A Proof That God Exists

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1551 May 10, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, Polymath's the one who's desperate, lol!:-)
Yes.

His argument has degenerated into the claim that a cause has to be an event, and material is not an event.

That's desperate.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1552 May 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Suspension beginning is not the effect being discussed.
I know. You're discussing the tension and suspension occurring simultaneously. I'm pointing out that it had a previous cause - lift.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
And which IS ultimately the subject of this thread.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Bingo.
Buck Crick wrote:
People who do science and understand its principles DO care about philosophy.
To varying degrees. Some may think it's the greatest thing since sliced cheese. Others may think philosophy is nothing but mental mastrubation. Also further, people can have a PERSONAL philosophical viewpoint or viewpoints, but it does not necessary follow that ANY philosophical principle/concept applies across the board objectively to all. THAT is why science doesn't care about philosophy because science is meant to deal with the objective, not the subjective.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
We know there's plenty you don't understand, but that doesn't stop you from claiming to understand it and a whole lot more besides. But go ahead and feel free to imagine you got the biggest balls in the entire universe. At least you impress you.(shrug)
Imhotep

Sun City Center, FL

#1553 May 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
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.
Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus.

These individuals exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.

In fact, the quest for Biblical accounts of ancient Egypt at least into the 19th Dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, take on an interesting approach by most investigators.

Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context.

In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt.

Some specifics are very possible, such as Joseph's rise to importance in the Egyptian court.

Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult.

Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence.

For example, the Egyptians recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood. Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts.

"Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p43)

For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.

Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt. It would spoil the story!!

How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?

'Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible.

Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites.'
– John Romer, Testament

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1554 May 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

I know. You're discussing the tension and suspension occurring simultaneously. I'm pointing out that it had a previous cause - lift.
So you are saying "lift" is the cause of the suspension?

Well, let's apply your argument as you used it with me.

No, lift is not the cause.

I'll point out the "previous" cause - digging of iron ore to make the steel to make the chain.

You lost. It is an example of simultaneous causality. The attached chain and the chandelier are in an asymmetric dependence relation, and the chain provides the causal conditions of the suspension, in time, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

You have depleted any rational objections, and I will not address your frivolous points again.
Thinking

Taunton, UK

#1555 May 13, 2013
You're wrong.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying "lift" is the cause of the suspension?
Well, let's apply your argument as you used it with me.
No, lift is not the cause.
I'll point out the "previous" cause - digging of iron ore to make the steel to make the chain.
You lost. It is an example of simultaneous causality. The attached chain and the chandelier are in an asymmetric dependence relation, and the chain provides the causal conditions of the suspension, in time, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
You have depleted any rational objections, and I will not address your frivolous points again.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1556 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying "lift" is the cause of the suspension?
Well, let's apply your argument as you used it with me.
No, lift is not the cause.
I'll point out the "previous" cause - digging of iron ore to make the steel to make the chain.
You lost. It is an example of simultaneous causality. The attached chain and the chandelier are in an asymmetric dependence relation, and the chain provides the causal conditions of the suspension, in time, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
You have depleted any rational objections, and I will not address your frivolous points again.
No, the 'cause' of the suspension is thebalancing of the force of gravity and the tension in the chain. The tension in the chain is caused by a slight stretching of the chain from its equilibrium length. The latter is a dynamic process involving the forces of attraction between the atoms of the metal. Furthermore, the lengthening is caused by the gravity of the Earth pulling on all the atoms.

So, there are two main causes for the 'suspension' of the chain: the force of gravity downward and the forces of attraction between the atoms of the chain. When hanging the chain, the gravity serves to lengthen the chain slightly, producing a counter force of tension. At first, there is an oscillation around the final equilibrium, until the frictional forces dampen it and the two forces balance and we say the chandelier is suspended.

But this is not simultaneous causality as demonstrated if the chain is slightly pulled. It takes time for the resulting stretch to go the length of the chain and restore equilibrium: at least the time it takes for the pressure wave to go the length of the chain.

So you fail on a couple accounts: the cause is not simultaneous with the effect: in fact, time is an important factor in keeping the equilibrium.

Second: the cause of the suspension is not the chain, but the forces of gravity and the foces of atraction between the atoms in the chain. A chain that broke before the necessary restoring force was built up would not suspend the chandelier.

Third: suspension is not a single event. It is a prolonged sequence of events, with a corresponding pro,longed sequences of causes. Any single step in the sequence failing would stop the suspensio and the chandleier would fall. SO, once again, time is crucial and the cause is prior to the event in each case.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1557 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the 'cause' of the suspension is thebalancing of the force of gravity and the tension in the chain. The tension in the chain is caused by a slight stretching of the chain from its equilibrium length. The latter is a dynamic process involving the forces of attraction between the atoms of the metal. Furthermore, the lengthening is caused by the gravity of the Earth pulling on all the atoms.
So, there are two main causes for the 'suspension' of the chain: the force of gravity downward and the forces of attraction between the atoms of the chain. When hanging the chain, the gravity serves to lengthen the chain slightly, producing a counter force of tension. At first, there is an oscillation around the final equilibrium, until the frictional forces dampen it and the two forces balance and we say the chandelier is suspended.
But this is not simultaneous causality as demonstrated if the chain is slightly pulled. It takes time for the resulting stretch to go the length of the chain and restore equilibrium: at least the time it takes for the pressure wave to go the length of the chain.
So you fail on a couple accounts: the cause is not simultaneous with the effect: in fact, time is an important factor in keeping the equilibrium.
Second: the cause of the suspension is not the chain, but the forces of gravity and the foces of atraction between the atoms in the chain. A chain that broke before the necessary restoring force was built up would not suspend the chandelier.
Third: suspension is not a single event. It is a prolonged sequence of events, with a corresponding pro,longed sequences of causes. Any single step in the sequence failing would stop the suspensio and the chandleier would fall. SO, once again, time is crucial and the cause is prior to the event in each case.
Pile it higher and deeper, Polymouth. But it's still bullshit.

I know you have lost when you start piling on the technical jargon, attempting to dazzle us.

That's the same losing tactic you employed when you lost the infinite-segments-on-a-stick argument.

The chandelier is hanging from the attached chain. The effect and the cause are simultaneous.

You can introduce prior cause/effect relationships going all the way back to the Big Bang if you like.

Still, the effective cause is the chain.

You have no evidence, other than your personal intuition, that a cause is required to temporally precede its effect.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1558 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Pile it higher and deeper, Polymouth. But it's still bullshit.
I know you have lost when you start piling on the technical jargon, attempting to dazzle us.
That's the same losing tactic you employed when you lost the infinite-segments-on-a-stick argument.
The chandelier is hanging from the attached chain. The effect and the cause are simultaneous.
You can introduce prior cause/effect relationships going all the way back to the Big Bang if you like.
Still, the effective cause is the chain.
You have no evidence, other than your personal intuition, that a cause is required to temporally precede its effect.
Now you resort to your favorite debate tactic: simply claiming the counter argument is wrong but not supplying a reason why. The above was *far* from being a technical description. Even a well-educated layman could understand it.

By simply repeating your *wrong* ideas, you seem to hope to convince via repetition with no substance.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1559 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you resort to your favorite debate tactic: simply claiming the counter argument is wrong but not supplying a reason why. The above was *far* from being a technical description. Even a well-educated layman could understand it.
By simply repeating your *wrong* ideas, you seem to hope to convince via repetition with no substance.
Agreed. I understood it, and I'm not all that well educated, but you explained it so clearly, with superb organization, and with no vitriol or condescension. I would love to take one of your classes.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1560 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying "lift" is the cause of the suspension?
Well, let's apply your argument as you used it with me.
No, lift is not the cause.
Actually it is. Without lift the chain is loose and there is no suspension.
Buck Crick wrote:
I'll point out the "previous" cause - digging of iron ore to make the steel to make the chain.
Which does not invalidate what I've said as I have no problem with that. It is in fact part of the very point. As eventually if we follow the timeline backwards we will come to a point where the universe began. At this point you arbitrarily rule out an infinite string of causes and invoke something uncaused but do not allow us the same luxury.
Buck Crick wrote:
You lost. It is an example of simultaneous causality. The attached chain and the chandelier are in an asymmetric dependence relation, and the chain provides the causal conditions of the suspension, in time, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
And while tension is in place concurrently with suspension that still does not address the fact that *the day before* yesterday the chain was lifted to get the chandelier to the ceiling in the first place.
Buck Crick wrote:
You have depleted any rational objections, and I will not address your frivolous points again.
Is this supposed to be a threat? It's not like you addressed them in the first place.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1561 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Pile it higher and deeper, Polymouth. But it's still bullshit.
I know you have lost when you start piling on the technical jargon, attempting to dazzle us.
Translation: Buck realises he is incapable of arguing against facts. Activating whine like a fundie mode! Stand by on Village People audio!
Buck Crick wrote:
You have no evidence, other than your personal intuition, that a cause is required to temporally precede its effect.
Um... Goddidit with magic anyone?(shrug)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1563 May 13, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. I understood it, and I'm not all that well educated, but you explained it so clearly, with superb organization, and with no vitriol or condescension. I would love to take one of your classes.
Me too.

I would like to take the one where he shows how a yardstick can be divided into infinite segments of length greater than zero.

(Hint: Infinite segments of any length greater than zero would not form a yardstick, but a stick of infinite length.)

I hope he would include a section on the donut being an example of infinite length, which he also supported.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1564 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
His argument has degenerated into the claim that a cause has to be an event, and material is not an event.
That's desperate.
No, Buck, pm is merely working with the definition you provided. Now you are changing definitions, which to me puts "desperate" as applying to you. You define "cause" as an event when it favors your argument and you define it as an artifact when THAT favors your argument. Which makes you intellectually dishonest and desperate to boot.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1565 May 13, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Buck, pm is merely working with the definition you provided. Now you are changing definitions, which to me puts "desperate" as applying to you. You define "cause" as an event when it favors your argument and you define it as an artifact when THAT favors your argument. Which makes you intellectually dishonest and desperate to boot.
No, little buddy, you don't understand the discussion.

And neither does Plymouth. And the Dude,...well, he's the Dude.

Which means he's an imbecile.

A cause can be an event or it can be a material cause. That's just a distraction from Polymouth, because he's grasping for straws.

Causality is further dilineated; it can be material, formal, efficient and final. The material and formal causes are intrinsic, the efficient and final causes are extrinsic.

So no, I won't be troubled by frivolous objections to definitions from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Seems a common theme when we talk, Infinite Donut Guy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1566 May 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: Buck realises he is incapable of arguing against facts. Activating whine like a fundie mode! Stand by on Village People audio!
<quoted text>
Um... Goddidit with magic anyone?(shrug)
I told you, Dud. You're frivolous.

Address someone down at your level.

I gave up on teaching you anything.

Call your mother.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1567 May 14, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>

I would love to take one of your classes.
I would like that as well!:)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1568 May 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I told you, Dud. You're frivolous.
As is everyone who demonstrates you incorrect. You're right when you're right and when you're not right just ignore it and say you're right anyway.
Buck Crick wrote:
Address someone down at your level.
That's a thousand above you.
Buck Crick wrote:
I gave up on teaching you anything.
That is wise. This is one of those times that as a student you should sit down, shut up, learn to be humble, and just learn in general. But you're the brat who's always on the naughty-step.(shrug)
Buck Crick wrote:
Call your mother.
She said it's long past yours should wipe yer stinky buttt.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1569 May 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you, Dud. You're frivolous.
Address someone down at your level.
I gave up on teaching you anything.
Call your mother.
Haven't you had enough embarrassment today buck? Is it not enough for you to deny the existence of fossils and lie about a god you have no proof of?

Why must you insist on spreading your creationist stupidity far beyond its welcome?

2005 is over and palin lost, get over it monkey descendant.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1570 May 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, little buddy, you don't understand the discussion.
And neither does Plymouth. And the Dude,...well, he's the Dude.
Which means he's an imbecile.
A cause can be an event or it can be a material cause. That's just a distraction from Polymouth, because he's grasping for straws.
Causality is further dilineated; it can be material, formal, efficient and final. The material and formal causes are intrinsic, the efficient and final causes are extrinsic.
So no, I won't be troubled by frivolous objections to definitions from people who don't know what they're talking about.
Seems a common theme when we talk, Infinite Donut Guy.
Good old Aristotelian causality. Doesn't it give you pause that Aristotle was wrong about so many things?

Since: Feb 13

Long Beach, CA

#1572 May 14, 2013
To Inhotep:

Inhotep: Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus.

Shibolet: Rome acknoweledges the books of Josephus as partly Roman History and Josephus mentions Moses and the Exodus from Egypt.

Inhotep: These individuals exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.

Shibolet: The books of Flavius Josephus are not considered holy books. Read "The Antiquities of the Jews" about Joseph, Moses and the Exodus.

Inhotep: Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context.

Shibolet: Josephus' books are living evidences for that effect.

Inhotep: In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt.

Shibolet: why not? Read Josephus.

Inhotep: Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult.

Shibolet: It's obvious! According to Egyptian tradition they would erase from their monomunts and records any mention of anything that
caused shame and humiliation to the nation.

Inhotep: Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence.

Shibolet: Obviously they took it serious to hide their shame.

Inhotep: "Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."

Shibolet: Probably because the author John Romer never read Josephus.

Inhotep: Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt. It would spoil the story!!

Shibolet: Are you sure that "Nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptian presence in Canaan?" I don't think you know enough of Biblical literature to say "nowhere..." Take a look at 2 Chronicles
37:20-24. Pharaoh Neco needed to cross through Israel to fight a battle in Carchemish against the Assyrians and Josiah king of Judah
intercepted him in a lost battle in the Valley of Megiddo. And that
goes also for the other things you claim with surety.

Inhotep:'Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible.

Shibolet: Josephus is considered an ancient author of the First Century besides the Bible.

Inhotep: Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites.'

Shibolet: There is nothing you can do by joining those whose intent
is to erase Israel from the face of the earth. All ancient peoples are gone: Assyria, Babylon, the Egypt of the Pharaohs, Rome and Israel remains alive and kicking the ass of modern Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and any other nation that dares to physically threaten us.
Doesn't it count as an evidence of our historical stamina?

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min Into The Night 20,277
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 57 min ChristineM 45,559
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Flirts730 21,400
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr ChristineM 10,343
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 2 hr ChristineM 548
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 4 hr Paul WV-Uncle Sam 325
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Joe Fortuna 257,132
More from around the web