Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2013, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 10:06 AM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 12:02 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I ''liked'' your post Buddy but that was because I wanted to bump you off the previous ''liked'' count you had #666

Those are the Likes Given (as in by me). And you can't erase the mark of the beast. See, I Liked Free Thought's post and the mark remains.


Quote:
(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  First, like the others has said, the first premise IS flawed (everything that begins to exist has a cause). We are basing that premise on things we have observed - objects and items. The universe (which we are trying to make fit into the "everything" category) is not a physical thing.
It is a set of laws, in the way we refer to the Laws of Nature. Gravity, entropy, electromagnetism, thermodynamics...

OH.
OK, easy. Lets modify Kalam to accommodate your concept that the universe is not a physical thing."
P1. Non-physical things which come into existence do or dont have a cause.
P2. The universe is a non-physical thing (as opposed to objects and items we can see and empirically measure, etc)
P3. The existence of physical objects and things is contingent on the existence of a non-physical thing now called the universe.
Conclusion - The non-physical thing called Universe is the cause of what we see in existence...physical objects and things.

Now. Has the non-physical thing called universe (or... O Great and Mighty Law of Nature Universe by and from which all things are made) always existed?

Contingency is not in any way related to causality. Human beings are contingent on the existence of oxygen. Does that mean oxygen created human beings? No, oxygen simply allowed living, oxygen-dependent organisms a chance to develop or not develop. Likewise the universe and its system of laws allowed certain physical things to form or not form, depending on countless other factors.


Quote:
(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...not once have we ever observed a law of the universe being caused by something. The things within the system, governed by the laws, sure. But the laws themselves have always been, as long as we could observe.

This is a nice affirmation of transcendent fine tuning and a great inference that there may be some meaningful intent somewhere out there, as opposed to chaos and chance. These Laws arent laws at all if they are nothing but accidental happenstance mirages which we mistake as being permanent purely because we ourselves are so very very temporary in comparison. (In point of fact the speed of light is only apparently constant at this particular point in cosmic space/time.

However the idea of capital "L" Laws which have ALWAYS been, contradicts modern theories of cosmology. Non-theist cosmology is speculating about M theory precisely to escape the notion that there are necessary laws which must apply everywhere/everywhen in all universes, multiverses and megamultiuniverses. The idea that something non-physical or abstract like The Law or The Canon of Reason, or The Mathematics transcends physical, temporal reality of objects and things plays directly into the hands of theism because these point to objective truth and to God.


So... you see a universe that is 99.9999999% lifeless and chaos and destruction and vacuum and empty space. Then you see us, bacteria inhabiting a rock, being crushed in place by the force of gravity, decaying with every second we're alive, spinning around a giant nuclear fireball... and you see "proof of a God who put these laws in place for us"?


Quote:
(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ... It's like a math formula. Addition has always been a system. YOU have to cause the numbers by pushing the calculator buttons, but YOU didn't create the laws of arithmetic.

Who did? Yes, thats begging the question. But what if the subject/object is changed from God made the Laws of Mathematics to...Bach's BWV 1060.
If a non-physical thing such as intellectual property - Bach's concerto is a non-physical thing which didnt exist. And yet it can become manifest in the form of that energy we call noise as the result of physical objects (violin and oboe) being DELIBERATELY CAUSED to create music.


What? Music IS a physical thing. It's not magical. Bach simply wrote down on paper how each musician should play their instrument. They held down the corresponding strings and notes and plucked or banged or blew in tune and rhythm according to his instructions. He didn't alter the laws of sound. If your point is that human beings can create a set of universal laws... go ahead. Create one. I'll wait. Undo the law of gravity for me.


Quote:
(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ... And since time and existence were theorized to have started with the singularity and the Big Bang, God is a force that would have to exist outside of time and space since "before" is an application of time, making "before the Big Bang" a nonsensical term.

No it is not nonsensical. It is a term increasingly used by physicists when speculating about ways to overcome the idea that the universe started at a singularity 13.7B years ago. Nothing is non-sense when the laws of physics start to break down.

Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. If there is no time, there is no "before." Simple.


Quote:
(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...Like a square triangle.
[Image: rectangular-pyramid.jpg]

It's about terminology and perspective.
This is a square when viewed one way and a triangle when viewed another and a polygon when viewed from another and a pyramid when viewed from another.......

Yeah, that's definitely not a square triangle. It's 4 triangles and a square. Also known as a pyramid. I know you know this, because you would have had to type the word "pyramid" into google just to find the image you used. Perception doesn't alter reality. I'm not suddenly looking at a square, I'm just looking at the bottom of a pyramid. Laying in bed and closing one eye and opening the other doesn't suddenly make my pillow higher off the ground. One term keeps popping into my head the more I read your threads. Intellectually dishonest. Semantics, straw men, and red herrings seem to be your strategy of choice.


Quote:
(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...Here's a suggestion. Consider a black hole. It's so powerful, it sucks in all matter, including light and even time itself. No one knows what happens to all that matter, light, and time in the center of a black hole.

How do you know that no one knows. Did you ever go into a black hole to see what its like in another space/time dimension.
Change the words black hole for an event horizon called death. Are you sure its safe to say what happens after death?

Because no one has been to the center of a black hole before. The end. What does a huge field of gravity in space have to do with the brain of a human being ceasing to function?

Again, intellectually dishonest.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Buddy Christ's post
31-01-2013, 05:03 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
I can't say that I'm surprised to see that Lion_IRC has ignored this part of Buddy Christ's post. Drinking Beverage

(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  And finally, the first premise is flawed because we have never observed anything that began to exist. Nothing on this planet BEGAN to exist. Every molecule, atom, particle, and chemical that exists in your body was already here in this universe before you "began to exist." You are stardust, coming together for a brief period of time before dispersing back into the cosmos. I didn't make a cake come from nothingness. I assembled it using preexisting ingredients that were already here.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
31-01-2013, 09:03 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 05:03 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I can't say that I'm surprised to see that Lion_IRC has ignored this part of Buddy Christ's post. Drinking Beverage

(30-01-2013 03:40 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  And finally, the first premise is flawed because we have never observed anything that began to exist. Nothing on this planet BEGAN to exist. Every molecule, atom, particle, and chemical that exists in your body was already here in this universe before you "began to exist." You are stardust, coming together for a brief period of time before dispersing back into the cosmos. I didn't make a cake come from nothingness. I assembled it using preexisting ingredients that were already here.


I didnt ignore that part. I specifically addressed it.

Dont you recall that we are talking about the universe coming into being. The Cake not the ingredients (flour, egg, butter).

Now Buddy asserts that the unverse (The Cake) is not a thing. That only objects IN the universe are really things.

He asserts the universe is *cough* non-physical. /me tries not to laugh.

Thats equivocating, but hey we can accomodate that shifting of the goal posts and - as I said - modify P1. accordingly.
Non-physical things which come into existence do or dont have a cause.

Now that sounds stupid doesnt it?
But thats what happens when you start saying gonzo metaphysic stuff like...the cake is non-physical, only its ingredients are physical. Hobo

Come on Buddy!
You say the preexisting ingredients were already here.

Are the ingredients 13.7 Billion years old or not?
Do preexisting ingredients ever cease to exist?
Can new ingredients be created out of nothing? Mr Stenger says yes. Mr Krauss says yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 09:40 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...So... you see a universe that is 99.9999999% lifeless and chaos and destruction and vacuum and empty space.

No. You have not even seen 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe. Please dont try to claim you know about 99.9% of it.

(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...... It's like a math formula. Addition has always been a system. YOU have to cause the numbers by pushing the calculator buttons, but YOU didn't create the laws of arithmetic.

Quote:Who did? Yes, thats begging the question. But what if the subject/object is changed from God made the Laws of Mathematics to...Bach's BWV 1060.
If a non-physical thing such as intellectual property - Bach's concerto is a non-physical thing which didnt exist. And yet it can become manifest in the form of that energy we call noise as the result of physical objects (violin and oboe) being DELIBERATELY CAUSED to create music.


(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...What? Music IS a physical thing.

No. Sound is a form of energy. Hardly a physical thing. Physical things arent even physical anymore. Newtonian physics is already stone age. What does the word physical even mean in the age of dark matter and dark energy? What our non-physical soul makes of that intellectual property called music - a deliberately created product of Bach's mind - is also beyond the magisterium of empirical hard science.



Quote:No it is not nonsensical. It is a term increasingly used by physicists when speculating about ways to overcome the idea that the universe started at a singularity 13.7B years ago. Nothing is non-sense when the laws of physics start to break down.

(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. If there is no time, there is no "before." Simple.

Did you ACTUALLY declare the concept of time simple? There is no time without movement.
Was anything moving prior to 13.7B years ago or not?
The universe contains moving objects. The Kalam argument actually works better if you do it like this....

P1. Objects which begin to move have a cause.
P2. A billiard ball is an object which begins to move.
Is the cause of the billiard ball moving intentional?

