- NEW!
This question is to encourage discussion.
Disclosure: I am a theist.
I realize some atheist, like some theist or deist, are mature and civil individuals who don't need reminders on proper adult behavior. At times we all go through that. I am guilty myself. But, lets try: Leave the insults and straw man's at the door please. I realize some of you may not up for this type of discussion so ignore this question if you really feel the need to enter in fallacies of every sort, especially the straw man. I thank you in advance for your mature and well reasoned responses.
I also turned this into a poll but don't know if the words will come out as I intended them. Please make a selection. I may not be able to get to everyone but I do appreciate your time.
by mrrw on August 12th, 2011
by -O-uknow on October 30th, 2011
Indeed...
I don't think most atheist realize that in order to reject God (intelligent uncaused first cause) they must accept that in the absence of everything, everything Popped into existence uncaused (or at least the elementary things our universe is made of) or one of the various illogical infinite regression type theories.
Of course some merely state they don't know or it cannot be known, more in line with agnostics.
by no_one_special on December 2nd, 2011
by Premortem dichotomy on October 30th, 2011
Are you leaning in either direction?
by no_one_special on December 2nd, 2011
by Magenta
on October 30th, 2011
voted:
Leaning towards something alwasy there
Magenta, thank you for your comment and your vote.
According to String this is the case. However, what evidence supports this? I've listened to Ed Witten but he acknowledges it may turn out to be completely wrong. This is why I ask on what evidence do you feel this way.
Also, do you feel that these colliding M-branes are intelligence or unknown physics. In other words, are they put in motion by a free will or an infinite regression type motion.
by no_one_special on December 2nd, 2011
The only evidence is mathematical, and yes it just might be all wrong.
That is a major diference between a scientific worldview and a religious one- I am perfectly OK with accepting that something is unknown.
I would like it if humanity gathers more information, but some things are beyond our ability to detect, or at least beyond our ability right now. So, it is simply "unknown" (or unknown for now). There is no need to invent a magical solution, since it would have no evidence to suport it either.
You say:
"Also, do you feel that these colliding M-branes are intelligence or unknown physics. In other words, are they put in motion by a free will or an infinite regression type motion."
Completely and utterly unknown.
But, Occam's razor would suggest that they would not be intelligent, they would simply be forces of nature.
by Magenta on December 3rd, 2011
I gotta go for now but I will be back. Thank you very much for your comments.
by no_one_special on December 3rd, 2011
Hello Magenta. :D
Quote, "That is a major diference between a scientific worldview and a religious one- I am perfectly OK with accepting that something is unknown."
Actually the religious are quite comfortable with stating they don't know. I think where you differ is in what you say you don't know versus what they and even I, say is not known. But both in science and religion there are those who say they don't know and those who say they know all.
Quote, "I would like it if humanity gathers more information, but some things are beyond our ability to detect, or at least beyond our ability right now. So, it is simply "unknown" (or unknown for now). There is no need to invent a magical solution, since it would have no evidence to suport it either."
We both agree that there need not be any inventing of magical solutions. I am not a big fan of fiction whether it be from religion or science. At times magic-like solutions, though, are given in science but they are not really science at all.
Quote, "Completely and utterly unknown.
But, Occam's razor would suggest that they would not be intelligent, they would simply be forces of nature."
Occam's razor doesn't suggest it would be forces of nature. Are you familiar with what Occam's razor is? Most people use it in this type of discussion to steer an answer's likelihood away from an intelligent first cause.
However, Occam's leaning towards the simplest explanation must also be a possible explanation, logically coherent.... Think real carefully about that for a while. After you have thought it through, I'd like your thoughts.
I have more to say on this...
by no_one_special on December 5th, 2011
....
by no_one_special on December 6th, 2011
You say:
"Actually the religious are quite comfortable with stating they don't know. "
No, by definition, they do not.
That is the nature of belief- holding a position to be true even when there is no evidence to suport it.
That means instead of accepting an unknown, they make up an answer.
The big example of that is the question "What happens when you die?"
Every religion has an answer to that question, when they have no basis for it.
You say:
"We both agree that there need not be any inventing of magical solutions. I am not a big fan of fiction whether it be from religion or science. At times magic-like solutions, though, are given in science but they are not really science at all."
Religion is, again by definition, magical answers to unanswered questions.
Gods, angels, demons, saints, miracles, sons-of-god, souls, heaven, hell, - all of this is magic.
The only science that is not really science at all, is not really science at all.
Pseudo-science with their ointments and charms are just like religion, and have no bearing on the actual scientific process.
And yes, I understand Occam's Razor.
So It seems I need to explain it to you.
Intelligence is an incredibly complex process.
So far we only know of one example of it- humans.
Well, to a lesser extent animals also.
Forces of nature interacting is a simple process.
And we have countless examples of it all over the universe.
... and those complex Intelligences arose from those simpler processes.
The concept that some intelligence was required for the random bumping of M-Branes is no different from thinking some intelligence is required to control the weather or the waves on the ocean.
That is what primitive people thought- Gods of the sky and Gods of the sea- because they did not understand the natural forces behind them.
So, you are constructing a God of the M-branes.
You do this rather than accept the far simpler, and far more logical conclusion- they are just forces of nature; just a form of nature far more vast than we previously were aware of.
by Magenta on December 6th, 2011
I said: "Actually the religious are quite comfortable with stating they don't know." AND "I think where you differ is in what you say you don't know versus what they and even I, say is not known."
Please don't ignore that part. You know its true that there are things we say we don't know Magenta. Trinitarians, say they don't understand how God can be three in one. I certainly am not in that camp as it is an illogical idea. However, if you look around AB on that topic you will find many theist happily admitting they "don't know" how that is possible. Again, "where you differ is in what you say you don't know versus what they and even I, say is not known."
Anyways, your response, even while leaving that last sentence out is still wrong. Lets take a look.
Quote, "No, by definition, they do not."
What definition is that? There is a difference between credulity and faith. But this sentence is in response to my statement that there are things we don't know and are quite comfortable in admitting. Since I admitted there are things I don't know and and am quite comfortable in admitting, I can only conclude you missed that sentence because I don't want to accuse you of taking me out of context. I know sometimes I miss a thing or two. Please pay close attention to what I am saying because I am paying very close attention to what you are saying.
Quote, "That is the nature of belief- holding a position to be true even when there is no evidence to suport it."
Again, this is credulity you speak of. But I never claimed this is how I hold my beliefs. Even if other theist hold them in the way you describe, it has no bearing on me. You are talking to me and not them so please do not assume. I was an atheist for years. In fact, I was an agnostic since I was about 12. Prior to that I never gave God much thought. At 14 I became an atheist and since then I held strongly to atheism. About six years ago or so, I started to see a strong inference from scientific facts that design was likely given the odds against life. The inference was so strong that I could put faith in an uncaused cause as more likely than the alternatives. I searched through other religions but upon examining the evidence I reluctantly had to go where the evidence from History, science and prophecy led me. Trust me, I didn't want to be Christian.
Quote, "That means instead of accepting an unknown, they make up an answer."
That is not true. I don't even think you believe anyone really does that. Come on, who just sites there and makes up stuff as they go along? Even the most credulous of believers follow someone else, some holy book, some philosopher, something anything and then they accept it. So, by definition the most credulous don't make it up.
Quote, "The big example of that is the question "What happens when you die?"
This big example you give negates nothing I've said thus far. I never said there are things we don't assert. I said there are things we assert and admit we don't know why and we take it up on faith and some on credulity. I also said it isn't something unique to believers as many atheist do the same thing. It isn't the case that two wrongs make a right or that hypocrisy is being pointed out. I am just calling your attention to see that giving one example of something we are not denying is not a negation. Like me saying "Aha! You are an atheist and don't believe in God." Well geez... You weren't denying it in the first place.
cont...
by no_one_special on December 7th, 2011
...cont
Quote, "Religion is, again by definition, magical answers to unanswered questions.
Gods, angels, demons, saints, miracles, sons-of-god, souls, heaven, hell, - all of this is magic."
Not at all. I really wanna see this dictionary you keep pulling these definitions from. Religion, at least Christianity and according to the bible from where Christianity is supposed to come from, is not about magic. In fact, magic is spoken of in a very negative light. Of course you can say its false and whatever, but, magic--no.
I think what you are calling magic or equating with magic is things for which no empirical data exists. But that is not the same as magic and amounts to a "Straw man" if you keep doing it. Leave the fallacies out as best you can.
Quote, "The only science that is not really science at all, is not really science at all.
Pseudo-science with their ointments and charms are just like religion, and have no bearing on the actual scientific process."
Some would place M-theory under that category as well... Do you have any empirical data for that? Or would you say that, although there is no empirical data for support, there is mathematical support? If you answer mathematical support would you accept logical negations? If not, why not?
Quote, "And yes, I understand Occam's Razor.
So It seems I need to explain it to you."
Maybe you forgot, but, you didn't explain it anywhere in your last comment. But I found a nice anti-religion (or so it appears) website explaining it in simple terms. Take a look when you can.
OCCAM'S RAZOR
Justifying Stupidity since 1347
logicien.fr/outbound/item/48-occams-razor-fallacy.html?5a047cb9c00d6d9dee9d9f3a4a4b3f50=10c324ccaa5039edc5684014a1645645
You claim you know what Occam's razor is but by your use it shows you either haven't thought deeper on the logical implications of pulling the Occam card out or you followed the misuse of many atheist who don't have a good understanding of logic... Its fallacious if you intended to use it as "simple explanation is more likely" since an explanation must also be possible and logically coherent when dealing with reality. I take it I don't have to explain how something can be logical and yet impossible...?
Quote, "Intelligence is an incredibly complex process.
So far we only know of one example of it- humans.
Well, to a lesser extent animals also.
Forces of nature interacting is a simple process.
And we have countless examples of it all over the universe.
... and those complex Intelligences arose from those simpler processes."
Evolution is another huge assumption which has been shown to be full of wholes and magic-like solutions. But for the sake of argument, lets go with you're right... It negates nothing and has not much bearing on an uncaused cause. The question is does God exist not whether intelligence can rise by a simple process.
Quote, "The concept that some intelligence was required for the random bumping of M-Branes is no different from thinking some intelligence is required to control the weather or the waves on the ocean."
Actually you are correct... However, I don't think you understand what you just said. It appears (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are hung up on "some intelligence" doing something like moving waves when we have a set of physics that accounts for motion. This is where one needs to step back, all the way back as far as logic can take you and get to the point where and when there was no motion. It is here where an intelligence is an absolute logical necessity... Unless of course, you believe in magic......?
Quote, "That is what primitive people thought- Gods of the sky and Gods of the sea- because they did not understand the natural forces behind them."
Genetic fallacy. Sorry but that is a fallacious line of reason.
cont...
by no_one_special on December 7th, 2011
cont...
Quote, "So, you are constructing a God of the M-branes."
Wrong. I never said "we don't know, therefore God did it". Something along those lines would qualify as a God of the Gaps/branes, sure. However, my argument is simply that something not moved must have set things in motion. The unmoved mover. In addition it must be an intelligence. Now of course, I'm not asking you to accept that, which is why I am having this discussion with you. You can reject my arguments but I encourage you to do so logically. What you just did is not a valid rejection. God of the M-branes was a straw man. OH and please don't do its equivalent, the always lame, argument from ignorance... They sorta cancel each other out.
The only alternatives, if we can call them that are, infinite regression, a self-refuting hypothesis and the only other alternative is that in the absence of everything, everything came to exist--commonly known as magic.
Quote, "You do this rather than accept the far simpler, and far more logical conclusion-"
It has to be possible and logical. Simple doesn't equal real.
Quote, "they are just forces of nature; just a form of nature far more vast than we previously were aware of."
By definition nature is from the natural world. Hence, by nature, they could not be. Now if your definition exceeds the natural world (physical world) then you don't really have a definition you are just trying to escape God. Be that as it may, all that would have to be asked is, "is nature intelligence that put things in motion?" and you are back to square one.
Now, can you please stop assuming, stop the straw man's, stop the genetic fallacies. No argument from authority yet, lets keep it that way. Lets have a fallacy free conversation... As best we can of course.
by no_one_special on December 7th, 2011
Damn, that was a whole lot of ramble saying absolutely nothing.
No way in hell am I wasting my time reading all of that- if you can't trim your argument down to just one post, forget it.
You don't read whole paragraphs and grasp whole concepts and address them- instead you take individual sentences out of context and address each one individually.
All you have done, from the little bit I bothered to read, is show you don't have the slightest grasp of basic reading skills, much less reasoning skills.
by Magenta on December 7th, 2011
Quote, "Damn, that was a whole lot of ramble saying absolutely nothing."
Each paragraph was appropriate. I do see how that can be daunting and bothersome I must admit. To remedy that, please, leave out the fallacies. I don't like calling anyone out on them either. So, if you don't do it, I don't have to.
Quote, "No way in hell am I wasting my time reading all of that- if you can't trim your argument down to just one post, forget it."
I'd LOVE to just that. so please stop assuming.
Quote, "You don't read whole paragraphs and grasp whole concepts and address them- instead you take individual sentences out of context and address each one individually."
No, thats what you did and I called you on it. I broke down a few things so that even IF I didn't call you on it you'd still be wrong. That is why I broke it down the way I did.
Quote, "All you have done, from the little bit I bothered to read, is show you don't have the slightest grasp of basic reading skills, much less reasoning skills."
Oh puh-leeeez lets not go there... You aren't fooling anyone with that cop-out.
by no_one_special on December 7th, 2011
Here is a short argument I gave just a while ago... Remember don't assume and use fallacies. Don't you realize when you do that you force the other side to correct each point? Anyways.... This is a copy paste of what I just wrote to someone else...
Argument part 1.
"Its actually quite simple: If you accept the Big Bang theory you must accept that at one time the natural world did not exist. If you accept that the natural world did not exist and at the same time reject that in the absence of everything and anything, everything POPPED into existence, then you must accept that something non-physical existed prior to the BB.
1. Universe had a beginning.
2. Things don't pop into existence.
3 Therefore, a non-physical realm exist from where the physical came into being.
You can call it supernatural since its beyond the natural, though, it has quite a bit of a negative connation to it. I call it the non-physical realm others call it the spiritual real. What is important is how one defines it not how one chooses to call it. Once one gets the definition the label matters not.
Anyways, there is a logically and necessary path to something beyond our physical world. So long as you accept the BB and that things don't just pop into existence of course."
There is another part on whether or not the cause is intelligent... Thats s separate argument.
by no_one_special on December 7th, 2011
THis conversation is insane.
I made NO fallacies of reasoning- none.
You did a huge heap of strawmen, showing you had absolutely no clue what I was saying, and those strawmen were fallacies. Your whole reply was filled with assumptions- including assumptions that I made assumptions!
None made here, pal!
As far as your NEW points:
1.) Yes, OUR universe would have had a beginning, not necessarily the metaverse.
2.) OUR universe DID pop into existence, from the metaverse.
Things pop into existence all the time- from other things.
3.) THis is your HUGE LEAP, not based on any rational thought.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for it being "non-physical". It is simply not part of our universe's laws of physics. We don't know what laws of physics apply there.
Claiming it is non-physical is like claiming Canadians don't have any laws because they don't follow the laws of the United States.
Now, you post a concept about universes poping into existance from something non-physical and non-natural, when the whole point in String Theory is that individual universes when they form each get their own laws of physics- but that which exists in the metaverse is not "supernatural"- it is natural, it is just a part of nature we do not know much about, and more likely than not can never reach or measure.
Earlier, you jumped to your proposition that M-Branes would be intelligent.
And, I said:
"Completely and utterly unknown.
But, Occam's razor would suggest that they would not be intelligent, they would simply be forces of nature."
This is where you got offended by logic, insulted me, and showed you have no clue how Occam's Razor works.
Heck, you did not even get the point that intelligence is a more complex answer than simple forces of nature, thus Occam's Razor would point to forces over intelligence.
That was the whole point where you ran off into a rant- from that.
by Magenta on December 7th, 2011
I'm am being nice here so please don't read more into it than necessary, but, do you understand what a negation is? You have to provide negations to my premises or else you are not attacking my argument. You actually agree with me on points one and two but completely missed the intent even though I wrote it. Your third point is actually a self contradiction given that you accepted the first two. Oh and as far as your first point I noticed you said that our universe had a beginning but "not necessarily the metaverse".... According to the Borde, Guth and Vilenkin theorm... Any universe with an expansion rate greater than zero must have a beginning. This make a serious problem for the metaverse hypothesis, if not flat out debunks it. But I digress...
I don't think you truly understand logical consequences. And please, don't take anything personal. I don't know what thread you are reading but I have not been rude to you nor have I insulted you. You are more than welcome to point it out by quoting me verbatim. Whenever you feel insulted check to see if its your ego that is being hurt by your inability to comprehend the arguments rather than impute wrong motives to your opposition.
As for straw men and assumptions and how you claim you didn't commit these things... Please scroll up to Dec 6, your last comment. You accused me of making a "God of the M-branes" while I am in no way doing so. I was merely trying to get your views on the possibility of intelligence at the first cause in the causal steps leading to our universe.
RE: Occam's Razor.
I am truly surprised you are still clinging to it as some sort of response to the question whether God was the first cause or not. Occam does not qualify as a negation of any sort. At best it can be used as a reminder not to let your imagination run contrary to logic. But it in now way suggests that a simpler explanation is more likely on the mere fact its simple. This is where you missed my first negation or counter to your use Occam's razor when I said, "However, Occam's leaning towards the simplest explanation must also be a possible explanation, logically coherent....".
If you can't offer an argument to counter what I said you have no basis for continuing to use Occam's Razor. This is what was and am respectfully trying to get you to see. Think: Anything that a man makes is simpler than he is and yet are arranged by something (himself) which is far more complex than what he created/arranged. Be it a book or a cake, its simpler and upon finding either one you'd have to posit a more complex explanation, a human being, in order to explain it.
And though you could offer examples of simple processes adding a degree of complexity the above would still stand as a counter to Occam. I trust I don't have to explain that to you? Something simple coming from something more complex kills the use of Occam.
by no_one_special on December 8th, 2011
Oh one more thing....
Quote, "Now, you post a concept about universes poping into existance from something non-physical and non-natural, when the whole point in String Theory is that individual universes when they form each get their own laws of physics- but that which exists in the metaverse is not "supernatural"- it is natural, it is just a part of nature we do not know much about, and more likely than not can never reach or measure."
Thats just semantics. I already addressed that by saying: "You can call it supernatural since its beyond the natural, though, it has quite a bit of a negative connation to it. I call it the non-physical realm others call it the spiritual real. What is important is how one defines it not how one chooses to call it. Once one gets the definition the label matters not."
In other words if you were to expand you definition of "natural" to include anything that exists, existed or will exist in any universe, then, your point becomes quite moot. God or the uncaused first cause is therefore natural and you are back to square one.
And BTW you are "arguing from ignorance". Saying that, in essence, "we don't know but its some sort of physics but it aint God" is a pretty obvious fallacy.
Furthermore, even if it were some sort of unknown physics it still does not negate intelligence operating. In fact, no matter how you frame it, an intelligence is required or else you run into one of the self refuting infinite regression hypothesis.
by no_one_special on December 8th, 2011
You say:
"I'm am being nice here so please don't read more into it than necessary,"
Well, you are doing an awful job of it, because you don't seem to be able to write a post without insults.
Which is amazing, considering your grasp of logic.
You say:
"You have to provide negations to my premises or else you are not attacking my argument. "
Your entire argument was meaningless, and a bizarre tangent- we WERE discussing your assumption that M-Branes have intelligence, and your belief that intelligence is a simpler answer than forces of nature.
Yet, I humored you, and addressed it- I did not need to negate each of your points, I'm still waiting for any conclusion that Intelligence must be simpler than simple natural forces.
You say:
"Any universe with an expansion rate greater than zero must have a beginning. "
Except, we have NO IDEA if the metaverse is expanding or not.
You simply jumped to a conclusion that it was, without any evidence to suport it.
I'm sorry that you are unable to grasp basic logic, but please don't take my pointing that out as an insult to you.
You say:
"You accused me of making a "God of the M-branes" while I am in no way doing so"
Because that is exactly what you are doing- by attaching intelligence to the M-Branes you are making them into intelligent creators of the universe. You are making the M-Branes Gods.
RE: Occam's Razor.
I am truly surprised that you keep trying to drive the conversation of-topic to some tangent instead of addressing the point.
Again, your assumptions- I never said it qualifies as a negation.
Here is what I said:
Completely and utterly unknown.
But, Occam's razor would suggest that they would not be intelligent, they would simply be forces of nature.
Have you yet learned that forces of nature is the simpler conclusion?
You keep trying to go off-track, or twist words, or do anything other than address the question in front of you. I never said that Occam's Razor determines the true answer to a question- just which is more likely, given the evidence available.
You accused me of not understanding Occam's Razor- and in so doing, you showed you do not.
by Magenta on December 8th, 2011
You say:
"Think: Anything that a man makes is simpler than he is and yet are arranged by something (himself) which is far more complex than what he created/arranged. Be it a book or a cake, its simpler and upon finding either one you'd have to posit a more complex explanation, a human being, in order to explain it.
And though you could offer examples of simple processes adding a degree of complexity the above would still stand as a counter to Occam. I trust I don't have to explain that to you? Something simple coming from something more complex kills the use of Occam."
Again, you demonstrate you do not understand Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor addresses the simplicity or complexity of concepts, not "people".
You cannot say "anything a man makes is simpler than he" because there is no way to measure the complexity of a man compared to, for example, a computer program.
And simple processes building up over time do not "counter" Occam.
Simple processes building up over time is the simpler CONCEPT compared to the CONCEPT of a complex creator.
The process of complexity arising from a step-by-step process is explained by Chaos Theory, and demonstrated by Fractal mathematics.
It is something we know occurs, and is widespread.
No more complex creator needed.
by Magenta on December 8th, 2011
You say:
"And BTW you are "arguing from ignorance". Saying that, in essence, "we don't know but its some sort of physics but it aint God" is a pretty obvious fallacy."
Yes, it is.
Good thing I'm not doing that.
I prefer to leave all the fallacies- like that strawman- to you.
What I AM saying is, in your words, that we don't know but the MORE LIKELY ANSWER its some sort of physics RATHER THAN God.
Remember that's where I invoked Occam's Razor in the first place, thus it was about what is LIKELY, not an absolute negation of the possibility?
Like the other conversation with TrueSeeker, you do not read the words written, you read things into them.
by Magenta on December 8th, 2011
You say:
"Furthermore, even if it were some sort of unknown physics it still does not negate intelligence operating. In fact, no matter how you frame it, an intelligence is required or else you run into one of the self refuting infinite regression hypothesis."
There you go with your unsupported assumptions again.
No, there is no requirement for any intelligence.
Expecting a complex structure to have a MORE complex creator creates an infinite regression- because the more complex creator would need a creator too, more complex than it is.
The simple fact of simple things building up over time starts with a simple event- a big bang.
by Magenta on December 8th, 2011
Magenta, thank you for keeping a level head. I really do appreciate your comments, believe it or not.
Before I respond (because I'm sleepy and also don't want to launch an unintentional straw man) please tell me what you mean by "metaverse".
Though I doubt it will make much of a difference since my arguments are fine with multiple universes just not an infinite amount of universes. And the BVG theorem I think also kills that idea-the infinite ensemble of universes part at least.
I have heard a few things from a few people. The way I understand it is its basically a multiverse. That there exists multiple universes in pretty much, for lack of a better term, dimensions inaccessible at least at the moment and perhaps forever due to our location or physics.
Those other universes having, possibly, there own set of physics.
Good night. :)
by no_one_special on December 8th, 2011
We live in a universe with three physical dimensions, plus time as a fourth.
Our universe is governed by a set of forces- gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear forces, etc.
Each parallel universe can be radically different from our own, with completely different laws of physics, if they have any at all. They do not even need to have stars and planets- they could be completely and totally incomprehensible to us, so we can make no assertions about them.
The "parent" universe, the one that all the other universes bud from, has 10 or 11 dimensions (or more), and possibly more than one flow of time.
M-Branes are multi-dimensional "things" within that space.
Forces, mater, whatever- our words just don't work, so scientists coin new words.
When these things colide, universes bubble off as a result of the collision.
There is no reason to assume they are conscious, and colliding on purpose, and designing these universes that bubble off, and are concerned with the welfare of the beings living on the worlds in the universes that formed because of their drunk-driving accident.
Here is a lovely picture of one of these Gods of Chaos:
by Magenta on December 9th, 2011
You say:
"Though I doubt it will make much of a difference since my arguments are fine with multiple universes just not an infinite amount of universes. And the BVG theorem I think also kills that idea-the infinite ensemble of universes part at least."
The main universe is of unknown size and unknown origin, most likely it has always existed and is infinite, with an infinite number of M-branes, with infinite collisions, creating infinite universes.
THink of it this way- you believe a being, God, for lack of a beter word a "person" who is infinite, and has always existed, and created everything on purpose.
I'm saying that the concept of of a universe filled with flowing sheet "things" is far more likely- because of Occam's Razor.
We know things exist, we know there is a universe filled with things.
The only persons we know of are us- and to a lesser extent, the animals.
And us persons came from things; from a simple step-by step process, the "Chain of Causality" which we know occurs because it has been observed.
So, the concept that this step-by-step process is behind the formation of the universe is FAR SIMPLER than the concept that there is a person out there who purposefully designed everything.
by Magenta on December 9th, 2011
I very much appreciate your comments! :)
I saw two things I that I'd like to question just a bit before I respond.
Quote, "The "parent" universe, the one that all the other universes bud from, has 10 or 11 dimensions (or more), and possibly more than one flow of time."
Quote, "The main universe is of unknown size and unknown origin, most likely it has always existed and is infinite, with an infinite number of M-branes, with infinite collisions, creating infinite universes."
So, is this "parent universe" the beginning of all beginnings?
*side note: There is a difference between infinity and eternity. (keep that in mind)
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2011
We have no idea if it is the "beginning of all beginnings" or not.
So far, we have no reason to assume there is anything beyond it;
And the key concept- no reason to assume any intelligence is behind it or within it.
Yes, infinity is space, and eternity is time.
Since I said "most likely it has always existed and is infinite" it's obvious I was talking about both.
Since you felt the need to make the "side note" it seems like the words were new to you.
Any other vocabulary words you would like me to define?
by Magenta on December 9th, 2011
I apologize for not being clear and assuming you'd understand what I meant as far as the difference between eternal and infinity. There is much debate and disagreement as far as how to define them in different practices. Instead I will post the definition in the context I am using it in this conversation.
Eternity
"While in the popular mind, eternity (or foreverness) often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside time. By contrast, infinite temporal existence is then called sempiternity. Something eternal exists outside time; by contrast, something sempiternal exists throughout an infinite time. Sempiternity is also known as everlastingness."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity
Thats the wiki version. Here is mine:
Eternity is something apart/separate from time.
Infinity is something within time that is boundless--the abstract. An example of this are numbers. Think Cantor's Infinities within infinities.
We don't think of numbers as eternal but rather infinite and anything that exists outside of time or in the absence of time we don't think as infinite.
I have made a mistake on a thread when I described God as infinite when I should have said he is eternal--timeless.
But the labels can get to be a semantics game. So long as one understands "how" one is using a word problems will be minimal.
Now onto some clarifications I've been holding off on.
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2011
I said: "I'm am being nice here so please don't read more into it than necessary,"
You said:"Well, you are doing an awful job of it, because you don't seem to be able to write a post without insults.
Which is amazing, considering your grasp of logic."
Please forgive my insensitivity.
I said"You have to provide negations to my premises or else you are not attacking my argument."
You said: "Your entire argument was meaningless, and a bizarre tangent- we WERE discussing your assumption that M-Branes have intelligence, and your belief that intelligence is a simpler answer than forces of nature."
No. We were never discussing an assumption that M-branes have intelligence. I asked you if you felt the had intelligence. This was merely to test the water. I do not, I repeat do not, believe in M-branes in the first place. Reason being is it is highly speculative without a logical evidence for the theory to hold up in reality. In fact, most theorist recognize this and have been working on it for some time now. But it appears it will soon fizzle out as there is no empirical data or any logical argument that can transplant this even in theory to reality. It only works as a mathmaicla formula.
Also, I don't think I said intelligence is simpler than forces of nature. I said Occam's razor did not favor natural forces. That was it...
Quote, "Yet, I humored you, and addressed it- I did not need to negate each of your points, I'm still waiting for any conclusion that Intelligence must be simpler than simple natural forces."
I don't remember making that argument. I do think though that if we followed things to their logical consequences, an uncaused cause would be logically valid over a set of physics that existed or exist from eternity. Remember, simplicity does not equal validity.
I said: "Any universe with an expansion rate greater than zero must have a beginning."
You said: "Except, we have NO IDEA if the metaverse is expanding or not.
You simply jumped to a conclusion that it was, without any evidence to suport it."
I never said the metaverse was expanding. I said "IF" it is expanding the BVG theorem applies and therefore had to of had a beginning. Now, assuming it is not expanding and that it indeed exists, then one must come up for a reason why there is motion and collision in the absence of gravity and other forces. So that, even if you posit eternity for the metaverse, you'd still have to justify logically its movements apart from our physics. This is a huge problem because apart from free will, any physics, would need a cause to get things moving. Even if you claim there can be a new and strange set of physics, they still need causes, a law, a way in which it operates in the absence of a cause. Its self contradictory and therefore impossible. But you are welcome to present an argument.
Quote, "I'm sorry that you are unable to grasp basic logic, but please don't take my pointing that out as an insult to you."
Your argument for the above please. Or the negation to my three points in earlier comment's.
I said: "You accused me of making a "God of the M-branes" while I am in no way doing so"
You said: "Because that is exactly what you are doing- by attaching intelligence to the M-Branes you are making them into intelligent creators of the universe. You are making the M-Branes Gods."
I was just trying to see your openness to intelligence... M-theory is not supported by science.
cont...
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2011
,,,cont
QUOTE, "RE: Occam's Razor.
I am truly surprised that you keep trying to drive the conversation of-topic to some tangent instead of addressing the point.
Again, your assumptions- I never said it qualifies as a negation.
Here is what I said:
Completely and utterly unknown.
But, Occam's razor would suggest that they would not be intelligent, they would simply be forces of nature.
Have you yet learned that forces of nature is the simpler conclusion?
You keep trying to go off-track, or twist words, or do anything other than address the question in front of you. I never said that Occam's Razor determines the true answer to a question- just which is more likely, given the evidence available.
You accused me of not understanding Occam's Razor- and in so doing, you showed you do not."
END QUOTE.
You can't use it. Its fallacious. If you really understand what Occam can logically accomplish then you need stop using it in this context.
I said:"Think: Anything that a man makes is simpler than he is and yet are arranged by something (himself) which is far more complex than what he created/arranged. Be it a book or a cake, its simpler and upon finding either one you'd have to posit a more complex explanation, a human being, in order to explain it.
And though you could offer examples of simple processes adding a degree of complexity the above would still stand as a counter to Occam. I trust I don't have to explain that to you? Something simple coming from something more complex kills the use of Occam."
You said: "Again, you demonstrate you do not understand Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor addresses the simplicity or complexity of concepts, not "people".
Wrong. All that Occam is saying is that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (though he may not have said that in his writings). Whether people or otherwise, that is the extent that it can applied to. That is it... People have been misusing it for quite some time now. It doesn't even suggest that simple is more likely. It doesn't even say anything about likeliness. All it is doing is saying not to make up more things than are necessary.
Quote, "You cannot say "anything a man makes is simpler than he" because there is no way to measure the complexity of a man compared to, for example, a computer program."
Thats faulty reasoning. The fact we cannot measure to what extent an man is complex does not mean we cannot see the limitations of a computer program. So that, if we see the limit to the computer program and yet we cannot see/measure the limit to man we know that the latter is superior in complexity even though we have not fully measure the man out.
Quote, "And simple processes building up over time do not "counter" Occam."
You are correct. It does counter the way in which you applied Occam though.
Quote, "Simple processes building up over time is the simpler CONCEPT compared to the CONCEPT of a complex creator."
A moot point. It has no bearing on the truthfulness, possibility, plausibility of whether a Creator exists. Unless you are claiming that because simple processes exist and can become complex, therefore, it negates God. I surely hope that wasn't what you were trying to say...
cont...
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2011
...cont
Quote, "The process of complexity arising from a step-by-step process is explained by Chaos Theory, and demonstrated by Fractal mathematics.
It is something we know occurs, and is widespread.
No more complex creator needed."
With all due respect, thats one heck of a non sequitur. Assuming you are correct, for the sake of argument, you have only successfully established that complexity can arise step-by-step. A point, I am not challenging. A point, that is irrelevant on this thread and topic. None of that which you mention address how things like our universe comes into existence or who or how (if thats more palatable) physics came to be in the first place. It doesn't support infinite regression by making it logically coherent nor does it show how in the absence of everything, everything came to be.
I think you are hung up to much on complexity rather than existence and how things come to be in a causal chain where there is an end or beginning to that chain stretching into our time. I think this is where we are missing each other.
Quote, "What I AM saying is, in your words, that we don't know but the MORE LIKELY ANSWER its some sort of physics RATHER THAN God."
On what grounds? See? The grounds that its simpler? I hope not... The criteria is "possibility" NOT "simplicity".
Quote, "Remember that's where I invoked Occam's Razor in the first place, thus it was about what is LIKELY, not an absolute negation of the possibility?"
And there is the misuse. From the very beginning I countered that line of reason.
Quote, "Like the other conversation with TrueSeeker, you do not read the words written, you read things into them."
Not at all. Though I see you seem to be suffering from that illness.
I said: "Furthermore, even if it were some sort of unknown physics it still does not negate intelligence operating. In fact, no matter how you frame it, an intelligence is required or else you run into one of the self refuting infinite regression hypothesis."
You said: "There you go with your unsupported assumptions again.
No, there is no requirement for any intelligence."
Its not an assumption, its a deduction. Physics cannot exist eternally because it leads to an infinite regression. As soon as you have motion without a cause from eternity, you have an infinite regression. The only counter to that is no cause is needed for motion. The only way one can have no cause to something that has motion or takes action is if it is free will, it wasn't caused externally. The only way we get free will (no external cause) is in the presence of intelligence... Like I said, its a deduction... BTW only an uncaused cause could have that level of free will.
Quote, "Expecting a complex structure to have a MORE complex creator creates an infinite regression- because the more complex creator would need a creator too, more complex than it is."
No. That is a variation of the "if everything needs a creator, then who created God?" Most sophisticated atheist don't use such arguments. But first I'd like to point out this defeats your previous argument that simple can lead to complex. But anyway, your reasoning is faulty here as well. You are assuming a creator needs a creator but that only applies with things that begin to exist. If something is said to exist from eternity, it needs no creator. And lest you claim this is special pleading, I will remind you that this is in fact something you have stated, that the metaverse has always existed and that there is no reason to believe anything preceded it. So your problem isn't with eternity and therefore you can't claim infinite regression. The problem why your version doesn't pan out logically is physics need a cause or else it will lead to an infinite regression.
...cont
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2011
cont...
Quote, "Each parallel universe can be radically different from our own, with completely different laws of physics, if they have any at all. They do not even need to have stars and planets- they could be completely and totally incomprehensible to us, so we can make no assertions about them."
But the problem remains the same. Unless you have a cause for those physics, they couldn't get moving and colliding in the first place without leading to an infinite regression of cause and effect. To suppose that there has been physics with motion and collision without them ever starting is to toss logic out the reason for no good reason. Can you justify this somehow?
Quote, "There is no reason to assume they are conscious, and colliding on purpose, and designing these universes that bubble off, and are concerned with the welfare of the beings living on the worlds in the universes that formed because of their drunk-driving accident."
But they still need a cause. You can't get around that even if you attribute eternity to this metaverse because you'd have to assume motion and collision are eternal and caused by an infinite chain of cause and effect.
Quote, "The main universe is of unknown size and unknown origin, most likely it has always existed and is infinite, with an infinite number of M-branes, with infinite collisions, creating infinite universes."
There is no logical path to any of that. None whatsoever. Furthermore, an actual number of infinite events is also illogical. Please review Hilbert's Hotel for the logical consequences here: http://youtu.be/lobeX6ft6PA
Quote, "I'm saying that the concept of of a universe filled with flowing sheet "things" is far more likely- because of Occam's Razor."
You really need to stop using that...
Quote, "
And us persons came from things; from a simple step-by step process, the "Chain of Causality" which we know occurs because it has been observed.
So, the concept that this step-by-step process is behind the formation of the universe is FAR SIMPLER than the concept that there is a person out there who purposefully designed everything."
Simplicity does not therefore equal validity. Stop using Occam's razor. It doesn't even mean likelihood. Do you know what truth machines are? If you do, try stick it in there and how it falls apart.
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2011
Please refute my arguments. Just the main points if you'd like.
1. Infinite regression is self defeating.
2. Physics cannot be causeless or their own cause
3. Therefore any physics need a cause.
4. Therefore physics have a cause
5. Therefore physics are not eternal.
6. Therefore something eternal caused them.
7. Therefore an uncaused cause.
Its late... Good night.
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2011
Eternity
The point is that while we do not know the characteristics of this parent universe, it quite likely it has always existed and is of infinite size.
It's existance is outside of OUR concept of time, since OUR time was created when our universe was created.
But it has it's own time, perhaps more than one, governing it, so your inside/outside distinction does not apply; it assumes only one linear path called "time".
You say:
"I have made a mistake on a thread when I described God as infinite when I should have said he is eternal--timeless."
As far as God is concerned, the popular western definition is infinite AND eternal.
Are you saying your God concept is NOT infinite, JUST eternal?
You say:
"I do not, I repeat do not, believe in M-branes in the first place. Reason being is it is highly speculative without a logical evidence for the theory to hold up in reality. In fact, most theorist recognize this and have been working on it for some time now. But it appears it will soon fizzle out as there is no empirical data or any logical argument that can transplant this even in theory to reality. It only works as a mathmaicla formula."
And as I said, I'm not puting my eggs in that basket either- it is simply the dominant theory right now, but there is no rock-solid evidence to suport it.
At least it is suported mathmaticaly- which places it a step above any belief in God. Now THAT is highly speculative without logical evidence to hold up in reality.
"Also, I don't think I said intelligence is simpler than forces of nature. I said Occam's razor did not favor natural forces. That was it..."
You said Occam's razor did not favor natural forces OVER intelegence.
THUS, you said intelegence is a simpiler answer to the creation of the universe than natural forces.
You say:
"an uncaused cause would be logically valid over a set of physics that existed or exist from eternity."
You are making a distinction where none exists.
A "set of physics that existed or exist from eternity" would BE "an uncaused cause".
But you did not actualy mean "an uncaused cause" when you wrote "an uncaused cause".
You meant an intelgent being.
Every chain of causauality has to start with an uncaused cause, or go back infinitely.
But it does NOT have to be intelegent.
And it certianly does NOT have to have a chosen people, impregnate a woman, and care so much if people worship a golden calf.
That is where these discussions all boil down to- to be religious you MUST abandon logic and take a HUGE leap of faith.
"Remember, simplicity does not equal validity."
Remember, complexity does not equal validity.
But simplicity is more likely.
That's Occam's razor.
you say:
"Now, assuming it is not expanding and that it indeed exists, then one must come up for a reason why there is motion and collision in the absence of gravity and other forces."
Who said there is an absense of gravity and other forces?
You keep making these HUGE assumptions.
As I said from the begining, it has it's OWN laws of physics, not that it has NO laws of physics.
Plus, I'm not putting all my eggs in that basket anyway- you have put all your eggs in the concept that an "uncaused cause" is an intelegent being.
You say:
"Even if you claim there can be a new and strange set of physics, they still need causes, a law, a way in which it operates in the absence of a cause. Its self contradictory and therefore impossible. But you are welcome to present an argument."
Simple- your argument itself is illogical- it is filled with assumptions.
A new and strange set of Physics is, by definition, a set of laws that govern it, and no one said it had to be absent of a cause.
Just that the cause does NOT have to be intelegent.
Again, the diference between the religious and scientific mind:
I'm perfectly capable of accepting that there are things that I don't know.
You think that if there are things that I don't know, that automaticaly means that there is a God who hates golden calfs.
No mate
by Magenta on December 10th, 2011
No mater what I know or do not know, it is up to you to suport your concept that there MUST be an intelligence at work.
You say:
"M-theory is not supported by science."
Spoken like a true man of faith.
by Magenta on December 10th, 2011
I'll jump forward and do these:
Please refute my arguments. Just the main points if you'd like.
1. Infinite regression is self defeating.
Thus, no God.
2. Physics cannot be causeless or their own cause
You are using the word "Physics" like it is an individual thing.
The physics in OUR universe were created durring the Big Bang, which for the sake of this discussion bubbled off of the parent universe, which has it's own physics.
Those physics might have always been- we don't know.
If physics can not be "eternal", then neither could God.
If God can be "eternal", then so can the parent universe.
3. Therefore any physics need a cause.
Does God need a cause?
4. Therefore physics have a cause
5. Therefore physics are not eternal.
6. Therefore something eternal caused them.
7. Therefore an uncaused cause.
Those are not separate points, those are just a single sentence, broken up into bullet points, and all based on HUGE assumptions on your part.
Again- the discussion is not about an "uncaused cause".
It is about an uncaused cause being INTELLIGENT.
The parent universe may have had a cause, it may not, it may be eternal.
The parent universe might be the "uncaused cause".
We don't know.
But you make up a magical intelligent being as the main cause, when there is absolutely no reason to do so.
Again- Occam's Razor slashes your magic man to bits.
BTW- I sugest you actually look up Occam's Razor next time.
by Magenta on December 10th, 2011
Hello Magenta! Hope you are well. Forgive me for the late response. I had to take a break from AB. Personal things...
Anyway...
I see you misunderstood the arguments again. Please, don't worry, its actually quite common. I'll start by explaining why there must be an uncaused cause only so that others who may be reading this post may see where I am going with the idea this is logically necessary from beginning to end.
I'll have to get to the bare essentials rather than respond line by line to the entire post. After this, if you have any objections/refutations I will gladly address them line by line. I think you'll see that each point will address any objections you have raised by 1)correcting the misunderstanding and 2)refuting any area where you understood and provided a refutation.
You can skip the following comment box if you'd like and proceed to the third one from here for the relevant parts.
by no_one_special on January 18th, 2012
In essence, all arguments for our existence fall into one of three categories, though they are not equal as far as logical coherence.
Either something always existed OR something, whatever it was that resulted in our universe, popped into existence uncaused in the absence of anything. Those are the only two options available since what some consider a third, infinite regression, is self-refuting.
The argument: The thought of something not always existing is, in part, because we have an understanding of cause and effect and modern science shows us even our universe has come into existence. However, that this process stretches back into the infinite past is logically contradictory since a causal chain is causally dependent and therefore could not ever come into existence. A causally dependent infinite chain therefore requires that an effect exist before its cause comes into being. This is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist.
That something popped into existence in the absence of anything seems to circumvent this problem, but, it comes with a price. One would have to suspend logic and believe that something, anything, as if by magic, could just pop into existence, give rise to this universe as finely tuned as it is for even its own existence or another set of physics that eventually lead to our current existence. But that isn't very logical. It doesn't follow that anything can come into existence in the absence of everything. And if it was the case, that anything can come into existence uncaused from nothing at all, there is no reason why it isn't happening now, even within our universe. This also falls according to logic because you cannot have something that did not exist, start to exist and yet, have no cause. So long as you believe that anything that begins to exist requires a cause.
There is no fourth option that would not fall, by definition, into one of the three considered. Therefore, the third, something always existed and no false dilemma.
We don't need a cause since it isn't a causally dependent chain, we don't need to believe that something comes from nothing. The only objection is our instincts tell us something cannot always exist, but, logic doesn't tell us that at all. In fact, seeing that only three option are available forces us to believe, logically, in an uncaused cause.
So premise 1. Something always existed.
Next comment will address if anything can affect an uncaused cause to cause something and how.
by no_one_special on January 18th, 2012
The first premise establishes an uncaused cause, but, the question of whether or not it is intelligent is what everyone needs to understand for this type of discussion.
The arguments for premises leading necessarily up to intelligence for the uncaused cause: An uncaused cause must be eternal, that is, apart from time since time also began. This quickly and easily leads to the second premise--the uncaused cause is eternal and apart from time.
2. Uncaused cause is eternal.
Being apart from time, (time being the rate at which things change), it (the uncaused cause) is changeless. It cannot be subject to decay or change according to something like the Second law of Thermodynamics. This also shows that being apart from time and yet causing things to come into existence, events can be caused and the events not necessarily be temporal. But that is a somewhat separate argument, though, relevant if one objects for only temporal events happening. Unless you are prepared to argue a separate definition of time the rest follows, but, it may just be semantics even then. BTW, I at one time argued for a separate definition but was not able to do so and maintain it logically.
To put it simply, no time, no change. At least not from external forces, since none are there with the uncaused cause (they haven't been created yet), or forces within a system in any way reactionary subject to decay or loss of energy or even an increase (if one tried to argue an uncaused cause is a system of some sort, reacting to itself it would need time and therefore not eternal and therefore needing a cause... And the BVG theorem would apply). Also see premise four, but, we'll get there in a sec.
side note: It is logically permissible for other beings that are eternal to exist, but, not in the same sense as not having a cause. Logic does not permit more than one uncaused eternal being. I can argue that if you object.
Premise 3. Uncaused cause is changeless.
by no_one_special on January 18th, 2012
So far we have three premises.
1. There is an uncaused cause.
2. Uncaused cause is eternal.
3. Uncaused cause is changeless.
The uncaused and changeless brought our reality into existence. Unless you argue we are not in reality it follows that an uncaused cause can cause and indeed caused our universe or whatever was prior and resulted in our existence, to come into existence in the finite past. Premise four, the uncaused can/did bring us into existence.
4. Uncaused cause brought us or that which was prior and finite, into existence.
Here is where intelligence comes in.
An uncaused cause is eternal, changeless and unless it creates something it is alone. There cannot be any external forces, there cannot be any reaction from anything from within or from without. For any reaction would mean it is subject to change. And any change from any reaction means it was not itself (separate parts reacting to each other), thus, violating the law of identity. There is only one possible explanation for an uncaused cause to cause something to come into existence, or causing anything at all to happen, that does not depend on a reaction and doesn't change its identity. That would necessarily be a free will acting and not reacting to bring something which was not in existence into existence. Premise five, free will.
5. Free will.
I don't think I have to explain why free will leads necessarily to an intelligence.
by no_one_special on January 18th, 2012
Here it is in one neat argument, each premise leading to the next. I will remind you, that you agree, or at least "lean towards" agreement with the first and second premises. The rest follows necessarily. Of course, if you disagree you are welcome to refute whatever premise you believe is refutable without tossing logic out the window in order to object.
1. There is an uncaused cause.
2. Uncaused cause is eternal.
3. Uncaused cause is changeless.
4. Uncaused cause brought us or that which was prior and finite, into existence.
5. Uncaused cause must have free will.
6. Free will only in intelligent beings.
7. Therefore the Uncaused cause is an intelligence.
by no_one_special on January 18th, 2012
by JPsgirl on August 12th, 2011
I know.. And yet, some atheist really believe that. :P
BTW, ya didn't vote...
by no_one_special on August 12th, 2011
We don't say it was "uncaused from nothing". We simply say we don't know.
by mrrw on August 16th, 2011
Well then you are agnostic... For some reason that has become a bad word to some.
by no_one_special on August 16th, 2011
Labels in general are bad. People who are questioning or unsure are not always agnostic or atheist. Sometimes they're just people looking for answers.
by JPsgirl on August 16th, 2011
Labels can get us into trouble I suppose. I would say that if someone is questioning then he doesn't know. An agnostic says he cannot know. Which is different than searching.
BTW I agree with what you are saying, some people are just looking for answers. But my question is for those who have taken a position of they know he does not exists, God that is, or they know that it is an unknowable question.
Hmmm you give me an idea...
I suppose I could ask for those who are searching to give me their opinions.
by no_one_special on August 16th, 2011
You said,
Well then you are agnostic... For some reason that has become a bad word to some.
My answer.
No I'm not agnostic. I don't believe in a god. Which is not to say that I still don't know what happened before the big bang. Which has nothing to do with religion. Is there only one other answer besides I don't know? And does that answer have to be a god? Can't there be a real answer? Something other than, a god or I don't know.
by mrrw on August 16th, 2011
If you were agnostic you would believe that knowing is not possible. It doesn't mean you believe God exists or that God does not exist. Thats all it means. Some have taken it to mean you are undecided but thats not really what it means. I suppose some may use it that way, which, in that case would mean word usage would be key in how we are to understand the label.
Quote, "Is there only one other answer besides I don't know?"
Well, I think I mentioned it on the other thread where you gave an answer, its the "other" which is attached to "Don't know" Selecting that one would be in line with what I'm hearing. Not sure what part of that you haven't understood. AB only gives you four options so I combined "Don't know" with "other". NeoD understood that, check how he voted for his answer.
Quote, "And does that answer have to be a god?"
Thats what the "other" option is for.
Quote, "Can't there be a real answer?"
Define "real".
Quote, "Something other than, a god or I don't know."
I said "other" I put it up there. Have you not seen it? Other is fine and you can elaborate. I get the feeling though, it will be an "I don't know". But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.
by no_one_special on August 16th, 2011
by Neodarwinian49
on August 12th, 2011
voted:
Don't know/other
Well, if "God did it' it would mean God does exist and therefore nothing can be superior in scope and breadth since God is the greatest conceivable being.
I get what you are trying to say though, but, its not just wouldn't make sense how a mechanism of some unknown physics would be greater than a living being that is not physical.
But thank you for your answer and for voting.
by no_one_special on August 12th, 2011
Remember no_one_special, when you say god what you really mean is "my god". There have been thousands in the past. Atheists believe in one less than you do.
Religion is simply a way of control.
by mrrw on August 16th, 2011
Quote, "Remember no_one_special, when you say god what you really mean is "my god"."
I was an atheist for years, up to about five years ago. I didn't believe in a particular God at that time. I could have asked the same question then and this wouldn't be the case. It is the case that I believe in a particular God, but, that doesn't dilute the validity of the question.
Quote, "There have been thousands in the past"
For purposes of this thread, this is entirely irrelevant. I would love to discuss this if you'd like though.
Quote, "Atheists believe in one less than you do."
And therefore.....?
Quote, "Religion is simply a way of control."
And therefore....? Are you familiar with fallacies?
by no_one_special on August 16th, 2011
Speaking of fallacies, your first sentence in your first reply to me is ' affirming the consequent ' and a fallacy. Your second sentence is also a fallacy, but the name escapes my mind for the moment.
by Neodarwinian49 on August 16th, 2011
You misunderstood the sentences. I didn't affirm anything, I said "if" which is different. Your response states that what science can find as an explanation is superior in scope and breadth than "god did it". However my point was that "if" God in fact did it, then "God did it" would be superior since he is the highest conceivable being far above any system of physics since God would be a living non physical being.
Of course that doesn't mean God does exist. Thats a different argument, one I was hoping to be able to engage in with willing participants in a rational and civil discussion.
This question was posted to encourage discussion.
by no_one_special on August 16th, 2011
"Well, if "God did it' it would mean God does exist"
If? Really... if? If a bear hadn't stopped to take a crap he'd have caught the rabbit.
That's like saying if that invisible pink elephant just above your head was really there, then he'd be there.
by mrrw on August 16th, 2011
Quote, "If? Really... if?"
You also misunderstood. Neo's response is with the assumption that a scientific mechanism, would be better (superior)in breadth and scope than a God. I am saying if it was the case that God existed then it would follow that God would have been the more impressive (superior) scope over another set of physics.
Neither response from either of us states or affirms God exists or does not exists. Both are operating under assumptions that in the case either was true, (think real carefully about the logic here) one answer would be superior in breadth and scope. I am saying "IF" either was true (in other words assume both are true for the sake of argument), it doesn't matter which one is actually true, then out of the two which one would better more impressive would be a non physical being.
It has nothing to do with the reality of either one or nothing to do with offering an argument either way for existence or non existence.
by no_one_special on August 16th, 2011
No were not. One of us is saying " I don't know " and one of us is pushing the " god did it " argument without a scintilla of evidence in support of said argument. Stop being disingenuous!
by Neodarwinian49 on August 17th, 2011
Did you even read this thread? Stop right now, look up at your OWN answer. You didn't make an argument for God, you merely stated that science would find a superior explanation in breadth and scope. Thats not an argument for the existence or non existence of God. And if for some reason you really thought that was an argument, then you really need to familiarize yourself with logic because that is an embarrassing argument.
Given the above, what you said was not an argument for the existence or non existence of a God. You did, however, state science would provide a superior explanation. That is under the assertion that God does not exists. But, I offered my own assertion and stated that if God were to exist then it follows that he would be a superior explanation in breadth and scope because he would be a non physical being.
Thats it.... Do you understand logic or not?
Would you like to discuss the evidence for an intelligence? Or something else? Pick something but don't pretend I'm hiding something and being disingenuous. I clearly marked on this question that I was a theist and I marked the question to "encourage discussion". If don't like it then post comments on questions meant for that. If you feel the need to post answer anyways, then deal with it.
by no_one_special on August 17th, 2011
Running out of gaps for god to hide in, special?
Go would be no explanation because that would attempt an explanation of everything and end up explaining nothing. Sciences explanation have the advantage of, A. Being true and being supportable in an empirical sense. B. Being tentative and in this way humble in comparison to the " logic " of theistic apologetics.
You have no ammunition, so why do you keep shooting your mouth off?
by Neodarwinian49 on August 18th, 2011
Huh? You do realize we haven't started our discussion of facts and what can deduced and inferred, yes? Gaps are what atheist are currently using in order to escape the logical implications of DNA, the coming into existence of the physical universe, etc.
Quote, "Go would be no explanation because that would attempt an explanation of everything and end up explaining nothing."
This reasoning is called a "non sequitur", it does not follow. To posit God does not therefor mean that it is not an explanation, that would depend on what one is trying to explain. Furthermore, it certainly does not follow that even if it does not serve as a explanation (God) it therefore means it must not be true because of that fact alone. One could easily argue, and indeed this is often done, that God did it, but that he has used a process discernible to man. Positing God is only a logical necessity and a first step. From there one thing is solved, the reason for our existence against all odds. Science can give us the process which God used, but, even then its limited.
Quote, "Being tentative and in this way humble in comparison to the " logic " of theistic apologetics."
You don't sound very tentative. In fact, it seems like you are asserting it was not God and science alone is the arbiter of truth. But humility is not was is going on here. Its more in line with dogma. No matter what amount of data suggest an intelligent uncaused cause, whether by logic or sciene, some still will find a "GAP" they want to put their hope in, so long as it isn't God. Thats their right and their faith, of course. I'll stick with logic though.
Quote, "You have no ammunition, so why do you keep shooting your mouth off?"
Well then, if you are so confident... May I have this dance?
Or maybe you just like running your mouth and then running when its shut by logic?
What will it be?
by no_one_special on August 18th, 2011
A non sequitur fallacy is that fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. No fallacy here as that is the stated theist position. " god did it. " The logical implications of DNA?!?! That, to not put too fine a point on it, is crazy talk!
Logic bows to evidence and you do not even have a good grasp of logic ( unless you mean logic chopping ) let alone any evidence to put forward. The unsupported assertions, god and god did it, are all on your side.
Any evidence for " magic man ", or are you just going to continually bore me?
by Neodarwinian49 on August 18th, 2011
OK I'm glad you know what a non seq is but you missed where I called you on it. Not sure why you would miss that since I quoted it and commented directly under the quote and explained by giving two reasons why it was a non seq. Here let me list them since you may have got lost in that paragraph.
1. "To posit God does not therefor mean that it is not an explanation, that would depend on what one is trying to explain"
2. "Furthermore, it certainly does not follow that even if it does not serve as a explanation (God) it therefore means it must not be true because of that fact alone."
Anyway, moving on to the rest of your comment.
Quote, "The logical implications of DNA?!?! That, to not put too fine a point on it, is crazy talk!"
By your over punctuated response it seems you have the answer already. Well then I suppose you have an alternative other than ID for the explanation of the arrangement of DNA? I will remind you (if you didn't already know) that no laws account for such arrangement of information in any plausible way, even in the simplest of life forms. But, go ahead and provide this evidence.
Quote, "Logic bows to evidence"
How do you suppose science makes any discovery in the absence of logic? Data is understood in the light of logic, and that therefore is what qualifies something as evidence "for something". So it can be said evidence bows to logic or rather logic makes evidence relevant. No logic, no relevancy.
Quote, "and you do not even have a good grasp of logic ( unless you mean logic chopping ) let alone any evidence to put forward."
Its pretty obvious you're having difficulty, no offense. You are having difficulty with reading comprehension and logic. Try an pay attention so that you don't continue to embarrass yourself. At other times in my life this would be spectacular to watch but now I can't help but feel sorry for you. Its painful to watch your ego take a tumble. Be kind to yourself and think of what is being said before you respond. Don't feel too bad, we all make mistakes.
Quote, "The unsupported assertions, god and god did it, are all on your side."
The assertion was one we both made but mine certainly wasn't an argument for the existence of God, it presupposed his existence... there is a difference. And again, if that was your argument, lets just say I wouldn't brag about that...
Quote, "Any evidence for " magic man ", or are you just going to continually bore me?"
People often get bored when they are dealing with a subject they don't comprehend, it is beyond their current grasp. This seems to be the case with you. Logic is not your game I can see. Its OK, you'll get it soon enough. :)
And BTW, I don't have evidence for a magic man. Perhaps that is in line with your assumptions of what religious folk believe. This too shows you're not familiar with this type of argument. Or at least have not been exposed to actual arguments. It seems your knowledge of "the other side" is based on weak assertions from believers and your rebuttals consist of childish come backs and emotional rants. Try and not do that, it takes away from the idea you can actually discuss matters with a level of profundity beyond that of a two year old child.
by no_one_special on August 18th, 2011
Now, can we have a nice discussion on this?
by no_one_special on August 18th, 2011
No. You have bored with that verbose blather quite enough for one post.
All blather, no evidence. YOU are no_one_special!
by Neodarwinian49 on August 19th, 2011
Well I haven't presented evidence because we haven't got started. I was planning on having civil discussion about the logical implications of certain evidences like DNA or perhaps the cause of the physical universe.
But it seems you rather walk away...
If ya change your mind I'm right here. :D
by no_one_special on August 29th, 2011
by skep
on August 19th, 2011
voted:
Don't know/other
Which theory are you assuming I don't understand? How can you claim I don't understand a theory when you don't know what I know? You do realize there are several theories to this and they all pretty much fit into one of the first two options and I am asking that those who support either of those two or the ones who lean toward either of those two, select one OR state they do not know and then have a nice rational discussion with me. It can be a spirited one just not fallacious especially the Straw man.
So tell me, which theory are you referring to that I don't understand... This should be interesting... You know me so well. :D
BTW you are silent on this thread: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/11090865
Do speak up on your logical blunder on that thread and try and not bring such stupidity onto this one.
Thanks Mr.fill-oss-a-fur. :D
by no_one_special on August 19th, 2011
How many times does a number repeat itself more than three times on a digital clock?
by Answerbag Staff on July 11th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
How many combination possibilities are there for a 3 dial tumbler lock?
by Answerbag Staff on May 30th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What do three dots in a triangle mean?
by Answerbag Staff on July 2nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Would you enjoy taking a course in or reading about the principles of logic and reasoning? Have you ever done so?
by Lucindaoffthecuff on September 26th, 2011
| 3 people like this
Is the existence of nothing, by definition.. a fallacy?
by -O-uknow on October 30th, 2011
| 4 people like this
You're reading Atheist: The universe Popped into existence uncaused from nothing or do you believe something always existed but it wasn't a God?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Yes that is right there in the poll. Click on Don't know/other, its the last one in the selection options I posted.
by no_one_special on August 12th, 2011
I could have voted for popped into existence because of the big bang theory. The theory was arrived at over many years of study and experiment by thousands of researchers amassing huge quantities of data. But, I figured that you meant just prior to the big bang. Why can't we just say we don't know? Why must we invent some entity to answer the question? We really don't know, you know.
by mrrw on August 16th, 2011
mrw, its right there in the last option. Its labeled "Don't know/other".
Look up its right there, you could have selected it at anytime. You can do it now if you'd like.
by no_one_special on August 16th, 2011