Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2016, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2016 06:01 PM by SitaSky.)
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 05:26 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 04:23 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  These types of arguments are factually incorrect, Usually when someone says "Energy can't be created or destroyed." I will ask "What happened to the energy that was inside dead batteries?" A dead battery has to be charged at some point and some are even re-chargeable but once the energy is used up it will die and be thrown away. The energy that was first "created" inside of the battery dissipated after use.

Errr...

Actually, matter and energy really can't be created or destroyed. That's the First Law of Thermodynamics. We put energy into batteries and we take it out again. At no point is energy ever created or destroyed, just moved around. More simply, TNSTAAFL.

The argument is invalid because all it does is demonstrate that at some point the First Law didn't apply. That's hardly a shocker since we inferred the First Law from observations made within our universe. Having it not apply "outside" our universe comes as no surprise. Your average fundie wants to leap from there to God but there are an awful lot of unsupported suppositions across that chasm.

Yes, exactly, what I meant was as a comparison to the human body, once we use up our energy or stop being able to feed it on our own we will die and there is no reason to believe the energy inside of us was somehow divine. I always hear this argument for the afterlife, if our "energy" can't be destroyed where does it go? There is on reason to believe the energy inside of us encompasses our memories and personality and can travel to Heaven to live for eternity, just like batteries don't live forever after they "die". There is just as much evidence to say it's a natural energy source and not a supernatural one. Like others have said there's no reason to think that if energy can't be created or destroyed that it had to start with a divine being who made everything, that first energy source can be attributed to anything or anyone and it's just as easy to say "The universe always existed, the energy in the universe and inside of us always existed, it can't be created or destroyed." No need for a God.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 06:58 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 05:57 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 05:26 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Errr...

Actually, matter and energy really can't be created or destroyed. That's the First Law of Thermodynamics. We put energy into batteries and we take it out again. At no point is energy ever created or destroyed, just moved around. More simply, TNSTAAFL.

The argument is invalid because all it does is demonstrate that at some point the First Law didn't apply. That's hardly a shocker since we inferred the First Law from observations made within our universe. Having it not apply "outside" our universe comes as no surprise. Your average fundie wants to leap from there to God but there are an awful lot of unsupported suppositions across that chasm.

Yes, exactly, what I meant was as a comparison to the human body, once we use up our energy or stop being able to feed it on our own we will die and there is no reason to believe the energy inside of us was somehow divine. I always hear this argument for the afterlife, if our "energy" can't be destroyed where does it go? There is on reason to believe the energy inside of us encompasses our memories and personality and can travel to Heaven to live for eternity, just like batteries don't live forever after they "die". There is just as much evidence to say it's a natural energy source and not a supernatural one. Like others have said there's no reason to think that if energy can't be created or destroyed that it had to start with a divine being who made everything, that first energy source can be attributed to anything or anyone and it's just as easy to say "The universe always existed, the energy in the universe and inside of us always existed, it can't be created or destroyed." No need for a God.

"Life after death" is a truly ridiculous contradiction of terms. I like the wizard pic but for high-grade low-brow ridicule go with Family Guy:




---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
28-04-2016, 07:10 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 06:58 PM)Paleophyte quote' Wrote:  "Life after death" is a truly ridiculous contradiction of terms. I like the wizard pic but for high-grade low-brow ridicule go with Family Guy:

That's a funny video, I'll have to save that for later. Laugh out load

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2016, 10:51 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(27-04-2016 11:05 PM)Tamiptump Wrote:  I have a stubborn Christian friend who won't quit sending me these memes. I need the help of some of the more knowledgable people here to help me destroy these arguments.

I find his thinking very sloppy and wishful. None of his points are true. His first point hinges on not giving a proper definition of Universe. On a proper definition of the universe as the sum total of what exists, his assertion that something had to create it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Also he drops the context of the first law, that it holds in a closed system. And if energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed then this refutes his claim that it had a creator.

As to his second point, how does he know this? He doesn't, he merely asserts it. Where is his argument for this? Where is the line drawn between life and non-life? We don't know how life got started. We have some evidence that it can form spontaneously. We have no evidence whatsoever that it can be wished into existence by an invisible magic being which we have no alternative but to imagine. And, if he is correct that life can only come from other living organisms, then clearly there is a possibility that he is not mentioning, namely that some type of life has always existed.

His third point is just ridiculous. DNA is not a code. It's a chemical compound. There aren't actually little letters in there making up "instructions" . Molecules don't need instructions to do what they do, it is inherent in their identity to act the way they do. There isn't a bunch of molecules there with hard hats on looking at blueprints. Given their nature and the law of causality, they can't behave in any other way so instructions are not needed.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(29-04-2016 10:51 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  There isn't a bunch of molecules there with hard hats on looking at blueprints.

Here's a bunch of molecules with hard hats on looking at blueprints.

[Image: 473683922-civil-engineers-looking-at-blu...LpkPoUgAUc]

The construction firm is named Davis, Niles, and Anderson, or DNA for short. Big Grin

*runs away very fast*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
30-04-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 05:57 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 05:26 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Errr...

Actually, matter and energy really can't be created or destroyed. That's the First Law of Thermodynamics. We put energy into batteries and we take it out again. At no point is energy ever created or destroyed, just moved around. More simply, TNSTAAFL.

The argument is invalid because all it does is demonstrate that at some point the First Law didn't apply. That's hardly a shocker since we inferred the First Law from observations made within our universe. Having it not apply "outside" our universe comes as no surprise. Your average fundie wants to leap from there to God but there are an awful lot of unsupported suppositions across that chasm.

Yes, exactly, what I meant was as a comparison to the human body, once we use up our energy or stop being able to feed it on our own we will die and there is no reason to believe the energy inside of us was somehow divine. I always hear this argument for the afterlife, if our "energy" can't be destroyed where does it go? There is on reason to believe the energy inside of us encompasses our memories and personality and can travel to Heaven to live for eternity, just like batteries don't live forever after they "die". There is just as much evidence to say it's a natural energy source and not a supernatural one. Like others have said there's no reason to think that if energy can't be created or destroyed that it had to start with a divine being who made everything, that first energy source can be attributed to anything or anyone and it's just as easy to say "The universe always existed, the energy in the universe and inside of us always existed, it can't be created or destroyed." No need for a God.

(28-04-2016 05:57 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  "The universe always existed, the energy in the universe and inside of us always existed, it can't be created or destroyed." No need for a God."

Yes, this. ^^^

No need for the middleman, god

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: