Religion II

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've learned it is inevitable that any discussion with boxcar will result in name-calling and general snarkiness. It is so poisonous and acidic that I finally broke myself of the habit, at least for the past couple of weeks. It was completely delusional on my part to believe anyone could penetrate his wall of hubris and ignorance. If a purpose of PA is to give people a forum for expressing different ideas and having positive discussions about them, the Religion thread has failed. In fact I believe going through an extended argument with boxcar on any topic can actually make one stupider.

Have to stop feeding the beast.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...well..."pointing to it" and proving it are two different things. Seems to me scientists should be able to send a satellite up there, collect some space samples and, Shirley, one of those samples should be a perfect vacuum.
Do you know of any "satellites" in interstellar space Mr world renowned scientist/cosmologist?

So...why are you still duckling the questions I have asked you? First, I asked you if a vacuum is something or nothing? No answer..

A number of us have already told you. A vacuum is defined as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

Vacuum is space void of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1]

Then I asked can nothing, no thing, not any thing exist or are these non-existent? No answer.

I told you understanding nothing is an inability of the human mind, particularly among western theists. Mathematically we use zero to stand for no number. Philosophically you probably must study quantum theory, or practice eastern meditation where the intellect is assigned to a "void" because the intellect is not suited to grasp it especially if one is a "first mover" aficionado.

Btw, On the quantum level there are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence (can be a vacuum or nothing) without evidence for a deliberate "first mover" I speculated if this perhaps is a microcosm for the big bang.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I've learned it is inevitable that any discussion with boxcar will result in name-calling and general snarkiness. It is so poisonous and acidic that I finally broke myself of the habit, at least for the past couple of weeks. It was completely delusional on my part to believe anyone could penetrate his wall of hubris and ignorance. If a purpose of PA is to give people a forum for expressing different ideas and having positive discussions about them, the Religion thread has failed. In fact I believe going through an extended argument with boxcar on any topic can actually make one stupider.

Have to stop feeding the beast.

I agree and if you remember I have also warned everyone of the very same thing.

However I am particularly susceptible to boxcar preaching science, physics an cosmology as though he was a bonafide expert. Turns my stomach and find it difficult to let go. If we had his 11 part "thesis" on everything you would really get to know just how bonkers he is.

I can not find it. PA can you

[Actor]

There are two aspects of Aquinas’ argument that do not hold up when examined from a modern scientific view, i.e., with an understanding of the nature of the universe that has withstood peer review. One is the idea that there cannot be an infinite regression. Aquinas does not defend this idea put simply puts it out a priori, i.e., he rejects infinite regress without proof or evidence and further assumes that his audience will likewise reject it. But why reject it? It is an admittedly difficult concept to grasp and the easy way out is to deny it. But science is built upon many difficult concepts, some of which initially seem to defy logic. Take, for example, the wave-particle duality of light, which says that light is a stream of particles and simultaneously a wave. Or take the double slit experiment which demonstrates that a particle can be in two places at the same time. Complexity is no reason to reject an idea.

The other aspect of Aquinas’ argument is a total ignorance of the nature of the universe, an ignorance that was ubiquitous in Aquinas’ time. The universe is a system of particles. At any given time each particle has a position (x,y,z), a mass, a velocity (speed plus direction), charge, spin, etc. A particle is either matter or a photon (light). Furthermore, each particle in the universe continuously interacts with every other particle in the universe through gravity and electromagnetism. Thus the universe is an enormous machine. To consider just one part of if, or a group of parts of it, and then draw conclusions about the whole is fallacious (fallacy of composition). But Aquinas’, being ignorant of the nature of the universe, does just that.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

By "motion" is meant any change, not simply locomotion. Changes in quantity, knowledge levels, birth or death or, returning to locomotion, acceleration or deceleration, etc.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... the classical philosophers used the term "motion" in a more expanded way -- to mean any kind of change from one state to another, etc.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Motion refers to change of any kind, e.g., growth in knowledge ..., temperature fluctuations, becoming a grandfather, becoming flushed at misunderstanding an initial premise, locomotion, etc.

dnlgfnk repeats himself, but whatever.

These three are all really the same. "Motion" means any change "from one state to another." Fine. This does not alter my contention that any motion (change of state) is not caused by a simple interaction between two particles (objects if you wish) but by interaction of all particles in the universe with all other particles in the universe. A particle does not change its position, velocity, mass, charge, spin, etc. by virtue of an interaction with another particle but by interaction with the entire universe.

Complex changes, e.g., "knowledge level" are no exception. Precisely how knowledge is stored in the brain is not completely understood at this time but it almost certainly has to do with the state of neurons in the brain which in turn is determined by the state of atoms in the brain.

Conclusion: expanding the definition of motion to include all changes does not invalidate my argument.

[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"?

Sorry for the delay, hcap. I am still hunched over my wife's laptop, as the so-called best computer store in St. Looie is still running diagnostics on my Inspiron since Sat.

There are two types of causes. Tommy called them per se and per accidens. We can call them a) those that are not effects and b) those that are effects (or instrumental). If one wants to say "all causes are infinite", she can just say "all causes are "b". Therefore, can all causes be instrumental? If so, then causal power is always derived from another., i.e., "Looks like a cause, but must have got it's causal power from some other being".

Dominoes are "accidental" in that it doesn't matter if the dominoes in the rear would have been in the front. Either way, they get their power from something else. If I pick up fallen dominoes the chain will continue. My Dad is deceased--he caused my existence. Though he is deceased, I still possessed the power to give life to my son. So in another example for infinite causes, these "accidental", instrumental causes could be infinite.

When a painter utilizes a brush to paint a picture, the brush is an instrumental cause of the painting, but the painter is the first cause, not necessarily in terms of the temporal (which is what most infer from scholastic arguments), but essentially, fundamentally, metaphysically ultimate. The casual power is inherent in the painter. In a railyard of boxcars (no pun intended) moving in a loop, the locomotive can be located anywhere in the loop, but it is the car with the inherent causal power to move the others. A piano player is supplying the casual, sustaining power to produce music. When he stops, the music stops. The causation terminates in a prime mover.

i didn't look around, and don't intend to 'till I get my own online setup back. Apologies if someone already addressed the question.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

dnlgfnk repeats himself, but whatever.

These three are all really the same. "Motion" means any change "from one state to another." Fine. This does not alter my contention that any motion (change of state) is not caused by a simple interaction between two particles (objects if you wish) but by interaction of all particles in the universe with all other particles in the universe. A particle does not change its position, velocity, mass, charge, spin, etc. by virtue of an interaction with another particle but by interaction with the entire universe.

Complex changes, e.g., "knowledge level" are no exception. Precisely how knowledge is stored in the brain is not completely understood at this time but it almost certainly has to do with the state of neurons in the brain which in turn is determined by the state of atoms in the brain.

Conclusion: expanding the definition of motion to include all changes does not invalidate my argument.

Caught this when posting mine. They are not really the same. Boxcar wrote one of them, i.e., "dnglfnk repeats himself".

i may consider responding when i get back online, but in any case, I'm not fond of your reading skills.

Go to the most subatomic level you wish, and I could move into "essence and existance", and the need for an actualizer to conjoin them in matter.

[Actor]

• You can prove you have a beer.
• If you devote your life to beer there are groups to help you stop.
• Nobody has ever been burned at the stake, hanged or tortured over their brand of beer.
• You don't have to wait 2,000 years for a second beer.
• No one will kill you for not drinking a beer.
• People don't knock on your door wanting to tell you all about their brand of beer.
• Beer won't tell you how to have sex.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

The casual power is inherent in the painter. In a railyard of boxcars (no pun intended) moving in a loop, the locomotive can be located anywhere in the loop, but it is the car with the inherent causal power to move the others. A piano player is supplying the casual, sustaining power to produce music. When he stops, the music stops. The causation terminates in a prime mover.

Yes there may be an alteration in the chain of events of phenomena with the interjection consciousness, and a I do take exception to "absolute" determinism.. So this OCCASIONAL and exceptional conscious interjection occurs within the universe. The origination of consciousness is open for debate. A more pantheistic consideration should be given to Carl Sagan - "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself" . Of course pantheism brings up it's own problems.

However the projection out to a deliberate creation by a deliberate creator outside and before the universe is a presumptuous anthropomorphic back fitting of things beyond our limited intellect.

I think a "creator" is only a historical concept established by some human cultures as a "shorthand" in thinking about huge tough conundrums. And unfortunately usually devolves into believing in golden calves and diverts critical thinking away from other philosophical and scientific possibilities

A creator in western thinking has had some very useful emotional and empathetic and compassionate contributions to our western religious culture but it is possible to appreciate our conscience can also be explained by emotional evolution expressed by some biological social groups.


And the fact remains that this prime mover begs the question about it's origin similar to the piano player in your analogy. Humans playing pianos are not an example of a prime mover considering that:

A- CREATION OF MAN BY GOD or
B- CREATION OF MAN BY EVOLUTION

Buddhism agrees with western religion in the need for compassion but also warns against "deification" or taking the principles and teachings which are difficult to encapsulate in words, and personifying these difficult teachings into a devalued shortcut.

"If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him! "

Like many koans, this one is intended to jog us out of our normal modes of thought into new perspectives and ways of seeing that at first seem paradoxical: should someone seeking enlightenment really kill another who has found it? Is it even right to talk about killing in a proverbial sense for such a person?

[hcap]

Absolute (Hard) determinism.

Worth watching.

I do not buy all of this. However in most cases we do act mechanically. Consciousness is the exception. We potentially can interject ourselves as a casual momentary interruption of per-determined events and thoughts

YouTube (Short URL)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

A more accurate consensus approach says:
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml


After some reflection I have concluded a rough relationship between material density and units of spatial measurements exists. The lower the density and the smaller the unit of measurement, the greater the chance that segment of space is a total vacuum (on the macroscopic level of course.)

1 doesn't = 0. That atom is still something. Even if the entire universe, somehow (magically) could be reduced to 1 atom outside planet earth that one atom would still be SOMETHING. That one atom would make Space virtually empty -- virtually no thing. Close...but no cigar.

But let's not carry on this useless line of discussion. I see that you want to avoid any discussion along metaphysical/philosophical lines. You most certainly want to avoid my ontological line of questions to you. I was all set to prepare my own argument but then stumbled across a Christian apologist's argument that he presented along a very similar vein as my own, i.e. existence. To even posit the question, "What is Nothing?", is an oxymoron. The term "is" militates violently against the term "nothing in this question" because once we say that nothing is this or is that or is some other thing, we are unwittingly trying to assign ontological status to that which is no thing -- to that which has no existence -- no being. Nothing, logically, cannot be Something.

I'm embedding a link to Dr. Mac Cleaver's argument -- a Christian philosopher and apologist. I feel quite indebted to this gentleman since he has saved me the time and effort in preparing my own. Plus he is a much better writer than I am. It is a lengthy read and in some places a little closely worded but still well worth the effort to read through it. Below is the opening two paragraphs to show you where he will be going with his argument.

The issue of “origin” as a concept has to begin somewhere. From whence did everything that is arrive? What is the source of all that we experience on earth? Ultimately, we are going to have to face two theoretical possibilities. Either there was a point at which there was “nothing,” or there has never been a point at which there was “nothing.” But before we go further, let us make sure that we are all on the same page regarding what nothing “is.” Look at those last quotation marks. They indicate that the very concept of “is” is opposed to the very concept of “nothing.” If we say that nothing is so and so, we are trying to give nothing some sort of ontological or “being” status, which by definition it simply cannot have. Nothing is not something. Nothing has no characteristics or qualities. Nothing is void of everything. It is the absence of anything and everything. It is the negation of all being. And by “being,” we mean existence at its most fundamental ontological level. If “nothing” were to be the absolute ultimate ontological condition at a given point, then we as men could not “think” it. As humans we cannot live with nothing and our minds are not equipped to even clearly grasp the meaning of the term we choose to describe as the absolute ontological contradiction to “being.” We have to think of “nothing” as a “something” even to bring it forward as a concept for discussion. Isn’t that amazing? And isn’t that insightful?

So, when we talk about “nothing” as a theoretical possibility regarding origin, we are having to intellectually squirm around in the effort to make sense of that which we are trying to describe. It is hard for a finite mind to get hold of the concept of nothing. It would do well for atheists to contemplate this point the next time they criticize the concept of eternal “something”. As humans we can only contemplate “nothing” as a topic from the background of the something that already impresses itself constantly on our minds. The backdrop of the discussion of “nothing” exists as a “something”. It cannot happen any other way. Since a human mind is certainly “something,” then we can only begin to attempt to fathom the concept of nothing via something, that is, our human minds. Minimally, the existence of at least the human mind is always the ontological presupposition to the discussion of “nothing”. Without our minds, there is no discussion, there is no issue, there is no controversy about the ultimate origin of all there is. So either “something” or “nothing” as the ultimate ontological explanation for all else is only relevant to a mind.

https://warrenapologetics.org/articl...ing-or-nothing

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I've learned it is inevitable that any discussion with boxcar will result in name-calling and general snarkiness. It is so poisonous and acidic that I finally broke myself of the habit, at least for the past couple of weeks. It was completely delusional on my part to believe anyone could penetrate his wall of hubris and ignorance. If a purpose of PA is to give people a forum for expressing different ideas and having positive discussions about them, the Religion thread has failed. In fact I believe going through an extended argument with boxcar on any topic can actually make one stupider.

Have to stop feeding the beast.

Glad to hear you're going on a much needed diet, apparently. But be careful. Don't go anorexic on us as you set out to tame the beast within.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Mr Wizard

1 doesn't = 0. That atom is still something. Even if the entire universe, somehow (magically) could be reduced to 1 atom outside planet earth that one atom would still be SOMETHING. That one atom would make Space virtually empty -- virtually no thing. Close...but no cigar

I gave you a basic math test using elementary statistics and probability and you failed miserably.

The starting point of your ignorance of the concept of space as a measurable dimension is your absurd claim that we can only observe space if matter moves through it, is simply a faith based totally wrong belief and when you attempt to rationalize it using absurd stuff I just quoted you defy belief.

Your inability to divide 1 cubic centimeter into smaller parts and understand my generalized concept that there must be more empty space in that CC of volume of space than filled space is just beyond dumb.

Another chance to pass a math test.

The diameter of a hydrogen atom is app 2.08 Angstroms. Or 2 hundred-millionth of a centimeter. How many hydrogen atoms can you fit in our specified 1 cubic centimeter and therefore what is the percentage of empty space to filled space?

As far as your faith based discussion of something versus nothing, maybe you can argue this with some one other than me.

Not interested

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I gave you a basic math test using elementary statistics and probability and you failed miserably.

The starting point of your ignorance of the concept of space as a measurable dimension is your absurd claim that we can only observe space if matter moves through it, is simply a faith based totally wrong belief and when you attempt to rationalize it using absurd stuff I just quoted you defy belief.

Your inability to divide 1 cubic centimeter into smaller parts and understand my generalized concept that there must be more empty space in that CC of volume of space than filled space is just beyond dumb.

Another chance to pass a math test.

The diameter of a hydrogen atom is app 2.08 Angstroms. Or 2 hundred-millionth of a centimeter. How many hydrogen atoms can you fit in our specified 1 cubic centimeter and therefore what is the percentage of empty space to filled space?

As far as your faith based discussion of something versus nothing, maybe you can argue this with some one other than me.

Not interested

I have a quart milk container in my fridge that is only about 10% full. So what that most of the container is empty? The fact remains that the container is not empty. Speaking analogously, why do insist on focusing on the 90% of the container that is empty when the real problem is that container itself is not 100% empty? This is called equivocation. In your loony universe, the 90% of empty space proves that nothing exists in that space, even at the expense of 10% that actually fills the container.

[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