Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

question no. 17 for atheists

Page 4 of 5 [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Sep 2010, 9:42 am

The law of gravity, which I remember as being "(G*m1*m2)/r^2" is irrelevant to this. Without the existence of matter, a substance having mass and occupying space, there is neither m1 nor m2, so you have, at most, a constant in the numerator of the equation which is being multiplied by zero.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Sep 2010, 10:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The law of gravity, which I remember as being "(G*m1*m2)/r^2" is irrelevant to this. Without the existence of matter, a substance having mass and occupying space, there is neither m1 nor m2, so you have, at most, a constant in the numerator of the equation which is being multiplied by zero.


Frankly, I'd consider myself a damned fool if I took your opinion over Stephen Hawking's.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Sep 2010, 1:21 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The law of gravity, which I remember as being "(G*m1*m2)/r^2" is irrelevant to this. Without the existence of matter, a substance having mass and occupying space, there is neither m1 nor m2, so you have, at most, a constant in the numerator of the equation which is being multiplied by zero.


Frankly, I'd consider myself a damned fool if I took your opinion over Stephen Hawking's.


No, you'd be a damned fool if you took the folly of argumentum ad vericundium over a simple matter of mathematics.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

02 Sep 2010, 2:31 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The law of gravity, which I remember as being "(G*m1*m2)/r^2" is irrelevant to this. Without the existence of matter, a substance having mass and occupying space, there is neither m1 nor m2, so you have, at most, a constant in the numerator of the equation which is being multiplied by zero.


Frankly, I'd consider myself a damned fool if I took your opinion over Stephen Hawking's.


No, you'd be a damned fool if you took the folly of argumentum ad vericundium over a simple matter of mathematics.


Adorable pic and tagline btw, Keet. :D


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Sep 2010, 2:57 pm

Thanks.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Sep 2010, 5:57 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The law of gravity, which I remember as being "(G*m1*m2)/r^2" is irrelevant to this. Without the existence of matter, a substance having mass and occupying space, there is neither m1 nor m2, so you have, at most, a constant in the numerator of the equation which is being multiplied by zero.


Frankly, I'd consider myself a damned fool if I took your opinion over Stephen Hawking's.


No, you'd be a damned fool if you took the folly of argumentum ad vericundium over a simple matter of mathematics.


Your reply lived up to expectations.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Sep 2010, 6:01 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The law of gravity, which I remember as being "(G*m1*m2)/r^2" is irrelevant to this. Without the existence of matter, a substance having mass and occupying space, there is neither m1 nor m2, so you have, at most, a constant in the numerator of the equation which is being multiplied by zero.


Frankly, I'd consider myself a damned fool if I took your opinion over Stephen Hawking's.


No, you'd be a damned fool if you took the folly of argumentum ad vericundium over a simple matter of mathematics.


Your reply lived up to expectations.


As did yours.



ScratchMonkey
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 232

03 Sep 2010, 2:50 am

In answering the original question, you have to be careful about the terms used. The term "atheist" has a number of different meanings depending on who you speak to, and it's important to narrow down which meaning you're using when talking about the subject. Just to illustrate the range of meanings people use, check out the relevant subsection on Wikipedia's page about atheism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#De ... stinctions

These kinds of discussions tend to recur a lot on the Internet, and people go over and over the same ground, repeating the same things. So I like to go look at Wikipedia to get a feel for what's gone before and save some time. It shouldn't be considered a primary source of evidence, but, like Google, it's a good place to find a bunch of links and discussion (on the article's Talk page) about a subject.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

04 Sep 2010, 12:00 am

hehe. Wouldn't "Christian philosophers" be an oxymoron?


_________________
.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Sep 2010, 12:02 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
hehe. Wouldn't "Christian philosophers" be an oxymoron? Christians that love knowledge, yeah right.


What would you call Thomas Aquinas? He was one of the great Aristotelian philosophers. He was also made a saint because he was not a pedophile.

ruveyn