Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 3:05 PM
218 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, edge, Meddle, PaulK, Tanypteryx (7 members, 211 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,153 Year: 16,976/29,783 Month: 964/1,956 Week: 467/331 Day: 50/76 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 61 of 268 (642288)
11-27-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
11-27-2011 9:00 AM


Reply to Percy
More accurately, some people think the Big Bang "smacks of divine intervention" or "is compatible with or supportive of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God." Some people don't.

More accurately, theists, atheists and agnostics think the Big Bang "smacks of divine intervention" or "is compatible with or supportive of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God."

There. Fixed it for you.

By the way, I am preparing for a thread on Hawking's new book. I'm certain you will want to be around for that one!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 11-27-2011 9:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2011 10:59 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 11-27-2011 12:02 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 75 by frako, posted 11-27-2011 2:44 PM designtheorist has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1595 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 62 of 268 (642290)
11-27-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by ProtoTypical
11-27-2011 7:00 AM


Why is it more absurd to posit that there is no exception to the rule of cause and effect than it is to posit that there is an exception?

Ignoring for the moment the absence of any real "law of cause and effect", this is the classic category error of these cosmological arguments. Cause and effect, in as much as it exists, is a function of the space-time structure of the Universe. How then can cause and effect have anything remotely to do with the space-time structure itself? It is like asking "Any point on Earth has a point west of it. So which point is west of the Earth?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-27-2011 7:00 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-29-2011 10:16 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 63 of 268 (642293)
11-27-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 8:37 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

You are correct. What you have written does not make sense. It appears you may be attempting a double circular reasoning argument. Would you care to try again?

In that case you agree with my point, and therefore your objection has no basis in anything I have written. I suggest that you go back to the OP and try to read it again.

quote:

Assuming the hot big bang is correct for the sake of argument, explain your reasoning.

The hot Big Bang is not relevant to my simple point.

Something that exists at the first moment of time cannot be said to come into existence because there is no prior point in which it did not exist.

Since it did not come into existence it does not need a cause to make it come into existence. (I.e. if it has a cause, that cause must do something else)

Can you understand that much? I want to go slow because I wish to avoid your bizarre misreadings. Or at least to make it even more clear that you have no excuse for them.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 8:37 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:46 PM PaulK has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10239
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 64 of 268 (642296)
11-27-2011 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Reply to Percy
dt writes:

More accurately, theists, atheists and agnostics think the Big Bang "smacks of divine intervention" or "is compatible with or supportive of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God."

So apparently everyone agrees with you......

I don't think the Big Bang necessarily smacks of divine intervention. What does that make me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 11-27-2011 11:45 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3964
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 65 of 268 (642299)
11-27-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
11-27-2011 1:08 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Only read the thread about logical fallacies, suggested by Designtheorist if you want to learn how someone's tries to wriggle out of the fact they are guilty of committing said logical fallacies.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 11-27-2011 1:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 268 (642300)
11-27-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
11-27-2011 10:59 AM


Re: Reply to Percy
I don't think the Big Bang necessarily smacks of divine intervention. What does that make me?

Actually it says nothing about you. Designtheorist has connected enough disparate options using "or" so as to water down his conjecture to the point of being non-controversial.

For example, most people would agree that the big bang is at least compatible with the "idea" of a creator God. But the same could be said for a steady state model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2011 10:59 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 11-27-2011 12:07 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 67 of 268 (642301)
11-27-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Reply to Percy
Hi DesignTheorist,

Interesting debating style. It's looks like you're determined to just continue banging your point home while ignoring any rebuttals.

More accurately again, some theists, atheists and agnostics think the Big Bang "smacks of divine intervention" or "is compatible with or supportive of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God." Some don't.

You're again bogging down in arguments about what people say and who we should believe when the discussion should be about evidence.

Would be nice if you switched to discussing the evidence.

By the way, I am preparing for a thread on Hawking's new book. I'm certain you will want to be around for that one!

Well, that depends. Since what some people think is all that seems to matter to you, will you actually be discussing Hawking's book, or just people's opinions of Hawking's book.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 68 of 268 (642302)
11-27-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
11-27-2011 11:45 AM


Re: Reply to Percy
NoNukes writes:

For example, most people would agree that the big bang is at least compatible with the "idea" of a creator God. But the same could be said for a steady state model.

The idea of sudden creation ex nihilo is compatible with one specific god, namely the God of the Old Testament, but both the Big Bang and Steady State models seem consistent with the idea of a creator God. The Big Bang is creation of all matter at once, while Steady State is gradual and consistent creation of matter throughout all time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 11-27-2011 11:45 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 11-27-2011 12:57 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 80 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:55 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 69 of 268 (642306)
11-27-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
11-27-2011 1:08 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Some might say that you are committing the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority with "smacks of divine intervention" in quotation marks obviously referning to Hawking, again.

Well, it's worse than that, since Hawking was describing the views of people other than himself. It's as though you said "Dr Adequate thinks there is no God", and someone quoted you as saying "There is no God". Which you did ... just after the words "Dr Adequate thinks".

It's not just an appeal to authority, it's deeply dishonest, since Hawking himself thinks the exact opposite of the view designtheorist wishes to ascribe to him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 11-27-2011 1:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 268 (642307)
11-27-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
11-27-2011 12:07 PM


Re: Reply to Percy
The Big Bang is creation of all matter at once, while Steady State is gradual and consistent creation of matter throughout all time.

The steady state model is not incompatible with an Old Testament creator God.

The steady state model deals with gradual creation for some definition of the word gradual. Steady state could still accommodate, for example, creation of galaxies in a billion years time frame. That might not be compatible with a YEC interpretation of the Old Testament, but not much of reality is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 11-27-2011 12:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 71 of 268 (642309)
11-27-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
11-26-2011 4:44 PM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
Yes, but that is a sustaining cause, maintaining the depression, rather than a creative cause bringing the depression into existence. And given a real cushion creating the depression would require time, which is not available. The argument I am dealing with clearly requires a creative cause (and it is an argument for a creative cause). Thus, a sustaining cause is not relevant (and would require a different argument).

Well, it does all that I required of it: it's something that we would wish to call a cause without a sequence where cause precedes effect.

It's not exactly like God sitting outside time and creating the universe, but then what is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 4:44 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 72 of 268 (642312)
11-27-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
11-27-2011 1:16 PM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
quote:

Well, it does all that I required of it: it's something that we would wish to call a cause without a sequence where cause precedes effect.

Then obviously you didn't require it to refute my argument. Which doesn't assume "a sequence where cause precedes effect".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2011 1:16 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2011 1:46 PM PaulK has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 73 of 268 (642313)
11-27-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
11-27-2011 1:41 PM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
Then obviously you didn't require it to refute my argument. Which doesn't assume "a sequence where cause precedes effect".

I must have been distracted from the all-important task of refuting your argument by my foolish obsession with replying to kbertsche, who suffers from the common misfortune of not being you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 74 of 268 (642314)
11-27-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
11-27-2011 1:46 PM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
I chose to clarify how your example relates to my argument. And, well, things went on from there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2011 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2795
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 75 of 268 (642316)
11-27-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Reply to Percy
By the way, I am preparing for a thread on Hawking's new book. I'm certain you will want to be around for that one!

Um the one where he says no god needed to make the universe ??

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2011 7:57 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:48 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018