Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9077 total)
534 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK (6 members, 528 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,965 Year: 5,077/6,534 Month: 497/794 Week: 123/89 Day: 7/14 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 40 of 470 (891403)
01-29-2022 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by MrIntelligentDesign
01-29-2022 4:15 AM


quote:
WHAT???? Have you lost your mind?

Having read some of your material, I think you are in great need of psychiatric help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 01-29-2022 4:15 AM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 73 of 470 (891505)
02-01-2022 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-01-2022 4:26 AM


Re: How to tell?
Nature does not accept the ramblings of the mentally ill.

Please get psychiatric help.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-01-2022 4:26 AM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 108 of 470 (891726)
02-10-2022 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-10-2022 3:46 AM


Re: What do the Reviews of MrID's Book Say?
You aren’t a scientist and you aren’t doing science.

Seek psychiatric help. Please. For your own sake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-10-2022 3:46 AM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 121 of 470 (891782)
02-11-2022 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-10-2022 7:41 PM


Re: What do the Reviews of MrID's Book Say?
quote:
I have many FREE science articles in Zenodo!

I know you have badly-written attempts at philosophy stored on Zenodo (which is an abuse of the system - it’s for scientific research and your works are neither).

quote:
That is how you fight, not bad reviews!

I’m sure you believe that just posting things to Zenodo is some sort of victory. Although you might as well publish to Dropbox. It’s meaningless. Just another sign of your delusion.

quote:
Peers? I am discoverer in science.

No, you’re not. You’ve no science and no discoveries.

quote:
The level is not the same intellectually! I'm higher, they are not!

Ah, delusions of grandeur.

quote:
My writings are not bad.

They are far worse than merely bad. They are clearly the product of mental illness.

quote:
Take the hint!

Take my advice. Get psychiatric treatment. You need it,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-10-2022 7:41 PM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 159 of 470 (891874)
02-16-2022 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-15-2022 8:50 PM


Re: You actually still have a chance to cure your ignorance.
quote:
Look, the biological world and living organisms are in front of us.. we see them everyday, that is the reality. You do not need ToE to explain biology. You just need reality to explain reality.

Which is why your mental illness defeats you.

In reality you don’t understand what you’re talking about. You’re not doing science. Your “papers” are nonsense that won’t get published in any respectable journal.

That you can think otherwise just shows that you need psychiatric help. So you can get back to reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-15-2022 8:50 PM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 188 of 470 (891914)
02-17-2022 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-16-2022 6:00 PM


Re: Got No ID
quote:
What I care is if I am wrong or not!

You are wrong, and the only way to fix it is to get psychiatric help.

Please do that, for your own sake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-16-2022 6:00 PM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 209 of 470 (891949)
02-18-2022 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 11:14 AM


Re: A place to publish for MrID
Have you read any of his stuff? Predatory journals are the only ones that would publish it - and even some of them might find it too awful to print.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 11:14 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 11:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 211 of 470 (891951)
02-18-2022 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 11:22 AM


Re: A place to publish for MrID
Has the editor of that journal done anything to deserve it?

You know that “Mr ID” would have to make massive improvements for his work to deserve a rejection letter. And he’ll just blame the journal anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 11:22 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 11:36 AM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 216 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-19-2022 1:32 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 235 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 03-13-2022 1:25 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 217 of 470 (891993)
02-19-2022 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-19-2022 1:32 PM


Re: A place to publish for MrID
Exactly. You will blame the journals - even though your rubbish is not worth publishing at all.

You can try Answers In Genesis’ “Answers Research Journal” if you like. link

But your ramblings aren’t even scientific enough for them


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-19-2022 1:32 PM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 225 of 470 (892156)
02-28-2022 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by ringo
02-28-2022 11:05 AM


Re: What do the Reviews of MrID's Book Say?
Give him time. He needs to write a paper fit for publication in a journal first. And he needs to learn how to write one before that. Check back in a decade or so (but don’t get your hopes up).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ringo, posted 02-28-2022 11:05 AM ringo has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by dwise1, posted 02-28-2022 12:07 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 314 of 470 (893177)
03-30-2022 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by WookieeB
03-30-2022 3:03 PM


Re: Bump for Mr.ID
It’s not great but it seems a lot better than most of his output.

If ID is so great why is the little science done by ID people so devoted to trying to knock holes in evolutionary theory. Why hasn’t ID produced a positive theory to replace evolution ? You can’t really think that a movement that embraces everything from Young Earth Creationism to evolution but with God occasionally throwing useful mutations into the mix is actually going anywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by WookieeB, posted 03-30-2022 3:03 PM WookieeB has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-15-2022 4:08 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 399 of 470 (893755)
04-19-2022 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 2:41 PM


quote:
Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths.

To prove that you’d have to assume both a finite past and that each cause takes a minimum amount of time to produce its effect.

Since neither of these assumptions is logically necessary I’d have to say that an infinite regress is a logical possibility.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 2:41 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 4:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 404 of 470 (893769)
04-19-2022 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 4:16 PM


quote:
My challenge was specifically not assuming a finite past, in fact I explicitly stated otherwise.

That was not in the post I replied to, but that hardly makes it better for you. Given an infinite past, an infinite chain of cause and effect is not only possible, it seems to be very likely.

quote:
Now when you use the word "time" in this context, you have to be careful. Since the beginning of our universe (which is granted so far) is the beginning of time in our experience. In context of anything outside our universe, you must be meaning something else that has similar properties to "time". I referred to it as a "temporal" something. But I am willing to use the term "time" to refer to whatever this property outside the universe would be.

Again, that doesn’t really matter for my point - since I am arguing that you are wrong even if past time is finite.

quote:
So that said, the amount of time it would take for a cause to produce an effect is irrelevant as long as it is not zero. Are you are suggesting a cause and its effect are both created at the same instant?

I am not arguing that that is the case - indeed since I am arguing from mathematics, the time can be greater than zero and the argument still works (which is why I specified a minimum time rather than arguing that the time must be greater than zero). The integral calculus only works because adding an infinite number of terms - each greater than zero - can have a finite value. (That is first year stuff for university mathematics).

However, in a similar discussion I have seen someone arguing that our universe was created assert that cause and effect can be simultaneous. Indeed, unless you assume that there was a time - or “temporal something” before our universe that assumption is necessary to claim that our universe DID have a cause.

And of course it is a logical - and scientific - possibility that there was no time preceding our universe. It therefore seems that you must concede that it is possible that our universe did not have a cause.

Edited by PaulK, : Added a minor clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 4:16 PM WookieeB has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by AZPaul3, posted 04-19-2022 6:26 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 405 of 470 (893771)
04-19-2022 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 4:16 PM


quote:
So to help y'all along. Can anyone show an actualized infinity?

Logic and mathematics are clearly not your strong point.

First, a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence - let alone a logical proof.

Second if you admit the possibility of an infinite past you accept that an actualised infinity may exist.

Third for any continuous quantity any finite portion of that quantity can be infinitely subdivided. Therefore unless space is quantised, any length is an actualised infinity and unless time is quantised any duration is an actualised infinity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 4:16 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by WookieeB, posted 04-20-2022 2:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 409 of 470 (893805)
04-20-2022 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by WookieeB
04-20-2022 2:53 PM


quote:
The post you replied to said: "Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible." Right there, I am asking a question assuming we're dealing with a proposed infinite time in reverse.

That is not how I read it - and it makes even less sense in your interpretation. As I read it, it was only the chain of cause and effect that had to be infinite - which makes sense if you are arguing against an infinite regress.

quote:
Yes, I understand the concept. It can be shown in a geometric series or a repeating decimal number, like 1/3. But that concept is also is using a very particular definition of an infinite sum: the value of the infinite sum to be that particular value if and only if its partial sums can be made arbitrarily close to that particular value.

That is not a definition. That’s the case being considered - and it is certainly possible if there is no minimum value.

quote:
At any moment in time, your set is is not complete, and you will not truly have your finite number

That isn’t even true since it is durations we are summing. After the sum is reached the set is necessarily complete. Also I note that you are assuming that time is continuous and any duration consists of an infinite number of moments.

quote:
So it might be an interesting mathematical concept, but it is not anything rooted in real spacetime. So you never have a complete instance of it.

That’s obvious nonsense for the reasons given above and even more obvious when you consider that integration is used in calculations dealing with things in real spacetime.

Even worse for you you are making a claim of logical impossibility so such appeals - even if true - would be inadequate.

quote:
You seem to be proposing that there possibly was not a cause to the universe. But I'm afraid that violates the axioms put forward already by all the others (AZPAUL3 et al), who say: "Further, everything that has ever or does now exist was caused. Everything."

So? It is a real possibility so far as we know.

quote:
If you are proposing a more strict definition of time, in that it only exists in our universe and “there was no time preceding our universe”…

I am pointing out that there is a possibility that our universe includes all of time, but I am certainly not proposing a stricter definition.

quote:
… then that also is negating everyone else’s proposal that there is a "causal chain infinitely into the past".

Both are possibilities.

quote:
Nevertheless, even if there is no time before our universe, it doesn't mean there is no cause.

Then you must propose that causation may take no time at all. Which was the main point I was making in that part of the post.

quote:
First, that violates every observation we have (‘Everything that exists has a cause’ OR ‘Whatever begins to exist has a cause’).

You assert that the former is false, and I do not think that something that has existed for all past time “begins to exist” - after all it has always existed.

quote:
Secondly, the whole idea of a First Cause or more specifically “God” is that it exists outside of time.

I won’t dwell on the problematic aspects of that because it is irrelevant.

quote:
I actually have no problem with the idea of no time before the beginning of the universe. It resolves any issue with a regress and doesn’t obviate a (First) cause.

It didn’t seem that way when you were questioning if I was proposing that causation could take zero time.

quote:
I agree. And that reasoning applies equally to the concept of a First Cause or God.

Funny how you’re using arguments you know to be bad.

quote:
Nonetheless, presenting an actualized infinity should be an easy proof or refutation against my idea that there is no such thing as an actualized infinity.

I would say “impossible” rather than “easy”. How can we observe that something is infinite?

quote:
Nope

Well you disagreed above. Even if your argument was nuts.

quote:
You seem to not realize that the concept of infinity has a time component weaved into it.

I don’t agree with that assertion because it is obvious nonsense.

quote:
If something is subdivided into infinity, it means it will be subdivided to no end. The ratios of subdividing (½..¼…1/8…) will keep getting smaller and smaller to no end. The amount of time to subdivide, no matter what time frame you assign to perform a division, will have no end. No end implies that the task will never be completed. You will never subdivide anything to completion, thus you can never show that anything was subdivided to infinity.

You seem not to realise that I was not proposing actually doing the subdivision. Rather I was pointing out a simple fact about continua. Accordingly your objection is irrelevant - and worse it assumes the very thing it was trying to disprove.

quote:
Yes, dividing into infinity is a valid concept in mathematics, but it has no bearing to reality. You cannot actually do it, or represent it as done.

Actually doing it is not relevant. It is a simple consequence of continuous quantities.

quote:
So no, a length is not an actualized infinity, nor is a unit of time an actualized infinity.

Yet your whole argument for the impossibility of doing the subdivision assumes that they are actualised infinities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by WookieeB, posted 04-20-2022 2:53 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by WookieeB, posted 04-20-2022 7:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022