Syllogisms for review (Title corrected)

wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Syllogisms for review (Title corrected)

A couple of weeks back I was asked to verse myself in base logic. I'm just getting started so I'm hoping some logic fundies can help me out with a coupel of syllogisms. I'm hoping in particular that magilum and deludedgod will participate in this discussion.

 

Syllogism 1:

All natural processes act on existing matter

All natural things are created through natural processes

All natural things are created from existing matter

 

Syllogism 2:

All things subject to time have a beginning

All natural things are subject to time

All natural things have a beginning

 

Logic fundis please advise corrections to these.

 

In essence I believe these are sound. They are loosely based in fundamental laws of physics. Those of conservation and entropy. Even without the syllogisms I draw the following conclusions from the fundamental laws of physics:

1. Entropy shows that the Universe had a beginning (I believe this is more or less generally accepted)

2. Conservation shows that energy can neither be created not destroyed.

3. If natural processes cannot account for the beginning of the universe then super natural processesmust be responsible.

 

As an aside I've just had somone refer to string theory - something about a multiverse. Even if that is true, it all had to start somewhere. String theory is a little like the theist "God can do anything" argument, what's that again? The argument from ignorance or something like that.

Surely, no one, with a little reflection, can claim that natural processes that can be explained using physics can account for the creation of the universe.

In addition, where did life come from? No-one has observed life spontaneously coming into existence. Life begets life. Where did it come from?

Surely it is logical to say that super natural processes are responsible for the beginning of the universe and for the beginning of life.

It is quite illogical to claim otherwise.

No?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote:A couple of

wzedi wrote:

A couple of weeks back I was asked to verse myself in base logic. I'm just getting started so I'm hoping some logic fundies can help me out with a coupel of syllogisms. I'm hoping in particular that magilum and deludedgod will participate in this discussion.

 

Syllogism 1:

All natural processes act on existing matter

All natural things are created through natural processes

All natural things are created from existing matter

Nonsense
"act" and "created" are not valid operators


Quote:
Syllogism 2:

All things subject to time have a beginning

All natural things are subject to time

All natural things have a beginning

                All M are P.
                All S are M.
     Therefore, All S are P.
AAA-1 (valid)

 

Quote:
1. Entropy shows that the Universe had a beginning (I believe this is more or less generally accepted)

2. Conservation shows that energy can neither be created not destroyed.

3. If natural processes cannot account for the beginning of the universe then super natural processesmust be responsible.


This is not a syllogism

Quote:
1. Entropy shows that the Universe had a beginning (I believe this is more or less generally accepted)
It is true for this universe from Planck moment ("0 o'clock" ) (edit: I see I am in error. See deludedgod's post below)

Quote:
2. Conservation shows that energy can neither be created not destroyed.
True

Quote:
3. If natural processes cannot account for the beginning of the universe then super natural processesmust be responsible.
Natural Processes do account for the begining of this universe. However, supernature does not exist. Supernature is the antithesis of nature. The word refers to what people deem to be non-nature.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

All natural things are created through natural processes

All natural things are created from existing matter

What? "Created" is not a valid operator

EDIT: I see the above poster is of the same mind.

Quote:

All natural things are subject to time

All natural things have a beginning

These two ideas are non sequitur. Time is not a river that flows in one direction. According to the Lorentz Matrices, time, strictly speaking, is invariant, it has no direction and there is no reason it should. This is demonstrated by the light-cone experiments, which can be causal-chronological or chronological-causal. Time is not a thing unto itself, being relative to the observer, but absolute space-time is. The concept of time as we understand it is quite simple to begin with. In a 2D Euclidean manifold, with two vectors, the square of the displacement of a body will be equal to the squares of the sum of the vectors. This is Pythagoras' theorom: x^2+y^2=h^2. This can be extended to incorporate a Z axis: x^2+y^2+z^2=h^2. Minkowski realized that if a 3D body displaced a 3D Euclidean manifold, than (and this fit perfectly into the contradiction Einstein found between Maxwell's equations and the Galilean Transformations), time could be included as being displaced as well, along a 4D manifold called Minkowski space. In this scenario, time simply becomes another unit of measurment, the same of length, width and breadth, which can be displaced. THe equation derived for this simply follows the same rule of transformation: x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=h^2. This works tidily since c is constant in all frames of reference, although it needs some righting since it is unhelpful to vector something to an imaginary number, i which is formally r(-1), and since squared, becomes: x&2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=h^2. In this scenario, time has no direction, although it still has causality (since it is a part of a topological structure instead of an abstraction), that causality, described by the causal manifold, an extensive topic in Relativity, can go, as the experiment demonstrated, both ways.

Quote:

1. Entropy shows that the Universe had a beginning (I believe this is more or less generally accepted)

2. Conservation shows that energy can neither be created not destroyed.

No it doesn't. Redshift shows the universe had a beginning. Entropy was at a lower probability state at time zero than it is now.

All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from a very dense, extremely low entropy prior state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occurances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.

The laws of General Relativity break down as you approach the prior entropy state, until Planck Time. According to BB theory, nothing can be known about the pre-Planck Time existence, all we know is that the universe expanded outwards from some prior very low entropy state when presumably the symmetry in the four disngaged forces were unified. There was no matter, it would have been too excited and broken down, due to Planck's Constant. This system was extremely unstable and collapsed into our present system. Remember, when one intuitively speak of "time" you are speaking of time as a progression. I am referring to the Lorentz Manifold, the causal structure. This applies to Minkowski and Non-Minkowski space. So, it is unhelpful to say that time "did not exist" before BB.

The gist is that all the BB says is that the universe expanded from a symmetrical low entropy state which may have been a false vacuum which inflated, via which the force disengagement could have been created and matter could form since it is no longer too excited below Planck temperature. This circumvents SLOT because the system in question was lower entropy than the current one.

According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy.

 Since the prior state was lower entropy, the original pre-Planck constituency was symmetrical, as opposed to the arrangement after Time Zero.

A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. We think it was a "virtual quantum event" that caused it via tunnelling (The Heisenberg Uncertainity allows it, since it is extremely small and only occurs for about 10^-45 seconds. This caused the false vacuum fluctation, and the symmetry broke. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force). There was no charge in the symmetry. None at all. Being that the universe iwas orignally in a state of symmetry, there is no charge in the entire universe. The electromagnetic force works both ways, it attracts and it repels (unlike gravity, which is purely attractive). It's attraction/repulsion is very, very precisely balanced, to the tune of 10^-32 electron volts difference, which is probably experimental error. This is good because the electromagnetic force is tremendously powerful, almost 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more powerful than gravity (this explains why you can cancel the entire gravity of the Earth by picking up bits of paper with the static electricty of your comb). And that means that if the electromagnetic force was any less balanced, you would be ripped to shreds instantly.

Quote:

. If natural processes cannot account for the beginning of the universe then super natural processesmust be responsible.

This is an argument from ignorance. Also, the word "supernatural" is still unclarified.

Now, I get to rewrite your, er, syllogism, into a fallacy:

 

Those who have read Joseph Heller’s famous novel will know of what we call in logic a Catch-22. The idea behind it has been understood for quite some time, simply put:

C=>(A^B)

(A =>~B)

(B =>~A)

This is basic logic notation. Preconditions A and B are both necessary for outcome C, but if A, then B cannot occur, and conversely, if B, then A cannot occur, hence, C can never occur. In Joseph Heller’s book, the Catch-22 was that to leave the air force, you had to be insane and you had to request to leave. But if you are genuinely insane, there is no way you can request to leave, conversely, if you request to leave, there is no way you can be genuinely insane. So, you are stuck. It’s also known as a no-win situation.

We have a similar situation here. There are two necessary preconditions that make God a necessary and coherent postulate that the Cosmological Argument may work.

A: Cause requires time (which there cannot be an infinite regress of)

B: The universe (of which time is a physical component) was caused

C: The Universe was caused by an entity outside of time

The a posteriori observation for the argument comes from the necessity of time for cause, such that infinite regress is impossible, the other postulation is that the universe was caused under the proposition that all things need a cause. This is a Catch-22.

If causality requires time, then it is impossible that time was caused. If time was caused, then it we cannot speak of causality requiring time, therefore the Universe being caused by something outside of time cannot occur, because A cannot occur if B and nor can B occur if A. C (the outcome) cannot occur since it necessarily postulates that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause because cause requires time, without that proposition we could not speak of the necessity of the God being, because these are the grounds on which the Cosmological Argument is being propagated! We cannot reference regress without referencing time, ergo, we cannot reference regress of cause without referencing regress of time. Yet postulation B specifically states that it is necessary to postulate the Prime Mover on grounds that the universe of which time is a component was…caused. If this proposition were not true, the Primum Movens would not be a sensible proposition. But it cannot occur if A occurs, since A postulates the opposite and A cannot occur if it occurs, but both of these postulations are necessary for C (the outcome), being the universe being caused by an entity outside of time.

The paradox here is “cause of cause”. Cause, per se, requires time as a substrate (the idea of the “cause of time” is insurmountable, like “north of the north pole”. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. Hence, what precisely does it mean to say that an entity outside of time could be the cause of such an event as what is essentially the beginning of cause itself? Surely, we have set up a greatly insurmountable paradox. We cannot reference causality without referring to time, and hence the notion of an atemporal being as the cause of cause is inherently absurd. An atemporal being, by definition, cannot cause anything or indeed execute any action since both notions necessarily refer to the substrate of time in which they may occur. Furthermore, the notion is essentially appealing to “cause of cause” which is inherently absurd. How do we intend to reference causality by the invocation of an atemporal entity?’

 

Quote:

he argument from ignorance or something like that.

No. The ad ignorantium is what you are doing.

 

The fallacy is double edged:

X is true because it has not been proved false

X is false because it has not been proved true

 

Quote:

In addition, where did life come from? No-one has observed life spontaneously coming into existence. Life begets life. Where did it come from?

THat question I am preparing a response to since I am writing a 27 part lecture on molecular evolution, the first three parts of which I have already completed. It is lectures 9 and 10 that are devoted to Abiogenesis. However, to understand lectures 9 and 10 presumes the knowledge in lectures 1-8.  

 

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: wzedi

aiia wrote:

wzedi wrote:

Syllogism 1:

All natural processes act on existing matter

All natural things are created through natural processes

All natural things are created from existing matter

Nonsense
"act" and "created" are not valid operators

OK. Correction then:

Energy does not occur spontaneously.

All matter has energy.

All matter does not occur spontaneously.

 

These are my clumsy attempts at making a syllogism from the laws of conservation.

I've seen a couple of theories about the beginnings of the universe. These theories are all arguing against the laws of conservation or at best relying on the fact that in some obscure (and yet unobserved) scenario those laws do not apply.

Well, exactly. The process that created the universe (or the multiverse, or whatever else comprises matter and energy) had to be super natural. It has to be inexplicable by our physics. It has to be something that does not comprise matter and energy.

We know for a fact:

1. The universe did not exist forever. If there is a multiverse it also had to have a beginning.

2. Matter and energy do not come into existence spontaneously and yet neither is created by any natural process.

3. Life does not occur spontaneously. Life has to exist to create more life.

The only remotely reasonable explanation for these facts is that there is a super natural process which has life. That process brought the universe into existence and gave life to the living things and gave those living things the ability to reproduce life.

Hmmm, starting to sound like a genesis account.

I say the Genesis account is a layman's guide to how life began. It is not the detailed text book because we can't grasp the details. The Gensis account is perfectly logical and rational.

We can move to talking snakes etc later on. Let's get to common ground here first. 


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
hmmmmm putting arguments

hmmmmm

putting arguments for god in the form of a syllogism

this is new and will definitely convert many atheists 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: . Life does not

Quote:

. Life does not occur spontaneously. Life has to exist to create more life.

No. We know for a fact that cells arise from the duplication of other cells. You've commited a moving the goalpost fallacy. Now, obviously the above statement is problematic, since it seemingly leads to an infinite regress fallacy of cell lines. However, unlike you, with your made up solutions, derived from ignorance, I can actually discuss

a) Why this occurs

and

b) How the first cellular life arose

THat is to say, the best we have on the matter given the data we have.  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

All natural things are created through natural processes

All natural things are created from existing matter

What? "Created" is not a valid operator

EDIT: I see the above poster is of the same mind.

Acknowledged. I've attemtped a correction in a later post. 


It'll take me a while and lot's of research to even begin to understand the rest of your response. I will go through it though.

To me though this whole attempt to explain how natural things came about through natural processes is a no-win situation. Natural processes rely on the existence of natural things which must come about through natural processes. Hmmm.

It is far more logical, surely, to say that processes which we cannot explain using natural science, brought the natural things into existence. It had to be an extraphysical process, this is obvious surely.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  To me though this

Quote:

 To me though this whole attempt to explain how natural things came about through natural processes is a no-win situation

This is ironic since I just demonstrated, thats "demonstrated", not "asserted" as you did, that your proposition was literally a no-win situation (as in, the technical meaning in formal logic)

Quote:

 It is far more logical, surely, to say that processes which we cannot explain using natural science, brought the natural things into existence. It had to be an extraphysical process, this is obvious surely.

Just a moment. You admit to not understanding my post...and then you repeat the argument I tore apart in said post. Are you trying to be funny?

The fallacy of ad ignorantium you are commiting remains unchanged, and you are still using the vague and meaningless ad hoc of "extraphysical" and "supernatural". Also, you are begging the question, you referenced a supernatural process to cover up for the a posteriori observation that process requires causality which requires time, and so you are talking about this vague and meaningless reference to an atemporal thing. You've shot yourself in the foot.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

. Life does not occur spontaneously. Life has to exist to create more life.

No. We know for a fact that cells arise from the duplication of other cells. You've commited a moving the goalpost fallacy. Now, obviously the above statement is problematic, since it seemingly leads to an infinite regress fallacy of cell lines. However, unlike you, with your made up solutions, derived from ignorance, I can actually discuss

a) Why this occurs

and

b) How the first cellular life arose

THat is to say, the best we have on the matter given the data we have.

Does't the law of biogenesis back that statement up? Or have a misunderstood something?

So you have a hypothesis based on data that you have that life arose from inanimate matter? Do you have any idea, in layman's terms, how such a thing will be reproduced? How will you prove this?


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1. The universe did

Quote:
1. The universe did not exist forever. If there is a multiverse it also had to have a beginning.

Actually, there's no evidence that the universe has not existed forever. Only that the current state of the universe can be likely traced back to a singular event that we find it exceedingly difficult to make estimations to precede. It's further complicated by not knowing if the dimension we call 'time' was one of the dominant dimensions in the environment that produced the Big Bang event, as it is in the cosmos resulting from the event.

 

Quote:
2. Matter and energy do not come into existence spontaneously and yet neither is created by any natural process.

Again, not entirely true. Matter-Antimatter pairs do theoretically emerge from vacuum energy, and then annihilate one another, resulting in a null set. However, should a matter-antimatter pair emerge which for some reason is prevented from self-annihilating, then matter would appear to arise from nothing.

 

Quote:
3. Life does not occur spontaneously. Life has to exist to create more life.

Once more, not so. What we call 'life' is a critical mass of chemical reactions that likely built up from less complex cascades of chemical interactions between proteins, and before them, amino acids, and so on. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So you have a

Quote:

So you have a hypothesis based on data that you have that life arose from inanimate matter?

Hypotheses for this have been around for a while. THe problem is not that it is impossible, the problem is that we don't have enough information. Big difference. 

Quote:

Do you have any idea, in layman's terms, how such a thing will be reproduced?

 To some degree, there are experiments in vitro that can demonstrate some of the principles I am working with. These experiments are simple, and are done en masse. THe purpose is to find as many ribozyme structural RNA sequences as possible. It begins with an enormous number of DNA molecules, randomly generated sequences, then transcribed in vitro to leave us with an enormous pool of RNA molecules. These will fold by themselves into conformations based on complementary base pairing. In doing this, we add a vast number of substrates to each test tube, for example, Adenosine triposphate, or Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. Once an RNA can catalyse the transfer reaction, they incorporate the reactive subunit, and since the glass is lined tightly with binding agents that will capture only the reactive group, the ribozyme will fall through, whilst the ones without catalytic ability will be sifted out, such is called elution. The purpose of this is to build a databank of known RNA sequences with autocatalytic abilities, although the number must surely be enormous. After that, if any RNA molecules manage to catalyze anything, they are reverse transcribed back into DNA. The DNA is amplified several billion times by the Polymerase chain reaction, and then the RNA is forced back through the step of elution again (and again). This is a simulation of chemical natural selection, and is a useful information-gathering step in learning of how RNA catalysis constructured pre-cellular metabolism, although the experiment can be done on a much wider scale using lipid bilayers, since those form by themsleves and certainly preceded the dawn of cellular life. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: Does't the law

wzedi wrote:
Does't the law of biogenesis back that statement up? Or have a misunderstood something?

the law of biogenesis says that maggots don't spontaneously form from decaying meat and rats don't spontaneously form from rotting hay

it says nothing about the origin of primitive membranes and metabolic processes and replicating molecules from prebiotic organic molecules

the law of biogenesis applies in situations where there is an obvious life/non-life distinction between what you start with and what you get, like "rotting meat" to "maggots"

this is not the case when you have a bunch of lipids spontaneously forming a membrane around a bunch of reacting molecules

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: the law of

Quote:

the law of biogenesis says that maggots don't spontaneously form from decaying meat and rats don't spontaneously form from rotting hay

Exactly. I had forgotten about this. Thank you for pointing it out to our interlocutor. Biogenesis is directed against the old doctrine of spontaneous generation. As Jeremiah pointed out, people used to believe, for example, that maggots were generated by rotting meat, called spontaneous generation. A long and complex process of chemical evolution to lead to the first cells is not something that biogenesis comments on. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
OK. Clearly I'm dabbling in

OK. Clearly I'm dabbling in things I don't understand. So I'll stand back on this for a while.

 I got excited when I saw the arguments based onthe laws of conservation specifically but I see there can still be some argument.

Deludedgod, do you have any online material that I can refer to? Some place I might have an opportunbity to start getting educated on this stuff?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: Deludedgod,

wzedi wrote:

Deludedgod, do you have any online material that I can refer to? Some place I might have an opportunbity to start getting educated on this stuff?

A theist who is genuinely interested in educating themself?

Careful, wzedi.  That is exactly how a lot of us lost our belief in our old religion.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: 1. Entropy

wzedi wrote:

1. Entropy shows that the Universe had a beginning (I believe this is more or less generally accepted)

2. Conservation shows that energy can neither be created not destroyed.

3. If natural processes cannot account for the beginning of the universe then super natural processesmust be responsible.


Here's another point to puzzle on.
To say that the universe had a beginning is to say that time had a beginning.
Now, when we say that X "was develloped through a process" or "came from something" or "was caused by something" we are saying that something was around before X in order for X to be.

If you remember how we use the word 'before', it's a relation between two times. If we say event A happened before event B then both events must be in the same timeline.
Now we get back to the universe, and therefore time too, having a beginning.
If this trully was the beginning then that is it.
There is no 'before' for the universe to 'come from'.
If there was something 'before' then that would be the beginning, unless ofcourse there was something that came before that too...etc


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: wzedi

Watcher wrote:
wzedi wrote:

Deludedgod, do you have any online material that I can refer to? Some place I might have an opportunbity to start getting educated on this stuff?

A theist who is genuinely interested in educating themself?

Careful, wzedi. That is exactly how a lot of us lost our belief in our old religion.

Heh. I've heard many who went the other way - got educated and found themselves convinced of the reality of God. Departing from the (seemingly pointless) effort to rationalise this, God is Spirit. He who worships Him must worhsip Him is Spirit and truth.

 I know that's dogma but that doesn't make it false. I know God is real. I know it. I cannot articulate it to you but that doesn't make it false. The thing is, a man has to make an effort to open himself to God. He has to allow God to breath life into his spirit otherwise he cannot understand these things. Man has a spirit and this is what physics cannot describe. This is what atheists scoff at. You cannot know God unless your spirit is given life. It is dead until you allow God to bring it to life.

 All nonsense to an atheist mind I know. Not necessarily fallacy though.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: Watcher

wzedi wrote:
Watcher wrote:
wzedi wrote:

Deludedgod, do you have any online material that I can refer to? Some place I might have an opportunbity to start getting educated on this stuff?

A theist who is genuinely interested in educating themself?

Careful, wzedi. That is exactly how a lot of us lost our belief in our old religion.

Heh. I've heard many who went the other way - got educated and found themselves convinced of the reality of God. Departing from the (seemingly pointless) effort to rationalise this, God is Spirit. He who worships Him must worhsip Him is Spirit and truth.

 I know that's dogma but that doesn't make it false. I know God is real. I know it. I cannot articulate it to you but that doesn't make it false. The thing is, a man has to make an effort to open himself to God. He has to allow God to breath life into his spirit otherwise he cannot understand these things. Man has a spirit and this is what physics cannot describe. This is what atheists scoff at. You cannot know God unless your spirit is given life. It is dead until you allow God to bring it to life.

 All nonsense to an atheist mind I know. Not necessarily fallacy though.

All of it is. 


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Here's

Strafio wrote:

Here's another point to puzzle on. To say that the universe had a beginning is to say that time had a beginning. Now, when we say that X "was develloped through a process" or "came from something" or "was caused by something" we are saying that something was around before X in order for X to be. If you remember how we use the word 'before', it's a relation between two times. If we say event A happened before event B then both events must be in the same timeline. Now we get back to the universe, and therefore time too, having a beginning. If this trully was the beginning then that is it. There is no 'before' for the universe to 'come from'. If there was something 'before' then that would be the beginning, unless ofcourse there was something that came before that too...etc

My understanding is that the universe is physical. Everything we observe in the universe and can understand through physics could not have come about through physical processes. The laws of physics appear to support those (though apparently it's not that simple). So time as we know it, that applies to physical things, is not something that need be a constraint on a process that is not physical. 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: I know

wzedi wrote:
 I know that's dogma but that doesn't make it false. I know God is real. I know it. I cannot articulate it to you but that doesn't make it false. The thing is, a man has to make an effort to open himself to God. He has to allow God to breath life into his spirit otherwise he cannot understand these things. Man has a spirit and this is what physics cannot describe. This is what atheists scoff at. You cannot know God unless your spirit is given life. It is dead until you allow God to bring it to life.

I "knew" god existed for 30 years.  I was completely open to "god".  I was in the "fold".

It's bunk.

It's all some mysterious secret that us atheists "cannot understand" huh?

What tripe.

How many ex-pastors, ex-catholic priests, ex-baptised christians make up the atheist community?

The majority from what I have seen.

To say it's some mysterious insider knowledge that atheists could not ever possibly understand is complete BS. 

Been there, done that, got the cross and the bible.

Fairytale all of it.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: Heh. I've

wzedi wrote:

Heh. I've heard many who went the other way - got educated and found themselves convinced of the reality of God.

Ever heard the term "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Here is how I respond when

Here is how I respond when people appeal to this vague ad hoc of “you just don’t understand God” or some similar special pleading fallacy to defend dubious metaphysical claims. The first thing to note is that such statements assert a distinction without reason. That is to say, for example, that I cannot discover the ratio between the angles of a triangle by examining a potted plant, because these are two completely different fields of inquiry, and there is a distinct reason why the examination of a potted plant will not allow me to derive the sine and cosine functions, and such a reason can be established. This is not the case here, or rather there is no reason why it such a belief should not be reasoned.

Furthermore, such a claim would undermine all attempts to determine a reason why the distinction should exist at all here. Any attempt to do so would be founded in reasoned argument, and hence undermine its own premise that the concept cannot be understood by reasoned argument.

The third thing to note is, when considering any beliefs that you hold, for whatever reason, is to ask: Is there any hypothetical intellectual case that would persuade me of the falsehood of said beliefs? If not, you have a serious problem. If yes, you are undermining the epistemological assertion that your belief pertains to some sort of magical, reclusive, club of people that have some sort of special understanding by virtue of an epistemology unknown to everyone else.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The laws of

Quote:

The laws of physics appear to support those (though apparently it's not that simple). So time as we know it, that applies to physical things, is not something that need be a constraint on a process that is not physical. 

This is a special pleading fallacy. The entity in question you are invoking as a solution implies certain attributes which presuppose physicality. You’ve already suggested it can cause things, that would imply it is within a causal manifold. I’ve already pointed out your logical error in my first post. The essential point is that you are playing “pick and choose”. You need a certain set of attributes to be able to make your solution sound sensible, even though it only exacerbates the problem. The juxtaposition of “well, its outside time” and “physical laws don’t apply to it” with “it has causal powers” and “it caused the physical universe” and “it is a process but it isn’t physical” Huh? The concept of process presupposes the concept of temporality, which in turn by virtue of that presupposes spatial location, and so presupposes physicality. You are speaking gibberish. Absolute gibberish.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: My

wzedi wrote:
My understanding is that the universe is physical. Everything we observe in the universe and can understand through physics could not have come about through physical processes.

What do you mean by 'come about' here?

Quote:
The laws of physics appear to support those (though apparently it's not that simple). So time as we know it, that applies to physical things, is not something that need be a constraint on a process that is not physical.

The thing is, 'process' is a thing that happens within time too.
Think about what a process is:
There's a first step, then a second step... etc.
You're also talking about there being something 'before' time.
I.e. a process that brought time into being.
You see, you're talking about things that involve time being 'before' time.

When we say every event has a cause, we mean that every event had events that came before it and that the current event is determined by previous ones that came before it. If time had a beginning then there is no 'before'.
When you talk about there being processes outside time you contradict yourself.


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I "knew"

Watcher wrote:

I "knew" god existed for 30 years. I was completely open to "god". I was in the "fold".

How did you know?

What's to say you won't turn around in 30 years and say 'I "knew" God didn't exist for 30 years.'?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: How did you

wzedi wrote:
How did you know?

What's to say you won't turn around in 30 years and say 'I "knew" God didn't exist for 30 years.'?

I believed that because it was indoctrinated into me from birth by my parents and community.

I have since come to the realization that the abrahamic god can't possibly be real.  Full of contradictions and idiodicy.

Sure, maybe I'll get senile some day and get reconverted.  This will happen right after I continously wander away from home, can't remember my own name, and spontaneously pee my pants at the most awkward situations.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

This is a special pleading fallacy. The entity in question you are invoking as a solution implies certain attributes which presuppose physicality. You’ve already suggested it can cause things, that would imply it is within a causal manifold. I’ve already pointed out your logical error in my first post. The essential point is that you are playing “pick and choose”. You need a certain set of attributes to be able to make your solution sound sensible, even though it only exacerbates the problem. The juxtaposition of “well, its outside time” and “physical laws don’t apply to it” with “it has causal powers” and “it caused the physical universe” and “it is a process but it isn’t physical” Huh? The concept of process presupposes the concept of temporality, which in turn by virtue of that presupposes spatial location, and so presupposes physicality. You are speaking gibberish. Absolute gibberish.

Edited to add: Your whole presupposition argument is about semantics and has no bearing on finding the truth. When I say process I am not speaking of a process as we know it. I use the term for alack of a better one (or at least my inability to articulate the idea another way). Maybe a different term is preferrable but that does not change the reasoning nor the validity of my argument.

The entity in question cannot be described by physics, that is the point. You are using physics to place limitations on a super natural entity.

Let's define the super natural entity (or process if you will) in question. The entity/process has the ability to create matter and energy. We know for a fact that matter and energy are not created or destroyed in nature. Any process or entity that brings about the creation or destruction of matter and energy must by definition be super natural (or the laws of conservation need to be revised).

There is no presupposition of physicality. Your understanding of a causal manifold is limited to natural physics. You are attempting to apply natural physical laws to something which necessarily operates outside of those laws. It has to in order to create matter and energy. By defintion the entity operates outside of natural physical laws.

 

No matter what our physics shows us about the beginnings of natural things, natural things cannot have been the beginning of natural things. That is impossible. Physics cannot explain how natural things came about becuase physics relies on natural things to produce evidence. One then has to assume that natural things always existed in some form or another. Hmmm, starting to sound more like conjecture by the second. Where is the evidence? If it exists it contradicts the current laws of physics and to claim something like "the laws of physics did not apply at Plank time 0" is tantamount to saying "The laws of physics do not apply to God (or the spaghetti monster if you like)". You must apply your constriants for argument consistently.

No-one can assert that there is no God. To make such an assertion places the burden of proof on such a one. The fundamental laws of physics point to some super natural entity or process that we cannot describe using physics. All attempts at explaining this away using physics are laughable.

You might argue that the Bible is fallacy and the God of the Bible is not the super natural entity or process we are talking about. You cannot seriously argue that there is no such entity or process.

There are recognised physicists, cosmologists and other scientists that have faith even with all their knowledge of science. That in itself shows that science does not prove there is no God.


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: wzedi

Watcher wrote:
wzedi wrote:
How did you know?

What's to say you won't turn around in 30 years and say 'I "knew" God didn't exist for 30 years.'?

I believed that because it was indoctrinated into me from birth by my parents and community.

Fair enough. 

Quote:
 

I have since come to the realization that the abrahamic god can't possibly be real. Full of contradictions and idiodicy.

What contradictions would those be? 

Quote:
 

Sure, maybe I'll get senile some day and get reconverted. This will happen right after I continously wander away from home, can't remember my own name, and spontaneously pee my pants at the most awkward situations.

 

Heh.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote:Quote: I

wzedi wrote:
Quote:
 

I have since come to the realization that the abrahamic god can't possibly be real. Full of contradictions and idiodicy.

What contradictions would those be? 

Most Christians are taught that their god (the Abrahamic god) is All-loving, All-knowing, and All-powerful.

If god knew everything, could control everything, and loved everyone, no one (or extremely few) would go to hell, there would be no accidents involving maiming or death, and there would be no birth defects.

Such a god would see someone doubt his existence and directly intercede.  I know a lot of people that died not believing in god. 

Such a god would see an accident about to happen and intervene to prevent it.

Such a god would see a birth defect beginning to form and correct it.

Such a god would not allow deadly cancer, heart attacks, anneurysms, etc.

But all these things happen every day.

Therefore either A) the abrahamic god does not exist.

or

B) He's not all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:

Watcher wrote:
wzedi wrote:
Quote:

I have since come to the realization that the abrahamic god can't possibly be real. Full of contradictions and idiodicy.

What contradictions would those be?

Most Christians are taught that their god (the Abrahamic god) is All-loving, All-knowing, and All-powerful.

If god knew everything, could control everything, and loved everyone, no one (or extremely few) would go to hell,

He has given us the way to avoid going to hell. Very few accept it. Matt 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 1 Tim 2:3,4 ... God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Each man has to decide for himself.

Quote:

there would be no accidents involving maiming or death, and there would be no birth defects.

How so? I would agree that these are not good things and that a loving person would not have another person experience these things however to say that this is any sort of contradiction is not correct. There are several influencing factors: faith (or the lack of it), the god of this world, free will. All work together to bring about the world as we know it. You might question why an all-loving God would allow these things but it is no contradiction.

Quote:

Such a god would see someone doubt his existence and directly intercede. I know a lot of people that died not believing in god.

He has directly interceded. Jesus Christ was given so that we would believe. The Holy Spirit is given to give us unwavering faith which has real world results. The Bible is recorded to show is the truth. It is up to us to accept it. If God were to simply show Himself and give some undeniable sign of His existence free will would be gone. We absolutely have to choose Him in faith. That is a simpel requirement. Once again, not a contradiction. Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Not a contradiction.

Quote:

Such a god would see an accident about to happen and intervene to prevent it.

Once again you discount free will, faith (or the lack thereof), the god of this world, etc. I have heard several testimonies of people avoiding disaster because they heard God tell them to do somewthing strange and they were obedient. Several Bible accounts tell of how God required an act of faith to avoid disaster. Once again, not a contradiction.

Quote:

Such a god would see a birth defect beginning to form and correct it.

Such a god would not allow deadly cancer, heart attacks, anneurysms, etc.

But all these things happen every day.

Please don't write this off as dogma and blind faith now. All of these things have several influencing factors. To say that because God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing He would stop these things is to discount the fact that faith is required to please God. It discounts the fact that the god of this world is the devil. It discounts the fact that Adam was given the authority to subdue the world and he gave that authority away. The fact that these things happen is infact quite in line and consistent with Biblical accounts and the Biblical description of God. These are not contradictions.

Quote:

Therefore either A) the abrahamic god does not exist.

or

B) He's not all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

He does exist. He is all loving, all knowing and all powerful. In a world where so many refuse to acknowledge Him let alone trust in Him why be surprised at the fact that things are in a mess? We are relying on ourselves to save ourselves and making a fine old mess of it. Progress through science (or at least the general quest for knowledge) has brought us to global warming, the cause of many cancers, the cause of many birth defects, etc. I am (edited to correct) *not* saying the quest for knowledge is bad. I am saying that we cannot trust our knowledge to keep us safe. As long as we do, these disasters and chaos will continue.

So no contradictions. Do you agree?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote:He has given

wzedi wrote:

He has given us the way to avoid going to hell. Very few accept it. Matt 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 1 Tim 2:3,4 ... God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Each man has to decide for himself.

This can easily be said by a person of Jewish faith, Muslim faith, etc.  They will all say in their own particular way that their god has told them how to avoid hell.  I have stood in foreign countries where the Muslim faithful knelt on prayer rugs praying to Mecca clogging the streets.

Most christians would say they are going to roast in hell forever.  Most muslims would say christians are going to roast forever.  If you were born in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc. you would most likely be Muslim and die believing as a muslim.

So...how do you reconcile that?

wzedi wrote:

How so? I would agree that these are not good things and that a loving person would not have another person experience these things however to say that this is any sort of contradiction is not correct. There are several influencing factors: faith (or the lack of it), the god of this world, free will. All work together to bring about the world as we know it. You might question why an all-loving God would allow these things but it is no contradiction.

So you are saying that god is not all-loving?  His love is "conditional"?  You have to be a believer for god to prevent the accident?

So this means no christians die in car wrecks?  Really.  Point to the statistics that say christians are less likely to die in accidents.

...

An All-loving god, and therefore a god that gives his/her love non-conditionally would protect everyone.

wzedi wrote:

He has directly interceded. Jesus Christ was given so that we would believe. The Holy Spirit is given to give us unwavering faith which has real world results. The Bible is recorded to show is the truth. It is up to us to accept it. If God were to simply show Himself and give some undeniable sign of His existence free will would be gone. We absolutely have to choose Him in faith. That is a simpel requirement. Once again, not a contradiction. Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Not a contradiction.

He has interceded.  Allah was given so that we would believe.  The prophet has been given to give us unwaivering faith which has real world results.  The Koran is recorded to show us the truth.  It is up to us to accept it.  If Allah were to simply show Himself and give some undeniable...

Wait, free will would be gone?  Why?  If I knew for a fact that the abrahamic god existed it would not remove my choice whether to follow him or not.  It would simply show me that god is real and that the consequences for obeying him or not is real.  I could still refuse to follow god just like Satan did.

Without faith we can't be saved?  So the Virgin Mary, the disciples, etc...well they didn't need faith.  They saw Jesus ressurected.  So they are in hell now because they had proof and not faith?

wzedi wrote:

Once again you discount free will, faith (or the lack thereof), the god of this world, etc. I have heard several testimonies of people avoiding disaster because they heard God tell them to do somewthing strange and they were obedient. Several Bible accounts tell of how God required an act of faith to avoid disaster. Once again, not a contradiction.

Once again conditional love not all-loving.  I can give you a testimony how a lucky rock landed me a job I really wanted.

Does this mean my rock has magic powers?

wzedi wrote:

Please don't write this off as dogma and blind faith now. All of these things have several influencing factors. To say that because God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing He would stop these things is to discount the fact that faith is required to please God. It discounts the fact that the god of this world is the devil. It discounts the fact that Adam was given the authority to subdue the world and he gave that authority away. The fact that these things happen is infact quite in line and consistent with Biblical accounts and the Biblical description of God. These are not contradictions.

Right.  So we have to please the all-loving god before he will not allow a baby to be born with their spinal cord on the outside of their body.

Hmmmm...god works in mysterious ways, eh?

Yes, that baby must be born defective, in pain, and a high chance of not surviving childhood because of what Adam did.  That makes perfect sense.

Praise God!

wzedi wrote:

He does exist. He is all loving, all knowing and all powerful. In a world where so many refuse to acknowledge Him let alone trust in Him why be surprised at the fact that things are in a mess? We are relying on ourselves to save ourselves and making a fine old mess of it. Progress through science (or at least the general quest for knowledge) has brought us to global warming, the cause of many cancers, the cause of many birth defects, etc. I am (edited to correct) *not* saying the quest for knowledge is bad. I am saying that we cannot trust our knowledge to keep us safe. As long as we do, these disasters and chaos will continue.

So no contradictions. Do you agree?

Yes, science is destroying the world.

Yeah, humans have never lived shorter lifespans or been in fewer numbers than we are today...

Uhm....reverse that.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: wzedi

Watcher wrote:
wzedi wrote:

He has given us the way to avoid going to hell. Very few accept it. Matt 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 1 Tim 2:3,4 ... God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Each man has to decide for himself.

This can easily be said by a person of Jewish faith, Muslim faith, etc. They will all say in their own particular way that their god has told them how to avoid hell. I have stood in foreign countries where the Muslim faithful knelt on prayer rugs praying to Mecca clogging the streets.

Most christians would say they are going to roast in hell forever. Most muslims would say christians are going to roast forever. If you were born in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc. you would most likely be Muslim and die believing as a muslim.

So...how do you reconcile that?

You quoted this as a contradiction, the fact that some may go to hell so where is the all-loving God? What I am saying is that it is not a contradiction, scripture describes how to avoid hell

 There is no need to reconcile anything here. Do you know the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth?

Quote:
 

wzedi wrote:

How so? I would agree that these are not good things and that a loving person would not have another person experience these things however to say that this is any sort of contradiction is not correct. There are several influencing factors: faith (or the lack of it), the god of this world, free will. All work together to bring about the world as we know it. You might question why an all-loving God would allow these things but it is no contradiction.

So you are saying that god is not all-loving. His love is "conditional". You have to be a believer for god to prevent the accident.

There are no conditions to God's love. He loves everyone. However you must put your trust in Himto expect to be covered by Him. If you go about denying God and then get into an accident it's on your head surely, not His. If you were submitted to Him you could've avoided the accident.

 

Quote:
 

So this means no christians die in car wrecks? Really. Point to the statistics that say christians are less likely to die in accidents.

Depends what you mean by Christian. The way I understand it most Americans call themselves Christian yet the majority probably never attend church, never mind regularly praying.

Quote:
 

...

An All-loving god, and therefore a god that gives his/her love non-conditionally would protect everyone.

Not true. He loves all and extends His protection to all but you have to accept it. He may say to you don't go that way to work today. Since you do not acknowledge Him and are not submitted to Him you don't doit and disaster ensues.

Quote:
 

wzedi wrote:

He has directly interceded. Jesus Christ was given so that we would believe. The Holy Spirit is given to give us unwavering faith which has real world results. The Bible is recorded to show is the truth. It is up to us to accept it. If God were to simply show Himself and give some undeniable sign of His existence free will would be gone. We absolutely have to choose Him in faith. That is a simpel requirement. Once again, not a contradiction. Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Not a contradiction.

He has interceded. Allah was given so that we would believe. The prophet has been given to give us unwaivering faith which has real world results. The Koran is recorded to show us the truth. It is up to us to accept it. If Allah were to simply show Himself and give some undeniable...

Once again, your orginal statement was to make the point that this is a contradiction which is not true. You choose between the Koran and the Bible. I'll go with the Bible thanks.

Quote:
 

Wait, free will would be gone? Why? If I knew for a fact that the abrahamic god existed it would not remove my choice whether to follow him or not. It would simply show me that god is real and that the consequences for obeying him or not is real. I could still refuse to follow god just like Satan did.

Hmm. I'll have to think about this. A thought provoking point. Still not an inconsistency anyway. The Bible says you must have faith to please Him. If you saw Him no faith would be required.

Quote:
 

Without faith we can't be saved? So the Virgin Mary, the disciples, etc...well they didn't need faith. They saw Jesus ressurected. So they are in hell now because they had proof and not faith?

More to think about. Even after the resurrection though faith was required. Any number of explanations could have been sought but they accepted Him as God and called Him Lord. In recent times resurrections have been reported and people refute the claims and give all sorts of reasons. The same could've been done for Him.

Quote:
 

wzedi wrote:

Once again you discount free will, faith (or the lack thereof), the god of this world, etc. I have heard several testimonies of people avoiding disaster because they heard God tell them to do somewthing strange and they were obedient. Several Bible accounts tell of how God required an act of faith to avoid disaster. Once again, not a contradiction.

Once again conditional love not all-loving. I can give you a testimony how a lucky rock landed me a job I really wanted.

Does this mean my rock has magic powers?

If you are suggecting so many people are liars I'd say you are out of order. You would do better to find such testimony and find proof that it was false before making rash statements. Your example on the other hand is ludicrous.

Quote:
 

wzedi wrote:

Please don't write this off as dogma and blind faith now. All of these things have several influencing factors. To say that because God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing He would stop these things is to discount the fact that faith is required to please God. It discounts the fact that the god of this world is the devil. It discounts the fact that Adam was given the authority to subdue the world and he gave that authority away. The fact that these things happen is infact quite in line and consistent with Biblical accounts and the Biblical description of God. These are not contradictions.

Right. So we have to please the all-loving god before he will not allow a baby to be born with their spinal cord on the outside of their body.

Hmmmm...god works in mysterious ways, eh?

Yes, that baby must be born defective, in pain, and a high chance of not surviving childhood because of what Adam did. That makes perfect sense.

Praise God!

So science has nothing to do with it? People smoking and drinking and taking medications and drugs through pregnancy has nothing to do with it? God does not work in mysterious ways. The mystery is how people can be told how to avoid disaster, reject the advice and then ask why it happended.

Quote:
 

wzedi wrote:

He does exist. He is all loving, all knowing and all powerful. In a world where so many refuse to acknowledge Him let alone trust in Him why be surprised at the fact that things are in a mess? We are relying on ourselves to save ourselves and making a fine old mess of it. Progress through science (or at least the general quest for knowledge) has brought us to global warming, the cause of many cancers, the cause of many birth defects, etc. I am (edited to correct) *not* saying the quest for knowledge is bad. I am saying that we cannot trust our knowledge to keep us safe. As long as we do, these disasters and chaos will continue.

So no contradictions. Do you agree?

Yes, science is destroying the world.

Yeah, humans have never lived shorter lifespans or been in fewer numbers than we are today...

Uhm....reverse that.

Isn't it that longer life spans and greater population are actually causing us difficulties? Not to say that the quest to improve the quality of life is bad but in the end we don't know what we are doing nor do we understand the consequences of our actions. At best we are applying ad-hoc remedies to ever increasing threats to our quality of life. And we are losing the battle. Why? Because no-one wants to acknowledge Almighty God and put Him in His rightful place in their life.

You are making a choice. Contrary to what you believe it is not based on evidence but is in fact going against all the evidence. Don't go blaming God for your quandries.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: When I say process

Quote:

When I say process I am not speaking of a process as we know it.

Oh really? Then what are you speaking of? Some vague and meaningless gibberish that you cannot articulate because there is nothing to speak of. Your argument presupposes that cause requires time, which is true a priori, but that in turn supposes that it is impossible to speak of something "outside time" causing. You are setting up an insurmountable paradox. You are trying to suggest that something is the "cause of cause". This is absurd. End of goddamn story. Either admit that you are setting up a Catch-22, or get out. But do not waste my time with meaningless nonsense like "well, God is "just different" and making a vague and meaningless special pleading fallacy.

Quote:

 Maybe a different term is preferrable but that does not change the reasoning nor the validity of my argument.

That is utterly ridiculous. Validity of an argument necessarily depends on the coherency of a proposition. If you cannot articulate it, it isn't an argument!

Quote:

 The entity in question cannot be described by physics, that is the point. You are using physics to place limitations on a super natural entity.

No I am not. You are giving it attributes that require physicality under the premises of your own argument.  I do not know how to make this simpler. You are suggesting that such a being has causal powers. By the premise upon which you build your argument, that would require physicality. There is no way out of this. You cannot defend your proposition. It is absurd. You are observing

(A) That the universe has causal efficiacy

and (B) That cause is temporal 

And using these to propogate a hypothesis that contradicts both of these statement. Being this, do not even think about suggesting that such a solution is "good" or even "possible". It is a Catch-22, a paradox.

Quote:

 Let's define the super natural entity (or process if you will) in question.

You've contradicted yourself. You've suggested a "supernatural process". Gibberish. By virtue of its meaning, the concept of process depends on causal efficiacy, hence time, hence space, hence physical existence.

Quote:

 he entity/process has the ability to create matter and energy.

That is impossible. Matter and Energy cannot be destroyed. You obviously know nothing about the Big Bang theory, which does not purport to state that matter and energy have been created. What you are postulating is called ex nihilo, which is completely and utterly ridiculous. I have already refuted this within my first response. But you have ignored this. Your argument is based upon a false premise, that the universe was created out of nothing. Nowhere in cosmology or physics is such a thing dictated or even possible.

Quote:

 Any process or entity that brings about the creation or destruction of matter and energy must by definition be super natural (or the laws of conservation need to be revised).

The laws do not need to be revised, and you cannot specially plead for this supernatural entity, because you are still giving it attributes that entail physicality under the premises of your damend argument. You are making up ridiculous nonsense that is in no way supported by anything in physics: The premise that matter or energy are created. Nothing in Cosmology states this, and  your understanding of Big Bang is horribly misguided.

Quote:

 There is no presupposition of physicality. Your understanding of a causal manifold is limited to natural physics. You are attempting to apply natural physical laws to something which necessarily operates outside of those laws. It has to in order to create matter and energy. By defintion the entity operates outside of natural physical laws.

You are still giving such a thing attributes which are physical under the discussion at hand. You are giving the agent causal powers. By your own premise, this necessitates a causal and physical manifold. Cause cannot be caused. Your argument is completely useless. It solves nothing. It sets up a paradox.

Furthermore, your argument is ontologically incoherent. You are simply giving this entity negative description, it means nothing to ascribe the ontological lack of quality "supernatural" onto an agent any more than it is meaningful to describe a boat as "not a boat". You are appealing to vague, meaningless, ad hoc nonsense. The description of the agent you appeal to makes no sense.

YOur entire argument, furthermore, is based on views of time that are absurd and naive, as I showed above. Your premise is based upon time being an arrow that moves in one direction, such that it all comes back to one cause. Nothing in physics supports this proposition. Absolutely everything points to the opposite: Time is invariant. If you can demonstrate something which indicates the opposite, please contact the Nobel Foundation. If your ideas about the first cause were sensible, it would be perfectly coherent to speak of "anti-time". But it is not. So, something is very wrong with your argument.

Quote:

 Hmmm, starting to sound more like conjecture by the second.

My, you're a handsome shade of black, Mr. Kettle.

Quote:

 That is impossible. Physics cannot explain how natural things came about becuase physics relies on natural things to produce evidence. One then has to assume that natural things always existed in some form or another.

This is a fallacy of false dichotomy. Your bifurcation sets up two possibilites:

(A) All things had an uncaused cause

(B) Infinite regress of cause

I have a better suggestion: Your understanding of time as a function is not supported by modern physics, and both suggestions are garbage.

Quote:

 If it exists it contradicts the current laws of physics and to claim something like "the laws of physics did not apply at Plank time 0" is tantamount to saying "The laws of physics do not apply to God (or the spaghetti monster if you like)".

The fact that you appeal to the pop-science concept of "The laws of physics" shows how desperate you are getting. I said the laws of general relativity breaks down at the Planck units. This is demonstratable. I did not say the "laws of physics" (whatever that means) breaks down at the Planck units.

Quote:

 No-one can assert that there is no God.

This is a fallacy of argument from ignorance. You are suggesting that negative propositions cannot be made on grounds that do not exist. There is no such thing as a burden of disproof. You are furthermore making a fallacy of conflation between strong and weak atheism, the former holding that they have deductive arguemnts against the existence of God, and if such arguments were valid, they would have the right to make that assertion, provided it was backed.

Quote:

 The fundamental laws of physics point to some super natural entity or process that we cannot describe using physics.

This is false. Your understanding of physics barely goes beyond first grade. Physics does not predict ex nihilo creation, even though you seem to to think it does. You have no understanding of modern physics.

Quote:

  All attempts at explaining this away using physics are laughable.

Actually, what's laughable is you getting into arguments you have no idea about the discipline upon which your argument is ground.

Quote:
 

 You cannot seriously argue that there is no such entity or process.

Yes I can. The concepts you attempt to apply depend on descriptors that you excise from your description of this "God". I can just as much say that the idea of supernatural process is nonsense as I can say that electromagnetism cannot exist without magnetism. To contradict either statement is to be destroyed by reductio ad absurdum

Quote:

 There are recognised physicists, cosmologists and other scientists that have faith even with all their knowledge of science.

Not many. See the developmental biologist Sean Carroll's Why Nearly All Cosmologists are Atheists.

Quote:

 That in itself shows that science does not prove there is no God.

It's amazing how many things you can demonstrate ignorance of in a few paragraphs. The job of science is to investigate and gather facts about the empirical world. No scientist would claim that science could disprove God, just as none would claim it could prove it. The concept of God can be hammered to pieces by the application of a proper philosophical methodology.  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Show me this theory of time

Show me this theory of time in practice. "Time is invariant" (as you have discussed. How does it work in practice? Is there a way to show a first grader like me? 

I'd be surprised if that get's beyond conjecture ("Theory" if you like).


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'd be surprised if

Quote:

I'd be surprised if that get's beyond conjecture ("Theory" if you like).

Actually, it is one of the most well established principles in physics. Ever heard of this insignificant little scientist called "Einstein" and his "Conjuecture" of relativity.

Oh, wait...it's a law. 

Start with this:

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
No, it's a Theory. That

No, it's a Theory. That makes it a very powerful thing, because it is stronger than a Hypothesis, and has not been disproven despite rigorous testing.

A "Law" would be proven true beyond the possibility of disproof, and in science there is nothing that it true beyond the possibility of disproof.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I'd be surprised if that get's beyond conjecture ("Theory" if you like).

Actually, it is one of the most well established principles in physics. Ever heard of this insignificant little scientist called "Einstein"

Ein who? 

Quote:
 

and his "Conjuecture" of relativity.

Oh, wait...it's a law.

I'll do some reading and get back. So if time is invariant can I speak to my grandmother that passed away a while back? What's that? No you say. Why not if time is invariant? Ah hang on, I'm still in the first grade. So because I don't understand I can't travel through time? Either that or time invariance is nothing more than theory.

Sarcasm is not going to get us anywhere really. I'm keen to learn so I will do some reading and I appreciate your tolerance of my ignorance and your feedback.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Actually, Wzedi, the

Actually, Wzedi, the predictions of relativity have been tested in application, through the use of atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus, differing gravitational levels), and thus far, it's held up under testing. So, there you go, it's gone beyond conjecture. There have been far more involved applications that have been used both to test, and developed as a result for general application (including use in space flight, GPS systems, etc) but being the basically honest person I am, I will admit that I lack the detailed understanding needed to adequately explain them.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A "Law" would be

Quote:

A "Law" would be proven true beyond the possibility of disproof, and in science there is nothing that it true beyond the possibility of disproof.

The law component simply refers to the law that describes it. Most principles in physics are "theories" with accompanyting laws", like gravity and the inverse square law. Splitting hairs, I know, but the distinction is important.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

o if time is invariant can I speak to my grandmother that passed away a while back? What's that? No you say. Why not if time is invariant? Ah hang on, I'm still in the first grade. So because I d

I said it was invariant, not it has no causal structure. THere is still causal sequentiality, it is simply a topological measure as opposed to a "river of time". If the implication of your rhetorical question held, then similar polarities would attract within a magnetic field.

The primary reason, however, is because of your spatial proximity. Since time dilation depends on both spatial proximity and temporal proximity, that is, t can be described the same as x, y and z in any Minkowski space, for you to speak for your grandmother would entail a negative displacement of t coordinates. On the other hand, if someone else, for example, 10^5 light years away, and moving towards the position that you are displacing at this moment according to your t displacement, then for the person travelling towards you, you are already dead, and have been for about 500 years.

Quote:

Either that or time invariance is nothing more than theory.

This is false. THe invariance of any quantity in physics can be firmly established. Electromagnetism is the same in both directions. Gravity is not. Time is. You can demonstrate the invariance of time under any Galilean transformation in the same way that you can establish the invariance of c under any Lorentz transformation. It won't change. The math is quite simple. The transformations will demonstrate that it is indeed invariant. It is the same in both directions. You can do the same for an electromagnetic field.

Relativity is a very well established principle. By the use of light clocks, we have established it to be very accurate indeed.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Quote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

A "Law" would be proven true beyond the possibility of disproof, and in science there is nothing that it true beyond the possibility of disproof.

The law component simply refers to the law that describes it. Most principles in physics are "theories" with accompanyting laws", like gravity and the inverse square law. Splitting hairs, I know, but the distinction is important.

You are quite right, and it's a worthwhile clarification, I think. Thank you. Smiling 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid