The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Suntan Luigi]

I freaking love Cracked. So much win contained on one site makes my head hurt.

6 Subtle Ways the News Media Disguises Bull**** as Fact

http://www.cracked.com/article_1845...Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended

 

[Aesir]

Didn't even touch on the real issue with news media. Soo It was boring.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Cracked = god tier humor
Vodka = god tier alcohol
discuss

EDIT: ALSO, John Cheese for best columnist on Cracked y/n?

 

[Aesir]

Cracked Reddit= god tier humor
Vodka = god tier alcohol
discuss

EDIT: ALSO, John Cheese for best columnist on Cracked y/n?

Fixed for ya.


Also I have a semi serious rant. Occupy Wallstreet my biggest problem with them, they whine way to ****ing much about police brutality. They whine instead of playing the martyr card.

I dunno ows really needs to find basic things they want and push and they need a leader otherwise they're just going to become irrelevant.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Fixed for ya.

No, not fixed. Broken!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ugh, kudos to "Scylla" from SDMB for possibly the most mind-numbingly stupid post I have seen in a LOOOOONG time. In response to a post of mine where I explain how it is no longer true that everyone's voice counts the way it should in government:

Big deal. So ****ing what? If you are a union of teachers, for example, you can also band together, financially support a candidate, lobby, get your voice heard.

A church can do it, police can do it. PACS can do it, any group you think of can bAnd together and strive to get their views represented.

Corporations, too.


So what?

Anyone who doesn't understand what is wrong with that post... Please, please do not vote in any coming election.

 

[Aesir]

Ugh, kudos to "Scylla" from SDMB for possibly the most mind-numbingly stupid post I have seen in a LOOOOONG time. In response to a post of mine where I explain how it is no longer true that everyone's voice counts the way it should in government:



Anyone who doesn't understand what is wrong with that post... Please, please do not vote in any coming election.

Yeah because the teachers union can really compete with the Koch Brothers. DERP

 

[Dre89]

This is bound to stir up a lot of rage.

William Lane Craig was asked why notable physicists support a B theory of time (which is essentially the position that time is tenseless, and it just has the illusion of tense to our minds), despite all the absurb implications. Craig explained the numerous absurd implications and flaws but at the end when talking about Hawking's support of B theory time he said this-

"So why does someone like Stephen Hawking espouse a tenseless view of time? I think that the main reason is that physics finds it useful to treat time and space as a four-dimensional entity called spacetime in which temporal becoming plays no part. Relativity Theory in particular becomes perspicuous in such a context. Unfortunately, far too many physicists, having never studied philosophy, naively take this geometrical representation as a piece of metaphysics rather than as a merely heuristic device. One therefore has to be very cautious about the statements of physicists when it comes to the nature of time."

Hades gonna Hade.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ah, so the typical "Your scientific research doesn't work because of my philosophical arguments" crap that we hear from all kinds of idiots like Craig. I hate to break it to his fans, but that guy is ****ing ******** or a lying sack of ****. Both at times. ^_^ (I do not like that guy very much)

 

[Dre89]

I posted this hoping to get more educated responses that show why they agree with him or think he's wrong.

Anyone on the net can make general and aggressive claims with no backing.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Craig has simply drifted very far into the "People I don't take seriously" realm, especially after his spats with Hawking. I'm sorry, but if science says X and philosophy says Y, I'm going to be trusting the discipline that works with visible, testable reality, not flimsy logical arguments. I'm also going to be trusting the discipline that brought me computers, TV, cell phones, and condoms above the one that leaves me in existential doubt but does very little of actual use.

 

[Dre89]

But you don't trust the discipline that brought you science....

Firstly, when Craig contests a scientist's scientific claims, he actually uses science. It may be wrong, but it's not a case of prioritisting philosophy over science. The times he prioritises over philosophy is when scientists use science to make philosophical premises.

A classic example is how Krauss thinks his physics that shows the universe not needing a material beginning somehow automatically translates into not needing a metaphysical first cause.

I don't have a problem with Krauss' phsyics, but his arguments that there is no need for God make soooo many metaphysical asumptions he doesn't even try to prove because he's not educated enough in the field to know he's even making them that people like him and Dawkins are basically a joke to anyone who's educated on it, even atheists.

And again, you've provided nothing insightful and no justification of your conclusion. Any keyboard warrior could do that. I'd like to think we''re above that in the DH.

 

[rvkevin]

Edit: Never mind.

 

[Theftz22]

Craig has simply drifted very far into the "People I don't take seriously" realm, especially after his spats with Hawking. I'm sorry, but if science says X and philosophy says Y, I'm going to be trusting the discipline that works with visible, testable reality, not flimsy logical arguments. I'm also going to be trusting the discipline that brought me computers, TV, cell phones, and condoms above the one that leaves me in existential doubt but does very little of actual use.

Craig isn't disputing any science at all though, because science makes no claim as to which theory of time is true as it depends on what interpretation of general relativity you use. Since both interpretations are empirically equivalent, you must turn to the philosophical arguments, which is what Craig is pointing out.

 

[AltF4]

Dre, it's not clear to me where you're drawing the line between a scientific issue and a philosophical one. To me, if a piece of knowledge is knowable by science, it's by definition a scientific issue. Whether or not it was once inside a metaphysics classroom. Krauss's theory of a universe from nothing is entirely a scientific theory, completely internally consistent. And it does not involve a god figure creating it. Hawking's No Boundary proposal is another internally consistent theory of how the universe can exist as it is without a god.

(Both of which prove that god is not necessary. Does not prove he doesn't exist. But there's no need for him)

Maybe Craig just doesn't like it when things that he once thought were "metaphysical" (and thus he was allowed to make up whatever he wanted about it without the slightest bit of evidence) turned into a scientific issue.

The exact nature of time was once a metaphysical issue. But has since become a rigorous field of study in plain old physics. The same with the beginning (or lack thereof) of the universe. This was once beyond scientific investigation, but this has changed. We can now perform direct experiments which let us know how the universe began. There's nothing metaphysical about what the scientists are doing.

 

[Dre89]

I never said time was a metaphysical issue.

I never contested Krauss' physics. The point is the lack of a physical cause does not automatically equate to a lack of a metaphysical one.

So it's not that I think his physics is wrong, I'm saying it still necessitates God.

The reasons are metaphysical. For example, one mp problem isn't the specific form of time that is given (eg. Curved, looping, finite, linear, tenseless) it's the fact that time has a specific form, and he is claiming that there is nothing ontolgically prior to something with a contingent form.

That's an mp issue. So that means either a God is needed, or he has to show that the most ontologically prior reality (in his case time space) can have a contingent form.

It actually has nothing to do the specific physics.

The problem is many theists today don't look at the metaphysics either, and rely on the ever changing science to prove God exists. Not only is this shaky ground but they also make undefended mp claims.

It's an issue I'm addressing in my thesis actually.

 

[AltF4]

If I understand you correctly, you're just asking "Why is it that nature has the specific form that it does, and not some other form?"

Which can be answered with:
a) Convergent theories which necessitate what we currently think of as contingent. (A theory which derives the gravitational constant, for example)
b) The anthropic principle and varying forms over time / space
c) Random events

I don't see where...

d) God did it

...gets you. Why did god choose that specific form? It's just punting the question down.

 

[Dre89]

That doesn't get you to God did it. It takes more argumentation than that.

You may be misunderstanding what I'm saying. Physics can't explain metaphysical necessity.

Suppose you believe time is curved, and that it is ontologically necessary (meaning it needs no cause).

Metaphysically, this means one of two things. Either you believe that contingent form can be ON, which you need to justify. Or you believe that curved time, whilst being a specific form, is not contingent, but is in fact is metaphysically necessary, meaning time could not have possibly had any other form, which also needs to be justified.

Both of these positions require metaphysical defences. The only way in which I could see science being relevant, is if you are arguing that curved time is metaphysically necessary, that you use science to show that existence is impossible without curved time, which is really the only way you can show a specific form of time to be metaphysically necessary.

This is also what I mean when I say atheists have a BoP, because everyone, whether they realise it or not, makes positive metaphysical assumptions, because it is impossible for a mp proposition to be negative.

 

[AltF4]

I think calling it an assumption is a bit disingenuous. It's just another unanswered question. We don't know the answer to the question just yet, and we acknowledge that. There are thousands of unanswered questions in science, it's not fair to call every one of them an assumption. As if the whole of physics can be dismissed because they're making unproven assumptions.

Einstein once put it: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?". (Using his standard rhetorical use of the word god). We may very well discover that the universe is the way it is because it cannot logically and mathematically have been any other way. (Metaphysically necessary as you put it)

 

[Dre89]

But it's not a questions of physics it's a question of mp.

I can tell you're misunderstanding me by the fact you said that it doesn't mean the physics is wrong, but I'm not saying it is. These mp issues have nothing to do with the specific physics.

And these assumptions are mp assumptions. Science can't tell you whether the most ontologically prior reality can be contingent, or needs to be metaphysically necessary, and whether or not specific forms can be metaphysically necessary.


Again, the specific physics only becomes important if you can somehow demonstrate that that specific timespace is the only one that could have resulted in existence ie. it's metaphysically necessary, but even then you'll still need mp premises.

I think what you're missing is that none of this says any physics is wrong. Supposing we show metaphysically that anything with a specific form couldn't be ontologically necessary, that doesn't mean something like curved time doesn't exist, just that it needs an ontologically prior cause.

 

[Aesir]

Doesn't metaphysics lack the whole evidence thing? Just wondering.

**** this though I'm going to go play Skyrim.

 

[Reaver197]

These two things are making me too mad to debate right now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n&mwh=1

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

Also, Skyrim.

 

[Dre89]

Doesn't metaphysics lack the whole evidence thing? Just wondering.

**** this though I'm going to go play Skyrim.

I'm guessing you mean empirical evidence. No, ontological statuses are not a question of empirical evidence. Physics cannot tell you about ontological statuses.

And please tell me we're not going back to 'anything that doesn't have empirical evidence is rubbish', I thought we were l
past that by now.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

These two things are making me too mad to debate right now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n&mwh=1

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

This should not be a surprise. The republican party has essentially become the party of the super-rich and the stupid. Anyone making less than a few million a year who isn't really, really, really against the rights of gays and women is voting against both their own self-interest and the best interests of the country. I try very hard not to oversimplify things, but when you look at what these morons are proposing, it's really all too clear that the Republican party is trying very hard to pander to the richest, and only the richest of us. It's sickening.

 

[Aesir]

I'm guessing you mean empirical evidence. No, ontological statuses are not a question of empirical evidence. Physics cannot tell you about ontological statuses.

And please tell me we're not going back to 'anything that doesn't have empirical evidence is rubbish', I thought we were l
past that by now.

Depends if it's "reasonable."

 

[Dre89]

It depends on what you mean by reasonable.

People seem to think that for mp propositions to be reasonable, they have to be understandable to the metaphysically uneducated person, but that simply isn't the case. A lot of empirical evidence in science is too probably too complex and technical for the average person to understand, so I hope you're not defining reasonable by ease of access to the ordinary person.

 

[Aesir]

It depends on what you mean by reasonable.

People seem to think that for mp propositions to be reasonable, they have to be understandable to the metaphysically uneducated person, but that simply isn't the case. A lot of empirical evidence in science is too probably too complex and technical for the average person to understand, so I hope you're not defining reasonable by ease of access to the ordinary person.

Unicorns vs aliens.

 

[Dre89]

See when I see a post like that I don't bother anymore because anyone who equates God a unicorn lacks too much understanding in mp to bother talking to.

It's kinda like debating atheists who still think God is a guy in the clouds with a beard.


This is why most people who have debated with me on this stuff before are past the unicorn argument now because they realise it doesn't apply to sophisticated theism.

 

[Aesir]

See when I see a post like that I don't bother anymore because anyone who equates God a unicorn lacks too much understanding in mp to bother talking to.

It's kinda like debating atheists who still think God is a guy in the clouds with a beard.


This is why most people who have debated with me on this stuff before are past the unicorn argument now because they realise it doesn't apply to sophisticated theism.

you jumped to conclusions.

I equate the abrahamic/polytheistic gods to the same way I would equate a unicorn very highly unlikely.

However I would equate aliens and a deistic(or other similar explanations) view point of god to being possible

That's the difference.

 

[Dre89]

The Abrahamic God is very different metaphysically to a unicorn or polytheistic gods.

Unicorns are more metaphysically similar to a natural first cause than a monotheistic God.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Tbh I think this whole discussion would be so much more pleasant if we stopped referring to the "first cause" as god. It causes an unreasonable amount of confusion and conflation with individual, personal ideas of "god".

 

[Aesir]

edit: nevermind, I'm being very coy right now and I don't think you get it.

 

[Dre89]

edit: nevermind, I'm being very coy right now and I don't think you get it.

Don't get what? That you think metaphysical propositions are meaningless?

I hear this stuff all the time, not surprisingly, from people not educated in metaphysics, who believe that mp propoisitions must be simple enough to be understood by the mp uneducated.

You've got to be the only person I've debated who still thinks I actually contest science, and still thinks the metaphysics I use actually spills into the realm of science. You didn't even prove that I've done this when I asked you to.

It's annoying that when you come in and criticise me, and then when I ask you to back it up you say you can't be bothered.

 

[Aesir]

Don't get what? That you think metaphysical propositions are meaningless?

I hear this stuff all the time, not surprisingly, from people not educated in metaphysics, who believe that mp propoisitions must be simple enough to be understood by the mp uneducated.

You've got to be the only person I've debated who still thinks I actually contest science, and still thinks the metaphysics I use actually spills into the realm of science. You didn't even prove that I've done this when I asked you to.

It's annoying that when you come in and criticise me, and then when I ask you to back it up you say you can't be bothered.

I was just having fun with you lol. Believe me I understand your frustrations.

 

[Dre89]

Fairsies.

 

[Dre89]

This is the funniest thing I've seen in ages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtckVng_1a0

I know I'm not supposed to double post, but I live by my own rules.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That was pretty ****ing funny.

 

[Dre89]

Go onto Youtube and type in "The Chasers Oscar Bait". I'd link it if I wasn't on my phone right now.

The most satisfying jokes are the ones that pay out something you already know is stupid but other people thought wasn't, like oscar bait movies lol.

 

[Aesir]

I think this is the first time I've felt anger after reading the Trolley Problem. and I must say I don't give a **** how logical your reasoning is. Willingly letting 5 people die to save your own feelings is the reason why the world is ****ed up. It's called a hard decision it's like we're all raised to think we can have our cake and eat it too.

Bull ****.

 

[Dre89]

What about the "kill one person and use his organs to save five people" scenario?