Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 11, 2017, 05:03:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?  (Read 14672 times)
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19250


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #150 on: February 24, 2016, 09:09:01 AM »

My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?

And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.



To begin this post I want to start by saying that I like and respect avxo very much.  He and I have talked several times in the past.  I believe him to be a good guy so know that up front.

First, his timing in this type of thread is EXCELLENT and he'll always arrive when you're the most fatigued in the thread.  Today, if I happen to be in a 3-5 day back and forth religion thread that's heated with several folks I know there's a good chance that avxo will appear at the end of day 5 after I've done several hours of posting and most have quit.  He seems like the atheist's last, best line of defense when all other atheists have tried everything they know to post and haven't "won the argument".  To me, it feels like they shoot avxo's "bat symbol"  in the sky or have one of the usuals in charge of sending emergency PMs to avxo to get him to engage in the thread LOL!  Smart play cause he's a smart guy!!  

Next, when he does appear it will be out of nowhere and including his patented "line by line" post dissection.  He has an analytical mind, but good sense of humor.  Also, it's not that the questions are bad, it's just comes when you're the most tired...when the thread appears to be dying and others have clearly abandoned ship but the topic is still a hot button.  It can wear you out so be prepared because the hardest effort comes now.

Next, it's easy to ask 60 brief questions....it's another thing to provide answers....that's 100 times the effort.   I can do the question thing myself all day long and not grow tired.  My suggestion is to keep your answers as honest and as succinct as possible because every word from "the" to "God" will be called into question.  Further, know that many questions will repeat via restatement (and many things will be funny comments).  Answer the primary question once and let the others go.  I've built an arsenal of responses to recurring questions so I can do this back and forth more quickly today.  I have an offline avxo file with previous discussions/replies I draw from now (I have them for a few other posters as well...they ask the same questions over and over)....saves time when you can just copy and paste what you've already written.

Finally, understand up front that he is not your enemy, but any definition you provide for words or topics will never be sufficient or correct or cogent.  RARELY will he agree with a theistic worldview no matter how thoroughly you can support it or talk to it.  All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent.  That's ok, don't let it phase you.

Again, not hating on avxo.  Good guy, good questions, smart man, excellent timing, excellent debater, etc......just a completely different worldview.  I've just been through it so many times it almost feels rehearsed now LOL.  Plus, he's provided thoughtful, challenging questions that most don't so I thought I'd provide my feedback.   Hey, for what it's worth.

Report to moderator   Logged

avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #151 on: February 24, 2016, 11:10:36 AM »

My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?

Well, I'm the sciencey kind of scientist. I have a B.Sc. in Math (with a minor in Physics - it would have been a dual degree, were it not for a paperwork screwup on my part), an M.Sc. in math and an M.Sc. in Computer Science. My research now is mostly on computational biology and biochemistry and my Ph.D. (which I completed recently) was about improving protein folding simulations. Beyond academia, I'm no stranger to physics: as I previously hinted, I was part of a team that programmed a model simulating supermassive black holes.


And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.

You started a thread that aimed to show that a rational argument could be made for a creator. You failed for a simple reason: you argue that everything requires a creator, and therefore that it is rational for the Universe to require one as well, but then you turn around an make an exception to the core premise of your argument. You claim that this is rational. I claim that it's bullshit.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #152 on: February 24, 2016, 11:19:41 AM »

To begin this post I want to start by saying that I like and respect avxo very much.  He and I have talked several times in the past.  I believe him to be a good guy so know that up front.

First, his timing in this type of thread is EXCELLENT and he'll always arrive when you're the most fatigued in the thread.  Today, if I happen to be in a 3-5 day back and forth religion thread that's heated with several folks I know there's a good chance that avxo will appear at the end of day 5 after I've done several hours of posting and most have quit.  He seems like the atheist's last, best line of defense when all other atheists have tried everything they know to post and haven't "won the argument".  To me, it feels like they shoot avxo's "bat symbol"  in the sky or have one of the usuals in charge of sending emergency PMs to avxo to get him to engage in the thread LOL!  Smart play cause he's a smart guy!!  

Next, when he does appear it will be out of nowhere and including his patented "line by line" post dissection.  He has an analytical mind, but good sense of humor.  Also, it's not that the questions are bad, it's just comes when you're the most tired...when the thread appears to be dying and others have clearly abandoned ship but the topic is still a hot button.  It can wear you out so be prepared because the hardest effort comes now.

Next, it's easy to ask 60 brief questions....it's another thing to provide answers....that's 100 times the effort.   I can do the question thing myself all day long and not grow tired.  My suggestion is to keep your answers as honest and as succinct as possible because every word from "the" to "God" will be called into question.  Further, know that many questions will repeat via restatement (and many things will be funny comments).  Answer the primary question once and let the others go.  I've built an arsenal of responses to recurring questions so I can do this back and forth more quickly today.  I have an offline avxo file with previous discussions/replies I draw from now (I have them for a few other posters as well...they ask the same questions over and over)....saves time when you can just copy and paste what you've already written.

Finally, understand up front that he is not your enemy, but any definition you provide for words or topics will never be sufficient or correct or cogent.  RARELY will he agree with a theistic worldview no matter how thoroughly you can support it or talk to it.  All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent.  That's ok, don't let it phase you.

Again, not hating on avxo.  Good guy, good questions, smart man, excellent timing, excellent debater, etc......just a completely different worldview.  I've just been through it so many times it almost feels rehearsed now LOL.  Plus, he's provided thoughtful, challenging questions that most don't so I thought I'd provide my feedback.   Hey, for what it's worth.



