The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2017, 10:28 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 09:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Whoever said anyone was seeking "certainty" ?
Isn't he cute.
A 17 YO lecturing at us.

If you have no epistemic certainty at your foundation, then the structure crumbles. Let's say you're 99% certain that your senses are valid. Then you're 99% certain that if your senses are reliable, science works. You can see there will be a cascading effect. By the time you get to any scientific claim, you aren't actually talking about knowledge anymore. You're talking about a probabalistic assessment of any proposition. You have a semi-justified, possibly true, semi-belief. This isn't knowledge.

So what? It works, and that's all that's necessary. "Knowledge" in the sense that you mean it is impossible and unnecessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 10:30 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:13 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 09:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm not saying math is reality. I'm saying you can't argue that there is an instance in which you can use quantities in the physical reality and not invoke mathematics. And physical evidence is not enough to serve as a foundation for a worldview. You have to have cogent first principles that actually warrant the use of evidence.

You're assuming that a First Cause necessarily implies a world-view ... but you still need to demonstrate the existence of this first cause.

Furthermore, I haven't yet talked about a worldview, nor do I care to, because even is this deeply flawed "reasoning" were iron-clad, it still wouldn't have a single thing to say about the worldview you're trying to smuggle in under its skirts.

Lastly, my cogent first principle is that reality is objective. What's your problem with that?

The demonstration of the first cause is in the original post. Reality being objective is your only first principle? So you don't begin with your own existence or the reliability of your cognitive faculties? You just jump right in with objective reality? I'd say that epistemological dependence is corrolary to metaphysical contingency. Metaphysically, the first cause must be necessary and self-grounding. Epistemologically, your first principle has to be self-evident or immediately apprehended as true by any given mind. It can't be dependent on other beliefs. The first principles are the things you assume justifiably. Your own reasoning and your existence are first principles. I'd say reality's objectivity could be established as a secondary principle by extrapolating from your own rationality. Once the mind understands existence, it understands the objectivity of reality.

"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
08-02-2017, 10:36 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:28 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  So what? It works, and that's all that's necessary. "Knowledge" in the sense that you mean it is impossible and unnecessary.

This is the core claim of fallibilism. http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

"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
08-02-2017, 11:08 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 09:07 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Math and physical reality are inseparable.

The finger pointing at the Moon is not the Moon. Both math and reasoning are abstract languages used to describe reality ... but they are not reality itself.

When you are saying there is a First Cause, you are not making an abstract claim. You are making a claim about reality. All the reasoning in the world will not make something exist if it doesn't. Reasoning bow to the hard facts on the ground, because it is much more likely to have faulty reasoning than it is to have atoms behave contrary to the "laws" of the Universe.

What that means is that if you want to demonstrate a First Cause, you'll need physical evidence.

Yes, ^this.

Naielis let me provide a simple analogy.

Einstein postulated that gravity bends light. This prediction/hypothesis was not physically observed/measured for more than a decade. During the intervening time Einstein’s relativity theory isn’t wrong, only unobserved. Once an experiment was designed to show if this was correct or not (Eddington’s) was there physical evidence for his theory.

Unless you can find your Eddington for your postulation of a “necessary being” all you have is a thought exercise, and unlike Einstein’s without a physical way to back it up. Now you can argue to heart’s content that your assertion is true ™ but we will always come back to what Thumpalumpacus and many of us have been saying, you haven’t provided a way to test your hypothesis.

What you have tried to do is discredit the scientific method, cast doubt on observable results and redefine what evidence means. You are trying to will your idea to be true because you know there is no way to show evidence for your garage dragon.

The good thing about you being here is that it has allowed many here an opportunity to flesh out and explain our position and for that I’m thankful.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/ent...p15ei.html

“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
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
08-02-2017, 11:23 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm not saying math and physical reality are identical. I'm saying you cannot separate math from reality.

Math is a tool we use to describe reality and help us understand and predict it.

Quote:Quantities in physical reality operate with the same properties as the quantities in abstract math.

If we have the math right. Math and reality are not intrinsically connected.

(08-02-2017 10:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  If you have no epistemic certainty at your foundation, then the structure crumbles. Let's say you're 99% certain that your senses are valid. Then you're 99% certain that if your senses are reliable, science works. You can see there will be a cascading effect. By the time you get to any scientific claim, you aren't actually talking about knowledge anymore. You're talking about a probabalistic assessment of any proposition. You have a semi-justified, possibly true, semi-belief. This isn't knowledge.

Absolute knowledge? 100% certainty? No, we don't have that about anything except where things are definitional. Neither do you. I don't see that as a problem. We can be sure enough in a belief to call it knowledge even though new evidence could show that we need to modify that belief. If you are seeking some kind of absolute knowledge then I suspect you will either have to seek forever or delude yourself into thinking that you have it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
08-02-2017, 11:39 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The demonstration of the first cause is in the original post.

No, it isn't. We've been over this.

The assertion of first cause is in the opening post. Nowhere in any of your arguments is it actually established that it exists.

(08-02-2017 10:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Metaphysically, the first cause must be necessary and self-grounding.

Bare assertion based on several terms that are both poorly defined and, in and of themselves, also bare assertion.

I would recommend that you stop trying to rely so heavily on metaphysics. The term itself basically means "shit that was made up".

"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
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
He still has not defined "metaphysics", although he was asked several times. Consider

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 11:59 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 09:33 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is simply not true. The idea is incoherent. The model of a thing is not the thing itself. A language is not the thing that it describes.

But I qualified this statement. I'm not saying math and physical reality are identical. I'm saying you cannot separate math from reality. Quantities in physical reality operate with the same properties as the quantities in abstract math.

Oh, really? Numbers have mass? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
08-02-2017, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 01:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 09:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Whoever said anyone was seeking "certainty" ?
Isn't he cute.
A 17 YO lecturing at us.

If you have no epistemic certainty at your foundation, then the structure crumbles. Let's say you're 99% certain that your senses are valid. Then you're 99% certain that if your senses are reliable, science works. You can see there will be a cascading effect. By the time you get to any scientific claim, you aren't actually talking about knowledge anymore. You're talking about a probabalistic assessment of any proposition. You have a semi-justified, possibly true, semi-belief. This isn't knowledge.

Nope.
I could give a shit about "epistemic certainty". That's YOUR problem you project onto others. You *need* people to buy into your garbage, as you have invested SO much time and energy into this crap, you can't see straight. You can't tell us what we value, or what we should value, child. You speak ONLY for yourself. (It's one of the things infants learn. The world does not have YOU at it's center).

Nothing "crumbles" except in your insecure little mind. Nothing is "certain". There IS no certainty about ANYTHING. It's all about probability. You can't handle that as you suffer from : low ambiguity tolerance, and a very high need for cognitive closure, and many Fundamentalists do, (and you are a Fundamentalist). As I said before, you need a shrink. There is NEVER ever "epistemic certainty". Anyone may have made an error in their premises or assumptions.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.12...jpa3906_11

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-02-2017, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 03:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  But I qualified this statement. I'm not saying math and physical reality are identical. I'm saying you cannot separate math from reality. Quantities in physical reality operate with the same properties as the quantities in abstract math.


Oh really ?
Abstract math predicted Heisenberg's Uncertainty ?
LMAO

For 99.9 % of the history of this planet, humans had no math systems to describe it, and did just fine. Maybe YOU can't separate it, others have no problems at all.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: