Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2016, 09:41 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 09:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Infinite regression is impossible, scotsman. It is so impossible, that even God himself can't pull it off, and if God can't do it, no one can do it.

Turtles can.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 09:44 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 09:47 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 09:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Infinite regression is impossible, scotsman. It is so impossible, that even God himself can't pull it off, and if God can't do it, no one can do it.

So I should just dismiss my training in delta-epsilon proofs and the calculus?





Come on admit it. You got no clue what a delta-epsilon proof is do you?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 09:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 09:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 09:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Infinite regression is impossible, scotsman. It is so impossible, that even God himself can't pull it off, and if God can't do it, no one can do it.

So I should just dismiss my training in delta-epsilon proofs and the calculus?

A Taylor Series would break his little mind. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-01-2016, 10:03 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 09:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 09:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So I should just dismiss my training in delta-epsilon proofs and the calculus?

A Taylor Series would break his little mind. Drinking Beverage

His mind is too simple to break.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 10:22 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 10:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 09:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  A Taylor Series would break his little mind. Drinking Beverage

His mind is too simple to break.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
23-01-2016, 10:59 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 09:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 08:15 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Let's not forget about loop quantum gravity either. That predicts that the universe was actually contracting before the big band and instead of a singularity, there was a big bounce instead. This hypothesis is still in the early stages but some of the math is promising and solves some of the problems with The BB theory such as entropy.

First, I'd like to know how does loop quantum gravity solve the entropy / second law of thermodynamics problem. Please enlighten me on that one. Second, the problem you have with infinite regression is wholly independent of contemporary physics. Infinite regression is impossible, scotsman. It is so impossible, that even God himself can't pull it off, and if God can't do it, no one can do it.

Logical problems are independent of science. Got that? The sooner you people realize that, the better. An actual infinity is not something that can be possessed, or traversed. It cant happen.

Sheesh.

So your god is neither infinite nor omnipotent. Facepalm

There are all sorts of logical systems that are 100 % logically correct, but do not obtain. Science is needed to confirm IF they do in fact obtain. Logic is in NO WAY "independent of science" you dumb shit.




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
23-01-2016, 11:07 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 09:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 08:15 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Let's not forget about loop quantum gravity either. That predicts that the universe was actually contracting before the big band and instead of a singularity, there was a big bounce instead. This hypothesis is still in the early stages but some of the math is promising and solves some of the problems with The BB theory such as entropy.

First, I'd like to know how does loop quantum gravity solve the entropy / second law of thermodynamics problem. Please enlighten me on that one. Second, the problem you have with infinite regression is wholly independent of contemporary physics. Infinite regression is impossible, scotsman. It is so impossible, that even God himself can't pull it off, and if God can't do it, no one can do it.

Logical problems are independent of science. Got that? The sooner you people realize that, the better. An actual infinity is not something that can be possessed, or traversed. It cant happen.

Sheesh.

But someone who is always bragging about how so many others are not up to his level, surley can figure the LQG thing out for himself. If you're really so smart, how about YOU tell us : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
Or was the jist of all your bullshit just a jest ?

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
23-01-2016, 11:15 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Cheque with CNN, see if they had a crew there.[font=Arial][/font]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2016, 02:38 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2016 02:49 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 09:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 08:15 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Let's not forget about loop quantum gravity either. That predicts that the universe was actually contracting before the big band and instead of a singularity, there was a big bounce instead. This hypothesis is still in the early stages but some of the math is promising and solves some of the problems with The BB theory such as entropy.

First, I'd like to know how does loop quantum gravity solve the entropy / second law of thermodynamics problem. Please enlighten me on that one. Second, the problem you have with infinite regression is wholly independent of contemporary physics. Infinite regression is impossible, scotsman. It is so impossible, that even God himself can't pull it off, and if God can't do it, no one can do it.

Logical problems are independent of science. Got that? The sooner you people realize that, the better. An actual infinity is not something that can be possessed, or traversed. It cant happen.

Sheesh.

I don't know how all of the problems are solved. I'm just putting it out there. According to loop quantum gravity theory, entropy resets at the bounce. It doesn't matter because I avoid the whole problem of an infinite regress because I start with existence and I recognize that time presupposes existence. I recognize that the universe is the sum total of what exists. It is literally outside of time. Time only has meaning in the universe. You want to define the universe as the sum total of physical things. This is an arbitrary distinction and destroys the axiomatic nature of the concept. Physical existence is not conceptually irreducible. It is not a proper starting point.

I start with existence and recognize that it is an absolute. Whatever exists, exists be it matter, energy, time, space, consciousness or even things that we have not discovered yet. I don't arbitrarily delimit existence. The concept is completely open ended, thus it serves as an objective, conceptually irreducible, axiomatic starting point. To ask what came before existence is a nonsensical question. To what would it refer if not something that exists? There are no hidden assumptions in my worldview. There are no assumptions period. Since I begin with existence as a whole, there is no infinite regression. I do not have to imagine a creator and then fallaciously claim that the universe needs a cause and this creator somehow doesn't. Thus I avoid the logical problems that you mention. Existence is not something I have to imagine. A proper starting point is not imagined nor inferred but we are aware of it by direct perception because perception is our primary and only contact with reality. Existence is such a starting point. Time is part of existence and makes no sense apart from it. Therefore there can be no before the universe or after the universe. It is eternal. That is not the same thing as infinite though. The two are not synonymous.

You can not logically begin with God because the concept is not irreducible, existence is. God is not directly observable, the fact of existence is. By coming in here and arguing for your god, you concede that its existence is not self evident. The existence of God is not incontestably true, the fact of existence is. It would have to be true in order to deny it. I can deny God's existence without contradicting any facts of reality. You can't do that with the concept of existence. By starting with a consciousness you reverse the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship. You give primacy to the subject of consciousness. Your worldview reduces to metaphysical subjectivism. This fact is inescapable. We know that truth rests exclusively on the primacy of the object, on objective orientation of the relationship between consciousness and reality. Therefore a worldview with assumes the primacy of the subject can not be true.

Ask yourself this: What problems have you solved by going outside the universe to look for a cause of the universe and proposing a God as creator. Is your God supposed to exist? If so you are pointing to something that exists to explain existence. Do you see the problem here? Is your God alive? If so then you are pointing to something alive in order to account for life. See the problem? You have accomplished nothing is accounting for these things. What you have accomplished is putting yourself in the untenable position of starting with a subjective starting point which you have no alternative but to imagine and you also put yourself in the position of arbitrarily stopping with your God to avoid an infinite regression. I don't have to do this. I simply start with existence and go from there. There can be no concept more fundamental than existence. If there was, it would have to reference the non-existent.

If you define the universe as the sum total of physical existence you also have another problem. Consciousness as far as I'm aware is not physical. It's its own unique type of existent. It is biological in nature but I would not say it is physical. So you must split man in two pieces, one in the universe and one outside it. Concepts are another thing that is not physical. They are also a type of conscious activity. So we exist in the universe but our concepts exist outside it? These and many other problems you create simply by defining the universe, arbitrarily, as the sum total of physical existence, destroying the axiomatic nature of the concept universe. What you are really doing is starting with nothing as your starting point. That's what the arbitrary is, cognitively, nothing.

Start with what you know to exist and go from there and you will avoid all of these problems. Start with a proper, irreducible starting point and you will avoid the infinite regress.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
24-01-2016, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2016 03:10 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 04:38 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't need to respond to the rest of your points because you have already admitted that your God is indistinguishable from Sparky the Wonder Unicorn, which is wholly imaginary.

What I said was, if God exists, he could very well manifest himself into something YOU call imaginary, which is a unicorn.

Just because it is imaginary to YOU doesn't mean that there isn't a set of circumstances at which this imaginary concept can be a living reality...and under the "set of circumstances" that God could/does exists, what you call "imaginary" can be reality.

Actually, it is reality. So whatever nonsensical point you are trying to make, just...stop it Big Grin

Nope. What you said was that your god is identical to Sparky the Wonder Unicorn. We all saw you do it. You can't escape from the fact that you did this. "And what you call a Wonder Unicorn is just another name for what theists call "God". You are just taking the attributes of God and applying it to what you BELIEVE is something fundamentally different, which in actuality, it is the same". So God is the same as something that is merely imaginary. Got it. When you can point to evidence that your God is real, then we'll talk. I don't accept any arbitrary hypotheticals. This is not some semantic game here. I'm simply pointing out a fatal flaw in your God belief. One you can't escape. Or, are you prepared to tell us all how we can distinguish what you call God from something that is merely imaginary?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: