Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 196 of 366 (627759)
08-03-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Panda
08-03-2011 9:55 PM


Re: Round and round...
I can admit it doesn't seem clear what his intentions are. I also affirm that he does not indicate that he intends to quote directly. You on the other hand insist that he claims to be quoting directly. So, for the fourth time I'll ask, where does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Panda, posted 08-03-2011 9:55 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Panda, posted 08-03-2011 10:16 PM Black Cat has not replied

Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 197 of 366 (627760)
08-03-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Panda
08-03-2011 9:55 PM


Re: Round and round...
Let me rephrase my question. Where in that sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Panda, posted 08-03-2011 9:55 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Panda, posted 08-03-2011 10:24 PM Black Cat has replied
 Message 200 by Panda, posted 08-03-2011 10:28 PM Black Cat has not replied
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 5:46 AM Black Cat has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 198 of 366 (627761)
08-03-2011 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Black Cat
08-03-2011 10:07 PM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
I can admit it doesn't seem clear what his intentions are.
then you cannot also say
Black Cat writes:
I also affirm that he does not indicate that he intends to quote directly.
You cannot both not know and know what his intentions are.
This is really very simple.
Black Cat writes:
So, for the fourth time I'll ask, where does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?
For the fourth time, I'll answer:
Dr. Craig writes:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Black Cat, posted 08-03-2011 10:07 PM Black Cat has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 199 of 366 (627762)
08-03-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Black Cat
08-03-2011 10:12 PM


Re: Round and round...
To answer your 2nd post:
Black Cat writes:
Where in that sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?
Sentences are interpreted as a whole.
If you break them up or remove parts of them (as Dr. Craig did) they lose their intended meaning.
So, to answer your question:
Dr. Craig writes:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Black Cat, posted 08-03-2011 10:12 PM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Black Cat, posted 08-03-2011 11:05 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 200 of 366 (627763)
08-03-2011 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Black Cat
08-03-2011 10:12 PM


Re: Round and round...
Is your silence regarding the dishonesty described by Dr. A. (in Message 161) due to you not being able to defend it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Black Cat, posted 08-03-2011 10:12 PM Black Cat has not replied

Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 201 of 366 (627764)
08-03-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Panda
08-03-2011 10:24 PM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
Where in that sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?
Panda writes:
Sentences are interpreted as a whole.
If you break them up or remove parts of them (as Dr. Craig did) they lose their intended meaning.
I'm not asking you to break it up or to remove part of it.
Dr. Craig writes:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:
Again I'll ask, where in the above sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Panda, posted 08-03-2011 10:24 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2011 12:22 AM Black Cat has not replied
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 5:43 AM Black Cat has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 366 (627771)
08-04-2011 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Black Cat
08-03-2011 11:05 PM


Re: Round and round...
Again I'll ask, where in the above sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?
It's very clearly implied by what he says about it. He treats it as though it was Dawkins' summary, not his, as I have shown.
You could in principle put this to an empirical test. You could show the article to someone and ask them some comprehension-test style questions. Include the question: "How did Dawkins summarize his argument?" If they answer: "I have absolutely no idea", then W.L.C. did not deceive them.
How do you think this would turn out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Black Cat, posted 08-03-2011 11:05 PM Black Cat has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 203 of 366 (627776)
08-04-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Black Cat
08-03-2011 11:05 PM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
I'm not asking you to break it up or to remove part of it.
Oh - ok.
I appear to have mis-understood your request.
Thanks for clarifying.
Black Cat writes:
Again I'll ask, where in the above sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?
Here:
Dr. Craig writes:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Black Cat, posted 08-03-2011 11:05 PM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 8:31 AM Panda has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 204 of 366 (627777)
08-04-2011 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Black Cat
08-03-2011 10:12 PM


Re: Round and round...
BC writes:
Where in that sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly?
He claims to be summarising correctly. But his summary is a straw man.
That is the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Black Cat, posted 08-03-2011 10:12 PM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 8:18 AM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 205 of 366 (627778)
08-04-2011 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
08-03-2011 1:40 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
Then you cannot consider reality to be a thing. "Reality" would be abstract, akin to " truth".
I don't see how the first sentence follows from what I said. But anyway, reality and truth are things. Circumstances are things; a state of affairs is a thing.
I understand what you're saying when you point out that people on the thread are falling into the trap of describing nothing as something, and also what you mean when you say that nothing itself doesn't have to exist (Tubby's point, which was well attempted). The trouble is that he then went on to describe it as something. The state of reality in which everything is absent.
Surely the absence of everything requires the absence of all possible realities. Nothing, therefore, seems impossible because it cannot be a possibility.
The idea that nothing (rather than something) could have been an alternative reality doesn't work. The absence of everything can't be anything.
It may be that the reason we always end up describing nothing as something is because we're in a something reality and that's all our brains and language can do. But it could also be because it's nonsensical concept.
I saw one dictionary definition of nothing that read: "Something that doesn't exist".
Talk about getting something out of nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 1:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 7:59 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 236 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 1:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 206 of 366 (627781)
08-04-2011 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 6:27 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
So - The question boils down to:
Why does any form of reality exist rather than absolutely nothing at all?
Is that what you are saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 6:27 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 8:10 AM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 207 of 366 (627783)
08-04-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Straggler
08-04-2011 7:59 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Straggler writes:
So - The question boils down to:
Why does any form of reality exist rather than absolutely nothing at all?
Is that what you are saying?
There's a distinct possibility that I'm not really saying anything at all, because that problem is inherent on a thread on which we're literally trying to talk about nothing. But instead of:
"Why does any form of reality exist rather than absolutely nothing at all?
Maybe I'm asking:
How can absolutely nothing ever be an alternative reality to this "something reality" when an any alternative reality is itself something, not nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 7:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 8:21 AM bluegenes has not replied

Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 208 of 366 (627784)
08-04-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Straggler
08-04-2011 5:46 AM


Re: Round and round...
Panda insists that he actually did claim to be quoting directly. That's the issue I'm addressing with him.
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 5:46 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 8:31 AM Black Cat has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 209 of 366 (627785)
08-04-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 8:10 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Bluegenes writes:
Maybe I'm asking:
How can absolutely nothing ever be an alternative reality to this "something reality" when an any alternative reality is itself something, not nothing.
Well I am glad we cleared that up
Is absolute nothingness an "alternative reality"....? I would have thought absolute nothingness would be no reality at all?
bluegenes writes:
There's a distinct possibility that I'm not really saying anything at all, because that problem is inherent on a thread on which we're literally trying to talk about nothing.
Indeed. And now we are possibly disagreeing about nothing too.
This topic is a complete headfuck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 8:10 AM bluegenes has not replied

Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 210 of 366 (627786)
08-04-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Panda
08-04-2011 5:43 AM


Re: Round and round...
You appear to have mis-understood my request again.
Dr. Craig writes:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:
Where in this sentence does Dr. Craig claim to be quoting directly?
Remember quoting the whole sentence is not an answer to my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 5:43 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 8:52 AM Black Cat has not replied
 Message 220 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 9:40 AM Black Cat has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024