Into the Night
Contributor
More of your BS and buzzwords.
The people that created the theories of science and transcribed it into mathematics WROTE the law, Sybil. Reversal fallacy.
Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
The people that created the theories of science and transcribed it into mathematics WROTE the law, Sybil. Reversal fallacy.
Into the Night
Contributor
I don't think you've ever been right (certainly not as long as I've been on JPP!). Trying to agree with yourself does not make anything right.
Into the Night
Contributor
What makes you think a spirit is beyond the laws of physics?
Into the Night
Contributor
Sheep aren't raised to be butchered, Sybil!Sheep have faith in their shepherd but no common sense.
They are raised for their hair. You don't have to kill a sheep to shear it!
Into the Night
Contributor
Science isn't a 'story', NoName, although theories of science each have a fascinating history behind them.
Into the Night
Contributor
I gotta agree with that one! Even sheep or chickens are smarter!
Into the Night
Contributor
You don't take math classes.
Right, so the law of universal gravitation never existed before Newton wrote it down
Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?
Into the Night
Contributor
While Newton's law of gravitation does relate gravity to the presence of mass, it never describes what gravity is, other than a force. Newton simply accepted it as immutable. Newton's law did not exist before he wrote it down. It appears in The Principia.Right, so the law of universal gravitation never existed before Newton wrote it down
Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?
I don't believe in the expertise of a psychiatrist. It's quackery. It can be just as destructive as another form of quackery, chiropractive 'healing'.
That's not what you wrote, and now you're trying to backtrack and modify what you originally stated.
You wrote in post 568 that the law of universal gravitation was a creation of humans and the law of gravity didn't exist until Newton wrote an equation.
Kinda fun that the current discussion has turned to ISAAC NEWTON, a man with some pretty weird religious beliefs.
But at least, as I understand him, he believed that one should not view something like some physical law as a clockwork mechanism ticking away in the background but he held that many things in the physical universe demanded the current intervention of something to mediate them. God?
Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if ‘gravitation’ in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} ‘gravity’ to me. That ‘gravity’ should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. ‘Gravity’ must be caused by an agent {acting} constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.”– Isaac Newton
(Richard Bentley “189.R.4.47, ff. 7-8, Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK, 1692)
He also was no fan of atheism despite his seemingly self-created belief system.
That's the fun thing about "God" in general. It's such an open-ended concept and since there is literally zero evidence for any of these, a plethora of versions of God spring up like weeds. God is literally whatever the individual believer needs it to be and is thence constructed to be.
I guess the biggest question is: if there is a God whose only role is to be the creator who set up the laws and made sure math worked and the only reason to suspect he exists is because there are laws and math works, then what is the value in having that information? It provides nothing of any real value other than to be a place-holder.
What's the point of coming up with an unprovable, unevidenced explanation for a mystery that may not even be a mystery?
But at least, as I understand him, he believed that one should not view something like some physical law as a clockwork mechanism ticking away in the background but he held that many things in the physical universe demanded the current intervention of something to mediate them. God?
Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if ‘gravitation’ in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} ‘gravity’ to me. That ‘gravity’ should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. ‘Gravity’ must be caused by an agent {acting} constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.”– Isaac Newton
(Richard Bentley “189.R.4.47, ff. 7-8, Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK, 1692)
He also was no fan of atheism despite his seemingly self-created belief system.
That's the fun thing about "God" in general. It's such an open-ended concept and since there is literally zero evidence for any of these, a plethora of versions of God spring up like weeds. God is literally whatever the individual believer needs it to be and is thence constructed to be.
I guess the biggest question is: if there is a God whose only role is to be the creator who set up the laws and made sure math worked and the only reason to suspect he exists is because there are laws and math works, then what is the value in having that information? It provides nothing of any real value other than to be a place-holder.
What's the point of coming up with an unprovable, unevidenced explanation for a mystery that may not even be a mystery?
I think you're right.
Jean Paul Satre seemed to struggle a little with the implications of atheism, and in one of the last interviews he gave before he died he seemed to be making a pivot towards religious belief:
“I do not feel like the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was awaited, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being that only a Creator could have placed here. And this idea of a creative hand refers to God.” (from “Nouvel Observateur”, 1980).
Reportedly, his atheist lover Simone de Beauvoir became outraged when she got wind of his 'conversion'. LOL
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
but the bible is. you missed the point.
why don't you just simmer down and stay off my jock without a point.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
this doesn't mean he became catholic, you papist monstrousity.
That's a pretty spiritual observation on his part.
Simone de Beauvoir was hot. Smart, aggressive and a bit of a bitch.
No, that idea is more than 100 years out of date.
Strictly speaking, gravity is the curvature of spacetime which determines how objects move in geodesic paths. That's what the theory of general relativity demonstrated way back in 1915.
(Edit to add 1915 publication date of theory of general relativity)
Last edited:
The mentally ill do not believe in gravity. This is why I advise many of them to prove they can fly off a ten story building. It's a matter of will.
The mentally ill do not believe in gravity. This is why I advise many of them to prove they can fly off a ten story building. It's a matter of will.
There is a lot of work for psychiatrists on this board, assuming insurance will pay for it!
Reading comprehension problems again??!
I wrote nothing about Catholics.
What I read is that Sartre was having discussions with his Jewish friend, and may have been pivoting towards some kind of messianic Judaism.
A major problem in our nation since most insurance doesn't cover much treatment. There are options with group therapy being a good one. There are free ones such as church or AA. A mentally ill person sitting in on an AA meeting could find meaning and support there.