Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2018 6:43 PM
293 online now:
Captcass, dwise1, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 290 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,008 Year: 8,831/29,783 Month: 1,078/1,977 Week: 216/380 Day: 49/51 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Design on a Dime
ringo
Member
Posts: 14641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 76 of 113 (415717)
08-11-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 4:57 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

I don't see option 2 as a viable solution.

You said we were going to "reason together". Why don't you do that instead of just giving an empty opinion?

If you didn't intend for me to derive meaning from it, you wouldn't have said it.

Are you under the impression that you're the only one reading this?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 4:57 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 6:30 PM ringo has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5514
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 77 of 113 (415726)
08-11-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
08-11-2007 4:59 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Sorry Doc, I'd respond but I was asked not to respond in this vein. You weren't, but I was. See msg 68 and 69 for details.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2007 4:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5514
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 78 of 113 (415727)
08-11-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
08-11-2007 5:14 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
quote:
I don't see option 2 as a viable solution.

You said we were going to "reason together". Why don't you do that instead of just giving an empty opinion?

Ringo... You've neglected to explain how something can come from absolute nothingness. If you won't expand the argument, there is nothing more to object to than the premise itself.

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

quote:
If you didn't intend for me to derive meaning from it, you wouldn't have said it.

Are you under the impression that you're the only one reading this?

You addressed your reply to me. I'm the principle recipient.

Must you play the devil's advocate with everything? :)


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 08-11-2007 5:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 08-11-2007 6:51 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 79 of 113 (415731)
08-11-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 6:30 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

You've neglected to explain how something can come from absolute nothingness.

There's no more need to explain how something can come from nothing than there is to explain how something can be eternal. You've chosen one of the alternatives arbitrarily and dismissed the other without reason.

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could be eternal when there is nothing to model this belief after?

Must you play the devil's advocate with everything?

Doesn't matter who I'm advocating for. The principle recipient is the jury, not you. :)


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 6:30 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 7:03 PM ringo has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5514
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 80 of 113 (415734)
08-11-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
08-11-2007 6:51 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
There's no more need to explain how something can come from nothing than there is to explain how something can be eternal. You've chosen one of the alternatives arbitrarily and dismissed the other without reason.

Fair enough. Your reasoning makes sense since neither has been witnessed. However, if you are a strict naturalist, and thus you would be bound by the rules/laws.

You are asking metaphysical and existential questions which have no earthly business being discussed from this view.

If something is eternal, then that something has the potential to create something. If something can come from nothing, then it automatically assumes that something is eternal, does it not?

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 08-11-2007 6:51 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 08-11-2007 7:20 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 08-11-2007 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 81 of 113 (415737)
08-11-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 7:03 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

However, if you are a strict naturalist, and thus you would be bound by the rules/laws.

You are asking metaphysical and existential questions which have no earthly business being discussed from this view.

Who said anything about a strict naturalistic view?

If something is eternal, then that something has the potential to create something.

That doesn't follow at all. A rock could be eternal.

If something can come from nothing, then it automatically assumes that something is eternal, does it not?

Huh? Coming from nothing implies a beginning. It's the opposite of eternal.

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could be eternal when there is nothing to model this belief after?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 7:03 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 1:39 AM ringo has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 82 of 113 (415738)
08-11-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 7:03 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

The cause and effect argument is not a good one from a practical point of view.

Quantum theory suggests (and there is physical evidence for) "uncaused" events.

Why does one atom of an element decay when another does not is the simplified and easily observed version of this question.
Any theist advocating cause and effect as a founding principle of nature should investigate this first before extrapolating to the universe as a whole.
Quantum theory suggests that cause and effect as we know it is more a limitation of human macroscopic perception than a fundamental principle of nature.

The idea of the universe as uncaused in terms of a probabilistic events is speculative but grounded in well founded quantum principles.

Where the "rules" or "laws" that allow this probabilistic outcome to occur come from is the deeper and more meaningful question.

I am not dismissing your misgivings but there is an extra layer of complexity that you seem unaware of before the concerns you espouse are to any practical intent relevant. (IMHO)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 7:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17337
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 83 of 113 (415751)
08-11-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 2:32 PM


Re: Toughies
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

I don't believe one can actually be construed as an adherent to a theory one doesn't understand. You evidently accepted evolution when you didn't understand it, and then you rejected it while still not understanding it.

A lot of people think they own the title rights to the theory,...

Within science, evolution does have a theoretical framework and a body of supporting evidence that you appear unfamiliar with, and I was referring to the likelihood that you were just as unfamiliar with evolution when you accepted it. Rejecting something you don't understand isn't much of an indictment.

Those who do understand evolution cannot properly be referred to as people who "think they own the title rights to the theory." They're just people who happen to understand something you don't.

This would be like saying, "Often times a woman with child is pregnant." Science is always tentative. What varies is the amount of supporting evidence for theory, not the tentative nature of science itself.

Aren't you just being redundant then?

I was just trying to reinforce the point about your unfamiliarity with evolution by drawing attention to your apparently equal unfamiliarity with the principles of science. That you ask such a question is just further reinforcement.

Noting that one has rejected evolution in favor of creation science can only be counted in creationism's favor after one has made clear through discussion one's familiarity with evolution. As was more than evident in the recent Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report") thread where you had trouble composing even a single correct sentence, you're not familiar with evolution at all. That you abandoned something so poorly understood is not surprising.

But my understanding of this thread was that it represented an opportunity for creationists/IDists to discuss the details of their understanding of how creation came about. Questions from the opening post appear to be primarily focused on what really happened as well as God's degree of direct involvement.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 2:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17337
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 84 of 113 (415754)
08-11-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 2:47 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

What kind of evidence is necessary for the self-evident?

Well, this isn't a science thread, so there's no need to present evidence if you don't want to, but no one's going to find increasingly forceful declarations of "it's self-evident" very persuasive. Plus it's repetitive and just sounds like bluster.

I see the argument as the logical deduction of the stated premise. But if you truly feel that it cannot be reasonably tied in to this thread, then I will refrain from continuing in this vein. You should probably also respond to Dr. Adequate about the very same thing, seeing that arguments don't take place in vacuums.

It takes two to tango, sir ;)

Yes, I think the cosmology and evolution discussion is off-topic, I'm sure Dr Adequate read my post, and I'm not in Admin mode in this thread.

But I will respond to this logical fallacy, not to continue discussion on the Big Bang or evolution, but just to highlight a common fallacy so that it will hopefully arise less frequently:

I hope you're not really tracing life on earth back to the singularity at the beginning of the universe.

No, I'm saying that this is supposed to be the event that gave life a chance in the first place. Surely you won't disagree with that.

The Big Bang gave rise to everything in the universe, not just evolution. If you could cast doubt on evolution by casting doubt on the Big Bang, then you could just as easily cast doubt on all of science, since everything that is science came from the Big Bang. In reality, there is no siginficant connection between the Big Bang and evolution. You can find trivial connections, of course, like matter and energy came from the Big Bang, and evolution concerns itself with life which uses matter and energy, but those are the only kind of connections you'll find.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 2:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5514
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 85 of 113 (415773)
08-12-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
08-11-2007 7:20 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Who said anything about a strict naturalistic view?

Based on your posting history, it is greatly inferred that this is your stance. If it is not, feel free to correct the perception.

quote:
If something is eternal, then that something has the potential to create something.

That doesn't follow at all. A rock could be eternal.

How can you have nothing before the singularity and also have a rock being eternal? (This conversation is getting a little silly).

quote:
If something can come from nothing, then it automatically assumes that something is eternal, does it not?

Coming from nothing implies a beginning. It's the opposite of eternal.

The opposite of eternal would be never existing.

quote:
What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could be eternal when there is nothing to model this belief after?

Answering a question with a quation is no answer at all. But I'll oblige you nonetheless.

An actual infinite cannot exist. A beginingless series of events is an example of an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, nor any physical property, as that would constitute a beginningless series of events.

Furthermore, Aristotle made the argument that a

substance is necessarily composed of different elements. The proof for this is that there are things which are different from each other and that all things are composed of elements. Since elements combine to form composite substances, and because these substances differ from each other, there must be different elements: in other words, “b or a cannot be the same as ba.”

Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not. Nothing is self perpetuated or uncaused. If it is caused by something else, then it is not eternal-- which a rock surely was. Science has undeniably proven this fact, so I'm not really sure what your objection is.


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 08-11-2007 7:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by sidelined, posted 08-12-2007 1:45 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 88 by kuresu, posted 08-12-2007 2:31 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 08-12-2007 3:46 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2007 4:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 113 (415774)
08-12-2007 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
08-12-2007 1:39 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
nemesis_juggernaut

A beginingless series of events

I am curious as to how this statement makes sense. A series needs a beginning does it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 1:39 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 1:56 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5514
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 87 of 113 (415778)
08-12-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by sidelined
08-12-2007 1:45 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
quote:
A beginingless series of events

I am curious as to how this statement makes sense. A series needs a beginning does it not?

Yes, it does. Which is why I said beginningless. (Strong emphasis on the suffix).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by sidelined, posted 08-12-2007 1:45 AM sidelined has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 88 of 113 (415781)
08-12-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
08-12-2007 1:39 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
The opposite of eternal would be never existing.

No. The opposite of eternal is not "never existing". It is non-eternal. Transient. Existing for a finite period of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 1:39 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Rob, posted 08-12-2007 6:52 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-16-2007 10:48 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 89 of 113 (415790)
08-12-2007 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
08-12-2007 1:39 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

How can you have nothing before the singularity and also have a rock being eternal?

First, nobody said there was nothing "before" the singularity. Second, I didn't say anything about the singularity. You were the one who said, "Let's philosophize." Remember? Anything to do with the singularity is irrelevant to this discussion.

You claimed that anything eternal has the power to create. I said that if a rock was eternal it would not have any more power to create than ordinary temporal rocks. Can you get with the program and stop jumping to conclusions? :)

The opposite of eternal would be never existing.

No. The opposite of eternal would be not eternal - i.e. temporal - i.e. having a beginning and/or an end.

Answering a question with a quation is no answer at all. But I'll oblige you nonetheless.

I keep answering your question with the same question because you don't seem to understand that it is the same question. As I said earlier, two of (possibly) many alternatives are:

  1. There could be an uncaused "creator",

    OR

  2. The "creation" could be eternal.

Those two alternatives are about equally likely, so why do you keep harping about one and ignoring the other?

Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not. Nothing is self perpetuated or uncaused. If it is caused by something else, then it is not eternal-- which a rock surely was. Science has undeniably proven this fact, so I'm not really sure what your objection is.

What?

If science has proven that pile of bullshit "fact", please give us a link.

And then tell us what the @#$% science has got to do with this philosophical discussion.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 1:39 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2007 1:20 AM ringo has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3755 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 90 of 113 (37177)
04-16-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Stile
08-08-2007 3:04 PM


Re: Smile away
Stile writes:

Just because I don't believe in the Christian God, doesn't mean I don't believe in any God. I have no problem with tradition, I only have a problem with specific religions.

That is, if a religion says "We believe in a God that created the world 6000 years ago", and it can be proven that the world has been around a lot longer than 6000 years... then I have a problem with that specific and do not belive such a God exists.

Given the number of different specific Gods different people "whole-heartedly" believe in... I'm forced to think that they're all wrong. That is, there very well may be "a God", but I doubt very much that anyone on this earth has ever had any actual insight as to understanding that God. In any way.

Most of us could say the same. In fact, we could say the same and be Christian. It is not required to believe in a 6000 year old earth, and we could certainly say that we can know only the tiniest reflection of God.

I somehow thought you were atheist, but I suppose you just refuse to put God in a neat package.

Just to point out... this "possibility for the existance of God" isn't really why I believe in the possibility of a God. It's just an option for explaining such unexplained situations. When I do think about believing in a God, it always comes down to "because I want a God to exist". I haven't yet heard of any more-convincing arguement. This world has proven to me that I don't always get what I want. But that does not remove my desire, nor the possibility. And one thing this world has proven to me... is the power of hope. And the power of hope remains regardless of that hope being factually realized.

I think along the same lines myself, I surmise that hope and intuition, gut instinct and deep longing, are indications of something 'real' which lies in the future of man. Surely no argument to bring to court. :)

I think I just wanted to show that although I may hotly defend the possibility of an existance without God, I do not state that this is adamantaly such an existance. I just don't see any requirement for a God. That has no bearing on any God's actual existance, nor my beliefs in the matter. I do consider myself atheist though. It's socially simpler to say "I'm an atheist" than to explain this long-winded post when they amount to the same thing in most people's eyes anyway

Oops, sorry for jumping the gun in the first part of my post. I don't agree with you though that 'atheism' is the simplest explanation. A great number of people are 'lapsed believers' who no longer belong to any formal religion, but still retain faith in God of some sort. You believe God is or may be responsible for some paranormal events, which tentatively puts you beyond deism. You are waiting for conformation so to speak, before you believe in God. You are waiting to see if a God is required. Yet, you say you believe, because you want to believe. So, I say find what is in your heart. You may end up with 0 reasons to believe in God, but that really means nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 3:04 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018