Religious Belief is Human Nature?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.[/quote]
There is a grave misunderstanding here. Multiple dimensions does not do away with the causation principle, how do you think physicist inferred the existence of such dimensions if they were not causally connected to the ones we experience and do experiments on. Secondly the fact that physicist mathematically describe these extra dimensions in addition to the ones in our immediate experience shows that the physicist believe they can show the causal mechanism in which these extra dimensions interact with ours.

If these extra dimensions were not causally linked the physicist has no grounds on which to infer their existence.[/quote]

Next we shall hear how ‘dimensions’ are man made principles and don’t really exist…
Dimensions not only do not do away with causation, they are in fact ‘caused’ entities.
I am so happy FL brought this line of reasoning for he argued vociferously how metaphysics is just a manifestation of brain chemicals and then brings in something concrete like dimensions…Love it…

262

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.[/quote]

LOL! Come on forlife, you can do better than this?? Really? Dimensions are contingent entities AND they are contingent metaphysical entities, removing time from the equation. Try again.[/quote]

Prove that dimensions are contingent entities.

Then when you’re ready for a real challenge, prove that the underlying assumptions of deductive logic MUST be true.

Until you can do both, your certitude that the cosmological theory MUST be true is a house of cards.

263

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.[/quote]
There is a grave misunderstanding here. Multiple dimensions does not do away with the causation principle, how do you think physicist inferred the existence of such dimensions if they were not causally connected to the ones we experience and do experiments on. Secondly the fact that physicist mathematically describe these extra dimensions in addition to the ones in our immediate experience shows that the physicist believe they can show the causal mechanism in which these extra dimensions interact with ours.

If these extra dimensions were not causally linked the physicist has no grounds on which to infer their existence.[/quote]

Next we shall hear how ‘dimensions’ are man made principles and don’t really exist…
Dimensions not only do not do away with causation, they are in fact ‘caused’ entities.
I am so happy FL brought this line of reasoning for he argued vociferously how metaphysics is just a manifestation of brain chemicals and then brings in something concrete like dimensions…Love it…[/quote]

So time and 3-dimensional space are just manifestations of brain chemicals? Gotcha.

264

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.[/quote]

LOL! Come on forlife, you can do better than this?? Really? Dimensions are contingent entities AND they are contingent metaphysical entities, removing time from the equation. Try again.[/quote]

Prove that dimensions are contingent entities.
[/quote]
K, Y is a horizontal component indicating either depth or length, therefore, Y depends a horizontal plane which relies on space. X is a horizontal component defining either depth or length depending on how your looking at it and provided it’s not on the same plane as Y. It also depends on horizontal space. Z is the vertical contingent that relies on vertical space for it’s existance. Together they compose 3 dimensional euclidean space.
Time is the component that relies on movement or change of objects with in 3 dimensional euclidean space. Z, is contingent, Y is contingent, X is contingent, and time is continegent and all exist for a reason, to define space or space-time.

Deduction doesn’t rely on assumptions it deals with what must be. Science, or inductive reasoning deals with assumptions.

[quote]
Until you can do both, your certitude that the cosmological theory MUST be true is a house of cards.[/quote]
Done and done… Prove me wrong…

265

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.[/quote]
There is a grave misunderstanding here. Multiple dimensions does not do away with the causation principle, how do you think physicist inferred the existence of such dimensions if they were not causally connected to the ones we experience and do experiments on. Secondly the fact that physicist mathematically describe these extra dimensions in addition to the ones in our immediate experience shows that the physicist believe they can show the causal mechanism in which these extra dimensions interact with ours.

If these extra dimensions were not causally linked the physicist has no grounds on which to infer their existence.[/quote]

Next we shall hear how ‘dimensions’ are man made principles and don’t really exist…
Dimensions not only do not do away with causation, they are in fact ‘caused’ entities.
I am so happy FL brought this line of reasoning for he argued vociferously how metaphysics is just a manifestation of brain chemicals and then brings in something concrete like dimensions…Love it…[/quote]

So time and 3-dimensional space are just manifestations of brain chemicals? Gotcha.[/quote]

They are metaphysical objects, which at one point you said didn’t exist outside the brain.

266

Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.

267

[quote]forlife wrote:Prove that dimensions are contingent entities.

Then when you’re ready for a real challenge, prove that the underlying assumptions of deductive logic MUST be true.

Until you can do both, your certitude that the cosmological theory MUST be true is a house of cards.[/quote]OUTSTANDING!!! Absolutely correct. Pat and yourself are in precisely the same epistemological boat.

268

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:Prove that dimensions are contingent entities.

Then when you’re ready for a real challenge, prove that the underlying assumptions of deductive logic MUST be true.

Until you can do both, your certitude that the cosmological theory MUST be true is a house of cards.[/quote]OUTSTANDING!!! Absolutely correct. Pat and yourself are in precisely the same epistemological boat. [/quote]

At least our boat has a rudder.

“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.” - Thomas Jefferson

269

Is this rudder something you know or believe? It is insightful of you to realize that you do both have the same foundation. Same as Jefferson.
Romans 12:1-3

[quote]1-Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2-And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. 3-For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.[/quote]The apostle Paul.

270

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The bible isn’t a history book, a science book or a math book, it never was and never will be. Therefore it is not constrained by such rules as those other disciplines you mentioned. Saying a cook book doesn’t give accurate dimensions to build a deck doesn’t make the cook book invalid.
Second, it’s pretty clear you’ve never read it or you’d realize why what you said is irrelevant. I love critiquing book I never read. I heard ‘Don Quixote’ is a piece of shit, I agree and I never read it…

Second, I am well aware of String Theory which you aptly butchered above. I like string theory quite a bit, but it does not posit an still cannot posit ‘something from nothing’ which the atheist must do. Further, causation is not bound by time, it can occur in or out of it. I never argued a temporal succession in causation. In fact I argued the opposite. In metaphysics, there is no time, but there is causation.

You made to many assumptions. I am not an evangelical biblical literalalist. I like science and theoretical sciences very much. But I also know that through out history science has also been mostly wrong. [/quote]

The bible, a book accounting for the history leading up to the messiah, the man our B.C./A.D. dating system is based on (literally making him the most important HISTORICAL figure), is NOT a history book? Well, if you say so…

You’re cook book analogy fails, as a cook book, while not having anything about carpentry, is at least consistent relative to itself and the things written in it can be tried and proven.

You disagree with me, therefore I haven’t read the bible? Oh that’s mature… I don’t really care if you believe me as this is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable, so I’ll simply retort by saying I don’t think you’ve ever read Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and therefore know nothing of evolution. (If this seems like a stupid argument, that’s because it is.)

You said “second” twice, btw :wink:

Butchered, you say? Well that makes sense given you’re talking about the WRONG theory. I’m NOT talking about string theory, I’m talking about M-theory. They’re connected, granted, but this is an extremely important distinction and one you should have made as I specified 11 spatial dimensions and not 10. To be honest, I’m pretty insulted to have someone who doesn’t know the difference between String theory and M-theory telling me that I’m miss-representing the theory. =/

Yes, there have been many scientific predictions that didn’t pan out upon testing, but the difference is if a scientific prediction fails it is rejected and corrected, whereas if something is found false in the bible, an apologist will spend years performing mental gymnastics until they can fit a camel through the eye of a needle, so to speak.

271

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The bible isn’t a history book, a science book or a math book, it never was and never will be. Therefore it is not constrained by such rules as those other disciplines you mentioned. Saying a cook book doesn’t give accurate dimensions to build a deck doesn’t make the cook book invalid.
Second, it’s pretty clear you’ve never read it or you’d realize why what you said is irrelevant. I love critiquing book I never read. I heard ‘Don Quixote’ is a piece of shit, I agree and I never read it…

Second, I am well aware of String Theory which you aptly butchered above. I like string theory quite a bit, but it does not posit an still cannot posit ‘something from nothing’ which the atheist must do. Further, causation is not bound by time, it can occur in or out of it. I never argued a temporal succession in causation. In fact I argued the opposite. In metaphysics, there is no time, but there is causation.

You made to many assumptions. I am not an evangelical biblical literalalist. I like science and theoretical sciences very much. But I also know that through out history science has also been mostly wrong. [/quote]

The bible, a book accounting for the history leading up to the messiah, the man our B.C./A.D. dating system is based on (literally making him the most important HISTORICAL figure), is NOT a history book? Well, if you say so…

You’re cook book analogy fails, as a cook book, while not having anything about carpentry, is at least consistent relative to itself and the things written in it can be tried and proven.

You disagree with me, therefore I haven’t read the bible? Oh that’s mature… I don’t really care if you believe me as this is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable, so I’ll simply retort by saying I don’t think you’ve ever read Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and therefore know nothing of evolution. (If this seems like a stupid argument, that’s because it is.)

You said “second” twice, btw :wink:

Butchered, you say? Well that makes sense given you’re talking about the WRONG theory. I’m NOT talking about string theory, I’m talking about M-theory. They’re connected, granted, but this is an extremely important distinction and one you should have made as I specified 11 spatial dimensions and not 10. To be honest, I’m pretty insulted to have someone who doesn’t know the difference between String theory and M-theory telling me that I’m miss-representing the theory. =/

Yes, there have been many scientific predictions that didn’t pan out upon testing, but the difference is if a scientific prediction fails it is rejected and corrected, whereas if something is found false in the bible, an apologist will spend years performing mental gymnastics until they can fit a camel through the eye of a needle, so to speak.[/quote]

M-Theory is just one hybrid of many of String Theory. Second, I hope it’s right, because it would prove a great deal of reality that is not sensible.

Have you ever read the bible? You’re making false assumptions on a book you never read.
It’s not a history book, it’s a whole lot of books with varied purpose and meaning. It’s weird to give a book report on a book you never read.

272

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.

273

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.[/quote]

Prove causation is an assumption…You asked and I answered. You don’t even have to prove it wrong, just prove it is an assumption.

274

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Is this rudder something you know or believe? It is insightful of you to realize that you do both have the same foundation. Same as Jefferson.
Romans 12:1-3

The rudder is imperfect, and we are honest about that fact. Despite its limitations, we have made significant progress in the journey and will continue to do so over time.

Far, far better than your flailing in the ocean of your imagination. Just because others flail in their own imaginary oceans doesn’t make yours any more real.

275

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]

Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?

276

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]

Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]

Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.

277

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.[/quote]

Prove causation is an assumption…You asked and I answered. You don’t even have to prove it wrong, just prove it is an assumption.[/quote]

Causality, more specifically universal causality, requires the assumption that spontaneity is impossible. It also requires the assumption that everything must be caused, which is self-contradictory and further requires the assumption of at least one uncaused cause.

278

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]

Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]

Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.[/quote]

Calling it a law doesn’t mean there are no underlying assumptions.

Are you aware that philosophers debate whether the 3 underlying assumptions are in fact true, and that there is some scientific evidence supporting this?

You’re acting as if these assumptions are known facts, when they are not.

279

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.[/quote]

Prove causation is an assumption…You asked and I answered. You don’t even have to prove it wrong, just prove it is an assumption.[/quote]

Causality, more specifically universal causality, requires the assumption that spontaneity is impossible. It also requires the assumption that everything must be caused, which is self-contradictory and further requires the assumption of at least one uncaused cause.[/quote]

No, causation simply means that causes necessitate their effects, nothing more.

280

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]

Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]

Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.[/quote]

Calling it a law doesn’t mean there are no underlying assumptions.

Are you aware that philosophers debate whether the 3 underlying assumptions are in fact true, and that there is some scientific evidence supporting this?

You’re acting as if these assumptions are known facts, when they are not.
[/quote]

What are the underlying ‘assumptions’?