Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 119 of 119
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Here's my problem...

  1. #111
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Great. So I could be God. It could be dark energy. It could be an invisible space hamster. Could does not necessitate is
    The point is, science infers the existence of things without direct observation -- as long as it predicts observable phenomenon.

    The question now is why would you consider this logically valid and not ontology?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I mean to say that I will not presume what caused the ball to roll. Instead, I will research the cause.
    What???? An outside force caused the ball to roll. That is no longer a presumption but a certainty given the law of inertia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    A force was applied. However there is no evidence that that force was anything other than nautral. If you presume that someone pushed it (outside, supernatural force), then you ignore the possibility that it was just the wind (natural force).
    Yes. A force was applied and this force is an external unbalanced force (I'm using the word unbalanced because there is such a thing as friction). That's money-in-the-bank certain.

    Oh, and there are no 'unnatural force' in physics. All forces are natural.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    No it doesn't. It demonstrates the need for research, and discovery.
    But science already said there is a very real physcial limit to what we can know (as far as the scientific method is concerned). Heisenberg's uncertainty and the entirety of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tells you this. For measures smaller than planck length, the wave function that defines reality goes to infinity -- hence indeterminate.

    If you are arguing for more research, you might as well research what science is saying in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    See? You are making presumptions. Not one of your examples included a simple natural occurence such as the wind.

    No, it's not. "God did it" is a presumed conclusion. As I keep pointing out, there are other plausible hypotheses. Were you to posit that it could indicate an outside, supernatural force, I would agree with you. When you insist that a supernatural, outside force is the only possible cause, you are making a presumption.
    The universe is the entirety of the natural world. A force outside the universe that brings it out of its inertial state, by definition, is SUPERNATURAL.

    I suggest that you come to terms with the essence of what supernatural means. If you are thinking about, say, miracles, they are not supernatural in the strictest sense. A miracle is merely a natural occurrence who's cause is unknown or an effect other than what is expected occurs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Again, I said no such thing. Stop ascribing to me positions I did not take. My atheism posits that whatever caused the ball to roll could have been perfectly natural, no agency necessary.
    The ball is merely an analogy for the entire universe (if you haven't figured that out by now). So, in the case of the universe, your atheism is ok with the possibility that the universe caused itself -- contrary to the law of inertia? How is that logical?


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Doesn't matter how much we have learned. You still do not get to presume an outside agent in order to conclude an outside agent.
    I am applying the law of inertia to the entire universe.

    General relativity states that it is a point object with no dimension, with infinite gravity and existing within a time interval that is dilated to infinity (which is like saying that time is at a standstill or there is no time in the first place). Science also says that it is hot (which doesn't really mean anything since heat energy requires mass, space and time, both of which do not exist in a rational manner in a singularity). Suddenly, according to physical cosmology, it goes bang.

    What exactly did I presume, hmmm?


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Now, you're attempting to retreat back into the idea that God is only a philosophical concept (metaphysics - the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. ). Because such claims are meaningless in objective, physical reality.
    How is it meaningless, hmmmm? You do understand that the scientific method that you keep harping about is merely a product of metaphysical and epistemological inqury?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

    Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Again , you assert something that is inaccurate. Atheism makes no such assertion about the supernatural. Atheism only asserts that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that God exists. There are atheists, for example, who do believe in the existence of the soul. They just reject the conclusion that there is a God, without evidence.
    I do not assert anything that is not based on facts and logic.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/a...cism/#DefiAthe

    “Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    No, it's not.
    No, it's not, because.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I never said any such thing. There are mathematically sound hypotheses that demonstrate dark energy is the reactive that is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
    Which is irrelevant in cosmology. Dark matter/energy is an energy associated with empty space. There is no space in a space-time singularity hence dark energy couldn't possibly exist in a singularity. Something that does not exist cannot be a cause.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Or Phantom energy,
    That is the same thing as dark matter/energy coined in cases where omega (the ratio of dark energy/mass energy) is much greater than 1.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    or the gravitational interaction of antimatter. None of that has anything to do with the Big bang. They are hypotheses about why the expansion is accelerating, without needing to resort to "An invisible Sky Mage is doing it,"
    Sorry but I am not talking about space-time expansion. That is already an observed fact.

    I am asking the mechanism for how a space-time singularity goes bang. And I have provided credible site that says a singularity represents the point at which physical laws break down.

    How then can you make a valid scientific hypothesis when you have no physical laws to begin with?????

    But please, be my guest. Tell us about this cosmological theory on why and how a singularity goes bang.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Okay. I stand corrected. You didn't presume your conclusion. Instead you misrepresented a Scientific law. The law of inertia does not dictate an "outside force". It simple states "A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at a constant speed unless disturbed." Period. Full stop. Nothing in the Law of Inertia dictates that disturbance must come from outside. Correct your misrepresentation in your second axiom, and, while God is still a possibility, it is no longer a requirement.
    Good lord!!!!! Where did you learn physics, anyway????

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

    The principle of inertia states it is the tendency of an object to resist a change in motion. According to Newton, an object will stay at rest or stay in motion (i.e. "maintain its velocity") unless acted on by a net external force, whether it results from gravity, friction, contact, or some other force.

    https://www.britannica.com/science/r...nics#ref611459

    Newton’s first law of motion (which remains true in special relativity) states that a body acted upon by no external forces will continue to move in a state of uniform motion relative to an inertial frame.


    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Actually none of them do violate the Law of Inertia, because, as discussed earlier, you are misrepresenting the Law of Inertial. "An outside force" is not required; only a disturbance.
    Please stop making a fool of yourself. This is high school physics.

    Newton?s First Law of Motion: Inertia · Physics

    NEWTON’S FIRST LAW OF MOTION

    A body at rest remains at rest, or, if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.

    Newton's First Law

    Newton's first law: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.

    https://www.livescience.com/46559-newton-first-law.html

    Newton's first law in action

    Rockets traveling through space encompass all three of Newton's laws of motion.

    Before a rocket is even launched, it is at rest on the surface of Earth. It would stay at rest indefinitely without any external force acting upon it. Newton's first law also applies when the rocket is gliding through space with no external forces on it, it will travel in a straight line at a constant speed forever.

    The “Law of Inertia”

    This is the first of Newton’s three laws of motion. It says that the velocity of any object remains constant unless acted upon by a “net external force.”

    https://www.universetoday.com/85153/law-of-inertia/

    Of these, the first, otherwise known as the Law of Inertia, is the most famous and arguably the most important. In the language of science, this law states that: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity. Put simply, it states that a body will remain at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.

    Newton?s First Law: How Inertia Works - dummies

    In physics, Newton’s laws explain what happens with forces and motion, and his first law states, “An object continues in a state of rest, or in a state of motion at a constant velocity along a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by a net force.” Translation? If you don’t apply a net, or unbalanced, force to an object at rest or in motion, it will stay at rest or in that same motion along a straight line. Forever.
    Last edited by kingrat; 6th February 2018 at 05:50 AM.

  2. #112
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17709

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    The point is, science infers the existence of things without direct observation -- as long as it predicts observable phenomenon.

    The question now is why would you consider this logically valid and not ontology?



    What???? An outside force caused the ball to roll. That is no longer a presumption but a certainty given the law of inertia.



    Yes. A force was applied and this force is an external unbalanced force (I'm using the word unbalanced because there is such a thing as friction). That's money-in-the-bank certain.

    Oh, and there are no 'unnatural force' in physics. All forces are natural.




    But science already said there is a very real physcial limit to what we can know (as far as the scientific method is concerned). Heisenberg's uncertainty and the entirety of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tells you this. For measures smaller than planck length, the wave function that defines reality goes to infinity -- hence indeterminate.

    If you are arguing for more research, you might as well research what science is saying in the first place.




    The universe is the entirety of the natural world. A force outside the universe that brings it out of its inertial state, by definition, is SUPERNATURAL.

    I suggest that you come to terms with the essence of what supernatural means. If you are thinking about, say, miracles, they are not supernatural in the strictest sense. A miracle is merely a natural occurrence who's cause is unknown or an effect other than what is expected occurs.




    The ball is merely an analogy for the entire universe (if you haven't figured that out by now). So, in the case of the universe, your atheism is ok with the possibility that the universe caused itself -- contrary to the law of inertia? How is that logical?




    I am applying the law of inertia to the entire universe.

    General relativity states that it is a point object with no dimension, with infinite gravity and existing within a time interval that is dilated to infinity (which is like saying that time is at a standstill or there is no time in the first place). Science also says that it is hot (which doesn't really mean anything since heat energy requires mass, space and time, both of which do not exist in a rational manner in a singularity). Suddenly, according to physical cosmology, it goes bang.

    What exactly did I presume, hmmm?




    How is it meaningless, hmmmm? You do understand that the scientific method that you keep harping about is merely a product of metaphysical and epistemological inqury?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

    Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.




    I do not assert anything that is not based on facts and logic.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/a...cism/#DefiAthe

    “Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).



    No, it's not, because.......?



    Which is irrelevant in cosmology. Dark matter/energy is an energy associated with empty space. There is no space in a space-time singularity hence dark energy couldn't possibly exist in a singularity. Something that does not exist cannot be a cause.




    That is the same thing as dark matter/energy coined in cases where omega (the ratio of dark energy/mass energy) is much greater than 1.




    Sorry but I am not talking about space-time expansion. That is already an observed fact.

    I am asking the mechanism for how a space-time singularity goes bang. And I have provided credible site that says a singularity represents the point at which physical laws break down.

    How then can you make a valid scientific hypothesis when you have no physical laws to begin with?????

    But please, be my guest. Tell us about this cosmological theory on why and how a singularity goes bang.




    Good lord!!!!! Where did you learn physics, anyway????

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

    The principle of inertia states it is the tendency of an object to resist a change in motion. According to Newton, an object will stay at rest or stay in motion (i.e. "maintain its velocity") unless acted on by a net external force, whether it results from gravity, friction, contact, or some other force.

    https://www.britannica.com/science/r...nics#ref611459

    Newton’s first law of motion (which remains true in special relativity) states that a body acted upon by no external forces will continue to move in a state of uniform motion relative to an inertial frame.




    Please stop making a fool of yourself. This is high school physics.

    Newton?s First Law of Motion: Inertia · Physics

    NEWTON’S FIRST LAW OF MOTION

    A body at rest remains at rest, or, if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.

    Newton's First Law

    Newton's first law: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.

    https://www.livescience.com/46559-newton-first-law.html

    Newton's first law in action

    Rockets traveling through space encompass all three of Newton's laws of motion.

    Before a rocket is even launched, it is at rest on the surface of Earth. It would stay at rest indefinitely without any external force acting upon it. Newton's first law also applies when the rocket is gliding through space with no external forces on it, it will travel in a straight line at a constant speed forever.

    The “Law of Inertia”

    This is the first of Newton’s three laws of motion. It says that the velocity of any object remains constant unless acted upon by a “net external force.”

    https://www.universetoday.com/85153/law-of-inertia/

    Of these, the first, otherwise known as the Law of Inertia, is the most famous and arguably the most important. In the language of science, this law states that: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity. Put simply, it states that a body will remain at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.

    Newton?s First Law: How Inertia Works - dummies

    In physics, Newton’s laws explain what happens with forces and motion, and his first law states, “An object continues in a state of rest, or in a state of motion at a constant velocity along a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by a net force.” Translation? If you don’t apply a net, or unbalanced, force to an object at rest or in motion, it will stay at rest or in that same motion along a straight line. Forever.
    So, the crux of your argument is that the expansion of the universe must have been started by a force, external to the universe. Except it didn't. The force to begin the expansion came from the initial explosion. "What caused that explosion?", you ask. I don't k now. Neither do you. No one does. You choose to assert that it was God. I choose not to, because "God did it" has a pretty poor track record. In fact, in all of recorded history, "It was God" has, ultimately, been proven incorrect exactly 100% of the time. Consider every single phenomenon that has been attributed to God, and then explored by science, and consider that all of them were, eventually, explained by science, and not one of those explanations ever concluded with "God did it".

    So. Do we know for certain how the universe first expanded? Nope. But nothing in the whole of history, demonstrates that "God did it" will ever be the correct answer to any unknown, or not understood phenomenon. The correct course has ever been, wait for science to catch up, and sooner, or later, it will provide a rational, natural explanation.

    Then you will switch back to the continuing acceleration, and insist that this must be God. Except that there are alternative hypotheses that explain that without resorting to "God did it". Could it be God? Sure. Except "God" isn't even a proper hypothesis. There is no equation to verify. No evidence to examine. it is just an assertion. I'll stick with hypotheses that can be tested, and verified.

    So, I'll stick with I don't know, and wait. In the meantime I will continue with my sceptical disbelieve in deity until such time as I am provided objective, verifiable evidence of the contrary. I'm sorry that, "We don't know how this happened, so it must be God" is not sufficient for me, because that answer has invariable be wrong, so I see no reason to put any stock in it, now.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 6th February 2018 at 10:20 AM.

  3. #113
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    So, the crux of your argument is that the expansion of the universe must have been started by a force, external to the universe. Except it didn't. The force to begin the expansion came from the initial explosion. "What caused that explosion?", you ask. I don't k now. Neither do you. No one does.
    But you were asking for a conclusion based on objective evidence, were you not? So what do we know given the law of inertia and the current stated of space-time expansion, hmmmm?

    1. That 'force' that caused the big bang was external to the universe (since something in an inertial state couldn't possibly move itself).
    2. That something external to the universe is, by definition, supernatural.

    What you, I and everyone else don't know is the nature of this external existence -- which isn't the scope of ontology to begin with. The important thing is that existence is proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You choose to assert that it was God.
    Not a choice but a compelling logical conclusion.

    Something that is supernatural caused everything in everything to exist. Calling that something god is merely a question of semantics. Nothing within the scientific inquiry has the above-mentioned essential qualities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I choose not to, because "God did it" has a pretty poor track record.
    Which begs the question -- on what do you base your beliefs, anyway? Do you base them on objective facts or do you base them on a 'pretty poor track record'?

    If you are of the latter sort, then it is you who are irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    In fact, in all of recorded history, "It was God" has, ultimately, been proven incorrect exactly 100% of the time. Consider every single phenomenon that has been attributed to God, and then explored by science, and consider that all of them were, eventually, explained by science, and not one of those explanations ever concluded with "God did it".
    What nonsense.

    If you gather all demonstrable facts in all of recorded (and unrecorded) history, all of them belong to the same causal chain of the first cause. As I have already proven the existence of the first cause, all subsequent effects are causally related to that first cause -- ergo 'it was god'.

    If A -> B -> C, then A->C. Do you have the balls to smash your head against that logical axiom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    So. Do we know for certain how the universe first expanded? Nope.
    But we do know it could only have been caused by an outside force. That is the only sensible conclusion here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    But nothing in the whole of history, demonstrates that "God did it" will ever be
    History has nothing to do with this argument. This argument is specific -- whether god exists or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    the correct answer to any unknown, or not understood phenomenon.
    We do know the law of inertia. It is a scientific law. Do you need me to remind you what a scientific law is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The correct course has ever been, wait for science to catch up, and sooner, or later, it will provide a rational, natural explanation.
    Except that the law of inertia already states an immutable scientific fact and ontology is merely saying out loud what this immutable scientific fact implies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Then you will switch back to the continuing acceleration, and insist that this must be God.
    That is for science, not ontology to speculate. The principle of the first cause and necessary being has already been demonstrated. What follows is merely the mechanism for how phenomena operates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Except that there are alternative hypotheses that explain that without resorting to "God did it". Could it be God? Sure. Except "God" isn't even a proper hypothesis. There is no equation to verify. No evidence to examine. it is just an assertion. I'll stick with hypotheses that can be tested, and verified.
    Except you repeatedly claim this without saying what these hypotheses are.

    In any case, scientific theories usually do not go against scientific laws like inertia and conservation. A theory that says the opposite of scientific laws usually don't even get published to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    So, I'll stick with I don't know, and wait. In the meantime I will continue with my sceptical disbelieve in deity until such time as I am provided objective, verifiable evidence of the contrary. I'm sorry that, "We don't know how this happened, so it must be God" is not sufficient for me, because that answer has invariable be wrong, so I see no reason to put any stock in it, now.
    That is agnosticism, not atheism. You are not an atheist. You're just a garden-variety skeptic whose doubts don't even conform with objective facts.

  4. #114
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17709

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    But you were asking for a conclusion based on objective evidence, were you not? So what do we know given the law of inertia and the current stated of space-time expansion, hmmmm?

    1. That 'force' that caused the big bang was external to the universe (since something in an inertial state couldn't possibly move itself).
    2. That something external to the universe is, by definition, supernatural.

    What you, I and everyone else don't know is the nature of this external existence -- which isn't the scope of ontology to begin with. The important thing is that existence is proven.
    We know no such thing. The cyclic universe theory, combined with quantum tunnelling successfully demonstrates (the equations reconcile) is that it is possible with quantum particles "blinking" into, and out of existence at such a rapid rate, it was, in fact, passible to build up the potential energy to cause the singularity explosion necessary to create the big bang. Now, do we know that is what happened with absolute certainty? Not yet. But we are still researching. We are not satisfied with simply, "God did it,"

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Not a choice but a compelling logical conclusion.

    Something that is supernatural caused everything in everything to exist. Calling that something god is merely a question of semantics. Nothing within the scientific inquiry has the above-mentioned essential qualities.
    Now, this is something with which I agree. Since "God" carries with it so much religious baggage, why don't we, instead, just call it "X" until we figure out a way to discover, measure, and quantify what it actually is. You want to pretend "God did it" is just a semantic turn of phrase that has no real consequence. Except we both know that's not true. "X" created the initial expansion carries no consequence, as it offers no implications of what "X" is. "God did it" confirms for theists that they were right all along, God exists, and God has a purpose for them, personally. Your "X" acting on the initial singularity indicates no such thing. So, how about we don't call it "God", and we avoid giving theists an unrealistic expectation that their religious dumbfuckery (of whatever flavour) has any actual validity?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    What nonsense.

    If you gather all demonstrable facts in all of recorded (and unrecorded) history, all of them belong to the same causal chain of the first cause. As I have already proven the existence of the first cause, all subsequent effects are causally related to that first cause -- ergo 'it was god'.
    First, you, yourself, admitted that calling what initiated the universal expansion "God" is nothing more than a matter of semantics, so you have proven nothing about the objective reality of God. Second, you have proven nothing about a "first cause". Unless you are pleading a "special case" for "X", it to is a contingent event. Is too needs a cause, which in turn needs a cause, which in turn needs a cause. You can't claim that, simply by virtue of being outside our universe, the physical laws of our universe "don't apply", because you don't know that. You simply presume it. Someone asked my philosophy earlier this week. A basic premise of my philosophy is Presume. Nothing. Your position requires that you presume what laws do, and do not apply outside the confines of our universe. See, this is the problem with your position, at some point, you leave yourself with presumptions for which you have no basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    If A -> B -> C, then A->C. Do you have the balls to smash your head against that logical axiom?
    Sure I do. Now follow that axiom to the next stage: ? -> A.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    But we do know it could only have been caused by an outside force. That is the only sensible conclusion here.
    Quantum tunnelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    History has nothing to do with this argument. This argument is specific -- whether god exists or not.
    History has everything to do with the argument, as your entire argument is, "Since we can't find a natural cause that we can understand, it must be God," That is the same argument used for every phenomenon throughout history, until science advanced, and we did understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    We do know the law of inertia. It is a scientific law. Do you need me to remind you what a scientific law is?
    Sure. "X" was the cause of the initial expansion of our universe. Now, let's discover, understand, and quantify "X", and look for the cause of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Except that the law of inertia already states an immutable scientific fact and ontology is merely saying out loud what this immutable scientific fact implies.
    The facts presented by inertia in no way imply what ontology presumes. "X" is not automatically the "God" of religion. It is just "X".

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    That is for science, not ontology to speculate. The principle of the first cause and necessary being has already been demonstrated. What follows is merely the mechanism for how phenomena operates.
    Your "First Cause" is an unsustainable presumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    That is agnosticism, not atheism. You are not an atheist. You're just a garden-variety skeptic whose doubts don't even conform with objective facts.
    Call me whatever you like.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 7th February 2018 at 06:08 AM.

  5. #115
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    We know no such thing. The cyclic universe theory,
    The cyclic universe theory (big bang-big crunch-big bang) is not supported by objective facts because expansion is accelerating. If a big crunch indeed follows the big bang, expansion should be decelerating.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_d...f_the_universe

    The heat death of the universe is a plausible ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy).

    If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are supported by current data), the universe will continue expanding forever and a heat death is expected to occur,[1] with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    combined with quantum tunnelling successfully demonstrates (the equations reconcile) is that it is possible with quantum particles "blinking" into, and out of existence at such a rapid rate, it was, in fact, passible to build up the potential energy to cause the singularity explosion necessary to create the big bang. Now, do we know that is what happened with absolute certainty?
    You talk as if you have a working theory on quantum gravity that would explain how singularities go bang. To make matters worse, you somehow think that the quantum creation/annihilation of matter and anti-matter is somehow related to this. Quantum creation/annihilation merely points to mass-energy equivalence from special relativity.

    But be my guest, tell us how all that can make singularities go bang. And while you're at it, we know of gravitational singularities. Have we known one that went bang?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Not yet. But we are still researching. We are not satisfied with simply, "God did it,"
    Now you fancy yourself a physical cosmologist?

    The current lambda-cdm cosmological model (with inflation) is quite satisfied with the idea of classical geodesics. So apparently, scientists are satisfied with an external agency as a first cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Now, this is something with which I agree. Since "God" carries with it so much religious baggage, why don't we, instead, just call it "X" until we figure out a way to discover, measure, and quantify what it actually is. You want to pretend "God did it" is just a semantic turn of phrase that has no real consequence. Except we both know that's not true. "X" created the initial expansion carries no consequence, as it offers no implications of what "X" is. "God did it" confirms for theists that they were right all along, God exists, and God has a purpose for them, personally. Your "X" acting on the initial singularity indicates no such thing. So, how about we don't call it "God", and we avoid giving theists an unrealistic expectation that their religious dumbfuckery (of whatever flavour) has any actual validity?
    Call it what you like, as long as it is an external agency (supernatural) that created (caused to exist) everything in everything from nothing. In any case, nothing within the human experience satisfies these essential criteria except god, anyway.

    On another thought, it is amusing that, for an avowed atheist, you have just conceded to the fundamental tenet of any theist's 'religious dumbfuckery". Nonsense has limits, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    First, you, yourself, admitted that calling what initiated the universal expansion "God" is nothing more than a matter of semantics, so you have proven nothing about the objective reality of God.
    I have proven existence. What you wish to call that existence is irrelevant -- as long as its essential qualities are there -- supernatural, creator of everything in everything, and author of the rational order that we see around us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Second, you have proven nothing about a "first cause". Unless you are pleading a "special case" for "X", it to is a contingent event.
    Sorry, but a contingent entity is something that can conceivably exist or not exist. The universe is an objective fact and yet, we can imagine a situation wherein it does not exist. Cosmology could tell you precisely the initial conditions of the big bang that would result in the universe not existing at all. And it would also tell you a situation in the very distant future when the universe will end its existence.

    A necessary entity, however, could not not exist. It is necessary for the universe to exist. It still exists even if the universe did not.

    That is what the argument from contingency is saying -- if you haven't realized this until now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Is too needs a cause, which in turn needs a cause, which in turn needs a cause.
    Fallacy of infinite regress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You can't claim that, simply by virtue of being outside our universe, the physical laws of our universe "don't apply", because you don't know that.
    But I do know it. Physicists know it.

    Physics, as you have correctly pointed out, deals with measurable quantities of mass, space and time. In a situation where these quantities become irrational, how exactly are you supposed to apply physical laws, hmmmm? The idea of an infinite density alone would require you to divide a number by zero -- which doesn't exist, mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You simply presume it.
    Not a presumption but a conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Someone asked my philosophy earlier this week. A basic premise of my philosophy is Presume. Nothing. Your position requires that you presume what laws do, and do not apply outside the confines of our universe. See, this is the problem with your position, at some point, you leave yourself with presumptions for which you have no basis.
    What did I presume, hmmm? That the universe is undergoing accelerating expansion? Or is the law of inertia a presumption as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Sure I do. Now follow that axiom to the next stage: ? -> A.
    Infinite regress. Here's a dumbed-down analogy:

    https://www.google.com.ph/search?new...w=1242&bih=602

    Imagine six people going to a theater together. Imagine that they buy six tickets and walk toward the ticket taker. As the first person reaches the ticket taker, he tells him that the person behind him has his ticket. The next one does the same, and so on until the last person arrives and hands all six tickets to the taker. All is well.

    But imagine a different scenario, one in which every person reaching the ticket taker tells him that the person behind him has the ticket. But this time the line of “referrers” is infinite! This means that there are actually no tickets, since no individual person has any tickets! The theater becomes overfilled and bankrupt at the same time!

    That is the essential problem with an infinite regress of proper causes. The intermediate causes don’t have any “tickets.” They exist and act only in virtue of passing on some causal process that none of them ultimately originates or completely explains. As causes, they are an ontological welfare class. Whether they are finite or infinite in number, they explain nothing of the thread of causation that runs through them all and links them all together as a causal chain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Quantum tunnelling.
    Please explain. I want this on record.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    History has everything to do with the argument, as your entire argument is, "Since we can't find a natural cause that we can understand, it must be God,"
    Actually, the cosmological argument has never been falsified. Better men than you have tried.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    That is the same argument used for every phenomenon throughout history, until science advanced, and we did understand it.
    Science merely explains part(s) of reality -- not its entirety. If one contemplates far back enough, he is confronted by the exact same thing I am confronting you right now. That is not understanding because, like the movie-goers above, they merely pass the burden of explanation to something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Sure. "X" was the cause of the initial expansion of our universe. Now, let's discover, understand, and quantify "X", and look for the cause of that.
    You are going in circles. What you want to scientifically quantify is not scientifically quantifiable. As I have said, there are very real physical limitations to what is scientifically knowable. Science is not the only source of truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The facts presented by inertia in no way imply what ontology presumes. "X" is not automatically the "God" of religion. It is just "X".
    If you insist, it is X and X possesses the essential qualities of god.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Your "First Cause" is an unsustainable presumption.
    Actually, it is your infinite regress that is logically unsustainable. And no, the first cause is the conclusion, not the presumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Call me whatever you like.
    You wouldn't want me to call you whatever I like. Suffice to say that what that is, is not an atheist.

  6. #116
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17709

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Call it what you like, as long as it is an external agency (supernatural) that created (caused to exist) everything in everything from nothing. In any case, nothing within the human experience satisfies these essential criteria except god, anyway.

    On another thought, it is amusing that, for an avowed atheist, you have just conceded to the fundamental tenet of any theist's 'religious dumbfuckery". Nonsense has limits, after all.
    You keep using that term ":supernatural". Unless you disagree with the definition of nature as "everything that exists", then there can be no such thing as a thing that is 'supernatural". By the mere virtue of existing, that makes it natural. Hence I have not conceded to any religious dumbfuckery, however much you wish I would.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    I have proven existence. What you wish to call that existence is irrelevant -- as long as its essential qualities are there -- supernatural, creator of everything in everything, and author of the rational order that we see around us.
    No. At best you have demonstrated the possibility that "X" exists. You have done nothing to connect "X" with the theistic concept of God. And, again, you haven't even proven "X". As I keep [pointing out, there are perfectly acceptable theories of universal origin that do not require your "X":
    The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

    Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

    The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

    In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.

    Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.

    You can agree, or disagree with their hypotheses, but unless you can prove their modal equations flawed, the fact remains that there are theories that do not require your outside force.



    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Sorry, but a contingent entity is something that can conceivably exist or not exist. The universe is an objective fact and yet, we can imagine a situation wherein it does not exist. Cosmology could tell you precisely the initial conditions of the big bang that would result in the universe not existing at all. And it would also tell you a situation in the very distant future when the universe will end its existence.

    A necessary entity, however, could not not exist. It is necessary for the universe to exist. It still exists even if the universe did not.

    That is what the argument from contingency is saying -- if you haven't realized this until now.
    Great. And you can provide evidence that "X" is a "necessary entity"? Or, are we just declaring it so in order to create a special pleading to avoid the problem of infinite regression? After all, in all of history not one single "necessary entity" has ever been discovered, so "X" would be a first, assuming that it can be demonstrated to be so.



    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Fallacy of infinite regress.
    Yeah, that's your problem. unless you can demonstrate evidence, other than, "I need it to be so to avoid infinite regression", then that is a logical problem that you will need to resolve, since you keep insisting on "X".

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    But I do know it. Physicists know it.

    Physics, as you have correctly pointed out, deals with measurable quantities of mass, space and time. In a situation where these quantities become irrational, how exactly are you supposed to apply physical laws, hmmmm? The idea of an infinite density alone would require you to divide a number by zero -- which doesn't exist, mathematically.
    So we have observed those quantities becoming irrational? We have observed things outside our universe? If not, then how has physics determined that things outside our universe do not have quantifiable mass, space, or time? Not that those things are measured fundamentally differently, but that they do. Not. Exist? By all means, link me to that observation.



    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Not a presumption but a conclusion.
    Based on what observable, verifiable evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    What did I presume, hmmm? That the universe is undergoing accelerating expansion? Or is the law of inertia a presumption as well?
    You presume "X". You further presume that "X" is a necessary cause. And you presume that "X" possesses all of the qualities attributed to the theistic God. You presume a lot...

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Infinite regress.
    I'm fully aware of the concept of infinite regression. It's why I presented it. In order to avoid iot you presume, with no evidence other than your need for it to be so in order to prevent infinite regression, that "X" is a necessary cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Actually, the cosmological argument has never been falsified. Better men than you have tried.
    It's never been falsified, but it has been shrunken. Every time we find a natural cause for another thing that religion once ascribed to God, God gets a little smaller. Now, you insist this will be different, and because we will never prove that the universe didn't need God to jump start it, then by association, God can be said to "really" be the cause of all those things that God was proven to not be the cause of.

    You guys have never been right before, why should I consider this will be any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Science merely explains part(s) of reality -- not its entirety. If one contemplates far back enough, he is confronted by the exact same thing I am confronting you right now. That is not understanding because, like the movie-goers above, they merely pass the burden of explanation to something else.
    Politely...poppycock! So you are an expert in every scientific field? Or are there some ar3eas in which you trust the experts to know what the fuck they are talking about? You suggestion is that if you are not an expert in every field than anything you know, or understand about that field, based on the work of others who are expert in the field, is meaningless. Sorry. I reject that notion out of hand. I'm not a surgeon, but I feel fairly confident in my assertion that open heart surgery is achievable, because I have heard cardiac surgeons discuss the process in detail. I may not have understood all of it, but I am convinced by the experts. To suggest that just because someone is not an expert in a field, they have nothing to say about that field is offensive, and elitist.

    In that case, you a bibical scholar, with a doctorate in theology? No? then you have no business speaking on the subject of theology. See how absurd that sounds?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    You are going in circles. What you want to scientifically quantify is not scientifically quantifiable. As I have said, there are very real physical limitations to what is scientifically knowable. Science is not the only source of truth.
    And I reject your premise. 500 years ago, the idea that microscopic creatures could be used to prevent illness was inconceivable. It was beyond what was scientifically knowable. Until it wasn't, and we got penicillin. 250 years ago, the idea of "curing possession" with brain surgery was unthinkable. It was beyond what was "scientifically unknowable". Until it wasn't, and now brain surgery to remove tumours is commonplace. So who knows what will be scientifically knowable in another 250 years. I reject the notion that anything will remain scientifically unknowable indefinitely. It is only scientifically unknowable today.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    If you insist, it is X and X possesses the essential qualities of god.
    Prove that. Prove the "X" must possess the qualities of god.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Actually, it is your infinite regress that is logically unsustainable. And no, the first cause is the conclusion, not the presumption.
    Oh, it is. But so is your "Prime Cause". Consider this why is:

    Premise 1: Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
    Premise 2: A causal loop cannot exist.
    Premise 3: A causeless cause cannot exist (no first cause)

    Conclusion: Therefore, all finite and contingent beings must be a part of a causal chain of infinite length

    Or:

    Premise 1: A causal loop cannot exist.
    Premise 2: A causeless cause cannot exist (no first cause)
    Premise 3: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

    Conclusion: Therefore, not all things require a cause.

    be equally logically possible. Now, you have explained how all contingent causes are "riding the coattails" of the "necessary" (First) Cause. But this is only because it is presumed hat there is a First Cause. If there isno first cause, then all causes are contingent.

    actually, all are equally illogical. Here is why:

    The statement "nothing can cause something" is illogical because this has never been inducted. It may appear that nothing causes something, but until infinity causes are explored and no causes are found, this cannot be asserted.

    The statement: "something can cause itself" is illogical because no 'something' has ever been proven to humanity that it can cause itself, and we only assert this to avoid infinite regression.

    The statement: "infinite causal chains exist" is illogical because no causal chains have ever been infinitely explored.

    The statement: "a causeless cause exists" is illogical because no causeless cause has ever been discovered.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 7th February 2018 at 12:05 PM.

  7. #117
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You keep using that term ":supernatural". Unless you disagree with the definition of nature as "everything that exists", then there can be no such thing as a thing that is 'supernatural". By the mere virtue of existing, that makes it natural. Hence I have not conceded to any religious dumbfuckery, however much you wish I would.
    na·ture
    ˈnāCHər/Submit
    noun
    1.the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

    That you do not concede to the overwhelming facts and logic only shows who exactly is infatuated with dumbfuckery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    No. At best you have demonstrated the possibility that "X" exists. You have done nothing to connect "X" with the theistic concept of God. And, again, you haven't even proven "X".
    You keep saying that but you have never once logically explained your conclusions given the law of inertia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    As I keep [pointing out, there are perfectly acceptable theories of universal origin that do not require your "X":
    The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

    Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

    The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

    In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.

    Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.

    You can agree, or disagree with their hypotheses, but unless you can prove their modal equations flawed, the fact remains that there are theories that do not require your outside force.
    How am I supposed to agree or disagree with a blurb of an alleged scientific paper?

    What are these quantum corrections and how are they applied to general relativity?

    How are quantum trajectories different from geodesics?

    So they derived a quantum-corrected friedmann equation -- meaning no cosmological constant -- the basis of the most accepted cosmological model today?

    And, ultimately, how does this theory conform with the law of inertia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Great. And you can provide evidence that "X" is a "necessary entity"? Or, are we just declaring it so in order to create a special pleading to avoid the problem of infinite regression? After all, in all of history not one single "necessary entity" has ever been discovered, so "X" would be a first, assuming that it can be demonstrated to be so.
    The law of inertia is inescapable.

    When you conclude a finite universe, a universe that began from a finite point, any hypothesis you plan to present needs to contend with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Yeah, that's your problem. unless you can demonstrate evidence, other than, "I need it to be so to avoid infinite regression", then that is a logical problem that you will need to resolve, since you keep insisting on "X".
    It is your problem since your belief rests on a logical fallacy -- hence false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    So we have observed those quantities becoming irrational?
    Yes. Form gravitational singularities like black holes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    We have observed things outside our universe?
    That's the thing. You need not observe something to state that they are true. Scientific laws are supposed to govern everywhere in the universe (background independent) and yet, no one claims they have made experiments in different parts of the universe, now, is there?

    You see, the observable universe is NOT the universe in its entirety. The concept of cosmological horizons affirms the existence of parts of the universe that are permanently disconnected from us for the simple reason that these parts are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. We will NEVER be in thermodynamic contact with them hence they are UNKNOWABLE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    If not, then how has physics determined that things outside our universe do not have quantifiable mass, space, or time? Not that those things are measured fundamentally differently, but that they do. Not. Exist? By all means, link me to that observation.
    From the equations of special and general relativity.

    If the fundamental quantities of the physical reality (mass, displacement and time) cannot be measured in a rational manner, do they still exist? No, within the scope of science.

    And something outside the scope of scientific inquiry is essentially a metaphysical entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Based on what observable, verifiable evidence?
    Based on an accelerating rate of expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You presume "X". You further presume that "X" is a necessary cause. And you presume that "X" possesses all of the qualities attributed to the theistic God. You presume a lot...
    Not a presumption but a conclusion from the evidence mentioned above and the law of inertia.

    So, for the nth time, where is the presumption in that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I'm fully aware of the concept of infinite regression. It's why I presented it. In order to avoid iot you presume, with no evidence other than your need for it to be so in order to prevent infinite regression, that "X" is a necessary cause.
    I'm not trying to prevent anything. I base my opinions on facts and logic -- whatever they lead me to think. And I am telling you (over and over and over...) your argument rests on the FALLACY OF INFINITE REGRESS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    It's never been falsified, but it has been shrunken. Every time we find a natural cause for another thing that religion once ascribed to God, God gets a little smaller. Now, you insist this will be different, and because we will never prove that the universe didn't need God to jump start it, then by association, God can be said to "really" be the cause of all those things that God was proven to not be the cause of.
    Actually, the cosmological argument has been enlarged since the discovery of the big bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You guys have never been right before, why should I consider this will be any different?
    Lots of theologians have contributed to the development of human knowledge. The scientific precept of okham's razor was first couched by a monk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Politely...poppycock! So you are an expert in every scientific field? Or are there some ar3eas in which you trust the experts to know what the fuck they are talking about? You suggestion is that if you are not an expert in every field than anything you know, or understand about that field, based on the work of others who are expert in the field, is meaningless. Sorry. I reject that notion out of hand. I'm not a surgeon, but I feel fairly confident in my assertion that open heart surgery is achievable, because I have heard cardiac surgeons discuss the process in detail. I may not have understood all of it, but I am convinced by the experts. To suggest that just because someone is not an expert in a field, they have nothing to say about that field is offensive, and elitist.

    In that case, you a bibical scholar, with a doctorate in theology? No? then you have no business speaking on the subject of theology. See how absurd that sounds?
    That is not my suggestion at all.

    Science deals with physical reality. But that is not to say that physical reality is everything. Nor is observation the end-all, be-all of scientific inquiry. Cosmology studies events estimated to have occurred 13.8 billion years ago. So, anything cosmology has to say can never be proven as demonstrable fact.

    But here you are, asking for a demonstrable fact from theology as if science has provided them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    And I reject your premise. 500 years ago, the idea that microscopic creatures could be used to prevent illness was inconceivable. It was beyond what was scientifically knowable. Until it wasn't, and we got penicillin. 250 years ago, the idea of "curing possession" with brain surgery was unthinkable. It was beyond what was "scientifically unknowable". Until it wasn't, and now brain surgery to remove tumours is commonplace. So who knows what will be scientifically knowable in another 250 years. I reject the notion that anything will remain scientifically unknowable indefinitely. It is only scientifically unknowable today.
    It is not a premise. It is the logical implication of heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Prove that. Prove the "X" must possess the qualities of god.
    I have posted the proof many times now. You can't accept what logic tells you? Go ahead and say exactly where my argument fails.

    The only thing you have said, by way of an objection, is that the law of inertia doesn't specifically say an external force -- which it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Oh, it is. But so is your "Prime Cause". Consider this why is:

    Premise 1: Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
    Premise 2: A causal loop cannot exist.
    Premise 3: A causeless cause cannot exist (no first cause)

    Conclusion: Therefore, all finite and contingent beings must be a part of a causal chain of infinite length
    But to say that the proper cause of any and all phenomena resides at the end of an infinite causal chain is to say that there is no cause. Didn't you get that from the movie-goers analogy?

    So, premise 3 is false.

    Oh, and premises 2 and 3 are not premises. Premise 2 is a conclusion from premise 1 since a causal loop is a self-referencing fallacy and premise 3 is a false statement that doesn't logically follow from premise 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Or:

    Premise 1: A causal loop cannot exist.
    Premise 2: A causeless cause cannot exist (no first cause)
    Premise 3: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

    Conclusion: Therefore, not all things require a cause.
    But logic requires a relationship between cause and effect. If an effect doesn't have a cause, it is illogical.

    So, premise 2 is false.

    And, just like your first attempt at proof, all your premises are not premises. They are conclusions. Premise 1 is true because its negation results in a self-referencing fallacy. Premise 2 is a non-sequitur from the definition of contingent beings. And Premise 3 is the conclusion because its negation results in a fallacy of infinite regress.

    So you see, my conclusions are not simply assumed premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    be equally logically possible.
    No, they are not logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Now, you have explained how all contingent causes are "riding the coattails" of the "necessary" (First) Cause. But this is only because it is presumed hat there is a First Cause. If there isno first cause, then all causes are contingent.
    If all causes are contingent, then they all have a cause that preceded them -- which brings you back to the fallacy of infinite regress -- which is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    actually, all are equally illogical. Here is why:

    The statement "nothing can cause something" is illogical because this has never been inducted. It may appear that nothing causes something, but until infinity causes are explored and no causes are found, this cannot be asserted.
    So now you are undermining calculus? The thing is, we can make the domain of a function 'approach' an upper or lower limit and determine the behavior of that function as it 'approaches' infinity. That is how hawking extrapolated the universe to a singularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The statement: "something can cause itself" is illogical because no 'something' has ever been proven to humanity that it can cause itself, and we only assert this to avoid infinite regression.
    And we avoid an infinite regress because it is a FALLACY. To make use of an infinite regress to fashion an argument is ILLOGICAL.

    If your atheist argument depends on the existence of an infinite regress, then it is your argument that is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The statement: "infinite causal chains exist" is illogical because no causal chains have ever been infinitely explored.
    Of course not. The reason it is illogical is because an infinite causal chain is saying THERE IS NO CAUSE -- which contradicts the premise that all contingent beings have a cause.

    Nobody expects to go to infinity to observe something there. Infinity is real only within the realm of mathematics and logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The statement: "a causeless cause exists" is illogical because no causeless cause has ever been discovered.
    First, you assert that a steady state universe is impossible.

    Next, you offer a theory that explores the possibility of a universe that has no beginning and no end.

    Finally, lo and behold, an uncaused cause is illogical again.

    A steady state universe is a universe with no beginning and no end which is what an uncaused cause essentially is.

    If you need to radically change your argument depending on what I say (which is logically consistent), then your argument must not be worth the bandwidth it is written on.
    Last edited by kingrat; 7th February 2018 at 10:50 PM.

  8. #118
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,587
    Thanks
    213

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The Justices did not just make something up that they wanted to be there. The right to privacy, as articulated in Roe, is well-founded in constitutional jurisprudence, and is the general principle upon which the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments are in part founded. ("In part" because non-privacy issues are also dealt with therein.)

    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
    Mass-killing of human beings in industrial dimensions has nothing to do with privacy, specially in case 75% of all this killed human beings are Blacks, while only 15% of the citizens of the USA are Blacks.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 8th February 2018 at 06:15 AM.

  9. #119
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,587
    Thanks
    213

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by knight View Post
    How does one measure belief?
    In ancient times in kilosmiles - in modern times in kilomartyrs per idiot.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 8th February 2018 at 06:27 AM.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 94
    Last Post: 27th January 2013, 01:33 PM
  2. Guns aren't the problem. HANDGUNS are the problem!!!!
    By Oscar99 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 256
    Last Post: 9th May 2012, 02:56 PM
  3. The Debt problem is an international problem.
    By kmiller1610 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 4th August 2011, 09:30 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd August 2011, 08:27 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30th November 2010, 08:56 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed