Jamest is right!

[jamest]

Doesn't anyone want my autograph?

[jamest]

“The ultimate cause of atheism,
Newton asserted, is ‘this notion
of bodies having, as it were, a
complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’”

I never knew that Newton said this. It makes me wonder why he didn't question his own work... and beat Einstein by a couple+ of centuries.

[jamest]

... Einstein's work only undermines Newton's because there are no "bodies having, as it were, a
complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact. That don't make any more room for god than the other version. I don't really get Newton's point. But then again, he was quite a bit mad.

[jamest]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact.

If you think that definite matter can exist as a 'field equation', or that 'field equations' can actually interact, then you're off your fucking trolley.

That don't make any more room for god than the other version.

What other version?

I don't really get Newton's point.

That has to be a pork pie. Nobody can have their head buried that deeply into the sand.

But then again, he was quite a bit mad.

Why was he mad?

Here's hoping that you're not in a bad mood tonight.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact.

If you think that definite matter can exist as a 'field equation', or that 'field equations' can actually interact, then you're off your fucking trolley.

Every particle of matter or energy can be viewed as a field and represented as field equations that gives the relative probabilities of that particle's position, momentum, energy, etc. The field equations of a single particle in isolation are relatively simple. However, as the equation's domains are potentially infinite in extent, they all overlap and affect each other.

My statement above was a heavily abridged version.

That don't make any more room for god than the other version.

What other version?

The version that Newton was dismissing, that bodies have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves."

I don't really get Newton's point.

That has to be a pork pie. Nobody can have their head buried that deeply into the sand.

What relevance is the position of my head relative to a pile of sand? I agree with Newton's statement that bodies do not have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves" but I fail to see how this in any way changes ones proclivity towards atheism.

But then again, he was quite a bit mad.

Why was he mad?

Despite his self-evident genius and the huge body of mathematical and physical texts he produced, he wasted far more time attempting to transmute base metals into gold, searching for the philosopher's stone and writing abstruse and (some would say) heretical religious and occult tracts that he concealed from the world out of fear of prosecution.

Here's hoping that you're not in a bad mood tonight.

Not at all. Here's hoping you don't feel it necessary to call me a cunt any time soon!

[Brian Peacock]

At least some of us were paying attention. And taking notes!

[pErvinalia]

I don't really get Newton's point.

That has to be a pork pie. Nobody can have their head buried that deeply into the sand.

What relevance is the position of my head relative to a pile of sand? I agree with Newton's statement that bodies do not have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves" but I fail to see how this in any way changes ones proclivity towards atheism.

Yeah. The cause of atheism is an unwillingness to believe in made up stories that have no evidence.

[Seth]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact. That don't make any more room for god than the other version. I don't really get Newton's point. But then again, he was quite a bit mad.

If nothing is independent and everything is an interacting field equation, how does this not make room for God? Things interact in this universe that we can neither detect nor understand as yet, so it's entirely plausible that there are interacting field equations that equal God that we are as yet unable to detect or quantify. Indeed, if nothing is independent, and everything interacts, it makes it MORE likely that some larger, more complex intelligence exists as a "macro intelligence" of which our entire species (or planet, or solar system, or galaxy) is but a single neuron in an infinite mind.

[Seth]

I don't really get Newton's point.

That has to be a pork pie. Nobody can have their head buried that deeply into the sand.

What relevance is the position of my head relative to a pile of sand? I agree with Newton's statement that bodies do not have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves" but I fail to see how this in any way changes ones proclivity towards atheism.

Yeah. The cause of atheism is an unwillingness to believe in made up stories that have no evidence.

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

[pErvinalia]

No, troll, it's not.

And aren't you an atheist, allegedly?

[Brian Peacock]

What's not to believe in?

[jamest]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact.

If you think that definite matter can exist as a 'field equation', or that 'field equations' can actually interact, then you're off your fucking trolley.

Every particle of matter or energy can be viewed as a field and represented as field equations that gives the relative probabilities of that particle's position, momentum, energy, etc. The field equations of a single particle in isolation are relatively simple. However, as the equation's domains are potentially infinite in extent, they all overlap and affect each other.

I wasn't referring to what matter can be viewed as, or represented as, or even mathematical probabilities. I explicitly spoke about definiteness and existence in the same breath, independent of all of that enigmatic shite. Is it your intention to turn materialism into a 'spiritual' endeavour?

My statement above was a heavily abridged version.

Just as well, since a lengthy exposition of such nonsense would be requiring of a lengthier whip to punish you thus.

The version that Newton was dismissing, that bodies have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves."

You actually believe that there's a credible version of materialism which lends weight to the idea that matter has no definite existence? C'mon squire, you're way too intelligent to believe that bollocks.

What relevance is the position of my head relative to a pile of sand? I agree with Newton's statement that bodies do not have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves" but I fail to see how this in any way changes ones proclivity towards atheism.

You're of the opinion that if matter itself does not exist, that there's still good reasons to be an atheist?

Wtf have you been smoking?

Despite his self-evident genius and the huge body of mathematical and physical texts he produced, he wasted far more time attempting to transmute base metals into gold, searching for the philosopher's stone and writing abstruse and (some would say) heretical religious and occult tracts that he concealed from the world out of fear of prosecution.

He lived (mainly) in the 17th century, so please give the guy some slack. Chemical knowledge was practically nil; religion was especially prominent at that time (born during the English Civil War!), when to be heretical had serious repercussions. The fact that he was seriously investigating chemical truths only serves to lend weight to the expansiveness of his inquisitive mind; the fact that he was challenging established religious views only serves to show that he was ballsy. You don't really have a point worth making, since your points only [really] serve to highlight what a genius he was.

Here's hoping that you're not in a bad mood tonight.

Not at all. Here's hoping you don't feel it necessary to call me a cunt any time soon!

I love cunts. I'm confused as per why the concept ever became the base of a derogatory comment.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact. That don't make any more room for god than the other version. I don't really get Newton's point. But then again, he was quite a bit mad.

If nothing is independent and everything is an interacting field equation, how does this not make room for God? Things interact in this universe that we can neither detect nor understand as yet, so it's entirely plausible that there are interacting field equations that equal God that we are as yet unable to detect or quantify. Indeed, if nothing is independent, and everything interacts, it makes it MORE likely that some larger, more complex intelligence exists as a "macro intelligence" of which our entire species (or planet, or solar system, or galaxy) is but a single neuron in an infinite mind.

Neither more nor less likely. If all bodies have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves" (whatever that actually means), then there is room for a god as another body with "complete, absolute and independent reality in itself". If not, then everything is interconnected and, in theory, god could be interconnected in there too.

The REAL test is, as always, what evidence do we have that there is a god in the mix? And the answer is, nothing but subjective anecdote and speculation. An answer that is independent on either viewpoint.

[jamest]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety. That's precisely why they're all fucking idiots.