[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris
Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]
Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]
http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Have fun.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[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.”
[/quote]
It’s not that you don’t know, it’s that you know neither option makes sense, so you take it on faith that there is some sort of ‘out’ that you simply can’t think up.
You have closed your mind to the point where you will accept glaring logical failures in your beliefs in order to keep having them.
I want you to deeply consider the fact that you are defending a position that requires you to brush over huge problems like this in order to remain a Christian.
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says that what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.
EDIT: This was to TigerTime.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]
Who in the world are you talking to?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]
Who in the world are you talking to?[/quote]
Tigertime.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris
Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]
Yeah, well, assuming that the CC was not responsible for the Bubonic plague, the Vikings, the Huns and whatnot, I would not lay that at her feet.
What she undoubtedly has done is keep knowledge alive to be used when the dust had settled.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Could you please paste your email conversation with him here?[/quote]
I removed all the contact info to protect the innocent. But here is the email. His response is on top…I don’t think he’d have appreciated his email address plastered all over the internet.
Now the question arised, based on something he said in the video, which was, ‘…if you removed everything then something starts to happen.’ Which was based on Null Theory. (Ironically, Jerry Garcia said the very same thing in 1967)
short answer: no.. the vacuum in quantum theory is alas, full of virtual particles.
________________
Lawrence M. Krauss
Foundation Professor
Director, Origins Initiative
Co-Director, Cosmology Initiative
http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu
On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:00 PM,Pat wrote:
Dear Dr. Kruass,
Quantum theory states that out of a void something appears. I have run into a problem where I have looked and looked for a description or definition of null theory where there is truly a void, an absolute nothingness. When I speak of nothingness I mean the philosophical definition of complete and total absence of anything physical, metaphysical or otherwise. Every where I look, everything I read first describes a void, but then populates it with an "energy" or dark energy, or subatomic particles popping in and out of existence, "branes" or what not. I have a problem with this. In this nothingness I have heard a bunch of quantum theorists in turn describe a bunch of something's in the same breath.
So it begs the question, is there such thing as true void? Is there a state that is stateless and posses no properties what so ever? If so, can absolute nothingness, with nothing interacting with it, beget anything?
I know you are an expert in the field so I figured Iâ??d present my philosophical dilemma at your feet to see if you may have an answer.
Thank you very much, I hope I did not eat up to much of your time.
Regards,
Pat
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris
Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]
Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]
http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Have fun.[/quote]
So, plain ol’ propaganda? Thanks for confirming.
I meant neutral sources with no predetermined bias and even potentially peer reviewed for accuracy. No atheist propaganda. I get enough hot air from you lot, right here.
I beginning to think you’ll believe anything so long as it’s posted on an atheist propaganda website…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]
Who in the world are you talking to?[/quote]
Tigertime.[/quote]
Oh, I just thought everyone had him on ignore.
[quote]pat wrote:
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. [/quote]
I believe it does, in that we don’t even know what the universe was before planks time. Did the big bang ACTUALLY start from nothing? Is there consensus on what the universe ACTUALLY started as?
We aren’t even close to really understanding the universe, and you’re ready to close the door on whether or not the universe, AS A WHOLE is contingent. This is why I see the cosmological argument, even if it’s from the point of contingency, as fallacious. Fallacy of composition?
Even if I accepted the argument for all that it is, all it is saying is God is a name for whatever brought the universe into existence so god is probably a series of fluctuations in a gravitational field at the quantum level not a self aware actor with purpose.
[quote]pat wrote:
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.[/quote]
The first line in the above, is a complete assumption. And yes, I’ve heard you assume this before.
[quote]pat wrote:
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.[/quote]
Can you say for a certainty, that we’re 100% positive the universe AS A WHOLE is contingent? Unless you can say that for a certainty, then we’re back to fallacy of composition.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
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”.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
It’s an assumption to say that whatever the origin of the universe be, it must be a self aware, sentient being. We once again back to their not being a “god”, at least not the god of religions. Could be a completely natural phenomena; I’m good with that.
[quote]pat wrote:
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.[/quote]
You’re right, you don’t have to accept any of the counter claims or the many arguments against cosmology. 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]
Fact is, there’s ZERO evidence for “god”, and it’s altogether possible (even likely) that the origin of the universe was a completely natural origin having nothing to do with the nature of the christian god, or any other man made religion.
You cannot rule out the possibility for a completely natural origin of the universe, and that is a huge problem for religion.
[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]
Your trying to make the case for a “god being” that can create a whole lot of something out of nothing, a feat in which you cay can’t be done naturally. IMHO that’s SUPERnatural; capabilities above and beyond the natural world.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[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]
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.[/quote]
LOL…You fucked the whole thing up by letting your shitty need to get a jibe in on me affect your reading comprehension. Anger does that, no? Settle down patty cakes.
I never called theists dumb asses, that comment was a light hearted joke as my wife watches “That 70’s Show” alot, and I was doing my best Red Foreman impersonation. I was facetiously calling the lot of us “dumb asses”, not theist. Way to fuck THAT up. LOL
My comment about how I’m enjoying this conversation though, was right on. This is good stuff, even if you’re, well…YOU.
[quote]pat wrote:
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]
You think the main objective of theoretical physicists, is to prove the cosmological argument wrong? LOL
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Love me some Dan Dennett; great video.
[/quote]
I will watch your hour long videos if you will watch mine. Otherwise seriously who has the time for this crap…[/quote]
I will absolutely watch your videos. If you have one that you feel I should watch, then throw it up here, I gaurantee that I’ll watch it.
I chose a Dennett video because he’s not just an atheist, but a philosopher. It was my thinking that you’d rather hear from a philosopher and I genuinely thought you’d like to watch it.
Good stuff here.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]
Who in the world are you talking to?[/quote]
Tigertime.[/quote]
Oh, I just thought everyone had him on ignore. [/quote]I don’t know why you’re being nasty like this to me Chris.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]
Who in the world are you talking to?[/quote]
Tigertime.[/quote]
Oh, I just thought everyone had him on ignore. [/quote]I don’t know why you’re being nasty like this to me Chris.
[/quote]
Didn’t know your name was Tigertime.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]
Who in the world are you talking to?[/quote]
Tigertime.[/quote]
Oh, I just thought everyone had him on ignore. [/quote]I don’t know why you’re being nasty like this to me Chris.
[/quote]
Didn’t know your name was Tigertime.[/quote]My joyous mistake Chris =] I misunderstood and apologize.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
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. [/quote]
I believe it does, in that we don’t even know what the universe was before planks time. Did the big bang ACTUALLY start from nothing? Is there consensus on what the universe ACTUALLY started as?
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter. It’s still contingent, that’s all that matters.
LOL! What part would be a fallacy of composition? That’s actually funny. Show where this fallacy occurs? You’d think over 2000 years somebody would have caught on to that by now… Nice try though.
You’d have to make that conclusion fit the argument, which it doesn’t. Or you have to prove the premises are false. Those are really your only 2 options.
True the first part requires knowledge of what God is to make the link, but you cannot prove it’s not true.
Yes, because of what contingency and non-contingency alone mean, by definition. Contingent things regress necessarily to a non-contingent thing. The only way you can discover a non-contingent thing, is by regression. Since contingent existence alone can only regress to one non-contingent existence, you cannot have others.
Why couldn’t it be self aware? Something that is uncaused yet causes, has something like a ‘will’ to do it. True randomness doesn’t exist, only unknowns.
There are counter claims, they just don’t refute the argument. It makes no sense to accept something that doesn’t actually refute the argument. What’s the point of that… “Yeah, I know it’s wrong, but I like it so I will accept it.” ← That’s just dumb.
The origin of the universe is natural. And it doesn’t really matter it still regresses to the Necessary Being, which is very much a natural part of existence.
I didn’t say he created something out of nothing. The argument doesn’t give regard to how or what the substance or information of the universe. It just says that contingent existence eventually requires a non-contingent existence.
If I was so petty as to just want to jab you, I would. I know lots of insults. You asked a stupid fucking question. It’s obviously not what you wanted to say, but you said it, I couldn’t have possible derived that you were talking about the many facets of QM from that.
Whatever, I actually don’t care, just pointing out the fact that you’ve acted like an asshole from the start, so if I piss you off, I am not bothered much by that.
No, I said these theoretical physicists are interested in proving the cosmological argument wrong. I am sure most are not interested or may not even be familiar with it. But both, Hawking and Strauss have attempted to put for theories that show that something can come from nothing, while maintaining the causal chain. There is only one reason to to that.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Love me some Dan Dennett; great video.
[/quote]
I will watch your hour long videos if you will watch mine. Otherwise seriously who has the time for this crap…[/quote]
I will absolutely watch your videos. If you have one that you feel I should watch, then throw it up here, I gaurantee that I’ll watch it.
I chose a Dennett video because he’s not just an atheist, but a philosopher. It was my thinking that you’d rather hear from a philosopher and I genuinely thought you’d like to watch it.
[/quote]
Well if you are seriously interested I will dig some up, but I really actually don’t have time. I do this stuff while waiting for jobs I run to finish. It helps pass the time, but an hour I don’t have.
I have heard the best philosophers have to offer and if David Hume couldn’t figure it out, I am not worried at all. Most of the time they harp on the conclusion with the whole “What caused God” thing. That’s not a problem because the Uncaused-cause wasn’t caused, or it wouldn’t be an uncaused-cause. It’s like asking, how black is white, it isn’t.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris
Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]
Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]
http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Have fun.[/quote]
So, plain ol’ propaganda? Thanks for confirming.
I meant neutral sources with no predetermined bias and even potentially peer reviewed for accuracy. No atheist propaganda. I get enough hot air from you lot, right here.
I beginning to think you’ll believe anything so long as it’s posted on an atheist propaganda website…[/quote]
I wasn’t aware that it was propaganda to point out that science pre-dates Christianity.
Now that I think about it, I wasn’t aware one could simply brush off anything they wish by calling it ‘propaganda’.
Just in case you didn’t already know, propaganda is simply “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”. In other words, literally every single piece of persuasive writing can be labelled as ‘propaganda’. Every argument that’s ever been made on this site for anything falls under propaganda if you chose to view it that way. Brushing something off for being ‘propaganda’ is no different than brushing something off for having any opinion whatsoever.
I can say that the bible is propaganda. I guess that adequately debunks the bible.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]
Who in the world are you talking to?[/quote]
Tigertime.[/quote]
Oh, I just thought everyone had him on ignore. [/quote]
No, just the cowards.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says that what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.
EDIT: This was to TigerTime. [/quote]
No, you were never me.
A follow up question, if your relationship with God is entirely subjective and not constrained by logic (human logic, at least), then why do you bother coming on here? You won’t convince a logical mind with such an argument. I mean, if a muslim came on here and told you that his relationship with God is completely subjective, you wouldn’t convert, would you?