Existence of God

[warpspeedpetey]

Gravity refers to the behavior of matter. If you’re saying that matter exists, and that it behaves certain ways as described by gravitational models, that’s great. However, if you’re saying that there is some kind of transcendental substance in the universe called “gravity,” then I will have to disagree.

and so again, what is holding me too earth? magical fairies or a force defined by its relation to mass? will you next deny magnetism, or need we spill iron filings on a piece of paper over a magnet?

 

[hatsoff]

then what do you mean in the earlier post, when you said this.

Who says gravity “exists”?

here you seem to imply that gravity does not exist.

Correct. As I explained in the remainder of that post, gravity is not some kind of transcendent substance, or a physical thing. It’s just a math model describing the behavior of matter.

here you seem to imply that gravity is a model alone, not an actual force, but just a convenient way to describe the behavior of matter.

“Force” is a vector physical quantity in the model.

and here you deny its existence.

i may be a little confused here but it does indeed look as if you are denying that gravity exists.

Indeed. It exists only insofar as the math model exists. That is to say, it exists on paper.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Correct. As I explained in the remainder of that post, gravity is not some kind of transcendent substance, or a physical thing. It’s just a math model describing the behavior of matter.

“Force” is a vector physical quantity in the model.

Indeed. It exists only insofar as the math model exists. That is to say, it exists on paper.

and prior to the mathematical model? there was no gravity? now do you see why this is a less than serious position?

 

[hatsoff]

Geez…

Gravity is NOT the model. Gravity is the force - the energy. It is “governed” by a principle that we also call “Gravity” or the “principle of gravity”. It is merely expressed as a formula so as to be able to measure it.

If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to measure it.

Force isn’t the measurement of some kind of mysterious “principle.” It’s mass multiplied by distance, divided by time squared, and associated with a direction.

 

[hatsoff]

and so again, what is holding me too earth? magical fairies or a force defined by its relation to mass? will you next deny magnetism, or need we spill iron filings on a piece of paper over a magnet?

Nothing is holding you to the earth, whether fairies, God, or some Thomistic form. You stay there naturally.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed. It exists only insofar as the math model exists. That is to say, it exists on paper.

ok, so now gravity doesnt exist, just a model exists? and what of magnetism? its another mathematically quantifiable set of behaviors of matter, yet we can quite simply describe the lines of magnetic force with some iron filings.

 

[hatsoff]

ok, so now gravity doesnt exist, just a model exists? and what of magnetism? its another mathematically quantifiable set of behaviors of matter, yet we can quite simply describe the lines of magnetic force with some iron filings.

Well, you can observe patterns of material behavior with iron filings and magnets, sure. The force is described in terms of mass, directed distance and time, however.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nothing is holding you to the earth, whether fairies, God, or some Thomistic form. You stay there naturally.

and what exactly constitutes “naturally”

 

[hatsoff]

and what exactly constitutes “naturally”

That’s the million dollar question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, you can observe patterns of material behavior with iron filings and magnets, sure. The force is described in terms of mass, directed distance and time, however.

the force may be described mathematically by equations, yet it is described as a “real” thing by those iron filings, how is that any different than gravity?

i can describe the model of gravity by equations, yet it is made real in the actual orbits and relations of the masses of the universe. same as the iron filings. on a much greater scale.

if gravity does not exist, except as a model, then how do you explain the veracity of that model in relation to reality?

before you said “naturally” but that seems to be dodging the question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s the million dollar question.

so, gravity may well exist, in fact we have no other reason than its invisibility to doubt it? if not than on what other basis can you reasonably doubt the existence of gravity?

 

[hatsoff]

so, gravity may well exist, in fact we have no other reason than its invisibility to doubt it? if not than on what other basis can you reasonably doubt the existence of gravity?

What you are calling “gravity” has nothing to do with classical mechanics. If you are asking why I doubt that there is some kind of transcendent substance in the universe guiding matter to behave the way it does, that’s because there’s absolutely no evidence for the existence of such a thing.

 

[wanstronian]

Let’s leave Homerun to decide that for himself…

What makes Homerun qualified to decide whether there is evidence of infinite regression, or whether the arbitrary backstop is God?

I’m simply pointing out the flaws with your argument. If Homerun chooses to adopt your position, then he runs the risk of having those flaws pointed out by his peers. That’s all.

 

[wanstronian]

Perhaps I can help you here.
We’ll start with your previous claim:

This is an absolute – that one must accept that atheists’ position (of whatever variety) are “spotlessly logical”. Here we have a breakdown in logic already since there are contradictory atheistic positions – some materialist, some which posit “non-natural” essences, others which could posit alien or “advanced” beings acting in god-like ways (but are not gods).

Secondly, I can notice that when challenged, you did not return to your original view but you changed the topic. Now you ask:

So, you’re saying you’re “not sure” about this new approach to the topic, while completely dropping the prior absolute statement. Now you claim it’s only about “requiring evidence”, and this is the “spotless logic” of atheism.

But without definitions of what evidence you will consider as valid, then this is meaningless also.

This refutes the primary statement that “the only way to deal with atheists is to accept their ‘spotless logic’”. Now you admit that atheists do not have spotless logic – therefore, your point is refuted. This is proven because I am using a different method to “deal with an atheist” and that is to show the lack of logical consistency in the argument.

So, this proves to me that a very good way to “deal with atheists” could be to try to show them that they are illogical and they base their reasoning on assumptions. They make exaggerated claims also – just as you did (“the only way” … etc).

This is arguing by seeking to control the definition of terms. You claim that there is one, basic atheist position which is merely “that of not believing in God due to absence of evidence”. That is an assertion that is offered without proof.

In the most strict, materialist-atheistic position – reason itself is a product of blind, unintelligent, physical laws. The claim that rationality and logic are positive qualities of the atheistic mindset is contradictory. There can be no need or value in the illusion of rational or logical thought in the atheistic-materialist system. Thoughts are entirely determined by physical processes and no human being can freely decide on what thoughts to have.

In the materialist view, human intelligence itself is the product of blind, unintelligent, unconscious forces acting on physical matter.

A shining example of a theist picking apart a post whose meaning is clear, simply to try and win some points. Well done. :clapping:

 

[tonyrey]

What makes Homerun qualified to decide whether there is evidence of infinite regression, or whether the arbitrary backstop is God?

Homerun is just as qualified as you are to decide which is a more adequate explanation:

1. An infinite regress of irrational, purposeless processes.
2. An arbitrary backstop of irrational, purposeless processes.
3. A rational, purposeful Creator.

 

[tonyrey]

 Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **warpspeedpetey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5789649#post5789649)                 
             *and what exactly constitutes "naturally"*

That’s the million dollar question.

Homerun, you will observe that atheists never specify the limits of “nature”. It is a case of having movable goalposts to accommodate new discoveries in any field whatsoever!

 

[wanstronian]

Homerun is just as qualified as you are to decide which is a more adequate explanation:

Indeed - I wasn’t pretending to be any more qualified than anybody else - I was just taking issue with your implication that the OP had the authority to decide. He can of course decide what to believe, but not what is the truth.

1. An infinite regress of irrational, purposeless processes.
2. An arbitrary backstop of irrational, purposeless processes.
3. A rational, purposeful Creator.

There is no evidence of a rational, purposeful Creator (and I note that you remove the words “arbitrary backstop” from your third option, despite it being clearly thus). However, there is abundant evidence for what you call process.

 

[wanstronian]

Homerun, you will observe that atheists never specify the limits of “nature”. It is a case of having movable goalposts to accommodate new discoveries in any field whatsoever!

Dur, that’s because we don’t know what the limits are. It’s what having an open mind is all about. What’s wrong with accommodating new discoveries? The alternative is dogmatic refutation of anything other than the status quo. Which sounds more like theism to me.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Dur, that’s because we don’t know what the limits are. It’s what having an open mind is all about. What’s wrong with accommodating new discoveries? The alternative is dogmatic refutation of anything other than the status quo. Which sounds more like theism to me.

“New discoveries” as in a new posture to take and dodge in defense against your chosen foe? A dodge no more valid than the last and one to which you will return when it becomes clear again?

Politics and posturing has exactly what to do with philosophy and the seeking of real truth?

You display no more than politics, not the behavior of a philosopher or even an honest observer.

 

[hatsoff]

Homerun, you will observe that atheists never specify the limits of “nature”. It is a case of having movable goalposts to accommodate new discoveries in any field whatsoever!

I don’t recall specifying any “goalposts.”