Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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?
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 226 of 366 (627816)
08-04-2011 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Black Cat
08-04-2011 10:55 AM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
I'm waiting for you to answer my question. Let me know when you're prepared to do so.
Your question is nonsensical.
I was hoping that you would have discovered that while attempting to answer my 2nd 'ball' question.
Edited by Panda, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 10:55 AM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 11:12 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 227 of 366 (627818)
08-04-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Panda
08-04-2011 11:07 AM


Re: Round and round...
It's nonsensical to ask how you draw support for your claim from a specific statement? It's not clearly evident from the sentence that he intended to quote directly. You claim it is. I'm asking you to explain your reasoning.
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 11:07 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 11:33 AM Black Cat has replied

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


Message 228 of 366 (627821)
08-04-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Black Cat
08-04-2011 11:12 AM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
It's nonsensical to ask how you draw support for your claim from a specific statement? It's not clearly evident from the sentence that he intended to quote directly. You claim it is. I'm asking you to explain your reasoning.
The reason that I think that his opening statement indicated that Dr. Craig was quoting directly is because that is what it says.
That is how English works.
You read individual words and you draw meaning from their combination and from their context.
The combination of words and the context in which they were used clearly indicated that Dr. Craig was quoting verbatim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 11:12 AM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 11:51 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 229 of 366 (627826)
08-04-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Black Cat
08-04-2011 10:47 AM


Cranes and Skyhooks
Skyhooks and cranes are terms coined by philosopher Dan Dennett
Dennett uses the term "skyhook" to describe a source of design complexity that does not build on lower, simpler layersin simple terms, a miracle.
Dennett contrasts theories of complexity that require such miracles with those based on "cranes", structures which permit the construction of entities of greater complexity but which are themselves founded solidly "on the ground" of physical science.
Link
BC writes:
I don't see how W.L.C damaged the accuracy or intent of his statement. If you could explain this to me I would appreciate it.
He completely misses the central theme of the argument that some explanations are exceptionally well founded where others are not.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 10:47 AM Black Cat has not replied

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


Message 230 of 366 (627827)
08-04-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Panda
08-04-2011 11:33 AM


Re: Round and round...
Yet you are unable to to show how. All you can do is repeat the same thing over and over again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 11:33 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 11:59 AM Black Cat has replied

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


Message 231 of 366 (627829)
08-04-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Black Cat
08-04-2011 11:51 AM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
Yet you are unable to to show how.
So, you want me to explain how to read and comprehend written English?
Ok - if it's so easy: you try.
Explain how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.
Show me how those words, used in that particular order and that specific context do not clearly indicate that Dr. Craig was quoting Dawkins directly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 11:51 AM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 12:13 PM Panda has replied

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


Message 232 of 366 (627830)
08-04-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Panda
08-04-2011 11:59 AM


Re: Round and round...
I can comprehend English well enough. The sentence doesn't indicate that he intends to quote directly. It doesn't include any lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly. Such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on.
Straggler also mentioned that Dr. Craig intended to summarize. Looks like you're on your own with the direct quoting nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 11:59 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 12:34 PM Black Cat has replied
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 1:32 PM Black Cat has not replied

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


Message 233 of 366 (627831)
08-04-2011 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Black Cat
08-04-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
I can comprehend English well enough.
Not that well, else you would realise I was not commenting on your comprehension of English, but on the impossibility of the task you were demanding of me.
.
Let's have a look at your explanation of how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.
Black Cat writes:
The sentence doesn't indicate that he intends to quote directly.
The sentence does indicate that he intends to quote directly.
Black Cat writes:
It doesn't include any lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly.
It does include a lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly.
Black Cat writes:
Such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on.
It does have such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on.
As I expected, you are unable to explain how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.
I also noticed that you avoided all mention of context.
I suspect that context is not your strong point, judging by your opening sentence and by your general avoidance of the subject.
.
Black Cat writes:
Looks like you're on your own with the direct quoting nonsense.
That is a rather obvious argumentum ad populum.
*looks around and sees no-one supporting Black Cat*
Looks like you're on your own with the not direct quoting nonsense.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 12:13 PM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 12:49 PM Panda has replied

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


Message 234 of 366 (627832)
08-04-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Panda
08-04-2011 12:34 PM


Re: Round and round...
Panda writes:
The sentence does indicate that he intends to quote directly.
How so?
Panda writes:
It does include a lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly.
Where?
Panda writes:
It does have such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on.
Where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 12:34 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Panda, posted 08-04-2011 1:03 PM Black Cat has not replied

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


Message 235 of 366 (627834)
08-04-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Black Cat
08-04-2011 12:49 PM


Re: Round and round...
Black Cat writes:
How so?
Where?
Where?
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 234 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 12:49 PM Black Cat has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 236 of 366 (627836)
08-04-2011 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 6:27 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
I don't see how the first sentence follows from what I said.
If "reality" exists when no concrete objects exist, then reality must be an abstract entity. Unless you intended your position to be self-contradictory, in which case you have a more serious problem than my making a charitable assumption.
quote:
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.
Seems to me that you are assuming a contradiction here, rather than actually finding a genuine problem. If reality isn't a thing then I don't see how it's states can be things either.
quote:
The idea that nothing (rather than something) could have been an alternative reality doesn't work. The absence of everything can't be anything.

ANd you're back to assuming that nothing is a thing. It seems that all you are doing is playing semantic games (which I find rather worrying in someone who wants to claim that existence is a property, since that enables all sorts of semantic games).

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 238 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 4:03 PM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 237 of 366 (627840)
08-04-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Black Cat
08-04-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Round and round...
BC writes:
Straggler also mentioned that Dr. Craig intended to summarize.
Summarize - Yes. But he gives the distinct impression that he is repeating Dawkins own summary rather than presenting his own straw man version.
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:
But it doesn't go as follows at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Black Cat, posted 08-04-2011 12:13 PM Black Cat has not replied

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


Message 238 of 366 (627852)
08-04-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by PaulK
08-04-2011 1:10 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
Seems to me that you are assuming a contradiction here, rather than actually finding a genuine problem. If reality isn't a thing then I don't see how it's states can be things either.
This may be why we seem to be talking at cross purposes. Reality is definitely a thing, and so are states. The first definition in my O.E.D.:
thing - a material or non-material entity, idea, action etc., that is or may be thought about or perceived.
"Nothing" is the only concept excluded from that (by its own definition).
PaulK writes:
bluegenes writes:
The idea that nothing (rather than something) could have been an alternative reality doesn't work. The absence of everything can't be anything.
ANd you're back to assuming that nothing is a thing.
No. I pointed out in the last post that you are. The nothing state of reality turns nothing into something; hence my second sentence.
PaulK writes:
It seems that all you are doing is playing semantic games (which I find rather worrying in someone who wants to claim that existence is a property, since that enables all sorts of semantic games).
Did I say property or state? No semantic games, really. I think that the problem is that you're including lots of things in nothing, which should be the absence of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 1:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 4:23 PM bluegenes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 239 of 366 (627853)
08-04-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 4:03 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
This may be why we seem to be talking at cross purposes. Reality is definitely a thing, and so are states.
Then obviously you are using definitions that cause problems. Maybe you should refine your definitions to come up with a coherent viewpoint.
quote:
No. I pointed out in the last post that you are. The nothing state of reality turns nothing into something; hence my second sentence.
And you were wrong then, and you are still wrong now.
quote:
Did I say property or state?
I could look but it doesn't matter. Either produces the same problem.
quote:
No semantic games, really. I think that the problem is that you're including lots of things in nothing, which should be the absence of everything.
No, the problem is that you are playing semantic games to put words into my mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 4:03 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 4:26 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 240 of 366 (627854)
08-04-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK
08-04-2011 4:23 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
And you were wrong then, and you are still wrong now.
Don't be shy about explaining why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 4:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 4:44 PM bluegenes 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