A Proof That God Exists

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1531 May 8, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If you remove time then there is no suspension. There is no need for suspension. You say suspension occurred yesterday, today and will tomorrow then that is because time is a factor. Without it no supension is needed. But you left out the day before yesterday, which was when somebody had to first hang the thing to the ceiling. To which we can lead back through a succession of cause and effect events until the beginning of time. At which point you disallow infinity and only allow something uncaused for your position, but none of ours. Like I said, hypocrisy.
<quoted text>
The CONTINUED tension in the chain occurs due to gravity. The chain was stretched deliberately and pulled up until tension began THEN the lift occurred which led the chandelier to the ceiling. There are a number of factors at work here:
Gravity.
Lift.
Chain flexibility.
Chain strength.
Tension.
Suspension.
(and then possibly, chain durability).
In THAT order. Break the chain (so to speak) the whole thing falls. Suspension will continue only if there is tension. Tension will only continue if the chain doesn't break. Lift will only continue as long as the ceiling prevents gravity from pulling it to the floor. Remove gravity then each successive cause and effect are no longer needed. I understand where you're coming from that some or all of these causes and effects can be occurring simultaneously. If one imagines a coloured bar graph with time being one header and phenomena being the other we can see that they all overlap in time, but not ALL times - it would follow the order of my list. There is no escaping time as a factor.
Nobody is trying to "escape" time, you blithering idiot.

I simply proved that the cause and effect are simultaneous.

"Simultaneous", by definition, includes time as a factor.

And this proves my original point, made against Polymouth, that cause is not required to precede effect.

Case closed. You are inadequate for the discussion.
Imhotep

Sun City Center, FL

#1532 May 8, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
Has anyone else seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mwUZOZN-9dcXX
Dr, Richard Carrier discusses the argument for a non-historical Jesus.
Yes - Have you seen this?

I enjoy a variety of different viewpoints...
Some, of course are crazy, Others thought-provoking.

Hallmarks of Ten Personality Disorders
"Jesus - Diagnostic Surveys
Jesus was much unappreciated in his day, and many thought he was insane, not just blaspheming. Compare: "He is demon-possessed and raving mad." [John 10:20] and "This fellow is blaspheming!" [Matthew 9:3]
Was Jesus insane? Now, this page gives access to all the diagnostic criteria of ten main personality disorders that many should be able to apply well to central gospel parts and then draw their own conclusions if they care: see the clickable list in the lower left part of the page. As you can see in the light of many of the criteria, there is much biblical evidence for supporting a: "Jesus! a histrionic, paranoid and antisocial psychopath and possibly more ..."

http://oaks.nvg.org/mental-jesus.html

For Jews Only, He Said

As luck would have it, Jesus - "son of David" through Joseph, and "son of God by an angel, and God?- or ..." - said he came for Jews only, and would not deal with others.
Who was he the son of, except Mary? Why have Christians been keen on telling she was a virgin who conceived? Opposed to that odd tale, for centuries Jews have been fond of telling that his father was a Roman soldier, an archer called Pantera. Origen quotes Celsus from the 100s CE in order to refute him:

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands.

His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)].

Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt.

While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.
kohutmab

Pittsburgh, PA

#1533 May 8, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ………………… Can you imagine that?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1534 May 8, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is trying to "escape" time, you blithering idiot.
Sure you are. That's the entire POINT of your ranting about cause and effect being simultaneous - to justify an effect without a preceding cause so you can have your cake and eat it. We on the other hand are denied cake based on no rules at all whatsoever but your own.
Buck Crick wrote:
I simply proved that the cause and effect are simultaneous.
"Simultaneous", by definition, includes time as a factor.
And this proves my original point, made against Polymouth, that cause is not required to precede effect.
Yet we demonstrated otherwise. Unless you can point us to just one chandelier which was simultaneously suspended from the ceiling via magical-poofing without the need for someone to put it up there first.
Buck Crick wrote:
Case closed. You are inadequate for the discussion.
Bub. You're a creationist.(shrug)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1535 May 8, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
WHAT is the tensile strength of the material making up the attached chain relative to the weight of the chandelier (in Earth measurements)?
WHAT would happen if an Unladen Swallow brushed the chandelier while traveling at 1/2 the speed of light?
WHAT is your favourite colour?
Blue! no... RED!

... wait.. what was the question again?

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1536 May 8, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
'Bama Crimson.
I didn't understand your question about being laid 'n swallowed.
But I'll take a chance and answer "yes" to that one.
Roll Tide !!

You can always spit it out. Don't be intimidated.
Thinking

UK

#1537 May 9, 2013
Do you always suck off people that are better hung than you?
But I'm not giving you consent.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they do.
Had both in Miami.
Thinking

UK

#1538 May 9, 2013
You're extremely brave. I hope he shaves his tongue.
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Roll Tide !!
You can always spit it out. Don't be intimidated.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1539 May 9, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
Has anyone else seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mwUZOZN-9dcXX
Dr, Richard Carrier discusses the argument for a non-historical Jesus.
Thanx for posting this. Quite interesting.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1540 May 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you are. That's the entire POINT of your ranting about cause and effect being simultaneous - to justify an effect without a preceding cause so you can have your cake and eat it. We on the other hand are denied cake based on no rules at all whatsoever but your own.
<quoted text>
Yet we demonstrated otherwise. Unless you can point us to just one chandelier which was simultaneously suspended from the ceiling via magical-poofing without the need for someone to put it up there first.
<quoted text>
Bub. You're a creationist.(shrug)
The "effect" under discussion IS NOT the initial suspension of the chandelier. The "cause" of that effect is clear.

We are discussing a subsequent effect. It occurs simultaneously with its cause.

Nobody removed time. Nobody removed any cause.

"We propose that all actual causes are simultaneous with their direct effects, as illustrated by both everyday examples and the laws of physics."

-The Philosphical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 213, October 2003

"Causation - Relation that holds between two temporally SIMULTANEOUS or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect)."

-Encycopedia Britannica

You don't understand the discussion. Move on.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1541 May 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The "effect" under discussion IS NOT the initial suspension of the chandelier. The "cause" of that effect is clear.
We are discussing a subsequent effect. It occurs simultaneously with its cause.
Nobody removed time. Nobody removed any cause.
"We propose that all actual causes are simultaneous with their direct effects, as illustrated by both everyday examples and the laws of physics."
-The Philosphical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 213, October 2003
"Causation - Relation that holds between two temporally SIMULTANEOUS or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect)."
-Encycopedia Britannica
You don't understand the discussion. Move on.
Brain damage. There is no getting around this: you have religious brain damage.

So severe, you cannot learn anything.

Pathetic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1542 May 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The "effect" under discussion IS NOT the initial suspension of the chandelier. The "cause" of that effect is clear.
We are discussing a subsequent effect. It occurs simultaneously with its cause.
Suspension doesn't begin until there is lift. Lift occurred previously.
Buck Crick wrote:
Nobody removed time. Nobody removed any cause.
Then I'm correct.
Buck Crick wrote:
"We propose that all actual causes are simultaneous with their direct effects, as illustrated by both everyday examples and the laws of physics."
-The Philosphical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 213, October 2003
Yeah, I know you're fond of philosophy BS, such as referencing them to define atheism. Science doesn't care about philosophy. 2,000 years ago maybe but not now.
Buck Crick wrote:
"Causation - Relation that holds between two temporally SIMULTANEOUS or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect)."
-Encycopedia Britannica
"Or successive". However the simultaneous tension and suspension required previous lift to cause the tension THEN the suspension. At THAT point tension and suspension are simultaneous until further chronological events change things.
Buck Crick wrote:
You don't understand the discussion. Move on.
You're a creationist.(shrug)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1543 May 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The "effect" under discussion IS NOT the initial suspension of the chandelier. The "cause" of that effect is clear.
We are discussing a subsequent effect. It occurs simultaneously with its cause.
Nobody removed time. Nobody removed any cause.
"We propose that all actual causes are simultaneous with their direct effects, as illustrated by both everyday examples and the laws of physics."
-The Philosphical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 213, October 2003
From the abstract of this article:
"Supervaluationist solutions to "the problem of the many" typically rely on two principles. First, the root of the problem is that singular terms can be vague, just as predicates can be. Second, the same resolution as the supervaluationist suggests for puzzles with vague predicates will resolve puzzles concerning vague singular terms. In recent years this second principle has been attacked from a number of fronts: it has been claimed that supervaluationist accounts of vague singular terms cannot explain the role of vague singular terms in propositional attitude reports, cannot explain penumbral connections between distinct singular terms,… "

Sokal would be proud!
"Causation - Relation that holds between two temporally SIMULTANEOUS or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect)."
-Encycopedia Britannica
You don't understand the discussion. Move on.
And how, exactly, does one event bring about another event?

And how, exactly, is a *chain* an 'event'? And what 'event' is that chain bringing about? It seems to me you have some definitional problems.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1544 May 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Suspension doesn't begin until there is lift. Lift occurred previously.
<quoted text>
Then I'm correct.
<quoted text>
Yeah, I know you're fond of philosophy BS, such as referencing them to define atheism. Science doesn't care about philosophy. 2,000 years ago maybe but not now.
<quoted text>
"Or successive". However the simultaneous tension and suspension required previous lift to cause the tension THEN the suspension. At THAT point tension and suspension are simultaneous until further chronological events change things.
<quoted text>
You're a creationist.(shrug)
Suspension beginning is not the effect being discussed.

Acceleration of a missile can be determined to have a cause - and we are not left without any determination to consider except for the emergence of the universe, which is the principle you are mentally fixated on.

Science doesn't care about philosophy?

"Science" doesn't "care" about anything, including your attempt to be the spokesman for "science".

"Science" has no emotions.

People who do science and understand its principles DO care about philosophy.

I'm sure you won't understand, and will now call me a creationist, or something similarly profound.

You are not adequate for the discussion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1545 May 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
From the abstract of this article:
"Supervaluationist solutions to "the problem of the many" typically rely on two principles. First, the root of the problem is that singular terms can be vague, just as predicates can be. Second, the same resolution as the supervaluationist suggests for puzzles with vague predicates will resolve puzzles concerning vague singular terms. In recent years this second principle has been attacked from a number of fronts: it has been claimed that supervaluationist accounts of vague singular terms cannot explain the role of vague singular terms in propositional attitude reports, cannot explain penumbral connections between distinct singular terms,… "
Sokal would be proud!
<quoted text>
And how, exactly, does one event bring about another event?
And how, exactly, is a *chain* an 'event'? And what 'event' is that chain bringing about? It seems to me you have some definitional problems.
A chain is not an event.

A chain suspending a chandelier is an event, or more precisely here, an effect, and the chain is the material cause; a cause which is simultaneous with the effect.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#1546 May 10, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanx for posting this. Quite interesting.
Yes, Thanks N.
(Re: Richard Carrier - Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1547 May 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
A chain is not an event.
A chain suspending a chandelier is an event, or more precisely here, an effect, and the chain is the material cause; a cause which is simultaneous with the effect.
But, by the definition you quoted, the cause must be an event, so the chain is NOT the cause according to your definition.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1548 May 10, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes - Have you seen this?
I enjoy a variety of different viewpoints...
Some, of course are crazy, Others thought-provoking.
Hallmarks of Ten Personality Disorders
"Jesus - Diagnostic Surveys
Jesus was much unappreciated in his day, and many thought he was insane, not just blaspheming. Compare: "He is demon-possessed and raving mad." [John 10:20] and "This fellow is blaspheming!" [Matthew 9:3]
Was Jesus insane? Now, this page gives access to all the diagnostic criteria of ten main personality disorders that many should be able to apply well to central gospel parts and then draw their own conclusions if they care: see the clickable list in the lower left part of the page. As you can see in the light of many of the criteria, there is much biblical evidence for supporting a: "Jesus! a histrionic, paranoid and antisocial psychopath and possibly more ..."
http://oaks.nvg.org/mental-jesus.html
For Jews Only, He Said
As luck would have it, Jesus - "son of David" through Joseph, and "son of God by an angel, and God?- or ..." - said he came for Jews only, and would not deal with others.
Who was he the son of, except Mary? Why have Christians been keen on telling she was a virgin who conceived? Opposed to that odd tale, for centuries Jews have been fond of telling that his father was a Roman soldier, an archer called Pantera. Origen quotes Celsus from the 100s CE in order to refute him:
Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands.
His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)].
Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt.
While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.
----------

IMHO, nothing of the above should be addressed to a Jew; let alone
"For Jews only." Nothing of the above about Jesus could ever be taken as a fact. Only speculations.

Jesus was a notorious Jew but a Jewish man and nothing connected with the Hellenistic idea of a Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

I do believe though that he was addressed sometimes as son of David but that expression means only an act of homage. Literally, to be son of David implies descendance from the Tribe of Judah and Jesus was so only if he was a biological son of Joseph who was the one from that Tribe.

The rumor about his afilliation to the Roman soldier Panthera is to be blamed upon Christians who deny that he was a biological son of Joseph's. Christians should know much better that Jesus' Faith was Judaism and there is no such a thing as an individual son of God. The "Son of God" is the collective in the People of Israel according to Exodus. 4:22,23.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1549 May 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But, by the definition you quoted, the cause must be an event, so the chain is NOT the cause according to your definition.
You're desperate now.

That's one definition I quoted. I also quoted another which does not refer to cause as an "event".

But if you want to play word games, I'll play.

The attached chain can be described as an "event", in that it is a creation of the causal conditions of the effect.


causal conditions for E were to vanish at t after having existed at tn < t, then E would not occur at t.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#1550 May 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're desperate now.....
Yes, Polymath's the one who's desperate, lol!:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 51,504
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr It aint necessari... 24,661
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Richardfs 22,111
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 4 hr Kissez1138 190
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 8 hr par five 11,404
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 14 hr Eagle 12 1,653
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 15 hr Eagle 12 5,792
More from around the web