Proof of God

Choobus wrote

If you can't get something simple like gravity right people may suspect that you're full of shit.

Where exactly have I got it wrong?

Choobus wrote

here's how your arguments sound to me:


If ten percent of people are gay then if you take a room with 100 people and split them into two groups then 10% of each group is gay, and if you split them into two groups again then 10% of the four groups are gay. That's 4 x 10% = 40%. Split them up again into eight and you get 80% gay. Eventually only 10% are not gay and so immediately you see that separating groups of people makes them gays, so when you separate humans from god you get homosexuals. This proves that

1) God is necessary for humans to exist (gays cannot procreate via the anus, medical fact)

2) Homosexuality is evil (it is separate from God: Thomas Acqanus, Spinoza, Ron McDonald)

QED

Straw man fallacy. lol

[Mog]

"We investigate the local structural heterogeneities that may appear in liquid water by studying a model of interacting water pentamers. We find local energy minima which we identify with well-defined configurations, and advance the hypothesis that one of these configurations may be related to local “high-density” structural heterogeneities occurring in liquid water when subjected to high pressure. Our results are consistent with experimental data on the effect of high pressure on the radial distribution function, and are further tested by molecular dynamics simulations reported here."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7e19c05cd2dacb

The pressures of the oceanic water can exceed 1100 bar!... and much of this water may in fact be in "high-density" configuration.

You cite a paper that I have to pay $31 to see the text for. I don't want to pay $31 to see how dense "high-density" water is. However, Very-high-density amorphous ice is just 1.26 times the density of water. Sorry, claiming the water is very dense isn't going to cover it. Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms just can't create the mass for this feeble attempt to explain a myth. Water has a low compressibility, so you aren't going to have much luck with explaining the lack of density this way.

Hydrates aren't known for having high density either. I suppose you can try to find a hydrate to prove me wrong, but you'd still have to account for the atoms that the water bonded with anyway.

[Choobus]

I can download the paper. I will read it later

Mog wrote

You cite a paper that I have to pay $31 to see the text for. I don't want to pay $31 to see how dense "high-density" water is. However, Very-high-density amorphous ice is just 1.26 times the density of water. Sorry, claiming the water is very dense isn't going to cover it. Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms just can't create the mass for this feeble attempt to explain a myth. Water has a low compressibility, so you aren't going to have much luck with explaining the lack of density this way.

Hydrates aren't known for having high density either. I suppose you can try to find a hydrate to prove me wrong, but you'd still have to account for the atoms that the water bonded with anyway.

Could we calculate how much mass I am supposed to prove probable?


If the surface of the earth were comprised only of the granite continental plates... what would be the mass of the earth?

Are we going to assume a lower density or higher density for the smaller earth? Would the water have decreased the density or increased it?

If we take the surface area of the continental plates and calculate the volume of an earth based on that surface area... and then times that volume by the density we agree upon.


Then we can minus the current mass of the earth with the calculated mass of the smaller earth...

And we would have an actual number for the mass of the water that is in question... besides having all of our assumption explicit.

Choobus wrote

I can download the paper. I will read it later

Awesome. Could you quote the density change?

[Professor Chaos]

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...&cop=&ei=UTF-8

[Rhinoqulous]

MySiddhi wrote

And how about you actually read the next paragraph of the same proposition and chapter;

"Note.--This is made more clear by what was said in the note to II. vii., namely, that mind and body are one and the same thing, conceived first under the attribute of thought, secondly, under the attribute of extension. Thus it follows that the order or concatenation of things is identical, whether nature be conceived under the one attribute or the other; consequently the order of states of activity and passivity in our body, is simultaneous in nature with the order of states of activity and passivity in the mind. The same conclusion is evident from the manner in which we proved II. xii."

Hmmm, mind and body are (modes of) the same thing. Wouldn't that mean mind-body causality would not be necessary? The whole "proving" mind-body causality is pretty idiotic when you're endorsing dual aspect monism, where causality would go substance->mind and substance->body, making mind->body or body->mind causality completely unnecessary. If you actually understood what you're quoting you wouldn't be in this mess, but then if you understood what you're quoting you wouldn't be endorsing these idiotic theories.

You simply have not actually read his Ethics... and the part that you have read you did not understand.

You got me. I've been faking my philosophical knowledge, especially in regards to Spinoza, for years. I'm tellin' ya, it's been tricky, especially getting a paper on Spinoza published in a peer-review philosophy journal without ever having read him. And actually presenting a paper on Spinoza to a room full of philosophers? Whew, that was rough, considering I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm glad I decided philosophy is generally pointless and got the hell out of the field, it was getting tough faking it all the time.

Don't have time to respond to the other point (other than say you're not addressing my objections at all), if I have time tonight I'll address it.

[nkb]

What are you saying, Professor? That MyShiddi is a posting whore who is just spamming to get his webhits up?

[Professor Chaos]

(I'm also saying he's a fucking retard.)

[calpurnpiso]

MySiddhi wrote

Where exactly have I got it wrong?

You got it wrong because your PREMISE that resurrected imaginary friend Zombie Jesus is REAL and that ALL of the irrational tales of the Bible are TRUE is WRONG. It was accepted as TRUE only in the Middle Ages. IOW retard you believe 2+2=6. So, NOTHING you can say is based on REALITY or empirical FACTS. Got it?.

I suggest you discuss your pseudo science with schizophrenia sufferers or other Christ-psychosis infected fools like you. Again we are in the 21st Century not the 12th and 2+2=4 NOT 6 as you insist.Get well soon.

[Mog]

MySiddhi wrote

Could we calculate how much mass I am supposed to prove probable?


If the surface of the earth were comprised only of the granite continental plates... what would be the mass of the earth?

Whatever the mass is, it couldn't be much less than it is now. You are claiming most of this extra mass the earth gets comes from the atmosphere. It seems that if you have too much extra mass there, the Earth would be for all respects in its early years, a gas giant. I'm not at all convinced life could live on the solid surface of a gas giant due to the atmospheric pressure, greenhouse effect, etc.

Are we going to assume a lower density or higher density for the smaller earth? Would the water have decreased the density or increased it?

Water would decrease the density. The earth has an iron core.

If we take the surface area of the continental plates and calculate the volume of an earth based on that surface area... and then times that volume by the density we agree upon.

One funny thing about the continental plates. Much of them include big chunks of the ocean. The African and South American plates for example, are right next to each other and both extend halfway into the Atlantic ocean. Do you want to include all of the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean with your calculations Or do you just want the part of the continental plate that is the continental shelf? Of course, one problem with including the Atlantic and Indian Oceans here is that you'd be acknowledging that certain continental plates are growing.

Then we can minus the current mass of the earth with the calculated mass of the smaller earth...

And we would have an actual number for the mass of the water that is in question... besides having all of our assumption explicit.

We can probably calculate the mass of the ocean right now. I can probably make a fair guess that it is insignificant compared to the mass of the earth and doesn't affect gravity significantly. Of course, you seem to claim that we don't just have the Earth's Oceans but huge undiscovered reservoirs of water and hydrates beneath the Earth surface.

[Mog]

Professor Chaos wrote

(I'm also saying he's a fucking retard.)

And I bet that all his talk wound up with suspended accounts because he is too dense to see how faulty his logic was.

[Professor Chaos]

http://forums.myspace.com/t/3886713....ums.viewthread

[nkb]

No, it's because people are afraid of his proof, and are trying to silence him.