The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 06:28 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 06:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
The JE Walker debates commentary thread
This is a public forum. Comment on what you see posted in the Walker debate threads.

"I am basic my argument off of the Standard Cosmological Model that calls for an absolute beginning of all matter, all energy, and the space-time manifold itself."

hmmm. "basing" ... not another idiot that can't speak proper English.
Dude can't even define his own terms.
He is unable to define "existence" without invoking space-time.
Even his hero, (WLC) KNEW that, which is why he spent his career cooking up "non-tensed time".
What a joke.
If there was an "absolute beginning of the space-time manifold itself" then STOP using temporally referenced concepts that REQUIRE time : ie "created", (including a priori intentionality), began "causing" (*before*) space-time ... which is completely meaningless. What is this Walker dude ? Like 12 ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-03-2014, 06:32 PM
[split] An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:12 PM)Baruch Wrote:  cjlr is correct Jeremy and I think you agreed with him.

Once you agree to the obvious - that causality applies to objects/properties/energy WITHIN the universe (or what begins to exist within the universe) then you cannot extrapolate to "outside the universe" (whatever that means)

It is a non-sequitur fallacy and fallacy of composition.

fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole


i.e parts of the universe have properties of causality but it doesn't follow what the entire set "the universe" has the same properties - this is an illegitimate move (non sequitur)

Not much point continuing because after this the Kalam has already failed - its premises are not valid.

Sorry bud, but my reasoning for maintaining premise one is true is not that we see effects being brought into existence by causes in our universe, rather, that the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from nothing is pretty self-evident.

And this is supposed to be between cjlr and myself. Why all the interference?

Firstly: Your intuitions can be wrong.
Secondly: Your intuitions are within the macroscopic environmental surroundings you live in. You are unlikely to have ANY intuitions about plank time for example.

Thirdly: You answered it sweetly yourself - you said: we see effects being brought into existence by causes in our universe.

EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING !!!!
EFFECTS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY CAUSES IN OUR UNIVERSE.
There are no intuitions about causes anywhere else !
It makes no metaphysical sense to have causes anywhere else but IN our universe because causality presupposes time and these ARE PART OF OUR UNIVERSE (or existence).

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Baruch's post
23-03-2014, 06:33 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Sorry bud, but my reasoning for maintaining premise one is true is not that we see effects being brought into existence by causes in our universe, rather, that the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from nothing is pretty self-evident.

How many times do I need to say this?

Naive macroscopic physical intuition is not substantiation.

An assertion which amounts to nothing more than "but I feel like it should be true" is not possible to debate.

you beat me to it !
Back to naiive macroscopic intuitions !!! Poor Jeremy.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
23-03-2014, 06:35 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
This is what happens when a person has limited knowledge (I'm being generous here) of a subject, believes they comprehend it fully, and then go out and debate it.

Is it entertaining? Somewhat.
Is it educational? cjlr's answers certainly are.
Does Jeremy come out looking like a noob? Most certainly.

Carry on.

“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
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
23-03-2014, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 08:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
His entire case is built on (just as Kalam, and Craig's) that "well it seems like it's logical, so it MUST be true". In fact we KNOW at its basic most fundamental level, Reality is non-intuitive. Uncertainty, Relativity, and some math (Dirac) are non-intuitive, but we know that are real. Is "no absolute space-time" intuitive ? No. Is what is observed in the Double Slit experiment "intuitively correct ? No. Kalam is built on a false unexamined premise. Human brains evolved to perceive Reality ONLY within a certain band-width.
And now he thinks he's gonna teach a physicist Physics. Heh heh.

"Great, then provide some type of rebutting or undercutting defeater to the metaphysical principle which states that from nothing, nothing comes, and you will be well on your way!"

Idiot. First HE must prove there is such a thing as "metaphysics". He is 12. It's not a "metaphysical principle". Dude doesn't even know how human cognitive development happens. People LEARN what they think is "logical" based on "macro" experiences. So THIS really is what Presuppositional fools actually pay tuition to spout.
BTW, there was nothing about "metaphysics" stated in the ground-rules, or definitions. That was NOT the basis of the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-03-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 06:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  His entire case is built on (just as Kalam, and Craig's) that "well it seems like it's logical, so it MUST be true". In fact we KNOW at its basic most fundamental level, Reality is non-intuitive. Uncertainty, Relativity, and same math (Dirac) are non-intuitive, but we know that are real. Is "no absolute space-time" intuitive ? No. Is what is observed in the double Slit experiment "intuitively correct ? No. Kalam is built on a false unexamined premise. Human brains evolved to percieive Reality ONLY within a certain band-width.

Quote:Human brains evolved to perceive Reality ONLY within a certain band-width.

The problem is some humans are on slow dial up modem & others on super high broadband. The cosmologists doing real physics have learned to widen broad band capabilities using the analogy. Like inventing the microscope and some person on low bandwidth comes along denying bacteria because its not intuitive "cos I cant see them and uhhhh...looking through expanding glass lenses is not intuitive cos I was not born that way"

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Baruch's post
23-03-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 06:49 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  His entire case is built on (just as Kalam, and Craig's) that "well it seems like it's logical, so it MUST be true". In fact we KNOW at its basic most fundamental level, Reality is non-intuitive. Uncertainty, Relativity, and same math (Dirac) are non-intuitive, but we know that are real. Is "no absolute space-time" intuitive ? No. Is what is observed in the double Slit experiment "intuitively correct ? No. Kalam is built on a false unexamined premise. Human brains evolved to percieive Reality ONLY within a certain band-width.

Quote:Human brains evolved to perceive Reality ONLY within a certain band-width.

The problem is some humans are on slow dial up modem & others on super high broadband. The cosmologists doing real physics have learned to widen broad band capabilities using the analogy. Like inventing the microscope and some person on low bandwidth comes along denying bacteria because its not intuitive "cos I cant see them and uhhhh...looking through expanding glass lenses is not intuitive cos I was not born that way"

Man, sorry it took ten minutes to reply, but the operator was away. I'm like, pre -internet dial up. Big Grin

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
23-03-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
from one of my earlier posts on the topic:

As for something coming out of nothing - and how universe comes into being:

It could be as per Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Bertrand Russell, Paul Davies, objectivists and numerous other thinkers/philosophers/scientists - that the universe eternally exists is some form or other i.e rejecting "Ex Nihilo" creation as illogical & contradictory.

The "big bang theory" only tells us what happens very close to time=0. It does not say what happens at t-0 or if the concept of "before" even makes sense.


The key assumption your making is placing "nothing" as the default and asking "why is there something rather than nothing ?"
What if something always exists and "nothing" is just a relational word to contrast the absence of one thing from something else ? i.e nothing cannot exist in absolute terms - (its irrational) it only exists in relation to something.
Just saying "only nothing exists" is an oxymoron and even then there would be "potential for something" which IS SOMETHING ! (a potential could be compatible with Platonism or other metaphysical systems)
I.e "nothing" presupposes the existence of something.

There are different concepts of "nothing" and even the physicists/cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss do not mean an absolute ontological nothingness when discussing the "beginning" of the universe that we can detect. Lawrence Krauss description of nothing is definitely an absence of space-time objects you are familiar with but it involves quantum fluctuations which are still a something (just not the visible universe we see)

The reason why atheists reject the concept of God in relation to the above arguments about "something cannot come from nothing" is because the Kalam cosmological argument (which is what your hinting at) has many flaws and fallacies - some of which I mentioned above.
Sticking God at the beginning really doesn't solve anything and just compounds mystery with more mystery + contradictions. Exclamation

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
23-03-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
...also relevant from a previous post a few months ago on the topic....

Everything IN THE UNIVERSE has a cause (on the macro scale at least - however quantum indeterminacy complicates this generalization - causality may be an emergent property on larger scales like waves are in the ocean to individual water droplets)

However the universe as a whole need not be caused but always exist in some form or other - the current visible universe being a small super dense & hot area 14 billion years ago - this is not a state of nothing (far from it).
There are many scenarios which could mean the universe we see is just one phase of many universes either simultaneously or in the past.
Not knowing the absolute answer to this does not mean we can make stuff up about a God magically popping things into existence !!!.

out of necessity existence & non-existence combined ARE reality
- basically reality is composed of mathematical patterns which eternally exist. There is no "independent nothing" (doesn't even make sense)

"Nothing" is just a relational word to the lack of something in relation to another thing. (I,e nothing does not exist independently of "everything else" - that makes no sense and is self refuting.) Nothing presupposes something. Nothing cannot "exist" by itself as existence presupposes something.

As for "things coming into existence" - they are formed & reformed but don't magically "come into existence". Energy cannot be destroyed but changes forms and always exists. The big bang is just one manifestation of this transformation forming the universe we see today. Like I said before - what happens at time = 0 (if that even makes sense) or very close to zero we don't now but technically not relevant because no one says the big bang comes from absolute ontological nothingness including Lawrence Krauss. Lawrence Krauss version of nothing is still a something - just not the space time universe containing objects with mass you are familiar with.
Consider that empty space "looks like nothing" but is actually teaming with fundamental particles.

Recall - even "the potential for a universe" is something ! So it is utter nonsense to say there is nothing at the beginning and magically came something.

God does not solve anything in answering these questions but on the contrary stops further investigation, science and questioning by creating a mystery forbidden to question.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
23-03-2014, 07:10 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 06:49 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  His entire case is built on (just as Kalam, and Craig's) that "well it seems like it's logical, so it MUST be true". In fact we KNOW at its basic most fundamental level, Reality is non-intuitive. Uncertainty, Relativity, and same math (Dirac) are non-intuitive, but we know that are real. Is "no absolute space-time" intuitive ? No. Is what is observed in the double Slit experiment "intuitively correct ? No. Kalam is built on a false unexamined premise. Human brains evolved to percieive Reality ONLY within a certain band-width.

Quote:Human brains evolved to perceive Reality ONLY within a certain band-width.

The problem is some humans are on slow dial up modem & others on super high broadband. The cosmologists doing real physics have learned to widen broad band capabilities using the analogy. Like inventing the microscope and some person on low bandwidth comes along denying bacteria because its not intuitive "cos I cant see them and uhhhh...looking through expanding glass lenses is not intuitive cos I was not born that way"

I am not well versed in physics but reading cjlr's arguments, I am getting my head around what he is saying in a layman's way.

It will help me to get it more coherently, if I bounce it of you sciency kids in here.

I am hearing it like this.

1. All things we know and understand exist within a box.
2. The box is called the universe.
3. Time, cause and effect exist inside the box.
4. Outside of the box we have no idea if any of these principles apply, or need to apply.

That's what I'm getting from cjlr's position.

The new kid.

1. 2. 3. Same.
4. Can't bend my mind around cjlr's point 4, so I will assume our box simply belongs inside a bigger box which follows the exact same rules as our aforementioned smaller box.

Is this about right?
If so, does this not bring about a Russian doll style infinite regression problem?

I'm looking forward to the 'therefore because God, specifically the Abrahamic God' bit. I can see it coming, as I'm sure we all can, that's going to take some comedic mental gymnastics!

Popcorn

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: