PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
John, I'm not monopolizing, you just didn't bring up anything new, and I'm trying to help you out here (well, to be honest, I'm not trying to help *you* in particular, but I'm trying to improve the overall quality of atheist argumentation, which includes your arguments, in order to help secularism out- hopefully one in the same goal).
What do you make of this?
Premises + logic = conclusion.
If his premises are true, and his logic is sound, then his conclusion is true.
He didn't just present the whole thing and say it's all true, though- he presented those two premises as true *for the sake of argument*- ergo, you can not challenge them directly within the confines of the argument.
He was very clear on that point, and attacking premises that were presented for the sake of argument and ignoring the argument itself is not an appropriate debating strategy. That's like kicking somebody in the testicles in a boxing match.
He did not argue that his premises were true, but said, only, that if they are accepted (if one already subscribed to them), then his conclusion must be accepted.
His logic was not sound, and he also had many ambiguous and hidden premises in addition to the ones he stated- those issues we must address.
Premises stated for the sake of argument, however, if you wish to participate in the argument, are hollowed grounds (like testicles in a fight).
If he has presented these premises outright, and claimed their truth, then you would be correct in attacking them. In this instance, however, you are not in the right, because he did not do so- his statements were conditional.
Try to pay close attention to the context in which premises are presented in the future. If you disagree with the premises (even when stated for the sake of argument), that's fine, and there's no harm in saying that- but then the argument goes on.
Hi Blake.
I have followed a number of your posts now, any I really like where you seem to be coming from.
On Quantum randomness, I agree that the randomness we see at the Quantum level is the best example of something which passes every test of 'true' random behaviour. It seems that such 'randomness' is worth regarding as a fundamental property of reality, like energy, and maybe space-time, not reducible to something 'deeper'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Thanks, likewise.
I somewhat disagree on the last point, probably due to wording. From our reference frame, randomness is inherent law- it is logically impossible (accepting relativity) to have otherwise thanks to Bell's- from our reference point.
However, I would say that the principle is reducible to some "deeper" implications- not at a lower level of quantum physics, but on a macroscopic scale (deeper, in an 'existential' sense).
That is, it presents us with 'many worlds', as the alternative to Copenhagen- if we reject objective randomness as a principle of reason, we come to a viable form of symmetrical a-genesis of the universe. That is, a fine counter-argument to creation; a logically uncreated multiverse (one solidly evidenced through mere rejection of the principle of objective randomness), which is the ultimate nail in the coffin to the suggestion that matter and energy must be created/have begun somewhere.
Of course, if one accept true randomness as rational (few people will), one ends up with two problems instead of solving them in terms of each other more eloquently, but they can still mutually resolve: on that principle alone [rational randomness] we could also say that the universe "randomly" popped into being, and it can't be rejected due to the fact that randomness was explicitly accepted as true and valid already.
In summary: Not only does this tell us that randomness is the case from our perspective, but it neatly seals the deal on the origin and most fundamental nature of the universe. Of course it doesn't hand over UFT with a ribbon on it, but it logically resolves any lingering concerns of causality or creation from nothing either way you slice it.
Great Post! I really resonated with your writing style and your way of thinking, which matched in me a kind of theoretical awareness that I really like. If you would be so kind, I would love to talk with you some more, if either by e-mail or by whatever medium. Do you mind if I pm you?
Essentially, I see one big whole in your argument: Take a duck, for example. You define it as a duck because of a boundary you place around it: The boundary around the little furry feathered creature and it's billl and it's feet and ta-dah, you have a duck. Unfortunately, that boundary is defined completely arbitrarily by you as a human, which is disturbing, especially considering that man is not the measure of the universe.
The problem arises because the god that you are defining as Omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscent is little more than an arbitrarily chosen boundary wrapped around the universe assigned by a human being, a human being who is subject himself to an arbitrarily chosen boundary.
Do you see where I'm getting at? There's no way to truly verify that god exists, because ultimately, the definition of your god is based on an invisible boundary that you simply conjured out of thin air, and when you see that illusion for what it is, suddenly everything becomes flux; there are no objects, only movement. Even yourself, who you see as needing some god to hold on to, is dissolved into the ephemera of constant motion.
You can see this yourself as an engineer. Surely you know about quantum physics and the electron cloud and all that good stuff. The smaller you look at particles, the more you realize that nothings really set apart from anything else: just flux.
So how can you really say that there's actually any "thing" at all which can be defined, including your god? <-- (I swear, Is that a cigarrete? Or a joint?)