The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2017, 11:10 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:07 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I reject the form of the argument you use. IEP was trying to be brief. There are many cosmological arguments that don't have erronious claims like premise 1.

You are free to reject it but that rejection has no relationship to the veracity of the argument, nor does calling something "erronious" (sic) make it so.

Try again, if you wish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:12 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:06 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  We don't have to be "sure" of anything. Science is largely built on induction (for that matter, so is "common sense"), and any philosopher knows that induction can never produce certainty. We observe patterns and build theories around them because, in general, it works. When it doesn't work, we modify the theories. "Knowing" and being "sure" are highly overrated. You can do science and accomplish things without certain knowledge.

I have several issues with the "it works" thesis. First, how do you know it works? Do you have epistemic certainty of this or is it just begging the question and assuming your senses are reliable? Second, it works in what sense? What is the goal? Third, the problem of induction doesn't lead to uncertainty. It leads to a lack of justification. The problem for pragmatists and materialists is justifying the assumptions that certain observations represent universals. How do you know gravity operates everywhere? I think pragmatists have failed to provide a satisfactory justification for the scientific method.

Quote:Again, at the subatomic level uncaused contingent events are quite common. Get used to it.

Well contingent means they are caused. But you're saying there are non-contingent occurances that are not necessary. I disagree with this view of QM.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:13 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 11:18 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
double post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:15 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:10 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:07 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I reject the form of the argument you use. IEP was trying to be brief. There are many cosmological arguments that don't have erronious claims like premise 1.

You are free to reject it but that rejection has no relationship to the veracity of the argument, nor does calling something "erronious" (sic) make it so.

Try again, if you wish.

Sorry I wasn't specific. I reject the form of the cosmological argument you are using. IEP misrepresented it. I'm not saying I reject the form of your argument. I agree with your argument against their formulation.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 11:21 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well maybe I'm biased towards the abstract, but I do think it applies to the concrete here. You can have exactly one third of something. And if you get three thirds of something you get one of that thing. So it can occur in the concrete. But I can justify it with the abstract. Math and physical reality are inseparable.

You just can’t keep yourself from making alternative-facts statements can you? Consider

i^2 = -1

i^0 = i^4

i^1 = i^5

i = necessary being ™

You can't give just willy nilly single out the imaginary while ignoring the transcendental. They must be taken together if you want to see God. Euler was the first to see the burning bush, not Moses.

That, and




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:20 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:16 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  You just can’t keep yourself from making alternative-facts statements can you? Consider

i^2 = -1

i^0 = i^4

i^1 = i^5

i = necessary being ™

You can't give just willy nilly single out the imaginary while ignoring the transcendentals. They must be taken together if you want to find God. Euler was the first to see the burning bush, not Moses.

That, and




When I say math and reality are inseparable, I mean that there is no aspect of reality that deals with quantity but doesn't adhere to mathematical laws.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:20 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:10 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  You are free to reject it but that rejection has no relationship to the veracity of the argument, nor does calling something "erronious" (sic) make it so.

Try again, if you wish.

Sorry I wasn't specific. I reject the form of the cosmological argument you are using. IEP misrepresented it. I'm not saying I reject the form of your argument. I agree with your argument against their formulation.

I don't get your complaints as the forms of the arguments you used openly admit to assumptions and these other types of unjustifiable premises.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:24 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:20 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:16 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You can't give just willy nilly single out the imaginary while ignoring the transcendentals. They must be taken together if you want to find God. Euler was the first to see the burning bush, not Moses.

When I say math and reality are inseparable, I mean that there is no aspect of reality that deals with quantity but doesn't adhere to mathematical laws.

So what you are saying is that reality is subservient to mathematics. I agree.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 10:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism lacks ability to explain intentionality and mental states without some modification towards dualism. Pragmatism unessecarily redefines truth by a proposition's usefulness. It assumes reality is only relevant to the extent at which it can help humans. It's the response of the scientist who just discovered they need a philosophical justification for their beliefs.

Absolutely not.
Since you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Neuro-science, you are qualified to say nothing about "intentionality". Mental states are 100% dependent on physically healthy functioning brains. PET scans can watch thoughts in action, (brain locations *light up*). There is not a shred of evidence for your "dualism" bullshit.

I never said anything about Pragmatism.
Pragmatism redefines nothing. It merely suggest what is or is not worth using limited time for.

Quote:It's the response of the scientist who just discovered they need a philosophical justification for their beliefs.

More arrogant bullshit you learned worshiping and kissing the asses of your theist gods. You have NO evidence for that .... (and then you whine about it when people say things like that about you ... fucking hypocrite).

Science needs no "justification". It works. If YOU were ill, you would use it. If your family member needed heart surgery, YOU would employ science and not even stop to question "science". You use science all the time, and are doing so by typing posts here.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 11:36 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:06 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  We don't have to be "sure" of anything. Science is largely built on induction (for that matter, so is "common sense"), and any philosopher knows that induction can never produce certainty. We observe patterns and build theories around them because, in general, it works. When it doesn't work, we modify the theories. "Knowing" and being "sure" are highly overrated. You can do science and accomplish things without certain knowledge.

I have several issues with the "it works" thesis. First, how do you know it works? Do you have epistemic certainty of this or is it just begging the question and assuming your senses are reliable? Second, it works in what sense? What is the goal? Third, the problem of induction doesn't lead to uncertainty. It leads to a lack of justification. The problem for pragmatists and materialists is justifying the assumptions that certain observations represent universals. How do you know gravity operates everywhere? I think pragmatists have failed to provide a satisfactory justification for the scientific method.

"It works" means just what it says. We successfully send satellites into orbit, rockets to the moon, probes to all parts of the solar system, etc. -- based on our understanding of how gravity works. That's Newtonian gravity, by the way, which is only an approximation -- but it's good enough to get the job done. Also, airplanes fly, computers work as they are designed to, medicines cure diseases, etc. Nobody claims that the results of the scientific method are "universal" or perfect. They don't have to be. They just have to be good enough to accomplish things, and they are. If you're going to demand certainty and perfection, you're never going to even get started.

Quote:
Quote:Again, at the subatomic level uncaused contingent events are quite common. Get used to it.

Well contingent means they are caused. But you're saying there are non-contingent occurances that are not necessary. I disagree with this view of QM.

If "contingent" is defined to mean "caused", then you're just saying "Caused things are caused." Well, duh! That's a tautology. Perfectly true, but also perfectly dull and perfectly useless. You have not demonstrated that things require a cause. You are simply asserting/assuming it. I'm not required to agree, and I don't. So your whole argument is a nonstarter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: