Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: bittertruth on September 30, 2014, 10:44:25 AM
-
Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?
Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm (http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm)
-
This is what Brynn was talking about. The lattice. Too tiring for me.
-
Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?
Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm (http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm)
It's a hypothesis. If it explains and predicts the world. You want run with it.
Could it be true? Possible.
Consider that we only perceive that which we are evolved to perceive.
If our daily existence was dominated by things at the Planck scale. Our view of how the world works would be very different indeed. Because we are generally shielded from this aspect of reality does not make it untrue.
-
Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?
Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm (http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm)
Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. :D That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.
-
Termie,
I find it hilarious though, that negros are open to this possibility but so hostile to the idea of creationism. Both amount to the same sort of situation- a created universe, rather than one devoid of any design or purpose.
If right now I'm in a simulation and it appears REAL to me , what would be the exact opposite?
It's a hypothesis. If it explains and predicts the world. You want run with it.
Could it be true? Possible.
Consider that we only perceive that which we are evolved to perceive.
If our daily existence was dominated by things at the Planck scale. Our view of how the world works would be very different indeed. Because we are generally shielded from this aspect of reality does not make it untrue.
-
Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?
Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm (http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm)
Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. :D That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.
William James and the first unchained mover, yes I remember studying him. He was the first to reconcile free will and fate i.e. you can make your decisions in a chess game, but heuristic moves and checkmate is ultimately decided not by you. In the end God wins. That notion would fit in nicely with a "lattice" the lattice to me seems good at illustrating age old thoughts which have largely been debunked. I dunno... maybe I haven't really looked into this "lattice" phenomena. Where's Brynn when it matters? I dreamt about that same guy again... he was showing me how to make a sliding conveyor belt... I was on my way to a picnic on a giant mountain and spent A LOT of time packing delicious foods. I began walking with a group of kids and was stopped by this chap. Let me show you some interesting stuff he told me. I declined but the kids insisted. He's like a magician showing all sorts of nifty science tricks. I asked him a question I can't remember and his eyes glistened. Then I went f this and woke up.... what a dream.
-
Termie,
I find it hilarious though, that negros are open to this possibility but so hostile to the idea of creationism. Both amount to the same sort of situation- a created universe, rather than one devoid of any design or purpose.
If right now I'm in a simulation and it appears REAL to me , what would be the exact opposite?
It's a hypothesis. If it explains and predicts the world. You want run with it.
Could it be true? Possible.
Consider that we only perceive that which we are evolved to perceive.
If our daily existence was dominated by things at the Planck scale. Our view of how the world works would be very different indeed. Because we are generally shielded from this aspect of reality does not make it untrue.
I just now got a chance to actually see the link. I had assumed all along that this was about the holographic principle currently being tested at the Fermi lab. That talks not so much about a simulation as it does about a 2D reality that we perceive as 3D.
The problem with creationism is how one tests it. It basically says God the almighty created the world. But what does it predict? If one can devise tests for this, it can start to garner some element of respectability.
Put another way. If the world was created in 6 days, there should be certain predictions and observations one should be able to make from this claim that can be tested.
-
Termie, I know u believe this.
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right?
Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from outside of such simulation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm (http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm)
Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. :D That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.
Kairetu,
One might still want to make a distinction between real vs incomplete. I subscribe to the notion that our experience of reality incomplete and will is necessarily that way in principle.
Two observers of the same event come away with different observations.
Some people cannot see certain colors(wavelengths of light). Their perception of this reality is less than that of someone who can see more wavelengths.
What I promote as an atheist is that the unknown is nothing but that. Unknown. That we should respect that. Others may see it as an area where certain ideas lacking traction in the known, can seek refuge.
-
Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. :D That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.
Kairetu,
One might still want to make a distinction between real vs incomplete. I subscribe to the notion that our experience of reality incomplete and will is necessarily that way in principle.
Two observers of the same event come away with different observations.
Some people cannot see certain colors(wavelengths of light). Their perception of this reality is less than that of someone who can see more wavelengths.
What I promote as an atheist is that the unknown is nothing but that. Unknown. That we should respect that. Others may see it as an area where certain ideas lacking traction in the known, can seek refuge.
What you've described is not atheism. It is called agnosticism. It does not claim to know that which it does not. Atheism is a position that there is no immaterial reality, or rather, that only material reality exists. It is not an "I don't know" position at all. An agnostic is not a theist, and neither does he purport to over-rule theism, because he knows he cannot do such a thing. An atheist has convinced himself that he can.
-
Bittertruth, if you have ever been interested in philosophy, you will know that the argument for God (the uncaused cause/prime mover etc etc) is based on one unprovable premise: That our experiences are real and not in our imagination. :D That at the very least, I (the thinker) exist. The conclusion for God flows from that in a straight trajectory. The other possibility, that our experiences are actually NOT real, is this one you are highlighting here. You will find militant atheists who will be open to this latter possibility--and it is a possibility--but the one that leads to God is rejected out of hand. Not because it does not make sense, and they will not be able to show you it doesn't besides just making the claim that it doesn't, but because the militant atheist simply fails to appreciate Socrates' definition of wisdom: The ability to know that which you don't know. You will find them foaming at the mouth worse than the most unfriendly bible-thumper from Texas while asserting this ridiculous assurance in what they cannot be so sure about: just watch Dawkins videos if you don't believe me. And those are rather tame. Some other lesser known names on the net are even worse.
Kairetu,
One might still want to make a distinction between real vs incomplete. I subscribe to the notion that our experience of reality incomplete and will is necessarily that way in principle.
Two observers of the same event come away with different observations.
Some people cannot see certain colors(wavelengths of light). Their perception of this reality is less than that of someone who can see more wavelengths.
What I promote as an atheist is that the unknown is nothing but that. Unknown. That we should respect that. Others may see it as an area where certain ideas lacking traction in the known, can seek refuge.
What you've described is not atheism. It is called agnosticism. It does not claim to know that which it does not. Atheism is a position that there is no immaterial reality, or rather, that only material reality exists. It is not an "I don't know" position at all. An agnostic is not a theist, and neither does he purport to over-rule theism, because he knows he cannot do such a thing. An atheist has convinced himself that he can.
I think we differ on a fundamental point. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God.
You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief. When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.
-
I think we differ on a fundamental point. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God.
You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief. When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.
Indeed we do (differ), the distinction between knowledge and belief as far as the monikers atheism, theism and agnosticism are concerned, is frankly meaningless. As you rightly note, no body claims to possess infinite/absolute knowledge, so introducing that there only muddies waters.
The terms define positions regarding the existence of God: it's that simple. They don't care what knowledge/data has been used to arrive at whatever position. What they signify is the end-point/conclusion. An atheist's answer is that God does not exist. A theist's answer is that he does. An agnostic's answer is that he does not take a position either way.
-
I think we differ on a fundamental point. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God.
You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief. When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.
Indeed we do (differ), the distinction between knowledge and belief as far as the monikers atheism, theism and agnosticism are concerned, is frankly meaningless. As you rightly note, no body claims to possess infinite/absolute knowledge, so introducing that there only muddies waters.
The terms define positions regarding the existence of God: it's that simple. They don't care what knowledge/data has been used to arrive at whatever position. What they signify is the end-point/conclusion. An atheist's answer is that God does not exist. A theist's answer is that he does. An agnostic's answer is that he does not take a position either way.
An atheist does not believe in God. I have to emphasize that. Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material. What he does not believe is the key.
-
Termie,
If it now boils down to test and predictions, both creationism and evilution world views fall short. In fact evilution fairs worse
What does it predict?
How do we test evilution? You will retort that it takes eternities so it can't be tested
]I just now got a chance to actually see the link. I had assumed all along that this was about the holographic principle currently being tested at the Fermi lab. That talks not so much about a simulation as it does about a 2D reality that we perceive as 3D.
The problem with creationism is how one tests it. It basically says God the almighty created the world. But what does it predict? If one can devise tests for this, it can start to garner some element of respectability.
Put another way. If the world was created in 6 days, there should be certain predictions and observations one should be able to make from this claim that can be tested.
-
Esh people.... seeing wordy theories like these prove to me everyday that it was wise to read a numerate degree at uni. This is too much "thinking" over a hypothesis... Bejesus...
-
I think we differ on a fundamental point. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God.
You want to make the distinction between knowledge and belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief. When you consider that, in fact everybody is an agnostic.
Indeed we do (differ), the distinction between knowledge and belief as far as the monikers atheism, theism and agnosticism are concerned, is frankly meaningless. As you rightly note, no body claims to possess infinite/absolute knowledge, so introducing that there only muddies waters.
The terms define positions regarding the existence of God: it's that simple. They don't care what knowledge/data has been used to arrive at whatever position. What they signify is the end-point/conclusion. An atheist's answer is that God does not exist. A theist's answer is that he does. An agnostic's answer is that he does not take a position either way.
An atheist does not believe in God. I have to emphasize that. Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material. What he does not believe is the key.
Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.
-
An atheist does not believe in God. I have to emphasize that. Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material. What he does not believe is the key.
Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.
An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief or lack thereof.
-
Termie,
If it now boils down to test and predictions, both creationism and evilution world views fall short. In fact evilution fairs worse
What does it predict?
How do we test evilution? You will retort that it takes eternities so it can't be tested
]I just now got a chance to actually see the link. I had assumed all along that this was about the holographic principle currently being tested at the Fermi lab. That talks not so much about a simulation as it does about a 2D reality that we perceive as 3D.
The problem with creationism is how one tests it. It basically says God the almighty created the world. But what does it predict? If one can devise tests for this, it can start to garner some element of respectability.
Put another way. If the world was created in 6 days, there should be certain predictions and observations one should be able to make from this claim that can be tested.
Predictions and tests are at the heart of science. Evolution predicts that we are compatible enough with animals to have organ transplants from them. I am sure creation does not. By your own admission, it predicts nothing useful or testable.
-
An atheist does not believe in God. I have to emphasize that. Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material. What he does not believe is the key.
Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.
An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief or lack thereof.
That mixes up the words so that they become meaningless. We cant refuse to acknowledge that there's a distinct category of beliefs that neither believes nor disbelieves God, but is committed to remaining open on the question. It's like we want to say there are only atheists and theists, since nobody in the world can claim an absolute certainty of knowledge. Agnosticism stays open on the question, precisely because of that lack of certainty in knowledge, its not identical to it. If an agnostic believes in God then he is not an agnostic but a theist. The term arose as a response to both theism and atheism, so co-opting it confuses the reality it was intended to signify, that of those who denied both atheism and theism.
-
That is no prediction
We are similar to animals and the blind can see that; you and omena have eyes
Don't bother because you will come up empty
Creationism makes a commonsensical prediction; information can't create itself
Predictions and tests are at the heart of science. Evolution predicts that we are compatible enough with animals to have organ transplants from them. I am sure creation does not. By your own admission, it predicts nothing useful or testable.
-
An atheist does not believe in God. I have to emphasize that. Whether he makes a definite statement of God's existence or lack thereof is not material. What he does not believe is the key.
Neither does an agnostic. The best use of that description is to tell us simply what the two have in common, but as far as what distinguishes an atheist as an atheist, it is that the agnostic does not claim that God does not exist either, which an atheist does.
An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief or lack thereof.
That mixes up the words so that they become meaningless. We cant refuse to acknowledge that there's a distinct category of beliefs that neither believes nor disbelieves God, but is committed to remaining open on the question. It's like we want to say there are only atheists and theists, since nobody in the world can claim an absolute certainty of knowledge. Agnosticism stays open on the question, precisely because of that lack of certainty in knowledge, its not identical to it. If an agnostic believes in God then he is not an agnostic but a theist. The term arose as a response to both theism and atheism, so co-opting it confuses the reality it was intended to signify, that of those who denied both atheism and theism.
There are countless theists who say they don't know whether God exists or not. But they believe. On the basis of faith.
And there are plenty of atheists too that do not know if God exists or not. But they do not believe in him.
These groups are both agnostics in my view. Put another way, not all theists are gnostics.
-
That is no prediction
We are similar to animals and the blind can see that; you and omena have eyes
Don't bother because you will come up empty
Creationism makes a commonsensical prediction; information can't create itself
Predictions and tests are at the heart of science. Evolution predicts that we are compatible enough with animals to have organ transplants from them. I am sure creation does not. By your own admission, it predicts nothing useful or testable.
Evolution predicts that too. Creation does not.
-
There are countless theists who say they don't know whether God exists or not. But they believe. On the basis of faith.
Please define belief here as opposed to knowledge as this is merely confusing terms. confusing data with knowledge, actually. Faith is knowledge that does not rely absolutely on data. Like I said, knowledge adds little to the terms atheism/theism/agnosticism. Agnosticism is meaningless if it simply means not possessing complete knowledge/facts/data. That's not what it means. Agnosticism is a refusal to believe/disbelieve precisely because of the lack of data/"knowledge". It's a commitment to openness on the question.
And there are plenty of atheists too that do not know if God exists or not. But they do not believe in him.
Which one are you? The one who knows or doesn't know if God exists?
These groups are both agnostics in my view. Put another way, not all theists are gnostics.
That is an imposition on the word agnostic. Those who say God exists are not agnostic, they are theists. Unless you want to define theism as possessing perfect knowledge of God, in which case, lets dump it from the dictionary as virtually no one in the world would be a theist.
The following is an oxymoron in other words:"I believe in God" and "I don't know if God exists". The two cannot come from the same person.
If someone "believes" then they know, the basis of that knowledge may be questionable/testable, it's still a claim to knowledge, though. It is what is called faith.
-
To make this simple, here's a question "Does God exist?"
An atheist: No
A theist: Yes
An agnostic: Neither Yes nor No; I refuse to say either way.
It's not about "what proofs/facts/knowledge do you three possess?" It's simply, there's a proposition here: God's existence. What say you? In other words, conclusions/beliefs.
The question is, is there an agnostic conclusion/belief? Yes, there is. It was the reason the word was invented. Those who will reject both atheism and theism. They have a label, it's called agnosticism.
-
There are countless theists who say they don't know whether God exists or not. But they believe. On the basis of faith.
Please define belief here as opposed to knowledge as this is merely confusing terms. confusing data with knowledge, actually. Faith is knowledge that does not rely absolutely on data. Like I said, knowledge adds little to the terms atheism/theism/agnosticism. Agnosticism is meaningless if it simply means not possessing complete knowledge/facts/data. That's not what it means. Agnosticism is a refusal to believe/disbelieve precisely because of the lack of data/"knowledge". It's a commitment to openness on the question.
And there are plenty of atheists too that do not know if God exists or not. But they do not believe in him.
Which one are you? The one who knows or doesn't know if God exists?
These groups are both agnostics in my view. Put another way, not all theists are gnostics.
That is an imposition on the word agnostic. Those who say God exists are not agnostic, they are theists. Unless you want to define theism as possessing perfect knowledge of God, in which case, lets dump it from the dictionary as virtually no one in the world would be a theist.
The following is an oxymoron in other words:"I believe in God" and "I don't know if God exists". The two cannot come from the same person.
If someone "believes" then they know, the basis of that knowledge may be questionable/testable, it's still a claim to knowledge, though. It is what is called faith.
Kairetu,
If knowledge and belief are the same thing. Why even bother making the distinction?
What I am exactly trying to avoid is hiding behind the minutiae of semantics and play on words to make a point. It makes the discussion tedious and ripe for escapism. Where one can simply seek to redefine something and auto-magically make their argument valid.
-
Kairetu,
If knowledge and belief are the same thing. Why even bother making the distinction?
What I am exactly trying to avoid is hiding behind the minutiae of semantics and play on words to make a point. It makes the discussion tedious and ripe for escapism. Where one can simply seek to redefine something and auto-magically make their argument valid.
Terminator, it was you that came in with that distinction, remember. It wasnt me. You assigned "knowledge" to agnosticism and then belief to atheism/theism. Yet this is not how the words are understood in common parlance. the three are understood as positions on the question of God's existence. So far from confusion, my interest is clarity. The way you are defining the words is highly subjective and makes it confusing to understand what it means.
Belief is a predisposition of the mind that something is TRUE. That is knowledge. It may be baseless, but it is a claim to knowledge. Atheism/agnosticism/theism all belong here: What is true to the atheistic mind is that there's no such thing as a God, to the theist it is there is. To the agnostic, what is TRUE, is that the matter is unknowable to him at present, hence it's an open question, his disposition is undecided or decided on remaining undecided/open.
It's just like the question: "Are there animals on a planet 1 billion light-years away?"
Believer: Yes
Non-Believer: No
Agnostic: I wont say either way.
None of those are making statements about some kind of certainty in knowledge. They are stating their current beliefs/mental dispositions. I am agnostic in that sense, I wont say either way whether there's life elsewhere. Per your definition, the third position does not deserve a moniker of its own.
My point? The refusal to distinguish agnosticism from atheism is an error. The words exist for a reason. Agnostics refuse to say that God does not exists, atheists are very comfortable saying that he does not. What you personally believe is not my issue here, it's how you label those beliefs that's been my contention. When you tell people "I am an atheist", you can bet they understand you to be saying that you deny God's existence, not that you are committed to defining what is unknown as unknown. The latter leaves the possibility of a God, which atheism denies categorically.
-
Kairetu,
If knowledge and belief are the same thing. Why even bother making the distinction?
What I am exactly trying to avoid is hiding behind the minutiae of semantics and play on words to make a point. It makes the discussion tedious and ripe for escapism. Where one can simply seek to redefine something and auto-magically make their argument valid.
Terminator, it was you that came in with that distinction, remember. It wasnt me. You assigned "knowledge" to agnosticism and then belief to atheism/theism. Yet this is not how the words are understood in common parlance. the three are understood as positions on the question of God's existence. So far from confusion, my interest is clarity. The way you are defining the words is highly subjective and makes it confusing to understand what it means.
Belief is a predisposition of the mind that something is TRUE. That is knowledge. It may be baseless, but it is a claim to knowledge. Atheism/agnosticism/theism all belong here: What is true to the atheistic mind is that God does not exist, to the theist it is that he does. To the agnostic, what is TRUE, is that the matter is unknowable to him a present, hence it's an open question
It's just like the question: "Are there animals on a planet 1 billion light-years away?"
Believer: Yes
Non-Believer: No
Agnostic: I wont say either way.
None of those are making statements about some kind of certainty in knowledge. They are stating their current beliefs/mental dispositions. I am agnostic in that sense, I wont say either way whether there's life elsewhere. Per your definition, the third position does not deserve a moniker of its own.
My point? The refusal to distinguish agnosticism from atheism is an error. The words exist for a reason. Agnostics refuse to say that God does not exists, atheists are very comfortable saying that he does not. What you personally believe is not my issue here, it's how you label those beliefs that's been my contention. When you tell people "I am an atheist", you can bet they understand you to be saying that you deny God's existence, not that you are committed to defining what is unknown as unknown. The latter leaves the possibility of a God, which atheism denies categorically.
Lets have it mean whatever you want.
For purposes of discussion. Agnostics are also atheists. In other words they don't believe in God.
The theists believe and therefore know about God.
By this definition. Any "theist" who says they do not and cannot know if God exists or not, is automatically an atheist. Even if they pray 60 times a day while facing Mecca or the moon. If that sounds subjective and could differ from one faith to another, let's ignore it to keep the discussion moving.
The point I am more interested in making is that the concept of what constitutes reality will differ from one person to another. And I was using colorblindness to demonstrate it.
One person may not be able to see red. As far as their reality is concerned. The red wavelength does not exist. Granted technology can enable them to acknowledge it's objective existence.
Ultimately, the real reality is only knowable in an indirect sense.
-
By this definition. Any "theist" who says they do not and cannot know if God exists or not, is automatically an atheist. Even if they pray 60 times a day while facing Mecca or the moon. If that sounds subjective and could differ from one faith to another, let's ignore it to keep the discussion moving.[/b][/u]
My point is that this person you are describing does not exist. To the man praying 60 times a day, there's no question of "whether God exists or does not exists". It is that he exists. That question was long ago answered for him. It may be because he trusts those who brought him up in his faith, or it makes sense to him, or whichever way he came to that answer, the point is that he has an answer to the question of God's existence. He may even doubt on occasion, yet he has a firm position in his mind that God exists. If these "doubts" are a permanent predisposition like you are describing, then what you have is an agnostic. If that question--God's existence--remains without an answer to that man, he is agnostic.
The point I am more interested in making is that the concept of what constitutes reality will differ from one person to another. And I was using colorblindness to demonstrate it.
One person may not be able to see red. As far as their reality is concerned. The red wavelength does not exist. Granted technology can enable them to acknowledge it's objective existence.
There's no disagreement about that for me Even mystics believe in God long before they have any direct experience of him.
Ultimately, the real reality is only knowable in an indirect sense.
I agree that it is known indirectly, yet I refuse to say that this is the only means it can be known. I think that is not something that can be said categorically.
-
To make this simple, let me ask: What's your problem with calling yourself agnostic, if your position is, as you said, keeping the unknown as unknown?
-
About reality. The way people perceive reality as described in my example is not the only way. I just use it to demonstrate how subjective our respective experiences of reality are.
The challenge for those interested in objective knowledge is how to get around this barrier that necessarily makes each one's experience subjective.
Your question
To make this simple, let me ask: What's your problem with calling yourself agnostic, if your position is, as you said, keeping the unknown as unknown?
I have no problem. If you read earlier through the thread, I do mention that we are all agnostics; even though I am not pushing that point for purposes of this discussion.
-
About reality. The way people perceive reality as described in my example is not the only way. I just use it to demonstrate how subjective our respective experiences of reality are.
The challenge for those interested in objective knowledge is how to get around this barrier that necessarily makes each one's experience subjective.
Your question
To make this simple, let me ask: What's your problem with calling yourself agnostic, if your position is, as you said, keeping the unknown as unknown?
I have no problem. If you read earlier through the thread, I do mention that we are all agnostics; even though I am not pushing that point for purposes of this discussion.
Like I mention above. The problem is how to overcome the challenge of subjective experiences to arrive at an objective reality.
I think it can never happen in principle. Arriving at objective reality. One can only get approximations which can be improved ad infinitum.
If one believes that knowledge is subjective. They will not put much stock in whether it is testable. In other words, they don't require proof to accept something as true or false.
There is no question in my mind that we can never know everything. This is an argument for the limitations of our own knowledge. An argument for humility from us. Using this fact to argue that it allows for the existence of anything we can imagine is not humble, objective, or useful,
The scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way. In a nutshell, it says. You make a claim. You want prove it. You don't make a claim and ask a challenger to prove his doubt before you prove your claim.
It is this point that has some us defining atheists in a narrow sense, as those making a claim negating the existence of an entity whose existence itself is in question.
I just bothered to look at Dawkins, one of the more rabid atheists. His position. He says there is no good reason for him to believe in a deity. Just as, most will agree, there is no good reason to believe in tooth fairies. He says the chances that there is a deity are not great.
The sum total of his experiences makes him biased against the existence of a deity. I mention elsewhere, that everything we know is on the basis of faith. The only difference between religion and science is the readiness of one to shift position as soon as new information, especially the contradictory type, comes in.
-
Questions to ponder for those who care:
1) What is "proof"? Is deduction proof? Or is it just induction? How did we decided that induction alone is proof? Both are methods of reasoning, and both are used every day to come to conclusions...truthful conclusions at that. Claiming induction apriori as the only proof limits the answers one arrives at long before they ask the question. So that the answer is decided from the beginning as "Not God--whatever else might be true, God is not it". Or, "It must be material to be true"....and yet truth is the supposed object being sought in the inquiry. So a good question would be, what is the investment in limiting/excluding deductive methods of finding answers-- or deductive proofs--when it comes to the question of reality?
2) Belief in God is not belief in "anything and everything". It has been supported time and again using logic. It is certainly no less grounded in objectivity than evolution, the big bang theory or any scientific theory. Really depends on what objective methods one is prepared to not-exclude apriori to keep unpreferred answers out of circulation.
-
Questions to ponder for those who care:
1) What is "proof"? Is deduction proof? Or is it just induction? How did we decided that induction alone is proof? Both are methods of reasoning, and both are used every day to come to conclusions...truthful conclusions at that. Claiming induction apriori as the only proof limits the answers one arrives at long before they ask the question. So that the answer is decided from the beginning as "Not God--whatever else might be true, God is not it". Or, "It must be material to be true"....and yet truth is the supposed object being sought in the inquiry. So a good question would be, what is the investment in limiting/excluding deductive methods of finding answers-- or deductive proofs--when it comes to the question of reality?
2) Belief in God is not belief in "anything and everything". It has been supported time and again using logic. It is certainly no less grounded in objectivity than evolution, the big bang theory or any scientific theory. Really depends on what objective methods one is prepared to not-exclude apriori to keep unpreferred answers out of circulation.
1 is an important, meaningful and useful question.
Proof is confirmation of a claim. Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.
-
1 is an important, meaningful and useful question.
Proof is confirmation of a claim. Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.
Question 1 is asking you to "confirm the claim" that "the scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way."
-
1 is an important, meaningful and useful question.
Proof is confirmation of a claim. Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.
Question 1 is asking you to "confirm the claim" that "the scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way."
Objectivity is the value of being independent from the observer. In other words a claim remains true regardless of who is observing. It contrasts with subjectivity. With subjectivity one can claim that their mental exercise and conclusion is enough proof.
Any method that seeks an objective result, must provide mechanisms to separate the claim from the observer. A prediction should be made by the claim under interrogation that can then be independently verified.
How can this be done? One derives a prediction that should be true if the claim is true. Then one devises a test(s) that will independently arrive at the prediction. Only then can one generally assume a claim to be true. This is scientific.
Importantly, any approach that relies on the fact that we cannot know everything to advance an argument is meaningless. Because it cannot be tested.
-
1 is an important, meaningful and useful question.
Proof is confirmation of a claim. Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.
Question 1 is asking you to "confirm the claim" that "the scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way."
Objectivity is the value of being independent from the observer. In other words a claim remains true regardless of who is observing. It contrasts with subjectivity. With subjectivity one can claim that their mental exercise and conclusion is enough proof.
Any method that seeks an objective result, must provide mechanisms to separate the claim from the observer. A prediction should be made by the claim under interrogation that can then be independently verified.
How can this be done? One derives a prediction that should be true if the claim is true. Then one devises a test(s) that will independently arrive at the prediction. Only then can one generally assume a claim to be true. This is scientific.
This is a reason why induction is a method of finding truth. It does not explain the claim that it is the only objective one.
Why must a prediction be made for something to be true? In court, no prediction is required to show A did X. What is required is a reasonable explanation why only the prosecution's explanation makes sense (in a criminal trial) or in a civil trial, why one party's story is more reasonably possibly truer than the other's. Methods of proof necessarily depend on the kind of reality you are dealing with. So my question is how we can decide that there is only one way that claims on reality can be confirmed--a way that necessarily PRESUMES from the get-go that reality fits a box called matter.
Importantly, any approach that relies on the fact that we cannot know everything to advance an argument is meaningless. Because it cannot be tested.
That we cannot know everything is not a proof for God and as far as I know, never is claimed as one. It is an answer to the problem I've just cited here, to the attempt at confining "proofs" to what will give us the answers we find acceptable. To say it cannot be tested is more proof of that--Why can it not be tested? To put it differently, why must methods dependent on matter be the only ways of "testing" such claims? Is it because reality=matter?
-
This is a reason why induction is a method of finding truth. It does not explain the claim that it is the only objective one.
Why must a prediction be made for something to be true? In court, no prediction is required to show A did X. What is required is a reasonable explanation why only the prosecution's explanation makes sense (in a criminal trial) or in a civil trial, why one party's story is more reasonably possibly truer than the other's. Methods of proof necessarily depend on the kind of reality you are dealing with. So my question is how we can decide that there is only one way that claims on reality can be confirmed--a way that necessarily PRESUMES from the get-go that reality fits a box called matter.
Importantly, any approach that relies on the fact that we cannot know everything to advance an argument is meaningless. Because it cannot be tested.
That we cannot know everything is not a proof for God and as far as I know, never is claimed as one. It is an answer to the problem I've just cited here, to the attempt at confining "proofs" to what will give us the answers we find acceptable. To say it cannot be tested is more proof of that--Why can it not be tested? To put it differently, why must methods dependent on matter be the only ways of "testing" such claims? Is it because reality=matter?
The prosecution presents its case. Which is subjected to tests. The tests are based on what is generally accepted as likely or unlikely(predictions) if a crime has been committed. A good lawyer's job is to challenge these predictions with alibis and whatever other tools they have at their disposal. And it swings back and forth. Predictions. Challenges. Predictions. Challenges. Until the most sensible position is arrived at.
I am going emphasize objective when I refer to reality. I can conjure up anything in my mind. And it would be a true thing, in my mind. The question is whether it is objective.
On the issue of matter or non-matter, the same approach is the only approach if one is interested in objectively arriving at a conclusion.
-
The prosecution presents its case. Which is subjected to tests. The tests are based on what is generally accepted as likely or unlikely(predictions) if a crime has been committed. A good lawyer's job is to challenge these predictions with alibis and whatever other tools they have at their disposal. And it swings back and forth. Predictions. Challenges. Predictions. Challenges. Until the most sensible position is arrived at.
Those tests only exclude what might be discovered that contradicts the story. Hence, should some fact be found in future that contradicts the story, it disproves it necessarily and the decision can be over-turned (depending on the conditions for admitting new evidence after the conclusion of a case). When you say that only that which predicts is true, if you mean prediction as consistency with the claim, then that does not exclude God and God's existence is certainly "testable"...just not in lab with a test-tube, but with logic, yes. No less than any scientific theory. Saying that "predictions" means that some particle of God must be taken to a lab for direct observation is making an unjustifiable claim about what constitutes "truth". So the leap you are saying you want to avoid, (taking something as true without proof), you are already making right from the beginning.
It's funny you should mention likelihood/unlikelihood, though, because the sheer unlikelihood--to put it mildly--of so many phenomena happening randomly is itself an excellent proof for intelligence being the cause.
I am going emphasize objective when I refer to reality. I can conjure up anything in my mind. And it would be a true thing, in my mind. The question is whether it is objective.
Reality is reality, deduction is no more subjective than induction. They all spring from known facts of reality. They just go about drawing conclusions a different way. If direct observation is the only means of finding truth then induction should be dropped for the same reason deduction is being rejected apriori. Nobody proves God by the kind of experience you are implying, that is, offering their own subjective experience as proof; certainly not in the debates on God that have occupied philosophy for centuries.
On the issue of matter or non-matter, the same approach is the only approach if one is interested in objectively arriving at a conclusion.
This restates the claim without proving it per your own definition of proof. In the end, what does not contradict objective facts (not theories) is a possibility. The materialist approach says that only material tests can then go the next step to prove reality, hence they are denying apriori and without proof what they cannot exclude as a possibility. It is against this unsupported presumption that it is usually pointed out to them that they cannot just go about setting limits to objective reality for no reason. You make the same claim when you state that the scientific method--which is induction--is the only objective method. The objection to this is no different than telling someone not to use a thermometer to measure sound. To demonstrate, without presuming that matter is all there is to reality, what other logical---and yes, OBJECTIVE--conclusions could be drawn about what is observed in reality? What should the "theory" of a divine creator predict? I can think of two things, proof of intelligibility in the universe and existence itself. Why are these not "objective tests/predictions" for the theory in question for you?
-
The predictions being made for a divine being.
1. Proof of intelligibility in the universe. Suppose that is the case. That leaves the minor issue of the leap from a physical intelligence to a deity. The better argument with a well known precedence would be of a physical intelligence.
2. Existence itself. A tautology. God made us because we are here.
None if these claims are testable.
Granted. There is reality outside of objective reality. I experience it too. But I don't expect one to accept it merely because I can imagine it. Mental gymnastics is just that.
The scientific method claims no certainties. In fact uncertainty is its engine. If that goes away, we are heading back to the caves.
-
The predictions being made for a divine being.
1. Proof of intelligibility in the universe. Suppose that is the case. That leaves the minor issue of the leap from a physical intelligence to a deity. The better argument with a well known precedence would be of a physical intelligence.
So the intelligence made itself too? Did it exist first in order to plan and create itself? If we are being consistent, then that intelligence cannot be that very thing for which we are seeking an explanation for its existence in the first place--matter! A physical creator is just another section of the universe. It is no more an explanation for the universe than the universe is an explanation for the universe.
2. Existence itself. A tautology. God made us because we are here.
A tautaolgy is easily demonstrated where it exists. The "test" you provided is nothing more than facts that are consistent with the claim. From the simple fact of existence, the "hypothesis" of a creator has been made immemorially, because From nothing, nothing comes. The fact that there is something and not nothing is proof that there was never "nothing". That demonstrates a cause has always been there. That is why existence is a proof. Like I told Bittertruth, the argument for God is predicated on the premise that we actually exist and are not simply imagining our existence. If we exist, then so does God.
None if these claims are testable.
That is just an arbitrary claim. If a test is an explanation for the facts, then how is intelligence and existence not a "test"? Just because you declare it?
Granted. There is reality outside of objective reality. I experience it too. But I don't expect one to accept it merely because I can imagine it. Mental gymnastics is just that.
Again, you are making false implications. WHICH argument has been made to you based on a personal subjective experience? Is it that you just expect that such claims will be made? I dont get why you keep making this point about an argument from "subjective experience" as proof and then going ahead to argue against it. If conclusions are mental gymnastics, so are scientific theories. After all, you only believe them because facts don't contradict them. How does that make them more "testable" than God? It is easy to show that facts do not contradict God and in fact point to him; the beginning of the universe, the unlikelihood of the universe, the intelligibility and order of the universe, these are all facts that are consistent with an intelligent creator beyond the universe Somehow, they don't constitute "tests", but not so where scientific theories are based only in explanations of facts, where they become magically "testable".
The scientific method claims no certainties. In fact uncertainty is its engine. If that goes away, we are heading back to the caves.
That is true, irrelevant though. Because no one is attacking the scientific theory. Just the yet unsupported claim that it holds an exclusive place in determining truth.
-
The physical creator argument can go on ad infinitum with much the same right some ascribe to an eternal let alone yet to be proven deity.
The only difference is there is already an objective experience of the physical. It takes the smaller leap of faith to believe.
A physical creator is more consistent with observations than the deity. Whatever claims one makes for a creator, there is always going to be a stronger claim to the same argument for a physical one.
Outside of unprovable claims, nobody has witnessed a deity create anything.
If nothing comes out of nothing. Suppose there is a good reason to believe in a deity. The question of what creates the deity remains.
The exercise ultimately leads to unfalsifiable territory where nothing new is conveyed or learned.
The claim for science's exclusive domain is on objective reality. The field is wide open(only limited by the number of observers) for subjective reality.
-
One can also approach the question from the opposite direction. Of strangeness.
What's the difference between a believer that an uncreated supernatural created the world and one who believes it came from nothing?
The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity. And says it came from nothing. And created something.
The other says a justified entity came from nothing?
Whose view is less weird? The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?
-
The physical creator argument can go on ad infinitum with much the same right some ascribe to an eternal let alone yet to be proven deity.
No it cannot. We know matter never creates itself. We need a cause for why it exists, therefore. We also know that matter began. We need a cause for how that happened. We will need the same for the immaterial cause, once it is established that it began to exist.
The only difference is there is already an objective experience of the physical. It takes the smaller leap of faith to believe.
The only objective experience is that the physical needs a cause.
A physical creator is more consistent with observations than the deity. Whatever claims one makes for a creator, there is always going to be a stronger claim to the same argument for a physical one.
A physical creator is the tautology claimed before and has zero to do with observations of the universe, that it is finite in time, space and matter. It is just a restatement that the universe is eternal and therefore god. Good luck proving that, if "proof" is what you are seeking as you claimed.
Outside of unprovable claims, nobody has witnessed a deity create anything.
And NOBODY has witnessed a physical being create ANYTHING from nothing. Plus the claim is just the good old fashioned, "Material reality is the ONLY reality because its the only one I experience" We can deduce another existence besides our own from facts we know about our own. Like the fact that our being is contingent.
If nothing comes out of nothing. Suppose there is a good reason to believe in a deity. The question of what creates the deity remains.
That makes sense if you assume there was ever nothing. A deity means there was never nothingness, but always something. If there was nothing, then nothing is what there would be today. No, actually, there could be no "today" or time or anything. Just nothing.
The exercise ultimately leads to unfalsifiable territory where nothing new is conveyed or learned.
Stated by fatwa, if I can't disprove God, he must be false. I dont understand why you dont see how many unsupported claims you make yourself while accusing theism of the same.
The claim for science's exclusive domain is on objective reality. The field is wide open(only limited by the number of observers) for subjective reality.
Another fatwa--Every claim must be established except those I need but can't support...those ones should be just be accepted by faith. That's what this sounds like to me.
-
One can also approach the question from the opposite direction. Of strangeness.
What's the difference between a believer that an uncreated supernatural created the world and one who believes it came from nothing?
The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity. And says it came from nothing. And created something.
Termie, that is a contradiction. If it is uncreated how did it "come from nothing"?
The other says a justified entity came from nothing?
Justified is a big word. "Justification" here is that the universe created itself from nothing before it existed? C'mon Termie. Did you get this from Steve Hawking's "gravity created the universe which created gravity"? If that is justification, what exactly cannot be justified?
Whose view is less weird? The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?
Without a doubt. The person who claims that the universe created itself from nothing. If "strange" is the medal here, he must be given his due reward. Or that something came from absolute nothingness without a cause. He has more faith than the one that moves mountains, this one creates ordered universes right from nothingness. Just like that! A believer in God just needs to know that matter must be created to believe in a creator beyond matter--that is what immaterial means. That is what everything he knows about the universe tells him...Everything. And all the opponent has in response is an incredible act of faith, that just this once, matter did something impossible--It just started to exist.
-
Termie,
God is reality.
As a Reality, God cannot be unreal.
Also need to understand that physical reality is not the ultimate reality.
-
Termie,
God is reality.
As a Reality, God cannot be unreal.
Also need to understand that physical reality is not the ultimate reality.
Just needed to spell-check that for you, kidogo. Hope you dont mind. :) Indeed, Bittertruth. There are only two possibilities. Absolute reality or absolute nothingness. 'God' is just the human word for the former. It's appreciating that there must be a reality capable of bringing real things from nothingness by sheer grant of existence. Such a being has existence as of its very nature. Not existing is simply not possible for this being. In other words, it is existence itself. Or being. Or reality, as you put it.
-
In a nutshell.
Lets shift the problem of who creates an entity we all agree exists to who creates the creator and ignore the question by granting magical attributes to him.
The question still remains.
Every attribute argued for the deity, is weird. Yet it is, is necessarily on firmer footing when applied to a physical universe. Because this universe's existence is less contentious. In this thread, there is no question about it.
One can simply argue physical reality need not be created. It just is. You just need to look outside.
While this argument does not advance any knowledge. It does less to muddy the waters than shifting the same attributes to a realm that is already contentious.
-
Termie,
God is reality.
As a Reality, God cannot be unreal.
Also need to understand that physical reality is not the ultimate reality.
Those are mere assertions. Granted, repeated uncritically enough times, they take on the veneer of truth.
-
The physical creator argument can go on ad infinitum with much the same right some ascribe to an eternal let alone yet to be proven deity.
No it cannot. We know matter never creates itself. We need a cause for why it exists, therefore. We also know that matter began. We need a cause for how that happened. We will need the same for the immaterial cause, once it is established that it began to exist.
The only difference is there is already an objective experience of the physical. It takes the smaller leap of faith to believe.
The only objective experience is that the physical needs a cause.
A physical creator is more consistent with observations than the deity. Whatever claims one makes for a creator, there is always going to be a stronger claim to the same argument for a physical one.
A physical creator is the tautology claimed before and has zero to do with observations of the universe, that it is finite in time, space and matter. It is just a restatement that the universe is eternal and therefore god. Good luck proving that, if "proof" is what you are seeking as you claimed.
Outside of unprovable claims, nobody has witnessed a deity create anything.
And NOBODY has witnessed a physical being create ANYTHING from nothing. Plus the claim is just the good old fashioned, "Material reality is the ONLY reality because its the only one I experience" We can deduce another existence besides our own from facts we know about our own. Like the fact that our being is contingent.
If nothing comes out of nothing. Suppose there is a good reason to believe in a deity. The question of what creates the deity remains.
That makes sense if you assume there was ever nothing. A deity means there was never nothingness, but always something. If there was nothing, then nothing is what there would be today. No, actually, there could be no "today" or time or anything. Just nothing.
The exercise ultimately leads to unfalsifiable territory where nothing new is conveyed or learned.
Stated by fatwa, if I can't disprove God, he must be false. I dont understand why you dont see how many unsupported claims you make yourself while accusing theism of the same.
The claim for science's exclusive domain is on objective reality. The field is wide open(only limited by the number of observers) for subjective reality.
Another fatwa--Every claim must be established except those I need but can't support...those ones should be just be accepted by faith. That's what this sounds like to me.
What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist? Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?
-
One can also approach the question from the opposite direction. Of strangeness.
What's the difference between a believer that an uncreated supernatural created the world and one who believes it came from nothing?
The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity. And says it came from nothing. And created something.
Termie, that is a contradiction. If it is uncreated how did it "come from nothing"?
The other says a justified entity came from nothing?
Justified is a big word. "Justification" here is that the universe created itself from nothing before it existed? C'mon Termie. Did you get this from Steve Hawking's "gravity created the universe which created gravity"? If that is justification, what exactly cannot be justified?
Whose view is less weird? The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?
Without a doubt. The person who claims that the universe created itself from nothing. If "strange" is the medal here, he must be given his due reward. Or that something came from absolute nothingness without a cause. He has more faith than the one that moves mountains, this one creates ordered universes right from nothingness. Just like that! A believer in God just needs to know that matter must be created to believe in a creator beyond matter--that is what immaterial means. That is what everything he knows about the universe tells him...Everything. And all the opponent has in response is an incredible act of faith, that just this once, matter did something impossible--It just started to exist.
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
One can also approach the question from the opposite direction. Of strangeness.
What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?
The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity. And says it came from nothing. And created something.
The other says a justified entity came from nothing?
Whose view is less weird? The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?
-
What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist? Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?
The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?
-
What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist? Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?
The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
-
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
One can also approach the question from the opposite direction. Of strangeness.
What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?
The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity. And says it came from nothing. And created something.
The other says a justified entity came from nothing?
Whose view is less weird? The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter. The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
-
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
One can also approach the question from the opposite direction. Of strangeness.
What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?
The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity. And says it came from nothing. And created something.
The other says a justified entity came from nothing?
Whose view is less weird? The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.
The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
Looking at the red. One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity.
Supposing that is true. When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it?
Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?
-
What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist? Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?
The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
-
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
One can also approach the question from the opposite direction. Of strangeness.
What's the difference between a believer that a contentious supernatural is uncreated and creates the world and one who believes that the world is uncreated?
The first makes a claim for an unjustified entity. And says it came from nothing. And created something.
The other says a justified entity came from nothing?
Whose view is less weird? The one with 3 strange claims or the one with 1 strange claim?
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.
The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
Looking at the red. One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity.
Supposing that is true. When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it?
Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?
Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?
-
What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist? Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?
The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
-
What logic says we need a cause for matter to exist? Is it the same that asserts we don't need a cause for God?
The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
-
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.
The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
Looking at the red. One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity.
Supposing that is true. When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it?
Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?
Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?
It's just extending the logic on the same premise. It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause.
Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?
-
The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy. Matter is interchangeable with energy. I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. But I don't know.
-
The same one that notices that matter is always caused. Why dump observations now? Did you not make them the basis of the circular, the-universe-made-itself argument?
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy. Matter is interchangeable with energy. I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. But I don't know.
Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?
-
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy. Matter is interchangeable with energy. I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. But I don't know.
Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?
No. I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.
-
Which one? I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused.
The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models. It is neither created nor destroyed.
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy. Matter is interchangeable with energy. I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. But I don't know.
Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?
No. I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.
I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?
-
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy. Matter is interchangeable with energy. I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. But I don't know.
Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?
No. I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.
I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?
Same meaning. There no hidden meaning I intend with the use of ultimate. I don't know if matter has a cause.
-
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.
The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
Looking at the red. One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity.
Supposing that is true. When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it?
Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?
Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?
It's just extending the logic on the same premise. It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause.
Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?
It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.
-
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.
The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
Looking at the red. One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity.
Supposing that is true. When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it?
Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?
Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?
It's just extending the logic on the same premise. It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause.
Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?
It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.
Which facts are these?
-
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy. Matter is interchangeable with energy. I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. But I don't know.
Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?
No. I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.
I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?
Same meaning. There no hidden meaning I intend with the use of ultimate. I don't know if matter has a cause.
Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".
-
I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.
The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
Looking at the red. One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity.
Supposing that is true. When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it?
Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?
Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?
It's just extending the logic on the same premise. It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause.
Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?
It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.
Which facts are these?
The same ones every person not intent on making a point will acknowledge, nothing in the Universe ever happens without something causing it. You should know, not only because its basic observation but because science assumes it every time it sets about investigating anything.
-
Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? :o
Yes. I don't know.
You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.
The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy. Matter is interchangeable with energy. I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. But I don't know.
Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?
No. I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.
I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?
Same meaning. There no hidden meaning I intend with the use of ultimate. I don't know if matter has a cause.
Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".
The closest I can find is matter. Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.
-
The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.
The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.
There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.
Looking at the red. One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity.
Supposing that is true. When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it?
Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?
Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?
It's just extending the logic on the same premise. It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause.
Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?
It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.
Which facts are these?
The same ones every person not intent on making a point will acknowledge, nothing in the Universe ever happens without something causing it. You should know, not only because its basic observation but because science assumes it every time it sets about investigating anything.
Now you are talking cause and effect. As opposed to the arena of these things. What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?
-
Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".
The closest I can find is matter. Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.
Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith. :D
Now you are talking cause and effect. As opposed to the arena of these things. What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?
Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?
What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?
-
Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".
The closest I can find is matter. Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.
Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith. :D
Now you are talking cause and effect. As opposed to the arena of these things. What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?
Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?
What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?
I thought you meant that matter has a cause. Now I am understanding you to mean that a specific event has a cause. I sense a slight shift without any resolution on the previous question.
You'd be right, that most known events appear to have causes. My focus all this time has been entirely on matter itself. As opposed to how things behave.
How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?
-
Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".
The closest I can find is matter. Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.
Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith. :D
Now you are talking cause and effect. As opposed to the arena of these things. What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?
Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?
What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?
I thought you meant that matter has a cause. Now I am understanding you to mean that a specific event has a cause. I sense a slight shift without any resolution on the previous question.
You'd be right, that most known events appear to have causes. My focus all this time has been entirely on matter itself. As opposed to how things behave.
How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?
I sense you have a different understanding of what a "cause" means.
As to a shift. You just presume alot about my arguments. Now, that Matter has a cause is my claim, which i base on the fact that everything does. It is what you denied. And the argument I made in support is that nothing in physical reality is known to be causeless. I asked you consistently to name just one thing that was causeless and specifically told you I wasn't asking you about "matter". If I was asking you to just agree with me, considering that matter always having a cause was what we were arguing about in the first place, I might be blonde!!
Now that basic facts have been admitted, lets go on: Saying "matter itself" makes no difference and is frankly meaningless, because a cause is necessarily "eventful". Hence "matter has a cause" is the same claim as saying "something made matter exist" or even "something makes matter exist"
-
How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?
Funny you should say that, seeing all that stuff you said about "predictions". When you find me the dent in the wall or the footprint in the snow that "just appeared" causeless, I will be more flexible. It's like you said, a "theory" is based on actual facts, not stuff we think up in our minds. If you are consistent, why do you expect that somewhere else in the universe where it is "untestable" (pun intended :D) footprints do show up without any cause whatsoever?
-
Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".
The closest I can find is matter. Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.
Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith. :D
Now you are talking cause and effect. As opposed to the arena of these things. What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?
Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?
What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?
I thought you meant that matter has a cause. Now I am understanding you to mean that a specific event has a cause. I sense a slight shift without any resolution on the previous question.
You'd be right, that most known events appear to have causes. My focus all this time has been entirely on matter itself. As opposed to how things behave.
How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?
I sense you have a different understanding of what a "cause" means.
As to a shift. You just presume alot about my arguments. Now, that Matter has a cause is my claim, which i base on the fact that everything does. It is what you denied. And the argument I made in support is that nothing in physical reality is known to be causeless. I asked you consistently to name just one thing that was causeless and specifically told you I wasn't asking you about "matter". If I was asking you to just agree with me, considering that matter always having a cause was what we were arguing about in the first place, I might be blonde!!
Now that basic facts have been admitted, lets go on: Saying "matter itself" makes no difference and is frankly meaningless, because a cause is necessarily "eventful". Hence "matter has a cause" is the same claim as saying "something made matter exist" or even "something makes matter exist"
You will notice that I acknowledge my ignorance on the question. I don't know. That is not the same thing as saying nothing ever happens without a cause. That would mean that in fact I know, Which is the opposite of what I am saying. That should take care of whatever point it is you derive from a contrary answer.
I will be the first to reiterate my mantra that everything we know is purely on the basis of faith. That includes conclusions from observations. The difference between science and religion, a matter of incorporation and reaction to feedback in the one, and an abhorrence of the same in the other.
You could be right. I can't make any assumptions on what is on your mind.
I genuinely thought you were discussing physical universe as opposed to interactions and behaviors within it. What logic says everything has a cause? What makes you so sure that is the case?
When I say matter itself, I mean its essence. As opposed to what happens to/with it. What logic says something made matter exist? Why can't it just exist like a certain entity, whose very existence is contentious.
-
You will notice that I acknowledge my ignorance on the question. I don't know. That is not the same thing as saying nothing ever happens without a cause. That would mean that in fact I know, Which is the opposite of what I am saying. That should take care of whatever point it is you derive from a contrary answer.
This is like saying you don't know if evolution is true. Why doesn't it stop you from accepting it? It doesm't take care of my "point", it highlights it. Your claim that observations are your basis in objectivity only apply depending on what conclusions you are willing to accept, not because the principle itself supposedly works. I used observation because this was your stated basis for "objectivity" and "predictions".
I will be the first to reiterate my mantra that everything we know is purely on the basis of faith. That includes conclusions from observations.
So then, what makes your "faith" more justifiable than the conclusion that the EVENT of matter coming to existence, is caused like everything else known about matter?The difference between science and religion, a matter of incorporation and reaction to feedback in the one, and an abhorrence of the same in the other.
You could be right. I can't make any assumptions on what is on your mind.
It is atheism that is antithetical to "incorporation and reaction to feedback" if that feedback happens to point in an uncomfortable direction. While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.
I genuinely thought you were discussing physical universe as opposed to interactions and behaviors within it. What logic says everything has a cause? What makes you so sure that is the case?
Same difference, existing is something matter did, and does just like it does everything else, move, explode, divide, what-have-you. This artificial distinction essentially comes down to "matter can do nothing else by itself, except exist". OR "everything we know about matter shows that it does nothing without a cause, but we can assume that existing and coming to exist is the one thing it did without a cause". Theism expects matter is the same stuff, doesn't change and become capable of doing stuff by itself just when it comes to existing.
When I say matter itself, I mean its essence. As opposed to what happens to/with it. What logic says something made matter exist? Why can't it just exist like a certain entity, whose very existence is contentious.
Same difference. The distinction is artificial. What happens "with/to" matter is a description of matter "doing" something and includes actually existing. Matter began to exist; that this is not the only thing matter supposedly did by itself, is theism. Atheism is that it is the one thing it did by itself.
Nothingness is absolute nothingness. It is not even potential. Not matter. Not anything at all. Nothing does...nothing. Because it is nothing. If it does something, it is not nothing. The claim here is that either:
a) Nothingness "did" something...made something exist.
or
b) Matter "did" something by itself, without any cause.
Please just take 5 seconds and ask yourself if any of those sentences make any sense at all.
-
This is like saying you don't know if evolution is true. Why doesn't it stop you from accepting it? It doesm't take care of my "point", it highlights it. Your claim that observations are your basis in objectivity only apply depending on what conclusions you are willing to accept, not because the principle itself supposedly works. I used observation because this was your stated basis for "objectivity" and "predictions".
I don't know if matter has a cause. I know, or I am confident that some things that happen to it have apparent causes. And I could be utterly mistaken. What is your point?
So then, what makes your "faith" more justifiable than the conclusion that the EVENT of matter coming to existence, is caused like everything else known about matter?
What is everything that is known about matter? I don't feel like we know much about matter.
Scientific faith is not necessarily more justifiable. It is dependent on feedback. Under this principle religious faith can be more correct than scientific faith. But it is dogmatic.
While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.
An immediate example that comes to mind is the assertion that Adam was at the tail end of the evolution of man. And that his parents were not people.
Same difference, existing is something matter did, and does just like it does everything else, move, explode, divide, what-have-you. This artificial distinction essentially comes down do "matter can do nothing else by itself, except exist". SO "everything we know about matter shows that it does nothing without a cause, but we can assume that existing and coming to exist is without a cause". Theism expects matter is the same matter, doesn't change and become capable of doing stuff by itself just when it comes to existing.
There is this question in the subject you are responding to what logic says everything has a cause? What makes you so sure that is the case?
It has been asked a couple of times now. Saying everything has a cause is a confident assertion. There must be confident basis for this claim. What is it?
When I say matter itself, I mean its essence. As opposed to what happens to/with it. What logic says something made matter exist? Why can't it just exist like a certain entity, whose very existence is contentious.
Same difference. The distinction is artificial. What happens "with/to" matter is a description of matter "doing" and includes actually existing. Matter began to exist, this is not the only thing matter supposedly did by itself. This is theism. Atheism is that it is the one thing it did by itself.
Nothingness is absolute nothingness. It is not even potential. Not matter. Not anything at all. Nothing does...nothing. Because it is nothing. If it does something, it is not nothing. The claim here is that either:
a) Nothingness "did" something...made something exist.
or
b) Matter "did" something by itself, without any cause.
c) An entity that we merely insist exists without any justification "did" something by itself, without any cause.
Please just take 5 seconds and ask yourself if any of those sentences make any sense at all.
What happens with matter is not the same as what is matter. A bouncing ball is not the same thing as bouncing.
Atheism does not concern itself with the issue of whether matter began to exist or exists eternally. It's about an absence of belief in a deity.
Science on the other hand says something about the nature of the matter. The closest it comes to addressing the state of its existence is the principle of conservation of energy. It says it can neither be created nor destroyed.
I have added a third sentence. None of them makes any sense. The third one makes the least sense.
-
I don't know if matter has a cause. I know, or I am confident that some things that happen to it have apparent causes. And I could be utterly mistaken. What is your point?
My point is that you are capitulating on your so-called "O-lets-be-obejective and objective-is-predictability". I guess that was just a line, though.
What is everything that is known about matter? I don't feel like we know much about matter.
Here we go again, who accused you of knowing everything about matter? And since when did that become an obstacle to forming logical deductions about what we DO know? Science can dump theories and stick to collecting data then, and you can quit going on about the "scientific method" being the only "objective" way to know anything about reality.
Scientific faith is not necessarily more justifiable. It is dependent on feedback. Under this principle religious faith can be more correct than scientific faith. But it is dogmatic.
Irrelevant. We can start a debate on another thread about who is meaner than who, but on this thread and countless others, you have made claims that God is illogical. On the same basis, so is your science. If you are admitting that then hats off to you. :D
While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.
An immediate example that comes to mind is the assertion that Adam was at the tail end of the evolution of man. And that his parents were not people.
Excellent. First of all, that has nothing to do with "theism", which knows no Adam and Eve. Secondly, as soon as you show the "facts" this supposedly contradicts, you should be about ready to actually answer the question. :D
It has been asked a couple of times now. Saying everything has a cause is a confident assertion[/color]. There must be confident basis for this claim. What is it?
Indeed, there must. It's called simple basic logic, consistently proven in universal human experience. What is your justification for you "skepticism"? Why doesn't it kick in---this God-specific skepticism---when you are looking at scientific theories or any other area in your life, for that matter?
What happens with matter is not the same as what is matter. A bouncing ball is not the same thing as bouncing.
What is matter is not a relevant fact to how/why matter does anything. Existing is one of those things it does. If you like, did.
Atheism does not concern itself with the issue of whether matter began to exist or exists eternally. It's about an absence of belief in a deity.
Indeed. If anyone rationally considered that question, being an atheist would be out of the question.
Science on the other hand says something about the nature of the matter. The closest it comes to addressing the state of its existence is the principle of conservation of energy. It says it can neither be created nor destroyed.
And yet it WAS created. You call it the big bang, remember? :) Now, do you need science to give you permission to observe the universe, including what science discovers about it, and "notice" if something is consistent or not?
I have added a third sentence. None of them makes any sense. The third one makes the least sense.
First of all, this is false. The existence of this entity is an inference deductively drawn using the most consistently proven principle of rational thought: causality. On what basis did you to decide that something can come from nothing is a viable proposition? You are right that the two statements don't make sense, yet...excuse me, haven't you been making those arguments for 7 pages?
Now Something coming from nothing; it is admitted that this is senseless, yet the continued assertion that it being senseless must be proved. I am being asked to establish the self-evident. Nothingness is non-existence. It can do nothing...its just "not there", period! I being asked, "prove why non-existence cannot dance". In other words. "Prove that non-existence is non-existence". Non-existence is non-existence. It is not emptyness, or a vacuum...it AINT there. Now the demand that "prove what aint there can't do A, B, C, D..." Apparently this needs more proof than itself. Wonders never cease.
That we have something and not nothing, can only mean there was never a true non-existence. Matter could do nothing either, before it was there itself. Yet, something happened, for sure! Not only that, our own common experience tells us matter does nothing by itself, without a cause. So if we are about the so-called "objectivity", why decide with no facts to the contrary, that non-causality is the thing that went down? If someone is being consistent, shouldn't they assume causality until he has facts that give him justification to presume otherwise? Shouldn't this be presumed for the same reason any other theory is presumed?
-
I don't know if matter has a cause. I know, or I am confident that some things that happen to it have apparent causes. And I could be utterly mistaken. What is your point?
My point is that you are capitulating on your so-called "O-lets-be-obejective and objective-is-predictability". I guess that was just a line, though.
What is the basis for this new conclusion? It's not another one of those that is self-evident. No?
What is everything that is known about matter? I don't feel like we know much about matter.
Here we go again, who accused you of knowing everything about matter? And since when did that become an obstacle to forming logical deductions about what we DO know? Science can dump theories and stick to collecting data then, and you can quit going on about the "scientific method" being the only "objective" way to know anything about reality.
The question is asked in the context of the following linethen, what makes your "faith" more justifiable than the conclusion that the EVENT of matter coming to existence, is caused like everything else known about matter?
The idea that everything else known about matter known is caused. What is the basis for that confident assertion that there is an event of matter coming into existence? Why can't it just be there like this other supposed entity whose very being there is itself contentious? If this supposed entity is in fact a being, why won't it enjoy the same privileges of coming into existence assumed for others without justification?Scientific faith is not necessarily more justifiable. It is dependent on feedback. Under this principle religious faith can be more correct than scientific faith. But it is dogmatic.
Irrelevant. We can start a debate on another thread about who is meaner than who, but on this thread and countless others, you have made claims that God is illogical. On the same basis, so is your science. If you are admitting that then hats off to you. :D
It's irrelevant. It is a response to an irrelevant question. See the quote on the previous answer.
While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.
An immediate example that comes to mind is the assertion that Adam was at the tail end of the evolution of man. And that his parents were not people.
Excellent. First of all, that has nothing to do with "theism", which knows no Adam and Eve. Secondly, as soon as you show the "facts" this supposedly contradicts, you should be about ready to actually answer the question. :D
This was pulled from a debate on theistic evolution. It has plenty to do with theism.
The claim is that Adam was a human. And his parents were not. The idea that his parents were humans is abhorrent to a certain view point. If there are contradictions in there, no one but yourself raise the question. It's of no interest to me.
It has been asked a couple of times now. Saying everything has a cause is a confident assertion. There must be confident basis for this claim. What is it?
Indeed, there must. It's called simple basic logic, consistently proven in universal human experience. What is your justification for you "skepticism"? Why doesn't it kick in---this God-specific skepticism---when you are looking at scientific theories or any other area in your life, for that matter?
That would be cogent. Especially if everything is known about matter. Is everything known about matter?
My skepticism kicks in all the time. It can be tampered by feedback. That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.
What happens with matter is not the same as what is matter. A bouncing ball is not the same thing as bouncing.
What is matter is not a relevant fact to how/why matter does anything. Existing is one of those things it does. If you like, did.
What is the basis of the notion that it has not been doing what it does or existing for eternity? Why should the attribute of eternity be, without hesitation, be attributed to an entity whose mere existence is not even established?
Atheism does not concern itself with the issue of whether matter began to exist or exists eternally. It's about an absence of belief in a deity.
Indeed. If anyone rationally considered that question, being an atheist would be out of the question.
I have considered it. What about existence demands a deity?
Science on the other hand says something about the nature of the matter. The closest it comes to addressing the state of its existence is the principle of conservation of energy. It says it can neither be created nor destroyed.
And yet it WAS created. You call it the big bang, remember? :) Now, do you need science to give you permission to observe the universe, including what science discovers about it, and "notice" if something is consistent or not?
Someone should claim a Nobel Prize in physics if the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy. It shouldn't be that difficult.
I have added a third sentence. None of them makes any sense. The third one makes the least sense.
First of all, this is false. The existence of this entity is an inference deductively drawn using the most consistently proven principle of rational thought: causality. On what basis did you to decide that something can come from nothing is a viable proposition? You are right that the two statements don't make sense, yet...excuse me, haven't you been making those arguments for 7 pages?
Now Something coming from nothing; it is admitted that this is senseless, yet the continued assertion that it being senseless must be proved. I am being asked to establish the self-evident. Nothingness is non-existence. It can do nothing...its just "not there", period! I being asked, "prove why non-existence cannot dance". In other words. "Prove that non-existence is non-existence". Non-existence is non-existence. It is not emptyness, or a vacuum...it AINT there. Now the demand that "prove what aint there can't do A, B, C, D..." Apparently this needs more proof than itself. Wonders never cease.
That we have something and not nothing, can only mean there was never a true non-existence. Matter could do nothing either, before it was there itself. Yet, something happened, for sure! Not only that, our own common experience tells us matter does nothing by itself, without a cause. So if we are about the so-called "objectivity", why decide with no facts to the contrary, that non-causality is the thing that went down? If someone is being consistent, shouldn't they assume causality until he has facts that give him justification to presume otherwise? Shouldn't this be presumed for the same reason any other theory is presumed?
That is the mental gymnastics that I mention earlier on the thread. One conjures up premises whose existence is purely in their mind. and says since it sounds logical it must also be true. But it is only true in that mental exercise. The best evidence for the entity turns out to be nothing but a figment of the imagination.
What is there to stop one from creating premises that grant matter similar attributes to this entity?
-
I am going to sleep, before then a few things:
1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.
2) What is the basis for that confident assertion that there is an event of matter coming into existence?
I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. :o This is in contention too?
3)It's irrelevant. It is a response to an irrelevant question. See the quote on the previous answer.
You started by introducing religion "abhorring facts". That quote was my response to your irrelevant assertions.
4) This was pulled from a debate on theistic evolution. It has plenty to do with theism.
The claim is that Adam was a human. And his parents were not. The idea that his parents were humans is abhorrent to a certain view point. If there are contradictions in there, no one but yourself raise the question. It's of no interest to me.
Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.
How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.
5) That would be cogent. Especially if everything is known about matter. Is everything known about matter?
My skepticism kicks in all the time. It can be tampered by feedback. That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.
HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! :D "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?
6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?
7) That is the mental gymnastics that I mention earlier on the thread. One conjures up premises whose existence is purely in their mind. and says since it sounds logical it must also be true. But it is only true in that mental exercise. The best evidence for the entity turns out to be nothing but a figment of the imagination.
What is there to stop one from creating premises that grant matter similar attributes to this entity?
Conjures is such a strong word. What premises are conjured? That non-existence is non-existence? You've been making so many fatwas on this thread. apparently you think you don't need to demonstrate your own assertions besides mere claim. Calling a logical principle "imagination" is rich. Why on earth do you bother thinking at all? Just observe. That way you will be safe from figments of imagination.
What stops one from attributing immateriality, timelessness, self-causation to the material, temporal universe that came from nothing? Why, logic of course! You know, that "figment of the imagination".
-
I am going to sleep, before then a few things:
1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.
Do you have a link to the source of this claim? You might want to share that so that I can treat this confident assertion with a little more respect.
2) What is the basis for that confident assertion that there is an event of matter coming into existence?
I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. :o This is in contention too?
The big bang is generally considered the beginning of space-time. There is plenty of speculation what happens prior that event. Including the suggestion that there was nothing. Science is not religion. Contention does not and should not spur the same level of controversy it would in religion.
3)It's irrelevant. It is a response to an irrelevant question. See the quote on the previous answer.
You started by introducing religion "abhorring facts". That quote was my response to your irrelevant assertions.
You made a baseless claim that I said scientific faith is more justified than religious faith. That irrelevant assertion corrects your baseless claim.
4) This was pulled from a debate on theistic evolution. It has plenty to do with theism.
The claim is that Adam was a human. And his parents were not. The idea that his parents were humans is abhorrent to a certain view point. If there are contradictions in there, no one but yourself raise the question. It's of no interest to me.
Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.
How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.
It is relevant. It has plenty to do with theism. Because it tries to tie in the theory of evolution with a deity. In fact, it talks of guided evolution by the same deity.
It ends up with Adam probably being sired and born by beasts(for lack of a better term).
5) That would be cogent. Especially if everything is known about matter. Is everything known about matter?
My skepticism kicks in all the time. It can be tampered by feedback. That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.
HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! :D "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?
We can draw conclusions where it is justified. You want to record that I mention that a lot of events have fairly well known causes. I do this at least once. Maybe more.
Is there anything to justify the assertion that matter is created? If anything there is a scientific principle that forbids that. The law of conservation of energy. Evolution is an interesting if irrelevant topic on this particular question.
6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?
What's the evidence for that claim? That said, there are plenty of scientific theories on everything. I would not put much stock in the fact that I have never heard of BVG. Maybe they have the answer. But I don't know it. It's the nature of the discipline.
An uncomfortable terrain. If one craves authority.
7) That is the mental gymnastics that I mention earlier on the thread. One conjures up premises whose existence is purely in their mind. and says since it sounds logical it must also be true. But it is only true in that mental exercise. The best evidence for the entity turns out to be nothing but a figment of the imagination.
What is there to stop one from creating premises that grant matter similar attributes to this entity?
Conjures is such a strong word. What premises are conjured? That non-existence is non-existence? You've been making so many fatwas on this thread. apparently you think you don't need to demonstrate your own assertions besides mere claim. Calling a logical principle "imagination" is rich. Why on earth do you bother thinking at all? Just observe. That way you will be safe from figments of imagination.
What stops one from attributing immateriality, timelessness, self-causation to the material, temporal universe that came from nothing? Why, logic of course! You know, that "figment of the imagination".
It is imagination. Especially the premises.
The basic point I am making is I am sure the premises are chosen to support the conclusions. The entity rests on the logical construct created by the premises. Themselves insulated from the intrusion of any other information not in the premise.
The only thing that stops one from attributing those things you attribute to a supernatural to material is personal disinclination. It just can't be. Why not?
-
Another way to consider the question.
If one is looking for a candidate to fill a position. The logical thing is to search the local area. The region. Country. Then maybe the rest of the world. It's considered illogical to do it the other way round.
The point being made here. If one is looking for candidates for eternity, one has a ready made one in matter. You can literally sink your teeth into it.
Matter brings warts and zits to the table. The occasional new puzzles that require one to reconsider premises. It can intrude a comfort zone with new information.
Yet, the growth of knowledge often demands that one goes out of their comfort zone. Comfort zone equals stagnation of knowledge.
-
I mention the use of favorable assumptions to come up with a logical requirement for a deity.
What's the point? Separation of logical constructs from reality or approximations of it.
Suppose that matter has a beginning as asserted elsewhere on the thread. Then it is not entirely illogical to suggest that a non material entity created it.
If I understand the argument well, then there is no limit to the nature of what creates the material as long as it is not material.
The creator maybe created. Or not. There is nothing in the above logic to suggest either way.
It follows that the logic also says nothing on whether this creator is the only uncreated entity. Or whether the non-material domain is infested with uncreatables.
Mental logical constructs are great tools. Like any tools they are not immune to misuse. More importantly they not equal to the objective reality, truth, facts, things...
They are capable of replacing reality when abused. This is observed when scientists get carried away by mathematical models and start to treat them as if they are in fact reality.
-
I am going to sleep, before then a few things:
1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.
Do you have a link to the source of this claim? You might want to share that so that I can treat this confident assertion with a little more respect.
Now, hang on, just a minute. Which part of this assertion is being doubted? Your claim that the scientific method is the only objective means of knowledge, or your claim that predictability is the way to know things in this world?
2) I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. :o This is in contention too?
The big bang is generally considered the beginning of space-time. There is plenty of speculation what happens prior that event. Including the suggestion that there was nothing. Science is not religion. Contention does not and should not spur the same level of controversy it would in religion.
The reference to what science is and religion still puzzles me. Who cares what controversy which would spawn? The issue is where the matter stands as far as science goes. First, its more than a "speculation", as it stands, there is nothing to counter the theorem from what I've read. If you are aware, I'd like to see these other alternative suggestions, since you seem to have more awareness of it than the world's leading theorists and physicists. Since you are not a scientist and neither am I, I will trust what scientific sources say. And what they say is that any universe that expands, or any universe attached to one that expands at any rate more than 0, starts at a singularity, which means an absolute beginning, without any physical reality prior. Not any multiverse, bouncing universe or whatever. This is despite whether this singularity happened at the big bang or the emergence of the multiverse or oscillating universe or whichever other imaginary universe theorized to have caused this universe. All it needs is expansion. This is the only fact it depends on. So far, the flaw in that theorem is yet to be found.
Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.
How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.
It is relevant. It has plenty to do with theism. Because it tries to tie in the theory of evolution with a deity. In fact, it talks of guided evolution by the same deity.
Again, what FACTS do you have that contradict this? I don't much care whether you believe in souls or not or whether you agree with my guided evolution or not. Your claim was about FACTS and how they are abhorred...it is the facts abhorred that I seek. Never knew Evolution had anything to say about souls or Adam and Eve, but by Golly, there's a first time for everything.
It ends up with Adam probably being sired and born by beasts(for lack of a better term).
My question, why on earth do you care whether these things are beasts or fully human to theists? What has that got to do with the facts you proclaimed? What has it got to with evolution as a scientific subject? Does evolution care about whether those things are regarded or beasts or kindred souls? ? Maybe the dictionary definition for facts will help.
5) That would be cogent. Especially if everything is known about matter. Is everything known about matter?
My skepticism kicks in all the time. It can be tampered by feedback. That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.
HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! :D "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?
We can draw conclusions where it is justified. You want to record that I mention that a lot of events have fairly well known causes. I do this at least once. Maybe more.
Is there anything to justify the assertion that matter is created? If anything there is a scientific principle that forbids that. The law of conservation of energy. Evolution is an interesting if irrelevant topic on this particular question.
My word! There's a scientific principle that forbids science from making a conclusion that physical reality began at an absolute point 0 which in fact is the latest scientific finding? Shouldn't someone have told Hawking this before he tried to explain the universe coming to existence from nothing using only gravity precisely because of this finding? All this time, he could've been using energy and the fact that science prohibits physicists from daring to suggest that energy had an absolute beginning from nothing, unbeknownst to him. Sounds like a religious dogma, that. Have to say. And the thing that justifies such a reading, as you ask, is causality. It is only your faith that somehow something elsewhere happens causeless. Besides you faith, all happenings are known to have causes. This is the basic assumption underneath all scientific inquiry in fact. It has been consistently established, and as soon as we find things happening causeless, only faith in atheism will have people assuming otherwise for the beginning of the universe from nothing or for any other unexplained thing.
6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?
What's the evidence for that claim? That said, there are plenty of scientific theories on everything. I would not put much stock in the fact that I have never heard of BVG. Maybe they have the answer. But I don't know it. It's the nature of the discipline.
An uncomfortable terrain. If one craves authority.
Ask physicists. I am not one, and not about to claim that I have more knowledge than them on their area of expertise. What I know, you have stumbled on a secret they don't know about. Here they are trying to come up with explanations for the BVG theorem, yet its no more than a figment of some overactive imagination. Seem like such silly people!
It is imagination. Especially the premises.
The basic point I am making is I am sure the premises are chosen to support the conclusions. The entity rests on the logical construct created by the premises. Themselves insulated from the intrusion of any other information not in the premise.
The only thing that stops one from attributing those things you attribute to a supernatural to material is personal disinclination. It just can't be. Why not?
Please find how that logic works for a material reality. And pin-point this false premise, while at it. This is the kind of demonstration I mean. You simply declare that it can, and this is your argument. If it was so easy and works for everything--seems to be your claim--then you could easily do it. This is quite simply logic and if it is circular you can point out the chicken/egg in the reasoning. There is no premise here that is conjured from thin air. It is simply based on understanding what non-existence is. And is not hard either. It is as simple as non-existence is not the same thing as existence. Pure and simple! You would have us believe that non-existence has properties and behaviors. That's what everything you say comes down to. And that's what the basic logic you are fighting against simply denies. If it has properties and behaviors, it is not nothing. It just cant be---why not? Here is the thing again: Non-existence cannot or be anything, something that is not there cannot do anything. Is this the "why not" you are referring to? For which you seek an answer?
There is plenty to stop any discerning person from attributing to material reality attributes of the immaterial cause. It requires understanding that material reality would have to exist in order to bring itself to existence: The chicken-egg logic if I ever saw one. We don't have to witness it to know circular logic to be falsehood, either. The assumption is that reality is not illogical. That's all the faith one needs. And all that the word "immaterial" in immaterial cause means is something ELSE. Something that actually exists independently of the event in question from which time, space, matter and yes, ENERGY, come. In fact, its properties as timeless, spaceless, matterless (or immaterial) are just ways of saying something "else."
-
I am going to sleep, before then a few things:
1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.
Do you have a link to the source of this claim? You might want to share that so that I can treat this confident assertion with a little more respect.
Now, hang on, just a minute. Which part of this assertion is being doubted? Your claim that the scientific method is the only objective means of knowledge, or your claim that predictability is the way to know things in this world?
2) I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. :o This is in contention too?
The big bang is generally considered the beginning of space-time. There is plenty of speculation what happens prior that event. Including the suggestion that there was nothing. Science is not religion. Contention does not and should not spur the same level of controversy it would in religion.
The reference to what science is and religion still puzzles me. Who cares what controversy which would spawn? The issue is where the matter stands as far as science goes. First, its more than a "speculation", as it stands, there is nothing to counter the theorem from what I've read. If you are aware, I'd like to see these other alternative suggestions, since you seem to have more awareness of it than the world's leading theorists and physicists. Since you are not a scientist and neither am I, I will trust what scientific sources say. And what they say is that any universe that expands, or any universe attached to one that expands at any rate more than 0, starts at a singularity, which means an absolute beginning, without any physical reality prior. Not any multiverse, bouncing universe or whatever. This is despite whether this singularity happened at the big bang or the emergence of the multiverse or oscillating universe or whichever other imaginary universe theorized to have caused this universe. All it needs is expansion. This is the only fact it depends on. So far, the flaw in that theorem is yet to be found.
Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.
How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.
It is relevant. It has plenty to do with theism. Because it tries to tie in the theory of evolution with a deity. In fact, it talks of guided evolution by the same deity.
Again, what FACTS do you have that contradict this? I don't much care whether you believe in souls or not or whether you agree with my guided evolution or not. Your claim was about FACTS and how they are abhorred...it is the facts abhorred that I seek. Never knew Evolution had anything to say about souls or Adam and Eve, but by Golly, there's a first time for everything.
It ends up with Adam probably being sired and born by beasts(for lack of a better term).
My question, why on earth do you care whether these things are beasts or fully human to theists? What has that got to do with the facts you proclaimed? What has it got to with evolution as a scientific subject? Does evolution care about whether those things are regarded or beasts or kindred souls? ? Maybe the dictionary definition for facts will help.
5) That would be cogent. Especially if everything is known about matter. Is everything known about matter?
My skepticism kicks in all the time. It can be tampered by feedback. That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.
HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! :D "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?
We can draw conclusions where it is justified. You want to record that I mention that a lot of events have fairly well known causes. I do this at least once. Maybe more.
Is there anything to justify the assertion that matter is created? If anything there is a scientific principle that forbids that. The law of conservation of energy. Evolution is an interesting if irrelevant topic on this particular question.
My word! There's a scientific principle that forbids science from making a conclusion that physical reality began at an absolute point 0 which in fact is the latest scientific finding? Shouldn't someone have told Hawking this before he tried to explain the universe coming to existence from nothing using only gravity precisely because of this finding? All this time, he could've been using energy and the fact that science prohibits physicists from daring to suggest that energy had an absolute beginning from nothing, unbeknownst to him. Sounds like a religious dogma, that. Have to say. And the thing that justifies such a reading, as you ask, is causality. It is only your faith that somehow something elsewhere happens causeless. Besides you faith, all happenings are known to have causes. This is the basic assumption underneath all scientific inquiry in fact. It has been consistently established, and as soon as we find things happening causeless, only faith in atheism will have people assuming otherwise for the beginning of the universe from nothing or for any other unexplained thing.
6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?
What's the evidence for that claim? That said, there are plenty of scientific theories on everything. I would not put much stock in the fact that I have never heard of BVG. Maybe they have the answer. But I don't know it. It's the nature of the discipline.
An uncomfortable terrain. If one craves authority.
Ask physicists. I am not one, and not about to claim that I have more knowledge than them on their area of expertise. What I know, you have stumbled on a secret they don't know about. Here they are trying to come up with explanations for the BVG theorem, yet its no more than a figment of some overactive imagination. Seem like such silly people!
Conjures is such a strong word. What premises are conjured? That non-existence is non-existence? You've been making so many fatwas on this thread. apparently you think you don't need to demonstrate your own assertions besides mere claim. Calling a logical principle "imagination" is rich. Why on earth do you bother thinking at all? Just observe. That way you will be safe from figments of imagination.
What stops one from attributing immateriality, timelessness, self-causation to the material, temporal universe that came from nothing? Why, logic of course! You know, that "figment of the imagination".
It is imagination. Especially the premises.
The basic point I am making is I am sure the premises are chosen to support the conclusions. The entity rests on the logical construct created by the premises. Themselves insulated from the intrusion of any other information not in the premise.
The only thing that stops one from attributing those things you attribute to a supernatural to material is personal disinclination. It just can't be. Why not?
Please find how that logic works for a material reality. And pin-point this false premise, while at it. This is the kind of demonstration I mean. You simply declare that it can, and this is your argument. If it was so easy and works for everything--seems to be your claim--then you could easily do it. This is quite simply logic and if it is circular you can point out the chicken/egg in the reasoning. There is no premise here that is conjured from thin air. It is simply based on understanding what non-existence is. And is not hard either. It is as simple as non-existence is not the same thing as existence. Pure and simple! You would have us believe that non-existence has properties and behaviors. That's what everything you say comes down to. And that's what the basic logic you are fighting against simply denies. If it has properties and behaviors, it is not nothing.
There is plenty to stop any discerning person from attributing to material reality attributes of the immaterial cause. It requires understanding that material reality would have to exist in order to bring itself to existence: The chicken-egg logic if I ever saw one. We don't have to witness it to know circular logic to be falsehood, either. The assumption is that reality is not illogical. That's all the faith one needs. And all that the word "immaterial" in immaterial cause means is something ELSE. Something that actually exists independently of the event in question from which time, space, matter and yes, ENERGY, come. In fact, its properties as timeless, spaceless, matterless (or immaterial) are just ways of saying something "else."
I want to see something that supports the claim that you are making. A link. Maybe a combination of links. A logic trail. Something better than you've been saying this the last seven pages. I want to understand what you are saying in this quoted piece. I want to see if it has any basis.
In my opinion, science and religion both rely on faith to arrive at conclusions. The differences are in their readiness to change premises in light of new information. One will stick with a premise to the end, regardless of what new information suggests. The other will change.
Whether one is right or wrong is not the issue. It is the difference in approach. At any given time, a dogmatic position can in fact be more correct than a scientific one. The difference. The dogmatic position will not improve. The scientific one is guaranteed to improve every time new information is accommodated. Change is the difference.
About the controversy bit. Science has no infallible claims. There is no pope in science. At any given time, there are usually several competing theorems with differing degrees of acceptance. When you say there is nothing to counter a theorem, I have no choice but to agree with you that you don't know the first thing about the scientific method.
What's your basis for trusting certain scientific sources and not others, if you do not understand what they are saying? Does it explain a previous observation that lacked an explanation? Dark matter perhaps? Or is it just personal preference?
What is a singularity? Is it a point with infinite density? Has any singularity ever been proven to exist in the real world? Are you ready to abandon your position, if this theorem is shown to be wrong?
My views on guided evolution shouldn't matter. Agreed. I use the evolutionary Adam example as an example of how a religious approach differs from a scientific one.
A scientific approach will reconsider the premise if it arrives at a parent belonging to a different species than the offspring.
A religious approach will not. It adds more qualifications to support the premise. Something that can lead to interesting conclusions.
The only information this conveys is a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is. Read the response to your second point on this post. Hawkings in not God. He is not the pope. He is not the best guy in his professional field. Neither of this matters.
What is absolute point 0? I don't know anything that suggests that energy has an absolute beginning from nothing.
The only absolute faith I have. Is that we don't know everything. I go from there. If I say everything has a cause, then I claim to know how everything comes about. Yet I don't. Read up on argument from ignorance. That is how you are arguing.
Quantum foam is generally considered real(as far as scientific models go). What causes quantum foam? Do you know? BGV? Hawkings?
The first law of thermodynamics is a secret only to communities living deep in the Amazon forest of the Congo. Physicists do not spend their time trying to counter religious dogmas. They investigate, hypothesize, gather data, test...there is no time to discuss God. Except perhaps when Stephen Hawkings delves into the subject. That said, they are not themselves demi-gods.
Logical constructs are wonderful tools. But they do not equate to objective reality. They are only as good as their premises. Can you share some premises that your theism conclusions rest on? The existence thing sounds very complicated.
-
I want to see something that supports the claim that you are making. A link. Maybe a combination of links. A logic trail. Something better than you've been saying this the last seven pages. I want to understand what you are saying in this quoted piece. I want to see if it has any basis.
Yep, that's what you say. You make many claims left and right, O that can work for anything, therefore it's wrong! Without actually attacking the argument itself. Then you think simply stating "I'm trying to understand" is a point. Do you think you don't have a remote duty to logically demonstrate your own claims?If you say an argument is illogical, it should be quite easy to demonstrate how, I do that all the time.
In my opinion, science and religion both rely on faith to arrive at conclusions. The differences are in their readiness to change premises in light of new information. One will stick with a premise to the end, regardless of what new information suggests. The other will change.
Whether one is right or wrong is not the issue. It is the difference in approach. At any given time, a dogmatic position can in fact be more correct than a scientific one. The difference. The dogmatic position will not improve. The scientific one is guaranteed to improve every time new information is accommodated. Change is the difference.
This is just tiresome So the hell what? Do you have facts that disprove theism? If so, then your point is valid (though irrelevant to this discussion), because then you can point to the facts and how theism has "abhorred" or failed to account for them. A contradiction somewhere in reality, and not in your imagination, between theism and facts, you show that and your point is valid. otherwise, its just an arbitrary statement you make just assuming it somehow advances your arguments.
About the controversy bit. Science has no infallible claims. There is no pope in science. At any given time, there are usually several competing theorems with differing degrees of acceptance. When you say there is nothing to counter a theorem, I have no choice but to agree with you that you don't know the first thing about the scientific method.
More irrelevancies. I very well know how science works. It may shock you but atheists don't have the market cornered on it. So save it, please. You started this discussion with long rants (sermons?) on the scientific method being our only objective means to attain to knowledge of actual reality. It is science that has reached a consensus that physical reality had an absolute beginning, with 0 physical reality before. I say 0, to make the point that nothing physical exists prior, not even your precious energy. There is no current model that escapes this theorem. One may show up in future, who knows, but that is not the current state of affairs.
What's your basis for trusting certain scientific sources and not others, if you do not understand what they are saying? Does it explain a previous observation that lacked an explanation? Dark matter perhaps? Or is it just personal preference?
Ask yourself this question. As far as I know, your energy principle is no problem to this theorem and its implications and has not been posited as one, that's just something lay believers like you think is the magic silver bullet that the physicists and cosmologists have been lost on. That's the point I was making. Your claim that energy or ANY physical component of the universe cannot be created may be true only within physical reality itself, says nothing of the actual existence of that reality, which energy is merely a part of.
What is a singularity? Is it a point with infinite density? Has any singularity ever been proven to exist in the real world? Are you ready to abandon your position, if this theorem is shown to be wrong?
A singularity is an absolute beginning. That is it. The point beyond which there is no time, space, matter or energy...NOTHING. Last I checked, density is not nothing and is a physical reality.
[/color]My views on guided evolution shouldn't matter. Agreed. I use the evolutionary Adam example as an example of how a religious approach differs from a scientific one.
A scientific approach will reconsider the premise if it arrives at a parent belonging to a different species than the offspring.
A religious approach will not. It adds more qualifications to support the premise. Something that can lead to interesting conclusions.
Nice dodge. You claimed my position "abhors facts", I asked you to point out which facts are supposedly abhorred, then you came up with this ridiculous example. Catholic belief that humans have souls and when these souls might have existed. As if science has anything remotely to say about such. Even now, those facts that are claimed to lace science above theism are still missing, just a figment of someone's imagination, pun intended.
The only information this conveys is a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is. Read the response to your second point on this post. Hawkings in not God. He is not the pope. He is not the best guy in his professional field. Neither of this matters.
What is absolute point 0? I don't know anything that suggests that energy has an absolute beginning from nothing.
More irrelevancies. If you are genuinely claiming to know nothing of one of the most significant cosmological findings in the last decade, I will find sources and post them here. I fully appreciate your hesitance to believe me, my doubt is that I have mentioned this to you before and I am pretty sure you are not that new to it.
The only absolute faith I have. Is that we don't know everything. I go from there. If I say everything has a cause, then I claim to know how everything comes about. Yet I don't. Read up on argument from ignorance. That is how you are arguing.
How amazing for you! Welcome to the rest of the human race who know they don't know everything. Though I gather you said that thinking it makes you special or adds to your arguments.
Quantum foam is generally considered real(as far as scientific models go). What causes quantum foam? Do you know? BGV? Hawkings?[/color]
Don't know, don't care. What I care about is that this theorem says the WHOLE of physical reality, the entire space-time, with all its contents, pop into existence from absolutely no pre-existent physical reality. Does your foam theory add anything to that?
The first law of thermodynamics is a secret only to communities living deep in the Amazon forest of the Congo. Physicists do not spend their time trying to counter religious dogmas. They investigate, hypothesize, gather data, test...there is no time to discuss God. Except perhaps when Stephen Hawkings delves into the subject. That said, they are not themselves demi-gods.
And the claim that this law disproves the BVG theorem would be news to any cosmologist out there. But I guess you can always nudge them in the right direction.
Logical constructs are wonderful tools. But they do not equate to objective reality. They are only as good as their premises. Can you share some premises that your theism conclusions rest on? The existence thing sounds very complicated.
I guess you were unable to show that the simple argument that nothing does nothing can be applied to say matter is eternal etc etc, as you claimed when you were supposedly refuting it? Nor even to show the premises you claimed were being dreamed up?
Come to think of it, this conversation has made me appreciate just how much faith atheism really depends on. I always knew it, but its really come home to me in a fresh way. If an adult hominid can believe that non-existence does things, exactly what will he not believe in? After all, if you can say that the whole universe can pop into existence from nothing without something causing it, just what cannot happen? Seems everything is possible! Not only that, it is said that logic alone should not be a basis for any sort of conclusion or belief without it being observed in facts.. In this universe, even a "square circle" shape is possible, or a "blue-colorless" color. A reality based on a circular argument, the chicken laying the egg, which hatches the same chicken...none of it can be over-ruled, because it has not actually been observed that it cannot happen. Huh? A universe can pop up in my toilet tomorrow, for all I know, or a flying spaghetti monster that sings, right in my living room as I have my breakfast. Or my beloved pink unicorn. After all, if anything can pop into existence for no reason, then anything can pop into existence for no reason! There's simply no point even of assuming that gravity will work the same tomorrow, just because it has the last billions of times. It's all very colorful, like the Wizard of Oz, yet it drives the point home that when some atheists go around talking bout what beliefs are supposedly illogical, it is little different than a naked person laughing at people in shorts for showing too much flesh.
-
I want to see something that supports the claim that you are making. A link. Maybe a combination of links. A logic trail. Something better than you've been saying this the last seven pages. I want to understand what you are saying in this quoted piece. I want to see if it has any basis.
Yep, that's what you say. You make many claims left and right, O that can work for anything, therefore it's wrong! Without actually attacking the argument itself. Then you think simply stating "I'm trying to understand" is a point. Do you think you don't have a remote duty to logically demonstrate your own claims?If you say an argument is illogical, it should be quite easy to demonstrate how, I do that all the time.
In my opinion, science and religion both rely on faith to arrive at conclusions. The differences are in their readiness to change premises in light of new information. One will stick with a premise to the end, regardless of what new information suggests. The other will change.
Whether one is right or wrong is not the issue. It is the difference in approach. At any given time, a dogmatic position can in fact be more correct than a scientific one. The difference. The dogmatic position will not improve. The scientific one is guaranteed to improve every time new information is accommodated. Change is the difference.
This is just tiresome So the hell what? Do you have facts that disprove theism? If so, then your point is valid (though irrelevant to this discussion), because then you can point to the facts and how theism has "abhorred" or failed to account for them. A contradiction somewhere in reality, and not in your imagination, between theism and facts, you show that and your point is valid. otherwise, its just an arbitrary statement you make just assuming it somehow advances your arguments.
About the controversy bit. Science has no infallible claims. There is no pope in science. At any given time, there are usually several competing theorems with differing degrees of acceptance. When you say there is nothing to counter a theorem, I have no choice but to agree with you that you don't know the first thing about the scientific method.
More irrelevancies. I very well know how science works. It may shock you but atheists don't have the market cornered on it. So save it, please. You started this discussion with long rants (sermons?) on the scientific method being our only objective means to attain to knowledge of actual reality. It is science that has reached a consensus that physical reality had an absolute beginning, with 0 physical reality before. I say 0, to make the point that nothing physical exists prior, not even your precious energy. There is no current model that escapes this theorem. One may show up in future, who knows, but that is not the current state of affairs.
What's your basis for trusting certain scientific sources and not others, if you do not understand what they are saying? Does it explain a previous observation that lacked an explanation? Dark matter perhaps? Or is it just personal preference?
Ask yourself this question. As far as I know, your energy principle is no problem to this theorem and its implications and has not been posited as one, that's just something lay believers like you think is the magic silver bullet that the physicists and cosmologists have been lost on. That's the point I was making. Your claim that energy or ANY physical component of the universe cannot be created may be true only within physical reality itself, says nothing of the actual existence of that reality, which energy is merely a part of.
What is a singularity? Is it a point with infinite density? Has any singularity ever been proven to exist in the real world? Are you ready to abandon your position, if this theorem is shown to be wrong?
A singularity is an absolute beginning. That is it. The point beyond which there is no time, space, matter or energy...NOTHING. Last I checked, density is not nothing and is a physical reality.My views on guided evolution shouldn't matter. Agreed. I use the evolutionary Adam example as an example of how a religious approach differs from a scientific one.
A scientific approach will reconsider the premise if it arrives at a parent belonging to a different species than the offspring.
A religious approach will not. It adds more qualifications to support the premise. Something that can lead to interesting conclusions.
Nice dodge. You claimed my position "abhors facts", I asked you to point out which facts are supposedly abhorred, then you came up with this ridiculous example. Catholic belief that humans have souls and when these souls might have existed. As if science has anything remotely to say about such. Even now, those facts that are claimed to lace science above theism are still missing, just a figment of someone's imagination, pun intended.
The only information this conveys is a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is. Read the response to your second point on this post. Hawkings in not God. He is not the pope. He is not the best guy in his professional field. Neither of this matters.
What is absolute point 0? I don't know anything that suggests that energy has an absolute beginning from nothing.
More irrelevancies. If you are genuinely claiming to know nothing of one of the most significant cosmological findings in the last decade, I will find sources and post them here. I fully appreciate your hesitance to believe me, my doubt is that I have mentioned this to you before and I am pretty sure you are not that new to it.
The only absolute faith I have. Is that we don't know everything. I go from there. If I say everything has a cause, then I claim to know how everything comes about. Yet I don't. Read up on argument from ignorance. That is how you are arguing.
How amazing for you! Welcome to the rest of the human race who know they don't know everything. Though I gather you said that thinking it makes you special or adds to your arguments.
Quantum foam is generally considered real(as far as scientific models go). What causes quantum foam? Do you know? BGV? Hawkings?
Don't know, don't care. What I care about is that this theorem says the WHOLE of physical reality, the entire space-time, with all its contents, pop into existence from absolutely no pre-existent physical reality. Does your foam theory add anything to that?
The first law of thermodynamics is a secret only to communities living deep in the Amazon forest of the Congo. Physicists do not spend their time trying to counter religious dogmas. They investigate, hypothesize, gather data, test...there is no time to discuss God. Except perhaps when Stephen Hawkings delves into the subject. That said, they are not themselves demi-gods.
And the claim that this law disproves the BVG theorem would be news to any cosmologist out there. But I guess you can always nudge them in the right direction.
Logical constructs are wonderful tools. But they do not equate to objective reality. They are only as good as their premises. Can you share some premises that your theism conclusions rest on? The existence thing sounds very complicated.
I guess you were unable to show that the simple argument that nothing does nothing can be applied to say matter is eternal etc etc, as you claimed when you were supposedly refuting it? Nor even to show the premises you claimed were being dreamed up?
Come to think of it, this conversation has made me appreciate just how much faith atheism really depends on. I always knew it, but its really come home to me in a fresh way. If an adult hominid can believe that non-existence does things, exactly what will he not believe in? After all, if you can say that the whole universe can pop into existence from nothing without something causing it, just what cannot happen? Seems everything is possible! Not only that, it is said that logic alone should not be a basis for any sort of conclusion or belief without it being observed in facts.. In this universe, even a "square circle" shape is possible, or a "blue-colorless" color. A reality based on a circular argument, the chicken laying the egg, which hatches the same chicken...none of it can be over-ruled, because it has not actually been observed that it cannot happen. Huh? A universe can pop up in my toilet tomorrow, for all I know, or a flying spaghetti monster that sings, right in my living room as I have my breakfast. Or my beloved pink unicorn. After all, if anything can pop into existence for no reason, then anything can pop into existence for no reason! There's simply no point even of assuming that gravity will work the same tomorrow, just because it has the last billions of times. It's all very colorful, like the Wizard of Oz, yet it drives the point home that when some atheists go around talking bout what beliefs are supposedly illogical, it is little different than a naked person laughing at people in shorts for showing too much flesh.
A singularity without infinite density. Do you at least want to share the source of this claim?
-
This is my last post in this thread. If anyone is interested, and you are a lay person like myself, here's a layman's explanation of the BVG theorem and its implications in modern cosmology. I knew I hadn't dreamt it up in a bad dream:
Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
The big bang may not have been the beginning of everything – but new calculations suggest we still need a cosmic starter gunYOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At themeeting of minds convened last week tohonour Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday- loftily titled "State of the Universe" - two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see " Naked black-hole hearts live in the fifth dimension"). The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.
While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.
For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. Perhaps surprisingly, these were also both compatible with the big bang, the idea that the universe most likely burst forth from an extremely dense, hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.
His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today. This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same. Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).
But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."
Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is acyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning. Cyclic universes have an "irresistible poetic charm and bring to mind the Phoenix", says Vilenkin, quoting Georges Lemaître, an astronomer who died in1966. Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe's disorder, again the figures didn't add up. Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists - nothing like the one we see around us.
One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn't increase, so needn't reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere. Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed - and therefore also after a finite amount of time. "This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe," Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."
This article is copied from scribd; but it is a new scientist article for which you need subscription and I am not paying for it: Here https://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/Why-Physicists-Can-t-Avoid-a-Creation-Event and Here http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event.html Thank God for copyright infringers, though. :D
Yep, they are talking about a true beginning of the universe, or put differently, a finite (in time) universe, not eternal in the past; which is why its dubbed a creation event in the article. I knew I hadn't imagined it. Neither the multiverse nor the big bang nor any other imaginary universes invented yet escape the beginning. For those who like to get their teeth into the meat. You can read several papers of Valenkin on the origin of the universe if you just google. George Elliot lectures on youtube also explaining an absolute beginning to time and physics (space-time and all its contents). Enjoy! :D
-
You said a singularity has no infinite density. Which part of your link, highlights and quotes supports that claim?
Does a finite universe in the time dimension demand a beginning? A sphere is finite. Can one know where it begins?
That said, thanks for sharing BGV. It is one, among a competing slew of models.
You say none of the others can touch it. To move forward. Let's suppose that it is true. And not merely a model like scientific constructs. And that it predicts a beginning of time or creation.
1. How does one get from that event to a deity?
2. What prevents it from being just a different realm? Metaphysical but not a disembodied spirit(deity)?
3. What informs the notion this realm itself must be uncreated?
-
We can trace the beginning through distance. If we can travel 4.5 billion years, we see the whole of Earth's history.
A sphere is grooved. Each groove can be mapped.
Back in the day we were closer to the gods, which means the gods are out there away from us at present as per our history. We go further than 4.5 billion years, further than our solar system, we could gain an artefect of things beyond. I think however the answer isn't always about reconstructing evidence. We are a product of that universe, it should be in our dna.
-
We can trace the beginning through distance. If we can travel 4.5 billion years, we see the whole of Earth's history.
A sphere is grooved. Each groove can be mapped.
Back in the day we were closer to the gods, which means the gods are out there away from us at present as per our history. We go further than 4.5 billion years, further than our solar system, we could gain an artefect of things beyond. I think however the answer isn't always about reconstructing evidence. We are a product of that universe, it should be in our dna.
A logical sphere can be perfectly smooth though.
I will concur, that if we are to increase our knowledge, we want to look at things in this universe. Including DNA. We've barely scratched the back yard.
Conversely, the surest way to guarantee the knowledge does not grow, is to put an arbitrary boundary on things with illogical constructs.
-
No sphere is smooth. It's as smooth as our lack of technology in detecting grooves. This is exactly why we are limited in tracing history.
In our dna holds answers. We've done more than surface scratches, we're starting to use it as a weapon.
Logic binds itself. It's a product of truth discursions and arbitrarily corrects itself. Itself is a product of history which can be traced to Plato according to human history. That doesn't mean nature knew before humans. We humans are illogical.