Growing rejection of religious traditions by religious adherents

[Incredulity 11876]

39 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't think liberals have any problem with Jesus. Jesus was about as liberal as it gets.

Thats the point 

[formermav43 4628]

It’s best if people don’t try to co-opt Jesus for their particular political persuasion. He doesn’t fit into any of the tidy little American boxes.

[Anastasis 23717]

23 hours ago, RayDog said:

No. I published it in my book The Zero-Point Universe first, so journals would not look at it.

I will also say that I am for open-access, so I would not publish in most journals. Lately of have been publishing to GSJournal, which is not peer reviewed in a strict sense, but the editors are competent at performing a review. I also copy my work on researchgate.net and academia.edu, as I often get good feedback there. I still have not found someone to give me access to arxiv, as non-academic researchers like me often get frozen out by them. 

So quackery. 

[RayDog 682]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So quackery. 

Feel free to point out flaws in my papers rather than make broad baseless accusations.

[Anastasis 23717]

7 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Feel free to point out flaws in my papers rather than make broad baseless accusations.

You mean, beyond whats already been deployed upthread?

 

[gsoda3 3362]

I don't think liberals have any problem with Jesus. Jesus was about as liberal as it gets.

Other than the whole being the son of God and submitting to him because he's the only truth thing right.

[workswithseed 2204]

10 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

On 7/10/2018 at 5:01 PM, David Dennison said:

I don't think liberals have any problem with Jesus. Jesus was about as liberal as it gets.

Other than the whole being the son of God and submitting to him because he's the only truth thing right.

I mean it's just semantics

[David Dennison 19534]

15 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

On 7/10/2018 at 7:01 PM, David Dennison said:

I don't think liberals have any problem with Jesus. Jesus was about as liberal as it gets.

Other than the whole being the son of God and submitting to him because he's the only truth thing right.

Right. That part is just silly.

[RayDog 682]

On 7/11/2018 at 1:21 AM, Aphelion said:

I struck out the meaningless ranting and will address the only few points that are addressable.  

The reason why I focus on the mathematics is because if you were able to develop the model at all, you would find that your concepts are not able to describe reality.  The mathematics already exists to develop the field equations to model your concepts and if you were proficient in the basic mathematics that physicists learn, then you could develop your own field equations with not much effort.  What you would find if you were able to do this exercise is that your concepts cannot be made to give an accurate model of reality.  Instead of mathematics you give walls of conceptual text and claim that making your ideas actually work is a matter of accounting.  Since you cannot do the math and you regard mathematics as trifling details you are never forced to face the reality that your ideas don't work.

In addition to the above, your paper is loaded with very crude math errors.  For example, you claim to get equation 4 by taking the derivative of energy equation and multiplying by 2.  But d/dL of (—hcπ^3/11520L) multiplied by 2 is not —hcπ^3/5760L^2 as you show.  It is hcπ^3/5760L^2 (the negative drops off).  Since L is in the denominator it is the same as L^-1.  d/dL of -L^-1 is L^-2 (not -L^-2).  

I did not claim that it was strange to compute Coulomb forces by center points.  I said that your method of stating & charting by one distance (distance between charge radius) and then calculating by another distance (center point distance) is very strange, to put it mildly.  For example, you state in the paper and list on your chart that at 1 fm distance the Coulomb force between two protons is 33 N.  Since you mention freshman physics texts, if you were to reference any that gives the calc for the Coulomb force between two protons at 1 fm, it will show 230 N (some examples for you: book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4).  Now refer me to a single physics book that states that the Coulomb force between two protons at 1 fm is 33 N as you did in your paper.  Even if we use your bizarre method of stating 1 fm but really meaning 1 + 1.755  fm, I get 30 N and not 33 N as you show.  

While we are on the topic of freshman physics books, I think it is odd for you to refer to them since you believe they are full of lies.  For example, all introduction to mechanics books are filled with the "lie" (according to you) that angular momentum explains precession.  So why would you refer me to books for validation that you believe are filled with lies?   

Your insistence that I compute all cases is a strawman argument that amounts to a denial of the existence of the Casimir effect. Perhaps it would be helpful if you consider that much of the force pushing protons together comes from the van der Waals forces inside the protons and neutrons. That is what happens when you consider the standard Casmir force between two spheres. Packing protons and neutrons together does not diminish the force between them since it arises from inside them.  

The integration in the paper is only valid for the case where the distance L is equal to the radius a, as the equation is difficult to integrate more generally. So you must combine the two terms, integrate, and then separate them. I did this just to illustrate what the energy equation looks like in an ideal case even though it is only valid at one point.  It does not effect the results in any respects since that equation was not used in the calculations. I calculated the energy for each distance and then converted it to force point-by-point when calculating the Casimir effect results used in the table.

Note that the minus sign indicates that the force is attractive. It has nothing to do with the integration.

We seem to be on the same page finally on how the Coulomb force is calculated. I did the calculations in Excel, so feel confident in them. I also had them verified by someone I trust a lot more than you. Perhaps there are rounding errors, but even so calling out rounding errors is another strawman.

Pointing to my other work on mechanical forces is yet another strawman argument with regard to this paper. I will say however that where there is a force there is an acceleration (F=ma), which is true for any force. Logically if a force exists there must be a physical cause responsible for the acceleration. Any theory that fails to provide a physical cause for acceleration is at best incomplete and at worse invalid. Do you follow that? If not, just stop here until you figure it out.

General Relativity (GR) theory, for example, does not include a physical cause of acceleration. If we take the two body case and place two bodies in space at some distance apart and have them stationary to begin with, GR theory does not explain how they accelerate, even less provide a physical explanation for the acceleration. Newtonian gravitational theory does not include an explanation for acceleration either. Either theory is incomplete or possibly completely wrong due to this deficiency. In the best case scenario the underlying physical cause of acceleration must be known before proceeding with developing the remainder of the theory.

If we look at standard electromagnetic (EM) theory. If you take two magnets and orient them such that they push apart and use one to push the other, the theory does not explain the cause of acceleration of the second magnet. It does not explain the physical cause of acceleration either when two magnets are attracted and come together, yet they certainly do come together. Electrostatic theory also does not explain the physical cause of acceleration when two charges are attracted or repelled. Thus electromagnetic theory is incomplete.

If we consider the standard model strong force, there is no physical explanation for the acceleration between nucleons. As with the prior two examples being able to compute the acceleration is not the same thing as understanding the underlying physical mechanism responsible for the acceleration.

If we consider mechanical forces when there is no physical contact (no electron degeneracy pressure), there is no physical explanation for acceleration. This is mostly evident with rotating objects like gyroscopes that can be accelerated without there being physical contact with another object in a way that would cause acceleration in the direction we observe. As above, mechanical force theory is incomplete and missing the most important part. Being able to compute a result is not the same thing as explaining what is physically happening.

There is only one accepted theory in standard  model physics that does incorporate a physical explanation for acceleration when two objects are not in contact. That theory is the Casimir effect.  It turns out that we do not need a second theory, as the van der Waals forces that underly the Casimir effect underly all of standard model quantum field theory. Here is a paper I wrote about that where I develop a general Casimir theory with respect to EM forces.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Mechanics / Electrodynamics/Download/7129

 

 

 

[RayDog 682]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You mean, beyond whats already been deployed upthread?

 

Axiom only pointed out flaws in his own understanding and reading comprehension, not flaws in the paper.

[Grandioso 2592]

On 7/8/2018 at 1:35 PM, David Dennison said:

That is not what I believe at all. I think humans need faith. My guess is that it's because we know we're going to die and that there is nothing we can do about it. Yet.

I've thought about the alternative - immortality, and man that sounds more terrifying when you consider the inevitables. Everyone you know dies, humanity dies out, the sun explodes and then you spend eternity just floating through an incomprehensible void with nothing but your thoughts. 

Nope!

[blackmarketbaby 118]

28 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

I've thought about the alternative - immortality, and man that sounds more terrifying when you consider the inevitables. Everyone you know dies, humanity dies out, the sun explodes and then you spend eternity just floating through an incomprehensible void with nothing but your thoughts. 

Nope!

That gloom went to far for David to comprehend because doom is on his mind and it must be instant 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, RayDog said:

Your insistence that I compute all cases is a strawman argument that amounts to a denial of the existence of the Casimir effect. Perhaps it would be helpful if you consider that much of the force pushing protons together comes from the van der Waals forces inside the protons and neutrons. That is what happens when you consider the standard Casmir force between two spheres. Packing protons and neutrons together does not diminish the force between them since it arises from inside them.  

The integration in the paper is only valid for the case where the distance L is equal to the radius a, as the equation is difficult to integrate more generally. So you must combine the two terms, integrate, and then separate them. I did this just to illustrate what the energy equation looks like in an ideal case even though it is only valid at one point.  It does not effect the results in any respects since that equation was not used in the calculations. I calculated the energy for each distance and then converted it to force point-by-point when calculating the Casimir effect results used in the table.

Note that the minus sign indicates that the force is attractive. It has nothing to do with the integration.

We seem to be on the same page finally on how the Coulomb force is calculated. I did the calculations in Excel, so feel confident in them. I also had them verified by someone I trust a lot more than you. Perhaps there are rounding errors, but even so calling out rounding errors is another strawman.

Pointing to my other work on mechanical forces is yet another strawman argument with regard to this paper. I will say however that where there is a force there is an acceleration (F=ma), which is true for any force. Logically if a force exists there must be a physical cause responsible for the acceleration. Any theory that fails to provide a physical cause for acceleration is at best incomplete and at worse invalid. Do you follow that? If not, just stop here until you figure it out.

General Relativity (GR) theory, for example, does not include a physical cause of acceleration. If we take the two body case and place two bodies in space at some distance apart and have them stationary to begin with, GR theory does not explain how they accelerate, even less provide a physical explanation for the acceleration. Newtonian gravitational theory does not include an explanation for acceleration either. Either theory is incomplete or possibly completely wrong due to this deficiency. In the best case scenario the underlying physical cause of acceleration must be known before proceeding with developing the remainder of the theory.

If we look at standard electromagnetic (EM) theory. If you take two magnets and orient them such that they push apart and use one to push the other, the theory does not explain the cause of acceleration of the second magnet. It does not explain the physical cause of acceleration either when two magnets are attracted and come together, yet they certainly do come together. Electrostatic theory also does not explain the physical cause of acceleration when two charges are attracted or repelled. Thus electromagnetic theory is incomplete.

If we consider the standard model strong force, there is no physical explanation for the acceleration between nucleons. As with the prior two examples being able to compute the acceleration is not the same thing as understanding the underlying physical mechanism responsible for the acceleration.

If we consider mechanical forces when there is no physical contact (no electron degeneracy pressure), there is no physical explanation for acceleration. This is mostly evident with rotating objects like gyroscopes that can be accelerated without there being physical contact with another object in a way that would cause acceleration in the direction we observe. As above, mechanical force theory is incomplete and missing the most important part. Being able to compute a result is not the same thing as explaining what is physically happening.

There is only one accepted theory in standard  model physics that does incorporate a physical explanation for acceleration when two objects are not in contact. That theory is the Casimir effect.  It turns out that we do not need a second theory, as the van der Waals forces that underly the Casimir effect underly all of standard model quantum field theory. Here is a paper I wrote about that where I develop a general Casimir theory with respect to EM forces.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Mechanics / Electrodynamics/Download/7129

 

 

 

If you are going to submit your work for review, then you've got to be able to listen to the feedback and admit errors when they are pointed out.  If you're not willing to do this, then there is no point in discussion.  If someone points out errors that you've made, then what most folks do and the wise thing to do is to simply admit it, correct it, and hopefully learn something in the process.  You seem to be unwilling to do this.  Here are just two very clear examples that I've highlighted - let's see if you are willing to admit that you were incorrect:

1.  What does ((8987551787.368)((1.60217662×10^−19)^2))/(((1+1.755)(10^-15))^2) equal to two significant digits?  You say 33.  I said 30.  Wolfram alpha says 30.  Google says 30.  You gave a number to two significant digits and you were off by 10%.  This is not a rounding error; it's simply an error.  
2.  What is 2(d/dL (-c/(11520L)))?  You say -c/(5760L^2).  I say c/(5760L^2).  Wolfram alpha says c/(5760L^2).  

Now can you simply admit you were wrong about these two points or will you dance and deny and rail against the academy and claim math is for grunts or claim that this doesn't impact your conclusions or do whatever your instincts are telling you to do at this moment?  I'm hoping you do the former, but I'm betting on the latter.  Admit error and prove me wrong.

[Jatrain 288]

On 7/10/2018 at 5:26 PM, RayDog said:

No. I published it in my book The Zero-Point Universe first, so journals would not look at it.

I will also say that I am for open-access, so I would not publish in most journals. Lately of have been publishing to GSJournal, which is not peer reviewed in a strict sense, but the editors are competent at performing a review. I also copy my work on researchgate.net and academia.edu, as I often get good feedback there. I still have not found someone to give me access to arxiv, as non-academic researchers like me often get frozen out by them. 

So here’s the question I always have when you are talking about your work. You have these theories (and proofs) that, if true, would basically  up-end a lot of physics as we know it. Yet you seem to actively avoid publishing them in the places where they could have the most impact. You publish them in book form, which isn’t going to move the needle in the scientific community and you don’t have a name like a Laurence Krauss or Michio Kaku to get noticed by the lay public. You publish papers on open source places where they are going to get lost in the chaff of hundreds of crackpot theories (tainting you with guilt by association).  

I recognize the appeal of open source and some of the inherent problems associated with the journal “industry” (for lack of a better term).  But it’s also the accepted way that science across multiple disciplines moves forward.  If your work is as revolutionary as you insinuate, don’t you have an obligation to submit it into the accepted channels and bring it under actual peer review and scrutiny to see if it truly holds up?  When you don’t, doesn’t it, quite frankly, indicate that you’re  afraid that after evaluation by professionals it wont?  

[RayDog 682]

8 hours ago, Aphelion said:

If you are going to submit your work for review, then you've got to be able to listen to the feedback and admit errors when they are pointed out.  If you're not willing to do this, then there is no point in discussion.  If someone points out errors that you've made, then what most folks do and the wise thing to do is to simply admit it, correct it, and hopefully learn something in the process.  You seem to be unwilling to do this.  Here are just two very clear examples that I've highlighted - let's see if you are willing to admit that you were incorrect:

1.  What does ((8987551787.368)((1.60217662×10^−19)^2))/(((1+1.755)(10^-15))^2) equal to two significant digits?  You say 33.  I said 30.  Wolfram alpha says 30.  Google says 30.  You gave a number to two significant digits and you were off by 10%.  This is not a rounding error; it's simply an error.  
2.  What is 2(d/dL (-c/(11520L)))?  You say -c/(5760L^2).  I say c/(5760L^2).  Wolfram alpha says c/(5760L^2).  

Now can you simply admit you were wrong about these two points or will you dance and deny and rail against the academy and claim math is for grunts or claim that this doesn't impact your conclusions or do whatever your instincts are telling you to do at this moment?  I'm hoping you do the former, but I'm betting on the latter.  Admit error and prove me wrong.

I found that Coulomb's constant was mistyped in my spreadsheet, so thanks for finding the error. That means that the Casimir effect is about 10% stronger based on this Casimir force approximation than I included in the paper. This will give me  a good reason to update the paper.

As I said before, the minus sign in the front of the equation indicates that the force is attractive. The minus sign was not due to the integration, but was added after the fact. The Casimir force between two spheres is attractive not repulsive, so that is not an error. In the update I will probably delete the force equation since you are not the only person confused by it.

[RayDog 682]

6 hours ago, Jatrain said:

So here’s the question I always have when you are talking about your work. You have these theories (and proofs) that, if true, would basically  up-end a lot of physics as we know it. Yet you seem to actively avoid publishing them in the places where they could have the most impact. You publish them in book form, which isn’t going to move the needle in the scientific community and you don’t have a name like a Laurence Krauss or Michio Kaku to get noticed by the lay public. You publish papers on open source places where they are going to get lost in the chaff of hundreds of crackpot theories (tainting you with guilt by association).  

I recognize the appeal of open source and some of the inherent problems associated with the journal “industry” (for lack of a better term).  But it’s also the accepted way that science across multiple disciplines moves forward.  If your work is as revolutionary as you insinuate, don’t you have an obligation to submit it into the accepted channels and bring it under actual peer review and scrutiny to see if it truly holds up?  When you don’t, doesn’t it, quite frankly, indicate that you’re  afraid that after evaluation by professionals it wont?  

I am not worried that my work won't pass peer review as it is based on standard model quantum field theory, sound logic and well-known physics relationships.

I consider physics to be the single greatest puzzle to solve of all the puzzles faced by humanity. I am rather happy to not be taken very seriously at this point because it allows me to continue to extend my knowledge and understanding, adding new and more scientific solutions to parts of the puzzle, while other physicists are mostly going in wrong directions. I am enjoying my 20 year head start on most of the physics community. Once my work gets discovered by the mainstream, I will lose my advantage. I hope to complete my research and related book on particle theory as well as a paper on gravitation before focusing on promoting my work more seriously.

A couple things about publication. Most physics papers are never published in peer reviewed journals, so I am not in an unusual position.  Of those papers that do get published in most journals (not Nature or Science) the typical number of reads is 4 or 5, the editor, 2 peer reviewers and 1 or 2 journal readers. My papers get hundreds of reads, so I am actually getting more exposure using the venues I am using than I might with a closed peer reviewed journal.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, RayDog said:

I found that Coulomb's constant was mistyped in my spreadsheet, so thanks for finding the error. That means that the Casimir effect is about 10% stronger based on this Casimir force approximation than I included in the paper. This will give me  a good reason to update the paper.

As I said before, the minus sign in the front of the equation indicates that the force is attractive. The minus sign was not due to the integration, but was added after the fact. The Casimir force between two spheres is attractive not repulsive, so that is not an error. In the update I will probably delete the force equation since you are not the only person confused by it.

I give you credit for admitting error on the correction factor. 

On the second point:  You give no derivations in your papers.  Algebraic equations just pop up out of the blue with either no explanation or a small amount of opaque & misleading explanation.  You cannot claim that you get one equation by differentiating from another equation when doing this process does not give the final equation you state.  And you cannot just throw a negative sign on there because the final equation should be negative.  If it should be negative but your process to derive the equation yields a positive, then you did something wrong.  Go back and figure out the problem.  Don't just slap on negative signs and correction factors to get the equations you want.

I would recommend that you fire your math consultant (which is no big loss anyway) and become your own math consultant.  Since the time of Newton there has been no such thing as a professional, successful, or in any way influential physicist who is not proficient in the relevant fields of math.  Gaining proficiency will prevent a lot of basic errors and will train your mind in a thought process that will greatly improve your approach to physics.

 

1 hour ago, RayDog said:

I am not worried that my work won't pass peer review as it is based on standard model quantum field theory, sound logic and well-known physics relationships.

I consider physics to be the single greatest puzzle to solve of all the puzzles faced by humanity. I am rather happy to not be taken very seriously at this point because it allows me to continue to extend my knowledge and understanding, adding new and more scientific solutions to parts of the puzzle, while other physicists are mostly going in wrong directions. I am enjoying my 20 year head start on most of the physics community. Once my work gets discovered by the mainstream, I will lose my advantage. I hope to complete my research and related book on particle theory as well as a paper on gravitation before focusing on promoting my work more seriously.

A couple things about publication. Most physics papers are never published in peer reviewed journals, so I am not in an unusual position.  Of those papers that do get published in most journals (not Nature or Science) the typical number of reads is 4 or 5, the editor, 2 peer reviewers and 1 or 2 journal readers. My papers get hundreds of reads, so I am actually getting more exposure using the venues I am using than I might with a closed peer reviewed journal.

This is all very crazy.  Your work will not pass peer review.  You won't even get a single set of comments back (other than form rejections) if you submit to 50 top ranked journals.  Submit to some and prove otherwise.  It will be a good exercise.  

This will be my last post to you on this topic as my interest has run out, so to end I will say that if you want a seat at the table then you have to master the basics first.  It is a lot of work but there is no way around it.  Good luck to you.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

Please don't leave us alone in here with him!

[JBJ 3825]

My whole problem with this is the insistence that the force can be electromagnetic or otherwise related to the casimir effect.  The mechanics are essential.  You either misinterpret electromagnetism wholesale or are terrible at explaining what you are proposing (something that I admittedly suffer from).  It'd be better to say that you are proposing a new field, that is similiar in nature to the one proposed for the casimir effect.

If you could show that a theoretical "strong field" using reasonable nucleon structures and field forces, that could predict the stability of nuclei in many cases, that would be somewhat amusing (fun with math).

If one could explain the complementarian nature of protons and neutrons within that, there'd be a foundation for study.

If one could explain and predict the structuring of jet events within that, I dare say we'd have something to build an actual theory.

The only problem being: this has been done already - and you think it's a lie.

[RayDog 682]

9 hours ago, JBJ said:

My whole problem with this is the insistence that the force can be electromagnetic or otherwise related to the casimir effect.  The mechanics are essential.  You either misinterpret electromagnetism wholesale or are terrible at explaining what you are proposing (something that I admittedly suffer from).  It'd be better to say that you are proposing a new field, that is similiar in nature to the one proposed for the casimir effect.

If you could show that a theoretical "strong field" using reasonable nucleon structures and field forces, that could predict the stability of nuclei in many cases, that would be somewhat amusing (fun with math).

If one could explain the complementarian nature of protons and neutrons within that, there'd be a foundation for study.

If one could explain and predict the structuring of jet events within that, I dare say we'd have something to build an actual theory.

The only problem being: this has been done already - and you think it's a lie.

The Casimir effect is nothing but a subset of van der Waals forces. Van der Waals forces are a well established part of electromagnetic theory. The distance between charges in electric dipoles varies and oscillates in the presence of other dipoles. 

I am not misinterpreting anything. Van der Waals forces exist and must be accounted for at all times.

Your argument is akin to saying that both the strong force and van der Waals forces exist and happen to have the same magnitude and achieve the same effect simultaneously.

My point is that only one of those forces is necessary to explain nuclear forces. Of the two possibilities, the van der Waals forces of standard electromagnetic theory is the simplest and it is impossible for them to not exist.

I consider strong force theory to be unnecessarily redundant.

[RayDog 682]

22 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I give you credit for admitting error on the correction factor. 

On the second point:  You give no derivations in your papers.  Algebraic equations just pop up out of the blue with either no explanation or a small amount of opaque & misleading explanation.  You cannot claim that you get one equation by differentiating from another equation when doing this process does not give the final equation you state.  And you cannot just throw a negative sign on there because the final equation should be negative.  If it should be negative but your process to derive the equation yields a positive, then you did something wrong.  Go back and figure out the problem.  Don't just slap on negative signs and correction factors to get the equations you want.

I would recommend that you fire your math consultant (which is no big loss anyway) and become your own math consultant.  Since the time of Newton there has been no such thing as a professional, successful, or in any way influential physicist who is not proficient in the relevant fields of math.  Gaining proficiency will prevent a lot of basic errors and will train your mind in a thought process that will greatly improve your approach to physics.

 

This is all very crazy.  Your work will not pass peer review.  You won't even get a single set of comments back (other than form rejections) if you submit to 50 top ranked journals.  Submit to some and prove otherwise.  It will be a good exercise.  

This will be my last post to you on this topic as my interest has run out, so to end I will say that if you want a seat at the table then you have to master the basics first.  It is a lot of work but there is no way around it.  Good luck to you.

In response to your continued support of magical action at a distance theories I will let Sir Isaac Newton respond as he has you pegged.

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it."

I am happy to hear that you will no longer be making personal attacks on me when you cannot defend your irrational positions that are relevant to the actual thread of discussion.

The decision to decide whether an attractive force is considered negative or positive is purely arbitrary and has nothing to do with the underlying mathematics. If it were up to me I would have made the opposite choice with attraction being positive and repulsion negative, but it was not up to me and is too late to change at this point.

Lastly, physics is the science of understanding interactions between physical matter and it requires that physicists devise logical physical models that match observations. A theory is a failure without successful physical models.

[Biff Tannen 46163]

Oh hai guys. What’s going on in here?

[Anastasis 23717]

9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Oh hai guys. What’s going on in here?

Surly peer review.  Going about how you would expect.

 

 

[Guest]

To get back closer to the subject discussion, or at least back to the first digression from the subject, it's fairly common these days for folks to assert primitive ideas (i.e. the first notions that come to mind) as profound and unchallengeable answers to age old philosophical questions.  You see this often to questions of ethics and the ontology of the supernatural.  For example I was watching an interview with Ricky Gervais and to paraphrase he said he didn't believe in God because when he was around 8 years old his older brother asked him why he believed in God and his mom told his brother to desist.  From his mom's voice tone and body language in the discussion, Ricky deduced that his mom was hiding something and since that time he knew that there was no God.   So apparently an 8 year old can have complete confidence in the answer to an ancient ontological question based on the body language & inflection in his mother's voice to a comment to his brother.  It seems to never have occurred to Ricky that maybe simple thoughts that pop into the mind of an 8 year old are probably neither novel nor profound and that what seems certain as a child may require deeper examination and further study as one gets older.  

There is an abundance of similar types of inane populist reasoning that gets forwarded as certain & profound answers.  It will often be claimed that one should not believe in the supernatural because it cannot be examined by natural science.  Pointing out that this is a basic begging the question fallacy typically gets met with accusations of denying science, how they and not you are men of science & logic & reason, how faith brought the dark ages and how the unparalleled powers of science led us all to the light, and how we don't need no God to cure polio or send a man to the moon, and so forth.  But none of this challenges the fact that it is nonsense to argue against the supernatural because it cannot be found directly via searching the natural world or that it is a simple begging the question fallacy to assume naturalism and from there show that it follows that the supernatural does not exist.  

The point I'm trying to make is that every idea and argument that you can think of in regards to the ontology of the supernatural (on both sides of the issue) has been thought of and studied & debated for centuries.  If some thought occurs to you while you are pressure washing the drive way, there are both arguments to make the idea more rigorous and counter arguments to the point (and likely many levels deep to the back and forth arguments and counter arguments).  It ridiculous to view the ontology of the supernatural as having a simple & certain answer based on unchallenged first notions.

[Huckleberry 34632]

My first notion is that I can never know and therefore government policy should never be based on beliefs in the supernatural.

It's simple and I'm certain of it.

[David Dennison 19534]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

To get back closer to the subject discussion, or at least back to the first digression from the subject, it's fairly common these days for folks to assert primitive ideas (i.e. the first notions that come to mind) as profound and unchallengeable answers to age old philosophical questions.  You see this often to questions of ethics and the ontology of the supernatural.  For example I was watching an interview with Ricky Gervais and to paraphrase he said he didn't believe in God because when he was around 8 years old his older brother asked him why he believed in God and his mom told his brother to desist.  From his mom's voice tone and body language in the discussion, Ricky deduced that his mom was hiding something and since that time he knew that there was no God.   So apparently an 8 year old can have complete confidence in the answer to an ancient ontological question based on the body language & inflection in his mother's voice to a comment to his brother.  It seems to never have occurred to Ricky that maybe simple thoughts that pop into the mind of an 8 year old are probably neither novel nor profound and that what seems certain as a child may require deeper examination and further study as one gets older.  

There is an abundance of similar types of inane populist reasoning that gets forwarded as certain & profound answers.  It will often be claimed that one should not believe in the supernatural because it cannot be examined by natural science.  Pointing out that this is a basic begging the question fallacy typically gets met with accusations of denying science, how they and not you are men of science & logic & reason, how faith brought the dark ages and how the unparalleled powers of science led us all to the light, and how we don't need no God to cure polio or send a man to the moon, and so forth.  But none of this challenges the fact that it is nonsense to argue against the supernatural because it cannot be found directly via searching the natural world or that it is a simple begging the question fallacy to assume naturalism and from there show that it follows that the supernatural does not exist.  

The point I'm trying to make is that every idea and argument that you can think of in regards to the ontology of the supernatural (on both sides of the issue) has been thought of and studied & debated for centuries.  If some thought occurs to you while you are pressure washing the drive way, there are both arguments to make the idea more rigorous and counter arguments to the point (and likely many levels deep to the back and forth arguments and counter arguments).  It ridiculous to view the ontology of the supernatural as having a simple & certain answer based on unchallenged first notions.

That's certainly one opinion.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

My first notion is that I can never know and therefore government policy should never be based on beliefs in the supernatural.

It's simple and I'm certain of it.

This is not an ontological claim.  It is a conclusion on political philosophy based on an epistemological claim. 

[David Dennison 19534]

2 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

This is not an ontological claim.  It is a conclusion on political philosophy based on an epistemological claim. 

Do you believe in God?

[yaqdum 182]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do you believe in God?

it's an easy mistake to make, but you misspelled gold.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do you believe in God?

You already asked me that once.  I answered and it led to an unremarkable back and forth, which is probably why you don’t remember.  I don’t see the point of going over it again. 

[David Dennison 19534]

8 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

You already asked me that once.  I answered and it led to an unremarkable back and forth, which is probably why you don’t remember.  I don’t see the point of going over it again. 

Do you believe in God?

[Huckleberry 34632]

This is not an ontological claim.  It is a conclusion on political philosophy based on an epistemological claim. 

It's all of the above. The ontological claim is that I can never know. You can categorize that as epistemological if you'd like as it's a little of both, but it's absolutely also ontological.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

This is not an ontological claim.  It is a conclusion on political philosophy based on an epistemological claim. 

It's all of the above. The ontological claim is that I can never know. You can categorize that as epistemological if you'd like as it's a little of both, but it's absolutely also ontological.

Claims on what one can know are epistemological.  Saying that one can never know something is not an ontological claim nor “a little of both.”  It is very clearly an epistemological claim.  It’s not a matter of how I would like to categorize it.  It’s a matter of what follows from the definition. 

[Mole 4339]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in life after love?

[David Dennison 19534]

57 minutes ago, Mole said:

Do you believe in life after love?

Depends. Is it auto-tuned?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

7 hours ago, Aphelion said:

This is not an ontological claim.  It is a conclusion on political philosophy based on an epistemological claim. 

It's all of the above. The ontological claim is that I can never know. You can categorize that as epistemological if you'd like as it's a little of both, but it's absolutely also ontological.

Here are some independent sources to verify what I stated in my previous response to this:

1st source:

"Ontology and metaphysics both get confused with epistemology, but epistemology is easier to separate out. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, of how we know what we know. Whereas ontology and metaphysics are about reality, epistemology is about how human consciousness can interact with that reality."

Ontology	Metaphysics	Epistemology
Do souls exist? Are they the sort of things that obey physical laws?   Is there a God?	What physical laws would have to be true in order for souls to exist?   What rules, if any, govern God’s actions?	How can we know whether souls exist?   Can human beings ever know whether there is a God?

 

Notice in the above that the question "Is there a God?" is under ontology while the question "Can human beings ever know whether there is a God?" is categorized as one of epistemology (not as ontological or both).  Your answer ("I can never know") is an epistemological claim to this epistemological question.

2nd source:

"The problem is that it is also very useful for philosophical purposes to have a name for the epistemological position that follows from the premise of Huxley’s argument, the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, or most ambitiously, that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of any sort. Just as the metaphysical question of God’s existence is central to philosophy of religion, so too is the epistemological question of whether or not theism or atheism is known or has some other sort of positive epistemic status. And given the etymology of “agnostic”, what better term could there be for a negative answer to that epistemological question than 'agnosticism'?"

3rd source:

"'Atheist' versus 'theist' represents where people take a stance on the metaphysical question of the existence of a God or gods... Agnosticism on the other hand represents a stance on the epistemological question of how knowable the existence of a God or gods (or any other thing you might be talking about) actually is.  There you have it. Answers to orthogonal questions from entirely different branches of philosophy."

 

Since you claim to be an agnostic,  I assume that you know the difference between atheism and agnosticism and have probably even explained this difference on a few occasions.  It's strange that a person who understands that agnosticism is a position based on what we do know or can know (the word itself meaning "without knowledge") would struggle to understand that the basic agnostic claim (that one cannot know) belongs in the category of what we can and cannot know (i.e. epistemology, which means "study of knowledge").   This is about as straightforward as it gets.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 19534]

16 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Here are some independent sources to verify what I stated in my previous response to this:

1st source:

"Ontology and metaphysics both get confused with epistemology, but epistemology is easier to separate out. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, of how we know what we know. Whereas ontology and metaphysics are about reality, epistemology is about how human consciousness can interact with that reality."

Ontology	Metaphysics	Epistemology
Do souls exist? Are they the sort of things that obey physical laws?   Is there a God?	What physical laws would have to be true in order for souls to exist?   What rules, if any, govern God’s actions?	How can we know whether souls exist?   Can human beings ever know whether there is a God?

 

Notice in the above that the question "Is there a God?" is under ontology while the question "Can human beings ever know whether there is a God?" is categorized as one of epistemology (not as ontological or both).  Your answer ("I can never know") is an epistemological claim to this epistemological question.

2nd source:

"The problem is that it is also very useful for philosophical purposes to have a name for the epistemological position that follows from the premise of Huxley’s argument, the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, or most ambitiously, that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of any sort. Just as the metaphysical question of God’s existence is central to philosophy of religion, so too is the epistemological question of whether or not theism or atheism is known or has some other sort of positive epistemic status. And given the etymology of “agnostic”, what better term could there be for a negative answer to that epistemological question than 'agnosticism'?"

3rd source:

"'Atheist' versus 'theist' represents where people take a stance on the metaphysical question of the existence of a God or gods... Agnosticism on the other hand represents a stance on the epistemological question of how knowable the existence of a God or gods (or any other thing you might be talking about) actually is.  There you have it. Answers to orthogonal questions from entirely different branches of philosophy."

 

If I remember correctly form previous discussions, you claim to be an agnostic.  I assume that you know the difference between atheism and agnosticism and have probably even explained this difference on a few occasions.  It's strange that a person who understands that agnosticism is a position based on what we do know or can know (the word itself meaning "without knowledge") would struggle to understand that the basic agnostic claim (that one cannot know) belongs in the category of what we can and cannot know (i.e. epistemology, which means "study of knowledge").   This is about as straightforward as it gets.

No wonder Pascal hedged his bets.

Also, does the chart above work if we replace "God" with "Santa Claus"?

Edited July 15, 2018 by David Dennison

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

13 hours ago, Aphelion said:

To get back closer to the subject discussion, or at least back to the first digression from the subject, it's fairly common these days for folks to assert primitive ideas (i.e. the first notions that come to mind) as profound and unchallengeable answers to age old philosophical questions.  You see this often to questions of ethics and the ontology of the supernatural.  For example I was watching an interview with Ricky Gervais and to paraphrase he said he didn't believe in God because when he was around 8 years old his older brother asked him why he believed in God and his mom told his brother to desist.  From his mom's voice tone and body language in the discussion, Ricky deduced that his mom was hiding something and since that time he knew that there was no God.   So apparently an 8 year old can have complete confidence in the answer to an ancient ontological question based on the body language & inflection in his mother's voice to a comment to his brother.  It seems to never have occurred to Ricky that maybe simple thoughts that pop into the mind of an 8 year old are probably neither novel nor profound and that what seems certain as a child may require deeper examination and further study as one gets older.  

There is an abundance of similar types of inane populist reasoning that gets forwarded as certain & profound answers.  It will often be claimed that one should not believe in the supernatural because it cannot be examined by natural science.  Pointing out that this is a basic begging the question fallacy typically gets met with accusations of denying science, how they and not you are men of science & logic & reason, how faith brought the dark ages and how the unparalleled powers of science led us all to the light, and how we don't need no God to cure polio or send a man to the moon, and so forth.  But none of this challenges the fact that it is nonsense to argue against the supernatural because it cannot be found directly via searching the natural world or that it is a simple begging the question fallacy to assume naturalism and from there show that it follows that the supernatural does not exist.  

The point I'm trying to make is that every idea and argument that you can think of in regards to the ontology of the supernatural (on both sides of the issue) has been thought of and studied & debated for centuries.  If some thought occurs to you while you are pressure washing the drive way, there are both arguments to make the idea more rigorous and counter arguments to the point (and likely many levels deep to the back and forth arguments and counter arguments).  It ridiculous to view the ontology of the supernatural as having a simple & certain answer based on unchallenged first notions.

Ok. So where is the evidence of anything supernatural? Until such a time that evidence is presented that can be tested and found to be credible and reproducible supporting the claim that anything supernatural does exist, there is no reason to take seriously the claim that anything supernatural exists or the people who proselytize the notion.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Ok. So where is the evidence of anything supernatural? Until such a time that evidence is presented that can be tested and found to be credible and reproducible supporting the claim that anything supernatural does exist, there is no reason to take seriously the claim that anything supernatural exists or the people who proselytize the notion.

If I were to tell you that a rock had a given mass, then the evidence that I could offer would be some measurement of the rock (weighing it on a balance scale, for example).  But what if I were to tell you that e^ix = cos x + i sin x;  what type of evidence can I give for this claim?  I can't offer any measurement of the physical world or any other physical evidence to verify the claim.  But what I could offer is a logical deductive argument assuming certain premises.  Such arguments are the basis of all logic and mathematics and are considered the type of argument that is capable of providing the most certain of all human knowledge.  

So for evidence of the existence of the supernatural I could give the following argument:

• (1)  An object is supernatural if and only if it is not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.  Υ(x) ⇔ ¬Φ(x)
• (2)  Numbers exist.  ∃x ℕ(x)  
• (3)  Numbers are not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.  ℕ(x) ⇒ ¬Φ(x)
• (4)  Therefore, something exists that is supernatural.  ∃x Υ(x)

Now you may take issue with this particular argument, but you cannot object to the use of this type of argument as evidence for a claim unless you are willing to throw out all logic and mathematics.  All arguments based in objective reason given for the supernatural will be of this type since by definition the supernatural cannot be measured, observed, or tested directly via physical means. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Guest

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1279]

19 hours ago, David Dennison said:

No wonder Pascal hedged his bets.

Also, does the chart above work if we replace "God" with "Santa Claus"?

Santa isn't as big a dick as "God."  Hasn't threatened anyone with eternal damnation, so the threat level is lower.  But I suppose the mental masturbation works just as well either way.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

6 hours ago, Aphelion said:

If I were to tell you that a rock had a given mass, then the evidence that I could offer would be some measurement of the rock (weighing it on a balance scale, for example).  But what if I were to tell you that e^ix = cos x + i sin x;  what type of evidence can I give for this claim?  I can't offer any measurement of the physical world or any other physical evidence to verify the claim.  But what I could offer is a logical deductive argument assuming certain premises.  Such arguments are the basis of all logic and mathematics and are considered the type of argument that is capable of providing the most certain of all human knowledge.  

So for evidence of the existence of the supernatural I could give the following argument:

• (1)  An object is supernatural if and only if it is not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.  Υ(x) ⇔ ¬Φ(x)
• (2)  Numbers exist.  ∃x ℕ(x)  
• (3)  Numbers are not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.  ℕ(x) ⇒ ¬Φ(x)
• (4)  Therefore, something exists that is supernatural.  ∃x Υ(x)

Now you may take issue with this particular argument, but you cannot object to the use of this type of argument as evidence for a claim unless you are willing to throw out all logic and mathematics.  All arguments based in objective reason given for the supernatural will be of this type since by definition the supernatural cannot be measured, observed, or tested directly via physical means. 

You can argue anything you like. It proves nothing and is not evidence of the supernatural. Claims made without evidence will be dismissed without evidence. It's that simple. Provide evidence and meet your burden of proof. Stop dancing around with bullshit. Nut up or shutup.

[Anastasis 23717]

5 hours ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

Santa isn't as big a dick as "God."  Hasn't threatened anyone with eternal damnation, so the threat level is lower.  But I suppose the mental masturbation works just as well either way.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

 

[David Dennison 19534]

6 hours ago, Aphelion said:

If I were to tell you that a rock had a given mass, then the evidence that I could offer would be some measurement of the rock (weighing it on a balance scale, for example).  But what if I were to tell you that e^ix = cos x + i sin x;  what type of evidence can I give for this claim?  I can't offer any measurement of the physical world or any other physical evidence to verify the claim.  But what I could offer is a logical deductive argument assuming certain premises.  Such arguments are the basis of all logic and mathematics and are considered the type of argument that is capable of providing the most certain of all human knowledge.  

So for evidence of the existence of the supernatural I could give the following argument:

• (1)  An object is supernatural if and only if it is not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.  Υ(x) ⇔ ¬Φ(x)
• (2)  Numbers exist.  ∃x ℕ(x)  
• (3)  Numbers are not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.  ℕ(x) ⇒ ¬Φ(x)
• (4)  Therefore, something exists that is supernatural.  ∃x Υ(x)

Now you may take issue with this particular argument, but you cannot object to the use of this type of argument as evidence for a claim unless you are willing to throw out all logic and mathematics.  All arguments based in objective reason given for the supernatural will be of this type since by definition the supernatural cannot be measured, observed, or tested directly via physical means. 

Do numbers exist without man? Does math?

Edited July 16, 2018 by David Dennison

[softlynow 1894]

7 hours ago, Aphelion said:

the supernatural cannot be measured, observed, or tested directly via physical means. 

Which means it either doesn't exist, or doesn't interact with this existence. Either way the supernatural is meaningless to our lives, and is pointless to talk about.

If there exists a god of any religion which alleges their god does shit here on earth, it or the results of its actions/interactions with humans are natural, and can somehow be measured, observed or tested. God doesn't seem to walk among us anymore, and serious people don't think volcanoes erupt, floods happen, or the sun disappears for a couple minutes because of a deity, but I suppose there could be a misdiagnosed schizophrenic or two. Philosophy games are for those without tools to prove their hypothesis, and really only have persuasive power. That power is waning, it seems.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

You can argue anything you like. It proves nothing and is not evidence of the supernatural. Claims made without evidence will be dismissed without evidence. It's that simple. Provide evidence and meet your burden of proof. Stop dancing around with bullshit. Nut up or shutup.

I gave an argument to support an assertion.  If the argument’s premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid) then the conclusion is true.  That’s the way they work.

The way to attack a logic argument is to either show that it is not valid or to demonstrate that one of the premises is not true.  Asking for evidence when an argument has been presented is not a valid type of refutation, nor is calling it bullshit.  

 

31 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Which means it either doesn't exist, or doesn't interact with this existence. Either way the supernatural is meaningless to our lives, and is pointless to talk about.

If there exists a god of any religion which alleges their god does shit here on earth, it or the results of its actions/interactions with humans are natural, and can somehow be measured, observed or tested. God doesn't seem to walk among us anymore, and serious people don't think volcanoes erupt, floods happen, or the sun disappears for a couple minutes because of a deity, but I suppose there could be a misdiagnosed schizophrenic or two. Philosophy games are for those without tools to prove their hypothesis, and really only have persuasive power. That power is waning, it seems.

Numbers are supernatural per the definition I gave in the previous post and numbers are very important and meaningful to our lives. 

Philosophy games are the tools to prove hypotheses.  This is true for all types of proof, even those of science.  A view of epistemology is the foundation of empirical science. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Guest

[blackmarketbaby 118]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Do numbers exist without man? Does math?

Maybe we could create a formula to calculate how dense you are? Not sure these servers could handle it though. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

15 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I gave an argument to support an assertion.  If the argument’s premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid) then the conclusion is true.  That’s the way they work.

The way to attack a logic argument is to either show that it is not valid or to demonstrate that one of the premises is not true.  Asking for evidence when an argument has been presented is not a valid type of refutation, nor is calling it bullshit.  

 

Numbers are supernatural per the definition I gave in the previous post and numbers are very important and meaningful to our lives. 

Philosophy games are the tools to prove hypotheses.  This is true for all types of proof, even those of science.  A view of epistemology is the foundation of empirical science. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

 

 

So... in other words you have no evidence. Cool story bro. I'll just go ahead and ignore you from here on out because you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion that is worthwhile.

[RayDog 682]

48 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Numbers are supernatural per the definition I gave in the previous post and numbers are very important and meaningful to our lives.

 

 

Numbers arise within a physical brain. They are not supernatural.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

39 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Numbers arise within a physical brain. They are not supernatural.

Is it faster chemical or electric?  Maybe it depends where you want to go.

[formermav43 4628]

8 hours ago, softlynow said:

Philosophy games are for those without tools to prove their hypothesis, and really only have persuasive power. That power is waning, it seems.

This is a remarkable statement. Good luck proving your hypothesis without philosophy (or, more accurately, employing it in ignorance).