Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 01-20-2019, 11:44 PM   #9271
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Can you tell us how you know those words you just quoted above have not been "altered, manipulated and misrepresented"?
Because all those words are mine. And the Biblical quote I will never leave you nor forsake you I have experienced with God.
Light is offline  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:05 AM   #9272
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
And herein is the CRUX of the matter in a nutshell. You don't believe God.
So all my talking about my love for Jesus and that he is my "best friend" means I don't believe in God? Do me a favor. Don't apply for a job as a detective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Also, I supposed you're so smart, so enlightened, so ahead of the spiritual curve that you can discern which words in which passages have not been "altered, manipulated and misrepresented"
Obviously not. But I can tell the obvious such as when you say "God hates.." That it obviously "altered, manipulated and misrepresented"

Reason being is that "hatred" is the lowest form of consciousness. And "God consciousness" is the highest form of consciousness.

Hatred cannot exist in a being of pure Divine Love. Because that would make the being of pure Divine Love no longer that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And if evil is also an illusion then your "best friend" was a blithering, blathering idiot.
No, you are the idiot because you do not understand what I mean. I don't mean evil doesn't appear to exist.

I mean if you knew what reality really is on the highest level of consciousness you would know evil as well as most things do not really exist and are constructs of our mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And what or who created evil?
Our minds Wake me up when you get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And if evil is a mere illusion, can you explain to us coherently how its antithesis (i.e. Good) is not also an illusion?
Yes "Good" can also be illusion but the nice thing about good is that it usually does not cause us pain. But not always.
Sometimes it does such as the 50% of people who divorce and once thought it was "good" to meet their spouse. Another illusion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Why can't it be said that "good and evil" are merely mental constructs that are extensions of our emotions, and a simply a convenient way we express our personal, subjective likes and dislikes? For example, I love asparagus; my wife hates the stuff. In other words, I find that veggie to be Good; but my wife Bad (i.e. NOT good!). (So, when my lovely, beautiful wife finds the veggie NOT so Good, did she create evil?)
Asparagus is not evil unless you create that illusion in your mind. If you accept your wife's dislike for Asparagus, then it does not become an issue of "good" vs "bad". Acceptance is the key, not the veggie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Can you explain to us coherently how you can possibly know what good is apart from the existence of evil? How would you know what Light is apart from existence of Darkness?
If you can actually feel love that is NOT connected to a person place or thing, then you can answer those questions. After nearly 40 years of meditating, I finally learned how to Love without an object. It is within.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And this brings me back full circle to your argument about Jesus praying for forgiveness for his murderers. You haven't answered my question: What was there to forgive, since your god loves (and therefore approves) of everything under the sun?
The act of Jesus forgiving his murderers was for us. To teach us by example.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Or since your god unconditionally loves everything under the sun, no matter what, explain to us how he can't love everyone's illusions.
How can God love an illusion? It doesn't exist. For example you and I are illusions. Our physical bodies change and will turn to nothing. It will eventually be like we never existed. But our souls are everlasting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And one final thing: Regarding the "stupidity" that you say I wrote: How so? You claimed that your god doesn't judge anyone -- that instead, we will all judge ourselves. My reply to your claim was that if that's the case, then no one has anything to worry about because virtually all people in the world naturally cut themselves quite a bit of slack, since most would judge themselves compared to what they see in other people around them. Other people's behavior is most often the moral standard by which people judge themselves. Therefore, the vast majority of people in the world will find themselves to be better or just as good as others. Now...if you don't believe this -- if you really believe my retort to your foolishness is stupid, I would suggest you start a poll thread and ask the good people here (good pun intended) to judge themselves. Ask them if they think they are Good or Evil human beings.
The people who 'compare" themselves to others to decide if they are better or worse are lost. There is only one standard that one can compare themselves to and that is within.



Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And by the way, the proof is in the eating. Do you remember how very hard you came down on Donald Trump a few weeks back? You judged him very harshly on his stand on illegal immigration. And by what moral standard, did you do that? YOURSELF! Your life. Your values. You were like the self-righteous Pharisee in the temple who pointed his arrogant snout high to the heavens to thank God that he wasn't a sinner LIKE the unwashed, low-life, wretch who was also praying right next to him.
That was my opinion of Trump's immigration policy. But I cannot judge Trump as a human being even though my opinion of him is low because it is not my place. Because that is getting into the essence of who he is beyond materialism which is the same essence in me. If I judge that essence in him, I judge myself in the instant I do that. We are all one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Oh yeah...and you still haven't answered me on how Jesus' martyrdom on the cross is of any practical value in helping people to ditch their illusions.
I have answered that several times but you forget. I have weeped at times looking at Christ on the cross. That has brought me closer to him. And I'm sure I'm not the only one or one of the "chosen few" as you consider yourself. So when one comes closer to Christ, what really matters in your life becomes more real and the illusions of what don't matter become less. But you must come to him from your heart, not your head. It must be real,not faked.
Light is offline  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:52 AM   #9273
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
So all my talking about my love for Jesus and that he is my "best friend" means I don't believe in God? Do me a favor. Don't apply for a job as a detective.
Yeah...your talk is as cheap as your reading skills are sorely deficient. I never said you don't believe IN God. I said you don't believe God. And there's a huge difference. Like night and day difference. You have the faith of demons who also believe IN God (Jas 2:19).

Everywhere, scripture clearly teaches that only those who trust God (i.e. believe him) are saved and are his adopted children. How can you believe him when you believe God was powerless to preserve the integrity of his Word, which you believe (and this is what your REALLY BELIEVE) has been "altered, manipulated and misrepresented"? Since his Word cannot be trusted, then God cannot be trusted in your world. Instead, you trust in your personal, subjective feelings and experiences.

Ps 32:10
10 Many are the sorrows of the wicked;
But he who TRUSTS in the Lord, lovingkindness shall surround him.
NASB

God's lovingkindness does NOT surround you, Mr. Light, anymore than it did the Pharisees who did not believe the Father or The Son whom the Father sent; for the love of God was not in their hearts, any more than the love of God is in yours!

And,

Jer 17:7
7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord
And whose trust is the Lord.

NASB

And,

Ps 119:42
2 So I shall have an answer for him who reproaches me,
For I trust in Thy word.

NASB

And,

Heb 2:13
13 And again,

"I will put My trust in Him."

NASB


Quote:
Obviously not. But I can tell the obvious such as when you say "God hates.." That it obviously "altered, manipulated and misrepresented"

Reason being is that "hatred" is the lowest form of consciousness. And "God consciousness" is the highest form of consciousness.
Not godly hate! God is not a conflicted person. God CANNOT love righteousness and justice while simultaneously loving wickedness and injustice. God doesn't "hate" with human emotions, anymore than he loves with human emotions. God's hate is a holy hatred. Perhaps the best way to understand God's holy hatred is that his hatred is an absence of love as opposed to what we normally associate human hatred with, such as intense hostility or extreme antipathy, loathing, etc.

For example, in the great soteriological doctrine of Reconciliation, it is not God who made himself man's enemy, but rather it is man who is the natural born enemy of God, as a result of man's sinful nature. So, when God sovereignly chooses to leave a person in his natural state of enmity, God in essence is choosing to NOT love him, such as he did with Adam right after the Fall, and he did with Esau in Romans 9, etc. So, in this sense of not loving, this could indeed be described as "hate" (by comparison) because there is nothing worse in this world than to not be loved by our Creator.. But this is what God does love:

Ps 33:5a
5 He loves righteousness and justice;
NASB

Ps 11:7
7 [i]For the Lord is righteous;
He loves righteousness;
The upright will behold His face.
NASB

As I just said, God is not emotionally, mentally or psychologically conflicted. It's impossible for him to do anything contrary to his holy, righteous nature. The following text proves this:

Prov 15:9
The Lord detests the way of the wicked
but he loves those who pursue righteousness.

NIV

In case you don't get it, the above is a qualified statement!

I can explain it to you, but I'm not God. I cannot open your heart to understand it. Nor do I have the power to flush all your Eastern "spiritual" presuppositions down the toilet either (such as your "unconditional love" nonsense). I cannot make you believe Jesus more than you believe Buddha, etc. But just to let you know -- if so much scripture has been "altered, manipulated and misrepresented", one is led to wonder how all scripture has become a unified, homogeneous, harmonic body of literature. Just sayin'...

Hatred cannot exist in a being of pure Divine Love. Because that would make the being of pure Divine Love no longer that.

Quote:
No, you are the idiot because you do not understand what I mean. I don't mean evil doesn't appear to exist.

I mean if you knew what reality really is on the highest level of consciousness you would know evil as well as most things do not really exist and are constructs of our mind.
Feeling a wee bit arrogant and bloated in your head, are we? Well, this "idiot" has this observation then about non-explanation: If evil only appears to exist, then Shirely you can see that, logically speaking good can only appear to exist also. In short, Good and Evil still don't exist, which means all your Eastern spiritual double-talk and gibberish is all nonsense.

Quote:
Yes "Good" can also be illusion but the nice thing about good is that it usually does not cause us pain. But not always. Sometimes it does such as the 50% of people who divorce and once thought it was "good" to meet their spouse. Another illusion.
Criminals will be quick to tell you that sometimes crime pays, i.e. brings them good. So..what is your point?

Quote:
If you can actually feel love that is NOT connected to a person place or thing, then you can answer those questions. After nearly 40 years of meditating, I finally learned how to Love without an object. It is within.
Then it's not biblical love. It's not God's kind of love that acts for his glory and for the good of others. It's not Jesus' kind of love that acts for his glory, the glory of his Father and for the good of others. Your love is a selfish, self-serving, self-centered love that does not seek to serve anyone but yourself.

Quote:
The act of Jesus forgiving his murderers was for us. To teach us by example.
Teach us what? Jesus loves murderers unconditionally, as he does acts of murder. So, what is there to forgive?

Quote:
How can God love an illusion? It doesn't exist. For example you and I are illusions. Our physical bodies change and will turn to nothing. It will eventually be like we never existed. But our souls are everlasting.
"How can God love an illusion"? He loves you, doesn't he?

Quote:
The people who 'compare" themselves to others to decide if they are better or worse are lost. There is only one standard that one can compare themselves to and that is within.
So...if someone were to invade your home and murder your wife and kids, not only were all the murders an illusion but the murderers and the wife and kids as well, heh? Have you ever had so much as your little toe touch solid ground on this planet?

Also, when are you going to open that poll I suggested?

[quote]That was my opinion of Trump's immigration policy. But I cannot judge Trump as a human being even though my opinion of him is low because it is not my place. Because that is getting into the essence of who he is beyond materialism which is the same essence in me. If I judge that essence in him, I judge myself in the instant I do that. We are all one.[quote]

No! It was your opinion of HIM!

Quote:
I have answered that several times but you forget. I have weeped at times looking at Christ on the cross. That has brought me closer to him. And I'm sure I'm not the only one or one of the "chosen few" as you consider yourself. So when one comes closer to Christ, what really matters in your life becomes more real and the illusions of what don't matter become less. But you must come to him from your heart, not your head. It must be real,not faked.
Have you considered the real possibility that you've been weeping over an illusion? Have you considered the possibility, along Actor's lines, that the Jesus story is fake news? It's all made up by the same people who, according to you, "altered, manipulated and misrepresented" scripture? After all, what would anyone know about this Jesus character if weren't for all this corrupt scripture?

Or have you considered that your weeping, so called, has been an illusion?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru

Last edited by boxcar; 01-21-2019 at 12:04 PM.
boxcar is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 01:28 AM   #9274
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Yeah...your talk is as cheap as your reading skills are sorely deficient. I never said you don't believe IN God. I said you don't believe God.

Everywhere, scripture clearly teaches that only those who trust God (i.e. believe him) are saved and are his adopted children. How can you believe him when you believe God was powerless to preserve the integrity of his Word, which you believe (and this is what your REALLY BELIEVE) has been "altered, manipulated and misrepresented"?
God's word is not in a book,its in your soul. When they say In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. there was no written word nor the Bible.

When you learn what the "word" is then you will know that IS God. I have been meditating on that "word" for 40 years. Its the only word you need to know and it cannot be written.



Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Not godly hate! God is not a conflicted person. God CANNOT love righteousness and justice while simultaneously loving wickedness and injustice.
OK, I see your confusion here. I never said God loves these negative qualities. But as an all loving,all knowing being,he does not lower himself to the stupidity of using hate for hate. He is way too wise for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
God's hate is a holy hatred.
You simply don't understand what hate is. Hate is "frustrated love". Everything comes from love. The only beings that become frustrated with their love are humans. God does not get frustrated otherwise he needs to grow up which is silly. Humans need to grow up. They get frustrated and those frustrations when severe breeds hatred.




Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
If evil only appears to exist, then Shirely you can see that, logically speaking good can only appear to exist also. In short, Good and Evil still don't exist, which means all your Eastern spiritual double-talk and gibberish is all nonsense.
You are right. Good and Evil are illusions. In the Eastern religions that you believe are "gibberish", they also believe that our "good/evil outlook is due to our lower consciousness defining for each succeeding generation what good and evil are. But if we have "God consciousness" we would see there is no "good" or "evil". They are simply parts of a whole.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Then it's not biblical love. It's not God's kind of love that acts for his glory and for the good of others. It's not Jesus' kind of love that acts for his glory, the glory of his Father and for the good of others. Your love is a selfish, self-serving, self-centered love that does not seek to serve anyone but yourself.
Incorrect. It is Biblical love. God said "Be still and know I am God". That requires the stillness of mind which you cannot achieve without going inward and meditating not on the mind's thoughts but on God's love. That is the love I am talking about that is not connected to a person, place or thing.When you achieve that you will be still and know God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
"How can God love an illusion"? He loves you, doesn't he?
Don't play stupid. I already clarified that my body and mind are illusions but not my soul. That is what God sees.



Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Have you considered the real possibility that you've been weeping over an illusion? Have you considered the possibility, along Actor's lines, that the Jesus story is fake news? It's all made up by the same people who, according to you, "altered, manipulated and misrepresented" scripture? After all, what would anyone know about this Jesus character if weren't for all this corrupt scripture?
Yes, I have considered whether Jesus is an illusion, of course. The only problem is that he has proven his power to make miracles in my life over and over again and there are too many miracles to consider them coincidences. That is also why I weep. That he has extended himself out to me to show me he is real, especially in my time of need. This is also why I don't need a book to tell me what is real, nor what rules to follow. I follow my heart and that's where God lives.

I have an active relationship with Jesus in the present. Not some fantasy about his life 2000 years ago from a book that is documented to have been altered and has a zillion versions,many of which you don't believe in. How real is that?
Light is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 09:25 AM   #9275
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
God's word is not in a book,its in your soul. When they say In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. there was no written word nor the Bible.

When you learn what the "word" is then you will know that IS God. I have been meditating on that "word" for 40 years. Its the only word you need to know and it cannot be written.





OK, I see your confusion here. I never said God loves these negative qualities. But as an all loving,all knowing being,he does not lower himself to the stupidity of using hate for hate. He is way too wise for that.



You simply don't understand what hate is. Hate is "frustrated love". Everything comes from love. The only beings that become frustrated with their love are humans. God does not get frustrated otherwise he needs to grow up which is silly. Humans need to grow up. They get frustrated and those frustrations when severe breeds hatred.






You are right. Good and Evil are illusions. In the Eastern religions that you believe are "gibberish", they also believe that our "good/evil outlook is due to our lower consciousness defining for each succeeding generation what good and evil are. But if we have "God consciousness" we would see there is no "good" or "evil". They are simply parts of a whole.




Incorrect. It is Biblical love. God said "Be still and know I am God". That requires the stillness of mind which you cannot achieve without going inward and meditating not on the mind's thoughts but on God's love. That is the love I am talking about that is not connected to a person, place or thing.When you achieve that you will be still and know God.



Don't play stupid. I already clarified that my body and mind are illusions but not my soul. That is what God sees.





Yes, I have considered whether Jesus is an illusion, of course. The only problem is that he has proven his power to make miracles in my life over and over again and there are too many miracles to consider them coincidences. That is also why I weep. That he has extended himself out to me to show me he is real, especially in my time of need. This is also why I don't need a book to tell me what is real, nor what rules to follow. I follow my heart and that's where God lives.

I have an active relationship with Jesus in the present. Not some fantasy about his life 2000 years ago from a book that is documented to have been altered and has a zillion versions,many of which you don't believe in. How real is that?
So you're light years ahead of your "best friend" in the spiritual enlightenment department since he so ignorantly held the written word of God in highest esteem, and very often quoted from the OT? In fact, in the past I quoted several scriptures to prove just what He thought about the written word. Funny how you and him are NEVER on the same page about anything!

And since Good and Evil don't exist in your tiny universe, that makes you and everyone else amoral beings, correct?

And if Good and Evil don't exist, neither does God for it written about him that he is GOOD in his essence. Your "best friend" said, that God alone IS good! But Good compared to what!?

And since we're all amoral beings like the rocks and trees are, etc., then it doesn't matter a whit what we think, say or do. There is no such thing as "karma" because it doesn't matter what we sow; for what we sow has no moral/spiritual value.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 11:43 AM   #9276
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Good, Evil and Trump

An inquiring mind is dying to ask the "most spiritual enlightened" one on this entire forum a burning question. Ready, Freddie? Since Good and Evil are not real in your world, explain to us why you vented your venom, like some escaped madman from an insane asylum, at Trump (or per your newly revised story of Trump's immigration policy) when that policy is neither good or evil in nature?

And since I'm on a roll, I have another question for you: Since the ultimate measure of all reality and what is true and what is false to you is apparently your personal, subjective feelings and experiences, then you obviously must believe that there is no such thing as objective truth? In your world, truth and falsehood must be purely relative?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:59 AM   #9277
Actor
Librocubicularist
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
#9277

The God Hypothesis is the ultimate example of the Fallacy of the Non-Testable Hypothesis. It can never be proven either way, although many have tried. Among those many are Thomas Aquinas who in the first few pages of his Summa Theologica presented five such attempts. There are numerous translations of these arguments from sources such as Wikipedia and Dawkin’s The God Delusion. The translation I refer to below is by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province as revised by Daniel J. Sullivan. Please note that the translation contains some unusual expressions but I have left the translation as-is.

The first of these is the “Argument From Motion.”
  1. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in this world some things are in motion.
  2. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be put in motion unless it is in potency to that towards which it is in motion.
  3. But a thing moves in so far as it is in act.
  4. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potency to act.
  5. But nothing can be reduced from potency to act except by something in a state of act.
  6. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.
  7. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, that is, that it should move itself.
  8. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another, and that by another again.
  9. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only because as they are moved by the first mover, just as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.
  10. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other.
  11. And this everyone understands to be God.

The argument fails on several points. First is the premise “some things are in motion.” This reflects the 13th century view that there is some privileged frame of reference, viz., the earth. This notion survived the discovery, by Galileo and others, that the earth moves. The supposed privileged frame of reference became the aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect the aether but it failed. In his 1905 Theory of Special Relativity Albert Einstein explained the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment by assuming that the aether does not exist. Einstein’s theory was confirmed in the 1920s, has been repeated confirmed ever since, is generally accepted by scientists today, and is unlikely to ever be overturned. Thus we are forced to replace Aquinas’s premise that “some things are in motion” with “all things are in motion and some things have a velocity of zero, which is still a valid velocity. For all things there is a frame of reference in which that thing has a velocity of zero.”


Second is the premise “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.” Recall Newton’s three laws:
  1. Within a frame of reference a body will not accelerate unless acted upon by an external force.
  2. Within a frame of reference a body acted upon by an external force will accelerate at a rate proportional to the external force, inversely proportional to the body’s mass, and in the same direction as the force. i.e., f = ma. Note that the first law is a special case of the second law, viz. the case where the external force is zero.
  3. If a body exerts a force upon another body then the other body will exert a force upon the first body which equal in magnitude and in the opposite direction. i.e., action – reaction. This law is equivalent to the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
The second premise is a statement made by someone totally unfamiliar with the physical laws of motion. Of course we would expect this of someone who lived four centuries before Newton.

Aquinas’s second premise implies that motion is transmitted from one object to another by means of physical contact. Today we know that all acceleration is the result of one of the four primal forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force, i.e., action at a distance.

Furthermore, at any given time absolutely every object in the universe is being acted upon by forces from every other object in the universe.


Quote:
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
Brief digression: Consider the phrase “this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover.” This is quite obviously a circular argument. Aquinas justifies his conclusion by using his conclusion as a premise. End of digression.

This declaration is the very heart of Aquinas’s argument. He is appealing to our supposed inability to deal with infinity. He completely ignores the possibility of causal loops, i.e., A moves B, B moves C, C moves A. Newton’s laws not only allow such loops but demand them, viz., action – reaction is a causal loop between only two objects. Furthermore, action – reaction demands causal loops between all possible pairs of objects in the universe.


But is an infinite sequence of events impossible? To answer this let us consider the first two of Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion.
  1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the two foci.
  2. A line segment joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
Kepler used data gathered by Tycho Brahe. How did he arrive at his laws? Brahe determined the position of each known planet at regular intervals (probably nightly). Kepler calculated the area of a triangle whose vertices where the sun and the position of the planet on successive nights. In a year’s data there are 365 such triangles whose areas are all approximately equal. If you could make measurements every 12 hours the data becomes even more precise. But the shape is an ellipse, not a 365 sided polygon, so there is always a bit left over. Kepler made the leap that if you could make an infinite number of measurements in a year the result would be exact, ergo, Kepler’s Second Law.

Newton proved that Kepler’s Second Law is exact. How did he do that? By discovering calculus. Calculus allows us to literally determine the total area of an infinite number of triangles with zero area. This is how we know that the area of a circle is the square of its radius multiplied by the number pi. There you have it, a real world infinite regress. At this point Aquinas’s argument falls completely apart.


A popular attempt at refuting the above is the red herring argument that Aquinas did not mean motion in the sense that we normally associate with the word, rather Aquinas meant any form of change when he used the word motion. If we accept this as a corollary to Aquinas argument then we must ask how many kinds of change are there? How many attributes can an object have which can be changed?
  • An object has a position in space. A change in position is motion in the Newtonian sense.
  • An object can have mass. This cannot change unless the object splits apart forming two or more objects (fission) or two or more objects can come together to form a single object (fusion). We must remember that mass and energy are the same thing (E = mc^2).
  • An object can have a charge. A change in charge is an electric current. (This is actually an oversimplification of the principle but a detailed explanation is a one semester course in college physics so I will let it stand.)

With these in place (and possibly others) we can now re-state Newton’s Laws in terms of change.
  1. An object’s position, mass, charge, etc. will not change unless acted upon by an external force.
  2. An object’s position, mass, charge, etc. acted upon by an external force will change at a rate proportional to the external force.
  3. Momentum, mass, charge, etc. are conserved throughout the universe.

Finally Aquinas’s conclusion “And this everyone understands to be God” is simply not true.
Quote:
”Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. … it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.“ – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
__________________
Sapere aude
Actor is offline  
Old 01-25-2019, 09:07 AM   #9278
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor View Post
#9277

The God Hypothesis is the ultimate example of the Fallacy of the Non-Testable Hypothesis. It can never be proven either way, although many have tried. Among those many are Thomas Aquinas who in the first few pages of his Summa Theologica presented five such attempts. There are numerous translations of these arguments from sources such as Wikipedia and Dawkin’s The God Delusion. The translation I refer to below is by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province as revised by Daniel J. Sullivan. Please note that the translation contains some unusual expressions but I have left the translation as-is.

The first of these is the “Argument From Motion.”
  1. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in this world some things are in motion.
  2. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be put in motion unless it is in potency to that towards which it is in motion.
  3. But a thing moves in so far as it is in act.
  4. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potency to act.
  5. But nothing can be reduced from potency to act except by something in a state of act.
  6. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.
  7. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, that is, that it should move itself.
  8. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another, and that by another again.
  9. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only because as they are moved by the first mover, just as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.
  10. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other.
  11. And this everyone understands to be God.

The argument fails on several points. First is the premise “some things are in motion.” This reflects the 13th century view that there is some privileged frame of reference, viz., the earth. This notion survived the discovery, by Galileo and others, that the earth moves. The supposed privileged frame of reference became the aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect the aether but it failed. In his 1905 Theory of Special Relativity Albert Einstein explained the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment by assuming that the aether does not exist. Einstein’s theory was confirmed in the 1920s, has been repeated confirmed ever since, is generally accepted by scientists today, and is unlikely to ever be overturned. Thus we are forced to replace Aquinas’s premise that “some things are in motion” with “all things are in motion and some things have a velocity of zero, which is still a valid velocity. For all things there is a frame of reference in which that thing has a velocity of zero.”


Second is the premise “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.” Recall Newton’s three laws:
  1. Within a frame of reference a body will not accelerate unless acted upon by an external force.
  2. Within a frame of reference a body acted upon by an external force will accelerate at a rate proportional to the external force, inversely proportional to the body’s mass, and in the same direction as the force. i.e., f = ma. Note that the first law is a special case of the second law, viz. the case where the external force is zero.
  3. If a body exerts a force upon another body then the other body will exert a force upon the first body which equal in magnitude and in the opposite direction. i.e., action – reaction. This law is equivalent to the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
The second premise is a statement made by someone totally unfamiliar with the physical laws of motion. Of course we would expect this of someone who lived four centuries before Newton.

Aquinas’s second premise implies that motion is transmitted from one object to another by means of physical contact. Today we know that all acceleration is the result of one of the four primal forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force, i.e., action at a distance.

Furthermore, at any given time absolutely every object in the universe is being acted upon by forces from every other object in the universe.




Brief digression: Consider the phrase “this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover.” This is quite obviously a circular argument. Aquinas justifies his conclusion by using his conclusion as a premise. End of digression.

This declaration is the very heart of Aquinas’s argument. He is appealing to our supposed inability to deal with infinity. He completely ignores the possibility of causal loops, i.e., A moves B, B moves C, C moves A. Newton’s laws not only allow such loops but demand them, viz., action – reaction is a causal loop between only two objects. Furthermore, action – reaction demands causal loops between all possible pairs of objects in the universe.


But is an infinite sequence of events impossible? To answer this let us consider the first two of Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion.
  1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the two foci.
  2. A line segment joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
Kepler used data gathered by Tycho Brahe. How did he arrive at his laws? Brahe determined the position of each known planet at regular intervals (probably nightly). Kepler calculated the area of a triangle whose vertices where the sun and the position of the planet on successive nights. In a year’s data there are 365 such triangles whose areas are all approximately equal. If you could make measurements every 12 hours the data becomes even more precise. But the shape is an ellipse, not a 365 sided polygon, so there is always a bit left over. Kepler made the leap that if you could make an infinite number of measurements in a year the result would be exact, ergo, Kepler’s Second Law.

Newton proved that Kepler’s Second Law is exact. How did he do that? By discovering calculus. Calculus allows us to literally determine the total area of an infinite number of triangles with zero area. This is how we know that the area of a circle is the square of its radius multiplied by the number pi. There you have it, a real world infinite regress. At this point Aquinas’s argument falls completely apart.


A popular attempt at refuting the above is the red herring argument that Aquinas did not mean motion in the sense that we normally associate with the word, rather Aquinas meant any form of change when he used the word motion. If we accept this as a corollary to Aquinas argument then we must ask how many kinds of change are there? How many attributes can an object have which can be changed?
  • An object has a position in space. A change in position is motion in the Newtonian sense.
  • An object can have mass. This cannot change unless the object splits apart forming two or more objects (fission) or two or more objects can come together to form a single object (fusion). We must remember that mass and energy are the same thing (E = mc^2).
  • An object can have a charge. A change in charge is an electric current. (This is actually an oversimplification of the principle but a detailed explanation is a one semester course in college physics so I will let it stand.)

With these in place (and possibly others) we can now re-state Newton’s Laws in terms of change.
  1. An object’s position, mass, charge, etc. will not change unless acted upon by an external force.
  2. An object’s position, mass, charge, etc. acted upon by an external force will change at a rate proportional to the external force.
  3. Momentum, mass, charge, etc. are conserved throughout the universe.

Finally Aquinas’s conclusion “And this everyone understands to be God” is simply not true.
How long have you believed in the fairy tale of perpetual motion machines?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 01-25-2019, 12:29 PM   #9279
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
An inquiring mind is dying to ask the "most spiritual enlightened" one on this entire forum a burning question. Ready, Freddie? Since Good and Evil are not real in your world, explain to us why you vented your venom, like some escaped madman from an insane asylum, at Trump (or per your newly revised story of Trump's immigration policy) when that policy is neither good or evil in nature?
As mere mortals, we are all faulty and irrational beings...and we are prone to emotional reactions which violate even our most fundamental beliefs. Have you heard of the saying "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die"? The pious believer has lived into his advanced years, and steadfastly believes that his little corner in the "heavenly life" is assured, due to his "saved" status. And yet, when a serious disease comes calling which threatens to hasten his departure to the Heavenly Kingdom...he quickly dashes off to the doctor, hoping that some medical treatment might delay the inescapable for at least a while longer.

As emotional, often irrational beings...when under emotional turmoil, we often act contrary to what we purport to believe.
__________________
Live to play another day.

Last edited by thaskalos; 01-25-2019 at 12:31 PM.
thaskalos is offline  
Old 01-25-2019, 12:35 PM   #9280
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
As mere mortals, we are all faulty and irrational beings...and we are prone to emotional reactions which violate even our most fundamental beliefs. Have you heard of the saying "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die"? The pious believer has lived into his advanced years, and steadfastly believes that his little corner in the "heavenly life" is assured, due to his "saved" status. And yet, when a disease lurks about which threatens to hasten his departure to the Heavenly Kingdom...he quickly dashes off to the doctor, hoping that some medical treatment might delay the inescapable for at least a while longer.

As emotional, often irrational beings...when under emotional turmoil, we often act contrary to what we purport to believe.
Not Light, though. Light is sinless, remember? Light is without evil. Light is without any darkness within. Light has a real handle on reality -- much better, in fact, than Jesus ever did!

But here's another explanation -- more plausible, I believe than yours: Light doesn't really believe half the foolishness he posts; for he's ALWAYS tripping over himself in contradictions. He weaves a mighty web of deceitfulness only to get caught in it himself.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 01-25-2019, 01:22 PM   #9281
Actor
Librocubicularist
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
How long have you believed in the fairy tale of perpetual motion machines?
Straw man!
__________________
Sapere aude
Actor is offline  
Old 01-25-2019, 05:35 PM   #9282
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor View Post
Straw man!
No it isn't. Since science cannot identify the First Mover (the Big Bang simply begs the question), science is left with their superhero Infinite Regression as its cause of the universe. The problem with its superhero, though, is that science cannot prove that anything in the universe perpetuates its own motion, let alone the universe itself.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:32 PM   #9283
Actor
Librocubicularist
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
No it isn't. Since science cannot identify the First Mover (the Big Bang simply begs the question), science is left with their superhero Infinite Regression as its cause of the universe. The problem with its superhero, though, is that science cannot prove that anything in the universe perpetuates its own motion, let alone the universe itself.
You obviously do not understand physics. When you've finished reading this (click on the link)

https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-M...nimum+susskind

and have worked all the exercises get back to me and we'll continue the discussion. Until then trying to reason with you is a futile exercise.
__________________
Sapere aude
Actor is offline  
Old 01-26-2019, 07:20 AM   #9284
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor View Post
You obviously do not understand physics. When you've finished reading this (click on the link)

https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-M...nimum+susskind

and have worked all the exercises get back to me and we'll continue the discussion. Until then trying to reason with you is a futile exercise.
Well, since you understand it so well, why don't you tell us what the First Mover is? Why are keeping it such big secret? Is it so complicated that it takes the many words of an entire book to simply identify the First Mover? Or are the mighty men of scientism concealing their ignorance from the world by emulating a fool who multiples words (Eccl 10:14)?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 01-26-2019, 01:51 PM   #9285
Actor
Librocubicularist
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Well, since you understand it so well, why don't you tell us what the First Mover is?
You are making the claim that there is a first mover. The burden of proof is yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Is it so complicated ...
Apparently it is since you obviously do not understand what I said. Have you ever taken, and passed, a course in calculus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
... that it takes the many words of an entire book ...
It's a short book. Only 227 short pages. How long is the Bible? How long is Aquinas's Summa Theologiae?

By the way, did you not say no one was reading my posts? I seem to have at least two readers.
__________________
Sapere aude
Actor is offline  
Closed Thread




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.