Answers to Atheistic arguments

[B21C9L15]

POWELL:
Yes it has inertia. Yes, it will move relative to anything moving relative to it. If it's not moving already relative to you then by pushing yourself from the spaceship it will move relative to you.

John Powell

Something is weird, John. If I tell my friends that California moved when I moved to New York, I don't think I can convince them. Perhaps, I can say, that I moved out of California, but definitely cant say "California moved away from me." We are talking here of the object moving, not me moving from the object.

[B21C9L15]

Movement is when something is displaced according to how we define coordinate axes in space.

If an object is at position x1, y1, z1 at time t1 and is at a different position at some future time t2, then we can say the object experienced movement.

I realize that this definition is not as general as it could be, since one could argue that a rotating object at position x1, y1, z1 does not "move" under my definition even though we all know it is experiencing movement.

I should modify the definition to include rotation, but Im trying to keep this as simple and general as possible....

Russ

Think again, russ. Rotation is a movement because an infinite "part" of the object is displaced. Same difinition of movement. It does not mean that because I did not move to California, would mean I did not move to Manhattan, nor even moved at all. See the error?

[Warcraft3]

Think again, russ. Rotation is a movement because an infinite "part" of the object is displaced. Same difinition of movement. It does not mean that because I did not move to California, would mean I did not move to Manhattan, nor even moved at all. See the error?

Only your error.

My original definition of movement is not a good one if we are speaking about rotation so it would need to be modified.

Your statement that an infinite "part" is displaced is very inexact....assuming you meant an infinitly small "part" you should have worded it differently. Your statement is messy and unnecessairly vague.

Under rotation the amount of "displacement" varies from one "piece" to another...depending on how far away you are from the center of rotation. We could discuss this but its mere semantics....you attempted to point out an error but used very shallow language to show the error. If you want to try and be all technical then use technical language.

Now then....my original statement still stands. My definition is a very general and non technical one that is far from a precise definition. That was my point with rotation and it stands without error despite your feeble attempt.


Try again B21C9L15.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Yes it has inertia. Yes, it will move relative to anything moving relative to it. If it's not moving already relative to you then by pushing yourself from the spaceship it will move relative to you.

B21C9L15:
Something is weird, John. If I tell my friends that California moved when I moved to New York, I don't think I can convince them.

POWELL:
Sometimes science is weird. That's why we call "genius" the person who figures this kind of thing out.

Why don't you suggest they imagine looking at the continental U.S. from the Moon as you fly from California to New York? From that perspective, which would move: California or you? The correct answer is "Both, but at different velocities."

B21C9L15:
Perhaps, I can say, that I moved out of California, but definitely cant say "California moved away from me."

POWELL:
On the contrary, not only can you but you'd be correct to say so.

From your perspective, California moved away from you and New York approached you. You should have noticed that as you looked out the window.

As you jump, the ground moves away from you and as you land, the ground moves towards you.

B21C9L15:
We are talking here of the object moving, not me moving from the object.

POWELL:
How can you reliably discriminate whether it's you that's really moving or the object that's really moving?

All motion is relative to the observer. If you are moving relative to X then X is moving relative to you.

B21C9L15 to STEADELE:
Think again, russ. Rotation is a movement because an infinite "part" of the object is displaced.

POWELL:
No. Parts of the object are moving because their locations are changing over time.

B21C9L15:
Same difinition of movement. It does not mean that because I did not move to California, would mean I did not move to Manhattan, nor even moved at all. See the error?

POWELL:
I agree that the fact that you did not move to California does not necessarily imply that you did not move to Manhattan. However. If you moved to Manhattan then you moved relative to California.

John Powell

[B21C9L15]

POWELL:
Sometimes science is weird. That's why we call "genius" the person who figures this kind of thing out.

However, if the weird thing can't pass reason, it is weird indeed.

Why don't you suggest they imagine looking at the continental U.S. from the Moon as you fly from California to New York? From that perspective, which would move: California or you? The correct answer is "Both, but at different velocities."



POWELL:
On the contrary, not only can you but you'd be correct to say so.

From your perspective, California moved away from you and New York approached you. You should have noticed that as you looked out the window.

As you jump, the ground moves away from you and as you land, the ground moves towards you.

I believe I understand your point.

POWELL:
How can you reliably discriminate whether it's you that's really moving or the object that's really moving?

True, I can't. That said, we cannot reliably know that the sun is the center of the universe. We cannot even realiably know if the whole cosmos is traveling 50 times the speed of light eastward. Unless there is a point of reference by which we observe the movement, we can't tell even the type of movement observed.

All motion is relative to the observer. If you are moving relative to X then X is moving relative to you.

I believe this is where you base your talk about movement. But I disagree. Motion is change in location, from a certain fixed area to another. It is possible that I can go near and object without the object changing location, hence the object did not move though I moved. But in your talk, once the observer moved, the object also moved, which is not always true on observing motion. The motion you speak of is of description, not action.

[Roy]

False. One of your categories was if I recall correctly) 'Where'. A difference in location of two entities does not mean that one of them lacks a location.

[font=Arial] One lacks the location the other has which is to have potency.

I disagree that lacking the location of another object shows potency. That would imply that to lack potency something must be everywhere at once. This in turn requires either that nothing else can exist, or that simultaneous existence at the same location is possible. If the latter, then simultaneous existence of two entities everywhere is possible.

But if you want to argue that lacking a location possessed by another entity is potency, then both lack the location the other has. Both would have potency.

Yet you state that only one would have potency. You are still assuming that there is a single prime mover.

Only follows from your non established premise. Hence your conclusion is false.

A fallacy. Conclusions based on false premises may be true.

(Oh, and your preceding line was a non sequitur - you have gone from 'difference' to 'differ in the real' without justification.

Not established. Real distinction is a mode of distinction. There are also the others such as . . . you tell me Roy and show me how it’s a non sequitur.

I have no idea what other modes of distinction there may be, but you seem to believe they exist since otherwise there's no point in writing 'differ in the real' instead of just 'differ'.

If other modes of distinction do exist, your reasoning is flawed. If no other modes of distinction exist, your reasoning includes meaningless and unnecessary concepts.

Either way, you need to take a course in logic.

Roy

[Roy]

Something is weird, John. If I tell my friends that California moved when I moved to New York, I don't think I can convince them. Perhaps, I can say, that I moved out of California, but definitely cant say "California moved away from me." We are talking here of the object moving, not me moving from the object.

You need to find some friends who understand physics, then, since when you physically moved away from California, the force employed to propel you and/or your vehicle will have been matched by an equal force propelling California in the opposite direction. The reason you see no effect on California is because it is so much more massive than you are, that the effect is negligible. It's there though.

Imagine pushing a pea, as hard as you can. You won't perceptibly move, but the pea will.
Now imagine pushing a marble with the same amount of effort. The marble will move, but not as far as the pea. You still won't perceptibly move.
Now imagine pushing a bowling ball. The ball moves, but your body perceptibly moves backwards.
Now a stone sphere (such as a trebuchet missile). The stone sphere might move a bit, but you'll be pushing yourself backwards.
keep imagining yourself pushing a series of larger and larger objects, ranging in size from a pea to California. As the size of the object increases, the effect of the force on the object becomes less (but still exists), and the effect of the force on you grows from imperceptible to almost total.

When you propelled yourself out of California, you imperceptibly pushed California away.

Roy

[johnmartin]

JM- One lacks the location the other has which is to have potency.

I disagree that lacking the location of another object shows potency. That would imply that to lack potency something must be everywhere at once.

Correct and this is what the prime mover does, which is God.

- This in turn requires either that nothing else can exist, or that simultaneous existence at the same location is possible. If the latter, then simultaneous existence of two entities everywhere is possible.

The later.

But if you want to argue that lacking a location possessed by another entity is potency, then both lack the location the other has. Both would have potency.

We make a distinction between physical presence and spiritual presence. As bodies formally as bodies do not have an effect on spirits, bodies can exist in the presence of a spirit and be in the same place.

Yet you state that only one would have potency. You are still assuming that there is a single prime mover.

Any being that has potency cannot be prime. The prime is without potency and is therefore everywhere. The prime mover is then not a body.

JM- Only follows from your non established premise. Hence your conclusion is false.

A fallacy. Conclusions based on false premises may be true.

I’ve forgotten what we’re talking about here. Lets leave it, unless you think its really important. If so, you can post the original argument again.

(Oh, and your preceding line was a non sequitur - you have gone from 'difference' to 'differ in the real' without justification.

Not established. Real distinction is a mode of distinction. There are also the others such as . . . you tell me Roy and show me how it’s a non sequitur.

R- I have no idea what other modes of distinction there may be, but you seem to believe they exist since otherwise there's no point in writing 'differ in the real' instead of just 'differ'.

If other modes of distinction do exist, your reasoning is flawed. If no other modes of distinction exist, your reasoning includes meaningless and unnecessary concepts.

Either way, you need to take a course in logic.

Roy

You didn’t establish the flaw because you don’t know the modes of distinction. You need to do this first. Since you have admitted you cannot, you won’t. Lets leave it and move on to something more interesting.

JM

[Zion Schmion]

"God is just a kid playing with an antfarm."

"God may not be a woman, but maybe he or she should be."

"If there is a God and he truely loves everybody, then there's no need to have churches an their wealth nor do we have to visit them at all, right? He or she will love us anyway!"

"Believing that there are martians for instance, does not mean that there actually ARE martians."

"The bible states that Idol worshipping is not allowed either. Just take the story of the golden calf. So, why do people worship the statue of a crucified Christ or Mary or who ever. Doesn't that make ALL christians sinners?"

"The church as stolen from many cultures in the past and that wealth has never been returned. Doesn't that make the Vatican the largest Maffia in the world?"

"The Pope implies that the Islam is equal to war and suffering. (No, I am not a muslim) Didn't the Christians do even MORE damage in the Crusades by slaughtering innocent women and children?"

"Religion is about life. The fact that religion is mixed with politics may very well be the worst thing that could have happoned to human civilization. It has merely brought more problems in the world and this concept should be eradicated as quickly as possible."

So, there.

I'm not a big fan of Atheism either, but there are more than enough reasons NOT to be religious at all....

P.S.

We are moved by choice, not by God. If someone kills a child is that God's work???? Makes no sense to me, sorry.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Sometimes science is weird. That's why we call "genius" the person who figures this kind of thing out.

B21C9L15
However, if the weird thing can't pass reason, it is weird indeed.

POWELL:
Science does pass reason. Sometimes it requires advanced mathematics to see.

POWELL:
Why don't you suggest they imagine looking at the continental U.S. from the Moon as you fly from California to New York? From that perspective, which would move: California or you? The correct answer is "Both, but at different velocities."

. . .

On the contrary, not only can you but you'd be correct to say so.

From your perspective, California moved away from you and New York approached you. You should have noticed that as you looked out the window.

As you jump, the ground moves away from you and as you land, the ground moves towards you.

B21C9L15:
I believe I understand your point.

POWELL:
Given your disagreement below, perhaps you understand, but disagree with this.

So, as you jump, which way does the ground move relative to you? As you land, which way does the ground move relative to you?

POWELL:
How can you reliably discriminate whether it's you that's really moving or the object that's really moving?

B21C9L15:
True, I can't. That said, we cannot reliably know that the sun is the center of the universe.

POWELL:
The Sun is no more the center of the universe than you are. Do you mean we cannot reliably know that the Sun is the center of the Solar System? On the contrary, that is something we can reliably determine.

B21C9L15:
We cannot even realiably know if the whole cosmos is traveling 50 times the speed of light eastward.

POWELL:
Let me agree that if space exists outside the whole cosmos and because we can't observe any extra-cosmos things, then we couldn't tell the velocity of the whole cosmos anymore than we could tell the velocity of the whole Earth if we couldn't see celestial objects.

B21C9L15:
Unless there is a point of reference by which we observe the movement, we can't tell even the type of movement observed.

POWELL:
Yes, reference frames are required in order to properly describe spacial movement.

POWELL:
All motion is relative to the observer. If you are moving relative to X then X is moving relative to you.

B21C9L15:
I believe this is where you base your talk about movement. But I disagree.

POWELL:
Then it would seem that you are in opposition to the relativity of motion.

B21C9L15:
Motion is change in location, from a certain fixed area to another.

POWELL:
Yes, but the "fixed" point is dependent on the reference frame. What is a fixed point for you (say yourself) won't be fixed for an observer moving relative to you, rather that point (say yourself) will be moving relative to them.

B21C9L15:
It is possible that I can go near and [an] object without the object changing location, hence the object did not move though I moved.

POWELL:
Yes, but that's when the location is defined by the reference frame of the object. In your reference frame the object will change location from being far from you to being close to you.

B21C9L15:
But in your talk, once the observer moved, the object also moved, which is not always true on observing motion. The motion you speak of is of description, not action.

POWELL:
From your reference frame, you don't move, but other objects move. From the reference frame of the object, the object doesn't move, but other objects move. In the reference of a third object (say the center of the Earth), both of you move (but itself doesn't move).

The "action" of motion is described using a reference frame. For a particular object, in some reference frames it won't be moving while in the rest it will be. There is no "absolute" motion independent of relativity.

John

[John Powell]

B21C9L15:
Something is weird, John. If I tell my friends that California moved when I moved to New York, I don't think I can convince them. Perhaps, I can say, that I moved out of California, but definitely cant say "California moved away from me." We are talking here of the object moving, not me moving from the object.

ROY:
You need to find some friends who understand physics, then, since when you physically moved away from California, the force employed to propel you and/or your vehicle will have been matched by an equal force propelling California in the opposite direction.

. . .

POWELL:
Your use of Newton's Laws was nice, Roy, but I wasn't talking about Newton's Laws of Motion there. Rather I was talking about relativity.

When, in the Earth's reference frame, you move from California to New York, then in your reference frame California moves away from you and New York approaches you.

John Powell

[Roy]

Correct and this is what the prime mover does, which is God.
...
Any being that has potency cannot be prime. The prime is without potency and is therefore everywhere. The prime mover is then not a body.

Now explain why there can't be two prime movers that are both everywhere. Otherwise you're still just assuming that there is only one prime mover.

If you can do that, you still need to demonstrate that potency is incompatible with being a prime mover - so far you've only asserted it.

For extra marks, show why a unique, impotent* prime mover must (i) still exist, and (ii) have any connection whatsoever with the concepts usually encapsulated by the term 'God'.

Roy

*The correct word for an entity that lacks potency. It's strange that JM is doggedly trying to prove that God is impotent.**

**Yeah, I know, he's actually only trying to prove God is JM_impotent.

[B21C9L15]

POWELL:
Then it would seem that you are in opposition to the relativity of motion.

John

No I don't, that is, if my motion(as an observer) has a force affecting the object being observed. For, unless an object at stationary position be applied with stronger force, an object "will not" move. So if an observer does not have force to affect the object being observed, the change in distance and motion of the observing object will not cause the object being observed to move.

Secondly, an object that changes in motion changes in inertia. And that change can only be caused by outside forces. And indeed such outside forces can be due to motion of other objects(gravity for instance can cause another object to move), and thence we can apply the law of relativity.

Also, I believe that space is a constant, that in every point of our infinite space is immovable and fixed. And at each of the infinite points of space we can observe, and come up, with the correct(same) motion of an object. By this we can also come up with the correct theory of relativity among objects.

[johnmartin]

: Originally posted by johnmartin

Correct and this is what the prime mover does, which is God.
...
Any being that has potency cannot be prime. The prime is without potency and is therefore everywhere. The prime mover is then not a body.

Now explain why there can't be two prime movers that are both everywhere. Otherwise you're still just assuming that there is only one prime mover. Even if there are multiple beings in the same location, whatever difference they have is a potency. They therefore cannot all be the prime mover.

If you can do that, you still need to demonstrate that potency is incompatible with being a prime mover - so far you've only asserted it.

Prime mover is not moved by other. A being with potency is moved by other, for potency is actualised by other. I’ve said this before.

For extra marks, show why a unique, impotent* prime mover must (i) still exist, and (ii) have any connection whatsoever with the concepts usually encapsulated by the term 'God'.

Roy

*The correct word for an entity that lacks potency. It's strange that JM is doggedly trying to prove that God is impotent.**

**Yeah, I know, he's actually only trying to prove God is JM_impotent.

Impotence is a privation (say blindness), which supposes a norm of function (eye seeing) , which then also supposes potency (can see). Impotence then presupposes potency. Non impotence is to function, which is to act when in act and in potency when not. Your question is then meaningless as it contains an implicit contradiction.



I have already corrected you on many occasions before and yet you continue to make many fundamental errors. Thomist’s have proven that atheism is only held by those who

1. Are very badly educated such as the communists and Buddhists = indoctrination
2. Are very ignorant, such as many in western society who know next to nothing of history, human nature and reason = bad choice based on lack of truth
3. Just plain confused = many who come out of the philosophy department of a western university.
4. Decide to stay in a belief system that is untenable = sin.

The last category involves the free use of will to adhere to a lower good at the expense of the higher good. This is to commit a mortal sin against justice. There aren’t that many alternatives for the atheist. Many atheists are involved in all four of the above options. Once it is known that atheism is untenable, the atheist then sins gravely. Prominent atheists such as Michael Martin and Dawkins are in categories 3 and 4 and are the chief causes of 3 which lead to 4. As mortal sin is the worst thing that a man can do this side of death, atheism is one of the most dangerous intellectual cancers known to man.
JM

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Then it would seem that you are in opposition to the relativity of motion.

B21C9L15:
No I don't, that is, if my motion(as an observer) has a force affecting the object being observed. For, unless an object at stationary position be applied with stronger force, an object "will not" move. So if an observer does not have force to affect the object being observed, the change in distance and motion of the observing object will not cause the object being observed to move.

POWELL:
Test that. Look in the direction of something in the room you aren't touching, such as some furniture. Push yourself from the nearby wall and watch the furniture move relative to you. This would seem to be a case in which there's no force you're exerting on the furniture yet it moves relative to you.

B21C9L15:
Secondly, an object that changes in motion changes in inertia.

POWELL:
If inertia is proportional to the mass then that doesn't seem to be right. On the other hand, the momentum will change as the velocity changes.

B21C9L15:
And that change can only be caused by outside forces. And indeed such outside forces can be due to motion of other objects(gravity for instance can cause another object to move), and thence we can apply the law of relativity.

POWELL:
What's the outside force acting on the furniture causing it to change motion relative to you?

B21C9L15:
Also, I believe that space is a constant, that in every point of our infinite space is immovable and fixed. And at each of the infinite points of space we can observe, and come up, with the correct(same) motion of an object. By this we can also come up with the correct theory of relativity among objects.

POWELL:
Your beliefs appear to be in opposition to the principle of Relativity. If you don't have good reasons to disagree with science then why do you?

However, allowing that you might be right, what is the specific velocity of the Earth according to the fixed space you refer to? Which way is the Earth moving and how fast and how can astronomers reliably confirm it?

John Powell