ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Philosophy

Leibnizian & Kalam Cosmological Argument REFUTED - William-Lane Craig

Updated on February 17, 2014
What is the STUFF surrounding God, giving him FORM, and allowing him to move and cause the creation of SPACE???
What is the STUFF surrounding God, giving him FORM, and allowing him to move and cause the creation of SPACE???
What is the STUFF surrounding the supposed UNIVERSE OBJECT and giving it shape?
What is the STUFF surrounding the supposed UNIVERSE OBJECT and giving it shape?
Here is a reasonable illustration of William-Lane Craig's God.  He is creating Craig's surrealistic UNIVERSE OBJECT.  THINK: How can God move without a background??
Here is a reasonable illustration of William-Lane Craig's God. He is creating Craig's surrealistic UNIVERSE OBJECT. THINK: How can God move without a background??
Does space have a BOUNDARY where God can PEEK inside the Universe?  Can we cut through this supposed boundary? What is on the other side??
Does space have a BOUNDARY where God can PEEK inside the Universe? Can we cut through this supposed boundary? What is on the other side??
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!  Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you?  If so, then WHAT is outside the box?  WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

INTRODUCTION


I received a request from someone challenging me to debunk William-Lane Craig’s version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. I couldn’t care less for creationist arguments since they all die at the moment of their inception – i.e. the conceptual level. But I will do a very thorough analysis so that everyone understands just how ridiculous all Creationist arguments and theories are, whether peddled by Traditional Priests, or by Contemporary Priests like Lemaitre, Hawking, Penrose, Krauss, et all.

This article will clearly demonstrate in no ambiguous terms, the reasons why GOD DOESN’T EXIST; in the form of a detailed analysis accompanied by rational explanations. It’s important to realize that the objective here is NOT to “prove” or give “evidence” for why God doesn’t exist. Such endeavours are irrational and instantly debunked because they are based on emotions and opinions. So if you are looking for such nonsense, I suggest you join an Atheist Club.

This article will use the Scientific Method to analyze and rationally explain why Creation from God is impossible. In particular, it will explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to have existed before, during, and after the supposed event of Creation, and hence conclude that God (The Creator) does not exist.

This article is not meant to convert theists from their BELIEF that God exists, just as it’s not meant to convert atheists from their BELIEF that God doesn’t exist. But if both groups are particularly sensitive to this issue, I will warn them in advance to skip this article altogether. It is not my intention to rock the foundation of people’s faith, especially the faith of theists, atheists, and agnostics alike.





WHAT IS A RATIONAL ARGUMENT?


When it comes to creation, or any argument claiming to apply to REALITY, it had better be a rational one without any ontological contradictions. An argument that is objective and rational has NO provision for knowledge, wisdom, truth, lies, proof, absolutes, right/wrong, correct/incorrect, faith, belief, experiment, observations, evidence, testimony, credentials, authority, etc....as these are all OPINIONS whose resolution is dependent upon the subjective interpretations of an observer. Any statement, argument, or Theory about reality is either rational or irrational. It is either objective or it isn’t. It either has contradictions or it doesn’t. It either makes sense or it doesn’t. It can either be understood or it can’t. That is the only reliable basis by which we can possibly judge the multitude of claims made by the opportunistic and self-serving human species.


If such arguments:


- Use ambiguous, undefined, or misunderstood KEY terms.

- Reify concepts into objects.

- Propose objects with dualities (i.e. something is both an object AND a concept).

- Perform VERBS on concepts, rather than on real objects.

- Use concepts that perform VERBS.

- Rely on surrealistic or supernatural mediators for descriptions and explanations.

- Cannot be conceptualized and visualized as a movie on the big screen.

- Cannot be understood by the audience because they violate logic, grammar, reason.

- Embody ontological contradictions.


....then such arguments are IRRATIONAL, they are not objective, and they certainly cannot be understood by anyone, not even their author. They have no purpose other than to use deception to sway mindless followers in their favour.

I promise that I will be as objective as possible in my analysis of Craig’s argument. In fact, I will be so objective and analytical, that you will hate me!






THE LEIBNIZIAN COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT


Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was searching for some type of explanation for existence. He wanted to explain why anything exists at all. What was this “anything” that Leibniz was referring to? Well, according to William-Lane Craig, it was ‘the’ Universe. Craig agrees with Leibniz that God was that reasonable explanation for the existence of ‘the’ Universe. But merely asserting that God is THE explanation doesn’t make it so. An explanation must present all the ontological details demonstrating how it is possible for a being such as God, to move and “create” out of nothing, or out of Himself.

It should also be noted that Craig is an avid supporter of mainstream science and Big Bang Cosmology, as he authoritatively references them in his arguments. He claims that the Big Bang supports the “theistic” position of God’s first-cause creation, rather than the “atheistic” position of acausal creation. After I analyze Craig’s argument, I will proceed to explain why both the “theistic” and “atheistic” positions of CREATION are not only irrational, but are also the hallmark of lunacy!


William-Lane Craig has reformulated Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument in the following manner:



P1: Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

P2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.

P3: The universe exists

P4: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)

P5: Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4)*



*From William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (3rd ed.), 106.



In 1979 Craig published the Kalam Cosmlogical Argument (below), which is considered by theologians all over the world as one of, if not, the BEST Cosmological Argument. In fact, Craig has boasted that nobody has been able to refute his argument from the countless debates he has had over the years. But what Craig doesn’t boast about, is that he always turns down MY requests for a debate!


P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P(2): The universe began to exist.

P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.


The Kalam and Leibnizian arguments are similar in that they make the same irrational claim: objects BEGIN to exist, and in particular....the word “Universe” refers to an object that began to exist.

Why did Craig reformulate Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument? He wanted to formulate it into a logically sound and airtight deductive argument, where each premise logically follows from the previous one. He is delusional if he thinks that any logical argument, whether it is sound, valid, airtight or otherwise; somehow applies to nature’s reality. But what Craig hasn’t learned all those years as a Scholar, Logician, and Philosopher, is that logical arguments have nothing to do with nature’s reality. Nothing!!


Here is Craig himself boasting that his Leibnizian argument is so airtight, that it is unavoidable and MUST be accepted:

“Now this is a logically AIRTIGHT argument. That is to say, if the 3 premises are true, then the conclusion is UNAVOIDABLE. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if you have other objections to God’s existence. So long as you grant the premises, you HAVE TO ACCEPT the conclusion.” -- William-Lane Craig


You can view his presentation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36cKSRVojRE


Well Dr. Craig.....here is another example of a logically airtight deductive argument that you HAVE TO ACCEPT, even if you don’t like the conclusion:

P1: The human body is made up of cells.

P2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.

C: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.


P1 is true, and P2 is true.

Does the conclusion make sense even though this is a scholarly argument that is logically “airtight” according to Dr. Craig? YEAH RIGHT!!

In fact, almost ALL, if not all, logical arguments, no matter how logically airtight and logically unavoidable they are claimed to be,....have inherent fallacies built into them. These fallacies are “unavoidable” due to the artificial nature of logic, especially when rigging-up premises in order to obtain your desired conclusion. My argument above, and Craig’s cosmological arguments are no exception. Can you spot the fallacies in both? Keep reading and you’ll see how I expose the major fallacies and ontological contradictions built into Craig’s cosmological arguments.


REMEMBER: Nature is not based on systems of logic. Nature is NOT asserted axiomatically. Nature never went to school, never managed to acquire a Ph.D, and couldn’t care less about the petty logical, philosophical, religious, and mathematical arguments that humans prove to each other. Nature’s job is to perpetually move atoms from one location to another. As such, we can only rationally EXPLAIN nature’s events, and NOT inject our OPINIONS and EMOTIONS into nature.

As humans, we can only conceptualize nature’s reality. Then we must use language to exemplify reality into an objective, unambiguous, contradiction-free, and rational discourse that we can comprehend. If we cannot objectively comprehend Craig’s argument, or if it is based on contradictions, then it has nothing to do with reality.

As we unravel Craig’s argument, you will be SHOCKED to discover his irrationality in the most basic fundamental areas of Physics 101, especially the Scientific Method. You will be SHOCKED to discover that he doesn’t even understand that ‘cause’ is a verb, and that an object (wrapped by space) is necessary to mediate a causal action upon another object. You will be SHOCKED to discover that Craig is peddling irrational arguments which even “he” doesn’t understand. So how can YOU possibly understand them?


So let’s analyze Craig’s Leibnizian argument line-by-line, and as you shall see, we will refute not only the Leibnizian, the Kalam, and all cosmological arguments, ....but we will summarily refute ALL Creation arguments, including the Big Bang theory, in one fell swoop! Sounds too good to be “true”? Just keep reading....





DEFINITIONS:


We first start by defining the key terms which exemplify nature’s reality. We understand that nature is composed of objects (matter) and space (nothing). Without objects and their background of space, we can’t even begin to talk about reality. But ever since humans came on board and started communicating with formal language, they have also conceived of and expressed their concepts as “noun terms” in ordinary speech. Since we are trying to analyze Craig’s argument as objectively as possible, Craig will appreciate that we will avoid ordinary speech and focus instead on unambiguous scientific language. The following are unambiguous definitions for the key terms that will be referenced in this analysis.


Object: That which has shape.

Concept: A relation between objects;

Space: That which lacks shape; (synonym: nothing, void, vacuum).

Universe: A concept that relates objects (matter i.e. atoms) and space (nothing).

Location: The set of static distances to all other objects.

Exist: Physical presence (referring to an object that has location; synonym: real).



Theologians, Philosophers, Logicians, and Mathematicians are always under the impression that they have communicated their ideas effectively when in fact nothing of the sort has occurred. The presenter cannot have any idea of what he is talking about if he takes the KEY terms of his argument for granted. When he extrapolates the definitions of ordinary speech into a context, which he claims, applies to reality, he doesn’t even realize that a rigorous definition of the same key terms destroys his entire argument. Those who peddle such petty logical arguments have no idea what their terms mean, or how they apply to reality, or how important they are for an objective and rational discourse.

The reason why ordinary speech pervades all logical arguments, is because these people depend on poetry, euphemisms, metaphors, colloquialisms, emotion,....along with the deliberately-injected confusion of multiple ambiguous definitions. And all for the purposes of peddling their logical wares and proving everything under the Sun. But I will NOT let them get away with murder.....that I promise you! I am setting a criterion of utmost objectivity so that all of us can understand what we are talking about when we use such key terms as: ‘exist’, ‘object’, ‘space’.

Nonetheless, if the reader feels that the definitions of these key terms are too rigorous for their tastes, the onus is on them to provide their own unambiguous definitions that can be used consistently within their argument. In that case it would be extremely easy to identify any inconsistencies or contradictions associated with my terms above. A definition doesn't just become ambiguous or inconsistent because you or I say so. If it can be used in more than ONE context, it is ambiguous no matter what I or anyone else claims. If a term is ambiguous, inconsistent, irrational or contradictory, then it has no use in a rational argument, especially one that exemplifies nature’s reality.






WHAT IS GOD?


God is a Hypothesis: Let us “assume” God exists.

Without exception, this is what all theologians assume whenever they reference the word God. God cannot be proven to exist as it is impossible to prove that anything exists, like your right arm for instance, much less an assumed object, like God.

Since Craig makes vacuous reference to the word ‘God’, we must first unambiguously resolve whether God is an object or a concept. The big 3 Monotheistic Religions purport an ETERNAL anthropomorphic intelligent BEING which they have named God. God is assumed to be “The Creator” in an ontological situation where there was NO space, atoms or time before His Creation.

Since God is a ‘being’, He must necessarily have some type of structure. Without a doubt, He has the intrinsic property of ‘shape’ to give him,.....what else.....but FORM! Without form, God cannot possibly exist, as existence without form is impossible in ANY context. Why? Because He would otherwise be inseparable from the background that surrounds Him. He would blend and become continuous with, and actually “be” the background!

Regardless, God is often illustrated (see attached image) to have ‘shape’, so we will assume that for the purposes of Craig’s argument, that the above image is a “reasonable” illustration of God. So God is clearly an object, but this does not imply that God is visible. God can most certainly be invisible and extremely elusive, like the many real existing things in nature which are invisible and elusive to us. The issue here is: Can we conceive whether God is an anthropomorphic being, a rock, a cube, liquid, gas, etc. We can certainly conceive how an invisible atom looks like, right? So there is no reason whatsoever not to conceive of a reasonable depiction of God. Accuracy is irrelevant for our purposes, as God can be female for all we care.

The bottom line is that most theologians will tell you that God IS an anthropomorphic being; and that we are made in His image i.e. form. No complaints there.

Yet many others prefer to hide and protect their God in a veil of mystery, and thus will claim that God is one of the following concepts: spirit, infinite entity, transcendent being, dimensionless being, transcendent mind, incorporeal mind, intelligence, absolute truth, love, energy, force, force-field, quantum particle, space-time, etc. God CANNOT ontologically be ‘a’ concept. All concepts are artificial as they were conceived by man, and they do not exist in nature. No matter how hard He and His followers try.....God cannot elude being an entity with form i.e. an OBJECT!

For those who disagree that God is an ‘object’, then by necessity they concede that God is either ‘space’ or a ‘concept’ (both nothing), and doesn’t exist. Otherwise the onus is on them to rationally explain their position or provide a positively-predicated definition for God. And I am all ears if they wish to go this route.

Since we are able to point to, and conceptualize the God object (a necessary requirement for all objects), then we have reasonably enunciated Craig’s Hypothesis. This is effectively what Craig “assumes” or “hypothesizes” whenever he uses the word ‘God’. Note that the specific details and attributes of God are of no significance for the purposes of this presentation. The issue at hand is whether God is an object or a concept. And God MUST be an object for the purposes of Craig’s argument otherwise it he has no argument. So I am being very generous by elucidating Craig’s God Hypothesis, and avoiding, what could have been an instant self-refutation for Craig’s argument.





ANALYSIS of P1:


In reference to Anything that exists”, we must understand that only real objects which have the intrinsic property of ‘shape’, and the extrinsic property of ‘location’, can be said to ‘exist’. This is what gives them ‘form’ and ‘presence’ to perform causal actions in nature. There is nothing else in nature which can be said to ‘exist’. Those who disagree, should be able to conceptualize and demonstrate just one example of something which doesn’t have shape and location, but can rationally be said to exist.

Now this doesn’t mean that objects invisible to the human eye cannot exist. Air atoms exist and are invisible, even though they have shape and location, which allows the aggregated SURFACE of the atoms to come in contact with a tree and push it to the ground during a hurricane. Similarly, nature is composed of many invisible objects which are the mediators of phenomena such as: light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.

So clearly, existence has no dependency on what we can see or touch. Existence is observer-independent. Either something exists or it doesn’t, all on its own, and pursuant to the definition of ‘exist’; irrespective of what anybody claims. This is a black or white issue. There is no grey area, no probabilities, no experiments, no evidence, and no axiomatic systems of logic when it comes to the reality of nature. Existence is not a predicate, and not a property of real objects, as real objects already exist. The only intrinsic observer-independent property that objects have all on their own, is ‘shape’ – nothing else.



In reference to has an explanation for its existence”, it is irrational to claim that an object, any object, has an explanation for its existence. Existence and objects have nothing to do with explanations. We point to objects and name them. We formulate explanations of consummated events by using the objects as ACTORS in the explanation. Craig is definitely not a Scientist! He confuses a Hypothesis (assumption) with a Theory (explanation). Existence can never be a “Theory” in the Scientific Method; it can only be an assumption in the “Hypothesis” stage.

Existence can only be conceptualized by us humans; it can never be explained nor proven by any mechanism. It is IMPOSSIBE to prove that an object exists, as any such attempt will lead to observer-dependent subjectivity, absurdities, and contradictions. This is why existence can only be DEFINED, and NEVER PROVEN – because it is observer-independent!

If we can conceive of objects and illustrate them, then they certainly “can” exist in nature; as long as they are not embodied with ontological contradictions. Such hypothetical objects, like God for instance, will comprise the assumptions of the Hypothesis stage. Then the Theory will use these objects to rationally explain the claim of Creation, or Noah’s Flood, for example.



In reference to “either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause”, it is irrational to claim that existence is “caused”, externally or otherwise. Objects exist by the very nature of their atoms. Existence, and in particular, atoms, have no beginning and no end. Existence cannot be caused. Those who disagree are welcome to explain their grievances.

There is no such thing as ‘a’ CAUSE. Cause is a verb, it necessarily alludes to the motion of an already existing object. Cause is what ‘something’ does, not what something is. All verbs (creation, motion, cause, action) are predicated upon the existence of objects in space.

In order to CAUSE an event, there must necessarily be a real object which “mediates” causal action upon another real object. There are NO object-independent or even space-independent causal actions. Only real objects in space can possibly perform/mediate their causal actions upon other real objects by way of physical surface-to-surface contact. Without physical contact, it is impossible to mediate causes.

Craig is irrationally reifying the word “cause” from a concept (verb) into an object (noun) by referencing it as: ‘an’ external cause, all on its own....like ‘an’ apple. Concepts like “love” don’t move mountains or mediate actions, only objects like “bulldozers” can move mountains. He is introducing surrealism by treating “cause” as an independent thing/object which runs around the Universe performing events.

So clearly, in the present context of “external cause”, it is only possible for an object acting as a mediator, to physically ASSEMBLE a new object from other pre-existing objects (matter). Absolutely ALL verbs (causes/actions) require a physical object to mediate their action. This means that existence is a definite necessity and it precedes any cause/action.

It is impossible to realize any scenario where an object A, imparts causal action upon another object B, without at least 2 real objects, A and B, existing. Such notions are ontological impossibilities.


This means that in order for God to be able to perform an external causal activity, one or more objects MUST be present in addition to God. God cannot perform motion (cause) on nothing. The only option available to God is that He performs causal action on Himself! We will discuss this option below.


First and foremost, creation is a metaphysical contradiction. It defies rational thought. It's not a matter of "knowing" or “proving”. It is a matter of conceptualizing a rational mechanism by which an ontological scenario of no space and no matter, gives rise to space and matter. But since creation means “something from nothing” or a Universe from nothing, then it is an ontological contradiction as well, and as we shall see, it’s impossible.


But if creation means “something from God”, where God performs causal actions on Himself, then clearly, God MUST be an object from which all the matter (atoms) in nature came from – no exceptions! Let’s assume that God sacrificed a portion of his matter in order disperse it in nature. But BEFORE God can perform such a generous loving action, He MUST first meet one crucial criterion: GOD MUST HAVE SHAPE!

It’s irrelevant how powerful or invisible God is. If God is an object that moves (to perform causal actions), God cannot elude being surrounded by space. It is space that ultimately encloses God “the object”, grants Him form, and allows His structural being the freedom to move and perform actions. If God is an object residing outside of space, what medium does Craig propose that God moves through? What medium is it that contours and gives shape to God during those crucial moments when He has yet to create space and matter?

The medium can either be matter or space (nothing); there is no other option. If the medium is matter (any type of substance), then God would forever be frozen in a solid block of matter without the ability to move, or even think, as no displacement of matter is possible without space. If God wants to move, then space is the ONLY option which He can be surrounded with. Otherwise God is permanently immobilized.

Since space must necessarily enclose and contour God, this makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created space because space necessarily precedes Him. The God Hypothesis assumes God to be eternal, but space is already OMNIPRESENT AND ETERNAL! There is no other way about it. Space is there without God, but God can’t exist without space. Had it been possible for God to even attempt to escape this eternal omnipresent prison we call space, He would have lost His most precious superpower: FORM; and be reduced to nothing.

God can be as all-powerful as He wants, but since space doesn’t have a border, even He cannot cross that which has no boundaries. It is absurd to propose that God is outside of space (transcends it), looking in at space AND matter from a bird’s-eye perspective. Therefore, God cannot do without the background of space that grants Him form & being.

Q: For what would God be otherwise?

A: Nothing!


The theist can kick and scream all he wants that: “You can’t see, touch, hear, smell, or taste God. We can never know His greatness. God is something that goes beyond what you see and what you realize by physical observations.

But that’s NOT the issue. God can be as invisible and as elusive as He wants to be. Whether we are “blind” to His greatness is irrelevant! Since God is said to be SOMETHING rather than NOTHING, He is necessarily some type of entity with structure and shape that are irrelevant to our knowledge or understanding. Hence He has ‘form’ & ‘being’ all on His own, just as all entities do, otherwise He wouldn’t exist.


Since space is eternal and omnipresent, and God cannot exist without space contouring Him, it rationally follows that God did NOT create space!!!!!

So God is NOT all powerful as He is so blindly asserted by theologians and theists! Since Craig maintains that God “created” space, then this is clearly an ontological contradiction. Space is IMPOSSIBLE to create as it is omnipresent and necessarily wraps all objects. God MUST be IN space in order to move and perform causal actions, like “create”. God’s omnipotentcy is irrelevant....this particular magic trick He CANNOT do.....NO WAY!

Even still....how does one create ‘nothing’? What is it that they are going to create anyway? Space was already there! Neither God, nor a singularity, nor a primeval atom, can create that which is necessary to give them form and the ability to move.


Ontologically speaking, there are TONS of things which God cannot do, some of them are:

- God cannot make something be itself and NOT itself, at the same time, or even conceive of such a scenario.

- God cannot conceive of a square circle, let alone make one.

- God cannot conceive of parallel-intersecting objects, let alone make one.

- God cannot create something that has form and doesn’t have form, or even conceive of such a scenario.

- God cannot make discrete “causes” that perform actions. All causes are mediated by objects wrapped by space (verbs cannot “perform” events on their own, only objects can).

- God cannot perform causes, or even move and think, without the omnipresent background of space surrounding His being.

- God cannot, have shape and yet be shapeless at the same time.

- God cannot be an object and a concept.

- God cannot alter the speed of light.

- God cannot create time. Just like us, He can only “conceive” it.


So “omnipotence”, “transcendence”, and “eternal being” are clearly impossible for the God Hypothesis.

It is painfully obvious that the more we critically analyze God and His alleged creation, the more of His superpowers God loses. God is clearly humbled by space’s obsessive persistence to “omnipotently” wrap “omnipresent” nothingness around ALL objects, including Himself. Space has no border, no beginning and no end. So space forbids any object, including God, to transcend it. God cannot plead or bargain with that which is nothing (space). Omnipresent space couldn’t care less for authorities, idols, status symbols, or anything else that humans can conceive of.


And now that we have rationally explained WHY God cannot “transcend” space AND “create” space at the same time, since space preceded God, the natural question arises: WHO or WHAT CREATED GOD?

If there is a God, then God was definitely created “within” space. This means that matter necessarily preceded God. It had to, because space forbids God to be a ‘creator’. So if God is said to exist, then it follows that God was naturally ASSEMBLED by matter and not created from nothing. This means that matter is indeed eternal......and as for God.....He would just be a simple being, either like us, or some other life form. But God’s ontology is irrelevant. The key issue is that God would not be an eternal being, nor a Creator. God would be no different (purpose-wise) than any other living creature in the Universe.

Therefore these contradictions show the God Hypothesis to be INVALID in accordance with the Scientific Method. The God Hypothesis is invalid not because I say so. It is invalid because it is impossible for God to precede omnipresent space, which must necessarily contour Him. Consequently, God is not eternal, and the only way He could exist, is if He was naturally assembled from eternal matter. These ontological contradictions cannot be avoided in any conceivable creation context. This exact same argument summarily debunks the singularity, primeval atom, infinite mass point, etc. purported by its religious followers who BELIEVE that it gave “birth” to the Big Bang.

If Craig wants to salvage his God, then he needs to propose another God Hypothesis where God is not an “eternal creator” if He is to be an intelligent being like us. Then God would still have the freedom to write Bibles and pass them on to us. Otherwise, the moment God is conceptualized to be an eternal being; He instantly gets reduced to nothing more than an irrelevant being. I have rationally explained why an Eternal Creator is an ontological contradiction and therefore IMPOSSIBLE.


Therefore: P1 = FAIL




Remember: There are no ontological contradictions in nature’s reality. There can be no "new objects" that can be created from nothing, or from an assumed eternal Creator. And no objects can be annihilated into nothing. All objects are necessarily wrapped by the background of space before they can exist. An object cannot "begin to exist". Such notions are completely IMPOSSIBLE, as we have demonstrated above.


But Craig finds this notion absurd, and surely will PROTEST:


“....have I always existed? That is so absurd, to think that I never began to exist, even though the material stuff out of which I am made, existed before me....it’s just irrational....” -- William-Lane Craig


His comments can be viewed here at the 2:00 min mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeD_6Gq63Tk


Either Craig is not cut out to be a critical thinker, or he is equivocating by using the term ‘exist’ ambiguously in order to intentionally mislead us. He is misrepresenting the term ‘life’ with the term ‘exist’. We can say that Craig’s LIFE began at conception and ended at death, but the atoms that make up his body are eternally existent. Atoms cannot be created or destroyed. New objects can only be “assembled” from eternal atoms. The word “creation” implies “from nothing”. As far as nature is concerned, objects only ‘exist’ in PRESENT MODE. Nature is static and stateless – it has no memory. Nature does not know of any objects that ‘existed’ in the past or that ‘will exist’ in the future.

The Greeks had already reasoned and understood that existence does not have a beginning or an end. Parmenides said: there can be no such things as coming-into-being, passing-out-of-being or not-being”. Aristotle was the first to document an argument for the reasons why matter and space are eternal.


So under Craig’s context, at which point did Craig “begin” to exist? As an egg; at conception; as an embryo, etc? None! We can define ‘life’ as beginning at any such point. But the matter we are made from is eternally existent in present mode. The carpenter did not "create" the table; he just moved wood atoms around to “assemble” a continuous solid block of matter (object). Did the table “begin” to exist? No! The best we can do is establish a point where the table’s “assembly” began.


Religion has brainwashed humanity with the ILLUSION OF SEPARATION. Religion has forced upon humanity its doctrine of Discrete Objects and Discrete Concepts. It is irrational to think of reality as DISCRETE under any context. Reality can only be described as a ‘unity’ rather than a ‘multiplicity’. Reality can only be described as a “seamless continuum” rather than a subjectively sliced domain of sub-domains.

The boundaries that humans subconsciously project onto reality are NOT really there. Separation is ultimately an illusion. Reality is rationally described as an uninterrupted process which has NO beginning or end. No matter where we decide to draw the line for a beginning, it will always be an arbitrary decision on our part. Humans are in the habit of projecting their own subjective mental construct of consciousness onto their proceedings. In reality there is only a continuum of “causal actions” and “change effects”. The effects are not separated from their causes, and the causes are not separated from their effects. An object, like a human, never comes INTO existence, except as an illusion to an observer. Nothing in the Universe has a beginning or an end. The causal processes imparted on any specific object CANNOT be separated from the totality of continuous causal processes in the Universe. It’s only observers who conceptualize and incessantly slice up the continuum of reality into discrete objects and concepts. It takes an observer to decide where one event ends and another begins. The way in which humans subjectively delineate reality into discrete entities, is similar to how they delineate the Earth’s surface into lines of longitude and latitude, or even into boundaries between nations and states. Such notions are not part of reality, existence, or the Universe!

It is very useful for humans to slice up reality into discrete notions and use them in appropriate contexts within society. But we must not forget that the independentness of these supposed ‘discrete’ notions is only an ILLUSION projected by our own conceptions of these issues. But alas, people like Craig do forget, and end up making fools of themselves in public when they dogmatically assert that “objects begin to exist”. The boundaries and contracts we subjectively perceive in reality are “appearances” only! They are notions which are conceived by an observer with a particular kind of perspective. In Craig’s case, it would be the perspective of his Religion and agenda. Outside of this observer-dependent perspective, Mother Nature couldn’t care less – reality is always observer-independent!

The way in which humans carve up reality into beginnings and endings is so subjective and arbitrary, that we could have easily chosen to slice it up in a different manner altogether. But for the most part, we have chosen to slice up reality in a manner that is more natural and practical for cohabitating in societies where we have common goals and values. And this in turn directly affects the kind of reality that we “perceive”; unless of course, you are able to understand that the basis of these perceptions have no direct bearing on reality.


The important issue to understand here is:

Only concepts, like motion (verb) can have a BEGINNING (verb) or an ENDING (verb). Exist is not a verb, as it implies no motion/action. Exist is an “ADJECTIVE”, and in reality it describes that which is objectified by its static presence i.e. physically real. Exist does not predicate motion (causal action). Exist is STATIC and NOT dynamic!


So then how is it possible for Craig’s God to “cause” objects to exist? I will be happy to entertain ANY rational explanation on this issue. See First Cause Argument REFUTED for further details.

Craig gets an “F” in grammar. He doesn’t understand the grammatical scope, usage, and meaning of word ‘exist’. In particular, he doesn’t understand the difference between static concepts (object, exist), and dynamic concepts (causality, action, motion).


You can say: “the marathon began”, “the service began”, “his work began”....

But you cannot say: “the car began”, “his body began”, “the tree began”....

Sorry Dr. Craig, you really need to get an education not only in Philosophy, Logic, and Physics,.....but also in GRAMMAR!

Dr. Craig is not qualified to lecture or educate anybody on issues of ontology/existence, much less have an opinion on them.


It is painfully clear, that “knowledge”, “proof”, “evidence”, or “authority” (whether decorated by Ph.D’s or Nobel’s), has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of “creation”. The issue of creation is easily resolved and debunked at the conceptual level....no matter what the context!

Can you explain how something can be created from complete nothingness? Better still, please explain WHAT complete nothingness IS, if it is not space.

Nothingness cannot surreptitiously acquire Length, Width, and Height and form an atom. Atoms are eternal, they were neither created, nor can they be destroyed.






ANALYSIS of P2:


In reference to the universe has an explanation for its existence”, the word “Universe” refers to a CONCEPT, not an object!!

Concepts do not exist, and the only explanation they have is that they are artificially conceived by humans. We “conceive” the relation between space and matter, where matter has shape and location. This relation is what we call “UNIVERSE” – a concept! When using scientific language, there is no ‘the’ before this term, as it is not an object (noun) for the purposes of Physics. Anyone who says “the Universe”, is only treating it as a noun for the purposes of ordinary speech, and not scientific language. So it is irrational to treat the Universe as an object, or to perform actions on it like, “create” it or “move” it or “transcend” it.

Craig is using sleight-of-hand here to reify the concept “Universe” into the object he calls “the Universe”. Then he covertly performs the action of “create” to make this supposed object pop into existence (ie. “begin to exist” in his Kalam argument). This is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

Existence is circumscribed by nature’s reality which only includes objects within space. Nature has no provision for the artificial conceptions of human brains. So it is IMPOSSIBLE for this word, “Universe”, to resolve to any object that can be conceived or illustrated. Only objects exist. Space and ‘the’ Universe DO NOT exist! The nouns of Physics are all, without any doubt, objects, and not concepts. In Physics, it is irrational to claim that “the Universe exists”.

For those who disagree, the onus is on them to illustrate a rough diagram of an object they call Universe, or reference one on the Internet. Only then can they claim that such an object can possibly exist. You can illustrate an apple, a car, a ghost,....and even God! But any attempt to illustrate ‘a’ so-called “Universe object”, will always lead to absurdities and contradictions. Why? Because all objects have shape, and the backdrop for ALL objects, without any doubt, is SPACE! Space is omnipresent. This is the only way an object can exist. An asserted ‘shapeless’ object is an abstract concept which does not exist.

I have already debunked such nonsense as “Universe object” in my hubs on the Big Bang Religion.

So Craig’s argument FAILS at this point because ‘the’ Universe is not a discrete object that can be created by God, or assembled from eternal matter. What Craig has to demonstrate via a rational explanation, is that SPACE and ATOMS can indeed be created. He has no explanations. He only has irrational and surrealistic assertions.

So what is the “explanation” that Craig has given? None!


In reference to “that explanation is God”, part of his argument, since Craig provided NO explanation which uses the God object as an “actor”, to rationally account for the “existence” or “creation” of ‘the’ surrealistic Universe object, either “causal” or otherwise,....his argument FAILS miserably at this point.

Existence can neither be explained nor proven. Such notions are artificial, observer-dependent, and irrational. Existence is always defined so that we can unambiguously understand what it means: “to exist”. But the existence of objects is always assumed as part of one’s Hypothesis, so they can later be used as actors in an explanation of a Theory.

Objects, such as God, in and of themselves are never explanations in any context. They are only actors who perform causal actions upon other objects.

The actor (God) alone cannot be used as a vacuous explanation for the creation of ‘the’ Universe object, nor of ‘space’ and ‘matter’. Craig has already proposed the God Hypothesis. Craig’s Hypothesis has assumed the existence of God. But unfortunately he has NOT provided a Theory. The Theory is the EXPLANATION which uses the actor, God, to rationally explain how ‘space’ and ‘matter’ can possibly be created via this “external cause” which he asserts. Craig always uses science to give weight and authority to his arguments, but when it comes down to it, he eludes the Scientific Method by completely dodging the explanations which underlie his theoretical claims.


Therefore: P2 = FAIL



For those who wish to help out poor Craig, and salvage his reputation,......they can fill in the blanks of his Theory below. I will be very happy to entertain such an explanation.


Hypothesis: Assume God exists. For the exhibits stage of my hypothesis, I have illustrated God (image attached). The initial scene only includes God. There is NO space (nothing) and NO matter (atoms). There is no Universe.


Theory: I will now use God, from my Hypothesis, as a mediator/actor to rationally explain the creation of ‘the’ Universe, or space (nothing) and matter (atoms) as follows_____________________________________________



But before anybody is foolish enough to attempt to fill in the blanks, they should first read ANALYSIS of P1 in order to understand the lunacy inherent in Craig’s Creation argument. Since space is necessarily required to give God form & being, God cannot create space. If God wants to exist, then He is already in the eternal prison we call space, just like the rest of us. And if He does exist, then matter necessarily preceded Him, as He was ASSEMBLED from eternal atoms, just like the rest of us!






ANALYSIS of P3:


In reference to The universe exists”, the word UNIVERSE refers to a concept. So this statement has the same contradictions discussed above.


Therefore: P3 = FAIL






ANALYSIS of P4:


In reference to the universe has an explanation of its existence (from P1, P3)”,....NOT SO FAST!......ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED!!! Both P1 and P3 have failed.

But the reader is welcome to fill in the blanks for Craig’s missing explanation above.


Therefore: P4 = FAIL






ANALYSIS of P5:



In reference to the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from P2, P4)”,....NOT SO FAST!......ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED!!! Both P2 and P4 have failed.

But the reader is welcome to fill in the blanks for Craig’s missing explanation above.


Therefore: P5 = FAIL






CONCLUSION: EPIC FAIL!!


Craig has conveniently used the following sleights-of-hand as “loopholes” in his argument....


1) Begging the Question (“Why does the something exist instead of nothing?”),

2) Ambiguous terms (Universe, something, nothing, exists, external cause, explanation),

3) Unresolved objects (God, Universe),

4) Reification of concepts into objects (‘the’ Universe, ‘an’ external cause),

5) Contrary to reason, he claims that his God Hypothesis is an explanation,

6) Poetic and “unscientific” language (“explanation for its existence”, “external cause”, “explanation is God”, “The universe exists”, “something rather than nothing”)


These loopholes allow Craig to introduce dualities that fool you into believing that he has an “explanation” for existence,....specifically, that God is ‘the’ EXPLANATION for the existence of a surrealistic and impossible object he calls ‘the’ UNIVERSE.

This is pure LUNACY!


Logicians, Philosophers, Mathematicians, and Theologians are one and the SAME. They irrationally claim that a Hypothesis IS a Theory. They claim that a ‘singularity’ or a ‘God’ IS an explanation, when in fact; no such explanation has been provided to rationally account for their wild claims. And in order to peddle their silly opinions to their blind followers who are eager to swallow up this nonsense, they underhandedly introduce DULATIES in their arguments by purposely leaving the key terms which make or break their arguments, as undefined. If these key terms (object, concept, space, exist, Universe) are left undefined, then people are left to use their IMAGINATION and EMOTIONS to fill-in the blanks, and blindly accept the argument as proven truth in their hearts.

People need to understand the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory. Any object, such as God, can only be an ASSUMPTION in your Hypothesis. Craig must conceive of, and rationally explain HOW it is possible for an object like God, to create space and matter. Especially since any object, including God, necessarily requires SPACE to give it form and the ability to move. And this is in accordance with the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory), which Craig wholeheartedly supports. Otherwise, he is just making irrational assertions which belong in the garbage!

It is painfully obvious that Craig is unable to use language to express his argument in rational terms, or even illustrate his argument in a movie. Let’s assume that we can rewind the universal movie tape and arrive at the VERY FIRST bit of matter and space “allegedly” created billions of years ago. There should be no reason why we cannot go to the previous frames or to the first frame of that film, and conceptualize an explanation of how God could have done it. Who is he trying to fool with such nonsensical and contradictory assertions? Does Craig think that everyone will swallow this garbage without even thinking about it? That stuff just doesn't fly among critical thinkers.

Craig is not alone in this arena. Even the mainstream mathematical physicists are creationists themselves, because they were taught to parrot the irrational ideas of Priest Lemaitre, who envisioned the Big Bang as God’s creation. So Craig should not be arguing or debating with atheists, as the typical atheist is no different than a religious creationist! Atheists freely admit that God IS a “possibility”, but they need evidence (i.e. the opinion of an authority) in order to believe the God Hypothesis. A scientist doesn’t believe in a Hypothesis. A scientist uses the objects of his Hypothesis to provide rational explanations of clams. Craig and the Big Bang apologists have failed miserably to provide a single rational explanation for their claim of Creation. And they know they can’t, because the they are proposing surrealism and ontological contradictions which are impossible in nature.


Creation, whether from a God, a singularity, or from nothing (ex nihilo), is IMPOSSIBLE because:

1) Creation is an action requiring motion. Only objects which are surrounded by space, can act as mediators for motion (actions). Thus matter AND space precedes ALL actions, including Creation!

2) God and the Big Bang singularity cannot create space since they both need the background of space in order to exist.

3) God cannot transcend space when space has no borders to cross. Space is borderless, shapeless, non-finite, non-physical, unbounded....it is nothing!


It’s very easy to demonstrate and understand why the irrational claim of Creation is pure BUNK!

But yet Creationists (Theologians & Big Bang Apologists) continue marching forward with their nonsense, oblivious to the impossibility of their position, and just for the sake of tradition and saving face. Nature doesn’t care about human tradition. Nature doesn’t care if humans are too embarrassed to admit that they didn’t have a clue when they made up this “creation” nonsense 2500 years ago. Nature just keeps going about its business.

Nature ensures that atoms can’t lose their shape, and that they always have location. It also ensures that space cannot acquire shape. Nature has no miracles, no magic, and definitely no contradictions. If you have to invoke any of these 3 irrational methods to justify your assumptions, then you are elucidating that you haven’t thought of the problem critically, and that you haven’t understood the ramifications of your assumptions. A contradiction always implies that we, as humans, have taken the easy way out by forming an invalid hypothesis and an irrational explanation. And Craig has clearly demonstrated that with his irrational arguments. He should be ashamed to portray himself as a “Logician”, a “Philosopher”, and a “Scholar”, when he didn’t even use an ounce of grey matter to think through his arguments, before pushing them to the public.

Nobody can conceive, understand, and illustrate in a movie the creation of space & matter being created by a God, a singularity, a primeval atom, or from nothing. Nobody can imagine a square circle, creation, annihilation, or objects/entities without form or without space, much less be qualified to discuss it. These contradictory ideas can only remain in the realm of fantasy, lunacy, and the irrational – they belong in the trash!






Leibniz: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”


First,....the natural response to such a question is: What is “nothing”? Is it the absence of ‘space’ and ‘matter’, as Craig and his creationist buddies who believe in the Big Bang Religion, assert?

Space is ALREADY nothing! You can’t create space from space. As we’ve demonstrated, Creation is not only contradictory and impossible, but it’s pure lunacy.

Homework: Please conceptualize and explain for me what ‘nothing’ means in the context of “the absence of space & matter”. Come back and post your explanation of how space is “different” from nothing.



Second,....such grand cosmic questions beginning with WHY, already presuppose PURPOSE. They are logical fallacies because they implicitly assume the answer within the question itself. This is a classical example of Begging the Question.

Why is there matter in the first place? Where did the matter come from? Why is matter & space created? Why is nature fine-tuned to support life?


It’s like asking: “Did you stop beating your spouse?” The answer is already presupposed in the question itself. Leibniz’s question is already invoking an intelligent being that created space & matter for a purpose,....to support human life!

So I would like to ask these Devil’s Advocates the following question: Can you CONCEPTUALIZE and describe for us the scenario where there is no matter AND no space??

Just what exactly is this ‘nothingness’ they speak of? How can this situation be even ontologically possible? The notion of no space and no matter is an ontological impossibility. Such a notion can’t even be pondered in the realm of abstract mathematics. What can they put in their equations....nothing?


Mother Nature does not ask irrational WHY’s. Nature is static; it has no state, no memory, no time, and no opinions. Nature just makes sure that every single atom has SHAPE and LOCATION. As far as nature is concerned, matter EXISTS at the cutting edge of natural events; it only exists in the present. By using shape & location to ensure existence, nature also ensures that atoms cannot escape space (no boundary), and cannot convert into space (lose Length, Width and Height), and that the amount of matter in the universe remains constant (space cannot acquire Length, Width and Height).



So here is how we rationally put Leibniz’s, Craig’s, Big Bang’s, and all creationist arguments to rest:


1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.

2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.

3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.

4) Space is formless, shapeless, unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing!

5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object. Existence without space is impossible!

6) There is NO object that can occupy all of space, or enclose space - including a supposed “Universe object”.

7) Matter cannot escape or “transcend” space, because space has no boundary. There is no structure, surface, or edge to cross. We are all trapped in “here” (space) for eternity.

8) The Creationist’s assumed scenario where there once was no matter AND no space is inconceivable and ontologically impossible.

9) If there is a God, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even He can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of and NO cracks to slip through. So He'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Formless & borderless space humbles the most arrogant of gods, even the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it – it’s impossible! We have “free will” because God does not, as even ‘He’ cannot escape this prison ‘He’ is credited for building. So if God exists, He is just another insignificant being that satisfies the human involuntary compulsion to worship....He may very well be Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, or some Hollywood Celebrity. Mindless beings are obsessed with worshipping conceptually-important (authoritative, celebrity, idol) characters.


Therefore, we rationally conclude that matter & space are ETERNAL. God and the Singularity are Hypotheses that die at inception!

a) The God Hypothesis of the big 3 monotheistic religions is invalid not only because it leads to absurdities and contradictions, but because it is ontologically impossible for it to be used in a Theory to rationally account for the Creation of space and matter.

b) The Religion of the Big Bang is absolutely NO different than that of God’s Creation, sans the intelligent being. The Big Bang hypothesizes a 0D singularity having no Length, Width, or Height, and definitely no background to contour it and give it form and existence. This 0D singularity supposedly created not only space and matter, but an artificial concept known as ‘spacetime’. So it is even MORE surrealistic and irrational than any Hypothesis that has ever been conceived by any religion!


The nonsense of Creation under the guise of God, the singularity, or by ANY other mechanism has been put to rest. It is impossible. We’re done!


Nature had no beginning and will have no end. Rocks, gases, stars and atoms recognize no past or future, which are conceptions of a human brain. Nature only functions in PRESENT MODE, and as such, nature is effectively the only perpetual recycling machine – it is non-entropic! Atoms have no ability to rub their elbows against space, grind to a stop, and die. They float in space and interact with each other eternally. God cannot create atoms from scratch. And as such, even He cannot alter the eternal activity of atoms.







MY CHALLENGE TO YOU!


For those who disagree, you are free to refute any of the points 1 to 9, or conceptualize for me the creation of matter in any way that you can imagine. Or better still, please conceptualize for me the creation of SPACE!

a) For the Traditional Theists, explain how God can exist without that which gives Him form i.e. space, and yet be able to create space.

b) For the Contemporary Big Bang Theists, explain how your singularity or “whatever you wish to call it”, can exist without that which gives it form i.e. space, and yet be able to move…..go BANG!....EXPAND…...and create space.


These are the tough questions we ask in physics.

So, the ball is in your court, and you need to rationally explain your case. I have already justified why you cannot conceive of, or even imagine the creation of matter and space.

In reality, ‘something’ either has shape or it doesn't. There is NO grey area. God and the Singularity cannot have, and not have, shape simultaneously. God can be invisible like air or like gravity. But even air and gravity are mediated by invisible objects which have shape.

The “burden of explanation” shifts to those who argue that God can or does exist outside the Universe. They need to rationally explain that space has boundaries (i.e., that space is a physical object with shape). Only then can we conceptualize that space is capable of being ‘transcended’ and exited. Does God convert from noun to verb, from structure to action, from finite to incessant when He departs space? What is the meaning of the phrase ‘God exists’ in the context of ‘transcendence’? How does God exist outside of space if He has no form? These are the questions proponents of a transcendent God must answer.



My challenge to all Theists, including Big Bang Apologists, is to provide a physical mechanism that we can all conceptualize, visualize, and understand. A mechanism that we can all watch unfold as a movie on the big screen. And you will have to start from frame #1, and show how NO space and NO matter, can morph into space and matter, or however else you imagine the 'creation of space & matter'. I don't want to put any words in your mouth or influence your thoughts in any way. Be as 'creative' as you want.



REMEMBER: ALWAYS THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

It's religion at its worst when someone blindly believes in authority without asking for an explanation. But don’t feel bad, as not even the proponents of these irrational arguments can understand or explain what they are saying. They don’t have the slightest clue. But they are crossing their fingers and hope that you believe them!





Comments

Submit a Comment

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    ‘I was once one of these people, once as a theist and then as an atheist!’

    Nothing to be ashamed about....everybody starts somewhere. The important thing is to always think critically and understand all the arguments (including those of the opposition). Only then can you make a rational decision as to whether your current position makes sense or not.

    ‘As an atheist though, I did start to realize why so many concepts weren't being defined by both atheists and theists’

    Because if they defined, they would automatically undermine the comfort blanket they’re always carrying with them. Most people just cannot let go....won’t let go...no matter what. There are examples of this almost daily in my comments section. Just recently....from a proud atheist who believed there was such a thing as ENERGY or MASS. The slightest research would have shown this individual that the High Priests of Mathematical Fizzics have already decreed these 2 terms to be bunk!

    ‘I have been posting many of your hubs for people to read, and I've been asking them to leave comments if they disagree. I haven't seen many new comments though, probably because they realize they don't have much to offer.’

    LOL, thanks for spreading the word. I have been doing the same, but when people read the material here they realize that they cannot justify their belief in the Big Bang, wave packets, 0D particles, black holes, warped space, dilated time, energy, spacetime, and all that mystical religious stuff. I mean, plenty of these folks don’t even understand the difference between an equation and a regular math statement. They don’t even understand that a ‘derivative’ is just a concept. They don’t understand the diff between an object & concept. So yeah.....they can run their mouth, but cannot put their money there.

    Glad to hear you find my articles useful. Thanks for your comments, Ricardius.

  • Ricardius profile image

    Ricardius 4 years ago

    Fatfist, Isn't it amazing how atheists and theists have so many of the same arguments? I was once one of these people, once as a theist and then as an atheist! As an atheist though, I did start to realize why so many concepts weren't being defined by both atheists and theists, but I still fell right in with the crowd that took so much for granted on such terms. Thank goodness that my critical thinking and skepticism kicked in though, and after reading your hubs, the light really came on! I have pissed off so many of these folks lately that are given to superstition and magical thinking. They are completely befuddled when I explain their faulty reasoning. Anyway, I have been posting many of your hubs for people to read, and I've been asking them to leave comments if they disagree. I haven't seen many new comments though, probably because they realize they don't have much to offer.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    @Yourreasonable,

    Sorry...forgot to ask: There is an idiot called Andre Jacobs who makes similar posts like you. In fact, he uses the EXACT same arguments as you!

    This asshat claims to live inside the Universe (a concept), but that it is impossible to live inside a forest (an object). He claims that forests are not objects.....and Robin Hood does not live inside a forest, but rather, inside a friggin' tree for Christ's sake! He believes the following are not objects either: tables, chairs, pens, cars, houses, stars, planets, etc.because they are made from atoms.

    Q: Is Andre Jacobs your brother or a relative?

    If not, then I apologize for the kin comparison. Andre Jacobs is in fact an atheist and this alone explains why he has the EXACT same arguments as you. You two have a lot of soul searchin' to do.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Yourreasonable,

    “God is NEVER EVER proposed of being in Space”

    Of course not. Space is not an object. There is no such thing as space. Any entity, including God, can only be inside another entity, like in your mom’s Tupperware, for example.

    “God is not IN the universe.”

    Bingo again! You and me are not “in” the universe either. You see, the universe is a concept....a relation. It is impossible for objects to be INSIDE concepts. I am glad you understand that it is impossible to put an apple inside justice or inside love or inside running.

    Universe: a concept relating space (nothing) and matter (atoms).

    Objects, like you, me and God, cannot possibly be inside concepts. You are quite the smart guy....kudos :-)

    “The universe is IN God.”

    Ooops! I spoke to soon.....I take my last compliment back.

    How can the universe, which is a concept, be INSIDE an object, like God??

    Can you please put justice or happiness inside a box and mail it to me?

    You really need to go back to Junior Kindergarten and learn the difference between an object and a concept before you use your mom’s laptop to engage in adult discussions and make a fool of yourself all over the Internet, ok?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Thanx for the disclaimer Yournotreasonable, I was able to ignore the rest and save my precious time for something else!

    "THIS IS JUST SO CONFUSED, BOORISH, AND SMACKS AS A CHILD WHO JUST STARTED TO LEARN HOW TO REASON AND THINKS HE HAS IT ALL FIGURED OUT AND IS NOW CRAVING ATTENTION SO I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF."

  • yourreasonable profile image

    yourreasonable 4 years ago

    THIS IS JUST SO CONFUSED, BOORISH, AND SMACKS AS A CHILD WHO JUST STARTED TO LEARN HOW TO REASON AND THINKS HE HAS IT ALL FIGURED OUT AND IS NOW CRAVING ATTENTION SO I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF.

    Man you lack imagination. Thankfully you will grow and will be embarrassed by this later in life. Dont worry..many of us were like this when younger. I may have been worse

    Paul said "we live, move, and have our being in God".

    All we know is the physical world... that is bound by Time and enclosed in Space and we cant help but limit our imagination to OUR TYPE of existence.

    Even though we all dream entire worlds every night that are composed merely of Thought ! A space We create where objects have substance, speech is heard and things are seen that have no concrete existence apart from You sustaining them by your very Will.

    One theologian said physicists are like the cartoon character looking for the clues to the illustrator in the cartoon world. I think of the actors in your dream trying to find You sleeping in your bed. The apostle Paul again---"we live, move, and have out being IN God".

    YOU'RE LOST IN THE CARTOON WORLD BUD. You have boxed yourself in like an infant in the womb telling everybody how stupid they are for thinking there is something else besides your mommys belly.

    Matter is eternal. What utter infantile nonsense.

    It makes complete and logic sense that the answer that best fits the physics of design, probability, the morality and freewill we feel, and the testimony we have shows that the Universe is created and sustained by God Eternal Thought. He is not bound by time and everything you're saying is so concrete has zero material substance to the REAL ground of reality and existence--God.

    That although we feel rocks are hard and yellow is bright-----to God, they are not. They have no more substance or perception than we have in dreams. Everything..even the notion that " I think, therefore I am" are given to us by the only one who actually has true self actualized existence and God has given each of a place to exist in his thought, to be free to reveal exactly who we are to him, without coercion, and with just enough proof through creation and testimony to seek him out and just enough doubt to say its all nonsense. Leaving only those who truly love the idea of his majesty and humility shown through Christ to turn to him and those who dont to feel perfectly free of coercion rejecting him.

    God is not in the universe. The universe is in God. He is pure thought so this talk of spacial boundaries is just ludicrous. You've got the whole thing backwards and have propped yourself up thinking you just outwitted some of the greatest thinkers in history? Come on dude

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Jose,

    “if you are denying time, are you then denying there is change?”

    Well, now you have made a claim using this very crucial term you call “time”. So it is paramount that we understand this term before we can determine if your statement makes sense.

    Time is a scalar quantity used for quantifying motion (ie. measuring the interrelated movement of objects). It doesn't slow down, speed up, dilate, contract, bend, warp, shrink, expand, etc. any more than a meter shrinks or expands. Only the object being measured can speed up, slow down, dilate, shrink, or expand.

    Time necessarily requires an observer: time = motion + memory

    Time is a concept that is defined by change, or cause & effect. Time is a verb. No physical object is subject to time. Time is a figment of the imagination of a living entity and nothing more. Time is NOT a part of Physics or of Science. It belongs exclusively to the religion of Mathematics.

    If there was only the Sun and the Earth in the entire universe, and they had no motion, then humans would not be able to conceive of time as we use it today. One side of the Earth would always be day and the other always night. So humans would need to devise a different “counting mechanism” in order to segment BEFORE and AFTER events for the purposes of organizing their lives. The “second” they would implement in such a situation would come from a computerized “counter” which counts, say, 3 of our current seconds.......or even 1/1000. It would be arbitrary and subject to vote by some authority. It has absolutely nothing to do with nature or reality. It would be a convenient standard that is conceived, implemented, and “enforced” by humans. Time is artificial; a concept necessarily predicated on a sentient observer with memory.

    If we are going to use “motion” to quantify time, then we need a minimum of 3 objects - no less. Two objects could be the Earth and the Sun, where one moves relative to the other. The third object would be an observer with MEMORY......like a human who counts, or a computer that keeps a running total of the “ticks” from arbitrarily-defined seconds.

    “all events are fixed and timeless like they apear so on a strip of a movie?”

    Events are activities that are mediated by objects; i.e. the meteor collided with the Moon. They have absolutely nothing to do with time.

  • profile image

    jose1986 4 years ago

    Hi again, I was hoping you could give a example of what it is you mean, i have not fully grasped what you said, it would please me to digest the whole discussion above but that would probably take me weeks!

    but correct me if im wrong the jist I got from the discussions above are as follows, if you are denying time, are you then denying there is change? so very much like the film anology, all events are fixed and timeless like they apear so on a strip of a movie? and the motion is merly are sensation?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    IDK Jonathon, seems the best way to refute that argument is NOT to argue it. Creation is impossible. Why accept the premise "whatever exists has a cause..."???

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Jonathan, you are talking about Big Bang.....so I have no clue what to make of your article. There was no creation. Creation is the Hallmark of Religion. The Universe is eternal.

  • profile image

    Jonathan Pearce 4 years ago

    Hi guys, would be interested to see what you think about this, my first kca post taken from my upcoming paper:

    http://www.skepticblogs.com/tippling/2012/09/10/th...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Sorry, Jose.....I am not familiar with any theory on time. Time is a dynamic concept, not a theory. Time is the metric of object motion. Time is dependent on memory to keep track of previous locations of an object, or to keep a tally of predefined "ticks".

    By static, we mean that the universe has no memory system. Every single object in the universe is in the cutting edge of existence - the present. Objects only have location. They are either here or there....not in 2 locations at the same time. Events are are not fixed (whatever that means). Events are mediated by objects. Objects are in perpetual motion....there was no start, and there will be no end. We can think of the universe as the only perpetual motion machine (analogy of what I said above). The universe is eternal....no beginning, no end.

  • profile image

    Jose1986 4 years ago

    Fat Fist

    Have I understood you correctly, do you hold that there are no such things as tenses, and everything is static and all events are eternally fixed and occuring like on a film real? bascially the B theory of time.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Agree to what? That a "lack of belief" in God is actually just another obfuscated way to say that one has a Religion?

    Yeah, I will agree to that!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Why come here for agreement?

    I'm sure there are plenty of bobbleheads nodding and patting each on the back where you are from!

    FF, please ban that guy for having such a long hyphenated name!

  • profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago

    Do you agree with me or not in whole or in part?

    @Carneades-Georgia, I'm going now to let Aquinas boomerang on himself!

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    I invite you and others to see me in action as Griggsy @TheologyWeb. I've many threads there. Oh, some there have a reading problem!

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    I don't troll!

    He's a kid=child alright.

    See you at those blogs of mine sometime,please!

    Yes, no creation!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    FatFist, Please ban Prometheus just for the hell of it.

    ;)

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

    Boring

    Fatfist quick ban monkeyminds and Carneades for trolling.

    "Jesus is truth, People follow the path of Constantine instead of Jesus. And they claim they follow Jesus lol."

    Me

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Well, I don't really like fruit salad. It's a strange mix for me.

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    Oh, such delicious,healthy salad! So that is the kind of stuff I read from philosophers. You restate my salad with the addition of gnostic atheist.

    For ignosticism, one can Google lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham as well as ignosticism itself.

    In brief, God lacks referents as Creator and so forth and thus cannot be Himself and as He'd have incoherent,contradictory attributes, He cannot exist. Michael Martin in " Atheism: a Philosophical Defense" and Nicholas Everitt in " The Non-Existence of God," make incompatibility arguments against Him that show His factual meaninglessness. And Teodore Drange makes such arguments in his book.

    Oh, my hubs give the fuller account about His lacking referents.

    We gnu atheists just engage in the public square with a no nonsence approach.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    That was a great deal of word salad, there Carnie, but I have no idea what you just said!

    Hard atheist; also called gnostic atheist- knows there is/are no god(s).

    Soft atheist; also known as agnostic atheist-doesn't know, but thinks there is/are no god(s).

    Gnostic has to do with knowledge and a'theism' has do with (not) believing, therefor an agnostic atheist doesn't know, but does not believe there is/are god(s). 'Doesn't know' because he/she admits there may be a god (outside of his/her knowledge and understanding) and does not believe in your particular god(s).

    An ignostic atheist says, "while the concept of god(s) are meaningless, it is likely there are no gods.

    What is YOUR definition?

    This Hub simply says that creation is not possible, no religious position is taken whatsoever.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    That was a great deal of word salad, there Carnie, but I have no idea what you just said!

    Hard atheist; also called gnostic atheist- knows there is/are no god(s).

    Soft atheist; also known as agnostic atheist-doesn't know, but thinks there is/are no god(s).

    Gnostic has to do with knowledge and a'theism' has do with (not) believing, therefor an agnostic atheist doesn't know, but does not believe there is/are god(s). 'Doesn't know' because he/she admits there may be a god (outside of his/her knowledge and understanding) and does not believe in your particular god(s).

    An ignostic atheist says, "while the concept of god(s) are meaningless, it is likely there are no gods.

    What is YOUR definition?

    This Hub simply says that creation is not possible, no religious position is taken whatsoever.

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    Ah, the non-ignostic position means that God is factually meaningless whilst semantically meaningful. Now, verification means in principle that matters can be verifiable so that it obviates the point that why, were verification trust-worthy then no one would have bothered with modern physics; such are in principle verifiable whilst God is not in principle verifiable but instead ineffable and according to apophatics He is not this, not that so we ignostics find Him not anything whatsoever.

    The Carneadean probability applies without applied ignosticism. My kind infuses naturalist arguments in that as each argument evaporatesHe loses another referent until He is nill, but one can put that aside. Michael Martin has the ignostic point as strong [positive] atheism whilst weak [ negative] atheism doesn't rely on ignosticism, just being a lack of belief, the fall-back position for some.

    Carneades-Georgia pertains to all this. My other hubs reflect the same way of thinking.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Level 2 Commenter

    Carnedeas said:

    "Yes, we ignostics/igtheists rightly proclaim that no God can exist! This is by analysis, not by dogma, and none have to traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience themselves!"

    Monkeyminds says:

    Interesting choice of words. An ignostic atheist typically says, "while the concept of god(s) are meaningless, it is likely there are no gods.

    Drange aside...

    By definition, you can not boldly claim that god can not exist and at the same time claim it is likely there are no gods. If you have redefined ignostic atheist, please post it here, for all to see.

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    We ignostics/igtheists cannot be theists, as monkeyminds notes. Theists cannot square that circle nor instantiate a married bachelor! My ignosticism pervades my atheism unlike what Ayer or Drange say about ignosticism. As He lacks referents as Grand Miracle Monger and so forth,He cannot exist and thus here we do defeat a universal negative!

    Over @ TheologyWeb @ the thread the ignostic-Ockham, I further eviscerate that universal negative as Griggsy. My thread there arguments about God puts forth my very own explicit arguments that others implicitly make and also others' that I name.

    This information is to encourage others to find other sources to buttress their arguments- theistic or atheistic about the cosmological arguments, not for promotion that I can do @ my non-hubspages blogs.

    Carneades-Georgia blog here hasi nformation on them.

    Yes, we can trust many monkeys' minds!

    Daniel Flinke @ his Camels with Hammers considers this topic.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Now that I think about it an ignostic thesist would say, "While the concept of god is meaningless, I believe in this particular god anyways.

    Probably the most illogical of all belief systems!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    "Yes, we ignostics/igtheists rightly proclaim that no God can exist! This is by analysis, not by dogma, and none have to traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience themselves!"

    Interesting choice of words. An ignostic atheist typically says, "while the concept of god(s) are meaningless, it is likely there are no gods, an ignostic deist says, "While the concept of god(s) is meaningless, it is likely that there is a god that started the universe but does not actively meddle with it or us.

    And I suppose an ignostic theist would say, "While the concept of a god is meaningless, it is likely that there is a particular god that started the universe"

    ....although I have never heard of ignostic theist..

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    "Yes, we ignostics/igtheists rightly proclaim that no God can exist! This is by analysis, not by dogma, and none have to traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience themselves!"

    This is the idea behind my articles. But I don't make any proclamations. I take the theistic hypothesis God and the claimed theory of creation and I rationally explain why God is impossible.

    Feel free to distribute or link my articles wherever you like.

    thanks for your post, Carneades.

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    My notes fail me to put down the right addresses in some cases.

    Thank you for your invaluable blogs!

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    The second one requires a different address. Also http://ignosticmorgansblog.wordpress.com where my important article on why Yahweh in particular and God in general cannot exist.

    http://lordrussell.tumblr.

  • Carneades-Georgia profile image

    Carneades-Georgia 5 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

    Fatfist, you should post @Prosblogion, where sometimes I post and where philosophers do post!

    This article begs wide distribution, for which I'm going to help by reblogging it my WordPress blogs.

    Reichenbach's argument from Existence, the argument from physical mind, McCormick's on why God cannot think, Lamberth's the ignostic -Ockham argument and Coyne-Meyer-Lamberth the atelic/telenomic argument go with it. All these together and singly eviscerate all theistic arguments.

    You would honor Carneades-Georgia hubs.

    Yes, we ignostics/igtheists rightly proclaim that no God can exist! This is by analysis, not by dogma, and none have to traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience themselves!

    http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com

    http://skepticgriggsyonscams.wordpress.com

    http://buy-bull.posterous.com

    For fuller analysis Google lamberth's naturalist arguments about God.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Alan,

    This is your lucky day. Bill just released 2 new videos discussing the architecture of the atom and BACKGROUND RADIATION.

    Part 1:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgLxjeAPJVo&fea...

    Part 2: Background radiation explained at 7 minutes:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHnS2Qi6hvY&fea...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Alan,

    It's all about math. The mathematicians have the reins of control in science. They are the High Priests. Dare to question anything they say and you are deemed a heretic...a CRANK..and worthy of being burned at the stake. Mainstream science today is no longer the sharing of ideas....it's no longer an intellectual exchange between peers. It's a religion and operates the same.

    Math is a descriptive language which deals with dynamic concepts only. Physics has to do objects. Without objects, you can't even begin to do physics.

    Even if they give up and say the boson does not exist, they will invent the "Dark Boson", which is what actually eluded them. Then they will ask the taxpayers for 20 Billion dollars so they can research the Dark Boson. This is what they've been doing for over 100 years at the math club. They will never go back to the drawing board and begin to do real physics. They have invested too much $$ and time into the religions of Relativity, Quantum and String Theory. They will never drop them....they will only invent more nonsense to use as excuses to keep marching forward.

    They hate Thread Theory because it threatens their careers. Thread Theory puts the religion of math fyzics to shame. Thread Theory proposes real objects as mediators for natural phenomena, such as light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.

    Remember, only objects can perform events in nature....only objects can come into surface-to-surface contact with other objects and mediate natural phenomena. Concepts and spirits can't do that.

  • profile image

    Alan 5 years ago

    Can we look forward to the day when main stream science stops letting math tell them everything about reality? At the end of the year CERN will have found the Higgs Boson or they will tell the world it does not exist. When they do find it, can we "hope" that they will acknowledge the lies and go back to the drawing board?

    Why do so many scientist try to debunk this thread theory?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    EM threads crisscrossing the U.

  • profile image

    Alan 5 years ago

    Fatfist

    what is the microwave background radiation? I know scientist talk about cold spots or bruising, and theorize the multiverse. Bullshit? What is the picture of microwave background radiation showing?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    If yer gonna speak Engrish, you need to learn Texican. It's Okey Dokey!

  • profile image

    Bojing Changming 5 years ago

    monkeyminds

    I wun to come to USA an learn Engwish from Faafist. He soo good at word an disco party here. Yoo funny guy monkeymine. Monkey brain is good fo you not in mind but my brotha make special cook time in wok with brain and sing song. Faafist teach you grasshoppa good engwish talk. I come USA sune, okee dokee.

    zài jiàn

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Yeah, you make some pretty good sense there (for a shoe shine boy!).

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Atheism is a Religion, monkeyminds....sorry to break the news to you, but I promised God that I would never tell a lie.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Just when I was settling into having my mind cleared of all the years of religious beliefs, I find I have to remove a whole bunch of atheist and science dogma.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    I've seen it all, monkeyminds, and I know all their arguments. They were taught by Priests. They went to university for 4 years to only warm up a seat, and get a Certificate of Knowledge, just like the Scarecrow did in the Wiz of Oz. No wonder they come here and try to define words with SYNONYMS (i.e. aliases).

    They have no clue what the difference is between a DEFINITION and a synonym. That's why they attempt to define EXIST as: to be; being; what is; etc...

    They've never used their heads for anything all their lives other than to bow down to authority (their Priests). That's why they think that the Moon never existed before humans landed on it and touched (i.e. punched) it. Too funny!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    It's like pulling hens teeth to get someone to define EXIST and PROVE. I couldn't live with myself if I was that intellectually dishonest.

    I've told these people several times now. I am not here[there] to debate. I am here[there] to learn. I don't like being wrong, but I want to be corrected, so then I no longer have to be wrong!

    ADDED:

    Or More Wrong!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    People are welcome to come here and lay it on the line....they can put all their cards on the table....and if they win, I promise to take down this article.

    I am not interested in playing dancing games with children who are using their parent's laptop to troll the net. If they have a rational argument, if they understand it, if they can back it up by reason & critical thinking....then they are welcome to post it here. Otherwise it's obvious they don't have one. Trolls have no arguments anyway...just hot air.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    His eyes are all glazed over because his mind is in cognitive dissonance as he wonders why I haven't caved into his superior intellect and powerful arguments. He has to shake that off and then he'll be back to rag on me some more.

    Here's what he told me:

    "I have no interest in proving fatface wrong, I am arguing with you, not him. If he wants to join the Forum then he can play too. "

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    "atheist who said he would punch Fatfist in the face proving he has an arm."

    So I guess this atheist was punched in the face by Sun, thus proving that the Sun exists, huh?

    I wonder why he doesn't come here to collect his $10,000 in PayPal cash for making such an intellectual discovery? Perhaps this guy was our dear friend, Aurora, who agreed with me...

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    It just shows how a belief system is screwed up regardless of weather you are a theist an atheist or an agnostic!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Here it is so you can delete it w/o deleting my whole comment:

    What Is A Rational Argument?

    http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50...

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    monkeyminds,

    I have noted this problem and I think it comes down to these people are so busy thinking about what they are going to say next they do not listen and comprehend what Fatfist says.

    Your above note about punching to prove an arm made me think of that - how much further from Fatfist's position can you get than thinking proof applies and punching somehow is proof.

    It is so simple they just don't get it.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    "Glad to see that you are interested in educating yourself about the sci method."

    Yea, it looks like I am going to have to unlearn a lot. I'm having a discussion right now with a deist, a theist, and an atheist Here:

    Hope it is OK to post links. Feel free to delete them. I just think you will it hilarious if you find the time to see how it is going.

    The discussion is now about an atheist who said he would punch Fatfist in the face proving he has an arm.

    I have made it clear that I am not presenting my own argument, but yours. Mostly everything is cut n paste so that I don't misrepresent you.

    Funny thing is, the more they say the more they are showing me that you are right on the money. So I will probably soon be using my own arguments in my own words.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    @AuroraJoy

    "Utter Trash"

    We are in full agreement.

    Posts without any arguments to back them up are UTTER TRASH!

    I'm glad we're on the same wavelength, Aurora.

  • AuroraJoy profile image

    AuroraJoy 5 years ago from Ireland

    Utter Trash

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Google "The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced creation as an official teaching” and you will get tons of hits showing this

    Thanx! I found the reference under confessions of faith:

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2....

    Don't know how I missed it before.

    Sounds like you have your hands full with those Religionists. Be careful....any dissidence against William Lane Craig and they will ban you.

    I'll order the WGDE tomorrow. Will need to get a grip on it for my other forum. "Why Won't God Heal Amputees."

    If you like, feel free to invite these thugs here so they can teach ME a thing or two about Craig’s creation claims. I can’t wait.

    I did because of this post:

    The man is barking mad.

    http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Monkeyminds,

    “WLC's 'Begins' to Exist is not refuted. Is this because you grant that god exists and go directly to defining terms? Please explain.”

    The existence of God is granted (Hypothesized) by the Theologian. Remember that in Science, existence is ALWAYS a Hypothesis....NEVER a Theory. The existence of God (an object) is always ASSUMED by the Theologian. This is fine and dandy.....and in accordance with the Scientific Mehtod. The problem arises when the Theologian attempts to form his Theory (i.e. rational explanation) that matter and space were “created” by God, as founded on their Hypothesis (i.e. God exists). You see....creation, under any context is impossible. I have many articles dealing with all the aspects of creation and explaining in detail why creation is impossible.

    As for WLC’s assertion of “begins to exist”.....please read in this article where I address Craig’s statement:

    “....have I always existed? That is so absurd, to think that I never began to exist, even though the material stuff out of which I am made, existed before me....it’s just irrational....” -- William-Lane Craig

    I explain in detail why it is impossible for anything to “begin” to exist.

    “I can't find it in the 20 or cannons listed in various sources. “

    Google “The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced creation as an official teaching” and you will get tons of hits showing this.

    Sounds like you have your hands full with those Religionists. Be careful....any dissidence against William Lane Craig and they will ban you. But I think that you can handle these thugs on your own. Nonsense can never overthrow rationality. If you like, feel free to invite these thugs here so they can teach ME a thing or two about Craig’s creation claims. I can’t wait....

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Recently I became involved in a discussion about WLC and the Kalam here:

    http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50...

    The distinction between exists and 'begins' to exist came up and so I came across your hub in my research. I typically don't fall into the WLC trap, but was interested to see their take on it.

    A couple of questions came up as I am reading through it.

    WLC's 'Begins' to Exist is not refuted. Is this because you grant that god exists and go directly to defining terms? Please explain. Is it because as you say later, that WLC's argument has refined Leibniz' to make it "airtight?"

    Also., you make this statement:

    From the Christian perspective, Creation is the dogma of the Catholic Church, as they declared that the universe was created by God, in ‘time’ and ‘out-of-nothing’. The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced CREATION as an official teaching almost 800 years ago.

    I can't find it in the 20 or cannons listed in various sources. Can you you tell me where you found this?

    I have quoted you in another thread as well, and am afraid I am about to be caught up in it big time. I want to give justice to your ideas, and so I am mostly quoting you. Care to drop by? At least take a look at it and see what you think.

    http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “I just searched the internet and found out that direct measurements have shown that the solar system is filled with molecules and atoms at a very low density.”

    The establishment’s gold standard of this experiment is the Michelson-Morley one. They have concluded that there is no medium of ANY density in between planets in the solar system, just space. Even Einstein and Relativists tried to show that was such a medium in order to give weight to his theory on GR...they failed. So you can go argue over this issue with the establishment if you like, ok?

    Regardless, if there was such a medium, it would tear off the Earth’s atmosphere and cause friction on the planets. And the moon’s orbit would slow down, decay, and the moon would approach the earth. Clearly, this is not the case, as the moon is getting further away from the earth every year.

    “Tsunami/hurricane will rip off the shore of houses but slight breeze won't.”

    The houses are set in the earth in footings....the atmosphere isn’t. Did you know this? The slight breeze you talk about does indeed MOVE and DISPLACE the atmosphere, and so would your alleged medium in the solar system. The earth’s atmosphere is pelted all the time with small particles, meteors, etc. This stuff is indeed floating around in the solar system. But these are dispersed objects, not a medium filling the void between planets in the solar system. A medium would take the atmosphere with it.

    “So the consummated event "planets are not being ripped off" CAN be rationally explained after I made a hypothesis "all the planets in the solar system are surrounded by interplanetary medium".”

    "planets are not being ripped off" is NOT an event. Do you understand this much??

    So whatever the hell you are explaining to yourself, God only knows!

    "all macroscopic objects in solar system, our galaxy and all other galaxies as well as all other consummated events so far observable were always surrounded by other objects"

    ...and if that was the case, the atmosphere of the earth would be displaced. It has no footing like a house does. Even the slight breeze coming out of a mouse’s nose when it breathes, displaces the atmosphere. If the Earth was moving thru a sea filled with particles in the solar system, it would take the atmosphere with it. So your claims are clearly refuted. But you are free to argue with the establishment’s Michelson-Morley experiment if you like. Good luck.

    Like I said, the Relativists over at The General Relativity Department would LOVE to talk to you, because what you are claiming here can make their theory of warped space in our solar system a reality. You are guaranteed to win a Nobel Prize for this novel discovery. So, don’t waste your time posting here about this discovery of yours.....someone like me may steal your idea and become famous, ok?

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    Oops... The wording of the hypothesis messed up...

    "all macroscopic objects in solar system, our galaxy and all other galaxies as well as all other consummated events so far observable were always surrounded by other objects"

    And I stress again: theoretically, each and every one of them could be placed in pure nothingness, but this so far was not the case in consummated events.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    1. I just searched the internet and found out that direct measurements have shown that the solar system is filled with molecules and atoms at a very low density. This is a consummated event. This is described (hypothesis) as "interplanetary medium". This is indeed irrelevant to the question whether IN PRINCIPLE a macroscopic object can or cannot be surrounded by other objects - which I already agreed it can, and it is also irrelevant to the definition of what the object is. But it is very relevant to the question whether the Moon is surrounded by space only or by space AND something else. As far as there are trillions of billions of particles between the Moon and the Sun (which IS the case) I can rationally name it "interplanetary medium" and use it in my theory as an object.

    Now, considering "ripping off" the planets. Tsunami/hurricane will rip off the shore of houses but slight breeze won't. If the interplanetary medium was sufficiently dense it obviously would slow down the planets to an observable degree. However, this medium has very low density and therefore its interactions with planets is extremely weak and does not slow them down to any discernable degree. So the consummated event "planets are not being ripped off" CAN be rationally explained after I made a hypothesis "all the planets in the solar system are surrounded by interplanetary medium". As the solar system is not eternal, it is absolutely rational in the theory explaining the motion inside it to claim that the speed of motion of the planets around the sun was just a little bit higher several billions years ago.

    Conclusion: The rationality of the hypothesis "all macroscopic objects in the solar system, our galaxy and all other galaxies" IS NOT YET REFUTED.

    To put it in other words, macroscopic area of space devoid of ANY objects in it is clearly theoretically possible, but was never achieved nor observed in consummated events so far. As there is a smallest "grain" of substance (be it atom or thread), clearly it is rational that on the MICROscopic level of atoms it is indeed nothingness that surrounds them.

    2. BTW in the thread theory that you mentioned each and every pair of atoms is connected by a EM rope. EM rope is an object (if I understood right your description), therefore even an area in our galaxy devoid of any atoms will be packed with EM ropes which connect distant all the atoms in the galaxy.

    Eagerly waiting for your comments.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “I accepted your scenario: if the Moon is taken to far-far away it will be surrounded by nothingness.”

    Great! Then your claim that ALL objects are surrounded by other objects, is clearly not the case.

    “The question I ask is whether there was one consummated event we studied (not a theoretical scenario but a consummated event that happened in reality) where a macroscopic object was not surrounded other objects.”

    A consummated event we study actually is a theory....it is a theoretical scenario. It has allegedly ALREADY taken place. So now we are just left “theorizing” about it. We have studied Voyager 1 which is outside our solar system, and as luck would have it, Voyager 1 has no gas or objects surrounding/enveloping it. Same goes for asteroids and other objects we have studied out there.

    “Space surrounds Moon, no disagreement, but NOTHING else? No even single atom? So there is no sublimation of atoms from the Moon surface that produces a gas of atoms around it with very low density?”

    Irrelevant. If the moon emits a single atom or even gases from its core or not, is irrelevant to your argument that ALL objects are necessarily wrapped by gas and that our solar system is filled with gas. Gases are only localized within galaxies due to gravitational attraction...they are not pervasive in the universe. Obviously if our solar system is filled with a sea of gas, then it would rip out the earth’s atmosphere right now.

    “Can you "switch the gear"???”

    Yes we can, since not all objects are wrapped/surrounded by gas or other objects.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    1. I agree that definitions of the basci terms have to be observer-independent. It is clear. In my last posts I did not use surrounding for definitions.

    2. Nowhere in my post I said that "space=gas/ether". Clearly, the propostion that Moon and stars are surrounded by interstellar gas does not mean that the space is gas. I specifically stressed that an object is surrounded by space AND by other objects, so refutation of the space being an object (by M&M) has nothing to do with my hypothesis.

    3. I accepted your scenario: if the Moon is taken to far-far away it will be surrounded by nothingness. This is irrelevant for the argument, since I already accepted that definition of the object is independent of the surrounding and therefore you do not have to take it there to determine whether it IS an object or it is not. It is also irrelevant to the question whether the Moon is surrounded by something HERE in the solar system. You can take the earth far-far away (without the atmosphere) and THERE it will be surrounded by nothingness, but this does not mean that HERE it is not surrounded by atmosphere.

    4. So yes, theoretically each and every object CAN be surrounded by nothingness ONLY. Atoms are surrounded by nothingness. Macroscopic objects are surrounded by nothingness IF you take them to that Far-Far away place.

    The supermetagalaxy that combines all the stars is surrounded by nothingness (so there will be no regress). The question I ask is whether there was one consummated event we studied (not a theoretical scenario but a consummated event that happened in reality) where a macroscopic object was not surrounded other objects.

    5. Do you really think that around the Moon there is ONLY space? Space surrounds Moon, no disagreement, but NOTHING else? No even single atom? So there is no sublimation of atoms from the Moon surface that produces a gas of atoms around it with very low density?

    6. Hypothesis should not be absolutely general, it can describe only part of objects. For example, "all human beings have heads" is a legitimate hypothesis. It is not generalizable to worms, but this lack of generalizability does not make it irrational.

    7. I want to think critically about the natural phenomenon of (a) human perception and (b) how exactly we make theories. This is a natural process (thinking) that needs explanation. This is what I am discussing with you for the last 5 posts. I am not trying to make new DEFINITIONS - all the definitions stay the same!!!! Can you "switch the gear"???

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    Fat: “God grabbed the moon with His hand, and took it far far away, say 9x10^999999999999999999999999999999999999 Billion light years away from any other matter. So now, what is this alleged object that surrounds the moon?”

    Vlad: “I do not give a sh***! I have never been there”

    Your opinion or observation is irrelevant! This is an issue of critical thinking and rational analysis, ONLY!!

    You have never been to the Moon either, not even in Space,...yet YOU claim that: “the gaps between the sun, the earth, the moon and all other astronomical objects is filled with interstellar gas that is equivalent of the earth's atmosphere”. You can’t have it both ways. You are giving the audience contradicting answers.

    All you’ve said is: “I have never been to Andromeda, so I don’t know if there are solar systems with planets in there. But I do know that it has a perimeter made with 100% real Hershey’s Chocolate....and outside that perimeter is some sort of mysterious interstellar gas.”

    Rubbish.

    “I am not sure that such a neighborhood is at all real”

    Neighbourhood is not real, that is a concept. The Moon is real, and is far out in space where there is NO other object for 9x10^999999999999999999999999999999999999 Billion light years away!!! This is the ACTUAL scenario. This is simple to understand. Since there is NO other object around, then exactly WHAT could possibly be the OBJECT that FULLY SURROUNDS the Moon surface-to-surface ???

    A: Nothing!

    What if we took the Earth out there.... WHAT could possibly be the OBJECT that FULLY SURROUNDS the Earth surface-to-surface ???

    A: Air!

    CONCLUSION: The Earth may be surrounded by an object we call “air”....but the moon clearly isn’t. So your claim is irrational since it cannot be generalized.

    “maybe everywhere there are some galaxies surrounded by intergalaxial gas”

    Maybe???

    Maybe the Bad Wolf will throw up Little Red Riding Hood alive!! Did you ever think of that?

    This is NOT an issue of “maybe”. This is an issue of the scene described in the above scenario. There are NO other objects around the Moon. So.... WHAT could possibly be the OBJECT that FULLY SURROUNDS the Moon surface-to-surface ???

    A spirit?

    A soul?

    A 0D particle?

    A black hole?

    Dark matter/energy?

    “But most importantly, my hypothesis is formulated (as I already explained) in order to make a theory of human perception”

    Scientific Hypotheses have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with stupid human perceptions and their OPINIONS. Observation and witness testimony are subjectivities which belong in court.....never in science! This is why all scientific definitions are OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT....they are not meant to warm up your soul or confirm your religion. This is what I have repeated to you for over 127 times....and you STILL don’t understand it.

    Regardless, your hypothesis is irrational and invalid, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO interstellar gas “atmosphere” or “ether” between the Moon and the Earth, or anywhere in the universe....and for MANY MANY MANY reasons, and I will only list a few here:

    a) Interstellar gas is only localized in pockets throughout galaxies only....never outside galaxies because the HUGE gravitational pull of galaxies always attracts any gas or matter which may be ejected. That’s why galaxies are often called “island universes”.

    b) The Michelson-Morley experiment was performed tons of times since 1887 and it has REFUTED your claim of an atmosphere/ether surrounding the Earth, Moon, solar system, etc.

    c) If space was an atmosphere/ether, then space would have shape....it would be an object. So the question is: what is outside of the perimeter of this alleged object you call ‘atmosphere/ether’? If the moon is BOXED by this object you call atmosphere/ether, then WHAT boxes this atmosphere....and WHAT boxes that....and WHAT boxes that....and so on??? This is infinite regress....which is irrational and impossible...similar to who made God...and who made Him...and who made Him....

    d) But the kicker is.....If space was an atmosphere/ether of gas or whatever object YOU propose.....then the Earth’s atmosphere would be RIPPED right off the planet as it swam through this sea of alleged gas collisions while orbiting the Sun. Clearly, this is NOT the case. When bees are swarming all around you, then swimming under water will eject all of them off you since each object “bee” collides with the object water.

    "In all observable by humans consummated events so far being studied all the involved macroscopic objects are fully surrounded by other objects".

    REFUTED!

    See a to d above.

    “I am actually surprised you did not ask me about atoms”

    It doesn’t matter. Your claim fails at the atomic level too. Let’s take the standard Bohr Model of the atom. The electron is said to magically orbit the nucleus. What is the electron surrounded by via surface-to-surface contact? Interstellar gas? Gas is already an atom, so this is circular. If the electron is hitting something while orbiting the nucleus, then it would slow down and eventually FALL into the nucleus.

    How about the fundamental constituent of matter (whatever that may be...quark, smork, whatever)....what is it surrounded by via surface-to-surface contact?

    So you see, your CLAIM (macroscopic objects are fully surrounded by other objects) fails at all levels....whether macroscopic, microscopic...or any possible combination/scenario you can imagine.

    An object is that which has shape....NOT that which is wrapped by other objects (circular and contradictory, this is why all your examples are so easily refuted).

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    Excellent question!

    Please note that we are not in the definition phase - we are in the hypothesis phase (description of objects to be taken care of). I did not DEFINE any object by its neighbors. I simply stated a hypothesis that every object is surrounded surface-to-surface by other objects. The definition of each and every one of them individually is - presence of shape, and therefore in the very beginning of my previous post I specifically stated that I accepted already your definition.

    So your question is not about my definition but about my hypothesis. I still have to answer it.

    Q: If the Moon is taken out of the context of our metagalaxy into Far-Far away and left there what will be the object that surrounds it?

    A: I do not give a sh***! I have never been there, I am not sure that such a neighborhood is at all real (maybe everywhere there are some galaxies surrounded by intergalaxial gas). But most importantly, my hypothesis is formulated (as I already explained) in order to make a theory of human perception and providing an explanation how exactly we (humans) formulate hypotheses and theories and what it has to do with real objects.

    In contrast to definitions, that has to be applicable in all contexts, hypotheses and theories can be applicable in only part of contexts. So for the context of human perception and the way humans do physics your question is irrelevent.

    Nevertheless, to be consistent, I will amend my description:

    "In all observable by humans consummated events so far being studied all the involved macroscopic objects are fully surrounded by other objects".

    I inserted "macroscopic" since probably my hypothesis does not hold not only in the Far-Far away scenario, but also in case of atoms, which are probably truly surrounded by nothingness (I am actually surprised you did not ask me about atoms). But this is something I would like to discuss with you separately and it is again irrelevant for the context of human perception so we can leave it for time being.

    So if you do not have any further objections to my amended description-hypothesis, I will proceed.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “the gaps between the sun, the earth, the moon and all other astronomical objects is filled with interstellar gas that is equivalent of the earth's atmosphere”

    Fine, you are free to assume that (even though it is NOT the case) since this scenario has been troubling you,....but follow my next line of thought....

    Assume the moon is kicked out of our solar system and ultimately out of our galaxy by some collision.....or we can assume that God grabbed it with His hand, and took it far far away, say 9x10^999999999999999999999999999999999999 Billion light years away from any other matter.

    Now God shoots his laser 1 km above the surface of the moon. Same question.... what will the laser beam hit to reflect light back to God? Remember, there is no other object around the moon, just space. Is the moon still an ‘object’ in this case? I mean, it has to be, because God can point at it with His laser.

    Remember, the definition of object has to be consistently applicable across all contexts. Does the moon have shape all on its own? If so, it must be an object irrespective of any other object in the universe.

    So, what is this alleged object that surrounds the moon?

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    I will try to do it on the level of low granularity. If this proves to be problematic I will try to switch to high granularity.

    the gaps between the sun, the earth, the moon and all other astronomical objects is filled with interstellar gas that is equivalent of the earth's atmosphere but with very low density of atoms. laser is reflected from different objects differently: it is fully reflected from a brick wall, partially reflected from a transparent glass and very insignificantly reflected from upper layers of the earth's atmosphere. I am not a professional physicist so maybe something in this description of reflection is not fully rigorous - I will be glad to correct if needed.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    "do you agree with the hypothesis that absolutely ALL real objects are fully surrounded surface-to-surface by other objects?"

    Please give me an example. What is the moon surrounded with?

    If I aim a laser toward the moon and fire a beam 1 km above the surface of the moon, what will the laser hit? The moon has no atmosphere. I do not expect a reflection to come back, like when I hit the moon's surface. The space around the moon is nothing, and cannot reflect light back to the earth. So what is the object that surrounds the moon, and consequently must reflect light back?

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    I do not have any disagreement with you about all the definitions and descriptions of object and space. I want to proceed to critically think HOW exactly we as observers conceptualize objects BEFORE doing physics theories in the process of hypothesis description. You concisely summarized this by "pointing to an object" and/or "drawing an illustration". I want to critically think about it in more detail.

    But before I proceed, do you agree with the hypothesis that absolutely ALL real objects are fully surrounded surface-to-surface by other objects?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “real objects that exist around us and my claim is that this process of perception cannot be done in an observer-independent way in principle as it always involves the observer.”

    An observer is necessarily required to do physics. We cannot have a field of study without having observers participating in that study.

    Q: What is the topic of discussion in the study of Physics?

    A: Objects....not concepts, spirits, souls or ghosts....but objects!

    Now our task is to determine what is an object. Obviously cars, planets, stars, people, houses, ...and all the stuff we can see are objects. But how about the stuff we cannot see? How about air, molecules, atoms, God ...are these objects? Of course they are; they can be hypothesized to mediate natural phenomena i.e. make surface-to-surface contact with some other objects. So if an object can be seen and touched in front of us (ie. car), and another object cannot be seen and touched (ie. God), ....and both of these types of objects can actually mediate natural events in nature, then what is a CONSISTENT and rational (scientific) definition of object?

    Object: that which has shape

    Does God have shape? He most certainly does....we are allegedly of His image. So God is a valid object of our Scientific Hypothesis because we can draw Him on the blackboard or make a statue of Him and bring it to the Physics Conference for show & tell. Whether God can possibly exist or not is a completely separate issue which is rationally explained in a specific Theory...like the Theory of Creation, for example.

    So yes, the definition of object is indeed observer-independent. It can be used to reference a multitude of objects which we cannot even SEE or TOUCH....like God for instance.

    “I am not talking about definitions but about the theory of perception.”

    Perception plays no role in objects. This is strictly an issue of critical reasoning....not an issue of seeing or touching!

    Either an object is something or it’s nothing. This is what the term “shape” allows us to reason. And once we reason that God MUST absolutely have some type of shape in order for Him to come in surface-to-surface contact with other objects, like grabbing a person and sending him to Hell, then God can now be conceived by us to have some SPECIFIC shape....ie. a man, a burning bush, etc. And now God is a valid object in our Hypothesis.

    “I would summarize, that all objects swim in a conceptual sea of space AND in an actual sea of other objects (medium).”

    You can metaphorically say that all objects swim in a conceptual sea of nothingness (but this is not necessary once you realize that motion is impossible without space). And of course objects physically interact via surface-to-surface contact with other objects.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    OK. The things become more clear. So I am continuing.

    When I wrote that the car is not an object I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was talking about HOW we perceive and conceptualize real objects that exist around us and my claim is that this process of perception cannot be done in an observer-independent way in principle as it always involves the observer. I am not talking about definitions but about the theory of perception. But lets do it step by step so there will be no further misunderstanding.

    In reality objects are always surrounded by space, but never ONLY by space. Say objects A and B exist. They are non-continuous, i.e. there is a gap between them. By definition the answer to the question “what exists between object A and object B?” cannot be space as space does not exist. The answer will be always “object C”. This is not to REPLACE the concept of space – I am just adding a description. Objects are always surrounded by space but IN ADDITION by other objects as well. What we are conceptualizing and illustrating on the blackboard is always some objects on the backdrop of other objects that surround it. The backdrop of the space is assumed, is in definition, is absolutely necessary for motion, but is not in an illustration (space as you pointed out is nothing and cannot be illustrated). So when I draw Sun and Earth – the “gap” between them is also an object (say “interstellar gas”).

    I would summarize, that all objects swim in a conceptual sea of space AND in an actual sea of other objects (medium).

    Is this argument rational? I would say it is a reasonable hypothesis.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “each and every phenomenon in nature CAN BE in principle described and explained on the fundamental level - say atoms.”

    It can be explained with any respective object....whether atom, thread, molecule, car...as long as it has shape.

    The point is, we are doing physics right now with cars, planets and stars which are objects. So what is an object anyway? We must define it in a consistent manner so we can stay within the realm of physics and not cross into the realm of religion. It is ludicrous to say that an atom is an object, but a car is a concept. Some people believe that energy, gravitons, photons, space and time are also objects. Obviously this is not the case.

    “Using ANY word with respect to space will be different than the use of the same word for all other contexts.”

    Space is a special word. It is a synonym for “nothing”. Space is impossible to define in positive terms. Space can only be described in negative terms i.e. no thing. This means that we treat the word space as a noun for the purposes of grammatical correctness only...we have no other choice. When we talk about existing objects, which are nouns of reality, then space is not a noun of reality....it is nothing....it doesn’t even exist. Again, this is due to the limitations of language and grammar. And because space doesn’t exist, this nothingness allows for the atmosphere to be displaced when we run through it....and it allows water to be displaced when we scuba dive in the ocean. Without space, the universe is said to be just one infinite solid block of matter, where no motion is possible, let alone life.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    And BTW, the way I understood your passage on space is actually that use of the verb "surround" with respect to space and air is different. Using ANY word with respect to space will be different than the use of the same word for all other contexts. Do you agree?

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    So in this case, theoretically speaking, each and every phenomenon in nature CAN BE in principle described and explained on the fundamental level - say atoms. You are right that for human beings to follow this type of explanation will take billions of years, but this is irrelevant on the conceptual level. This is just a limitation of a specific type of observer and as such cannot be taken into account while talking rational/irrational.

    There are clearly things that cannot be done IN PRINCIPLE - like drawing a round triangle or performing an infinite regress. The proposition to do this is irrational. But explaining a collision between the cars on the level of atoms is not the same. It is very impractical, it can take billions of years and billions of tons of paper, it is completely useless to car insurance companies but it is not irrational or in principle undoable by ANY sentient being.

    Do you agree?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “I understand the term "surrounds" or "encapsulates" as "exists in the immediate vicinity of...". Do you agree or there is another meaning?”

    Space has no shape. It doesn’t exit. The only reason I have to use the word ‘it’ for reference, is for grammatical correctness only. Space is absolutely everywhere, since it has no borders. If we hypothesize that all objects are made from molecules, atoms, right down to em threads, then space is wrapping all em threads, and consequently, all objects....whether atoms, molecules, planets, stars, air...whatever.

    “"Surround" is a verb. Concepts cannot perform verbs on objects..... "space surrounds the earth" has two problems”

    Concepts do no perform anything. Space does not perform anything. Space is nothing. All we are doing is describing it as a backdrop to all objects, because it has no borders, no shape. We are restricted by language and grammar to describe nothingness, which isn’t even a noun. We have no problem with grammar when dealing with objects. But with a concept like space which can only be described in negative terms, we will inevitably reach the limits of grammar. This is why you need to critically reason why nature is a binary system.....something and its antithesis (nothing).

    “there should be space separating a leg and a trunk while I am walking.”

    And here is where we must use the sci method to hypothesize what ultimately constitutes matter. This is the context of this analysis. We hypothesize what an atom is, and what it is composed of.....and what is connecting all matter together. This is where we understand that the fundamental constituent of matter, the thread, is an object in space. This means that absolutely all objects (no matter what context of granularity) are ultimately wrapped by space since their em threads are wrapped by space. So leg and trunk are physically connected to each other via em threads, which are wrapped by space. Space is unavoidable. You cannot exit space.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    So space separates earth and air. And space surrounds, wraps, encapsulates all objects.

    I understand the term "surrounds" or "encapsulates" as "exists in the immediate vicinity of...". Do you agree or there is another meaning?

    "Surround" is a verb. Concepts cannot perform verbs on objects.

    So the combination of statements "air surrounds the earth" and "space surrounds the earth" has two problems:

    1. In the second one a concept performs a verb on an object.

    2. If air surrounds the earth then (according to the aforementioned definition of "surrounds") there is nothing BETWEEN air and earth. They cannot be separated - unless you introduce another object.

    Another example: a leg and a trunk are two objects and there is nothing between them until I put there a knife (another object). If I understand right your definition, there should be space separating a leg and a trunk while I am walking. I would not like this to happen to me.

    Hope you will make this clearer to me in your next post.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “BTW, if you happen to visit Los Angeles - I invite you for a lunch”

    I have been there before, but I may visit again. Thanks for the offer....and yeah, I love talking about chicks, fun, travel over drinks.....oh shit do I ever!!

    “So both air and nothingness surround the Earth? Is it in layers - a very thin layer of nothingness just around the Earth and then comes air?”

    Yes, both.

    No, air and nothingness do not surround the Earth in layers. Space (nothingness) is nothing...it is not something...it is not an object...it’s shapeless....it cannot be layered. Space is dimensionless, sizeless, colorless, temperatureless, ....insert any negated word here!

    Space is the antithesis of the word object. We cannot contain space with a physical entity or medium (like a vacuum chamber) or with a concept (thought, dimension, etc.) because there is nothing to contain. We cannot escape space because there is no boundary to cross.

    The void is the opposite of being, it is not-being. So space is just another concept. Space is a synonym of 'nothing' (as opposed to 'something'). Hence, space cannot layer an object...only another object can do this.

    There are only objects and concepts, nothing else. An object is 'that which has shape', and a concept doesn’t. Space falls into the latter category. Space is a subset of the category called 'concepts'. Space is nothing real...it does not exist. It is the antithesis of existence.

    Unlike other concepts such as love or beauty or intelligence, space is one of the two conceptual components of the word 'Universe': space and matter. Matter consists of the totality of objects, specifically, atoms. Space provides the background, contrast... but only to the observer. The Moon does not recognize space. It moves merrily along without friction until it crashes against an asteroid. And it can move because there is the void of space which allows objects the capability to change location without crashing into space and stopping permanently in their tracks, so to speak. Understand?

    An object cannot displace or occupy space. You do not 'occupy' or 'inhabit' space the way a fish 'occupies' or 'inhabits' the ocean: by displacing atoms and molecules. When an object is figuratively said to 'occupy' space, it does not displace anything. We mean that the object merely has a location with respect to the remaining objects in the Universe. An object does not displace space as it is said to wade thru Sagan's metaphoric Cosmic Ocean.

    Space has thoroughly confused the philosophers, religionists and mathematicians for the last 10,000 years. Until they get a 'grip' on space, they will never understand our Universe. This is why they invent ridiculous notions like gods, dark matter and black holes to plug up holes in their theories.

    In summary, our universe is a binary system: space and matter. There is only something surrounded by nothingness. The word something is a synonym for object...having shape (spatial separation)....and hence is not nothing. This is an issue of critical thinking and analysis, not a rule made by humans. There is either something (with shape) or nothing (no shape). There is no in-between shape and no-shape. There is no outside shape and no-shape. The nature of matter and space makes them complementary. This realization has the interesting implication that the amount of matter in the Universe does not vary...there is a constant amount of matter. Matter cannot be created from space or space from matter, and matter cannot leave space or disappear because space has no boundaries to cross.

    “Can you draw a picture for me and point out "here is Earth", "here is air" and "here is nothingness that surrounds Earth"?”

    This is an issue of critical thinking, not of illustration. Space is a concept, it lacks shape....hence you cannot illustrate it. We reason that every single object, whether atom, molecule, planet, star, car, pen, coin, pocket....whatever....MUST absolutely be surrounded by nothingness because all objects are in motion. All objects are attracted to each other. This would not be possible if objects were not separated by nothingness....and we certainly would NOT be here and alive and having this discussion. So even though the Earth is surrounded/enveloped by air molecules, those air molecules can move (i.e. wind, tornado, hurricane) because they are themselves swimming in a conceptual sea of nothingness, just like the Earth is.

    “So does a layer of nothingness separate earth and air?”

    Space is not in layers, it lacks shape and cannot be layered...it merely encapsulates every single object in the universe. No matter whether it is an atom or a planet, or any possibly entity you can hypothesize. Otherwise motion would be impossible. There is either something or nothing (spatial separation ie. shape)....there is NO other option in the universe. This is an unavoidable rational realization of what constitutes nature. This is not a theory nor a claim.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    I hope to see your comment on my previous post then I will make another one.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Sorry....remainder of chopped off last post:

    “Do you agree that the sentence "groups of atoms are moving" is rational?”

    No, you are still moving concepts. This is a relation of atoms and their bonds...a concept. Concepts do not move in physics. Only individual objects (single atom in this case) can possibly move. You need to illustrate every single atom and how it changes location. Can you do that for my car and the Moon? How many billions of years should we wait for you to do this? And who will verify your results? Otherwise you are stuck illustrating the objects car and Moon!

    “if the definitions are different many other concepts will be different. This is not a contradiction within one framework but a difference between two frameworks. This difference is legitimate.”

    This is Religion!!!!!

    Science is about defining your terms consistently across all contexts/frameworks. This is what makes definitions objective i.e. scientific. You are not allowed to redefine your terms to self-righteously serve your various biased arguments. I hope you realize this about definitions.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    Fatfist,

    You raised several issues that I would like to address, I will do one at a time.

    BTW, if you happen to visit Los Angeles - I invite you for a lunch in a restaurant of your favorite cuisine - I pay. The only condition - we will NOT speak of definitions, space and all this sh*** - only about chicks, entertainment and travel.

    Back to the argument.

    Fatfist: "The Earth is surrounded by air, but is still an object."

    Fatfist: "But most importantly, the coin and the earth and air are surrounded by space (nothingness)"

    I do not understand how both are physically possible. So both air and nothingness surround the Earth? Is it in layers - a very thin layer of nothingness just around the Earth and then comes air? Can you draw a picture for me and point out "here is Earth", "here is air" and "here is nothingness that surrounds Earth"? Of course nothingness cannot be drawn by itself, but only as something that separates the drawn objects. So does a layer of nothingness separate earth and air? Or do you imply different meaning to the term "surround" when it refers to air versus nothingness?

    Again - I am not trying to mock or make fun, just to understand better.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “If any macroscopic thing is placed in nothingness (in vacuum)it is not surrounded actually by nothingness but by gas that is produced by sublimation of the molecules and atoms from its surface.”

    Irrelevant. You can put a coin in your pocket and it will be surrounded by another object – the lining material of your pocket. The coin still remains an object. The Earth is surrounded by air, but is still an object. The coin and the earth do not lose their shape once they are surrounded by another object.

    But most importantly, the coin and the earth and air are surrounded by space (nothingness)...for if they weren’t, then they would not be able to change location.....the Earth would not be able to move around the Sun and the atmosphere would not be able to move and mediate weather phenomena. All these objects are surrounded by nothingness. That’s why they have shape – they are ‘something’ rather than nothing.

    I will repeat it again since I know you skipped over this crucial part...... But most importantly, the coin and the earth and air are surrounded by space (nothingness)...for if they weren’t, then they would not be able to change location.....the Earth would not be able to move around the Sun and the atmosphere would not be able to move and mediate weather phenomena. All these objects are surrounded by nothingness. That’s why they have shape – they are ‘something’ rather than nothing.

    “your claim that objects (according to your definition of object) are surrounded by nothingness”

    This is NOT a claim, because it is not a theory, nor a consummated event. The Big Bang is a claim. God’s creation is a claim. Again, misuse of the sci. Method. This is a rational definition stemming from critical thought (which nobody wishes to do anymore). We don’t need evidence for this. If absolutely ALL objects in the Universe were not surrounded by space, then there would be no motion (we would be frozen in one location forever) and there would be no objects. In this scenario which you propose (objects are not surrounded by space), the Universe would be a single solid brick of matter and no object, much less an atom, would move. Clearly, this is not the case. So your definition of ‘object’ is irrational.

    Vlad: "Objects are only those things that have shape (i.e. surrounded by nothing and not by other objects) and are eternal."

    Vlad: “This definition of the object I gave is not irrational by itself and is not ambiguous. “

    Yes it is irrational, for many reasons:

    1) If by this definition you say that an atom is an object. Then a group of atoms bunched together are not individual objects as per your defn. Why? Because it circularly contradicts itself. If atom H is surrounded by other atoms, then your defn states that that atom H is no longer an object.

    2) Regardless, to have shape means to have spatial separation...i.e. to be something rather than nothing. Absolutely all objects are surrounded by nothingness, as explained above.

    3) The word eternal has to do with existence. Existence never belongs in a definition. Existence belongs strictly in a hypothesis: Let us assume that gravitons exist and are eternal. Theory: Now I will explain why atoms perpetually attract each other....

    4) Definitions of key terms have to be objectively scientific and have the ability to be used consistently. Yours is circular and contradictory. And worse still, it embodies existence within it.

    “You point out that cars, planets etc are not objects according to this definition. You are right, they are not according to this definition.”

    Then we cannot do physics with this definition of object you have given us.

    Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects! Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification). It is Philosophy which studies concepts... and religion which deals with the motion of concepts.

    In Physics, only nouns are objects. This is the subject of study. Everything else is a concept. Only objects can be referenced by articles of grammar. Hence, the ‘asteroid’ collided with the ‘moon’ is an event studied by physics. Asteroid and Moon are objects in and of themselves. It is irrelevant what their composition is. In this context, we are not studying the collision of atoms. We can only hypothesize collisions of atoms, and this is part of a separate context and theory. But in the present context, it is the objects asteroid and moon which collided...the nouns of our study.

    “unless you a priori ASSUME that car is an object (which by itself is a rational hypothesis). “

    This has nothing to do with a priori or a posteriori. Assuming the car is an object is NOT a hypothesis. This is what stems from the DEFINITION of object.

    “So the fact that my definition of "object" does not include things which are "objects" according to another definition is by itself is not irrational.”

    And this is where you do not understand science. In science there is only ONE definition which can be used consistently. Scientific terms are objective and rational. They cannot have multiple definitions, like they do in Religion.

    “So in order to explain a consummated event conceptualized by us and car insurance guys as "car collision" I will hypothesize that atoms exist, then I will draw all the atoms involved in the aforementioned event (collision) and make a movie of how each and every one of them (atoms) is moving during the collision”

    Please tell me EXACTLY how many and what kind of atoms my car has. It is a 2006 Opel Astra. Please illustrate all these atoms for the jury. My car was just in an accident. Should I leave it in the middle of the road until YOU come and COUNT & CATALOGUE all the atoms of my car? How long will it take you to do this before you can explain the collision of the ‘atoms’ to the insurance company? I mean, I would like to be compensated for my car in this lifetime! Do you think you can illustrate all the atoms in my car before you die?

    It is not a hypothesized entity, like an atom, which collided for the purposes of Car Insurance Physics. It is a real entity which we have before us – the car! The term ‘object’ has to be used consistently across ALL contexts. Otherwise it is unscientific. And physics most certainly does deal with many contexts depending on the discipline. But the term object is used consistently.

    Clearly, we don’t do car physics with atoms. We do it with the OBJECT car!

    “I will also have to describe all the interactions between the atoms involved. The same can be done with Moon and asteroid. “

    Great! Please tell me EXACTLY how many atoms the Moon has right this very second. We need to know this before we can do any sort of physics with the Moon at the atomic level. We need to illustrate each and every single atom of the Moon, its change of locations, its interaction with other atoms, etc. Can you do that? If not, then you are not doing physics. You are doing Religion. Talking about it and doing it, are two different issues.

    “What moves and interacts is not an aggregate, you are right, but atoms.”

    Great! Please tell me EXACTLY how many atoms the moon has. Label each atom and tell us what kind it is (H, C, N, Fe, etc). Please show the jury an image of this, or reference one anywhere on the internet. Should we ask NASA to prepare a Moon mission to send you there, so you can COUNT and CATALOGUE each atom of the Moon BEFORE we can explain its collision with the asteroid?

    How about the collision of 2 stars....should NASA prepare a mission to land you on both stars to count their atoms and catalogue them?

    How many billions of years will it take you to complete your mission? We need to know, because we need an explanation of this collision event. Do you even realize how ridiculous your argument is?

    Clearly, we don’t do Moon-Asteroid physics with atoms. We do it with the OBJECTS moon and asteroid!

    “Do you agree that the sentence "groups of atoms are moving" is rational?”

    No, you are sti

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    1. If any macroscopic thing is placed in nothingness (in vacuum)it is not surrounded actually by nothingness but by gas that is produced by sublimation of the molecules and atoms from its surface. This is why I wrote that your claim that objects (according to your definition of object) are surrounded by nothingness looks to me wrong. You used this "surrounding by nothingness" in your definition of the object (please correct me if I am wrong) but this is not what reality is. Only we while looking at them perceive them as surrounded by nothingness.

    2. I asked about your occupation not to make any comparisons with myself or anybody else, I have respect to all people irrespective of their occupation, and I already explicitly wrote that I do not have any taste for authorities. I just thought that maybe you are involved in writing some textbooks that more systematically apply your framework to the physical phenomena explanations (I will appreciate if you point to one if such exists). I do not have PhD. You wrote in some place that medicine is not a science - here I agree with you for many different reasons.

    3. I take for granted that you have much more time spent in reasoning. This is why it is interesting for me to have the dialogue. I am thinking along the lines and if you see the contradictions or problems with the argument - I accept it and trying to fix what has to be fixed. I am not trying to prove anything to anybody or to "trick" – I simply trying to follow a certain rational line of reasoning and to share it with an experienced person and if I make mistakes – I try to fix them. That's all.

    "Objects are only those things that have shape (i.e. surrounded by nothing and not by other objects) and are eternal."

    This definition of the object I gave is not irrational by itself and is not ambiguous. You point out that cars, planets etc are not objects according to this definition. You are right, they are not according to this definition. This is still not something irrational if the definition is rational, unless you a priori ASSUME that car is an object (which by itself is a rational hypothesis). But it does not make all other hypotheses irrational. There (theoretically at least) can be many different rational hypotheses and theories. So the fact that my definition of "object" does not include things which are "objects" according to another definition is by itself is not irrational.

    What about explanation of consummated events such as car collisions, asteroids landing on Moon, pen falling on the floor? My definition has to allow for a rational theory that will successfully explain these events, I agree. What you are rightly pointed out is that using word "aggregate" was ambiguous as it has a meaning of attraction and therefore is a verb and a concept. This was not my intention – I was wrong in using it in a hypothesis, I should use it in a theory.

    So in order to explain a consummated event conceptualized by us and car insurance guys as "car collision" I will hypothesize that atoms exist, then I will draw all the atoms involved in the aforementioned event (collision) and make a movie of how each and every one of them (atoms) is moving during the collision, I will also have to describe all the interactions between the atoms involved. The same can be done with Moon and asteroid. What moves and interacts is not an aggregate, you are right, but atoms.

    Do you agree that the sentence "groups of atoms are moving" is rational?

    4. The "contradictions" you pointed out in your last passage are not WITHIN one argument: we were having two different discussions. One is within the framework of your definitions. Then I said we bth agree that pen and Moon are objects. The OTHER discussion is whether the definition of object I later in our conversation proposed is another rational ALTERNATIVE and can be used for rational hypotheses and theories as well. I asked this question and made some claims within this different framework. Clearly, if the definitions are different many other concepts will be different. This is not a contradiction within one framework but a difference between two frameworks. This difference is legitimate.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    Vlad: “I totally agree with your statement that time is something in the sentient's observer head as a result of his neuronal memory and non-sentient objects like Moon do not have neuronal memory. Satisfied?”

    Vlad: “It is very clear to me that both me and you refer to "pen" as an object “

    Vlad: “All the atoms which constitute an object which we call "Earth" exist absolutely independently of any observer - it makes sense. “

    Vlad: "Moon" is in the ape's brain only (by definition).”

    My dear Vladimir.....your PhD ain’t worth a bucket full of crap. When a shoe-shine boy (my profession) like me can showcase your contradictions and make you out to be an idiot and a troll, then you should not be bragging about having a medical degree. It makes you look like a damn fool.

    You see, Vlad, I have been doing this level of critical thinking a lot longer than you have. I eat idiots like you for breakfast here day in and day out. And when you say that the moon, the earth, a pen, etc are OBJECTS.....then you retroactively amend your definitions in order to protect your Religious Argument and claim that the moon is a CONCEPT (in our brain).....then you are an idiot who is out of here. You are soooooo done man!!!!!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    Vlad: “This is not what I claim. I did not claim that we CANNOT DO PHYSICS.”

    Vlad: "Object: that which has shape and location AND exists eternally."

    Cars, planets, stars, chairs, asteroids, etc.. do NOT exist eternally. Do you understand this much? Read your defn of object again. It disqualifies these things as ‘objects’. Your definition contradicts all you’ve said.

    Please feel free to provide a scientific definition of ‘object’. I am willing to give you as many tries as you like.

    “Matter is eternal observer-independently exists and it is defined as an aggregate of all the atoms.”

    What do you mean by ‘exist’?

    Exist: object having a location

    Matter is a collection of atoms. Thus, matter is NOT an object as per YOUR definition....just as a CAR is NOT an object like you’ve stated. Hence, matter does NOT exist...according to you!

    Obviously, defining ‘object’ is not as simple and haphazard as you think it is.

    Your defn of ‘object’ is not consistent....it is ambiguous and irrational at best.....therefore it is unscientific.

    Please feel free to provide a scientific definition of ‘object’

    “BUT, lake, air, your brain, all other so-called objects are not surrounded by nothingness while you are pointing to them!”

    Irrelevant. This is not an observer-dependent issue. This is an issue of rationality. Is a ‘brain’ an object....yes or no? I don’t give a shit if you put this brain inside a box, under the sea, or in a freezer. If I cut a person’s head open, can I remove a brain?...an object with shape all on its own? Can I draw a brain on the blackboard....or is the person’s head, blood and veins preventing me from drawing it? Do you understand what a scientific Hypothesis is about? Surely, a physician PhD such as yourself should understand these very basic matters of science.

    Surely you have performed a biopsy to remove some little OBJECT from a person’s body....and we can illustrate this object on the blackboard so other medical students can see and conceptualize the object of the biopsy....right?

    If an irregular malignant mole you removed from the person’s body is NOT an object....according to YOU....then how can it be possible for a surgeon to conceptualize it, locate it, cut an outline of its shape, and remove it in a biopsy??

    That mole was not eternal....but it is indeed an object....that which has shape. It’s that simple.

    All objects in human language are pointed at and named. And the reason why we can do this is because they have shape, ...or we can hypothesize them to have shape and illustrate them on the blackboard (in case our poor eyes cannot see them, like you said). And this is why a physicist will illustrate his objects in a movie in order to explain his theory....for if he didn’t, then what is the ‘subject’ of his theory...nothingness?

    A PhD should know these basics of human language and the sci method.

    “Only atoms are truly surrounded by nothingness accordingly only them are the only observer-independent objects.”

    Nonsense to the N-th degree!!!

    To moon is an object....it has shape on its own.....and it is surrounded by nothingness (space), for if it wasn’t, it would not be able to change locations. Which part are you having trouble with?

    “This is a Hypothesis: aggregates of atoms do exist. “

    This is NOT a hypothesis. This is a DESCRIPTION! For the N-th time, do you understand the difference??

    A hypothesis of the atom will illustrate the atom. A theory will explain WHY atoms attract each other and aggregate together. We never assume attraction in a hypothesis. You should already know this. A hypothesis is static. A Theory is dynamic. A PhD physician should know the basics of the scientific method!

    Why would atoms attract each other and aggregate? What causes them to do this? You need to explain this in the THEORY....not hypothesize it. Understand?

    “The fact that stupid human ape can draw things on the blackboard or utter meaningless sounds has nothing to do with objects and their existence.”

    Of course it doesn’t. But it has to do with PHYSICS and RATIONALY explaining events with objects...like planets, stars, asteroids, cars, hammers.....are u with me? This is EXACTLY what the scientific method is all about. Without objects....we cannot do physics!

    The physicist who works with Car Insurance Claim Adjusters, does NOT do physics with atoms....he does physics with objects we call CARS! This single example contradicts your defn of ‘object’. You defn is NOT Scientific and it has nothing to do with Physics! Which part don’t you understand?

    “So car collisions, billiard, rocks... - engineering, not Science.”

    Bullshit to the N-th degree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Science is about rationally explaining theories. There has to be a consummated event to be explained. This event was mediated by objects, not concepts. The pen fell to the floor is an event. Pen is the object.....not atom or aggregates of atoms. A pen is not an atom. A pen is NOT an ‘aggregate’ of atoms. An aggregate is NOT an object...it is a CONCEPT. Concepts only move in Religion, not science.

    God is the ‘aggregate’ of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Mereology has to do with Religion....not science. Repeat this until you learn it.

    “"Moon" is in the ape's brain only (by definition).”

    Yep....makes sense. When an asteroid lands on the moon, it has actually landed inside an ape’s brain......uhhh....duh...for sure!

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    Physics and Science is only about things that exist eternally or about aggregates of them. Anything else is different types of "engineering" - useful (helps survive) for human apes for their interaction with the environment. So car collisions, billiard, rocks... - engineering, not Science.

    If you want to argue - tell me where exactly MY argument is irrational according to your criteria. Anything else is non-sequeturs, strawmen and your opinion (i.e., irrelevant).

    "Moon" is ape's conceptualization of a certain (arbitrary picked up by the ape) aggregate of atoms. Aggregate of atoms (the one that invoked the concept of "Moon" in the ape) exists in reality independently of ape (this is a hypothesis). "Moon" is in the ape's brain only (by definition).

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    Fatfist:

    "So then the Moon is not an object according to your definition. A car is not an object either. Therefore planets, moons, rocks, stars, cars, billiard balls are not the subject matter of physics because they are not eternal. We cannot do physics with these entities because they are not objects....according to you."

    This is not what I claim. I did not claim that we CANNOT DO PHYSICS. Please try to follow:

    1. Atoms are eternal observer-independent objects.

    2. Matter is eternal observer-independently exists and it is defined as an aggregate of all the atoms.

    3. Nothing else exists.

    4. Atoms are eternally occupy multiple different locations and therefore the distances between them can be different.

    Note, that I completely agree with your definition of objective shape - something that is used in the definition of the term "object". Object must be surrounded ONLY by nothingness. Then you can say that the shape is objective and observer-independent. BUT, lake, air, your brain, all other so-called objects are not surrounded by nothingness while you are pointing to them! They are surrounded by other objects. Lake is surrounded by ground, not by nothingness!

    Only atoms are truly surrounded by nothingness accordingly only them are the only observer-independent objects.

    So now lets look how our perception works and what physics is about.

    1. We interact with the environment and arbitrarily "pick up" out of it aggregates of objects. These aggregates do exist since each and every one of the atoms in this aggregate do exist. This is a Hypothesis: aggregates of atoms do exist. The fact that stupid human ape can draw things on the blackboard or utter meaningless sounds has nothing to do with objects and their existence. All these pictures and names are purely our brain's products. We name or draw different aggregates of atoms, that's it. Then those aggregates of atoms are treated as actors in theory. They collide, pay premiums, write in the blogs, etc.

    And see - everything is absolutely rational according to your criteria. No verbs on concepts, no concepts performing verbs, my definitions are observer-independent and unambiguous.

    Please try to follow my example of Orion constellation - it is very clear.

    Fatfist: "Interesting...."

    Yes!!!

    PS: still waiting for your advice on a physics textbook and hope you will not mind to tell me your occupation.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “ I can claim that shape is observer-dependent and only perceived by sentient beings as a border separating two areas with different density of matter. “

    Shape refers to spatial separation....i.e. in the universe there is either something (has shape) or nothing (has no shape)....there is no other option...ever! There are no spirits or souls that are half-way between shape and no-shape.

    And this has nothing to do with observers...it has to do with critical thinking. Shape is intrinsic and observer-independent to any object. This is what distinguishes the object (something) from nothing. Any other distinguishing property your can think of is always observer-dependent.

    “what we call Moon" itself is a result of our arbitrary (due to our vision) perceiving of the border between the areas of atoms with two different densities. “

    Density is an observer-dependent concept which requires a being to make a comparison.

    Did the Moon exist before a being first looked at it...yes or no? If yes, then the moon had shape all on its own, without any observer to see and give an opinion about it.

    “you cannot point to anything and claim it is an object unless you can perceive this comparison of two areas of the matter.”

    Irrelevant. A blind man cannot point at the moon and cannot see it.....so does the moon not have shape...does the moon not exist? Ridiculous argument.

    And we don’t need to see any matter or any physical object in front of us. You still don’t understand the sci method. All objects are illustrated at the Hypothesis stage of the sci method. If the proponent cannot bring God to the Physics Conference for show & tell, does that mean that God does not exist? Ludicrous. In science we illustrate God on the blackboard. Then there is no question of whether God has shape or not, and whether God can be the actor in a theory.

    “Therefore, I can claim that the only objects that exist observer-independently are atoms constituting the matter”

    Ridiculous claim! Cars are objects and they collide. Car collisions are the subject matter of physics; so are planets, asteroids, stars, etc. Physics studies objects.

    “Those objects are observer-dependent as well as their shape and they did not exist before observers looked at them”

    So the Earth did not exist before Adam looked at it from the Garden of Eden, huh? Then please explain how the Earth BEGAN to exist....did it acquire Length first, before it acquired Width and Height...or vice versa?

    “why you are opposing these claims calling them "mereology" if I am not using the parts for definition but for description? “

    I am not. You can describe all you want....it remains a description....not an object, nor a definition, nor a theory. A description is not an object. An object is that which has shape. An object is what we point at in the Physics Conference and give it a name. Then we use that object as an actor in our theory to explain a phenomena....never to describe a phenomena. It is irrelevant whether the object has parts. If it has parts, then those objects will be separate actors in another theory.

    "Object: that which has shape and location AND exists eternally."

    So then the Moon is not an object according to your definition. A car is not an object either. Therefore planets, moons, rocks, stars, cars, billiard balls are not the subject matter of physics because they are not eternal. We cannot do physics with these entities because they are not objects....according to you.

    So car A and car B cannot possibly collide together because they are not objects...according to you. So car insurance companies should shut down their doors and go out of business soon.

    Interesting....

    And what is more interesting....is that when a physicist goes to the Physics Conference and illustrates an atom on the blackboard, or even a proton, neutron, electron, etc......this illustration is NOT an object. This illustration is NOT the subject matter of Physics. It cannot be part of any hypothesis or theory.

    Wanna take another shot at rationally defining object?

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    Fatfist: "Define the term OBJECT scientifically ie. Unambiguously, rationally, observer-independently."

    Definition: "Object: that which has shape and location AND exists eternally."

    Atoms are objects according to this definition, but any specific GROUP of atoms is an arbitrary perception by the sentient beings of a specific small PART of the total existing objects.

    Then "groups of objects" can be defined in each hypothesis (with exact specification of its parts and inerrelations between them) and further used for explanations.

    You see - I do not use parts description for definition of what is object, I only use it in Hypothesis - and you already agreed that this usage is OK.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    Just to make a clarification of the claim "macroscopic objects did not exist before the observer but the atoms did" - it is equivalent to the claim "all the matter included in and between the stars in the Orion constellation existed before observers" BUT "Orion constellation" is an irrelevant clause without an observer - only observer "picks up" 7 stars and names them Orion. "Orion" is purely observer-dependent and has no sense objectively despite the notion that all the matter INCLUDED in Orion IS objective.

    It is actually quite similar to your own notion in another hub:

    Fatfist:

    "Personally, I can only conceive of atoms always existing, and not more complex objects than that.

    Why?

    Because a complex object (aggregate of atoms) can always be broken down into its atom constituents."

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    1. Objectivity of shape

    "There is only one intrinsic property that an object can have...shape! Shape is the only observer-independent property an object has. The Moon had better have “shape” before any being evolved on the Earth....otherwise we have a LOT of explaining to do....specifically, how did the Moon acquire shape at the instant the first being looked at it.....ridiculous...."

    It is definitely ridiculous to assume that Moon acquired shape after being looked at IF the shape is observer-independent property. But this is a very big IF. I can claim that shape is observer-dependent and only perceived by sentient beings as a border separating two areas with different density of matter. So matter existed before observers, all the atoms existed before observers, the dense collection of atoms in the "what we call Moon" existed before observers, the less dense collection of atoms surrounding the "what we call Moon" existed before observers, but "what we call Moon" itself is a result of our arbitrary (due to our vision) perceiving of the border between the areas of atoms with two different densities. In this sense "what we call Moon" is actually a result of comparison between two things - two areas of matter with very different density of atoms. This will be ALWAYS the case with shape - you cannot point to anything and claim it is an object unless you can perceive this comparison of two areas of the matter. Therefore, I can claim that the only objects that exist observer-independently are atoms constituting the matter, matter density is different in different areas of space and areas with higher density are arbitrarily called "objects" by the sentient beings. Those objects are observer-dependent as well as their shape and they did not exist before observers looked at them (despite all the atoms constituting them did exist).

    2. You say that "car being consistent of doors, chassie etc" is a description belonging to hypothesis phase as well as "table consists of atoms". OK. Please note that I am not trying to DEFINE this objects by their composition. I am claiming that they have parts - that's all. As far as I can draw all the objects and all the parts, I am asking you again - what is irrational about these claims according to your definition of rationality and why you are opposing these claims calling them "mereology" if I am not using the parts for definition but for description? And please note that here I am pursuing a different argument from one I described in the previous section.

    3 "What if I did show you one textbook? Would that satisfy you? Or would you say that there are thousands of textbooks which outnumber this one, therefore we should discount it because it is out-voted?"

    You are ASSUMING why I am asking for the textbook without any basis!!! Please stop to ascribe to me things I never told as you do not like when others do this to you. I asked for a textbook reference only in order to see how the approach proposed by you fully and consistently explains all the "consummated events" known to us since trying to get this information from you on the web is quite time-consuming and inefficient (as I explicitly pointed out in my note). Then I can myself decide whether the explanation is indeed rational and consistent throughout. Whether this textbook is 1 or 1000 and how many "authorities" are involved is irrelevant for me exactly for the reasons you brought.

    3. May I ask you what is your primary occupation? This is just for my curiosity. Mine is medicine (I am a physician).

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    The definition of 'object' is NOT 'what it is made of'. The definition of ‘object’ is predicated on the whole object itself. There is no provision for parts or components, as this is ludicrous in an observer-independent definition.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “You agreed that object can possess observer-independent properties which are perceived by sentient beings as concepts.”

    An object, in and of itself, has only one observer-independent property...shape. This is the only intrinsic property an object can possibly have. That's what the ETs are conceptualizing when you say “ball”. So far, this ball thing is not made of parts (description, mereology). It doesn't have size (comparison). It doesn't have mass (relation). It doesn't have color (comparison), or any other attribute you can possibly think of. To the ET, there is conceptual difference between a ball and a cube, and this difference first and foremost has to do with “shape”, and not with the physical properties of the objects.

    Any other properties we attribute to objects are extrinsic because they invoke a second object.

    For example, mass requires an extrinsic object -- a scale of sorts -- and an observer. Mass also requires the observer to define an artificial standard (e.g., the kilogram).

    “If shape is a concept AND concepts are definitely observer-dependent (both these claims agreed by you above) then shape is observer-dependent. Sequetur or non-sequetur?”

    There is only one intrinsic property that an object can have...shape! Shape is the only observer-independent property an object has. The Moon had better have “shape” before any being evolved on the Earth....otherwise we have a LOT of explaining to do....specifically, how did the Moon acquire shape at the instant the first being looked at it.....ridiculous....

    “they will draw the same lake on the blackboard differently. So do they refer to the same object or not? How they can unambiguously agree?”

    Irrelevant. The question is not WHAT the shape of the lake is.....the question is: Does the lake have shape? Yes or No? We are not looking for any accuracy or proper scale in the illustration. We are simply trying to understand what the lake generally looks like and if it has shape....so we can determine if it is an object of physics or not.....so we can determine whether the lake can be an ACTOR in our Hypothesis and Theory.

    “hurricane....wind”

    We cannot draw or take a picture of a hurricane or wind. Unlike atom and air, which have shape, hurricane and wind are dynamic concepts. Atoms and air are objects which can be presented in our Hypothesis. Hurricane and wind does not refer to an object we can illustrate or point to. In order to understand the meaning of the words hurricane and wind, we must watch a movie. Hurricane and wind is not a hypothesis, but a theory, i.e. a rational explanation for how the object air behaves.

    “Please tell me what is irrational in a theory that states "this car consists of doors, chassie, motor and ..." - I can find a specific drawing in the book the manifacturer usually supplied with a car.”

    First of all, you still don’t understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A car is a hypothesized object, never a theory. Similarly for doors, motor, drawings, etc. A theory rationally explains a consummated event using the proposed objects in the hypothesis.

    “this car consists of doors, chassie, motor and ........It just relates one type of objects with another, it does not assume concepts performing verbs or verbs performing on concepts”

    This is not a relation. This is a description. You are describing the composition of the object car and all of the objects involved. You are not defining any concepts. This belongs in the hypothesis stage. This is not a theory.

    “I use the theory of composition of the table from the atoms..... “

    No you don’t. There is no such theory. This is a hypothesis. You must ASSUME in your hypothesis that the table is made from atoms, and be able to illustrate what an atom looks like for the purposes of your presentation. Since you are dealing with atoms in this context, then your Theory will now rationally explain WHY the atoms separated from each other during this event, and what happened to the atoms after completion of the event.

    “which can be precisely shown as a movie or a picture”

    You hypothesis must show an illustration of what an atom looks like. Then for the purposes of your theory, you should be able to make a movie which rationally explains why the atoms separated.....and show the whole event without missing frames.

    Hypotheses have illustrations of all objects, definitions of key terms, and set the initial scene.

    Theories are movies which rationally explain the event.

    “please refer me to a textbook of physics where it is explicitly stated that physics deals with objects only as a whole single pieces and throughout the textbook this rule is consistently applied.”

    What if I did show you one textbook? Would that satisfy you? Or would you say that there are thousands of textbooks which outnumber this one, therefore we should discount it because it is out-voted?

    You see what you are doing? You are making an argument from popularity and authority.....you are using confirmation bias. You are using consensus of opinion to confirm your personal bias. This is a fallacy in any argument. Your argument needs to have merit on its own. This means that you need to use critical thinking to rationally explain your position...not rely on the opinions of some High Priests to support your argument. This is what they do in Religion.

    The bottom line is.....these are the questions you need to answer:

    1) Is Physics the study of objects, specifically objects that exist? Yes or No?

    2) Does the DEFINITION of the term OBJECT say anything about what it is made of, composed of, or what parts it has? If yes, how can it be when we are not talking about a specific object? You should know, that it is impossible to define any specific object...like ‘coconut’ for example. We only point at objects and utter a sound to label them i.e. name them.

    3) Define the term OBJECT scientifically ie. Unambiguously, rationally, observer-independently.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    1. Properties

    You agreed that object can possess observer-independent properties which are perceived by sentient beings as concepts. For example these are properties of "separation between an object and another object or an object and vacuum" (enabling us to define concepts of shape and distance). Are there other objective observer-independent properties rationally possible except shape and distance? For example, mass is our concept. However, do you agree that there is a possibility of a certain observer-independent property of objects that underlies this observer-dependent concept?

    If shape is a concept AND concepts are definitely observer-dependent (both these claims agreed by you above) then shape is observer-dependent. Sequetur or non-sequetur? If non-sequetur please point where is the logical flaw.

    It is also evident from your example of the lake: depending on the observer (one on the mountain and one in the valley) they will draw the same lake on the blackboard differently. So do they refer to the same object or not? How they can unambiguously agree?

    2. Objects

    a. Is hurricane an object? It has no any definable objective border that can be drawn even if you are on the mountain. So can we state that hurricane exist?

    What about wind? Is wind an object?

    b. Simply calling a theory "mereology" or any other name does not make it irrational. You have to point specifically where the rationality is lost. You nicely defined all the requirements for rationality. Please tell me what is irrational in a theory that states "this car consists of doors, chassie, motor and ..." - I can find a specific drawing in the book the manifacturer usually supplied with a car. It just relates one type of objects with another, it does not assume concepts performing verbs or verbs performing on concepts, there are no supernatural beings involved. It is also very frequently used by insurance companies to calculate how much many to pay you for the damaged car. What is irrational?

    c. You said that objects can not begin to exist and not stop to exist. I can now take a "table" from my backyard and put it on fire and after very short time there will be no "table". Obviously, the atoms that this table was consistent of continue to exist, but not the table. So in order to explain apparent "disappearance" of the table (which is a consummated event) I use the theory of composition of the table from the atoms which can be precisely shown as a movie or a picture. Again - what is irrational in this argument?

    d.If you still maintain that the above examples are irrational arguments, please refer me to a textbook of physics where it is explicitly stated that physics deals with objects only as a whole single pieces and throughout the textbook this rule is consistently applied. This will save me a lot of time. I myself unaware of such a textbook.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “definition of "concept" as "something that is secondary to objects, it is artificial and invented by human-kind"”

    That is not a definition...that is a description. We define before we describe. A description just gives further qualifications.

    A concept is a relationship between objects. I already gave you multiple examples, one was of kinship....this is simple and easy to understand. Concepts depend on objects,... this is why they establish relationships. What those relationships are, and what they mean, is up to the individual concept in question to define..ie. we define “running”. Understand?

    “If you agree that the definition is rational I will continue to use it”

    As I explained, it is not. Just think about what I said.

    “There are absolutely NO observer-INdependent concepts.”

    Yes, concepts are conceived by beings.

    “Shape is a concept.”

    Yes, it is a static concept...no question about it!

    And before we go any further....let’s understand that the word OBJECT, is actually a concept!! All words are concepts. That is why we are able to define the term ‘object’.

    “Can we define something that will be called "properties" as relations (see your definition of "relation") between the objects which are objective, real, OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT”

    Real is a synonym for exist. So we can’t say they exist. But we can say they are objective. For example, “distance” is a relation between objects. Distance is our conception of the separation between objects. Objects have distance between them irrespective of an observer. The Earth and Moon were separated before humans evolved and conceived of the concept “distance”.

    “we (observers) name objects in order to communicate with another observer.”

    Yes, we do this before we present our theories to others. It is impossible to objectively define any object. All a human can do is point to an object (or illustrate it) and give it a name. If this object can possibly have location.. i.e. exist...then this object can now be regarded as an ACTOR in physics...in a hypothesis and theory. It’s that simple.

    “However, the border between "what we call Earth" and the huge amount of atoms in the immediate vicinity of what "we call Earth" is absolutely dependent on the mechanism of the vision of the observer. “

    In science we don’t care about observers and their opinions of what they can see or not see. In science we make things crystal clear in the Hypothesis stage by illustrating all of our objects. So if the ET has bad vision, we will draw for him a large image of the Earth and the Air surrounding it on a blackboard. We point to the ball and call it Earth...we point to object surrounding Earth and call it Air. These are now objects...they both have shape.

    “Let's suppose that ET has much better vision and can see air. Then he will probably tell as that the Earth is much bigger than we thought and includes the atmosphere (until a certain location where air molecules are so sparse that even he cannot see it).”

    Air is the name we give to a finite bundle of gas. It is an object. We can illustrate it on the blackboard. Air takes the shape gravity confers upon it. The foot of a Chinese woman takes the shape of the little shoe her husband wants her to wear. And the neck of the African woman takes on the shape according to the number of rings she puts between her chin and her shoulders.

    It is irrelevant if we can take a microscope and show great distances of space between air molecules. This is Mereology, it has no place in science...as I explained before.

    For example, you can be blind and water would still be a physical object. It just needs to have shape. If you can enclose these atoms with land and decide to call the entire thing a lake, then lake is an object. We have shape before us.

    Can't see the edges? No problem! Let's go to the mountain and see the shape of the object from there.

    “Therefore, he perceives the Solar system as one object and when we sit with him in his space shuttle just outside the Solar system and point to Earth and Sun and say these are different objects he simply cannot perceive what are you talking about.”

    Irrelevant. If he cannot see what we are talking about, then we draw it for him on the blackboard and make it crystal clear. This is what the Hypothesis stage of the sci method is all about. This stage ensures that there is no ambiguity of what we are talking about before we even go to the Theory stage where we begin to rationally explain WHY natural phenomena occur the way they do.

    “For example, two cars crush into each other (contexts of cars), one is completely damaged and the other one is not.”

    Great! Now we are dealing exclusively with one context...the one which deals only with the object ‘car’. Now we can explain why the other car wasn’t damaged. Was it because it had a superior rigidity, shock absorption.....was it because....blah blah.

    “Can you use their composition from different molecules (plastic, metal, etc) to explain this fact?”

    Great! Now we are dealing exclusively with one context...the one which deals only with the object ‘molecule’. Now we can explain why the molecules lost their bonds or why they changed locations.....or why they collided the way they did....etc.

    The point is....once we mix cars and molecules together, we do not have an object....we have a concept....a RELATION. A car and a molecule is not an object. They are 2 different objects. Once we relate them in a sentence, then we invented some concept with some meaning.

    “Now molecules and cars are one context??”

    If your hypothesis makes this statement, then it is alluding to a concept.

    “So do you define context based on the observer's vision acuity?”

    No, this is not an issue catering to opinions. We simply illustrate the object in our hypothesis. And we illustrate it at the contextual level we wish to deal with for the purposes of OUR theory. For example, the car insurance companies deal with physical collisions at the contextual level of a ‘car’. They do not deal with molecules or atoms of cars. But this doesn’t mean that they cannot rationally explain WHY the collision occurred. They often do.

    “When two cars crash each into another and decompose into pieces which fly over the highway and those pieces damage other cars - can you physically explain this consummated event without ascribing all these pieces as being parts of a car??”

    In order to explain such complexities, in physics we break them down into sub-events. The main event was the collision. We explain why it happened. After pieces started flying and hitting other cars, we deal with each piece as a separate sub-event. Like I said....keeping things in context ensures that we present our theory rationally, and without ascribing causes to concepts.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    BTW

    Fatfist: "In Physics, all objects are ASSUMED to be made of a SINGLE PIECE."

    When two cars crash each into another and decompose into pieces which fly over the highway and those pieces damage other cars - can you physically explain this consummated event without ascribing all these pieces as being parts of a car??

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    You are right that we indeed can continue to try to define word by word indefinitely. However, I was not playing any game - you see that I did not ask you to define "nothing" "verb" "motion" etc. I ask only about very few and very key words. So please do not see it as a game. I am much better satisfied with your definition of "concept" as "something that is secondary to objects, it is artificial and invented by human-kind". Can we conclude that this is a definition of "concept"?

    Now, if this is the definition, let's continue.

    And please - we both proved to each other that we can use offensive language, let's not continue with it. If you disagree you can simply say that, and if I ask something again then it is because I probably missed something (and I quote from your argument with another person):

    Fatfist:"The only stupid questions are the ones that don’t get asked. The fact that you are asking these things indicates that you care and want to understand."

    1. Concepts

    Statement A: ALL concepts are in our heads ONLY, they are not real and they are not objective, they ALL observer-dependent. There are absolutely NO observer-INdependent concepts.

    Do you agree?

    Statement B: Shape is a concept.

    Do you agree?

    Statement C: Can we define something that will be called "properties" as relations (see your definition of "relation") between the objects which are objective, real, OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT and upon presence of observer he/she PERCEIVES this properties as "concepts". Obviously, if this definition is rational, same properties can be perceived by different observers as different concepts and different properties can be perceived as the same concept.

    If you agree that the definition is rational I will continue to use it, otherwise please show what is irrational about it.

    (I had to ask you about the word "relation" before in order to use it in this definition. You see - I never ask questions just to bother or mock or irritate people, only to better understand and make the conversation more fruitful.)

    2. Considering composition of objects.

    Fatfist: "We point to a gold bar and call it gold, and we point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET does not yet know whether gold or butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment."

    This is exactly what I am talking about as being "observer-dependent" - we (observers) name objects in order to communicate with another observer.

    Lets assume we are on Moon and there we met ET. We point to Earth and say "Earth".

    All the atoms which constitute an object which we call "Earth" exist absolutely independently of any observer - it makes sense. This is also rational to state that all the atoms in the immediate vicinity of the Earth (air) exist independently of the observer. However, the border between "what we call Earth" and the huge amount of atoms in the immediate vicinity of what "we call Earth" is absolutely dependent on the mechanism of the vision of the observer. And please note that I am not talking about a border between matter and space (nothing, vacuum) I am talking about an area in the space that is occupied by millions of atoms, but the distances between atoms in different subareas are different, we see (perceive) a border of the Earth since inside it interatomic distances are smaller than outside the Earth.

    Let's suppose that ET has much better vision and can see air. Then he will probably tell as that the Earth is much bigger than we thought and includes the atmosphere (until a certain location where air molecules are so sparse that even he cannot see it).

    Now let's assume that ET's vision is even better. He can see that the whole space between the Sun and the planets is filled with atoms (which is indeed so). Therefore, he perceives the Solar system as one object and when we sit with him in his space shuttle just outside the Solar system and point to Earth and Sun and say these are different objects he simply cannot perceive what are you talking about.

    Fatfist:"In physics we deal with objects in context. This means that we can do physics with a car colliding with another car. We can do physics with the molecules of the respective cars.....we can do physics with the atoms in the respective cars....etc. Car, molecule, atoms, EM rope, thread.....are all objects in their own right. We only do physics with ONE context at a time...."

    Please explain how you came to this strange conclusion of one context only. We definitely may rationally talk on at least two context levels. For example, two cars crush into each other (contexts of cars), one is completely damaged and the other one is not. Can you use their composition from different molecules (plastic, metal, etc) to explain this fact? Why not?

    How you OBJECTIVELY determine what is one context and what is another? Suppose our vision is much better and we can simultaneously see both the car and car-composing molecules (it can be easily imagined if one of the two eyes you have has two lenses with muscles that adjust the distance between the lenses). Now molecules and cars are one context?? So do you define context based on the observer's vision acuity?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “define "relation" or rewrite the definition of "concept" without using the word relation.”

    My dear Vlad, it really doesn’t matter whether I define the word “relation”, “memory”, “the”, “but”, “have”, or every single word in the English dictionary. The bottom line is that you will still COMPLAIN that you don’t understand the definition of some word in the sentence. So we will be going down that path of endlessly defining words til the universe ends! If you wish to have a rational discussion with me, then please do so....but games, I do not play.

    Nonetheless, the ordinary meaning of “relation” will suffice here. Just like when you were born, your parents (objects) established a relation with you (object)...called “child”. And you have further established relations in your family tree with relatives, friends, etc. It’s that simple.

    So...what distinguishes a concept from an object is that a concept is artificial (man-made) and invokes a minimum of two objects. In other words, the definition of the word concept is predicated on the definition of the word object. If you are marooned on an island in the middle of nowhere with an ET, before you can communicate concepts to him, you must teach him the name of the objects. You point and say “rock,” “tree,” “coconut.” Before he understands verbs such as climb, knock, break, eat, and survive you must absolutely have a physical intermediary. Only then can you communicate to him sophisticated dynamic concepts, for example, that he should climb the tree and knock the coconut to the ground where you will break it with a rock so that you can both eat and thus survive.

    You see, that is why concepts relate objects.....they depend on objects in order for them to be conceived. The concept “run” relates an object, the person performing the action, to another object, the ground. Concepts invoke objects in order to establish some kind of relationship between them which gives some kind of meaning to us....like “running”. This is why concepts can be defined, while objects cannot. This means that objects precede concepts. You cannot have concepts without objects. Concepts do not perform actions....only objects do. Therefore, time cannot dilate and space cannot bend/warp.....only objects can dilate and bend.

    “You state that all atoms in the universe are connected via EM ropes and actually constitute a sort of a ONE huge mesh. Do you agree?”

    Yes, this is the hypothesis.

    “In this case any specific division of this mesh into parts (that we can then define as objects) is actually arbitrary and is a product of our perception.”

    No. To say that an object is made of parts is called Mereology. Mereology is not a part of Science. It is a branch of religion....ie. God is made of up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit...and love and morals and righteousness and punishment...and .... This is perception and is irrelevant in science. The critical question which must be answered is: Is God an object, yes or no?

    It’s that simple!

    In Physics, all objects are ASSUMED to be made of a SINGLE PIECE. When you point to a table and say "table" there is no second guessing that it is made of pieces. This is how we distinguish one object from another and therefore have the capability to do Physics, which is the study of objects...specifically, objects that exist.

    In Physics, an object is your exhibit in your Hypothesis which will be an actor in your Theory. The only requirement for a valid exhibit is that your proposed object has shape and location. All matter nouns qualify as objects in this sense. We point to a gold bar and call it gold, and we point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET does not yet know whether gold or butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment. He's just trying to learn a word and determine whether it resolves to something real, like an object which exists, or to something artificial, like a concept.

    “Then any specific definition of an "object" is also arbitrary and observer-dependent. Do you agree?”

    No way, absolutely not.

    In physics we deal with objects in context. This means that we can do physics with a car colliding with another car. We can do physics with the molecules of the respective cars.....we can do physics with the atoms in the respective cars....etc. Car, molecule, atoms, EM rope, thread.....are all objects in their own right. We only do physics with ONE context at a time....it is in Religion where they intermix contexts and thus, creating RELATIONS i.e. concepts....like God, black hole, energy, time, spacetime, electron, proton, neutron, quark, singularity, photon, etc. And what’s worse, is that they now REIFY these relations into objects and move them around and transfer them...ie. the energy was transferred to the other car.

    This is why Religionists like Relativists, Quantum Theorists, String Theorists, Born Again Christians, etc....are all LOST and haven’t a clue of what they are talking about or what they are observing. They think that a concept exists and can hit them over the head. Why? Because they have REIFIED it into an object. Fallacy of Reification!

    Mereology plays no role in the definition of the word “object”. The definition of 'object' is NOT 'what it is made/composed of'.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    OK, may be I misunderstood your definition of concept/object.

    In order to make clear what I do not understand and what you do not understand (or both, or neither) let's proceed in small steps without lecturing or giving examples - short questions and short answers.

    1. Concepts

    Your definition: "Concepts are "relations" between objects, concepts do not have shape and do not exist".

    You said that any word that can be used in many different contexts is ambiguous. You use the word "relation" in definition of concepts. Moreover, you put this word in quote marks which usually in linguistics is used to imply some specific or unconventional meaning. Clearly the word relation is used in many different contexts of human conversation - it can mean some static property (for example position of one building "relative" to another) or it can mean belonging to a same class of things (like presence or absence of relation between two humans with respect to a certain family) or it can mean physical connection. I think that your aforementioned definition of concept is therefore ambiguous.

    So can you please in 1-2 clear and short sentences define "relation" or rewrite the definition of "concept" without using the word relation.

    And you do not need to give examples or lengthy explanations. It is very clear to me that both me and you refer to "pen" as an object and "fall" as a concept and "green" as a concept and "happen" as a concept. But in order to prevent further misunderstanding I still ask you to provide unambiguous definition.

    Maybe somewhere else in your arguments with others you already gave this another definition and I missed it - in this case I apologize and ask you to simply rewrite it.

    2. Objects

    a. You state that all atoms in the universe are connected via EM ropes and actually constitute a sort of a ONE huge mesh. Do you agree?

    b.In this case any specific division of this mesh into parts (that we can then define as objects) is actually arbitrary and is a product of our perception. Then any specific definition of an "object" is also arbitrary and observer-dependent. Do you agree?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Vladimir,

    “time is something in the sentient's observer head as a result of his neuronal memory and non-sentient objects like Moon do not have neuronal memory”

    Great, thanks for finally starting to talk rationally. Yes, time is indeed a concept. It is a number line; a scalar quantity used by observers for quantifying motion (ie. measuring movement of objects). So of course we need to keep track or remember the previous locations or states of objects. Time is certainly not an object. We INVENTED time!

    Fat: “"Perpetual simply means no beginning and no end."

    Vlad: “Words "beginning" and "end" are used in normal human language always with an additional word.”

    And that additional word that I used was ‘location’. Matter is indeed perpetually located “somewhere”....matter may be here or there, and so on. So, location is not something that can come into being, it is not something that can just happen,....location just IS. Location is a static concept which allows us to conceptualize where matter resides...ie. is located. This is what I meant by location having no beginning and no end. Matter cannot pop from the void or disappear into the void. Matter always has location....there is no other way about it. This means that matter is eternal....it always existed, and will always exist. So for example, to say that “the universe is perpetual”, we mean that matter and space did not come into existence and they will not disappear. Is this clearer now?

    “So, consummated events (as one type of events) - according to YOUR definition - are also concepts and as such they do not exist.”

    Correct! This makes sense...only objects exist! Events do not exist, and are impossible to ‘exist’. You are struggling with this because you cannot define the word 'exist'.

    “science is about consummated events”

    Here is what I said from the record:

    Fat: “Science is the STUDY of existence. Science studies that which only exists, or can possibly exist...i.e. objects!!”

    Fat: “Yes, science is about explaining consummated events. This is what the “theory” stage of the sci method is about.”

    So, let’s clear up your confusion below....

    “science is about consummated events it is actually is about something that does not exist. It indeed sounds like non-sense but it directly follows from YOUR definitions.”

    No! It does not directly follow from my definitions. And it SOUNDS like nonsense because YOU present it as such. So nobody is fooled by this sleight of hand trick. This is a non-sequitur trick on your part, and I know these games that theists & atheists play in order to put words in other people’s mouths. I know all the tricks. You DECIDED for all of us that it “follows” from my definitions....just like a theist decides for all of us that we will go to Hell if we don’t repent. It doesn’t work that way.

    So, by looking at my statements above, a rational human will understand that Science is a field of study....the study of existence. Science specifically studies that which exists i.e. objects! Science does not study concepts....only Religion & Philosophy do that. Religions study gods, souls, demons, heaven, etc. Philosophy studies truth, lies, energy, time, multiple universes, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

    This means that in science, the actors you illustrate in your Hypothesis must be nouns which can possibly exist..ie. they must be objects. Hence, in your Theory, you must use those actors (objects) in your hypothesis to explain WHY some natural phenomena occurred (consummated event). The consummated event does NOT exist because that is our conceptual description of what happened. For example, we can make a movie showing a pen falling to the floor. Now, in our Theory we must rationally explain WHY the pen fell to the floor by invoking object(s) in our Hypothesis. So if the object is an ‘angel’, we say that the angel came in contact with the pen and pulled it to the floor.

    So, the consummated event is our conceptual description of WHAT happened to the pen....as we need to describe what happened using language, words, concepts, etc.

    But the Theory is a rational explanation of WHY it happened...of WHY the pen was attracted to the floor. And we use our object, the angel, to explain exactly how the angel managed to get the pen to the floor. But in the Theory, ONLY ACTORS/OBJECTS can perform events. Concepts cannot pull pens from the air to the floor....only objects which exist can possibly do that.

    Concepts like energy and 0D graviton spirits and warped space cannot pull pens to the floor. Only religions propose such nonsense!

    This is what the sci method is about....from hypo to theory.

    “"Fall" is a verb. You said that "The universe has no verbs." So what is YOUR answer to the question "did the pen actually fall on the floor"???”

    Yes, there is only matter wrapped by space...there are no verbs floating out there in space and colliding with stars and planets. Verbs like “fall” and “running” do not fall to the floor....only objects which exist fall to the floor. Verbs cannot perform actions; only objects can.

    Is a pen an object?

    Does a pen have location? Is there a static distance between your nose and the pen?

    If so, then the pen exists. If it exists, then of course it can fall to the floor when your cat pushes it off the desk.

    I cannot understand why you are having so much trouble with these basics. You seem to be struggling so hard to show contradictions here, and that’s why you are making so many errors. You need to take a deep breath....relax....and try to comprehend what is said before jumping into strawman arguments and non-sequiturs.

    “I cannot ascribe a verb ("fall") which is a concept to something that is in the Universe (a pen).”

    Of course you can’t because you don’t understand the diff between object and concept, and you clearly don’t understand the Scientific Method.

    You do not understand that when you release the pen from your hand, the pen undergoes multiple locations before it makes contact with the floor....irrespective of human observers. But humans call this process “motion” because of...er...um...ya know....the memory thing-a-majingy which you said you understood....right? We humans conceptualize the pen in “motion” and we call this concept FALL (one of our verbs)....understand now? But the universe is static, not dynamic because it has no state....only we have state and can remember the pen’s previous locations on its way to the floor. That is the difference.

  • profile image

    Vladimir 5 years ago

    ThinFist - you lost your bet.

    Fatfist - if you carefully read my statements you will not find ANYWHERE that I said that time exists. I totally agree with your statement that time is something in the sentient's observer head as a result of his neuronal memory and non-sentient objects like Moon do not have neuronal memory. Satisfied?

    Now let's look again on your statements.

    1. "objects have perpetual multiple locations irrespective of the observer" Excellent! I absolutely agree.

    2. Then you wrote "Perpetual simply means no beginning and no end."

    Words "beginning" and "end" are used in normal human language always with an additional word. The only place I know of where the word "beginning" is used alone is Bible (Genesis 1.1). Location cannot have either beginning or end - location is static (your words - I totally agree). So it is legitimate to ask "perpetual simply means no beginning and no end OF WHAT?" So please answer this question.

    Now

    I wrote “science means "explaining consummated events which is something that is only in our minds, not objective, not real" not as MY OPINION but as something that directly follows from your definitions.

    You said that "event" is not an object but a "concept", and "concepts" do not exist in the Universe. Concepts (again according to you - and please correct me if this is wrong) - are only in our heads. So, consummated events (as one type of events) - according to YOUR definition - are also concepts and as such they do not exist. Please tell me if you agree with this statement.

    So if - again I am only citing you not expressing any opinion - science is about consummated events it is actually is about something that does not exist.

    It indeed sounds like non-sense but it directly follows from YOUR definitions.

    "So when the pen falls to the floor, it actually didn’t? This is all in our heads, huh?"

    "Fall" is a verb. You said that "The universe has no verbs." So what is YOUR answer to the question "did the pen actually fall on the floor"??? I am trying to strictly follow your definitions and statements but according to them I cannot ascribe a verb ("fall") which is a concept to something that is in the Universe (a pen).

    And again to clarify - in all my postings I NEVER said anything ABOUT your definitions - I am only asking questions within your framework.

  • profile image

    ThinFist 5 years ago

    I bet he can't/won't do it!

    Ten bucks on it!