Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2016, 09:29 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(02-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(02-02-2016 04:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Who says that real time and space consist of discrete things?

I will not entertain such a foolish question.

That can only mean that you don’t have a clue how to answer it, because it is not at all a foolish question. Mathematically, space and time are both continua (alternately, continuums) -- you can keep dividing them indefinitely, and never arrive at any discrete unit. Physically, scientists speculate that there is a limit in both cases (the Planck length and the corresponding Planck time), and at this level, time and space may well be discrete (although they usually phrase it as “the smallest unit that has meaning”). But that’s science, not mathematics, and it’s speculative science. Scientists also speculate that before the Big Bang, the very concept of time is meaningless. In either case, your argument about “actual infinities” fails. Mathematics is very effective at modeling physical reality, but they are not equivalent, and at the extremes, the correspondence tends to break down. When you start discussing “ultimate reality” (i.e., metaphysics), mathematics is irrelevant.

Quote:
(02-02-2016 04:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  In mathematics, infinity is tricky to deal with until you master the techniques, but once you do, it's no problem at all. Mathematicians have no difficulty dealing with infinite expanses of time and/or space, infinite numbers of dimensions, or even infinite collections of "discrete" things (like, for example, the integers).

That is stuff you do on paper. It is all theoretical. Please explain to me what is the number prior to infinity? If you can't give me the number that is prior to infinity, you've just made my point for me.

Ahem… mathematics is “stuff you do on paper” (or in your head). As I explained above, it is not reality. It can be useful in modeling reality, but at the frontiers, it’s basically useless. You cannot use it to “prove” metaphysical arguments.

Quote:
(02-02-2016 04:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You sound like you never got past Zeno's paradoxes. But Zeno himself knew that the paradoxes were inherently artificial -- i.e., he knew that motion is indeed possible, and that Achilles does indeed catch up to the tortoise. The distance between any 2 points A and B can be divided into an infinite number of intervals or points, yet it is no problem at all to traverse that distance in a finite time.

Look, either you can traverse an ACTUAL infinite number of things, or you can't. Plain and simple. If there are an infinite number of intervals between A and B, and if you tried to traverse each point in between A and B, you would never reach B if you started from A.

…and the answer is “you can”. The distance between A and B can be divided as finely as you like – into as many intervals as you like – all the way to infinity. The total distance remains a finite distance, and can be traversed in a finite time. Zeno’s paradox completely melts away when calculus is applied. You continue to demonstrate an inability to understand infinity or how mathematicians deal with it.

Quote:
(02-02-2016 04:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Take a calculus course some time. Among other things, it is infinitely more interesting than trying to prove the existence of imaginary people.

Not even calculus can save you, pimp. That is one thing that mathematics cannot solve....and that is philosophical problems.

“Pimp”? Really? You have to be pretty desperate when that’s the best you can do for an argument. I have already admitted that mathematics is not useful in metaphysics. You’re the one who keeps trying to use it. I have not decided yet whether or not metaphysics itself is useful. I tend to think not, but unlike you, I don’t like to make dogmatic pronouncements about things that are beyond my knowledge and experience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
03-02-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(01-02-2016 03:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  My arguments prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a transcendent First Cause is necessary. Now, if the POE proves theism false, then my arguments for a First Cause should therefore falter. But do they? No, they don't.

Existence is transcendent. It transcends time, because at whatever time something exists, it exists. It transcends place, because where ever something exists, it exists. It transcends nature, for without existence, there would be no nature. existence is the first cause. Existence, not a form of consciousness which, if the Christian view is correct, has no objects distinct from itself to be conscious of. In other words a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a contradiction in terms. This is the fallacy of pure self-reference.
(01-02-2016 03:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Not only that, but let's face it...I am one of the biggest fans/supports of WLC there is...I've seen practically all of his debates and many other atheism/theism debates...and I've never once seen the atheist side use the POE in their arguments. Never. Ever.

this is not surprising. If those atheists aren't Objectivists, then they've probably never heard of the issue. But it is a fundamental issue never the less. And when he was asked about it he showed that he had no idea what he was talking about. He got it wrong. He's supposed to be this great philosopher and yet he is unaware of the most fundamental issue in philosophy. I'm not impressed.

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
03-02-2016, 09:57 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(01-02-2016 03:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  My arguments prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a transcendent First Cause is necessary. Now, if the POE proves theism false, then my arguments for a First Cause should therefore falter. But do they? No, they don't.


Logic does not deal with "reasonable doubt". The law does. In Logic (which obviously you never once studied) never talks about "reasonable doubt". Sounds nice. It's meaningless in Logic.

Your cause argument is an argument (which DOES fail) only for "a" cause, not "first cause", which has been demonstrated to you.

You lose again.

