Why They Fear Us

The Rational Argumentator ^ | December 26, 2003 | Henry Emrich

[possible]

I will tell you in very simple terms what I mean by these words. If you agree, you can simply say so, and we will go from there.

I actually do disagree. But, for the sake of discussion, let's proceed using the definitions you've provided. I expect that I'll be satisfied if you can provide sound reasoning from observable evidence to the conclusion that theft (as you have defined it) is wrong (according to your meaning: that theft works against an end or purpose of the thief).

Have at it!

[possible]

Theists generally believe the universe is not all that exists, but there is no grounds for this belief at all.

This is simply false. You may reject the grounds I and other theists cite for believing in God as inadequate. But they are grounds nonetheless.

1. Like a person examining a watch and concluding that there must be a watchmaker, we see finely detailed structure in the universe, especially in living things, and conclude that a plausible explanation is that there is a creator.

2. We observe that the universe operates based on regular principles and conclude that a plausible explanation is that there is a creator.

3. We observe that most people have a remarkably similar sense of right and wrong and conclude that a plausible explanation is that a creator gave this to us.

4. Apart from considering what God asks of us, we find no basis in reason or the world for believing that there is such as right and wrong.

5. We have a record of the testimony of multiple eyewitness to many miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, we have a record of the testimony of many eyewitnesses who did not recant even though they were tortured and killed for their testimony.

6. We have an historical record in the Bible that has proved through archaeology to be very reliable.

7. We have a record of fulfilled Biblical prophesy that lends credence to the balance of the text.

Please refrain from saying we have no grounds for our belief. You will also do well to consider the following:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:16-19 AV)

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. donh: One explication of the two slit experiment is that light is both a continuous wave and a discrete particle. As these are mutually exclusive states, in classical physics, classical physics declines to offer an explanation at all.

Mr. Stolyarov: The entire notion of considering light as EITHER a particle OR a wave is not in accord with the identity principle. That is similar to considering a cat as EITHER an elefant OR an ant, though it is somewhere in between in terms of size and radically different in terms of lifestyle, genetics, and behavioral habits from both other animals.

Light may exhibit properties similar to those of both particles and waves, but it is an ontological fallacy to refer to light as either a particle or a wave (or a blend of both; a cat is NOT a hybrid of an elefant and an ant). A third category needs to be created, which encompasses the behavior of light and similar entities and accounts for objectively demonstrable occurrences such as the two-slit fenomenon. This, however, says NOTHING about the Identity Principle nor about the entities that DO exhibit discrete particulate and wave behavior.

I do not oppose modifications to classical fysics that are consistent with the Identity Principle, but modern relativists seem to wish to "correct" the slight deficiencies of classical thought by destructing that very principle which renders all coherent thought possible.

[donh]

Light may exhibit properties similar to those of both particles and waves, but it is an ontological fallacy to refer to light as either a particle or a wave (or a blend of both; a cat is NOT a hybrid of an elefant and an ant). A third category needs to be created, which encompasses the behavior of light and similar entities and accounts for objectively demonstrable occurrences such as the two-slit fenomenon. This, however, says NOTHING about the Identity Principle nor about the entities that DO exhibit discrete particulate and wave behavior.

Wrong on all counts. Light is demonstrated through numerous experiments to be a) indivisibly particulate, and b) a continuous wave which can produce interference effects (yes, of a single particle with itself--particles up to the size of 60-atom buckyballs have been subjected to this test) on a background screen when passed through two slits side-by-side in front of the screen.

Let me attempt to clarify this for you as I suspect you need clarification. There is one particle of light, and either it, or some inseparable manifestation of it, exists in both slits at once. All by itself, this is a violation of the identity principle, all fal-de-ral about the immisibility of wave and particulate behavior aside.

This is fundamental to 20th century physics, and if you won't even try to understand it, you have no business venturing an opinion on the subject.

I do not oppose modifications to classical fysics that are consistent with the Identity Principle, but modern relativists seem to wish to "correct" the slight deficiencies of classical thought by destructing that very principle which renders all coherent thought possible.

Bully for you--modern physicists, having things to do, however, must go with the universe as it seems to be, not as self-righteous philosophers from marginalized, cocksure, cranky schools of philosophy insist it be.

but modern relativists seem to wish to "correct" the slight deficiencies of classical thought by destructing that very principle which renders all coherent thought possible.

The principle of identity does not "render all coherent thought possible." That's just another bazaar, typically Randian, Objectivist over-statement. Neolithic-level people who believe in all manner of strange, self-contradictory stuff still manage to feed and shelter their kids--and that requires thought of humans. The principle of identity is a mathematical tool which applies properly only to rigorously specified cartesian sets that are not self-contained. It doesn't imply anything significant about the behavior of the physical universe except where the universe's behavior can be adequately modeled by set theory--which isn't the whole of it by a long shot.