The go a little easy on theists thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2014, 07:01 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 12:37 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 11:55 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 09:11 PM)Vosur Wrote:  ...My actual argument is the following:

P1: All atoms have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is made up entirely of atoms.
C1: Therefore, the atoms that make up the Mona Lisa have always existed.

No
Do you have a reason for disagreeing with me? Consider

It's not that I disagree with the argument. I simply dont see a valid argument with which to agree or disagree. It's circular.

P1: All atoms (including those comprising the Mona Lisa) have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is made up entirely of atoms (which have always existed).
C1: Therefore, the atoms that make up the Mona Lisa have...always existed. And were back to P1 again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 07:02 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
Now, if there were more than just one type of atom (some which exist eternally and some which dont,) then you might have a meaningful necessary inference.
But P1 says "all atoms" have always existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 02:18 AM)Drich Wrote:  We can go to the Greek if you like. But I have found that when speaking to the un-indoctrinated it is best to be as less pretentious and plain speaking as possible. This includes the bible you quote from.

Yeah, except a bunch of us here are NOT un-indoctrinated (interesting choice of words, btw) but grew up quite "indoctrinated'. So we know what the bible says, and after looking at it with eyes open, instead of through our indoctrination goggles, we saw it for the error filled bronze age book of mythology that it is. Quoting from it will not convince us of anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
*Raises hand*

Um.. I think I asked a question before, but can't remember and it's lost waaay back in the thread.

Any-who, my posting point here is that...Of course atoms haven't always existed.

The nuclear furnaces of suns are doing atomic level things all the time. Pretty much converting hydrogen into everything else.

Now, I'm not sure about processes which go the other way. Other than Uranium which seems to fall apart eventually into lead. I'm completely unsure of processes that reduce elements back down to hydrogen.

Still...just making a small point.

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 07:59 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Now, if there were more than just one type of atom (some which exist eternally and some which dont,) then you might have a meaningful necessary inference.
But P1 says "all atoms" have always existed.

Which is also incorrect, because there was no matter at the beginning of the big bang. There was simply strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity. The neutral nuclei of atoms did not even begin to form until approximately 20 minutes after the big bang, matter itself forming potentially almost 400,000 years after the big bang and the formation of galaxies didn't even really start structure until almost 1 billion years.

So really... atoms did not always exist. The elements and forces to create them responsible from the expansion itself existed, but not always, at least not in our section of the universe.

But of course, we'd eventually wind back up at, "How did that start in the first place?" But mostly, my point is that atoms have not always existed.

Did the forces of strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity always exist? (more a pondering than a question since I'm not sure if there's a way to answer that)

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 08:05 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2014 08:15 PM by Vosur.)
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 07:01 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  It's not that I disagree with the argument. I simply dont see a valid argument with which to agree or disagree. It's circular.

P1: All atoms (including those comprising the Mona Lisa) have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is made up entirely of atoms (which have always existed).
C1: Therefore, the atoms that make up the Mona Lisa have...always existed. And were back to P1 again.
It's exactly the same as the age-old textbook example of deductive reasoning.

P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
C1: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

I can see what you mean, though. Tell you what, I'll give it some more thought and report back to you later on.

(03-02-2014 07:59 PM)Logisch Wrote:  But mostly, my point is that atoms have not always existed.
Good point. I specifically said "atoms and energy" in my initial post, but forgot to include that part in my argument.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:30 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 08:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 07:01 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  It's not that I disagree with the argument. I simply dont see a valid argument with which to agree or disagree. It's circular.

P1: All atoms (including those comprising the Mona Lisa) have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is made up entirely of atoms (which have always existed).
C1: Therefore, the atoms that make up the Mona Lisa have...always existed. And were back to P1 again.
It's exactly the same as the age-old textbook example of deductive reasoning.
Not "exactly" the same.

(03-02-2014 08:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
C1: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

I can see what you mean, though. Tell you what, I'll give it some more thought and report back to you later on.

1. All men. 2. All mortal. 3. Socrates
Socrates is a mortal man.

I think the predicate 'entirely made of' throws a spanner in the works. One which isnt present here;

P1: All atoms have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is an atom.
C1: Therefore....the Mona Lisa has always existed
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:54 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 10:30 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I think the predicate 'entirely made of' throws a spanner in the works. One which isnt present here;

P1: All atoms have always existed.
P2: The Mona Lisa is an atom.
C1: Therefore....the Mona Lisa has always existed
I have tried to avoid a wording like that because it's incredibly misleading and ambiguous. Obviously I'm not arguing that the arrangement of atoms that we call "Mona Lisa" has always existed, only that the things the painting is made out of have.

The whole point of this exercise was to show that the first premise of the Kalām cosmological argument is not sound because we have yet to witness the beginning of a thing's existence. If you can argue against, go ahead.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
"The go a little easy on theists thread"

Translation: use lots of lube.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(03-02-2014 10:54 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The whole point of this exercise was to show that the first premise of the Kalām cosmological argument is not sound because we have yet to witness the beginning of a thing's existence.

Well, obviously it is open to people to reject the first premise.
But you can also evaluate the Kalam Argument premises in terms of… how plausible is the NEGATION of those premises.

What are the possible/plausible negations of the first premise?

*That things/substance DO sometimes spontaneously come into existence. (And logically, therefore, do also sometimes spontaneously cease to exist)
*That no substance (matter/energy/information/biology/consciousness/space/time) ever comes into existence.
*That there is no such thing as “nothing” or “non-existence”.

If you really want to argue for;
- an unintended,
- uncaused,
- past-eternal,
- perpetual motion,
- unguided

....universe,

- where nothing new is ever ‘created’,
- and which isn’t really expanding, because there is no “nothingness” into which it can expand,
- and where everything that can happen HAS already happened over and over an infinite number of times, (think Groundhog Day movie multiplied by infinity)

…knock yourself out. Hobo

And while you’re at it you can throw away all those now-meaningless concepts such as;

*Singularity – the big bang happens repeatedly and inevitably. Yawn.
*Abiogenesis – biology is an illusion and there never was an “origin” or genesis.
*Sentience – Relax, it’s just the chemicals in your brain just doing what they always do.
*Evolution – Nope. We haven’t come from anywhere and we aren’t going anywhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: