Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
87 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,669 Year: 5,315/14,102 Month: 236/677 Week: 41/54 Day: 24/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
Message 166 of 244 (888472)
09-18-2021 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Christian7
09-17-2021 10:56 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:

But there is no certainty is science, as Percy said, and therefore nothing is proven, and nothing can be certain to anyone.

Are you here for constructive discussion or just trying to be a frustrating dick? How much have you really changed from that messed up kid? I'm beginning to think your behavior here is just an adult incarnation of your younger self.

The error bars on what will happen if you jump off a tall building are very small. If you really believe nothing is certain, give it a try.

Tentativity is not an excuse for ignoring the degree of confidence we have in much of our knowledge. Our confidence in our knowledge of thermodynamics is extremely high, in the nature of dark energy extremely low. If you want to bet against some dark energy theory then feel free, but if you want to argue against established science in general where we have mountains of conclusive evidence and high confidence, then you're just being a dick who's trying to avoid addressing what people actually say.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 10:56 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:28 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 167 of 244 (888473)
09-18-2021 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Christian7
09-17-2021 11:02 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
It may take me a while to finish this thread because you keep saying things that can't be ignored.

Christian7 writes:

We know that certain things are true about the universe, not because we have evidence, but because what we believe is true.

This couldn't be more wrong. What we accept about the universe derives from evidence.

If we have evidence, but that evidence if faulty, yet we believe that evidence to be solid, then though we believe the conclusions, we do not know the conclusion as truth, though we have what seems to be solid evidence.

Yes, bad evidence leads to false conclusions. Do you see bad evidence being a factor in any argument people have raised? Perhaps in quantum theory? Cosmology? Nuclear physics? Anywhere?

I didn't think so.

Yes, people can be wrong. Presumably you're a person, too, and can be wrong. Please start engaging in the discussion and stop raising red herrings. You make progress in a discussion by presenting evidence and arguments. What you don't do is what you've been doing, which is repeating yourself, ignoring arguments, misinterpreting arguments, misunderstanding basic issues of fact, making bald declarations, speaking nonsense, and preaching.

This is because knowledge requires truth,...

Truth is not a concept within science. Knowledge requires evidence, analysis and replication. If you think truth has a role within science then argue for this position instead of just repeating it.

And even without evidence, as long as the thing trusted in is true, then it is knowledge. For if I hear that something has happened, and I believe it, though I have no evidence for it, yet if it did happen, then I know what I believe to be true.

This is what as known as a circular argument. Are you trying to make sure you hit all the major fallacies in a single thread?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:02 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:39 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 168 of 244 (888474)
09-18-2021 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AZPaul3
09-17-2021 11:10 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
AZPaul3 writes:

And it doesn't matter who you are, when the science says you are wrong then you are wrong. Ask Fred Hoyle.

It might be worth mentioning that Fred probably lost out on the Nobel Prize for his work on star evolution because of his aggressively hostile stance against an expanding universe. He coined the phrase Big Bang, intending it as a term of derision, which everyone here already knows, except Christian of course.

It's a shame, really, because that star evolution work really deserved a Nobel, and if the Nobel committee hadn't feared Fred launching into a tirade (he had a reputation for outspokenness) against the expanding universe from the Nobel stage he would likely have gotten it.

In his later years Fred joined the creationists, so from that perspective it's really fortunate he didn't win the Nobel. It would only have made things more difficult had the creationists been able to list a Nobel laureate among their adherents, although on the other hand he would have been very inconvenient for the YEC's.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by AZPaul3, posted 09-17-2021 11:10 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 169 of 244 (888475)
09-18-2021 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Christian7
09-17-2021 11:37 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:

How do you know that evidence proves anything, or that anything can be learned from it?

How obvious are you trying to make it that you're not sincerely discussing in good faith?

Given your history I'm betting you've been in the courtroom at the defendant's table. What do you think the judge would say to your lawyer if he claimed evidence doesn't really prove anything?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:37 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 170 of 244 (888476)
09-18-2021 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Christian7
09-18-2021 7:25 AM


What you said:

The universe must make sense to a mind which is able to understand it. But for this to be true, that mind must exist. For if the universe must make sense to a mind which is able to understand it, it must make sense according to meaning and logic, which, it cannot, if there is no mind to whom it must make sense.

What it means:

Is qualia a part of the physical universe? If the universe is purely physical, what are minds?

You mean like our mind experiencing the senses or emotions? For anyone who understands that these are just synapses firing a certain way, sure, it's part of the physical universe. For anyone to whom aspects of the mind are transcendental or spiritual, maybe not, but their arguments would suffer from a lack of evidence.

But where are you going with this? As near as I can figure out this started with you arguing that everything must have a cause, and now you're mostly talking nonsense.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 7:25 AM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nwr, posted 09-18-2021 4:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 172 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:15 PM Percy has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5810
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 171 of 244 (888477)
09-18-2021 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Percy
09-18-2021 2:37 PM


But where are you going with this?

As best I can tell, he is practicing Christian Apologetics.

He seems to be mastering the art of making really bad arguments.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 2:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 172 of 244 (888478)
09-18-2021 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Percy
09-18-2021 2:37 PM


quote:
You mean like our mind experiencing the senses or emotions? For anyone who understands that these are just synapses firing a certain way, sure, it's part of the physical universe. For anyone to whom aspects of the mind are transcendental or spiritual, maybe not, but their arguments would suffer from a lack of evidence.

But where are you going with this? As near as I can figure out this started with you arguing that everything must have a cause, and now you're mostly talking nonsense.

--Percy


The experience of awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc, are not physical in nature. Without a mind, according to your claim, the universe would be going on. But it would be as though there were nothing, for there would be no sight of it, nor hearing of it, nor feeling of it, nor smelling of it, nor perceiving it in any fashion, though there might be many cameras throughout the universe. What you think your mind is after death, that is what your physical brain should produce. For, if a theory could be formed that explained the universe in terms of quantum physics, with a single equation, concerning the physical forces of nature and the movement of particles, (I do not know exactly how the math describe things. I speak in some ignorance), it would not demonstrate that anything consciousness could be formed. It would demonstrate that the most sophisticated object in the universe is nothing but changing states and positions of particles. The happens space, which, as far as I know, is not sentient, nor has any property leading to sentience. Perhaps more would be explained, but only what pertains to space and matter.

You cannot deny that you have a mind, and that it sees colors, which cameras do not, and which androids do not. Though cameras receive light, they do not see anything. But we see, and our sight is not physical. For not in bounds alone are our perceptual fields separated, but they are completely unjoinable in any fashion. Only through the physical medium can our minds interact. Even twins who are joined together have separate visual fields. If one eye belongs to one, they see through that eye, if the other other eye belongs to the other, they see through that eye. But neither sees through the other one's eye, for their perceptual fields are not simply isolated in bounds alone, but in much more than that. Cameras do not have this property, for their lenses and rams are isolated merely in bounds.

I'll return to the topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 2:37 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2021 7:13 PM Christian7 has responded
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 12:37 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 173 of 244 (888479)
09-18-2021 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
09-18-2021 1:22 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
quote:
Are you here for constructive discussion or just trying to be a frustrating dick? How much have you really changed from that messed up kid? I'm beginning to think your behavior here is just an adult incarnation of your younger self.

I'm making an argument.

quote:
The error bars on what will happen if you jump off a tall building are very small. If you really believe nothing is certain, give it a try.

You yourself said that nothing is certain. The Law of Gravity, The Theory of Gravity, (I guess it's not a law), is not certain, though we all know that we are subject to it, according to the science as you've explained it. It would seem then, that nothing was discovered about gravity which we can be sure of, except the common observation that no one can fly without a machine, which I am sure that everyone understood for the most part already.

quote:
Tentativity is not an excuse for ignoring the degree of confidence we have in much of our knowledge. Our confidence in our knowledge of thermodynamics is extremely high, in the nature of dark energy extremely low. If you want to bet against some dark energy theory then feel free, but if you want to argue against established science in general where we have mountains of conclusive evidence and high confidence, then you're just being a dick who's trying to avoid addressing what people actually say.

Confidence and certainty are not the same thing. If you are merely confident you will not go to Hell for refusing to believe the gospel, but not certain, then rejecting the gospel is not wise. If you are merely confident that you will not suffocate in space, but not certain, then going into space with a faulty astronaut suit is not wise. You must admit, then, that if scientists are not certain, they are taking a risk. And taking risks with your soul is not wise.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 1:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 1:20 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 174 of 244 (888480)
09-18-2021 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Percy
09-18-2021 1:47 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
quote:
This couldn't be more wrong. What we accept about the universe derives from evidence.

There's nothing with evidence, if it provides certainty, but if merely confidence, it is not evidence.

quote:
Yes, bad evidence leads to false conclusions. Do you see bad evidence being a factor in any argument people have raised? Perhaps in quantum theory? Cosmology? Nuclear physics? Anywhere?

I didn't think so.

Yes, people can be wrong. Presumably you're a person, too, and can be wrong. Please start engaging in the discussion and stop raising red herrings. You make progress in a discussion by presenting evidence and arguments. What you don't do is what you've been doing, which is repeating yourself, ignoring arguments, misinterpreting arguments, misunderstanding basic issues of fact, making bald declarations, speaking nonsense, and preaching.


I've been trying to present arguments, and I'm not deliberately misinterpreting anything.

quote:
Truth is not a concept within science. Knowledge requires evidence, analysis and replication. If you think truth has a role within science then argue for this position instead of just repeating it.

If truth is not a concept within science, then how can it have all the answers? If it cannot address the very issue of truth, and what is ultimately true, then why is anyone even doing science. Without a concept of truth, or the ability to affirm that anything is true, there is no knowing that anything is says is true.

I believe truth has a role in science.

quote:
This is what as known as a circular argument. Are you trying to make sure you hit all the major fallacies in a single thread?

For me to know something it must be true.
For me to know something I must be certain.
I don't need evidence to know something as long as what I believe is true.
Therefore, knowledge is certainty of truth, regardless of evidence.

Is that circular?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 1:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2021 5:05 PM Christian7 has not yet responded
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 2:29 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 175 of 244 (888481)
09-18-2021 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Percy
09-18-2021 11:43 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
You appear to have lost the thread of your own argument. You argued that everything has a cause. My language that you're pointing to only indicates that we have no evidence of any cause for certain things. Therefore, how do you know they have a cause? You don't say.

Atheism needs there to be no creator. For this to be so, the universe must either be eternal from the past, or have come from nothing. But for the universe to come from nothing, then for the first event there must be no cause. And they assert that there can be events without a cause, but you merely claim that we have no evidence of events without a cause, from which it is obvious that it is not certain that events can take place without a cause. Therefore, it is not proven, according to your own understanding, that the universe has no creator, and therefore, atheists are deluded, according to your own assertions.

quote:
So all you're saying is that things that don't exist also have no physical laws. How is that relevant to whatever point you're making?

No, I am saying that things outside this physical reality do not obey physical laws.

quote:
That was very clarifying in showing hopelessly confused you are. No, the laws of physics are not constrained by logic and math. Logic and math are human constructs. They are used to model reality and can in no way constrain it. Many of our mathematical models are highly accurate and can be used to predict what will happen, such as the time and affected area of an eclipse, but they don't control reality.

If logic and math are human constructs, they reflect reality, when provided claims that correspond to the world. And if the world cannot defy this reflection, though there are things describable for it to do, which would violate this reflection, then this reflection correlates with that which limits the universe. And if what it correlates with is not itself the universe, the only physical reality we know, then what it correlates with is not physical. Therefore, something non-physical governs the universe. This means that our human constructs is a mere reflection of that which limits the universe, and not a reflection of the universe. For if it were a reflection of the universe, then no claims need be provided, because other claims not describing our universe may also be provided when claims must be provided.

quote:
It seems that in your thinking there's both physical reality and non-physical reality. If that's correct then how could we inhabitants of physical reality become aware of things in non-physical reality? Please describe this process in detail.

Physical things have physical form. Non-physical things have no physical form. Yet formless things can effect things which have form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 11:43 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 4:39 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17009
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 176 of 244 (888482)
09-18-2021 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Christian7
09-18-2021 4:39 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
quote:
For me to know something it must be true.
For me to know something I must be certain.
I don't need evidence to know something as long as what I believe is true.
Therefore, knowledge is certainty of truth, regardless of evidence.

Then in fact you don’t care about whether anything really is true. To count something as knowledge you just need to be certain of it - without even a good reason for that certainty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:39 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 177 of 244 (888483)
09-18-2021 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:06 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:

Percy writes:

There is no evidence of any cause of virtual particles or of the time of nuclear decay or of what state an entangled particle will take up once observed.

Why are you offering useless evidence-free declarations of what you wish were true? It appears that you claim everything has a cause simply because you think it supports other things you believe true without evidence, so you simple declare, over and over again without support or rationale, that everything has a cause.

Everything does not have a cause, so far as we can tell.

Then what is stopping the universe from suddenly changing into an elephant?

I find it very hard to believe that someone of normal intelligence and sincerely interested in discussion would think this a reasonable response to it being pointed out that evidence indicates not everything has a cause.

Obviously all you believe in is space, time, matter and energy, all physical, that's it

Why are you repeating yourself? I've already clearly stated my position. Again, I accept that for which there is evidence. If you have any evidence for all your malarkey it's time to start talking.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:06 AM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 178 of 244 (888484)
09-18-2021 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:21 AM


Christian7 writes:

If everything is made of physical energy, then there should be no consciousness.

There is no logic in that statement, nor even any perceivable connection between the premise and the conclusion.

Is a hand a hand because at some level it is a hand, or because the constituting elements behave together as a hand. The whole is not more than the sum of its parts, rather, its behavior emerges from the contribution of its parts.

That's just mindless rambling.

And since the parts of a brain are physical, there can be no mental reality in a purely materialistic universe.

This makes no sense, and again, there's no perceivable connection between the premise and the conclusion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:21 AM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 5:22 PM Percy has responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 179 of 244 (888485)
09-18-2021 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
09-18-2021 5:12 PM


That which is mental is sentient. That which is physical is not. A process is nothing more than the interaction of its parts. When a computer operates, it does so by the interaction of its parts. Nothing emerges out of it that is not reducible to this interaction. When the brain operates, it merely operates according to the interaction of neurons and whatever else. This process should be nothing but purely physical. Therefore, it cannot be sentient. For sentience by nature is not a physical thing. For mind has form, and this form is not physical, for if it were physical, then all physical things all to have the same kind of form. But the problem is, that this form is not isolated merely in bounds, another reason why it cannot be physical. No physical objects are isolated in this fashion. The content of no process is isolated from any other process in this fashion.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 5:12 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 8:46 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17009
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 180 of 244 (888487)
09-18-2021 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Christian7
09-15-2021 8:50 PM


Re: Another YAWN topic
I missed this because it was a reply to a message written 4 years ago,

So, you address the fact that:

Which is why the world came to an end in the 2nd Century BC (Daniel). And the 1st Century AD (the Gospels)

With a quote from Romans that doesn’t directly address either point and with no explanation. Which is hardly a good answer.

quote:
Where does it say that in Leviticus?

My apologies. The correct reference is Deuteronomy 18:22

If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken.
(NRSV)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 8:50 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 6:48 PM PaulK has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021