[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2013, 12:30 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2013 02:04 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 12:13 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(28-01-2013 10:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Hahahahaha. YOU brought up Cosmology, idioto. Yet you blame others for derailing, oh pathetic one. Have you have a "forgetfullness" eval lately. I think there's something wrong with your memory. YOU have yet to offer any evidence for the resurrection. So, by all means, keep it on subject. It's YOUR move to give any evidence. Do you plan to offer any ? Be sure and tell us how it's any different from all the other dying and rising miracle working gods of the day.

Did I say anything in terms of blame? I didnt bring it up, but I'd ABSOLUTELY LOVE to talk about cosmology.
I wonder about your increasing personal hostility though. Emotional reactions seem out of place. Shocking
Here's some evidence for the Resurrection;
[Image: papyrus.JPG]

That's it. A few old shredded pages of Luke in Greek ? You can't even say what they are, or why they support your crap, or why they are different from all the other gospels of the time, including the first one, which had no resurrection. You mean to tell me the maker of 600 sextillion stars, 100 billion galaxies only has THAT old thing for evidence of his (supposed) son's rising ? Weeping
What would we do for humor without theists here ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-01-2013, 12:37 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(28-01-2013 08:35 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
Yes.


What fallacy?



Cosmological Argument

P1: Anything that begins to exists has a cause.

P2: The Universe began to exist.

C: The Universe has a cause.



Even IF I grant you that this is a valid argument (and I don't, both premises are flawed),

Show me the flaw in each.
Remember, they are only premises and their soundness rests in them being more plausible than the alternative premise which proposes their negation.
Eg. Nothing ever has a cause.
Eg. Things spontaneously pop into and out of existence.
Eg. When they do, it's always without any reason.

The negation of P2 would be that the universe has always existed. Now THAT premise has a lot more problems than the big bang out of nothing.

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ... how do you get from the conclusion to a god?

Who is proposing God? The argument is about the existence of a CAUSE. The only necessary inference in logic is that the universe either had a cause or it did not. How do you answer? Yes or no? If no, then the universe either did NOT come into existence or has ALWAYS existed.
And both of those alternatives are defeaters of the KCA....but they come with a TON of gonzo metaphysics and lead to more paradoxes than Iron Chariots could ever cope with.

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ....And once there, how to you get to YOUR god and not any other god?

The KCA does not get you to biblical theism.
It only gets you to past the first three words of the bible. "In the beginning........"

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ....We have zero empirical evidence to prove that things can't begin to exists without a cause, and so the first premised is flawed.

Wut? We have an absence of evidence about stuff that hasnt happened before ????? Huh

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  .......We also don't know if the universe ever 'began', or what that even really means.

EXACTLY! So how can you claim the premise is flawed?


(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ....The universe as we know it does appear to be the result of the Big Bang...

Make up your mind! Was there a beginning or not?

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  .... but what came before it? Was it nothing, or something else? We don't know, and thus the second premise is flawed.

How about we work with 13.7B years of stuff that exists (as opposed to non-existence) and whether that existence happened as the result of intent or does stuff spontaneously pop into and out of existence unexpectedly.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 01:07 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2013 04:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Your Cosmological argument has been debunked, all over the internet. It does not lead to YOUR god. If your god were omnipotent, she could have made non-divine universe makers. You can't prove the universe, or a multiverse did not always exist, thus premise #1 in unfounded. You also have to explain
1. why the universe, which has been proven to be non-intuitively logical, (Heisenberg, Dirac, Einstein) MUST follow your intuitive rules of logic, IF the universe is obviously non-intuitive.
2. How a deity "acted", and what exactly that means in the context of no space-time, and do so with out Special Pleading it away, and actually you have to explain how a being "exists" or what thet even means, in a timeless dimension, and how you know that, exactly.
Then, First Cause requires Causality to be in place already. Where did Causality come from ? You essentially have not even asked the important question with the First Cause argument. The question is not, "where did the universe come from", the question is "how is there in place at all, Causality, and why and how is that in place in Reality, if it did not exist before the creator of all things "caused" it. Surely you can do better than this pathetic crap, IRC ?

Quantum Mechanics has proven that things in the present can affect things in the past, so your effect could be the cause of your god, actually. And if not, and you say cause must precede effect, then how is that possibe if time is not yet in existence ?

(BTW, my hostility to you idiocy is nether increasing nor decreasing. You have, after 42 pages of shit, FINALLY posted what you say is proof of the resurrection, and you are too stupid to even discuss it ?)

I see you also, besides introducing Cosmology, then saying we are not to talk about it, also said this thread was specifically not about the existence of a god, and it seems that is now what you are doing. So WTF ? You are not following your own rules.

BTW, Roger Penrose, and many others are now talking in terms of a multiverse. There is either in orbit, or about to be, technology, (WMAP and ISIS) which may provide evidence for other universes, (which you would know if you knew the first thing about the subject you broached in terms of "aliens", in your attempt to be derogatory). So your Cosmological argument is already outdated.

Back to the resurrection. Prove it, or STFU.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-01-2013, 01:23 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 12:37 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Cosmological Argument

P1: Anything that begins to exists has a cause.

P2: The Universe began to exist.

C: The Universe has a cause.



Even IF I grant you that this is a valid argument (and I don't, both premises are flawed),

Show me the flaw in each.
Remember, they are only premises and their soundness rests in them being more plausible than the alternative premise which proposes their negation.
Eg. Nothing ever has a cause.
Eg. Things spontaneously pop into and out of existence.
Eg. When they do, it's always without any reason.

The negation of P2 would be that the universe has always existed. Now THAT premise has a lot more problems than the big bang out of nothing.

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ... how do you get from the conclusion to a god?

Who is proposing God? The argument is about the existence of a CAUSE. The only necessary inference in logic is that the universe either had a cause or it did not. How do you answer? Yes or no? If no, then the universe either did NOT come into existence or has ALWAYS existed.
And both of those alternatives are defeaters of the KCA....but they come with a TON of gonzo metaphysics and lead to more paradoxes than Iron Chariots could ever cope with.

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ....And once there, how to you get to YOUR god and not any other god?

The KCA does not get you to biblical theism.
It only gets you to past the first three words of the bible. "In the beginning........"

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ....We have zero empirical evidence to prove that things can't begin to exists without a cause, and so the first premised is flawed.

Wut? We have an absence of evidence about stuff that hasnt happened before ????? Huh

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  .......We also don't know if the universe ever 'began', or what that even really means.

EXACTLY! So how can you claim the premise is flawed?


(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ....The universe as we know it does appear to be the result of the Big Bang...

Make up your mind! Was there a beginning or not?

(28-01-2013 10:36 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  .... but what came before it? Was it nothing, or something else? We don't know, and thus the second premise is flawed.

How about we work with 13.7B years of stuff that exists (as opposed to non-existence) and whether that existence happened as the result of intent or does stuff spontaneously pop into and out of existence unexpectedly.

Consider


The problem with the whole damn argument is that both of the premises make assumptions that can't be proven, and so the conclusion doesn't hold any water.

P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence. Science has show us that human intuition is not at all adequate to judge what is intuitive beyond our average world. Our understanding, and even our language, breaks down as we approach the very fast, very cold, very large, or very small. So at the level of quantum mechanics nothing is intuitive. Do you know what Planck Time is? Ultimately it assumes that existence needs a cause. I am not aware of any experiments or studies or tests that have been performed that shows that this is indeed the case; and as I pointed out earlier, claiming it is 'intuitive' or 'self evident' isn't good enough. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate. So the first premise is an unjustifiable and unsupported assumption, and is thus a flawed premise.


P2: The Universe began to exist.

Once again, we have an unjustifiable assumption. You try to claim fowl on me and point to the Big Bang, to which I must point out that you've missed the boat. Evolution is to Abiogenesis what the Big Bang is to the 'creation' of the universe. Much as evolution explain biodiversity and not the origins of life, so the Big Bang explains the universe's expansion and formation, but not it's 'creation'. Was it a singularity? Was it caused by quantum fluctuations in the dimensional strings? We don't know, but there are competing ideas. Ultimately we know enough to know that this premise is based on an unfounded and unsupported assumption, that while may seem intuitive, does not hold up to scrutiny. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate.Thus, premise two is flawed.


C: The Universe has a cause.

And so we arrive at a conclusion built upon two flawed assumptions, thus the conclusion is by necessity a flawed one. So without 'proof' of a first cause, there is no need for or support of a 'first causer'. Thus you can't attempt to bridge this with the start of Genesis to give your creation fable any legitimacy, ignoring for a moment that it could just as easily be used in support of any other being who claims to have been a creator of this universe even if we were to grant you your conclusion.


You are a theist, and this argument gets you nowhere. One has to wonder what was the whole point of your shell game...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
29-01-2013, 05:34 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
@Lion

1) Yes, the way each person defines what the concept of a soul means is a matter of personal semantics. Whether that definition has any basis in reality however is not. People who claim that people have some sort of spirit called a soul that lives on after death have yet to provide a shred of evidence for that claim. In plain and simple terms, it's bollocks.


There is no special pleading involved in claiming that thoughts and emotions don't exist without the brain. Since nobody can provide evidence to the contrary, and all current evidence point to those things being dependent on the brain it is a logical conclusion.

My "rejection of the concept of discarnate consciousness" is not based on opinion, it is based on the fact that you and those of your ilk have consistently provided absolutely nothing to support any other conclusion. If quantum physics shows me to be wrong then please present it here, you have my full attention. Quantum physics has plenty of evidence to back it up, so you should have no trouble at all finding some to support your claims, right?

If by "same identical molecules" you mean the molecules in your body on the day of birth are the same ones as when you die then yes I have already admitted that our ongoing sentience is not dependent on that. But the molecules do need to be replaced or the connections between brain cells break down and the memory that formed that connection is lost.

2) Yes, the brain can send electrical signals to activate your voice which creates sounds that can be detected by the ear of another human being who's understanding will be based on whether they have learned the language you are speaking or not. This is language, not free will.

For it to be "free will" you would have to have the choice of changing what sounds you make, or whether or not to make any at all. The process by which it happens, once the choice is made is irrelevant. Now you can argue as to whether that choice really exists or whether it is an illusion if you like. I think of it as the latter, but I can't really prove it. I don't think a person has a choice on how he or she reacts to certain stimuli - just as people cannot choose to believe something they do not believe. But I don't think you can prove that the choice genuinely exists either. I invite you to try.

3) Bollocks. Not understanding something does not mean you can just make up stuff to explain it without evidence. And if you have evidence, it is no longer the domain of the religious but the domain of science. Matter coming from nothing is currently the forerunner out of all of the things you suggested, however the word "created" is not appropriate. It is indeed possible that the universe came from nothing, but that does not mean any act of creation took place. Anyone suggesting that such a process or event was done by a god still needs to prove it, and then prove which god. And after all of that they would still need to find out whether such a god was created by something else, or is eternal - and if the latter they would need to explain why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 07:42 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.
Indeed. Let's see if Lion_IRC is going to invoke a double standard to deny the validity of the following argument from intuition.

God is not conscious
P1: Consciousness requires material substance.
P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial.
C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance.
C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
29-01-2013, 07:50 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2013 09:10 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 07:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.
Indeed. Let's see if Lion_IRC is going to invoke a double standard to deny the validity of the following argument from intuition.

God is not conscious
P1: Consciousness requires material substance.
P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial.
C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance.
C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious.

P1: Consciousness requires material substance. Define material substance. Is a photon material? Does a gravitron have mass? Is dark energy a substance?

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. When? Always or just sometimes? My body has mass but how much does the free will which causes it to move weigh?

C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance. Sure, thats metaphysically possible for God. Thumbsup

C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.




(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...The problem with the whole damn argument is that both of the premises make assumptions that can't be proven, and so the conclusion doesn't hold any water.

Thats why they are called premises, because you dont have to accept them. The negations are ALSO premises.
P1. All dogs have four legs. This is a premise.
P2. Fido is a dog. This is a premise.
It is not obligatory to regard these premises as inviolate facts.
I dont have to prove that ALL dogs have four legs or whether those 2 front legs are arent ''legs'' at all but are really just arms that a dog uses to walk.
If all dogs DO have 4 legs and if Fido IS a dog, then Fido must, by necessary inference logically have 4 legs.

Stop trying to avoid the syllogism itself by obfuscating about the impossibility of knowing whether P1 is empirically verifiable by science. We can NEVER know with 100% certaintly if every single dog ever born has/had 4 legs or not. You either accept the premise or you dont.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.

So what? The negation of this premise would simply be the opposite assumption. Where's the empirical evidence that NO CAUSE exists?
We have a ton of evidence to support our intuitions about the deliberate causation of events. Agent/Mechanism is a process we see going on every day.
Even accidental stuff that happens has an agent we can blame.


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Science has show us that human intuition is not at all adequate to judge what is intuitive beyond our average world.

This is self-refuting and circular. What field of science studies things ''beyond our average world''?
Youve just claimed that science can evaluate intuition. Therefore intuition is within the realm of science.
And I would argue that science's understanding of ''intuition'' is limited by its primitive technology.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Our understanding, and even our language, breaks down as we approach the very fast, very cold, very large, or very small. So at the level of quantum mechanics nothing is intuitive.

THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE FOR YOU!
Not only are you admitting ignorance, but you are admitting that (current) science cant possibly make claims about P1, or intuition in general, being false.
You really have no basis to reject a premise about causation of things or the reality of existence subsequent to non-existence.
And biblical theism does NOT propose a naturalistic explanation for how the Cause did it, so dont demand of thesim that which you agree is ''beyond our average world''


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P2: The Universe began to exist.

Once again, we have an unjustifiable assumption.

I beg to differ. There is overwhelming justification to think the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning....WAIT! Why does that sound familiar?



(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...You try to claim fowl on me and point to the Big Bang, to which I must point out that you've missed the boat. Evolution is to Abiogenesis what the Big Bang is to the 'creation' of the universe. Much as evolution explain biodiversity and not the origins of life, so the Big Bang explains the universe's expansion and formation, but not it's 'creation'.

Indeed I do call fowl. If abiogenesis is to evolution as the big bang is to the existence of the universe then you are in no position to make claims about the ''flaws'' in theistic cosmology. Abiogenesis may as well be called a sacred mystery because, like the big bang, all prevailing scientific theories are wishful thinking. And NONE offer any explanatory power for humans asking existential questions.

You possibly dont like those ''why'' questions because they arise in the human psyche as if some intuition in us demands to know whether we exist because we matter
and whether our existence will have mattered after we die.

Mr Krauss runs away from why questions and thinks only of how questions, but what difference does it make to him to how our universe got here? What difference will it make to a few insignificant specs of carbon in this temporary aberration in cosmology we call earth, once we are gone, that we speculated for a brief few yocto-seconds about the age of the rock on which we dwelt?

We didnt cause ourselves to exist and we cant prevent our own death.
But is there any Mind somewhere in or beyond the Cosmos, ''beyond our average world'', to Whom our existence does matter?

You might answer...definitely not or I dont care, but most humans DO care and DO wonder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 12:09 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Evidence for the resurrection..."Pussy Cat" IRC. Cough up some.
(It must be some some of new TTA record or tactic. You actually started a new thread to derail and distract from this one, and the fact you can't give us any evidence, or answer any questions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-01-2013, 12:48 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2013 02:12 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 07:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Indeed. Let's see if Lion_IRC is going to invoke a double standard to deny the validity of the following argument from intuition.

God is not conscious
P1: Consciousness requires material substance.
P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial.
C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance.
C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious.

P1: Consciousness requires material substance. Define material substance. Is a photon material? Does a gravitron have mass? Is dark energy a substance?

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. When? Always or just sometimes? My body has mass but how much does the free will which causes it to move weigh?

C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance. Sure, thats metaphysically possible for God. Thumbsup

C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.




(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...The problem with the whole damn argument is that both of the premises make assumptions that can't be proven, and so the conclusion doesn't hold any water.

Thats why they are called premises, because you dont have to accept them. The negations are ALSO premises.
P1. All dogs have four legs. This is a premise.
P2. Fido is a dog. This is a premise.
It is not obligatory to regard these premises as inviolate facts.
I dont have to prove that ALL dogs have four legs or whether those 2 front legs are arent ''legs'' at all but are really just arms that a dog uses to walk.
If all dogs DO have 4 legs and if Fido IS a dog, then Fido must, by necessary inference logically have 4 legs.

Stop trying to avoid the syllogism itself by obfuscating about the impossibility of knowing whether P1 is empirically verifiable by science. We can NEVER know with 100% certaintly if every single dog ever born has/had 4 legs or not. You either accept the premise or you dont.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.

So what? The negation of this premise would simply be the opposite assumption. Where's the empirical evidence that NO CAUSE exists?
We have a ton of evidence to support our intuitions about the deliberate causation of events. Agent/Mechanism is a process we see going on every day.
Even accidental stuff that happens has an agent we can blame.


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Science has show us that human intuition is not at all adequate to judge what is intuitive beyond our average world.

This is self-refuting and circular. What field of science studies things ''beyond our average world''?
Youve just claimed that science can evaluate intuition. Therefore intuition is within the realm of science.
And I would argue that science's understanding of ''intuition'' is limited by its primitive technology.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Our understanding, and even our language, breaks down as we approach the very fast, very cold, very large, or very small. So at the level of quantum mechanics nothing is intuitive.

THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE FOR YOU!
Not only are you admitting ignorance, but you are admitting that (current) science cant possibly make claims about P1, or intuition in general, being false.
You really have no basis to reject a premise about causation of things or the reality of existence subsequent to non-existence.
And biblical theism does NOT propose a naturalistic explanation for how the Cause did it, so dont demand of thesim that which you agree is ''beyond our average world''


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P2: The Universe began to exist.

Once again, we have an unjustifiable assumption.

I beg to differ. There is overwhelming justification to think the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning....WAIT! Why does that sound familiar?



(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...You try to claim fowl on me and point to the Big Bang, to which I must point out that you've missed the boat. Evolution is to Abiogenesis what the Big Bang is to the 'creation' of the universe. Much as evolution explain biodiversity and not the origins of life, so the Big Bang explains the universe's expansion and formation, but not it's 'creation'.

Indeed I do call fowl. If abiogenesis is to evolution as the big bang is to the existence of the universe then you are in no position to make claims about the ''flaws'' in theistic cosmology. Abiogenesis may as well be called a sacred mystery because, like the big bang, all prevailing scientific theories are wishful thinking. And NONE offer any explanatory power for humans asking existential questions.

You possibly dont like those ''why'' questions because they arise in the human psyche as if some intuition in us demands to know whether we exist because we matter
and whether our existence will have mattered after we die.

Mr Krauss runs away from why questions and thinks only of how questions, but what difference does it make to him to how our universe got here? What difference will it make to a few insignificant specs of carbon in this temporary aberration in cosmology we call earth, once we are gone, that we speculated for a brief few yocto-seconds about the age of the rock on which we dwelt?

We didnt cause ourselves to exist and we cant prevent our own death.
But is there any Mind somewhere in or beyond the Cosmos, ''beyond our average world'', to Whom our existence does matter?

You might answer...definitely not or I dont care, but most humans DO care and DO wonder.


Next time, try to cherry pick a little less. There is one major point that you ignored, presumably because it wrecks your entire argument. So I'll just copy/paste what I had already said in my previous post...

Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate.

You CANNOT use your terribly flawed and biased intuition for the basis of your argument, because when you boil it down, you're just left with a case of argument from ignorance. I brought up quantum mechanics as an example whose point you entirely missed. Quantum mechanics is very complicated, deals with universe at the smallest scales we can imagine, and it not remotely close to being intuitive. At the scale of quantum mecahnics (or in the opposite direction with Cosmology), human intuition goes out the window. But in both cases we know they are accurate because the math works, the experiments work, the observations work, and the predictions are accurate. It is not intuitive, but it is accurate.


As for Planck Time? It's a time scale used for describing the first moments after the big bang. There are more Planck times in a single second, than there has been seconds in the last 13.77 billion years. Human intuition fails at this scale.


The universe exists anywhere from almost absolute zero to trillions upon trillions of degrees hot. Have you experienced anything close to either? If you've only ever lived on Earth, and even if you're well traveled, you've probably only experienced between a few degrees below zero to a few degrees over a hundred in Ferinheight. You're intuition gives you a poor grasp of the complete absence of molecular motion that is absolute zero, or the fusion powered furnace at the center of our very average star. Unless you're a daredevil or speed freak, you probably don't travel faster than 80mph on a regular basis. How can that prepare you to comprehend the speed of light at 670,616,629mph? Or the fact that even at that speed, light takes 8 minutes to travel from our Sun to the surface of Earth.


You don't just get to insert your ignorance into our understanding, and declare it proof for your position by fiat. Everything you've tried to push so far has fallen flat under it's own weight. You're just trying to hide your a priori conclusion behind pseudoscience and philosophy, and when we take down your arguments, we see the core of special pleading for what it is.


We are not impressed. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-01-2013, 04:23 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2013 06:42 AM by Vosur.)
AW: RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P1: Consciousness requires material substance. Define material substance. Is a photon material? Does a gravitron have mass? Is dark energy a substance?
I was under the impression that the meaning of "material substance" was obvious from the sum of its terms. Try substituting it with "matter".

Alternatively, the first premise could be worded as "Consciousness requires (a) complex neural system(s)".

You get the point, don't you? Consider

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. When? Always or just sometimes? My body has mass but how much does the free will which causes it to move weigh?
The hypothesized god is and has always been immaterial.

Your last question is a loaded question because it presupposes the existence of free will.

That aside, free will is not a material object, it's a concept that exists in the minds of people. The question how much free will weights is just as nonsensical as the question how much freedom or Calvinism weighs.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.
You're attacking a straw man argument. The conclusion of my argument is not that god doesn't exist, but that he is not conscious. There are, obviously, many things that exist despite their lack of consciousness.

Furthermore, you do not lose your consciousness completely at any time other than death. Even when you're asleep or in a coma, your brain is working at a subconscious level. In fact, it even does so while you are awake.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: