[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]
Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.
I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.
I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation.
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. [/quote]
You aren’t helping yourself make your point here. Science is also “squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe”. Science is also very clearly limited in scope as to what questions it can answer. Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]
Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.
I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.
I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]
What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
Oh, now it’s a philosophical argument. So this is a metaphysical philosophical debate? Well, at least you’re not claiming it’s a physics debate. So, by metaphysical philosophical arguments and logic, you have established irrefutable “facts”?
You have not stated an “absolute fact” - humor us, state your absolute fact in one or two sentences.
Since you like fancy labels for arguments, I’ll use a falsification argument against causation. Since causation is not necessary at a quantum level, you need a better theory.
Appealing to an authority? Like you did when you posted a list of references to support YOUR argument.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. [/quote]
You aren’t helping yourself make your point here. Science is also “squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe”. Science is also very clearly limited in scope as to what questions it can answer. Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this and it still supports my argument. The point is, we do not know how the universe started. Period. We do not know that there was a first cause. It is still the subject of debate. First cause for the universe is not a fact. Period.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hey Pat, what’s the point of debating with you when there are physicists that disagree with your conclusions? You make your conclusions sound like facts. They are not. Like I said before, you’re not stating facts, no matter how many references you provide or how strenuously you argue. [/quote]
Why would I care if physicists disagree? This is a philosophical argument. In can incorporate science or not. It works either way. The stuff you presented was refuted 700 years ago. They were wrong before they said it. That doesn’t mean they are wrong about physics, they just didn’t study philosophy. If they did, then they would not have said it.
I am not stating facts? They are absolute facts, you just can’t prove them wrong.
I am not the one with the hard head here. You’re trying to strong arm me in to accepting a conclusion because smart people in a different field disagree with the conclusion. Like I said, that is the fallacy of appealing to authority which basically states that a persons argument must be true because of credentials and reputation. [/quote]
What have I presented that was refuted 700 years ago when TPs are wrangling with the issues today?
[/quote]
Well if they are still wrangling with them, that in itself proves that it has never been refuted. Second, if they disagree, that’s fine with me. Refuting is different than agreement and disagreement.
When has it not been a philosophical argument? I never claimed it was physics. I can be used there, but it’s not necessary.
I already have stated my facts like a thousand times. Why bother doing it again, really? Want the link? It would have saved you so much trouble.
[quote]
Since you like fancy labels for arguments, I’ll use a falsification argument against causation. Since causation is not necessary at a quantum level, you need a better theory.
Appealing to an authority? Like you did when you posted a list of references to support YOUR argument. [/quote]
Calling things what they are is fancy? Fine, but they are what they are. And since you brought up causation at a quantum level, let’s have some fun shall we? Bring up any quantum event that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is uncaused… Go for it…
Appeal to authority fallacy means that you claim an argument is right, because of who said it, not because of what the argument states. You claimed that really smart physicist like people don’t believe in the cosmological argument. And even though their argument was incomplete, I should just believe it, because they are all like smart and edumacated and stuff.
Providing information about the argument is not appealing to authority.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.[/quote]It IS the heart of what we can and cannot know. Until the epistemological question is settled, HOW we know anything at all, all other discussion is academic and secondary. Christians start with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Everybody else starts with what amounts to themselves. It really is that simple at bottom.
[quote]There are 2 species of man in the world since the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Those who by free grace(this cannot be emphasized enough) have been born again into the life and mind of the resurrected Son of God and those who have not and remain for the moment dead in trespasses and sins.
To the former every single last speck of data possible from the movement of sub atomic particles to the majesty of the intelligent moral agency of the image of God in man having been created male and female. Everything, Screams the plainly self evident truth that He is and we are His children having been redeemed from death to life.
To the latter every single last speck of data screams one of a thousand derivative versions of anything but that. It is their nature inherited from the first Adam. A nature it must never be forgotten we still share in our old self. [/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]
There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.
Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.[/quote]It IS the heart of what we can and cannot know. Until the epistemological question is settled, HOW we know anything at all, all other discussion is academic and secondary. Christians start with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Everybody else starts with what amounts to themselves. It really is that simple at bottom.
[quote]There are 2 species of man in the world since the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Those who by free grace(this cannot be emphasized enough) have been born again into the life and mind of the resurrected Son of God and those who have not and remain for the moment dead in trespasses and sins.
To the former every single last speck of data possible from the movement of sub atomic particles to the majesty of the intelligent moral agency of the image of God in man having been created male and female. Everything, Screams the plainly self evident truth that He is and we are His children having been redeemed from death to life.
To the latter every single last speck of data screams one of a thousand derivative versions of anything but that. It is their nature inherited from the first Adam. A nature it must never be forgotten we still share in our old self. [/quote]
[/quote]
Every now and then we agree.
[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]
There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.
Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…[/quote]
You keep bringing time into it, and time is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, that says nothing about whether or not it was created.
Again, please be very clear that we are talking about contingent existence, not contingent interaction. And by contingent existence, I’m specifically talking about original existence, not ongoing existence. I’m not even getting into the possible destruction of matter/energy at this point. I’m talking very specifically about the noncontingency of matter/energy in its original existence.
If something was not created, how can its original existence be contingent? It’s not, because nothing created it. If nothing created it, it is definitionally noncontingent.
Can you at least acknowledge that this is a real possibility?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Yeah, I hardly understood a word you said. I asked you to stop with the fancy language and speak simply. I still do not understand how Aristotle, a man who put forth more good scholarly work by the grace of G-d on the subject of theology and morals than anyone else, is a pagan.
[/quote]Have you read Aristotle? You said you’re reading the Summa Theologica. And you’re complaining about MY fancy language? Look. I talk like I type for the most part. I am absolutely not trying to lose you and none of you guys are dummies. I don’t know exactly what to do with this, by which I mean no denigration to any whatsoever. You and Pat are being sincere though and I take you seriously.
[/quote]
A little different, I’m reading it in Latin. The words mean what they mean, and I am being taught it as I read it. I still have to pull out my dictionary though.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
See, I can do references too. But the following had no bearing on my opinions. My own intellect took me to my opinions.
"What caused the First Cause?
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] The problem with arguing for the First Cause’s exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[14]
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]"
In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience…bears repeating and is essentially what I have been saying. And when I reference string theory and such, I am further illustrating how the universe MAY work which is wildly beyond our experience.
EVERY thought you have, theory you can imagine, language and label you can use, is the direct result and limitation of your experience with the universe.
[/quote]
It has already been established in philosophy that an infinite regression is part of a logical fallacy. It will beg the question, “and what moved that?” An unmoved mover is needed for causal relation because it will beg the question, and “what moved that?” The reason why the unmoved mover is not moved is because nothing is superior to the unmoved mover. It is not subject to anything else, there is nothing outside of it.[/quote]
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. Your perception of “mover”, “causal”, etc. is all a reflection of your experience with the universe, which is limited. That your experience with the universe is severely limited is not even subject to serious debate. It’s a fact.[/quote]
Deductive reasoning has really nothing to do with my experience.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< It’s not very interesting to have a debate with a closed mind. And when it comes to religion, that’s what you find - closed minds.[/quote]Then why are ya doin it? Fer like days now? Jist wonderin.
[/quote]
You are correct. I’m pretty much done. It took me a bit to reach that conclusion. You guys have chased away all the non-believers. Good discussion LOL[/quote]
If they run away, I don’t care. You must think we’re on some conversion mission. On a body building forum? Get real.[/quote]
Lol…if we are, we’re pretty horrible at it. I’m not smart enough to convert someone. I can state facts and reason, that is about it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Stop. Nothing is “established” by philosophy. We are talking science here, not philosophy. And philosophy is squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe. [/quote]
You aren’t helping yourself make your point here. Science is also “squarely the fruit of humanity’s experience with the universe”. Science is also very clearly limited in scope as to what questions it can answer. Have you heard of epistemology (or the philosophy of science)? It may be right up your alley to read about it. It really digs into the heart of what we can and cannot know.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this and it still supports my argument. The point is, we do not know how the universe started. Period. We do not know that there was a first cause. It is still the subject of debate. First cause for the universe is not a fact. Period. [/quote]
Lol, so you’re saying is that “there is no first cause is a fact.”
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Every now and then we agree.[/quote]If you mean that epistemology is the utterly seminal and foundational arena of thought before which there is none else, even for those who don’t consciously realize it? Then yes we agree there if that’s what you’re referring to.
If you mean you are giving your nod to the radically abbreviated statement of theocentric, transcendental epistemology that I have above proposed? One wherein the only true and living tri personal God who commands the cosmos to exist and persist by the command of His mouth is THE ultimate definer and definition of absolutely and comprehensively EVERYTHING? Trust me, you aren’t.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Ok, smarty pants, explain to me how the mathmatical equation ‘2+2=4’ would not be true in another universe, especially since it does not exist physically? This ought to be good.[/quote]LOL! Smarty pants. Ok smarty Pat. Explain to me why 2+2=4 is true at all. Serious question.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< A little different, I’m reading it in Latin. The words mean what they mean, and I am being taught it as I read it. I still have to pull out my dictionary though.[/quote]I’m just going to say for now that I don’t believe for a second that the difficulty with which you allege to receive my posts is the consequence of either my towering intellect and vocabulary or your deficiency in those areas either.
[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]
There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.
Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…[/quote]
You keep bringing time into it, and time is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, that says nothing about whether or not it was created.
Again, please be very clear that we are talking about contingent existence, not contingent interaction. And by contingent existence, I’m specifically talking about original existence, not ongoing existence. I’m not even getting into the possible destruction of matter/energy at this point. I’m talking very specifically about the noncontingency of matter/energy in its original existence.
If something was not created, how can its original existence be contingent? It’s not, because nothing created it. If nothing created it, it is definitionally noncontingent.
Can you at least acknowledge that this is a real possibility?[/quote]
That something came from nothing? No that is not a possibility at all. Everything exists because of something else, except for that which is uncaused. Regression necessitates that it can only be one thing.
If you take away a piece from a puzzle it ceases to be a completed puzzle. Whether or not that puzzle exited forever, it requires that piece to be what it is. Probably not the best analogy. But if you picture our movement in time as a journey across a large straw or tube, you step out of the tube and look at it from one end or another, everything happens simultaneously there.
However, if something wasn’t created or contingent, then something from nothing would be proven.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Ok, smarty pants, explain to me how the mathmatical equation ‘2+2=4’ would not be true in another universe, especially since it does not exist physically? This ought to be good.[/quote]LOL! Smarty pants. Ok smarty Pat. Explain to me why 2+2=4 is true at all. Serious question.
[/quote]
Sure, happy to. What are numbers? Numbers are representations of things, but those things can be anything. Now numbers representing something must represent the same thing. It can be individual things, groups of things, parts of things, parts of parts of things, groups of groups of things.
So for instance, you have 2 apples and you have 2 more apples, you then have 4 apples. If you have 2 baskets of fruit and you put them together with another 2 baskets of fruit, you have 4 baskets of fruit. The fact the numbers represent things real, imaginary or beyond. Numbers mean something beyond themselves what they mean can be almost anything. Numbers on their own are uselss, but when they are representative, they can be amazing in what they can tell you. There is truth in numbers, being biblical, you should know that numbers are very important.
Now back to the equation, the above matters, because no matter it is that the numbers represent, they will still equal the same number when added.
What some people may try to do, is take unrelated representations ungroup them and try to add them, you cannot do that. It’s fallacious. Simply put if you have 2 apples and 2 oranges and put them together you have still 2 apples and 2 oranges, but you have 4 pieces of fruit. You cannot add 2 oranges to 2 apples and get 4 apples or 4 oranges, but people try damn hard sometimes to do just that.
All math no matter how complicated are based on two basic things, addition and subtraction.
OK Pat. That is a whole buncha WHAT with nary a syllable of WHY which is what I asked. You just told me WHAT numbers are and not WHY they are what they are. How do we know what 2 is? What addition is? What a sum is and that in this case it’s 4? Why do mathematics work? Where do they come from?
LOL[/quote]