The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 12:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that's an absurd notion.
A "necessary" being (who is ALSO the "first cause") is SUBJECT to the very Reality it supposedly created. Reality remains unaccounted for. It explains nothing.
Reality DETERMINED what that being's properties are.

A real "undetermined" deity, could have made ANY sort of Reality. Yours can't.

I don't know what you mean when you say reality determined the aspects of the necessary being. What is the issue?

You said it has the property of being "necessary". That's not the ONLY possibility. Why should it "have any property" ?
A real First Cause would have either no properties or all properties. How did it get that property ? Did Reality exist BEFORE it existed.
The fact that you define it as a "subset" of Reality is self-refuting, and Reality is larger than your god.

You need to learn about the problem of the Primacy of Existence.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-02-2017, 12:27 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:13 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Relevant to what goal?

Answer the question. Why is the question relevant to how anyone lives today, or the choices they make, or anything they do ?

Well to answer the question I needed to know what goal you had in mind. I was wondering what you meant by relevant. You just told me so I can answer now. Truth isn't necessarily relevant to anyone's day to day choices. But that's a pragmatist standard to which I do not hold. Truth is relevant to me. If there's a god, I want to know. If there isn't, I want to know. Reality is fascinating. That's enough for me to consider it relevant.

"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
06-02-2017, 12:30 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:11 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't think the universe is intuitive. But I do think the universe follows logical laws. So we can reason about it merely a priori.

Logic never said anything about Relativity or Uncertainty.
It is insufficient to describe Reality.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-02-2017, 12:30 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You said it has the property of being "necessary". That's not the ONLY possibility. Why should it "have any property" ?
A real First Cause would have either no properties or all properties.
The fact that you define it as a "subset" of Reality is self-refuting.

Well if a being has no properties, then I would argue that it doesn't exist.

"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
06-02-2017, 12:32 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Logic never said anything about Relativity or Uncertainty.
It is insufficient to describe Reality.

So you think we need something beyond logic? There exists no such thing. Are you suggesting science is illogical?

"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
06-02-2017, 12:34 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:27 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Answer the question. Why is the question relevant to how anyone lives today, or the choices they make, or anything they do ?

Well to answer the question I needed to know what goal you had in mind. I was wondering what you meant by relevant. You just told me so I can answer now. Truth isn't necessarily relevant to anyone's day to day choices. But that's a pragmatist standard to which I do not hold. Truth is relevant to me. If there's a god, I want to know. If there isn't, I want to know. Reality is fascinating. That's enough for me to consider it relevant.

So basically you *do* accept the traditional definitions of the gods. (You said you accept that it could be plural.)

Justify "fascinating" is enough for me". So it's all about you ?

What's relevant for you, may not be relevant to anyone else. A cause that NEVER intervenes or shows itself may be fascinating to a few. It's totally irrelevant to the world.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-02-2017, 12:36 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:57 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 11:52 AM)Ace Wrote:  listen reason and logic won't help you prove anything exists unless you have hard evidence to back it up and arguments don't qualify as evidence

So if I wrote a mathematical proof showing that 0.99... repeating on forever is equal to 1, would you not believe me until I showed it with physical evidence? Your standard seems to be empiricism. But empiricism is subservient to a priori deductive arguments.

All that would do is tell us something about Maths. It wouldn't tell us anything about physical reality. Maths is just a language, a tool for us to reason about reality. It is not reality itself.

Let's look at it another way. I can create a computer simulation of anything, computing being an applied form of Maths. But if I can't show that it's based on empirically derived data then it's not a simulation, just a program.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
06-02-2017, 12:37 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So basically you *do* accept the traditional definitions of the gods. (You said you accept that it could be plural.)

Justify "fascinating" is enough for me". So it's all about you ?

Well it is when you mention relevance in this manner. It's a subjective question.

Quote:What's relevant for you, may not be relevant to anyone else. A cause that NEVER intervenes or shows itself may be fascinating to a few. It's totally irrelevant to the world.

I never said it didn't intervene. And truth is fascinating. This is why science is so important. It's not because it helps society improve. It's that truth itself has value.

"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
06-02-2017, 12:40 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:32 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Logic never said anything about Relativity or Uncertainty.
It is insufficient to describe Reality.

So you think we need something beyond logic? There exists no such thing. Are you suggesting science is illogical?

Yeah there is. All kinds of things. Love for example. Facepalm
You REALLY are immature.
It's called evidence.

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
06-02-2017, 12:40 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:36 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  All that would do is tell us something about Maths. It wouldn't tell us anything about physical reality. Maths is just a language, a tool for us to reason about reality. It is not reality itself.

Let's look at it another way. I can create a computer simulation of anything, computing being an applied form of Maths. But if I can't show that it's based on empirically derived data then it's not a simulation, just a program.

Interesting. So you would hold that math doesn't always describes physical reality. I would say this position leads to several problems. We can get to those in a bit, but in my metaphysic, languages are used to describe 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: