“You have not disproved something by proving something else”. Technically this is true, but what has happened to common sense?
Anyway I must go train.[/quote]
Common sense? Your original statement concluded with this:
Emphasis obviously mine.
You are the one that came into the thread dropping bombs like this. That statement, backed up without any means of empirically determining its veracity? Is that what passes as common sense to you? From this end it sounds, well, positively religious.
I agree it’s not logical, but it is what you’ve been doing to shore up
the cosmological argument:
“You can’t prove X is true, therefore Y must be true.”
You attack alternate theories that aren’t 100% proven to be true, and
conclude that because they aren’t 100% proven to be true, the
cosmological theory must be true.
These theories MAY be true, as suggested by both philosophy and
science, and therefore it is premature and shortsighted to assume that
they CANNOT be true per the cosmological argument.
It’s true that the cosmological argument hasn’t been proven false. Big
deal. Most of these other theories haven’t been proven false either.
[/quote]
What other alternate theories? You haven’t presented an alternate theory, you’ve only repeatedly told me I could be wrong with nary a single counter argument?
What alternate theory? You not still on about that whole thermodynamics hoo-haa are you? I explained in many ways why it’s not a problem and is not incompatible with cosmology.
WHAT OTHER THEORIES?! You have never presented a counter theory, all you’ve ever tried to do is poke holes on cosmology, which you have never succeeded at doing.
Please enlighten me, what the hell ‘other theory’ are you talking about?
I am telling you what the argument says. Whether you believe it or not has little to do with it’s validity.
I still want to know what ‘alternate theory’ your talking about. I have never heard you bring one up, ever.
It’s not a theory, it’s a deductive logical argument. That is different than a theory. A theory is an educated guess based on a limited amount of information. An deductive argument is a series of premises that lead directly to a single conclusion so that if the premises are true and the conclusion can be drawn from those premises to the exclusion of other possible conclusions than the truth is absolute.
The fact that you cannot discern between a scientific theory and a deductive argument is part of the problem you have in understanding the strength of the argument. It’s not a theory, never has been. If anything science relies on causation being true or science becomes meaningless.
Sure you can disagree, but it’s not about how you feel it’s about what you can prove. You haven’t proven anything to be false about cosmology and you haven’t proven anything to be true about anything else. Disagreeing is not the same as disproving.
But it is infinitely repetitive. It’s repeats the same ‘stuff’ over and over.
You mean as he provided causes for each and every Eskimos’ behavior to explain why it’s a series and then eplained how the eskimos got to new york…Yeah, that was a fail on his part. There is no assumption that there is something over and above, just that it was caused, as he indeed listed a cause for each and every event in the series, explained why its a series and how got there. Cause → effect, cause-> effect, cause-> effect, cause-> effect, cause-> effect…Thanks for mentioning it.
No it’s not. Because the causal regression rolls in to one, thing not many.
Please show a pattern of regression that roles into multiples, and completes the regression. When you do, you’ll see why it’s impossible.
[quote]
But that is a different argument than the infinite series argument
we’re discussing.[/quote]
Why are we discussing infinite series’s? I mean I agree they exist and are infinite. Unless you are going to try to get me to agree to something not true like they are non-contingent.
I read the argument in the link you provided about infinite regression being a fallacy. The only proof in the argument is that numbers eventually repeat themselves so its circular therefore not regression.
All that convinces me of is that the human mind is incapable of handling the concept. Nothing else.
Many philosphical statments work on the same principle. Its ultimately just mind games.
A few examples:
Amphiboly: ‘Save soap and waste paper’. The sentence is only problematic because of the american wording. ‘Save soap and toilet paper’ makes perfect sense.
Shows how you can word something or even use maths in such a way to prove something that is ultimately and obviously incorrect.
[/quote]
No your stuck in the same rut as FL…Infinite series can exist, but they are caused to both be a series and infinite.
Zeno’s paradox is only a statement about motion, which is related to time which is not related to an infinate regress; it’s infinite division…Everything is infinitely divisible. Regression is a simplification process, you cannot divide an effect by it’s cause that makes no sense.
Let’s do an example of regression:
You have an atom, it’s an atom because it has electrons, protons and neutrons. There is no difference between the subatomic particles in a bar of gold or a piece of shit, these subatomic particles are depended on other subatomic particles which are dependent on ‘weight’ motion and charge. The sub-sub atomic particles, like quarks. Now your dealling with some that is common to all subatomic particles. Let’s regress down the to string level if indeed they do exist. So now we’re dealing with a single thing that is the make up of the entire physical universe, BUT it’s still contingent. A string must be a one dimensional singularity and it must move. So now you have components of every single string in existence…As you regress though, there is less and less stuff to deal with. It is sufficent to ask, where did the singularity come from, why does it move or have charge, etc. What’s beyond that is what scientists have lovingly referred to as information…They don’t have an explanation of what it is, but it is less than a string. But as you can see you are running out of stuff, eventually you come to a cross road, your either end up at something, or nothing. That’s why it cannot continue infinitely. [/quote]
You dont need a beggining to an infinite series. The uncaused cause is not needed if you believe in infinity.
[/quote]
There is a reason for the series, the objects in the series and why it’s a series, and why it repeat infinitely…
It doesn’t matter if you believe in infinity, you still cannot have an infinite regress, which is circular reasoning which never answers the question…No matter how bad you may not want it to be a logical fallacy, it is. Period. If you use circular reasoning to solve an argument, you did not solve it.
I comprehend it just fine, speak for yourself.
It’s not clear what for life believes. The only statment of belief he has ever made is that energy cannot be created or destroyed…Which he failed to look at the part that said ‘in an isolated system’. Other than that, he hasn’t made a statement of belief nor has he ever put forth a counter argument or alternative argument. When he says he has, I honestly don’t know what he is talking about .Infinity is not a problem for the cosmological argument, especially from contingency. If you think it is then you don’t understand the argument.
You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.
You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
So you believe an infinite series does exist? As in, an infinitely retroactive series of causes and effects rather than a series beginning with a First Cause?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You are making things out to be more complicated than they have to be. Try and think of it this way: at its core, what you are asserting is that something came from nothing. But wait, before you continue, you need to really understand what NOTHING is. It is NOTHING. Like, way more nothing than the nothing in that movie The Neverending Story. We are talking not just no matter, no particles, no energy, but beyond that, there isn’t even any space, no time, no vast dark empty boundless void. We are talking N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
If you are going to start arguing that something, ANYTHING came from that, then you might as well just hop over to the theist’s side of the argument, because there is absolutely NO evidence, logical or empirical, for something so audacious, so unimaginable, to occur. [/quote]
That shit has been disproven aeons ago.
I) It’s easier, and therefore more probable, to assume that thusly the universe was always there, at least in some energy state.
II) If you stubbornly insist on having a creator, your problem just gets defered.
If you proclaim that a creater doesn’t have to be created, so can the universe.
Same with the concept of a start- a demiurge needs no start for he starts things → the universe didn’t need a start because it’s… the universe. What’s even better: there is no need to introduce a new label (so the universe is a god?) since it’s an intrinisic property with no attached strings.
You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.
You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for an interesting discussion anyway.[/quote]
No, I look as infinity as infinite. An infinite regression is circular…Again this is basic logic. An infinite regress /= infinity.
If you oppose what I propose you have to prove me wrong. If you can produce an argument that can prove it wrong, then I will accept it. It hasn’t been proven wrong in 2 millennia, the argument from contingency is over 1500 years old…That’s a good track record.
The argument has been scrutinized in every way possible and has withstood it. Really, what’s the criteria for accepting the validity of an argument, before people consider that it just may be that damn good.
Lets see:
Accurate premises - check
a conclusion that flows directly from the premises - check.
Premises that have never been proven false - check
Been scrutinized by really smart people. - check, way more than any other philosphical argument in the history of man.
withstood the test of time - check.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You are making things out to be more complicated than they have to be. Try and think of it this way: at its core, what you are asserting is that something came from nothing. But wait, before you continue, you need to really understand what NOTHING is. It is NOTHING. Like, way more nothing than the nothing in that movie The Neverending Story. We are talking not just no matter, no particles, no energy, but beyond that, there isn’t even any space, no time, no vast dark empty boundless void. We are talking N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
If you are going to start arguing that something, ANYTHING came from that, then you might as well just hop over to the theist’s side of the argument, because there is absolutely NO evidence, logical or empirical, for something so audacious, so unimaginable, to occur. [/quote]
That shit has been disproven aeons ago.
I) It’s easier, and therefore more probable, to assume that thusly the universe was always there, at least in some energy state.
[/quote]
Interesting since the universe is thought to be 13.5 billion years old, no evidence of the universe always being there, not a shred. Just for shit’s and giggles to humor your, we assume it was based on no evidence what so ever, it still doesn’t explain the universe existence. To say it is casue it is is circular reason, it does not fulfill contingency…
Where is this supposed rebuttle from eons ago? Oh that’s right it doesn’t exist…Look it up.
No it can’t the universe is contingent upon a multitude of things for it existence. This is scientific fact. You just haven’t done your homework. You’re saying dumb shit out of thin air. The universe has millions of contingencies. If you think it was always there, explain it since there is a complete lack of evidence for such a thing. With out using circular reason, explain how the universe was not created, especially since it was according to the best current theories in science…Or do you know something scientists don’t.
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, just so we’re on the same page:
So you believe an infinite series does exist? As in, an infinitely retroactive series of causes and effects rather than a series beginning with a First Cause?[/quote]
The series is also caused…There is a reason it a series and a reason it’s infinite. Nice try though.
[quote]pat wrote:
Interesting since the universe is thought to be 13.5 billion years old, no evidence of the universe always being there, not a shred. Just for shit’s and giggles to humor your, we assume it was based on no evidence what so ever, it still doesn’t explain the universe existence. To say it is casue it is is circular reason, it does not fulfill contingency…
[/quote]
The big inflation was 13-14 billions years ago. What was beforehand remains the big question.
It’s not an exotic idea, in fact it’s a known model to assume that the universe has cycles of imploding and expanding.
It’s not circular reasoning (look the term up, I think you haven’t understood what that means) to assume the universe was always there.
And it’s way more sensible to assume that no self creating creator created it - THAT would be circular reasoning, by the way (you can make notes of that- it’s ok).
[quote]pat wrote:
Where is this supposed rebuttle from eons ago? Oh that’s right it doesn’t exist…Look it up.
[/quote]
Bunch of greek guys talked about this over 2000 years ago. Don’t sweat it, you wouldn’t know.
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
[/quote]
Only a gibbering idiot wouldn’t understand that an assumption that does the same trick with a god is just a lot less elegant with a lot more baggage.
I don’t speak idiot so I don’t really know how to respond properly.
Go read some books and enjoy life, cause it looks like there’s no heaven.
[quote]pat wrote:
Interesting since the universe is thought to be 13.5 billion years old, no evidence of the universe always being there, not a shred. Just for shit’s and giggles to humor your, we assume it was based on no evidence what so ever, it still doesn’t explain the universe existence. To say it is casue it is is circular reason, it does not fulfill contingency…
[/quote]
The big inflation was 13-14 billions years ago. What was beforehand remains the big question.
It’s not an exotic idea, in fact it’s a known model to assume that the universe has cycles of imploding and expanding.
It’s not circular reasoning (look the term up, I think you haven’t understood what that means) to assume the universe was always there.
And it’s way more sensible to assume that no self creating creator created it - THAT would be circular reasoning, by the way (you can make notes of that- it’s ok).
[/quote]
Oh now, don’t get your panties in a wad a lot of you atheists make bold proclamations about the universe with out basis in fact or evidence your not the only one…
The big inflation??? LOL! Sounds like a porno…
I never said it’s circular reasoning to say the universe was already there, I am saying you made that statement with out any factual basis what so ever. What’s circular is saying the universe exists because it does…I didn’t expect you to know the difference. I’ll try to type slow for you…
Bunch of greek guys talked about this over 2000 years ago. Don’t sweat it, you wouldn’t know.
[/quote]
Oh did they?? Well if you knew anything about it you’d know it was never proven wrong, ever. If you knew about it, it would have probably kept you from saying stupid shit in the first place…
Only a gibbering idiot wouldn’t understand that an assumption that does the same trick with a god is just a lot less elegant with a lot more baggage.
I don’t speak idiot so I don’t really know how to respond properly.
Go read some books and enjoy life, cause it looks like there’s no heaven. [/quote]
I do and I will, but you do speak idiot, well… I love books, and if there’s no heaven it’s no sweat off of my balls.
We can observe the universe, it is there. We don’t have to assume it.
So it’s not circular to furthermore assume that this was always the case.
It’s just a prudent, safe assumption if we have nothing better.
Fetching a god into the discussion IS bold, since he can do nothing more then what an eternal universe could already do.
A god we, by the way, cannot observe.
So I have to unprove extraordinary claims beforehand?
How about you disprove the universe is not recreated and lived eternally through Brahma? See what I did there?
[quote]
So you admit there is zero evidence for what you proclaimed? Mighty big of ya! Scientific consensus used to think the Earth was flat so that doesn’t mean much of shit. Even if there were a million universes prior to this one, it still does not disprove cosmology… [/quote]
Laughable.
We can work with theories, predict stuff and actually FIND evidence for OR against that one day.
Contrary to lofty claims.
If you continue to stick to these or your arguments from ignorance, I can drown you in other gods and myths and win by superior numbers without breaking a holy sweat like Mr.Jahwe did on the seventh day.
You cannot disprove we’re not just the cosmic turtle’s dream!
By the way, smart dudes like the aforementioned greeks knew about a round earth way before the year 0 CE.
Thanks to some church, smart dudes then had to bend the cosmological rules to make everything revolve around some holy city.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You are making things out to be more complicated than they have to be. Try and think of it this way: at its core, what you are asserting is that something came from nothing. But wait, before you continue, you need to really understand what NOTHING is. It is NOTHING. Like, way more nothing than the nothing in that movie The Neverending Story. We are talking not just no matter, no particles, no energy, but beyond that, there isn’t even any space, no time, no vast dark empty boundless void. We are talking N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
If you are going to start arguing that something, ANYTHING came from that, then you might as well just hop over to the theist’s side of the argument, because there is absolutely NO evidence, logical or empirical, for something so audacious, so unimaginable, to occur. [/quote]
That shit has been disproven aeons ago.
I) It’s easier, and therefore more probable, to assume that thusly the universe was always there, at least in some energy state.
[/quote]
Sure. I have no problem with that. You are playing whack-a-mole, though. Now you have a problem with the issue of contingency.
I’ll probably defer to Pat after this post, as he is much better at explaining the cosmological argument than I am, but you are confusing time and contingency.
Stop worrying about where things started. How about attempting to explain HOW they got here.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You are making things out to be more complicated than they have to be. Try and think of it this way: at its core, what you are asserting is that something came from nothing. But wait, before you continue, you need to really understand what NOTHING is. It is NOTHING. Like, way more nothing than the nothing in that movie The Neverending Story. We are talking not just no matter, no particles, no energy, but beyond that, there isn’t even any space, no time, no vast dark empty boundless void. We are talking N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
If you are going to start arguing that something, ANYTHING came from that, then you might as well just hop over to the theist’s side of the argument, because there is absolutely NO evidence, logical or empirical, for something so audacious, so unimaginable, to occur. [/quote]
That shit has been disproven aeons ago.
I) It’s easier, and therefore more probable, to assume that thusly the universe was always there, at least in some energy state.
[/quote]
Interesting since the universe is thought to be 13.5 billion years old, no evidence of the universe always being there, not a shred. Just for shit’s and giggles to humor your, we assume it was based on no evidence what so ever, it still doesn’t explain the universe existence. To say it is casue it is is circular reason, it does not fulfill contingency…
Where is this supposed rebuttle from eons ago? Oh that’s right it doesn’t exist…Look it up.
No it can’t the universe is contingent upon a multitude of things for it existence. This is scientific fact. You just haven’t done your homework. You’re saying dumb shit out of thin air. The universe has millions of contingencies. If you think it was always there, explain it since there is a complete lack of evidence for such a thing. With out using circular reason, explain how the universe was not created, especially since it was according to the best current theories in science…Or do you know something scientists don’t.
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Sure. I have no problem with that. You are playing whack-a-mole, though. Now you have a problem with the issue of contingency.
[/quote]
I can yawn in contingency’s general direction.
That’s better then an appeal to ignorance.
Reading Pat’s drivel, that’d be a very awkward appeal to authority.
Maybe some arguments, like “Pascal’s Wager” or the “missing link” objection need to be buried.
They are but laughable today, yet people still use them.
Not all arguments stand the test of time!
Gnorz’ “where comes the lightning from” argument was cutting edge twenty thousand years ago.
…that’s why He-above-the-clouds is stronger then She-below-the-earth!
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]
This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, just so we’re on the same page:
So you believe an infinite series does exist? As in, an infinitely retroactive series of causes and effects rather than a series beginning with a First Cause?[/quote]
The series is also caused…There is a reason it a series and a reason it’s infinite. Nice try though.[/quote]
Where is the proof the infinite series is caused? If something is infinite it doesn’t need to be caused ‘It’s turtles all the way down’.
How can you PROVE that an infinite series needs to be caused?
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]
This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’[/quote]
You either do not understand the argument or are being deliberately obtuse because no where has any such horseshit been presented.
The cosmological argument is DEDUCTIVE. Do you understand what a deductive argument is? If so, you would be coming at this from a completely different angle. Although I do not think he has succeeded, forlife has made a damn good effort to punch holes in the cosmological argument in the proper manner, by attacking its premises.
It is becoming more and more clear, to me, at least, that you either have not read or not understood the cosmological argument, that you already had your mind made up when you got here, and that ANY new proposition against the cosmological argument, however outlandish, will be met by you with approving brow furrowing and head nodding and comments like, “I can’t fault any of its logic.”
This is the kind of crap that long time members have been complaining about in reference to the recent decline in the quality of posting here at PWI. Trust me, over the past year or so there has probably been more discussion on this one topic than almost any other here. It is blindingly clear you are treading water and sinking fast when trying to attack this concept. You should sit back and read more and understand the conversation you are taking part in before jumping in feet first thinking that everything will just be okay.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
…an appeal to ignorance…
…Pascal’s Wager…
…missing link…
…where comes the lightning from… none of which have appeared at any time, in any form, in this thread or any of the others regarding the cosmological argument.[/quote]
Dude, you need help. Seriously. If there’s any one of us here who believes in the supernatural, it’s you. Do you hear voices? Are there words on your monitor that only you can read? Do you see dead people? Because you managed to combine four, yes, four! completely fantastical arguments that NO ONE here has put forth into one short post, all the while completely ignoring what I wrote.
You have fun talking with your imaginary friends now, Schwarzy. I’ll be off talking with the adults.
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]
This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’[/quote]
You either do not understand the argument or are being deliberately obtuse because no where has any such horseshit been presented.
The cosmological argument is DEDUCTIVE. Do you understand what a deductive argument is? If so, you would be coming at this from a completely different angle. Although I do not think he has succeeded, forlife has made a damn good effort to punch holes in the cosmological argument in the proper manner, by attacking its premises.
It is becoming more and more clear, to me, at least, that you either have not read or not understood the cosmological argument, that you already had your mind made up when you got here, and that ANY new proposition against the cosmological argument, however outlandish, will be met by you with approving brow furrowing and head nodding and comments like, “I can’t fault any of its logic.”
This is the kind of crap that long time members have been complaining about in reference to the recent decline in the quality of posting here at PWI. Trust me, over the past year or so there has probably been more discussion on this one topic than almost any other here. It is blindingly clear you are treading water and sinking fast when trying to attack this concept. You should sit back and read more and understand the conversation you are taking part in before jumping in feet first thinking that everything will just be okay. [/quote]
Long time member? I’ve been a member of this site longer than you.
Also I took a direct quote from Pat. That was his logic and his argument. Not mine.
Maybe try reading the whole thread. I’ve maintained an open mind all along and repeatedly said I think both arguments are problematic and both are possible.