|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Anti-SepticAnti-Septic
Date: Dec 22, 2006 23:43
Citizen Bob wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:36:07 -0700, Anti-Septic iseptic.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>Then what is the reason you do not believe that God exists?
>
>
>>If there is neither evidence, or in lieu of
>>evidence, at least a justification to think
>>a god likely exists, why would you believe?
>
>
> So you are saying that the justification for your denying the
> existence of God is the lack of evidence or justification for the
> existence of God.
I'm saying that in my view people shouldn't
believe in something without justification,
be it evidential or experiential in nature.
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: ProginoskesProginoskes
Date: Dec 22, 2006 23:27
a_plutonium wrote:
> Proginoskes wrote:
>> a_plutonium wrote:
> (snipped)
>>>
>>> A few years back Johns Hopkins researchers found the color of the
>>> Cosmos as an off-white. The color of plutonium is off-white.
>>
>> The color of Plutonium is *silver*. Or at least that's what the top
>> half-dozen links say when I google for "plutonium color".
>>
>
> Instead of quibbling do some thinking. Gray, silver, offwhite are all
> degraded white. You throw in a small amount of any color into pure
> white and you end up with gray or silver. Gray is silver and silver is
> gray and that is offwhite. Try listening and thinking instead of
> quibbling.
Off-white, grey, and silver may all look the same to you, but they
don't to me.
>>> The Atom Totality says simply it is in a Nucleus. Whether we can
>>> directly see it is questionable, but we can indirectly probe it.
>>>
>>> The Big Bang never predicts how much of the Missing...
|
| Show full article (5.09Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Pentcho ValevPentcho Valev
Date: Dec 22, 2006 23:00
After resurrection of science, scientists will see that:
1. The gravitrational redshift factor, 1+V/c^2, is a corollary of the
principle of variability of the speed of light (that is, a corollary of
Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)), and therefore the experimental
confirmation of the factor is simultaneously a falsification of
Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light (that is, a
falsification of the equation c'=c).
2. Time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski's spacetime etc. are
all miraculous corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy
of the speed of light.
3. Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light = a
century of rationality destruction.
4. Clausius' deduction of "All reversible heat engines working between
the same two temperatures have the same efficiency" from "Heat never
flows spontaneously from cold to hot" is invalid and therefore this
original introduction of the second law of thermodynamics should not
have taken place.
5. Clausius' proof of "Entropy is a state function" is valid for an
ideal gas but has no validity whatsoever for other systems.
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: VirgilVirgil
Date: Dec 22, 2006 22:02
In article 4ax.com>,
AlanS nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:10:00 -0700, Virgil comcast.net> wrote:>> AlanS nowhere.com> wrote:>
>>> Any position needs to be justified (to self at least) to be held.
>>> Whether something is stated in the negative or the positive doesn't
>>> matter.
>
>>Some positions are default positions, taken because there is no reason
>>to take any other.
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: SphereSphere
Date: Dec 22, 2006 21:26
Virgil wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:07:36 -0700, Virgil comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I didn't assert that people who say
>>>>> God exists did not have a reason to say so.
>>
>>>> Then what is the reason you do not believe that God exists?
>>
>>>Lack of any reason to suppose any god does exist, for a start.
>>
>> What if I gave you a reason for God's existence.
>>
>> Do you accept the fact of physics that every effect has a cause?
>
> I do not accept that "every effect has a cause" need be true unless one
> defines an "effect" as having to have a "cause".
|
| Show full article (0.88Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: AlanSAlanS
Date: Dec 22, 2006 21:23
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:10:00 -0700, Virgil comcast.net> wrote:> AlanS nowhere.com> wrote:>> Any position needs to be justified (to self at least) to be held.
>> Whether something is stated in the negative or the positive doesn't
>> matter.
>Some positions are default positions, taken because there is no reason
>to take any other.
Fundementally, there is no reason to take *any* position, including
theism or atheism.
>A good deal of atheism may be of this nature.
For someone born into a strongly theist family and society, there's no
reason for her to even remotely consider atheism.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Frank MayharFrank Mayhar
Date: Dec 22, 2006 20:41
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:25:33 +0000, Citizen Bob wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:21:45 -0800, Frank Mayhar exit.com>
> wrote:>>>>So, Bob, what's your justification for not believing in invisible foot
>>>>fairies? No matter how you position yourself on the matter of disbelief
>>>>in invisible foot fairies, you still must justify that position.
>>>>Otherwise your position is ideological and not based on reason.
>>> First I need for you to give me the essence of the purported
>>> "invisible foot fairie". Be sure to include the mechanism which
>>> renders them invisible.
>
>>You just have to have faith that they're there, didn't you know that?
>
> That is not rational.
It is precisely as rational as belief in the Christian (or any other) "god."
|
| Show full article (1.73Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: a_plutoniuma_plutonium
Date: Dec 22, 2006 20:40
Proginoskes wrote:
> a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>>
>> A few years back Johns Hopkins researchers found the color of the
>> Cosmos as an off-white. The color of plutonium is off-white.
>
> The color of Plutonium is *silver*. Or at least that's what the top
> half-dozen links say when I google for "plutonium color".
>
Instead of quibbling do some thinking. Gray, silver, offwhite are all
degraded white. You throw in a small amount of any color into pure
white and you end up with gray or silver. Gray is silver and silver is
gray and that is offwhite. Try listening and thinking instead of
quibbling.
|
| Show full article (4.20Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: jienthojientho
Date: Dec 22, 2006 20:21
Michael Gray wrote:
>>
>>Septic wrote:
>>> "Richo" utas.edu.au> wrote
>>>>>>> - I am not a believer in gods - but I am not particularly concerned
>>>> with thier existence - that is their least interesting aspect for me.
>>>> It's the *power* that they have ...
>>>
>>> How can something that doesn't exist have power,
>>
>>How can Sherlock Holmes have a hat, Septic?
>
> Bingo.
> I expect that moment of clarity was a slip-up.
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David MarcusDavid Marcus
Date: Dec 22, 2006 19:10
Han.deBruijn@DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote:
>> Han de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>>>> Neither is it an equation or a variable, but it can be modelled
>>>> with an equation, or a variable, or a set.
>>>
>>> My whole point is that "all" time can not be modeled in set theory
>>> without becoming nonsensical.
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that the problem might not be with ZFC, but that
>> instead that your conception of "all" time is nonsensical (i.e., that
>> it cannot be made to make sense)?
>
> Allright. What I want to express is that "computation time" can not be
> consistently modelled as a set, together with the cause (a set) and the
> effect (a set) of the computation.
|
| Show full article (0.90Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
