Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
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
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail - Lion IRC - 02-02-2013 02:13 PM
Forum Jump: