|
i like how he uses Occam razor that is a nice twist,, while i have entertained this notion i have never postulated it in writing toward the ends of a formal argument,,, man i may become a member of this site looks like fun..
lol then the theist attempts to use occams razor in the process creating a fallacy , but grosely misspells his name lol too funny you would think he would at least learn how to spell the name of the freaking creator of the technique he is using ... too much...
been 10 years since i went to school or have read up on anything really post 2004 or so..
so admit i am a little behind and need to do a few years of catching up
have to admit this guy kicking his logical ass
yeah i use the naturalism equivalent in my posts as well.. saying the physical laws of the universe are eternal ,, not the expressed matter
therefore if the universe itself is eternal , god is not needed.. the theist will try to claim the big bang is proof of a beginning when there is no evidence it is a single event or a continuous one ,, e.g the process has never been observed ,, and even in the case it is a singular event , there is no evidence the unified fields do not exist eternally ,,,then they will say god is a necessary being .. he exists though his own nature therefore does not require a cause ... but that contradiction shows it self clearly ... as the universe it its own necessity through its eternal laws that preclude causation ...as god does through necessity , therefore god once again is not needed
|
On May 09 2010 02:06 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 01:59 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On May 09 2010 01:41 Gnosis wrote:On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote:
once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause.
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably
So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer. Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake. Do you believe the universe is eternal, or necessary? If not, you see the problem of an infinite series of regressions. So it is not a mistake to ask for the cause of the universe, it is a mistake to say that there is none. But, as I said in my previous reply... I'm going to "bow out". I'm not really interested in the thread any more. Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 02:01 chessmaster wrote:
it is because when the fields unify time no longer exists in the way craig postulates for support of his second method..infinite series is not relevant prior to the big bang ,,, also i mentioned there is no proof that this current state of the universe is random ( requiring a cause ) or a series of repeated events .. the existence of unified governing dynamics precede causality .... i.e the universe does not behave in the same way..... as the physical fields are the reason for our existence they are the eternal god if you want to word it like that .. the very reason you give for his argument is self contained within the laws of physics.. they do not require a cause Frankly, and quite honestly, I'm not following you. So I think I'm going to leave things at that, as I already said I would (to Miramax). My heart (or head) really isn't into this anymore. So I'll look into what you've said, but I'm not going to argue with it 
I don't think you understood my post. You are asserting the principle of sufficient reason. I am claiming that the principle of sufficient reason is not a primary. Existence precedes causality. This means that there must first be things (or in the case, the universe (which is nothing but all things) before those things can act. You are starting with acting and trying to get with things. You cannot reverse the process and still be coherent.
|
On May 09 2010 03:33 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 02:06 Gnosis wrote:On May 09 2010 01:59 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On May 09 2010 01:41 Gnosis wrote:On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote:
once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause.
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably
So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer. Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake. Do you believe the universe is eternal, or necessary? If not, you see the problem of an infinite series of regressions. So it is not a mistake to ask for the cause of the universe, it is a mistake to say that there is none. But, as I said in my previous reply... I'm going to "bow out". I'm not really interested in the thread any more. On May 09 2010 02:01 chessmaster wrote:
it is because when the fields unify time no longer exists in the way craig postulates for support of his second method..infinite series is not relevant prior to the big bang ,,, also i mentioned there is no proof that this current state of the universe is random ( requiring a cause ) or a series of repeated events .. the existence of unified governing dynamics precede causality .... i.e the universe does not behave in the same way..... as the physical fields are the reason for our existence they are the eternal god if you want to word it like that .. the very reason you give for his argument is self contained within the laws of physics.. they do not require a cause Frankly, and quite honestly, I'm not following you. So I think I'm going to leave things at that, as I already said I would (to Miramax). My heart (or head) really isn't into this anymore. So I'll look into what you've said, but I'm not going to argue with it I don't think you understood my post. You are asserting the principle of sufficient reason. I am claiming that the principle of sufficient reason is not a primary. Existence precedes causality. This means that there must first be things (or in the case, the universe (which is nothing but all things) before those things can act. You are starting with acting and trying to get with things. You cannot reverse the process and still be coherent.
Perhaps I didn't. What I am saying is that I don't believe the universe exists necessarily, hence I don't believe it is eternal (and therefore had a definite beginning). That is the reason for my asking "what caused the universe?" If it hasn't always existed, where did it come from? What existed prior to our universe which spawned our universe. Which I understand as getting at the question, why does anything exist at all? So I don't deny that things must first exist before those things can act (otherwise I would be saying something quite silly, along the lines "from nothing, something comes"). As I understand what I'm saying (unless I've confused you or myself with something I said above?) I am starting with things which then move on to acting. And that's the reason I asked if you believed the universe is eternal.
|
The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.
|
On May 09 2010 04:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.
So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal?
|
whether you believe it is or not is not sufficient reason to discount the logic.. i do not believe in god and it is also not sufficient reason for disproving your logic ..... the very logic you provide contradicts itself i cannot be more clear than that.... the theory cannot be provided as logical evidence this is the only claim i am making .. while you keep skirting this claim ,,,, it is the only one i make
this theory attempts to prove the existence of god within the realm of basic Aristotelian logic .. therefore if you agree two contrary things cannot be true as this is a postulation within the very logic you are using..... therefore if your theory contradicts itself it cannot be accepted as logical proof....
if you cannot agree with this there is not really anywhere to go from here.... and you may want to research basic logic
i can keep saying this post over and over again in different ways ,, but it all returns to this logical fact...your theory logically contradicts itself.. therefore it is not a logical proof
while my theory cannot disprove god does exist ... it does not need to to discount the logical reliability of yours...i merely have to show your theory contradicting itself with the very logic it trys to prove itself with... and i have effectively done that,,,,,anything else is an argument based purely in semantics
i can keep saying this over and over again in different ways,,,,
however the logical refutation will not be escaped
|
On May 09 2010 04:06 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 04:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing. So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal?
yep.
|
"So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal?"
yes we have answered this several times ... the universe in its unified form is eternal ( i.e unified forces that govern it) but not necessarily independent manifestations of matter e.g the current form after the bigbang
the universe has its own necessity of eternal forces outside of time and does not require the necessity of a personal god outside of time
|
On May 09 2010 04:06 chessmaster wrote:
whether you believe it is or not is not sufficient reason to discount the logic.. i do not believe in god and it is also not sufficient reason for disproving your logic ..... the very logic you provide contradicts itself i cannot be more clear than that.... the theory cannot be provided as logical evidence this is the only claim i am making .. while you keep skirting this claim ,,,, it is the only one i make
this theory attempts to prove the existence of god within the realm of basic Aristotelian logic .. therefore if you agree two contrary things cannot be true as this is a postulation within the very logic you are using.....if your theory contradicts itself it cannot be accepted as logical proof....
i can keep saying this over and over again in different ways ,, but it all returns to this fact
while my theory cannot disprove god does exist ... it does not need to to discount the logical reliability of yours...i merely have to show your theory contradicting itself with the very logic it trys to prove itself with... and i have effectively done that,,,,,anything else is an argument based purely in semantics
i can keep saying this over and over again in different ways,,,,
however the logical refutation will not be escaped
I really don't know why you're going over this again. You're not understanding me, I'm having too difficult a time following you, there's nothing much else I can say.
On May 09 2010 04:12 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 04:06 Gnosis wrote:On May 09 2010 04:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing. So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal? yep.
Thanks for replying, probably would have been easier to do that the first time. I'm not familiar with the view, other than that many people hold it. I'm wondering your thoughts on why the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium already, or do you subscribe to a model of the universe which expands and contracts?
|
really none of these minor details need even be examined to reveal the self contained fallacy of craig and other cosmological creationlist
the only assertion i started with is it fails to prove the existence of god logically because of self contradiction ....,,,,,,,, but i never claimed my view disproved god does exist ... i merely state that according to your own logic god is not needed in spite of the fact it attempts to prove otherwise..
you could look at it this way ... since your argument logically fails . i then have the logical means to use it as a contradiction proof
|
On May 09 2010 04:21 chessmaster wrote:
really none of these minor details need even be examined to reveal the self contained fallacy of craig and other cosmological creationlist
the only assertion i started with is it fails to prove the existence of god logically because of self contradiction ....,,,,,,,, but i never claimed my view disproved god does exist ... i merely state that according to your own logic god is not needed
Is this the same "self-contradiction" where you keep asking, "where did God come from? Who is God contingent upon?" Because if it is, then I only refer you to what I said above in reply to you.
|
the contradiction once again for about the 10th time,,,,, is you claim god does not require a cause based on the fact he is separate from time and therefore not dependent on the laws of causality
where as i state the universe in its unified state is also outside time .. therefore according to your own reasoning does not require a cause ...
you cannot attempt to use logic to prove something .. and then exempt yourself from those very rules you are using
once again i am not proving god does not exist logically ....i am disproving your theory does so with your own logical rules
..
if you cannot follow this then i suggest you relearn basic logic and start ove rfrom there because this really is going nowhere ...
which the theory does all on its own
|
On May 09 2010 04:17 Gnosis wrote:
Thanks for replying, probably would have been easier to do that the first time. I'm not familiar with the view, other than that many people hold it. I'm wondering your thoughts on why the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium already, or do you subscribe to a model of the universe which expands and contracts?
If a universe is in a state of equilibrium, is it possible to observe that universe from within that universe itself?
Separately, if a universe comes into existed, does it not need to have a context to exist in? Because you could also define the universe(new definition) to be that container complete with its content universe(original definition).
|
really to disprove the kamal model or ones put forth by craig logically prove god exists
all we have to do is show it violates itself with the same logic it uses ,,,,,
i have effectively done this
i am not claiming there is no god ... i am not claiming craigs views are not correct ,,, i am claiming they cannot be logically proven
|
On May 09 2010 04:28 chessmaster wrote:
the contradiction once again for about the 10th time,,,,, is you claim god does not require a cause based on the fact he is separate from time and therefore not dependent on the laws of causality
where as i state the universe in its unified state is also outside time .. therefore according to your own reasoning does not require a cause ...
if you cannot follow this then i suggest you relearn basic logic and start ove rfrom there because this really is going nowhere ...
Do you not understand what I mean when I say that I'm not following you? Simply repeating yourself ad nauseum isn't going to get the point across (sorry!). I'm not a mathematician, I haven't studied "unified theory" and I'm certainly no cosmologist--as if I ever claimed I was one! You are assuming I hold the same presuppositions you do (i.e. the same definition of eternity as not timelessness but infinite time. i.e. the universe has existed "since eternity" because it has existed concurrently with time, etc.). I probably don't. I'm not following you because I have no idea what basis you're arguing from or even what you're saying, half the time.
So to answer your question - after a half hour of looking up where you're coming from - yes, if you define eternity as infinite time, then the universe is in that sense eternal and requires no explanation. if you definite eternity as timelessness, then different story. I've never disagreed with this.
Sorry, but if you're going to keep insisting on replying you're going to have to do a better job of explaining yourself. It's not as if I've come here (as someone else thought) to be some sort of Christian apologist. That sentiment is just palmface worthy.
|
On May 09 2010 04:32 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 04:17 Gnosis wrote:
Thanks for replying, probably would have been easier to do that the first time. I'm not familiar with the view, other than that many people hold it. I'm wondering your thoughts on why the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium already, or do you subscribe to a model of the universe which expands and contracts?
If a universe is in a state of equilibrium, is it possible to observe that universe from within that universe itself? Separately, if a universe comes into existed, does it not need to have a context to exist in? Because you could also define the universe(new definition) to be that container complete with its content universe(original definition).
As I understand equilibrium, it wouldn't be possible in the sense that no observers would be possible (the universe would be effectively "dead"). As for the second question, not quite sure I'm following you. When the universe "came into existence" then likewise matter, time, space came into existence as well?
|
you seriously do not follow this simple logic ?what exactly do you not follow ?
|
gnosis writes
"When the universe "came into existence" then likewise matter, time, space came into existence as well?"
yes all of these forms of manifestations are forms of the unified fields separating.. god is neither a reason or a necessity for this by your own logic..
this state is outside of time and causality therefore does not require its own cause
the same as your god..
so in conclusion we have logically removed the necessity of god using the very logical postulations
you use to explain the reason for one
|
On May 09 2010 04:44 chessmaster wrote:
you seriously do not follow this simple logic ?what exactly do you not follow ?
No, I never said I didn't follow your logic. I'm not following you because 1) I don't know what you mean by your terms, 2) you're assuming we hold the same suppositions and 3) some of what you're saying is, frankly, going over my head (again, unified theory?). But I said this all in my last post, so why you aren't understanding what I'm saying now is strange.
On May 09 2010 04:47 chessmaster wrote:
gnosis writes
"When the universe "came into existence" then likewise matter, time, space came into existence as well?"
yes all of these forms of manifestations are forms of the unified fields separating.. god is neither a reason or a necessity for this by your own logic
this state is outside of time and causality
You realize that the argument (Kalam) doesn't argue explicitly for the existence of god (as I understand it), only that the universe has a cause? I don't recall arguing that the Kalam in some way proved god, you're free to point out where I have.
|
you were talking about kalam as it related to craig that is where
but eve n in the sense of a "first cause " the same logic applies ,,
it merely becomes a semantic debate at this point
you can call it first cause or you can call it god .. they essentially perform the same function in your argument
this is an attempt to pull the rug out from under the discussion using semantics
the logic speaks for itself, and it based on the values of the terms , not which terminology you use
as i have said you can no more prove the existence of a first cause than i can prove there is not one
but i can use your logic to disprove the need for one
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
