Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
.
Dec 18, 2022 11:37:49 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2022 11:37:49 GMT
I don't remember anyone saying that there may be life on Mars and no life on Mars. Those were two mutually exclusive alternatives, and as such, nobody subscribed to both...at least not rationally. In this case, it does indeed have to be one or the other. I'm not arguing for God. In fact, in this particular chat, I've said nothing about God at all. Ok, but do you know what does invalidate Newtonian physics? Those turtles. 1. At one time science thought it was possible there was life on Mars, not that there was, although Percival Lowell, a 19th astronomer, looked up at Mars with his telescope at the time and drew this picture of what he thought he saw. He interrupted these lines as canals. Looks plausible, since he had no idea what the atmosphere was like, it could be assumed Mars had a similar one to Earth. Life existing on Mars was not a stupid assumption, we still think it is possible to find life or the fossils. But no intelligent life, that's for sure. 2. Who says? 3. But I predict that you are leading up to it based on my past observations and data I have collected from you over the years. We are talking about a "creation" event and that's seems to me like a natural progression of the argument to "what about a creator." 4. Maybe it was tortoises. 1. Did science ever think it was simultaneously possible and impossible? 2. Logic and reason. Again, if it's turtles all the way down, then there was always something. 3. Can we not have a conversation without deferring to your crystal ball? I'm not the one who keeps trying to inject God into this. In fact, I'm operating under the premise that there is no god. 4. Yup, joke it off, Paul. I totally didn't notice.  |
|
|
|
.
Dec 18, 2022 13:04:20 GMT
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 18, 2022 13:04:20 GMT
1. At one time science thought it was possible there was life on Mars, not that there was, although Percival Lowell, a 19th astronomer, looked up at Mars with his telescope at the time and drew this picture of what he thought he saw. He interrupted these lines as canals. Looks plausible, since he had no idea what the atmosphere was like, it could be assumed Mars had a similar one to Earth. Life existing on Mars was not a stupid assumption, we still think it is possible to find life or the fossils. But no intelligent life, that's for sure. 2. Who says? 3. But I predict that you are leading up to it based on my past observations and data I have collected from you over the years. We are talking about a "creation" event and that's seems to me like a natural progression of the argument to "what about a creator." 4. Maybe it was tortoises. 1. Did science ever think it was simultaneously possible and impossible? 2. Logic and reason. Again, if it's turtles all the way down, then there was always something. 3. Can we not have a conversation without deferring to your crystal ball? I'm not the one who keeps trying to inject God into this. In fact, I'm operating under the premise that there is no god. 4. Yup, joke it off, Paul. I totally didn't notice. 1. No, something is or isn’t, yes or no, though sometimes we don’t which it is until we have enough information. You might be thinking superposition, but that’s not what you’re talking about. 2. That’s just an old saying about infinite regress. 3. What have you got panties on sideways about now? 4. It’s better than the alternative. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
.
Dec 18, 2022 14:34:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2022 14:34:29 GMT
1. That's neither what I'm thinking nor what I'm talking about.
2. Yeah, if two hours is "old."
3. Thanks for the chat.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 18, 2022 15:31:35 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 18, 2022 15:31:35 GMT
No, you wouldn't. 1) You can't be "wrong" by refusing to take a position on a claim. 2) You can't just say that a neither position makes someone wrong, you have to demonstrate why using a rational argument. Right now, all we have is a claim with no argument! If it's one or the other, then a neither position is incorrect. No, sorry but you’re wrong. The “one or the other” is in reference to the actual propositional content of the question, NOT the position of accepting or rejecting the propositional content. You’re confusing the map for the place! While in reality there are only two options, if the truth value of both options is unknown (or unknowable) then a person is rationally justified (correct) to accept neither. There are at least three positions when it comes to acceptance of the proposition. In a manner of speaking it is. However since the conversation is about the concept of “nothing”, and I was trying to make a point about my interlocutor’s inability to describe it, it was inappropriate for me to use the same terminology since it’s obviously confusing and could lead one down a rabbit hole (as evidenced by your questioning of what I meant). Neither did other critics of his book, which was the problem! Its not necessarily my position, but rather the position of most physicists. My point is that there are multiple usages of the word “nothing”, and philosophical nothing does not necessarily denote how the word is used in theoretical physics or cosmology. Therefore, it’s incumbent on the individual who is positing “nothing” (or making some argument or assertion about nothing) to define what they mean to limit equivocation. That’s why I asked Sarge “does nothing have any properties?” Because if the concept you’re describing has no properties, then it cannot be investigated. And if it cannot be investigated, then how can you make any statements about what can or can’t come from it? If we define nothing as the absence of all properties, then it becomes a nonsensical concept to even discuss. The only type of nothing that can be discussed scientifically is the type of nothing that has properties. Thanks! |
|
|
|
.
Dec 18, 2022 15:34:19 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 18, 2022 15:34:19 GMT
it seems that YOU don't want to answer the question...at least not without first appealing to my answer. That is absurd! You were all about the spotlight a few posts ago. What made you put me on the podium if not your reluctance to answer the question?  I’m not about any spotlight and I didn’t put anyone on a podium. As far as I’m concerned, I DID answer the question. You keep implying that I didn’t, but I gave an answer, so I’m not sure where to even go with this. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 18, 2022 15:58:58 GMT
faustus5 likes this
Post by captainbryce on Dec 18, 2022 15:58:58 GMT
@jcarter
In looking over your conversation with Paul (and forgive me but I tend to skip over comments that are not direct responses to me) it seems that the question you’re asking is one meant to call for pure speculation given a dichotomy. In calling for a “guess” about which is true between “something coming from nothing”, and “something always existing”, the only reasonable position to hold is one of agnosticism (as I’ve said), and Paul is quite correct in essentially holding to that.
However, in fairness to you - (and this is something both Paul and myself have failed to acknowledge or realize up to this point), your question wasn’t calling for knowledge or absolute surety. Holding to an agnostic position doesn’t actually answer your question. You didn’t ask us if we “know” which is true, you asked what we “think” is true. And although presumptions ought to be logical, they need not be demonstrably correct or provable.
I can see now (from your perspective) how this might appear to be dodging the question. I tend to answer “unknown” and “unknowable” questions with an “I don’t know” to avoid what might otherwise be considered an argument from ignorance or argument from incredulity fallacy. There is a thin line between idle speculation and fallacious reasoning and they are difficult for some to tell apart.
Having said all of that…
My “guess” (based on no evidence at all) is that “something” has always existed. And my best reasoning for that is the fact that if we define nothing as the absence of all properties, then we have no evidence that there has ever been a state of nothingness (or that there could ever be a state of nothingness). As far as our ability to measure goes, there has always been “something”. To posit that there was once a state of nothingness before and/or beyond our ability to investigate takes on a burden of proof that is impossible to meet, making it (IMO) a less reasonable position.
|
|