Thanks for the kind words. Believe it or not, I don't time my posts, nor is it my goal to wear down someone by endless arguing. The reality is that these days the amount of time I have to post on here is dictated solely by my workload - you wouldn't believe me if I told you just how much work is needed to teach three classes, and advise a student pursuing an M.Sc. and do your own research on top. I barely have time to lift...

You say that "All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent." That's simply not true. The problem is that I have very specific requirements for a definition. If we're arguing about apples and I ask you to define what an apple is, then your answer should be such that it allows me to distinguish an apple from, say, a tomato. Otherwise, it's meaningless. I'm strict about definitions because that's what everything else is based on. Without a common definition, we have no common basis to debate.

One thing is true: I enjoy debating very much. Not only does debating helps me keep their mind sharp, but I also learn a lot from it, even if, when it's all said and done, my opinion hasn't changed. I'm a firm believe that it's good to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and to put your positions to the test and challenge the positions of others.
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19250


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #153 on: February 24, 2016, 11:31:32 AM »

Thanks for the kind words. Believe it or not, I don't time my posts, nor is it my goal to wear down someone by endless arguing. The reality is that these days the amount of time I have to post on here is dictated solely by my workload - you wouldn't believe me if I told you just how much work is needed to teach three classes, and advise a student pursuing an M.Sc. and do your own research on top. I barely have time to lift...

You say that "All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent." That's simply not true. The problem is that I have very specific requirements for a definition. If we're arguing about apples and I ask you to define what an apple is, then your answer should be such that it allows me to distinguish an apple from, say, a tomato. Otherwise, it's meaningless. I'm strict about definitions because that's what everything else is based on. Without a common definition, we have no common basis to debate.

One thing is true: I enjoy debating very much. Not only does debating helps me keep their mind sharp, but I also learn a lot from it, even if, when it's all said and done, my opinion hasn't changed. I'm a firm believe that it's good to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and to put your positions to the test and challenge the positions of others.

I agree I don't think you time anything....you're timing just happens to be very, very good LOL!!  I've seen others folks post with a sense of relief when you enter the thread.   Wink

I like when you post because you aren't often on the attack....your comments are concise and direct/cutting (in a good way).  The discussion is good and challenging.  Most folks ask stuff that I can answer in my sleep.  Not always so with you.  You bring freshness and that helps me shape my arguments and think more critically..

I agree that definitions are very important....foundationa l in most arguments.   Our worldviews are different so finding commonality is tough.

Nothing I wrote was meant to be insulting either....just helping someone else engage because you are a fiesty debater LOL!! 

All the best my friend!!
MOS
Report to moderator   Logged

Al Doggity
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5761


Honest Discourse


« Reply #154 on: February 24, 2016, 03:09:21 PM »


But thank you for clarifying the issue and an insistence on more precise language in a topic that is subject to a variety of interpretations. You are quite right on this point. If I could do so easily I would replace every mention of the word "law" as it pertains to physics and science with "principles" or "premise". I willingly concede this point to you and should have done so earlier if I was paying closer attention to your posts and the point you were trying to make.

This was not me being strict about word usage. I was not making a petty point about semantics, I was trying to clarify one of the two main points of your position. I do not care if a word is messpelled or misapplied when the meaning is clear, but the way you misapplied those words makes a fundamental change to your argument.

So, now we're in agreement that there is no PHYSICAL LAW that dictates every ostensible effect must have a preceding cause. You are proposing that you believe it's logical to assume that all effects have causes. You also propose, based on that assumption and the fact that there was a beginning of time and space, that it's logical to conclude there must be some sort of creator that initiated the first cause.

So, I guess now the obvious questions for me are "Is it logical to assume that all effects must have causes?"  and "What constitutes a cause in regards to the Big Bang? "


We're in agreement that measurable time had a beginning and is dependent on matter. You seem to disagree with other posters who've stated that it is logical to assume energy is infinite.
Related to that line of thinking, let me pose these questions to you:

1.Do you believe there is a difference between matter and energy?

2. Theoretically, do you believe it's possible to destroy all matter in the universe? Do you believe that this would mean destroying all energy, too? (Most physicists believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It just changes forms.)

3.If you believe that it is possible to destroy all matter without destroying all energy, what effect do you think that would have on time?  Do you believe time's relationship to matter is identical to its relationship to energy?
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #155 on: February 24, 2016, 06:53:50 PM »

But your whole argument falls apart when your central tenet, everything requires a cause or has a cause, isn't even objectively true in physics.

Your perception is a terrible tool, our perception is terrible, it's not real in a fundamental sense.

I disagree. And it's far more logical than matter has always existed. Again, science has show that the universe had a beginning.
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #156 on: February 24, 2016, 07:11:37 PM »

To begin this post I want to start by saying that I like and respect avxo very much.  He and I have talked several times in the past.  I believe him to be a good guy so know that up front.

First, his timing in this type of thread is EXCELLENT and he'll always arrive when you're the most fatigued in the thread.  Today, if I happen to be in a 3-5 day back and forth religion thread that's heated with several folks I know there's a good chance that avxo will appear at the end of day 5 after I've done several hours of posting and most have quit.  He seems like the atheist's last, best line of defense when all other atheists have tried everything they know to post and haven't "won the argument".  To me, it feels like they shoot avxo's "bat symbol"  in the sky or have one of the usuals in charge of sending emergency PMs to avxo to get him to engage in the thread LOL!  Smart play cause he's a smart guy!!  

Next, when he does appear it will be out of nowhere and including his patented "line by line" post dissection.  He has an analytical mind, but good sense of humor.  Also, it's not that the questions are bad, it's just comes when you're the most tired...when the thread appears to be dying and others have clearly abandoned ship but the topic is still a hot button.  It can wear you out so be prepared because the hardest effort comes now.

Next, it's easy to ask 60 brief questions....it's another thing to provide answers....that's 100 times the effort.   I can do the question thing myself all day long and not grow tired.  My suggestion is to keep your answers as honest and as succinct as possible because every word from "the" to "God" will be called into question.  Further, know that many questions will repeat via restatement (and many things will be funny comments).  Answer the primary question once and let the others go.  I've built an arsenal of responses to recurring questions so I can do this back and forth more quickly today.  I have an offline avxo file with previous discussions/replies I draw from now (I have them for a few other posters as well...they ask the same questions over and over)....saves time when you can just copy and paste what you've already written.

Finally, understand up front that he is not your enemy, but any definition you provide for words or topics will never be sufficient or correct or cogent.  RARELY will he agree with a theistic worldview no matter how thoroughly you can support it or talk to it.  All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent.  That's ok, don't let it phase you.

Again, not hating on avxo.  Good guy, good questions, smart man, excellent timing, excellent debater, etc......just a completely different worldview.  I've just been through it so many times it almost feels rehearsed now LOL.  Plus, he's provided thoughtful, challenging questions that most don't so I thought I'd provide my feedback.   Hey, for what it's worth.



Since I've agonized over these issues (as I mentioned in my first post) since the second grade when my nun told me God is always watching and that there is a Heaven and Hell. And I've been on both sides, having been an almost militant Agnostic for almost twenty years (I was far more adamant convincing others of my Agnosticism than I am of now convincing others of my Christianity. I still find this to be the case with other Atheist. Note in these type of threads there will be few  "pro God" post and those that do rarely get into any type of in depth discussions. It's the Atheist that go on the offense. It proves my belief that an Atheist is far more bothered by a Theist than vice versa).

So with a life time dealing with these issues, and still dealing with them, there is nothing axxo has said that I haven't heard before.

LOL @ Batman! From the look of things, he might want to send up the "Robin symbol".
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #157 on: February 24, 2016, 07:26:24 PM »

Well, I'm the sciencey kind of scientist. I have a B.Sc. in Math (with a minor in Physics - it would have been a dual degree, were it not for a paperwork screwup on my part), an M.Sc. in math and an M.Sc. in Computer Science. My research now is mostly on computational biology and biochemistry and my Ph.D. (which I completed recently) was about improving protein folding simulations. Beyond academia, I'm no stranger to physics: as I previously hinted, I was part of a team that programmed a model simulating supermassive black holes.


You started a thread that aimed to show that a rational argument could be made for a creator. You failed for a simple reason: you argue that everything requires a creator, and therefore that it is rational for the Universe to require one as well, but then you turn around an make an exception to the core premise of your argument. You claim that this is rational. I claim that it's bullshit.



Again, please read my first post, or at least try to comprehend it. It's not a complicated issue. We just disagree. I can live with that. How about you?

I already address the issue of a First Cause.l


Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.

 Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause.  Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #158 on: February 24, 2016, 07:29:18 PM »

I disagree.

Congratulations.


And it's far more logical than matter has always existed.

You probably think it's more logical to think that particles don't appear out of nothing, and yet we have particle-antiparticle emerging from quantum vacuum fluctuations all the time.

You probably think it's more logical to say that a particle at a given energy level either can or can't surmount a barrier, yet quantum tunneling is very real.


Again, science has show that the universe had a beginning.

I've pointed out your incorrect use of terminology and you dismiss that as a non-issue. I've pointed out your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts that are he core of your argument and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.

Your argument is flawed and the only people you'll convince with it are those who either agree with your conclusion to begin with or those who are, shall we say challenged.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #159 on: February 24, 2016, 07:39:40 PM »



Again, please read my first post, or at least try to comprehend it. It's not a complicated issue. We just disagree. I can live with that. How about you?

I already address the issue of a First Cause.l


Look. You can believe whatever you want and as long as you don't try to force me to believe what you believe or to live according to your beliefs, then I don't particularly care what it is that you believe in.

You ask whether I can live with disagreement. Of course. Nothing hinges on this discussion for me, nor am I particularly keen to convince you of anything. If belief in a creator - whether it's God or something else - helps you, then you go believing and more power to you.

But if you're going to argue that your beliefs are rational and based on science then don't be surprised if people call out irrationality or misuse of theories and scientific terms.

As for your first cause argument, you aren't the first to take that approach. The argument is flawed for all the reasons pointed in this thread and many more. And while I am sure it makes sense to you, I'm sorry to have to tell you that the Emperor has no clothes.
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #160 on: February 24, 2016, 07:53:35 PM »

This was not me being strict about word usage. I was not making a petty point about semantics, I was trying to clarify one of the two main points of your position. I do not care if a word is messpelled or misapplied when the meaning is clear, but the way you misapplied those words makes a fundamental change to your argument.

Yes, it was not petty and a very important distinction in which I was too casual about.

Quote
So, now we're in agreement that there is no PHYSICAL LAW that dictates every ostensible effect must have a preceding cause. You are proposing that you believe it's logical to assume that all effects have causes. You also propose, based on that assumption and the fact that there was a beginning of time and space, that it's logical to conclude there must be some sort of creator that initiated the first cause.

So, I guess now the obvious questions for me are "Is it logical to assume that all effects must have causes?"  and "What constitutes a cause in regards to the Big Bang? "

Yes, I do believe it is more logical to propose a first cause. Otherwise the causal chain goes backwards forever. Now I cannot disprove this, but I find this scenario takes  a far greater leap in faith. That was one of the purposes of my argument. That  a Theist also requires faith and their position isn't inherently more valid than mine.

I use the term "cause" regarding the Big Bang in the sense it stemmed from something else. Now as far as the "Why?" Well, my friend, that is a question I want answered as well. In a world where the bad far outweighs the good and is full of needless suffering I agonize almost daily what was the point. That's why I often make the point that a far more interesting question to me is not that there is a God that created the universe but rather, is God good?

Quote
We're in agreement that measurable time had a beginning and is dependent on matter. You seem to disagree with other posters who've stated that it is logical to assume energy is infinite.
Related to that line of thinking, let me pose these questions to you:

1.Do you believe there is a difference between matter and energy?

Without matter there is no energy and vice versa.

Quote
2. Theoretically, do you believe it's possible to destroy all matter in the universe? Do you believe that this would mean destroying all energy, too? (Most physicists believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It just changes forms.)

No. But I'm not sure what you mean by theoretically. When it comes to this point anything is possible.

Quote
If you believe that it is possible to destroy all matter without destroying all energy, what effect do you think that would have on time?  Do you believe time's relationship to matter is identical to its relationship to energy?



Answer above.
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #161 on: February 24, 2016, 08:07:23 PM »

Congratulations.

Quote
You probably think it's more logical to think that particles don't appear out of nothing, and yet we have particle-antiparticle emerging from quantum vacuum fluctuations all the time.

You probably think it's more logical to say that a particle at a given energy level either can or can't surmount a barrier, yet quantum tunneling is very real.

Actually I didn't "probably think". I never thought about that at all. I don't understand it. I am not a scientist.

Nice display of your expertise in particle physics.

Quote

I've pointed out your incorrect use of terminology and you dismiss that as a non-issue. I've pointed out your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts that are he core of your argument and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.

Don't put words in my mouth. That I will not tolerate. I never said it was a non issue.

I've pointed your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts, primarily that of causality, and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.

Quote
Your argument is flawed and the only people you'll convince with it are those who either agree with your conclusion to begin with or those who are, shall we say challenged.

And those that agree with you have also already made up their mind.

But I will not insult their intelligence as you have done to believers. I already said in my first post that there are intelligent people on both sides the fact that you will insult them simply because they don't agree with you is quite a reflection on your character. You seem more emotionally invested than you are willing to admit.

Your standing and credibility as a scientist, that presumably prides themselves on objectivity, has been diminished by that post.
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #162 on: February 24, 2016, 08:21:58 PM »

Look. You can believe whatever you want and as long as you don't try to force me to believe what you believe or to live according to your beliefs, then I don't particularly care what it is that you believe in.

Why do you keep saying this? I've answered it numerous times. I answer this question to you personally twice. Just a few posts ago. I gave you three quotes in my first post addressing this very issue.

Now I want you to answer this question before we can continue to have a dialogue. I need to know if I am just wasting my time.

Why do you make any reference or implications that I am trying to convince, let alone force, anybody to believe anything when I specifically stated three times in my first post that that is not my attention? My post was in response to a challenge by 10pints that a theist can appeal to logic and science, whether you agree or not was beside the point, and that it's not just emotionally based and wishful thinking. I was very, very, clear on that point but yet you ignore it.
Why?

You have put words in my mouth. You have insulted the intelligence of those that don't agree with you. And you keep accusing me of something that I have made a specific effort to dispel.

More and more you are coming across as less of a scientist and more as a disingenuous person emotionally invested in a specific world view.


Quote

You ask whether I can live with disagreement. Of course. Nothing hinges on this discussion for me, nor am I particularly keen to convince you of anything. If belief in a creator - whether it's God or something else - helps you, then you go believing and more power to you.

But if you're going to argue that your beliefs are rational and based on science then don't be surprised if people call out irrationality or misuse of theories and scientific terms.

As for your first cause argument, you aren't the first to take that approach. The argument is flawed for all the reasons pointed in this thread and many more. And while I am sure it makes sense to you, I'm sorry to have to tell you that the Emperor has no clothes.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #163 on: February 24, 2016, 08:37:42 PM »

And those that agree with you have also already made up their mind.

No doubt.


But I will not insult their intelligence as you have done to believers. I already said in my first post that there are intelligent people on both sides the fact that you will insult them simply because they don't agree with you is quite a reflection on your character. You seem more emotionally invested than you are willing to admit.

It's perfectly fine, as far as I'm concerned, for a believer to say: "Through personal revelation, I have received evidence that convinces me that <insert name of deity> exists." And there's nothing that I can use to argue against that personal revelation, because it's supernatural in nature and so, by definition, outside the scope of nature, science and logic.

I don't insult the intelligence of people who believe: I challenge the premises of those who believe that they can prove anything about a supernatural deity within the framework of nature.


Why do you keep saying this? I've answered it numerous times. I answer this question to you personally twice. Just a few posts ago. I gave you three quotes in my first post addressing this very issue.

But the quotes you gave me just reiterate the same thing - the premise that I reject. Repeating it doesn't help.


Now I want you to answer this question before we can continue to have a dialogue. I need to know if I am just wasting my time.

Why do you make any reference or implications that I am trying to convince, let alone force, anybody to believe anything when I specifically stated three times in my first post that that is not my attention? My post was in response to a challenge by 10pints that a theist can appeal to logic and science, whether you agree or not was beside the point, and that it's not just emotionally based and wishful thinking. I was very, very, clear on that point but yet you ignore it.
Why?

You have put words in my mouth. You have insulted the intelligence of those that don't agree with you. And you keep accusing me of something that I have made a specific effort to dispel.

I take you at your word that you don't seek to convince anyone. The part of my post that you're quoting isn't meant to be specifically against you. It's meant as a general statement of my principles. You asked if I can live with disagreement. Of course I can and I was making the point that I have no issue with anyone who doesn't seek to impose himself on me. I wasn't suggesting you were trying to force me to believe anything or to live in accordance to your beliefs. If that's how it came across, then I  apologize.


More and more you are coming across as less of a scientist and more as a disingenuous person emotionally invested in a specific world view.

I'm mostly invested in exchange-traded funds that target a 2035-2040 retirement...
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #164 on: February 24, 2016, 09:14:44 PM »


I challenge the premises of those who believe that they can prove anything about a supernatural deity within the framework of nature.

Once again and again and again and again, I specifically stated I can't prove anything.


Quote
But the quotes you gave me just reiterate the same thing - the premise that I reject. Repeating it doesn't help.

When I say I can't prove anything and then you continue to accuse me of not proving anything, when I can't prove a first cause anymore than I can prove an infinite backward casual regression and yet you still ask me to prove it it is you that are constantly repeating yourself.

I am beginning to suspect that I am wasting my time and we will just go back and forth repeating ourselves. I believe that eventually there is a first cause. You don't. That implies an infinite regression. As you say, pre-creator, a pre-pre-creator, a pre-pre-pre creator.... I believe that is a much greater leap in faith.

This is what it ultimately comes down to. It has little to do with intelligence but has more to do with one's world view and perspective. What makes more sense?

Quote
I wasn't suggesting you were trying to force me to believe anything or to live in accordance to your beliefs. If that's how it came across, then I  apologize.

This isn't about just me personally. It was to insult the intelligence
of those that don't agree with you. William F Buckley was a Christian, so was Scalia, so was virtually every President this country has ever had. These people were not "challenged". It was a very immature, nasty and unnecessary thing to say as your arguments should stand based on it's on merits and not because people are just too dumb to understand them.

This was a very unfair and even dishonorable thing to say and does not reflect well on your character 


Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9704


« Reply #165 on: February 25, 2016, 04:25:44 AM »

Actually I didn't "probably think". I never thought about that at all. I don't understand it. I am not a scientist.

Nice display of your expertise in particle physics.

Don't put words in my mouth. That I will not tolerate. I never said it was a non issue.

I've pointed your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts, primarily that of causality, and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.

And those that agree with you have also already made up their mind.

But I will not insult their intelligence as you have done to believers. I already said in my first post that there are intelligent people on both sides the fact that

 you will insult them simply because they don't agree with you is quite a reflection on your character. You seem more emotionally invested than you are willing to admit.

Your standing and credibility as a scientist, that presumably prides themselves on objectivity, has been diminished by that post.



I repeatedly many pages ago said the same thing as above, you are clearly not interested in open debate. You were shown that causality is not a core concept of fundamental reality, if string theory or one of it's iterations are correct, even less so. Your argument fails do to having faulty underpinnings.

Multiple people and avxo previously mentioned that virtual particles pop into existence for no reason, you think the world works like a computer, binary logic, it's quantum, logic is incorrect, reality is actually counterintuitive.

You continue to mix up terms, before the big bang is like asking what's north or north, yet you persist. Not to mention even your logic is fundamentally flawed as the very premise you look to establish, all needs a cause, is itself broken to satisfy it's conclusion...absurd.


You appeal to Aquinas intelligence, the thing with intelligence is it allows one to move past names and terms and into the nitty gritty, the argument is all anyone should care about, not who it came from... His argument is flawed and has been debunked for centuries. You also misunderstand Aquinas, he is asserting that something is eternal, for the very reason that we have something.. existence. That is whatever exists has always existed as nothing could never have been as something cannot come from nothing. Now fast forward and science has answered the question much better, shit comes from "nothing", logic fails us. Just like our eyes suck compared to hubble, science is an extension of the human mind, it's simply observation and testing, limiting oneself to only observations made from one's senses fails to encapsulate the whole of existence. No x-rays, multiple sounds missing to us, our smell piss poor compared to a dog.


Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #166 on: February 25, 2016, 06:14:26 AM »



I repeatedly many pages ago said the same thing as above, you are clearly not interested in open debate. You were shown that causality is not a core concept of fundamental reality, if string theory or one of it's iterations are correct, even less so. Your argument fails do to having faulty underpinnings.

Multiple people and avxo previously mentioned that virtual particles pop into existence for no reason, you think the world works like a computer, binary logic, it's quantum, logic is incorrect, reality is actually counterintuitive.

You continue to mix up terms, before the big bang is like asking what's north or north, yet you persist. Not to mention even your logic is fundamentally flawed as the very premise you look to establish, all needs a cause, is itself broken to satisfy it's conclusion...absurd.


You appeal to Aquinas intelligence, the thing with intelligence is it allows one to move past names and terms and into the nitty gritty, the argument is all anyone should care about, not who it came from... His argument is flawed and has been debunked for centuries. You also misunderstand Aquinas, he is asserting that something is eternal, for the very reason that we have something.. existence. That is whatever exists has always existed as nothing could never have been as something cannot come from nothing. Now fast forward and science has answered the question much better, shit comes from "nothing", logic fails us. Just like our eyes suck compared to hubble, science is an extension of the human mind, it's simply observation and testing, limiting oneself to only observations made from one's senses fails to encapsulate the whole of existence. No x-rays, multiple sounds missing to us, our smell piss poor compared to a dog.




I've already address these points over and over again with you.

You don't believe in a first cause. I do. You think I am being illogical. I think you are being illogical. The universe had a beginning. That's been established. It did not always exist therefore it had to have a Creator.

You believe that particles just "pop into existence". That something comes from nothing.

I don't. I think that is illogical and irrational. You don't.

You don't think I want an open debate because I give you the same answers. I give you the same answers because you keep asking the same questions. Open debate for you means I have to agree with you.

I don't.

That should close the debate.

Thank you for your participation.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #167 on: February 25, 2016, 08:58:18 AM »

You don't believe in a first cause. I do. You think I am being illogical. I think you are being illogical.

We think you're being illogical by examining your statements. You think we're being illogical because we disagree with you. There's a difference.

The universe had a beginning. That's been established. It did not always exist therefore it had to have a Creator.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.


You believe that particles just "pop into existence". That something comes from nothing.

No -  we have a theory that explains observed behavior, and that theory has particle-antiparticle pairs emerging from the quantum vacuum. If you think the theory is flawed, point out its flaws. If you have an alternative theory that explains virtual particles or the Casimir effect, then by all means, lay it out there. And if you don't know enough physics to do either of those things, then graciously admit that's the case and stop repeating the same debunked nonsense.


You don't think I want an open debate because I give you the same answers. I give you the same answers because you keep asking the same questions. Open debate for you means I have to agree with you.

No, open debate means listening to what others are saying and addressing the concerns they raise and fixing the flaws that they identify in your argument.

You do none of those things. You insist on repeating the same thing, ignoring criticism that you're using words and concepts incorrectly and misconstruing or misapplying scientific terms.

How many times have we told you that "before" is a term that's meaningless to us outside of spacetime and thus, outside the Universe? How many times have we told you causality, as you use the term, presupposes a temporal total order?

You blame us for assuming that debate involves agreement with us. You whine that you didn't set out to prove anything or convince anyone. But your first post says you want to show that belief in a Creator is rational. Show it to whom? And how is that not attempting to convince?

You've been handled with kid gloves so far in this debate, and every time someone made contact you whined. Well, I think playtime is over and you now have to decide if you are ready to debate seriously and address the flaws in your argument.
Report to moderator   Logged
Raymondo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5874


Come to Celle


« Reply #168 on: February 25, 2016, 12:02:36 PM »

I've already address these points over and over again with you.

You don't believe in a first cause. I do. You think I am being illogical. I think you are being illogical. The universe had a beginning. That's been established. It did not always exist therefore it had to have a Creator.

With respect, Necrosis and avxo have been explaining the flaws in your argument in different ways across the last two pages and you respond by returning to your initial position starting at reply 131. It's gotten a bit circular, you say causality supports your argument (in reply 132), causality is shot down (in reply 143) and you just repeat the argument (from reply 144 onwards)  as if nothing happened. Then things get weird, there is a non-sequitur quote from Hamlet, an admission that you picked a fringe site because you couldn't find anything better to support your causality argument, a personal inquiry, as if personal details are relevant to a debate, a highly defensive post and some more repeating of the initial position. Meanwhile, people are explaining to you in different ways why causality is not applicable to the beginning of the physical universe (which is the premise to your God-Creator conclusion) and your reply is "I've already answered this"!

You are free to believe what you want, everyone respects that. But the rational case for a creator was demolished in this thread.

I don't. I think that is illogical and irrational. You don't.

Despite what anyone thinks experiments to that effect have taken place.

You don't think I want an open debate because I give you the same answers. I give you the same answers because you keep asking the same questions. Open debate for you means I have to agree with you.

I don't.

That should close the debate.

Thank you for your participation.

I think in any debate, it is the prerogative of a participant to back out. Certainly, one participant does not need to accept the other's view. A debate's conclusion is left to the audience's judgement. However, It it is another thing entirely to repeat your position in the face of a rebuttal or say "I have already answered that" and then decide that the debate is over. This won't do, sir.

If you don't have a rebuttal of your own, then the debate is over.

Sorry for butting in, I just thought this was a bit of a cop-out.
Report to moderator   Logged
Al Doggity
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5761


Honest Discourse


« Reply #169 on: February 25, 2016, 01:41:03 PM »

Yes, it was not petty and a very important distinction in which I was too casual about.

Yes, I do believe it is more logical to propose a first cause. Otherwise the causal chain goes backwards forever. Now I cannot disprove this, but I find this scenario takes  a far greater leap in faith. That was one of the purposes of my argument. That  a Theist also requires faith and their position isn't inherently more valid than mine.

I use the term "cause" regarding the Big Bang in the sense it stemmed from something else. Now as far as the "Why?" Well, my friend, that is a question I want answered as well. In a world where the bad far outweighs the good and is full of needless suffering I agonize almost daily what was the point. That's why I often make the point that a far more interesting question to me is not that there is a God that created the universe but rather, is God good?

Without matter there is no energy and vice versa.

No. But I'm not sure what you mean by theoretically. When it comes to this point anything is possible.
 


Answer above.

I'm not sure I get you. Are you saying you don't believe  virtual particles exist or that you consider them mass? 
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #170 on: February 25, 2016, 08:41:18 PM »

With respect, Necrosis and avxo have been explaining the flaws in your argument in different ways across the last two pages and you respond by returning to your initial position starting at reply 131. It's gotten a bit circular, you say causality supports your argument (in reply 132), causality is shot down (in reply 143) and you just repeat the argument (from reply 144 onwards)  as if nothing happened. Then things get weird, there is a non-sequitur quote from Hamlet, an admission that you picked a fringe site because you couldn't find anything better to support your causality argument, a personal inquiry, as if personal details are relevant to a debate, a highly defensive post and some more repeating of the initial position. Meanwhile, people are explaining to you in different ways why causality is not applicable to the beginning of the physical universe (which is the premise to your God-Creator conclusion) and your reply is "I've already answered this"!

You are free to believe what you want, everyone respects that. But the rational case for a creator was demolished in this thread.

Despite what anyone thinks experiments to that effect have taken place.

I think in any debate, it is the prerogative of a participant to back out. Certainly, one participant does not need to accept the other's view. A debate's conclusion is left to the audience's judgement. However, It it is another thing entirely to repeat your position in the face of a rebuttal or say "I have already answered that" and then decide that the debate is over. This won't do, sir.

If you don't have a rebuttal of your own, then the debate is over.

Sorry for butting in, I just thought this was a bit of a cop-out.

I started to read your post but stopped as soon as you said that I picked a fringe site because I admitted that I couldn't find anything better. That is completely false. It was the questioner that accused me of that.

I stopped reading there.

I am one person and I try to answer every question, point by point, I am going to have to be more selective. If a lie is told about me then I will now disregard the post.

The impasse as a  I see it is that I believe in a first cause, the rest believe in an infinite regression. I can't prove that there is a first cause. You can't prove an infinite regression. I believe that I can speak in terms of a "before" as in before the universe was created. The Creator existed in the "before". The others argue that something came from nothing. I can't prove you wrong but I think it requires a greater leap in faith. I am going to say this again so that this issue never comes up again and I don't have to repeat myself: I cannot prove there is a Creator and you cannot prove an infinite regression. These are matters of faith. The difference is that I am honest enough with you and with myself to admit this whereas as the rest of you speak almost in terms of provable fact.
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #171 on: February 25, 2016, 09:18:49 PM »

We think you're being illogical by examining your statements. You think we're being illogical because we disagree with you. There's a difference.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

No, absolutely and categorically wrong. That is your interpretation. And a wildly inaccurate one. Show me one example where I think it's illogical for you to examine my statements. You, and others, have been examining and questions this entire thread. And I have address every single issue over and over again.

Quote
No -  we have a theory that explains observed behavior, and that theory has particle-antiparticle pairs emerging from the quantum vacuum. If you think the theory is flawed, point out its flaws. If you have an alternative theory that explains virtual particles or the Casimir effect, then by all means, lay it out there. And if you don't know enough physics to do either of those things, then graciously admit that's the case and stop repeating the same debunked nonsense.

I do not know physics well enough to address particle-anitparticle, quantum vacuums and the Casmir effect.

But I don't think you have to be an expert in quantum physics to believe that because there was a Big Bang there had to be something that caused it. A Creator.

As much as I think that the idea that something comes from nothing or that there is an infinite regression (a pre-creator, pre-pre-creator....) requires a far greater leap in faith, I am aware that neither can be proved so though I may say it's more irrational and more illogical, I am always respectful to those that hold that position and will not insult them by calling it nonsense.

Quote
Quote
No, open debate means listening to what others are saying and addressing the concerns they raise and fixing the flaws that they identify in your argument.

You do none of those things. You insist on repeating the same thing, ignoring criticism that you're using words and concepts incorrectly and misconstruing or misapplying scientific terms.

Show me one example where I did that.

Quote
How many times have we told you that "before" is a term that's meaningless to us outside of spacetime and thus, outside the Universe? How many times have we told you causality, as you use the term, presupposes a temporal total order?

How many times have I told you that "before" is a term that has great meaning to me and I have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the universe. Many seem to have trouble comprehending this. It's like saying that no numbers can exist before zero. And from a certain point of view I can understand that. Zero is nothing. How can we have less than nothing?

But we do.

Causality, as I use it, presupposes a temporal total order. There is order in the universe. God has a plan.

Quote
You blame us for assuming that debate involves agreement with us. You whine that you didn't set out to prove anything or convince anyone. But your first post says you want to show that belief in a Creator is rational. Show it to whom? And how is that not attempting to convince?

I don't whine. I make a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments. Don't personally insult me.

"Show to whom?" How about the reader interested enough to read all that. And proving an argument can be rational and science based is far different from trying to prove a Creator exist. I didn't do that. And whether one agrees with me or not insofar as the existence of a Creator is a moot point for me. In this context there is zero incentive for me to try to convince anybody to change their world view and theology.

Quote
You've been handled with kid gloves so far in this debate, and every time someone made contact you whined. Well, I think playtime is over and you now have to decide if you are ready to debate seriously and address the flaws in your argument.


Don't threaten me and don't insult me.

I tell you what, here's my decision, tough guy, pat yourself on the back and declare  victory and leave with your nose in the air and the hubris by those of your ilk.

You have put words in my mouth -- just made it up. You insult those that don't agree with you as "challenged". You accuse me of trying to force my views down your throat. You just insulted me personally and now you threaten me.

Of all the contributors to this thread you're the only one I am beginning to very much dislike.

How you present yourself here is very unbecoming of a person who claims to be a scientist.
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #172 on: February 25, 2016, 09:39:30 PM »

I'm not sure I get you. Are you saying you don't believe  virtual particles exist or that you consider them mass? 

Of all the questions I've gotten I like yours the best. I like your insistence on precise language and asking challenging questions pertinent to the discussion without the show offy arrogance and condescension of axxo.

But you have taken me to my limit as I am not a physicist. Because my understanding of a virtual  particle is that it is more of a conceptual entity than real brick and stone, then I have to admit that I do not know if they have "mass".
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #173 on: February 25, 2016, 10:54:07 PM »

No, absolutely and categorically wrong. That is your interpretation. And a wildly inaccurate one. Show me one example where I think it's illogical for you to examine my statements. You, and others, have been examining and questions this entire thread. And I have address every single issue over and over again.

Repeating yourself isn't "addressing" an issue.


But I don't think you have to be an expert in quantum physics to believe that because there was a Big Bang there had to be something that caused it. A Creator.

Look, it's simple: you prefer to posit a creator. You obviously believe in one passionately. More power to you, I guess, but don't pretend that your position is rational and grounded in logic, especially when you claim that a Creator is necessary because everything needs a cause and you then turn around and claim that the Creator is causeless.

I prefer to simply say that our current cosmological model and understanding of the Universe prevents us from answering the "what came before and caused the Big Bang" question - a question that, as asked, makes little sense anyways.


Show me one example where I did that.

You continue to use causality, despite being shown that causality is not a fundamental property of nature at the quantum level. You continue to use "before the Big Bang" as if time and temporal ordering make sense outside of the context of the Universe.


How many times have I told you that "before" is a term that has great meaning to me and I have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the universe.

You can tell me a million times, it won't change anything. You may have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the Universe, but the rest of us, which like to use words in a way that makes sense do. If you wish to communicate with others, then you should probably use words correctly.


Many seem to have trouble comprehending this. It's like saying that no numbers can exist before zero. And from a certain point of view I can understand that. Zero is nothing. How can we have less than nothing?

I'm happy to discuss number theory. In mathematics we have the "Natural numbers" (denoted by N) and the "Integers" (denoted by Z). The difference between them is that Z contains the negative whole numbers, whereas N does not. Counterintuitively, both have the same cardinality (that is, they're both the same size).

But thinking of it terms of "less than nothing" is wrong. A negative acceleration isn't "less than nothing" for example.


Causality, as I use it, presupposes a temporal total order. There is order in the universe. God has a plan.

You and I aren't using the term "order" in the same way. And as for God, before we talk about his plan, it'd help if you'd define what you mean by the term "God".


I don't whine. I make a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments. Don't personally insult me.

If you made a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments you wouldn't continue using "before" in a meaningless way, nor would you repeat the same thing over and over again, ignoring the criticisms that others have made. If pointing that out insults you, then so be it.


Don't threaten me and don't insult me.

Threaten you?


I tell you what, here's my decision, tough guy, pat yourself on the back and declare  victory and leave with your nose in the air and the hubris by those of your ilk.

My musculature is too well-developed for me to be able to pat myself on the back. Best I can do is tap myself on the traps.


You have put words in my mouth -- just made it up. You insult those that don't agree with you as "challenged". You accuse me of trying to force my views down your throat. You just insulted me personally and now you threaten me.

I didn't accuse you of trying to force any views down my throat - you're misrepresenting my post which is ironic considering that you're complaining about how I put words in your mouth.
Report to moderator   Logged
pellius
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14420

RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011


« Reply #174 on: February 26, 2016, 02:05:32 AM »

Repeating yourself isn't "addressing" an issue.


Look, it's simple: you prefer to posit a creator. You obviously believe in one passionately. More power to you, I guess, but don't pretend that your position is rational and grounded in logic, especially when you claim that a Creator is necessary because everything needs a cause and you then turn around and claim that the Creator is causeless.

I prefer to simply say that our current cosmological model and understanding of the Universe prevents us from answering the "what came before and caused the Big Bang" question - a question that, as asked, makes little sense anyways.


You continue to use causality, despite being shown that causality is not a fundamental property of nature at the quantum level. You continue to use "before the Big Bang" as if time and temporal ordering make sense outside of the context of the Universe.


You can tell me a million times, it won't change anything. You may have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the Universe, but the rest of us, which like to use words in a way that makes sense do. If you wish to communicate with others, then you should probably use words correctly.


I'm happy to discuss number theory. In mathematics we have the "Natural numbers" (denoted by N) and the "Integers" (denoted by Z). The difference between them is that Z contains the negative whole numbers, whereas N does not. Counterintuitively, both have the same cardinality (that is, they're both the same size).

But thinking of it terms of "less than nothing" is wrong. A negative acceleration isn't "less than nothing" for example.


You and I aren't using the term "order" in the same way. And as for God, before we talk about his plan, it'd help if you'd define what you mean by the term "God".


If you made a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments you wouldn't continue using "before" in a meaningless way, nor would you repeat the same thing over and over again, ignoring the criticisms that others have made. If pointing that out insults you, then so be it.


Threaten you?


My musculature is too well-developed for me to be able to pat myself on the back. Best I can do is tap myself on the traps.


I didn't accuse you of trying to force any views down my throat - you're misrepresenting my post which is ironic considering that you're complaining about how I put words in your mouth.

You are more interested in promoting your agenda than seeking the truth. Your mind is already made up. I've been on both sides of the fence. You have a very arrogant, pompous and condescending manner and seem very emotionally invested. I find you particularly offensive.

So, again, with all due hubris, congratulate yourself and reassure yourself that you are so much smarter than everyone else and enjoy your life void of any higher meaning.

You are wasting my time.

You are dismissed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!