1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Feb '14 19:57
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Agreed... a fact at least in the United States.
    So why did you ask in the first place?
  2. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    19 Feb '14 20:19
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So why did you ask in the first place?
    ... for clarification.
  3. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    19 Feb '14 22:46
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    "There are so many better examples you could have used."

    How about a few?
    All the examples in the OP are utterly asinine. You could have had the wave/particle nature of matter, relativity or quantum mechanics.

    Instead you have a list of phenomena easily explained by Newtons laws of motion.

    And again you reveal a deep misunderstanding of the term 'atheist' despite a several month long project whose stated purpose was to gain an understanding of it. If I presume you are acting honestly, I can only come to the conclusion that you are terminally stupid.

    --- Penguin.
  4. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    19 Feb '14 22:50
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
    "A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"

    "Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. However, if we are to remove the evidence which pertains to scientific explanations, and rely upon our actual observations of the world, science begins to demonstrate some of its own logical incongruities. I will list some examples of observations that science has explanations for, yet can appear to the observer to be logically incongruent. Please remember that we are discussing observational logic; and not scientific evidence:

    1. If one was to board a plane from a position opposite to Australia, how would that plane reach Australia, without nose-diving, twisting in mid-air and flying upside-down?

    2. How can 8 planets all rotate around the sun together, and all remain in relatively the same position, without being actually physically attached together in any way?

    3. How can the earth rotate at 1040 mph and we don't feel it? Yet if we are moving at even 70 mph we feel ourselves racing?

    4. If a passenger plane flies at 500-600 mph why does it feel as though you're doing 30 in the slow lane? Even when you look at a plane in the sky, it appears to be doing 50 mph maximum.

    5. If the earth rotates at 1040 mph, when you are in a plane moving at 500-600 mph, in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, why don't you see the earth rotating at that 1040 mph in the other direction?

    6. If you're travelling from England to Poland, and your flight departs at 18:00 hrs, the plane travels 500 mph, with the earth rotating at 1040 mph, at what time will you reach your destination? (please include the calculations for scrutiny) I mean, if the earth is rotating at over double the speed you're flying at, how would you reach Poland, without Poland continually over-taking you, and how would you land and stop unless you exceeded the speed of the earth, or the earth stopped-spinning?

    All of these observations produce some incongruence for logic and common-sense. So my question here is, can any atheist explain these observations using a logical and common-sense methodology, without referring to science, links to science websites, journals etc., or scientific jargon?

    My aim here is not to dismiss science, as I tend to believe much of what science posits as true / correct, but if you take away the pictures, videos, diagrams and text-books, scientific explanations can appear as fantastical to the mind and observation, as those of a religious nature. Furthermore, if we explore some of quantum mechanics theories, it is akin to going deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole, and not expecting to meet the mad hatter (nonsensical conclusions). Thus, I just wanted to put a few ideas out there and also present a challenge for the hyper-intelligent atheists on the forum (theists are welcome to answer too!).

    P.S. No flames please, we are all learning here."

    "The path to a great life is found by utilising the power of light, love, truth and goodness E.Bedeau. For Queen & Country, dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285[/b]
  5. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    20 Feb '14 05:23
    Some of these questions remind me of brain teasers I heard when I was a kid. For example, #5...

    5. If the earth rotates at 1040 mph, when you are in a plane moving at 500-600 mph, in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, why don't you see the earth rotating at that 1040 mph in the other direction?


    When the plane is on the ground it is also moving at 1040 mph (in relation to the sun), but in relation to the earth its movement is zero mph... so when it takes off it doesn't matter whether it's going in the same or opposite direction of the earths rotation, the ground below will always appear to be moving at 500-600 mph in the opposite direction. Your plane would have to be traveling at 1040 mph (in relation to the earth) for the earth to appear to be moving that fast in the opposite direction.

    In relation to the sun, the plane appears to be rotating at 1040 mph minus 500-600 mph... It's all about what you are using for points reference, and how you use them. Apparent discrepancies are due to using different points of reference when talking about the same thing.
  6. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    20 Feb '14 08:34
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Some of these questions remind me of brain teasers I heard when I was a kid. For example, #5...

    [b]5. If the earth rotates at 1040 mph, when you are in a plane moving at 500-600 mph, in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, why don't you see the earth rotating at that 1040 mph in the other direction?



    When the plane is on the ground i ...[text shortened]... discrepancies are due to using different points of reference when talking about the same thing.[/b]
    " I will list some examples of observations that science has explanations
    for, yet can appear to the observer to be logically incongruent..." (OP)

    When you were a "kid" and hadn't yet learned the "scientific explanations",
    would there have been an unexplained "incongruence"?
  7. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    20 Feb '14 19:47
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    " I will list some examples of observations that science has explanations
    for, yet can appear to the observer to be logically incongruent..." (OP)

    When you were a "kid" and hadn't yet learned the "scientific explanations",
    would there have been an unexplained "incongruence"?
    Probably not as he it is quite likely that he had also not realised that the earth was moving.

    Penguin
  8. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    20 Feb '14 21:46
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Looking out the side or front or rear windows of a speeding vehicle, doesn't the eye communicates to the frontal lobes to adrenalin glands to produce physical sensations such as leaning back with feet bracing against the floor of even children crouching in a fetal position in fear of crashing? Speculation of Speed would likely occur since limits are being exceeded.
    You said you feel the speed.
    I have already conceded that we can see we are moving and estimate the speed.

    How do you feel you are travelling at 70mph?
  9. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    20 Feb '14 22:321 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    You said you feel the speed.
    I have already conceded that we can see we are moving and estimate the speed.

    How do you feel you are travelling at 70mph?
    Vibration of the vehicle over road imperfections; the sound and sense
    of the vehicle's engine's rpms; force of gravity on the seat back.

    Edit Note: "Kinesthesia - n. The sense that detects bodily position, weight,
    or movement of the muscles, tendons, and joints."

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kinesthesia
  10. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    21 Feb '14 04:311 edit
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    " I will list some examples of observations that science has explanations
    for, yet can appear to the observer to be logically incongruent..." (OP)

    When you were a "kid" and hadn't yet learned the "scientific explanations",
    would there have been an unexplained "incongruence"?
    Of course, but as a kid all I would have said was "That doesn't make sense".

    I don't need to know anything about the earths rotation to understand that a plane would only be seen traveling at a speed relative to the surface of the earth. Most kids wouldn't say it in that way, but I think most kids would understand that. However, some kids (adults too) seem to be in a state of perpetual confusion because they assume everything they hear is supposed to make sense... unless it's something they don't want to hear. And then there are people who are never confused, because they don't bother to think about anything. They'll believe anything as long as it lines up with "the consensus" or comes from someone they respect.


    By the way, if you are traveling in a car at 70 mph you will have visual and tactile clues that you are moving, but you won't "feel" yourself moving at 70 mph... because you are always traveling at the same speed as the car you're in. You can feel acceleration and deceleration, but you can't actually feel how fast the car is going.
  11. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    21 Feb '14 05:041 edit
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Of course, but as a kid all I would have said was "That doesn't make sense".

    I don't need to know anything about the earths rotation to understand that a plane would only be seen traveling at a speed relative to the surface of the earth. Most kids wouldn't say it in that way, but I think most kids would understand that. However, some kids (adults too) ...[text shortened]... u can feel acceleration and deceleration, but you can't actually feel how fast the car is going.
    "Of course, but as a kid all I would have said was "That doesn't make sense"."... equals logically incongruent?

    "You can feel acceleration and deceleration, but you can't actually feel how fast the car is going."... thanks.
  12. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    21 Feb '14 05:19
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
    [b]"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"


    "Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. Howeve ...[text shortened]... dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285[/b][/b]
    I think I understand your premise, that what (we are able to) observe isn't necessarily what is happening. Or maybe my observation is flawed, and that isn't it... 😕😛

    We don't feel the earth rotating around its axis or moving in any direction, so it's easy to assume the earth isn't moving. And our eyes can see the sun and moon and canopy of stars moving from one side of the sky to the other. Putting those two observations together, our senses and reasoning tell us everything we see in the sky is revolving around the earth. This conclusion by the way is not illogical, because it is congruent with those two observations.

    Appeals to absurdity however are something else. Some know that what they are saying is absurd, and some don't. I don't think there's much we do about that.
  13. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    21 Feb '14 05:37
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    "Of course, but as a kid all I would have said was "That doesn't make sense"."... equals logically incongruent?

    "You can feel acceleration and deceleration, but you can't actually feel how fast the car is going."... thanks.
    "That doesn't make sense"."... equals logically incongruent?

    I'm not clear on what you mean by "logically incongruent". Something can be true and at the same time appear to be incongruent, such as science having an explanation that doesn't line up with what our senses tell us. Is this what you mean?
  14. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    21 Feb '14 05:431 edit
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    [b]"That doesn't make sense"."... equals logically incongruent?

    I'm not clear on what you mean by "logically incongruent". Something can be true and at the same time appear to be incongruent, such as science having an explanation that doesn't line up with what our senses tell us. Is this what you mean?[/b]
    Please read the first paragraph of the Original Post; you'll note the phrase quoted "logically incongruent" in context.

    "Is this what you mean?" Yes.
  15. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    21 Feb '14 06:03
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"

    "Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. However, if we are to remove the evidence which perta ...[text shortened]... try, dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285[/b]
    The overarching question is interesting enough, and relevant, but I'd like to change one word in it for the sake of not having to watch tidy whities twisting into a knot... no one wants to see that.


    "...can anyone explain these observations using a logical and common-sense methodology, without referring to science, links to science websites, journals etc., or scientific jargon?"
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree