Compelling evidence for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2012, 11:25 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 11:09 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(13-08-2012 10:52 AM)scientician Wrote:  2. Yes it certainly is. An argument from authority is only a fallacy if you make false claims. It is the majority view.
I tend to disagree. It's a logical fallacy regardless of the truth of the statement. Popularity/authority does not equal validity. That being said, dismissing your claim because it's a logical fallacy would be a fallacy as well, which is why I'm not going to do it (until further research has been done). Tongue

Think of it more as a consensus. Argument from authority is when I say X person is usually right therefore they're right on this point. Fallacy, sure, as is saying there is consensus when there isn't. But an overwhelming consensus in academia on an issue can be a reliable proxy for truth even if it may not be rock solid.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 11:29 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-08-2012 09:56 AM)scientician Wrote:  But since this creation event occurred before space time it's logical to assume that science can't measure it or tell us about it and we must rely then on metaphysics to flesh out what this cause could be. That puts us on equal footing with the theists. Who the hell knows? The entire idea of classical theism is that the first cause in principle does not require a cause.

If you're looking to refute the KCA you just have to accept B theory of time because the argument relies on A theory. But the more interesting questions come after accepting and hijacking the KCA.

The Krauss book. I don't pretend to be smarter than Krauss but the main crux of the criticism against this book (bear in mind this comes from Atheists as well as Theists) is he simply misunderstands the difference between physics nothing and philosophical nothing. If Krauss says the universe could have spawned from nothing (i.e. a foaming mass of appearing and disappointing particles, yadayada) that nothing is actually something! Therefore you just need to go one layer out and ask why is there something instead of this physics definition of nothing that is not actual nothing. Krauss even states at the end of the book that his version of nothing is actually something! So how does this tell us why there is something rather than nothing exactly?

I think you hit on a good point there. Essentially how could morality be objectively grounded in God when it's up to God's will i.e. subjective? A very good point and I think a good objection to it but then where is objective morality grounded? You can say as Chas does that I'm making up objective morality without evidence but as it turns out Moral Realism is the dominant theory in philosophy. And if you say objective morality doesn't exist than you can't rightly condemn the Catholic Church for its moral wrongs, no?

1. There is no "before" spacetime. Saying something "happened before" time is meaningless. It does NOT put us on "equal footing", as they assert something "happened", IN TIME, (which they forgot did not exist yet). The assertion that something "happened" before time existed is a meaningless assertion.
2. Krauss forgets nothing. He simply asserts that "nothingness" is a pleasant fiction, and is not observed in this universe. Krauss or I don't have to go anywhere, or "out" another level. Nothingness is an idea, which does not exist in this universe.
3. I can condemn the Roman Church for it's moral wrongs, as lying, stealing, and buggering little boys are wrong, with or without god(s). Your assumption that one is left with "moral relativism", and therefore "anything goes". is simply false. The basis for morality does not rest in deities.

I'm sure glad that not everyone is terse. Good post.Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 11:29 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
Yea, Bucky... what he said. Yes

Infinity means forever... and forever means no end and no beginning.

How difficult is that? Sheesh. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
13-08-2012, 11:49 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 11:29 AM)kim Wrote:  Yea, Bucky... what he said. Yes

Infinity means forever... and forever means no end and no beginning.

How difficult is that? Sheesh. Drinking Beverage

It also means no changes, "along the way", "at some point in". It means that there is no point for a creation event, or anything else to happen, "at", and especially for this thread, it also means that god(s) could not :
a. get pissed off at humans in time,
b. say "Oh, ok, it's all better now, I'm not mad any more, since my son 'just' died".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-08-2012, 12:02 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. There is no "before" spacetime. Saying something "happened before" time is meaningless. It does NOT put us on "equal footing", as they assert something "happened", IN TIME, (which they forgot did not exist yet). The assertion that something "happened" before time existed is a meaningless assertion.
2. Krauss forgets nothing. He simply asserts that "nothingness" is a pleasant fiction, and is not observed in this universe. Krauss or I don't have to go anywhere, or "out" another level. Nothingness is an idea, which does not exist in this universe.
3. I can condemn the Roman Church for it's moral wrongs, as lying, stealing, and buggering little boys are wrong, with or without god(s). Your assumption that one is left with "moral relativism", and therefore "anything goes". is simply false. The basis for morality does not rest in deities.

It certainly seems incoherent to talk of a timeless state but does that negate it? The first cause is necessary timeless, spaceless and changeless because it causes those. The first cause is immaterial. Space and time are properties of the universe therefore the first cause, being immaterial is not before space time, it is outside and causing it.

Well then Krauss' book should have been called why there is something instead of pseudo-nothing. He has no basis for saying that philosophical nothing is a pleasant fiction and he completely misses the fundamental question. Daniel Fincke puts it nicely:

"Talking about how an unstable state of unformed matter which is in physics called “nothing” leads to the creation of things also misses the question of where it all comes from at all, i.e., why there is even some matter in the first place. "

So Krauss basically just answered a question he made up himself. The real question is why is there something rather than nothing (read: real nothing)

Why is my "assumption" false? Moral relativism is not anything goes, you misunderstand. It means that morality doesn't exist objectively and therefore it is subject to each agent. Maybe each agent agrees that murder is wrong but you can't just assert it's a moral truth if there is no basis. If someone says murder is right you have no basis for condemnation because, "murder is wrong" is not a moral truth because moral truths don't exist.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 12:09 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
The cause of the universe is in principle not empirically testable. It's outside the physical world and science tests things inside the physical world. It's not subject to your puny time and space!

Seriously though, it's metaphysics, not science. Science is they best way of explaining things in the physical world. Metaphysics and philosophy can tackle those things that aren't empirically verifiable.

We probably will never know what caused the universe but we can speculate. Until there are watertight metaphysical arguments as to what the first cause is we have to call ourselves agnostic on the issue. For me i'm an agnostic adeist. Agnostic because that ^^^ but adeist because I think it's likely that the first cause was not a deist god but rather some other necessary abstract condition.

Anyway, that was fun.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes scientician's post
13-08-2012, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2012 12:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 12:02 PM)scientician Wrote:  
(13-08-2012 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. There is no "before" spacetime. Saying something "happened before" time is meaningless. It does NOT put us on "equal footing", as they assert something "happened", IN TIME, (which they forgot did not exist yet). The assertion that something "happened" before time existed is a meaningless assertion.
2. Krauss forgets nothing. He simply asserts that "nothingness" is a pleasant fiction, and is not observed in this universe. Krauss or I don't have to go anywhere, or "out" another level. Nothingness is an idea, which does not exist in this universe.
3. I can condemn the Roman Church for it's moral wrongs, as lying, stealing, and buggering little boys are wrong, with or without god(s). Your assumption that one is left with "moral relativism", and therefore "anything goes". is simply false. The basis for morality does not rest in deities.

It certainly seems incoherent to talk of a timeless state but does that negate it? The first cause is necessary timeless, spaceless and changeless because it causes those. The first cause is immaterial. Space and time are properties of the universe therefore the first cause, being immaterial is not before space time, it is outside and causing it.

Well then Krauss' book should have been called why there is something instead of pseudo-nothing. He has no basis for saying that philosophical nothing is a pleasant fiction and he completely misses the fundamental question. Daniel Fincke puts it nicely:

"Talking about how an unstable state of unformed matter which is in physics called “nothing” leads to the creation of things also misses the question of where it all comes from at all, i.e., why there is even some matter in the first place. "

So Krauss basically just answered a question he made up himself. The real question is why is there something rather than nothing (read: real nothing)

Why is my "assumption" false? Moral relativism is not anything goes, you misunderstand. It means that morality doesn't exist objectively and therefore it is subject to each agent. Maybe each agent agrees that murder is wrong but you can't just assert it's a moral truth if there is no basis. If someone says murder is right you have no basis for condemnation because, "murder is wrong" is not a moral truth because moral truths don't exist.

I see you live in the land of woo-woo. I hope when you are ill, you go to the Metaphysician. Let us know how that works out for ya.

1. "outside" spacetime, is just as bad as "before" spacetime. They are imaginary, and meaningless. I could care less what you *define* anything to be. Show me the money. And YES, it DOES negate it. If we have to start "negating" things, sir, I ask, as I always do, that you make an appointment. I'm busy today, proving there is no 1957 Chevy, orbiting Pluto. Material/immaterial(which has never been shown to exist), is irrelevant. Causation implies a. effective agency, and b. temporal precedence, which, without spacetime is a meaningless enterprise.
2. The point with Krauss is, until you have actually demonstrated your "real nothing" there is no point loosing sleep over it. Krauss doesn't have to do anything. If you NEED an answer to all your two year old questions TODAY, the question is, why is YOUR psychological state in the state it is in, today. Until you prove there really is any "real nothing", you get to sit in the naughty chair.
3. If I need to explain to you why it is immoral for YOU to be murdered, your time in the naughty chair, is doubled. Shame on you. (I get the feeling you are just playing here).

BTW, hold out your "metaphysics", and we'll see just how "watertight" it is, as I dump a few thousand gallons on your head, Father Scientician.
Metaphysics is a bunch of crap, cooked up, before humans had rational scientific ways to explain the universe. It's into the trash heap of history with all of it.
The cause of the universe not being testable is called Special Pleading. It's a fallacy.
BTW, what's for supper over at Metaphysics Hotel ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-08-2012, 12:42 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 12:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-08-2012 12:02 PM)scientician Wrote:  It certainly seems incoherent to talk of a timeless state but does that negate it? The first cause is necessary timeless, spaceless and changeless because it causes those. The first cause is immaterial. Space and time are properties of the universe therefore the first cause, being immaterial is not before space time, it is outside and causing it.

Well then Krauss' book should have been called why there is something instead of pseudo-nothing. He has no basis for saying that philosophical nothing is a pleasant fiction and he completely misses the fundamental question. Daniel Fincke puts it nicely:

"Talking about how an unstable state of unformed matter which is in physics called “nothing” leads to the creation of things also misses the question of where it all comes from at all, i.e., why there is even some matter in the first place. "

So Krauss basically just answered a question he made up himself. The real question is why is there something rather than nothing (read: real nothing)

Why is my "assumption" false? Moral relativism is not anything goes, you misunderstand. It means that morality doesn't exist objectively and therefore it is subject to each agent. Maybe each agent agrees that murder is wrong but you can't just assert it's a moral truth if there is no basis. If someone says murder is right you have no basis for condemnation because, "murder is wrong" is not a moral truth because moral truths don't exist.

I see you live in the land of woo-woo. I hope when you are ill, you go to the Metaphysician. Let us know how that works out for ya.

1. "outside" spacetime, is just as bad as "before" spacetime. They are imaginary, and meaningless. I could care less what you *define* anything to be. Show me the money. And YES, it DOES negate it. If we have to start "negating" things, sir, I ask, as I always do, that you make an appointment. I'm busy today, proving there is no 1957 Chevy, orbiting Pluto. Material/immaterial(which has never been shown to exist), is irrelevant. Causation implies a. effective agency, and b. temporal precedence, which, without spacetime is a meaningless enterprise.
2. The point with Krauss is, until you have actually demonstrated your "real nothing" there is no point loosing sleep over it. Krauss doesn't have to do anything. If you NEED an answer to all your two year old questions TODAY, the question is, why is YOUR psychological state in the state it is in, today. Until you prove there really is any "real nothing", you get to sit in the naughty chair.
3. If I need to explain to you why it is immoral for YOU to be murdered, your time in the naughty chair, is doubled. Shame on you. (I get the feeling you are just playing here).

BTW, hold out your "metaphysics", and we'll see just how "watertight" it is, as I dump a few thousand gallons on your head, Father Scientician.
Metaphysics is a bunch of crap, cooked up, before humans had rational scientific ways to explain the universe. It's into the trash heap of history with all of it.
The cause of the universe not being testable is called Special Pleading. It's a fallacy.
BTW, what's for supper over at Metaphysics Hotel ?

[Image: Unimpressed.gif]

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2012 02:03 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
Your 'negative proving" appointment is set for September 15, 2014, at 9:00 AM. Please do not eat or drink anything after midnight, the night before. Call the nurse, and she will explain the prep. Meanwhile, Father Putin, since you must pout, your naughty chair time is doubled. Tongue (I should have known, a Gnostic thinks Woo actually exists out there somewhere).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 05:06 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 01:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your 'negative proving" appointment is set for September 15, 2014, at 9:00 AM. Please do not eat or drink anything after midnight, the night before. Call the nurse, and she will explain the prep. Meanwhile, Father Putin, since you must pout, your naughty chair time is doubled. Tongue (I should have known, a Gnostic thinks Woo actually exists out there somewhere).

This isn't one of those things where I get a finger up my bum, is it?

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: