LOL! Well, that’s not even fallacious it’s just a plain miss. You do not understand the argument at all, which is obvious.
You have to you either have to disprove causation, or disprove the necessity of the uncaused-cause. It really does not matter if we know about the universe or not, or even if we lived in a completely different universe. It doesn’t matter if time is an illusion or real, it doesn’t matter if it’s strings, monsters and aliens, etc.
If you got a problem with people using those theories to prove or disprove the existence of God, go bitch at them, that’s not what I am doing. I am pointing out merely why even if they are true, they simply cannot invalidate the argument.
You have to prove the existence of randomness, and/ or ‘something from nothing’, it’s that simple.
At least you tried…[/quote]
Wrong. Nice try and failure at thinking at more than an elementary level. Remember the flat land thought experiment? How a one dimensional “flatlander” could never perceive multiple dimensions around his “home”. Everything that you’re describing, causes, etc., is probably a result of your perception of the universe, which I assure you, has no resemblance whatsoever to the math behind string theory, multiple dimensions and such. No one “perceived” multiple dimensions beyond those we experienced - they were postulated with MATH. Listening to you wax on about proving “something from nothing” “randomness” et als. is nothing more than listening to you bang against the cage of your perception of existence.
Instead of talking around the points, why don’t you lay out, clearly, what your position is, and I’ll be happy to rebut it. And please, no plagiarizing from Stanford or any other such reference. I’ve read the same TP books and such that you have. Save your time. Spell out your argument if you can, and if I have misunderstood it so badly - make me understand instead of yelling at the top of your lungs.
Uh, maybe your ego is pushing all the words into different shapes, because you clearly did not comprehend either what I wrote or the purpose of the first link, which had nothing to do with your weird stalking of Pat. Never mind the bonus contained therein where you address Pat directly in the link and even throw in a personal attack (oh, the humanity!) referring to his ignorance of…wait for it…theoretical physics.
Wait, so, did you not read the link? Or not comprehend it? Maybe both?
[quote]TheBodyGuard furrowed his thickened forebrow and wrote:
LOL 2nd one again, nothing to do with Pat. And the thread didn’t exactly live up to it’s intended expectations. How about I direct you to the thread where I was voted by several as their “favorite poster!!!?”[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Zeal without knowledge, >>>[/quote]Read the 10th of Romans starting right at verse one. I think I’m gonna take the night off.
[/quote]
Romans 9:32 says, without faith…by works. The first theological virtue of the Catholic Church is faith. Catholics hold to faith and works. Works being the act of doing G-d’s will. Your point is void.[/quote]OK
LOL! Well, that’s not even fallacious it’s just a plain miss. You do not understand the argument at all, which is obvious.
You have to you either have to disprove causation, or disprove the necessity of the uncaused-cause. It really does not matter if we know about the universe or not, or even if we lived in a completely different universe. It doesn’t matter if time is an illusion or real, it doesn’t matter if it’s strings, monsters and aliens, etc.
If you got a problem with people using those theories to prove or disprove the existence of God, go bitch at them, that’s not what I am doing. I am pointing out merely why even if they are true, they simply cannot invalidate the argument.
You have to prove the existence of randomness, and/ or ‘something from nothing’, it’s that simple.
At least you tried…[/quote]
Wrong. Nice try and failure at thinking at more than an elementary level. Remember the flat land thought experiment? How a one dimensional “flatlander” could never perceive multiple dimensions around his “home”. Everything that you’re describing, causes, etc., is probably a result of your perception of the universe, which I assure you, has no resemblance whatsoever to the math behind string theory, multiple dimensions and such. No one “perceived” multiple dimensions beyond those we experienced - they were postulated with MATH. Listening to you wax on about proving “something from nothing” “randomness” et als. is nothing more than listening to you bang against the cage of your perception of existence.
Instead of talking around the points, why don’t you lay out, clearly, what your position is, and I’ll be happy to rebut it. And please, no plagiarizing from Stanford or any other such reference. I’ve read the same TP books and such that you have. Save your time. Spell out your argument if you can, and if I have misunderstood it so badly - make me understand instead of yelling at the top of your lungs.
[/quote]
Um, did you just say I was wrong about an argument you admit you don’t even know? Unreal. Are you sure you don’t want a do over?
Ok, so let’s look at what your counter point is:
I think at an elementary level. Just like the flatland experiment.
Everything I am describing is a result of my perception of the universe??
My perception does not resemble to math behind string theory.
People postulated multiple dimensions with math.
Therefore, proving ‘something from nothing’ or randomness is nothing more than you listening to me bang my head against the cage of existence.
Uh, what?
Wow.
No, wait. Hang on, I posted the following link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
You call posting a link, plagiarism?
Now, try to understand, that posting a link is not the same as copying somebody else’s words and taking credit for it. I suggest you read the link, because that is the argument, or argument form, rather, that I am defending. Further, it even has counter arguments
I am honored that you think I am smart enough to come up with this on my own, but I would be dishonest to say I did. Aristotle originated it others have perfected it over the years. Aquinas introduced the contingency component.
I have posted this argument many times. Now to lay it out for myself is needless, I have written many papers on the topic already and unless you are going to give me a grade towards college credit or get me a raise, I will let others lay the argument out and I can simply defend it then.
So you understand, let me be very, very clear. It is the Cosmological Argument I am defending. It relies on causation and that the fallacy of infinite regress being a logical impossibility.
Now the Cosmological argument form is so simple, so clear, that it’s almost difficult to understand. You can start with anything whether it physically or metaphysically exists and it always ends the same way with out fail. Even the highfalutin math behind string theory has the same dependencies and result in the same thing when put to a meat grinder of regress.
So you understand the position I am defending, here is some light reading. And here is how nice I am, I am not only giving you what I am defending, I am giving you counter arguments too. You may want to use them.
Now the Wiki link, isn’t perfect but it gives you a general idea:
Sadly this used to be better, it looks like it got edited into being not so good. One glaring error they post is that it started with Plato, but that is not true. He laid the ground work, particularly with his theory of Forms, but he did not postulate the Cosmological argument, Aristotle did that.
Leibniz is fucking brilliant. Now if want to hate on him because I like him, go ahead, but he was the co-founder of Calculus without which there would be no string theory.
Aquinas knew that time was a problem for the argument so he got rid of it.
Now you can expand this form to cover anything you want, which is why its a form rather than an a single argument. What you need to understand is the nature of causation. Causation is what this argument is based on. If you can prove that causes do not necessitate their effects, or that shit happens because of nothing at all, you can refute the argument.
So you can argue that I am stupid and I don’t know shit therefore I am wrong, but that does not invalidate the cosmological form.
BTW, these theoretical physicists, who are interested in the beginning of the universe or existence itself, guess what they are arguing for or against? Never mind, I’ll answer, it’s cosmology.
So, prove me wrong.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Zeal without knowledge, >>>[/quote]Read the 10th of Romans starting right at verse one. I think I’m gonna take the night off.
[/quote]
Romans 9:32 says, without faith…by works. The first theological virtue of the Catholic Church is faith. Catholics hold to faith and works. Works being the act of doing G-d’s will. Your point is void.[/quote]OK
[/quote]
Perhaps you should take a break and regroup, or can you provide the link to you praying the Rosary on youtube? I’ll pray it with you…
I just wanted to say it is nice to have you in my Church, brother.
If we look deeper into what Paul is telling the Romans in his Epistle it is not because they are doing works. It is again because they did works but “they did not pursue it through faith” (Romans chap. ix. 32). The hardened part of Israel (chap. xi. 7) pursues, not the wrong object (righteousness), but the right object in the wrong way (by works/without faith). The Law was intended to lead them to their Messiah (chap. x. 4).
We can see from Romans chap. x. 4 something very interesting, “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified. Another example of not condemning the law, but including saying that without the faith the works are dead. Calmet said some intersting things on this section of Romans, mainly that Jesus was the “stumbling-block” for the Jews.” They found no advantage to the gospel and faith in Christ. They “esteem[ed]” their works and own powers and “pretended justice” (Calmet). That should not be the case for Catholics. As I said, the first theological virtue is faith. Without faith, the rest is hum bug. Might as well go home, pack up the furniture, sell the house. Because it is all worthless.
LOL! Well, that’s not even fallacious it’s just a plain miss. You do not understand the argument at all, which is obvious.
You have to you either have to disprove causation, or disprove the necessity of the uncaused-cause. It really does not matter if we know about the universe or not, or even if we lived in a completely different universe. It doesn’t matter if time is an illusion or real, it doesn’t matter if it’s strings, monsters and aliens, etc.
If you got a problem with people using those theories to prove or disprove the existence of God, go bitch at them, that’s not what I am doing. I am pointing out merely why even if they are true, they simply cannot invalidate the argument.
You have to prove the existence of randomness, and/ or ‘something from nothing’, it’s that simple.
At least you tried…[/quote]
Wrong. Nice try and failure at thinking at more than an elementary level. Remember the flat land thought experiment? How a one dimensional “flatlander” could never perceive multiple dimensions around his “home”. Everything that you’re describing, causes, etc., is probably a result of your perception of the universe, which I assure you, has no resemblance whatsoever to the math behind string theory, multiple dimensions and such. No one “perceived” multiple dimensions beyond those we experienced - they were postulated with MATH. Listening to you wax on about proving “something from nothing” “randomness” et als. is nothing more than listening to you bang against the cage of your perception of existence.
Instead of talking around the points, why don’t you lay out, clearly, what your position is, and I’ll be happy to rebut it. And please, no plagiarizing from Stanford or any other such reference. I’ve read the same TP books and such that you have. Save your time. Spell out your argument if you can, and if I have misunderstood it so badly - make me understand instead of yelling at the top of your lungs.
[/quote]
Um, did you just say I was wrong about an argument you admit you don’t even know? Unreal. Are you sure you don’t want a do over?
Ok, so let’s look at what your counter point is:
I think at an elementary level. Just like the flatland experiment.
Everything I am describing is a result of my perception of the universe??
My perception does not resemble to math behind string theory.
People postulated multiple dimensions with math.
Therefore, proving ‘something from nothing’ or randomness is nothing more than you listening to me bang my head against the cage of existence.
Uh, what?
Wow.
No, wait. Hang on, I posted the following link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
You call posting a link, plagiarism?
Now, try to understand, that posting a link is not the same as copying somebody else’s words and taking credit for it. I suggest you read the link, because that is the argument, or argument form, rather, that I am defending. Further, it even has counter arguments
I am honored that you think I am smart enough to come up with this on my own, but I would be dishonest to say I did. Aristotle originated it others have perfected it over the years. Aquinas introduced the contingency component.
I have posted this argument many times. Now to lay it out for myself is needless, I have written many papers on the topic already and unless you are going to give me a grade towards college credit or get me a raise, I will let others lay the argument out and I can simply defend it then.
So you understand, let me be very, very clear. It is the Cosmological Argument I am defending. It relies on causation and that the fallacy of infinite regress being a logical impossibility.
Now the Cosmological argument form is so simple, so clear, that it’s almost difficult to understand. You can start with anything whether it physically or metaphysically exists and it always ends the same way with out fail. Even the highfalutin math behind string theory has the same dependencies and result in the same thing when put to a meat grinder of regress.
So you understand the position I am defending, here is some light reading. And here is how nice I am, I am not only giving you what I am defending, I am giving you counter arguments too. You may want to use them.
Now the Wiki link, isn’t perfect but it gives you a general idea:
Sadly this used to be better, it looks like it got edited into being not so good. One glaring error they post is that it started with Plato, but that is not true. He laid the ground work, particularly with his theory of Forms, but he did not postulate the Cosmological argument, Aristotle did that.
Leibniz is fucking brilliant. Now if want to hate on him because I like him, go ahead, but he was the co-founder of Calculus without which there would be no string theory.
Aquinas knew that time was a problem for the argument so he got rid of it.
Now you can expand this form to cover anything you want, which is why its a form rather than an a single argument. What you need to understand is the nature of causation. Causation is what this argument is based on. If you can prove that causes do not necessitate their effects, or that shit happens because of nothing at all, you can refute the argument.
So you can argue that I am stupid and I don’t know shit therefore I am wrong, but that does not invalidate the cosmological form.
BTW, these theoretical physicists, who are interested in the beginning of the universe or existence itself, guess what they are arguing for or against? Never mind, I’ll answer, it’s cosmology.
So, prove me wrong.[/quote]
Honestly, I cannot be bothered to go on a reading assignment. You could have succinctly stated your case and you did not. You seem to think your links will carry the day when in fact you’re ignoring my basic point. My point is, with respect to “causation” or anything else you want to raise, we simply cannot know. It’s the same as the flatlander. Did you ever think that perhaps so many people have locked themselves into this “causation” argument b/c of the limits of our perception of the universe? There may very well be other dimensions - as many as 11 if I recall correctly from string theory. You can no more imagine those (if they are in fact real) than you can “imagine” a universe without cause. Just because you cannot wrap your mind around it, doesn’t mean it’s not possible. We think in terms of beginning and end b/c that’s life for us…there is a beginning and an end. We think of “cause and uncaused” because that’s our perception. Just because something is our logical perception, does not mean the universe works that way. I’m just saying we do not know. You cannot possibly imagine how the universe started. If you can, please illuminate me…because once you think you can, I will have a question for you that you cannot answer.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Uh, maybe your ego is pushing all the words into different shapes, because you clearly did not comprehend either what I wrote or the purpose of the first link, which had nothing to do with your weird stalking of Pat. Never mind the bonus contained therein where you address Pat directly in the link and even throw in a personal attack (oh, the humanity!) referring to his ignorance of…wait for it…theoretical physics.
Wait, so, did you not read the link? Or not comprehend it? Maybe both?
[quote]TheBodyGuard furrowed his thickened forebrow and wrote:
LOL 2nd one again, nothing to do with Pat. And the thread didn’t exactly live up to it’s intended expectations. How about I direct you to the thread where I was voted by several as their “favorite poster!!!?”[/quote]
Literally, physically, heartily, L.O.L.
Did they give you a shiny badge to wear, too?
[/quote]
Again, “weird stalking of Pat”? Are you fucking serious. I don’t even remember him from any thread. Dude, get a life. If his shit is so weak that it requires you to make personal attacks from Japan, well then his shit must be pretty weak. Stop flattering him with this stalking shit…I don’t even remember the dude.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Honestly, I cannot be bothered to go on a reading assignment.[/quote]
That sounded funny in my head when I read it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
My point is, with respect to “causation” or anything else you want to raise, we simply cannot know. [/quote]
Well, let’s pack up folks we can’t know anything at all, because our experience limits us and in fact could be wrong. I guess we should just throw out all science and philosophy have taught us because “we simply cannot know” any of it.
OK TheBodyGuard, you’ve made your point. So, should we just give up trying to understand things?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Honestly, I cannot be bothered to go on a reading assignment.[/quote]
That sounded funny in my head when I read it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
My point is, with respect to “causation” or anything else you want to raise, we simply cannot know. [/quote]
Well, let’s pack up folks we can’t know anything at all, because our experience limits us and in fact could be wrong. I guess we should just throw out all science and philosophy have taught us because “we simply cannot know” any of it.
OK TheBodyGuard, you’ve made your point. So, should we just give up trying to understand things?[/quote]
That’s not my point either and you know it. My objection is drawing battle lines, and screaming and yelling “I’m right” because of some reasoning based upon an unknown. I’m simply pointing out the logic fail when building an argument on unknowns. Do you deny we do not know?
Can you possibly “perceive” or imagine 11 dimensions? No. You cannot. If there are in fact 10, 11 whatever dimensions that in your wildest imagination you cannot perceive, don’t you allow that possibly, the universe might be beyond your “intuition” and might just be something that can only be understood with math?
I understand cause and uncaused and all the other arguments. I do not require a summer break reference reading list. It’s simply not germane to my point.
I’ve read the arguments on both sides, here and many other places. I’ve read the Bible, the Koran, the Gita and they have some pretty stories in them. Some really ugly stories to. Having read them I find myself thinking “How can anyone believe this nonsense?”, but that’s just me.
As an Atheist I’d happily believe in a God and an afterlife. I don’t relish the idea of dying; Who wouldn’t want to live forever…or for a lot longer? However, the real world evidence is that the Universe is 13.75 billion years old, the earth is 4.55 billion years old etc… The evidence for these facts is massive when weighed against Holy Books of a bygone era. If religious people want to believe and worship they should, and I wish them well of it. If they wish to live up to there responsibilities as dictated in 1 Peter 3:15 (But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.) I think that’s nice. If you expect me to live under levitical law, counter to what my personal beliefs and desires you better think again. I’ll believe the moment you come up with decent evidence until then can’t you religious people just be happy to have the right to worship and leave the rest of us alone? Do you have to try and make US (or Canadian) law conform to your religious beliefs? I mean really…
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
I’ve read the arguments on both sides, here and many other places. I’ve read the Bible, the Koran, the Gita and they have some pretty stories in them. Some really ugly stories to. Having read them I find myself thinking “How can anyone believe this nonsense?”, but that’s just me.
As an Atheist I’d happily believe in a God and an afterlife. I don’t relish the idea of dying; Who wouldn’t want to live forever…or for a lot longer? However, the real world evidence is that the Universe is 13.75 billion years old, the earth is 4.55 billion years old etc… The evidence for these facts is massive when weighed against Holy Books of a bygone era. If religious people want to believe and worship they should, and I wish them well of it. If they wish to live up to there responsibilities as dictated in 1 Peter 3:15 (But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.) I think that’s nice. If you expect me to live under levitical law, counter to what my personal beliefs and desires you better think again. I’ll believe the moment you come up with decent evidence until then can’t you religious people just be happy to have the right to worship and leave the rest of us alone? Do you have to try and make US (or Canadian) law conform to your religious beliefs? I mean really…[/quote]
What are you talking about (I am confused at your premises)?
How can anyone believe this? Well, through faith and reason, Tick. It’s not about living forever, it is about knowing, loving, and serving G-d (who is Love and Truth). Yes, I am glad you concur with the Catholic Church that the universe is around 13.5 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I don’t know what evidence that you suggest you have against the Holy Books, or what part of the Holy Books are you talking about. What is it that you have to prove our Holy Books wrong?
Live under Levitical law, isn’t that a little extreme? Are you a Levitical Jew? If you’re then I understand your concern, otherwise…no.
Yes, we’d be happy if we had the right to worship, but that is not the case, at least not fully. We constantly have to hide our religion from the public, otherwise it is a possible civil suit for infringing on someone’s right.
I have been super busy with work actually which I very badly need. As soon as I get a chance I will dispel the notion that you have demonstrated anything like what was said earlier in this thread. Exactly why is it Chris that you and Pat are calling for my conversion and rosary?
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
I’ve read the arguments on both sides, here and many other places. I’ve read the Bible, the Koran, the Gita and they have some pretty stories in them. Some really ugly stories to. Having read them I find myself thinking “How can anyone believe this nonsense?”, but that’s just me.
As an Atheist I’d happily believe in a God and an afterlife. I don’t relish the idea of dying; Who wouldn’t want to live forever…or for a lot longer? However, the real world evidence is that the Universe is 13.75 billion years old, the earth is 4.55 billion years old etc… The evidence for these facts is massive when weighed against Holy Books of a bygone era. If religious people want to believe and worship they should, and I wish them well of it. If they wish to live up to there responsibilities as dictated in 1 Peter 3:15 (But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.) I think that’s nice. If you expect me to live under levitical law, counter to what my personal beliefs and desires you better think again. I’ll believe the moment you come up with decent evidence until then can’t you religious people just be happy to have the right to worship and leave the rest of us alone? Do you have to try and make US (or Canadian) law conform to your religious beliefs? I mean really…[/quote]
What are you talking about (I am confused at your premises)?
How can anyone believe this? Well, through faith and reason, Tick. It’s not about living forever, it is about knowing, loving, and serving G-d (who is Love and Truth). Yes, I am glad you concur with the Catholic Church that the universe is around 13.5 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I don’t know what evidence that you suggest you have against the Holy Books, or what part of the Holy Books are you talking about. What is it that you have to prove our Holy Books wrong?
Live under Levitical law, isn’t that a little extreme? Are you a Levitical Jew? If you’re then I understand your concern, otherwise…no.
Yes, we’d be happy if we had the right to worship, but that is not the case, at least not fully. We constantly have to hide our religion from the public, otherwise it is a possible civil suit for infringing on someone’s right.[/quote]
Well, for starters, the “holy books” were written by man. The all-mighty very unlikely requires an author. He chose, inexplicably, to first only talk to the jews in spite of all the civilizations that preceded. He chose only to speak in antiquity, and he chose to allow others to make similar claims with their books and revelations. And he hasn’t spoken since. I’d say it’s pretty irrational.
Yes, we’d be happy if we had the right to worship, but that is not the case, at least not fully. We constantly have to hide our religion from the public, otherwise it is a possible civil suit for infringing on someone’s right.[/quote]
And this is just nonsense. Please give me an example of such persecution. Do people come down to the Catholic Church and prevent you from worshiping? Is someone’s right, within your own church, possibly infringed? Explain this to me.
LOL! Well, that’s not even fallacious it’s just a plain miss. You do not understand the argument at all, which is obvious.
You have to you either have to disprove causation, or disprove the necessity of the uncaused-cause. It really does not matter if we know about the universe or not, or even if we lived in a completely different universe. It doesn’t matter if time is an illusion or real, it doesn’t matter if it’s strings, monsters and aliens, etc.
If you got a problem with people using those theories to prove or disprove the existence of God, go bitch at them, that’s not what I am doing. I am pointing out merely why even if they are true, they simply cannot invalidate the argument.
You have to prove the existence of randomness, and/ or ‘something from nothing’, it’s that simple.
At least you tried…[/quote]
Wrong. Nice try and failure at thinking at more than an elementary level. Remember the flat land thought experiment? How a one dimensional “flatlander” could never perceive multiple dimensions around his “home”. Everything that you’re describing, causes, etc., is probably a result of your perception of the universe, which I assure you, has no resemblance whatsoever to the math behind string theory, multiple dimensions and such. No one “perceived” multiple dimensions beyond those we experienced - they were postulated with MATH. Listening to you wax on about proving “something from nothing” “randomness” et als. is nothing more than listening to you bang against the cage of your perception of existence.
Instead of talking around the points, why don’t you lay out, clearly, what your position is, and I’ll be happy to rebut it. And please, no plagiarizing from Stanford or any other such reference. I’ve read the same TP books and such that you have. Save your time. Spell out your argument if you can, and if I have misunderstood it so badly - make me understand instead of yelling at the top of your lungs.
[/quote]
Um, did you just say I was wrong about an argument you admit you don’t even know? Unreal. Are you sure you don’t want a do over?
Ok, so let’s look at what your counter point is:
I think at an elementary level. Just like the flatland experiment.
Everything I am describing is a result of my perception of the universe??
My perception does not resemble to math behind string theory.
People postulated multiple dimensions with math.
Therefore, proving ‘something from nothing’ or randomness is nothing more than you listening to me bang my head against the cage of existence.
Uh, what?
Wow.
No, wait. Hang on, I posted the following link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
You call posting a link, plagiarism?
Now, try to understand, that posting a link is not the same as copying somebody else’s words and taking credit for it. I suggest you read the link, because that is the argument, or argument form, rather, that I am defending. Further, it even has counter arguments
I am honored that you think I am smart enough to come up with this on my own, but I would be dishonest to say I did. Aristotle originated it others have perfected it over the years. Aquinas introduced the contingency component.
I have posted this argument many times. Now to lay it out for myself is needless, I have written many papers on the topic already and unless you are going to give me a grade towards college credit or get me a raise, I will let others lay the argument out and I can simply defend it then.
So you understand, let me be very, very clear. It is the Cosmological Argument I am defending. It relies on causation and that the fallacy of infinite regress being a logical impossibility.
Now the Cosmological argument form is so simple, so clear, that it’s almost difficult to understand. You can start with anything whether it physically or metaphysically exists and it always ends the same way with out fail. Even the highfalutin math behind string theory has the same dependencies and result in the same thing when put to a meat grinder of regress.
So you understand the position I am defending, here is some light reading. And here is how nice I am, I am not only giving you what I am defending, I am giving you counter arguments too. You may want to use them.
Now the Wiki link, isn’t perfect but it gives you a general idea:
Sadly this used to be better, it looks like it got edited into being not so good. One glaring error they post is that it started with Plato, but that is not true. He laid the ground work, particularly with his theory of Forms, but he did not postulate the Cosmological argument, Aristotle did that.
Leibniz is fucking brilliant. Now if want to hate on him because I like him, go ahead, but he was the co-founder of Calculus without which there would be no string theory.
Aquinas knew that time was a problem for the argument so he got rid of it.
Now you can expand this form to cover anything you want, which is why its a form rather than an a single argument. What you need to understand is the nature of causation. Causation is what this argument is based on. If you can prove that causes do not necessitate their effects, or that shit happens because of nothing at all, you can refute the argument.
So you can argue that I am stupid and I don’t know shit therefore I am wrong, but that does not invalidate the cosmological form.
BTW, these theoretical physicists, who are interested in the beginning of the universe or existence itself, guess what they are arguing for or against? Never mind, I’ll answer, it’s cosmology.
So, prove me wrong.[/quote]
Honestly, I cannot be bothered to go on a reading assignment. You could have succinctly stated your case and you did not. You seem to think your links will carry the day when in fact you’re ignoring my basic point. My point is, with respect to “causation” or anything else you want to raise, we simply cannot know. It’s the same as the flatlander. Did you ever think that perhaps so many people have locked themselves into this “causation” argument b/c of the limits of our perception of the universe? There may very well be other dimensions - as many as 11 if I recall correctly from string theory. You can no more imagine those (if they are in fact real) than you can “imagine” a universe without cause. Just because you cannot wrap your mind around it, doesn’t mean it’s not possible. We think in terms of beginning and end b/c that’s life for us…there is a beginning and an end. We think of “cause and uncaused” because that’s our perception. Just because something is our logical perception, does not mean the universe works that way. I’m just saying we do not know. You cannot possibly imagine how the universe started. If you can, please illuminate me…because once you think you can, I will have a question for you that you cannot answer.[/quote]
You can’t be bothered to read a single page? I have in fact written the argument in various forms several times here. The problem is it takes a lot of work and a single one page link suffices to lay it out basically.
You’re counter argument is that because you cannot know everything you know that everything has ever existed, you cannot know it was all caused.
That is an a posteriori on an a priori argument. That’s a problem with empirical inferences not deductive arguments. It actually has a name, it’s called the principle of ‘Sufficient Reason’. In short, the nature of existence demands a reason. Regardless or dimension, time, space, evolution, banging on a pot, etc the very essence of existence requires a reason, a cause, or a dependency. It doesn’t matter if it’s stings, elementary particles, etc. there is always a reason why it is there. Logic demands it. Further it also demands that existence is caused, and ultimately, something must exist that originated
causation.
Perception is irrelevant and so is string theory in all it’s dimensions, or any other attempt at a ‘Theory of Everything’. Existence it self is the problem.
As you can discover things with math, at a higher level you can discover things with logic.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have been super busy with work actually which I very badly need. As soon as I get a chance I will dispel the notion that you have demonstrated anything like what was said earlier in this thread. Exactly why is it Chris that you and Pat are calling for my conversion and rosary?[/quote]
No. Though it wouldn’t hurt you…Keep working. I understand that, life is certainly more important than keeping up in a forum. Do what you got to do.
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
I’ve read the arguments on both sides, here and many other places. I’ve read the Bible, the Koran, the Gita and they have some pretty stories in them. Some really ugly stories to. Having read them I find myself thinking “How can anyone believe this nonsense?”, but that’s just me.
As an Atheist I’d happily believe in a God and an afterlife. I don’t relish the idea of dying; Who wouldn’t want to live forever…or for a lot longer? However, the real world evidence is that the Universe is 13.75 billion years old, the earth is 4.55 billion years old etc… The evidence for these facts is massive when weighed against Holy Books of a bygone era. If religious people want to believe and worship they should, and I wish them well of it. If they wish to live up to there responsibilities as dictated in 1 Peter 3:15 (But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.) I think that’s nice. If you expect me to live under levitical law, counter to what my personal beliefs and desires you better think again. I’ll believe the moment you come up with decent evidence until then can’t you religious people just be happy to have the right to worship and leave the rest of us alone? Do you have to try and make US (or Canadian) law conform to your religious beliefs? I mean really…[/quote]
So what are you looking for? You did you best to be neutral, but I am guessing you posted for a reason?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have been super busy with work actually which I very badly need. As soon as I get a chance I will dispel the notion that you have demonstrated anything like what was said earlier in this thread. Exactly why is it Chris that you and Pat are calling for my conversion and rosary?[/quote]
If you want to convert that is awesome, but you have to follow what you have reasoned to be the truth. But, the Rosary is a wonderful prayer. It’s like a person, it’s got soul and body. Soul is what forms the body, the breath that brings life into the thing. And the body, the prayers you pray while you meditate on the mysteries.