fingolfin

This isn't productive or relevant though. Just make the arguments. Colour them up with fluff if you like (I don't mind sarcasm or insults personally), but don't use all fluff and no arguments! All honest questions should be encouraged.

Thank you, I think this is the best and most cogent answer I have had so far. I would have to reply, an infinite object. Okay well I would say that God/All That Is did not create the uinverse, but that this universe is part of all that is. All that is has always existed and always will. I think "all that is" is an infinite object of which you are part, as am I. In fact All That Is would not be complete without you. Ah, but you see you can't modify the noun of reality (i.e. physical object) with an irrational adjective "infinity". Objects are bounded ("finite") by nature i.e. by definition. All objects have a border, a contour against the background; shape is conceptually surrounded by space/nothing. You have to have spatial separation to conceive of any object. Even a lone object in the entire Universe is still bordered by space, regardless of "size", which is relative to other objects anyway. We can always "zoom out" in our Mind's Eye and realize the object is still limited by the prison of space. An infinite object, although grammatically and contextually impossible, would mean something like one continuous block of matter, with no gaps or spaces. So no–thing could move. You couldn't do anything with this giant single megabloc! Infinite itself is an irrational adjective but I won't go into that here. So if your god is an object, the next challenge is to go about using him/it in a theory. E.g. how god created the universe in zero-time.

Before mankind came along and invented logic, existence was humming along nicely without it. One of the reasons we use the scientific method to explain phenomena is precisely because the senses are limited and can be easily tricked. The earth doesn't exist because we can see it, measure it, hear it, or touch it. We can do these things only because it exists first, and the criteria for existence is physical presence (some-thing, some-where). Religion would have our senses believe that there is a magical spiritual "force" or "charge" binding two magnets together. In reality, only two pre-connected objects can PULL on one another via some kind of physical mediator. It's not magic, it's just counter intuitive to our senses. The scientific method demands (1) a hypothesis and (2) a theory. One is an assumption, the other an explanation. You can't have one without the other and remain objective. They're are ontologically and axiomatically linked. The scientific method is the only way we can understand reality objectively. Science only shows us what is possible. It does not prove or validate or deal with truths and absolutes. (These are all subjective or irrational concepts.) Science is strictly possible or impossible (loosely: rational, irrational). No other choice. The moon doesn't "probably" exist; it doesn't have a "chance" of existing. It exists, or not. God has shape, or he does not. A word resolves to an object, or concept. No other choice!

To be objective, we have to remove subjective terms like belief, faith, opinion, knowledge and proof from the equation. This is the problem with theism/agnosticism/atheism. They're all making the same arguments from the same paradigm of thinking. Each hinges on belief or knowledge, or proof etc. But existence is objective, and could care less what we belief or "know" or prove to one another. The moon, if it exists, exists regardless of whether we know about it, agree upon it, or believe in it. God is exactly the same. It's not the word god that is important, it's the word exist (syn: real). If someone wants to propose an object called "god" for the purpose of explaining their theory (e.g. how "he" creates the universe), then that's up to them. If god exists, he has physical presence. Period. All they need to do is illustrate a god shape of some kind, then show us their theory of god creating matter from nothing. If an atom, black hole, leprechaun or chair exist, they too have physical presence – exactly the same process. We can only assume (hypothesize) existence, we cannot know it. Belief and opinion is irrelevant, therefore theism, agnosticism and atheism are all irrational positions and should be thrown out forever.

Part 2: Discusses solar physics at the end and the EU theories. Although I personally think the Electric Universe stuff is total baloney too.

[View:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q185InpONK4] Stephen Crothers destroying Einstein's relativity equations and various 'black hole' nonsense. (No particularly advanced understanding of math required). It's all a load of gibberish! I'd go as far as saying criminal-level fraud.

Just to come back on topic now that concepts and objects have been thrashed out a bit. The article redefines "life" (noun, ordinary speech) first as living/alive (adjective, scientific) and then as follows: Living: a term that refers to a natural object moving by itself against the gravitational pull from all the other objects. As far as I can tell this is a reasonable and encapsulating definition, and relates to a given object's particular type of motion, rather than requirements or habits. Sort of makes sense to me why the philosophers and academics out there still talk about how computer programs and nebulae are potentially "alive" — because they never worked out what "life" was to begin with. This seems to me also fundamentally related to "free will" (volition, self-propulsion, intention).

On this topic, there was a good movie I saw recently (with English subs) about the use of marketing/branding techniques in a video campaign against Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile during the 1980s. You may or may not find it interesting or relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_%282012_film%29

Irrelevant. To invoke shape is to invoke space. One cannot be without the other. Shape is bounded by space, nothing, concpetually speaking. It is impossible to imagine an object without the concept of spatial separation. Space, like motion, is a primary concept. We "discover" the intrinsic property of an object, i.e. shape, because we cannot comprehend an object without shape. No shape means literally nothing. So we can reason that shape is the only scientific criterion for objecthood. Conversely we invented logic, laws, rules, absolutes, truths and the trillions of other secondary concepts. Nonsense! The moon exists regardless of whether we sense it or not. The planets exist independent of whether we are here later to observer them. So we CAN be objective with our statements; we can and must remove the observer to do science. Objectivity is at the core of the scientific method! Not sure what this has to do with existence. If the senseless person exists, then they do so because they have shape and location. You have to remove the observer if you want to escape subjectivity! You're the only one going aorund in circles my friend. You need to grasp the fundamentals. To assume means to hypothesize. We assume/invoke objects (we don't "prove" them!) for the purposes of our theory. That is the foundation of the scientific method. This is how we rule out misinterpretation and perception. We take the assumptions for granted intentionally to hear the rational explanation that follows. Do we run around trying to prove that the Yeti exists?! No. It's irrelevant to the theory. Proof and truth are subjective. Proof and truth are what happens in a court of law, to convince you, twist your arm. All words resolve to either an object (of reality), or a concept. All words are concepts, of course! We invent all words. This is obvious, basic stuff. The key is what they resolve to. I think this is where you get confused. We didn't invent shape. Reality didn't suddenly pop into existence when we monkeys arrived one day to gawk at it! We discovered shape; we can reason objectively that the essential property that makes an object an object, is its shape (syn: architecture/structure/form). It cannot be any other criterion – just give it a try! Come on my friend, give up all this moaning and crying. Bla bla — you're going around in circles. You have to construct an argument. I already defined object and explained why shape is relevant and objective. I'm on record! I fully justified myself with arguments and have not changed my stance once on the topic. I require the same integrity of you if we are to debate. Ay human being with a functioning brain can conceptualize shape. I could define rational too, but you keep going off on tangents without admitting your errors first. This is common on these forums. We must remain objective. Truth/aggress/love are not properties of an object. We visualize objects because they have shape. We define truth/aggress/love to understand them. Concepts are the thought associations we establish with entities in our environment for the purposes of: a) Ascribing meaning to these associations. b) Facilitating understanding. c) Applying utility to these associations (i.e. language, math, logic, technology, business, etc.) Your passive agressive nonsense is irrelevant. You are the one who came here debating, and now you're running away trying to get the last word. None of this is an argument or relevant to the discussion. This is typical of the emotionality and psychologizing that takes place around here. Congratulations, you've won a free pass to the asylum! [Y]

Of course they do! You have google countless timelapse videos of fungi and bacteria moving against the earth's gravitational pull, in the way rocks cannot. Energy is an abstraction. Energy does not exist. There is literally no such thing. It's akin to saying, "Love moves mountains". Well, maybe in poetry and metaphor, but not literally — not scientifically. Energy is a god-like term used 100 different ways and is not defined rationally or consistently. At best, it has to do with units of measurement. At worst it simply means 'activity'. Concepts cannot affect matter. Only in Star Wars and religious circles do they practise psychokinesis and exorcism! Lolz! OK.

Exactly. Shape is an objective criterion. For thousands of years the philosophers failed to understand the difference between object and concept, and this is why we have ended up with the lunacy and surrealism they call "science" and "physics" today. Hume and Kant came fairly close, but no bacon. People on this forum, IMO huttnedu, haven't yet grasped the fundamentals, since it's more of a political forum than scientific (which is fair enough). Just as a heads up though as what you say might go over heads. There's nothing true or false about what you said. It's just a description. "A two-year-old points at a glass container... bla bla" << i.e. this. At best, what we have here is a fact, not a 'truth'. It happened, or didn't. A fact is a type of assumption. It is not an absolute truth... so help me god. We assume something is the case, in order to theorize about it. Except you have no definition yet. Whereas huttnedu gave you a very specific, scientific definition — one which is unambiguous and rational, i.e. free from contradiction and subjectivities. Not vaguely objective I'm afraid. In fact, no one has a clue what you mean yet. That which reflects reality? How do you mean, like a mirror reflects light? Does truth "feel a bit like" reality? Or are you saying that the definition is a synonym for reality? It's too ambiguous. Some poetry "reflects reality", but in a metaphorical sense. To a priest, god and reality reflect each other. So according to YOUR definition, God is true for the priest. Definitely isn't... Correct! Liking and 'having to' has nothing to do with it. No one has a clue what truth means yet in your presentation. Is truth "a" child? Is truth just... anything? Is god true? Is "I like chips" true? Is blindness true? What are we even adding to a statement when we tag it with the conceptual label, "true"? Are we saying that true=exist? You haven't come up with a definition of truth that doesn't resolve to opinion. Don't worry, no philosopher ever has. I only learned this several years after first posting on these boards. What happens around here generally speaking is that the following terms are all mixed up and/or used interchangeably (inc. by our lovely Stefan): fact, truth, proof, consistent, objective, absolute, empirical But these each have very specific contexts and definitions!

http://youstupidrelativist.com/08Ext/09Econ/04EconHist.html http://youstupidrelativist.com/08Ext/09Econ/05Z2Cannibal.html http://youstupidrelativist.com/08Ext/09Econ/01Vital.html Essentially, it's all about food and population density.