|
Post by Admin on Jun 30, 2022 4:31:10 GMT
We've been over this already. It's not a premise, it's a conclusion that you have demonstrated several times in this thread. And now, here you are talking about "time within the universe" as if there's something outside the universe. As an added bonus, you're arguing that the lawmaker isn't subject to its own laws, which, when used as an argument for God, is summarily dismissed as "special pleading." Seems you want that cake you just ate. It is your “conclusion” which LACKS AN ARGUMENT! What part about that do you not understand? You haven’t made an argument, you’ve only made an assertion. What I’ve demonstrated is that your conclusion is not justified by reason. And I haven’t mentioned anything about a lawmaker, you’ve just asserted one. My statements do not address a lawmaker, so this is yet another straw man argument. You have not demonstrated the existence of any lawmaker and you have no argument to justify the belief in one. That’s why it’s dismissed as special pleading. What you need to do is take a class on critical thinking and argumentation because you clearly aren’t able to follow some of the most basic concepts of rational argumentation. Once again, I recommend you familiarize yourself with the First Cause Argument. As for a lawmaker, you may not have used that word specifically, Mr. Semantics, but you did say "the laws of physics apply to the operational dynamics within 'this universe', not necessarily to universes themselves." Did I incorrectly surmise that the "universes themselves" caused the laws by which everything in them is subject, or are you proposing a possibility of there being an external cause? Any way you slice it, you're going to be left with an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being thing upon which all other existence ultimately depends. In this particular case, it's the universe itself. A few pages back, it was your parents.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 30, 2022 15:53:54 GMT
Once again, I recommend you familiarize yourself with the First Cause Argument. And once again I respond by telling you that this is unnecessary. I’m already familiar with that argument (I know more about it than you do evidently) which is why I was able to summarily debunk it, while you avoided those comments because it was apparently too much for you to read. But the real reason you avoided it is because you couldn’t address the counter-argument. So the first cause argument is destroyed and you have no case! Neither - you created a false dichotomy! You keep accusing me of making semantics arguments but the fact that you don’t understand word usage necessitates it. This is a common problem among theists when they use terms incorrectly or assume incorrect meanings (as you have). “The laws of physics” are descriptive, not prescriptive! They are merely a description of how the universe appears to operate in consistent, predictable ways. That’s it! They do not require a “lawmaker”, nor do they assert that the universe created them. It’s just an observation of how things are, not an assertion that someone made them that way, or that they could have been different. Look up the different definitions of the word “law” so that you can see your error. Start getting your terminology and usage correct the first time, then you won’t have to worry about me arguing semantics. 😏 Be that as it may, that’s not a “first cause”, nor does this scenario necessitate that there must be a first cause. What you’ve just described is an “infinite”, which categorically rules out the possibility of a first cause. This is the futility of your argument. You cannot get to a first cause by positing an infinitely existing “causer”. An infinite causer would imply infinite causes! And the infinite regression was exactly the thing you were trying to avoid in the first place remember? This is why the first cause argument does not work. Find a Möbius strip and then tell me where the “first” spot on it is? You can’t do it! Because there is no first spot (or second, or third). That’s the whole point of an infinite. There can be no first point or end point.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 30, 2022 22:20:32 GMT
Once again, I recommend you familiarize yourself with the First Cause Argument. And once again I respond by telling you that this is unnecessary. I’m already familiar with that argument (I know more about it than you do evidently) which is why I was able to summarily debunk it, while you avoided those comments because it was apparently too much for you to read. But the real reason you avoided it is because you couldn’t address the counter-argument. So the first cause argument is destroyed and you have no case! Neither - you created a false dichotomy! You keep accusing me of making semantics arguments but the fact that you don’t understand word usage necessitates it. This is a common problem among theists when they use terms incorrectly or assume incorrect meanings (as you have). “The laws of physics” are descriptive, not prescriptive! They are merely a description of how the universe appears to operate in consistent, predictable ways. That’s it! They do not require a “lawmaker”, nor do they assert that the universe created them. It’s just an observation of how things are, not an assertion that someone made them that way, or that they could have been different. Look up the different definitions of the word “law” so that you can see your error. Start getting your terminology and usage correct the first time, then you won’t have to worry about me arguing semantics. 😏 Be that as it may, that’s not a “first cause”, nor does this scenario necessitate that there must be a first cause. What you’ve just described is an “infinite”, which categorically rules out the possibility of a first cause. This is the futility of your argument. You cannot get to a first cause by positing an infinitely existing “causer”. An infinite causer would imply infinite causes! And the infinite regression was exactly the thing you were trying to avoid in the first place remember? This is why the first cause argument does not work. Find a Möbius strip and then tell me where the “first” spot on it is? You can’t do it! Because there is no first spot (or second, or third). That’s the whole point of an infinite. There can be no first point or end point. A cyclical universe that's been expanding and contracting (ie, "bouncing") forever has been posited. It has no first point or end point, so it's eternal. It depends on nothing else, so it's independent and self-explanatory. If it didn't exist, neither would you, but you do exist, so it's necessary. It moves without being moved, so it's unmoved, and it causes things to happen without itself being caused, so it's uncaused. It checks all the boxes. And yet... "the first cause argument is destroyed and you have no case!" This is why they say to never play chess with a pigeon.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 1, 2022 16:20:21 GMT
It depends on nothing else, so it's independent and self-explanatory. If it didn't exist, neither would you, but you do exist, so it's necessary. It moves without being moved, so it's unmoved, and it causes things to happen without itself being caused, so it's uncaused. It checks all the boxes. And yet... Saying that because something is independent that it is also self-explanatory is a non-sequitur! The universe is lacking an explanation and positing an independent one doesn’t “explain” anything at all. It would remain unexplained even IF it were eternal and independent because the question of why there is something rather than nothing would remain. To assert that if the universe didn’t exist then neither would things dependent on it’s existence is nothing more than a tautology! You have defined it as not “being caused” so as to conclude that it’s uncaused, but that is circular! You’re not actually saying anything of substance. I have a better tautology for you: If you can’t explain your first cause, then the hypothetical “first cause” is NOT an explanation! 😉 Instead of saying that the universe is “self-explanatory”, the better thing to do would be to say that it “exists out of necessity”. But what you haven’t done yet is justify your conclusion. Using your conclusion in one or more of your premises is not a justification. Saying that the universe is uncaused needs a justification. An “eternal” universe does not necessarily indicate an “independent” universe. And an “infinite” universe does not necessarily indicate an “uncaused” universe. You are making these unjustified leaps in logic and drawing conclusions that do not follow from their premises. Even assuming that any of that is true (despite being filled with all sorts of unfalsifiable assertions), none of that gets you to a “first” cause! Again, you’ve just described an infinite (which rules out a first cause). I understand how frustrating this is for you but you have no case for a “first cause” and no justification for asserting one. What if an infinite universe necessitates infinite causes? Have you ever considered that? If not, then on what grounds do you rule it out?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 1, 2022 21:55:28 GMT
It depends on nothing else, so it's independent and self-explanatory. If it didn't exist, neither would you, but you do exist, so it's necessary. It moves without being moved, so it's unmoved, and it causes things to happen without itself being caused, so it's uncaused. It checks all the boxes. And yet... Saying that because something is independent that it is also self-explanatory is a non-sequitur! The universe is lacking an explanation and positing an independent one doesn’t “explain” anything at all. It would remain unexplained even IF it were eternal and independent because the question of why there is something rather than nothing would remain. To assert that if the universe didn’t exist then neither would things dependent on it’s existence is nothing more than a tautology! You have defined it as not “being caused” so as to conclude that it’s uncaused, but that is circular! You’re not actually saying anything of substance. I have a better tautology for you: If you can’t explain your first cause, then the hypothetical “first cause” is NOT an explanation! 😉 Instead of saying that the universe is “self-explanatory”, the better thing to do would be to say that it “exists out of necessity”. But what you haven’t done yet is justify your conclusion. Using your conclusion in one or more of your premises is not a justification. Saying that the universe is uncaused needs a justification. An “eternal” universe does not necessarily indicate an “independent” universe. And an “infinite” universe does not necessarily indicate an “uncaused” universe. You are making these unjustified leaps in logic and drawing conclusions that do not follow from their premises. Even assuming that any of that is true (despite being filled with all sorts of unfalsifiable assertions), none of that gets you to a “first” cause! Again, you’ve just described an infinite (which rules out a first cause). I understand how frustrating this is for you but you have no case for a “first cause” and no justification for asserting one. What if an infinite universe necessitates infinite causes? Have you ever considered that? If not, then on what grounds do you rule it out? - If it begins or ends, it isn't eternal. - If it depends on anything else, it isn't independent. - If it requires something else to explain it, it isn't self-explanatory. - If you can exist without it, it isn't necessary. - If it wasn't moved, it's unmoved. - If it wasn't caused, it's uncaused. Please explain how a cyclical universe isn't eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, or uncaused. While you're at it, please also explain how you can be familiar with an argument you haven't seen.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 2, 2022 1:39:11 GMT
If it begins or ends, it isn't eternal. - If it depends on anything else, it isn't independent. - If it requires something else to explain it, it isn't self-explanatory. - If you can exist without it, it isn't necessary. - If it wasn't moved, it's unmoved. - If it wasn't caused, it's uncaused. No sh*t! And if chocolate is not sweet, then it’s unsweetened! SO WHAT??? That’s a tautology! All you’re doing is defining conditions into existence, and then using your definition to support your conclusion. It means nothing if none of it is demonstrable. Any assertion regarding the nature of universes must be demonstrated in order for it to count as a rationally justified belief. The key word in all of these statements is IF. IF none of those assumptions are accurate, then your conclusion doesn’t matter. So now the question becomes “are any of these ‘ifs’ true?” What argument do you have that supports any of your presumed premises? First of all, I don’t need to do that because that’s shifting the burden of proof. You are the one asserting that it is, therefore YOU need to demonstrate that this is in fact the case by making an argument that supports that conclusion. And you haven’t done that! Anything which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Secondly, I’ve already explained why “self-explanatory” makes no sense. If something lacks an explanation it does not become “self-explanatory”. The correct answer is: “it has no explanation”. We don’t know if the universe is eternal or not, so right now there is no explanation. You don’t just get to pretend that it has an explanation by calling it “self explained”. 😏 A hypothetical cyclical universe MAY in fact be eternal (or it may not), but even under the assumption that it would be, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is “explained”. Saying that something exists eternally is not an explanation for its existence! An eternal universe doesn’t necessarily imply an “uncaused” universe either. The universe may have “eternal causation”. I asked how you ruled out this possibility in my last response and you couldn’t answer. In any case, this hypothetical eternal universe wouldn’t be a “first cause” because there is no “first action” in an infinitely existing thing. If you want to call it a foundational “prime mover”, that’s fine. But calling it a first cause imparts a numerical beginning on something that can’t have a numerical beginning. You didn’t come up with this argument and it’s hardly the first time it’s been posited. This is an old argument for theism in classical philosophy. It’s just not a compelling one because it suffers from all of the problems of assertion that I’ve gone over throughout this thread. And I’m not going to explain anything to you until you can answer any of my questions. All you’ve done so far is ignore and avoid all of my challenges to your assertions. I asked you a question about a possibility that you ruled out in my last comment.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jul 4, 2022 10:40:35 GMT
Evidence - stuff you can test.
Proof - what I check for on booze brands I'm unfamiliar with.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jul 4, 2022 10:46:36 GMT
We're not dealing with basic science when it comes to the origin of the Universe, especially when per general relativity the normal laws of physics don't work inside of the singularity. But surely if you say science says that you should easily find a scientific paper explaining why the hypothetical Big Bounce requires an external agent. You, too, can easily find a scientific paper explaining how the laws of inertia and thermodynamics prevent perpetual motion. But is it really necessary? It's Physics 101, for crying out loud. Grade school stuff. Perhaps a cyclical universe can run for a very long time, but not forever. Sooner or later, an external force would be required to push it past its inevitable stopping point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking for. No. It's not necessary because you assume the current known laws of physics apply to the Big Bounce even when pretty much every physicist will tell you that current laws of physics break down at the singularity and by breaking down, I don't mean they don't work, it means we need a better understanding of how they work. So why try to apply grade school stuff when we're talking about really advanced physics that some of the best physicists are trying to figure them out?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 4, 2022 11:03:22 GMT
You, too, can easily find a scientific paper explaining how the laws of inertia and thermodynamics prevent perpetual motion. But is it really necessary? It's Physics 101, for crying out loud. Grade school stuff. Perhaps a cyclical universe can run for a very long time, but not forever. Sooner or later, an external force would be required to push it past its inevitable stopping point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking for. No. It's not necessary because you assume the current known laws of physics apply to the Big Bounce even when pretty much every physicist will tell you that current laws of physics break down at the singularity and by breaking down, I don't mean they don't work, it means we need a better understanding of how they work. So why try to apply grade school stuff when we're talking about really advanced physics that some of the best physicists are trying to figure them out? Let me know when that happens.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2022 7:50:08 GMT
If it begins or ends, it isn't eternal. - If it depends on anything else, it isn't independent. - If it requires something else to explain it, it isn't self-explanatory. - If you can exist without it, it isn't necessary. - If it wasn't moved, it's unmoved. - If it wasn't caused, it's uncaused. No sh*t! And if chocolate is not sweet, then it’s unsweetened! SO WHAT??? That’s a tautology! All you’re doing is defining conditions into existence, and then using your definition to support your conclusion. It means nothing if none of it is demonstrable. Any assertion regarding the nature of universes must be demonstrated in order for it to count as a rationally justified belief. The key word in all of these statements is IF. IF none of those assumptions are accurate, then your conclusion doesn’t matter. So now the question becomes “are any of these ‘ifs’ true?” What argument do you have that supports any of your presumed premises? First of all, I don’t need to do that because that’s shifting the burden of proof. You are the one asserting that it is, therefore YOU need to demonstrate that this is in fact the case by making an argument that supports that conclusion. And you haven’t done that! Anything which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Secondly, I’ve already explained why “self-explanatory” makes no sense. If something lacks an explanation it does not become “self-explanatory”. The correct answer is: “it has no explanation”. We don’t know if the universe is eternal or not, so right now there is no explanation. You don’t just get to pretend that it has an explanation by calling it “self explained”. 😏 A hypothetical cyclical universe MAY in fact be eternal (or it may not), but even under the assumption that it would be, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is “explained”. Saying that something exists eternally is not an explanation for its existence! An eternal universe doesn’t necessarily imply an “uncaused” universe either. The universe may have “eternal causation”. I asked how you ruled out this possibility in my last response and you couldn’t answer. In any case, this hypothetical eternal universe wouldn’t be a “first cause” because there is no “first action” in an infinitely existing thing. If you want to call it a foundational “prime mover”, that’s fine. But calling it a first cause imparts a numerical beginning on something that can’t have a numerical beginning. You didn’t come up with this argument and it’s hardly the first time it’s been posited. This is an old argument for theism in classical philosophy. It’s just not a compelling one because it suffers from all of the problems of assertion that I’ve gone over throughout this thread. And I’m not going to explain anything to you until you can answer any of my questions. All you’ve done so far is ignore and avoid all of my challenges to your assertions. I asked you a question about a possibility that you ruled out in my last comment. As everything else you keep repeating, I've already addressed the problem with infinite regress. Surely you remember thinking you had debunked it with some fantasy universe where anything is possible. Bryce, all you've done in this thread is proven over and over again my two main points: 1) One can intuitively acknowledge an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends without calling it "God". 2) To deny a First Cause, you must reject natural laws as we know them in favor of something that would be considered supernatural, which is what you tried to avoid in the first place. Good talk. I'm looking forward to ignoring your next convoluted post.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 18, 2022 21:35:02 GMT
Admin No surprise there considering that you’ve ignored every salient point I’ve made. You didn’t address anything. You asserted a problem of infinite regress, but your problem is nothing more than a philosophical curiosity. It doesn’t invalidate the proposition, and even if it did you haven’t solved it (nor can you solve it with a god). Intuition is irrelevant as it does not inform upon reality. What one CAN intuit says nothing about what IS. And the second notion about denial of a first cause is demonstrably false. It does not require a rejection of natural law, nor the acknowledgment of the supernatural. I’ve given the reasons why; you ignore those reasons. So you have no case!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2022 22:12:15 GMT
(nor can you solve it with a god) See the last four words of #1 above. Since you’re not reading what I’m writing, I’m going to just let you keep arguing with yourself. Let me know who wins.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 18, 2022 23:03:23 GMT
(nor can you solve it with a god) See the last four words of #1 above. See my post where I already addressed that I don’t give a fūkk what you “call it”. The point is, you have no solution for the infinite regress you are trying to avoid as there is no justification for the thing you are intuiting. No…you’re actually going to continue trying to salvage your failed argument (by avoiding the counter arguments), and I’m going to continue to embarrass you for doing so. That’s been the pattern so far; I see no reason for it to stop! Which means that the answer is you lose.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2022 23:21:23 GMT
The point is, you have no solution for the infinite regress you are trying to avoid as there is no justification for the thing you are intuiting. Apparently the solution is to completely abandon science and logic and reason and natural law while playing semantic games. I see why you strut, but it's still funny in an Archie Bunker kind of way... youtu.be/D4aGj7K7HdQ
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 21, 2022 18:09:30 GMT
The point is, you have no solution for the infinite regress you are trying to avoid as there is no justification for the thing you are intuiting. Apparently the solution is to completely abandon science and logic and reason and natural law while playing semantic games. I see why you strut, but it's still funny in an Archie Bunker kind of way... Apparently, your attempt to salvage your failed argument is to continue setting up a straw man for you to knock down.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 22, 2022 2:48:26 GMT
Apparently the solution is to completely abandon science and logic and reason and natural law while playing semantic games. I see why you strut, but it's still funny in an Archie Bunker kind of way... Apparently, your attempt to salvage your failed argument is to continue setting up a straw man for you to knock down. "The laws of physics apply to the operational dynamics within 'this universe', not necessarily to universes themselves."That's you abandoning science and logic and reason and natural law. Here's you playing semantic games: "Define 'being'."For more examples, learn to scroll.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 25, 2022 16:08:33 GMT
"The laws of physics apply to the operational dynamics within 'this universe', not necessarily to universes themselves."That's you abandoning science and logic and reason and natural law. No, it isn’t. That’s you FALSELY asserting that you understand “science” or the laws of physics when you clearly don’t. This is a demonstration of YOU being illogical and unreasonable concerning how science works and what natural law even refers to. The statement is factual. Applying the laws of physics to that which may exist external to the universe is not “scientific”. The laws of physics are a scientific description of how this universe operates. We don’t apply them to “before the Big Bang” or to “outside the universe” because that would be unreasonable. We have no concept of “natural law” beyond the universe. And your lack of comprehension concerning this reality isn’t a “me problem”, it’s a “you problem”. By the way, the person playing “semantics games” in this discussion is you. You, who throws tantrums when someone uses the word “God” to characterize your argument because you’d prefer to call it a “being” or “cause”, or any other term where you can pretend this is actually a rational argument instead of the religious nonsense that it is! That’s the semantics game YOU are playing my friend. Your argument DOESN’T WORK and your assertion is still a straw man because YOU don’t understand science OR reason.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 25, 2022 18:07:52 GMT
"The laws of physics apply to the operational dynamics within 'this universe', not necessarily to universes themselves."That's you abandoning science and logic and reason and natural law. No, it isn’t. That’s you FALSELY asserting that you understand “science” or the laws of physics when you clearly don’t. This is a demonstration of YOU being illogical and unreasonable concerning how science works and what natural law even refers to. The statement is factual. Applying the laws of physics to that which may exist external to the universe is not “scientific”. The laws of physics are a scientific description of how this universe operates. We don’t apply them to “before the Big Bang” or to “outside the universe” because that would be unreasonable. We have no concept of “natural law” beyond the universe. And your lack of comprehension concerning this reality isn’t a “me problem”, it’s a “you problem”. By the way, the person playing “semantics games” in this discussion is you. You, who throws tantrums when someone uses the word “God” to characterize your argument because you’d prefer to call it a “being” or “cause”, or any other term where you can pretend this is actually a rational argument instead of the religious nonsense that it is! That’s the semantics game YOU are playing my friend. Your argument DOESN’T WORK and your assertion is still a straw man because YOU don’t understand science OR reason. I say someone can admit a First Cause without calling it "God," then you say I throw tantrums when someone calls it God. I'm perfectly fine with someone calling it God, and I've thrown no tantrums. It's difficult to say the same about you, with all your CAPS and exclamation points. You said the laws of physics don't apply to the universe itself, but now you're saying they're only inapplicable to "that which may exist external to the universe." When I point out that you're proving my original statement by describing the universe itself as an "eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends," you start scrambling semantics over the definition of "being," "independent," and "self-explanatory" in some bizarre attempt at making what you said mean something else. I realize now that I'm trying to reason with an unreasonable person, so I'm just going to let you keep kicking your own ass while watching from the sidelines. Just remember that I'm rooting for you, Bryce.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 29, 2022 15:29:51 GMT
I say someone can admit a First Cause without calling it "God," then you say I throw tantrums when someone calls it God. I'm perfectly fine with someone calling it God… Well then you wouldn’t be trying to distract by suggesting that it’s “semantics”. It’s exactly what you’re doing. The laws of physics apply to that which exists “post Big Bang” (that is the observable phenomenon within this universe). You don’t use them to make statements about the existence of “the universe” (such as where it came from), or any other universes. The fact that you don’t understand this shows that you’re not competent to speak intelligently about such laws. Your lack of reading comprehension and inability to follow simple logic isn’t a “me” problem, it’s a “you” problem. You’re the only one in this thread who seems to have difficulty following what’s being said. Nothing about my argument supports the notion of an “eternal universe”, much less a “self-explanatory” one. You keep accusing me of playing semantics games but you’re the one doing that. The universe isn’t a BEING, it’s a thing. And I’m using all caps not because I’m angry, but so that you can read what I’m saying and comprehend it (because I don’t think you do half the time). Calling the universe a being is a theological tactic intended to confuse and mislead. Most people colloquial use that term to refer to humans and other thinking agents (like proposed gods). By calling the universe an uncaused being, you’re calling the universe God. If you say that an uncaused being is responsible for the universe, you are arguing for a god. If you stop trying to intentionally mislead people with your use of nebulous theological language, then I wouldn’t have to call you out so much on it. But you’re the one doing that! It’s a completely dishonest way to have a conversation. I realized that about you very early on in the conversation. But I also realized that you desperately want to get the last word in no matter how wrong you are or how ridiculous your argument is. So I decided to keep engaging regardless. Rest assured, I will not remember you 5 minutes after leaving this discussion. It’s only when I get a notification that you reply that I remember you, and then decide to come kick your ass!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2022 21:39:41 GMT
You said the laws of physics don't apply to the universe itself, but now you're saying they're only inapplicable to "that which may exist external to the universe." The laws of physics apply to that which exists “post Big Bang” (that is the observable phenomenon within this universe). You don’t use them to make statements about the existence of “the universe” (such as where it came from), or any other universes. Bryce, Bryce, he's our man! If he can't do it, maybe Bryce can! Bryce has been arguing for infinite regress. Go get him, Bryce. "Universe" isn't plural, by the way.
|
|