[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Looks like a Samara.[/quote]
Hmmm, I thought is was a Trabant
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s like what the Soviets did with cars, steal the ideas and make them worse.[/quote]
Oh no, they didn’t plan them worse, their mass production systems made them worse. A basic Lada or Vaz or Ziguli was a very sturdy and reliable car in cold conditions, like the old Beetle. And unlike in the Beetle, the heating system was good. And with the basic technology you could fix it yourself practically anywhere with basic tools. I’ve heard some first hand horror stories about the nonchalance they worked with in the production, though. [/quote]
Well, I know the Lada had aluminium brakes and that’s worse. Much in the same way Kalam borrowed the argument, pretended like he came up with it, and posted it as his own. That worked fine 1000 years ago, but it doesn’t stand up to reason. I don’t even know why it’s used at all. It’s so bad, so incomplete, it should not really be considered as cosmology at all. What Aristotle was more complete. I don’t know why people just don’t go the the main source. The Kalam argument is useless. [/quote]
Relax pat, I’m just talking about cars, cosmology makes my head ache and I can’t trust my thoughts anymore. Russians planned good cars, but they couldn’t manufacture them in line, because of the attitude to the result communism created. A good Lada individual is still a very good car, for a selfsufficient t-man it’s the perfect car, because you can fix it yourself. 
E: I’ve heard anectotal stories about the first line Ladas, and I’ve also seen myself one old Moskowitch from the 50’s in the beginning of 90’s that was in a stupefying condition , just after the borders opened.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< I can’t trust my thoughts anymore. >>>[/quote]Excellent!!! You’re halfway home =] I’m still learning how to trust my own less all the time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< I can’t trust my thoughts anymore. >>>[/quote]Excellent!!! You’re halfway home =] I’m still learning how to trust my own less all the time.
[/quote]
It’s easy for me, I never trusted your thoughts.
Pat,
It’s no more circular to argue the universe is uncaused than to argue god is uncaused.
My point was that Hawking, and a slew of other philosophers and physicists, propose viable explanations for the universe that don’t invoke the supernatural.
You haven’t proven the cosmological argument to be 100% true, because you cannot demonstrate that its premises are 100% true. I just don’t get why you refuse to acknowledge this, and categorically disparage alternate explanations as impossible? Why so stubborn about ONLY considering the cosmological argument, as if no other possible arguments exist? Those arguments do exist, and philosophers and physicists are actively exploring them.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,
It’s no more circular to argue the universe is uncaused than to argue god is uncaused.
[/quote]
Yes it is. The cosmological form is not a circular argument. It does not argue something is, because it is.
Where’d gravity come from? Hawking relies on gravity for his explanation, but fails at something from nothing as, gravity is a something, so is quantum mechanics for that matter.
[quote]
You haven’t proven the cosmological argument to be 100% true, because you cannot demonstrate that its premises are 100% true. I just don’t get why you refuse to acknowledge this, and categorically disparage alternate explanations as impossible? Why so stubborn about ONLY considering the cosmological argument, as if no other possible arguments exist? Those arguments do exist, and philosophers and physicists are actively exploring them.[/quote]
Oh do they? show me the counter argument to causation?
It’s solid because the other option is logically impossible. Like I said I am certain of causation. If you have a counter argument I am all ears, the the Appeal to Authority fallacy in which you are engaging does nothing to refute the premises.
You cannot tell me that the premises may not be right with out an explanation to back it up.
Pat,
If that is the case, what does the cosmological argument say is the reason for god’s existence?
Hawking argues that gravity is part of the nature of the universe, although if you want to get specific, he recognizes that laws may operate differently under different circumstances.
You keep saying the alternate explanations are logically impossible. Do you really believe all of these physicists and philosophers are actively pursuing arguments that they know to be logically impossible? They’re not idiots, and they understand logic as well as either of us do.
I’m not arguing from authority, I’m only pointing out that educated, intelligent, rational people are exploring credible arguments other than the cosmological argument. It isn’t the holy grail that you seem to believe it is.
There’s a hell of a lot about the universe that we don’t currently understand. There are truths we understand today, that at one point we would have declared logically impossible. If we’ve learned anything from our history, it should be that our understanding is too infantile to definitely declare what is possible and what is not.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,
If that is the case, what does the cosmological argument say is the reason for god’s existence?
[/quote]
It doesn’t. It only explains that ‘He’ must.
They also know they didn’t refute the argument either.
And if ‘gravity is part of the nature of the universe’ then that makes gravity contingent on the nature of the universe, which came from the big bang, which came from primordial soup, which came from, singularities, which came from ???.
That’s still called ‘Appeal to Authority’. Really smart people questioning some thing is not a refutation. It’s good they question it, the more it’s scrutinized, the stronger it gets.
Such is the folly of science. It most definitely through out history been wrong. Proof that inductive reasoning, on which science is based is far from fool proof.
This argument though, has not been proven wrong through out history.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< I can’t trust my thoughts anymore. >>>[/quote]Excellent!!! You’re halfway home =] I’m still learning how to trust my own less all the time.
[/quote]
It’s easy for me, I never trusted your thoughts.[/quote]LOL!!! Good one Pat. Seriously. I got a good laugh outta that one LOL!!!
So the cosmological theory is similarly circular, by your own definition. Saying something “must” be true doesn’t make it any less circular.
Here we go with the core epistemological issue, yet again.
Just because something hasn’t been definitely proven untrue doesn’t mean it is correct. There are MANY arguments about the universe, none of which have been definitely proven untrue. It would be folly to cherry pick one of those arguments and insist that it must be true.
That so many physicists and philosophers offer various arguments about the universe doesn’t PROVE anything, but it should at least encourage an open minded, sincere seeker of truth to recognize that we don’t know yet, rather than blindly clinging to one argument while ignoring everything else.
Gravity may be noncontingent for its existence, just like matter and energy may be noncontingent for their existence.
I know you are going to insist that anything with properties must be contingent, but I disagree, and I’m tired of the double standard since your own god similarly has properties and by the same logic would be considered contingent on those properties. You can try to turn it around by claiming that nooooooo, those properties are contingent on god, but I can play the same game by replacing your god with the universe. I just wish you would be consistent in your logic. You try to apply it to everything except your god, who gets a free ride. It’s classic confirmatory bias.
Anyway, let’s bypass the old argument and address something new. What is your take on the flat universe idea that the net matter and energy in the universe is 0, and hence according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, universes could actually be created out of literally nothing?
[quote]forlife wrote:
So the cosmological theory is similarly circular, by your own definition. Saying something “must” be true doesn’t make it any less circular.
Here we go with the core epistemological issue, yet again.
[/quote]
Nothing you can do is going to make the cosmological argument circular. I really don’t know how you even arrive at that. Saying it’s circular, doesn’t make it circular. The cosmological argument does not speak the the ‘reason’ God exists. It has premises and a conclusion drawn from them.
Now you may be able to derive other things that necessarily must be true from it, but this argument does not speak to that.
Sure there’s lots of theories on the universe. Cosmology doesn’t require the universe to even exist to be true. It does not rely on that, though the universe relies on causation. It’s a one sided relationship.
I reject this supposed blindness you are accusing me of because I am familiar with the counter arguments and none of them refute causation nor the cosmological argument. Saying I have closed mind because I don’t consider counter arguments is simply not true. I have studied most of them certainly the main objections, but none prove it wrong.
I conciser the counter arguments, but they have yet to succeed. If you have an actual counter argument other than really smart people may disagree with me, I am all ears.
Neither are. Matter depends on energy, which depends on singularities, which need to move which have frequency, which have charge etc. ← Any of that is missing, then you have neither matter nor energy.
Gravity, depends on boson-higgs, or the ‘nature of the universe’ which make it contingent. Neither are non-contingent, you can go ahead and forget that shit.
Now, If you have an argument, that’s not circular, than shows some remote evidence that they are non-contingent entities, let’s see it. Simply saying they are, doesn’t make it so.
You can play word games, but it doesn’t make a damn. We already know the universe is contingent. No theory exists that even remote posits a non-contingent universe.
Go ahead, try to make an argument that the universe is non-contingent.
[quote]
Anyway, let’s bypass the old argument and address something new. What is your take on the flat universe idea that the net matter and energy in the universe is 0, and hence according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, universes could actually be created out of literally nothing?[/quote]
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a ‘something’. Besides it just states that you cannot make a determination on position and momentum with precision, you can either know one and not the other. That’s makes sense to me. Further, not knowing all the properties of something, does not mean that ‘thing’ is truly random. You’d have to know all the properties of something for it to be uncaused.
Now also keep in mind physics terminology doesn’t mean the same things as philosophical terms. Nothing in physics is often just a ‘void’ which is a something that occupies both time and space. That’s not nothingness. Nothingness is a complete absence of everything, no properties whatsoever. Nothing, literally does not exist. Something that does not exist cannot beget something that does.
So what is the mechanism of action to bring ‘something’ out of ‘nothing’?
You said Hawking’s theory that the universe just “is” is circular. I pointed out that your theory that god just “is” is similarly circular. It’s not a difficult concept.
The reason you’re close-minded is because you insist on believing exclusively in the cosmological argument because it hasn’t been proven wrong. How many times do I need to say this? Just because it hasn’t been proven wrong doesn’t mean it is right. And once again:
THERE ARE MANY VIABLE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN WRONG.
You’re cherry picking ONE of those arguments, over the others, when NONE of them have been definitely proven wrong.
Are you claiming that space-time CANNOT be noncontingent? If so, and be very careful here because I am going to call you on a double standard, explain how that CANNOT be true for space-time, while it CAN be true for your god.
[quote]forlife wrote:
So the cosmological theory is similarly circular, by your own definition. Saying something “must” be true doesn’t make it any less circular.
Here we go with the core epistemological issue, yet again.
Just because something hasn’t been definitely proven untrue doesn’t mean it is correct. There are MANY arguments about the universe, none of which have been definitely proven untrue. It would be folly to cherry pick one of those arguments and insist that it must be true.
That so many physicists and philosophers offer various arguments about the universe doesn’t PROVE anything, but it should at least encourage an open minded, sincere seeker of truth to recognize that we don’t know yet, rather than blindly clinging to one argument while ignoring everything else.
Gravity may be noncontingent for its existence, just like matter and energy may be noncontingent for their existence.
I know you are going to insist that anything with properties must be contingent, but I disagree, and I’m tired of the double standard since your own god similarly has properties and by the same logic would be considered contingent on those properties. You can try to turn it around by claiming that nooooooo, those properties are contingent on god, but I can play the same game by replacing your god with the universe. I just wish you would be consistent in your logic. You try to apply it to everything except your god, who gets a free ride. It’s classic confirmatory bias.
Anyway, let’s bypass the old argument and address something new. What is your take on the flat universe idea that the net matter and energy in the universe is 0, and hence according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, universes could actually be created out of literally nothing?[/quote]
Y not just give up?
Ur prolly 2 stoopid 2.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< I can’t trust my thoughts anymore. >>>[/quote]Excellent!!! You’re halfway home =] I’m still learning how to trust my own less all the time.
[/quote]
It’s easy for me, I never trusted your thoughts.[/quote]
lol
[quote]forlife wrote:
You said Hawking’s theory that the universe just “is” is circular. I pointed out that your theory that god just “is” is similarly circular. It’s not a difficult concept.
[/quote]
I absolutely said nothing of the sort. You cannot find one stitch of what you said I said in anything I said. Go ahead, look.
Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[quote]
You’re cherry picking ONE of those arguments, over the others, when NONE of them have been definitely proven wrong.
Are you claiming that space-time CANNOT be noncontingent? If so, and be very careful here because I am going to call you on a double standard, explain how that CANNOT be true for space-time, while it CAN be true for your god.[/quote]
Space and time are contingent on matter, space, energy, polarity and movement. You at least need energy for space and you need it to move through space to have time…Contingent as hell. God relies on none of that.
Unconditionally, God must be non-contingent or he’s not God. An Uncaused-cause cannot by definition be caused. It is logically impossible. If God was caused, then God is not God.
You can look at the argument like an equation…After the ‘therefore’ aka the equal sign, the equation becomes an inverse. The premises demand that this must be necessarily true.
[quote]pat wrote:
Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]
The universe was created by Chuck Norris.
You cannot refute this.
There is a pink teapot orbiting Jupiter.
You cannot refute this either.
Jesus was sent by the people who formerly lived on Atlantis, basically for the lulz.
No way to refute this.
Our fate is predetermined by an invisible pink unicorn.
Please refute this.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]
The universe was created by Chuck Norris.
You cannot refute this. [/quote]
Yes you can.
This I am sure would be difficult.
Yes you can.
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.
You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:
God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
You’re not explaining what it is about your god that is noncontingent, without using circular reasoning.
Your god has properties, just like space-time has properties. You can’t escape that fact.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]
The universe was created by Chuck Norris.
You cannot refute this. [/quote]
Yes you can.
This I am sure would be difficult.
Yes you can.[/quote]
Well then please do so.
Either one would be fine.
[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.
You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:
God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.
See above…
[quote]
Your god has properties, just like space-time has properties. You can’t escape that fact.[/quote]
God is not defined by properties, the properties are defined by him. It’s the inverse after the equal sign.
Keep’em coming but don’t repeat yourself…