The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Crimson King]

I'd be totally cool with a dre and alt debate thread because a. It wouldn't dominate this thread, and b. It wouldn't have any dogpiling on dre.

Of course, Alt didn't seem too interested...

 

[AltF4]

Would I participate if someone made the thread? Yes. I just didn't like the 1v1 format was all.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

First of all Alt thanks for the maturity in your response, and for not just insulting. Secondly, it can't be a natural law because natural law because they are complex, or particulars, and I explained a complexity can't be sn. What makes me call it God is the fact that it must think, or must be a mind. The reason is that it can't be complex, therefore it can't be particular and subsequently physical. Now if the sn being has to be simple and being itself, then the only thing that would distinguish it from being nothing (we know it wasn't nothing because being obviously exists, that's why were having this debate) would be having a mind. It must be the case because this is the only trait you can attribute it without comprimising it's other traits such as sn, simplicity etc.

What I really want to know is how the grand mastermind of the universe can be simple?

 

[AltF4]

It could be if it were a self emergent law of nature. Something which would be the end result of a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything". Such a theory would include, as a part of itself, an answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing" and also "Why is the universe in this particular formation and not some other?".

Such a theory would demonstrate that the universe (multiverse?) is the way that it is, and could have been no other way.

But to call such a theory "god" is disingenuous and misleading. It is not some intelligent and callous mastermind, who cares deeply that you think he exists, refuses to show himself in any convincing manner, and then sends you to eternal punishment if you don't become convinced he exists before you die.

(I mean, if god wanted me to believe he exists, he's doing a really bad job of it. I would imagine much more out an an almighty ruler of the universe.)

 

[RDK]

All of this would be solved if Dre would only pick up a science book.

 

[Dre89]

Alt it isn't a dualism at all, I don't really understand how you concluded that.

Also, God theories don't always imply a loving God, deism is an example of one that doesn't.

Can you explain how you concluded it was dualism?

Also, when I say 'being a mind is the only thing that would distinguish it from nothingness' what I mean is if you take being at its simplest form, with no cpmplexities, the only difference between that and nothingness is that it has an intellect.

Ok for example, let's not assume we've concluded God exists yet, and we're trying to ifnd out what attributes the ultimate reality has. We know it must be being, not non-being, becuase we know that being exists in the world. Instead of giving it an intellect, let's say what distinguishes this original being from nothingness is the fact it is 'blue'. But that already has problems. For example, it would be complex, the physical world must already exist, it is a aprticular and does not ecncompass all future beings, and the fact it is a colour would mean it is designed to be visually perceived by a nother being, yet no other being would be in existence.

An intellect is the only trait that can retain the simplicity and distinguish it from being nothingness.

And yes the intellect is simple because it is the perfect intellect. The complexities stem from the universal, the simple the universal is.

For example, 'fauna' is a more simple complex than 'mammals', because it is less specific. Mammals stem from the concept of fauna. Same as how the colour blue is more simple than a blue sculpture, for it also less specific, and the blue sculpture also stems from the concept of blue. You see here that the more simple the concept it is, the more complexities stem from it.

Now if you regress in this manner, you'll find that the most simple being is essentially a nothingness, it is just existence itself, but what separates this existence from nothingness is a perfect intellect. You'll notice that this being is the most simple of all, for it has no complexities, yet every particular in the world stems from it.

Think of my argument what you will, but you can't say it's not logically consistent, or that it doesn't have justification behind every premise.

Edit: Can someone please link me the mathematics of NBT? My friend wants to look at it/ show it to her professor. Thanks in advance.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Also, when I say 'being a mind is the only thing that would distinguish it from nothingness' what I mean is if you take being at its simplest form, with no cpmplexities, the only difference between that and nothingness is that it has an intellect.

That's dualism I believe. It's where one can have an intellect without brains.

 

[Deleted member]

All of this would be solved if Dre would only pick up a science book.

Or actually read what we're posting

 

[AltF4]

Yea, I'm going to agree with Bob on this. What you're espousing is exactly dualism. You're saying you can have a mind without a body. I don't see how that isn't dualism.

And I came to that conclusion originally because I have a very hard time reading your writing. You use a lot of terms which have non-standard meanings, and just expect us all to know how you intend them. I'm a computer scientist, and if I mention the words "bus", "switch", or "nibble", I wouldn't expect a person not in the computer field to just understand me. So do try to translate what you're saying out of philosophy jargon.


Mathematical Links to the No Boundary Proposal? Sure. But keep in mind that I'm not a physicist, so these may or may not be the best sources:

Search on Google Scholar
Something on Google Books
Somewhat recent paper by Hawking about it
etc...


So much of the rest of this is just... nonsense. "The perfect intellect"? What does that even mean?

What does it mean to "exist" if you aren't made of matter? When I say "My chair exists", you know what I mean. It has mass, a location, and a velocity. When you say this "god" "exists", I don't even know what those words mean.

This also rather reeks of Anselm's "god proof". Which is complete BS, you know. You're trying to do the same thing. Pull a god out of thin air by a mere trickery of words.

Think of my argument what you will, but you can't say it's not logically consistent, or that it doesn't have justification behind every premise.

You do a wonderful job at hiding your assumptions from immediate inspection, I'll give you that. While in philosophy that ma be a virtue, in science and engineering it will cause you to be shunned by the community.

You seem to be espousing not only dualism, but some strange form of Essentialism. (Where everything has an abstract "form" which is a perfect representation of it in the world of ideas.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm confused; if God is just pure intellect, how can He do anything?

 

[RDK]

Or actually read what we're posting

The more ridiculous and science-mocking his arguments got the more I started to believe that Dre was a sockpuppet account that you made just to troll the hell out of the Debate Hall.

A while back there was a poster named GOD!! or something like that, of whom I had the same suspicions but Dre is more refined and superior as a troll in almost every way.

I'm not sure if I know better.

If this is the case then you are a genius and Dre is the greatest sock ever made.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm confused; if God is just pure intellect, how can He do anything?

And, more importantly, why does It have any bearing on us in any way whatsoever?

 

[Deleted member]

The more ridiculous and science-mocking his arguments got the more I started to believe that Dre was a sockpuppet account that you made just to troll the hell out of the Debate Hall.

A while back there was a poster named GOD!! or something like that, of whom I had the same suspicions but Dre is more refined and superior as a troll in almost every way.

I'm not sure if I know better.

If this is the case then you are a genius and Dre is the greatest sock ever made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_con

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

For example, 'fauna' is a more simple complex than 'mammals', because it is less specific. Mammals stem from the concept of fauna. Same as how the colour blue is more simple than a blue sculpture, for it also less specific, and the blue sculpture also stems from the concept of blue. You see here that the more simple the concept it is, the more complexities stem from it.

Now if you regress in this manner, you'll find that the most simple being is essentially a nothingness, it is just existence itself, but what separates this existence from nothingness is a perfect intellect. You'll notice that this being is the most simple of all, for it has no complexities, yet every particular in the world stems from it.

Lets through in some geometry that I don't quite understand. I'm also probably wrong on this.

I believe you may be after a with shape an infinite number of different sides and side dimensions and therefore an infinite number of surface areas, volumes etc. This shape would also exist in an infinite number of dimensions. Now such a shape would be ridiculously complex. However, by your argument, this shape is the most simple shape possible, because all shapes can be derived from it.

Or is it the other way around? Are you interested in finding a zero dimensional point? How many shapes "stem" from that? I don't see how a cube could "stem" from a zero dimensional point.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Got a question here. Are the illusion of free will and determinism the same thing? Surely the illusion of free will is implied in determinism, but I'm not sure it goes both ways. I'm kind of looking for a solid definition of determinism, is there one?

Reason:
I am curious to know if the indeterminate events of physics disprove determinism, or if determinism is just another way of saying you have no real choices and that said indeterminate events do not necessarily disprove determinism.

Thanks in advance.

 

[RDK]

Got a question here. Are the illusion of free will and determinism the same thing? Surely the illusion of free will is implied in determinism, but I'm not sure it goes both ways. I'm kind of looking for a solid definition of determinism, is there one?

Reason:
I am curious to know if the indeterminate events of physics disprove determinism, or if determinism is just another way of saying you have no real choices and that said indeterminate events do not necessarily disprove determinism.

Thanks in advance.

Just because quantum events may be indeterminate to human perception does not mean that every action cannot follow the laws of causality. We just don't know enough about it to say anything with any amount of confidence.

Before pondering determinism ask yourself this: what does free will mean to me? Define the term and reflect on it. What part of our decision-making process could be described as "free"? Does it make sense that there would be a single component of our minds that is not influenced or driven by a previous experience or motive?

Our brains are not some magical entity floating off in another dimension somewhere. Every image or thought that takes place is your brain is a conceptual representation of neutron activity occurring in physical reality.

Here's a useful analogy. You're playing an old Mario game on your Gameboy; the fat first generation ones. We perceive the image on the screen to be Mario because we've seen his image outside the game and the shape that shows up on the screen is roughly similar to his shape when we see him elsewhere. That's experience. But we also perceive Mario - instead of just a random assortment of pixels on a gray screen - because our brains are wired that way. In this case Mario is simply a jumble of electrical work inside the Gameboy lighting up selected pixels on the screen to form a familiar image.

It's the same concept as watching television. When dogs look at a television screen they most likely see nothing that could be considered any more out of the ordinary than the couch they may be sitting on. But the human brain is wired to look at a television as a pattern; a collection of familiar images that create the illusion of movement and life.

Alt made a post a while back about free will and I'd like to quote it here because I feel it's one of the best examples of why determinism is the only theory that makes causal sense. It's long but very informative.

In order to talk about free will, we must first know a little bit about what it is. Free will is the notion that an agent can decide what action to undergo, unrestrained by outside influence. We all have an intrinsic understanding at least at some level of what it means to have choice. Your computer for example does not have free will. Everything it does is a direct result of what is put into it. Often these effects are intended to look as if it had Free Will (Artificial Intelligence) but this is all just smoke and mirrors. What I am talking about is your real ability to choose what your actions for yourself, without being forced to by physical laws or any other source. I will introduce now a hypothetical example that I will use through the rest of this writing to illustrate some of the ideas that are brought up.

Imagine playing billiards with a friend. You are playing 8 ball and it is your shot. There are two balls that look to be open shots, the 3 and the 5. You decide to take the 3 ball so you strike the cue with your stick causing the cue to bounce into the 3 which in turn falls into a side pocket.

Now typically what we would assume happens is that you as a human “choose” to hit the 3 ball. But after having struck the cue ball, everything happens “deterministically”. Meaning that the 3 ball did not choose where to go, it was forced to go into the side pocket by the cue ball. This is the stance that we typically take on a day to day basis. It seems perfectly reasonable at the surface, but as we shall see the idea is more complicated than previously thought.

Free will has a couple of problems when trying to reconcile with physics. The most major issue with having choice is that it violates a very fundamental principle of science: Causality. To quote the matrix: “You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.”

Events in the present cause things to happen in the future. Things that are happening in present were caused by events in the past. Every cause has an effect, and every effect was made by a cause. It is a basic, fundamental, essential assumption that must be made for anything to make sense. All of human history can be summarized by the gradual realization that things in the world happen according to physical laws, and not by whim or superstition. It is impossible to stress just how important causality is in science. Without it, there is no reason for anything that happens. Any scientific theory that comes about that contradicts causality is assumed to be false. In fact a typical method of disproving a theory is to show that it violates causality.

To demonstrate how free will violates causality, we will use our billiards example. Let’s see what happens when we introduce free will into the otherwise deterministic series of events after you strike the cue with your stick. We will say now that the 3 ball has “choice” of where to go after being struck by the cue ball. With this choice, the three might go in any direction, regardless of the instructions by the cue ball. It might even chose to stay still. Let’s say it goes a couple of inches and then stops. Well, what caused this action? It certainly wasn’t the cue ball hitting the three, because the three did not follow what should have happened if it did. What we have is a cause without an effect. In fact by definition a choice is without cause. A clear violation of causality.

Another issue with free will is called the problem of emergence. In our billiards example, a good question to ask would be “what makes us different than the billiard ball that gives us free will and not it?” Nobody would suppose that atoms have choice do they? Well then why do we (who are entirely made up of atoms) mysteriously have free will but the billiard ball does not (which is also made of atoms).

Put another way, go down the evolutionary list and ask yourself: “Does this have free choice?” Humans, dogs, rats, flies, ants, grass, bacteria? From a biological standpoint, we are not in any relevant way different from these other organisms that we assume to not have free will.

What do you make of it? Is it still too hard to let go of choice because it feels so apparent? What might make you want to maintain a belief in it?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Even if we only had the illusion of free will, and everything was preprogrammed, what would it matter?

 

[Dre89]

Thanks for the links Alt.

I apologise for using language that you guys don't understand.

But why do you keep saying my argument is just based on assumptions? That's a pretty bold claim to make for someone who admitted he wasn't particularly strong in the field. I never said NBT made alot of assumptions or anything like that.

I also don't understand why you say that, considering I answer every question you give me (you specifically, that is). I'm just starting to believe that the accusation is just an atheist/secualr defence mechanism, because in every debate I'm in, people just accuse me of having assumptions before premises, when I only even began to hold that belief after I had formulated those premises. It's like atheists/seculars just assume that no one can have a sensible reason for holding a belief that opposes theres.

I'm not going to respond to everything here but I will say-

No my theory is not dualism. Dualism supposes that there are two worlds, the spiritual and the physical. Platonic dualism supposes a perfect world of ideas, I'm not arguing that at all.

Dualism often entails a belief in a good God and a bad God, or that are good and bad forces in the world, my theory is nowhere near that.

All I've done is assume that an immaterial reality had to exist before a physical reality could. There are plenty of non-dualist theories that suppose that too, pretty much every God theory does, so I don't see how my theory is dualist at all.

Krazy a mind can do anything if the mind is the ultimate reality, if that mind is essentially what existence is. If all that is material is enccompassed within space and time, then what created space and time must obviously be immaterial. Now immaterial things must be minds, because as soon as you give them shape, or any traits that can be perceived by human senses, they become physical/material again, which means time and space etc. already needed to exist.

RDK and Del, can I ask why must you two be so offensive all the time? What good does it achieve? Everyone else has the curtousy to be mature and try to have a productive debate, why can't you two just do the same? I never insulted you guys so I don't see why you feel the need to insult someone who has a different opinion to you.

Anyway as you guys would know another thread has been created for this so we should take it up in there.

 

[RDK]

RDK and Del, can I ask why must you two be so offensive all the time? What good does it achieve? Everyone else has the curtousy to be mature and try to have a productive debate, why can't you two just do the same? I never insulted you guys so I don't see why you feel the need to insult someone who has a different opinion to you.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. I think Thomas Jefferson said that.

That being said I wish you would understand, but for some reason you just won't give up the philosophy bull. You're attacking known scientific concepts using philosophical word games and semantics because you can't let go of the god concept. I know creationists and other loonies in real life who use literally the same exact arguments as you, verbatim.

I don't hate you; I don't even dislike you. You're obviously intelligent but being as well versed in philosophy as you are allows people to engage in wild mental gymnastics.

It's tiring and the entire thing just gets old after a while.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Just because quantum events may be indeterminate to human perception does not mean that every action cannot follow the laws of causality. We just don't know enough about it to say anything with any amount of confidence.

(note: I did read all of both posts, but found no real issue with them)

It is my understanding that with all of the experiments done on the matter, there has been no reason to conclude some events, like the mirror one, are anything but indeterminate. Einstein didn't think there were any truly indeterminate events, and while that is a valid theory, and a fine thing to ponder upon, there is no science to support it, wheas the research done on the topic would support the existence of indeterminate events. The existence of said events could reduce determinism to statistical representations of the future rather than a single possible future from any point in the present or past. (Do you understand what I'm saying)

As to whether this truly hurts determinism as a theory: I think not. ... That's something to think about.

As for "Does it matter?" The only things I can see it effectively doing is turning people away from religion and improving inmate's rights.

That was really interesting, thanks for the time you put into that RDK and Alt, those long posts can take a good bit of time. The things debaters will do to educate another.

 

[RDK]

The existence of said events could reduce determinism to statistical representations of the future rather than a single possible future from any point in the present or past. (Do you understand what I'm saying)

What I would say to that is determinism doesn't require that there be only one possible future rather than many varying futures; obviously there is a war of motives going on in your brain when you consider choosing one option over the other. In other words it is very statistical. The action of a cueball bouncing off the side of a billiard table at a specific trajectory and speed is a very complex process, but the end result owes itself to multiple inputs from the world around it. Just like the brain; the fact that there are several different possible outcomes doesn't make the decision any less biological, and hence physical.

In summary what happens in our brain when we do our decision making could be seen as a hierarchy of conceptual representations derived from a completely physical process. Anything that happens in our mind, despite how the mind itself may view it, is a big, complicated clusterf*ck of dancing neurons, each influencing the other in a wave of activity.

The brain is fascinating. If anyone's interested in learning more about it I recommend Doug Hofstadter's I Am A Strange Loop, which deals a lot with the emergence of consciousness and how the self-aware mind looks back onto itself.

 

[Faithkeeper]

The brain is fascinating. If anyone's interested in learning more about it I recommend Doug Hofstadter's I Am A Strange Loop, which deals a lot with the emergence of consciousness and how the self-aware mind looks back onto itself.

:D Behavioral Neuroscience major here. I'll probably check that out after I finish my required summer reading, I need to get going on that.

 

[Dre89]

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. I think Thomas Jefferson said that.

That being said I wish you would understand, but for some reason you just won't give up the philosophy bull. You're attacking known scientific concepts using philosophical word games and semantics because you can't let go of the god concept. I know creationists and other loonies in real life who use literally the same exact arguments as you, verbatim.

I don't hate you; I don't even dislike you. You're obviously intelligent but being as well versed in philosophy as you are allows people to engage in wild mental gymnastics.

It's tiring and the entire thing just gets old after a while.

Ok a few things.

1. I never attacked the theory. I never said it was wrong. What I was criticising was the conclusion that you guys were making as a result of it. Proving its existence does not prove it exists as the ultimate reality. That statement is a metaphysical proposition. It is not within the authority of science to conclude the metaphysical position of a being. Proving NBT is a scientific issue, but what that implies is not necessarily always scientific.

2. I'm not hanging onto an ideal of God. I was an atheist before I made an inquest into the issue, and came out believing in a God as a result of what I formulated.

3. Could you tell which arguments specifically me and these creationists share in common?

4. I have trouble accepting NBT as fact, although it makes no difference to my argument whether it is true or not (you are aware of that right?). Firstly, in a previous God debate, all the DHers were telling me that Big Bang was scientific fact. I also was told that Hawkins admits there are several problems with this theory. On top of this, I've heard of several other conflicting theories, such as M-theory, vacuum theory etc. Not only that, but from what I've heard, the general consensus in the scientific community is that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

So given all that, how is it right to call NBT fact? Whether it's true or not has no affect on my argument whatsoever, so it doesn't really bother me, but to me the conclusion that it's scientific fact seems to me to be drawing a long bow.

 

[RDK]

1. I never attacked the theory. I never said it was wrong. What I was criticising was the conclusion that you guys were making as a result of it. Proving its existence does not prove it exists as the ultimate reality. That statement is a metaphysical proposition. It is not within the authority of science to conclude the metaphysical position of a being. Proving NBT is a scientific issue, but what that implies is not necessarily always scientific.

If it's not scientific it has no use to anybody trying to further understand the world around us. Science and philosophy must go hand-in-hand.

The problem is that you have literally no background in science and you don't know what you're talking about. And you keep acting like science has to bow to metaphysics to be useful. It's the other way around. You are abusing metaphysics in order to downplay science because you don't agree with what the research implies.

You're doing no more than word-jumbling. "You can prove it scientifically but you can't prove it's the ultimate reality". Why does this matter?.

Also I looked up the phrase "ultimate reality and this is what came up:

"Ultimate Reality" is a term often used within philosophical, theological, mystical and esoteric circles, as well as various metaphysical traditions of philosophical study and certain spiritual or religious systems. In a general context, the phrase most often denotes the underlying cause of all existence, ground of being, foundation of reality, supreme being or even an ideal state of existence or concept of being which is equivalent with the intrinsic value of all.

This doesn't even seem to be mainstream philosophy. Did you go to a private college?

2. I'm not hanging onto an ideal of God. I was an atheist before I made an inquest into the issue, and came out believing in a God as a result of what I formulated.

What exactly led you to the idea that god must exist?

3. Could you tell which arguments specifically me and these creationists share in common?

The way you formulate your arguments. Your posts are very lengthy but have little to no content. You accuse everyone else of being involved in an atheist or secular plot, when in fact there's quite a good mixing of people in here (Adumbrodeus is Catholic, Del is a deist, etc.).

Your mistrust and ignorance of of science is a big indicator too. When creationists and intelligent design loonies can't go toe-to-toe with people on the science, they turn to philosophy. To try to confuse the dumb masses.

4. I have trouble accepting NBT as fact, although it makes no difference to my argument whether it is true or not (you are aware of that right?).

So either you are convinced it is false no matter what, or you accept it even though you have qualms about it being true? Neither of those are virtues we're trying to teach you.

Firstly, in a previous God debate, all the DHers were telling me that Big Bang was scientific fact. I also was told that Hawkins admits there are several problems with this theory. On top of this, I've heard of several other conflicting theories, such as M-theory, vacuum theory etc. Not only that, but from what I've heard, the general consensus in the scientific community is that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

So given all that, how is it right to call NBT fact? Whether it's true or not has no affect on my argument whatsoever, so it doesn't really bother me, but to me the conclusion that it's scientific fact seems to me to be drawing a long bow.

I said we're dealing with scientific fact, not specifically that NBT was fact. NBT is a theory Hawking put together that best fits the available evidence, on top of it being rather self-consistent.

The Big Bang however is scientific fact; it did happen. We know this from many different sources (cosmic background microwave radiation, light elements from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, expansion in galactic redshifts, etc.). So equating the NBT with the Big Bang theory isn't exactly fair; NBT deals with more than just the Big Bang.

However I'm not a physicist, so maybe Alt or Zero Beat can help you out in that regard.

 

[Dre89]

If it's not scientific it has no use to anybody trying to further understand the world around us. Science and philosophy must go hand-in-hand.

The problem is that you have literally no background in science and you don't know what you're talking about. And you keep acting like science has to bow to metaphysics to be useful. It's the other way around. You are abusing metaphysics in order to downplay science because you don't agree with what the research implies.[/QUOTE]

Down play science? When did I ever say it was wrong or not useful?

You're doing no more than word-jumbling. "You can prove it scientifically but you can't prove it's the ultimate reality". Why does this matter?.

It matters because this is a God debate, and you're assuming that proving its existence proves it is the ultimate reality and therefore God is not needed. That's pretty important in a God debate.

Also I looked up the phrase "ultimate reality and this is what came up:

This doesn't even seem to be mainstream philosophy. Did you go to a private college?

I made it pretty clear I was using the terms original being and ultimate reality interchangeably.

What exactly led you to the idea that god must exist?

All the stuff I've been posting.

The way you formulate your arguments. Your posts are very lengthy but have little to no content. You accuse everyone else of being involved in an atheist or secular plot, when in fact there's quite a good mixing of people in here (Adumbrodeus is Catholic, Del is a deist, etc.).

When did I say they were in a 'plot'? I just said that the atheists/secualrs I encounter resort to attacking me by saying that because I believe in God I must have just had some bias assumption. They don't seem to accept the fact that people can have sensible premises for beliefs that conflict with theirs.

Your mistrust and ignorance of of science is a big indicator too. When creationists and intelligent design loonies can't go toe-to-toe with people on the science, they turn to philosophy. To try to confuse the dumb masses.

Where is all this coming from? When did I ever 'mistrust' science? When did I ever say it was wrong? When did I ever participate in a scientific debate?

So either you are convinced it is false no matter what, or you accept it even though you have qualms about it being true? Neither of those are virtues we're trying to teach you.

This statement makes me believe you haven't understood what I've been getting at this whole time. When did I say I have qualms about it being true? I never had any such qualms. What I'm concerned with is beyond what structure time has, it doesn't matter to me.

Now I understand why you accuse me of being 'ignorant' and 'mistrusting' science, because you thought I was trying to refute it, or had qualms with it. I had nothing of the sort.

The scientific aspect of the structure of time has nothing to do with what I'm concerned with.

I said we're dealing with scientific fact, not specifically that NBT was fact. NBT is a theory Hawking put together that best fits the available evidence, on top of it being rather self-consistent.

The Big Bang however is scientific fact; it did happen. We know this from many different sources (cosmic background microwave radiation, light elements from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, expansion in galactic redshifts, etc.). So equating the NBT with the Big Bang theory isn't exactly fair; NBT deals with more than just the Big Bang.

So then you believe that NBT isn't fact then? Both NBT and BB can't be fact, because BB implies a beginning, whereas the whole point NBT is to suggest there is no beginning. Considering that you said BB is fact, you must believe NBT isn't true?

You seem to put alot of words in my mouth.

You make out that I hate science, or that I consider NBT to be wrong, when the structure of time isn't even relevant to what I'm concerned with.

Then you also say everything I've formulated is theological, when I'm not religious at all, and I was an atheist when I commenced my inquest into the issue. As for bias, if there was going to be any slant, it would be towards atheism.

To say the nucleus of my position is theoligical is ridiculous because pretty much the entire reason I'm not a Catholic (in a practicising or believing sense) is because I am critical of the theology, and just theology and divine revelation in general. So to attribute theology to my argument is merely an accusation founded on no sufficient grounds whatsoever.

 

[RDK]

I think it does make sense. There's no reason whatsoever for you to conclude god from a purely atheistic standpoint unless you were influenced by religion in some way. The idea of god is a theological concept.

Why does it have to be god? Why can't ultimate reality be something else? Unless you're using the terms interchangeably, in which case I still don't really understand your point.

Exactly what attributes does this god of yours have and how are they determined?

 

[AltF4]

I wanted to just butt in and say that the No Boundary Proposal is not "fact". It's not even really substantiated by much evidence. (In fact, some evidence is starting to suggest otherwise)

It's important not to think of scientific theories not as "right" or "wrong". Or "true" or "false". They either correspond to our universe, or they don't. That's all.

Take Magnetic Monopoles, for example. They very likely do not exist. But if we were to find one, it would drastically reshape our picture of electromagnetism. There is no reason magnetic monopoles could not, in principle, exist. You could describe an entire universe's electromagnetic laws where magnetic monopoles exist. But alas, this is not our universe.

Similarly, the NBP may or may not correspond to our universe, but it could. What's significant about this is that it was really the first self-consistent account for the existence of the universe that does not involve a god of any kind. And even though that particular theory may not correspond to our universe, it opened the door for other similar theories to do the same. The NBP countered the argument of the existence of god out of mere necessity of creation. The NBP showed how a universe can exist without having been created.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So then you believe that NBT isn't fact then? Both NBT and BB can't be fact, because BB implies a beginning, whereas the whole point NBT is to suggest there is no beginning. Considering that you said BB is fact, you must believe NBT isn't true?

Explain. I believe the Stephen Hawking may have known what he was doing when he hypothesised the No Boundary Proposal. If it contradicted the Big Bang, he would have been absolutely hammered by the scientific community.

And after that, the Big Bang doesn't really imply a beginning, all it proposes is a rapid expansion of a singularity into the universe we have today. The "beginning" of the expansion could be considered the "beginning", but that is kinda stretching it a bit. I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Deleted member]

Take Magnetic Monopoles, for example.

Freakin' magnetic monopoles. How do they work?!

 

[RDK]

Freakin' magnetic monopoles. How do they work?!

And I don't wanna talk to a scientist / Y'all mother****ers lying, and getting me pissed.

Explain. I believe the Stephen Hawking may have known what he was doing when he hypothesised the No Boundary Proposal. If it contradicted the Big Bang, he would have been absolutely hammered by the scientific community.

And after that, the Big Bang doesn't really imply a beginning, all it proposes is a rapid expansion of a singularity into the universe we have today. The "beginning" of the expansion could be considered the "beginning", but that is kinda stretching it a bit. I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive.

The Big Bang wasn't necessarily a singularity, but everything else is correct.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

And I don't wanna talk to a scientist / Y'all mother****ers lying, and getting me pissed.

F****ing Rainbows up in the sky / There's magic in this b****

The Big Bang wasn't necessarily a singularity, but everything else is correct.

Well, I guess that's true, I mean we don't know that for sure. I believe the idea that it came from a singularity is an extrapolation of general relativity, which is not 100% proven.

 

[RDK]

Well, I guess that's true, I mean we don't know that for sure. I believe the idea that it came from a singularity is an extrapolation of general relativity, which is not 100% proven.

Actually the NBT itself doesn't require that there be a singularity, because in that particular instance the Big Bang isn't really "the beginning". But that's only one model.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually the NBT itself doesn't require that there be a singularity, because in that particular instance the Big Bang isn't really "the beginning". But that's only one model.

Dammit I wanted to see how long you could keep that going.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Dre., ultimately you have to admit that while deabtes are not won or lost, you are definitely not winning anyone over with your debating style.

(Most) everything that I have debated you are trying to show that your point is valid, and you use all the empirical evidence (by links, books, or what have you) @ your disposal to prove it. Don't take my word for it--dig up some of my old PG stuff and see for yourself.

However, I am not seeing a scrap of evidence from you. It's all philosophy and metaphysics. Don't get me wrong, it has it's place, but if you're going to say something like "[I believe] God exists," (which you did say) you better come with the kitchen sink in order to prove that. Instead, it's just more philosophy.

I can also agree with RDK on the point that some of your language does mirror some creationists. When the main tenets get refuted ("ATHEISZT BLV SMTHNG CM FRM NTHN"), a reversion into circular logic follows, which is meant to impress people with the flowery language used, but has little or no substance. 1/3 of my YouTube subscriptions are channels that focus on rational thought (and they cover a broad spectrum), and your arguments do mirror what I could see on the comments for some of these channels.

So please, before you continue, just give us something, some evidence on why what you say could be true. Not philosophy, but links: Evidence.

Thanks.

 

[RDK]

Dammit I wanted to see how long you could keep that going.

Shaggy's little boys look just like Shaggy / And my little boy looks just like daddy

FUN WITH GENETICS

 

[Deleted member]

I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay / It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away

 

[Dre89]

Dre., ultimately you have to admit that while deabtes are not won or lost, you are definitely not winning anyone over with your debating style.

(Most) everything that I have debated you are trying to show that your point is valid, and you use all the empirical evidence (by links, books, or what have you) @ your disposal to prove it. Don't take my word for it--dig up some of my old PG stuff and see for yourself.

However, I am not seeing a scrap of evidence from you. It's all philosophy and metaphysics. Don't get me wrong, it has it's place, but if you're going to say something like "[I believe] God exists," (which you did say) you better come with the kitchen sink in order to prove that. Instead, it's just more philosophy.

I can also agree with RDK on the point that some of your language does mirror some creationists. When the main tenets get refuted ("ATHEISZT BLV SMTHNG CM FRM NTHN"), a reversion into circular logic follows, which is meant to impress people with the flowery language used, but has little or no substance. 1/3 of my YouTube subscriptions are channels that focus on rational thought (and they cover a broad spectrum), and your arguments do mirror what I could see on the comments for some of these channels.

So please, before you continue, just give us something, some evidence on why what you say could be true. Not philosophy, but links: Evidence.

Thanks.

When you ask for links, you musn't be asking for philosophy, but for empirical evidence.

Now despite the fact that I consider my argument to be based on the observation of nature, I know you won't accept that.

I find the idea of 'only empirical (ie. scientific) methodology can deduce truth' to be backward thinking.

The reason is that how do you prove that empirical methodology deduces truth? You obviously don't use empirical methodology to prove that empirical methodology deduces truth, because that would be circular. It was philosophical logic that concluded that empirical methodology deduces truth.

My point? That the same philosophical logic hat formulated empirical methodology can deduce truths.

Basically, philosophy can deduce truths.

So in terms of providing you links, it depends on what you mean. I you want 'empirical' evidence, then I can't give that to you, but as I've explained, evidence doesn't need to empirical to be conclusive. If you want the arguments of other philosophers, then let me know.

As for the substance behind my God argument, I explained alot of it in previous posts, there's a big one i did with all the main content.

To sum it drastically 9and this is certainly a gross oversimplification) it basically argues that the nature of the universe, that it consists of complex contingent beings, necessitates a higher being.

Now the reason why this original being/ultimate reality must be God, and cannot be any other being is that this original being cannot be complex.

The justification behind these premises are in my previous posts, but if you have any questions/criticisms take them up with me in the God thread.

 

[RDK]

When you ask for links, you musn't be asking for philosophy, but for empirical evidence.

Now despite the fact that I consider my argument to be based on the observation of nature, I know you won't accept that.

I find the idea of 'only empirical (ie. scientific) methodology can deduce truth' to be backward thinking.

The reason is that how do you prove that empirical methodology deduces truth? You obviously don't use empirical methodology to prove that empirical methodology deduces truth, because that would be circular. It was philosophical logic that concluded that empirical methodology deduces truth.

My point? That the same philosophical logic hat formulated empirical methodology can deduce truths.

Basically, philosophy can deduce truths.

So in terms of providing you links, it depends on what you mean. I you want 'empirical' evidence, then I can't give that to you, but as I've explained, evidence doesn't need to empirical to be conclusive. If you want the arguments of other philosophers, then let me know.

As for the substance behind my God argument, I explained alot of it in previous posts, there's a big one i did with all the main content.

To sum it drastically 9and this is certainly a gross oversimplification) it basically argues that the nature of the universe, that it consists of complex contingent beings, necessitates a higher being.

Now the reason why this original being/ultimate reality must be God, and cannot be any other being is that this original being cannot be complex.

The justification behind these premises are in my previous posts, but if you have any questions/criticisms take them up with me in the God thread.

If we could acquire the same quality and quantity of truth using philosophy that we could by using science, why use science at all?

Also you seem to be using a different definition of "truth" as the rest of us. In science a better word for it would be probability. The probability of a certain thing being true, or how well it matches up with reality, increases each time it is tested.

How can philosophy alone accomplish this? Without any observation or testing whatsoever?

 

[Dre89]

Again, you twist my words and claim I have something against science.

What is your issue? You've always making out I'm against science, I'm not.

Tell me when I have ever said X scientific theory is wrong.

You must just have this ideal that everyone who believes in a God is against science, as if someone can't be rational and believe in a God at the same time.

That's a drastic straw-man, and I'm starting to get the feeling you just create that ideal so it gives you something alot easier to attack.

I never said empirical methodology was bad at all. I never said it shouldn't be applied.

I just said to assume that only empirical methodology could deduce truths is flawed, because the fact that empirical methodology can deduce truth is a philosophical truth, meaning that philosophy can deduce truths as well.

I never said anything about discarding empirical methodology, or that it is inferior.

 

[RDK]

And I never said philosophy couldn't deduce truth, but it can't be used to deduce truth the same way empirical methodology can.

You still haven't answered my question though. Exactly what truths - without using any testing or observation whatsoever - can philosophy discover?

How can pure logic be used to deduce deity when observation cannot?