tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8913562139034776863..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Tie breaker: God cannot be a brute factJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2965238523590389122017-11-21T23:20:17.983-08:002017-11-21T23:20:17.983-08:00I doubt anyone is reading this. you are really str...I doubt anyone is reading this. you are really struggling to avoid dealing with the issues of the article. I'll give you one more chance to say something about the issues then I'm closing the thread.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40817759111590085652017-11-21T23:17:57.150-08:002017-11-21T23:17:57.150-08:00no you just have it backwards, God is the term we ...no you just have it backwards, God is the term we use to talk about being, we don't make up a definition of being to fit God,we use the term God to describe being then we make metaphors about it to illustrate<br /><br />- You defined God as being itself. If A = B, then B = A. Identity is reflexive. You can't get it backwards.<br /><br /><br /><b>this is really just another version of saying I don't believe in God and expecting that to win the argument. You trying to shift the issue to argument about you don't believe in 'God so I have the burden of proof and it's a repeat of the only thing atheists can think abouit,hate God,God big mean me no like. Your accusation that I'm tailoring the idea of being to fit my idea of God loses and it's not to the point, <br /><br />you are not going to get out of reading those articles, they demonstrate the justification for linking God with being itself, </b><br /><br /><br />No i jut showed your reasoning i backwards<br /><br />- Whatever. But you still didn't address the core issue that you are begging the question.<br /><br /><b>It's not my core issue,it's your red herring,Only tangentially related to the article,</b><br /><br /><br />Let's remember how this is the work of established theologians going as far back as St. Augustine in the 300's<br /><br />- I am addressing what YOU said at 1:29 AM, not what Augustine said in 300 AD<br /><br /><b>whatI saidis what Agugie said</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53121683731396264232017-11-21T23:06:33.367-08:002017-11-21T23:06:33.367-08:00m-skeptical said...
You don't know what Tillic...m-skeptical said...<br />You don't know what Tillich's definition is. Tillich defines being as actuality, I think any reasonable person would accept that<br /><br />- I repeated YOUR definition verbatim. YOU defined God as "being itself".<br /><br /><b>That is so silly, you are doing it backwards,you said my definition of BEING was constructed to reflect my view of God. now you are harping on the definition of God, but since you are not qualified to discusses theology you need to learn more before I take your nonsense cellulose,,...God is the transcendental signified, that is being itself because it;s the ultimate basis of reality.</b><br /><br /><br />yes they do ,that;s a standard atheist ploy.<br /><br />- I've never heard it. Not even once. Do you have any quotes?<br /><br /><b>one more stray bit of qualia in a vast cean</b><br /><br /><br />That is missing the point to say it evokes God.<br />- It was the definition you gave. How is it missing the point? It goes straight to the conclusion of your argument.<br /><br /><b>No the point is not that I believe in God the point is the tie breaker at the point where both sides claim uncased origins,saying"IO dot believe in God so it's not a tie: is not an answer, you will turn around and argue the uncased nature of the universe at the next God argument thus evoking the tie as a meas of frustrating a God argument, having donged the issue here that there is a tie breaker,</b><br /><br /><br />No quite the contrary, The standard model is famous for saying time has a beginning with the universe.<br /><br />- My statement was about causation, not about the temporal aspect of the universe. If you are claiming that anything that has a beginning in time must be caused, there are two problems with that. 1: The universe does not have a beginning in time. Rather, time begins with the universe. 2: There are still things that begin in time, but are uncaused.<br /><br /><b>No it has a beginning with time I just said that, that means it's not eternal if you claim there are other universes that are eternal you must prove that,</b><br /><br /><br />You are trying to impose your view by stipulation. you are begging the question. you are using your positioning as proof that you are right; you have to establish the assumptions you are asserting you hae not done so<br /><br />- Joe, I'm not making the argument. I'm responding to yours. I said YOUR argument is begging the question, and I explained exactly why.<br /><br /><b>no you are not, you said nothing about the specific I put in front of your face, you are arguing peripheral issues,ie you don't believe in God or the ethereal multiverwes,but you said nothing about brute facts or the claim that purpose is the tie breaker</b><br /><br /><br />the foot notes I marked there refer to science, that's from scientific studies that I say that<br />- You can cite studies and papers, and quote scientists, and still ignore what they say.<br /><br /><b>non sequitur, that doesn't prove I'm ignoring the, read the Clarice,</b><br /><br /><br />I have two answers: ... <br />- None of that addresses the problem I was discussing, which was your claim that the universe "did not pop out of nothing".<br /><br /><br /><b>no that's a technique you employed to hide from the issues and make it look like you are saying something, that's not even part of the armament, it has nothing to do with the point. In terms of non formal fallacies it's what we call a red herring, get the reading onto a false trail you lay down, you imposed the issue of universe from nothing.It's necessary to mention to set up the tie but it's not the point of the article,<br /><br />You have dealt with nothing,</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75284477100677015602017-11-21T15:57:21.168-08:002017-11-21T15:57:21.168-08:00You don't know what Tillich's definition i...<i>You don't know what Tillich's definition is. Tillich defines being as actuality, I think any reasonable person would accept that</i><br />- I repeated YOUR definition verbatim. YOU defined God as "being itself".<br /><br /><br /><i>yes they do ,that;s a standard atheist ploy.</i><br />- I've never heard it. Not even once. Do you have any quotes?<br /><br /><br /><i>That is missing the point to say it evokes God.</i><br />- It was the definition you gave. How is it missing the point? It goes straight to the conclusion of your argument.<br /><br /><br /><i>No quite the contrary, The standard model is famous for saying time has a beginning with the universe.</i><br />- My statement was about causation, not about the temporal aspect of the universe. If you are claiming that anything that has a beginning in time must be caused, there are two problems with that. 1: The universe does not have a beginning in time. Rather, time begins with the universe. 2: There are still things that begin in time, but are uncaused.<br /><br /><br /><i>You are trying to impose your view by stipulation. you are begging the question. you are using your positioning as proof that you are right; you have to establish the assumptions you are asserting you hae not done so</i><br />- Joe, I'm not making the argument. I'm responding to yours. I said YOUR argument is begging the question, and I explained exactly why.<br /><br /><br /><i>the foot notes I marked there refer to science, that's from scientific studies that I say that</i><br />- You can cite studies and papers, and quote scientists, and still ignore what they say.<br /><br /><br /><i>I have two answers: ... </i><br />- None of that addresses the problem I was discussing, which was your claim that the universe "did not pop out of nothing".<br /><br /><br /><i>no you just have it backwards, God is the term we use to talk about being, we don't make up a definition of being to fit God,we use the term God to describe being then we make metaphors about it to illustrate</i><br />- You defined God as being itself. If A = B, then B = A. Identity is reflexive. You can't get it backwards.<br /><br /><br /><i>No i jut showed your reasoning i backwards</i><br />- Whatever. But you still didn't address the core issue that you are begging the question.<br /><br /><br /><i>Let's remember how this is the work of established theologians going as far back as St. Augustine in the 300's</i><br />- I am addressing what YOU said at 1:29 AM, not what Augustine said in 300 AD. <br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80953572155471576232017-11-21T14:04:49.908-08:002017-11-21T14:04:49.908-08:00I did same one twice this is the one that should h...I did same one twice this is the one that should have been no 2<br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/01/another-take-on-being-itself-this-time.html" rel="nofollow"><b>here</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-35068085958714339342017-11-21T13:56:52.559-08:002017-11-21T13:56:52.559-08:00Here are some previous blog pieces where i discus ...Here are some previous blog pieces where i discus reasons for understanding God as being itself.<br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/the-bible-god-depth-of-being.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Bible God and Depth of Being</b></a><br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/the-bible-god-depth-of-being.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Bible God and Depth of Being</b></a><br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/02/introduction-to-paul-tillichs.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Introduction to Tillich's ontology</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-23924361910608947722017-11-21T13:24:15.988-08:002017-11-21T13:24:15.988-08:006. The rea contest ... cohere's within the inf...6. The rea contest ... cohere's within the infinite folds of a core purpose upon which the all existence coheres.<br /><br />- This statement is a simple assertion without justification. Yes, I know that you defined being as essentialy identical with God. But that is begging the question,<br /><br /><br /><b>no you just have it backwards, God is the term we use to talk about being, we don't make up a definition of being to fit God,we use the term God to describe being then we make metaphors about it to illustrate,</b><br /><br /><br /> as I noted earlier. The premise to your argument (stated in item 1) is regurgitated in your conclusion.<br /><br /><b>No i jut showed your reasoning i backwards,</b><br /><br /><br /> You can't separate the existence of anything from God, precisely because that's what you assume from the start. You have given no logical justification for this fundamental assumption. You simply assert it as being true. No reasonable person should accept this as a sound argument.<br /><br /><b>No that's false, I Didn't do it in the pace above because it's already been done so many times I have to refer to previous works that discuss it,<br /><br />Let's remember how this is the work of established theologians going as far back as St. Augustine in the 300's.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10246218353662530512017-11-21T13:16:05.163-08:002017-11-21T13:16:05.163-08:004. If it was, if we could call it God
- Only if w...4. If it was, if we could call it God<br /><br />- Only if we are begging the question. Something that exists without a cause is a brute fact, and that doesn't imply God.<br /><br /><b>You are trying to impose your view by stipulation. you are begging the question. you are using your positioning as proof that you are right; you have to establish the assumptions you are asserting you hae not done so,.</b><br /><br />5. We can eliminate that possibility. We know the universe is not eternal <br />[3] and It did not pop out of nothing.[4]<br /><br />- Once again, you are ignoring science. <br /><br /><b>the foot notes I marked there refer to science, that's from scientific studies that I say that,</b><br /><br /><br />This is an issue we have discussed. It doesn't matter if you call it a "quantum vacuum" or something else for ideological reasons - it is still physically nothing, and all the philosophers in the world can't change that reality.<br /><br /><b>I have two answers: (1)you are contradicting your own arguments, you claim subatomic particles are real physical things and VF is nothing more than a collection of subatomic particles,so VF is real physical thing,it;s obvious. (2) the studies I point to are not talking about that. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith argues that the Space/time continuum is not eternal,based upon background radiation fro the BB.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />[3] Quentin Smith, “The Uncased Beginning of the Universe.” The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, (1988, Vol., 55, no. 1), 39-57.<br /><br />[4] Joseph Hinman, "Quantum Particles Do not prove universe from Nothing," The religious a priori, website URL: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/quantum-particles-do-not-prove-universe.html<br />accessed 7/23/16Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36890969527087426832017-11-21T12:59:30.994-08:002017-11-21T12:59:30.994-08:00OK.
1. God is being itself of the ground of bein...OK. <br /><br />1. God is being itself of the ground of being.<br /><br />- From the outset you have defined 'being' in a way that is inseparable from God. A reasonable person doesn't have to accept your definition, and only a theist would accept that.<br /><br /><b>You don't know what Tillich's definition is. Tillich defines being as actuality, I think any reasonable person would accept that,</b><br /><br />2. universe cannot be called the ground of being without attaching to it some higher sense of special nature such that we can think of it ass "holy being."<br />- Nobody calls the universe the "ground of being". Because of the way you have defined the term, it cannot be used without invoking God, and that would be begging the question.<br /><br /><b>yes they do ,that;s a standard atheist ploy.That is missing the point to say it evokes God. Your hatred for God is so deep and so self rooted you can't even consider the possibility that it evokes God because God is real. why wouldn't it evoke God? That's what the concept of God is about.</b><br /><br /><br />3. there is no reason to assume that the universe is eternal or uncased.<br /><br />- Sorry, but science gives good reason to think that the universe is uncaused.<br /><br /><b>No quite the contrary, The standard model is famous for saying time has a beginning with the universe.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19957107740752495902017-11-21T09:22:37.683-08:002017-11-21T09:22:37.683-08:00here is some more reasoning that is directly realt...<i>here is some more reasoning that is directly realted to the dichotomy so deeal with it</i><br /><br />OK. <br /><br />1. God is being itself of the ground of being.<br />- From the outset you have defined 'being' in a way that is inseparable from God. A reasonable person doesn't have to accept your definition, and only a theist would accept that.<br /><br />2. universe cannot be called the ground of being without attaching to it some higher sense of special nature such that we can think of it ass "holy being."<br />- Nobody calls the universe the "ground of being". Because of the way you have defined the term, it cannot be used without invoking God, and that would be begging the question.<br /><br />3. there is no reason to assume that the universe is eternal or uncased.<br />- Sorry, but science gives good reason to think that the universe is uncaused.<br /><br />4. If it was, if we could call it God<br />- Only if we are begging the question. Something that exists without a cause is a brute fact, and that doesn't imply God.<br /><br />5. We can eliminate that possibility. We know the universe is not eternal [3] and It did not pop out of nothing.[4]<br />- Once again, you are ignoring science. This is an issue we have discussed. It doesn't matter if you call it a "quantum vacuum" or something else for ideological reasons - it is still physically nothing, and all the philosophers in the world can't change that reality.<br /><br />6. The rea contest ... cohere's within the infinite folds of a core purpose upon which the all existence coheres.<br />- This statement is a simple assertion without justification. Yes, I know that you defined being as essentialy identical with God. But that is begging the question, as I noted earlier. The premise to your argument (stated in item 1) is regurgitated in your conclusion. You can't separate the existence of anything from God, precisely because that's what you assume from the start. You have given no logical justification for this fundamental assumption. You simply assert it as being true. No reasonable person should accept this as a sound argument.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72727302455236934202017-11-21T01:29:02.999-08:002017-11-21T01:29:02.999-08:00here is some more reasoning that is directly realt...here is some more reasoning that is directly realted to the dichotomy so deeal with it,<br /><br />"God is being itself of the ground of being.[2] The universe is not the ground of being. Even if it has no cause and has always existed the universe cannot be called the ground of being without attaching to it some higher sense of special nature such that we can think of it ass "holy being." But before we do deifying the universe there is no reason to assume that the universe is eternal or uncased. If it was, if we could call it God there would be a God and atheists would be wrong , even if Christians were wrong too. We can eliminate that possibility. We know the universe is not eternal [3] and It did not pop out of nothing.[4] The rea contest is between a meaningless accident that somehow came to be for no reason with no higher purpose ,which we call "the universe" vs. the ground of being or holy being which eternal, necessary (could not have failed to exist) and eternal cohere's within the infinite folds of a core purpose upon which the all existence coheres. That is not purpose higher than itself but is it;'s own purpose (that the universe doesn't have). "Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64774440558232217722017-11-21T01:27:23.035-08:002017-11-21T01:27:23.035-08:00Joe, did you ever consider that your arguments are... Joe, did you ever consider that your arguments are glib? How does one provide a serious logical response to an argument that doesn't adhere to the norms of logic? <br /><br /><b>No one else think that dito, you don't know shit about logic, you constantly think in circular reasoning and Rayn isalways getting on you for it,</b><br /><br /><br />You say your God has aseity and necessity and simplicity and all that "by definition", and then you automatically reject any attempt to inject logic into the argument.<br /><br /><br /><b>you don;t intersect logic by merely stating pinon, you are hiding fro logic, you are not dealing wity it </b><br /><br /> You're not making a logical argument. You're just defining your God into existence. As far as I'm concerned, that as glib as it gets.<br /><br /><br /><b>you are not using logic just because you utter the word"Logic" in a sentence.<br /><br />now face reality reality stop hing in your delusional world of God hatred, and deal with the logic of the argent piker! <br /><br />you don't do that by spouting little insulting remarks <br /> deal with the rationale, I showed a dichotomy between brute fact vs purpose, deal with it.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69896181841675079982017-11-20T15:52:21.981-08:002017-11-20T15:52:21.981-08:00I know you wont follow the issues involved you wil...<i>I know you wont follow the issues involved you will say something glib and stupid like:"that's not science, or "that's just feelings" you are you are willing to deal with the logic of the argument</i><br /><br />- Joe, did you ever consider that your arguments are glib? How does one provide a serious logical response to an argument that doesn't adhere to the norms of logic? You say your God has aseity and necessity and simplicity and all that "by definition", and then you automatically reject any attempt to inject logic into the argument. You're not making a logical argument. You're just defining your God into existence. As far as I'm concerned, that as glib as it gets.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-76984748744762148232017-11-20T15:13:44.189-08:002017-11-20T15:13:44.189-08:00the connection that establishesthe reasoning infin...the connection that establishesthe reasoning infinvoled:<br /><br />"To break the tie we just need to distinguish between the two kinds of un-caused nature. The argument is going to turn-on the concept of a BF. The nature of God's un-caused state is not the same as the nature of BF. To be a BF a thing must have no connection to a higher purpose. God can't have a purpose higher than himself but he can have a purpose higher than mere brute facticity. Semantically the two are different, Brute facts have higher purpose, God has asaiety not brute facticity. That it is part of the definition of what God is that he eternal and necessary. It's not part of the definition of the universe that it exists. That's existence as a predicate. On that basis Bertrand Russell ruled out the ontological argument. Existence is not a quality to be defined as part of the object, "I have one of those brick houses it;s the kind that exists." That goes beyond the semantic aspect and it can be understood in terms of the nature of being."<br /><br /><br />I know you wont follow the issues involved you will say something glib and stupid like:"that's not science, or "that's just feelings" you are you are willing to deal with the logic of the argument,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66094934762232928542017-11-20T15:08:51.987-08:002017-11-20T15:08:51.987-08:00im-skeptical said...
... but the logic of causes p...im-skeptical said...<br />... but the logic of causes proves there must be a final cause ...<br />- Nope. Science has shown us that a cause isn't necessary.<br /><br /><br /><b>wrong you mistake propaganda for the real science. as I've demonstrated that when physicists say "nothing" they really mean vacuum flux, you have to account for that and you can't.what produces vacuum flux> there is no evidence it can come from nothing,</b><br /><br />science is not a subset of atheism. Science is not in opposition to God.<br /><br /><br />- First honest thing I've ever heard you say. Nevertheless, despite science being neutral, it gives us no reason whatsoever to think that your God is real.<br /><br /><b>you are ignorant, you refuse to think it through think about the consequences of what you just admitted,</b><br /><br />the reasoning position is the tie breaker,that's the theistic one.<br /><br />- Nope. What you call "reasoning" is nothing more than subjective feelings you have about God. No objective evidence. No objective reasoning.<br /><br /><b>you obviously can't answer the logic or you would be, you have not answered it you are bidding form it,<br /><br />Your theory is brute fact it has no why,I supplied a why that attache purpose to y theory, you don't know know what what I'm talking about because you didn't even read the essay,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60272614190345291282017-11-20T14:10:04.569-08:002017-11-20T14:10:04.569-08:00... but the logic of causes proves there must be a...<i>... but the logic of causes proves there must be a final cause ...</i><br />- Nope. Science has shown us that a cause isn't necessary.<br /><br /><i>science is not a subset of atheism. Science is not in opposition to God.</i><br />- First honest thing I've ever heard you say. Nevertheless, despite science being neutral, it gives us no reason whatsoever to think that your God is real.<br /><br /><i>the reasoning position is the tie breaker,that's the theistic one.</i><br />- Nope. What you call "reasoning" is nothing more than subjective feelings you have about God. No objective evidence. No objective reasoning.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54692232465028169202017-11-20T12:45:08.746-08:002017-11-20T12:45:08.746-08:00science has no opinion on the matter. There is no ...science has no opinion on the matter. There is no science that proves no final cause, but the logic of causes proves there must be a final cause. It's no victory for science to echo atheist lies, science is not a subset of atheism. Science is not in opposition to God.<br /><br /><br />you don't know what a tie is. saying there's no God does not make it so. But in the log jam on both sides (because neither will admit the other has a point the reasoning position is the tie breaker,that's the theistic one.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39317033613203628932017-11-20T10:07:12.808-08:002017-11-20T10:07:12.808-08:00No final cause. No tie. Science wins, hands down...No final cause. No tie. Science wins, hands down.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45476483621569550732017-11-19T21:25:54.694-08:002017-11-19T21:25:54.694-08:00obvious there is one is a fool to deny it but it r...obvious there is one is a fool to deny it but it requires actually being willing to listen. Both sides say the other needs a cause for their final cause but but they don;t neither side can prove it, so obviously that's a tie.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57757380990135678042017-11-19T17:26:00.622-08:002017-11-19T17:26:00.622-08:00Here's a hint for you. There's no tie to ...Here's a hint for you. There's no tie to break. "Science works, bitches!"im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66558556766274911222017-11-19T07:34:20.868-08:002017-11-19T07:34:20.868-08:00nothing I said implies what you said. you have com... nothing I said implies what you said. you have completely missed everything about this post that makes it worth discussion. go eat come oatmeal and think about it again. here's a hint it;s the tie breaker thing,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51705966470175485462017-11-19T07:28:27.686-08:002017-11-19T07:28:27.686-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40304682088836878242017-11-17T08:15:49.948-08:002017-11-17T08:15:49.948-08:00The problem here, Joe, is that you don't disti...The problem here, Joe, is that you don't distinguish between mathematics and physical reality. I've tried to explain the difference to you, and you just don't get it. If I think of a mathematical equation that describes the way something works, it doesn't mean that that equation IS physical reality. I honestly don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10569429183927870932017-11-16T21:39:45.367-08:002017-11-16T21:39:45.367-08:00Wash, rinse, repeat. Energy is a real physical thi...Wash, rinse, repeat. Energy is a real physical thing. Particles are real physical things. Equations do not have real physical existence. No matter how many times you keep citing things you don't understand, the truth doesn't change. Wash, rinse, repeat.<br /><br /><b>(1) you contradict yourself again: VF is just more particles so if particles are real VF is real, <br /><br />(2)being real and physical does not mean we know all about it so it can be both theoretical (in a sense) and real,<br /><br />(3)I never denied that energy is real you did I said we don't know what we are dealing with and all the ideas we have about particles are the based upon the interactions of other particles not direct observation.While I did not say its not real It is not empirical in the true sense you are supposedly an empiricist, you contradict yourself</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79839105674747247782017-11-16T08:25:42.241-08:002017-11-16T08:25:42.241-08:00Wash, rinse, repeat. Energy is a real physical th...Wash, rinse, repeat. Energy is a real physical thing. Particles are real physical things. Equations do not have real physical existence. No matter how many times you keep citing things you don't understand, the truth doesn't change. Wash, rinse, repeat.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com