Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Tjhe problem is without "drilling down" to a deeper understanding of an atom's structure, until recently----specifically after 17th century pseudo-science you preach, the atom appeared completely solid.

The LNC is useless without drilling down to deeper understandings. Atoms once appeared solid to human perception in spite of it's vastly devoid of matter composition.

I tried to make similar points in bringing up the uncertainty of human limitations perceiving the quantum level.

Aristotle and the other classical philosophers who formulated the LNC were hampered by lack of information. Theory can only go so far. Evidence is needed to drill down deeper and "flesh out" theory.

The problem abounds in your 11 part thesis. Engineers sneer at poor workmanship referring to such devices as a kludge or kluge.

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

A kludge or kluge (/klʌdʒ, kluːdʒ/) is a workaround or quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain. This term is used in diverse fields such as computer science, aerospace engineering, Internet slang, evolutionary neuroscience, and government.
.................................................. ......................

A working model usually vacates the term. Working models are demonstrable evidence.

As I said, a room can be totally empty, totally filled or partially filled. The latter, evidently, applies to your precious atom. Big deal.

But please let us know when an atom is at once totally empty and totally filled.

[hcap]

Your nonsense from the Religious and Religion II threads. All sorts of erroneous proclamations about space not able to exist without matter in it or around it....

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...gious&page=994

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you're talking about outer space, I never said that. I used the ANALOGY of "space" in a room or house because it is logically sound. What defines both outer space and "empty spaces" in rooms or houses or any other structure is MATTER. You can't see the forest because of the trees. You cannot understand for some odd reason that a the "boundary" of a room consist of matter.

Prove it. Show me empty space. Once you prove that to me, then I'll prove God to you. How's that?

Again, there is no such thing as "empty space". It doesn't exist. Empty space itself is no thing.

Boxcar

Err...'scuse, sir. But if it weren't for the existence of the electron and the proton, which are something, then you would not know that there is space between them. I would not know a room is "empty space" if it weren't for the four walls, the floor and the ceiling.
Boxcar

Two things: What defines the SPACE is what is in it. Secondly, according to Kraus, Atkins, Hawkings, etc., etc., etc. -- NOTHING is in the space. But something must be in it to define it. This is why they inevitably switch horses in mid-stream and eventually 'fess up (often in obscure language) that by "nothing" they really mean "something".

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, not. The space just became larger and is now defined by all the matter surrounding, for example.... all my neighbors' houses around me.

Boxcar

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.

Yes, you go on and on and on about empty space needing matter or walls to define space.

I have not found you asking "what happens if all matter disappears from the universe."

Your claim that Einstein and you are somehow on the same scientific page. Remember? This is what you said recently......

How long have I maintained this very same position? Even as recently as 2 or 3 months ago, I asked you what would happen if all Matter vanished from the universe?

Where is it bunky?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by hcap

The problem is without "drilling down" to a deeper understanding of an atom's structure, until recently----specifically after 17th century pseudo-science you preach, the atom appeared completely solid.

The LNC is useless without drilling down to deeper understandings. Atoms once appeared solid to human perception in spite of it's vastly devoid of matter composition.

I tried to make similar points in bringing up the uncertainty of human limitations perceiving the quantum level.

Without a deeper understanding of matter that was not that "DEEP" or thorough for instance prior to modern physics, the "quick fix" of the LNC does not allow the proper questions to be asked or framed. The main value of the LNC is, if we realize our theories and speculations are contradictory, we may move on trying to go deeper, and not be satisfied with the status quo.

You tend to use the LNC to hold back that process of going further incorrectly evaluating apparent contradictions.

Proper criticism is essential, however one must be among other things, aware of current knowledge to criticize intelligently.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Without a deeper understanding of matter that was not that "DEEP" or thorough for instance prior to modern physics, the "quick fix" of the LNC does not allow the proper questions to be asked or framed. The main value of the LNC is, if we realize our theories and speculations are contradictory, we may move on trying to go deeper, and not be satisfied with the status quo.

You tend to use the LNC to hold back that process of going further incorrectly evaluating apparent contradictions.

Proper criticism is essential, however one must be among other things, aware of current knowledge to criticize intelligently.

The LNC is a straight and narrow path that prohibits us from turning to the right or to the left wherein await error and falsehoods. I would definitely call that progress, especially since "all men are liars" and distrustful by nature. Remember the universal Law of Distrust?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your nonsense from the Religious and Religion II threads. All sorts of erroneous proclamations about space not able to exist without matter in it or around it....

[url]http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88142&highlight=religious&page=99 4[/url

Yes, you go on and on and on about empty space needing matter or walls to define space.

I have not found you asking "what happens if all matter disappears from the universe."

Your claim that Einstein and you are somehow on the same scientific page. Remember? This is what you said recently......


Where is it bunky?

I'll tell ya what: I'll search for my post after you answer all my questions in 6428 and 29. How's that?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The LNC is a straight and narrow path that prohibits us from turning to the right or to the left wherein await error and falsehoods. I would definitely call that progress, especially since "all men are liars" and distrustful by nature. Remember the universal Law of Distrust?

1-Not all men just because you are. Sounds like you are doing big time projection to me.

2-According to you god created nature, therefore god must have set up lying and distrust.

The LNC destroys god's "goodness", if and when god created lying and distrust, since and if god created nature.

[hcap]

I have shown thru many Of your own statements and proclamations you are very confused when it comes to:

1-Time
2-Cause And Effect
3-Matter and space

Stop passing yourself off as a scientific expert.
Your not

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

1-Not all men just because you are. Sounds like you are doing big time projection to me.

2-According to you god created nature, therefore god must have set up lying and distrust.

The LNC destroys god's "goodness", if and when god created lying and distrust, since and if god created nature.

Oh yes...all men. All men are universally distrusted. This is why man invented keys and locks.

And this isn't God's fault. He didn't cause Adam and Eve to sin. They are the ones who corrupted their own nature by sinning and the nature of all their progeny.

[boxcar]

Okay, Humpty, strap yourself in tight 'cause you aint' gonna like what I have to say about how the universe cannot possibly exist apart from all the three components existing, i.e. Space, Matter and Time. But first, let's revisit Einstein's quote:

If you don't take my words too seriously, I would say this: If we assume that all matter were to disappear from the world, then, before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the Theory of Relativity, if matter (and its motion) disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time.

Einstein is saying two very important things:

1. He saying that if Matter vanished from the universe, there would no longer be a universe, since Space and Time would also disappear along with Matter.

2. Therefore, he's also clearly implying that each of the three basic structural components to the universe necessitate the other two in order for the universe to exist.

Now...this is what I wrote way back on 01/28/05 in part 12 of "Why is the Universe What it is?" Pay close attention, Humpty!

[i]To sum up all this in terms of Motion, it can be said that potential Motion is Space. Actual Motion is the tangible Universe. And successive Motion is Time.

In all these things, the Great Principle of Triunity points clearly to the absolute Threeness and absolute Oneness of Space, Matter and Time. For Space, Potential Activity comes into full existence only in Actual Motion. And this Motion exists inevitably as Successiveness, which is Time.

Secondly, Matter (or Motion) is the Potential Activity of Space realized. It cannot exist, except as the embodiment of Space. On the other hand, Motion exists as successiveness or Time. Motion without successiveness is impossible.

And thirdly, Time exists only as Space comes into Motion, and Motion into successiveness. Time in the Physical Universe cannot exist, except as the result of Space and Motion. Each of the Three, therefore, necessitates the other Two!

In other words, Humpty, I clearly implied that there cannot be a universe without Space, Matter and Time. Therefore, Einstein was on the same page as myself and a hosts of great Christian thinkers in the areas of theology, philosophy and/or apologetics.

Now, answer my questions in 6428 & 29.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh yes...all men. All men are universally distrusted. This is why man invented keys and locks.

So all men rob all other men? All men Lye to all other men? OH! that's right. According to you and the literal minded, all infants are born "evil" with original sin. If you had children, you might feel otherwise.

Hint it's like owning cats to the nth degree

A child's ego, noise, tantrums and a messy room and the child unknowing what adults know, do not equal evilness and sin.

And this isn't God's fault. He didn't cause Adam and Eve to sin. They are the ones who corrupted their own nature by sinning and the nature of all their progeny.

Man talk bout the law of non-contradiction! God sure contradicted and convoluted himself into moral somersaults testing HIS children. I guess the real original sin is god not loving and trusting His children. I guess if he had locks, he must lock up at night, cursing ALL the spoiled brats he made

Why should he expect HIS children to do any better?

Oh yeah, I repeat...Stop passing yourself off as a scientific expert.
Your not.

My interaction with you, Mr Mini-Me Einstein is done

[hcap]

R.I.P.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So all men rob all other men? All men Lye to all other men? OH! that's right. According to you and the literal minded, all infants are born "evil" with original sin. If you had children, you might feel otherwise.

Hint it's like owning cats to the nth degree

A child's ego, noise, tantrums and a messy room and the child unknowing what adults know, do not equal evilness and sin.

Man talk bout the law of non-contradiction! God sure contradicted and convoluted himself into moral somersaults testing HIS children. I guess the real original sin is god not loving and trusting His children. I guess if he had locks, he must lock up at night, cursing ALL the spoiled brats he made

Why should he expect HIS children to do any better?

Oh yeah, I repeat...Stop passing yourself off as a scientific expert.
Your not.

My interaction with you, Mr Mini-Me Einstein is done

Oh...so God is morally obligated to trust his children, but his children get a "free get-out-of-jail pass" and are never morally culpable for not trusting and loving their Creator and Father?

God is morally deficient because he gave his children a moral test? Did he do this on the sly or with their full knowledge? Did he give them fair warning or not?

I guess God didn't love Jesus either since the Holy Spirit led God's Son into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights to be tested -- not once but three times!

[hcap]

Too convoluted for me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Too convoluted for me.

Perfectly describes you and you lame theories.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Perfectly describes you and you lame theories.

My stand on science is way closer to the mainstream than yours. You are the tin foil hat conspiracist galore. You are a Flat earther redux. Yes, it is back and you fit right in. I saved an old photo of you attending one of their "secret" meetings.




Original sin only appears in Christianity, none of the other Abrahamic religions, and none of the world's other major religions.

Sorry but my first hand evidence for not believing that we are born "sinners" is raising a child.

Can't believe my son is the only exception to this crazy rule formalized by St. Augustine.