I recently had a bit of a soiree (more of a skirmish, actually) here, and it got ridiculous fairly quickly.
Fellow by the name of niran (interestingly enough, the name translates in Thai to 'eternal' - hmmm, sounds like a vested interest) - and it would be amusing, if it weren't so common in the blogosphere.
Came blaring on from another blog, laid out his premises, and when there wasn't an instant response, tried to derive victory from a lack of reply.
Typical.
From then on, said theist began trying to (what I call) dictating the premises.
Swearing was indicative of an inability to debate, he kept dragging out the Hilbert Hotel analogy, and began gloating at length about his 'triumph' (not that there was any to be found).
Most folks just walked away in disgust. He brought no evidence: he changed definitions to suit his purpose: name-dropped a number of atheists, and talked smack FOR them: all sorts of adolescent folderol.
Here's where he screwed the pooch:
Brilliant, no? Still want to continue this utterly unscientific tomfoolery? I'll try and say this politely. I've no problem with the conservation of energy. Your deductions however based on conservation of energy violate the law of conservation of matter. That means.... the deductions are wrong!! You said matter can be destroyed. If you read the above definition, you'll realise that it cannot. Name calling doesn't take away from the fact that your position is just plain wrong. It's just bad science, that's all. Pick up the pieces and fight another day mate. You've been destroyed.
Not only is the claim that I was 'utterly destroyed' bad form, but matter can indeed be destroyed. I did stipulate (several times, in fact) that energy can't be destroyed, but no matter (pun intended) how often I pointed out that the two weren't the same, this daft fellow kept equivocating like mad.
The only error I made (that I can tell), was that I tried to stay strictly within the bounds of thermodynamics, employing the KIS principle (Keep It Simple). So I began digging around elsewhere.
Surprise! I was right.
"This leads to a different equation for continuum dynamics, as compared with general relativity. For a perfect fluid, this alternative dynamics predicts tenuous amounts of matter production or destruction, by a reversible exchange with the gravitational field. This exchange is completely determined by the dynamical equation and the scalar equation of the gravitational field. In contrast, the usual equation for relativistic continuum dynamics allows matter production only if some additional field is assumed, and the production rate must be phenomenologically postulated."
And:
"Matter can be created and destroyed in accordance to Einstein's equation E=mc^2.
This requires a re-think of the Principle of Conservation of Energy...
Energy can not be created or destroyed it changes from one form to another (which includes mass).
As for atoms having a life span, radioactive atoms certainly do have a life span, but non-radioactive atoms appear to have an infinite life... unless protons start decaying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/proton_deca... but their half-life is approximately 10^32 years... some 10^22 times older than the universe."
Oh, and here as well:
"Physicist Charles Seife defines zero-point energy as: "The energy caused by the spontaneous creation and destruction of subatomic particles, even in the deepest vacuum. It is a prime suspect for the cause of the cosmological constant.""
Let's just never mind the atomic bomb, or perhaps any matter that enters a sun's corona, no?
Oh, and one more:
"Cosmic rays, he has time & again told the world, are born of the creation of matter in interstellar space. Last week in London, before most of the world's greatest physicists, Dr. Millikan was ready to admit, and did admit, that cosmic rays seem to be offspring of destruction as well as of creation."
I believe those four examples will be sufficient for now. I feel inordinately (but not insufferably) proud of myself, and I can rest easy, knowing that I put the kibosh on this nonsense.
Bis interimitur qui suis armis perit - He is doubly destroyed who perishes by his own arms. (Syrus)
200 comments:
As one of the people who walked away from Niran, and I am totally sure he evoked my silence as "victory" for his side, when it was merely exhaustion and recognition that the argument had become wholly circular with us repeating ourselves and him going, "Uh-uh! Science MIGHT be wrong, so I'll ignore it might be right and thus my premises are untouchable! Hilbert Hotel! Hilbert Hotel! I'll ignore that the universe isn't apparently infinite or a supertask!" But I'm sure he did crow about his "victory".
There's only so much a guy can take. As I said in my last post on Beep's journal, the person argued very dishonestly. He used double standards, the goalposts moved, he simply IGNORED arguments he couldn't answer (or, I suspect, understand; to me he really came off as someone parroting something he didn't quite get) all in support of an neo-Thomist argument that is basically the laughing stock of secular logicians.
Chris - yeah, he claimed you 'threw in the towel': apparently, he doesn't understand that bellowing 'victory' isn't the same thing as achieving it. I wish I could say that was uncommon, but it's not.
Far as I can tell, he & his friends are from other countries, where courtesy (to the point of obsequiousness) is coin of the realm.
I wish that currency worked here, but it doesn't.
As I said to beep! in another thread, he obviously considered himself the victor before he even began. The contempt was obvious from the start.
When he collects a Nobel prize in physics, I might be more inclined to listen.
Anyways, I've notified him (as best I could) that he's been deposed from the debate throne.
So he might be by.
*snickers* I didn't throw in the towel, I just heard the last bell ring. ;)
Well, if he does come by, he might be able to squeeze a few more posts out of me, but I'm not sure about that. I feel you're right -- he came in "sure" about his victory and he wasn't going to let mere facts stand in the way of that. ;)
Hey, I'm just quoting a law of science at you. And any theory put forward by anyone fails if it violates a scientific law. So here's my question to you, "Do you think the Law of Conservation of mass is wrong?" If you do not, then you have been destroyed. Here is my challenge, tell me that the law of conservation of matter is wrong, or that if it is in need of restatement - what is the restatement?
The point is that the conservation laws work together. Energy can be converted to matter and matter can be converted to energy, but the two remain equivalent right throughout. To recast this as creation of matter would entail that you also posit that energy could be created, something that you don't like to do. This equivalence is great, because it shows that matter and energy both exist in time. Of course, you already believe this. So an actual infinite bound in time become impossible, since you have railed about, but not demonstrated the falsity of the Great Hilbert Hotel.
So before you go off shooting your mouth in a lost cause(ie the denying of scientific law) why don't you sit back and have a good think about the conservation laws and how it fits in with the grand scheme of things.
Niran,
Because you are are stupid, I am going to call you as such. You are stupid.
One of the multifaceted ways you're stupid is that you speak about things you don't know anything about, or, worse, you know a few buzzwords.
See, one of the vital differences between religion and science is that science doesn't even need to be right about everything all the time. What has religion done for people? Really done for them. Very little. Science, on the other hand, has done more for humans -- in terms of medical science, agriculture, technology -- than religion could dream of doing. And the pace of scientific change continues to accelerate, while religion (and your neo-Thomist argument) remains stagnant.
So, even if the laws of thermodynamics are wrong -- and I do not think they're wrong, any more than I think that the Newtonian laws of gravity are wrong, merely incomplete, which is normal for science, and unremarkable -- you STILL would be stuck because what replaces the laws of thermodynamics will be, get this, more science, more materialistic science without reference to supernatural powers, and your god will have shrunk to an even SMALLER gap.
Also, your logic is literally laughable. Outside of whacky religious circles, no one takes it seriously. I won't go into the reasons, because I have in the past and you'll just repeat yourself, too, but except amongst a smallish number of theologian presuppositionists looking for a reasonable sounding argument for their sky pixie repeating literally Aristotelian arguments . . . well, you're a laughingstock, and have been since Hume.
So, this is me, laughing at you and your poor, pathetic delusions that require you to seek out scientific legitimacy for your silly little mysticism.
But . . . A for endurance! You've got a troll's might.
niran:
So here's my question to you, "Do you think the Law of Conservation of mass is wrong?"
It's both right AND wrong. You keep trying to level these things to some monochromatic dichotomy: it just ain't so cut 'n dried.
Energy can be converted to matter and matter can be converted to energy, but the two remain equivalent right throughout.
That's simply not always true. You keep invoking them like they're immutable, & it'll occur in the same fashion every way.
Under certain conditions, entropy can almost be brought to a standstill.
To recast this as creation of matter would entail that you also posit that energy could be created, something that you don't like to do.
Ummm...I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the post? Read it again. This time, digest it. Research it.
I'm giving you a chance to bow out gracefully here - you'd best take it.
Seriously.
Chris, you don't have an argument there that's relevant to this debate, so i guess I'll have to ignore it. This is not about the relative utility of science v religion. Name calling is just lame man. Kind of demonstrates a kind of inability to actually proffer a half decent argument. The strange thing is that when the theist invokes science, the non theist just says "oh science will change and prove you wrong some day." That's patently ridiculous because then we won't have any scientific leg to stand on. You'll have to discard science from the debate altogether, since it's going to be proved wrong. No problem with me.
Krystalline, man you're pissed. You guys have got very very angry over the last few days. What's up. Might want to pour out your problems with a shrink. "Mrs xxx. I can't stand this. A guy from a war torn third world nation just destroyed me and gave me a science lesson. Boo hoo. I've become an angry person. What can I do???"
"It's both right AND wrong."
Haha, that's a good one. is it right until it becomes inconsistent with your little illogical fantasies.
"That's simply not always true. You keep invoking them like they're immutable,"
Well if the two laws of conservation are not constant and can be wrong at times, then it follows that the conservation of energy law is not constant either, and can be right and wrong. However this would kind of destroy your fundamental point because then energy could be created and does not have to be infinite.
But all this is irrelevant in a way, because you've already conceded that energy is bound by time. So, what rational argument do you have to debunk my inference from the HHotal analogy?
"But all this is irrelevant in a way, because you've already conceded that energy is bound by time."
Energy is bound by time. There is no evidence of energy outside of time. To propose that something exists outside of time, is to infer that energy is NOT bound by time.
Unless, of course, the something you propose has no energy, is powerless, impotent and has an incorporeal foreskin collection.
The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Temporal Series
Craig's wrong.
The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Temporal Series
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2nfycn
(It's a long URL, so I shortened it.)
niran:
Krystalline, man you're pissed. You guys have got very very angry over the last few days. What's up. Might want to pour out your problems with a shrink. "Mrs xxx. I can't stand this. A guy from a war torn third world nation just destroyed me and gave me a science lesson. Boo hoo. I've become an angry person. What can I do???"
Oh, wow: you’re a high school student, aren’t you? Of all the puerile efforts to diagnose me, that’s about the worst one yet. You’re just some jackass on the blogosphere, junior.
When I figured out you were some teenager from a 3rd world country, I tried to be nice. Apparently, religious folks see kindness as weakness. What a surprise.
Haha, that's a good one. is it right until it becomes inconsistent with your little illogical fantasies.
You theists. It’s ALWAYS A or B. Can’t be both, huh?
Your lack of education is showing.
Well if the two laws of conservation are not constant and can be wrong at times, then it follows that the conservation of energy law is not constant either, and can be right and wrong. However this would kind of destroy your fundamental point because then energy could be created and does not have to be infinite.
Some forms of energy and matter can be destroyed, sure. We’re not talking exnihilation here.
But all this is irrelevant in a way, because you've already conceded that energy is bound by time. So, what rational argument do you have to debunk my inference from the HHotal analogy?
I conceded that space is bound by time. The 2 are interlocked. Never said that about energy.
I don’t care much for the Hotel analogy, because it uses a finite concept to explain away infinity. It sounds suspiciously like Maxwell’s demon, but I could be off on that.
niran:
I've provided 4 examples in the post, about matter/energy & their capacity to be destroyed (you're being WAY to literal w/that word, BTW). So let's do this: please show me how each of them are incorrect.
That is, if you can restrain that humongous ego of yours.
I'm listening.
Niran,
Oh, please, PLEASE, ignore me! I can't WAIT to be ignored by you.
Indeed, I wish religious people were, in fact, content to ignore the non-religious. But . . . well, by inspection, you're not. You care how we think, how we live, how we fuck, who we fuck, and are willing to force your inane sky pixie religion off on us.
The only shining cloud to all of this is that, y'know, uh, you're doing stuff like trying to argue discredited neo-Thomist/Aristotelian arguments that have been the butt of jokes in the philosophical community since Hume (who I've noticed you've said NOTHING about, not even to tear him down, which I find interesting, tho' I suspect it's just based on ignorance -- there aren't many websites that sum up Hume with soundbites you could use to misrepresent him, like you have with science). No, seriously, laughingstock. When I was doing the philosophy gig, we'd make fun of the guys who actually believed the worn out Arisotelian arguments, no matter their neo-Thomist garb, because the arguments are so obviously and so deeply flawed. (Y'know, the whole baseless authority thing, claiming to know the origins of the universe when is clear we don't really know much about it. None of Aristotle's presumptions about the universe were correct, via inspection, so his premises, even if properly formed are therefore flawed. Just like yours.)
KA thinks you're a teenager. I suspect that's the case. I hope so. Because if you are, in a few years you're going to look back at this phase of your life with deep regret and shame. When you're able and willing to discuss things like an adult, c'mon back. ;)
Niran obviously believes that the desire to insult someone is predicated by anger. He sure doesn't know much about australians if he believes that furphy. :)
BBIM - it's a language tool: sometimes, how they field it is an insight into that person.
He obviously argues in circles (pun intended) where it's bad form to make jokes, have a real personality, etc.
I cuss 'cause I'm from the US (free speech), & sometimes I feel obliged to call a spade a god damned shovel (Merv Pumpkinhead).
I agree.
And I can deliberately insult someone and not feel angry with them at all.
(The fact is, that he has hoped from the outset that we would be angry, the poor little mite - and has tried to go out of his way to make it so. )
He whined and complained when someone insulted him after his agenda was to try and make people insult him in the first place. Then, he attempted to claim the high moral ground after calling "fire in a crowded building."
He can whine all he wants. He isn't a man, he is a boy.
Niran: - "Mummy, mummy - those atheists said horrible things to me!"
Niran's mummy: -" Well, what did you say to them?
Niran: "Nothing mummy, I am a good little boy. I was humble, polite and considerate at all times."
A Pig's arse you were.
Beep, I defer to your superior knowledge of the contours of a pig's arse.
I have no problem with insults, it's just that random swearing and racial insults a la prison inmates or ex cons is not my favourite way of doling out insults, neither is it the chosen genre of the people I associate with. Wit, humourous insults and a healthy dose of verbal thrust and parry and double entendre is delightful. The type of thing you guys engage in is , to put it mildly, the kind of style you'd find amongst some random street gang. I see no virtue or element of fun in that. Those types are just angry with the world and swearing and cheap insults is their way of venting their feelings when they aren't blowing someone's head off. You guys resort to the same thing when you can't defend your position in an argument. I don't mind, the more angrier you get, the more I know I'm getting under your skin!
Krystalline, great culture of freedom of speech you guys have over there. Where calling a black man clean and articulate is a problem! And where a University official almost loses his job because he recalled some stats that men were better at math than women.
Bradley, maybe if you spent more time thinking of rebuttals to the theist arguments that laughing at them, you would have been able to make a dent in my argument. The fact that you rely on your cute little giggle sessions to demonstrate the validity of your point suggests you have nothing of substance to offer.
Niran,
Dent? I oblitered your argument. Well, no, actually, Hume obliterated your argument. I just modestly updated him as I swung the wrecking ball.
Niran: you have no argument. Your argument is a joke. Your premises are false, and if you're such a hotshot at logic, you'd know that a properly constructed logical argument built on false premises is a false argument. Instead, you parrot neo-Thomist nonsense without the least idea of what you're actually saying.
I mean, do you know who Hume is? What a neo-Thomist is? What constitutes a true premise? I do not think you have your Ps and Qs straight (that's philosopher human, BTW, and I'm sure it is going STRAIGHT over your head). Do you know the difference between verifiable and falsifiable? Do you know why no one outside computer programmers and some mathematicians sort of roll their eyes at the Law of the Excluded Middle?
You have demonstrated knowledge on NOTHING. You are a parrot, and not even a particularly bright one. My rubber ducky knows more about logic than you do.
"Men don't whine about being insulted by a woman."
Shoot right ahead Beep. I find it kind of fun. The one about the pigs bottom was a good one yah...
Bradley, ok, I get the point. You're pissed off. Take a chill pill and relax man. It's just an argument Yes, I have heard and read around Hume.
See, you can't help it. You know you are wrong, but you keep on coming. Oh well. No sweat here mate.
"You theists. It’s ALWAYS A or B. Can’t be both, huh?
Your lack of education is showing."
Not if A and B are mutually inconsistent. A law cannot be right and wrong at the same time. That's patently ridiculous.
"I conceded that space is bound by time. The 2 are interlocked. Never said that about energy."
You did-
"Matter is composed of energy. Energy (& matter) occupy space, ergo, all energy (& matter) by the transitive value, is bound by time.
There is simply NOTHING that isn't shackled by the chains of time."
"Some forms of energy and matter can be destroyed, sure. We’re not talking exnihilation here. "
Oh really In which case you're talking conversion. Which is not destruction. Mother tongue, mother tongue- wonder what your mother's tongue was up to?
One positive when it comes to debating pseudo science theists like Niran, is the fact that it makes us skeptics learn a lot more about physics, etc., than we would have normally. It isn't like debunking Noah's Ark story.
Niran, do you believe in Ark story btw?
Krystalline, great culture of freedom of speech you guys have over there. Where calling a black man clean and articulate is a problem! And where a University official almost loses his job because he recalled some stats that men were better at math than women.
I don’t recall either of those events. But hey, people make mistakes.
Not if A and B are mutually inconsistent. A law cannot be right and wrong at the same time. That's patently ridiculous.
Let me phrase this another way: the speed limit for the freeways in California hardly apply to a driver on the Autobonn.
You did-
I stand corrected.
Oh really In which case you're talking conversion. Which is not destruction.
The word destroy translates to:
1. To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
2. To tear down or break up; demolish. See synonyms at ruin.
3. To do away with; put an end to: “In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness” (George Bernard Shaw).
4. To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
5. To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
6. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.
I didn’t say annihilate: I said destroy. I provided 4 examples, which I note that you’re studiously avoiding addressing. I’d really like to see you debunk Millikan or Seife, if you please.
Mother tongue, mother tongue- wonder what your mother's tongue was up to?
See, now I’d never, EVER make a comment about your mama. & you compare us to street thugs. Go figure.
Classy.
"I don’t recall either of those events. But hey, people make mistakes."
Biden I think about Obama about a couple of months back, and Larry Summers- President of Harvard. You're particularly out of touch for a California boy.
"I provided 4 examples, which I note that you’re studiously avoiding addressing. I’d really like to see you debunk Millikan or Seife, if you please."
So tell me, do these guys refer to energy being annihilated or converted. What form of destruction are they talking about. It seems to me that they're talking about the conversion of energy to matter and vice versa. If they are as reputed as you seem to think they are, then maybe they would have not posited a theory that violated the laws of conservation of energy and matter.
"See, now I’d never, EVER make a comment about your mama. & you compare us to street thugs."
Oh that was not about your mama. It was about your mother tongue :-)Look who's got all sensitive. If the hat fits though, I won't stop you from wearing it. Glad to know that you think there's a line you won't cross though, freedom of speech and the expression of personality notwithstanding.
Niran,
If I'm pissed off, why am I laughing at you? ;) I'm not pissed, I'm amused.
And if you know Hume so well, explain to me why Hume's annihilation of the neo-Thomist position is wrong?
I will repeat my other questions, too:
What a neo-Thomist is? What constitutes a true premise? I do not think you have your Ps and Qs straight (that's philosopher human, BTW, and I'm sure it is going STRAIGHT over your head). Do you know the difference between verifiable and falsifiable? Do you know why no one outside computer programmers and some mathematicians sort of roll their eyes at the Law of the Excluded Middle?
"And if you know Hume so well, explain to me why Hume's annihilation of the neo-Thomist position is wrong? "
And why can't you explain to me why Hume's position is in fact an annihilation of the neo Thomist position. Oh, let me guess, you giggled through the lecture.
"What a neo-Thomist is? What constitutes a true premise? I do not think you have your Ps and Qs straight (that's philosopher human, BTW, and I'm sure it is going STRAIGHT over your head). Do you know the difference between verifiable and falsifiable? Do you know why no one outside computer programmers and some mathematicians sort of roll their eyes at the Law of the Excluded Middle?"
You want a debate right? So why don't you provide the answers that you think are correct, and I'll tell you whether I agree with you. :-)
Btw, you do accept the law of non contradiction and the law of identity don't you?
niran:
Biden I think about Obama about a couple of months back, and Larry Summers- President of Harvard. You're particularly out of touch for a California boy.
I don’t pay much attention to every little brouhaha where somebody somewhere gets their panties in a twist over some imagined slight. Both of those ring a vague bell. There are more important issues than every little ‘politically correct’ phrase.
So tell me, do these guys refer to energy being annihilated or converted. What form of destruction are they talking about. It seems to me that they're talking about the conversion of energy to matter and vice versa. If they are as reputed as you seem to think they are, then maybe they would have not posited a theory that violated the laws of conservation of energy and matter.
So you’re admitting that I did indeed use the term correctly? Thanks.
Oh that was not about your mama. It was about your mother tongue :-)Look who's got all sensitive. If the hat fits though, I won't stop you from wearing it. Glad to know that you think there's a line you won't cross though, freedom of speech and the expression of personality notwithstanding.
Including the ‘incestuous’ crack you made on the other blog? Graceless is your middle name, it seems.
Freedom of speech & the expression of personality is not an absolute – you don’t get to say & do anything you bloody well please. There are limits to just about everything: I can give you some real-world examples in that regard as well.
I imagine all your ‘intellectual’ debate buddies are cringing at your sophomoric semantic crudities at this point.
Oh, 1 more question: how old do YOU think the universe is? Yes/no, please.
In a fire, what is defined as being a book is destroyed. We literally say that the book was destroyed by fire. This is because what is left no longer resembles a book, or is useful as a book. This statement in itself, does not imply that mass and energy is destroyed.
BBIM - that's what I meant. I even gave Niran an example, did I not?
& people claim atheists are irrational. Go figure.
But that example does not prove that the laws of conservation are violated or that they have been proved wrong.
"I don’t pay much attention to every little brouhaha where somebody somewhere gets their panties in a twist over some imagined slight."
People have lost their jobs over these slights dude. The point is that it is institutionalized, and Americans are of the most sensitive people around.
"Including the ‘incestuous’ crack you made on the other blog? Graceless is your middle name, it seems."
Proves my earlier point, oh graceful defender of free speech and the right to randomly swear off at people.
I didn't just call you incestuous, you jumped up and down with the 'mother tongue' assertion. I just punned on the words. Poor you.
"Freedom of speech & the expression of personality is not an absolute – you don’t get to say & do anything you bloody well please. There are limits to just about everything: "
Actually the test in the US is clear and present danger. At least that is the limitation standard imposed by Courts on the first.
KA:
I agree. That is wy I posted it. Hopefully so niran would get the message.
niran:
I don't see how your freedom of speech has been infringed at all. People disagreeing with you, isn't an infringement on your freedom of speech.
niran:
But that example does not prove that the laws of conservation are violated or that they have been proved wrong.
No, it doesn’t. Doesn’t mean they’re universal, either.
People have lost their jobs over these slights dude. The point is that it is institutionalized, and Americans are of the most sensitive people around.
No argument there.
Proves my earlier point, oh graceful defender of free speech and the right to randomly swear off at people.
I didn't just call you incestuous, you jumped up and down with the 'mother tongue' assertion. I just punned on the words. Poor you.
Yeah, you got a lotta class. Too bad all of it’s low.
Actually the test in the US is clear and present danger. At least that is the limitation standard imposed by Courts on the first.
& you just proved my point. Thanks.
niran:
And your point is?
Sri Lanka has more freedom of speech?
The rule of thumb is this: -
If a theist can use a scientific theory or law and treat it as an absolute to try and make their case for gawd; they will do so. For the rest of the time, science and the scientific method is as suspect to them as "evilution."
Cherry-pickers, the lot of them.
Scientists at the Australian National University (ANU) have carried out an experiment involving lasers and microscopic beads that disobeys the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, something many scientists had considered impossible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm
BBIM - wow, that's amazing.
So on miniature & macro scales, the laws change, maybe don't even apply.
The more I learn, the more I realize:
if the universe belonged to a political pole, it'd be liberal.
Because all is relative.
"No, it doesn’t. Doesn’t mean they’re universal, either."
And if they aren't universal, your deduction from the first law to energy existing for infinity is also dodge. You can't claim universality of the conservation of energy and non universality of the conservation of matter.
"Yeah, you got a lotta class. Too bad all of it’s low."
Suits me in an argument with you doesn't it? I noticed you've stopped swearing. Maybe you realized that just littering your comments with profanities doesn't make you manly, nor witty. What goes around comes around...
"Sri Lanka has more freedom of speech?"
No certainly not. HR protections are awful over here. But people are more willing to shrug off an insult, and less willing to swear randomly at people. Word play and harmless punning is all common fare. Proves two things. Just because you swear doesn't mean you're any more manly and capable of taking an insult. And just because the legal regime protects certain rights doesn't mean that the culture is tolerant of free speech.
"I don't know how they do things in Sri Lanka, but here in the US, you can get popped in the mouth for crap like that."
See what I mean.
niran:
And if they aren't universal, your deduction from the first law to energy existing for infinity is also dodge. You can't claim universality of the conservation of energy and non universality of the conservation of matter.
Well, primary assumption is that there’s got to be SOME kind of energy floating about. I’m not talking about an either/or proposition here: the more I explore, the more I find it filled w/grey areas. Did you read the post, ‘Opening the Doors of Misperception?’ I’m fairly dazzled by some of the more counter-intuitive branches that open up in the exploration of physics. I repeat, since you have comprehension difficulties: what a law is in some places is not a law in others. I said that energy is infinite: I however, didn’t say WHICH kind of enery is. Lacking a degree in physics, I can’t say for certain what that might be. I leave that to better minds than mine own. As should you. But don’t hand me this dichotomy crap, as if any of it’s written in stone.
Suits me in an argument with you doesn't it? I noticed you've stopped swearing. Maybe you realized that just littering your comments with profanities doesn't make you manly, nor witty. What goes around comes around...
Oh, I get it: I hurt your wittwe feewings. So you felt obliged to take a cheap shot at my mother? What’s next, some sophomoric guesses at my sex life? Some people’s kids, I tell ya.
I don’t think swearing makes anybody better than anyone, nor the lack thereof. Comments about someone’s mother, however, is a clear concise look into the actual maturity of an individual.
Grow up, junior.
No certainly not. HR protections are awful over here. But people are more willing to shrug off an insult, and less willing to swear randomly at people. Word play and harmless punning is all common fare. Proves two things. Just because you swear doesn't mean you're any more manly and capable of taking an insult. And just because the legal regime protects certain rights doesn't mean that the culture is tolerant of free speech.
There’s the ‘manly’ thing again: yeesh, are you overcompensating, or what? BBIM’s not a man: I am, & there’s no dearth of people over here who pepper their speech w/about every 3rd word being ‘fuck’. (Oh, oops, did I upset your delicate sensibilities w/that? I’m every so sorry, you mook.)
See what I mean.
You’re missing the point entirely. There are cultural restraints in any country, certain things you JUST DON’T DO. Like touching someone’s head w/your foot, in Thailand. Calling someone an animal in some Euro countries are fighting words. I guess mothers are held in low esteem in Sri Lanka, or maybe incestuous relations w/them are smiled upon?
If you bridled at that last part, you ken my drift.
Yeah, last time I looked, I was definitely female.
"I repeat, since you have comprehension difficulties: what a law is in some places is not a law in others. I said that energy is infinite: I however, didn’t say WHICH kind of enery is."
Ya, but your conclusion that energy is infinite according to you, flows from the conservation of energy. This means that you think energy, whatever form it takes, cannot be destroyed. If you think this law is still not universal and absolute, then your inference is unjustified. There's no way out of this for you. If you affirm the law(even if in particular circumstances only) you contradict yourself and if you deny it, what are you saying? Laws can apply differently at times I guess, but that makes it impossible to base one's argument on their universality.
"Oh, I get it: I hurt your wittwe feewings."
I'm not the one who's just hurting about the mother tongue jibe. Seems like I hit a sore spot.
"I guess mothers are held in low esteem in Sri Lanka, or maybe incestuous relations w/them are smiled upon?
If you bridled at that last part, you ken my drift."
Well, anyone takes offense at a jibe only if it touches a nerve. If you insult my mother, I'll laugh it off. The word motherfucker is almost common fare all over the world. If you're insecure about what your mother is actually like, or where her tongue has been, you'd start crying about a jibe and threaten to bash people up. If the cap fits, wear it.
My grouse with your profanities was not the cultural insensitivity of it all. It was an observation that a sudden bout of swearing is indicative of some latent anger that was released. Habitual swearers who swear to substitute a normal word or who do so for effect are not a problem.
You want a debate right? So why don't you provide the answers that you think are correct, and I'll tell you whether I agree with you. :-)
I did explain it to you. I mentioned FOUR THINGS that suggest that that things DO come from NOTHING. You never explained where they came from. The best you came up with is, y'know, maybe science is wrong. Well, maybe it's right. If you can't demonstrate -- PROVE -- that science is wrong, you must accept that it might be right. Therefore, you can't use it as a premise in a logical proof. We just don't know.
You want a debate right? So why don't you provide the answers that you think are correct, and I'll tell you whether I agree with you. :-)
Translation: I don't know or too gutless to say because I don't want to display my ignorance.
This is one of those cheap rhetorical tricks that fucktards use. Rather than advancing their own position, they'll wait to the other person advances THEIR position merely to critique it.
Btw, you do accept the law of non contradiction and the law of identity don't you?
What do you mean, accept? I accept nothing as absolutely true, merely as more or less useful. I accept that the law of non-contradiction and law of identity have some use in certain branches of logic and mathematics, but I don't think that they are some sort of absolute, perfectly true idea. I think all forms of logic are a tool, and sometimes it's the wrong tool.
So, for instance, in quantum physics, all quanta are considered identical -- the same particle -- if they are at the same energy state. In real science, identity and contradiction as understood by logicians break down.
Which has been consistently my point, BTW. That logic isn't actually very good at explaining the world, which is what you're trying to do.
Niran,
I mean, take I, the square root of -1. It is mathematically -- and all mathematics is a system of formal logic -- impossible for a number to be multiplied by itself to be a negative number. Nevertheless, i, an irrational number, is vital to describe real phenomenon. For literally a century, science was stalled because mathematicians accepted the logic that a squared number not being negative was possible. It was on INSPECTION that they discovered that the universe cares scant little for human logic.
niran:
Ya, but your conclusion that energy is infinite according to you, flows from the conservation of energy. This means that you think energy, whatever form it takes, cannot be destroyed. If you think this law is still not universal and absolute, then your inference is unjustified. There's no way out of this for you. If you affirm the law(even if in particular circumstances only) you contradict yourself and if you deny it, what are you saying? Laws can apply differently at times I guess, but that makes it impossible to base one's argument on their universality.
Okay, now this is just getting ridiculous. I think I’ve explained this sufficiently, but you’re still demanding an absolute certitude. So you’re laying out a catch-22 here. Even if there are extenuating circumstances, they don’t count? So if the law(s) apply only to our solar system, they apply to the universe in toto? If the law(s) apply only on our median scale, but not on a macro- or micro-level – then they’re false altogether?
Do you see where this is going?
I'm not the one who's just hurting about the mother tongue jibe. Seems like I hit a sore spot.
I was over it yesterday. You however, can’t stop blathering about swearing, it seems.
Well, anyone takes offense at a jibe only if it touches a nerve. If you insult my mother, I'll laugh it off. The word motherfucker is almost common fare all over the world. If you're insecure about what your mother is actually like, or where her tongue has been, you'd start crying about a jibe and threaten to bash people up. If the cap fits, wear it.
I’d advise you wander about a local neighborhood, & start insulting strangers’ mother. I think you’ll be in for a bit of a shock, if you think my response was over the top.
I actually tried to discuss this w/you civilly.
Just try my advice, but wear a cup & maybe a mouth guard.
My grouse with your profanities was not the cultural insensitivity of it all. It was an observation that a sudden bout of swearing is indicative of some latent anger that was released. Habitual swearers who swear to substitute a normal word or who do so for effect are not a problem.
‘Sudden bout of swearing’. Wow, you know me not at all.
If you think that was a penetrating, in-depth observation, then I’d advise you take a class in Psychology 101.
But don’t try to make a living at it. You’ll starve.
"I did explain it to you. I mentioned FOUR THINGS that suggest that that things DO come from NOTHING."
No, you mentioned four things that for which we or any human does not know what the cause is. Very different to saying we know that it was not caused. I assume that science will find a cause and many atheists assume the same thing, so it's relatively non controversial.
"Rather than advancing their own position, they'll wait to the other person advances THEIR position merely to critique it."
The sword is double edged moron. You haven't advanced any position answering your own questions either... what does that make you fucktard?
"I accept nothing as absolutely true, merely as more or less useful."
Is that absolutely true? Because if it's not, what the fuck are you saying?
"That logic isn't actually very good at explaining the world, which is what you're trying to do."
And what logic compels you to come to that conclusion?
No, you mentioned four things that for which we or any human does not know what the cause is. Very different to saying we know that it was not caused. I assume that science will find a cause and many atheists assume the same thing, so it's relatively non controversial.
You assume wrong. I have said that, too. Many physicists -- and I know, quite personally, many physicists, as my wife is a physicists who works with other physicists, who are quite comfortable with something coming from nothing because that matches theory. And if you actually knew anything about stuff like dark energy and virtual particles, you'd know this. This is the standard position of physicists who study these things. Again, I am forced to say you're ignorant about that which you speak.
Your premises are quite questionable. It is NOT assumed that everything must have a "cause". Quite the opposite.
Is that absolutely true? Because if it's not, what the fuck are you saying?
That you're a moron, actually, who has no idea what you're talking about.
And what logic compels you to come to that conclusion?
The square root of negative one and hundreds of other historical examples where logic has blinded people to reality.
Is that absolutely true? Because if it's not, what the fuck are you saying?
What I SAID was, "I accept nothing as absolutely true, merely as more or less useful." I did not make a statement about truth, merely my beliefs regarding the truth. So, no, it's not absolutely true, just what I think is true, and it is incomplete and perhaps fully wrong. You don't seem to actually understand words.
Again, if you were half as clever as you are trying to come off, you'd know that what I think only has symbolic relationship to what is true. A thought is not reality, merely a model of reality, after all, of greater or lesser use.
"Do you see where this is going?"
Yes, you're trying to make a point about the non universality of a law, but are relying on its universality to make the same point. It is a catch 22 and you got yourself entangled in it. Makes you look a little foolish.
"I’d advise you wander about a local neighborhood, & start insulting strangers’ mother."
Why should I? Just to humour you...?
"You assume wrong. I have said that, too. Many physicists -- and I know, quite personally, many physicists, as my wife is a physicists who works with other physicists, who are quite comfortable with something coming from nothing because that matches theory."
Relying on good authority eh mate? Why don't horses, cars and humans pop out of nothing? Don't tell me that there are properties innate to these things that don't permit them to pop out, because the properties did not exist before the thing existed. Here's a quote from an atheist on Beep's blog
"Here we have another semantic trap. Because we cannot assign a cause, it does not follow logically that there is no cause. The limitations of quantum mechanics do not stop theorists from speculating wildly about the implications. Take the atom of radium-224 above. One cannot isolate it from all possible influences and observe its behavior under those conditions. One would have to postulate an atom-sized equivalent to a Dyson Sphere that would shield our atom from everything including Cosmic radiation to completely isolate it from any possible non-canceling forces exerted on its state of existence. Would an atom so isolated ever decay? Would it decay immediately? Would its behavior be unchanged and would a large enough sample size bear out the same behavior as expected above? No one can say one way or the other because the experiment cannot be constructed"
When science develops, I know that the cause will emerge, since many other mysterious magical phenomena has been explained by science.
"What I SAID was, "I accept nothing as absolutely true, merely as more or less useful."
If you don't accept that statement as absolutely true, then absolute truth could exist. The law of non contradiction screws you in the arse. If you deny truth exists, you affirm its truth.
"I asked you specific questions, and you answered my specific questions by asking me questions."
But your problem is with people who
"rather than advancing their own position, they'll wait to the other person advances THEIR position merely to critique it." Nothing about asking or answering questions there mate. You haven't advanced a position fucktard.
The sheer weight of logic silences you. Sorry. Go back to school mate.
this niran chap is clearly a moron. don't know why you guys waste time on someone like that. if ever there was an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, he is it.
I've been watching your argument and not saying anything, cos frankly it's over my head.
But I have a question that's been nagging at me about the Hilbert Hotel thing. It may just be over my head too, but maybe someone can help me out with it.
How can a hotel with infinite rooms be fully occupied? And why would one need to move an occupant from room 1 to room 2 and so on to settle in a new occupant? Couldn't one simply put the new occupant in a room at the other end of the infinite number of rooms? If there is an infinite number, isn't there always one available?
thanks.
The ppint is that an infinite hotel could not have ends, so there is no other end or boundary limit that can be stretched to accommodate additional guests. This is why you can't reach infinity through successive addition, because successive addition assumes boundaries, which are in turn inconsistent with the idea of infinity.
niran:
Yes, you're trying to make a point about the non universality of a law, but are relying on its universality to make the same point. It is a catch 22 and you got yourself entangled in it. Makes you look a little foolish.
As Chris has noted, quantum physics makes human logic look foolish.
Why should I? Just to humour you...?
If you don't understand what THAT meant, then anonymous is right: this is a waste of time.
The ppint is that an infinite hotel could not have ends, so there is no other end or boundary limit that can be stretched to accommodate additional guests. This is why you can't reach infinity through successive addition, because successive addition assumes boundaries, which are in turn inconsistent with the idea of infinity.
Which is why I thought it was lame in the 1st place.
niran
But if you move the occupant from room 1 to room to and so on to accomodate the new occupant, isn't that the same as successive addition? Why not place the new occupant in room 0 or -1?
niran
room 1 to room 2, I meant.
And how could an infinite hotel be "full"?
An interesting interpretation of my problem with the radioactive decay example.
Still, there is this confusion re. practical versus mathematical infinity. The number of grains of sand on Earth are said to be infinite because at any given moment, some are forming sandstone and some are being created by erosion. An actual count is impossible. Mathematical infinity is a logical limit, as is zero. Your hypothetical hotel would be in a constant state of construction, constantly approaching infinity by the continuous addition of rooms. At no time can one say it has arrived at infinity because infinity is not a quantity. At the same time, one can never say that the number of rooms is finite at any given moment if construction is constantly happening. You must remember to count fractions of rooms, which actual count changes with each fractional movement of the carpenter's hammer, ad nauseum. Might I just pause to say, "this is absurd", but if you want to imagine absurdities, you have to go all the way.
breakerslion - thanks for dropping by. Nice breakdown, BTW.
Can you imagine the hotel register? Fatter than all the Windows registries on all the PC's in the world combined.
Beep-
"As Chris has noted, quantum physics makes human logic look foolish."
What unadulterated rubbish. You lose at logic and so take refuge in the hitherto undiscovered, deeply complicated and imperfectly observed principles of quantum physics, which you yourself admitted is a field you have no particular specific knowledge in.
My response to that is " Do you think what you said was true?", because if you do you are making a logical statement.
I knew all along however that you weren't very happy with the laws of logic.
"If you don't understand what THAT meant, then anonymous is right: this is a waste of time."
Fantastic. Get obliterated in an argument and remind me of the definitions of 'you' and 'that' so that you're saying something and not nothing.
"Which is why I thought it was lame in the 1st place."
Sweet sound of concession. Glad I've convinced you.
Breakerslion-
"The number of grains of sand on Earth are said to be infinite because at any given moment, some are forming sandstone and some are being created by erosion. An actual count is impossible."
No one says that it is infinite as an actual statement. It's just loosely used as an expression to indicate that the number is very very large- hyperbole, and since as you point out an actual count is impossible. If at any given time it is a determinate amount, it cannot be infinite.
"At no time can one say it has arrived at infinity because infinity is not a quantity. At the same time, one can never say that the number of rooms is finite at any given moment if construction is constantly happening."
The first part of that statement is spot on. Doesn't it follow that what is not infinite is finite? I mean there cannot be an in between can there? Logically speaking.
karen-
"But if you move the occupant from room 1 to room to and so on to accommodate the new occupant, isn't that the same as successive addition?"
But how would you reach infinity this way? You can go on and on, but there will still be a number for the quantum of rooms occupied, 1,2,3,4...
niran:
What unadulterated rubbish. You lose at logic and so take refuge in the hitherto undiscovered, deeply complicated and imperfectly observed principles of quantum physics, which you yourself admitted is a field you have no particular specific knowledge in.
I lost, where? I’ve laid out premises, qualified my statements, & otherwise explained myself w/far more patience than you’ve credited me w/. I have 3 posts, where I’ve laid the groundwork. If you can’t do anything other than demand dichotomies, well then, you have my deepest sympathies.
I’m not taking ‘refuge’ in anything: I’m being honest. You could take a page from my book, couldn’t you?
My response to that is " Do you think what you said was true?", because if you do you are making a logical statement.
I said a great many things. Do I think that energy’s infinite? Until it can be proved w/a degree of certainty to be otherwise, I’ll have to say yes. Is ALL energy infinite? Not all. Can matter/energy be destroyed? You’ve already shot yourself in the foot w/that 1.
Limp away, limp away.
I knew all along however that you weren't very happy with the laws of logic.
No, I’m unhappy that the universe doesn’t conform to human logic. Doesn’t mean I invent a cosmic baby sitter to retrofit the whole shebang to my whimsy.
Fantastic. Get obliterated in an argument and remind me of the definitions of 'you' and 'that' so that you're saying something and not nothing.
Obliterated? When did that happen? Oh, rrriggghttt…that ephemeral moment of hubris, when you re-defined the word ‘destroyed’ on beep’s blog to suit your purpose, & then turned around & re-defined it yet again on mine.
If this is what Christianity does to the ‘logical’ mind, I want no part of it.
Sweet sound of concession. Glad I've convinced you.
Oh, do stop w/your incessant ego-masturbation.
Nice job of representing you’re doing here, I might add.
You Sinhalese?
I have no idea why niran addressed any of that to me. Maybe his logic let him down.
Niran having disproven the possibility of "infinity" in his own mind, -
(No one says that it is infinite as an actual statement. It's just loosely used as an expression to indicate that the number is very very large- hyperbole, and since as you point out an actual count is impossible. If at any given time it is a determinate amount, it cannot be infinite.)
- then goes on to claim his gawd as infinite.
Yes, I know niran, gawd is allowed to be infinte because you say so.
niran
"But how would you reach infinity this way?"
How can you reach infinity period? Infinity is ever expanding, as breakerslion explained above. If you reach it, it is finite.
Am I missing something?
"How can you reach infinity period? Infinity is ever expanding, as breakerslion explained above. If you reach it, it is finite."
I don;t think you've missed anything Karen. Infinity cannot be reached. An infinite entity cannot have been caused, and cannot be bound by time. because if it started to exist it is bound by one and, and so it can't be infinite. If its bound by time, it's bound on this end. That's why the universe cannot be infinite. We've reached the outer end of time so to speak, as we speak.
Krystaline-
"I’ve laid out premises, qualified my statements, & otherwise explained myself w/far more patience than you’ve credited me w/."
Yes, you've picked and chosen which scientific law works for you. Conservation of energy you accept without any problem. But when Conservation of matter slaps you in the face, you claim its just another scientific law and can be right AND wrong. That was the line of the debate I must say. Of course, the line that logic has been disproved by quantum science comes close.
"Do I think that energy’s infinite? Until it can be proved w/a degree of certainty to be otherwise, I’ll have to say yes."
But your only positive proof is a law that you think is not absolute and is subject to change at various time.
"Can matter/energy be destroyed? You’ve already shot yourself in the foot w/that 1."
No, you have. You denied the conservation of matter and confused conversion with destruction remember.
"Obliterated? When did that happen?"
Right when you asserted with absolute certainty that the Laws of Science can be right and wrong and Logic has been replaced with these right and wrong pendulum scientific laws.
I'm Tamil.
You white?
niran:
Yes, you've picked and chosen which scientific law works for you. Conservation of energy you accept without any problem. But when Conservation of matter slaps you in the face, you claim its just another scientific law and can be right AND wrong. That was the line of the debate I must say. Of course, the line that logic has been disproved by quantum science comes close.
Umm…no, your reading comprehension must be getting impacted by your extreme bias.
It can be right in certain aspects, & wrong in others. Did you read beep’s link? Where entropy is reversed on a microscopic level? Chris’ assertion about matter pops into existence? The zero-energy article I linked to.
But your only positive proof is a law that you think is not absolute and is subject to change at various time.
Yeah, frustrating ain’t it?
No, you have. You denied the conservation of matter and confused conversion with destruction remember.
Caught you. You’re a liar. On beep’s blog, I posited that matter could be destroyed. I gave you the example of what I meant. You claimed destroyed = annihilated. On THIS blog, I challenged that w/the 4 samples. Suddenly, ‘destroyed’ meant the same thing I stated on the other blog. It’s public record, so don’t bother denying it.
Busted.
I’ll be expecting your apology sometime in the near future.
Right when you asserted with absolute certainty that the Laws of Science can be right and wrong and Logic has been replaced with these right and wrong pendulum scientific laws.
False dichotomy, I never ‘replaced’ logic (why the capitals?), & it ain’t my damned fault most of these subjects defy certitude.
"It can be right in certain aspects, & wrong in others. Did you read beep’s link? Where entropy is reversed on a microscopic level? Chris’ assertion about matter pops into existence? The zero-energy article I linked to."
Maybe so. But the conservation of energy is also wrong in some matters if the conservation of matter is wrong. It follows from E=mc2. That kind of kills you. Go back and lick your wounds with 'mother tongue'.
"On beep’s blog, I posited that matter could be destroyed. I gave you the example of what I meant. You claimed destroyed = annihilated. On THIS blog, I challenged that w/the 4 samples. Suddenly, ‘destroyed’ meant the same thing I stated on the other blog. It’s public record, so don’t bother denying it."
ha ha. That's brilliant. You confuse the words conversion for destruction and then claim that I've lied. Even Beep is not clear as to whether you still mean annihilation or conversion. You've just cut and pasted and few examples and when I asked you for a clarification on what they actually meant, you provided none. You've made little sense on this one, because you're not committing to a position on whether its conversion or annihilation. If you don't mean annihilation, you mean conversion. But then matter and energy are both 'convertible' so there's no way one can be infinite and the other not.
"As Chris has noted, quantum physics makes human logic look foolish."
Seems like you're trying to run away from logic with that one. I'm not surprised. In any case, which law of logic does quantum physics make look foolish?
You white?
Gawd exists because niran needs a sky daddy.
Everyone should come and insult each other on my blog. Why should KA's blog receive all the hits?
(Just kiddin' about.)
No one accepts the kalam argument except religious presuppositionalists.
niran:
Maybe so. But the conservation of energy is also wrong in some matters if the conservation of matter is wrong. It follows from E=mc2. That kind of kills you. Go back and lick your wounds with 'mother tongue'.
Actually, that confirms what I’ve been saying for some time.
ha ha. That's brilliant. You confuse the words conversion for destruction and then claim that I've lied. Even Beep is not clear as to whether you still mean annihilation or conversion. You've just cut and pasted and few examples and when I asked you for a clarification on what they actually meant, you provided none. You've made little sense on this one, because you're not committing to a position on whether its conversion or annihilation. If you don't mean annihilation, you mean conversion. But then matter and energy are both 'convertible' so there's no way one can be infinite and the other not.
I gave a CLEAR EXAMPLE of what I meant, which you conveniently ignored so you could declare your ‘victory’. I then handed you the 4 examples, & showed them saying the same thing I did. You verified it. I meant conversion, as per the example of lighting a piece of paper on fire on beep’s blog.
Quit squirming. You fucked up, w/little help from me. Now be honest, that is if you’re a ‘good’ xtian.
Boo-YAH!
Religious people can't be honest with themselves, why assume they can be honest with anyone else?
Oh, I might note this as well:
Name calling is just lame man. Kind of demonstrates a kind of inability to actually proffer a half decent argument.
Insulting people's mothers, shouting 'victory' over & over again, claiming I'm 'anti-science' as well as 'anti-logic', you called Chris a fucktard & a moron (who's prone to 'sudden fits of swearing now'? Yeah, he started it, but you responded in kind), you change definitions when it suits your purpose - you're not only a liar, but a hypocrite.
I have taken your measure, & I have found you wanting.
Religion's supposed to bring out the best in people?
It sure didn't work for you.
"I meant conversion, as per the example of lighting a piece of paper on fire on beep’s blog."
Sweet. But you claim that the difference between matter and energy is that matter can be destroyed/converted. But energy also can be converted. So one can't be infinite and the other finite. Try spinning out of this one. I don't know what next to expect from your types something to the effect of "oh, we humans will never be able to answer these questions so God does not exist!!"
"you called Chris a fucktard & a moron (who's prone to 'sudden fits of swearing now'? Yeah, he started it, but you responded in kind)"
Technically I wasn't calling him a fucktard. He gave me a description of a fucktard(that I don't necesarily share) and I politely reminded him that he fell within the boundaries of the same description. It was a reminder that logical extension of his argument came back to call him a fucktard. I don't care what a fucktard is. I was just borrowing his interpretation of the word :-)
I called him a moron because he doesn't even know whether what he's saying about truth is true. Sounds moronic to me.
"Religion's supposed to bring out the best in people?
It sure didn't work for you."
Evolution hasn't done you any good either. Surviving nature's battle may require a diversified genetic makeup :-) Mother tongue may get in the way. (You know what I mean don't you, the whole cultural homogeneity thing :-)
You white?
Your endurance for talking to Niran is impressive, hehe.
Ultimately, all this logic stuff aside, the reason why I have no respect for god or religion is largely because it isn't good for anything real.
Prayer doesn't heal illnesses. It doesn't set bones. It doesn't help people talk to each other over large differences. It doesn't help people get into space. It doesn't help grow food. Whenever you ask religion to do something real, people start trotting out these insane arguments like neo-Thomist bullshit or the like. They say that prayer "helps" in these invisible ways, or in ways that can be easily explained by simple psychology -- but it doesn't DO anything. For it to mean anything, you need to posit an extra-physical, unveriable, unfalsible, unobservable things like souls and heavens and hells -- while they then reject the epistemological systems that have brought huge benefit to people all over the world. Medicines. Foodstuffs. Communication and transportation.
How can anyone take religion seriously when confronted with science? One works. The other does not. It is really that simple.
They're not mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up the scientific method just because you believe in God. In fact, the ones who have rejected or limited the application of logic and science here have been atheists or non theists. Religion helps us to understand who we really are, while science describes the world we live in. If you can tolerate an existence where the purpose of life, the question of destiny, the deep longing for love and relationship and the repugnance for evil mean nothing more than time plus matter plus chance, then I guess religion will not work for you.
Niran:
Sweet. But you claim that the difference between matter and energy is that matter can be destroyed/converted. But energy also can be converted. So one can't be infinite and the other finite. Try spinning out of this one. I don't know what next to expect from your types something to the effect of "oh, we humans will never be able to answer these questions so God does not exist!!"
I think they’re not mutually exclusive, I think energy’s the one that’s infinite, but not ALL energy. One is contingent on the other, but not vice versa. See, you’re spinning them into equivalence.
No, the ‘unanswerable question’ isn’t why I say there isn’t a god, BTW.
‘You types’. That’s rich, it is.
Technically I wasn't calling him a fucktard. He gave me a description of a fucktard(that I don't necesarily share) and I politely reminded him that he fell within the boundaries of the same description. It was a reminder that logical extension of his argument came back to call him a fucktard. I don't care what a fucktard is. I was just borrowing his interpretation of the word :-)
Ummm…that sounds somewhat like, “I know you are, but what am I?”
I called him a moron because he doesn't even know whether what he's saying about truth is true. Sounds moronic to me.
Missing the mark by a country mile. Again.
Evolution hasn't done you any good either. Surviving nature's battle may require a diversified genetic makeup :-) Mother tongue may get in the way. (You know what I mean don't you, the whole cultural homogeneity thing :-)
Evolution doesn’t do any individual good. It’s geared towards species survival.
I’m white, BTW. I think what the Sinhalese are doing in your country (to the Tamil) is pretty fucked up.
Chris - thanks. It's been kinda fun, actually.
niran:
In fact, the ones who have rejected or limited the application of logic and science here have been atheists or non theists.
That's not true at all. You're demanding a spartan interpretation on something that's obviously in flux, that doesn't adhere to your draconian definitions.
Religion helps us to understand who we really are, while science describes the world we live in.
I know who I am: I don't require some fantasy to define me.
If you can tolerate an existence where the purpose of life, the question of destiny, the deep longing for love and relationship and the repugnance for evil mean nothing more than time plus matter plus chance, then I guess religion will not work for you.
Chance is a speciocentric word. It's not about chance. There was no dice rolled in how we got here. There just wasn't some divine hand involved. It just happened. Everything just is, & we just are.
Use Occam's razor much?
niran sounds like the sort of moron who'll keep beating himself off when the last of his sperm is drained. not the sort of guy to waste an opinion on, imo. whatever he claims to know about science is cherry-picked to demonstrate his theroy. nothing here that's intelligent conversation. who brought the uncaused cause into being? oh yeah, a 'definition'. whoopee. sounds like a twelve year old schoolkid debater.
"I think they’re not mutually exclusive, I think energy’s the one that’s infinite, but not ALL energy."
So was some energy created at some point? That violates the conservation of energy law also. You'll probably say that the 1st law is not absolute either. That's fine, but if some energy can be created there's no reason why all energy can't be created. Only thing is that would be be to admit that the 1st law can be wrong all the time. You're in a fix mate.
"See, you’re spinning them into equivalence."
No, I'm not. Einstein did.
"I think what the Sinhalese are doing in your country (to the Tamil) is pretty fucked up."
What the govt is doing is fucked up. What the LTTE is doing is also fucked up. Hopefully thats one thing we can agree on. Racial stereotyping that casts all Sinhalese as oppressors is not useful though. Some Sinhalese are great champions of Tamil rights just like some whites supported emancipation, desegregation and affirmative action. Just as Bush is not representative of white America, the govt in SL is not representative of all Sinhalese and the LTTE does not represent all Tamils.
"I know who I am: I don't require some fantasy to define me."
Good for you. The same may no apply for everyone else.
Btw, i think that what the US is doing to the rest of the world is pretty screwed up.
Your government happens to fund Sri Lanka's military machine which in turn oppresses the Tamil people. Your tax dollars are killing my people, so don't pretend that you can just throw your cheap judgment around on what's happening here.
niran
Infinity cannot be reached. An infinite entity cannot have been caused, and cannot be bound by time. because if it started to exist it is bound by one and, and so it can't be infinite. If its bound by time, it's bound on this end. That's why the universe cannot be infinite. We've reached the outer end of time so to speak, as we speak.
I assume you're referring to the singularity before the big bang. But we can't know what happenened before then, and if that was just part of a perhaps continuing process that the universe may go thru. The universe isn't bound by time; only we are, because we had to set up some sort of measurement for it to study it. At least, I think so, because there's so much of it we haven't been to to know about yet.
Anyway, thanks for letting me play with the big kids.
And I agree. What the US govt. is doing arond the world is fucked up.
niran:
So was some energy created at some point? That violates the conservation of energy law also. You'll probably say that the 1st law is not absolute either. That's fine, but if some energy can be created there's no reason why all energy can't be created. Only thing is that would be be to admit that the 1st law can be wrong all the time. You're in a fix mate.
No, I'm not.
Unless there's some hard evidence that a real void existed, that is, a complete & utter lack of energy AND matter.
This 'in for a penny, in for a pound' attitude of yours is ridiculous.
The universe is apparently very liberal: it allows all sorts of different levels of 'interpretation'.
Your tax dollars are killing my people, so don't pretend that you can just throw your cheap judgment around on what's happening here.
& I'm truly sorry about that. I don't live there, & am not privy to the details.
Much as I love my country, the turds in power are very much beyond my (or most citzenry's) control.
"Unless there's some hard evidence that a real void existed, that is, a complete & utter lack of energy AND matter."
You're still not addressing the point. If some energy can be created, why can't all energy be created? We may not have the evidence that a void existed, but neither do we have evidence that some forms of energy were infinite while others were created. According to your thesis however, it is a still a distinct possibility that all energy was created. And if you were to deny that all energy can be created on he basis of the conservation of energy, it would be to assert certitude in a scientific law that you already have rejected. If you try and escape science, logic demonstrates your 'idiocy.' There's absolutely no way out.
"Much as I love my country, the turds in power are very much beyond my (or most citzenry's) control."
I can say the same for myself, so i suggest we lay off the politics. You are unaware of the implications of the actions of your government, so I'd suggest you think twice before you start telling foreigners that the situation in their country is fucked up, lest they remind you that you are in some way responsible for it.
Karen,
"I assume you're referring to the singularity before the big bang."
No, I'm referring to the present. The outer end of time is the present.
"The universe isn't bound by time; only we are, because we had to set up some sort of measurement for it to study it."
I disagree. Time is a concept, not a measurement. And the concept is necessarily invoked wherever anything physical exists, because you need an idea to explain the succession of physical states. The gaps between these succession are measured, and so you introduce the measurements of time so that you can be consistent in your explanation of the gaps between physical states. This is a gfairly rudimentary explanation, but I think the point is clear.
Niran,
Actually, well, most forms of Christianity ARE incompatible with the scientific method. At least here in America, where it is trivially easy to find Christians attacking evolution, environmental science, cosmology, psychology, medical science, etc., etc. I've heard it's worse in Hindu and Muslim nations from numerous reliable sources, and it makes sense because all religions say things that are just downright stupid from a scientific point of view.
Also, at least in American studies, religious people aren't happier, friendlier, better off, they don't live longer, they are more prone to violence and divorce than atheists. Atheists in America, as a group, are less likely to commit crimes, divorce, they have a higher standard of living, they're better educated (ironically, they're better educated about religion, too).
Religion doesn't do ANYTHING. Defending it is a waste of time unless you pull in all these woo arguments about souls going to heaven or hell that can't be demonstrated. A BOOK does not demonstrate anything, after all. It just SAYS it.
Religion, itself, beyond the truth behind something as abstract as whether the material universe as we see it has an eternal cause, is a waste of time.
"Actually, well, most forms of Christianity ARE incompatible with the scientific method. At least here in America, where it is trivially easy to find Christians attacking evolution, environmental science, cosmology, psychology, medical science, etc., etc. "
Well, if Christians are rejecting any form of biological adaptation, that would be downright stupid I agree. However, I don't see how raising questions about inter species evolution can be classed as scientific. You folks seem to have no problem calling into question scientific and logical laws here, so cut the theist some slack when he questions a popular yet unproved scientific theory. On environmental science, evangelicals have joined hands in many instances with liberal 'greens' because the Christian concept of stewardship of the earth is very similar to the environmentalist theory of public trust of natural resources. On cosmology, I think this blog debate demonstrates that the theist position is not as ridiculous as atheists think it is. In fact I would argue, it provides a more compelling explanation for the existence of the universe.
"Also, at least in American studies, religious people aren't happier, friendlier, better off, they don't live longer, they are more prone to violence and divorce than atheists. Atheists in America, as a group, are less likely to commit crimes, divorce, they have a higher standard of living, they're better educated"
Look, American specificities don't really prove anything. The American mega church idea and the tele-evangelism of the West are not universally accepted by Christendom. The jingoism and nationalist triumphalism of Christians in America is an abhorrence for Christians in the third world. We think that what you guys have is fake Christianity and cheap entertainment masquerading as religious truth.
"and it makes sense because all religions say things that are just downright stupid from a scientific point of view."
No, science just explains the observable. As long as a religion does not absolutely reject what we observe to be true, and what logic suggests cannot be true, then I have no problem with that, and neither should you.
"Religion doesn't do ANYTHING. Defending it is a waste of time unless you pull in all these woo arguments about souls going to heaven or hell that can't be demonstrated."
Maybe the materialism you get in America has dulled your senses. We see suffering on a day to day basis. We observe goodness and evil being played out and recognize that survival of the fittest does not suffice to explain why a person would give risk his life for his friend in a racial riot sponsored by American arms companies and why a person would choose to blow himself up for the sake of a cause that that seems light years away from fruition. Religion helps people answer questions about life's meaning, purpose and destiny and until you experience it, there's no way you will be able to know why it means everything to people who truly believe.
niran:
You're still not addressing the point. If some energy can be created, why can't all energy be created? We may not have the evidence that a void existed, but neither do we have evidence that some forms of energy were infinite while others were created. According to your thesis however, it is a still a distinct possibility that all energy was created. And if you were to deny that all energy can be created on he basis of the conservation of energy, it would be to assert certitude in a scientific law that you already have rejected. If you try and escape science, logic demonstrates your 'idiocy.' There's absolutely no way out.
Now hold on here: I haven’t categorically ‘rejected’ any law, so stop putting words in my mouth. My presumption is that some form of energy has always existed ergo, infinite. This excluded middle fallacy is getting irksome.
Your use of equivocal language is also getting outta control. Are we stipulating that ‘creating’ means ‘pop into existence’, or conversion? Likewise, is ‘destroying’ conversion or annihilation?
Choose 1, & stick to it.
I can say the same for myself, so i suggest we lay off the politics. You are unaware of the implications of the actions of your government, so I'd suggest you think twice before you start telling foreigners that the situation in their country is fucked up, lest they remind you that you are in some way responsible for it.
Last time I show you any sympathy. I’m responsible because I’m a citizen? To some degree: then again, politicians slip crap under the radar regularly.
Also:
Maybe the materialism you get in America has dulled your senses. We see suffering on a day to day basis. We observe goodness and evil being played out and recognize that survival of the fittest does not suffice to explain why a person would give risk his life for his friend in a racial riot sponsored by American arms companies and why a person would choose to blow himself up for the sake of a cause that that seems light years away from fruition. Religion helps people answer questions about life's meaning, purpose and destiny and until you experience it, there's no way you will be able to know why it means everything to people who truly believe.
Actually, there are rational explanations for all of those.
You're also painting w/a broad brush: the large majority of atheists weren't raised that way. Most've us have had varying degrees of religious indoctrination.
However, I don't see how raising questions about inter species evolution can be classed as scientific.
Because it's been observed. Observing speciation events amongst lifeforms that have short generations is pretty easy -- you could probably whip up a speciation event in your kitchen with single celled organisms if you had a mind to do it. Speciation events have also been observed in populations such as insects and even fish.
No, science just explains the observable. As long as a religion does not absolutely reject what we observe to be true, and what logic suggests cannot be true, then I have no problem with that, and neither should you.
But . . . like I said, religion does reject what is observable. For instance, you've already said you're skeptical about species evolving into new species -- but this is scientifically observable and, furthermore, fits in with a vast array of other information concerning the nature of mutation, natural selection, the increasing complexity of negentropic systems in an open environment, etc., etc.
Maybe the materialism you get in America has dulled your senses. We see suffering on a day to day basis. We observe goodness and evil being played out and recognize that survival of the fittest does not suffice to explain why a person would give risk his life for his friend in a racial riot sponsored by American arms companies and why a person would choose to blow himself up for the sake of a cause that that seems light years away from fruition. Religion helps people answer questions about life's meaning, purpose and destiny and until you experience it, there's no way you will be able to know why it means everything to people who truly believe.
And maybe your religion has dulled YOUR senses.
We do see suffering on a day to day basis. I agree. And science has done more to alleviate that suffering than religion by huge amounts. It -- not religion -- has fed the hungry and comforted the ill. Science, not religion, cures diseases, sets bones, provides low-cost nutrition for most of the world's population. Sure, it doesn't get to all of them, but that's more a political and, yes, religious reason than a scientific one.
Religion is a placebo for the ills of the world, at best. Science is what provides actual relief from the actual ills.
However, belief in religion is also very easy to examine scientifically. WHY people are religious is because they're basically frightened into it, most of the time. They're told that if they don't believe in a given religion that they'll suffer (go to Hell, be reincarnated as a worm, stuff like that). It's not truth that makes most people religious, just fear and authority applied at a youthful age.
I suspect you also have a bizarre notion of what "survival of the fittest" means. Destroying oneself for collective survival -- biological altruism -- is well known as a successful evolutionary strategy. If one person of the unit dies to save the unit, itself, that's evolutionary sense.
HOWEVER, humans are largely beyond evolution at this point, because of our capacity to control the environment we live in. Once you can control your environment, natural selection doesn't apply. This is also a fairly standard part of evolutionary theory, for what it is worth.
"My presumption is that some form of energy has always existed ergo, infinite."
You're still not saying why if some energy can be created, all energy can't be created.
"Your use of equivocal language is also getting outta control. Are we stipulating that ‘creating’ means ‘pop into existence’, or conversion? Likewise, is ‘destroying’ conversion or annihilation?"
That's rich. I'm not the one who is using 'destruction' to mean 'conversion' when the scientific lingo specifically draws a distiction between the two. I'll accept your definitions, because either way, you're in a fix. Conversion is common to energy and matter, while annihilation you have already rejected.
"Last time I show you any sympathy. I’m responsible because I’m a citizen?"
I don't need your sympathy nor your judgmentalism. I was not the one who made an unwarranted comment on the situation in Sri Lanka. I'm not saying you are responsible directly either. I'm just telling you not to shoot your mouth when you aren't aware of what's going on. We'll look after our problems and you look after yours. The world would be a better place if your government stopped interfering in other people's affairs.
"Because it's been observed. Observing speciation events amongst lifeforms that have short generations is pretty easy -- you could probably whip up a speciation event in your kitchen with single celled organisms if you had a mind to do it."
This is a battle I'm not trained to fight and it really doesn't matter to me. I'm aware that there is a scientific debate on this very issue of evolution v intelligent design, conducted by people more comfortable with scientific method and fact than you and I are. Given that there is scientific debate on this issue, I think it's silly to call one side science and the other non science. You may disagree with the ID science, but it doesn't mean ID people are unscientific. Suffice it to say that what constitutes a species is itself in doubt, so pardon me for raising the issue in the first place. I'm really very comfortable with the idea of a creator working through evolutionary processes, so it's not something I'm passionate about.
"And science has done more to alleviate that suffering than religion by huge amounts."
I think you're assuming that suffering can only be some kind of physical or material suffering. The richest, healthiest people aren't always the happiest. There's a dimension to suffering that you're missing here.
"Religion is a placebo for the ills of the world, at best. Science is what provides actual relief from the actual ills."
Again, you're assuming a mutual exclusivity that does not exist in reality. Many religious men have been wonderful scientists.
"It's not truth that makes most people religious, just fear and authority applied at a youthful age."
That's just false psychology. How do you know why all people who follow religion do so? I could just as well say that people reject the idea of God because they're scared of being held accountable by the absolute source of morality.
"Destroying oneself for collective survival -- biological altruism -- is well known as a successful evolutionary strategy. If one person of the unit dies to save the unit, itself, that's evolutionary sense."
You're missing my point. Biological altruism does not answer life's questions of meaning, purpose, destiny and identity. Religion would be a long forgotten phenomenon if people didn't think it answered their deepest questions in a way science never can.
Btw, it was your man Hume who made the point regarding the 'ought-is' distinction. Science answers questions of fact. The 'is' answers. But humans naturally desire answers to the 'ought' questions. Value laden questions(Morality, purpose, identity etc). Science's 'is' answers don't answer our 'ought' questions. You need a system of values independent of observable fact that provide 'ought' answers that can answer these 'ought' questions. Religion provides these ought answers, while science by definition cannot.
niran:
You're still not saying why if some energy can be created, all energy can't be created.
‘Created’ as in something from nothing, or ‘created’ as in converted from 1 to the next?
That's rich. I'm not the one who is using 'destruction' to mean 'conversion' when the scientific lingo specifically draws a distiction between the two.
Holy crap, your retention is bad, isn’t it? What was your answer, in re: the 4 examples I pulled out?
I'll accept your definitions, because either way, you're in a fix. Conversion is common to energy and matter, while annihilation you have already rejected.
& I’m in a fix, how exactly?
I don't need your sympathy nor your judgmentalism. I was not the one who made an unwarranted comment on the situation in Sri Lanka. I'm not saying you are responsible directly either. I'm just telling you not to shoot your mouth when you aren't aware of what's going on. We'll look after our problems and you look after yours. The world would be a better place if your government stopped interfering in other people's affairs.
Couldn’t agree more. It's 'shoot your mouth off', BTW.
I'm aware that there is a scientific debate on this very issue of evolution v intelligent design, conducted by people more comfortable with scientific method and fact than you and I are. Given that there is scientific debate on this issue, I think it's silly to call one side science and the other non science. You may disagree with the ID science, but it doesn't mean ID people are unscientific. Suffice it to say that what constitutes a species is itself in doubt, so pardon me for raising the issue in the first place. I'm really very comfortable with the idea of a creator working through evolutionary processes, so it's not something I'm passionate about.
The problem being: there IS no scientific debate. ID people ARE unscientific. You’re energies would be better suited to investigate this spurious phenomenon, because of multiple issues on multiple levels. Feel free to look up all my writings on evolution vs. creationism. I can give you profuse examples, but they’re all up there, a matter of public record. Who knows, maybe you’ll retract your ‘anti-science’ comment.
There isn’t any doubt as to what constitutes a species, for instance. That’s just a tip of the iceberg when it comes to ID. You’ve been told otherwise: that’s dishonest.
Don’t believe me: go look it up yourself.
Again, you're assuming a mutual exclusivity that does not exist in reality. Many religious men have been wonderful scientists.
True enough: but since religion (especially the Christian 1) was a matter of legality (yes, it WAS illegal to be an unbeliever, especially in Western society), it’s hard to say that these scientists would have been any better or lesser had they not been exposed.
That's just false psychology. How do you know why all people who follow religion do so? I could just as well say that people reject the idea of God because they're scared of being held accountable by the absolute source of morality.
No it isn’t. It’s about mortality, & the fear thereof.
You're missing my point. Biological altruism does not answer life's questions of meaning, purpose, destiny and identity. Religion would be a long forgotten phenomenon if people didn't think it answered their deepest questions in a way science never can.
& religion does? It never really has. It’s just a panacea, a way of saying ‘no’ to death.
Niran,
I'm aware that there is a scientific debate on this very issue of evolution v intelligent design, conducted by people more comfortable with scientific method and fact than you and I are.
Actually, as a philosopher of science, I am quite comfortable with the argument AND with the scientific method (indeed, I know more about the scientific method than most scientists I know, and a large portion of my social circle is scientists because, y'know, my wife is one and works with scientists and we have friends from her workplace). I tell you, truly, it is not a scientific debate between evolution vs. intelligent design. There is a considerable debate about the precise mechanisms of evolution, but it does not involve intelligent design. So, when you say this:
Given that there is scientific debate on this issue, I think it's silly to call one side science and the other non science. You may disagree with the ID science, but it doesn't mean ID people are unscientific. Suffice it to say that what constitutes a species is itself in doubt, so pardon me for raising the issue in the first place. I'm really very comfortable with the idea of a creator working through evolutionary processes, so it's not something I'm passionate about.
You are again just factually wrong.
I think you're assuming that suffering can only be some kind of physical or material suffering. The richest, healthiest people aren't always the happiest. There's a dimension to suffering that you're missing here.
I've actually done some research on what makes people happy. According to scientists, here's what makes people happy: A good family life, rewarding work that involves recognition from one's peers, leisure time, material security (such as assurances of a good place to live and enough food to eat). You're right, wealth beyond what is needed for material security doesn't play a role in happiness.
Neither, however, does religion.
Many religious men have been wonderful scientists.
Ouch. Men? As a man who is philosopher and writer married to a female scientist, your sexism is disturbing. There are, and have been, and will continue to be many women who are wonderful scientists, too. I will substitute the word "people" for "men" for the rest of this.
But to address your point -- obviously religious people can, are and certainly will be scientists. But, again, religion as a body teaches things contrary to science and human reason and it does attempt to project these religious fantasies into broader society and science, itself. As I have said before, if religion was a personal choice, I'd have no problem with it -- but time and again, religious people do intrude into science, they do intrude into politics, economics, art, you name it.
Biological altruism does not answer life's questions of meaning, purpose, destiny and identity. Religion would be a long forgotten phenomenon if people didn't think it answered their deepest questions in a way science never can.
And if it was used as a method for people to answer their deep burning personal questions of identity, I'd have no problem with them, honestly. But that's now what they're doing. Niran, it isn't what you're doing. You're trying to demonstrate that god created the universe. You are very strongly going way past the point of trying to construct a personal identity and belief system out of your religion. You're projecting your religious beliefs into physics. Which is my problem with religious folks. They aren't folks who just go to church and use their religion as a source of cultural and personal identity, but they make all sorts of statements about the absolute nature of the universe -- such as god created the universe, as you are doing here.
But humans naturally desire answers to the 'ought' questions.
Sure, but I can argue fairly convincingly that religion doesn't really answer those questions very well. But I will fully concede that science shouldn't try to answer them, either, necessarily. I, myself, am quite a bit more than a scientific materialist because I know that science can't answer all questions. I am, myself, a sort of existentialist Taoist consensualist libertarian socialist about non-scientific issues like morals, politics and economics.
And, again, if religious people only answered the "ought" questions, well, I'd still think they're a little crazy, but in my libertarian way I'd let them abide. They -- including you -- however, try to use religion to answer "is" questions, too.
"‘Created’ as in something from nothing, or ‘created’ as in converted from 1 to the next?"
You tell me. Why can't all energy be created in the way that you meant that only some forms of energy can.
"What was your answer, in re: the 4 examples I pulled out?"
I asked you whether the examples were supposed to give credence to conversion or the negation of scientific law on some situations.
"The problem being: there IS no scientific debate. ID people ARE unscientific."
I've read enough to know there is a debate. The fact that you contribute to this debate in your own little way, does not compel me to read your writings, neither does it convince me that there is no debate. maybe you're trying to debate that there is no debate, while the ID guys just debate. Is this a debate?
"http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html"
There, that's a link to the transcripts of an article where scientists think there's enough of a debate to thrash it out amongst themselves.
"True enough: but since religion (especially the Christian 1) was a matter of legality (yes, it WAS illegal to be an unbeliever, especially in Western society), it’s hard to say that these scientists would have been any better or lesser had they not been exposed."
I'm not saying that religion makes people better scientists. i'm saying its more than possible to be good scientist while being Christian or religious.
"No it isn’t. It’s about mortality, & the fear thereof."
Assertion don't make it right mate. might just assert that people are atheist because they don't want to be accountable. You can just go on and on speculating motives till kingdom come. It's useless.
"& religion does? It never really has. It’s just a panacea, a way of saying ‘no’ to death."
Don't know whether every religion does. But it has the capacity to answer the value laden questions in a way that science cannot.
niran:
You tell me. Why can't all energy be created in the way that you meant that only some forms of energy can.
I’m not qualified enough to say.
I asked you whether the examples were supposed to give credence to conversion or the negation of scientific law on some situations.
Nice try, no cigar. Go back & look at it.
I gave you the echoes of what I said back on beep’s blog. You confirmed it. Just man up.
I've read enough to know there is a debate. The fact that you contribute to this debate in your own little way, does not compel me to read your writings, neither does it convince me that there is no debate. maybe you're trying to debate that there is no debate, while the ID guys just debate. Is this a debate?
Qualifying word is ‘scientific’, is it not? Injection of an unfalsifiable, untestable equation takes it out of the purview of science, does it not?
There, that's a link to the transcripts of an article where scientists think there's enough of a debate to thrash it out amongst themselves.
There’s enough of a debate because of millions of $ thrown at the subject via the ID people. ID is a PR campaign: it’s not produced any research at all.
I'm not saying that religion makes people better scientists. i'm saying its more than possible to be good scientist while being Christian or religious.
Sure it is. That doesn’t validate religion in the slightest, however.
Assertion don't make it right mate. might just assert that people are atheist because they don't want to be accountable. You can just go on and on speculating motives till kingdom come. It's useless.
Really? It’s an observable phenomenon, that can be catalogued in varying states. Deduction derived from induction. What’s that called again? ;)
Don't know whether every religion does. But it has the capacity to answer the value laden questions in a way that science cannot.
Not so. Morality? It evolved. Same as religion. Both sprang from the womb of evolution.
Simple, really.
"I’m not qualified enough to say."
You're copping out. You claim enough knowledge to assert that some energy is infinite, but you don't know why all energy is not infinite. sweet.
"I gave you the echoes of what I said back on beep’s blog. You confirmed it. Just man up."
You said they proved conversion. But energy also can be converted. So no difference between energy and matter vis a vis the likelihood that one is eternal and the other, not.
"There’s enough of a debate because of millions of $ thrown at the subject via the ID people. ID is a PR campaign: it’s not produced any research at all"
Eminent scientists are debating this issue. I'll take that as evidence that there is a real scientific debate.
"Really? It’s an observable phenomenon, that can be catalogued in varying states"
Oh really. I'd like to see your data on that one.
"Morality? It evolved. Same as religion. Both sprang from the womb of evolution."
The question is how do you answer questions about morality? Science cannot meaningfully answer any question about morality without violating the is-ought dichotomy. For instance, why ought I not to kill? One could explain why i do not want to kill, or why killing would not be beneficial to me or the other or the species, but it cannot answer the question of values, i,e- Why ought I not to kill, why ought I not to destroy myself, my neighbour, my species. Value laden questions need value laden answers.
Eminent scientists are debating this issue.
Which eminent scientists would these be, again? Or where are they doing it?
We get a fair bit of scientific literature coming into our house, and in no scientific literature that we get is there any debate about ID vs. evolution. So, I'd be interested if you found scientific studies about ID and the like that are published in peer reviewed journals -- which is the gold standard of science.
There is no evidence to suggest that there is anything outside of the universe.
But there are probably more than one hundred billion galaxies in the universe.
Our galaxy, The Milky Way, has approximately 400 billion stars, recently updated from 200, which means there may be billions of solar systems in The Milky Way alone.
Our solar system represents just one solar system in a galaxy (Milky Way) of potentially 400 billion solar systems.
Our galaxy represents just one galaxy in a universe of approximately 100 billion galaxies.
How big is the universe?
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
- from The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
Why would I need to speculate that there is something outside of this vastness when there are billions and billions of things we don't know everything about which exist WITHIN the universe?
I would only need to speculate something like this, if I was looking for somewhere for a god to play hide and seek.
niran:
You're copping out. You claim enough knowledge to assert that some energy is infinite, but you don't know why all energy is not infinite. sweet.
This is 4 or more days you’ve been following me around like a lovesick puppy demanding validation. This is really…disturbing. If you’re so confident about your victory, you could just walk away. Obviously, you’re insecure about the whole thing, or you wouldn’t be hectoring me.
I’ll never concede. Ever.
You said they proved conversion. But energy also can be converted. So no difference between energy and matter vis a vis the likelihood that one is eternal and the other, not.
So is this an admission that energy is eternal? Sweet.
No creation? No end? Endless? What does that translate to? Infinite.
Think I just got a cavity from that. Thanks.
Eminent scientists are debating this issue. I'll take that as evidence that there is a real scientific debate.
Wow. & you call ME anti-science? Are you kidding me? A fringe group that has to go & create its own community, because of lack of acceptance? No contributions to science? No material research released? No peer-reviewed papers?
Oh really. I'd like to see your data on that one.
Use Google. Better yet, look up ‘reciprocal altruism’ on answers.com. You won’t believe anything I say, anyways: I’m not re-inventing the wheel here. Go read my other essays on evolution. Go hit Pharyngula. There’s plenty of resources.
The question is how do you answer questions about morality? Science cannot meaningfully answer any question about morality without violating the is-ought dichotomy. For instance, why ought I not to kill? One could explain why i do not want to kill, or why killing would not be beneficial to me or the other or the species, but it cannot answer the question of values, i,e- Why ought I not to kill, why ought I not to destroy myself, my neighbour, my species. Value laden questions need value laden answers.
Those are all fair questions. But to assume religion has the answers? That’s nonsense. 1 has only to look at history to see that it’s done nothing to improve people. It has evolved some social networks, sure. It gives folks a sense of community. But values? No.
It’s a common anthropic bias – I’m in this circle, ergo this circle is the source of all things good.
Step outside, & look in. Look around. Ride the currents to another sphere.
Oh, 1 more thing, Niran.
Can you give me an example of energy w/o matter?
intelligent design was discredit long ago
KA:
I asked him that ages ago. Apparently, it is "magical" and we just have to have faith in magic.
BBIM - asked him about energy w/o matter? There's actually a few good examples of it.
MF - been busy? I was semi-expecting some input from ya.
KA
"I’ll never concede. Ever."
That settles it mate. I knew it all along.
"So is this an admission that energy is eternal? Sweet."
No, it's an assertion that the conservation laws don't prove the infinity of energy or matter.
"Use Google. Better yet, look up ‘reciprocal altruism’ on answers.com. You won’t believe anything I say, anyways: I’m not re-inventing the wheel here."
how does reciprocal altruism have the remotest significance to the question of why people follow religion? In any case, on reciprocal altruism, you aren't responding on why the 'is' of science and reciprocal altruism cannot provide an 'ought' that law and ethics assumes.
"Those are all fair questions. But to assume religion has the answers? That’s nonsense."
You're missing the point. The value laden questions cannot be answered by science. They have to be answered within the framework of a value system. The issues of contention was whether religion has any utility. I argue that religion purports to answer the value laden questions, and is thus distinct from science. Thus you cannot replace religion with science. Does this mean that all religions have valid answers to all questions- No. Just as science does not seem to have a definitive answer as to why the cosmos exists. Different theories exist. We can make educated guesses and throw around hypotheses and compare their relative plausibility. To suggest that religion's answers are wrong is to claim prior knowledge of what the right answer is. This prior knowledge though cannot be provided by science. I think the point is clear.
"Can you give me an example of energy w/o matter?"
What do you mean without matter? Any form of energy is not matter unless it's converted, at which point is ceases to be energy.
"BBIM - asked him about energy w/o matter? There's actually a few good examples of it."
Great. You know the answer. Out with it.
Chris
"We get a fair bit of scientific literature coming into our house, and in no scientific literature that we get is there any debate about ID vs. evolution. So, I'd be interested if you found scientific studies about ID and the like that are published in peer reviewed journals -- which is the gold standard of science."
Apparently this is a stock criticism of ID science and apparently it is a whole load of nonsense.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
That's a link to a site where there is a list of peer reviewed articles and books that have been published, all in support of ID science. Evidently your wife and you have not been up to date on the reading. Might want to catch up over the holidays if there
are any around the corner.
"I am, myself, a sort of existentialist Taoist consensualist libertarian socialist about non-scientific issues like morals, politics and economics."
Perfect. You're using a variety of value systems to answer your value laden questions. The libertarian position for instance is moral philosophy. Rawls' theory of justice assumes a fictional contractarian starting point to justify his principle of justice. Why is religion different?
"And, again, if religious people only answered the "ought" questions, well, I'd still think they're a little crazy,"
That's because you've answered your ought questions differently. What makes your taoism right and Christianity wrong?
"You're trying to demonstrate that god created the universe. You are very strongly going way past the point of trying to construct a personal identity and belief system out of your religion. You're projecting your religious beliefs into physics. Which is my problem with religious folks."
Why can't we justify the veracity of our claims by showing that science is not contradictory to the assumptions that we hold. I'm not merely asserting that God created the universe, I'm arguing that he did. What is your problem with me arguing for the existence of God unless you want to shy away from a debate. It's a free market place of ideas aint it?
Niran,
Ooooh. SEVEN whole articles and FOUR books. Which MIGHT be the reason why I've missed them, because there are only seven of them since '85. Not exactly a plethora. During the same period of time, there have been thousands of papers released about why those seven articles and four books are nonsense. That doesn't constitute a "debate" in any rational way.
That's because you've answered your ought questions differently. What makes your taoism right and Christianity wrong?
I'm not making the claim Taoism is "right". I merely make the claim I find it personally satisfying. Which is why I haven't really brought them into this discussion. I still won't, because it isn't relevant -- I was merely saying that religion isn't the only system of thought for even "ought" questions by giving a personal demonstration.
Why can't we justify the veracity of our claims by showing that science is not contradictory to the assumptions that we hold. I'm not merely asserting that God created the universe, I'm arguing that he did. What is your problem with me arguing for the existence of God unless you want to shy away from a debate. It's a free market place of ideas aint it?
*watches the goalposts shift yet again*
But before you said that religion answers the "ought" questions, not the "is" questions, but here you're asserting that answers the "is" questions, too. In that case, I say it answers them poorly.
Sure, science sometimes contradicts itself, but . . . that's normal, and the inconsistencies demonstrate areas of additional research.
Also, about some of these "peer reviewed" books -- I should have immediately seen that Darwin's Black Box was on the list, hehe:
In 2005, while testifying for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Distric trial, Michael Behe claimed under oath that Darwin's Black Box received even more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal.[6]
Behe's testimony has resulted in controversy as it appears to be in direct conflict with known facts about the book's peer review. Four of the book's five reviewers — Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro, K. John Morrow, and Russell Doolittle — made statements that contradict or otherwise do not support Behe's claim of Darwin's Black Box having passed a rigorous peer review process.
Atchison has stated that he did not review the book at all, but spent 10 minutes on the phone receiving a brief overview of the book which he then endorsed without ever seeing the text.[7] Robert Shapiro has said that he did review the book, and while he agreed with some of his analysis of origin-of-life research, he thinks Behe's conclusions are false. He did, however, say that he thought that Behe's book was the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.[8] K. John Morrow panned the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.[9] And Dr. Russell Doolittle, whose own work on blood clotting Behe based much of the arguments in Darwin's Black Box on reviewed the book and described it as misrepresenting many important points and disingenuous, which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.[10]
In the same trial, Behe also testified under oath that "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[11] The result of the trial was the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
And Demski's book The Design Inference, was peer reviewed by philosophers, not scientists!
And it seems scientists are saying that Darwinism, Design and Public Education is also not peer reviewed:
The Discovery Institute lists five chapters as "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design[1], though Mark Isaak of the talk.origins Archive notes that "Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards" and that "reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical"[2]. The five papers are:
* DNA and the origin of life, Information, specification and explanation Stephen C. Meyer
* Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, Michael Behe
* Reinstating design within science, William Dembski
* Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design Paul Nelson (creationist) and Jonathan Wells
* The Cambrian explosion: biology’s big bang, Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, & Paul Chien
The first three are actually listed twice including once as "featured articles". Meyer's paper on the Cambrian explosion also contains much of the same material which went into another of the claimed peer-reviewed papers which was at the center of the Sternberg peer review controversy[3].
So, insofar as the books about ID go, it seems all of them I could easily find information about aren't, well, they're not really peer reviewed, after all. I could go on to talk about, ahem, the dirty tricks played by the Discovery Institute, too -- by which I mean "expose it's lies".
niran:
That settles it mate. I knew it all along.
Knew what all along?
No, it's an assertion that the conservation laws don't prove the infinity of energy or matter.
Whether local or universal, yes they do. Oh, you may want to look up the term ‘matter creation’, BTW.
how does reciprocal altruism have the remotest significance to the question of why people follow religion? In any case, on reciprocal altruism, you aren't responding on why the 'is' of science and reciprocal altruism cannot provide an 'ought' that law and ethics assumes.
No, it explains that. Science is about how, what, & when. Philosophy’s about why. Religion’s about guesswork, most of it poor at that.
Do try to keep up.
You're missing the point. The value laden questions cannot be answered by science. They have to be answered within the framework of a value system. The issues of contention was whether religion has any utility. I argue that religion purports to answer the value laden questions, and is thus distinct from science. Thus you cannot replace religion with science. Does this mean that all religions have valid answers to all questions- No. Just as science does not seem to have a definitive answer as to why the cosmos exists. Different theories exist. We can make educated guesses and throw around hypotheses and compare their relative plausibility. To suggest that religion's answers are wrong is to claim prior knowledge of what the right answer is. This prior knowledge though cannot be provided by science. I think the point is clear.
No, that’s not so. A., science isn’t MEANT to be a replacement for anything, B., which answers are those, & C., religion’s proven absolutely zilch.
What do you mean without matter? Any form of energy is not matter unless it's converted, at which point is ceases to be energy.
Here’s the definition:
” Matter is defined as the substance or what things are in common use”
Apparently this is a stock criticism of ID science and apparently it is a whole load of nonsense.
From the Discovery institute? Are you freakin’ JOKING? It’s a fabrication of ‘science’, it’s not anywhere near being a ‘science’. All these people do is critique evolution (poorly, at that), quote mine, never EVER contribute to society as ‘scientists’, anyone can gain admittance.
Really, do some research.
KA
"Knew what all along?'
That even though you know you lost, you'll never admit it. Never.
"Oh, you may want to look up the term ‘matter creation’, BTW."
You mean conversion right? That's not even controversial. I know you don't like to face the facts but your attempt to show that energy was infinite and matter was not, based on the conservation of energy seems to me to be a theory you cooked up without even hearing about the conservation of matter or the equivalence of energy and matter. Now that you've heard of it, you've gotten incoherent on this issue. I've had fun on this one, teaching an atheist science!!
"Science is about how, what, & when. Philosophy’s about why. Religion’s about guesswork, most of it poor at that."
Wow Einstein. That's a really neat package. But philosophy and religions are not always so easily compartmentalized. At the heart of every religion is one or more philosophical postulates.
"A., science isn’t MEANT to be a replacement for anything, B., which answers are those, & C., religion’s proven absolutely zilch."
A, science can never replace religion. B, I referred to answers in about five different contexts there. C, What do you want it to prove?
Bradley,
"I was merely saying that religion isn't the only system of thought for even "ought" questions by giving a personal demonstration."
A, religion is not A system of thought. I mean it's kind of hard to even define what religion is. Is Buddhism a religion for instance? Is Taoism a religion? The point is that religion is useful for people in the same way Taoism is useful to you. So what's your problem with religion? Just because you choose not to discuss your philosophical starting point and I do, and just because i choose to defend scientifically and logically my positions doesn't make my view less useful. It arguably makes it more useful.
"But before you said that religion answers the "ought" questions, not the "is" questions, but here you're asserting that answers the "is" questions, too."
No, I'm saying that the beliefs that sustain the system that answers the 'ought' questions can be shown through science to be true.
"Ooooh. SEVEN whole articles and FOUR books. Which MIGHT be the reason why I've missed them, because there are only seven of them since '85."
Good. You proved that it is an unpopular theory. Not that it's unscientific. Earlier, you wanted me to show you peer reviewed journal articles. That was the standard you claimed. Now you want me to show you more! Now that it's science, just not popular science, suffice it to say that Thank God scientists through the ages have had the balls to advance theories that were unpopular during their time.
The more we learn about the world we live in, more revolutionary ideas will emerge out of science. To dismiss one idea that doesn't sit well with the popular position as unscientific is itself unscientific.
A, religion is not A system of thought. I mean it's kind of hard to even define what religion is. Is Buddhism a religion for instance? Is Taoism a religion? The point is that religion is useful for people in the same way Taoism is useful to you. So what's your problem with religion? Just because you choose not to discuss your philosophical starting point and I do, and just because i choose to defend scientifically and logically my positions doesn't make my view less useful. It arguably makes it more useful.
*watches the goalposts veer wildly, yet again*
Niran, well, I'm not going to get into it whether Buddhism or Taoism are religions, because that's irrelevant. You are very specifically talking about religion, however, in the sense that you're making a material claim that a god created the universe.
No, I'm saying that the beliefs that sustain the system that answers the 'ought' questions can be shown through science to be true.
Bullshit. You can't prove anything. We've covered this. Bad premises STILL lead to bad conclusions.
Good. You proved that it is an unpopular theory. Not that it's unscientific. Earlier, you wanted me to show you peer reviewed journal articles. That was the standard you claimed. Now you want me to show you more! Now that it's science, just not popular science, suffice it to say that Thank God scientists through the ages have had the balls to advance theories that were unpopular during their time.
Actually, the thousands of articles that you didn't look at prove it's unscientific. You said there was a debate, I said there wasn't. You said that the stuff there was peer reviewed, and then I said, "Nope, it's not." As far as I could find, there wasn't a single thing on that list that was legitimately peer reviewed by scientists -- and in one part, a book claimed to be peer reviewed by scientists was factually peer reviewed by philosophers. So, when there are out-and-out lies on the page, and no comments at all about the, ahem, bias of the Discovery Institute, it's hard to take it seriously.
Are you familiar with the term "manufactured evidence"? Peer review, itself, can be manipulated by dishonest and dishonorable pseudo-scientists like Demski and Behe -- it has been before, and certainly will be, again.
The more we learn about the world we live in, more revolutionary ideas will emerge out of science. To dismiss one idea that doesn't sit well with the popular position as unscientific is itself unscientific.
Alas, I know that Demski and Behe's stuff just isn't science, however. It is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, can't be observed, can't be measured, it has no theoretical interconnection with other scientific theories and hypotheses, it has no predictive power, doesn't suggest additional scientific entities for testing and experimentation, and is in all ways an invisible, unknowable force. It's not that it's an unpopular scientific theory, it's just not science.
It is trivially easy to find thousands of articles about why ID isn't science. There is simply no scientific debate about this.
"You are very specifically talking about religion, however, in the sense that you're making a material claim that a god created the universe."
Still, what your problem that I rely on the idea of God to answer my value questions. Especially when you're relying Taoism.
"Bullshit. You can't prove anything."
That's your view and you're entitled to it. The point remains that I'm not attempting to use a value system to prove a fact, but attempting to use logic and science to prove the veracity of the beliefs that have been built round and sustain my value system. On whether i have proved anything, are you the guy who said that just because we don't know how something was caused we should assume that it was uncaused?
"Actually, the thousands of articles that you didn't look at prove it's unscientific."
Just a question. How can science 'prove' that something is not science. Isn't science to do with what is observed of the natural world. The definition of science(being a definition and not an observable phenomenon) is thus excluded from the discipline of science. So if the discipline of science is being engaged in an area to combat an idea, one would have to conclude that the debate is not one about the definition of science(which is itself outside the scope of scientific inquiry), but one about science itself. This indicates that the thousands of articles are actually proof that there is a scientific debate. Thanks mate. Don't have to rely on those few articles in future. You've done my job.
niran:
That even though you know you lost, you'll never admit it. Never.
You keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday, you’ll believe it.
You mean conversion right? That's not even controversial. I know you don't like to face the facts but your attempt to show that energy was infinite and matter was not, based on the conservation of energy seems to me to be a theory you cooked up without even hearing about the conservation of matter or the equivalence of energy and matter. Now that you've heard of it, you've gotten incoherent on this issue. I've had fun on this one, teaching an atheist science!!
Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat. Jeez, you’re turning into a parrot on this 1.
The only thing I’ve learned is that I was right: you can’t depend on religion to make people honest. That’s it. That’s all I’ve learned.
You’re a lousy teacher, if you think there’s more.
Wow Einstein. That's a really neat package. But philosophy and religions are not always so easily compartmentalized. At the heart of every religion is one or more philosophical postulates.
I was simplifying it, since you seem to be so deficient in reading comprehension. & definitions.
A, science can never replace religion. B, I referred to answers in about five different contexts there. C, What do you want it to prove?
A., we can live quite comfortably w/o religion (at least I can), B., thinly veiled appeal to wonder wrapped in allegorical inference, & C., anything. Anything at all.
If by 'prove', you mean evidence, proof, etc.
niran:
So if the discipline of science is being engaged in an area to combat an idea, one would have to conclude that the debate is not one about the definition of science(which is itself outside the scope of scientific inquiry), but one about science itself. This indicates that the thousands of articles are actually proof that there is a scientific debate.
Oh wow, are YOU outta touch:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
"Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
"Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology."
Tip of the iceberg, 'mate'.
Still, what your problem that I rely on the idea of God to answer my value questions. Especially when you're relying Taoism.
If it were just that, as I have repeatedly stated, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But you're trying to use science to prove the existence of your god, which violates the very barrier between value judgments and physical reality you brought up in the first place!
On whether i have proved anything, are you the guy who said that just because we don't know how something was caused we should assume that it was uncaused?
Or that we should say it was caused. I was saying we don't know, that there's not enough evidence to say with certainty at all -- which was what you were saying, that we did have enough information to be certain. Which we don't.
Just a question. How can science 'prove' that something is not science. Isn't science to do with what is observed of the natural world. The definition of science(being a definition and not an observable phenomenon) is thus excluded from the discipline of science. So if the discipline of science is being engaged in an area to combat an idea, one would have to conclude that the debate is not one about the definition of science(which is itself outside the scope of scientific inquiry), but one about science itself. This indicates that the thousands of articles are actually proof that there is a scientific debate. Thanks mate. Don't have to rely on those few articles in future. You've done my job.
This is a stupid argument, Niran. I actually told you why I think that ID isn't as science. And rather than address my points you throw up this shit as a conversation stopper. Just like you couldn't answer where virtual particles, quantum miracles, quantum flux and dark energy come from, rather than admit your inability to answer relevant points, you change the subject rather than admit you can't answer the points.
Intelligent design is not a science because . . . well, I'll give a partial list because people have written WHOLE BOOKS about the subject and I don't have the time or energy to go over each and every argument. I'll hit some of the high points. ID isn't a science because . . .
* It is rejected by the community of scientists.
* It has no observational proof of an intelligent designer -- they can't produce the designer.
* The hypothesis of a designer is not supported by evidence from other disciplines.
* No claims of ID are verifiable.
* No claims of ID are falsifiable.
* There is no predictive power in ID.
* It doesn't suggest new fields of study.
* It unnecessarily introduces untestable, invisible, unfalsifiable, unverifiable entities.
I see theists as people who don't really believe that science has anything to offer them unless they can mangle it to try and provide an argument for the existence of the tooth fairy.
I prefer the theists of my era who were much more honest on this issue than the raving ant-science phobics of modern times. They accepted that religion and god belief was based in faith. Most "holy books" instruct their believers to accept the "truth of the books" in faith. I have much more respect for that kind of theist. I don't agree with them, but they are honest about their religious beliefs.
As an ex-believer, when I listen to believers stumble about trying to provide evidence for something which is based in faith, quite frankly I am appalled. And for some reason, I think that if a god existed - he, she or it would be appalled as well.
A supposedly omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being does not need a puny human to fight its battles. Believers need to get a clue on this issue.
RA
MF - been busy? I was semi-expecting some input from ya.
Finals week just over today. I'm probably going to take a nice long siesta (or however you spell it) for a while. I also thought the link was appropriate since the discussion was on ID.
Beep,
I'm totally with you. If Niran, or anyone else, just said that their faith was a matter of personal preference, I might think they're WRONG, but I wouldn't care. It's when they start to stumble about trying to force their religion on everything -- not just science like Niran is doing, but also art (using their morality to say what OTHER people can read, see, hear, play) and politics (using their religion to say who other people can marry, screw, what they can drink or consume) -- that I object.
"But you're trying to use science to prove the existence of your god, which violates the very barrier between value judgments and physical reality you brought up in the first place!"
God is not a value system. The existence of God is asserted as a fact. An 'is' assertion. The existence of universal morality is a value assertion. That's an 'ought' assertion. There is a big difference between using science to prove the truth of the 'is' assertion that sustains the 'ought' system and using science to prove the truth of the 'ought' assertions.
"This is a stupid argument, Niran. I actually told you why I think that ID isn't as science. And rather than address my points you throw up this shit as a conversation stopper."
If that's your way of saying you don't want to debate the point, then it's cool. But there is a distinction between the philosophy of science and scientific observation or inquiry. You've made the distinction yourself when you claimed that some of the articles on the discovery site were philosophy of science articles. "What is science?" is not a question that scientists can answer by observing nature. Its a philosophical/definitional issue. You claimed however, that those 1000's of articles proved that ID was non science. Now I'm assuming these thousands of articles in scientific journals are the product of proper scientific inquiry, and as such are not interested in providing answers to definitional philosophy of science questions. Thus those articles can never prove that ID is non science. On the contrary if they are actually writing scientific articles attacking ID, then it follows that there is a scientific debate, albeit between a very popular theory and a very unpopular one. You've proved my own case. Just saying it's silly won't cut.
I'm not interested in your standards for what constitutes science. I just observe scientists debating it, talking about it, bitching about it and I know this is a scientific issue and not a mere philosophical issue.
RE: "God is not a value system. The existence of God is asserted as a fact. An 'is' assertion."
You can assert that fairies swing off your nasal hairs if you like, but asserting so, won't make it a fact, nor the truth.
The existence of God is asserted as a fact. An 'is' assertion.
OK. Where is god. If god "is", you can show me. Do so.
The rest of your post was just the insane poppycock that you spray out when you don't know what you're talking about. It's just nihilism. You're trying to say that ANYTHING can be science so you can say ID is a science, which is linguistic nihilism.
I mean, I TOLD you why ID wasn't a science. Yeah, the definition of science is constructed in such a way that it DOES exclude intelligent design. This is normal in language -- that a given term includes some things and excludes others. That's why language is *useful*. If a given term didn't exclude some things -- yea, most things -- we couldn't use it to describe anything at all.
ID isn't a science, yes, because it fails to meet the standard definitions of science used by philosophers, scientists, linguists and (here in America, now) the law. It doesn't meet any of those criteria I mentioned above.
And before we achieve circularity, again, I'm gonna say my last bit about why ID isn't a science before moving on, hehe.
It would be bad for science if ID was a science. Because ID allows people to introduce invisible, untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable factors into research. There is no way to know, to really know, what "really is" the hand of god and what is just something we can't figure out, yet. And it does science no good not to figure things out, which is what saying it is the hand of god does -- it prevents further research. It admits that the problem is beyond human reason. That just does science no good at all. Even if there WAS a god, it would do science no good to include god in theories and hypotheses because science is about material objects and their interactions; including god would shut down potentially useful research areas.
This is the primary reason why ID is not, nor ever will be, a science, because it's believe in non-physical entities under the inane rubric of "irreducible complexity". One of the lessons of science is today's "irreducible complexity" is tomorrow's basic science -- and we can't tell until we TRY.
You can rant and rave all you want, but ID is being debated in science journals among scientists, by scientists who know better than you and I. I see you've not answered the argument I made about the inability of science to draw the parameters of what constitutes science other than calling it poppycock and stupid. Typical.
"You can assert that fairies swing off your nasal hairs if you like, but asserting so, won't make it a fact, nor the truth."
And you can claim that your ancestors were little primates hanging off tress all you like and that they stole too much bread and got banished down under. Shit, some part of that might be right, but not all of it is, No?
niran:
And the major difference is evidence. Science provides evidence that supports the theory that human beings evolved from a common ancestor with other primates.
Religion, however, deals with fantasyland.
Ken Miller - On Apes and Humans
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/11/ken-miller-on-apes-and-humans.html
niran:
I see you've not answered the argument I made about the inability of science to draw the parameters of what constitutes science other than calling it poppycock and stupid.
Holy crap! Science is all about providing definitions.
Your argument is stupid poppycock. Scientists can't define the term 'science'?
I find this odd:
We think that what you guys have is fake Christianity and cheap entertainment masquerading as religious truth.
So now you're defending all these 'fake Christians'? Which 1 of these ID folks is a 'real' xtian then?
You're right: this isn't a battle you've been trained to fight.
Which battles HAVE you been 'trained to fight', then?
Here, let me throw your own words back at ya:
I'm just telling you not to shoot your mouth when you aren't aware of what's going on.
Ditto.
I wish I could bottle Niran, hehe. I could make a mint selling him to people. ;)
I still wouldn't mind hearing where, if god "is", where god is. Not because I intend to argue about it, just so I can see the bizarre reasoning that he tries to use to say that god "is" but why I can't go up to god and shake its hand. ;)
If you're asking me to identify a location that God exists in, you are asking me to contradict the definition of God, which is that he exists outside space and time. That's not possible, sorry.
Why don't you start by selling your physicist wife and her friends off before trying it on other people...
Niran,
Yes, I am asking you, if god is in me, to tell me where this god is. For instance, if someone says "you have a liver inside of you", it's pretty easy to get verification of that. I could go get a flouroscope and see my liver! I HAVE seen my liver! (If I was sufficiently dedicated, I could open myself up and look at my liver, but that's not gonna happen. I trust the flouroscope, and in the fact that humans have been repeatedly demonstrated to have livers.)
You say god is inside of me. WHERE?
You say god does things. WHERE? WHEN?
Sings - "Hey hey We're the Monkeys"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0FUvLfxyp0
"You say god is inside of me. WHERE?"
When did I tell you that God was inside you? Whoever gave you that idea?
"You say god does things. WHERE? WHEN?"
God created the universe. That's what we've been debating about over the last week. Like I said he's not limited to time and space so the 'where' and 'when' don't emerge. I made the point earlier, is it that difficult to understand?
Btw, can you tell how I can shake the hand of the formless and eternal Tao? I can't right...Sweet.
Niran,
You can't prove that god did ANYTHING. Even if I fully accepted your arguments (and I don't), all you "proved" was that something created the universe. It is an additional logical leap to say that whatever created the universe is god. Even if there is a prime mover, it could be . . . a blind, idiot force spewing out universes.
And you're really harping on the Taoism thing, even tho' I continue to NOT BRING IT UP in this discussion. (And, besides, I'm a scientific materialist. I'm a philosophical Taoist -- meaning that the Tao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have inspired me, not that I accept what they write as being factually true.)
niran:
God created the universe. That's what we've been debating about over the last week. Like I said he's not limited to time and space so the 'where' and 'when' don't emerge. I made the point earlier, is it that difficult to understand?
Terribly convenient, then, that this creator is beyond mortal ken.
It's not hard to understand.
It defies logic.
Sweeeet.
Btw, can you tell how I can shake the hand of the formless and eternal Tao? I can't right...Sweet.
What the hell...?
Trying to spin out a tu quoque outta this?
I don't know what 'battles' you've been trained for, but if it's apologetic logic, I'd get a refund.
"Even if I fully accepted your arguments (and I don't), all you "proved" was that something created the universe"
No, an infinite, immaterial, uncaused cause exists. Further, since the universe's existence is a contingent and not a necessary existence, it follows that the uncaused cause which caused the universe has the capacity to bring about an effect according to its will. Uncaused, infinite, immaterial, personal. Sounds like a good description of the God I worship. Not an exhaustive description, but in the right direction.
Niran, you can't go on positing this transcendent, etc. cause of yours until you answer the objections I brought up on beep's blog. Wow, typing with the Wii is hard
niran:
You monkey. Go and watch the link where Ken Miller explains the fusion of 2 primate chromosomes.
niran:
No, an infinite, immaterial, uncaused cause exists.
I can't believe you're the same person who accused me of being anti-science & anti-logic.
An 'unseeable, untouchable, non-material creature' exists.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Further, since the universe's existence is a contingent and not a necessary existence
Contingent on what (he snickers: this should be good)?
it follows that the uncaused cause which caused the universe has the capacity to bring about an effect according to its will.
No, it doesn't follow, as you've yet to demonstrate anything outside of some lyrical appeal to the Watchmaker theorem.
Uncaused, infinite, immaterial, personal.
Personal? Are you kidding me? How personal? You get a phone call once a week? Once a month? Have coffee w/it? Go out to dinner w/this deity? That god that seemed to mysteriously vanish once the new testament was topped off? That critter that did such a slipshod job of designing both the world & its stewards, that a trial is in order, 1 of criminal/parental negligence? (take your pick)
Sounds like a good description of the God I worship. Not an exhaustive description, but in the right direction.
Sounds like a right whimsical crock, it does.
Sorry, mate.
You've been sold a false bill of goods.
Seriously, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Niran,
See how you slipped in personality and such? Even accepting your first cause -- even accepting that -- how does one get from creation of the universe to stuff like will and personality.
Maybe the prime mover can't help creating universes. It just . . . happens. It's a cosmic egg laying machine and it doesn't happen according to any "will", any more than a chicken lays eggs, or acorns produce oak trees.
One of the consistent flaws of the neo-Thomist argument (and, indeed, of the Thomist argument and Aristotelian argument) is the idea that the prime mover, because it moves, has anthropomorphic traits. On what GROUNDS to you invest this prime mover with traits like will? (I'm gonna guess, like with the premises themselves, mere assertion.) Why isn't the prime mover something like "change" or "chance" or "quantum flux"?
And, back to the personal, if this god is personal, I wanna meet it. A couple of posts back you were saying how this prime mover was outside of time and space -- thus beyond our ability to perceive it -- but now you're saying it's personal. If it's personal to you, and you obviously exist in my life cone (or we wouldn't be talking), then I want to meet your personal god. If your god really "is".
However, I must repeat, the reason why I don't have any faith in religion is that it doesn't work. That it's science that heals the sick and feeds the hungry.
Not to mention good ol' Epicurus' unanswered questions:
If god is all powerful, then there is evil because god is spiteful, and god is not spiteful. And if god wills to end evil but can't, god is weak, and god is not weak. And if god can neither end evil nor wants to, god is spiteful and weak. Yet, there is evil. Where is god?
Wow. You guys are still goin' at it here. (beepbeep, where I come from 'you guys' includes both sexes).
Okay, I wanna see Niran explain his personal uncaused cause.
karen - yeah, it's like some sorta blogging ping-pong match.
Gotta give it to niran for staying power, if naught else.
anonymous - in fairness, 2 of my posts threw down the gauntlet w/him, so fair is fair, I've let him have his say.
Maybe enough is enough, though.
I'm desperately short of time but will like to deal with a few points later, if Krystalline and time will permit.
Mf, you're due a reply. Suffice it to say for now that the idea of causality applies to the universe. The question of whether it applies outside the universe does not arise, since if everything within the universe is bound by the principle, it's impossible to exclude the universe as a whole from this, since the parts make up the whole.
Bradley, I'll post an article here soon that crosses the bridge between the UC and 'personality' in a decision making sense. I'll be happy to defend the article though, since I think it makes a lot of sense. Give me some time, I'm running more than a few deadlines and will get back to you here.
To assume that evil exists is to assume that good exists, and that absolute rules determine between what's good and evil. How does the atheist determine between good and evil in the absence of a moral lawgiver who is transcendent?
You should be able to meet this personal God at church. Not sure whether he's too fond of tele evangelist mansions and mega churches though.
I'm sorry for not answering all the questions now.
I'll be back.
Niran,
Uh, I'm not going to read your article. If you can't express, for yourself, why the first cause is the Christian god, I'm not gonna bother. I'm not talking with this other person, but you.
To assume that evil exists is to assume that good exists, and that absolute rules determine between what's good and evil. How does the atheist determine between good and evil in the absence of a moral lawgiver who is transcendent?
We think.
"Uh, I'm not going to read your article. If you can't express, for yourself, why the first cause is the Christian god, I'm not gonna bother."
I' not the only one to copy and paste here. If you don't want to read this argument, I can't help. I can't be arsed paraphrasing and putting it in my own words when I can just copy it here. This argument makes sense to me, so I'm happy to defend it.
"In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator."
"We think."
So tell me how you think and come to the conclusion that moral good and evil exists.
niran:
You need to provide evidence for the existence of your preferred god before you get to claim what he or she has done.
niran:
Welcome to "Monkey Magic"
Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:
1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)
2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)
3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)
4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).
Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.
Firstly, if you still wish to claim that gawd did it, you would need to accept the evidence that god used chimp DNA and natural selection in order to create human beings over a long period of time.
Secondly, the literal explanation of a human being created from dirt and woman being created from a rib, is put to rest with the rest of mythology.
The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.
Now, go and peel me a banana monkey boy.
Niran,
That argument is, again, jokingly bad. It does nothing but anthropomorphize natural events. It's the same sort of reasoning that made people infer, from the presence of lightning, the existence of Thor or Indra or Zeus. There is no reason to believe, or even suspect, it's the case that a first cause would have a personality, any more than to think the manifestation of electrical potential in the air in the form of lightning was caused by the will of a thunder god.
So tell me how you think and come to the conclusion that moral good and evil exists.
Really, the same way you do. Oh, sure, gods lay out commands but then those commands are interpreted by humans. God says "don't kill" but . . . then humans come along and say, "Well, self-defense is OK" and "war is OK" and things of that nature. The same sort of discernment that religious people use to decide the interpretation of law can be applied to the laws themselves.
In the US, at any rate, atheists are something like 1/5th as likely to be in prison as religious people. So, it seems, via inspection it appears that atheists are more moral people hereabouts -- we steal, kill and injure much, much less than people who believe in a divinely inspired morality.
"Really, the same way you do. Oh, sure, gods lay out commands but then those commands are interpreted by humans. God says "don't kill" but . . . then humans come along and say, "Well, self-defense is OK" and "war is OK" and things of that nature. The same sort of discernment that religious people use to decide the interpretation of law can be applied to the laws themselves"
Fantastic. You're on my home turf now. But the question I ask you is not about the textual interpretation of a text a la Hart or Dworkin. I'm asking you how you come to a conclusion that absolute standards exist that draw the line between good and evil. Your question itself, or your challenge, assumes the existence of evil. I'm asking you how you you can justify the strict division of good v evil without an transcendental moral postulation. In a sense, I'm asking you for a distiction between good and evil in a metaethical sense rather than a normative transposition of ethical narratives,
Mf, you're due a reply. Suffice it to say for now that the idea of causality applies to the universe. The question of whether it applies outside the universe does not arise, since if everything within the universe is bound by the principle, it's impossible to exclude the universe as a whole from this, since the parts make up the whole.
Tsk, tsk. There was more to the argument than just those two points. I pointed out where 1. A transcendent (not bound by time) cause cannot act as a causal factor because surprise causality requires time and that saying that time does not apply outside of physical states is a naked assertion (this is a new one). 2. That you left out the option of the causal primary. 3. That you attempted to apply causality in a place that makes no sense (causality as we know it works along physical forces). 4. That you have still yet to demonstrate that this cause is a diety. 5. That a transcendent first cause is a meaningless explanatory concept because a transcednant cause means that we don't have a vocabulary in place to describe it (our vocabulary is based upon the universe). 6. That taking the term causality and attempting to apply it to the framework that makes causality possible is the equivalent of asking for a logical defence of the three laws of logic (circular logic).
For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time.
If the cause is "outside of time" as you have claimed on beep's blog, then how can it act as a temporal effect? By acting within time, it must be a part of time, otherwise, it couldn't act within time. If a being is eternally outside of time, it and time can not interact. That means it can't create a temporal disturbance.
For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent.
Or the man may be forced to stand up by the drunken frats of eternity riding to close in their hot rod and then act as a non-personal creator which didn't want anything to do with the accident of the temporal effect. Of course, I'm a determinist, so I really don't understand how the man can "will" to stand up without have pre-existing factors that influenced his decision.
Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator
If the agent can act within time, then then it isn't a transcendant first cause. If it can't act within time, it can't create a temporal effect.
I'm asking you how you you can justify the strict division of good v evil without an transcendental moral postulation.
Good and evil are social terms, they are defined by individual societies and are controlled by the people and groups who possess power within those societies. Moral inhibitions on the micro level are made through education, possible natural determining factors and percieved wrongs within individuals. On the macro level, multiple powers (prestige, wealth, power (strength), and sheer numberse) crash against each other and work mutually to see that their own values are transmitted on to the rest of the society. The people who win out help create a large portion of the moral fabric of a society while the ones who lose can still act as deviants from the more powerful moral group and pass on their morals through education to their own offspring, etc.
And that is how morality has worked for a long time now.
Oh, and niran, there is something that you haven't done yet which is common courtesy to do. I would appreciate it if you would go ahead and define this god concept that you are trying so hard to prove to us. A list of attributes would do nicely. This way, these arguments can reach a clarity and we won't have to waste the next few hundred comments.
"1. A transcendent (not bound by time) cause cannot act as a causal factor because surprise causality requires time and that saying that time does not apply outside of physical states is a naked assertion (this is a new one)."
That's wrong. Causality does not need time. Time is invoked to explain the succession of physical states. Time is not a thing to be created, it's a concept that tags along with the existence of physical things. Outside of physical states, there is infinite nothingness. And time does not tag along...
"you leave out the option of a causal primary, ie the metaphysical basis for the concept of causality."
I'm not sure what you mean there, but I'm assuming the principle of causality. Just like I'm assuming the existence of the universe.
"3. That you attempted to apply causality in a place that makes no sense (causality as we know it works along physical forces)."
No, I'm applying causality to the universe which is physical. The opposite of what I'm doing would be to look at the universe and claim that the universe needs no cause. I'm arguing that the only plausible theory of how this universe came to be is to posit an uncaused, immaterial cause. Neither logic nor science precludes an omnipotent uncaused cause from creating the universe.
"That you have still yet to demonstrate that this cause is a diety."
What is deity? I told you the characteristics that it is plausible for the UC to have. Infinite, timeless, immaterial, personal. I've never claimed the cosmological argument proves the existence of the God I believe in. It just makes my belief a lot more plausible than saying that God does not exist for instance.
" 5. That a transcendent first cause is a meaningless explanatory concept because a transcednant cause means that we don't have a vocabulary in place to describe it (our vocabulary is based upon the universe)"
Let's invent the vocabulary needed to explain it. I'm not sure where the semantic deficiency is, but surely it must not impede the search for truth.
"6. That taking the term causality and attempting to apply it to the framework that makes causality possible is the equivalent of asking for a logical defence of the three laws of logic (circular logic)"
No, I'm not applying causality to the principle of causality. I'm applying it to the universe, and unless you want to say that the universe is an abstraction, you'll have no problem with my position.
"If the cause is "outside of time" as you have claimed on beep's blog, then how can it act as a temporal effect?"
It does not act as a temporal effect. It creates a temporal effect.
"By acting within time, it must be a part of time, otherwise, it couldn't act within time. If a being is eternally outside of time, it and time can not interact."
No, it brings time into effect by bringing physical things into effect. Time in infinite nothingness is impossible. For one, there'd be no way of measuring time. Hilbert's Hotel would apply.
"Good and evil are social terms, they are defined by individual societies and are controlled by the people and groups who possess power within those societies."
Which means you're saying that absolute evil does not exist. It's a social construct if at all. So within an atheist or non theist world view, claiming that absolute evil exists is just not possible. Which means that the argument that God does not exist because evil exists cannot even be meaningfully raised within that world view.
"I would appreciate it if you would go ahead and define this god concept that you are trying so hard to prove to us."
I've done it repeated times here. Scroll up.
"Other than that, niran you've had plenty of time to think of a responce, so hurry it up."
I work to my own time. Sorry if I kept you waiting but I couldn't be arsed just typing responses to everyone. Your summarizing the arguments in point form helped immensely, because the prospect of poring over your long post on Beep's blog was hardly enticing. Thanks.
I'm asking you how you you can justify the strict division of good v evil without an transcendental moral postulation. In a sense, I'm asking you for a distiction between good and evil in a metaethical sense rather than a normative transposition of ethical narratives.
I don't believe in absolute good or evil, but good or evil as a social construct.
Not only do I not believe in absolute morals, I don't think anyone else does, either. All one has to do is take a casual look around people, even those in the same religion, to demonstrate that obviously absolute morality doesn't exist. Some Christians feel that all killing is murder, others create a number of categories in which killing is not murder, things of that nature, and this is true in all religions. It is obvious that even when people believe in a divine moral force that they don't agree what it is, and engage in the very sort of relativistic moral reasoning that atheists do.
Causality does not need time. Time is invoked to explain the succession of physical states. Time is not a thing to be created, it's a concept that tags along with the existence of physical things. Outside of physical states, there is infinite nothingness.
If you don't have time, you can't have a string of causes happen. For the causes to actually happen, you need time. There is no way around this. Time allows for change which allows for causality. And if outside of physical states, there is "infinite nothingness" that doesn't leave any room for your diety.
I'm not sure what you mean there, but I'm assuming the principle of causality. Just like I'm assuming the existence of the universe.
Your argument on Beep's blog consisted of either an uncaused universe, an infinite chain of causes or a first cause. The causal primary is existence, ie you start with the existence of the universe and work from there. Going outside the universe is meaninless, so it makes more sense to start with what humans know about.
No, I'm applying causality to the universe which is physical. The opposite of what I'm doing would be to look at the universe and claim that the universe needs no cause. I'm arguing that the only plausible theory of how this universe came to be is to posit an uncaused, immaterial cause. Neither logic nor science precludes an omnipotent uncaused cause from creating the universe.
Immaterial and causality don't make sense together, and the very concept of causality defies the idea of a "first cause." That's why the causal primary is so important, it isn't a first cause, but it is the basis for the concept of causality.
No, I'm not applying causality to the principle of causality. I'm applying it to the universe, and unless you want to say that the universe is an abstraction, you'll have no problem with my position.
The universe's existence is the basis for causality though, so you are attempting to apply causality to the foundation of causality.
It does not act as a temporal effect. It creates a temporal effect.
If it makes a temporal effect, it is interwoven with time. To effect time, it needs to be able to be a part of time. For it to even bring the "physical thing into existence" there would be a point in time in which it hadn't done so, so there has to be some time working here. No time=no cause
No, it brings time into effect by bringing physical things into effect. Time in infinite nothingness is impossible. For one, there'd be no way of measuring time.
Again, "infinite nothingness" leaves no room for your god. Time and physical objects are together, one does not bring about the other, they exist together.
Which means you're saying that absolute evil does not exist. It's a social construct if at all. So within an atheist or non theist world view, claiming that absolute evil exists is just not possible. Which means that the argument that God does not exist because evil exists cannot even be meaningfully raised within that world view.
Actually, all I have to do is ask you if you beleive that the concept of evil is absolute, and then apply that to your own worldview to create an argument that invalidates it. Secondly, I'm an implicit atheist most of the time, not an explicit one.
uncaused, immaterial, infinite, timeless, omnipotent, personal
These are the attributes that I have so far, so, are there any more such as omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenelovent, etc. that you would like to add?
Let's invent the vocabulary needed to explain it. I'm not sure where the semantic deficiency is, but surely it must not impede the search for truth.
Humans don't have experience outside of the universe, so they don't have the framework to create a new vocabulary to describe it. You are impeding the search for "truth" moreso than anyone else though. You essentially presuppose the existence of your god, and then seek to validate it with superficial arguments that contribute nothing to the overall knowledge of humanity. If you were more serious, you would take on a skeptical viewpoint and observe the universe around you until we first found this immaterial being, and then accepting its existence. Then you would hold the title of a person who seeks truths. However, what you are doing now is a mockery of that ideal.
Bradley
"I don't believe in absolute good or evil, but good or evil as a social construct."
Perfect. Yet Epicurus' argument that you raised assumes the existence of evil. Without the concept (and not conception) of absolute evil, the whole argument that "God cannot exist because evil exists" is rendered meaningless. If you posit evil, you assume that there is something called good, and if you assume good and evil, you assume a moral law that is objective and not contingent on human action that determines between what's good and evil. Within a non theist framework, that objective moral law cannot be sustained, so the challenge fails.
However, the Christian free will theodicy and the free process theodicy do provide a theological explanation for evil and suffering in the universe in a way that's consistent with an omnipotent God. Just google it up. For the purposes of the debate though, it's clear that the issue does not even arise unless you assume the existence of absolute moral values.
"All one has to do is take a casual look around people, even those in the same religion, to demonstrate that obviously absolute morality doesn't exist."
You're confusing the concept of absolute morality and the conception of absolute morality. All Christians will agree that absolute morality exists. The concept of absolute morality is accepted. The conception, or the nature of goods inside the basket are disputed. Suffice it to say that Epicurus' question assumes absolute morals also, so you might want to distance yourself from that line of argument.
MF
"If you don't have time, you can't have a string of causes happen. For the causes to actually happen, you need time. There is no way around this."
Again, you're thinking of time as a thing. It's not. It's just a concept that makes sense of physical states of being. I'm positing an initial effect, which when it is brought into being, also brings with it the idea of time.
"And if outside of physical states, there is "infinite nothingness" that doesn't leave any room for your diety."
My deity does not inhabit space in time. Infinite physical nothingness and the existence of an eternal infinite are more than compatible.
"The causal primary is existence, ie you start with the existence of the universe and work from there. Going outside the universe is meaninless, so it makes more sense to start with what humans know about."
If you're saying we can't ask why the universe exists, we might as well just stop this discussion.
"That's why the causal primary is so important, it isn't a first cause, but it is the basis for the concept of causality."
You haven't really explained what this causal primary is, but I suspect you're smuggling it in to stop people from asking, why something instead of nothing.
"Immaterial and causality don't make sense together,"
Why? There's no logical reason for the two ideas to be mutually exclusive.
"and the very concept of causality defies the idea of a "first cause."
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause Where's the contradiction?
"The universe's existence is the basis for causality though, so you are attempting to apply causality to the foundation of causality."
My suspicions are confirmed. You're not willing to ask the question, what caused the universe? That's just intellectual insincerity really, because you probably know the implications of asking the question. You'll be forced to provide an answer.
"For it to even bring the "physical thing into existence" there would be a point in time in which it hadn't done so, so there has to be some time working here. No time=no cause"
No, time begins to exist with the effect. Note that I haven't proposed the idea that God is temporally prior to the universe, but that he is causally prior to the universe. If the cause is immaterial then time and the idea of 'beforeness' does not arise. It seems counter intuitive because as you have noted we are used to the idea that causes are physical things and causes therefore are also temporally prior to the effect. But in a hitherto timeless infinite nothingness no 'beforeness' emerges. The question is if there is a logical impossibility of a timeless, immaterial cause existing outside time bringing into effect a physical thing. I don't think there is and one would just need to assume omnipotence and any suggestion of logical impossibility disappears.
"Time and physical objects are together, one does not bring about the other, they exist together."
In a matter of speaking, yes. My point was no physical thing= no time.
"These are the attributes that I have so far, so, are there any more such as omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenelovent, etc. that you would like to add?"
As a matter of faith I would accept them. As a matter of argument, I can only claim to use the kind of argument that I have used here demonstrate the plausibility of the attributes I have listed. I find however that the leap of faith from the attributes listed to ones I accept through faith to be a more rational leap than to leap to the implausible conclusions that the universe just popped into existence uncaused or that the universe is infinite.
Perfect. Yet Epicurus' argument that you raised assumes the existence of evil. Without the concept (and not conception) of absolute evil, the whole argument that "God cannot exist because evil exists" is rendered meaningless.
WOW. Insane sophistry. INSANE SOPHISTRY.
Because while I do not believe in absolute good or evil, religious folks do. So, Epicurus is not judging god on my grounds, but your grounds.
If, say, a human unleashed a natural disaster that killed a quarter of a million people, or created cancer and gave it to little boys and girls, every religious person would regard that person as being evil. BUT it's OK when god does it? That's what Epicurus is saying -- that when you judge god from the POV of religious people, god's a sonofabitch mass murdering hypocrite.
Yes, yes, I know you're going to say something along the lines of it's wrong to judge god by the moral standards god judges humans by. It's bullshit.
But I guess when you're a presuppositionalist, interested in doing nothing but justifying your established religious beliefs, you gotta say inane stuff like this.
All Christians will agree that absolute morality exists. The concept of absolute morality is accepted. The conception, or the nature of goods inside the basket are disputed.
The admit it exists, they just don't know what it is, thus their actual morality is the result of their moral reasoning. Christians enact their own moral reasoning, not god's, as can be demonstrated by the wildly divergent beliefs actual Christians have. If they were enacting god's moral reasoning, they wouldn't be at such loggerheads about what morals actually are. What good are absolute morals if people are ignorant of what they are?
"Yes, yes, I know you're going to say something along the lines of it's wrong to judge god by the moral standards god judges humans by. It's bullshit."
Avtually Epicurus was a moral absolutist, so you got that one wrong. But your point is that an all loving good God and the exustence of evil are incompatible. There havee been many defences that show the logical compatibility of the twin realities. I've already meantioned the free will and the free process defences. The Christian position is that the best possible world is one where people have the free will to choose to inflict evil on others. The element of choice is what enables humans to love and consciously make choices that are good, and evil. In the absence of this choice, humans would be merely robots programmed to carry out functions and the virtues of love and good deeds would not exist. So the best possible world is one where morally good choices could be made, which in turn leaves the option open for evil choices to be made.
"If they were enacting god's moral reasoning, they wouldn't be at such loggerheads about what morals actually are. What good are absolute morals if people are ignorant of what they are?"
A hell of a lot of good. Universal morality provides the basis for the idea of human right and provides a strong critique of the cultural relativist position. Even international law with universal jurisdiction and international tribunals assume a sort of absolute morality. But primarily, the idea of absolute good provides a rationale for the continuing search for the true nature of justice and underpins any effort to critique the injustice of rulers.
How would you, within an atheist worldview, critique the holocaust? If morality is merely a by product of cultural forces and societal alignments, surely a national sovereign is justified in rewriting the existent moral code.
Again, you're thinking of time as a thing. It's not. It's just a concept that makes sense of physical states of being. I'm positing an initial effect, which when it is brought into being, also brings with it the idea of time.
And you're not understanding that time is a measurement of change. So, No time=no change=no cause. Without time you don't have causality because you don't have change.
My deity does not inhabit space in time. Infinite physical nothingness and the existence of an eternal infinite are more than compatible.
Infinite is limitless, so, if nothingness outside of the universe is without limit, then there is nothing outside of the universe ( which means no god).
If you're saying we can't ask why the universe exists, we might as well just stop this discussion.
My main argument up to this point is that our language doesn't allow for it. You can ask the question all you want, however, the answer isn't as easy as you attempt to make it.
You haven't really explained what this causal primary is, but I suspect you're smuggling it in to stop people from asking, why something instead of nothing.
The causal primary is the existence of the universe, and I've said that more than once. Our concept of causality is based upon the existence of the universe, so applying it outside to a make a transcedant first cause makes no sense.
Why? There's no logical reason for the two ideas to be mutually exclusive.
Humans haven't run into "immaterial" yet, so we don't know how to apply causality to it. Limits of language and experience.
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause Where's the contradiction?
Actually, causality says "Everything must have a cause", so, even the first cause must have a cause.If it doesn't, then causality is merely a sham.
My suspicions are confirmed. You're not willing to ask the question, what caused the universe?
I'll ask the question all I like, however, I undstand that my experience at the moment is limited. I don't know if the term "what" can even work outside of the universe let alone if I can work with causality outside of it.
That's just intellectual insincerity really, because you probably know the implications of asking the question. You'll be forced to provide an answer.
There can be questions without answers. I'm merely pointing out the current limit that language and experience constrains on the answer to the question.
No, time begins to exist with the effect.
Time, the dimension, is intertwined with matter. Unless you can happen to know of a point where they are separated. For time to "begin to exist" there must be a point before time, however that makes no sense. If there is a point before time then some sense of time is still being used.
Note that I haven't proposed the idea that God is temporally prior to the universe, but that he is causally prior to the universe.
Causally prior must also happen before, otherwise nothing would have happened. Causes outside of time don't make sense.
If the cause is immaterial then time and the idea of 'beforeness' does not arise.
Again, no time=no change=no cause. Without time, your cause makes no sense.
It seems counter intuitive because as you have noted we are used to the idea that causes are physical things and causes therefore are also temporally prior to the effect.
The reason we are used to causes being physical things is because they are. So, you are running the limits of language yet again.
But in a hitherto timeless infinite nothingness no 'beforeness' emerges. The question is if there is a logical impossibility of a timeless, immaterial cause existing outside time bringing into effect a physical thing.
"Bringing into effect" is again refering to time. There is a point in time when there wasn't the effect, so what you are talking about is still being talked about using time.
In a matter of speaking, yes. My point was no physical thing= no time.
Without time, there is also no change, which does not allow for any concept of causality. So, the first cause cannot act, meaning nothing can be caused into existence.
As a matter of faith I would accept them.
Then not only do you accept the contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence, power without limits must be able to overpower knowedge, yet if it does then omniscience cannot work, but you also accept the contradiction of omnipresence and omnibenelovence combined with the existence of evil (an omnipresent being must be present in everything, including time and evil. Then, omnibenevolent cannot work together with omnipresence (also doesn't make sense for the being to be timeless.)
that the universe just popped into existence uncaused or that the universe is infinite.
I find it much more rational to accept that the universe exists and that our concept of causality cannont be legitamently extended further than our language (which is based upon the universe) allows. And when our language and experience allows for us to understand things outside our universe we can then meaningfully understand how things work outside of our universe.
How would you, within an atheist worldview, critique the holocaust? If morality is merely a by product of cultural forces and societal alignments, surely a national sovereign is justified in rewriting the existent moral code.
The more powerful societies won, so their morality was carried on. Other groups and people outside and inside of the society exercised their power to change the moral situation of their time. And one of their moral beleifs probably had something to do with the execution of sovreigns.
I can critique the holocaust rather easily becase I am a part of my society and have had the educational and my own percieved wrongs that I measure it up against. Something that people should never forget.
"And you're not understanding that time is a measurement of change. So, No time=no change=no cause. Without time you don't have causality because you don't have change."
Time is a measurement of temporal succession of physical states MF. So time cannoty exist where physical things don't exist. Time begins when physical matter began to exist. You couldn't speak of a physical effect without time, but to conceptualize an immaterial cause without time involves no contradiction.
"Infinite is limitless, so, if nothingness outside of the universe is without limit, then there is nothing outside of the universe ( which means no god"
Infinite physical nothingness does not preclude an immaterial absolute.
"Actually, causality says "Everything must have a cause","
That's the problem with the somewhat obsolete articluation of causality. How can things that don't begin to exist be caused?If they just were, what sense does it make to say "what caused it"? The restatement of the causal principle that everything that begins to exist must have a cause makes much more sense.
"The causal primary is the existence of the universe, and I've said that more than once. Our concept of causality is based upon the existence of the universe, so applying it outside to a make a transcedant first cause makes no sense."
But the whole is made of the parts right. So it makes no sense to say that we should not question as to what caused the universe? Unless you invoke the idea that the universe caused itself or that it is infinite, one would necessarily have to rely on causes outside the universe. Since this is a logical step, let language and experience follow logical necessity.
"Bringing into effect" is again refering to time."
I don't mean 'bringing into effect' in a present continuous sense. Thanks for pointing that out. Bring into existence is probably a better way of saying it. Yes time does come in, but only when the physical thing comes into the picture.
"Then not only do you accept the contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence, power without limits must be able to overpower knowedge, yet if it does then omniscience cannot work,"
Sorry, I didn't follow that line of argument. Also, I don't believe in the omnipresence of God. Sorry if I carelessly agreed to all the attributes you listed out.
"The more powerful societies won, so their morality was carried on."
It's very heartening to note that you think might is right. There is no objectivity in your critique of Hitler either. We're more powerful than you, so what we say goes. At least it's consistent with the survival of the fittest. With the startling rise of the power of militant forms of Islam(they've defeated the worlds most powerful military ever in a long war)and the Islamisation of Europe, it won't be long before the more 'powerful' society starts telling women they ought not be wearing skirts or going to school. Wonder how you'll critique the wide scale violations of human rights at that point?
niran:
Time is a measurement of temporal succession of physical states MF. So time cannoty exist where physical things don't exist. Time begins when physical matter began to exist. You couldn't speak of a physical effect without time, but to conceptualize an immaterial cause without time involves no contradiction.
Ummm…do you need a tutor in cosmology…again?
“Tracing the expansion of the universe back in time shows that the universe would have been compressed to infinite density approximately 8–16 × 109 years ago. In the big bang theory, the universe began at that time as a so-called big bang began the expansion. The big bang was the origin of space and time.”
http://www.answers.com/big%20bang
Infinite physical nothingness does not preclude an immaterial absolute.
So you claim to have ‘proven’ there’s no such thing as infinity, except when it’s convenient for your ‘uncaused cause’.
That's the problem with the somewhat obsolete articluation of causality. How can things that don't begin to exist be caused?If they just were, what sense does it make to say "what caused it"? The restatement of the causal principle that everything that begins to exist must have a cause makes much more sense.
Via a contradiction in your supposed ‘logic’.
But the whole is made of the parts right. So it makes no sense to say that we should not question as to what caused the universe? Unless you invoke the idea that the universe caused itself or that it is infinite, one would necessarily have to rely on causes outside the universe. Since this is a logical step, let language and experience follow logical necessity.
You’re kidding, right? Talk about blinkered. Every theist I run into always assumes the container exists first, that the system precedes the processes.
Sorry, I didn't follow that line of argument. Also, I don't believe in the omnipresence of God. Sorry if I carelessly agreed to all the attributes you listed out.
Wow, that’s a new 1. Gawd is omni-what, then? If your deity isn’t omnipresent, then it can’t be the uncaused cause, can it?
It's very heartening to note that you think might is right. There is no objectivity in your critique of Hitler either. We're more powerful than you, so what we say goes. At least it's consistent with the survival of the fittest. With the startling rise of the power of militant forms of Islam(they've defeated the worlds most powerful military ever in a long war)and the Islamisation of Europe, it won't be long before the more 'powerful' society starts telling women they ought not be wearing skirts or going to school. Wonder how you'll critique the wide scale violations of human rights at that point?
There’s a non-sequitor or 2 in that.
A. All atheists are moral relativists, so
B. Atheists can’t disapprove of the Holocaust.
I favor the Moral Razor & moral naturalism. Hitler was a fucktard crazy asshole. It’s blaringly obvious that historically it’s almost ALWAYS been ‘might makes right’ – 1 only has to look at the harm that xtianity’s inflicted over the past few centuries. How’d they stay in power? Executions, burning documents, all sorts of flowery rhetoric to cover its deficiencies. Do I agree w/’might makes right’? Hell no. Does that make it go away? Only a simp would think so.
So what battles have you been ‘trained’ to fight? I hope you’re better at martial battles than logical ones, or you’re in deep, deep doodoo.
As for the recent problems w/Islam: it didn’t start out as a religious clash – it’s being spun that way now to cover for all the fuck-ups my country (as well as others) have committed. It’s not some huge ‘Good Vs. Evil’ climactic battle, it’s mostly a small bunch of fanatics on both sides using the tool of religion to drive the masses against each other.
Religion is poison. It’s hypocritical, it’s counter-intuitive, it relies on emotions too heavily – these are just a few items on my laundry list
The only justice we can expect is from our fellow humans. Until the blindfolds are lifted, the masses will make poor, uneducated guesses based on an expired template that doesn’t fit the real world whatsoever.
Time is a measurement of temporal succession of physical states MF. So time cannoty exist where physical things don't exist. Time begins when physical matter began to exist. You couldn't speak of a physical effect without time, but to conceptualize an immaterial cause without time involves no contradiction.
You said time was a measurment of change in a more refined manner, but you are still saying the same thing. We don't know of any change outside of physical states, so time is still measuring change.
Time begins? You're trapped in the language of time, get used to it. You're still working within time while you explain it. Is it not a wonder why you don't make sense.
Infinite physical nothingness does not preclude an immaterial absolute.
Even if immaterial isn't physical, it is still something according to the way you've attempted to describe it. So, it cannot exist where there is infinite nothing.
That's the problem with the somewhat obsolete articluation of causality. How can things that don't begin to exist be caused?If they just were, what sense does it make to say "what caused it"?
Just as it doesn't make sense to posit something outside of the universe to explain the universe without the language to describe it.
But the whole is made of the parts right. So it makes no sense to say that we should not question as to what caused the universe?
I haven't said that you can't question it, just that the answer isn't easy without the language neccesary to explain it.
Unless you invoke the idea that the universe caused itself or that it is infinite, one would necessarily have to rely on causes outside the universe.
Yet, we don't know how causality works outside of the universe, so it doesn't make sense to apply causality outside just yet.
"Bringing into effect" is again refering to time."
I don't mean 'bringing into effect' in a present continuous sense. Thanks for pointing that out. Bring into existence is probably a better way of saying it. Yes time does come in, but only when the physical thing comes into the picture.
You're still refering to the cause within time. "Bring into existence" shows a point in time where time wasn't in existence. You can't escape time as long as you are in the universe.
Sorry, I didn't follow that line of argument.
Its not an argument, its just the ends of the attributes that you use to describe your god.
It's very heartening to note that you think might is right.
Its more complicated than just physical might, you have power on intellectual levels also.
There is no objectivity in your critique of Hitler either.
There isn't supposed to be. I just exercise my power against it.
We're more powerful than you, so what we say goes.
You're only thinking of power along physical lines, where there are so many other routes to use.
At least it's consistent with the survival of the fittest.
Its not survival of the fittest. Its just the way humans have always progressed through history.
With the startling rise of the power of militant forms of Islam(they've defeated the worlds most powerful military ever in a long war)
Do you know what it means for a state to apply itself unilaterally and to apply itself proportionally. As in, the war in Iraq at the moment, the US and its alliance countries are applying themselves porportionally, not unilaterally.
and the Islamisation of Europe, it won't be long before the more 'powerful' society starts telling women they ought not be wearing skirts or going to school.
Even if this does happen, you will still have people acting as deviants by teaching their children differently, along with riots and rebellions by other organizations. Humans have a tendancy to fight back.
Wonder how you'll critique the wide scale violations of human rights at that point?
At that point, I'll probably be fighting in a rebellion. No point bothering with a critique when you're fighting.
Sorry, I didn't follow that line of argument.
Omnipotence and omniscience are both limitless terms meaning power without limits and knowledge without limits. However, whent they are used together, they must limit each other, contradicting their own definitions. If an omnipotent being can't overpower its omniscience, then it cannont be omnipotent. (This is the equivalent of saying "To be omnipotent, a god must be able to surprise itself.") However, if the god can overpower its omniscience, then it isn't truly omniscience.
niran
For the moral problem that you seem to have found, I think you are confusing my how with my why. My explanation was to how morality has worked for humans on the micro and macro level of a society in our history. However, I cut off my how explanation at percieved wrongs. I haven't yet bothered to explain why humans percieve some actions and thoughts to be wrong in this entire scheme, mainly because its to much work to bother with.
“Tracing the expansion of the universe back in time shows that the universe would have been compressed to infinite density approximately 8–16 × 109 years ago. In the big bang theory, the universe began at that time as a so-called big bang began the expansion. The big bang was the origin of space and time.”
I'm glad you now believe in the big bang singularity. Perhaps I've convinced away from your ridiculous idea that energy was infinite and matter not. The big bang, if it happens to be a true model, is kind of the 'creation point' that theists talk about.
"I favor the Moral Razor & moral naturalism."
What's the Moral Razor? When you say moral naturalism, are you positing a secular foundation for natural law? I though the 'ought-is' dichotomy kind of puts the nails on that one.
"Do I agree w/’might makes right’? Hell no."
So, what is makes right right and wrong wrong.
"As for the recent problems w/Islam: it didn’t start out as a religious clash – it’s being spun that way now to cover for all the fuck-ups my country (as well as others) have committed."
You're right. It's a clash of civilizations, values and conceptions of moral good. All the best in your pursuance of the American crusade.
MF
"We don't know of any change outside of physical states, so time is still measuring change."
There's no change in creation. Something began to exist. Time starts and begins to measure change in the physical state. In any case, how would you posit that time existing in infinity without invoking the absurdities of the Hilbert Hotel?
"Time begins? You're trapped in the language of time, get used to it. You're still working within time while you explain it."
No, I told you there's a difference between a causal precedent and a temporal precedent. You happily ignore this point. A causal precedent does not invoke time or the language of time to explain creation of matter.
"Even if immaterial isn't physical, it is still something according to the way you've attempted to describe it."
Actually I've been careful not to use the word 'thing' in describing God. I've used entity. God is not a thing, at least not in the way I've defined it. Scroll up.
"Its more complicated than just physical might, you have power on intellectual levels also."
Never said physical might. All I said was that your position was the semantic equivalent of might is right.
"Omnipotence and omniscience are both limitless terms meaning power without limits and knowledge without limits. However, whent they are used together, they must limit each other, contradicting their own definitions. If an omnipotent being can't overpower its omniscience, then it cannont be omnipotent."
Why must they limit each other?
"Even if this does happen, you will still have people acting as deviants by teaching their children differently, along with riots and rebellions by other organizations. Humans have a tendancy to fight back."
Which is what is happening in the Middle East right now huh? In any case, your position just proves that the moral framework of the atheist/ must involve the imposition of force on the other to get the other to agree with one's position. For instance, if a person thinks that doctors performing abortions ought to be shot down, the atheist or non theist ethicist can only impose his or her personal preferences through the use of force on the errant killer. There's nothing inherently wrong about killing doctors or raping babies in your worldview, it's just a personal or societal whim to be imposed on others through the use of force.
niran:
I'm glad you now believe in the big bang singularity. Perhaps I've convinced away from your ridiculous idea that energy was infinite and matter not. The big bang, if it happens to be a true model, is kind of the 'creation point' that theists talk about.
Excuse me while I spit out the words you put in my mouth: PTUI!
I’ve always adhered to the BB singularity. Can you prove me wrong? Some energy’s ALWAYS existed. Can you provide evidence of the complete annihilation of energy?
(Oh, just so ya know: the words ‘energy’ & ‘matter’ aren’t synonyms).
Bring some evidence to the table, & we’ll talk. Otherwise, spare me your rhetorical gyrations.
What's the Moral Razor? When you say moral naturalism, are you positing a secular foundation for natural law? I though the 'ought-is' dichotomy kind of puts the nails on that one.
Google on the Moral razor. All foundation for natural law is non-supernatural. Moral naturalism is the application of evolutionary game theory, that groups of agents address multiple issues.
So, what is makes right right and wrong wrong.
Not religion, that’s for sure. Reciprocal altruism. Go look that 1 up.
You're right. It's a clash of civilizations, values and conceptions of moral good. All the best in your pursuance of the American crusade.
It’s a bunch of idiots bellowing ‘We’re better than they are!’ Grunting morons engaged in a pissing contest at the cost of innocent lives.
Ain’t MY ‘crusade’, that’s for sure.
You’re a fine 1 to point fingers, after your little lecture on Sinhalese vs. Tamil, I might say.
There's nothing inherently wrong about killing doctors or raping babies in your worldview, it's just a personal or societal whim to be imposed on others through the use of force.
Oh, fuck you.
I've seen this sort of shit before. It's been tried, it's failed, it's a shock tactic, & a boorish 1 at that.
Go use it on a Muslim.
Empathy is the core value of humanity, & only a sick twist would advocate that sort of garbage.
niran:
Oh, speaking of rape:
God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB
Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
If you want to talk about murder, then we can dive into that, since there's plenty of genocide in your 'holy book'.
There's nothing inherently wrong about killing doctors
Army of God, thanks for the punctuation of your point.
There's no change in creation. Something began to exist. Time starts and begins to measure change in the physical state. In any case, how would you posit that time existing in infinity without invoking the absurdities of the Hilbert Hotel?
The problem is you are still implicitly refering to time when you said "Something began to exist." It would be so much easier if you would realize the fact that our language is wrapped in time. Its like you're saying no but nodding your head at the same time.
Time existing for infinity? I start at the existence of the universe with time. Going before the universe is like asking what is north of the north pole. It doesn't make sense until we find a way for change to work without time.
No, I told you there's a difference between a causal precedent and a temporal precedent.
The problem is that our language is wrapped in time, so no matter how much you cry about it, you still will be implicitly refering to time even when you think that you are not.
Actually I've been careful not to use the word 'thing' in describing God. I've used entity. God is not a thing, at least not in the way I've defined it. Scroll up.
Entity- The existence of something considered apart from its properties. (I love answers.com!) However, if you still insists on saying your god is not something, then it might as well be nothing.
Never said physical might. All I said was that your position was the semantic equivalent of might is right.
That's because its a how explanation and not a why explanation.
Why must they limit each other?
Whenever you say that something is omnipotent and omniscient, a question logically arrises based upon the definition of the terms. Can an omnipotent being overpower its omniscience? Either way that question is answered shows the error of having both of the terms used together.
Which is what is happening in the Middle East right now huh? In any case, your position just proves that the moral framework of the atheist/ must involve the imposition of force on the other to get the other to agree with one's position.
Again, you are confusing "how" and "why." However, for a moment, let us consider the typical theist's position on absolute morality, which is the intellecutal equivalent of "Because god said so." If your entire moral system is based upon the idea that the most powerful being is capable of dictating morality to you, then it is an appeal to force, no matter how you might try to dress it up.
KA
"I’ve always adhered to the BB singularity. Can you prove me wrong? Some energy’s ALWAYS existed. Can you provide evidence of the complete annihilation of energy?"
This is getting ridiculously. The bigbang singularity theory posits that energy and matter were together compressed in the state of singularity. The idea that you can cling on to the BB singularity and still deny that matter and energy are equivalent is rubbish. I know, you'll never concede Ever. Even at the cost of looking foolish.
"All foundation for natural law is non-supernatural."
That's a load of poppycock. The major contributors to natural law theory have been Aquinas, Augustine(who ultimately rely on God to base their NL) and Finnis, unless you want to include the early Greek philosophers. If you want to get into this debate let me know, but natural law just cannot get past the 'ought-is' problem unless it invokes some transcendental values. That's why Finnis's 'Practical reasonableness' can never translate into moral oughtness and that's why Finnis himself claims that God exists and is the locus of moral values. Read up on your jurisprudence.
"Reciprocal altruism."
Why should my genes bind me morally?
"Oh, fuck you.
I've seen this sort of shit before. It's been tried, it's failed, it's a shock tactic, & a boorish 1 at that"
That's terribly persuasive. Nice argument.
"If you want to talk about murder, then we can dive into that, since there's plenty of genocide in your 'holy book'."
I've actually read the book you're referring to and find it to be a human narrative of a people group and their search for the truth, with all its attendant ugliness and beauty.
"It would be so much easier if you would realize the fact that our language is wrapped in time. Its like you're saying no but nodding your head at the same time."
It would be much easier if you do not deliberately misunderstand my point about causal and temporal precedents. Sure, the word 'cause' in general common parlance refers to a temporal cause. It doesn't do so of logical necessity, at least not when I tell you that that the common definition is not the one I'm using.
"Time existing for infinity? I start at the existence of the universe with time. Going before the universe is like asking what is north of the north pole. It doesn't make sense until we find a way for change to work without time."
But you're avoiding the issue. If the universe is uncaused by a cause outside time, then it is infinite and since matter and time go hand in hand, time must, of your own understanding of things, exist for infinity.
"Whenever you say that something is omnipotent and omniscient, a question logically arises based upon the definition of the terms. Can an omnipotent being overpower its omniscience?"
To ask whether omnipotence can overpower omniscience is to assume that the two are mutually inconsistent. Overpowering assumes a tension, a contest. As it is, there's no reason to believe they are mutually inconsistent.
"Again, you are confusing "how" and "why."
No, I'm not. The words how and why are too equivocal for this sort of conversation. I know what you're getting at though. I know why humans would like to be good. I want to know why you think they are obliged to be good. Because if they are not obliged, then you're just using force to get them to act in the way you want them to when you enact laws prohibiting rape and murder.
"If your entire moral system is based upon the idea that the most powerful being is capable of dictating morality to you, then it is an appeal to force, no matter how you might try to dress it up."
The theist would argue that goodness flows from God's character and thus humans are bound by this moral absolute. There is no ought-is here because God is as much as value as he is a fact. But Kelsen and before him Hume tacitly agreed that ought values can flow from other ought values. So human morality flows from the ought value of God.
*ridiculous
niran:
This is getting ridiculous. The bigbang singularity theory posits that energy and matter were together compressed in the state of singularity. The idea that you can cling on to the BB singularity and still deny that matter and energy are equivalent is rubbish. I know, you'll never concede Ever. Even at the cost of looking foolish.
The word ‘equivalent’ translates to ‘equal in value’. Matter translates to “Material substance that constitutes the observable universe and, together with energy, forms the basis of all objective phenomena.” Energy, at answers.com, says this: “In fact, it might actually be more precise to say that energy is the ability of "a thing" or "something" to do work. Not only tangible objects (whether they be organic, mechanical, or electromagnetic) but also non-objects may possess energy. At the subatomic level, a particle with no mass may have energy. The same can be said of a magnetic force field.”
That's a load of poppycock. The major contributors to natural law theory have been Aquinas, Augustine(who ultimately rely on God to base their NL) and Finnis, unless you want to include the early Greek philosophers. If you want to get into this debate let me know, but natural law just cannot get past the 'ought-is' problem unless it invokes some transcendental values. That's why Finnis's 'Practical reasonableness' can never translate into moral oughtness and that's why Finnis himself claims that God exists and is the locus of moral values. Read up on your jurisprudence.
I do want to include the Greeks: you speak as if all law is transcendant. Human laws? Laws of physics? I assume you mean the former.
Apparently, I hold humanity in greater esteem than you do.
Jurisprudence doesn’t need to rely on a deity. Simple as that.
Why should my genes bind me morally?
I advise you bone up on your genetics, then.
That's terribly persuasive. Nice argument.
When you whip out something as degenerate as infant pedophilia as an example, don’t be so shocked. Yeah, blurting out something that disgusting sure is going to bring more sheep into your little flock, all right.
I've actually read the book you're referring to and find it to be a human narrative of a people group and their search for the truth, with all its attendant ugliness and beauty.
I’ve read the book, too, & I used to think the same stupid thing. It’s a narrative about a group of Iron/Bronze Age savages who, to quote Lewis Black, were ’10 hairs away from being baboons’. Flowery rhetoric is a thin excuse for the bloody, illogical deeds perpetrated in the name of the ‘fathers’.
I might advise also, that you read my latest post.
As to your dialogue w/MF, I invoke the Münchhausen trilemma.
Have fun w/that 1.
"The word ‘equivalent’ translates to ‘equal in value’. Matter translates to “Material substance that constitutes the observable universe and, together with energy, forms the basis of all objective phenomena.” Energy, at answers.com, says this: “In fact, it might actually be more precise to say that energy is the ability of "a thing" or "something" to do work. Not only tangible objects (whether they be organic, mechanical, or electromagnetic) but also non-objects may possess energy. At the subatomic level, a particle with no mass may have energy. The same can be said of a magnetic force field.”
Thanks for posting a significant part of answers.com here mate. Now, what's your argument?
"I do want to include the Greeks:"
So tell me how Plato's' doctrine of forms or Aristotle's teleology, even though they were linked to natural law only subsequently by Augustine and Aquinas, constitute a secular justification for natural law that survives the Humean critique of the invalid inference of value from fact.
"you speak as if all law is transcendant. Human laws? Laws of physics? I assume you mean the former."
May I remind you that we were discussing Natural law.
"Jurisprudence doesn’t need to rely on a deity."
Of course it doesn't. Haven't you heard of the positivists? You haven't really proved that Natural Law can be sustained on a secular foundation. You haven't even attempted. I have a sense that you're biting off more than you can chew.
"I advise you bone up on your genetics, then."
Oh really. Does the latest scientific/medical journal conclude that because our genes are a certain way, we have a moral obligation to follow what the genes inclines us to do. Scientists are going to command us how to live our lives are they? You're a joke mate.
"When you whip out something as degenerate as infant pedophilia as an example, don’t be so shocked."
Wow, sorry. Did I touch a raw nerve there? No, I'm not referring to the mother's tongue...Well...I don't know...
"It’s a narrative about a group of Iron/Bronze Age savages who, to quote Lewis Black, were ’10 hairs away from being baboons’."
The narrative is no different to other human communities. Same shit. Rape, murder etc etc. Black's observation is a crushing critique of the human condition. A dose of good old mirror gazing might help.
It would be much easier if you do not deliberately misunderstand my point about causal and temporal precedents. Sure, the word 'cause' in general common parlance refers to a temporal cause. It doesn't do so of logical necessity, at least not when I tell you that that the common definition is not the one I'm using.
So, why don't you state at least one observable cause that we can both observe that has not worked within time. Otherwise, causality within the contexutal framework of our universe, requires time.
But you're avoiding the issue. If the universe is uncaused by a cause outside time, then it is infinite and since matter and time go hand in hand, time must, of your own understanding of things, exist for infinity.
I'm not avoiding the question, I'm waiting until I have the ability to answer it. However, applying time further than our current understanding of the universe makes little sense. As we understand it, time was present during our current universe. Before that I don't know, because humans haven't pushed that far yet. To ask if something happened before that would require an entirely different concept of time than we currently have.
To ask whether omnipotence can overpower omniscience is to assume that the two are mutually inconsistent. Overpowering assumes a tension, a contest. As it is, there's no reason to believe they are mutually inconsistent.
No, I'm merely thinking that two terms are limitless terms, so I should be able to apply them limitlessly. However, If I apply the term omnipotent to omniscience, I have to ask does omniscience limit omnipotence or does omnipotence limit omniscience? Its a yes or no question that, either way answered, shows the contradiction.
No, I'm not. The words how and why are too equivocal for this sort of conversation.
No their not. When I ask how, I'm asking how humans exercise their concepts of right and wrong (with an original basis in percieved wrongs) in their societies. When I ask why, I am asking for the origins of percieved wrongs.
The theist would argue that goodness flows from God's character and thus humans are bound by this moral absolute.
Okay, is your god capable of "changing his character/nature"? (This is another yes or no question)
If you answer yes, then morality is simply a dictate of force.
If you answer no, then goodness is a higher power than your god and thus theism (as a belief in a higher power) is refuted.
Its the same problem that some theists have when they say that "logic is part of god's nature" (all you have to do is replace logic with morality)-
Hence you deny your theism, and your position is refuted, if you argue in any fashion that logic is necessary. Arguments that hold that god cannot change logic, or that he could not have changed logic, or that logic is "part of his nature" are all statements indicating that logic is necessary - i.e. that god is inferior to logic, beneath it,, and ergo not the creator of logic. This refutes theism.
And that's that. Trying to say that logic is part of god, or co-equal with god, is merely an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug.
If god did not create it, if god cannot change it, then god did not create logic, and god cannot be the creator of everything, which refutes god as the creator! The claim that logic is part of god's nature is functionally equivalent to saying god did not create logic.
Either god created logic or he did not. If he created it, as he must have, if he is the christian god, then logic is not necessary, but contingent upon god. If he did not create it, if he could not have made it differently, then there are limits on god's desire, and something else is responsible for logic.
This is fatal for your view. You need to deal with it. Your attempt to dodge it fails. There is no false dichotomy.
www.candleinthedark.com/logic
Actually, replace logic with "good" or "goodness".
"So, why don't you state at least one observable cause that we can both observe that has not worked within time."
Don't be silly MF. If it's outside time, it's immaterial, and if it's immaterial we can't observe it. So we don't know of any other immaterial causes other than the one that exists of logical necessity, which is the uncaused cause.
"However, applying time further than our current understanding of the universe makes little sense."
No one is asking you to apply time any further than the existence of physical matter. If you don't want to ask how this matter was caused because you don't want to go outside time, you are by definition rejecting any sort of pursuit into the cause of the inquiry. It's not a question of having enough evidence or knowledge. Tracing the cause of the universe, assuming it is not infinite, would of necessity traverse outside the outer reaches of time, regardless of our state of knowledge. So if you want to stop there its fine, but I note you have NO explanation of how the universe was caused. In short, you have said nothing and refuse to inquire into the possibility of even saying something meaningful.
"However, If I apply the term omnipotent to omniscience, I have to ask does omniscience limit omnipotence or does omnipotence limit omniscience?"
But they could conceivably limit each other only if they are in tension. If they can exist comfortably without contradicting the other, then no question of limitation even arises. Again, the point you make is meaningless.
"When I ask how, I'm asking how humans exercise their concepts of right and wrong (with an original basis in percieved wrongs) in their societies. When I ask why, I am asking for the origins of percieved wrongs."
Well, I'm asking you for a logical basis for the perception of wrong, or right. Or can law only be the imposition of force in implementing a ruler's whim?
"Okay, is your god capable of "changing his character/nature"? (This is another yes or no question)
If you answer yes, then morality is simply a dictate of force.
If you answer no, then goodness is a higher power than your god and thus theism (as a belief in a higher power) is refuted."
God's character does not change because he is by definition absolute. So morality is neither an arbitrary command, nor an expression of a higher norm other than God, because the absolute has been reached. Can the absolute change? Only if you violate the logic of an absolute which is that an absolute does not change. So the unchanging nature of God is not an expression of his will, it is a manifestation of his character which is absolute.
It's the same with logic. Logic is contained in God, who is the locus of logic as it were. Logic does not change because God is conceived of the logical absolute. Can God change the logic absolute? Only at the cost of violating logic itself. The question therefore fails, since it countenances the violation of logic.
Don't be silly MF. If it's outside time, it's immaterial, and if it's immaterial we can't observe it. So we don't know of any other immaterial causes other than the one that exists of logical necessity, which is the uncaused cause.
So, you admit we have yet to be able to extend causality outside of our universe. Thanks, you just defeated your entire argument for me.
No one is asking you to apply time any further than the existence of physical matter.
You're asking what came before the universe, so you are asking me to apply time further than the existence of physical matter.
If you don't want to ask how this matter was caused because you don't want to go outside time, you are by definition rejecting any sort of pursuit into the cause of the inquiry.
I'm not rejecting the pursuit, I'm realizing current limitations. I have not said a first cause was impossible, or that an infinite regress is impossible, just that the current state of knowledge doesn't allow for an easy answer. I don't see how you can't understand that. That's been the point of everything I've written.
It's not a question of having enough evidence or knowledge. Tracing the cause of the universe, assuming it is not infinite, would of necessity traverse outside the outer reaches of time, regardless of our state of knowledge.
See, you're assuming it is not infinite. I don't assume that. I also don't assume that the universe is only finite. I'd rather wait and make an assured explanation based upon how things really are, not how it is guessed to be. I don't even have a problem with going outside the universe, provided that humans first learn of what is outside it.
So if you want to stop there its fine, but I note you have NO explanation of how the universe was caused. In short, you have said nothing and refuse to inquire into the possibility of even saying something meaningful.
I never said that I had one. I'm just acting as a negative claimant.
But what you are supposing isn't meaningful. When you say that your cause is outside of the universe, you're just moving back the mystery of existence one step without really explaining the earlier step. The transcendant cause is an unknown and unknowable cause, and it really doesn't have any meaningful use besides comforting the religious in their beleifs. It doesn't answer questions meaningfully.
But they could conceivably limit each other only if they are in tension. If they can exist comfortably without contradicting the other, then no question of limitation even arises.
So, you are limiting them by saying they aren't in tension. That's a limit on the limitless terms, meaning that their definitions don't work together. I was testing the limits of the limitless terms, and you have shown me that they have limits.
Well, I'm asking you for a logical basis for the perception of wrong, or right. Or can law only be the imposition of force in implementing a ruler's whim?
Beats me. As I said earlier, I stop my current explanation at percieved wrongs. I'm still exploring with open eyes.
God's character does not change because he is by definition absolute.
Not a question of morality, but if your god can't change, how does he act as a causal factor? To cause something into existence, you have to make a change in state. Basically, if I want to open my Dr. Pepper, I have to make changes in my body and mind to reach over and pull the tab. If I can't make a change, then I can't open the Dr. Pepper.
So morality is neither an arbitrary command, nor an expression of a higher norm other than God, because the absolute has been reached.
The absolute "has been reached." Interesting question, but how do you know if the absolute truly has been reached? Ah, you assume it, you don't know it.
Can the absolute change? Only if you violate the logic of an absolute which is that an absolute does not change. So the unchanging nature of God is not an expression of his will, it is a manifestation of his character which is absolute.
If god can't change good, then it is inferior to good. Sorry, but that's the extension of that statement.
It's the same with logic. Logic is contained in God, who is the locus of logic as it were. Logic does not change because God is conceived of the logical absolute. Can God change the logic absolute? Only at the cost of violating logic itself. The question therefore fails, since it countenances the violation of logic.
So your god is inferior to logic, since his omnipotence can't change it?
God's character does not change because he is by definition absolute.
On an earlier note, you just demonstrated why I wanted a full definition of your god concept. If I don't ask for one, you sneak in a new attribute whenever you can.
niran:
Thanks for posting a significant part of answers.com here mate. Now, what's your argument?
Not going to re-invent the wheel all over again.
May I remind you that we were discussing Natural law.
May I remind you, you used the word ‘jurisprudence’?
Of course it doesn't. Haven't you heard of the positivists? You haven't really proved that Natural Law can be sustained on a secular foundation. You haven't even attempted. I have a sense that you're biting off more than you can chew.
You haven’t even proven that your deity exists: subtract that equation, & it’s all secular, bucko.
Oh really. Does the latest scientific/medical journal conclude that because our genes are a certain way, we have a moral obligation to follow what the genes inclines us to do. Scientists are going to command us how to live our lives are they? You're a joke mate.
No, no, & no. People are hard-wired to do certain things, but adaptation is the key to survival.
You figure that out on your own.
Wow, sorry. Did I touch a raw nerve there? No, I'm not referring to the mother's tongue...Well...I don't know...
Ha. Ha. I respond in outrage at a disgusting suggestion, & you pull some sophomoric ‘oh, it must be TRUE, or you wouldn’t get so pissed’.
Twat.
The narrative is no different to other human communities. Same shit. Rape, murder etc etc. Black's observation is a crushing critique of the human condition. A dose of good old mirror gazing might help.
Oh, really? I’d be willing to bet money that the ancient Israelites were about (as proportionately) savage as any other ‘civilization’ of their time. Probably more so.
You’re ability to shrug off some of the more horrendous crimes committed by the ‘holy race’ is indicative of a slave mentality. ‘Oh, the Master says so, I must obey!’
You keep on blessing your shackles, slave.
"So, you admit we have yet to be able to extend causality outside of our universe. Thanks, you just defeated your entire argument for me."
No, I'm saying that even though we have not the tools to observe empirically what happens outside the universe, we must go outside if logical necessity takes us there.
"You're asking what came before the universe, so you are asking me to apply time further than the existence of physical matter."
No, I'm asking what caused the universe. Causal precedent, temporal precedent....we've been through this
"I'm not rejecting the pursuit, I'm realizing current limitations."
But logic is not limited by the present day constraints, and it necessarily leads us outside the universe.(unless you want to say that the universe is infinite) It's that simple really.
"That's a limit on the limitless terms, meaning that their definitions don't work together."
They work together perfectly, they're just not in conflict. No limitation there.
"Beats me. As I said earlier, I stop my current explanation at percieved wrongs. I'm still exploring with open eyes."
Since deficient scientific knowledge cannot be used to shield this cop out, you may want to think hard about whether humans are under moral obligation to do certain things.
"Not a question of morality, but if your god can't change, how does he act as a causal factor?"
Because he can make decisions. Causing a universe does not violate his absolute(ness)Changing his character does. The act of causation would simply be the desire to cause.
"but how do you know if the absolute truly has been reached? Ah, you assume it, you don't know it."
Of course. I've never tried to prove God through morality. I'm just responding that my understanding of God withstands your critique of inconsistency.
"If god can't change good, then it is inferior to good. Sorry, but that's the extension of that statement."
You might as well say, "if God can't cease to exist, he is inferior to existence." But that would be patently nonsensical because being consistent with the nature of absoluteness is not to have a limitation imposed on you. Let me state it this way, since God is the absolute good, for him to change to non good would entail that he changes his character of goodness. But the moment he changes his character, good ceases to exist, and when good does not exist, non good also does not exist. So asking him to be non good is meaningless unless he exists as good.
"So your god is inferior to logic, since his omnipotence can't change it?"
Replace good with logic and non good with (non)logic/ illogic.
"On an earlier note, you just demonstrated why I wanted a full definition of your god concept. If I don't ask for one, you sneak in a new attribute whenever you can."
I gave you a non exhaustive list of attributes that was germane to the cosmological argument. We're hitting different terrain now. But seriously, you don't think that Christians and Moslems don't posit an absolute moral God, do you?
No, I'm saying that even though we have not the tools to observe empirically what happens outside the universe, we must go outside if logical necessity takes us there.
Then there is a problem. Logic and causality are understood through this universe, yet, to extend logic and causality outside makes no sense. Unless of course, you know that causality can be extended along with logic outside the universe. However without any experience outside of the universe, you can't say that it does. You merely maked the naked assertion that it does and live on without actual logical justification.
You also have the problem of the earlier origins of our universe where the reality that we currently undestand breaks down because of the combination of space and time and the loss of multiple points of observation (study relativity). At that point, it may very well be that our universe could have popped into existence with no causes taking place (as some have pointed out with discoveries in quantum mechanics. Or, if you prefer multiverse theory, we could be just another surrogate child of a larger system that has constantly changing laws of reality. There are so many other options besides your transedant first cause. Heck, even the cause of this universe might not be a "first cause" in the entire scheme, with an even higher cause for that first cause. By limiting your argument, you close your mind.
With the "snap back" type of theory posited, where the universe expands and contracts upon itself, it could be that we do have a type of "infinite regress", though that isn't the only way to describe it.
When our reality breaks down, our language breaks down. Until we develop a language to understand a transcedant cause or any other origin of our universe, it make little sence to apply causality, logic, or our experiences inside of it outside it.
No, I'm asking what caused the universe. Causal precedent, temporal precedent....we've been through this
Yet, you haven't justified that causality can take place without time, nor have you explained a way that could happen. Also, you can't bring up an example that we both have of causality taking place outside of time. So, until you can demonstrate that, a causal precedent and a temporal precedent are meaningless distinctions.
But logic is not limited by the present day constraints
Actually, it is. Logic is a recognition of rules of our language/methods of thought that need to be followed for our ideas to make sense. There are assaults to change the rules and attempts to completely undermine them. They are limited by present day constraints. Logic is a great tool to help out humans, but it is boudn by our experience and our universe.
and it necessarily leads us outside the universe.
However, when we apply logic to that transcendant cause, we realize that it is a meaningless explanation. (Something you purposely ignore.)
They work together perfectly, they're just not in conflict. No limitation there.
And you accuse me of not wanting to answer a question. However, you are applying a limit to them, showing they are not limitless. If I can't apply omnipotence to omniscience, then there is a limit to omnipotence, hence it isn't a limitless term. If I can, then omniscience cannot be limitless, hence it isn't a limitless term. You are saying that they don't limit each other, so there is a limit to how far they are applied.
Since deficient scientific knowledge cannot be used to shield this cop out, you may want to think hard about whether humans are under moral obligation to do certain things.
And you may want to factor in sociopaths into your moral explanation. I, unlike you don't like to jump to conlcusions.
Because he can make decisions. Causing a universe does not violate his absolute(ness)Changing his character does. The act of causation would simply be the desire to cause.
Causing the universe would require a change in state though, showing that your god isn't changless. And if your god can "make decisions, your implicitly implying that time is a factor, because there would have to be distinct points where your god didn't make the decisions and when it did. Otherwise, the decisions would have already been made with no ability for your god to really decide.
Of course. I've never tried to prove God through morality. I'm just responding that my understanding of God withstands your critique of inconsistency.
The problem is it doesn't.
You might as well say, "if God can't cease to exist, he is inferior to existence."
No, but then it isn't omnipotent.
But that would be patently nonsensical because being consistent with the nature of absoluteness is not to have a limitation imposed on you.
However, your very use of human language to describe it imposes a limitation. How very inconsistant of you.
Let me state it this way, since God is the absolute good, for him to change to non good would entail that he changes his character of goodness. But the moment he changes his character, good ceases to exist, and when good does not exist, non good also does not exist. So asking him to be non good is meaningless unless he exists as good.
Now, you are again saying that your god is inferior to good, you are limiting your god. If your god can't cease to exist, then it can't do something that things that exist can do, limiting its omnipotence. If your god cannot do wrong, then it can't do something that humans can do. If your god can't change itself, then it is incapable of doing something so simple for us. Your god is then weak and not omnipotent. You haven't justified your god as being absolute, so, you can't really show that it can't change. You haven't justified that your god is the foundation of logic, just asserted it.
I gave you a non exhaustive list of attributes that was germane to the cosmological argument.
Actually, you didn't when I asked for it. Your responce was for me to read the posts written earlier, though none of those included "absolute good" or "absolute logic".
But seriously, you don't think that Christians and Moslems don't posit an absolute moral God, do you?
One thing I've come to understand is that each person defines their god differently, so I obligate myself to ask for a definition.
"Then there is a problem. Logic and causality are understood through this universe, yet, to extend logic and causality outside makes no sense. Unless of course, you know that causality can be extended along with logic outside the universe."
The whole is mad up of the parts. if the parts must must be caused to begin to exist, so must the whole.
"At that point, it may very well be that our universe could have popped into existence with no causes taking place (as some have pointed out with discoveries in quantum mechanics."
Actually, I've debated that one at length with Bradley wither in this thread or in Beep's blog. Read my arguments and give me something new. It would be an inordinate waste of time to cover ground that has already been covered extensively.
"Or, if you prefer multiverse theory, we could be just another surrogate child of a larger system that has constantly changing laws of reality."
Yeah, but where did the surrogate system come from?
"Heck, even the cause of this universe might not be a "first cause" in the entire scheme, with an even higher cause for that first cause."
Yeah sure. But somewhere down the line matter would have to be created out of nothing and then you have to posit an uncaused immaterial cause. The immediate cause of the universe may not be that cause, if in fact the universe was caused by some other physical entity. Whether our definition of universe will accept a conception of physical matter outside the universe is a moot point. Suffice it to say that matter must be caused at some point by non matter if you want to avoid the absurdities of positing infinite matter.
"With the "snap back" type of theory posited, where the universe expands and contracts upon itself, it could be that we do have a type of "infinite regress", though that isn't the only way to describe it."
But if what is snapping back and forth is physical matter, then it cannot infinitely regress.
"There are so many other options besides your transedant first cause."
...based on two fundamental ideas. The universe is infinite, the universe began to exist uncaused. Do you have any personal preferences?
"When our reality breaks down, our language breaks down."
But only your reality has broken down because you've stopped inquiring. My reality is more than intact.
"Yet, you haven't justified that causality can take place without time, nor have you explained a way that could happen."
But causality must go beyond time unless you want to say that things exist for no reason whatsoever. That things just pop into existence uncaused. I can debate this with you, if you commit to that position. Read up on my debate with Bradley first.
"Also, you can't bring up an example that we both have of causality taking place outside of time."
There could be only one example. When matter began to exist. But that causality outside time is logically necessary to explain the existence of matter. After matter was created, human experience is necessarily limited to causality within time. To suggest that this subsequent experience means we can't pose questions of logical necessity is to ignore the hard questions.
"Actually, it is. Logic is a recognition of rules of our language/methods of thought that need to be followed for our ideas to make sense. There are assaults to change the rules and attempts to completely undermine them."
Oh really. Try denying the law of non contradiction. :-)
"And you accuse me of not wanting to answer a question. However, you are applying a limit to them, showing they are not limitless."
Why is a claim of 'limitless' a limit?
"If I can't apply omnipotence to omniscience, then there is a limit to omnipotence, hence it isn't a limitless term"
You can apply them together, observe them together and believe they exist together. As long as they cannot be shown to be contradictory at some stage, there is no limit, and no contradiction.
"Causing the universe would require a change in state though,"
Why? This is just a 'naked' assertion.
"And if your god can "make decisions, your implicitly implying that time is a factor, because there would have to be distinct points where your god didn't make the decisions and when it did."
The decision are immanent within him. They require no change in character, nor any violation of absolutes. They are decisions made by his will, which operates in infinity. When matter begins to exist, time begins to exist, but the creator is not bound by his creation.
"If your god can't cease to exist, then it can't do something that things that exist can do, limiting its omnipotence. If your god cannot do wrong, then it can't do something that humans can do. If your god can't change itself, then it is incapable of doing something so simple for us."
Hehe. You've missed the bus by a long way. Human categories of existence, logic and good can only exist if there are is absolute existence, absolute logic and absolute good. Thus non existence, illogic and evil are contingent on the existence of the absolute that defines it. Humans can cease to exist, be illogical and be evil only because the absolute corollary exists. To ask God to become non existent, illogical and evil is to ask him to become something that doesn't exist, because if his character changes, the absolutes and thus the negative corollaries also cease to exist. So when humans are evil , we are becoming something that exists because absolute good exists. To ask God to become evil is nonsensical because without God the category of evil does not exist. In other words, you are articulating something meaningless.
Oh and btw Krystalline, can you explain how you posit a secular foundation for natural law that survives Hume's critique?
I've never read Hume.
Hume says you can't derive a value from a fact. POints out the 'ought-is' fallacy.
The whole is mad up of the parts. if the parts must must be caused to begin to exist, so must the whole.
We've already gone over this, its not worth the work to go over it again.
Yeah, but where did the surrogate system come from?
At that point, I would have to say that we don't know. To ask where the system came from would require us to understand a possibly entire concept of reality
where it may very well be that things just pop into existence or that effects come before causes.
Yeah sure. But somewhere down the line matter would have to be created out of nothing and then you have to posit an uncaused immaterial cause. The
immediate cause of the universe may not be that cause, if in fact the universe was caused by some other physical entity. Whether our definition of universe
will accept a conception of physical matter outside the universe is a moot point. Suffice it to say that matter must be caused at some point by non matter if
you want to avoid the absurdities of positing infinite matter.
However, if we go outside of the universe for the second cause in the ring, we lose our current concept of causality. So, we don't know how it would work.
But if what is snapping back and forth is physical matter, then it cannot infinitely regress.
At the point of the singularity, our current reality, along with causality might very not work. So, it might be possible for an infinite regress in this new
concept of reality. So, you must still not know.
...based on two fundamental ideas. The universe is infinite, the universe began to exist uncaused. Do you have any personal preferences?
No, I don't.
But only your reality has broken down because you've stopped inquiring. My reality is more than intact.
My reality and your reality? Are we an idealist then, or a postmodernist. It is not only my language and reality that breaks down, but also yours. And the
fact of the matter is, your transcendant first cause effectively renders all further inquiry useless. I on the other hand welcome the inquiry after the
problem is solved.
But causality must go beyond time unless you want to say that things exist for no reason whatsoever. That things just pop into existence uncaused. I can
debate this with you, if you commit to that position. Read up on my debate with Bradley first.
If causality must extend beyond time, then you should be able to give an example that doesn't require that I beleive in it first (like you god).
There could be only one example. When matter began to exist.
When matter "began to exist?" Why do you keep talking in time when you are trying to prove your point. If you think our current language can trascend it,
then please do so. Otherwise, you sound like an idiot.
But that causality outside time is logically necessary to explain the existence of matter. After matter was created, human experience is necessarily
limited to causality within time. To suggest that this subsequent experience means we can't pose questions of logical necessity is to ignore the hard
questions.
Then show that it can, otherwise, stop attempting to force it.
Oh really. Try denying the law of non contradiction. :-)
The laws of logic themselves are founded upon facts of existence and they are supported through retortion. Any attempt to support logic neccessarily relies
on logic, showing its validity.
You can apply them together, observe them together and believe they exist together. As long as they cannot be shown to be contradictory at some stage,
there is no limit, and no contradiction.
So, you are saying they have a limit as to how far you can apply them. You are applying a limit to limitless terms.
Why? This is just a 'naked' assertion.
Nope, I supported it earlier through the example of opening the Dr. Pepper can. Our concept of causality requires that we change state. Unless you can show an example to the contrary, I have to assume that it does.
The decision are immanent within him. They require no change in character, nor any violation of absolutes. They are decisions made by his will, which
operates in infinity. When matter begins to exist, time begins to exist, but the creator is not bound by his creation.
'The creator is, necessarily, bound by the laws of his creation.' This means, in essence, that through the physical evidence of the laws of our universe
we can discover the limitations of the creator. In the begining, there was void. Once the universe was established, the non-law of Void begot the laws of
Everything. For an entity, even a creator, to exist outside these laws would invalidate the established fact of the universe. Thereby rendering it and any
pretense of existence Void.
Written by fortissmo regalo, deist.
Earlier, you wrote that decisions were not an exercise of god's will, but of his character, yet now you change your mind. You haven't benn able to show the other things you stated.
Hehe. You've missed the bus by a long way. Human categories of existence, logic and good can only exist if there are is absolute existence, absolute logic
and absolute good.
Boy, have you missed the bus by a long way.
Logic (Greek logos, "word," "speech," "reason") is the science that evaluates valid reasoning within arguments. That's it. Surprised? Many people think logic refers to a lot more than just that. But logic is not a set of laws that governs the universe - that's physics. Logic is not a set of laws that governs human behavior - that's psychology. Logic is no a method for 'studying the world', that's science. Logic is not a way of evaluating 'truth' - that's philosophy. Logic is not transcendent or immaterial - that's incoherent, as these terms have no ontological status (i.e. no positive way of identifying them.) Logic is simply a set of rules, created by sentient brains, to tell us when an argument works - when an argument supports the conclusion the arguer wants to make. In short, a logical argument will crank out a true conclusion, if we feed true premises into it! That's it!
Classical logic rests upon the following axioms. These axioms are held to be 'self evident'. We hold that they are are self evident because all syllogisms rely on them, and because they can be defended through retortion. "Retortion" means that any attempt to create a syllogism to refute these axioms will require an argument that relies on these axioms - leading to a self refutation (we call this type of self refutation the "Stolen concept fallacy").
The Law of Identity: For things, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."
The Law of Excluded Middle: For things, "anything is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies"
The Law of noncontradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false."
1. Logic laws are not abstract entities. They exist tangibly in human minds.
2. Logic exists and is universal because all existants have a specific identity. Whatever exists, exists in a specific form. Given that, logic develops this fact in a method to prevent contradictions (positing existants with more than one form) from persisting in our cognition.
Logic is a means for evaluating when a truth claim is valid. Something that is "beyond logic" (god) is unknowable by definition, and therefore is beyond discussion. You should not believe at all, if that is your position, since you believe in no-thing. The 'supernatural" is a proposed "entity" outside of reason and outside of matter. It is not matter, it is not energy, it is a "no-thing" There is no logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them; there is no concept formed by oberservation of nature that will serve to characterize it's antithesis. Inference from the natural world can only lead to more of the natural.
www.candleinthedark.com/logic
Thus non existence, illogic and evil are contingent on the existence of the absolute that defines it. Humans can cease to exist, be
illogical and be evil only because the absolute corollary exists. To ask God to become non existent, illogical and evil is to ask him to become something
that doesn't exist, because if his character changes, the absolutes and thus the negative corollaries also cease to exist. So when humans are evil , we are
becoming something that exists because absolute good exists. To ask God to become evil is nonsensical because without God the category of evil does not
exist. In other words, you are articulating something meaningless.
Logic, as stated before isn't an abstract entity, so it makes little sense to posit an absolute foundation of it. Language is the same way. The concept of logical exists in our mind because we have discovered that our argumentative language makes limits that we understand as logic. To even have logic you must have a limit, something you cannot have with a limitless term such as absolute. The same goes for good and existence. Without the limits, you don't have the don't have the concepts. I really think you need to go review the Law of idenity.
Apologies, my notepad program seems to have interfered with that post. Bear with it.
MF - Obviously, niran believes in the primacy of consciousness, which negates itself.
MF
It looks like this debate on causality and cosmology has run its course. Reading you latest comment, I realize that we may have to agree to disagree. Thw arguments seem to be going in circles now. Even though I feel your answers to my questions are inadequate or wrong, I am satisfied that you have applied your mind to the issues I have raised. Now that I know what your responses are, arguing any further seems pointless. If however you feel that I have not applied my mind to any of your questions, I will be happy to direct my attention to such an area. This debate has been interesting and I thank you for raising a gamut of interesting challenges to the arguments I have made.
On the unresolved issue of moral and logical absolutes the debate may not have exhausted its potential.
"Logic, as stated before isn't an abstract entity, so it makes little sense to posit an absolute foundation of it. Language is the same way. The concept of logical exists in our mind because we have discovered that our argumentative language makes limits that we understand as logic."
Your arguments don't seem to support the conclusion that logic is not absolute. An absolute is that which cannot be denied and that which is not contingent on another entity. Your supportive arguments merely assert that logic imposes itself on our language. But does this lead to the conclusion that logic is a product of the human mind. No. For that comment to be valid, it must be possible in some alternative existence to deny the laws of logic. To construct language differently. But even to assert the possibility invokes the laws of logic. For instance, the assumption that some language would avoid logic would be to assume that logic would not apply. Classical identity and non contradiction at work. So you realize that we can never break the shackles of logic in this or any possible world. It cannot be denied and it is not contingent. It is absolute.
KA
or the umpteenth time, hoping that you will not avoid this question, how do you sustain natural law doctrine within a secular worldview?
It looks like this debate on causality and cosmology has run its course. Reading you latest comment, I realize that we may have to agree to disagree. Thw arguments seem to be going in circles now.
Hey, I'll admit that your arguments are good, if I was already a theist and my entire worldview depended upon that. However, convincing a person doesn't accept basic tenets that you already beleive in is much more challenging.
Even though I feel your answers to my questions are inadequate or wrong, I am satisfied that you have applied your mind to the issues I have raised.
As I think yours are.
On the unresolved issue of moral and logical absolutes the debate may not have exhausted its potential.
Yes, I have to wonder how a person that accepts the law of idenity also accepts ablsolutes as "existing" however that can always be saved for another day.
An absolute is that which cannot be denied and that which is not contingent on another entity.
However, even logic can be denied at the expence of making no sense to other people, much the same way that reality can be denied. An absolute is also limitless, however, logic is an understanding of limits. It doesn't make sense to posit it as an absolute.
Your supportive arguments merely assert that logic imposes itself on our language. But does this lead to the conclusion that logic is a product of the human mind.
Logic isn't just a product of the human mind, it 'exists' there, but isn't a product. I recal mentioning something about "facts of existence."
No. For that comment to be valid, it must be possible in some alternative existence to deny the laws of logic. To construct language differently.
Could be. You don't have to use logic to deny the laws of logic (just make an assertion if you don't prescribe to them) however, it is at the abdication of reason.
But even to assert the possibility invokes the laws of logic. For instance, the assumption that some language would avoid logic would be to assume that logic would not apply.
Yet, the very use of our language to descibe the alternate reality assumes that the other reality has a language. The fact that we don't know is the issue at hand.
Classical identity and non contradiction at work. So you realize that we can never break the shackles of logic in this or any possible world. It cannot be denied and it is not contingent. It is absolute.
As long as we are within this universe and within the reality that logic is based upon, no we cannot escape it. I don't know of anything that beyond the universe might hold, so I don't see a way to answer that question.
"Hey, I'll admit that your arguments are good, if I was already a theist and my entire worldview depended upon that. However, convincing a person doesn't accept basic tenets that you already beleive in is much more challenging."
Thank you. I respect your opinion.
"However, even logic can be denied at the expence of making no sense to other people, much the same way that reality can be denied."
My position is that logic can never be denied, because to deny it is to affirm it. You may be meaningless in relation to other comments you may have made in the past. But every statement necessarily assumes its truth, for to deny the statement while making it is not to be meaningless, it is to be inconsistent. Two contradictory ideas don't mean that both are wrong, just that both cannot be right. So when you violate non contradiction you are putting two ideas on the table, one of which may be right while both may be wrong. You may either accept one or both or deny both. But you are claiming something to be true or false. That's why even if you want to be meaningless by defying logic, you are affirming logic in trying to articulate any idea.
"Yet, the very use of our language to descibe the alternate reality assumes that the other reality has a language. The fact that we don't know is the issue at hand."
You may then be happy to admit that as far as the human mind can decipher, within the boundaries of our experience, logic and cannot be denied and is not contingent on another entity. Even you would argue that as far as human experience can attest, logic is absolute. I have great difficulty in accepting the idea that logic can be escaped, since logic is not contingent of human thought, but imposes itself on our thought, whether we like it or not. It is not a choice to be meaningful or otherwise, it is utterly inescapable even when we try to be nonsensical.
You may then be happy to admit that as far as the human mind can decipher, within the boundaries of our experience, logic and cannot be denied and is not contingent on another entity.
As far as I have seen, logic is contigent upon reality and the language that descibes it. I haven't yet figured out a way to extend it further to an absolute. As I have found it, logic is an understanding that there are limits to our language and reality. That allows us to construct such things as the laws of logic. Without the limit, logic starts to go against itself.
I have great difficulty in accepting the idea that logic can be escaped, since logic is not contingent of human thought, but imposes itself on our thought, whether we like it or not.
Logic is contigent upon our reality, much the same way we have derrived the laws of physics from our reality. I don't know what would happen to logic if that reality was to suddenly change, so I cannot be assured that it is inescapable until it is tested.
MF, it's been interesting debating you. Cheers.
niran:
If you think I'm going to play Montecore to your Roy, you don't know me at all.
I'm an empiricist. Either you pony up evidence for your 'uncaused cause', otherwise, I don't feel obliged to perform for your entertainment.
KA
I don't want to be entertained. But thanks anyway.
Post a Comment