The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2017, 01:54 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
At work.

(07-02-2017 01:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 01:33 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Also, Naielis?

If you keep throwing the "But how can you trust your senses" thing at people seemingly randomly into a conversation when the discussion is moving onwards?

It is both frustrating since it's de-railing the flow as well as Facepalm inducing frustration since it enevitably loops back to the response of;

"I know 'reality' in exactly the same way you do."

Unless, of course, one of us is not really an human.... Or perhaps one of us is not real?

Consider

I don't think it derails the conversation. I think it's a necessary question. You have to be able to justify the reliability of your senses if your entire worldview relies upon that reliability.


It is derailing the conversation.

Unless you are now also insisting that the about; "How do you know... ?" Was a part of your initial cosmological argument?

If so, please highlight said part in your opening statement since I seem to have missed it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
07-02-2017, 01:57 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:33 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  .... Or perhaps one of us is not real?

Blush

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 01:57 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 01:33 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  If you keep throwing the "But how can you trust your senses" thing at people seemingly randomly into a conversation when the discussion is moving onwards?

I don't think it derails the conversation. I think it's a necessary question. You have to be able to justify the reliability of your senses if your entire worldview relies upon that reliability.

The justification has been made. Multiple times. And I'm only referring to myself here; I'm sure others have dealt with it as well.

You just keep bringing it up, the same way you keep trying to bring up Aquinas' idiocy, or Anselm's, or any variants upon their arguments. All of the variations of the cosmological and ontological arguments have the same fundamental flaw (inability to demonstrate that their definitions actually apply to anything). All pseudo-solipsistic questions of sensory fallibility have the same fundamental flaw (their inherently semantic nature).

It isn't just that the conversation has moved on. Philosophy has moved on. None of these "arguments" are considered at all relevant any more, and haven't been for centuries. The only people - I repeat, the only people - who still take them at all seriously are explicitly theistic philosophers who don't want to let go of them because they're one of the few vaguely "official" and "intellectual" things they can produce in defense of their position.

This is not atheistic bias. This is simple fact.

Your arguments are wrong, Naielis.

You cannot get around this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
07-02-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
At work.

(07-02-2017 01:47 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I am confused by this. People are debating a 17 year old who really should be learning the basics in school.

And just to stay on topic.

Here's a passion fruit.

[Image: fruit-passion-fruit.jpg]

Laugh out load

Easy there ye irascible old bugger!

I remember the fires and passion of youth. Smile

Of course.... I might not be real and it's all vicariously obtained?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:47 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I am confused by this. People are debating a 17 year old who really should be learning the basics in school.

And just to stay on topic.

Here's a passion fruit.

[Image: fruit-passion-fruit.jpg]

Apparently our heretical young Naielis is on twitter having the very same “discussion” and being told the very same things he’s being told here.

Freethinker121 ‏@reyg121 Jan 6
More
@HereticNaielis
Haha. Theologians don't provide evidence. They provide philoshical theology to support their premise. It's non sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
https://twitter.com/search?q=HereticNaielis

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:52 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  I don't mind interacting with young people about such things, but they - and I - have to be open to evidence.

So far, I see zero evidence that Naielis is interested in, well, evidence.

Agreed. He's 17. I teach 17 year olds all the time. They've always got some drummer in a metal band they think is really good. I look, see the technique and know exactly where said drummer is.

I then teach the next lesson. Hopefully the student will practice.

This kid, he really needs the practice.

He is this.

[Image: Regal-Tip-RW9AM.jpg]

Those debating him are this.

[Image: 1125599_25781_popup.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
07-02-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 12:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The truth of "2+2=4" is dependent, among other things, on the definition of those symbols. There are algebraic structures in which "+" is undefined, or defined to mean something different from the common usage. Formal mathematics is all about definitions. You can also change the number base. 2+2 can equal 100 (base 2) or 11 (base 3).

When we say 2+2=4 we aren't working with symbols that represent nothing. They have meaning. The meaning of that statement was true before humans existed. Content is more important that symbolism and terminology.

Quote:As for reality: Suppose I have two glasses of water, and two other glasses of water, and I "add" them all by pouring them into a large container. I don't get four glasses of water -- I get one larger glass. Suppose I "divide" one amoeba by two (or allow it to do that all by itself). I don't get one half of an amoeba -- I get two amoebas. Reality is not required to conform absolutely to abstract structures. We build the abstract structures to conform to reality, and only use them where they are appropriate. The complex number system is enormously useful in electronics, but worthless if you're counting sheep.

[Edited to correct basic math error]

Both examples you gave fail to demonstrate a disconnect between math and the physical world. Instead, the first confuses units. Cups, as you're using the term, is not a standard unit. It refers to an object that holds water. If you refer to the actual unit of cups, then yes you would get four cups of water in the large glass. The second example confuses the operation. If you divide one amoeba by two, you do get one half of an amoeba. But dividing by two is not reproduction. It would be cutting a single amoeba in two equal parts.

"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, 02:00 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:58 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 01:52 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  I don't mind interacting with young people about such things, but they - and I - have to be open to evidence.

So far, I see zero evidence that Naielis is interested in, well, evidence.

Agreed. He's 17. I teach 17 year olds all the time. They've always got some drummer in a metal band they think is really good. I look, see the technique and know exactly where said drummer is.

I then teach the next lesson. Hopefully the student will practice.

This kid, he really needs the practice.

He is this.

[Image: Regal-Tip-RW9AM.jpg]

Those debating him are this.

[Image: 1125599_25781_popup.jpg]

You haven't even engaged the arguments.

"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, 02:02 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 01:47 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I am confused by this. People are debating a 17 year old who really should be learning the basics in school.

And just to stay on topic.

Here's a passion fruit.

[Image: fruit-passion-fruit.jpg]

Apparently our heretical young Naielis is on twitter having the very same “discussion” and being told the very same things he’s being told here.

Freethinker121 ‏@reyg121 Jan 6
More
@HereticNaielis
Haha. Theologians don't provide evidence. They provide philoshical theology to support their premise. It's non sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
https://twitter.com/search?q=HereticNaielis

Well I'd prefer if you didn't give out my Twitter, but yes I am being told the same things.

"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, 02:02 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 02:12 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:57 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Your arguments are wrong, Naielis.

You cannot get around this.

Why are they wrong? is the question. I would argue that they are valid but unsound. The rules of inference are used properly but the premises are neither self-evident nor incontrovertible. In fact they're rather silly. This is where a lot of theistic arguments find themselves confused, they mistake validity for soundness. Validity is just a matter of proper syntax and being grammatically correct. Doesn't say anything about whether the premises are consistent with observation or not.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: