Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2016, 05:51 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 08:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. Intelligent design only means that God was behind the ordeal. Now, what mechanism he used to do it is up to him. But the bottom line is, God did it.

It was an "ordeal" for your idiot god to intelligently design something Facepalm
LOL

I'm pretty sure he hasn't graduated high school yet. He certainly does not understand the meaning of many of the words he uses.

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
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-03-2016, 06:05 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I've already explained that God's creation of the universe was in time...

No, you asserted that the first action God took, which was itself within time, was the creation of time. You called this "simultaneous causation".

Unfortunately, this is incoherent.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "There was no point in time at which there was no universe, but the universe definitiely popped in to being from a state of non-existence".

Makes no sense.

That's rather my point, yes. That is why the term "popped into being" is inappropriate.

The whole question of "before the universe" is nonsensical, so positing a cause for it is unwarranted.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  SMH. It is bad enough that you are lying to me...but to lie to yourself...that is just a crying shame.

Once again, this is not an actual response. You simply resort to ridicule when you have no answer. It's pathetically obvious and convinces no one.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Can you do that for me?

Even discounting the existence of the Blue Brain Project and integrated information theory - that is, projects which are working on doing precisely what you are implying cannot be done - this is the argument from personal incredulity fallacy, not an actual objection.

Simply stating that you find the concept unlikely does not affect the evidence in any way.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Not only that, but you have yet another problem; a chicken & egg problem. What came first, the brain, or consicousness? If consciousness came first, then you admit that consciousness exists independently of the brain...if the brain came first, then you have to scientifically explain what is the natural process from unconsciousness, to consciousness. What is the spark?

That is not a chicken-and-egg problem, even given the terms that you describe.

You do not understand what the words that you are trying to use mean.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The electrons that make up electricity has mass...it is a physical construct explained by natural law...

As are thoughts. And yet you don't find people weighing electrons as a matter of course. And, as I said, while it would be technically possible to weigh a thought, given sufficient knowledge of exactly what neurochemical processes constituted it, it is both practically difficult and entirely pointless.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and a computer program is information

No, a computer program is a process. You still don't understand what "information" means.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You keep on bringing up neurochemicals, but neurochemicals aren't thoughts.

No. I am talking about neurochemical reactions. Chemicals themselves are not thoughts any more than a transistor is a computer program.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Thoughts are images...if you are thinking of an apple, you have the image of an apple in your brain...how in the hell can mere chemicals create an image of a discrete physical object that is completely and wholly independent of the chemical itself?

I have no idea, personally. I am not a neuroscientist. But it demonstrably does.

The thing is, Call, this isn't my opinion. This isn't just my word here. This is established fact. Thoughts are neurochemical reactions. This is demonstrably true. We know this, and are making advances every day which allow us to decode those reactions more completely.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The entire quote above is false, because as I've stated, a possible necessary truth must be actually true.

Assuming that it is actually possible and necessary, yes.

You have not established this.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If they believe it, then they weren't lying. And if they weren't lying because they believed it, then they had reasons to believe it.

Which still means nothing. Belief is not evidence.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. That is like saying we don't know whether the entropy is high or low if we took a deck of cards, shuffled them, and through them into the air and watched each card fall on the floor. The entropy would be high, no one can deny this and be intellectually honest at the same time.

Even granting that this is true, it does nothing to establish the presence of an intelligent agency responsible for managing levels of entropy.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No, real mathematical facts. Our universe is mathematically engineered for human life.

I reiterate: bare assertion, Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I can do all of that...but I like the pace we have.

Which is to say, dead in the water.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
03-03-2016, 08:15 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2016 08:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you asserted that the first action God took, which was itself within time, was the creation of time. You called this "simultaneous causation".

That doesn't help him. His god had to "decide" to do it, before it did it ... and "begin" the action". It also had to "know" what it was going to do, or it wasn't omniscient. Thoughts take time to process. I guess his god can't think. "Doing" anything is an endpoint to an eternal past and an eternal future.

It is incoherent. It also doesn't explain how the principle of "causation" came about. It had to be created also, (unless he says again his fool god didn't create 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
03-03-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 08:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you asserted that the first action God took, which was itself within time, was the creation of time. You called this "simultaneous causation".

That doesn't help him. His god had to "decide" to do it, before it did it ... and "begin" the action". It also had to "know" what it was going to do, or it wasn't omniscient. Thoughts take time to process. I guess his god can't think. "Doing" anything is an endpoint to an eternal past and an eternal future.

It is incoherent. It also doesn't explain how the principle of "causation" came about. It had to be created also, (unless he say again his fool god didn't create reality).

Precisely. This is what I've been saying since this whole line of conversation started: the cosmological argument, regardless of whatever special name you want to assign to it, is utterly incoherent, because it does not have a usable definition for "causality".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2016, 08:48 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 08:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-03-2016 08:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That doesn't help him. His god had to "decide" to do it, before it did it ... and "begin" the action". It also had to "know" what it was going to do, or it wasn't omniscient. Thoughts take time to process. I guess his god can't think. "Doing" anything is an endpoint to an eternal past and an eternal future.

It is incoherent. It also doesn't explain how the principle of "causation" came about. It had to be created also, (unless he say again his fool god didn't create reality).

Precisely. This is what I've been saying since this whole line of conversation started: the cosmological argument, regardless of whatever special name you want to assign to it, is utterly incoherent, because it does not have a usable definition for "causality".

How do you cause causality, if causality doesn't already exist ?
How many chucks can a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood ?

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
04-03-2016, 01:38 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2016 01:51 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Quote:Our universe is mathematically engineered for human life

Yeah, thats why its so full of it, just like....nevermind Facepalm

How self centered and arrogant, unbelievable.

Quote:If they believe it, then they weren't lying. And if they weren't lying because they believed it, then they had reasons to believe it.

Most people here believe COW is a dishonest, stupid and ignorant prick.

If they believe it, then they arent lying. And if they arent lying because they believe it, then they had reasons to believe it.
Do they have good reasons to believe it? Hell, yeah!

Quote:Makes no sense.
It also makes no sense that an electron can "pop up" behind a barrier that would need more energy to cross than the electron actually had.
Yet, our flash memories work. Or does anybody here think that his USB-stick is a ripoff?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
04-03-2016, 12:46 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you asserted that the first action God took, which was itself within time, was the creation of time. You called this "simultaneous causation".

Unfortunately, this is incoherent.

So instead of explaining how it is incoherent, you just repeat what I said about it, and blankly call it incoherent with no explanation whatsoever?

Thumbsup

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That's rather my point, yes. That is why the term "popped into being" is inappropriate.

The whole question of "before the universe" is nonsensical, so positing a cause for it is unwarranted.

Either the universe had a beginning, or it didn't. No gray area. If it had a beginning, there is a reason why it had a beginning, and if it didn't have a beginning, it is eternal/infinite.

The concept of an infinite universe violates logic and reasoning, based on the infinite regress problem. Sad thing about it (for you), there is no way to blossom out of such a problem...which is why you are left to posit the equally absurd option of the universe popping in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

You've left one absurdity and appealed to another...which is basically the price of atheism.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even discounting the existence of the Blue Brain Project and integrated information theory - that is, projects which are working on doing precisely what you are implying cannot be done - this is the argument from personal incredulity fallacy, not an actual objection.

"We are working on it". Ok, well get back to me when you are finished Big Grin

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Simply stating that you find the concept unlikely does not affect the evidence in any way.

What evidence? You just said that they are working on it Laugh out load

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That is not a chicken-and-egg problem, even given the terms that you describe.

You do not understand what the words that you are trying to use mean.

This is becoming a common thing with you. When you are unable to answer something, you resort to this whole "you do not understand x" or whatever. It is becoming a pattern. I mean hell, the paragraph that you responded to had at least 4 sentences...and at least two of those sentences were actual questions, like:

1. What came first, the brain or the consciousness?
2. What is the spark? (that will get you consciousness from unconsciousness)

I would have expected you to at least answer the questions...but instead, you took the easy way out, by responding directly to the chicken & egg thing. And by "responding" to it, I mean you made direct mention of it...you made it your focus, while completely ignoring the questions that were asked to you. It was blatant. It was obvious. It was apparent.

What is the matter, are the questions too difficult for ya? Big Grin Not to mention the fact that my assessment of the situation is EXACTLY what the chicken & egg problem is...it is analogous...and the question remains, what came first? The brain, or the consciousness?

Please provide an answer or just say "I don't know".

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As are thoughts.

I will ask again, how can mere chemicals form an image of a discrete physical object?? That is analogous to a pencil...like if you look deep inside the pencil, and seeing a microscopic image of an elephant Laugh out load

How can there be, embedded inside the pencil the image of a discrete, independent, physical object that has nothing to do with the pencil itself? Laugh out load

Makes no sense. It can't happen...and if it can happen, I expect a naturalist explanation of how it can happen, which you can't provide.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And yet you don't find people weighing electrons as a matter of course.

That isn't the point. The question is, can they weigh it if they choose to do so? And the answer is yes.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And, as I said, while it would be technically possible to weigh a thought, given sufficient knowledge of exactly what neurochemical processes constituted it, it is both practically difficult and entirely pointless.

Ok, so the thought of a 5 pound apple would weigh more than a 10 pound apple, right? I mean, if you could "technically" weigh it, right?

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, a computer program is a process. You still don't understand what "information" means.

There you go with the "you don't understand" shit again. Lets see; I said "a computer program is information". You deny this. Ok..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program

The first sentence of the article reads "A computer program is a collection of instructions[1] that performs a specific task when executed by a computer".

What are instructions? INFORMATION. This is at least the third time you've tried to correct me on something and you are the one that ends up looking like a dumb ass.

You tried to correct my by saying "A computer program is a process"...ok, fine..call it a process, but it is a process at which instructions/information is required....the information itself is not physical, but then again, no one is arguing that it IS in fact physical in the first place.

So the point was irrelevant.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. I am talking about neurochemical reactions.

Neurochemical reactions to what, exactly? What are the neurochemical reactions reacting to too give you the thought of a damn apple (a completely discrete and independent object)?

Makes no sense.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have no idea, personally. I am not a neuroscientist. But it demonstrably does.

Keep the irrelevant links to yourself. No neuroscientist can explain where consciousness came from any more than a cosmologist can explain where the universe came from.

When it comes to questions of origins, the scientists are even more baffled than you are.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The thing is, Call, this isn't my opinion. This isn't just my word here. This is established fact. Thoughts are neurochemical reactions. This is demonstrably true. We know this, and are making advances every day which allow us to decode those reactions more completely.

Telling me what they are, and explaining to me how can mere chemicals produce discrete independent concepts are two different things.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Assuming that it is actually possible and necessary, yes.

You have not established this.

I also stated that the concept of God (as defined in the argument) is logically coherent, and anything that is logically coherent is possibly true. The only way out of this is for you to try to puke out reasons why the concept of God is logically absurd, which you won't do, because you can't. It is also why you can't do it, so you won't. Big Grin

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which still means nothing. Belief is not evidence.

The fact that they believed, is evidence that they saw something to make them believe that they SAW something.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even granting that this is true, it does nothing to establish the presence of an intelligent agency responsible for managing levels of entropy.

The point is, in the same way the entropy was HIGH in the case with the cards, the entropy level would have had to been HIGH in the case of the big bang after the "bang".

For the entropy level to be high after the big bang and suddenly/gradually become low...that would be analogous to you throwing the cards in the air, and after floating in the air for billions of years, the cards suddenly begin to drop to the floor in a patterned sequence with the end result being one big ass card-house.

Either way, you have to explain the low entropy needed for this "stuff" (life permitting universe) to work.

(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I reiterate: bare assertion, Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Apparently, you've never heard of physical constants and the values that accompany them. Also, apparently you've never heard of physicist Roger Penrose, whose work calculated the astronomical improbability of man existing in a life permitting universe by mere chance.

Educate yourself, son.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 12:49 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 01:38 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Most people here believe COW is a dishonest, stupid and ignorant prick.

If they believe it, then they arent lying. And if they arent lying because they believe it, then they had reasons to believe it.
Do they have good reasons to believe it? Hell, yeah!

This dude was so eager to insult me, that he failed realize that as he typed that nonsense, he was in the process of actually making my point for me.

Keep up the good work Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 08:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Precisely. This is what I've been saying since this whole line of conversation started: the cosmological argument, regardless of whatever special name you want to assign to it, is utterly incoherent, because it does not have a usable definition for "causality".

Yet, I gave you the definition for it...dude, you are beginning to look reallll corny right now, bruh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Apparently, you've never heard of physical constants and the values that accompany them.

Are you pushing the silly strong anthropic principle?

Quote:Also, apparently you've never heard of physicist Roger Penrose, whose work calculated the astronomical improbability of man existing in a life permitting universe by mere chance.
[

Such a calculation is ill-conceived as it assumes that Homo sapiens was a goal.
Evolution has no goals.

Quote:Educate yourself, son.

That is hilariously ironic.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: