|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I think he means he doubts everything he can doubt; but that there are things he does not know about that he cannot yet doubt (but would when he discovers them).
I think.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Sure it is. How do you distinguish between a nitrogen moelcule that's touching the plate and a water molecule that's touching the plate and a carrot molecule that's touching th plate? There is nothing on the plate. Molecules do not touch each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
On the contrary, since orbitals extend to infinity, every molecule and atom in the universe not only "touches" but overlaps.
There is nothing on the plate. Molecules do not touch each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Ahhh so really there is only one molecule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Ahhh so really there is only one molecule.quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Again, great hearing from you, hope you are well.
Ringo writes: How do you distinguish between a nitrogen molecule that's touching the plate and a water molecule that's touching the plate and a carrot molecule that's touching the plate? Well, that’s easy, for those of us that do not have it committed to memory, we can take a look at a ‘Periodic Table’ (at Wikipedia.org) and see that the Nitrogen Atom has an atomic weight of 7, water is a molecule of two Hydrogen atoms (atomic weight of 1) and one Oxygen atom (atomic weight of 8). As for the Carrots, we can tell that they are neither ‘Nitrogen’ nor ‘Hydrogen’ or ‘Oxygen’ though a morsel of carrot may contain any, or all of these ingredients. However, that is all beside the point. You have once again tried to sidestep the problem by changing the parameters of the argument. If you will recall you said:
Ringo writes: No. "Everything" can be figurative; "every thing" less so. Parent: "Did you eat everything on your plate?" Child: "Yes." Parent: "No you didn't. You didn't eat the column of air above it." See how silly absolutism is? (Emphasis added) In this example you are talking about a column of air above a plate; not things necessarily touching the plate. A column of air would be more than one atom thick and thus the Atoms not touching the plate would not be ‘on’ the plate. The word above reinforces the idea that the column of air is not actually in contact with the plate; which is the point I was making. By the way, what I fined ‘silly’ is the argument that asking someone if they have eaten everything on their plate would be construed to include any item not actually touching the top surface of the plate itself. So, let me ask you this: what would be some of the things you do not doubt if, indeed, you do not doubt ‘absolutely everything’; as you, now, seem to be claiming? Ringo writes: I have given you a logical reason: The law of non-contradiction is trivial because it's true by definition. It's the equivalent of saying, "Orange is the colour of an orange." What do you mean by: true by definition? Are you implying that if something is ‘defined’ it is somehow less true? Also, I don’t get the Orange reference either; the fact that ‘Orange’ is the color of a fruit we call an Orange make this fact no more or no less true; and has no bearing on whether or not it is trivial. Hope to hear from you again soon. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
we can take a look at a ‘Periodic Table’ (at Wikipedia.org) and see that the Nitrogen Atom has an atomic weight of 7, water is a molecule of two Hydrogen atoms (atomic weight of 1) and one Oxygen atom (atomic weight of 8). All of those numbers are wrong. You cited the atomic number rather than the atomic weight. Not that such things are important for the discussion, but it sure looks silly to pretend to be technical and then to get things wrong.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Credibilty gone completely JRTjr01.
Even twelve years olds know the difference between the atomic weights and numbers. You don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
By the way, what I fined ‘silly’ is the argument that asking someone if they have eaten everything on their plate would be construed to include any item not actually touching the top surface of the plate itself. No, that's not right. That would mean that if there is a hamburger on a plate, then the only thing that is on the plate would be the bottom bun. But that's silly, the whole burger is on the plate.
In this example you are talking about a column of air above a plate; not things necessarily touching the plate. Actually, Ringo made a really good point about how saying "everything" doesn't have to mean literally every single thing. If you tried harder to understand the point rather than just trying to score debate points by trying to make him wrong, then this discussion could have begun to move forward months ago. So, the column of air above the plate is technically on the plate as well as the food is. When a parent asks if you've eaten "everything" on you plate, they are not talking about every single thing on the plate (like the air above it), they are just talking about the food on it. That is because "everything" does not have to mean every single thing.
What do you mean by: true by definition? Are you implying that if something is ‘defined’ it is somehow less true? Its like a tautology. The problem isn't that they aren't true, they just don't really tell us anything. That's what is meant by being trivial. The fact that something is itself and not something else is not some kind of profound insight, its trivially true. That it is the only example of an absolute truth that you can come up with, tells me that absolute truths are a pipe dream. If there really were good examples of absolute truths, then you would have simply said one instead of distracting the whole thing by focusing on a tautology. You've got nothing. You're fluffing up your lack of evidence and argument and trying to sound like you have some kind of evidence and argument. But all you've got is fluff. This whole thing started six months ago:
I can give evidence both for the existence of God and that He operated outside of our universe; however, to do that you must be willing to look at the evidence and accept it. quote: Unfortunately, I have to, respectfully, disagree with you on this one. Just because ‘most people’ agree on something does not make it true/factual/correct. Thousands, even hundres, of years ago ‘most people’ thought the Sun revolved around the Earth; that did not mean it was true, factual or correct. I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth. quote: Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.???; and more importantly, can you prove it??? And down the rabbit hole you've gone. If you actually had any evidence or argument, then you would have presented it. That you've instead decided to focus on irrelevancies and distractions tell us that you never had anything in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Nicely said CS. I agree that JR's entire line of argument is hogwash.
quote: The above statement is an argument going nowhere. Evidence is simply facts that, when interpreted correctly, make one proposition more likely to be true than another competing proposition. It is an true that if I plot the altitude and azimuth of the sun and stars on a graph, that the points will show a path across the sky for each object. There is nothing objectively or subjectively false about that. The error is in the interpretation. That problem is that the particular fact does not discriminate between a spinning earth and a stationary earth in which the entire universe rotates around the earth. It is for that reason that the fact is not evidence and that conclusions based on that fact can be wrong.
Actually, Ringo made a really good point about how saying "everything" doesn't have to mean literally every single thing. Exactly. The "everything" would not include, for example your fork and knife if you left them on the plate. Your mom would not be expecting it to include food stuff that would require you to scrape at, or pick up your plate and lick, and she would not include that pat of butter you did not eat either. Plus your food is plenty full of hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. No idea where that nonsense is going. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
You've missed the point. I'm asking how you can distinguish between a nitrogen atom in the air and a nitrogen atom in the carrot. Unless you can, you can't say that one is "on" the plate and the other isn't.
Well, that’s easy, for those of us that do not have it committed to memory, we can take a look at a ‘Periodic Table’.... JRTjr01 writes:
Nonsense. When a parent talks about the food "on" the plate, he/she doesn't mean only the single layer of food molecules that are literally touching the plate. In the same way, you can't restrict the column of air to one layer of molecules.
A column of air would be more than one atom thick and thus the Atoms not touching the plate would not be ‘on’ the plate. JRTjr01 writes:
As I have said, I don't question the possibility of absolute truth. It is possible that absolute truths exist, though you don't seem to have any examples either. I doubt the truth of anything that has not yet been proven to be absolute. When (and if) you ever give us an example of absolute truth, that will be an example of something I don't doubt.
So, let me ask you this: what would be some of the things you do not doubt if, indeed, you do not doubt ‘absolutely everything’; as you, now, seem to be claiming? JRTjr01 writes:
"JRTjr01" is defined as "a member of the EvC forum" whose screen name is JRTjr01". There is no "truth" in that definition. A definition is just a gizmo to attach a word to a concept. It has no inherent truth value.
What do you mean by: true by definition? Are you implying that if something is ‘defined’ it is somehow less true? JRTjr01 writes:
If I send you to the store to buy "an orange fruit" you might bring me a pumpkin or an under-ripe tomato or an orange bell pepper. "Orange is the colour of an orange" doesn't convey any useful information. It requires the additional definition of "an orange". ... the fact that ‘Orange’ is the color of a fruit we call an Orange make this fact no more or no less true; and has no bearing on whether or not it is trivial. Similarly, defining "true" as "not false" conveys no useful information. It requires a definition of "false" - which you would no doubt give as "not true".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
So give us a non-trivial example. Elements come from stars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
There were elements before there were stars. "Some elements come from stars" is as trivially true as "some dogs are brown".
Elements come from stars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
ProtoTypical writes:
There were elements before there were stars. Elements come from stars. Also, there are synthetic elements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
There were elements before there were stars. "Some elements come from stars" is as trivially true as "some dogs are brown". Maybe I should ask for your definition of an absolute truth. Why should triviality disqualify something? Is there some H or He in this universe that has not been through a star? Perhaps I over reached though. How about — Carbon comes from stars. Is that trivial?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024