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
03-02-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  That can only mean that you don’t have a clue how to answer it, because it is not at all a foolish question.

It is. If you are inquiring about a house and you'd like to know the square footage of the house, does "time" play a factor? No. If you ask what time it is, does space play a factor? No, it doesn't. Time and space are distinct, depending on the context.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Mathematically, space and time are both continua (alternately, continuums) -- you can keep dividing them indefinitely, and never arrive at any discrete unit.

What you are describing involves the concept of potential infinity, which is not in dispute. What is in dispute is absurd concept of actual infinity. Apparently, you don't know the difference.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Physically, scientists speculate that there is a limit in both cases (the Planck length and the corresponding Planck time), and at this level, time and space may well be discrete (although they usually phrase it as “the smallest unit that has meaning”).

But that’s science, not mathematics, and it’s speculative science. Scientists also speculate that before the Big Bang, the very concept of time is meaningless.

According to Big Bang cosmology, our universe began to exist...it started from a singularity point at which all space and matter was condensed into a very small point...so that there was literally no space and no time. The question is, how/why did "it" expand only 13.7 billion years ago...and no one is stupid enough to posit a universe (singularity point) that was just sitting there for eternity, waiting to expand.

That is why cosmologists (who are almost all naturalists) keep positing all of these pre-big bang scenario's to provide some justification as to where the hell did the singularity come from in the first place, and why did it expand.

The problem is, you can't trace the cause all the way back to past-eternity, which is precisely why a timeless cause is needed.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  In either case, your argument about “actual infinities” fails.

It will fail when you address my point.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Mathematics is very effective at modeling physical reality, but they are not equivalent, and at the extremes, the correspondence tends to break down. When you start discussing “ultimate reality” (i.e., metaphysics), mathematics is irrelevant.

Actually, I applied mathematics to physical reality, which is how I came up with the absurd conclusion that I did.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Ahem… mathematics is “stuff you do on paper” (or in your head). As I explained above, it is not reality. It can be useful in modeling reality, but at the frontiers, it’s basically useless. You cannot use it to “prove” metaphysical arguments.

Nonsense. If there is no timeless First Cause, then the past is eternal, and there is an infinite cause/effect chain. Point blank, period.

And I've already demonstrated why this CANNOT be the case, and unless you can prove otherwise, just go ahead and grant my point.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  …and the answer is “you can”. The distance between A and B can be divided as finely as you like – into as many intervals as you like – all the way to infinity. The total distance remains a finite distance, and can be traversed in a finite time. Zeno’s paradox completely melts away when calculus is applied. You continue to demonstrate an inability to understand infinity or how mathematicians deal with it.

Ok, so since you are touting calculus around as if it is the great white hope, use calculus to address my points. I demonstrated why an actual infinite number of things is absurd, yet you did not address it...in fact, you practically quoted everything BUT my demonstration of why actual infinites are absurd.

So, take your beloved calculus, and use it to address my point. By continuing to ignore it, you are actually doing my side of things the favor, and your side of things the disservice.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  “Pimp”? Really? You have to be pretty desperate when that’s the best you can do for an argument.

Oh, please.

(03-02-2016 09:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I have already admitted that mathematics is not useful in metaphysics. You’re the one who keeps trying to use it. I have not decided yet whether or not metaphysics itself is useful. I tend to think not, but unlike you, I don’t like to make dogmatic pronouncements about things that are beyond my knowledge and experience.

First off, I didn't use mathematics for metaphysical arguments...I used mathematics to demonstrate the absurd REALITY of what it would be like if actual infinites exists. The only thing you want to do is say "you can't do that"...and my question is what the hell do you mean I can do that? When you negate a timeless First Cause, you are in default saying that infinite regression is possible, which it isn't.

That is just the fact of the matter, whether we like it or not, agree with it, or believe it. It is what it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2016, 10:16 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Existence is transcendent. It transcends time, because at whatever time something exists, it exists. It transcends place, because where ever something exists, it exists. It transcends nature, for without existence, there would be no nature. existence is the first cause. Existence, not a form of consciousness which, if the Christian view is correct, has no objects distinct from itself to be conscious of. In other words a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a contradiction in terms. This is the fallacy of pure self-reference.

But why can't conscious existence be as necessary as existence itself? I don't see any problems with that view, in fact, it supplements the argument from consciousness.

I agree with you, existence is necessary. But conscious existence is also necessary. You can't begin with absolutely no consciousness whatsoever, to conscious, living creatures...because the state of life and the state of consciousness are not "physical" in the sense that physical matter itself cannot produce life and consciousness...life and consciousness is an ingredient that has to be "added in" by an outside source...an outside source that was already alive and conscious.

(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  this is not surprising. If those atheists aren't Objectivists, then they've probably never heard of the issue. But it is a fundamental issue never the less. And when he was asked about it he showed that he had no idea what he was talking about. He got it wrong. He's supposed to be this great philosopher and yet he is unaware of the most fundamental issue in philosophy. I'm not impressed.

When who was asked about it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-02-2016 08:46 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I have provided evidence. The primacy of existence is all the evidence we need.

Then we shouldn't still have an infinity problem, should we?

(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  We deal with reality every waking moment of every day and we can observe the relationship between our consciousness and the things we are aware of. Every moment of every day attests to the fact that the objects of consciousness have primacy. It's not just Humans who have this relationship with reality, its every form of consciousness that we can observe. So yes there is plenty of evidence against God being real. I even proved to you that truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence, logic also rests on the primacy of existence, and you conceded that argument with your statement that the facts of reality are not dependent on consciousness. You even put the "not" in all caps for emphasis. So not only have I brought irrefutable evidence to bear I've also pointed to major fallacies in those arguments. They have been thoroughly refuted.

I also specified what I meant by it, too.

(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If you think that the primacy of existence is no problem for these arguments, is this true because you want it to be true? Be very careful in answering.

Want it to be true? My feelings toward the arguments are irrelevant to the fact of whether or not you can refute them.

(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If you hold that "physical existence depends on the will and consciousness of a necessarily[sic] existence and necessarily conscious entity" and that "facts of reality is[sic] independent of consciousness, then this could only mean that "physical existence" isn't a fact.

Non sequitur.

(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Does physical existence exist?

Yes.

(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If it does then it is part of existence as a whole and is therefore necessary.

Necessary based on a transcendent entity who had an eternal will to produce it...if you want to call that necessary, go ahead. But how does that alone prove theism false and atheism true?

(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It's so wonderful to have one more written record of the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity. You are just piling on the evidence that the Christian devotional program stunts the mind.

You truly give this POE thing more credit than it deserves, buddy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2016, 10:35 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2016 11:51 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-02-2016 10:06 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Time and space are distinct, depending on the context.

What an ignorant fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://www.iflscience.com/space/if-space...we-thought

Not sure he will ever top "the brain is made of cartilage", but he's sure tryin'. Weeping

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
03-02-2016, 11:05 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-02-2016 10:16 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Existence is transcendent. It transcends time, because at whatever time something exists, it exists. It transcends place, because where ever something exists, it exists. It transcends nature, for without existence, there would be no nature. existence is the first cause. Existence, not a form of consciousness which, if the Christian view is correct, has no objects distinct from itself to be conscious of. In other words a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a contradiction in terms. This is the fallacy of pure self-reference.

But why can't conscious existence be as necessary as existence itself? I don't see any problems with that view, in fact, it supplements the argument from consciousness.

I agree with you, existence is necessary. But conscious existence is also necessary. You can't begin with absolutely no consciousness whatsoever, to conscious, living creatures...because the state of life and the state of consciousness are not "physical" in the sense that physical matter itself cannot produce life and consciousness...life and consciousness is an ingredient that has to be "added in" by an outside source...an outside source that was already alive and conscious.


Again you affirm the necessary/ contingent dichotomy which is deeply flawed. To exist is to be necessary. All facts are necessary. I don't begin with no consciousness. You are simply trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist. I begin with the axioms, one of which is the axiom of consciousness.
That consciousness develops from non consciousness is directly observable. A fetus starts out as an egg and a sperm and it develops consciousness as it matures. Do you deny this fact?
(03-02-2016 10:16 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2016 09:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  this is not surprising. If those atheists aren't Objectivists, then they've probably never heard of the issue. But it is a fundamental issue never the less. And when he was asked about it he showed that he had no idea what he was talking about. He got it wrong. He's supposed to be this great philosopher and yet he is unaware of the most fundamental issue in philosophy. I'm not impressed.

When who was asked about it?

It was an audience member at one of WLC's talks. I'll see if I can find a link for you. It may take me a while. But just by the fact that he advocates for Christianity, we know that he affirms that "wishing makes it so".

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
03-02-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-02-2016 10:30 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2016 08:46 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I have provided evidence. The primacy of existence is all the evidence we need.

Then we shouldn't still have an infinity problem, should we?


You only have an infinity problem because you insist on starting with nothing and looking for a cause of existence, which I've already pointed out commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. There is no problem with an infinite regress if one begins with the axiom of existence.

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
03-02-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-02-2016 10:06 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What you are describing involves the concept of potential infinity, which is not in dispute. What is in dispute is absurd concept of actual infinity. Apparently, you don't know the difference.

That's like distinguishing between potential null set and actual null set.
Or between potential zero and actual zero. Apparently you don't know the difference.

I retract my earlier correction. Your brain is made of cartilage.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: