shimmyjimmy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2014, 05:46 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:41 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 05:21 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  You'd be making an assumption, just as I am, regarding the nature of a supposed God or whatever may have caused the universe.


Assuming that the we should treat the set U as everything means that it gives us a means with which to carry out further investigation to increase our understanding.

Assuming that there is something outside of U means that we are saying that we should not bother investigating or even asking questions. We should accept whatever cultural fantasy most appeals to us regardless of whether it is correct or not.

If you choose the latter, then just admit this to be so, have faith and choose whatever fantasy you want. If you can't do this, in the same way that adults can no longer believe in Santa Claus, then the first assumption is the only one to make if you are going to be sincere in your beliefs otherwise you are deliberately fooling yourself.


(11-03-2014 05:21 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  And I don't much care if something makes the question more difficult to answer, because there is nothing to suggest that any such profound questions must not be difficult (or more difficult than otherwise thought) to answer.

This does not make sense. The ultimate aim is to find the correct answer yes? Or as close to it as possible. In which case why would you choose to make it more difficult for yourself when it is difficult enough as it is?

As an example. The correct answer is "Santa Claus does not exist".

A child with very little knowledge of physics may ask how Santa Claus manages to travel around the world delivering presents in a single night. The assumption being that Santa Claus exists. This assumption makes it more difficult for the child to arrive at the correct answer and they start evoking magic, which by its very definition cannot be explained.

Another child may constrain their reasoning to evidence that is available. This child will find it easier to get to the correct answer.

You seem to be trying to invalidate my assumption, while maintaining your own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:48 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
You assume causation for your conclusion that a creator god created the universe. Is this because you think that everything has a cause?


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:49 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:34 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  It doesn't take us farther from explaining the cause of the universe anymore than the idea of Gods didn't took us further from discovering gravity (or anything else for that matter).


The idea of gods didn't take us further from discovering gravity in the same way that reasoning about how long to cook a souffle stopped us. They were not considered when reasoning about gravity.

But if we had used gods or souffles as an explanation for gravity it would have stopped us from understanding it. In the same way, using God as an explanation for the existence of the universe takes us further away from understanding it.

This is because the idea of God as a means for causation employs homunculus reasoning, as explained in post 51 and cannot provide an answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mathilda's post
11-03-2014, 06:04 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:46 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  You seem to be trying to invalidate my assumption, while maintaining your own.

Yes I did this deliberately to try to demonstrate that a line of inquiry based on a flawed assumption will make the conclusions of that inquiry meaningless.

I am glad that you brought this up though because what I really wanted to argue was that we do not know for sure which assumptions are correct and which are not. This is why all assumptions need to be continually re-evaluated.

Assumptions should only hold for the purpose of following through an investigation and we should always be looking for evidence for an against the assumptions that we hold. They should also be logically consistent. Homunculus reasoning is not logically consistent because by its very nature it relies on something outside of a set of everything in to explain the set of everything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
11-03-2014, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2014 06:13 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:46 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 05:41 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Assuming that the we should treat the set U as everything means that it gives us a means with which to carry out further investigation to increase our understanding.

Assuming that there is something outside of U means that we are saying that we should not bother investigating or even asking questions. We should accept whatever cultural fantasy most appeals to us regardless of whether it is correct or not.

If you choose the latter, then just admit this to be so, have faith and choose whatever fantasy you want. If you can't do this, in the same way that adults can no longer believe in Santa Claus, then the first assumption is the only one to make if you are going to be sincere in your beliefs otherwise you are deliberately fooling yourself.



This does not make sense. The ultimate aim is to find the correct answer yes? Or as close to it as possible. In which case why would you choose to make it more difficult for yourself when it is difficult enough as it is?

As an example. The correct answer is "Santa Claus does not exist".

A child with very little knowledge of physics may ask how Santa Claus manages to travel around the world delivering presents in a single night. The assumption being that Santa Claus exists. This assumption makes it more difficult for the child to arrive at the correct answer and they start evoking magic, which by its very definition cannot be explained.

Another child may constrain their reasoning to evidence that is available. This child will find it easier to get to the correct answer.

You seem to be trying to invalidate my assumption, while maintaining your own.

Then try rephrasing it.

Does your universe creating god have a cause?

If the answer is 'no', then why not just assume the universe exists without cause? You get the same conclusion (the universe exists) but you make less assumptions to get there. By not assuming the existence of a god, you save a step, and your proposition is more probable than one that also assumes a god.

If the answer is 'yes', then what created your god that created the universe? And what created the thing that created that? So on and so forth, and you're now stuck in an infinite regress problem that answers nothing, it just continually pushes the answer back an additional step ad nausea.


:EDIT:

For Robby... Tongue

[Image: NinjaPowerPhotoProp.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
11-03-2014, 06:06 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:54 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  I assume a cause, for which I refer to as 'God', merely for convenience of the term. I do assume that this 'cause' has some form of intelligence and information, whatever it may be.

I'm certainly not going to say you're wrong (as it's unprovable), but I don't think your assumptions offer you as much of an explanation as you think they do. Or, rather, they leave as many questions unanswered as they answer, which basically just kicks the can back a step before you say "I don't know".

So, if you ask me what caused the big bang, I'll say "I don't know". If I ask you, you'll say "God", and if I asked you what caused God, you'll say "I don't know."

In order for God being the first cause to make any sense, you have to either have infinite regression (there being an infinite number of gods, each causing the one after it) or you have to give God arbitrary traits (like being "timeless" or "eternal") to remove this same restriction from God.

If you say God has no cause because he's eternal, how do you know the universe isn't eternal?


Edit: Ninja'd by EvolutionKills by one minute! Nicely done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
11-03-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
Way to go steal my thunder guys. Weeping

Just kidding. You phrased the question way better than I did. Bowing


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 06:20 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:06 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, if you ask me what caused the big bang, I'll say "I don't know". If I ask you, you'll say "God", and if I asked you what caused God, you'll say "I don't know."

In order for God being the first cause to make any sense, you have to either have infinite regression (there being an infinite number of gods, each causing the one after it) or you have to give God arbitrary traits (like being "timeless" or "eternal") to remove this same restriction from God.

If you say God has no cause because he's eternal, how do you know the universe isn't eternal?

I get what you're saying. I suppose it makes sense to want to question the cause of the universe FIRST, before assuming anything beyond that.

But I know the universe is energy, and it must have been caused by SOMETHING. What that something is, I don't know. My assumption is that is it a greater intelligence.

I suppose I am an agnostic with a slight hunch? Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes shimmyjimmy's post
11-03-2014, 06:27 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
Quote:But I know the universe is energy, and it must have been caused by SOMETHING.

Wrong.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 06:33 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:27 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:But I know the universe is energy, and it must have been caused by SOMETHING.

Wrong.

How so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: