Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-03-2016, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2016 11:11 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Obviously, no sane person would take their chances with that kind of probability if they didn't like the idea of a cosmic engineer being behind the process.

Facepalm
No one is "taking a chance" on anything.
Highly improbable events happen all the time.
The universe with life exists. The probability for that is 100 %

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
04-03-2016, 10:16 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 01:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 01:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, really? Then what did you mean by:
"physicist Roger Penrose, whose work calculated the astronomical improbability of man existing"?

Life in general. Either way, it doesn't "assume that Homo Sapiens was a goal" as you said it did.

You didn't say "life in general", you said "man".
And having said so, the calculation of the "astronomical improbability" logically requires the assumption that "man" was the intended result.

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
04-03-2016, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2016 11:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Roger Penrose is a mathematician.
He is not an expert, in any way, on the probabilities of biological events.
(Quoting him in this manner is the argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy.
He did not provide any assigned number to the probability of either the precursors to life, or organisms considered to be alive. If he had said anything like this, it would be a non-expert opinion, with no specifics.
But in fact he says no such thing AT ALL.
Penrose does give a probability he assigns to a UNIVERSE arising, in which life is possible. This probability applies to only ONE universe. There is a sample size of one. That is invalid, no matter what the probability is.
The universe is here, and there is life in it. The probability for that is 1.0 --- 100%. As usual, Wail of the Child knows NOTHING about what he's wailing about, and is actually DISHONEST here.
Penrose gives NO probabilities for, nor does he say what are the probabilities for, other universes. This number would have a huge bearing on the final calculation. An infinite number of universes x a highly improbable event would be 1.0.

However this entire dishonest bullshit, is an OLD tired attempt to MISUSE Penrose's calculation to support intelligent design.
Penrose is an atheist, and Wail of the child is an old fool, playing at tired old debunked games .... games he doesn't even understand.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Roger-Penrose...eve-in-God

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-03-2016, 02:52 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
In our sun it takes an average of 1,4x10^10 years (more time than the age of the universe!) for a proton to actually collide with another proton in the proton-proton-reaction.
Does that mean there is no nuclear fusion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 03:12 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2016 03:23 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Simultaneous causation. I'd like a direct response to THAT aspect of the argument, please.

That was a direct response to your idea of simultaneous causation. Read before responding.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Oh yeah, the universe popped into being out of nothing, right? Laugh out load

We have been over this. There is no reason to assume that the universe must have a cause.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What you quoted and what you responded with doesn't seem to mesh up.

The evidence proves that consciousness originates from material processes. Research into precisely which processes are involved is currently undergoing, and is making great strides. Your personal incredulity towards the idea does nothing to alter the evidence, however much you wish it did.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Input from what external entities??

Literally anything you sense. Your eyes see things and transmit the signals to your brain. The same happens for your other senses.

This is not a complicated concept.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am asking you about the origins of a thought of an apple in my brain, and you are giving me an explanation that already presupposes thoughts.

Because thoughts are neurochemical reactions inside your brain, and neurochemical reactions which would model an external entity happen because of sensory input gathered from that external entity.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is anything but irrelevant. It is demonstrable proof that thoughts are neurochemical reactions.

Then in the scenario above, you shouldn't have any problem telling me where you would get the consciousness from.

Nice dodge attempt.

Thoughts are provably neurochemical reactions, Call. Your constant attempts to run about in circles and repeat the same already-answered objections only make you look still more foolish.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, I am advocating Alvin Plantiga's version, and you keep talking about everything else BUT this version.

On the contrary. I repeatedly and directly address Plantinga's version, including citing Plantinga himself stating that the argument proves nothing.

Your failure to understand the arguments in play is no one's fault but your own.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The above is logically valid, but actually worthless. Simply creating a definition is worthless, as it does nothing towards actually establishing the existence of an entity which meets that definition.

Straw man.

That is not a straw man. That is the ontological argument at its core. That is every form of any ontological argument at its core, and it is why trying to use ontological arguments as proof of anything is utterly pointless. They are concerned with what would happen if an entity which meets definition X existed, not with establishing the actual existence of entity X.

They are worthless. They have been known to be worthless for centuries. This is why no one gives a damn about them, save for theistic apologists with no understanding of basic logic.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dr. William Lane Craig, a friend of Plantiga, uses Plantiga's version in both his written work and his teaching work.

Craig is an idiot with no understanding of logic, philosophy, or anything else he has ever tried to speak about, ever. I am honestly surprised that the man manages to breathe and walk at the same time.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What I'd like for you to do is simply tell me why the premises of the argument are false, if any.

The premises of the argument are not false, because they deal with definitions. They do not, however, in any way, even begin to establish that an entity which meets this definition actually exists.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Every ontological argument boils down to "if God exists, God exists" - which is true, but tells us nothing, as the existence of God has not been established.

That's not what Plantiga's version says.

Yes, it is. Your inability to see this is not surprising, however, because it is becoming increasingly obvious that you do not actually have any sort of education in logic or philosophy whatsoever.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, then the question is...what reasons did they have to BELIEVE that Jesus rose from the dead?

Why, yes. That is the question. So tell me: what is the answer?

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Do you understand the difference between a closed system and an open system?

Do you? The universe is a closed system...there is nothing outside it replenishing its energy as it loses energy...it is closed. If it was, it would be an open system. But judging by the fact that we are losing usable energy with no replacement...it is obviously closed.

Quite. And yet systems within the universe can be open. Earth, for example.

Entropy must always be increasing, in total, across any given closed system. This includes the universe as a whole - but this does not mean that entropy is necessarily increasing in all places within the universe at all times. Entropy poses no issue to the theories of stellar and planetary formation, abiogenesis, evolution, and so on, because these are not closed systems.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Could have been otherwise? Um, there are only two options...either the universe would have been life prohibiting, or life permitting. Again, no gray area. Based on the mathematical precision needed for the universe to be life permitting, and only ONE try to do so, it is simply foolish to believe that we are here by mere chance.

A man is holding a gun to your head and ordering you to roll a twenty-sided die. If you roll as high as possible, you live. Otherwise, you die. You roll a twenty. There is no evidence of an external agency controlling the result of the die roll.

Repeat the same scenario (or, rather, set the first one aside and consider an unrelated but identical instance; we're working theoretically here). The die has a hundred sides. There is still no evidence of an external agency.

Repeat the same scenario. The die has a thousand sides. Still no evidence.

Repeat the same scenario. The die has a billion sides. Still no evidence.

Repeat. Googolplex. Still no evidence.

Repeat. Infinity minus one.

Still no evidence.

You are committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Even assuming incredible, near-infinite odds against the formation of a universe which could support life (which has still not been established), the fact that it turned up is in no way an indication that the dice were loaded.

Sometimes long shots come up.

(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not understand what the term "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" means.

I also do not give a damn, either.

I am not surprised in the least.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
05-03-2016, 11:13 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 10:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  You didn't say "life in general", you said "man".

Well, I'm saying it now...and what I said applied to both "life" and "man".

(04-03-2016 10:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  And having said so, the calculation of the "astronomical improbability" logically requires the assumption that "man" was the intended result.

No it doesn't....it applies to "life in general". I only said man because man is the most complex form of life..and if it probability applies to man, then it applies to any other form of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 11:13 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 10:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  You didn't say "life in general", you said "man".

Well, I'm saying it now...and what I said applied to both "life" and "man".

(04-03-2016 10:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  And having said so, the calculation of the "astronomical improbability" logically requires the assumption that "man" was the intended result.

No it doesn't....it applies to "life in general". I only said man because man is the most complex form of life..and if it probability applies to man, then it applies to any other form of life.

You say man is the most complex form of life? So you think Man is more complex than God? Which I pointed out a few posts ago you just responded with a What? not a denial. Earlier in this thread you said life always existed because God always existing, noting God is life...

Here it was:
(17-12-2015 01:37 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-12-2015 11:14 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  So, do you think that life has always existed? I'm pretty sure you don't.

Actually, I do. I believe that God has always existed.

So whatever unless you think you misspoke or are now viewing things differently than say a month or two ago. I guess whatever applies to man & other form of life applies to God.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That was a direct response to your idea of simultaneous causation. Read before responding.

It wasn't, but anyhow, moving on. Infamous analogy; if you've been sitting in a chair, for eternity...perfectly still...

So you are sitting in a chair, perfectly still, for all eternity, right? Time doesn't exist, does it? No, because there was no moment preceding your sitting...therefore, there can be no moment AFTER your sitting. So time doesn't exist, does it?

No, it doesn't.

Now, lets say you begin to stand up from your sitting position. Isn't the mere act of your beginning to stand simultaneous with the FIRST moment in time (your beginning to move would create a permanent temporal chain)?

Yes, or no.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We have been over this. There is no reason to assume that the universe must have a cause.

Well, in actuality, there is also no reason to assume that the universe is infinite, either. At the very least, you'd have to be agnostic in your thinking...by just saying "I don't know".

When you start taking a stand against this/for that...you lock yourself in a position. Naturalism doesn't win by default, and the sooner you realize that, the better.

That being said; you have a thermodynamic problem, specifically, the 2nd law. If the universe is eternal, then its energy would have ran out a long time ago...you know, being a closed system and all.

I know what you will say. You will say "But I never said the universe was eternal..it could have popped into being uncaused out of nothing".

My response: The idea that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing is an absurd one. If the universe can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, then why don't anything and everything pop in to being out of nothing? Why just universes? No not cars, money, horses???

"Nothing" means "no thing", and "nothing" doesn't come with a set of pre-conditions that will only allow universes to pop in to being and not anything else. So why just universes?

Second, to further that point, if our universe is only 13.7 billion years old...why did our universe pop in to being ONLY 13.7 billion years ago? Why not sooner? Why not later? There isn't nothing about "nothing" that will allow our universe to pop in to being at THAT specific time and not another time.

Third, even if our universe DID pop in to being out of nothing, then that would be a supernatural occurrence. There isn't even a law that can explain why a horse pop into being out of nothing, much less an entire universe. So even if the universe did pop out of nothing, that wouldn't be a natural occurrence...and naturalism is defeated.

So, those problems, plus the thermodynamic problem and also the infinity problem involving an infinite universe...we have reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The evidence proves that consciousness originates from material processes. Research into precisely which processes are involved is currently undergoing, and is making great strides. Your personal incredulity towards the idea does nothing to alter the evidence, however much you wish it did.

"Well figure it out sooner or later". So basically, a mindless and blind process is able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do...got it Thumbsup

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Literally anything you sense. Your eyes see things and transmit the signals to your brain. The same happens for your other senses.

Ok, so what came first...the "eyes that see things" or the brain that the signals are transmitted to? You already said that the brain came before consciousness...so if you have the brain existing, at what point does the eyes come in to play?? Then when the eyes does come, where are the signals coming from??

Man, nature is one bad mofo...assembling all of that cool stuff, DESPITE not being able to see or think. Wow.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not a complicated concept.

Sure, it isn't a complicated concept to imagine...but it is complicated enough for you not to be able to go in a lab and get results...remember, you already told me "I will get back with you with those neuro science guys get it all figured out" Big Grin

Looks like to me that it IS complicated.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because thoughts are neurochemical reactions inside your brain, and neurochemical reactions which would model an external entity happen because of sensory input gathered from that external entity.

So are the neurochemical reactions forming into an image of an apple to get me to think of an apple?? Even if you had all of the neurochemicals in the world, I am trying to see how are you going to program the mere "thought" of an apple into the neurochemicals..

You: But thats not how it works. You don't understand it.

Ok, you said "thoughts are neurochemical reactions inside your brain. So how can you take the neurochemicals, and react it to any entity x, to get SPECIFICALLY the thought of an apple.

You are basically saying "When the chemicals react, POOF, there is the image of an apple"....which is....bullshit.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Nice dodge attempt.

Thoughts are provably neurochemical reactions, Call. Your constant attempts to run about in circles and repeat the same already-answered objections only make you look still more foolish.

Please answer my "man in a lab creating a damn human brain" scenario. No dodging.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  On the contrary. I repeatedly and directly address Plantinga's version, including citing Plantinga himself stating that the argument proves nothing.

First off, I don't know which Ontological argument Plantiga was talking about, because as you said, the argument takes many forms. The syllogism that you posted has only two premises, and Plantigas version has between 6-8...so right there, I noticed a difference. Plantiga could have very well been talking about St. Anslems version (in your quoted context), which has been universally rejected.

Plantiga speaks around 4:27





Looks like he is on the bandwagon to me Big Grin

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That is not a straw man. That is the ontological argument at its core. That is every form of any ontological argument at its core, and it is why trying to use ontological arguments as proof of anything is utterly pointless. They are concerned with what would happen if an entity which meets definition X existed, not with establishing the actual existence of entity X.

Nonsense...first off, if any ontological argument doesn't have the word "possible" in it, then I don't even need to look at it. I am advocating for a specific version of the argument, and I am not going to waste brain energy trying to decipher the soundness/validity of every version of the argument out there. Hell, it took me long enough to understand the one that I am advocating for.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  They are worthless. They have been known to be worthless for centuries. This is why no one gives a damn about them, save for theistic apologists with no understanding of basic logic.

Laugh out loadLaugh out load You can say that, but until you meet me on the same battlefield in regards to the argument that I AM ADVOCATING FOR, then you've done nothing, my friend.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Craig is an idiot with no understanding of logic, philosophy, or anything else he has ever tried to speak about, ever. I am honestly surprised that the man manages to breathe and walk at the same time.

He is only a guy that earned his PH.D and whose scholarly work has been in many peer reviewed journals and who has debated practically every prominent atheist, scientist, philosopher in the world...and also a guy who, as at least two of his opponents admitted "put the fear of God in atheists" (Sam Harris and Sean Carroll said something along those lines).

Yeah, he is an idiot.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The premises of the argument are not false, because they deal with definitions. They do not, however, in any way, even begin to establish that an entity which meets this definition actually exists.

Dude, that isn't an accurate depiction of the argument. SMH.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, it is. Your inability to see this is not surprising, however, because it is becoming increasingly obvious that you do not actually have any sort of education in logic or philosophy whatsoever.

SMH.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Why, yes. That is the question. So tell me: what is the answer?

Ok, lets take this slow. I will ask you the question: What will it take for you to believe that you SAW Big Foot? Go ahead, answer the question..Big Grin

What will it take?

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Quite. And yet systems within the universe can be open. Earth, for example.

And?

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Entropy must always be increasing, in total, across any given closed system. This includes the universe as a whole - but this does not mean that entropy is necessarily increasing in all places within the universe at all times. Entropy poses no issue to the theories of stellar and planetary formation, abiogenesis, evolution, and so on, because these are not closed systems.

So let me ask you this...yes or no...did life on this planet depend on low entropy from the universe? If the answer is yes...then you've rebutted your own objection...if the answer is no, then we (life) wouldn't be here.

Either way, you are screwed, unfortunately.

(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  A man is holding a gun to your head and ordering you to roll a twenty-sided die. If you roll as high as possible, you live. Otherwise, you die. You roll a twenty. There is no evidence of an external agency controlling the result of the die roll.

Repeat the same scenario (or, rather, set the first one aside and consider an unrelated but identical instance; we're working theoretically here). The die has a hundred sides. There is still no evidence of an external agency.

Repeat the same scenario. The die has a thousand sides. Still no evidence.

Repeat the same scenario. The die has a billion sides. Still no evidence.

Repeat. Googolplex. Still no evidence.

Repeat. Infinity minus one.

Still no evidence.

You are committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Even assuming incredible, near-infinite odds against the formation of a universe which could support life (which has still not been established), the fact that it turned up is in no way an indication that the dice were loaded.

Sometimes long shots come up.

Here is a more accurate analogy of the situation:

A man has a gun to your head. By force, he leads you to a giant tub that is about the size of a football stadium. As you are walking to the tub, he blindfolds you...you can't see a thing...

So, you guys climb a ladder to get to the top of the tub, to a platform that hovers above the giant tub. Once you guys are at the top, the man informs you that inside the tub, there are 50 billion golf balls inside. Of the 50 billion golf balls, only ONE of the balls are the color black. The rest of the balls are the color white.

The man tells you that he wants you to dive into the tub, completely blindfolded, and pick out ONE ball...just one, and give it to him.

Now, this seems like an easy task, right? All you have to do is dive in there, pick up any ball, and give it to him...easy, right? But here is the catch...

The catch is, if you pick the one black ball, you live. If you pick ANY of the white balls, you die. And you only have ONE try.

Do you see what is going on here? Sure, each ball has the same probability of being picked, but it is even more improbable that you will pick the one black ball over all of the other white balls.

That is the same thing with the universe. Based on the astronomical improbabilities AGAINST a life permitting universe, the fact that we are in a life permitting universe would be like you blindfoldly diving into the tub, and successfully picking out the one single black ball, in just one try!!

However, if you weren't blindfolded and you are a man with intelligence, it would be relatively easy to just go in there, scrounge around for the one black ball, and live...just like it would be easy for a cosmic creator, with his vision and power, to create a mathematically precise universe, on just the first try.

The singularity was a one-time event. Only one try, and "it" got it right on the first try? Now you know, that is bullshit Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 11:30 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You say man is the most complex form of life? So you think Man is more complex than God?

Obviously I was talking about life on this planet. Man, you've been hanging around Chas to long, Clyde.

(05-03-2016 11:30 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So whatever unless you think you misspoke or are now viewing things differently than say a month or two ago. I guess whatever applies to man & other form of life applies to God.

I also said/implied that God is the only Uncaused Cause, Clyde.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2016 03:34 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It wasn't, but anyhow, moving on. Infamous analogy; if you've been sitting in a chair, for eternity...perfectly still...

So you are sitting in a chair, perfectly still, for all eternity, right? Time doesn't exist, does it? No, because there was no moment preceding your sitting...

If time does not exist, there was also no moment in which you could be said to be sitting in the chair. If there is no time, then, by definition, you cannot have an eternity of it.

Jesus Christ, this is a stupid argument.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, lets say you begin to stand up from your sitting position. Isn't the mere act of your beginning to stand simultaneous with the FIRST moment in time (your beginning to move would create a permanent temporal chain)?

If there is no time, you cannot stand after sitting.

If you stand, you have by definition not been in the chair for eternity.

And then you get to less purely logical considerations, such as the fact that anything lasting for an infinite amount of time is nonsensical, as "infinity" is an abstract concept, not a number. There is also the fact that time is a dimension, not some sort of magical, nebulous "thing" that comes into existence to differentiate between static and dynamic universes.

Your entire scenario is nonsensical and incoherent on every level.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(05-03-2016 03:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We have been over this. There is no reason to assume that the universe must have a cause.

Well, in actuality, there is also no reason to assume that the universe is infinite, either.

False dichotomy. I have never stated that the universe is infinite.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The idea that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing is an absurd one.

Unfortunately for you, your personal incredulity remains insufficient.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If the universe can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, then why don't anything and everything pop in to being out of nothing? Why just universes? No not cars, money, horses???

False comparison. You are attempting to equivocate between coming into existence ex materia from coming into existence ex nihilo.

This is incredibly basic stuff, Call.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There isn't nothing about "nothing" that will allow our universe to pop in to being at THAT specific time and not another time.

No, there isn't. Ultimately, the best answer you are going to get is "why not?"

The universe is under no obligation to satisfy whatever fantasies you have regarding it existing for a purpose.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Third, even if our universe DID pop in to being out of nothing, then that would be a supernatural occurrence.

If you want to stretch the definition of "supernatural" that far, that is your business. It changes nothing and poses no actual problem for naturalism.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "Well figure it out sooner or later". So basically, a mindless and blind process is able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do...got it Thumbsup

And around and around and around she goes...

Denying the existence of logical deduction only makes you look exceptionally silly.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, so what came first...the "eyes that see things" or the brain that the signals are transmitted to?

Sensory organs began their evolution into the more sophisticated forms that we see today as simple stimulus-response reactions - a patch of pseudo-skin that caused its wearer to recoil from heat by automatically contracting, or suchlike. Brains - organs responsible for coordinating and controlling these stimulus-response actions - came later.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So are the neurochemical reactions forming into an image of an apple to get me to think of an apple??

Only in the sense that bits within a computer are forming into an image of an apple to produce a .jpg of one.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Please answer my "man in a lab creating a damn human brain" scenario. No dodging.

This has been dealt with multiple times. Aside from the fact that this is actively being done, and making progress despite your scoffing, this is comparable to someone telling the Wright brothers that, because they haven't produced a functional airplane yet, the fact that all the math works out and they have one half-built in their garage is worthless.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The syllogism that you posted has only two premises, and Plantigas version has between 6-8...so right there, I noticed a difference.

Simplification, not alteration. Plantinga's version of the argument - all versions of the ontological argument - are based on taking those basic precepts and then substituting different equivalents in an effort to draw it out and make it look more complicated.

It's exactly as stupid as it sounds. There is a reason you don't see anyone other than apologists pulling this shit.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Plantiga could have very well been talking about St. Anslems version (in your quoted context), which has been universally rejected.

"Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion."
- Plantinga, "The Nature of Necessity"

Plantinga is explicitly and plainly addressing his own formulation of the argument.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  He is only a guy that earned his PH.D

In apologetics.

And apologetics, as we have established quite firmly in this thread, do not require even a basic understanding of logic. It is, in fact, rather antithetical to the entire thing.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, that isn't an accurate depiction of the argument. SMH.

Once again, you substitute "SMH" for an actual elaboration. This is not a compelling form of argument.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, lets take this slow.

Let's not.

Present your evidence or get out.

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So let me ask you this...yes or no...did life on this planet depend on low entropy from the universe?

What? This question does not parse. Do you understand what entropy is and how it functions in an open system?

(05-03-2016 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Do you see what is going on here?

Yes. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

You have literally just re-presented the same evidence that I just did, but claimed that it supports your side.

You do not understand probability, what "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" means, what evidence is, or how you would even begin to go about formulating support for the idea of intelligent intervention in the universe.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: