🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Jul 13, 3:23 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 11:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 11, 4:14�pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>>>>>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:08 -0700, ben_dolan_...@reet.com (Ben Dolan)
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>>> Ben, there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that God exists,
>>>>>>>> Which God though?
>>>>>>> The One whose prophecies are repeatedly and accurately fulfilled.
>>>>>> OH, you mean a SCIENTIST.
>>>>>> I thought we were talking religion..
>>>>> How about this prophecy?
>>>>>                               x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>>>>                               y'=y
>>>>>                               z'=z
>>>>>                               t'=t
>>>>> You atheists have no trouble believing this miracle.   An object in
>>>>> motion relative to a frame of reference contracts in length until at
>>>>> the speed of light its length is zero.
>>>> Speed of light relative to what Robbo?
>>>> You don't even begin to understand this 'miracle'
>>>> I bet you don't even begin to understand the 'miracle' that you are
>>>> reading this on.
>>>> All science is about accurate prediction of the future. If you type
>>>> something here, and all the proper elements of the satanic rituals are
>>>> in place, and all the little satanists have connected the plugs and
>>>> wires, and all the little satanic devices have been properly
>>>> manufactured, and everything in a vast technical infrastructure all
>>>> based on applied science are in place, and have been properly tested to
>>>> be working, then magically the words *will* appear on several hundred
>>>> computer screens all over the world. After you press the send button.
>>>> Now that doesn't make Scientific theorems on which all this is based,
>>>> including quantum physics, TRUE, but at least the stuff does something
>>>> pretty useful and miraculous.
>>>> Whereas the best you can come up with is an ill defined set of rules and
>>>> behaviours that will, after I am dead, somehow save me from something
>>>> and catapult me into something else: however I can find no instance of
>>>> anyone actually having been there and back to even begin to confirm
>>>> whether this will in fact happen or not.
>>>> Ok there's an old story about one guy who allegedly did, but he could
>>>> have been lying anyway.
>>>> And you want me to accept this as absolute cast iron FACT? purleeze..
>>>> It's just more of Kiplings Bandar Log..
>>> As I said, you accept Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz
>>> equations because it was used to produce nuclear weapons, something
>>> you find useful in your philosophy.  
>> No, I don't *accept* it, except insofar as it matches the data we have.
>> And hasn't been found wrong yet.
>>
>> Whether or not its valid for a real object at the speed of light, we
>> cannnot say, as it is impossible to generate enough energy to get
>> something to that speed. As far as we have taken objects towards the
>> speed of light, it seems to be holding up so far,. that's all.
>>
>>> And Scientists did it.  However,
>>> as I said, it requires a miracle.  
>> what is miraculaous about it?
>>
>> If an object moves, it gets shorter
>>
>>> in length, if it is accellerated to the speed of light, it has a
>>> length of zero.  That is what the equations say.   This is a miracle
>> Its not a miracle: its just what *seems* to happen. It's no more
>> miraculous than lightning and thnder.
>>
>>> you can accept because scientists believe it.  So you and scientists
>>> have a religion that is acceptable to you which only requires one
>>> miracle.
>> Not in the slightest. YOur logic start from false premises, and blunders
>> on making unjustified inferences and deductions from those premises.
>>
>> In short Robbo, you are as bad a philosopher as you are a woman.
>>
>> Your mistake is to assume that similar faith based processes are
>> operating in Science as they are in your mind, but its simply not true.
>>
>> The only 'faith' a scientists needs to operate is to assume that there
>> IS a real physical world, and that our awareness of it is not totally
>> illusory: The rest follows from observation of that world, according to
>> what most people, christians included, find reasonable, and the
>> construction of models of the way that world appears to behave.
>>
>> If you had studied the philosophy of science, you would also discover
>> that nowhere in any of this is any claim made that these models are The
>> Truth. All we can safely say is they work and they haven't been proved
>> wrong yet although we can construct experiments to attempt to do so.
>>
>> Contrast you assertions about God, which cant be proved wrong, and have
>> no quantifiable effects that can be tested, so are far far weaker as
>> claims to be The Truth, and yet which you insist ARE The Truth.
>>
>> You star from the position that God exists, and that he is what the
>> bible says he is, and if anything else doesn't ft, it's a
>> misinterpretation of the Bible. Or a miracle.
>>
>> Whilst at one level, this is a perfectly reasonable and coherent logical
>> structure, it leads precisely nowhere. Its an explanation that leads to
>> nothing at all.
>>
>> So, as non-theists, we simply ignore it and get on with stuff that does
>> lead somewhere.
>>
>>>    By accepting this one miracle, you have a religion which allows you
>>> to do anything that you can imagine, as long as you can get away with
>>> it, and if you get away with something on this earth, it is forgotten
>>> forever.
>> That sounds like Christianity to me. Aslong a you repent you will be all
>> right, you can murder people to your hearts content, as long as you come
>> to Jesus before its too late.
>>
>> Atheists may have no abstract morality, but society runs on very real
>> moral principles: You can call it game theory if you like, but is simple
>> natural laws. If I go around killing people, I am increasing the chances
>> of getting killed, because I have become important to people in a very
>> negative way.
>>
>> And since i have no afterlife, I am very concerned about making the best
>> of what life I have. Murdering people is *so* 13th century passe..I'll
>> leave that to the Christians..
>>
>>>     However, that is not reality.  Everyone who lives on this earth
>>> will be resurrected because Jesus Christ was resurrected.  
>> Prove it.
>>
>>> So there is
>>> nothing hidden that will not be brought to light, there is nothing
>>> unjust that will not be brought to justice.
>>>      So you can claim that scientists and their little false religion
>>> of one miracle are supreme, or you can believe Jesus Christ.  I
>>> personally believe Jesus Christ.
>> WEll more fool you for falling for the Prince of Lies biggest trick. You
>> were warned, and you chose to close your ears.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Sorry, Natural, but the equations clearly say that an object gets
> shorter the faster its motion and disappears when it reaches the speed
> of light.  It does no good to say that is what "seems " to happen.
> That is what the equations say happens.

Yes, but
- the equations may be wrong
- what happens is why we postulate the equations.

Unlike theists, who start with a 'fact', and then twist the world to fit 
it, the atheist starts with the world, and tries to find an explanation 
to fit it.


> Robert B. Winn