Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

I would have to say that the argument presented by Ben Masada here is of the weakest and most circular type. Ben, you would seem to be side-stepping facts put before you so that you can remain willfully ignorant (I hope this isn't the case as you seem rather intelligent). I think that MM was telling you that matter is ultimately composed of energy, however energy is not composed of matter, and can stand alone. Ms. MeowMix, do I have it right?

That's very flattering of you towards MM. Since a do appreciate galantry towards women, I'll let you go without any further criticism for considering my comments weak and setting me as ignorant. It's all right as long as Ms. MM is happy.

But now, between you and I, the issue is not how energy stands or is composed of, but how it is produced. It can even stand for a time and even travel in space or in the vacuum; but it is still an accident of matter.

 

[Meow Mix]

MM, please, I had to consult the dictionary to decide this quetion about mass and density and the dictionary agrees with me that density is the thinkness of cosistency or impenetrability of mass in the matter of any substance.

Not "of any substance," and not in a way that makes your arguments correct. Photons have mass for instance that is unrelated to how many photons there are in a given vicinity. Even a basketball would experience a different mass at rest and at 50,000 km/s without changing the amount of matter in the basketball. How could either of these things be if your argument is correct? They can't. The reason why is because mass is equivalent to energy; it isn't defined by the amount of matter in an object. Your argument is untenable.

Therefore, mass cannot be equivalent to energy if matter is in the state of inertia. If you have a problem with appealing to authority, I find it perfectly normal. It means we have a mind of our own.

Appealing to authority is irrational. I'm here for rational discussion, not to engage in fallacies. It isn't irrational to quote authority figures, refer to their work, or recognize their expertise on a subject -- but the rationality behind an argument ultimately rests on the facts and the reasoning. So, of course someone can rationally argue, "This is what Aristotle said, and this is why he was right" and then be open to valid criticisms of Aristotle's thought process: that's completely rational.

However it becomes fallacious when the authority of the person itself is what's given as justification rather than the actual data/reasoning: "This is what Aristotle said, and it must be right because Aristotle said it." That's fallacious; it's poor reasoning. It's irrational.

If you're going to mention authority figures, that's fine -- just understand that even authority figures are prone to error and you must be willing to work with their data and argumentation while being open to counterarguments; but relying solely on the fact that they were "famous" or "really smart" and therefore must be right is simply absurd. Arguing "I think Aristotle knows a bit better than you" and ignoring your opponent's argument is the fallacy.

Now, you are appealing to authority (Hawking) as if I haven't just praised you for being against doing so.

I didn't appeal to Hawking's authority, though. I referenced Hawking's data and his reasoning behind it, which is sound reasoning. This leaves you open (if you're so inclined, with sufficient physics and mathematical knowledge) to potentially demonstrate any sort of error in his work or interpretation.

I'm glad you brought this up since it's a good comparison for you to see first hand the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority ("I think Aristotle knows better than you" or "Jews must be right since so many of them win Nobel prizes") and a legitimate argument which references the work by an authority figure.

Arguments always stand or fall on the evidence, never by the qualities of the people who might have been involved in it.

Why in small bills? I don't like small bills. I said that I am tired of reading about atheistic sayings that matter cannot be created or destroyed but transformed. But energy becomes a characteristic of the new form taken by matter. Now, if matter can be created and destroyed, how was the first matter created? I am sure not out of nothing.

It is an incorrect statement that matter can't be created or destroyed. It can, and it happens routinely. Who told you that matter can't be created or destroyed? It certainly wasn't me, and it certainly wasn't any knowledgeable physicist.

It's energy that can't be created or destroyed. Matter appears and disappears all the time. Energy is conserved. Mass is conserved as well, though usually in the form of energy. Mass is not the same thing as matter.

I have it from the dictionary that mast is the density of matter. When matter is destroyed, mass follows through. Energy is transfered to be the by-product of the new form matter or mass has taken.

Energy is not a by-product of matter.

If it is, then why can energy exist without matter, but matter can't exist without energy?

Please explain.

Fields, if not in a vacuum, is matter, which once somehow activated will produce energy.

Interesting, I haven't seen any physicist who would ever define a field as matter. A de Sitter universe is one example of a universe filled only with fields and without any matter whatsoever -- does this satisfy your "in a vacuum" requirement?

Energy is never "produced." It can't be created. If you mean "produce" in the same colloquial sense as we mean in something like an energy plant where energy is freed up and made available, then maybe.

What's that, have you changed your mind about appealing to autority? Einstein once said that the expansion of the universe could be God at His work of creation since Science has been unable to prove the theory as a fact.

The expansion and even acceleration has since been shown, and I doubt that Einstein ever said that anyway since he was a Spinozan pantheist and didn't believe in an active God that changes things about the universe (to Einstein, God is the universe, not some being that created it or interferes with it).

 

[Ben Masada]

The reason why is because mass is equivalent to energy;

You have all the right in the world to believe and to explain your beliefs the way you please. What seems logical to me is that mass speaks of the density of matter; and energy is an accident of matter.

Appealing to authority is irrational. I'm here for rational discussion, not to engage in fallacies.

What in me seems fallacies to you, that's exactly what in you seems fallacies to me.

"This is what Aristotle said, and it must be right because Aristotle said it." That's fallacious; it's poor reasoning. It's irrational.

I believe in the authority of the Scriptures. David said that the universe shows the handiworks of God. (Psalm 19:1) This hasn't changed for thousands of years. Your fallacious reasoning is made out of theories that keep changing almost as often as we change our underwears.

but relying solely on the fact that they were "famous" or "really smart" and therefore must be right is simply absurd.

I rely not precisely on the person's status but on what he said which stands solid with time and doesn't keep changing as certain "scientific" theories.

I didn't appeal to Hawking's authority, though. I referenced Hawking's data and his reasoning behind it, which is sound reasoning.

What seems reasoning to you in Hawking's autority, whose theories die while he is still alive points to what is reasoning to me in the declaration of David in Psalm 19:1. For example, has this Hawking ever proved creation without a Creator beyond the shadow of a doubt? No, neither he nor anyone else. Only arrogant Atheists whose assertions are unexplainable even by themselves.

"Jews must be right since so many of them win Nobel prizes")

And you find this fallatious? If you are right, the corruption is with the granters of the prizes and not with their winners.

Arguments always stand or fall on the evidence, never by the qualities of the people who might have been involved in it.

What evidences can you produce for the claims of Atheists?

It is an incorrect statement that matter can't be created or destroyed. It can, and it happens routinely. Who told you that matter can't be created or destroyed? It certainly wasn't me, and it certainly wasn't any knowledgeable physicist.

I think I have told you already I didn't hear it from you but from the majority of Atheists throughout my debates with them.

Mass is not the same thing as matter.

Great! Now, you know better than the dictionary.

Energy is not a by-product of matter.

Energy cannot be produced without the activation of matter.

If it is, then why can energy exist without matter, but matter can't exist without energy?

Well, prove the existence of energy without matter.

Interesting, I haven't seen any physicist who would ever define a field as matter. A de Sitter universe is one example of a universe filled only with fields and without any matter whatsoever.

Can you be a little more clear about what you mean by "field?" Field of energy or what do you really mean?

Energy is never "produced." It can't be created. If you mean "produce" in the same colloquial sense as we mean in something like an energy plant where energy is freed up and made available, then maybe.

"then maybe!" That's the basis Atheists stand on: "Maybe." You have just stated that energy is God in other words. It has never been produced nor created. It has always existed. Now, it is your turn to prove that your god has always existed.

(to Einstein, God is the universe, not some being that created it or interferes with it).

If to Einstein God were the universe, he would not be Jewish. When he was asked if he believed in God, his answer was that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. Deep down, he did believe, not in the anthropomorphic god of religions but in some supernatural Divine Power behind the universe. Too pagan to believe that the universe is god or vice-versa.

 

[PolyHedral]

You have all the right in the world to believe and to explain your beliefs the way you please. What seems logical to me is that mass speaks of the density of matter; and energy is an accident of matter.

You're debating a cosmologist about the nature of the universe. There isn't "belief" involved anymore, only objective evidence, and I suspect Meow has a few libraries more evidence than you do...

I believe in the authority of the Scriptures.

Then you're being irrational. Believing in authority, rather than evidence, is inherently fallacious.

I rely not precisely on the person's status but on what he said which stands solid with time and doesn't keep changing as certain "scientific" theories.

You know that mutability is a good thing, don't you? Science only ever changes to reflect new evidence, and changes to explain the evidence.

What evidences can you produce for the claims of Atheists?

Your post. Specifically, the computer systems that transmit and store it could not exist without the scientific method. Unless David explained quantum electrodynamics when nobody was watching?

I think I have told you already I didn't hear it from you but from the majority of Atheists throughout my debates with them.

Then they're wrong.

Well, prove the existence of energy without matter.

That's what a photon is.

Can you be a little more clear about what you mean by "field?" Field of energy or what do you really mean?

These things.

"then maybe!" That's the basis Atheists stand on: "Maybe." You have just stated that energy is God in other words. It has never been produced nor created. It has always existed. Now, it is your turn to prove that your god has always existed.

If energy is God, then the label "God" is superfluous. And there isn't a god to prove, because there is no consistent model of god across scientists.

If to Einstein God were the universe, he would not be Jewish. When he was asked if he believed in God, his answer was that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. Deep down, he did believe, not in the anthropomorphic god of religions but in some supernatural Divine Power behind the universe. Too pagan to believe that the universe is god or vice-versa.

I think we're trying to appeal to authority again. What Einstein said about the nature of God has no bearing on physics.

 

[Meow Mix]

You have all the right in the world to believe and to explain your beliefs the way you please. What seems logical to me is that mass speaks of the density of matter; and energy is an accident of matter.

This isn't about "what seems logical" but rather about what's true. I presented examples that are incompatible with your assumptions; how do you deal with them?

Remember, this is about the evidence. I could just say that you're ignoring undergrad level physics and shrug about it, but let's stick with it. If mass is the density of matter, then why does light have mass that varies regardless of the number of photons in an area? How is that possible?

Why does a basketball have a different mass if travelling at 5 km/s and when travelling at 50,000 km/s?

How does your proposed paradigm explain these things?

What in me seems fallacies to you, that's exactly what in you seems fallacies to me.

This is rather nebulous. I pointed out exactly where your fallacies were -- can you point out mine, and why they're fallacious?

I believe in the authority of the Scriptures. David said that the universe shows the handiworks of God. (Psalm 19:1) This hasn't changed for thousands of years. Your fallacious reasoning is made out of theories that keep changing almost as often as we change our underwears.

More appeals to authority. Again, where are "my fallacies?" Which fallacies am I making, where, and why are they fallacious? Please be more specific.

I rely not precisely on the person's status but on what he said which stands solid with time and doesn't keep changing as certain "scientific" theories.

Relying on what someone says because they said it is a fallacy, Ben. How can you not understand that?

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

It's intuitively obvious that just because someone says something and they're in a position of authority doesn't mean that it's true. If you can't accept this basic logical fact then it's impossible to continue our discussion; because discussions aren't possible when one side relies solely on fallacy.

What seems reasoning to you in Hawking's autority, whose theories die while he is still alive points to what is reasoning to me in the declaration of David in Psalm 19:1. For example, has this Hawking ever proved creation without a Creator beyond the shadow of a doubt? No, neither he nor anyone else. Only arrogant Atheists whose assertions are unexplainable even by themselves.

What creation?

And you find this fallatious? If you are right, the corruption is with the granters of the prizes and not with their winners.

It's fallacious to assert that because someone wins a Nobel Prize that they must be right on everything. Newton was strikingly correct regarding gravity, does that mean his work in alchemy was correct?

You can't be serious, Ben. I mean that. If you really don't understand basic fallacies then it's simply impossible to have a rational discussion with oyu.

What evidences can you produce for the claims of Atheists?

What claims of atheists? I'm starting to think that you don't actually read a word that I type.

Great! Now, you know better than the dictionary.

I'm a physics grad student Ben, I know what mass is. Dictionary writers aren't always savvy on their physics. Yet another fallacious appeal to authority.

Energy cannot be produced without the activation of matter.

Sigh... then why can fields in a vacuum produce it?

Well, prove the existence of energy without matter.

Ok. Start with a Minkowski space in dimensions R^1,n with the metric ds^2 = -dx0^2 + (n over)Σ(i = 1) dxi^2. You'll notice that you have a manifold whose Ricci tensor is exactly proportional to the metric (i.e., an Einsteinian manifold) such that it describes a solution to Einstein's equation without matter, but with curvature and therefore energy:

Λ = [(n - 1) (n - 2)] / 2α^2

Are you satisfied, or will I also have to prove the efficacy of Einstein's equations?

Can you be a little more clear about what you mean by "field?" Field of energy or what do you really mean?

A field can be thought of like a vector bundle, which is like a vector space (Vector space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) based on parameters on a manifold. In other words, it's a quantity associated with different points of spacetime. For instance in the de Sitter example I gave above we're talking about a universe empty of matter but which is still full of tensor fields and variations of energy throughout spacetime.

"then maybe!" That's the basis Atheists stand on: "Maybe." You have just stated that energy is God in other words. It has never been produced nor created. It has always existed. Now, it is your turn to prove that your god has always existed.

I stated nothing of the sort. I stated that there are no known processes by which energy can be created or destroyed. If you seriously want me to demonstrate to you one of the most basic principles of thermodynamics -- you should seriously have studied the evidence for this bit in junior high school physical science courses -- then I'm simply at a loss for words. I can do so if you seriously wish me to, but I will be astounded.

To be clear, you did take some remedial physics or physical science courses at least in high school, right? Just so I know at what level to present evidence to you? I don't mean to sound demeaning (as I admit that just did) but if you're asking questions about the most basic of physics then I need to know where you stand in order to present things that will make intuitive sense.

If to Einstein God were the universe, he would not be Jewish. When he was asked if he believed in God, his answer was that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. Deep down, he did believe, not in the anthropomorphic god of religions but in some supernatural Divine Power behind the universe. Too pagan to believe that the universe is god or vice-versa.

Einstein did not believe in the Jewish deity. He was a Spinozan pantheist but did not believe in a creator-deity; to Einstein, the universe IS god.

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

(This is Spinozan pantheism, a reverence for the universe as "God")

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Look up "Spinoza's God" if you have to. It's not a creator being. It's the universe itself, it's just a reverence for the universe and its majesty.

 

[PolyHedral]

Ok. Start with a Minkowski space in dimensions R^1,n with the metric ds^2 = -dx0^2 + (n over)Σ(i = 1) dxi^2. You'll notice that you have a manifold whose Ricci tensor is exactly proportional to the metric (i.e., an Einsteinian manifold) such that it describes a solution to Einstein's equation without matter, but with curvature and therefore energy:

Λ = [(n - 1) (n - 2)] / 2α^2

Are you satisfied, or will I also have to prove the efficacy of Einstein's equations?

[...]

A field can be thought of like a vector bundle, which is like a vector space (Vector space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) based on parameters on a manifold. In other words, it's a quantity associated with different points of spacetime. For instance in the de Sitter example I gave above we're talking about a universe empty of matter but which is still full of tensor fields and variations of energy throughout spacetime.

Dropping non-Euclidean vector geometry on his head is a tad unfair, isn't it?

 

[Meow Mix]

Dropping non-Euclidean vector geometry on his head is a tad unfair, isn't it?

He gets what he asks for :flirt:

Besides, you can't explain simply something you don't completely understand. I did a lot of tensors in loops/strings/fields a semester back but I still have more to take and sometimes it can make my eyes cross, lol.

Also, thanks for pointing out that I misspelled "parameters." Oops. Editing.

 

[Ben Masada]

You're debating a cosmologist about the nature of the universe. There isn't "belief" involved anymore, only objective evidence, and I suspect Meow has a few libraries more evidence than you do...

Is it something about debating the Pope on Catholic Theology? Big deal! If belief is no longer the issue about the nature of the universe, go right ahead and show me the evidences that the universe came out of nothing and is made out of eternal matter.

Then you're being irrational. Believing in authority, rather than evidence, is inherently fallacious.

Would you accept my conclusions as a result of self research? I doubt it. So, other people who know better than I can be called in with the evidences.

You know that mutability is a good thing, don't you? Science only ever changes to reflect new evidence, and changes to explain the evidence.

Changes are evidences of uncertainty, or that one was wrong in the first place.

Your post. Specifically, the computer systems that transmit and store it could not exist without the scientific method. Unless David explained quantum electrodynamics when nobody was watching?

Or perhaps David was inspired to cut short and skip the constant changes of scientific theories and went straight to the truth of the matter. The rest is commentary.

Then they're wrong.

You can definitely say that again.

That's what a photon is.

If energy is God, then the label "God" is superfluous. And there isn't a god to prove, because there is no consistent model of god across scientists.

You can say that to Atheists. That's for them that the universe is god.

I think we're trying to appeal to authority again. What Einstein said about the nature of God has no bearing on physics.

Don't forget that the man was not only a Jew but also the most famous Physicist of all times. I am sure he knew a little better than you, MM and myself.

 

[Meow Mix]

I give up. It's impossible to discuss with someone who doesn't listen to a word being said* and who blatantly relies on fallacy (specifically positive ad hominem and appeals to authority).

Thanks for the discussion, Ben. Maybe we'll meet up in other threads, but I don't see any utility in discussing directly with you.

(* - it's literally been repeated over 15 times that the claim the universe "came from nothing" is unsubstantiated, that matter is not eternal, and it was demonstrated that Einstein while an ethnic Jew did not believe in Jewish religion)

 

[Ben Masada]

I give up. It's impossible to discuss with someone who doesn't listen to a word being said* and who blatantly relies on fallacy (specifically positive ad hominem and appeals to authority).

Thanks for the discussion, Ben. Maybe we'll meet up in other threads, but I don't see any utility in discussing directly with you.

(* - it's literally been repeated over 15 times that the claim the universe "came from nothing" is unsubstantiated, and it was demonstrated that Einstein while an ethnic Jew did not believe in Jewish religion)

I listen and read every word you say. Positive ad hominem! I didn't know ad hominem could be positive. Regarding appealing to authorities, every one does, somehow or another. I never said the Einstein believed in the Jewish religion of literalist Jews who promote an anthropomorphic form of God. I said that deep down Einstein was somehow aware of a supernatural All-Powerful Being behind the works of nature, according to Psalm 19:1. And no one can prove otherwise.

 

[Meow Mix]

I listen and read every word you say. Positive ad hominem! I didn't know ad hominem could be positive. Regarding appealing to authorities, every one does, somehow or another. I never said the Einstein believed in the Jewish religion of literalist Jews who promote an anthropomorphic form of God. I said that deep down Einstein was somehow aware of a supernatural All-Powerful Being behind the works of nature, according to Psalm 19:1. And no one can prove otherwise.

Positive ad hominem is what appeals to authority are -- it's an argument to the person. Ad hominems are usually negative and attempt to work by saying, "X is a wife beater, so X's ideas are wrong." Positive ad hominems attempt to work by saying, "X won a Nobel Prize, so all of X's ideas are right." Appeal to authority fallacy is a subdivision of ad hominem for this reason.

And no, not "everyone" makes fallacious appeals to authority. The basis of an argument is always -- always -- on the data/evidence itself. Authorities are relied on for convenience when what they say isn't dubious or extraordinary, but even then we can in principle verify the data from which the authority draws their conclusion. It is never rational to believe that an authority is right because they say so; they are only regarded right (when we haven't seen the evidence ourselves) because we are trusting that they've read the evidence correctly.

It would never be right for us to refuse to admit that they could be wrong simply because they're authorities, and it would be wrong for us in a debate to refuse to discuss the actual data and stick with saying "But X says so, and X is an authority, and I think X knows more about it than you, so you're wrong!" <-- That would be fallacious and irrational.

Also, one person can "prove otherwise" regarding whether Einstein believed in Jewish religion; and that's the man himself. He stated plain as day that he thinks it's nonsense and that if he is to be considered a believer at all that he is a Spinozan pantheist.

---------------

Edit: Also, I visited the "appeal to authority fallacy" page on wikipedia and had a riot when the first example they gave of the fallacy is exactly the one you've been making:

Examples of appeals to authority
[edit] Arguments

• Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle: "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

[Ben Masada]

Positive ad hominem is what appeals to authority are -- it's an argument to the person. Ad hominems are usually negative and attempt to work by saying, "X is a wife beater, so X's ideas are wrong." Positive ad hominems attempt to work by saying, "X won a Nobel Prize, so all of X's ideas are right." Appeal to authority fallacy is a subdivision of ad hominem for this reason.

Wow! I thoght we had exchanged the last words. Not that I am not happy we didn't. But tell me, the positive ad hominem is against the authority we appeal to or the partner at debate?

And no, not "everyone" makes fallacious appeals to authority. The basis of an argument is always -- always -- on the data/evidence itself. Authorities are relied on for convenience when what they say isn't dubious or extraordinary, but even then we can in principle verify the data from which the authority draws their conclusion. It is never rational to believe that an authority is right because they say so; they are only regarded right (when we haven't seen the evidence ourselves) because we are trusting that they've read the evidence correctly.

What authority is not dubious for heaven's sake? Nobody is sure about anything as for example the universe is concerned.

It would never be right for us to refuse to admit that they could be wrong simply because they're authorities, and it would be wrong for us in a debate to refuse to discuss the actual data and stick with saying "But X says so, and X is an authority, and I think X knows more about it than you, so you're wrong!" <-- That would be fallacious and irrational.

If the credit is based on the actual data and not on the authority or debaters, Biblical data have proved to be much more long-lived than scientific theories. Wouldn't it be kind of prudent to give the holy text the benefit of the doubt, at least while Scientists fight among themselves about the next theory to replace a dead one ?

Also, one person can "prove otherwise" regarding whether Einstein believed in Jewish religion; and that's the man himself. He stated plain as day that he thinks it's nonsense and that if he is to be considered a believer at all that he is a Spinozan pantheist.

And so do I think completely nonsense that Jews should interpret God in anthropomorphic terms, as many of the unlearnt do. That's what Einstein referred to, and also Spinoza, whom Philosophical commentators have considered the prince of Philosophers, a man intoxicated with God.

---------------

Edit: Also, I visited the "appeal to authority fallacy" page on wikipedia and had a riot when the first example they gave of the fallacy is exactly the one you've been making:

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so people like Einstein and Spinoza were Atheists because you cannot absorb the idea that Physicists and Philosophers cannot conceive of God metaphorically. Is that the problem?

 

[Meow Mix]

Wow! I thoght we had exchanged the last words. Not that I am not happy we didn't. But tell me, the positive ad hominem is against the authority we appeal to or the partner at debate?

It's not "against," it's just the opposite of painting someone negatively to diminish their position: it's painting someone positively to strengthen their position. But it doesn't work because it's fallacious.

"X won the Nobel Prize so X's idea is right" is just as fallacious as "X beats his wife so X's ideas are wrong."

If the credit is based on the actual data and not on the authority or debaters, Biblical data have proved to be much more long-lived than scientific theories. Wouldn't it be kind of prudent to give the holy text the benefit of the doubt ?

Of course not; especially since the Bible got a great deal of things wrong depending on interpretation. What do you suppose is more "long-lived" in the Bible, and what does that even mean? A few of the only things the Biblical texts have gotten right (and only some of the time) are the locations and ages of some cities, but that says nothing about the truth of any of its other claims. It's not a very good source.

And so do I think completely nonsense that Jews should interpret God in anthropomorphic terms, as many of the unlearnt do. That's what Einstein referred to, and also Spinoza, whom Philosophical commentators have considered the prince of Philosophers, a man intoxicated with God.

Einstein didn't believe God is conscious or created the world since God "is" the world. Do you believe the same thing? Is that what you think Jewish belief is?

If you agree with Einstein, then I submit that you yourself don't believe Jewish mythology, even if you may be of Jewish ethnicity.

Okay, so people like Einstein and Spinoza were Atheists because you cannot absorb the idea that Physicists and Philosophers cannot conceive of God metaphorically. Is that the problem?

I don't see very much difference between Spinozan pantheism and atheism besides one of them uses the word "God" to refer to the non-conscious, non-creative universe whereas the other uses the word "universe" to refer to it.

Might as well call a pair of socks "god."

 

[PolyHedral]

Might as well call a pair of socks "god."

*fiddles with his profile settings*

 

[JMorris]

socks do keep my feet warm. and keeping my feet warm would certainly be a requirement for me to worship any kind of god.

 

[Ben Masada]

It's not "against," it's just the opposite of painting someone negatively to diminish their position: it's painting someone positively to strengthen their position. But it doesn't work because it's fallacious.

Wow! So, it if fallacious to disagree with you. Ins't that what you mean? What evidences do you bring to substantiate your assertions?

"X won the Nobel Prize so X's idea is right" is just as fallacious as "X beats his wife so X's ideas are wrong."

Or just as falatious as what MM asserts because she can't prove what she says.

Of course not; especially since the Bible got a great deal of things wrong depending on interpretation. What do you suppose is more "long-lived" in the Bible, and what does that even mean? A few of the only things the Biblical texts have gotten right (and only some of the time) are the locations and ages of some cities, but that says nothing about the truth of any of its other claims. It's not a very good source.

Well, "God stretches out the universe over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing." That's in Job 26:7. When this was written Science and Atheists did not know the ABC's about the universe. And they thought that even the earth was flat. How bad is to rely in such an ancient piece of truth, which, BTW, has been proved to be a fact, in spite of modern dead theories of modern Cosmologists?

Einstein didn't believe God is conscious or created the world since God "is" the world. Do you believe the same thing? Is that what you think Jewish belief is?

If Einstein did not believe God is conscious he would not declare that his life was to catch God at His work of creation, just prior to delivering a lecture on the expansion of the universe. You might be thinking about the anthropomorphic gods of religions.

If you agree with Einstein, then I submit that you yourself don't believe Jewish mythology, even if you may be of Jewish ethnicity.

There is no such a thing as Jewish mythology. Perhaps among the unlearnt of our people who trust what they should believe to crooks who take advantage of the situation to improve their way to make a living.

I don't see very much difference between Spinozan pantheism and atheism besides one of them uses the word "God" to refer to the non-conscious, non-creative universe whereas the other uses the word "universe" to refer to it.

Wow! I finally agree with you on something. I just don't believe that Einstein and Spinoza were pantheists.

Might as well call a pair of socks "god."

Pantheists and Atheists? I don't care how you call them, as I agree with you.

 

[Meow Mix]

*fiddles with his profile settings*

Haha! :bow: Hail Poly!

 

[Thief]

Fighting Two Fronts

Turnorburn, I am here. Just happened to arrive. But I am neither for you nor for Atheists. Although my double-edged sword can cut both ways, I need no Christian help with Atheists. So, if you can't take the heat, you might choose now to leave the kitchen, before the cooking starts.

Well, my dear hosts, you have become famous for the cliche that God does not exist. I have news for you. I am ready to become an Atheist. Yes, just like you; as soon as you tell me where the Universe comes from. I mean, how the Universe came about without a Creator or the Primal Mover, to coin Philosophical rhetoric.

And please, do not discard my question as nonsense or tell me that you don't know, because Atheism itself will lose all its raison d'etre. One cannot discard an axiom if he can't replace it with an option. If you choose to look at my question as too simplistic, you might take that way out, as long as you leave with it; and I mean, leave and not live.

There are two psalms for Atheists in the Bible, which the Psalmist, ironically, wrote twice, ipsisssima verba. By mistake or on purpose, I'll let you figure. They are Psalms 14 and 53. But I believe the Psalmist's message is for Atheists who have no option to God's non-existence.

Well, you are in. Let us get down to business about the issue of the Universe without a Creator, will ya?

Ben

Got here late for this one!....sorry...

But for those who might be leaning to nay saying.....here's your sign....

If you say the universe (one word) is not a creation of spirit....
your spirit is a conundrum.
and you are the sum of your chemistry.
When your chemistry fails...so do you.
Back to the ground you go.

If you say the universe (one word) is a creation...
Then Someone will be standing over you when you lay down
to surrender your last breath.
Standing up from your flesh into a spiritual life may require 'permission'...
from your Creator.

And hey Ben!....
Offering your renounced belief ....if you can be proven wrong?.....

Perhaps you don't believe in the devil?
Even under the banner of belief...you're not altogether protected.
Have you read Job?

 

[Meow Mix]

Wow! So, it if fallacious to disagree with you. Ins't that what you mean? What evidences do you bring to substantiate your assertions?

Oh, certainly not -- and I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

It's only fallacious to appeal to an authority figure's authority. Let me just be completely clear so we can hopefully clear this up:

Referring to Aristotle's arguments and claiming that you think they are right because of his argumentation is not fallacious. However, you have to be open to criticism of his argumentation and be able to defeat said criticism; you can't just respond with "I think Aristotle knew better than you." The argument stands or falls on the argumentation itself, not on the person who argues it.

Referring to Aristotle's arguments and claiming that you think they are right becuase, after all, Aristotle said them and he's a smart guy (right?) -- is fallacious.

Hopefully that clears things up...?

Or just as falatious as what MM asserts because she can't prove what she says.

I've justified every assertion I've made. Please locate an assertion I've made and I'll justify it again if you want me to. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear because I don't make baseless claims.

Well, "God stretches out the universe over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing." That's in Job 26:7. When this was written Science and Atheists did not know the ABC's about the universe. And they thought that even the earth was flat. How bad is to rely in such an ancient piece of truth, which, BTW, has been proved to be a fact, in spite of modern dead theories of modern Cosmologists?

Actually the ancients knew the earth was round for reasons far better than reading it in a text. Also, how do you explain the references to "four corners of the earth" (which spheres do not have), or someone standing on a mountaintop and seeing all the cities of the world (also something that can't happen on a sphere for obvious reasons)?

Are you to argue that these were allegory, but hanging the earth on nothing isn't? That's cherry picking, and a bit of Forer Effect in the interpretation.

If Einstein did not believe God is conscious he would not declare that his life was to catch God at His work of creation, just prior to delivering a lecture on the expansion of the universe. You might be thinking about the anthropomorphic gods of religions.

No, Einstein didn't believe God was a conscious being just as Spinoza didn't, whom Einstein declared his admiration for as accurately depicting what God is. To Einstein, figuring out a secret of the universe was "catching God at work" and "knowing the mind of God," but Einstein didn't believe in a literal mind of God. God is the universe to Einstein as it was to Spinoza.

There is no such a thing as Jewish mythology. Perhaps among the unlearnt of our people who trust what they should believe to crooks who take advantage of the situation to improve their way to make a living.

Uh... so the whole bit about God creating in 7 days, the Garden of Eden, the story of Job that you already mentioned... that doesn't exist? That isn't Jewish? Because it's certainly mythology, and as far as I know it certainly came from the Jewish people. Logically I deduced that it was therefore Jewish mythology, am I wrong?

Wow! I finally agree with you on something. I just don't believe that Einstein and Spinoza were pantheists.

Then you're choosing to ignore what they themselves have proclaimed; either way it's not really very relevant what either were or believed. The only thing that matters is the data and evidence.

Pantheists and Atheists? I don't care how you call them, as I agree with you.

Well, okay

 

[Ben Masada]

Referring to Aristotle's arguments and claiming that you think they are right because of his argumentation is not fallacious. However, you have to be open to criticism of his argumentation and be able to defeat said criticism; you can't just respond with "I think Aristotle knew better than you." The argument stands or falls on the argumentation itself, not on the person who argues it.

Aristotle said that something cannot come out of nothing. This is an argument of Aristotle's I am referring to, and I am open to criticism and argumentation. Is it fallacious?

Referring to Aristotle's arguments and claiming that you think they are right becuase, after all, Aristotle said them and he's a smart guy (right?) -- is fallacious.

Okay, never mind the man. If what he said is fallatious, can you prove that something can come out of nothing?

I've justified every assertion I've made. Please locate an assertion I've made and I'll justify it again if you want me to. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear because I don't make baseless claims.

No, insteady of trying to locate back your assertions, I prefer to watch you for further baseless claims.

Actually the ancients knew the earth was round for reasons far better than reading it in a text. Also, how do you explain the references to "four corners of the earth" (which spheres do not have), or someone standing on a mountaintop and seeing all the cities of the world (also something that can't happen on a sphere for obvious reasons)?

Oh! I never expected you to ask such a question, because I had thought you to be much smarter than that. "The four corners of the earth" is a Biblical expression which means from all over the world. I wonder how you didn't know about that nuance. You have confirmed my views that Atheists do not understand metaphorical language in the Bible. I am only sorry that you of all Atheists had to be the one to confirm my views.

Are you to argue that these were allegory, but hanging the earth on nothing isn't? That's cherry picking, and a bit of Forer Effect in the interpretation.

Most definitely metaphorical language. And all the Genesis account of creation is a huge metaphorical allegory.

To Einstein, figuring out a secret of the universe was "catching God at work" and "knowing the mind of God," but Einstein didn't believe in a literal mind of God. God is the universe to Einstein as it was to Spinoza.

And what did you think it would be to catch God at His work of creation, to surprize Him as if He were trying to hide Himself at creation? MM, please, not again! And who believes in a literal mind of God? Only the believers of anthropomorphic gods. To be aware of the "mind of God" is metaphorical of learning about God through creation. And last but not least, Einstein and Spinoza were not pagans or Gentiles to believe that the universe was God.

Uh... so the whole bit about God creating in 7 days, the Garden of Eden, the story of Job that you already mentioned... that doesn't exist?

Now, it is my turn to ask you to go back through my posts and show me one where I said that the Genesis account of Creation was literal, or seven days, or Garden of Eden, or Job existed literally. The whole thing is a huge allegory. And the personage Job didn't even exist. The book was written as an allegory to teach about the role of Israel in the designs of God.

That isn't Jewish? Because it's certainly mythology, and as far as I know it certainly came from the Jewish people. Logically I deduced that it was therefore Jewish mythology, am I wrong?

It is Jewish but not mythology. I am not too sure you know the difference between mythology as the Greek and Egyptian are concerned and allegories with the intent to teach a spiritual lesson, or morality.

Then you're choosing to ignore what they themselves have proclaimed; either way it's not really very relevant what either were or believed. The only thing that matters is the data and evidence.

The problem is not that I have chosen to ignore what they have proclaimed but that you have chosen, for some reason, to make sure non-Jewish readers understand that the Hebrew Bible is a book of mythologies. If this is not true, you have got to admit that you cannot distinguish between mythology and allegories.