Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Energy


Guest

Recommended Posts

I was hanging with a Atheist friend last night and we got into a very frusterating conversation about energy...again. We've had several of them, always ending in frusteration on my part for not being able to properly explain to her what energy is.

 

A little background first. She told me a few weeks ago that she has an intense fear of death from almost drowning as a child. Understandable. We were discussing xtians and their fears at the time. This lead us to discuss life after death, which she believes there is, based on what she calls "energy". According to her, "She" "I" and "you all" are energy, and will live as energy when we die. I asked her how this is possible, being as who we are is based on the chemical memories in our brains and will decay into it's base elements after death; how can energy think, see, hear, feel, etc. Her answer was that we are matter, and matter is energy, so we are energy and will live on as energy. Circular reasoning anyone? She also believes that it is inevitable that humans will evolve to be pure energy, again, with no explaination on how that is possible. Since energy is a basic part of the universe, I tend to think of that as DEvolving.

 

She seems to imply all the time that energy is some mystical thing that we do not know what it is, so it can be used to explain her ideas. (Isn't this called argument from ignorance?) I've tried to tell her that energy is a physical thing that has a mesurable mass, or that it is a word used to describe "work", but because I could not tell her how that is done she dismissed it. So I took out the book I'm currently reading and looked up energy in the index and went to the page. I tried to show her the E=MC2 and that energy is mass and mass is energy. That everything that we know about and can interact with is a phsyical part of this universe. Know what she said?

 

"That is what Einstein couldn't even understand. Even he didn't know what energy is."

 

What? Einstein re-wrote the modern theories of gravity and energy yet he didn't understand them? And even if we don't know exactly what it is, it is still a physical thing, and cannot be used for what she is trying to get it to do. Another argument from ignorance?

 

So last night I realized it is her ego and fear of death that is ruling her reasoning. She needs to live on after death and so she has latched on to "energy" as her vehicle to get her there. Last night when I said that electricity is just the movement of electrons she asked "but what moves the electrons?" That's when I told her that she is using energy as another word for god and she denied it at first, then said that god is energy. I told her that god is gravity.

 

I think what frusterates me the most is her definition of energy changes with each conversation we have. I'm suprised she was never religious, because she behaves just like a xtian when discussing her "energy".

 

So any suggestions as to what to say next time she brings up the Almighty Energy Concept? I'm not trying to knock her ideas or beliefs down, just get her to see they are emotionally based, and not factually based. She's suprised me of late, because she is very rational and methodical in everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's something you can tell her that would make quite a bit more sense:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=345434

 

Easier then retyping, and not as redundant as copy an paste. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zhou plug een zee light and eet verks. Zhou unplug zee light and eet not verk. Seempel. :shrug:

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't really address what she is doing. She is making up her own definitions for the word energy and although I know she is misusing the word and is flat out wrong, I do not have the scientific knowledge to point out exactly where and why.

 

It's like misusing the word theory. I know the difference between the scientific definition and the common usage, so I can correct people when they use the word incorrectly. But my lack of ability to explain energy is giving her the idea that she is right, or has equal chance of being right, because I cannot explain the correct ideas properly. She does not see the point when I also point out that her "energy" could also be the Pink Flying Unicorn named Frank that lives on the planet Xanadou.

 

I know what she is doing. She is inventing her own god to calm her fears of death. I'm not trying to knock them down. I'm only trying to get her to see that she is misusing science termonology and concepts to try and pass on this New-Age religious belief of hers. She's dressing up her religion in scientific terms to try and give it credibility. I know it is a futile effort, I just want to know how to more accuratly describe "energy."

 

For instance, her claim that we do not know exactly what energy is. This kind of suprised me, because I never thought about it, but she is right. However, we also do not know exactly what gravity is, or light, etc. That's why I countered with "god is gravity", just to try and show her that ignorance of something does not count as evidence for something else. She is using my ignorance of what energy is to try and get me to admit that there could be an eternal existence as energy. I'm trying to firm up my understanding of energy so I am better able to refute her statements.

 

Basicly, she does not accept that energy is a physical thing that exists in this "realm" and can not be used as a method of creating a divine spiritworld. However, I cannot demonstrate how this is flawed thinking, and she keeps bringing it up everytime. What started it all last night was when she said, "You know, the energy you refuse to admit exists."

 

"You have not shown me anything that leads me to believe in your energy concept. I'm not refusing anything. You are making a claim that you cannot back up with facts."

 

"Well what is energy then? You can't explain it, so you don't know I'm wrong."

 

I DO know she's wrong, I just don't know how to explain why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her: "You know, the energy you refuse to admit exists."

 

Marty: "You have not shown me anything that leads me to believe in your energy concept. I'm not refusing anything. You are making a claim that you cannot back up with facts."

 

Her: "Well what is energy then? You can't explain it, so you don't know I'm wrong."

 

I DO know she's wrong, I just don't know how to explain why.

 

It doesn't matter that you can't explain it. She's made an extraordinary claim, she needs to provide extraordinary evidence of such before it's reasonable to believe it. "You can't prove me wrong" is a bullshit argument lacking substance and reason. It's a cop-out for someone who has no real way to defend the assertions they make, and just wants to shut down the conversation so you don't rip up their pet theory.

 

Furthermore, she's got some flaky, vague, personal definition of "energy" which is so incorrect and so imprecise that it makes her statements about it useless. Not knowing how to explain energy isn't enough of a reason to believe that her explanation is correct, especially since she's demonstrated that she doesn't know jack shit about it either.

 

If you do come a point where an understanding of what energy is might come in handy, there's an interesting starting point here: What Does Energy Really Mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"She's made an extraordinary claim, she needs to provide extraordinary evidence"

 

In a lot of respects, I've seen that used as a bullshit argument too, since the definition of 'extraordinary claim' is subjective... and frequently means that the person using it is arguing from a position of ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she is making up her own definitions for the word energy

 

I'd focus on that. Energy has a very definite definition, which you can't mix with metaphor. You have to separate your figurative language from your literal. A fire that burns in your soul is very different from a fire that burns down your garage.

 

 

That is what Einstein couldn't even understand. Even he didn't know what energy is.

 

 

Face it. Some people are just baffled by logic. I've been subjected to many comments of this style on a wide array of topics, and you just have to keep your cool, and don't go on the defensive. She's challenging your depth of Einstein, you gotta challenge hers.

 

 

 

It seems we both know people with some very similar debate tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no scientist and know jack-shit about physics and all, but to me energy is a "release" due to a chemical reaction. You can't have energy without a fuel source.

 

Gasoline, for instance, contains potential energy. Without combustion that energy remains inert and useless.

 

The sun provides energy to the earth. It burns a hell of a lot of hydrogen to produce that energy.

 

Our bodies require fuel to produce the energy we need to live. We need to eat, our digestive system breaks the food down, our circulatory system carries the vitamins and minerals and fats and whatever to where it's needed (and then we build up excess from not using all that potential energy, etc.).

 

So what provides this supposed "energy" after we're dead?

 

What your friend is really saying is, "Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter!" She believes in a human soul, a spirit, that will continue on when our body wears out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many people who believe that we are energy, so your friend is not alone in her frame of mind. Ask her what she thinks about vibrations and 2012. :) Most of the energy folks I've encountered are big on the idea of how we are energy and we have a certain frequency of vibrations, and that that frequency can be affected by outside vibrations in such a way as to cause us harm. And as for 2012, well, many believe that there's going to be a major awakening or spiritual shift in that year. I'm curious what your friend thinks about those subjects. If she doesn't seem familiar with them, then perhaps she's come up with the energy idea on her own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marty, you can explain to her that the matter and energy that she now calls "herself", existed long before she was born. Does she then claim to have existed before she was born? If not, then how can she claim to exist after she dies? You should also ask if she thinks that people have exclusive claim to this afterlife energy, or do all organisims live on after they are dead? If people are the only ones, than what has made us so special to seperate us from all of biology? If other species can live on in their energy after death, then what happens when we eat an animal and thereby transfer its stored energy to us? Does that particular energy now contain part of the animals consciousness and ours, or does ours override for some reason?

 

Anyways, just some ammo for your next debate. The most important thing you should do is pin down the definitions of the terms you and she are using so that you can understand eachother better, you'll never see eye to eye until you can both agree on what specific things your specific words mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a lot of respects, I've seen that used as a bullshit argument too, since the definition of 'extraordinary claim' is subjective... and frequently means that the person using it is arguing from a position of ignorance.

 

Hmmm. Good point there, Gramps.

 

It sounds to me like the whole discussion is plagued by a lack of meaningful definitions, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, I daresay nothing has caused so much strife and contention in the entire history of humanity as our (in)ability to communicate through language. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marty, you can explain to her that the matter and energy that she now calls "herself", existed long before she was born. Does she then claim to have existed before she was born? If not, then how can she claim to exist after she dies?

 

This is great, thanks. I have not tried it from that angle. I did quote Mark Twain before, the "I was dead for eons before I was born and I don't remember it inconviencing me in the least.", but your idea is better. I do not think she believes humans have a monopoly on this energy, the way her descriptions form in my head is very much like Yoda's description of the Force. That it binds us and everything together. She just gives it a complexity that as far as we know, is only brought out with matter.

 

Furthermore, she's got some flaky, vague, personal definition of "energy" which is so incorrect and so imprecise that it makes her statements about it useless. Not knowing how to explain energy isn't enough of a reason to believe that her explanation is correct, especially since she's demonstrated that she doesn't know jack shit about it either.

 

Agreed, but I feel like I should be able to understand and explain what energy really is for the sake of the argument. For me (and her too) it is not enough to say her idea of energy is flaky and incorrect. I want to be able to show why it is so. I know I do not need to "prove her wrong", but when I'm asked "so what is energy", I should be able to answer it without using vauge descriptions myself. I'm on a work break right now, but I'm planning on following that link when I get home tonight. Thanks, wiki wasn't really all too helpful on the subject.

 

Also, although I used quote marks for some of our exchanges in my OP, it is all paraphrased, and not a verbatum account. I boiled down a night's worth of wine and herb induced conversation into a few lines to convey the back and forth we went through. Reading it now it sounds like a childish exchange, it wasn't. I should'a taken more time to elaborate on that.

 

This is turning into something I want to understand for my own benifit now. Whether she is wrong or not she has shown me that I lack an adaquate understanding of a basic principle of the universe and I want to try and fix that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems of phyisical definitions in English is that they don't really say WHAT they are defining actually is

 

What is intertia? What is magnetism? What is energy

 

intertia - the property of a body to remain stationary or to continue along its vector until there is a change in energy performed on the body

 

Says what it looks like, not what it is...

 

same for the others...

 

as to the body being energy... technically E=mc2 says precisely that, when energy condences to matter it stores as E/c2 kilos. If matter becomes Energy with 100% efficiency then it 'evaporates' into mc2 joules (effecitvely E=mc2 is just Newton's Kinetic Energy=mv2 apllied at the limit of v in a vacuum in space-time... DeBroglie came close to relativity when he equated energy on a wave to energy on a particle... the base assumption was that energy is energy but not really a quantified 'what' the energy is...)

 

There is no quantitative difference between the electron in a conductor, and one in your nervous system and one in an atom in a molecule in your gut... so is an electron 'energy' or 'matter' (the answer is 'it depends how you measure it')

 

OK, there's a lot of new age pap... but it is based on a distorted view of good physics which has some pretty loose definitons at it's base. Just becuase it has a unit and we know its behaviour doesn't mean we know what it is in a 'plain english' sense, that doesn't rely on self reference, or reference to something that, if you define it in english, is based upon the thing you are trying to define .

 

If you want to challenge it, you need to identify the 'apples and oranges' parts. Thus, rather than the physics, you're going to have to go after the Hermes Trismegistus 'as above so below' view she's applying. Effectively it's the alchemical microcosm/macrocosm (Man/Cosmos) relationship you need to attack... not the physics, since there she's a right as any layman is going to be about matter, energy and it's very strange interactions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.