• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why are some people...

iangb said:
An neutron that undergoes motion in this manner does so without any cause, and before the decay it is also not in motion.

b) Unjustified assertion

c) I am very familiar. A rock is unchanging unless something happens to it.

d) Special pleading; the notion of 'creating matter' is not necessarily different from any other action.

e) Not the case at all, go look up induction and get back to me.

f) That's because we're made of real matter, it doesn't mean that matter is required.

g) Go learn some topology and get back to me.

h) Go learn some relativity and get back to me. As a second point, you line of argument also fails beyond your lack of knowledge of relativity; since mass is not a human-created concept whereas 'perfection' is.

i) it does too :p

j) yet it is, the assertion is that everything which is measure on a sliding scale implies a peak to that sliding scale. This is false.

k) As mentioned many times already, whether something is 'good' or 'bad' is irrelevant to the argument originally stated in k)

l&m) Good luck finding ANY scientific papers talking about the 'purpose of a star'. How exactly do you propose an experiment to find out if something has 'purpose' or not?

The speculation is almost all yours. Well, Aquinas'
Click to expand...

a) This is of course, a demonstration of complete ignorance of atomic decay. The neutron decays because it's energetically unstable in the free state, and since it can only exist for a few minutes outside a nucleus, it necessarily must have undergone motion making it free.

b) Well get back to me when it does happen.

c) Things will always be happening to it.

d) If one is holding matter in existence, then one can take it out of existence and replace, or do anything else with it.

e) I have no idea why you think induction refutes anything I said.

f) Well get back to me when there's any evidence that virtual matter can exist on its own.

g) I take from this that you don't understand math.

h) I take it from this that you don't understand physics either (I'd already figured that out to be honest). Relativity means only that time, length, and mass (and the properties which are derivative from these) are variant depending on the velocity one is moving at relative to the object. It in no way makes any of those subjective to individuals. And humans actually haven't invented anything perfect, much less perfection itself.

i) Lack of argument noted.

j) Here's a problem you atheists don't seem to get. While you might care about some version of a theistic argument that you created. No one else cares about things you've made up to attack.

k) See j).

l and m) I don't need to do expire meets about things are evident. For instance, that I possess a computer, that you don't understand philosophy, and so forth.
 
Paleocon said:
a) This is of course, a demonstration of complete ignorance of atomic decay. The neutron decays because it's energetically unstable in the free state, and since it can only exist for a few minutes outside a nucleus, it necessarily must have undergone motion making it free.

b) Well get back to me when it does happen.

c) Things will always be happening to it.

d) If one is holding matter in existence, then one can take it out of existence and replace, or do anything else with it.

e) I have no idea why you think induction refutes anything I said.

f) Well get back to me when there's any evidence that virtual matter can exist on its own.

g) I take from this that you don't understand math.

h) I take it from this that you don't understand physics either (I'd already figured that out to be honest). Relativity means only that time, length, and mass (and the properties which are derivative from these) are variant depending on the velocity one is moving at relative to the object. It in no way makes any of those subjective to individuals. And humans actually haven't invented anything perfect, much less perfection itself.

i) Lack of argument noted.

j) Here's a problem you atheists don't seem to get. While you might care about some version of a theistic argument that you created. No one else cares about things you've made up to attack.

k) See j).

l and m) I don't need to do expire meets about things are evident. For instance, that I possess a computer, that you don't understand philosophy, and so forth.
Click to expand...

a) Uh, physics degree here. Being energetically unstable is not enough to actually cause the decay, it just means that a decay is possible - in the same way that a house of cards is capable of falling. The actual cause of the nuclear decay event is, as mentioned previously, unknown.

b) We are discussing philosophical possibilities here. Your argument requires the assumption that it is impossible for the universe to have existed forever, or to exist for ever into the future - therefore the burden of proof is not on me to prove you wrong, but for you to prove yourself right.

c) Not necessarily

d) No-one is discussing 'holding matter in existence', this point has been discussing 'creating matter', which is a temporary event. You are trying to shift the goalposts on this one.

e) Induction is never 100% certain, since the possibility of new evidence is always present. This is a fundamental feature of science and the scientific method.

f) I have already provided evidence. That the evidence used conventional matter to do so is not suprising; but it does not mean that conventional matter is required - just as a candle will burn down in a room empty of observers.

g) Really? Tell me then, if you walk around a sphere where is the mathematical factor which causes you to stop, given that repetition is allowed?

h) As mentioned above, physics degree. Mass is determined by the relative motion of the observer; hence mass is subjective since it will vary from one observer to another. Remember that relativity has no 'true' reference frame in the absence of acceleration. Humans have invented the concept of perfection, which makes it subjective.

i) As this whole argument started in the first place - when your only assertion is "it isn't" then I don't exactly need to come up with anything more than a counter-assertion. Your lack of argument was indeed noted, you just didn't realize it at the time.

j/k) As mentioned for 5), if your argument is that my summation is wrong, you need to provide a better summation - and you could have said so sooner!

l/m) As mentioned before, 'self-evident' seems to be your way of saying 'I don't have any evidence'. It is most certainly not self-evident that all things have a purpose - indeed, as I have previously mentioned, the teleological argument is generally fallacios.
 
Paleocon said:
Here's a problem you atheists don't seem to get. While you might care about some version of a theistic argument that you created. No one else cares about things you've made up to attack.
Click to expand...

We didn't make up the gods. Primitive man did that.
 
iangb said:
a) Uh, physics degree here. Being energetically unstable is not enough to actually cause the decay, it just means that a decay is possible - in the same way that a house of cards is capable of falling. The actual cause of the nuclear decay event is, as mentioned previously, unknown.

b) We are discussing philosophical possibilities here. Your argument requires the assumption that it is impossible for the universe to have existed forever, or to exist for ever into the future - therefore the burden of proof is not on me to prove you wrong, but for you to prove yourself right.

c) Not necessarily

d) No-one is discussing 'holding matter in existence', this point has been discussing 'creating matter', which is a temporary event. You are trying to shift the goalposts on this one.

e) Induction is never 100% certain, since the possibility of new evidence is always present. This is a fundamental feature of science and the scientific method.

f) I have already provided evidence. That the evidence used conventional matter to do so is not suprising; but it does not mean that conventional matter is required - just as a candle will burn down in a room empty of observers.

g) Really? Tell me then, if you walk around a sphere where is the mathematical factor which causes you to stop, given that repetition is allowed?

h) As mentioned above, physics degree. Mass is determined by the relative motion of the observer; hence mass is subjective since it will vary from one observer to another. Remember that relativity has no 'true' reference frame in the absence of acceleration. Humans have invented the concept of perfection, which makes it subjective.

i) As this whole argument started in the first place - when your only assertion is "it isn't" then I don't exactly need to come up with anything more than a counter-assertion. Your lack of argument was indeed noted, you just didn't realize it at the time.

j/k) As mentioned for 5), if your argument is that my summation is wrong, you need to provide a better summation - and you could have said so sooner!

l/m) As mentioned before, 'self-evident' seems to be your way of saying 'I don't have any evidence'. It is most certainly not self-evident that all things have a purpose - indeed, as I have previously mentioned, the teleological argument is generally fallacios.
Click to expand...

a) Lots of people on the internet have degrees in lots of things. IOW, I don't believe you.

b) and yes, it is enough to cause the decay, any free neutron will decay due to the energetic instability.

c) it's not possible to actually reach a point infinitely far in the future, by the same reasoning, if the universe were infinitely old, we'd have never reached now.

d) You simply don't understand philosophy.

e) Are you saying that you doubt whether gravity exists?

f) You're not proposing that a candle can burn without observers, you're proposing that a candle can burn without air.

g) You won't finish, that's the point.

h) All observers in the same reference frame will observe the same mass, so not relative. And your assertion regarding perfection is unsupported.

i) Find an example of a countable infinity in the universe.

j/k) God is the perfection of all goods in the argument.

l/m) I didn't say self-evident. Educate yourself.
 
Paleocon said:
So it doesn't involve something coming from nothing.
Click to expand...

"When two mirrors are placed facing each other in a vacuum, more virtual photons can exist around the outside of the mirrors than between them, generating a seemingly mysterious force that pushes the mirrors together."
 
zyzygy said:
"When two mirrors are placed facing each other in a vacuum, more virtual photons can exist around the outside of the mirrors than between them, generating a seemingly mysterious force that pushes the mirrors together."
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
zyzygy said:
Allow me to assist. They come from the vacuum.

"In a vacuum, there is energy and noise, the existence of which follows the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. These virtual particles in the vacuum can momentarily appear and disappear, and can be converted into detectable light particles."
Virtual Photons Become Real in a Vacuum | Research & Technology | Feb 2013 | photonics.com

Scientists create light from vacuum
Click to expand...

It's only known to be there when interacting with real matter.
 
Paleocon said:
It's only known to be there when interacting with real matter.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the detector? As for only known to be there, see Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle.
 
Paleocon said:
a) Lots of people on the internet have degrees in lots of things. IOW, I don't believe you.

b) and yes, it is enough to cause the decay, any free neutron will decay due to the energetic instability.

c) it's not possible to actually reach a point infinitely far in the future, by the same reasoning, if the universe were infinitely old, we'd have never reached now.

d) You simply don't understand philosophy.

e) Are you saying that you doubt whether gravity exists?

f) You're not proposing that a candle can burn without observers, you're proposing that a candle can burn without air.

g) You won't finish, that's the point.

h) All observers in the same reference frame will observe the same mass, so not relative. And your assertion regarding perfection is unsupported.

i) Find an example of a countable infinity in the universe.

j/k) God is the perfection of all goods in the argument.

l/m) I didn't say self-evident. Educate yourself.
Click to expand...
Agh, you broke the lettering system! I've re-merged your points a) and b) so that each letter still corresponds to it's original argument - I'll try and clarify what I'm responding to.

a) (response to your a and b) I could take a photo of my certificate if you really wanted, but since it would only amount to an argument from authority anyway I don't really see the point. And no, as mentioned before, energy instability is what allows nuclear decay to happen, it's not the cause of the event itself. An unstable atom is like a pencil balanced on it's point - it's unstable but is still in equilibrium (hence the term 'unstable equilibrium'). But a balanced pencil still needs something - be it a mere breath of air - to break the equilibrium and cause it to topple. For nuclear decay, this isn't known - we just know that enough nuclei in one place will act probabilistically.

b) (response to your c) You can't *reach* infinity because it isn't a specific place/number - that's the whole point of infinity. However, if you carry on counting for ever then you will list an infinite number of numbers.

c) Lack of argument noted (response to your d)

(you seem to have lost an argument in here somewhere? Anyway - now my e) = your e))

e) Gravity as we understand it may not exist. Indeed, Newtonian-style gravity doesn't exist. (see General Relativity)

f) The theory of virtual particles is that virtual particles emerge from empty space. This theory is confirmed by experiment, but that experiment must by necessity use matter. However, the theory still holds in the absence of matter. By analogy, the theory of combustion is that a candle will burn. This is confirmed by experiment, but that experiment must by necessity have an observer. However, the theory holds true in the absence of an observer.

g) Counting forever without ever finishing is what infinity is. Infinity is not a 'reachable point' - it's endless progression.

h) Just because two observers agree simply makes their observation shared, not objective. In order for something to be objective then it must be agreed upon by all observers.

I) Firstly, to repeat myself; it is your contention that infinity cannot exist. This means the burden of proof rests on you, not on me. Secondly, as mentioned before, the distance that can be travelled on a sphere is infinite. As is the mass of an atom as measured by a photon; I'm sure I could think of more.

j/k) As mentioned previously, 'God is the worst of all evils' also is an applicable argument. It contradicts the 'God is the perfection of all goods' argument but that doesn't mean that the 'goods' argument is any more valid than the 'evils' one. Also, as mentioned before, 'goods' is also a subjective measurement.

l/m) No, you said "I don't need to do expire meets" (post #126, look it up) and I had to take a best guess at what you actually meant. My argument stands though; you have provided no evidence that 'purpose' is an inherent property. Indeed, I can't even think of what form that evidence might take; either from empiricism or as a rationale.
 
Aaaargh!!

No wonder I didn't enjoy Philosophy 101. The arguments end up running circles - like watching a dog chase it's tail

dogchasingtail.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom