The Foxes Swamp wrote:
i must be in the wrong place i swear i was heading for general discussion
The tagline of the General forum wrote:For discussion and debate about anything.
Advertisement
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:49 pm
The Foxes Swamp wrote:
i must be in the wrong place i swear i was heading for general discussion
The tagline of the General forum wrote:For discussion and debate about anything.
by Sun Wukong » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:49 pm
by Sociobiology » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:50 pm
by Sun Wukong » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:51 pm
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:55 pm
Sun Wukong wrote:Yes, but specifically, if something is disproven, it cannot be proof.
Our furry friend seems to be a big fan of tautology.
by The Foxes Swamp » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:04 pm
Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:The Foxes Swamp wrote:so not 50 billion years not 15 billion years its 13.798±0.037 billion years old and proof of this is where again?http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe wrote:Astronomers use the distance to galaxies and the speed of light to calculate that the light has been traveling for billions of years. The expansion of the universe gives an age for the universe as a whole: 13.7 billion years old.
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:09 pm
The Foxes Swamp wrote:so really its just an educated guess on what we think we know about the universe from our small corner of this massive universe ?
by The Rich Port » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:24 pm
by Sun Wukong » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:28 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Humanity's biggest delusion is it's certainty about anything.
by The Rich Port » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:28 pm
by Conscentia » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:11 pm
Misc. Test Results And Assorted Other | The NSG Soviet Last Updated: Test Results (2018/02/02) | ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
by Risottia » Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:39 am
by Land Der Volkeren » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:11 am
Grave_n_idle wrote:Land Der Volkeren wrote:
The thing is that, according to the big bang, the theory DID exist because before the big bang there only was the material energy in which everything would come later out of. Therefore cause and effect MUST have been existed otherwise the laws our own universe exist in could not manifest.
You are wrong about the Big Bang. There are some models that argue for something 'before' the Big Bang in the way we would understand 'before' - such as cyclic or inflationary models - but most models lean towards either 'uncaused' or non-event 'events' defining the limit of the paradigm.
Suffice it to say, in most understandings of the Big Bang model - as I've already repeatedly pointed out - what we UNDERSTAND as 'cause and effect' are irrelevant to anything that came after.
Risottia wrote:Land Der Volkeren wrote:Why should it? There is a thing that caused everything, that's pure logic.
1.It's not a theory because you don't have an experiment that could verify it or falsify it.
2.What you call "pure logic" (that is, YOUR OWN attempt at logic) is a category of human thought. The Universe isn't a part of human thought; human thought is a part of the Universe.
3.Also, already disproven WITHIN FORMAL LOGIC. What caused the First Cause? If it was caused (as implied by your claim about "everything must have a cause"), then it's not the First Cause. Also, what warrants the First Cause to be a deity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[1] Critics often press that arguing for the First Cause's exemption raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt,[19] whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause.[20]
Secondly, it is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[21] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_o ... _Existence
The Cosmological Proof considers the concept of an absolutely necessary Being and concludes that it has the most reality. In this way, the Cosmological Proof is merely the converse of the Ontological Proof. Yet the Cosmological Proof purports to start from sense experience. It says, "If anything exists in the cosmos, then there must be an absolutely necessary Being. " It then claims that there is only one concept of an absolutely necessary object. That is the concept of a Supreme Being who has maximum reality. Only such a supremely real being would be necessary and independently sufficient without compare, but this is the Ontological Proof again, which was asserted a priori without sense experience.
Summarizing the Cosmological Argument further, it may be stated as follows: "Contingent things exist—at least I exist; and as they are not self-caused, nor capable of explanation as an infinite series, it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists." Seeing that this being exists, he belongs to the realm of reality. Seeing that all things issue from him, he is the most necessary of beings, for only a being who is self-dependent, who possesses all the conditions of reality within himself, could be the origin of contingent things. And such a being is God.
This proof is invalid for three chief reasons. First, it makes use of a category, namely, Cause. And, as has been already pointed out, it is not possible to apply this, or any other, category except to the matter given by sense under the general conditions of space and time. If, then, we employ it in relation to Deity, we try to force its application in a sphere where it is useless, and incapable of affording any information. Once more, we are in the now familiar difficulty of the paralogism of Rational Psychology or of the Antinomies. The category has meaning only when applied to phenomena. Yet God is a noumenon.
Second, it mistakes an idea of absolute necessity — an idea that is nothing more than an ideal — for a synthesis of elements in the phenomenal world or world of experience. This necessity is not an object of knowledge, derived from sensation and set in shape by the operation of categories. It cannot be regarded as more than an inference. Yet the cosmological argument treats it as if it were an object of knowledge exactly on the same level as perception of any thing or object in the course of experience.
Thirdly, it presupposes the Ontological argument, already proved false. It does this, because it proceeds from the conception of the necessity of a certain being to the fact of his existence. Yet it is possible to take this course only if idea and fact are convertible with one another, and it has just been proved that they are not so convertible.
If only people studied a bit of the history of philosophy...
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:23 am
Land Der Volkeren wrote:Wouldn't a non-caused event be prove of a transcendent being?
by Land Der Volkeren » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:28 am
Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:Land Der Volkeren wrote:Wouldn't a non-caused event be prove of a transcendent being?
Nope. It could just as easily be more analogous to a force of nature. Maybe the great transcendent world tree brings about new universes as fruit in its branches. We have no means by which we may differentiate such claims.
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:30 am
Land Der Volkeren wrote:In that case, you are still talking about a transcendent being.
by Salandriagado » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:34 am
Barraco Barner wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
In terms of evidentiary grounds and logic, we are absolutely justified in not believing.
It's unreasonable to assume God exists.
If other religious people can deal with that, you deal with it, because you have nothing else, as ironic as it is.
... He said almost any specific deity, the Christian God among them.
>It's unreasonable to assume God exists
And it is also unreasonable to assume that a God does not exist,
since the core fundamental traits of God is a being not bound to the third dimension.
>you deal with it, because you have nothing else
Your extrapolation informed me a lot.
>He said almost any specific deity
Vague?
Barraco Barner wrote:The Empire of Pretantia wrote:OK.
Claim: There is no god.
Basis: There is no evidence for the existence of a god.
Evidence: It is a claim in the negative, and so doesn't need evidence.
Conclusion: There is no god.
Shah mat, theists.
And yet you did not cover one single point about an extra-dimensional being's mechanics or influences.
Nice dodging.
Sun Wukong wrote:Shaggai wrote:Yeah. "X is true" is a positive claim. "X may be true" is not.
Actually, phrased like that, it still is. A positive claim is merely a claim which asserts something. In this case you are asserting that X has a non-zero probability.
Formal logic would then demand that you show your math.
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
In the same way that "there are no black swans" would be a positive claim.
Isn't that a negative claim as well?
You're probably more knowledgeable on this than I am, so I'll try to avoid snark.Vilatania wrote:Err actually pretantia there is a pretty big difference between claiming that something doesnt' exist and claiming that something can't exist. Claiming that something can't exist assumes there is a logical reason as to why it cannot exist. The lack of evidence to support it's existence is insufficient to make a negative claim about the possibility of it's existence. Stated frankly, you cannot make this claim logically.
It's the opposite claim to,"X can exist." I still don't see how it's positive.
Swjistan wrote:I am sorry but I have said nothing bad about atheism or humanism! I'm not the one jumping down your throats saying,"You'll go to Hell if you don't believe!" I am simply saying that I'll respect your beliefs if you respect my beliefs, so f*ck you for saying that I'm ignorant, just f*ck you.
The Foxes Swamp wrote:Sun Wukong wrote:I'm quite certain that the "nothing" I know is more voluminous then the "nothing" you know.
That the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years old, and will die of heat death. As indicated by all the best evidence available.
Evidence, as opposed to, you know, "just an idea i have in my head."
thats a theory isnt it?
Land Der Volkeren wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
You are wrong about the Big Bang. There are some models that argue for something 'before' the Big Bang in the way we would understand 'before' - such as cyclic or inflationary models - but most models lean towards either 'uncaused' or non-event 'events' defining the limit of the paradigm.
Suffice it to say, in most understandings of the Big Bang model - as I've already repeatedly pointed out - what we UNDERSTAND as 'cause and effect' are irrelevant to anything that came after.
Wouldn't a non-caused event be prove of a transcendent being?
Risottia wrote:1.It's not a theory because you don't have an experiment that could verify it or falsify it.
2.What you call "pure logic" (that is, YOUR OWN attempt at logic) is a category of human thought. The Universe isn't a part of human thought; human thought is a part of the Universe.
3.Also, already disproven WITHIN FORMAL LOGIC. What caused the First Cause? If it was caused (as implied by your claim about "everything must have a cause"), then it's not the First Cause. Also, what warrants the First Cause to be a deity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[1] Critics often press that arguing for the First Cause's exemption raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt,[19] whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause.[20]
Secondly, it is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[21] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_o ... _Existence
The Cosmological Proof considers the concept of an absolutely necessary Being and concludes that it has the most reality. In this way, the Cosmological Proof is merely the converse of the Ontological Proof. Yet the Cosmological Proof purports to start from sense experience. It says, "If anything exists in the cosmos, then there must be an absolutely necessary Being. " It then claims that there is only one concept of an absolutely necessary object. That is the concept of a Supreme Being who has maximum reality. Only such a supremely real being would be necessary and independently sufficient without compare, but this is the Ontological Proof again, which was asserted a priori without sense experience.
Summarizing the Cosmological Argument further, it may be stated as follows: "Contingent things exist—at least I exist; and as they are not self-caused, nor capable of explanation as an infinite series, it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists." Seeing that this being exists, he belongs to the realm of reality. Seeing that all things issue from him, he is the most necessary of beings, for only a being who is self-dependent, who possesses all the conditions of reality within himself, could be the origin of contingent things. And such a being is God.
This proof is invalid for three chief reasons. First, it makes use of a category, namely, Cause. And, as has been already pointed out, it is not possible to apply this, or any other, category except to the matter given by sense under the general conditions of space and time. If, then, we employ it in relation to Deity, we try to force its application in a sphere where it is useless, and incapable of affording any information. Once more, we are in the now familiar difficulty of the paralogism of Rational Psychology or of the Antinomies. The category has meaning only when applied to phenomena. Yet God is a noumenon.
Second, it mistakes an idea of absolute necessity — an idea that is nothing more than an ideal — for a synthesis of elements in the phenomenal world or world of experience. This necessity is not an object of knowledge, derived from sensation and set in shape by the operation of categories. It cannot be regarded as more than an inference. Yet the cosmological argument treats it as if it were an object of knowledge exactly on the same level as perception of any thing or object in the course of experience.
Thirdly, it presupposes the Ontological argument, already proved false. It does this, because it proceeds from the conception of the necessity of a certain being to the fact of his existence. Yet it is possible to take this course only if idea and fact are convertible with one another, and it has just been proved that they are not so convertible.
If only people studied a bit of the history of philosophy...
1) The thing is that the material universe, or physical universe, operates by law.
The law of cause and effect and that energy cannot be lost or created are two of them.
These laws had to be there since the ''beginning''.
if not before, the creation of the physical universe.
2) Yes, but the laws are not. The physical universe is based on laws.
3) A transcendent being that is NOT limited to the physical universe as something outside the physical universe as it's the only way to get out of the system of laws in the physical universe.
by Land Der Volkeren » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:37 am
Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:Land Der Volkeren wrote:In that case, you are still talking about a transcendent being.
Not necessarily a being.
And frankly the sticking point is whether the thing that caused the universe thinks, has a purpose, and has the desire and ability to enforce this purpose in some way. The world tree I posit has none of these things. It merely exists.
by Federal Afrikun Republic » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:39 am
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:49 am
Land Der Volkeren wrote:With a being I am refering to a force, thing, in whatever sense, as we do not know what transcendent things actually look like.
by Finland SSR » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:50 am
by The Nexus of Man » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:44 am
Federal Afrikun Republic wrote:#BoycottIndiana
Just thought i'd say something since we are on this subject.
Ps....If God existed, the World would be a whole different place/experience!
Sucks that ge doesn't EXIST!!!!
by The Creepoc Infinite » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:09 am
by Jute » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:32 am
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...
The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
"Boys and girls so happy, young and gay / Don't let false worldly joy carry your hearts away."
by The Creepoc Infinite » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:36 am
Jute wrote:The Creepoc Infinite wrote:why would you WANT god to exist?
i'm not exactly gonna be excited if there is an all powerful genocidal asshole in a bad mood dictating what happens in my life.
Uh... Christianity says God gave humans free will, so he is anything but dictating what happens in your life. Most terrible things in the world are either man-made (wars and hate, for example) or naturally caused (illnesses, natural catastrophes etc.) Would you rather have God change everyone's mind so they are like characters on a children's show, where arguments usually are about harmless things (like how to organize a party or what do at a sleepover) and all the villains are either not human and can be defeated and destroyed, or reformed to be "good"?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Deblar, Eahland, Ostroeuropa, Philjia, The Archregimancy, The Two Jerseys, USHALLNOTPASS, Utquiagvik, Vanuzgard
Advertisement