[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Not relevant to this thread but I don’t see any better active T-Nation threads to post this.
http://htwins.net/scale2/[/quote] VERY cool. (seriously!!!) Here’s a post of mine from a couple years ago to somebody else. A Jehovah’s Witness.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Try this:
Take a paper plate and about an inch or so from the edge somewhere make the smallest dot you can with a pencil. The plate represents our galaxy and the dot our solar system. In the middle of our solar system is a flaming ball of gas that emits more energy in one second than every possible man made source in history combined to date.
It is so far away that it takes 13 minutes for it’s light to reach your skin traveling 186,000 miles a second and we are pretty close compared to some of the other planets. That’s one solar system, one dot, in one galaxy, one paper plate.
Now go throw the plate into the middle of the pacific ocean and as it floats there realize that the ocean represents… maybe, what we’ve been able to measure of the universe.
Imagine millions of other paper plates floating around representing millions of other galaxies. Throw in super massive black holes, dark matter (there’s a REAL zinger there) and the rest of the astronomical phenomena that have us staring cross eyed into our equipment. And all this barely scratches the surface.
There is a God who spoke this into existence FROM NOTHING by the command of his mouth… whatever that means. That God, whose mind numbing unfathomable holy power and majesty would consume you (or me) in a nanosecond if He were approached apart from the death defeating resurrected Christ, has chosen to reveal himself to the only part of all of that creation that exists in his intelligent moral image… in a book.
You just keep right on sinfully attempting to fit him into your puny pathetic little mind (mine too) and you will keep right on coming to sinful idolatrous conclusions. You have ZEEROH understanding of even what little of Him can be understood at all by His chosen revelation and yet you continue to proclaim your ability to understand Him fully.
I repeat. Repent of this blasphemy and believe the Gospel.
Yes, temporally we appear pretty insignificant which makes the gospel of Christ all the more glorious.[/quote]
[/quote]
Yet with all we don’t know about the universe there are somehow millions of people who seem to know exactly how it was created.[/quote]
I think you mean billions. But, yes.[/quote]
Yes I know billions identify as religious but we both know not everyone follows with the same degree of devotion. I was referring to the people who know beyond a doubt that the universe/world was created by God and could never be convinced otherwise no matter how much evidence was given for other possibilities. It is the main difference between religion and science.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< Yet with all we don’t know about the universe there are somehow millions of people who seem to know exactly how it was created.[/quote]The creator told us. You too btw, though “exactly” is quite a bit overstated.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You understand correctly except for the fact nobody goes to hell because they never hear of Jesus. For the 100th time. They go to hell because they are capital criminals, guilty before his throne and justly condemned to eternal death. The fact that he saves ANYBODY is mercy unfathomable.
[/quote]
For future reference, Tirib, if you don’t quote me, I won’t know you’re addressing me and I’ll skip right over your post. It was only by luck that I noticed this, two pages later…
FYI, what you’re now saying makes God sound more sadistic, not less. We’ve gone from a God who creates certain people with the intention of sending them to Hell to a God that creates EVERYONE with the intention of sending them to Hell and only after decades of worship do you receive the chance at salvation, which, given that eternal salvation = an eternity of worshipping, doesn’t actually sound any better than Hell.
Besides, if God really does know everything, then he already knows where you will end up. Life is just a formality, so God might as well send us straight to our destinations (which would make it excruciatingly obvious how pointless this whole exercise is). And before you say “free will!”, consider that if our destinies are NOT predetermined, then our ultimate fate is un-knowable and therefore God does not know everything.
So which is it, is God a sadistical monster, or is he as blind as are we? You can only have one, but I know you won’t like either.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Not relevant to this thread but I don’t see any better active T-Nation threads to post this.
http://htwins.net/scale2/[/quote] VERY cool. (seriously!!!) Here’s a post of mine from a couple years ago to somebody else. A Jehovah’s Witness.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Try this:
Take a paper plate and about an inch or so from the edge somewhere make the smallest dot you can with a pencil. The plate represents our galaxy and the dot our solar system. In the middle of our solar system is a flaming ball of gas that emits more energy in one second than every possible man made source in history combined to date.
It is so far away that it takes 13 minutes for it’s light to reach your skin traveling 186,000 miles a second and we are pretty close compared to some of the other planets. That’s one solar system, one dot, in one galaxy, one paper plate.
Now go throw the plate into the middle of the pacific ocean and as it floats there realize that the ocean represents… maybe, what we’ve been able to measure of the universe.
Imagine millions of other paper plates floating around representing millions of other galaxies. Throw in super massive black holes, dark matter (there’s a REAL zinger there) and the rest of the astronomical phenomena that have us staring cross eyed into our equipment. And all this barely scratches the surface.
There is a God who spoke this into existence FROM NOTHING by the command of his mouth… whatever that means. That God, whose mind numbing unfathomable holy power and majesty would consume you (or me) in a nanosecond if He were approached apart from the death defeating resurrected Christ, has chosen to reveal himself to the only part of all of that creation that exists in his intelligent moral image… in a book.
You just keep right on sinfully attempting to fit him into your puny pathetic little mind (mine too) and you will keep right on coming to sinful idolatrous conclusions. You have ZEEROH understanding of even what little of Him can be understood at all by His chosen revelation and yet you continue to proclaim your ability to understand Him fully.
I repeat. Repent of this blasphemy and believe the Gospel.
Yes, temporally we appear pretty insignificant which makes the gospel of Christ all the more glorious.[/quote]
[/quote]
Yet with all we don’t know about the universe there are somehow millions of people who seem to know exactly how it was created.[/quote]
I think you mean billions. But, yes.[/quote]
Yes I know billions identify as religious but we both know not everyone follows with the same degree of devotion. I was referring to the people who know beyond a doubt that the universe/world was created by God and could never be convinced otherwise no matter how much evidence was given for other possibilities. It is the main difference between religion and science.[/quote]
Know, that is the difference between logic and illogical.
@TigerTime
Are you actually interested in my answers? I ask because time is at a precious premium for me right now and I will not waste it on somebody who isn’t. I’m not trying to make Him sound any certain way to you at all. I’m telling you what HE says He’s like. How you might respond is beyond my control and has absolutely zero bearing on what I tell you.
[quote]pat wrote:
you missed the fact that I was referring to the cosmological argument from contingency. I was quite specific. Not the Kalam argument which all your links refer to. That was a cheap rip off of Aristotle original argument. The argument I a referring to goes like:
-A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
-This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
-The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
-What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
-Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
-Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
What you presented was a classic strawman attacking a less defensible argument, that I did not actually put forth.
On top of the fact that the authors did not actually represent the Kalam argument correctly either. He didn’t have to go for the First Cause at all, all he had to do was point out that the Kalam argument relies on temporal succession and that’s why its false. \
Your shooting at the wrong target.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that I DO understand contingency, and I’m left with the conclusion that the argument is begging the question, is it not?. I mean, is it the case that the only “necessary being” has to be God? No. Is it not a truism that matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Cannot some form of “matter” be this non contingent thing?
And doesn’t this argument just devolve into ontology? Seems to me that theists like yourself are always presenting this argument in talking about a necessary “being”; why use the term “being” and not something else? Define “being”.
Seems to me that the cosmological argument, even when repackaged from the point of contingency, makes a case for the existence of a natural creation just as much as it does a supernatural one.
[quote]pat wrote:
And you still don’t understand the argument.
Now try to keep up, it’s the “Argument from Contingency” ← It removed the problem of time and deals strictly with causal relationships, infinite regress, and necessary existence.
And no it has never been proven false. If so, go ahead show me some counter claims and I will show you why they are wrong.
Make sure you got the right one this time, would ya? [/quote]
This link has an interesting alternative to the two traditional forms of the cosmological argument, perhaps you’re familiar with it.
[quote]pat wrote:
First, no there are no holes knocked in it. Saying it doesn’t make it true. If so what are they?[/quote]
Yes, there are. You don’t have to accept them, but there they are…
[quote]pat wrote
Second, I have to prove none of the above, all I have to prove is that God exists and nothing more. I don’t have to prove anything about faith, religion, personal relations, etc. Existence must come first. It’s hard to discuss the properties of something that does not exist because it doesn’t have any.[/quote]
Why don’t you go ahead and define “god” for me, as explained in the cosmological argument.
[quote]pat wrote:
Third, who ever said anything about being supernatural? What’s so supernatural about existing? Your just superimposing your bias over the conversation. It also doesn’t speak to ‘how’ existence was created, only that it was. Or are you arguing against existence itself?[/quote]
Are you willing to allow for the possibility of a natural creation? If not, then you’re talking about supernatural. When the cosmological argument makes the argument for “god” as a “being”, is it making the argument for a sentient god like being?
[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing falls flatter than something from nothing. Prove that garbage to me. Make a logical argument that doesn’t suck that anything can come from nothing.[/quote]
Yet you make the claim that your “god” was able to exist outside of time and space, in complete nothingness, and willfully created a whole lot of something from nothing.
Yea, that’s not supernatural at all…
[quote]pat wrote:
Black holes? They came from nothing?? LOL!!! yeah, ok. [/quote]
What I asked was this: “But on to a serious question that I’d like to ask of you; how do you square black holes in all of this? You say that something can’t come from nothing, but isn’t this how a black hole behaves?”
You really are desperate to get a jab in at me, aren’t you? LOL…are you this big of an asshole in real life, or is this your online persona?
If you’ll recall, I posted an honest question, to you, since you fancy yourself as a pretty smart guy; it was an honest question. But in your desperate attempt to get your jibe in, you managed to fuck it up. but thanks for self identifying yourself as an asshole. My question, was actually whether or not a black hole was capable of creating something from nothing. I did not ask if they came from nothing. Doesn’t quantum mechanics make the case for something from nothing?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I should add that I’m thoroughly enjoying this go between and the discussions in this thread. Quite an enjoyable little “scruffy exchange”.
Now back to the argumentation, you dumb asses! LOL
[/quote]
Says the man who thinks black holes came from nothing…I am still laughing…[/quote]
Again, that’s not what I said. So do me a favor; go ahead and piss off.
[quote]pat wrote:
you missed the fact that I was referring to the cosmological argument from contingency. I was quite specific. Not the Kalam argument which all your links refer to. That was a cheap rip off of Aristotle original argument. The argument I a referring to goes like:
-A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
-This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
-The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
-What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
-Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
-Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
What you presented was a classic strawman attacking a less defensible argument, that I did not actually put forth.
On top of the fact that the authors did not actually represent the Kalam argument correctly either. He didn’t have to go for the First Cause at all, all he had to do was point out that the Kalam argument relies on temporal succession and that’s why its false. \
Your shooting at the wrong target.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that I DO understand contingency, and I’m left with the conclusion that the argument is begging the question, is it not?. I mean, is it the case that the only “necessary being” has to be God? No. Is it not a truism that matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Cannot some form of “matter” be this non contingent thing?
[/quote]
No the conclusion doesn’t beg the question it is derived from the premises by necessity, when all other possibilities have been accounted for it is the only possible conclusion to that argument. I actually don’t know would get that notion since the whole thing is designed to avoid circular reasoning.
The Necessary Being, must have certain qualities that one would tend to call ‘God Like’, I have already explained this before. From the argument itself we know that the Uncasued-cause cannot have been brought in to existence, otherwise it would not be uncaused. It also had to create without being compelled to do so. This indicates a certain deliberate nature to the caused entities. What is attributed to God, are these very same things. Whether we know God accurately or not is debatable. But what ever you call Him or it, it those properties that separate the Necessary Being that is different from other contingent things.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not really matter here. And matter can be destroyed, but the “stuff” it’s ultimately made of, or in generic terms, physicists call it ‘information’ cannot be lost or created in an “isolated” system.
The jury is out on whether this universe is closed or open, most lean towards closed, but it’s not isolated. So ‘information’ can at least be potentially lost. However, none of that really matters, all matter is continent on something else for it’s existence. Even broken down it’s still reliant on thing’s like ‘laws’ an it’s own nature, which is still causal property. Nothing can do anything on it’s own without something else compelling it to do it.
Matter, by itself is cannot be ‘non-contingent’ by the very fact of it’s physical existence, it automatically depends on other things. Matter cannot be a function of itself. So it cannot be non-contingent.
No. It is metaphysical but not ontological. It doesn’t really study the “Necessary Being” it only concludes that one exists.
And in being we only refer to existence at this point. It could be thing, or some other synonym. At the core we are just dicerning that which exists from that which does not.
I never claimed the existence was super natural, as a matter of fact I claimed the opposite. It’s a totally natural and necessary existence.
Wow that was terrible. Those were some of the dumbest counter-arguments I have heard.
“contingent objects are those which are true only under certain conditions” ← What? this guy has to be a nimrod. Making up fake conditions is the worse of red herrings. Continent things only need to be something that depends on something else for it’s existence, nothing more.
Oh but the hilarity continues…
“Contingency also denies determinism,” ← LOL! How? Determinism is not even remotely implied here.
So basically this fool, makes up a bunch of shit not claimed in the argument and then attacks the made up shit.
I hope this gets better from here…
Well that was a little better at least the things in this counter argument do exist. What he is arguing here, is that the conclusion cannot explain itself. Which is true then the conclusion would be false. But again we have an issue in which the counter argument is attacking something not being posited by the argument.
The argument doesn’t actually discuss the nature of the ‘Necessary Being’ only that it exists. It’s not trying to assert that this said Necessary Existence, caused itself. It says the opposite. It says the entity is uncaused.
If it’s uncaused, it cannot be caused by anything even by itself. If the argument were claiming the Uncaused-cause caused itself, it would hold, but it makes no mention of how the Necessary came to be. It only claims the ‘thing’ exists and nothing more.
Also, the proposition that God is directly responsible for the creation of the universe is not proposed by the argument. It’s saying that put into effect the causal chain, if the universe popped directly from it or not is not proposed. The universe being with in the confounds of the causal chain is what is implied. That’s why it doesn’t matter if there are multi-verses, succession of universes or the accordion universe propositions, it’s still contingent, and that is all that matters.
Objection A is false. He is invoking temporal succession which the argument deliberately avoids.
B is false - The argument does not propose a location for the Necessary Being - in or out of the universe.
C is false because time is irrelevant to contingency.
D is false because it attacking proposition that something necessarily existing is unintelligible. Being intelligble is in no way a predicate for existence.
E is false because the argument avoids the problem of “what” exists all together. Only that something does, and it doesn’t exist for no reason.
F is attacking things not in the argument.
G is false because nature being continuous or discrete is irrelevant. Existence is the only thing that matters, not the nature of it.
H I love Hume but his best work was dealing with empiricism. The universe it self does not qualify as it is subject to laws and not the creator of them. The ‘stuff’ that makes up the universe acts according to the laws and rules that guide them. Matter and energy never break the rules that bind them, when they appear to, it only means we have more to know about the object of study.
I like this statement…
“we cannot know that in fact, every contingent being
has such an explanation.” ← LOL!!! That is wrong by definition. ‘contigent being’ means that the being is dependent on something else to make it what it is.
Russell should have worn a big red nose big floppy shoes when he wrote because he was a clown.
The idea that it cannot be known if something is contingent or not contingent is false. The reason is that there can only be one non-contingent entity, not in the universe, it all of existence. If you find something existing that is non-contingent you have found God.
Yeah the inductive arguement is chicken-shit. It’s a cowardly workaround. I am willing to conceded that if you find even one thing that exists without cause that isn’t God, the whole argument is tanked. I am totally comfortable with that proposition.
As a matter of fact, it’s the only thing that would prove it wrong…
This is the last time I am going to peruse links, it’s a pain in the ass. If you want link wars, I’ll just toss you several pages of links to painstakingly go through a refute each little claim on each page and let that be that.
There are counter claims, just none of them refute or poke holes in the argument itself. I don’t have to accept false propositions. That’s a ridiculous thing to do.
Uncaused-cause - That which causes and was not itself caused.
This is explained above.
Where did I make that claim?
Well you shouldn’t have asked the question in such a stupid fucking way. You walked in to this with your dick out and bragging about what a great, genius, super smart, atheist. You are and calling theists dumb asses and saying how smart you are and everybody else is stupid.
You’ve given me, not a single reason to be nice or civil, so tough shit.
Now to answer your question.
No, QM certainly is weird but it’s not something from nothing. Dr. Lawrence Strauss posited his something from nothing theory by saying, in a nutshell that existence was a function of dark energy… K, but that’s not a nothing, that’s a something. Same with Hawking who based his something from nothing off of the apparently soon to be defunct M-Theory where ‘gravity’ was the culprit. Well, gravity is something, not nothing.
The problem people have is the difference between ‘nothing’ and very little. Nothing doesn’t exist in anyway, physically or metaphysically. Very little is still something and that something is contingent.
What is interesting is why these apparently super smart Theoretical Physicists are going through enormous pains to disprove the cosmological argument; which you claim is false already. If it were false, then why are they still trying to find a way to prove it wrong?
It’s not necessary to prove a false argument wrong.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Can quantum fluctuations produce a universe? Hmmm…
Ironically, I already addressed this. He’s is claiming creation from ‘Dark Energy’… I don’t doubt his science, but that’s not something from nothing. ‘Dark energy’ is a something.
I actually asked him directly, and he actually answered. I still have the email… You can ask Ephrem, it was in discussing this with him where I did this.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: @TigerTime
Are you actually interested in my answers? I ask because time is at a precious premium for me right now and I will not waste it on somebody who isn’t. I’m not trying to make Him sound any certain way to you at all. I’m telling you what HE says He’s like. How you might respond is beyond my control and has absolutely zero bearing on what I tell you.[/quote]
Yes. How can we have free will if God already knows everything we will ever do?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: @TigerTime
Are you actually interested in my answers? I ask because time is at a precious premium for me right now and I will not waste it on somebody who isn’t. I’m not trying to make Him sound any certain way to you at all. I’m telling you what HE says He’s like. How you might respond is beyond my control and has absolutely zero bearing on what I tell you.[/quote]
Yes. How can we have free will if God already knows everything we will ever do?[/quote]I don’t know. That’s the answer. People, even Christians, run into problems when they try to explain what God has not. I’m not being sarcastic in the least. The song I posted in the epistemology thread as part of the lyrics of praise calls the Lord “God of all mysteries”. Yes He is. There is nothing He does not understand and almost nothing we do understand. We do not know SQUAT in relation to what there is to know.
“A child does not know what his father knows, but he knows that his father knows it. He has no idea how Daddy’s grown up world operates. He simply trusts that Daddy does. I do the same. Jesus Himself said that we must come to Him as little children.”
