Atheists?

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

I like your analogy; it's a very interesting argument, but I take issue with the first premise.

you are mixing together the physical implementation (the CD) with the SW itself (1s and 0s)

how fast you can write or read SW onto a CD or other storage media has nothing to do with the SW being written, the limitation is the physical media

the CD or floppy disk or MP3 player memory does not change in weight (mass) when you erase it, or load it up with SW.

Force = mass times acceleration. If I put 1000 blank CDs in my car and drive around, then write very complex code onto those CDs, my car will not require any change in force to drive around, because those CDs still have the same mass.

Something with zero mass is not governed by our laws of physics - because it is not a 'physical' object.

The only way we know of to transmit SW or information presently is by physical means, the fastest is by electromagnetic energy (light or radio waves)

but there could be spiritual ways to communicate, in which case, our souls (our SW) would not be limited by the laws of physics, because our souls have no mass.

its only a crude analogy, but I think it gets the idea across.

[jonathan lall]

Just a quick point, the way theistic philosophers have historically addressed the problem of free will is that it is inherently good. Furthermore however, evil exists in the world toward a greater, if impossible to forsee, good. This basically shuts down any argument against the Problem of Evil, because it will always be imposible for humans to prove otherwise. Religious debate is at a standstill because of this.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

you are mixing together the physical implementation (the CD) with the SW itself (1s and 0s)

how fast you can write or read SW onto a CD or other storage media has nothing to do with the SW being written, the limitation is the physical media

That's not what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that in order to have any information, software must take a man-made form, must be represented tangibly. In execution, software is nothing more than a conceptual tool. In this capacity, it is not subject to the laws of physics. When you put it on a CD to store it (or in RAM, or on a hard disk), you physically alter the CD. The (debatable) fact that the CD does not change mass does not change the fact that software on a CD is a physical manifestation. Software per se does not "exist" without some physical manifestation. It is impossible to prove otherwise.

Let's use another example. You are saying that a concept can exist without a physical representation. How then, do you explain the colour green? Can you conceive of or define green without it ultimately coming down to a range of light wavelengths? I propose that you cannot (lack of knowledge about wavelengths is no excuse).

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

the CD or floppy disk or MP3 player memory does not change in weight (mass) when you erase it, or load it up with SW.

Force = mass times acceleration. If I put 1000 blank CDs in my car and drive around, then write very complex code onto those CDs, my car will not require any change in force to drive around, because those CDs still have the same mass.

Something with zero mass is not governed by our laws of physics - because it is not a 'physical' object.

This is flat out incorrect and is partly why your logic goes off track. The laws of physics do not only apply to objects.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

Just a quick point, the way theistic philosophers have historically addressed the problem of free will is that it is inherently good. Furthermore however, evil exists in the world toward a greater, if impossible to forsee, good. This basically shuts down any argument against the Problem of Evil, because it will always be imposible for humans to prove otherwise. Religious debate is at a standstill because of this.

Well, I don't care to further exhaust this topic, but I will anyways because I do want to put in my two cents on this.

The idea that God would implement evil to achieve a greater, if impossible to foresee good, seems flawed to me because it is awfully unecessary, in my opinion. Why do millions of people need to die in order to achieve a greater good, when God could have eliminated any problems at the onset of creation, by creating everything perfectly to begin with? Is he just trying to play games with us by watching us have wars, and kill each other, just so he can see if his litttle experiment is going to work? I don't think that any argument is "shut down" because of this, at least in the Christian instance - I think that it is only made deeper. It is further evidence that God is contradictory because he is both perfect, and the creator of evil. Maybe there is some purpose that can't be understood, some problem in the overall universe that he feels he must solve - however, according to what I see, there is no purpose to torture, pain, and killing - no justification for the deaths of millions, all to solve a problem that God, being all powerful, could have solved the very instant he created us. If there is a purpose, I don't see how it pertains to us since we can't comprehend it - therefore, it seems unecessary.

This touches on why I claim to be agnostic - I do not know for sure whether there is or is not a reason for the pain in this world, and I do not know if it is God(s) who is causing it to happen, and whether or not he/she/it/they has a good reason for doing so. I guess in that sense, you are right Jonathan, that it is impossible to ever prove. Same thing goes for every philosophical argument that can be made. However, I don't agree that anything is "shut down." The very act of stating "evil exists in the world toward a greater, if impossible to forsee, good" opens up realms of possible discussions and counter arguments. One can still investigate the nature of reality, even if it is impossible to prove actual truths.

-- Jaine

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

Software per se does not "exist" without some physical manifestation. It is impossible to prove otherwise.

...This is flat out incorrect and is partly why your logic goes off track. The laws of physics do not only apply to objects.

Physics is about the physical world - thats what the word literally means - matter and energy

SW is neither matter or energy. I can create SW in my mind, without ever writing it physically, or even speaking the algorythm out loud

but I can run that program all the time. If I figure out its better to put my pants on by putting my feet in first than it is to pull them on over my head, thats SW - thats an algorythm "FGIF" (Feet Go In First)

I can then run the FGIF SW everyday of my life, and there is no way you could study the cells of my brain and find the SW in there

There is a branch of science that deals with this: information technology. Physics is not involved at all. You cant apply force to information - it does not accelerate - it contains no mass or energy, but information does exist

an example of information defying the laws of physics would be prayer. We are physical beings - we can only communicate with each other by putting information into some physical form - but the concept of praying - that God can know what we are thinking, that we can communicate 'telepathically' with God starts to open some insight

if we could communicate telepathically, would it take 2 seconds for a telepathic message to reach an astronaut on the moon? or would it be instantainious?

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I can then run the FGIF SW everyday of my life, and there is no way you could study the cells of my brain and find the SW in there

Not yet there isn't. But inferring from what we do know scientifically, it is more conceivable to suggest the FGIF algorythm is stored chemically in the brain. To suggest otherwise can only be premised upon a belief in the supernatural, that the brain is "magical," which is simply your stance in the first place. A circular argument.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

There is a branch of science that deals with this: information technology. Physics is not involved at all. You cant apply force to information - it does not accelerate - it contains no mass or energy, but information does exist

It certainly does exist. In a tangible form somewhere. Locked up in a computer or locked up in the mind, it does not transcend the laws of nature and physics.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

an example of information defying the laws of physics would be prayer. We are physical beings - we can only communicate with each other by putting information into some physical form - but the concept of praying - that God can know what we are thinking, that we can communicate 'telepathically' with God starts to open some insight

This is of course based upon a rather hefty conditional premise, and is thus a bad example. But humouring you, I could just as easily say that God created a law of physics such that prayer was instantaneous. It cannot be proven either way, therefore you cannot say this is untrue.