|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 12:34:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Welcome back Gee, you might want to go back and catch up a little as that has already been addressed and if I adress it again I will be chided for no new information.
Between this thread and its predecessor, Part I, there have been well over 250 postings so far, probably just short of half of them made by you, Bill. And since the very first posting, and in fact in several dozen you've made in several other threads, you haven't provided a single piece of new information yet. I certainly wouldn't expect, nor can I imagine why anyone else might expect you to start now. 
How would you even know gee? You have admittedly never read them. Let me guess, as an atheist you will just make your observationial conclusion based on your speculation. *sigh* |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 12:36:04 [Permalink]
|
For there to be any serious consideration for a supernatural cause, it seems to me that there needs to be some evidence that anything supernatural exists. So far there is nada. There is plenty of evidence that the natural universe operates under natural laws.
Can't prove a negative so we can't rule out the possibility that a God created the universe, and so we assign a probability based on that. Speaking for myself, I think 50/50 is too high a probability for a supernatural being to have created the universe. But I'm not going to argue with those who are better at math than I am. Since we can see only so far back, for now, it is all speculation. But why on earth should I give equal weight in my speculations to anything beyond nature since there is no evidence that there is anything beyond nature?
Bill, you seem to think you won something here. I don't get it. Even if the figure is as high as 50/50 for a God, the odds that it's the God you pray too are still extremely small. And then there is that other 50%, which you must consider. I can see by your words that you will not now become agnostic, but if you accept these odds, and you agree that all is speculation, I don't see how you can not. I can't see any reason, given the odds, why I should stop being agnostic. My logic and integrity are still intact. But to actively believe that your 50% (and smaller for any particular God) gets you the prize baffles me. Given the amount of speculation everyone has agreed to Bill, you should be joining me as an agnostic…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 12:56:19 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
Can't prove a negative so we can't rule out the possibility that a God created the universe,
Technically, you can prove a negative. You do so by proving a positive that is mutually exclusive.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 12:58:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
Technically, you can prove a negative. You do so by proving a positive that is mutually exclusive.
Right. Forgot about that... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 14:00:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) So is this other universe speculative, or do you know that it exists?
(filthy) So is this god speculative, or do you know that it exists?
quote:
So is this god speculative, or do you know that it exists?
(bill) I just had this conversation with marf a few posts back so you can go back to that if you want. Your about the 5th atheist to ask that question in the last page or so, if I were to answer it again I am afraid I will be yelled at for not coming up with anything new. *sigh*
Sorry to be the one who must break this to you, Bill, but you have not come up with anything new throughout these many, entire pages. *sneer*
Upon further inversigation, I see that GeeMack has broken the news first. So consider me mere conformation.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/07/2006 14:08:48 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 14:04:26 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
Right. Forgot about that...
That is understandable when your ancient and venerable age is taken into consideration.
One of the main problems with the "god/s" argument by creationists is simply their insistence that we "prove" them wrong if we think they are wrong.
Sadly, all to many people just buy into it. They make an absurd claim, we tell them they are full of shit, then they counter by requiring us to "prove" their god doesn't exist. When we don't, they claim victory. Because, you know, obviously if god didn't exist you should be able to prove it, right?
The argument shouldn't go further than:
God exists!
Evidence?
Claim dismissed.
But people have been brainwashed for a few thousand years to believe there is some deity. In the minds of so many the default position on this issue is to blindly accept the premise without evidence.
There was a time, about 5 years ago, where I would have pointed out how this is contradictory behavior, because almost every person demands evidence for just about every other claim before they would accept is as true. Bush et.al. have severely disabused me of the notion that most people require evidence before forming a conclusion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 14:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The Casimir-effect is evidence that particles may spontaneously form, without out a cause.
(bill) May is the key word here and my whole point. The atheist's entire worldview, when examined closely, is nothing but a house of cards built on pure speculations and hundreds, if not thousands of maybes.
Ok, that was a bad choice of words, and look what happens: Bill you spin what I say with the skill of a republican politician. Emphasis above mine.
I didn't mean "particles may spontaneously form", as in: Perhaps particles form.
I meant: Particles spontaneously do form, randomly, without cause, at random intervals, at random locations anywhere and everywhere.
quote:
Maybe it was eternal matter? Maybe it was quantum mechanics? Maybe it was infinite universes? Maybe it was an old man with a gray beard? Maybe it all came from some warm little pond? For those who deal in science to entertain so much speculation is rather odd.
Quantum Mechanics is not so much speculation as it is evidenced, practically used phenomena.
quote:
quote:
It verifies Quantum Mechanics.
(bill) You just said in your previous sentence that you speculate it "may" act spontaneously and now you use that same speculation to validity QM as established law. Oh my....... And this is science?
Well, I've already admitted it was a bad choice of words. You have to remember, Bill, that even if I write better than you, English is still not my native language, and thus I am prone to the odd communication-mishap. Your mis-spelling of "course" is getting on my nerves by the way, can you please take some extra time to check that?
quote:
quote:
Since it does, it also invalidates cause-and-effect as a universal truth.
(bill) Thank you for making my very point for me.
In your own fantacy. Your conclusion rests on a misinterpretation of what I wrote.
I maintain that my conclusion stands: That the Casimir-effect proves that quantum mechanics invalidate "cause-and-effect" as a universal truth.
quote:
...or so says the atheist who believes he is a scientist, even though he builds his worldview, and refutes others, from this array of admitted speculative. Oh my.....
Let me remind you that there's a difference between agnostic and atheistic. However, the dogma you've been programmed with does not acknowledge any difference between the two.
quote:
quote:
I understand your unwillingness to accept that,
(bill) My unwillingness to except speculation over universal truth? Good.
No, your unwillingness to accept that what you believe is Universal Truth has been showed to be false.
quote:
quote:
but there are many aspects about quantum mechanics that is counter-intuitive.
(bill) Maybe, right?
No, "period". And I submit your unwillingness to accept it as evidence.
Edited formatting. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/08/2006 13:06:30 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:12:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Page 2 of this thread. Dave said since we cannot know what was before the BB that all options must be treated equal. I then mentioned to Dave that that would include "God did it" vs. "no god" and this would be 50/50. Dave then agreed.
Well since there are an almost infinite number of gods, then the chance that your own personal imaginary pal did it is, as alluded to by Kil, 1:(infinity * 2) - 1.quote:
How would you even know gee? You have admittedly never read them. Let me guess, as an atheist you will just make your observationial conclusion based on your speculation. *sigh*
I didn't say I hadn't read the postings. I just didn't recall the specific wording used in the previous conversation, and wasn't willing to go back and weed it out. But once again you've completely misunderstood what should have been a simple concept and proceeded to make yourself look like an arrogant asshole as a result.
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 20:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
On the converse you might end up trying to explain how/why you refused to ever thank God or even consider him as the first cause for this life
You postulate your god first cause, not because of any evidence, but due to a hope for reward or fear of punishment. Are you just witnessing? You sure haven't made your case for a god first cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So the atheist attempts and fails twice to repeal, or suspend, cause and effect theory with nothing more then admitted pure speculation on a science forum.
Incredible. It's OK to suspend your cause and effect theory for your unevidenced god, though. That is convenient for it to break down at such an ideal point, considering your world view.
bill for you last few post you have been leaning heavily on your "Theory of Cause and Effect". Time to put up or shut up. Where's the link? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 01:18:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) So is this other universe speculative, or do you know that it exists?
You've totally missed my point. My point: there is no logical reason for whatever created our universe to be eternal.
quote:
(bill) Your assuming that there is another universe correct? And just as I have already said, amazing. The atheist has all kinds of trouble with the creationist giving the attribute of eternal existence to, of all things, a deity, while they have no problem giving this attribute of deity to matter. And this is all based off of nothing but their bias. And yet they claim to reign in the world of science. What a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
I'm not assuming anything. I was pointing out your flawed logic. What a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
quote:
As to your assertion that the deity creator of our universe has infinite power – why would it have to have that? The only power it really needs is to be able to create matter.
quote:
(bill) To create matter from nothing. You, in all your glory, cannot do this, nor can you even explain how this can be done.
You totally failed to address my point. Logically, there is no need for this deity to have infinite power.
quote:
It might not have the power to interact with our universe at all. There is no logical reason why it should have to be able to do this.
quote:
(bill) God creates the universe, but yet you then think there is no reason to consider that God could interact with the creation in which he just created. Based on what?
Again: there is no logical reason reason why it should have to be able to to this. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 19:55:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
As long as I am dealing with atheists that is a good start. The odds were placed at one in infinite for "God did it" by the atheist before the thread. Now they have moved them to 50/50 in just a matter of a few posts. From one in infinite to one in two, not bad for just a few posts huh?
No, the odds that any particular god created this universe are still 1-in-infinity. It's only the odds that some sort of God (including beings not defined by you as gods, but your definition is ridiculously strict and based upon no logic whatsoever) created this universe that are 50/50. I'd guess that most of those gods you wouldn't like very much, either.
(Yes, GeeMack, you read me correctly.)quote:
Well if your agnosticism is correct you will never know if you "won" as the second your last breath is taken your very existence will cease to exist it's very self and that is all she wrote for doc, as well as remembrance of the time he had spent here on earth and what he had done. No party on the other side celebrating victory in holding the "no god did it" position for you. On the converse you might end up trying to explain how/why you refused to ever thank God or even consider him as the first cause for this life that he gave you in spite of the fact Dave W. placed the odds at 50/50.
Actually, since there are an equal number of possible universes (infinite) in which a god (or gods) exist as those in which no god has ever existed, and there are an equal number (infinite) of god-concepts which demand fealty and those which don't, and an equal number (infinite) of god concepts which exist today as those that ceased to exist, then there is at most a 1-in-8 chance that any of us will meet a god (or gods) after we die which demands to know why we rejected it (or they). That's a 7-in-8 chance that we will not have to answer to some idiotic bully of a god. Do you really have such low self-esteem, Bill, that you find a need to be judged by an absentee father-figure?quote:
I reminded the atheist that much speculation goes into the fact of quantum mechanics and the validity of such to begin with.
Yeah, all that speculative testing and laboratory work.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 20:08:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Why does something have to be eternal?
To cite- http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com - "If all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning."
That doesn't explain why something must be eternal, unless you think that nature should be more "tidy" than a never-ending cycle of previous universes.quote:
Conditions - or states of being - have beginnings and endings, existence - being, itself - does not. UNfortunately we refer to the 'existence' of a condition in quite the same way we refer to the existence of an entity. In Spanish at least they have two separate words for the term: 'estar' and 'ser'.
Well, that certainly doesn't help me understand your view at all. As far as I can tell, "existing" is one possible "state of being," and "not existing" is another. Either conditions exist or they don't. Either beings exist or they don't. I don't see any need for more than one verb, and the fact that Spanish has two (which I'll grant as fact for the moment) doesn't support the contention that the states of existence are necessarily different. In French, nouns have "gender," but that doesn't mean that libraries are female or that all dogs are male. The language used to talk about something doesn't make it reality.quote:
quote:
quote:
It is demonstrable that cause and effect is NOT the principle which explains existence - whether BIG BANG or GENESIS
Okay, go ahead and demonstrate it, then.
Before something can change or be changed it must first exist. Change is a function of existence, existence is not a function of change or cause and effect.
That doesn't answer my question. You said that cause-and-effect doesn't explain existence, and it's demonstrable. "Change" doesn't seem to have any bearing on that, or if it does, you'll need to explain further.quote:
Those pesky (and quite theoretical at best) quantum particles which appear and disappear are 'conditional' not existential - they are effects, not existences...
What does that have to do with existence? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 22:13:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well if your agnosticism is correct you will never know if you "won" as the second your last breath is taken your very existence will cease to exist it's very self and that is all she wrote for doc, as well as remembrance of the time he had spent here on earth and what he had done. No party on the other side celebrating victory in holding the "no god did it" position for you.
Assuming there is a god then there is of course no guarantee that it let's anyone in to "the other side" (is this a separate universe?). There is no guarantee that you will know that you "won" by being a gnostic. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 08:28:25 [Permalink]
|
quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Why does something have to be eternal?
To cite- http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com - "If all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning."
That doesn't explain why something must be eternal, unless you think that nature should be more "tidy" than a never-ending cycle of previous universes.
Either the Universe began or it didn't. It is rather obvious that if the Universe had no logical 'beginning' then either it doesn't exist or it's existence didn't involve a 'beginning' - the process of creation. Eternal = that which has no beginning or end. Infinite redundancy is a logical ERROR CONDITION. If the premises of an argument are inconsistent then the truth-table for that argument will have no line on which all of the premises are true.
quote:
quote:
Conditions - or states of being - have beginnings and endings, existence - being, itself - does not. UNfortunately we refer to the 'existence' of a condition in quite the same way we refer to the existence of an entity. In Spanish at least they have two separate words for the term: 'estar' and 'ser'.
Well, that certainly doesn't help me understand your view at all. As far as I can tell, "existing" is one possible "state of being," and "not existing" is another. Either conditions exist or they don't. Either beings exist or they don't. I don't see any need for more than one verb, and the fact that Spanish has two (which I'll grant as fact for the moment) doesn't support the contention that the states of existence are necessarily different. In French, nouns have "gender," but that doesn't mean that libraries are female or that all dogs are male. The language used to talk about something doesn't make it reality.
"Being" is CERTAINLY not the same as "state of being". State of being can be multivarious - even infinite in its variety. Being is an on/off or yes/no proposition. It is; however, not uncommon for folks not to discern the difference.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is demonstrable that cause and effect is NOT the principle which explains existence - whether BIG BANG or GENESIS
Okay, go ahead and demonstrate it, then.
Before something can change or be changed it must first exist. Change is a function of existence, existence is not a function of change or cause and effect.
That doesn't answer my question. You said that cause-and-effect doesn't explain existence, and it's demonstrable. "Change" doesn't seem to have any bearing on that, or if it does, you'll need to explain further.quote:
Those pesky (and quite theoretical at best) quantum particles which appear and disappear are 'conditional' not existential - they are effects, not existences...
What does that have to do with existence?
[/quote]
If part of a subject experiences a alteration in condition which produces a defined change in its appearance, the 'changed' portion does not become a separate existence - this is the difference between a condition and an 'existence'. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 10:29:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Either the Universe began or it didn't. It is rather obvious that if the Universe had no logical 'beginning' then either it doesn't exist or it's existence didn't involve a 'beginning' - the process of creation. Eternal = that which has no beginning or end.
This universe certainly had a beginning, and what may or may not have existed "before" this universe is anyone's guess. So I'll ask again: why is it that something must be "eternal?"quote:
Infinite redundancy is a logical ERROR CONDITION.
Since when? Dealing with the infinite is something which is routinely done in both math and logic (math being an extension of pure logic).quote:
If the premises of an argument are inconsistent then the truth-table for that argument will have no line on which all of the premises are true.
Yeah, and? What premises have I stated which are inconsistent?quote:
"Being" is CERTAINLY not the same as "state of being". State of being can be multivarious - even infinite in its variety. Being is an on/off or yes/no proposition. It is; however, not uncommon for folks not to discern the difference.
Yes, yes. Being is a subset of all possible states of being. The two are not identical, but how does it apply to the discussion we're having here?quote:
If part of a subject experiences a alteration in condition which produces a defined change in its appearance, the 'changed' portion does not become a separate existence - this is the difference between a condition and an 'existence'.
And that has what to do with the origin of the universe? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
