If God did not exist, would the universe have stable laws. Minds prefer order, so we should expect stsble lsws if theism is true. But why doesn't the law of gravity quit on us ast some point? Since the laws are stable, doesn't that suggest a Bayesian argument for theism?
44 comments:
If God did not exist, would the universe
If God did not exist, there would be no universe.
This question is similar to asking "If our sun didn't exist, would you..."
There would be no you.
"But why doesn't the law of gravity quit on us ast some point? Since the laws are stable, doesn't that suggest a Bayesian argument for theism? "
Why should it quit?
If rocks A and B attract each other
and if rocks C and D attract each other
and so forth for every pair of rocks we observe.
What is the prior probability that rocks P and Q will attract each other?
""But why doesn't the law of gravity quit on us ast some point?"
Change calls for a changer.
No change does not call for a changer.
Supposing I have 10 gold coins on my table top.
An hour later I still have 10 gold coins on my table top.
That is an apparent lack of change, therefore no changer is called for.
If, after and hour, I only have 5 gold coins on my table top that is a change, so that calls for a changer, say, a thief.
If there is no change in the 10 gold coins I have on the table top then I can still speculate that a thief took the coins, but then had a change of mind and put them back. There is in principle no upper bound on the number of sorts of such unevidenced speculations. But none of such speculations are called for on the observation of no change.
Similarly, if an astronaut on a space walk throws a wrench out into space we expect that wrench to keep going unless something else gets in its way. Why would it stop here rather than there? The wrench is already moving so continuing to move is no change in its motion and thus calls for no changer. We would be surprised to find that the wrench suddenly stopped in space all on its own, as such a change in motion would call for a changer of that motion.
https://archive.org/stream/aristotle-physics-book-III-and-IV-clarendon/aristotle-physics-book-III-and-IV-clarendon_djvu.txt
CLARENDON ARISTOTLE SERIES
General Editors
J. L. ACKRILL and LINDSAY JUDSON
IV. 8 TRANSLATION 214 b
(4) Again, no one could say why some¬
thing moved will come to rest somewhere; why should it do so here
rather than there? Hence it will either remain at rest or must move 20
on to infinity unless something stronger hinders it.
*************************************************************
Thus, existent material persists without a call for a changer because continued existence is not a change in the existential nature of material.
If we were to observe material changing from existing to not existing that would call for a changer, but such a change is never observed.
Hence, persistence of that natures or properties of material are expected on no changer because continued natures or properties of materials is no change in their natures or properties.
If we observed a change in the natures or properties of materials that would be change calling for a changer.
The notion of a first sustainer to maintain materials in there existence and to maintain the properties or natures or essences of materials in there observed states has the very notion of change completely backwards.
The theistic arguments for a first sustainer are grossly erroneous, and have the call for a changer versus no call for a changer, completely back to front.
The theistic argument for a first sustainer of existence and essences of materials is a strange inversion of logic.
"Thus, existent material persists without a call for a changer because continued existence is not a change in the existential nature of material"
The existence of a rock doing nothing but sitting at rest requires a force to keep it from breaking apart into something that isn't a rock, so "existence without change" is too low of a bar.
SteveK,
"existence without change" is too low of a bar.
OP
" If God did not exist, would the universe have stable laws."
The OP asks, if god does not exist would we expect stability in general in the natures or properties or essences of materials?
Yes. In your own words, that is a "low bar". Of course we would expect stability in the absence of a changer.
Absent a first changer, absent a first sustainer, we would expect no change.
No change is stability.
So yes, on no god we expect stability.
absent a first sustainer, we would expect nothing being sustained.
Fixed it for you.
SteveK,
"absent a first sustainer, we would expect nothing being sustained"
Does material require a sustainer to maintain its existence?
Suppose X is a particular amount of existent stuff.
If X of t1 = X of t2 did X change in its aspect of an amount of stuff?
Is no change in the amount of stuff itself a change in the amount of stuff?
If no change is a change, in your view, then your notion of logic is unrecognizable to me.
To borrow a bit of Thomistic vernacular, material does not require a sustainer of its existential essence to actualize its future existential potential because material is already fully actualized in its existential essence.
To change from existing to not existing would be a change and would thus call for a changer.
To continue to exist is not a change and therefore does not call for a changer.
The argument for god to explain observed existential inertia is 180 out, backwards, back to front.
If we observed material blinking out of existence that would be a change in the existential essence of material calling for a first changer.
If we observed material popping into existence out of nothing that would be a change in the existential essence of material calling for a changer.
Observation of continued existence of material is no change in the existential essence of material and thus call for no changer at all, much less a first changer or first sustainer.
"Does material require a sustainer to maintain its existence?"
Yes, we know this from physics. Material forms have forces that keep the form intact. These strong nuclear forces, and other forces, are not the particles - they are what sustains the particles.
Bing Copilot says this in response to my question "what would happen if the 4 fundamental forces didn't exist?"
"In summary, without these fundamental forces, matter would disintegrate, stars wouldn’t shine, and life as we know it would be impossible. The universe would be a chaotic, unstructured place, devoid of the intricate order we observe today."
It would be incoherent and contradictory to hold a worldview that believed both (a) the fundamental forces are the material form and (b) the material form changes while the fundamental forces remain the same. The only coherent, rational conclusion is that there exists something other than the material form that is creating these forces. Bing Copilot agrees, saying "physicists speculate that they might be manifestations of a single underlying force that remains undiscovered."
RE: "physicists speculate that they might be manifestations of a single underlying force that remains undiscovered"
AT philosophy argues that the 4 statements below cannot possibly be true. Based on what I said in my previous comments, materialism would need them all to be true.
There exists a fundamental material form that:
1) does not change.
2) does not have a force that sustains/keeps the fundamental material form intact.
3) is by nature different than the non-fundamental material form.
4) is the sustaining force itself. In other words, the fundamental material form is identical to the "single underlying force" and responsible for sustaining the non-fundamental material form.
SteveK said...
""Does material require a sustainer to maintain its existence?""
"Yes, we know this from physics. Material forms have forces that keep the form intact."
You are conflating the arrangement of material with the existence of material.
Arrangements change.
The amount of material in existence is static.
"Yes, we know this from physics."
We know from physics that material is never observed to pop into existence out of nothing.
We know from physics that material is never observed to disappear from existence into nothing.
SteveK ,
"In summary, without these fundamental forces, matter would disintegrate, stars wouldn’t shine, and life as we know it would be impossible. The universe would be a chaotic, unstructured place, devoid of the intricate order we observe today."
Right, and the material would continue to exist.
The arrangement of the material would be chaotic, unstructured, and devoid of presently observed intricate order, but the existence of material would persist.
"Arrangements change.
Arrangements are not the material. We are speaking of material changes.
"Right, and the material would continue to exist"
All material has a form and without the fundamental forces keeping the material form together all forms would disintegrate. Material without form doesn't exist. The only coherent, rational conclusion is that there exists something other than a material form that is creating these fundamental forces.
SteveK,
"Material without form doesn't exist."
Then your hypothetical is not realizable, just something you imagined that can't actually happen.
" The only coherent, rational conclusion is that there exists something other than a material form that is creating these fundamental forces."
Then the same questions rationally apply to god, which thus needs god's god, on to an infinity of gods, which is irrational.
So one asserts a necessary being.
The necessary being is the material cosmos, wherein all the material of the cosmos is simultaneously co-necessary with its form.
That matches all our observations:
Material is never observed to disappear from existence into nothing.
Material is never observed to appear into existence from nothing.
Material is never observed without form.
Form is never observed without material.
The conclusion of these observations is, well, obvious.
Material with its simultaneously co-necessary form is the necessary being.
“Material with its simultaneously co-necessary form is the necessary being.”
This is not true of all material. It has been demonstrated. We can break up material forms into smaller forms/particles. What you’re looking for is a different material form, one that is necessary. With that said, it appears that you agree with my list of requirements. This is what physicists are looking for
There exists a fundamental material form that:
1) does not change.
2) does not have a force that sustains/keeps the fundamental material form intact.
3) is by nature different than the non-fundamental material form.
4) is the sustaining force itself. In other words, the fundamental material form is identical to the "single underlying force" and responsible for sustaining the non-fundamental material form.
SteveK,
"This is not true of all material. It has been demonstrated. We can break up material forms into smaller forms/particles."
I am differentiating between fundamental material versus a substance that is a composite arrangement of material.
I realize that "material" is often applied in common language to mean some very complex arrangements that can be called substances or structures. For example, to a carpenter lumber is sometimes called material, even though a piece of wood is really a highly complex structure itself.
"There exists a fundamental material form that:
1) does not change."
So, now it is that which does not change, which exists?
So, arrangement changes, therefore arrangement does not exist?
“I am differentiating between fundamental material versus a substance that is a composite arrangement of material.”
I am too. That’s where the logic leads. The composite arrangement is all of the material that we’ve ever studied. We know it’s composite because we can break it down into other particles that are different. If you can break a thing apart then it’s not a necessary thing. You are looking for a fundamental material that cannot be a composite with the possibility of being broken down.
“So, now it is that which does not change, which exists?”
The fundamental material cannot be broken down or otherwise altered so it cannot change. If you can think of a way that it can change let me know.
“So, arrangement changes, therefore arrangement does not exist?”
The arrangement exists.
"The necessary being is the material cosmos, wherein all the material of the cosmos is simultaneously co-necessary with its form"
Just wanted to point out that you are contradicting yourself yet again. The arrangement is the cosmos and you say that the arrangement is the necessary being. You also say the arrangement doesn't exist, only the material exists. You really need to figure this out.
SteveK,
"You are looking for a fundamental material that cannot be a composite with the possibility of being broken down."
Which is it?
1.Not composite.
2.Not possible to break down.
The Thomistic Doctrine of Prime Matter
David P. Lang
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ltp/1998-v54-n2-ltp2161/401163ar.pdf
"Matter is that which of itself is not a determinate thing but is only in potency to be a particular thing.
Form is that by which it is already a particular thing in act.
Substance is the composite, which is a particular thing"
So, on that view, substance is a composite of matter and form. That seems similar to the idea that material has properties.
However, on the A-T view there are the ideas of matter being in potency, and form being in act, with the two notions (potency and act) being ontologically separable, with the assertion that god is pure act. With such ideas the materialist parts ways with the A-Tist.
So, returning to your phrase
"with the possibility of being broken down".
On my view material existence is simultaneously conjoined and ontologically inseparable from the material's properties by necessity.
We never observe material without properties.
We never observe properties without material.
What would that even mean, material with no properties, properties with no material?
So, referencing your phrase above, there is no ontological possibility of breaking down, or separating, existent material and its properties, since they are simultaneously conjoined and ontologically inseparable by necessity.
LOL, you're a closet Thomist who just needs a little help understanding where he went wrong.
SteveK,
"LOL, you're a closet Thomist"
I will absorb sound arguments from any source. I could not care less about the labels anybody might attach to me thereby.
The initial starting point of Aquinas in the First Way is highly respectable. Nowhere does he cite scripture, or threaten eternal punishment, or claim to have solved the riddle of the origin of existence, or anything of the sort.
Aquinas made at least 2 key errors.
1.He argued from the Aristotelian notion that sublunary motion is in a lossy medium such that absent some source of motive action an object in motion will slow and stop and its motion will be lost.
2.He argued from a linear hierarchical causal sequence perspective, thus neglecting the mutual multilateral and fundamentally circular case. Scotus tried to patch up that false dichotomy of Aquinas by explicitly denying circular causation, but his argument for the denial of circular causation depended on the unidirectional case, thus neglecting the real multilateral case.
Here (below) we can see that the A-T notion of material cause with a per se causal regression terminating in substance that is the combination of prime matter and form is quite similar to eliminative materialism.
Aristotle expressed some of the basics of eliminative materialism.
In eliminative materialism all apparent material and its processes are really composed of fundamental material that has properties.
For Aristotle one regresses in the present moment per se with material causation that terminates at the base of this per se material causal sequence with prime matter as it is actualized by form into substance.
In conceptual structure, at least to that extent, the two views are highly similar and comparable.
The Thomistic Doctrine of Prime Matter
David P. Lang
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ltp/1998-v54-n2-ltp2161/401163ar.pdf
"[...] in a certain respect matter is corrupted and in a certain respect it is not. For insofar as
privation is in it, it is corrupted when the privation ceases to be in it. [...] But in itself, insofar
as it is a certain being in potency, it is neither generated nor corruptible. This is clear
from the following. If matter should come to be, there would have to be something which
is the subject from which it comes to be. [...] But that which is the first subject in generation
is matter. For we say that matter is the first subject from which a thing comes to be
per se, and not per accidens, and is in the thing after it has come to be. [...] It follows,
therefore, that matter would be before it would come to be, which is impossible. And in
like manner, everything which is corrupted is resolved into primary matter. Therefore, at
the very time when primary matter already is, it would be corrupted ; and thus if primary
matter is corrupted, it will have been corrupted before it is corrupted, which is impossible.
Therefore, it is impossible for primary matter to be generated and corrupted. But by this
we do not deny that it comes into existence through creation.4"
Some differences between the Aristotelian view of per se material causation, compared to eliminative materialism, is that in A-T prime matter and form are separable, with god being pure act. Whereas, in eliminative materialism fundamental material is more like A-T substance, a conjoined association of existent material (prime matter) and its properties (form).
In A-T there is "But by this we do not deny that it comes into existence through creation". Whereas, in eliminative materialism fundamental material is simultaneously conjoined with its properties by necessity and is never created or destroyed.
At least AT doesn't say that arrangements of matter don't exist, that perceptions, qualia and observations are hallucinations and that only the fundamental/necessary thing exists.
AT has a huge advantage over materialism in that respect. It's more congruent with human experience.
Aquinas made at least 2 key errors.
1.He argued from the Aristotelian notion that sublunary motion is in a lossy medium such that absent some source of motive action an object in motion will slow and stop and its motion will be lost.
2.He argued from a linear hierarchical causal sequence perspective, thus neglecting the mutual multilateral and fundamentally circular case. Scotus tried to patch up that false dichotomy of Aquinas by explicitly denying circular causation, but his argument for the denial of circular causation depended on the unidirectional case, thus neglecting the real multilateral case.
#1. This is just an observable fact even though the First Way does not depend on that fact.
#2. Circular causation is impossible since if thing A causes thing B which causes thing A then thing A will have to be causing itself before it exists.
The First Way only requires a single observable instance of one thing causing another thing to move with the stock example being the hand moving the stick moving the stone. It is observable (to normal humans) that the stone and stick do not "mutually" cause this chain of moving things to move. This is called "violent motion" as opposed to the "natural motion" of things that are moved in virtue of the types of things that they are such as massive objects moving toward the center unless impeded.
To be clear, what is being discussed in the example is called "local motion" which is merely the translation of the objects from one spatial location to another. It is not talking about different physical concepts such as energy or momentum.
So to make it plain.
#1 is true, but irrelevant to the First Way.
#2 is also irrelevant since the First Way uses "violent motion" to illustrate exactly what type of motion is being discussed. Trying to provide examples of "natural motion" (which also cannot be circularly caused )is not only a red herring since it discusses a different type of motion, but also does nothing to counter the example of "violent motion" given.
However, the explanation for "natural motion" is what is known as the "formal cause". A things natural movement is due to the kind of thing it is (formal substance) and so is prone to its particular natural movement when it comes to be and ceases that movement when it ceases to be (obviously). So the cause of a things natural movement would be whatever was responsible for it becoming a formal substance in the first place and keeping it in existence.
Materialism: Only the necessary thing exists, yet we cannot see it. Instead we only see our perception of it. We only see the arrangement, which is a hallucination created by the necessary thing. In summary: we come to know the necessary thing exists via hallucinations.
AT: The necessary thing exists and many other things exit, separately, including arrangements. We see the many things that exist and we study them so we can know them. What we learn about the many existing things helps us understand the necessary thing. In summary: we come to know that things exist via direct observation. We know the necessary thing exists via logical reasoning.
Which one makes sense? It’s not even close.
SteveK,
"AT has a huge advantage over materialism in that respect. It's more congruent with human experience."
It is manifest and evident to the senses that the Earth does not move. Just go outside and sit on a big rock all day and night. That rock does not move nor does the surrounding landscape. Yet, the lights in sky arc across the sky again and again, so very obviously those lights move around us.
The belief in a geostationary cosmos has a huge advantage over modern cosmology, it is more congruent with human experience.
bmiller,
*1.He argued from the Aristotelian notion that sublunary motion is in a lossy medium such that absent some source of motive action an object in motion will slow and stop and its motion will be lost.*
"#1. This is just an observable fact even though the First Way does not depend on that fact."
There we have it folks, the mind of ancient ignorance on full display. So doggedly entrenched on the reality of superficial observations, so very wrong, and so insistently so, in spite of all humanity has learned since ancient times.
This is the way a stubborn old man stuck in medieval superficiality thinks, intransigently insisting that the ancient errors somehow are obviously the case.
No bmiller, you and Feser and Aquinas and Aristotle are all wrong. None of us have so very many hours left, in this age of megabytes and gigahertz and trillion dollar budgets the number of hours in our lives seems like a very small number. All I can do is wish you all the best in gaining some realistic knowledge while you still can.
No medium is net lossy. Motion is never lost, only transferred or transformed.
Roll a ball and it seems as though it slows and stops and its motion is lost. That apparent loss is false.
The motion of the ball is transferred to the motion of the molecules around it.
Objects in sublunary motion are not in a lossy medium and they do not slow and stop such that their motion is lost. Such objects transfer their motion to surrounding molecules such that their motion is not lost and thus the sublunary medium is net lossless.
“The belief in a geostationary cosmos has a huge advantage over modern cosmology, it is more congruent with human experience”
Your reply makes absolutely no sense because in your example you’re pitting a belief against what we know from experience. Obviously the belief is unwarranted because our experience informs us that it’s unwarranted. Contrast that with my statement. We don’t know what the necessary thing is so a belief is formed about it. Your belief results in a plethora of explanations that are not congruent with human experience.
Stardusty,
Roll a ball and it seems as though it slows and stops and its motion is lost. That apparent loss is false.
Of course the ball will stop moving if the coefficient of rolling friction equals the force moving the ball. Which it does here on earth. Of course you claim to be hallucinating all the time so no telling what you think you are seeing.
I really don't know what you think you are accomplishing by deliberately confounding the spatial translation of an object from one location to another with concepts like the total momentum of a system. It doesn't change the fact that an object has moved from position A to position B which is all that needs to be observed for the example of the First Way to be true to reality. Which it is.
It is especially non-responsive since I expressly stated what "local motion" was and what it was not:
To be clear, what is being discussed in the example is called "local motion" which is merely the translation of the objects from one spatial location to another. It is not talking about different physical concepts such as energy or momentum.
Finally, Aristotle and Aquinas were discussing the motion of a particular object. Not a system. Not the universe. So even if you insist on confounding momentum with local motion, the momentum of a particular object can and does change.
bmiller,
*1.He argued from the Aristotelian notion that sublunary motion is in a lossy medium such that absent some source of motive action an object in motion will slow and stop and its motion will be lost.*
"#1. This is just an observable fact even though the First Way does not depend on that fact."
Wrong.
Not a fact.
"Of course the ball will stop moving if the coefficient of rolling friction equals the force moving the ball. "
The coefficient of friction is just that, a coefficient, a ratio, not a force. The coefficient of friction is the apparent frictional force divided by the normal force. So..no.
And no, the ball does not slow and stop because of an equalization of forces. The force of friction can be very low and still the ball will slow down as its motion is transferred to the motion of surrounding molecules.
Once all the motion of the ball has been transferred the ball stops.
The process is net lossless.
The ball does not stop rolling because it is in a lossy medium. The ball is in a net lossless medium.
When the ball stops its motion is not lost. The motion of the ball is transferred to the surrounding molecules.
What you said was a fact is not a fact, it is false.
I don't think you are a bad or a stupid person because you manifestly do not understand the basics of motion, just an intransigently uneducated person on this subject.
SteveK,
"Obviously the belief (in a stationary Earth) is unwarranted because our experience informs us that it’s unwarranted."
Really? Do you have the experience of the Earth moving?
Prior to modern science didn't pretty much everybody believe the Earth is stationary because we experience a stationary Earth?
I experience a stationary Earth. It is in our most basic language.
Sunrise
Sunset
Moonrise
Moonset
We experience the lights in the sky as rising, arcing across the sky, and then setting, all while we experience that the Earth is stationary.
Many nights I have laid out on the ground on my back. The Earth feels solid, still, hard, and motionless. The birds and the wind and the leaves and the lights in the sky move, but I experience the Earth as stationary, as the ancients did.
"Your belief results in a plethora of explanations that are not congruent with human experience."
Belief in a stationary Earth is highly congruent with human experience.
If congruence with human experience is your primary criteria for acceptance of a theory then the best cosmology is a geostationary system, since a geostationary system is so highly congruent with human experience.
Stardusty,
When the ball stops its motion is not lost. The motion of the ball is transferred to the surrounding molecules.
You can keep on talking about momentum of a system all you want but that is a different subject than the local motion of a particular object. The momentum of a particular ball goes from non-zero to zero as the ball slows to a stop due to friction. And none of your purposely missing the point pertains to the First Way.
Perhaps you are happy hallucinating that you are defeating the First Way by talking about something different, so don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to make you unhappy, but I do think it is best not to feed people's delusions. In the long run it is best that people face reality and deal with it.
My human experience includes knowing about and experiencing relative motion. My experience includes knowing about the science behind the motion of the planet. That’s why the belief is unwarranted, but please continue ignoring my statement so you can continue believing in your fantasy world.
bmiller,
"You can keep on talking about momentum of a system all you want"
Ok, you made a false statement.
*1.He argued from the Aristotelian notion that sublunary motion is in a lossy medium such that absent some source of motive action an object in motion will slow and stop and its motion will be lost.*
"#1. This is just an observable fact even though the First Way does not depend on that fact."
You are wrong that the sublunary medium being lossy is a fact. The sublunary medium is net lossless.
You are wrong that motion of an object being lost in this sublunary medium is a fact. The motion of an object is never lost, only transferred or transformed.
SteveK,
"My experience includes knowing about the science behind"
So, you experience a magnetic field right now because you know the science behind the Earth's magnetic field? You have an odd notion of "experience".
As you sit in your chair you have no experience of a magnetic field. I doubt you even think about it except on rare occasions.
Science educates us as to the reality of things we do not experience. If we could experience such things we would not need a scientific education.
Stardusty,
As I said:
The momentum of a particular ball goes from non-zero to zero as the ball slows to a stop due to friction.
I notice you didn't dispute this fact. So I am satisfied.
Have a good laugh with yourself over whatever you imagine yourself to be pulling off. Maybe you're even hallucinating a second you to share your laughter.
"Science educates us as to the reality of things we do not experience. If we could experience such things we would not need a scientific education"
Science hasn't discovered a necessary thing. You invented the fantasy below completely on your own.
Materialism: Only the necessary thing exists, yet we cannot see it. Instead we only see our perception of it. We only see the arrangement, which is a hallucination created by the necessary thing. In summary: we come to know the necessary thing exists via hallucinations.
"Materialism: Only the necessary thing exists, yet we cannot see it. Instead we only see our perception of it. We only see the arrangement, which is a hallucination created by the necessary thing. In summary: we come to know the necessary thing exists via hallucinations."
Now you are at least getting closer to understanding the cosmos and your place in it.
Your statement has some inaccuracies and could be clarified, but you clearly are beginning to understand how we go about trying to find out the true nature of the underlying reality using just our senses, reasoning, and tools.
bmiller,
"The momentum of a particular ball goes from non-zero to zero as the ball slows to a stop due to friction.
I notice you didn't dispute this fact. So I am satisfied."
I am still concentrating on your fundamental error. I don't always have time to correct every mistake you make.
You were wrong that the sublunary medium is lossy, it is net lossless.
You were wrong that when a ball slows and stops its motion is lost, motion is not lost, it is only transferred to the surrounding molecules.
"stop due to friction"
There is no such thing as friction at base. Friction is only apparent. Friction is a useful fiction, an approximation, an aggregate simplification.
The ball slows and stops as its motion is transferred to the surrounding molecules. That is why the sublunary medium is lossless. The motion of the ball is not lost, only transferred.
Aristotle was wrong.
Aquinas repeated his mistake.
Feser repeated his mistake.
You repeated his mistake.
"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,"
That is a core error.
If you had been correct, if the sublunary medium were lossy, if an object were to slow and stop and its motion lost then the argument from motion would make sense.
Since the sublunary medium is not lossy, motion is not lost, then the argument from motion breaks down and is false due to this false premise, among other reasons.
"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,"
OP
" If God did not exist, would the universe have stable laws."
Yes, if god did not exist we would expect, for example, moving object just keep on moving, which is what we do in fact observe.
After all, without god to stop them, why would they stop here rather than there?
"Now you are at least getting closer to understanding the cosmos and your place in it"
Not really. I have a better understanding of why materialism should be rejected, and I owe a lot of my understanding to you - so thank you for teaching me.
"The motion of the ball is not lost, only transferred."
Likewise, the money in your wallet is not lost, it only transferred to my hand as I take it from you. Money is net lossless.
Stardusty,
I am still concentrating on your fundamental error. I don't always have time to correct every mistake you make.
Aristotle was wrong.
Aquinas repeated his mistake.
Feser repeated his mistake.
You repeated his mistake.
Since Aristotle, Aquinas, Feser and I were discussing local motion of an object and not momentum of a system the only mistake that was made was made by you by misunderstanding (doubly) what everyone else is talking about. I know you know this because you've been told before.
For other readers with an interest in physics, local motion is just the translation of an object from one location (hence "local") to another, for instance the change of an object's location in the x direction(dx).
On the other hand, the momentum of an object is its mass mulitplied by its velocity (m*v or m*dx/dt). So you can see they are completely different types of quantites but even so, when an object goes to zero velocity so does its momentum.
Stardusty desperately wants Aristotle to have not only have been talking about momentum rather than the local motion of a particular object, but momentum of a system as a whole rather than the momentum of a particular object.
It seems these atheist types have some sort of dysfunctional fascination with definitions and senses that a word can used in. It's as if they think if they cling onto a particular definition that is out of context that it changes reality in some way.
BTW, SteveK.
I like your demonstration of the net losslessness of money. If we hear Stardusty is in jail, we'll know why.
Post a Comment