Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Roses]

I'm sorry, I doubt you could teach me much even if you wanted to. Your sentiments are completely irrelevant to the question in any case.

You don't appear to have the necessary brain cells to take on reasoned argument, which is sad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't appear to have the necessary brain cells to take on reasoned argument, which is sad.

You have misunderstood the question as I believe Nearly Sane has. I have clarified in the previous post.

Your fallacy is ad Hominem...Your welcome.

[Gordon]

I see, you think that when I say 'how do they determine that phenomena' I mean how do people determine it. I don't. I mean How do the laws themselves, which Prof Davey states have existence not dependent on phenomena, How do the laws themselves determine phenomena?

What ability do they have to do that?

If they are abstract like maths....How can they actually interact with the physical to cause the phenomena? If they are more than abstract in what form can they said to be existent?

Vlad

You seem to be thinking that the 'laws of physics' are written in tablets of stone somewhere - and that would be concrete thinking, so perhaps try considering them as being reliable descriptions of how certain phenomena appear to operate.

Those of us of a certain age may recall this well known example.

Sir Isaac Newton told us why an apple falls down from the sky.
And from this fact, it's very plain, all other objects do the same.
A brick, a bolt, a bar, a cup, invariably fall down, not up.
And every common working tool is governed by the self-same rule.

So when you handle tools up there, let your watchword be "Take Care".
If at work, you drop a spanner, it travels in a downward manner.
At work, a fifth of accidents or more, illustrate old Newton's law.
But one thing he forgot to add, the damage won't be half as bad
If you are wearing proper clothes, especially on your head and toes

These hats and shoes are there to save the wearer from an early grave.
So best feet forward and take care about the kind of shoes you wear.
It's better to be sure, than dead, so get a hat and keep your head.
Don't think to go without is brave; the effects of gravity can be grave

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

You seem to be thinking that the 'laws of physics' are written in tablets of stone somewhere - and that would be concrete thinking, so perhaps try considering them as being reliable descriptions of how certain phenomena appear to operate.

Those of us of a certain age may recall this well known example.
   

Gordon. I am not the one who proposes that The laws of nature have an existence that does not depend on time and space. Professor Davey is. I am therefore pressing him on what he means by ''exist'' in various ways.

I appreciate you have a different viewpoint and thank you for expressing that.

[Walter]

I'm sorry, I doubt you could teach me much even if you wanted to.

Vlad, that is definitely one thing we can agree on .

Your confusion is fixed and immoveable

you would have to start again at physics from school age 12 up to at least 'o' level standard , but I doubt it would make any difference.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, that is definitely one thing we can agree on .

Your confusion is fixed and immoveable

you would have to start again at physics from school age 12 up to at least 'o' level standard , but I doubt it would make any difference.

No It is you who are confused.
We can test that by asking you to state what you think my argument is.
And talking of school age I think you may be the shiniest example of playground mentality this Board has.

[Walter]

we have got to get this satellite into orbit;

Vlad:      ok, I'll do the wishing, hoping, and praying . I'm sure that will do it.

Rocket scientist:   right, well I'll do the maths , physics and engineering then and build a rocket .


who do you think will be successful Vlad ?

[Walter]

No It is you who are confused.
We can test that by asking you to state what you think my argument is.
And talking of school age I think you may be the shiniest example of playground mentality this Board has.

your argument?

don't have a fuckin clue mate and I don't think you have either!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

we have got to get this satellite into orbit;

Vlad:      ok, I'll do the wishing, hoping, and praying . I'm sure that will do it.

Rocket scientist:   right, well I'll do the maths , physics and engineering then and build a rocket .


who do you think will be successful Vlad ?

Can you point to where I've suggested anything like this. Like your usual malcontent atheist another caricature.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

your argument?

don't have a fuckin clue mate

I knew we would get to it in the end.

[Walter]

I knew we would get to it in the end.

just to be clear , why not state your argument again for all of us Vlad.

thank you .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

just to be clear , why not state your argument again for all of us Vlad.

thank you .

For what I am doing on this thread, this reply to Gordon, I think sums up my present purpose on this thread.

Reply #103

[Roses]

For what I am doing on this thread, this reply to Gordon, I think sums up my present purpose on this thread.

Reply #103

Your purpose is to wind everyone up by posting nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your purpose is to wind everyone up by posting nonsense.

Oh dear....another Malcontent Atheist making caricatures.

[Walter]

For what I am doing on this thread, this reply to Gordon, I think sums up my present purpose on this thread.

Reply #103

Vlad

nope, still not clear . You might have something valuable to communicate but I (for one) don't know what it is.

[ProfessorDavey]

You said the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence did you not. Have you changed your mind?

Nice diversionary tactic Vlad - in what way is this a response to my post, which I've provide below once again - can you response please to the non-sense of implying you should be able to 'weigh' the laws of physics to prove they exist, when weight itself is inherently determined by those very laws of physics:

'Under which gravitation conditions.

Vlad - you do understand that the concept of weight isn't fixed but varies depending on the gravitational conditions. And that weight as a concept is entirely defined by, and dependent on fundamental physical laws, in this case F=MA'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

nope, still not clear . You might have something valuable to communicate but I (for one) don't know what it is.

Things that are observed to exist, exist in time and space.....do you agree?

Professor Davey has said that the existence of The laws of nature does not depend on time and space.

I am trying to get from professor Davey, if they do not depend on time and space for their existence in what way can the Laws of nature be said to exist.

[Roses]

Oh dear....another Malcontent Atheist making caricatures.

I am stating a fact about your daft posts, which are verbal diarrhoea.

[ProfessorDavey]

You said the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence did you not. Have you changed your mind?

No I didn't - where exactly did I say that.

In fact I think I was very clear that the laws of nature are themselves determined by, and predicated on, those fundamental laws of physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am stating a fact about your daft posts, which are verbal diarrhoea.

You are just trying to derail this thread because you know I am asking atheists making claims for further details. Something atheism does not seem strong on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I didn't - where exactly did I say that.

« Reply #59

[Walter]

Things that are observed to exist, exist in time and space.....do you agree?

Professor Davey has said that the existence of The laws of nature does not depend on time and space.

I am trying to get from professor Davey, if they do not depend on time and space for their existence in what way can the Laws of nature be said to exist.

Vlad,

all that post shows is that you are so confused , you are 'not even wrong'!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

all that post shows is that you are so confused , you are 'not even wrong'!

All this post shows is you have not read Davey's reply#59.

[ProfessorDavey]

« Reply #59

No I didn't - indeed I never even mentioned the fundamental laws of nature at all in that post.

Here is reply 59 in its entirety:

'They aren't but that doesn't mean that time/space and physical laws are independent, which is what you asked.

Time/space and the physical laws which define them and which time/space are a manifestation of are clearly inextricably linked - i.e. they are not independent.

Claiming somehow that physical laws and time/space are independent is as non-sensical as claiming that gravity and the orbiting of the planets in our solar system are somehow independent.'

How on earth that fits with your claim that ' said the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence' is beyond me.

It may be more helpful to look at reply 41, where I do make a point about the connection between laws of nature and laws of physics:

'Human morality and immorality are human social constructs - they arise from the fact that humans (along with many other species) are social animals and that has evolutionary advantage for a species that isn't particularly physically strong but has highly developed neurobiology. And that is explained by natural laws, which are explained by underpinning physical laws.'

[ProfessorDavey]

All this post shows is you have not read Davey's reply#59.

Nope - it shows you haven't read my reply 59, nor my reply 41.