.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « The law of gravity was not ineffective: it had the effect of producing a force which countered and reduced the force of Apollo's rockets. Had it been ineffective, Apollo would have flown even faster »
.

In your previous post you indicated that the Apollo spacecraft did not “break the law of gravity”, it “neutralized” it. To which I replied :

“That’s correct, Yuyutsu, Apollo had to “neutralize” the force of gravity, i.e., make gravity (the law of nature) ineffective by applying an opposite force or effect. To make a law ineffective is to violate, break or contravene that law”.

The OED defines “neutralize” as :

« Render (something) ineffective or harmless by applying an opposite force or effect »

That is exactly what you declared, Yuyutsu, and that is exactly what I agreed was correct.
.

2. In respect of “natural laws”, you ask :

« Even if the laws you just introduced actually exist, why give them such a misleading name as to make believe that they belong in this topic? »

Because, as I explained in my previous post, like the laws of nature (e.g., gravity and electromagnetism) natural laws are also deemed to derive from nature though not physically but philosophically (as I explained in detail in my previous post).

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. « Let us not diverge into the topic of souls (sorry, my time is limited) because it is not essential here … »

You brought the subject up, Yuyutsu, not me. In reply to my statement : “I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree of evolution and complexity of all existing forms of life on earth to date”, you indicated :

« That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd ».
.

Please be assured that I don’t take that as a personal insult, Yuyutsu.

Your reply does not make sense unless it is placed in the context of your religious belief – that of Hinduism where the atman (“breath,” or “soul”) is claimed to be the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes.

By replying that it is absurd for me to consider that I am a human being or some other body, Yuyutsu, I think I know you well enough to imagine that you were simply voicing the doctrine of your Hindu religion which you so often present as being simply your own personal opinion.

Allow me, once again, on this occasion, Yuyutsu, as I have so often done in the past, to ask you not to confound your religious beliefs with reality, but to make a clear distinction between your religious beliefs and empirically established facts.

I’ve said it before and I shall say it again : I respect your religious beliefs, but I do not share them.

Allow me also, to take this occasion to clarify that I am not, as you indicated a while back on this thread, an atheist/agnostic. I am just an ordinary person.

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
What was neutralized by Apollo's rockets was the force that was generated by the law of gravity - not the law of gravity itself, which was never broken or challenged.

2.
Just because someone was inspired by nature does not make their ideas, titled "natural laws", actual laws of nature. Such laws could be good or bad, but either way they are man-made, thus do not belong in this discussion.

3.
I did not bring up or discuss the subject of souls. I think Dan did.

Indeed I said: "That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd"

I never even had souls in mind when I wrote the above.
Just because one is not a body does not imply that they are a soul.
Allow me to add that if souls indeed exist, then they too would be part of nature.

«Your reply does not make sense unless it is placed in the context of your religious belief – that of Hinduism where the atman (“breath,” or “soul”) is claimed to be the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes.»

My reply was based on simple logic, such as why 2+2 cannot equal 5, and never attempted to tell you positively what we are, only to point out what we are not.

The fact that this logic is used within Hinduism does not detract from its validity. You may be interested to know that Buddhism also accepts this negative logic even while they teach that Atman is only an illusion.

P.S. I have no idea who told you such nonsense as if Atman was breath or soul: this is NOT what Hinduism teaches.

«I am not, as you indicated a while back on this thread, an atheist/agnostic. I am just an ordinary person.»

I stand corrected.

All I suggested there, was that it would be unlikely for you to be interested in the theological differences between myself and the author (whether only humans were created in God's image), nothing more.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « What was neutralized by Apollo's rockets was the force that was generated by the law of gravity - not the law of gravity itself, which was never broken or challenged »
.

Gravity is just a force, Yuyutsu, a force of nature – nothing else.

It has played an important role in determining our morphology and preventing us from floating off into space.

But even though nature itself evolves, laws of nature appear to be universal and constant. They can be broken but not eliminated.

2. In respect of “natural laws”, you wrote :

« Just because someone was inspired by nature does not make their ideas, titled "natural laws", actual laws of nature. Such laws could be good or bad, but either way, they are man-made, thus do not belong in this discussion »

Nature has inspired many things to many people, Yuyutsu : art, religion, natural laws, science, sociology, architecture, medicine, etc. Even an apple falling from an apple tree in the summer of 1666 inspired Newton to formulate the law of gravity. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was inspired by the Scottish philosopher, David Humes' “A Treatise of Human Nature”.

All laws are of inspirational origin, Yuyutsu – whether they be laws of nature, natural laws, or man-made positive laws.
.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. « Indeed, I said: "That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd" … »
.

The OED defines the “self” as :

« A person's essential being that distinguishes them from others especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action »

I consider that my “essential being that distinguishes [me] from others” is my body (which is that of a human being) and that my identity as a unique individual is my ADN. And as I indicated in a previous post, “I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree of evolution and complexity of all existing forms of life on earth to date”.

I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than my body (that of a human being). In that, I consider that I am no different from any other form of life on earth.

That said, Yuyutsu, if you can provide falsifiable evidence to the contrary, I should be pleased to hear of it.

4. « P.S. I have no idea who told you such nonsense as if Atman was breath or soul: this is NOT what Hinduism teaches »

I read that in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Yuyutsu.

Here is the link :

http://www.britannica.com/topic/soul-religion-and-philosophy

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
The law of gravity produces forces of gravity.
The effects of these forces can be countered by other competing forces, but that has no effect on the law of gravity itself, which is never broken.

2.
«All laws are of inspirational origin, Yuyutsu»

Are you then suggesting that no laws existed (including the law of gravity) before there were people to be inspired?

3.
«I consider that my “essential being that distinguishes [me] from others” is my body»

Fair enough, that would be your "essential being that distinguishes you from others".

(allow me to abbreviate from now on and use the initials: EBTDYFO)

Please observe that statements about what you HAVE tell nothing about who you ARE.

For example, suppose I said: "I consider that my car is that white one parked over there".
Fair enough, that's my car, but who is the car's owner?

The statement about "MY EBTDYFO" is no exception!

«I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than my body (that of a human being).»

And I made no such claim.

Indeed, I have no reason to challenge the fact that your EBTDYFO is your body. I only pointed to you that there must be, of logical necessity, a difference between you and the things you own, or which you otherwise refer to as "my". Indeed you just referred to your ENTDYFO as "my".

Your respected EBTDYFO is what it is, it is human, it is part of nature, thus has no will of its own.

4.
«I read that in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Yuyutsu.»

Indeed, how shamefully sloppy of them, nobody seems to do their homework any more.