Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
That's a stupid epistemology because it suggests that things stop existing when you stop looking at them. The appropriate correction is to rather state that `no evidence ≈ no existence.'
Interesting that you included your email to Craig. Not surprised he didn't respond, but I hope you don't mind my commenting on it since you did decide to include it in full.
No. The Schwartzschild radius r of a black hole is given in terms of the gravitational constant, G, the mass of the black hole, m, and the speed of light unimpeded, c, as r = 2*G*m/c^2. The density l is given as l = m/( (4/3)[pi]r^3 ). Notice that the density is well-defined and finite. That being said, a black hole's volume doesn't have to be defined by its Schwarzschild radius, and black holes are thought to have complex internal structure. I'll grant that the density at the singularity may be considered infinite.
Dangerous thinking; this kind of thought usually turns out to be delusion, or, at least, undeserved self-congratulation. Avoid it.
No, you don't. You would have infinite density, period.
Well, it would be true that you would have literally all the mass in the universe, but it has, at most, very little to do with what people have conceived, and the density of the black hole at the location of its singularity has nothing to do with the amount of mass you've thrown in.
I guess we're just sort of playing silly games.
On the contrary, it would be about as finite as it can get. There would be `no time' at the location of the singularity, and this cannot be used to conclude that the universe is `infinitely old.'
@ calhais
This definitely proves you possess a complete and absolute lack of understanding astrophysics. Much like all Absolutists. You are trying to apply normal physics on what is inside a black hole (singularity). Our current understanding only allows us to apply our current understanding to everything this side, or outside, of the event horizon. Once AT the event horizon and inside, we can only make educated estimations. Thus, the reason why we "think" inside the event horizon there may exist infinite density and infinite gravity. And until we can actually obtain objective hard empirical evidence (OHEE) of the inside of a black hole/singularity, those best educated estimations will have to serve.
Of course, I can say anything about the inside of a black hole/singularity and still be "correct." But only providing it actually has some logical and reasonable intellectual veracity. So far everything you and EI have said is as Old Man puts it:
rmfr
Whatever. You either refuse to read my comment, or you don't know what you're talking about. The event horizon occurs at and is equivalently defined by the Schwartzschild radius.
You're the bozo who was rambling on about larger and larger infinite density at the center of a black hole. I think you're just angry that I shut you down.
Oh, I read it. You just have no understanding about our current equations/formulas in Theoretical Astrophysics and how they work.
So I guess having spent my entire life studying astrophysics and geology was wasted? Thanks for enlightening me to my lack of education. I wonder if my mentor can find a job for me so I can pay for getting into college again.
Oooh. Ad hominem. I am actually touched to know you think so much of me... ***hand smooch, blow*** Love ya too.
Nope. No anger. Just sympathy. Some laughter.
No horse hoowhee. However, it only works while outside the event horizon. At and inside the event horizon, the Schwarzchild Radius formula no longer works. It ONLY calculates where the event horizon MAY be located from the central singularity point. Since we cannot test exactly where the event horizon would actually be, we still can only make a logical and reasonable best guess.
And you used the somewhat correct formula, however it is ρ = m/V. And V is more easliy written as 4πr^3/3. Again, ONLY when outside the event horizon.
True. The Schwarzchild Radius is just a best guess.
Yes. It is precarious (!dangerous) thinking. However, you failed to notice the operative word (or you chose to ignore it): "probably". That is not a definitive. I was making a best guess based on many other persons I have spoken with and do not agree with my hypothesis. Also notice I said it was a hypothesis. And if there is someone (excepting my astrphysics mentor) who has the same hypothesis, then I have yet to meet them. My mentor does not count since it is required to have a mentor to write a dissertation/journal article when one does NOT have a PhD/ScD in the subject.
Whether you agree with the hypothesis or not means nothing to me. Just like my lack of belief in any god(s) means nothing to you, making you an Absolutist. In mine own way, I can be called an Absolutist. However, my definition for Absolutist is (boiled down to its simplest): Any person who possesses an inexorable belief in any religion.
However, my form of Absolutist-ism is best described as Scientist. I utilize the Scientific Method because it is the best and only method we have of determining True Truth. Your form of Absolutist-ism requires "faith" which is nothing more than "the fantastical belief in something which cannot be proven."
Additionally, on further note, I also trimmed that hypothesis down to its bare minimal thoughts. I did not include, as you may put it, "all the hookey dookey scientific bullshit," with it. (Or would those be Tin-Man's words?) And no. I am not posting it here since it is still a working dissertation I am "working" on. You will just have to wait until it does get published, then pay for the privelege of downloading it.
Nope. Not finite. Not "no time." In acutally, time would become "undefined." Thus, I admit "infinite" may not be the best term. However, your "no time" is equally, if not more so, invalid. As in the equation we use, "What is n ÷ 0?"
Thus, next time you accuse someone of NOT reading your comment, you had better make absolutely damned sure they did not read it.
rmfr
P.S. — I know y'all ain't, but if wondering... Until I was almost 15 years old (one month shy when dad sold the farm), I grew up on a farm with a horse stables. Have you ever walked into a horse stables that had not been cleaned for a while in the middle of the "dog days" of summer? Well, when I did for the first time, the smell was so overwhelming, I yelled out, "HOOWHEE!"
That does not follow from your newly updated definition of Absolutist.
You yourself indicated that you don't remember some basic, relevant maths. I find it hard to believe that you're contributing much to any publishable physics paper, given that. If you do work at Yosemite, and you use your knowledge of geology, then you know that your study of geology has paid off. About your knowledge of astrophysics: all I have to go off of is what you write here.
Good. You remember some things, at least.
The equation I gave was correct, your complaint is trite, and you really do seem angry about my calling you out.
I noticed it; in fact, it's part of what made me suspect that this was dangerous thinking on your part. It's common for those who have inflated opinions of their own ideas, or who think that they have original ideas and emphasize the point, to write carelessly; your accurate use of the word `probably' was reasonable to overlook.
Straw man.
This is part of why I call you a bozo--and my use of the word is descriptive, not pejorative.
You are incompetent to represent my views, so you are a bozo. You are incompetent to represent my views because you are not suited to describe my views for the purpose of addressing them accurately. I know this because you have in one comment asserted that you think that it is perhaps likely that I would call an explanation of yours ``all the hooky dookey scientific bullshit,'' which is wrong, and that I would perhaps consider faith as `the fantastical belief in something [that] cannot be proven.'
This is fair to conclude, given a skeptical reading of my previous comment.
No, I hadn't better do that. As far as your comments evidence the fact, you hadn't read my comment till you wrote this one.
No. Ad hominem is a property of an argument. `Bozo' was meant as a standalone description.
Ultimately, me thinks this is a dressed up God of the Gaps Argument.
rmfr
Hey! Anybody got a huge butterfly net I can borrow? These fuzzy floating kittens are really getting out of control!....*swatting hand in front of face repeatedly*.....
Did you notice the pink flying elephants yet? That is when you realize the kittens are not the real problem.
Actually, the real problem is going to be the invisible one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater.
rmfr
@Logic
Flying pink elephants????..... Fuck...*hanging head in despair*.... Definitely going to need a bigger net.
Humans are very resourceful at "validating" whatever beliefs are close to their hearts, and the more intelligent a person is the more clever the justification of his or her heartfelt beliefs. The misuse of philosophy is the classic example of clever rationalization. God-belief is the classic heartfelt belief rationalized.
Sorry, but a probability of 0, by definition, means the event cannot happen--i.e. that it is impossible.
Who told you that there has to be only one source of all existence? Seven sources cannot be ruled out. You are just assuming that there must only be one source.
Who told you that any such source must be intelligent? There is no logical requirement for a mind. Indeed, it is much more reasonable to hold that some part of nature is the source of all existence. "God" is an odd layer of excess fat.
Who told you that everything must have a specific cause? Haven't you heard of quantum mechanics? The exact same situation can lead two two different outcomes. A true cause would always produce the same result from the same initial conditions. You are using a medieval concept of cause that is not applicable at the fundamental level of modern physics.
Who told you that a natural cause is ruled out by an infinite regress? Aren't you making dubious assumptions about the nature of time?
Who told you that our universe must have had a specific cause? The principles of nature can take us back to the Big Bang, but once there we have no means to say anything! In particular, we cannot say that it was the beginning of all existence. We cannot say that there was a "before." If you are right on the north pole, can you take a step that will carry you further north? If you are standing at the south pole, where is the source of east? East does not exist at the south pole, but appears once you have taken a step in any direction. The only honest answer is that we don't yet know what went on at the Big Bang.
You have done a lot of rationalizing, of a form so popular among medieval theologians, but you have yet to give us any real reasons, especially evidence, for God's existence. All of these medieval arguments have been refuted or are versions of the refuted arguments. None of these dusty, old arguments carries much weight today among philosophers as a whole.
EI: But does your god have nipples?
Only took a few lines of reading the original post by ∃xistential Intelligence to realize he is just shifting around commonly held word definitions to suit his argument, an argument made nonsensical.
I started scanning, I see he wrote "an atheist holds the belief that God is a ‘guy in the sky’"
So he says he is not atheist, he changes definitions of key words like "god" at will, and then says he knows what atheist think and that atheist are wrong. AKA he puts false words in every atheist mouths then says those words are wrong.
Wow.
What is that called? Narcissism? I did not bother read the rest or going to bother with pointing out the numerous giant flaws I saw within the first few paragraphs, my guess this guy not going to be around for long on these boards.
What a titanic effort by this guy to rationalize his own belief. And like the titanic this effort is going to sink on its maiden voyage
I think the technical term is Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which there is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding [caring] of others’ feelings. People affected by NPD often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power, success, and/or domineering control (megalomania). They often take advantage of the people around them, especially focusing upon the homeless, poor, drug addicts, and less educated.
This disorder is very similar to Megalomaniacal Dementia when applied to those of a religious bent.
rmfr
I am glad to see that I wasn't the only confused by the OP
@Hulkster
Honestly, I would be worried about anybody who WASN'T confused by the OP. lol
@ Tin-Man
To be honest with you, even I am confused by the OP. However, I also understand enough of it to realize EI is spewing a "dressed up" God of the Gaps Argument. He is doing nothing more than buzzwording everyone to death. He thinks by using his buzzwords and performing the ignorance standards of SfT, that he has the ultimate truth.
However, all he has is the diarrhea that he is spewing from that hemorrhoid of a brain. He has clouded his own appreception to the point he cannot even see the real world anymore. As you put it, the forest and trees.
rmfr
@Arakish Re: "He has clouded his own appreception to the point he cannot even see the real world anymore."
Yep. Sure seems that way. Although, here is another possibility to consider.... Mr. E.I. is really just a wicked-smart troll who got bored with his "Fun Time With Calculus!" book, and he decided to come here to have a bit of fun for awhile. And if that is indeed the case, I tip my hat to him. LOL
You may have a point there...
LOL
I keep forgetting those "Fun Time with Calculus" game books are limited in how much time they can waste...
rmfr
∃xistential Intelligence
Do you pray to your God?
I have tried praying to God, God has not answered.
I have ask God to reveal itself to me, God remains hidden.
Therefore I have concluded that God doesn't exist, so I remain an atheist.
EI
And you still have it so backwards. I feel sorry for you. I see you know how to plagiarize (http://westsidetoastmasters.com/resources/thinking_tools/ch03lev1sec6.html). Wonder how much more of what you have posted is a simple copy and paste plagiarism? I do have access to a plagiarism checker...
==================================================
No issue. Think about it some more.
==================================================
If you believe God Necessarily IS without any objective hard empirical evidence (OHEE), then yes, you do have beliefs. Explaining anything that is fantastical as fact is belief and faith and is quite delusional.
BTW: That is how you properly define an acronym.
==================================================
I completely understand God. No failure on my part. I just do not accept the preposterous claims of his existence.
==================================================
No I won't. Because if you don't get it, I just walk away.
==================================================
No fallacy. Just your inability to comprehend.
==================================================
Now I am going to include some other remarks made that you seem to ignore just like SfT (the guy doing the X-Files thing).
Remember when you said this:
And I said:
Well, you still have yet to provide any proof. So far, all you have been doing is behaving exactly like a certain quote from a certain apologist.
William Land Craig: “Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”
Except in your case, it should be worded thusly: “Should a conflict arise between My Logic to My Fundamental Truth of God Necessarily IS and conclusions and knowledge based on argument and objective hard empirical evidence then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”
==================================================
Remember when you said this:
And I replied thusly:
That still holds true. You desire us to accept your fallacious and beguiling and deceptive dialectical semantics as Absolute Truth without any kind of OHEE.
==================================================
And I loved this post by LogicForTW:
==================================================
To which I added:
==================================================
You, sir, definitely fit this description (I paraphrase): “...rarely capable to determining what is real from what they wish to be real.” — Richard Dawkin’s, The God Delusion.
==================================================
The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, we Atheists have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, we have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof.
Furthermore, EI, everything you have posed is nothing more than hearsay.
The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. Not the one who does not believe the claim. If you are going to claim that scientists are lying, doctors are being paid off, there is a global conspiracy against religion, etc., the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak (paraphrased from thelogicofscience.com). And the veracity of that speech is always in question (Self).
Until you Absolutists can present any objective hard empirical evidence to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed.
And you, sir, have not presented any evidence whatsoever.
rmfr
The Rules For Acronyms
============================
Mainly, this post is specifically for Existential Intelligence and calhais since neither of them seem to have had any courses in "technical writing."
However, others may find it interesting if they did not know these rules of writing.
Also, please note that the newest book I have is from 2003. The oldest is from 1954 (my dad's when he earned his degrees). A lot can change in 15 years.
In all the "technical writing and communications" textbooks I kept from college (I actually bought them all), all of them have the following rules for acronyms. In fact, one of the books is actually titled, Technical Writing and Communication.
rmfr
Edit: put something in wrong place and two typos
Pages