell's views?" My views are my own. I happen to think that this particular observation of Russell's hits the mark, not only regarding Aquinas but apologists in general.

Would that include atheistic apologists as well?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But Space itself is NOT empty of Matter. Just because a container is 90% empty does not mean the container is empty. The unoccupied, unused space in the container does not prove that the container contains nothing.

. What we refer to as outer or interstellar space contains spactime. No, space itself may absolutely be empty of Matter. As well as be loaded with it. A vacuum mixed irregularly with mass.

Mr world renounced Physicist remember this? The official definition from wik

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime

You are correct Spacetime is not nothing Neither is spacetime MATTER, the thing you claimed was absolutely needed to observe if space exists.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

. What we refer to as outer or interstellar space contains spactime. No, space itself may absolutely be empty of Matter. As well as be loaded with it. A vacuum mixed irregularly with mass.

Mr world renounced Physicist remember this? The official definition from wikYou are correct Spacetime is not nothing Neither is spacetime MATTER, the thing you claimed was absolutely needed to observe if space exists.

How can we know Space exists with our senses, apart from the existence of Matter? Does not Matter manifest itself in three forms: Energy, Motion and Phenomena? Without the latter informing our senses, we can know NOTHING!

Also, there can be no Time apart from Matter. Let's continue. There can be no Space apart from Time and Matter. There can be no Matter, apart from Space and Time.

Have a nice evening.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Would that include atheistic apologists as well?

There are no atheistic apologists. An apologist is a "defender." They won't change their minds no matter what. On the other hand, check out what Bill Nye says at about 2:20 ...

YouTube

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There are no atheistic apologists. An apologist is a "defender." They won't change their minds no matter what. On the other hand, check out what Bill Nye says at about 2:20 ...

Did you say that with a straight face, too?

Here's a newsflash for you, also: No atheist will change his mind either, apart from God's work of effectual grace in his/her heart.