Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 45 of 73
 [ 1447 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3473Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
So, why do you trust it, seeing as how you believe in a universe so deterministic that a been outside of it can now our future by just knowing our past and present? Remember, this is an implication of your belief. I do not accept determinism, but you do based on what you believe.
]


Determinism doesn't imply that the future is predictable, and none detemrinism doesn't imply that the future is unpredictable as you seem to believe.


Citation please, because that differs from the definition we both just agreed with.

leroy wrote:This comment also suggests that you don't know what determinism is>


Says you.

leroy wrote:
Once again, please work on your reading comprehension. I am using radiometric decay as an example (an easy one to grasp) that the universe is not deterministic, and asking why should we believe that it would only apply in this one case?



given that the decay of an atom is a deterministic process,,,


Once again, citation needed.

leroy wrote: and given that you used decay as an example of a none deterministic process, it is obvious that you don't know what determinism is. You are confusing determinism in the mathematical sense and determinism in the philosophical sense , same word but a completely different meaning.


Once again, using the definition that we both agreed with, I am using it correctly.

leroy wrote:Do some research in any source that you consider reliable, and after doing some research and understanding the concept of determinism, come back and let us know if you are a determinist or not.


Once again, using the definition that we both agreed with, I am not.

leroy wrote:all the comments that I made in my last post are based on the assumption that you know and understand what determinism is, but I was obviously wrong, so there is no point in continuing with this none sense.


after you prove to me that you know and understand what determinism is, I will respond to your comments about the subject.


:lol:

I have to admit that this is a very unique cop-out. At least it is different from the last one, in which you were upset that I wanted you to provide evidence and would not allow you to shift your burden.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:42 pm
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

thenexttodie wrote:How can it be completely random if we are able to manipulate decay rates, with predictable results?


You really need to learn some physics, coupled with an understanding of the laws of large numbers.

The decay of an individual atom is entirely random. Given a sample with a large number of atoms, we can predict with great accuracy how long it will take for half the atoms to decay. Properly, decay rates in a large sample are stochastic.
Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:05 pm
surreptitious57Posts: 224Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:09 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
given that the decay of an atom is a deterministic process

Are you suggesting that atoms all decay at the same rate because if you are then you could not be more wrong

The half lives of elements [ species of atoms ] varies enormously from the incredibly short to the incredibly long

Hydrogen 7 has the shortest half life at 21 yoctoseconds [ a yoctosecond is a trillionth of a trillionth of a second ]

Tellerium 128 has the longest half life at 7 decillion years or 7 x 10 to the 33 which is 160 trillion times older than the universe currently is

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:08 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

thenexttodie wrote:[How can it be completely random if we are able to manipulate decay rates, with predictable results?

If this was true we wouldn't have nuclear waste.

Or are you claiming that we can manipulate the decay rates only to slower? That also would be very, very useful in dealing with highly active waste (slower decay rate = lower activity = less dangerous waste).
Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:58 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Visaki wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:[How can it be completely random if we are able to manipulate decay rates, with predictable results?

If this was true we wouldn't have nuclear waste.

Or are you claiming that we can manipulate the decay rates only to slower? That also would be very, very useful in dealing with highly active waste (slower decay rate = lower activity = less dangerous waste).


I think he means those experiments where they can change a decay rate by like, heating the atom up to 2000 degrees Kelvin, ionizing it, then surrounding it in an environment of pure ionized gold atoms or something. Don't have a citation for such an experiment, I've just heard of them before.
Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:26 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

itsdemtitans wrote:I think he means those experiments where they can change a decay rate by like, heating the atom up to 2000 degrees Kelvin, ionizing it, then surrounding it in an environment of pure ionized gold atoms or something. Don't have a citation for such an experiment, I've just heard of them before.

I've only heard that claim from creationists when they are trying to disprove radiometric dating, and every time they claim both that the conditions for decay rate chance are common on Earth (and thus should be easy to reproduce) and that they rate change is considerate (usually from some tens of times to a few thousand times faster than the real one).

Though I fail to see how us being able to change the decay rate with some very specific treatments would mean it's not random. Even with a faster or slower decay rate the individual decay would be random, though with a different probabilities over time and a different half life. Even if we managed to induce decay at will that wouldn't mean that natural decay would not be random.

Unless he's talking about fusion and fission, but that wouldn't make sense in this context, now would it?
Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

itsdemtitans wrote:I think he means those experiments where they can change a decay rate by like, heating the atom up to 2000 degrees Kelvin, ionizing it, then surrounding it in an environment of pure ionized gold atoms or something. Don't have a citation for such an experiment, I've just heard of them before.

Yes. I remember reading about a physics experiment where they managed to significantly alter the decay-rate of some element by zapping it with extremely short pulses from a laser for a combined effect of (IIRC) a trillion fucking watts. (but for very short periods of time). During this short interval of astronomically intense radiation bombardment, the decay rate could be made to increase significantly.

Needless to say this has zero bearing on the natural decay rate.

And as Visaki says, just because the RATE of decay is higher, any given individual decay event is still random. The decay rate is an expression of an average number of decays over a given interval of time, not a statement about when exactly any particular decay event happens.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:45 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Exactly. You can stimulate potential by adding colossal amounts of energy leading to a higher but entirely consistent decay rate, entirely in line with the laws. Whoopee-doo!

This is exactly the same category as the effects described by neutron capture and the reservoir effect. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:35 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 264Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:How can it be completely random if we are able to manipulate decay rates, with predictable results?


You really need to learn some physics, coupled with an understanding of the laws of large numbers.

The decay of an individual atom is entirely random. Given a sample with a large number of atoms, we can predict with great accuracy how long it will take for half the atoms to decay. Properly, decay rates in a large sample are stochastic.


Is it fair to say that the process of decay with a single atom is non-deterministic and a "deterministic" property arises after you have a large sample size. In other words, determinism of the decay rate is an emergent property of a large set of atoms that are decaying non-deterministically?

Correct me if I am wrong here.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:29 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Yes, although there's still some randomness even in large samples. For example, decays involve emissions, and the vectors of said emissions are fully statistically independent. We can tease out a statistically weighted rate of decay, the half-life, but the direction of emission is an entirely independent variable.
Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:19 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 889Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:Yes, although there's still some randomness even in large samples. For example, decays involve emissions, and the vectors of said emissions are fully statistically independent. We can tease out a statistically weighted rate of decay, the half-life, but the direction of emission is an entirely independent variable.


hackenslash wrote: You can stimulate potential by adding colossal amounts of energy leading to a higher but entirely consistent decay rate, entirely in line with the laws.

This is exactly the same category as the effects described by neutron capture and the reservoir effect.


Thank you for taking the time to explain these things. I feel I now have a better understanding of the world we live in.

I have read people who are much more qualified than I am, who would argue that what we perceive here as being random is only the result of lack of knowledge. I would be interested in reading your thoughts on this.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:55 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

The problem there is in defining 'random'. As I said, in the sciences, it means 'statistically independent'. In vernacular, it's often treated as 'uncaused', which is an entirely different animal.

That said, there are events in the universe for which we can point to no cause, and have no reason to assume that there is a cause beyond reliance on Aristotelian notions of causation, which have no place in physics.

I've written fairly extensively on these issues.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ainty.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... -wave.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ls-of.html
Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:57 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 889Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:
I've written fairly extensively on these issues.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ainty.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... -wave.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ls-of.html


These are seriously fucking wonderful! I will very much enjoy reading them. Thank you again.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:02 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

My pleasure.
Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:04 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Once again, citation needed.

leroy wrote: and given that you used decay as an example of a none deterministic process, it is obvious that you don't know what determinism is. You are confusing determinism in the mathematical sense and determinism in the philosophical sense , same word but a completely different meaning.


Once again, using the definition that we both agreed with, I am using it correctly.

leroy wrote:Do some research in any source that you consider reliable, and after doing some research and understanding the concept of determinism, come back and let us know if you are a determinist or not.


Once again, using the definition that we both agreed with, I am not.

leroy wrote:all the comments that I made in my last post are based on the assumption that you know and understand what determinism is, but I was obviously wrong, so there is no point in continuing with this none sense.


after you prove to me that you know and understand what determinism is, I will respond to your comments about the subject.


:lol:

I have to admit that this is a very unique cop-out. At least it is different from the last one, in which you were upset that I wanted you to provide evidence and would not allow you to shift your burden.



Again

given that you think that the decay of an atom is deterministic, it is obvious that you don´t know what determinism is, you dont know what you are talking about:



so do some research,

try to understand that determinism is

and after you do that and if you still consider yourself a non determinist, answer.

given atheism and given that all chemical reactions are deterministic, why making an arbitrary excepción with the reactions in your brain that cause human choice?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:27 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3473Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Again

given that you think that the decay of an atom is deterministic, it is obvious that you don´t know what determinism is, you dont know what you are talking about:


I think you need to go back and reread this thread. You are the one that was claiming that atomic decay was deterministic. I do not. I know your memory is bad, but you do realize that you can always just go back and reread what has already been posted. That is the beauty of a written forum.

leroy wrote:so do some research,

try to understand that determinism is


Again, based on the definition that we both agreed with, I do understand it.

You know what would be easier? Actually demonstrating that I am wrong. Honestly, the fact that you are just telling me to research this instead of proving I am wrong kind of shows that you are holding an empty bag.

leroy wrote:and after you do that and if you still consider yourself a non determinist, answer.

given atheism and given that all chemical reactions are deterministic, why making an arbitrary excepción with the reactions in your brain that cause human choice?


How many times will I have to repeat myself?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Once again, using the definition that we both agreed with, I am not.


Here is an idea. Why not just deal with the answers I gave you, instead of trying to force me to stick to your script?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:37 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

I think you need to go back and reread this thread. You are the one that was claiming that atomic decay was deterministic. I do not. I know your memory is bad, but you do realize that you can always just go back and reread what has already been posted. That is the beauty of a written forum. [


Yes that is the point, I know that the decay of atoms is deterministic, you think that the process is non deterministic.



Again, based on the definition that we both agreed with, I do understand it.




Ok so given that you think that the decay of atoms is deterministic, and given that you claim to understand what determinism is, you are basically saying that the decay of atoms is "will-dependent" according to you atoms decay because they will it...........

this is the definition of deteminism

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will



To say that the decay of atoms is NOT DETERMINISTIC implies that the decay of atoms is will dependent

honestly, why don't you simply admit that you don't know what determinism is?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:14 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Yes that is the point, I know that the decay of atoms is deterministic, you think that the process is non deterministic.


Ok so given that you think that the decay of atoms is deterministic,...


I sense a bit of a contradiction here, it's making reading this confusing.

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will



To say that the decay of atoms is NOT DETERMINISTIC implies that the decay of atoms is will dependent

honestly, why don't you simply admit that you don't know what determinism is?[/quote]

This is even more confusing. It seems to me that there's a false dichotomy being built here with randomness being left out completely. For example, the moment of decay of an atom is not determined, nor is it guided by a will. It's random.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:47 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3473Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

I think you need to go back and reread this thread. You are the one that was claiming that atomic decay was deterministic. I do not. I know your memory is bad, but you do realize that you can always just go back and reread what has already been posted. That is the beauty of a written forum. [


Yes that is the point, I know that the decay of atoms is deterministic, you think that the process is non deterministic.



Again, based on the definition that we both agreed with, I do understand it.




Ok so given that you think that the decay of atoms is deterministic, and given that you claim to understand what determinism is, you are basically saying that the decay of atoms is "will-dependent" according to you atoms decay because they will it...........

[Emphesis added]


:lol:

leroy wrote:this is the definition of deteminism

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will



To say that the decay of atoms is NOT DETERMINISTIC implies that the decay of atoms is will dependent

honestly, why don't you simply admit that you don't know what determinism is?


Look at that. Dandan was correct about something. I was wrong to agree with this definition of determinism and dandan correctly pointed out why that is the case. Thank you for the correction. I guess I should stop half-assing these replies, otherwise there could be more egg on my face in the future.

ldmitruk wrote:And now back to free will vs determinism. Crash Course Philosophy put out an interesting video on the difference between libertarian free will and hard determinism. Well worth watching.



The above video at 2:11 defines determinism as The belief that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur could occur. That would be the definition of determinism I agree with.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:35 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 877Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Ok so given that you think that the decay of atoms is deterministic, and given that you claim to understand what determinism is, you are basically saying that the decay of atoms is "will-dependent" according to you atoms decay because they will it...........

this is the definition of deteminism

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will



To say that the decay of atoms is NOT DETERMINISTIC implies that the decay of atoms is will dependent

honestly, why don't you simply admit that you don't know what determinism is?


Image
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:17 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 45 of 73
 [ 1447 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests