Joshua260
Well-Known Member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 1,448
- 42
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It has been pointed out that many of these scientific atheists were already non-believers before they entered into their profession. This appeal to numbers really has no bearing on the truth of the KCA argument, or on other philosophical arguments.So this is an argument that draws on cosmology and philosophy, and neither discipline finds it convincing. Huh. What the heck is going on here? It's almost as if the argument has obvious and blatant flaws and is really, really unconvincing.
This is just a statement for materialism. Noted...you're a materialist. Thank you.None of these things "begin to exist" the way you think the universe "began to exist". That is a very clear shift in definition of the meaning of "exist". Each thing here is either a concept (which exists only in the mind and as such is based on an arrangement of matter and energy) or a rearrangement of existing matter and energy, neither of which can reasonably be said to come into existence.
Again, a brute proclamation of your materialistic belief. Noted. But I think you have a problem here because if you claim to think with your material brain, then all of your thinking is just based on evolution which cannot guarantee that anything you think is correct. You have no reason to think that you are using correct logic or not...you are only thinking what has been determined by evolution.Yes, actually, they all are. The person thinking about the idea is using his material brain to come up with a different material brain state. The songwriter is a person. A thing. A material. Nothing here has an "immaterial" cause.
Only two years ago? I graduated over 30 years ago. I suspected you must be either young and fresh out of college or you are reading this type of subject matter constantly. As people get older, they come to realize that things that they excelled at when they were younger are not so fresh in their minds as it was back then. So good for you, but I'm trying to stay on topic.Hi, Comp-Sci dropout over here. I saw those coordinates and could immediately tell you the answer, and the class that covered it was one I barely passed over two years ago. The idea that someone who claims to have studied physics and passed with flying colors doesn't know the answer is kind of stunning.
<1,1,0><2,2,0><0,0,1> is not a basis of R^3, because no combination of these vectors can give you <1,0,0> or <0,1,0> or any multiple thereof. Alternatively, you could prove this by pointing out that two of the vectors are linearly dependent and as such are effectively the same vector, and that as a result you're trying to fill 3 dimensions with two vectors, which isn't going to work. That fact alone moves this problem from "really basic" to "incredibly trivial for anyone who knows anything about vectors and mathematics".
Hold on a minute. I keep getting accused of "touting my credentials" and if you look back through this thread, it was actually nonbeliever314 who pulled rank in education in a response to me. It sounded like he was trying to tell me that I should believe him simply because he was educated in the subject. My response was meant to say something like "so what? I've been educated too...but that's not the topic of the exchange, which is the KCA." My whole response on this subject has been that instead of getting into a ridiculous "I have a higher GPA than you" debate, let's focus on the KCA itself. But instead, I've been suffering personal attacks, implying that I've been disingenuous about my knowledge of the subject.Stop trying to rescue your credentials. This is the internet. The men are men, the women are men, and the 14-year-old girls are FBI agents. The way you demonstrate your credentials on the internet is by demonstrating competence. You just claimed to excel in a subject, after failing to provide an answer to a really simple question in that subject. It's like if someone said they were an expert in RNA transcriptase, and couldn't tell me what "RNA" stands for. I think at this point we should just move on, and you should just accept that nobody believes you when you say you're an authority on physics.
Upvote
0