He's back.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2013, 12:29 AM
RE: He's back.
In terms of an eternal and timeless cosmos, it is highly egocentric to analyse it dogmatically via our limited way of observing and understanding things.

Religious people lock God into their personal definitions, while militant atheists often argue that science has basically proven that which, in reality, seems a far more complex question...........
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 01:11 AM
RE: He's back.
(23-10-2013 12:15 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Therefore, to claim that any ability or inability for causality for this universe is simply speculation, and nothing more.

Yes, there is no more reason to assume that creatio ex nihilo violates our metaphysical understanding of causality than that it conforms to it. But if he is going to argue that the criterion for not applying our understanding of causation to creatio ex nihilo is that the pre-Universe state is special then that specialness will necessarily bear on all of our metaphysical assumptions--not just causality--and render them inapplicable also.

Quote:We don't know, and at this point can't know. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Yes so we carry on with our usual metaphysical assumptions in good faith until they break and then we revise them. Merely because they could break doesn't mean that they will. We justify our fundamental metaphysical baggage inductively, i.e. with respect to their historic reliability, they served us well in the past. So on inductive--and hence provisional--grounds we assume that causality works the way we think it does in this pre-Universe state in the same way that we assume that the laws of classical logic also hold.

Quote:On strictly classically logical, natural grounds his argument is correct, but the universe is just a little bit more intriguing than that.

No, I disagree. He isn't aware of his own metaphysical baggage. He advocates a metaphysical conservatism but because he is unaware of his own metaphysical assumptions he doesn't realise that he is being liberal in that regard. If we are to be conservative then we can't even bring our other metaphysical fundamentals to table because we only know about them in relation to this universe. If the uniqueness of the pre-Universe state renders our understanding of causality irrelevant then it must also render classical logic irrelevant also. By his own lights, how could we justify the law of non-contradiction in relation to this pre-Universe state? We have had no experience of this state so how could we justify it?

Quote:Now, I'm half drunk, but I think that's what you were saying, although in actual proper terms and shit. I hate agreeing with you, because you're an asshole but are we on the same track?

Sort of.

I'm happy to later explain the concepts I am relying on if you will find that enlightening.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 08:39 AM
RE: He's back.
(23-10-2013 01:11 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I'm happy to later explain the concepts I am relying on if you will find that enlightening.

Appreciated, but I understand them. As a layman, I find them unnecessary and confusing to read without some extra thought. That's all I was saying. You damned intellectuals and your Latin terminology.

Usually this guy is spot on. This is the first time I've been able to spot any weakness in his reasoning. I'm all proud of myself. Thumbsup

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: