[split] Debating Lion IRC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC - Lion IRC - 29-01-2013 07:50 PM