Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[viole]

This is like taking my first step up mount Kilimanjaro.

1. How would a being in time create time? If he is time dependent he could not exist before time (for lack of a better word) in order to create time.
2. Personal in the sense of having intent or will. Able to choose to act.
3. How would a being dependent on matter create matter? If his existence requires matter then how could he have existed prior to matter in order to create matter?

We have both agreed that no known physics or mathematics apply to the singularity, so staring at black boards is not going to help. There is not even a theory for how nothing can become something. It's not even a scientific question.

Not having a theory does not entail that it does not help to study the issue. If my ancestors listened to you, we will still believe in Thor as source of lighnings.

And nobody believes that there "was" a nothing giving rise to something. Remember, physical causality makes some sense only with a Universe already in place. So, the word "coming from" is alrady question begging, sorry. You need something looking like time and a time direction, the latter being a thermodynamical things. All your inferences are based and make sense only when the Universe is already available. Extending the properties of the contained to the container is a fallacy known as the composition fallacy.

But from my vantage point all these discussions are pointless, anyway For it is entirely possible that our Universe is a block Universe. And in a block Universe you have no time, no causality, nothing that began to exist, nothing of the things you talk about.

Then I must be at least 3000 years old, because that was when men recorded the nature of God. They did not know the right questions to ask, yet they got every answer correct. Just like the puzzle piece found under the table, I did not create it, I found it existing, and that it perfectly fits the hole.

You assume their answer was correct. They were wrong about Thor and lighnings, among other things, so they were, at best, unreliable.

Once again we have traveled for weeks to end up where we began. Yes we should pretend some moral values and duties exist even if God doesn't. I would think that cost versus benefit would by among the foundations that the most people would agree on.

Nope. Because taken at face value, it would justify eugenics. You say people are not responsible for having Alzheimer, or Down Syndrome and all. I say that gays are not responsible to be gays, either. And if you believe that you can freely choose your sexual orientation, then you are, de-facto, bisexual.

1. Objective moral values and duties only exist if God does. However belief in God is not required to act morally. I believe we have God given consciences which we can obey even while denying God's existence.
2. It gets confusing calling both objective and subjective values and duties morality. So lets call objective moral values morality and subjective moral ethics.

I would have reversed the defintions. Morality comes from mores, Latin for customs. Ethos seems more important.

Funny you say that. When my Mom got cancer, the worse she got the more I used drinking to escape. Even 10 years later I drank beer everyday and couldn't stop. The instant I was born again I lost all desire for alcohol. I do drink a beer or two per year but could take it or leave it. I also don't believe responsible drinking is sinful.

Good for you.

Yet again, back at the starting line. Metallica made a song about WW1 called back to the front. Seems like that is what we are doing. I do not see anything in my statements you have not already agreed to. I covered what would be true if God exists, and what would be true if he didn't and I believe you agree. You sure you understood what I said?

Nope. I never agreed that the existence of objective moral values entails God. I don't believe that objective morality exist, but that does not mean that I have logical evidence that my moral realist atheists friends are defeating themselves. I wish I would have that, really.

I know for a fact objective morality does not exist if God does not exist. Assuming God does not exist but believing objective morality exists is a poster child for the label of pretend. However you know I do not care about semantic technicalities so you can use any label you wish.

Yet, you have failed to prove that. As you failed to prove that objective logic cannot exist without God. You just cannot imagine it, but that is a far cry from a proof.

The ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–85).
Übermensch - Wikipedia

That is what I see when I watch myself in the mirror. With the possible exception of the "man" thing. Me, and my fellow citizens, of course. As I told you, Christian morality is ignored in my environment. If something agrees with Christianity, ok. If it does not, who cares? After all we believe the authors of bibles were humans, too. So, we should not be surprised if we agree about something. Probably they liked stakes, too.

I didn't characterize anything. I said since I have grown up my whole life in a nation which has won every war it has fought and which has the most lethal military in human history I can't imagine what it would feel like to live in a nation that could be swallowed whole at any time.

We both make many spelling mistakes, but usually I can understand what your saying. Not so this time.

It seems you lost pretty badly in Vietnam.

What characteristic or beliefs make a person a Pagan? Where are the goal posts?

We had a great explanation for lighnings. We invented the Christmast tree (before being stolen by Christians, together with our celebrations for the winter solstice). Valhalla looked also like a pretty place. Probably with plenty of free beer.

And our Pagans discovered America long before your Catholic co-believers. Unfortunately, they thought it was useless.

Religious countries are theocracies and some monarchies. Christianity was never intended to govern a nation, it was intended to govern a person. My country is a confusing one, we specifically did not want to make ourselves into a monarchy like England. So we made our institutions secular to a great extent. However the secular revolution found that secular crack and drove a wedge in it until they have watered down everything. It would take days to explain our history.

Being secular does not entail abolishing monarchy. Sweden is a monarchy.

Greece, France, England, etc...... are all regretting their liberal spending practices. From letting Muslims take over parts of their nations, to the necessity for austerity measures, to trying to re-privatize health care. I would love to visit Sweden but I fear I do not own enough clothes to survive.

We also have a summer.

There are none. Christianity is the only religion in history that exists at a significant level in every nation of earth.

Yes, like pople believing in horoscopes.

I agree but this is another modulation issue, all forms of government will all always fail because they are composed of faulty people. Our founders created as close to a perfect governmental structure as is humanly possible, yet I expect this nation to implode within a hundred years.

So, if people are faulty, then they might be wrong by believing in God. Or do you arrogate yourself the right to decide when they are faulty or not? But how can you do that, if you must be faulty yourself as well?

Is there an objective standard for bovine beauty? You guys have a king?

Is there an objective standard for human beauty?

Sweden has a king? Yes. He is the guy who hands over Nobel prizes. With the exception of the peace Nobel prize. Which is handed over by the king of Norway.

Donald Trump being the anti-Christ and Obama being the second coming of Christ.

You guys are really fixated with this Christ thing.

I did, I pointed to Sweden and my finger froze. Wikipedia said that Sweden has two seasons, winter, and the 4th of July. The only reason your not speaking German right now is because of the human wave attacks Russia carried out, the British navy and air force, and our technical and industrial might.

I speak German fluently. And Sweden has never been attacked by Nazi Germany. Same with Switzerland.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Let's say for example that A = my being hungry, B = my deciding to get a hot dog, and C = the thousands of events that must take place to actually get the hot dog and eat it. You stated that physics (basically) can account for everything from A to C. Since I know of no physics what so ever (not even in theory) that can account for all that, then that is the end of my argument. If we are to resolve this your going to have to post the equations which accounts for the trillions of examples where people go from A to C. My argument is that that does not exist because I cannot see it if it exists and you can't provide it.

Yes, I would say that it is a agent causation. I do not know how to describe it but there appears to be trillion of examples of it. Until you start knocking them down with equations.

I do not recall saying that choices are based on necessary causes.

Life span isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether physics alone can be shown to account for a choice or not. Think of it this way. Let's say you told me there is an elephant inside of a standard sized garbage can. We both stare at it and I see no good reason to think that is true, so I say go over and open the trashcan and lets see if there is an adult elephant in it. You say no, that I should instead prove that it is impossible. You say physics accounts for choice, open the lid (physics) and let me see the elephant (the equations).

I think I said it pretty well. God holds ultimate sovereignty over every single thing that exists, but can impart provisional and partial sovereignty to other creatures. God explains why I can make a choice, but his existence rarely compels me to make any specific choice.

On my view choice is a very abstract and or spiritual issue, and things like that very hard to know or explain.
You however claim choice is simply physics, and things like that can be shown. So the burden is yours.

Hey, if your getting bored with the determinism stuff, do you want to switch to the prophecy about Tyre? It is not one of the best known prophecies but it is one of the most fascinating.

So, what is the ultimate uncaused cause of your choice?

Are there more than one uncaused causes?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Your talking about things explained by natural law (even if you don't know which or how), I am referring to things that defy or contradict natural law.

I don't think so. You are talking of things that seem to contradict natural law.

I tell you what, if you want to be sure, do not rely on scientists, or yourself, evaluating the claim. Scientists are very easy to cheat. Normal peple too, as my example with Copperfield shows. I know they are tricks because he does not claim supernatural power. But only because of that, since I have no clue how he does it.

Hire a professional magician. You will be surprised what he can find. Alas, all those miracles stop working when there is a professional around, for some reason.

A bit like my conversations with the soul of Einstein made possible by a very reliable medium.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

Wow! Only THREE books out of 66 are relevant to you? How did you come to that conclusion? Did the writers sneak in 3 good books among all the garbage somehow?

I'm not Christian. I see them only as literature. The rest of the bible, with the possible exception of the synoptic gospels is largely irrelevant to me.

 

[1robin]

So, what is the ultimate uncaused cause of your choice?

Are there more than one uncaused causes?

Ciao

- viole

I am never going to get an equation out of you, am I? Not even a little one? What about 3 random Greek letters and a number? Turn off the lights hit half a dozen keys on the keyboard and put an equal sign in there somewhere.

I did not say that my choice is uncaused, I said that it's cause does not appear to be governed by natural law. As I have said, to fully account for the stuff we find existing, we need both mechanism and agency. If everything was resolvable to mechanisms alone then you could provide the equations that govern those mechanisms. Since you won't because you can't supply them then you need something in addition to mechanism, you need agency. Agency is not easily resolvable or described, yet no less necessary.

 

[1robin]

I don't think so. You are talking of things that seem to contradict natural law.

I think you misread something because you basically repeated what I said back to me, even somehow turning it into an accusation. Yes, I am definitely talking about things (supernatural) that contradict natural law. What your talking about (magic) is governed by natural law, you just do not know which laws or how.

I tell you what, if you want to be sure, do not rely on scientists, or yourself, evaluating the claim. Scientists are very easy to cheat. Normal peple too, as my example with Copperfield shows. I know they are tricks because he does not claim supernatural power. But only because of that, since I have no clue how he does it.

I would expect no more than 10% of adults with a high school education would believe any magic trick was really magic, one out of 3 of that same group do believe in the supernatural. Actually 1 out of 3 believe in my concept of the supernatural, for the supernatural in general it would probably be close to 90%.

Hire a professional magician. You will be surprised what he can find. Alas, all those miracles stop working when there is a professional around, for some reason.

Really? "Hire a magician" is the best you got? I also thought you just said to not trust scientists. Miracles by their definition are rare, do not conform to natural norms, and are not available by demand. However there is one way to access them mathematically. For you to be right every single one of the millions of claims to miracles must all be wrong.

A bit like my conversations with the soul of Einstein made possible by a very reliable medium.

Ciao

- viole

Reliable by what standard?

 

[viole]

I think you misread something because you basically repeated what I said back to me, even somehow turning it into an accusation. Yes, I am definitely talking about things (supernatural) that contradict natural law. What your talking about (magic) is governed by natural law, you just do not know which laws or how.

And, again, you cannot possibly rule out that it was not a trick. Tricks can be tricks even if the one performing them says thay are not.

I would expect no more than 10% of adults with a high school education would believe any magic trick was really magic, one out of 3 of that same group do believe in the supernatural. Actually 1 out of 3 believe in my concept of the supernatural, for the supernatural in general it would probably be close to 90%.

And how do you know it was not a magical trick? Just because the one performing it said it was not? What was it, by the way?

Really? "Hire a magician" is the best you got? I also thought you just said to not trust scientists.

Of course it is the best I got. Scientists do not have the forma mentis to detect intentional deceit, in general. It is basically one of the implicit assumptions when they study nature.

Miracles by their definition are rare, do not conform to natural norms, and are not available by demand. However there is one way to access them mathematically. For you to be right every single one of the millions of claims to miracles must all be wrong.

Do you include the miracles from the competition? I ask because my Hindu friend witnessed similar miracles after praying to a god with an elephant nose.

Reliable by what standard?

By the standards set by people believing she was genuine, and that what she was able to do, cannot be explained by natural law. They could swear on her being really able to talk to the death. Alas, it is in general not so difficult to break cherished beliefs that our loved dead ones are still out there, or that there is a life in the hereafter.

All you need is a question about relativity, and dead Einstein decides to stop conversation at once.

On second thoughts, I did not break anything. People will keep believing whatever they want to believe. I was actually seen as the naughty, cynical, heartless, and unspiritual girl when I exposed that ridicolous claim.

Hope springs eternal., as it seems.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I am never going to get an equation out of you, am I? Not even a little one? What about 3 random Greek letters and a number? Turn off the lights hit half a dozen keys on the keyboard and put an equal sign in there somewhere.

Because i do not have any. I don't use a lot of equations either when I study things under the law of energy conservation. Because that is all you need. For, whatever mechanisms are in the middle, the final result has the same energy as at the beginning. Most physicists use this principle to exclude a priori some mechanisms, namely the ones that break that symmetry. It is a very efficient method, since it reduces the complexity of the problem enormously.

Same with the principle of information conservation. I don't care about the mechanisms. I just can exclude the ones that introduce novelty in the state of the universe.

Remember, not knowing the details of the mechanisms involved does not entail not being able to exclude a whole lot of them. And if the principle of information conservation is true, as it seems to be, I can dismiss your libertarian free will claim immediately.

Alternatively, I must deny the minimal assumptions of basically all our physical theories (lesson one of Dr. Susskind online course on theoretical physics). You will probably find that price too high as well, since you also seem to use theoretical physical claims to prove things like the beginning of the universe, when they agree with your agenda.

So, you have to choose. I will not tolerate any special pleading

I did not say that my choice is uncaused, I said that it's cause does not appear to be governed by natural law. As I have said, to fully account for the stuff we find existing, we need both mechanism and agency. If everything was resolvable to mechanisms alone then you could provide the equations that govern those mechanisms. Since you won't because you can't supply them then you need something in addition to mechanism, you need agency. Agency is not easily resolvable or described, yet no less necessary.

That does not answer my question. And I never said that you believe that your decision is uncaused. That would be absurd since I know that you believe that everything is ultimately caused.

What I am asking you is what that initial cause might be.

You seem ready to identify the cause of the Universe with God, while being reluctant to give a name to the ultimate, necessarily eternal and uncaused cause of your decision to eat a hot dog.

What is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I thought being persecuted for your beliefs was not only an expectation for Christians, but also a point of pride. They should embrace any and all suffering they experience for their god and religion.

 

[1robin]

Not having a theory does not entail that it does not help to study the issue. If my ancestors listened to you, we will still believe in Thor as source of lighnings.

That's like saying that if we use a thermometer just right we can explain the origin of numbers. I didn't say to quit looking, I said your looking in the wrong place.

And nobody believes that there "was" a nothing giving rise to something. Remember, physical causality makes some sense only with a Universe already in place. So, the word "coming from" is alrady question begging, sorry. You need something looking like time and a time direction, the latter being a thermodynamical things. All your inferences are based and make sense only when the Universe is already available. Extending the properties of the contained to the container is a fallacy known as the composition fallacy.

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing", chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but it also occurs in other fields.
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

But from my vantage point all these discussions are pointless, anyway For it is entirely possible that our Universe is a block Universe. And in a block Universe you have no time, no causality, nothing that began to exist, nothing of the things you talk about.

You again seem to be forced to retreat all the way out of reality to maintain your world view. I think your presumptions increase the unknowns and unknowables.

You assume their answer was correct. They were wrong about Thor and lighnings, among other things, so they were, at best, unreliable.

No assuming is what you did above. What I did was notice a vacant hole in a puzzle piece and then found a preexisting puzzle piece under the table that fits the vacancy perfectly. I use that fact combined with countless other bits of evidence to reinforce a faith that was born in a supernatural experience. Unless you can show that I am either delusional or epileptic, my faith would be fully warranted by that experience alone.

Nope. Because taken at face value, it would justify eugenics.

Taking what at face value. What does and even has produced eugenics was Hitler's application of social Darwinism.

You say people are not responsible for having Alzheimer, or Down Syndrome and all. I say that gays are not responsible to be gays, either. And if you believe that you can freely choose your sexual orientation, then you are, de-facto, bisexual.

I do not know that that is true but will be glad to assume it is. I am not arguing against an orientation (but could) but against a behavior.

I would have reversed the defintions. Morality comes from mores, Latin for customs. Ethos seems more important.

I think that is utterly absurd but to save time, you may use whatever semantic preferences you want to label them. Just label them differently, because they are vastly different.

Good for you.

I think you missed the point. Natural law is not a good explanation for the instant eradication of a desire I could not resist for decades.

Nope. I never agreed that the existence of objective moral values entails God. I don't believe that objective morality exist, but that does not mean that I have logical evidence that my moral realist atheists friends are defeating themselves. I wish I would have that, really.

You have already said this exact thing twice, at least.

Yet, you have failed to prove that. As you failed to prove that objective logic cannot exist without God. You just cannot imagine it, but that is a far cry from a proof.

I have already made these arguments enough times to no longer be able to justify doing it again.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

How do you get the above without my God, and how could we lack the above with my God?

That is what I see when I watch myself in the mirror. With the possible exception of the "man" thing. Me, and my fellow citizens, of course. As I told you, Christian morality is ignored in my environment. If something agrees with Christianity, ok. If it does not, who cares? After all we believe the authors of bibles were humans, too. So, we should not be surprised if we agree about something. Probably they liked stakes, too.

That was not the point. You said:

I am a uebermensch. That does mean that I am Superwoman or anything like that.

I responded with: The ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–85).
Übermensch - Wikipedia

It seems you lost pretty badly in Vietnam.

We one every single major engagement and North Korea agreed to everything we demanded. We had done that which we set out to do, however when we had drawn down our forces to little to nothing, the North Vietnamese simply contradicted everything they promised and invaded. It was an unpopular war so we were not about to turn the ships around and start a new war. The success of a war is not that things stay exactly as they are when peace was concluded until the end of time. It was our worst war, probably because it was run by liberal bureaucrats and politicians, instead of the military.

We had a great explanation for lighnings. We invented the Christmast tree (before being stolen by Christians, together with our celebrations for the winter solstice). Valhalla looked also like a pretty place. Probably with plenty of free beer.

I didn't ask for random aspects of Paganism. I asked for the essentials of what makes a person a Pagan.

And our Pagans discovered America long before your Catholic co-believers. Unfortunately, they thought it was useless.

The Asiatic Russians beat every one to America. I didn't know this was a who first discovered specific patches of dirt contest.

Being secular does not entail abolishing monarchy. Sweden is a monarchy.

You may have a monarch but I doubt your country is run like a classic monarchy, but I don't see the relevance.

We also have a summer.

How hot? How much humidity?

Yes, like pople believing in horoscopes.

I don't get it.

So, if people are faulty, then they might be wrong by believing in God. Or do you arrogate yourself the right to decide when they are faulty or not? But how can you do that, if you must be faulty yourself as well?

Of course we might be wrong to believe in a God. I argue for the best conclusion for the evidence, not for absolute fact. Arrogate is the name of a horse.

Is there an objective standard for human beauty?

I think there may be but I doubt anyone knows what it is. My whole family are engineers and one thing we discuss is the mathematical principles which separate good music from bad. One analogy we use are golden ratios. Many of the most pleasing buildings happen to correspond to golden ratios. Heck even think like branch spacing, sunflower seeds, and sea shells are built upon mathematic relationships. The universe is full of needless rationality and lawfulness, which produces wonder in those that realize it.

Sweden has a king? Yes. He is the guy who hands over Nobel prizes. With the exception of the peace Nobel prize. Which is handed over by the king of Norway.

Over 80% of Nobel Laureates are Christians and Jews.

You guys are really fixated with this Christ thing.

Actually they are just common sayings. Same thing with atheists who stump their toe and say God D*****.

I speak German fluently. And Sweden has never been attacked by Nazi Germany. Same with Switzerland.

Hitler wanted the whole world. If Britain, the US, and Russia hadn't stopped him he would have gotten it. I am not sure listing the nations Hitler was prevented from enslaving is supposed to accomplish.

 

[1robin]

And, again, you cannot possibly rule out that it was not a trick. Tricks can be tricks even if the one performing them says thay are not.

Your the one who said that whether you believe an event was supernatural or not depends on what the person performing the act claimed it was, not me. Since I have no given an example you if being tricked is possible. My greatest claim to a miracle occurred without anyone else present, it's effects lasted for 3 days, and others later noticed it's effects.

And how do you know it was not a magical trick? Just because the one performing it said it was not? What was it, by the way?

I am not the one who said that what the performer claims is determinative. Why did you state several must be's and then ask what it is we are talking about. I will give you two examples.

1. My being born again (among many one component being my losing interest in drinking).
2. My being compelled during prayer about a specific thing, to turn on the TV. All three times the same minister was preaching about the exact thing I was praying about, there is another instance involving a book that applies to this example as well.

I was alone in 4 out of 5 of those instances.

Of course it is the best I got. Scientists do not have the forma mentis to detect intentional deceit, in general. It is basically one of the implicit assumptions when they study nature.

I still do not get it, why did you suggest I hire a magician?

Do you include the miracles from the competition? I ask because my Hindu friend witnessed similar miracles after praying to a god with an elephant nose.

Do I include them in what group?

By the standards set by people believing she was genuine, and that what she was able to do, cannot be explained by natural law. They could swear on her being really able to talk to the death. Alas, it is in general not so difficult to break cherished beliefs that our loved dead ones are still out there, or that there is a life in the hereafter.

First to suggest that all claims to miracles either stand of fall together has no justification. I do not reject claims to miracles made by people in other faiths. However as I said I am skeptical of any claims to miracles in general, even made by Christians. I am not sure why you bringing up a Hindu, but if you asking whether I would accept her claim to a miracle, I would need all the details.

All you need is a question about relativity, and dead Einstein decides to stop conversation at once.

You should have said cosmological constants instead of relativity.

On second thoughts, I did not break anything. People will keep believing whatever they want to believe. I was actually seen as the naughty, cynical, heartless, and unspiritual girl when I exposed that ridicolous claim.

Hope springs eternal., as it seems.

Ciao

- viole

What are you talking about? I went back a couple of posts but do not get it.

 

[viole]

That's like saying that if we use a thermometer just right we can explain the origin of numbers. I didn't say to quit looking, I said your looking in the wrong place.

As long as our theories are incomplete, it is rational to make them complete.

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing", chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but it also occurs in other fields.
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

Nobody believes in ex nihilo. Nobody even believes in ex. Ex is question begging. It assumes a transition from into.

You again seem to be forced to retreat all the way out of reality to maintain your world view. I think your presumptions increase the unknowns and unknowables.

Not really. i try not to invoke the block universe, with mixed results, because it is a conversation killer. It takes away all the fun. It is like trying to kill a fly with an nuclear device. And that nuclear device is there, ready to be deployed.

No assuming is what you did above. What I did was notice a vacant hole in a puzzle piece and then found a preexisting puzzle piece under the table that fits the vacancy perfectly. I use that fact combined with countless other bits of evidence to reinforce a faith that was born in a supernatural experience. Unless you can show that I am either delusional or epileptic, my faith would be fully warranted by that experience alone.

As I said. My ancestors also saw a vakant puzzle that could explain lighnings. It fitted perfectly.

Taking what at face value. What does and even has produced eugenics was Hitler's application of social Darwinism.

Sure. I do not agree with them, either.

I do not know that that is true but will be glad to assume it is. I am not arguing against an orientation (but could) but against a behavior.

Can you identify a set of behaviours that are acceptable for you? At least in terms of secular costs.

I think that is utterly absurd but to save time, you may use whatever semantic preferences you want to label them. Just label them differently, because they are vastly different.

Are they?

I think you missed the point. Natural law is not a good explanation for the instant eradication of a desire I could not resist for decades.

Why not? Is it less explainable than your choice to have a hot dog? You, like me, have no idea how your brain really functions.

You have already said this exact thing twice, at least.

Repetita juvant. Since you are into Latin.

I have already made these arguments enough times to no longer be able to justify doing it again.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

Robin, these are definitions. I could define kryptonite if you want, but I doubt you will give it any value towards assessing the plausibility of Superman.

That was not the point. You said: I responded with: The ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–85).
Übermensch - Wikipedia

Yes, and that is what we did. Maybe not exactly what Fred had in mind, but for sure our values do not depend on the existence of any god.

We one every single major engagement and North Korea agreed to everything we demanded. We had done that which we set out to do, however when we had drawn down our forces to little to nothing, the North Vietnamese simply contradicted everything they promised and invaded. It was an unpopular war so we were not about to turn the ships around and start a new war. The success of a war is not that things stay exactly as they are when peace was concluded until the end of time. It was our worst war, probably because it was run by liberal bureaucrats and politicians, instead of the military.

Who cares? You lost. Unless you beleve that all Americans who died in Vietnam died to have Vietnam being fully communist, as it is.

You remind me of the Monty Python black night.

I didn't ask for random aspects of Paganism. I asked for the essentials of what makes a person a Pagan.

I think there is a pagan DIR right here on this forum.

The Asiatic Russians beat every one to America. I didn't know this was a who first discovered specific patches of dirt contest.

True. With the possible exception ble exception of bisonts.

You may have a monarch but I doubt your country is run like a classic monarchy, but I don't see the relevance.

Oh, you meant classic monarchy?

How hot? How much humidity?

Enough for you to not need extra clothing.

I don't get it.

Why not? Superstition is everywhere. That hardly gives any credibility to it.

Of course we might be wrong to believe in a God. I argue for the best conclusion for the evidence, not for absolute fact. Arrogate is the name of a horse.

It is necessarily true that most people are wrong about the god they believe in. Which casts serious doubts about the reliability of believing in god, generally.

I think there may be but I doubt anyone knows what it is. My whole family are engineers and one thing we discuss is the mathematical principles which separate good music from bad. One analogy we use are golden ratios. Many of the most pleasing buildings happen to correspond to golden ratios. Heck even think like branch spacing, sunflower seeds, and sea shells are built upon mathematic relationships. The universe is full of needless rationality and lawfulness, which produces wonder in those that realize it.

Mathematic regularity are usually the result of optimization principles. Plants follow those regular patterns with their leaves because that is what allows them to optimize light exposure. Not surprising, since the ones who do not, died away. It is the result of evolutionary convergence.

Over 80% of Nobel Laureates are Christians and Jews.

With Jews you mean those guys who do not believe in Jesus? Do you count Winberg and Feynman among those Jews?

Actually they are just common sayings. Same thing with atheists who stump their toe and say God D*****.

Yes, and Christians say: my Gosh!

[/quote]
Hitler wanted the whole world. If Britain, the US, and Russia hadn't stopped him he would have gotten it. I am not sure listing the nations Hitler was prevented from enslaving is supposed to accomplish.[/QUOTE]

It defeats your claim that Sweden does not speak German because of the allied task force. For if he wanted to conquer Sweden or Switzerland, he would have done it. Easily.

But it is possible that he left the dessert for later.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Your the one who said that whether you believe an event was supernatural or not depends on what the person performing the act claimed it was, not me. Since I have no given an example you if being tricked is possible. My greatest claim to a miracle occurred without anyone else present, it's effects lasted for 3 days, and others later noticed it's effects.

I am not the one who said that what the performer claims is determinative. Why did you state several must be's and then ask what it is we are talking about. I will give you two examples.

1. My being born again (among many one component being my losing interest in drinking).
2. My being compelled during prayer about a specific thing, to turn on the TV. All three times the same minister was preaching about the exact thing I was praying about, there is another instance involving a book that applies to this example as well.

And these are miracles, right? TV Shows and losing drinking habits. Ok.

For a second I thought you will show me evidence of an amputee growing a fresh new arm or someone losing her Down Syndrome.

Do you think they will be able to achieve that if they are born again? Or should they just be content. with witnessing what they prayed for, being broadcasted live on tv?


Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Because i do not have any. I don't use a lot of equations either when I study things under the law of energy conservation. Because that is all you need. For, whatever mechanisms are in the middle, the final result has the same energy as at the beginning. Most physicists use this principle to exclude a priori some mechanisms, namely the ones that break that symmetry. It is a very efficient method, since it reduces the complexity of the problem enormously.

Let's assume for the moment that you do not need to show any evidence for pure determinism, to be able to know it is true. Even so, every state of affairs on determinism can be resolved by physics. You can model how far a kicked ball may go, which direction, how many revolutions, velocity, and show how many hops it will make before coming to rest using equations drown out on paper. Do the same thing for the Child's choice to kick the ball. Even if it is unnecessary, it should be fairly easy, and would definitely be more compelling for you to do so. You can do so for any choice, made by anyone, about anything, at anytime. I can make the test for your hypothesis any easier.

Same with the principle of information conservation. I don't care about the mechanisms. I just can exclude the ones that introduce novelty in the state of the universe.

My family actually came up with another concept called the conservation of knowledge. It states that the amount of knowledge is always constant. If a baby learns something then an old person must forget something. It also accounts for why our modern super populations seem to be on average so stupid. I do not know much about information conservation and not much time to investigate it. I ran into it in a creationists argument similar to the one at this link. Conservation of Information Made Simple


I just do not have the time to invest, can you dumb it down to a level where I don't have to research it?

Remember, not knowing the details of the mechanisms involved does not entail not being able to exclude a whole lot of them. And if the principle of information conservation is true, as it seems to be, I can dismiss your libertarian free will claim immediately.

I hate it when others hang so much of their argument on something I am unfamiliar with. Tell you what, either lay it out in a simple way or hold off on information conservation for a day or two so I can get a good handle on it. Alright I have a handle on it.

1. It is pure speculation and has only existed as a theory since the 70's.
2. I think it is a horrific theory. Information can and does increase, and can and does decrease.
3. There is no known natural causes of semiotics.
4. The waves may lap against the shore for an eternity and they will never form the works of Shakespeare on the beach.
5. From what I have read the theory of information conservation is used in creation arguments as much as in any other context. However it is such a terrible theory I wouldn't use it.

Among the numerous difficulties with this contrived theory is that, by definition, something that decreases in amount cannot be considered as being conserved. Another salient difficulty is that Dembski uses the term "closed system" in place of what should be "isolated system". This type of misuse of thermodynamic terms and conceptions are common among mathematicans who attempt to extrapolate new thermodynamics theories. As famously stated in 1989 by Russian mathematician Vladimir Arnold: “every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an elementary course in thermodynamics.” Beyond this, information is anthropomorphic conception and is not something defined in the inherent structure of the composition of the universe. In this light, a simple reading of the history of the Library at Alexandria, the ancient world’s largest library, confirms that information is not conserved.
Conservation of information - Hmolpedia

Alternatively, I must deny the minimal assumptions of basically all our physical theories (lesson one of Dr. Susskind online course on theoretical physics). You will probably find that price too high as well, since you also seem to use theoretical physical claims to prove things like the beginning of the universe, when they agree with your agenda.

No matter what point it is you start at you always end up in the exact same place. The deepest end of the theoretical science pool. I however was not referring to any natural laws, and so have no burden to supply any. My arguments are basically that natural mechanisms do not sufficiently explain X, Y, and Z. Yours are the opposite. Since universal negatives can't be proven, that makes it your burden to prove your claims to knowledge are true. I have made it about as easy as I know how.

So, you have to choose. I will not tolerate any special pleading

Between what? If between mechanism and agency, why?

 

[1robin]

As long as our theories are incomplete, it is rational to make them complete.

That is like saying that we need to get a bridge from this bank to the far bank, so keep throwing abstract objects into the breech until it is full only in reverse.

Nobody believes in ex nihilo. Nobody even believes in ex. Ex is question begging. It assumes a transition from into.

Ok, let me show you how this is supposed to work. Your claiming no one believes X is a universal negative so you will never be able to prove it, so in this case it is my burden if I disagree. I believe in creation ex nihilo, case closed. So do a bunch of Greeks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, etc.....
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

Ex is the specific negation of transforming. It is not one natural state of affairs becoming another natural state of affairs. It is the coming into existence of any natural state of affairs. However, I do not care about semantics. Call it whatever you wish. It is the coming into existence of things that had no prior existence. Even secular scholars believe the universe came from nothing, they just think nothing was something. Of course they are nuts.

Not really. i try not to invoke the block universe, with mixed results, because it is a conversation killer. It takes away all the fun. It is like trying to kill a fly with an nuclear device. And that nuclear device is there, ready to be deployed.

It is like yelling at traffic. You had no problem bringing it up when we first debated. Once down that rabbit hole was enough.

As I said. My ancestors also saw a vakant puzzle that could explain lighnings. It fitted perfectly.

Show that to actually be the case and why. Who is this God? How many volts is your God? How did you know this? What is his polarity? How does he form leaders and streamers? When did the first lightning strike occur? Where? How old is your God? How fast is he? If he discharges how does he recharge?

Sure. I do not agree with them, either.

Yet, Social Darwinism does seem to justify eugenics. I am aware of no scriptures that do.

Can you identify a set of behaviours that are acceptable for you? At least in terms of secular costs.

I can give some examples I guess. Racial equality before the law. The requirement for ascent to rule. The right to defend national borders. The sanctity of human life. The right to own property. Natural hierarchies and stewardship of the planet. Some of those might need some clauses but that a start.

Are they?

One can be true, the other can never be. If God exists murder is actually wrong, if he does not it is merely unfashionable.

Why not? Is it less explainable than your choice to have a hot dog? You, like me, have no idea how your brain really functions.

Go to any AA meeting you can find, in fact go to them all. You will find that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time our brains work in the complete opposite manner as what I described. You could probably find a exception to entropy before you would find a natural explanation for what I described. One guy actually calculated the probability an internal combustion engine would refrigerate it's self.

Repetita juvant. Since you are into Latin.

I think it should be iuvant, but I am not even good at English.

Robin, these are definitions. I could define kryptonite if you want, but I doubt you will give it any value towards assessing the plausibility of Superman.

I gave it for the specific purpose of defining terms. Using the word morality can get very confusing. I also did not use the definition to prove anything was true. Take your pick, call subjective morality by one term, and objective morality by another.

Yes, and that is what we did. Maybe not exactly what Fred had in mind, but for sure our values do not depend on the existence of any god.

Again that is not the point. You said for you to be that person does entail your being superior (super), when apparently that is exactly what it means.

Who cares? You lost. Unless you beleve that all Americans who died in Vietnam died to have Vietnam being fully communist, as it is.

Do you know anything about that war? Our goal was to keep south Vietnam from being over run by the communist North. When the war ended North Vietnam agreed to partition the country at 38th parallel. The deal was signed and we left. North Vietnam waited until we were practically gone and invaded anyway. You might as well claim Alabama won the college football championship this year because they changed the scoreboard 3 hours after the game ended.

I think there is a pagan DIR right here on this forum.

I am too lazy to click the mouse that much.

True. With the possible exception ble exception of bisonts.

What are bisonts?

Oh, you meant classic monarchy?

Yeah I mean a king as head of government. Got one or not? Also not all monarchies are theologically oriented. I was just listing what types of governments could be.

Enough for you to not need extra clothing.

Extra is subjective in this context.

It is necessarily true that most people are wrong about the god they believe in. Which casts serious doubts about the reliability of believing in god, generally.

It is not necessarily true, it could be we all believed in an existent God. In fact none of this follows from anything. Even if 90% of students got the answer wrong to the equation 2 + 2 = ? would not mean that therefor the belief in numbers is faulty.

Mathematic regularity are usually the result of optimization principles. Plants follow those regular patterns with their leaves because that is what allows them to optimize light exposure. Not surprising, since the ones who do not, died away. It is the result of evolutionary convergence.

I do not want to look it up, I am not sure which is which, but I believe branches obey Fibonacci sequences, not merely the optimal spacing. It is obvious that no plant is an optimal anything. Find a thing tuned to perfection then make that argument. BTW where did the 0ther 60% of my argument go.

With Jews you mean those guys who do not believe in Jesus? Do you count Winberg and Feynman among those Jews?

Since that 80% includes 78% Christians it matters little how you wish to subdivide Jews.

Yes, and Christians say: my Gosh!

Exactly, but I do not know what a gosh is or means.

It defeats your claim that Sweden does not speak German because of the allied task force. For if he wanted to conquer Sweden or Switzerland, he would have done it. Easily.

A task force is usually a smaller element of a naval fleet so I do not get the reference. I do not know what your argument here is but it seems to require that your nation was good buddies with Nazi Germany or that your country contains nothing any one would want enough to take it. I did not say Hitler attacked the entire world at the same time, I said he wanted the whole world, but was stopped, and certainly not by Sweden.

But it is possible that he left the dessert for later.

Ciao

- viole

It is hard to find any one explanation that can account for Hitler's actions. It was the most educated country on Earth yet was morally insane.

 

[1robin]

And these are miracles, right? TV Shows and losing drinking habits. Ok.

Come off it, your just being disingenuous at this point. If what I described is so easily written off by natural mechanisms, then why didn't you even attempt to?

For a second I thought you will show me evidence of an amputee growing a fresh new arm or someone losing her Down Syndrome.

I have never seen those occur. I told you I am skeptical of all miracle claims. That is why I gave you two possibles that happened to me because I know what happened and what didn't. If you want to investigate miracles type in miracles and you will get a million hits. Heck, just type in the Miracles of Lourdes. Happy reading.

Do you think they will be able to achieve that if they are born again? Or should they just be content. with witnessing what they prayed for, being broadcasted live on tv?

Jesus said his kingdom was not of this Earth. His mission was never to fix this broken world. It was to spiritually save people out of a doomed world. Being born again has nothing to do with our capacity to do anything. In fact it is made necessary by a specific lack of capacity.

I tried to get you to debate one of the bible's weakest prophecies, then I tried to get you to explain through natural mechanisms some very simplistic events. You do not seem willing to attempt either. I can give you pages worth of events that occurred when I was born again, but as Christ said:

New International Version
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Apparently the arguments of atheists over the millennia haven't improved much or even changed.

 

[viole]

Let's assume for the moment that you do not need to show any evidence for pure determinism, to be able to know it is true. Even so, every state of affairs on determinism can be resolved by physics. You can model how far a kicked ball may go, which direction, how many revolutions, velocity, and show how many hops it will make before coming to rest using equations drown out on paper. Do the same thing for the Child's choice to kick the ball. Even if it is unnecessary, it should be fairly easy, and would definitely be more compelling for you to do so. You can do so for any choice, made by anyone, about anything, at anytime. I can make the test for your hypothesis any easier.

Yet, that ball could not be anywhere else. And the new position it has, after having been kicked by that child, is infererrable, in principle, from the state of the Universe (ball included) long before that child was born. That prior state has the future decision of that child engraved on it.

My family actually came up with another concept called the conservation of knowledge. It states that the amount of knowledge is always constant. If a baby learns something then an old person must forget something. It also accounts for why our modern super populations seem to be on average so stupid. I do not know much about information conservation and not much time to investigate it. I ran into it in a creationists argument similar to the one at this link. Conservation of Information Made Simple


I just do not have the time to invest, can you dumb it down to a level where I don't have to research it?

Ok, how shall I do it? It basically says that for each state of the Universe, there is one and only one state it can come from. So, given a state of the Univerese, that state can only go into one state (no choice possible), and come from one state (no more than one previous candidate possible). The first part entails determinism, the second reversibility.

The classical equivalent is estabilished by the theorem of Liouville. The quantum mechanical equivalent is estabilished by the unitary character of the physical states evolution laws.

All physical theories we know of rest on this law. It is even assumed as an axiom that all future laws must satisfy. Could be wrong, but we do not have a single shred of evidence that it is. A few years ago Hawkins lost a wager by betting against it (the so called black holes war). It is currently as sacrosant as the principles of thermodynamics.

I hate it when others hang so much of their argument on something I am unfamiliar with. Tell you what, either lay it out in a simple way or hold off on information conservation for a day or two so I can get a good handle on it. Alright I have a handle on it.

1. It is pure speculation and has only existed as a theory since the 70's.
2. I think it is a horrific theory. Information can and does increase, and can and does decrease.
3. There is no known natural causes of semiotics.
4. The waves may lap against the shore for an eternity and they will never form the works of Shakespeare on the beach.
5. From what I have read the theory of information conservation is used in creation arguments as much as in any other context. However it is such a terrible theory I wouldn't use it.

As I said, all theories rest upon it. Even thermodynamics, which seems, prima facie, entailing irreversible processes. Well, it does not if we consider the microstructure of any system. The irreversibility of thermodynamics is just a macro effect. A statistical one. Fundamentally, everything is reversible.

Among the numerous difficulties with this contrived theory is that, by definition, something that decreases in amount cannot be considered as being conserved. Another salient difficulty is that Dembski uses the term "closed system" in place of what should be "isolated system". This type of misuse of thermodynamic terms and conceptions are common among mathematicans who attempt to extrapolate new thermodynamics theories. As famously stated in 1989 by Russian mathematician Vladimir Arnold: “every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an elementary course in thermodynamics.” Beyond this, information is anthropomorphic conception and is not something defined in the inherent structure of the composition of the universe. In this light, a simple reading of the history of the Library at Alexandria, the ancient world’s largest library, confirms that information is not conserved.
Conservation of information - Hmolpedia

Well, ancient people wrote a lot of things. We know now that information is conserved. Even if you burn a letter, the information is still there. Even if you fall in a black hole, the information is still there.

You cannot surprise the Universe, nor you can deprive it from the information it might need to reconstruct a prior state. Including you in that black hole. Or the burned copy of the NY Times. Difficult, but possible, in principle.

You can say whatever you want, but this is the current state of affairs in the physicists community.

No matter what point it is you start at you always end up in the exact same place. The deepest end of the theoretical science pool. I however was not referring to any natural laws, and so have no burden to supply any. My arguments are basically that natural mechanisms do not sufficiently explain X, Y, and Z. Yours are the opposite. Since universal negatives can't be proven, that makes it your burden to prove your claims to knowledge are true. I have made it about as easy as I know how.

This is no deep end at all. It has been realized long ago even in classical mechanics. Just take a look at its Hamiltonian formulation.

And, as I said, this is lesson one of Dr. Susskind physics course.

Between what? If between mechanism and agency, why?

Between accepting it, or undercutting every physical theory in existence. Including your beloved Vilenkin finding.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

That is like saying that we need to get a bridge from this bank to the far bank, so keep throwing abstract objects into the breech until it is full only in reverse.

Don't tell me. I am a mathematician helping physicists sometimes. Tell all those physicists working on that, and see what they say when the hear of your missing piece theory.

Ok, let me show you how this is supposed to work. Your claiming no one believes X is a universal negative so you will never be able to prove it, so in this case it is my burden if I disagree. I believe in creation ex nihilo, case closed. So do a bunch of Greeks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, etc.....

Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

It is obvious that ancient philosophers and religious people believe that. Especially the latters seem happy and comfy with their missing piece they just made up. And their missing piece looks weird. Sometimes it has a son, sometimes it is three pieces in one, sometimes one piece. Sometimes it has an elephant head, sometimes it doesn't.

Do you think It would be rational to take them seriously?

[quote
Ex is the specific negation of transforming. It is not one natural state of affairs becoming another natural state of affairs. It is the coming into existence of any natural state of affairs. However, I do not care about semantics. Call it whatever you wish. It is the coming into existence of things that had no prior existence. Even secular scholars believe the universe came from nothing, they just think nothing was something. Of course they are nuts.
[/quote]

Coming into requires time. And, as you said, those secular scholars do not believe either in nothing.

They probably believe that theologians are Far more qualified to speak about nothing. Who can say?

It is like yelling at traffic. You had no problem bringing it up when we first debated. Once down that rabbit hole was enough.

Did I? oh well, point taken.

Show that to actually be the case and why. Who is this God? How many volts is your God? How did you know this? What is his polarity? How does he form leaders and streamers? When did the first lightning strike occur? Where? How old is your God? How fast is he? If he discharges how does he recharge?

Who was that God? Someone effective as a missing piece of a puzzle. Like all of them.

Yet, Social Darwinism does seem to justify eugenics. I am aware of no scriptures that do.

And? I disagree with social Darwinism wit the same degree that humans always submit to a cost/benefit metric.

I can give some examples I guess. Racial equality before the law. The requirement for ascent to rule. The right to defend national borders. The sanctity of human life. The right to own property. Natural hierarchies and stewardship of the planet. Some of those might need some clauses but that a start.

Do you agree that being faithful to your partner is morally right? Do you agree that sexual promiscuity is morally wrong? Well, you must if you are a Christian.

If yes, then why do you single out homosexual behaviour? Your previous moral imperatives should be independent of sexual orientation and cover them all. For I cannot imagine any costs arising from just following them.

If two gay men have sex five times a day for 50 years, and they do and did that just between themselves, what social costs do you expect?

One can be true, the other can never be. If God exists murder is actually wrong, if he does not it is merely unfashionable.

You mean as unfashionable as stoning people today for not holding the Sabbath?

Go to any AA meeting you can find, in fact go to them all. You will find that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time our brains work in the complete opposite manner as what I described. You could probably find a exception to entropy before you would find a natural explanation for what I described. One guy actually calculated the probability an internal combustion engine would refrigerate it's self.

If I were you, I would review my sources of knowledge.
[/quote]

I think it should be iuvant, but I am not even good at English.

Yes, thank you.

Again that is not the point. You said for you to be that person does entail your being superior (super), when apparently that is exactly what it means.

Über does not mean Super in German. It means more like "over".

Do you know anything about that war? Our goal was to keep south Vietnam from being over run by the communist North. When the war ended North Vietnam agreed to partition the country at 38th parallel. The deal was signed and we left. North Vietnam waited until we were practically gone and invaded anyway. You might as well claim Alabama won the college football championship this year because they changed the scoreboard 3 hours after the game ended.

And I am sure you sent back the super mega duper invincible task force to correct that. Note to the next Hitler or Stalin: just tell them what you will do after they left. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Come off it, your just being disingenuous at this point. If what I described is so easily written off by natural mechanisms, then why didn't you even attempt to?

I think your bar on what qualifies as a miracle is pretty low.

I don't want to be disrepectful about you losing your drinking habits. I just believe that instead of thanking an invisible fantasy in the sky, you should take a good look at yourself in a mirror and say: well done!

I have never seen those occur. I told you I am skeptical of all miracle claims. That is why I gave you two possibles that happened to me because I know what happened and what didn't. If you want to investigate miracles type in miracles and you will get a million hits. Heck, just type in the Miracles of Lourdes. Happy reading.

Yes, the problem is that among those million hits, you will have miracles performed by Allah. Or Ganesh. Or Whomever. Any claim that "proves" your religion has a similar claim concerning another religion.

Well, then show me a real miracle. You know: like someone growing a new limb, or being magically cured from a genetic disease. Stopping drinking or smoking, won't do.

The miracles at Lourdes are ridicolous. It is probably safer to stay home than make the whole journey, if we consider the hit ratio officially recognized by the Church. And they need to recognize some of them, if they want to keep selling high priced water in those Mary-shaped bottles. It is like a Casino estabilishment, you need some winners now and then, if you want to keep the business going. And in this case, I would say the mafia boss owning the Casino is morally superior: at least he relies on probability theory and people having money to spend, instead of making things up and make profit from misery.

Thinking about it, the pope who got shot, claimed that the Lady of Fatima deviated the bullet aimed at him (with mixed results, requiring the additional help of not so divine surgeons). Probably one of those millions claims. But if that is true, then those Ladies are mobile. Or they can perform remote miracles. Or both. Portugal and Rome are not so close.

What is then the rationality of making that journey, especially when you have no legs?

Hope springs eternal. Rationality not so much.

Jesus said his kingdom was not of this Earth. His mission was never to fix this broken world. It was to spiritually save people out of a doomed world. Being born again has nothing to do with our capacity to do anything. In fact it is made necessary by a specific lack of capacity.

Good to know. Please inform all those amputees that they are wasting their time, if they pray to recover. No matter how they pray on Jesus name. For miracles are only of "spiritual" nature. Which is obviously implicit in the NT.

I tried to get you to debate one of the bible's weakest prophecies, then I tried to get you to explain through natural mechanisms some very simplistic events. You do not seem willing to attempt either. I can give you pages worth of events that occurred when I was born again, but as Christ said:

New International Version
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Apparently the arguments of atheists over the millennia haven't improved much or even changed.

Well, maybe we do not have the mind of a child. Which is supposed to be a requirement to enter the kingdom. For obvious reasons, I would add.

I will be gone for a while, so I am not sure when I can reply to your posts.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Yet, that ball could not be anywhere else. And the new position it has, after having been kicked by that child, is infererrable, in principle, from the state of the Universe (ball included) long before that child was born. That prior state has the future decision of that child engraved on it.

We should get our own webpage at this point. I have a very unique situation that compels and allows my to debate a lot, and it is a rare one. If you do not mind me what is it that compels / allows you to debate so much?

Your making this much harder on yourself than I am. I am not asking for you to account for al states of affairs using equations. I only want you to make a reasonable attempt to explain the five seconds in any kids life where they were compelled by physics to kick a ball. That should be easy, it's five seconds, one person, one choice.

Ok, how shall I do it? It basically says that for each state of the Universe, there is one and only one state it can come from. So, given a state of the Univerese, that state can only go into one state (no choice possible), and come from one state (no more than one previous candidate possible). The first part entails determinism, the second reversibility.

The classical equivalent is estabilished by the theorem of Liouville. The quantum mechanical equivalent is estabilished by the unitary character of the physical states evolution laws.

All physical theories we know of rest on this law. It is even assumed as an axiom that all future laws must satisfy. Could be wrong, but we do not have a single shred of evidence that it is. A few years ago Hawkins lost a wager by betting against it (the so called black holes war). It is currently as sacrosant as the principles of thermodynamics.

I already looked into it. So far I am not impressed (which doesn't mean much), but I found that most of the links I clicked on were either refutations of it or using it in creation arguments. Even though it is used to support creationism, it is so vacuous that I would never use it for that purpose. Why is it you must support your arguments by either appealing to the most speculative of theoretical science or appeal to things who's only merit seems to be that we cannot prove their impossible? I use very basic science and philosophy because my position can survive the light of day, it does not have to hide in the darkest recesses of hypothetical academia. I can follow you part way into the deep end of theory but your headed to the Mariana's trench of speculation.

As I said, all theories rest upon it. Even thermodynamics, which seems, prima facie, entailing irreversible processes. Well, it does not if we consider the microstructure of any system. The irreversibility of thermodynamics is just a macro effect. A statistical one. Fundamentally, everything is reversible.

Thermodynamics is theoretically reversible, but we have no need of straying so far from shore. There is a non-zero probability an internal combustion engine will refrigerate its self, but I am not basing any plans on it.

You may not believe it but at one time I was mesmerized by theoretical science when in college. I went to the college Von Braun worked out of and I used to go listen to the professors give these amazing talks. I went to enough of them to learn they each seemed to contradict each other or I would find a half dozen or so that made conclusions that excluded the conclusions of the other 5. The veneer came off theoretical science for me in less than a year.

Well, ancient people wrote a lot of things. We know now that information is conserved. Even if you burn a letter, the information is still there. Even if you fall in a black hole, the information is still there.

My boss is a Phd and studied information theory. Information is only information if you have an originator and a receiver that are tuned the same. No one has even seen a black hole, let alone knows what happens to information if went in one. Using what happens in a black hole to support an argument sounds desperate.

You cannot surprise the Universe, nor you can deprive it from the information it might need to reconstruct a prior state. Including you in that black hole. Or the burned copy of the NY Times. Difficult, but possible, in principle.

Fine, show me a newspaper that was destroyed, that the universe brought back and contained the same information as the original.

You can say whatever you want, but this is the current state of affairs in the physicists community.

If you actually understood physics on the level your indicating you would be working in a lab a lot more exclusive than the one I do. If I may ask (again) what do you do for a living? I did not say any of that, I am not qualified to do so. I quoted scholars, among them a Russian mathematician.

This is no deep end at all. It has been realized long ago even in classical mechanics. Just take a look at its Hamiltonian formulation.

And, as I said, this is lesson one of Dr. Susskind physics course.

I had four semesters of physics from mechanics to light. I have heard of Lagrangian mechanics but none of my professors ever mentioned box universes, conservation of information, nor Hamiltonian formulations. Even what I remember along this line concerned partial differential equations, not physics. How on earth can any of that be in an introductory physics course? If your willing to suspend belief to the point that you think the universe with reconstruct a destroyed newspaper I am not sure what to say. Why deny the possibility that God has ever suspended natural law, yet believe in the resurrection of a newspaper? Why believe that plasma can produce work, but that God could not turn water into wine? Why accept universes that lack any evidence, but deny a God that has given plenty of evidence?

Between accepting it, or undercutting every physical theory in existence. Including your beloved Vilenkin finding.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

You clarified what you think is at stake but you did not do anything to clarify what I am supposed to choose from.