Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2013, 02:05 AM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Despite your suggestions to stop logically debating a foolish mind, I've thought of one more thing to add to my analogy.

You are the cake. The universe is the kitchen.

The term kitchen isn't actually a thing that is something on its own. We can identify a kitchen by the items that exist within it. We recognize appliances and things that generally inhabit the room we have termed The Kitchen. There's the stove, there's the fridge, there's the sink, there's the blender. I must be in the kitchen right now. But remove all the things that make up the kitchen and you have removed the kitchen itself. It's beyond physical. It's a collective term for all the things that make up a kitchen.

Likewise with the universe. You keep trying to label it as a thing, a physical entity. But the universe is more than the physical pieces. It's the laws of nature, the laws of physics, the chemical reactions, the consistency of numbers (2+2 won't equal 4 today and 7 tomorrow). You're trying to claim that all of these things exist and so they must have been caused, which has just never been observed before.

Back to the analogy, I guess it would be more accurate if certain physics only existed in the kitchen. If gas was only flammable if it existed in the kitchen or if water never froze unless it was in the kitchen, then the analogy would be perfect. Because then you could remove all the physical appliances and still know you were in the kitchen by the Kitchen Laws. The kitchen would transcend the items that came and went and maintain its kitchen status.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Buddy Christ's post
02-02-2013, 02:13 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2013 02:21 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(31-01-2013 11:17 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 09:03 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  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.

I wanted to bump this post back into the limelight. First you said the ingredients are physical objects and the cake (universe) is non-physical.

Now you are saying I am the cake. LOL

''...the non-physical arena where physical things are pieced together..''

This is going in the quotemine vault. Thanks. LOL.

Let me take you back to ancient philosophy.

If I take the combined physical pieces of the cake (arena/universe) and cut it in half, have I now got two universes?

If I take one physical piece of the non-physical cake/universe, a rock for example, and break it in half, have I now got two smaller rocks?

And if I break one of the smaller rocks into two even smaller rocks and then keep breaking the smallest rock down over and over and over, when does it eventually get so small that it cannot be broken? So small that it is invisible. So small that it seems non-existent.

So small that only God would be able to see it. So small that only God would be able to cut it in half one final time.
...and then, if God wanted to, put the two seemingly invisible pieces of rock back together making them just barely big enough to see again.


(31-01-2013 11:17 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 09:36 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  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...

Dark matter is not a theoretical device. Unlike dark energy, its existence is known.
I suggest YOU run off and read some physics.[/quote][/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
I love it when non-theists say woo stuff about cosmology.

*Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

*We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

*If you wish to make an apple pie you must first invent the universe.

*You are the cake, the cake is you, the cake doesnt exist, only the ingredients
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Vosur thought I was unconsciously overlooking his KCA related post in the Resurrection debate thread.



(03-02-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 07:34 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Sorry.
I'll go back and see if there was something I was obviously supposed to reply to.
Oh wait.
That was a Kalam-related post. Not a Resurrection debate post.
I will link it and post an answer in the other KCA thread.

(30-01-2013 04:23 AM)Vosur 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?
I was under the impression that the meaning of "material substance" was obvious from the sum of its terms. Try substituting it with "matter".
Alternatively, the first premise could be worded as "Consciousness requires (a) complex neural system(s)".
You get the point, don't you? Consider

No. What exactly is your point? Consciousness may very well need material substance to be manifest, but matter is far from simple. And a conscious being who interacted with matter at the quantum level (dark energy?) wouldnt necessarily be obvious to less complex beings.

Eg. How does a sea slug know whether there are conscious beings called humans?

Furthermore, a conscious being like a human might never even come into contact with a sea slug. The human might simply observe the slug and the slug wouldnt know anything at all about whether the human was watching or ignoring the slug.

(30-01-2013 04:23 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  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?

The hypothesized god is and has always been immaterial.
Your last question is a loaded question because it presupposes the existence of free will.
That aside, free will is not a material object, it's a concept that exists in the minds of people. The question how much free will weights is just as nonsensical as the question how much freedom or Calvinism weighs.

OK. I Read it. What now?

You claim God is immaterial. *shrug*

If you think your definition of matter (physical body) cannot be acted upon by your definition of non-matter (free-will) then I'm up for alternative explanations of force/energy that acts without volition.

(30-01-2013 04:23 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.
You're attacking a straw man argument. The conclusion of my argument is not that god doesn't exist, but that he is not conscious.

No its not even an attack at all, let alone a strawman.

I accept that your argument allows for the existence of God. I am questioning your apparent confusion that God needs to appear TO YOU in an alert, conscious, wide-eyed, 24/7 state of undivided attention, pinging you every 5 minutes to let you know He is consciously focussing on your issues.

How can you (a sea slug) even tell the difference between His varying stages of conscious attention on you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2013, 08:56 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2013 09:02 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Consciousness may very well need material substance to be manifest, but matter is far from simple. And a conscious being who interacted with matter at the quantum level (dark energy?) wouldnt necessarily be obvious to less complex beings.

I get the feeling your one of those people that skims some science then thinks they understand it...

(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  If you think your definition of matter (physical body) cannot be acted upon by your definition of non-matter (free-will) then I'm up for alternative explanations of force/energy that acts without volition.

Non-matter... Really? Dodgy

Free will, or the illusion of free will is the result of physical process' in the brain. There is nothing "non-matter" about consciousness or free will.

(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I am questioning your apparent confusion that God needs to appear TO YOU in an alert, conscious, wide-eyed, 24/7 state of undivided attention, pinging you every 5 minutes to let you know He is consciously focussing on your issues.

I keep seeing gods supposed amazingness kicked in the face. You think god is or could be an unconscious entity? so he isn't even self aware? This god sucks...

Yes this is argumentum ad hominem. I am amused at how your debating this when you seem to completely lack basic understanding of physics.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2013, 09:00 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2013 09:17 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  No. What exactly is your point? Consciousness may very well need material substance to be manifest, but matter is far from simple. And a conscious being who interacted with matter at the quantum level (dark energy?) wouldnt necessarily be obvious to less complex beings.

Eg. How does a sea slug know whether there are conscious beings called humans?

Furthermore, a conscious being like a human might never even come into contact with a sea slug. The human might simply observe the slug and the slug wouldnt know anything at all about whether the human was watching or ignoring the slug.
I don't see why you're having such a hard time understanding such a simple point. All our experiences and observations prove that only organisms with complex neural systems possess consciousness. We don't even have a single example to the contrary.

This is the exact same reasoning that is being used to support the first premise of the cosmological argument.

(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  OK. I Read it. What now?

You claim God is immaterial. *shrug*
Actually, it is theists who do so. Do you have a different view?

(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  If you think your definition of matter (physical body) cannot be acted upon by your definition of non-matter (free-will) then I'm up for alternative explanations of force/energy that acts without volition.
I have never said that free will is non-matter; I stated that it's not a weighable material object. Furthermore, you still have to define (and establish the existence of) free will.

(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  No its not even an attack at all, let alone a strawman.

I accept that your argument allows for the existence of God. I am questioning your apparent confusion that God needs to appear TO YOU in an alert, conscious, wide-eyed, 24/7 state of undivided attention, pinging you every 5 minutes to let you know He is consciously focussing on your issues.
And here you go again, purposely misrepresenting or simply misunderstanding my argument. Never have I said that god needs to appear conscious to me. Once more, my argument is that an immaterial god cannot be conscious, because he does not, by definition, possess the required material substance. The only way you can deny the validity of this argument is by rejecting the first premise because it's based on mere human experience and intuition. It is exactly as I've told you right off the bat: Unless you invoke a double standard, refuting my argument also refutes the cosmological argument.

(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  How can you (a sea slug) even tell the difference between His varying stages of conscious attention on you?
I'll answer this question as soon as you substantiate its underlying assumptions (god's existence and the existence of "varying stages of conscious attention"). Until you do that, it remains a mere loaded question.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
03-02-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Holy Christ, man. You are the illiterate, brain damaged cake. I am the food critic. And I spit you out of my mouth for being unable to read words on a screen.

"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
04-02-2013, 06:45 AM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Ultimately, put all of the stupid cake and other metaphors aside, and just finally get around to provide supporting evidence for your claim IRC. You're not going to 'prove' an argument with consequences in the real, observable, physical, natural world solely with your armchair philosophy (and terribly weak philosophy at that). Once again...

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
05-02-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(04-02-2013 06:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
Your previous arguments are unfounded, present better evidence or withdraw your claim.

Your hand waving....la la la la...I cant see any arguments being presented...gainsaying routine isnt any use on me.

Merely claiming that an argument is unfounded isnt very persuasive. Its just special pleading.

And I dont have to withdraw anything just because you find the arguments unconvincing.

I'll play on thanks. You dont have to watch if you dont like the arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(03-02-2013 08:56 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Consciousness may very well need material substance to be manifest, but matter is far from simple. And a conscious being who interacted with matter at the quantum level (dark energy?) wouldnt necessarily be obvious to less complex beings.

I get the feeling your one of those people that skims some science then thinks they understand it...

You get the feeling. WOW. I guess thats game over for me then. I cant argue with your inner vibes.
BTW - The little voice in my head says to say hi to yours.


(03-02-2013 08:56 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  ...Free will, or the illusion of free will is the result of physical process' in the brain. There is nothing "non-matter" about consciousness or free will.

WOW. All by yourself, you just solved the greatest mystery in neuroscience.
And you didnt even need to quote The oracle of Delphi.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Satan Argument cre8ivmind 7 82 Today 09:43 AM
Last Post: Fodder_From_The_Truth
  Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam Jeremy E Walker 106 2,398 29-05-2014 02:30 AM
Last Post: Revenant77x
  How would you deal with this argument? diddo97 49 776 24-05-2014 05:03 AM
Last Post: Rahn127
  The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible? WimpyPete 145 1,860 20-05-2014 02:38 PM
Last Post: WimpyPete
  A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument Reltzik 121 2,268 14-05-2014 05:49 PM
Last Post: Leo
  My thoughts on the whole Atheists vs. Theists argument Dobrev 11 339 09-05-2014 12:41 PM
Last Post: djhall
  What is wrong with this argument JDog554 24 348 01-05-2014 11:26 AM
Last Post: Reltzik
Forum Jump: