No, it doesn't.
No such implication exists.
My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
- Status
No such implication exists.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Words falling on deaf ears.
He will simply repeat this mantra as long as the board allows it.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
BTW, when a "believer" avoids stating their own beliefs, you might want to look around for ravens.
^^^
NO. Atheos meant without gods & it was applied to Christians & others who did not believe in the true gods.
<>
Last edited:
Why ?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
More food for thought for Jan:
Referential fallacy – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
Referential fallacy – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
Michael345:
The particular number we assign to light speed varies, of course, with our choice of units. In SI units it is 299792458 metres per second (exactly!), but that's because we have a pre-existing definition of a "second", and these days we choose that particular number to define a "metre". But change the system of units and the number changes. The speed of light is 1 light year per year, for example, where the number "1" depends on the definitions of "year" and "light year".
I could invent units of length and time to make the number anything at all. Want the speed of light to be 3.7 groots per flockham? Fine. Just define the length and time units appropriately.
As far as the physics goes, relativity would work the same with any finite value of c.
I'm glossing over some physical facts here, of course. If the speed of light was actually 50 metres per second rather than 300,000,000 metres per second then our world would look very different to how it looks now. We'd see time dilation and length contraction effects whenever we went for a jog, assuming that we could get up a reasonable jogging speed in the first place.
It's an open question as to why any "fundamental" constant has the particular value we see. Maybe there are other universes out there were the constants have different values. Maybe the values we have are random. Then add in the anthropic principle and stir...
The main point (which I think you kind of made already) is not the particular speed of light, but the fact that the speed of light is finite.
The particular number we assign to light speed varies, of course, with our choice of units. In SI units it is 299792458 metres per second (exactly!), but that's because we have a pre-existing definition of a "second", and these days we choose that particular number to define a "metre". But change the system of units and the number changes. The speed of light is 1 light year per year, for example, where the number "1" depends on the definitions of "year" and "light year".
I could invent units of length and time to make the number anything at all. Want the speed of light to be 3.7 groots per flockham? Fine. Just define the length and time units appropriately.
As far as the physics goes, relativity would work the same with any finite value of c.
I'm glossing over some physical facts here, of course. If the speed of light was actually 50 metres per second rather than 300,000,000 metres per second then our world would look very different to how it looks now. We'd see time dilation and length contraction effects whenever we went for a jog, assuming that we could get up a reasonable jogging speed in the first place.
It's an open question as to why any "fundamental" constant has the particular value we see. Maybe there are other universes out there were the constants have different values. Maybe the values we have are random. Then add in the anthropic principle and stir...
As I mentioned speed of light cannot be zero or instantaneous. As you noted it certainly is finite regardless of units used
I would contend our Universe will have exactly same constants (no - no evidence and I doubt ever will be) as any other Universes we find
Yes the big puzzle is why light speed is the constant it is
Two possibilities
- We find because (such and such) fits with (such and such) light has NO CHOICE. It must travel at the speed it does
- We never find a link between constants and have to accept the constants just ARE
Physics is what it IS - Physics
Physics is NOT living in heaven
Baldeee, there is no God for you to lack belief in. In a lot of our discussions, and discussions in general, between theist and atheist. The demand a definition of God. This is because the atheist has no idea of what God is. He/she can only go off what the theist says.
If I say "God is the creator" the atheist tries to counter there the idea of an intelligent creator. If I say God is omni-benevolent, or love. The atheist tries to counter that. The atheist does not have a clue as what or who God is. Therefore the atheist can not believe, or lack belief in something he/she has no idea of.
You lack belief in claims made about God.
Stop trying to get me banned.
You know I'm not being dishonest, and you know I'm not trolling. You just don't like what I'm say, even though you know I have a strong point.
How do you know you lack belief that God exists? Because there are people for whom God just Is, and you don't have what they have.
Jan.
No one can know what other people's beliefs are without asking and being told. In your case, there is also the problem of your inconsistency and refusal to clarify various muddles, strawmen, and contradictions. Like this one:
That's not the response you got here. The response you got here was the observation of the conflict between your denial of any claim of "existence" for your version of deity, and your claim that your deity created things that exist.
You are often dishonest, and post in bad faith. Many people have noticed that.
Namely, a particular category or kind of belief.
It is enough to know that someone claims to have it for another to be able to say they lack it, even under the interpretation of "lack" that you want us to adhere to.
We know you have belief in God.
We lack that belief.
End of story.
I actually don't need to know what you mean by God to be able to say "I lack belief in God".
If it transpires that what you mean by God is something I actually believe in then my initial claim to lack belief would be wrong, a mistake, but knowing the subject of a belief is simply not necessary to be able to say one lacks belief in it.
Deal with it and move out from beneath this mountain of manure that you pile up around yourself.
I have no need to try when you are doing a fairly decent job of it yourself.
You are dishonest, Jan, in your debating tactics.
You behave in a troll-like manner and hence referring to you as one is to be expected.
I don't like what you're saying because it is fundamentally flawed, the flaw has been pointed out to you and yet all you do is repeat your mantras.
Your point is as strong as a slice of bread in the rain: one day you may open your eyes and see that it has actually already washed away and you're just getting soaked.
Because there are people who believe in God, and I don't have that belief.
Hence I lack that belief.
They have it.
I do not.
Irrespective of the reality of what they believe in, I do not have their belief.
It is therefore something I lack.
There is no implication within that lack that God actually IS, as what the theist believes in may simply be their misinterpretation.
But their belief exists.
I lack it.
I'm not really sure how many different ways there are to explain what is something rather simple to you, Jan.
You can keep trying to brush all the criticism aside as just you having a "strong point" that we don't want to face, but at some point you must surely start to realise that a cigar really is just a cigar.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I went through this with Jan months ago.
This is back when he used to insist one couldn't reject something one didn't understand.
I simply required one criterion: is God supernatural?
If so, then I can categorically not grant God's existence; I don't need to know how tall God is or what colour his eyes are.
It doesn't matter. Like a cultist, Jan is deaf to all forms of logic.
Yes you lack my claim.
Without mine, or any theist claim, you have nothing to lack. Hence your lack of belief in God, is a lack of my belief in God, because for you, there is no God to lack a belief in.
That's what I said. You lack the belief that I have, because there is no God as far as you're aware. It's not a mantra, it's a fact. That's why you're atheist.
Jan.
Because God does not exist as far as you're aware.
There's nothing logical about you're saying regarding this subject Dave.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Correct. Nor has God been shown to exist.
Note that you lack awareness that God does exist. You simply have faith in it.
There are an infinite number of ideas conceivable - from Dyson-galaxies to cosmic pink unicorns to invisible dragons to orbiting teapots. It is impossible to believe in them all without some good reason to believe they actually exist.
You lack critical analysis in determining real things from imaginary things. That is your short-coming; it is not a short-coming of rational people.
God doesn't exist as far as you're aware, and you extend that to 'it is true that God does not exist'. Please explain how you know this.
Oooookay!
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for making my point.
You just repeat the same silly mantra over and over, like a cultist.
By doing so, you demonstrate that you are either unwilling, or unable, to engage in a discussion in good faith.
There is nothing stopping you from simply repeating your mantras over and over, and so you do so because you don't know any better.
Simpy engaging you gives you the stimulus your desire. I do not engage you in the hope of actually having you hear any logic; I simply respond for the benefit of others, by calling out your cultish tactics.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
For the record (i.e. anyone who subscribes to critical thinking), I (and almost everyone else) have never asserted God does not exist, simply that I don't grant it does.
I (and almost everyone else) has pointed out uncountable times that we do not - and cannot - know such a thing to be true.
Our argument has been simply that you cannot know it does exist, simply because you feel it in your heart.
Another example where Jan simply ignores anything he doesn't like to hear, and goes on as before like a scratched record.
- Status