Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

By "motion" is meant any change, not simply locomotion. Changes in quantity, knowledge levels, birth or death or, returning to locomotion, acceleration or deceleration, etc.

Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts.

Originally Posted by boxcar

As it has already been pointed out by Doc, I believe, the classical philosophers used the term "motion" in a more expanded way -- to mean any kind of change from one state to another, etc.

Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Motion refers to change of any kind, e.g., growth in knowledge of how to read a Racing Form, temperature fluctuations, becoming a grandfather, becoming flushed at misunderstanding an initial premise, locomotion, etc.

Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What part of this statement don't you get: Nothing, metaphysically, philosophically, theologically and logically speaking, has any ontological status and, therefore, could not be the cause of the universe's existence.? Do the math on that!

Metaphysics?. The specific false non scientific bullshit you claimed can be proven wrong by simple math. No philosophy is needed. Why can't you do the arithmetic and defend your bogus statement?
You posted this crap:

Originally Posted by boxcar

How could we know Space existed unless Matter (in Motion) was in it to reveal Space to us? It's meaningless gibberish to talk about "empty" space because at best it's only conjecture, since there is no way for any scientist to observe "empty" space. There is no empirical evidence for such a thing.

I am trying to do is show you this is impossible using only arithmetic and logic.

Remember my question?

How many hydrogen atoms can fit in 1 cubic centimeter of space if the diameter of 1 hydrogen atom is 1/200,000,,000 th of a centimeter?

The givens:

1-The density of interstellar space is 1 atom per cubic centimeter.
2-An atom can only exist at one location in space at one time
3-Believe it or not , Mr scientist/cosmologist, space is divisible into segments LESS than a cubic centimeter,

So?....................
...........................
..........................


Since you obviously can't do the arithmetic I will.

The answer is approx. 200,000,,000 ^ 3

or 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms can fit in one cubic centimeter of space

Quaddeillion? Septillion?
or 5.E+74.

Therefore that one atom can only fill an infinitesimal volume of that cubic centimeter. The rest must be a vacuum. Devoid of matter. ALL these smaller portions of space must be a vacuum.

Why won't you deal with this straightforward objection to your statement?

According yo your idiotic "How could we know Space existed unless Matter (in Motion) was in it to reveal Space to us?" ....

....this vacuum I just demonstrated must mean a good volume of interstellar space does not exist.

Shove your ontology where the sun don't shine and deal with the math.

F-

[hcap]

I guess you have given up trying to defend your ridiculous statement..

[hcap]

Correction, copied the scientific notation from excel incorrectly.

5.E+74. should be 8E+24

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Metaphysics?. The specific false non scientific bullshit you claimed can be proven wrong by simple math. No philosophy is needed. Why can't you do the arithmetic and defend your bogus statement?
You posted this crap:
I am trying to do is show you this is impossible using only arithmetic and logic.

Remember my question?

How many hydrogen atoms can fit in 1 cubic centimeter of space if the diameter of 1 hydrogen atom is 1/200,000,,000 th of a centimeter?

The givens:

1-The density of interstellar space is 1 atom per cubic centimeter.
2-An atom can only exist at one location in space at one time
3-Believe it or not , Mr scientist/cosmologist, space is divisible into segments LESS than a cubic centimeter,

So?....................
...........................
..........................


Since you obviously can't do the arithmetic I will.

The answer is approx. 200,000,,000 ^ 3

or 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms can fit in one cubic centimeter of space

Quaddeillion? Septillion?
or 5.E+74.

Therefore that one atom can only fill an infinitesimal volume of that cubic centimeter. The rest must be a vacuum. Devoid of matter. ALL these smaller portions of space must be a vacuum.

Why won't you deal with this straightforward objection to your statement?

According yo your idiotic "How could we know Space existed unless Matter (in Motion) was in it to reveal Space to us?" ....

....this vacuum I just demonstrated must mean a good volume of interstellar space does not exist.

Shove your ontology where the sun don't shine and deal with the math.

F-

But it's still not a perfect vacuum. A 10,000 sq.ft house (analogous to Space) with nothing in it but a small 2" square box sitting in a corner somewhere is still not empty even though the box is taking up only .0004 square inches of the house. The house is still not devoid of matter just because 99.96% of it is empty. When you talk about Space you're talking about ALL Space -- the totality of Space. As I said previously, if the totality of space had but one atom in it, Space would not be empty. Space would still contain matter. Virtually empty does NOT = literally empty. Quit equivocating already. You're attempting to do what all your Nothing high priests of scientism do: Pretend Something is really Nothing. This is exactly what you have to do to try to prove that Nothing exists. But Nothing cannot exist in and alongside Something. The Law of Non-Contradiction tells us this. This is precisely why there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum and all scientists know this. Scientists will never, never create No Thing. Never!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Mr Not -a-Scientist

A 10,000 sq.ft house (analogous to Space) with nothing in it but a small 2" square box sitting in a corner somewhere is still not empty even though the box is taking up only .0004 square inches of the house. The house is still not devoid of matter just because 99.96% of it is empty. When you talk about Space you're talking about ALL Space -- the totality of Space.

No only when you talk about space.

I keep telling you space is divisible into segments MUCH smaller than 1 cubic centimeter, just like matter can be divided down to sub atomic particles and time can be measured in nanoseconds.

You are playing word games regarding "empty". We can not arbitrarily expand a container any way we want and re-define it's contents accordingly.

You have no understanding of science or physics or space or even common sense.. You make this stuff up as you go along

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How could we know Space existed unless Matter (in Motion) was in it to reveal Space to us? It's meaningless gibberish to talk about "empty" space because at best it's only conjecture, since there is no way for any scientist to observe "empty" space. There is no empirical evidence for such a thing.

So therefore as long as there is matter moving anywhere in space, even if it is 1 billion light years away from the space we are "observing" STILL "reveals" to us the space we are viewing right in front of our noses here does exist?

How is that ? What is the actual mechanism? Scientifically speaking.

Magic not allowed

Btw, one light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No only when you talk about space.

I keep telling you space is divisible into segments MUCH smaller than 1 cubic centimeter, just like matter can be divided down to sub atomic particles and time can be measured in nanoseconds.

You are playing word games regarding "empty". We can not arbitrarily expand a container any way we want and re-define it's contents accordingly.

You have no understanding of science or physics or space or even common sense.. You make this stuff up as you go along

So, what? Everything is divisible. Using your equivocating methods, one could say that a fully furnished house is empty because one of its unused bedrooms has an small empty closet in it! And this empty closet proves that nothing exists!

I'm not the one playing word games. You are! Either something is literally empty or it isn't.

And once again...the fact that we are able to observe Space at all is because of all its physical objects floating around that tell us that the Big House (Space) is not empty by any stretch of the imagination. We can only observe outer space because Phenomena, which proceeds from Motion, which in turn proceeds from Energy, inform our senses. "Empty" Space does not and cannot inform our senses! Only Phenomena does this which is product of Matter. No physical matter...no phenomena.

Be of good cheer, 'cap. Forget your lame, inane, utterly ridiculous, laughably absurd theory of the existence of No Thing. Celebrate the Physical Universe. Celebrate the Physical World. After all, isn't this what secular, atheistic, godless Naturalism tells us is the only thing that exists in this universe? Why do you want to celebrate Nothing? Nothing at all!?

[hcap]

So, what? Everything is divisible. Using your equivocating methods, one could say that a fully furnished house is empty because one of its unused bedrooms has an small empty closet in it! And this empty closet proves that nothing exists

You are losing it big time. You are the one that claims the closet can only be observed to exist if it is full of matter.

And you are claiming a closet in any house anywhere in the universe, as long as it is "full" proves all houses exist

Once again the "container" does not validate whether or not its contents are real.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So therefore as long as there is matter moving anywhere in space, even if it is 1 billion light years away from the space we are "observing" STILL "reveals" to us the space we are viewing right in front of our noses here does exist?

How is that ? What is the actual mechanism? Scientifically speaking.

Magic not allowed

Btw, one light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles.

Forget your inane hypotheticals. The irrefutable fact is that Phenomena touches and informs our senses. This is how we knew that we and other things around us have ontological status. And the mechanismS to Phenomena I revealed to you already. Pay attention! Motion proceeds from Energy. Motion produces waves, electrons, etc. Motion, in its varying velocities, reveals itself through Phenomena. Those varying velocities of Motion touch us as light, sound, heat, hardness, texture, etc. Just by the sheer fact that Matter exists in Space and Time, should tell any thinking person immediately that it's not possible for Nothing to also exist in Space and Time. And this statement in no way implies that every scintilla of space in Space must be filled up with Matter because if it doesn't then this somehow proves that Nothing has ontological status! So...don't even go there! A large house can be occupied, furnished and used despite the fact there are unused spaces here and there. Those unused spaces do not prove that nothing exists in the house!

Fact: It is not possible for Something in the absolute sense and Nothing in the absolute sense to co-exist at the same time and in the same sense! I refer you to the Law of Non-Contradiction!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are losing it big time. You are the one that claims the closet can only be observed to exist if it is full of matter.

And you are claiming a closet in any house anywhere in the universe, as long as it is "full" proves all houses exist

Once again the "container" does not validate whether or not its contents are real.

No...I said a house (analogous to the universe) can only be observed to exist because it consists of physical matter. Quit distorting my words. We humans are not equipped to observe non-existent entities or spirit entities. Besides, the closet is part of the physical house!

And I said nothing about containers and contents other than the fact that a nearly empty container is not an empty one!

[hcap]

None of your points make sense and you avoid my specific objections.

Not that it is of any importance. Clearly there are no scientific/engineering, mathematical jobs available to a non scientist with your feeble abilities

However using your fantastic unique theories, I think you missed your true calling.

An international real estate agent.

You could parade clients into one of your partially full closets in Florida explaining how that swampland closet
'reveals" and proves your 10 mansions on the Riviera all have outstanding qualities.

Or by all means go back to horse playing. You could by verifying if your prospective bet took a dump earlier before the race in the stable, prove the horse existing in the winners circle afterwards. And then if successful maybe expand to simulcasting? You could hire horse dump observers at many tracks and bet all tracks where your observer "reveals"to you the stable was indeed not empty before the race

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

None of your points make sense and you avoid my specific objections.

Not that it is of any importance. Clearly there are no scientific/engineering, mathematical jobs available to a non scientist with your feeble abilities

However using your fantastic unique theories, I think you missed your true calling.

An international real estate agent.

You could parade clients into one of your partially full closets in Florida explaining how that swampland closet
'reveals" and proves your 10 mansions on the Riviera all have outstanding qualities.

Or by all means go back to horse playing. You could by verifying if your prospective bet took a dump earlier before the race in the stable, prove the horse existing in the winners circle afterwards. And then if successful maybe expand to simulcasting? You could hire horse dump observers at many tracks and bet all tracks where your observer "reveals"to you the stable was indeed not empty before the race

My points are logically sound. Something cannot exist in Nothing. The Something = all the physical celestial objects zoomin' about in outer space. Space, according to you is Nothing because it's mostly empty. (The operative term is "mostly".) Therefore, in your loony universe, we have Something co-existing with and in Nothing, which violates the Law of Non Contradiction. This is akin to saying that a jar that is only half-filled with marbles is Something and Nothing all at once and simultaneously. The only kind of person who cannot grasp the logic of this is someone whose skull is devoid of [gray] matter. In other words, filled with empty space.

[Actor]

Chapter 31

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

Chapter 31

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Having read the above...how can there be any doubt that Moses spoke with God?

When will you guys realize that Boxcar is off his rocker...so you could leave him alone?