[Image: cue-ball-rolling-towards-racked-billiard-balls.jpg]




(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ... One term keeps popping into my head the more I read your threads. Intellectually dishonest. Semantics, straw men, and red herrings seem to be your strategy of choice.

...says the person who claims the universe doesnt physically exist in order to avoid confronting the KCA.

Sorry to bother you. Feel free to ignore me if you think I am dishonest. Sad

Because if you really do think I am not posting in good faith dialogue, and yet you still then make some lame pretense of having serious dialogue with me
then YOU are the person being disingenuous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 09:45 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 10:09 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(30-01-2013 10:37 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 10:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Good luck with that, as he clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor can he conceptualize anything in other than black and white dichotomies. The concepts of 'doubt' and 'we don't know' are completely lost on him...
Thanks for the heads up. The argument I posted disputing the Cosmological P1 Premise was actually intended for the Atheists on this board - I had no intent on arguing with a Christian. I hope someone finds the argument useful.

I’m always puzzled by counter-apologists trying to investigate or persuade others to the idea that refuting the KCA even matters. I’m obviously not an atheist, but if I really thought my temporary, carbon-based molecular existence was a virtually invisible blip of energy, on the very short spectrum of evolution of one species, on one planet, in one tiny galaxy, in a perpetual motion machine called the universe, which itself was part of an even greater infinite unknown…I wouldn’t waste my time investigating someone elses claim that I was the product of teleology/cause. William Lane Craig is made of the same carbon molecules as atheists!

But anyway……..

I agree the Kalam can certainly be refuted if;

P1. Some things spontaneously come into existence without any cause. (Metaphysically possible I guess. But then a capital “C” Cause is ALSO metaphysically possible and offers more explanatory power to answer those pesky existential and eschatological meaning of life questions humans like to ask. Plus our real world analogues appear to echo our intuitions about cause and effect, agent and mechanism. Maybe someone planted a subliminal message in the holographic advertisement we call reality.)

The Kalam can certainly be refuted if;

P2. The universe did not come into existence – or doesn’t really exist at all. (But the universe does appear to be expanding and the only way we can reference its expansion is by way of the datum we call ‘’nothing’’ into which the universe is expanding. Now, if space/time extends beyond the peanut shaped universe and some mysterious mother-sucking energy outside the boundary is causing it to expand……hmmm?)

The Kalam can certainly be refuted if;

C. The past-eternal, uncaused universe/multiverse/megaverse that would negate Kalam can be empirically proven without resort to gonzo jargon that is frankly more like Woo than theistic cosmology.

But I am glad that so many atheist atheists DO think it matters whether or not the ingredients of the cake (AND THE CAKE) exist as the result of intentional cause.

Edited to correct my third grade grammatical error. Thanks to Bucky Ball. (Eyes on the prize pal! Well Done!)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 09:57 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  But I am glad that so many atheist DO think it matters whether or not the ingredients of the cake (AND THE CAKE) exist as the result of intentional cause.
Are you like in Third Grade ? The plural of "atheist" is "atheists". No wonder. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 09:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 09:45 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  But I am glad that so many atheist DO think it matters whether or not the ingredients of the cake (AND THE CAKE) exist as the result of intentional cause.
Are you like in Third Grade ? The plural of "atheist" is "atheists". No wonder. Weeping

Apoligees to everyone. I fixed it. Now I must flee in shame. What a shocking humiliation.
Third grade theist made stoopid typo. lololol I mean spelling error. Laughat

YAY team Atheism.
Drooling
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 10:08 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  YAY team Atheism.
Drooling


Can I get a Ramen?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Adenosis's post
31-01-2013, 11:02 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
For fuck's sake IRC, we don't have to disprove the KCA, you need to prove it. We have already show repeatedly how your argument and premises are flawed. Your list of things that would disprove the KCA doesn't matter, because you have yet to prove the validity of the KCA, so it collapses under it's own weight already...


So since you've ignored your other thread, let me re-post my last response...

(30-01-2013 09:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P1: Consciousness requires material substance. Define material substance. Is a photon material? Does a gravitron have mass? Is dark energy a substance?

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. When? Always or just sometimes? My body has mass but how much does the free will which causes it to move weigh?

C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance. Sure, thats metaphysically possible for God. Thumbsup

C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.




(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...The problem with the whole damn argument is that both of the premises make assumptions that can't be proven, and so the conclusion doesn't hold any water.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Thats why they are called premises, because you dont have to accept them. The negations are ALSO premises.
P1. All dogs have four legs. This is a premise.
P2. Fido is a dog. This is a premise.
It is not obligatory to regard these premises as inviolate facts.
I dont have to prove that ALL dogs have four legs or whether those 2 front legs are arent ''legs'' at all but are really just arms that a dog uses to walk.
If all dogs DO have 4 legs and if Fido IS a dog, then Fido must, by necessary inference logically have 4 legs.

Stop trying to avoid the syllogism itself by obfuscating about the impossibility of knowing whether P1 is empirically verifiable by science. We can NEVER know with 100% certaintly if every single dog ever born has/had 4 legs or not. You either accept the premise or you dont.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  So what? The negation of this premise would simply be the opposite assumption. Where's the empirical evidence that NO CAUSE exists?
We have a ton of evidence to support our intuitions about the deliberate causation of events. Agent/Mechanism is a process we see going on every day.
Even accidental stuff that happens has an agent we can blame.


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Science has show us that human intuition is not at all adequate to judge what is intuitive beyond our average world.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  This is self-refuting and circular. What field of science studies things ''beyond our average world''?
Youve just claimed that science can evaluate intuition. Therefore intuition is within the realm of science.
And I would argue that science's understanding of ''intuition'' is limited by its primitive technology.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Our understanding, and even our language, breaks down as we approach the very fast, very cold, very large, or very small. So at the level of quantum mechanics nothing is intuitive.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE FOR YOU!
Not only are you admitting ignorance, but you are admitting that (current) science cant possibly make claims about P1, or intuition in general, being false.
You really have no basis to reject a premise about causation of things or the reality of existence subsequent to non-existence.
And biblical theism does NOT propose a naturalistic explanation for how the Cause did it, so dont demand of thesim that which you agree is ''beyond our average world''


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P2: The Universe began to exist.

Once again, we have an unjustifiable assumption.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I beg to differ. There is overwhelming justification to think the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning....WAIT! Why does that sound familiar?



(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...You try to claim fowl on me and point to the Big Bang, to which I must point out that you've missed the boat. Evolution is to Abiogenesis what the Big Bang is to the 'creation' of the universe. Much as evolution explain biodiversity and not the origins of life, so the Big Bang explains the universe's expansion and formation, but not it's 'creation'.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Indeed I do call fowl. If abiogenesis is to evolution as the big bang is to the existence of the universe then you are in no position to make claims about the ''flaws'' in theistic cosmology. Abiogenesis may as well be called a sacred mystery because, like the big bang, all prevailing scientific theories are wishful thinking. And NONE offer any explanatory power for humans asking existential questions.

You possibly dont like those ''why'' questions because they arise in the human psyche as if some intuition in us demands to know whether we exist because we matter
and whether our existence will have mattered after we die.

Mr Krauss runs away from why questions and thinks only of how questions, but what difference does it make to him to how our universe got here? What difference will it make to a few insignificant specs of carbon in this temporary aberration in cosmology we call earth, once we are gone, that we speculated for a brief few yocto-seconds about the age of the rock on which we dwelt?

We didnt cause ourselves to exist and we cant prevent our own death.
But is there any Mind somewhere in or beyond the Cosmos, ''beyond our average world'', to Whom our existence does matter?

You might answer...definitely not or I dont care, but most humans DO care and DO wonder.



(30-01-2013 12:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Next time, try to cherry pick a little less. There is one major point that you ignored, presumably because it wrecks your entire argument. So I'll just copy/paste what I had already said in my previous post...

Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate.


I dont need to respond to every non-sequitur I see.

But you are absolutely right about the admission that you dont know.

And as for asserting stuff which isnt factually true, how about you follow the time-honored tradition of intellectual dialogue and muster up some facts to...

SHOW ME WHERE I AM WRONG.



Do you understand at all the concept of the burden of proof? When someone makes a claim, it is up to the claim maker to support their claim, or else withdraw their position. You've made a claim in favor of the Cosmoligical Argument, all I am doing is playing the role of the skeptic. You have made a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim, not on the skeptic. I do not have to 'prove you wrong' by supporting a counter-claim, all I am doing is showing that your claim is unfounded.


You perceive, and are trying to project, a false dichotomy here. There is no opposite of the Cosmoliogical Argument, and disproving the CA does in no way endorse any other claim; nor am I making a claim. I'm just showing your claim is unfounded, that is all. I need not show more evidence than I already have. You're assumptions are unfounded and I have already made my case, as case you have yet to refute. It is your job to back up your claims with better evidence and logic, or conceded the point and withdraw your claim. You refuse to do either, insisting I present evidence for a non-CA point of view. Sorry, I'm not making a positive claim here; you can't force me to present and argue for a position I haven't claimed nor hold.

So in essence...

Your previous arguments are unfounded, present better evidence or withdraw your claim.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
31-01-2013, 11:17 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 09:03 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 05:03 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I can't say that I'm surprised to see that Lion_IRC has ignored this part of Buddy Christ's post. Drinking Beverage

I didnt ignore that part. I specifically addressed it.

Dont you recall that we are talking about the universe coming into being. The Cake not the ingredients (flour, egg, butter).

Now Buddy asserts that the unverse (The Cake) is not a thing. That only objects IN the universe are really things.

He asserts the universe is *cough* non-physical. /me tries not to laugh.

Thats equivocating, but hey we can accomodate that shifting of the goal posts and - as I said - modify P1. accordingly.
Non-physical things which come into existence do or dont have a cause.

Now that sounds stupid doesnt it?
But thats what happens when you start saying gonzo metaphysic stuff like...the cake is non-physical, only its ingredients are physical. Hobo

Come on Buddy!
You say the preexisting ingredients were already here.

Are the ingredients 13.7 Billion years old or not?
Do preexisting ingredients ever cease to exist?
Can new ingredients be created out of nothing? Mr Stenger says yes. Mr Krauss says yes.

Sigh. It's like you have a defensive filter built into your brain that takes the things people say and scatters them throughout your brain, so you only grasp bits and pieces. YOU are the cake. YOU came together from preexisting parts just like all the other pieces of the universe. The UNIVERSE is the non-physical arena where physical things are pieced together. If the universe itself is a physical thing, please gather some of it into a jar and present it to me. I would like to examine this physical "universe" up close. Go ahead. Just reach up and grab a handful of universe.


(31-01-2013 09:36 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...So... you see a universe that is 99.9999999% lifeless and chaos and destruction and vacuum and empty space.

No. You have not even seen 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe. Please dont try to claim you know about 99.9% of it.

It's an induction based on logic and observation. Everything as far as we can observe is how I described it. Does it make sense to assume that just outside of our observations, the universe pulls a 180 and is teeming with life and marshmallows and rainbows? And even if it IS, it clearly wasn't made for us by some Divine Lawmaker, since we can't even observe it, let alone experience it.


Quote:
(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ...What? Music IS a physical thing.

No. Sound is a form of energy. Hardly a physical thing. Physical things arent even physical anymore. Newtonian physics is already stone age. What does the word physical even mean in the age of dark matter and dark energy? What our non-physical soul makes of that intellectual property called music - a deliberately created product of Bach's mind - is also beyond the magisterium of empirical hard science.

It's like you read half a quantum physics book and excitedly ran off to post in a forum. Dark energy and dark matter are theoretical devices, currently being suggested to explain all the missing energy from our equations of everything. In no way does it alter the definition of a physical thing. And again, Bach did not command the laws of sound, nor manipulate them to his will. We know what sounds certain wavelengths produce. We know how to press strings on instruments to produce these wavelengths. Bach didn't conjure energy from a field of magic.



Quote:The universe contains moving objects. The Kalam argument actually works better if you do it like this....

P1. Objects which begin to move have a cause.
P2. A billiard ball is an object which begins to move.
Is the cause of the billiard ball moving intentional?

[Image: cue-ball-rolling-towards-racked-billiard-balls.jpg]

Interesting. So you're saying that an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an object already in motion (force)? I believe that's called Newton's First Law of Physics. But WAIT? Didn't you just say... now where did I see that... AH! Here it is! "Newtonian physics is already stone age." You dismiss Newtonian physics as archaic in one argument... and then in the VERY NEXT ARGUMENT... you call upon the unwavering steadfast logic of Newtonian physics?


Quote:
(31-01-2013 05:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ... One term keeps popping into my head the more I read your threads. Intellectually dishonest. Semantics, straw men, and red herrings seem to be your strategy of choice.

...says the person who claims the universe doesnt physically exist in order to avoid confronting the KCA.

Sorry to bother you. Feel free to ignore me if you think I am dishonest. Sad

Because if you really do think I am not posting in good faith dialogue, and yet you still then make some lame pretense of having serious dialogue with me
then YOU are the person being disingenuous.

You think offering up arguments and alternate viewpoints is "avoiding confronting the KCA"? I do believe you meant to say this:

Quote:...says the person who claims the universe doesnt physically exist in order to avoid blindly accepting the KCA as absolute truth.

And your counter-response to you being intellectually dishonest is that I had the audacity to respond to you in a serious and intellectually honest manner?

Fair enough. You have stated that your arguments are stupid and to respond to them is equally stupid. Conversation over.




"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Buddy Christ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: