Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools

[S.A.M.]

Then you are agnostic to perpetual motion machines. (<-- see ? agnostic..)
However you are lying. You know perfectly well what perpetual motion machines are.

No I am not agnostic to them. I am illiterate or ignorant of them. I do not oppose the notion that there is an ultimate reality of perpetual motion machines. I am sure there is knowledge out there that I could gain to form an opinion. Its not unknowable.

 

[Randwolf]

As soon as I figure out how one denies a concept that is declared as neither believe in and not believe in.

Explain where anyone "denies a concept". One does not have to "deny a concept" in order to not believe it is necessarily true.


Oh, and after you reply to Enmos, answer this question while you're at it:

Do you have to "believe" in ghosts to understand the concept?

 

[Enmos]

Lier.

What about ghosts? You can't keep up that you are agnostic about them as well.

Do you acknowledge the concept of ghosts ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Explain where anyone "denies a concept". One does not have to "denie a concept" in order to not believe it is necessarily true.

Do you deny that there are ghosts? If so, by ghosts do you mean the bottle of water on the shelf?

 

[Randwolf]

I do not oppose the notion that there is an ultimate reality of perpetual motion machines.

You don't? Hope you stay out of the science threads, then.

 

[Randwolf]

If so, by ghosts do you mean the bottle of water on the shelf?

What?

 

[S.A.M.]

Lier.

What about ghosts? You can't keep up that you are agnostic about them as well.

Do you acknowledge the concept of ghosts ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?

I'm sure there are ways to discover ghosts as well. If someone tells me there is a ghost in some place, I always go there to check it out. So far, I haven't seen any. Maybe if I saw one I would not recognise it, since my concept of ghosts is semitransparent wispy beings who rattle chains. Perhaps they are merely leftover radiation from spinning electrons and I am looking at the wrong thing? But then, when I say, there are no ghosts, I mean there are no semitransparent wispy beings rattling chains. There may have been emissions of radiation but I missed it, so my conclusions are wrong because my initial concept was in error. Does that clarify what I am asking?

 

[S.A.M.]

You don't? Hope you stay out of the science threads, then.

Well I base my "knowledge" [about which I claim full ignorance] on the notion that atoms may be a model for miniature perpetual motion machines. Do atoms run out of energy?

 

[Randwolf]

But then, when I say, there are no ghosts, I mean there are no semitransparent wispy beings rattling chains.

How do you know? Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

 

[S.A.M.]

How do you know? Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

I agree, which is why I check it out again, but always I am looking for my concept of ghosts. I cannot deny a concept that I do not have.

 

[Randwolf]

Well I base my "knowledge" [about which I claim full ignorance] on the notion that atoms may be a model for miniature perpetual motion machines. Do atoms run out of energy?

Not so far... Why?

"Probably, because of energy conservation. This is the only thing that we truly know about energy; it is conserved."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-02-27-atom-energy_x.htm

However, we are running into semantics again:


perpetual motion machine

noun
a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law of conservation of energy


ma·chine
–noun

1. an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work: a sewing machine.
2. a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
3. Mechanics. a. a device that transmits or modifies force or motion.
b. Also called simple machine. any of six or more elementary mechanisms, as the lever, wheel and axle, pulley, screw, wedge, and inclined plane.
c. Also called complex machine. a combination of simple machines.

4. Older Use. a. an automobile or airplane.
b. a typewriter.

5. a bicycle or motorcycle.
6. a vending machine: a cigarette machine.
7. any complex agency or operating system: the machine of government.
8. an organized group of persons that conducts or controls the activities of a political party or organization: He heads the Democratic machine in our city.
9. a person or thing that acts in a mechanical or automatic manner: Routine work had turned her into a machine.
10. any of various contrivances, esp. those formerly used in theater, for producing stage effects
11. some agency, personage, incident or other feature introduced for effect into a literary composition.
–verb (used with object) 12. to make, prepare, or finish with a machine or with machine tools.


An atom is not a "machine". Nice try, though.

 

[S.A.M.]

I said a model, I also said I am illiterate about such concepts. As a nutritionist, physics is not something I have ever been interested in.

But if an atom exists, it is possible to eventually model it.

 

[Randwolf]

I agree, which is why I check it out again, but always I am looking for my concept of ghosts. I cannot deny a concept that I do not have.

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context. I am not "denying" the concept of God.

 

[S.A.M.]

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context. I am not "denying" the concept of God.

Lets take the analogy of PMM, since you understand it better than I do.

Do you believe in PMM? There is no evidence they exist [forget the atom]

 

[Randwolf]

Lets take the analogy of PMM, since you understand it better than I do.

Do you believe in PMM? There is no evidence they exist [forget the atom]

How about, let's stay on topic. How about, answer my question.

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context.

 

[S.A.M.]

How about, let's stay on topic. How about, answer my question.

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context.

Thats what I am doing. You denied that there are PMM, because as you pointed out with various definitions [as you did with jihad] you have clearly defined concepts of what you understand a PMM to mean. An atom is not a PMM because it does not fit into your preconceived concept of what a PMM is.

Similarly, if a Hindu came to you and asked, do you believe in brahman [his notion of God] and defined Brahman as the sum total of all the energy in the universe, what would your response be?

 

[Randwolf]

SAM,

Are you ever going to answer? "Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context."

As to the PMM, I do not believe that they can exist in our universe. There is evidence that they can not exist, "impossible under the law of conservation of energy".

As to God, since God by definition is unknowable, there can not be evidence that God exists, nor can there be evidence that God does not exist.

I can not believe nor disbelieve, hence, I am by your definition "ignostic". Since I am ignostic, therefore I am agnostic. Since I am agnostic, I am not a theist, therefore I am atheist. Why is this such a hard concept for you? None of this "denies the concept of God. If I denied the concept, we couldn't be talking about it in any rational sense, now could we?

 

[Randwolf]

Similarly, if a Hindu came to you and asked, do you believe in brahman [his notion of God] and defined Brahman as the sum total of all the energy in the universe, what would your response be?

Semantics, again. If someone defines God as equivalent to something contained in this universe, such as the sum total of all energy in the universe, then using the label "God" equates to saying the "sum total of all energy in the universe". By that definition, God is a known quantity, not unknowable.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought we were discussing God in the context of the ultimate creator, omniscient, omnipotent and therefore unknowable.

By the way, who is denying the concept of God?

 

[Norsefire]

Everything.

Wait, what I'm saying is illogical?? Seriously? Dude, you're trying to say that there's a 50/50 chance some supernatural deity created the universe! Give me a break. OK, no, let's get real about this: The only reason you give them equal weight is because you have heard of man-made creation myths. If not for those entirely man-made creation myths, you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.

"Supernatural deity"

I said creator. I never said it would be supernatural or a deity.

But don't you understand WHY I give them equal weight? It's because they are both consisten, they both hold equal ground in terms of lack of evidence for either. Just because our universe is natural doesn't mean the cause was; and, it doesn't mean the cause wasn't. Frankly, it's unknown.

But, because of this lack of evidence for either, it means they hold equal weight.

Another leap of faith. Just because our time didn't exist before our universe did, does not in any way imply that time itself did not exist outside of all of this. We just don't know. But even so, that's not my problem here. My problem is you calling in a creator when we have no evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural anywhere, in any process, regarding anything about this universe. Dude, face it, you're saying it because you think you have to. But you don't. God is totally implausible.

Yes I never said it didn't. I said some physicists believe it didn't.

God in any Abrahamic or religious sense is implausable. However, an intelligent creation of our universe is not.

Likewise as there is no evidence anywhere of nature existing before the universe. And our universe being natural DOESN'T mean the creation was.

Think of it this way: if you built a computer and coded it with certain code in that it then has this code governing the way it performs, you could attribute this "coding" of how it will operate as nature. However, the difficult question is how did nature itself come about?

Because of this, and the lack of any sort of evidence for either natural causation or intelligent creation of our universe, I give equal weight.

 

[Norsefire]

Prove to me that no *enter name or description of any invisible, non-detectable entity or fairyland creature* exists.

That's your argument? Weak, at best.

That isn't my argument. We are speaking of probability here, not certainties. What is the PROBABILITY a higher intelligence exists? This is the question.

Keep in mind I keep it as blunt as that: an intelligent entity beyond our universe. No details. No religious specifics. None of that. Just what I said.


Now why is THAT impossible? Hell, we can't even say it's unlikely because we don't have enough understanding of the origins of the universe to say what IS likely and what ISN'T.