UKChristian's skeptic

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I see your response tonight, but I'm going to rest for the night and I don't post on Sundays aside from my blog updates on here, so I'll be posting probably sometime Monday morning or Monday afternoon.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Einstein began to tap into this concept when he developed special relativity. Since then, physicists have known of a phenomenon known as "time dilation," where rate of time depends on frame of reference of a clock. I don't understand it all too well, since it is very technical, but what I do know is that it shows time intervals to be non-constants.

Hold on. Let's look at this. You don't understand it too well, but you're willing to base a belief system on it? I'd warn you on that. We do have some TWebbers here who are skilled in this area who would be delighted to show you if you are believing something false.

This is averse to our common perception of time (that it is static). Anyway, this has led to mathematical models that utilize a concept known as "spacetime," which has, apparently, helped created unity between theories of physical cosmology and of subatomic physics.

I have no idea what you're saying. I do not see time as static, which I take to mean unchanging. Rather, I see it as the medium in which change happens.

What I'm saying is that these theories that have helped create a better understanding in science have also gone to pull back some of the more basic models of time used in the past. This means that as scientists become closer to uncovering the laws of the universe, their findings become less and less reliant on our fundamental impressions of things (intuitions), like those of time and space that have mutated.

I suspect what you are saying here is relying more on Kant than it is on Einstein. The question to ask is if time and space exist independently of us or not.

I guess I didn't make it clear that I was invoking the human perception of things rather than speaking from my own opinion. I believe nothing begins (nothing has begun) and nothing ends (nothing will end).

Great belief to have. Really cool. Do you have any evidence for it?

When a guy is walking in the desert, and he sees a mirage, he thinks he sees a pool of water.
When you walk up to someone in a bar from behind that you think you know, then they turn out to look nothing like the person you thought they were.
We have a desire to eat things that are bad for us, like soda, ice cream, homogenized food, etc.
People with phobias often think they're in danger when they're not.
We desire to propagate our species without considering the statistical consequences of doing so.

The only one that is really global in the sense of all of humanity I can think of is the last one. What I am looking for is past beliefs that have been abandoned by humanity as pretty much a whole. We all have times where our faculties are not 100% reliable and we all must affirm that. The point is that they are generally reliable, and that is enough.

There are loads of these, I don't know why you even wanted them. Descartes even wrote that the foundation of our knowledge is that we exist, for nothing else can be certainly known (based on the deception of our senses/impressions).

I still want them because I don't have them. I also think Descartes's work was a disaster. Could all my reality be the work of the malevolent demon? Yeah. Sure. Got a reason I should think that? Should I seriously be scared if I watch the Matrix tonight and think that that could be the way the world is? Descartes started with systematic doubt and made method fundamental. My practice is to take what I know and find out how I know it. Not to say "Before I start making knowledge claims, I will find out how I can know anything." You can't do that since you have to know what it means to know.

Also, "I think, therefore I am" does not follow. All that follows is that there is thinking. Have you read Descartes?

The Kalam argument's premises are:
I. The universe has a beginning of its existence. [
II. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

The first premise is an assumption based on what? Well, it's a generalization of other human perceptions (that things begin and end, as I showed before) applied to the universe.

No. It's actually based on physics, hence Craig presents several scientists with the view that the universe began. Now I am not a scientist. I will not argue that way. I also while thinking the infinite regress is valid will not argue that way either. I will stick to the vertical form. I am sure some here who know the science better will be glad to argue the horizontal way. I think the horizontal way works, but does not go far enough.

So, to make a fallacious assumption (induction fallacy) into a true assumption, as this argument clearly does, we must put forth some body of knowledge that MUST be known. That cannot be anything other than innate knowledge, which is the trademark of rationalism.

So many mistakes. Where do I begin? It is once more not an assumption. Craig says that this was not known until recently. The belief had been that the universe was eternal. Of course, there were philosophical and theological arguments against that, but none scientific. Now there is supposedly some scientific data and that is empirical data. You say the argument clearly makes an assumption, when if you study Craig's material, you'll find it's not clearly assumed.

Thus, it is also not innate knowledge, which I do not believe in. I believe it's knowledge gained by doing scientific study. Even if one did say it was based on innate ideas, that does not render it false.

Thus, rationalism (intuition) forms the premise for the Kalam argument. My position is to reject the assumptions of the argument for the reason that it is founded on intuitive claims.

I do not see rationalism as forming the premise. However, even if one believed it for rationalistic means, that would not prove that it was not so. A rationalist could say "I believe on rationalist grounds that there is no God." One could also say "I believe on rationalist grounds that God exists." You could not say both were wrong because of how they claim to get there. That's the genetic fallacy and frankly, it's lazy thinking. Rather than examine the claim, you dismiss it based on its source.

As I said, our senses deceive constantly. This is yet another deception done by our own minds (See above about spacetime).

Constantly? Do you really think that? Are you going to tell me you can't tell what you're seeing on your screen? Are you going to tell me you don't drive a car because your senses deceive constantly? Our senses can deceive, but they do not do so constantly. Most of us make it along well enough in the world. (Ironically, to go against the senses makes you a rationalist, like Descartes. Amusing. You've gone against rationalism but then you use a famous rationalist to defend your position)

Well, I don't really. They're equals in my eye.

Then you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. That's just the way it is. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz are quite different from Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Kant wanted to synthesize the two.

However, I don't think that rationalism can form the basis of a system, such as is in the Kalam argument.

That's cool. Got an argument for it?

Well, I have no idea what you're talking about here :O Let me know what this is all about.

The traditional way depends on a chain per accidens. My wife and I are the result of each of our parents. When we have children, then that will be something we can do entirely independent of them. Our parents could all be dead and we could have children.

Now picture something different. A stick moving a rock. The rock is moving a leaf. The stick is being moved by a hand. The hand is moved by a person. Etc. You take away any of the chain and the leaf does not move, at least by the means of the stick. God is the first cause in the sense that He is the one actualizing all the potential. He moves everything without Himself being moved. Picture a big central gear with a chain of smaller gears around it. You take away the big gear and the smaller ones can't move. That's the way God is. God is the one who is pure actuality moving all things. The argument does not depend on science at all but metaphysics. I could grant you an eternal universe and it still would need God.

[FiveHundo500]

After my last post, I did think about how my terminology was confusing... I'll try to explain what I'm saying in a second, I guess. And, I'll sequence these responses to help you understand the best I can.

On claims about time:

I have no idea what you're saying. I do not see time as static, which I take to mean unchanging. Rather, I see it as the medium in which change happens.

I meant that we typically perceive the rate of time to be static, not the time itself. It's like velocity and position. We perceive the position of time to be moving, but we perceive its velocity to be static. My point in explaining my desolate understanding of spacetime was simply to illustrate that the velocity (rate) of time changes. Perhaps, to derive this even further, the acceleration of time changes. Maybe the derivative of acceleration changes. Mathematicians have probably already figured this out, but I'm just trying to show the implications of what that view of time shows: what we intuitively believe of the state of time is practically applicable (i.e. alarm clocks, meetings, etc.), but not reflective of the best theoretical understanding we have of reality.

Great belief to have. Really cool. Do you have any evidence for it?

The particular line this is responding to was a clarification of my argument before (2 posts ago). Clearly we're in a different place now, so I don't understand why you have to be so condescending when it is actually you being lazy here. If you want to rehash that argument, go fetch it. Otherwise let it be.

I suspect what you are saying here is relying more on Kant than it is on Einstein.

What about Kant? Maybe you're talking about phenomenology? What I said was, "...these theories that have helped create a better understanding in science have also gone to pull back some of the more basic models of time used in the past." All I'm saying there is that the more we discover, the more our intuitions/primary assumptions about reality are proven wrong. Maybe I should use a different term than intuitions. What I mean "intuitions" are the things we assume to be true automatically, like the Earth being flat, the Sun rotating around the earth, the stars being really small, and other things of that nature.


On Descartes/Hume (Knowledge):

Then you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. That's just the way it is. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz are quite different from Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Kant wanted to synthesize the two.

I'm talking about them being equal in the context of scientific research, not in terms of a foundation of epistemology. I know the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

I also think Descartes's work was a disaster...

"That's cool."

Have you read Descartes?

Ya, I'm not a fan either, but at I acknowledge how critical he was for the development of epistemology as we know it... someone had to pose knowledge the way he did, and someone had to respond (Descartes, and, ultimately, Hume, respectively. I say Hume because his arguments were the most detrimental to intuition. I’ll get to explaining that more).

My practice is to take what I know and find out how I know it. Not to say "Before I start making knowledge claims, I will find out how I can know anything." You can't do that since you have to know what it means to know.

Let's start from your last claim. "'Before I start making knowledge claims, I will find out how I can know anything.' You can't do that since you have to know what it means to know."

Well, no, I don't have to know. Your claim is leaping out of a cyclical claim in the wrong direction. Here's how I understand your logic above:
If, before I start making knowledge claims, I must find out how I can know anything, then how can I know that I know anything? Therefore, I must assume what it means to know in order to know anything.

Do you?

This line of thinking led to Hume embracing the fact that we can't actually know anything and that we need not leap from that premise (as you claimed we "have to" do). I am a Humist in *only* that respect. We can't know that human knowledge is reliable for universal understanding because, as I said and demonstrated, it has a terrible track record (and under the principles of science, that means it is not a reliable source of information). From this, it arises that we definitively can't know what we "know."

So, in order to achieve progress from that premise, science has assessed things more pragmatically (pragmatic within itself, not in everyday life) in that it has placed "value" on theories, saying what is more accepted and what is less accepted. Moreover, people are working all over the place on pretty much every aspect of science. From this approach, we have been able to create collective knowledge that is constantly being reviewed and checked to make certain that it is still valid. We don't know what it means to know, like you said, we just find things out and share them. It's more of an existential body of knowledge than a theoretical one.


On human fundamental deception:

What I am looking for is past beliefs that have been abandoned by humanity as pretty much a whole.

Yup, there's some above. Here's some more:
Sick people are not possessed by demons or dark spirits.
Shamans are generally just schizophrenic, not high beings.
The earth is spinning.
There are planets that we can't see.
You can't pick people up or squish them between your fingers when they're far away.
Rain comes from clouds.
Generally, the human mind likes to see/hear what it wants to, rather than seeing what's actually there.
Often we don't notice things that are going on around us because our senses ignore repetitive occurrences.
When you pick up a nice cold glass of Hydrochloric acid, you think you're picking up a glass of water

The point is that they are generally reliable, and that is enough.

Practically, yes. Universally, no. That's my whole argument. "Assumed Truths" (as I'll call them) are pretty much categorically incompatible with universal data: Linear time is functional for society, but not for physics; we don't really need to worry about the composition of air, but atmospheric chemistry does; we don't need to worry about how our cell phones work, but electronic engineers do!

When I talk about reliability, I'm talking about it in the context of universal understanding (sciences), not in the context of practicality and everyday life. I'm not really concerned with talking about that in this context. We'll talk about that when we talk about morality and ethics (or if we talk about morality and ethics. I don't really want to).

Constantly? Do you really think that? Are you going to tell me you can't tell what you're seeing on your screen? Are you going to tell me you don't drive a car because your senses deceive constantly? Our senses can deceive, but they do not do so constantly. Most of us make it along well enough in the world.

Again, not practically, but in terms of universal understanding, we can attribute almost nothing we know to our senses and almost everything we know to what we have discovered through collective knowledge pools.

On Kalam:

It's actually based on physics, hence Craig presents several scientists with the view that the universe began.

Give me citations, because I won't believe this until I've seen it.

It is once more not an assumption. Craig says that this was not known until recently.

Prove it. I still don't even know who Craig is.

Now there is supposedly some scientific data and that is empirical data.

Again, "some scientific data" doesn't refute me. If it's not accepted by the general community, then it's not really a way of proving that the Kalam's premises are not assumptive.

Even if one did say it was based on innate ideas, that does not render it false.

Why not? You have a convincing argument for innate ideas? Because I don't. As far as I know, all ideas that seem "innate" to humans are completely stupid. I.E., "if I don't get my way I'm going to throw a tantrum," or "I don't like this food even though it's good for me, so I'm going to spit it out." Also, I don't believe any arguments I've seen that say infinity is innate. A math teacher told me that there are infinite numbers.

That's the genetic fallacy and frankly, it's lazy thinking. Rather than examine the claim, you dismiss it based on its source.

What is the source? The rationalists? Yeah, look at Descartes' argument for the existence of God and tell me that it shouldn't be dismissed. That crap is so bad. Again, give me a good rationalist argument for the existence of God.

Now picture something different. A stick moving a rock. The rock is moving a leaf. The stick is being moved by a hand. The hand is moved by a person. Etc. You take away any of the chain and the leaf does not move, at least by the means of the stick. God is the first cause in the sense that He is the one actualizing all the potential. He moves everything without Himself being moved. Picture a big central gear with a chain of smaller gears around it. You take away the big gear and the smaller ones can't move. That's the way God is. God is the one who is pure actuality moving all things. The argument does not depend on science at all but metaphysics.

I reject this model because it compares motion to stasis. You can't compare motion to stasis because, as far as we know, there is no such thing that exists as stasis. So, really, the argument is categorically flawed in the eyes of science. Although we have a model for stasis in chemistry (0 Kelvin), we have never been able to actualize it. As far as we know, it does not exist. Stasis is really just a human perception that is fallaciously generalized and expresses nothing about the universe at all.

That's cool. Got an argument for it?

Yup, pretty much everything I've been saying is my argument for that, specifically.

--


I hope this clears some things up.

[FiveHundo500]

I would like to add that I'm enjoying this. It's very challenging for me because I'm usually not very good at expressing abstract ideas (as you can see).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I would like to add that I'm enjoying this. It's very challenging for me because I'm usually not very good at expressing abstract ideas (as you can see).

If you grow in your thinking, that is good. While I would like to see you become a Christian, I figure if you grow in your thinking, at least you're one step closer to getting there.

[FiveHundo500]

If you grow in your thinking, that is good. While I would like to see you become a Christian, I figure if you grow in your thinking, at least you're one step closer to getting there.

>_>

[hackysack]

I believe that...dimensional logic should be the foundation of metaphysics rather than, for instance, Ontological arguments (if we can conceive of the highest being, it must therefore exist). The obvious counterclaim is that it is not based on any sort of empirical evidence, only intuition, which is what was brought against Descartes after he proposed that view.

I believe intuition has a place in this process, but it should certainly not be the foundation. If I intuit that there are multiple Gods, and create a system upon that foundation, how am I "more wrong" than any other Theist? I would argue that that person is just as wrong as anyone else who creates a system solely on an intuitive notion.

I will add that my highest problem with the biblical creation story is that it utilizes something akin to Aristotelian Teleology, where God is the "prime mover," who/which precedes all other causes in the universe. This of course causes an infinite regression.

Hi FiveHundo500. I hope you're having a fine day.

I'm unlcear what you mean by 'dimensional logic'. I'm a specialist in the subject of metaphysical omnipotence, and of its competing intuitions. I'm curious whether this 'dimensional logic' addresses the subject of metaphysical omnipotence? If it does not address the subject, then, of course, I can have no objection to it in terms of that subject. But, if it does address the subject, then what does it say about the subject?

As for intuition and the biblical creation story, I'm unclear what you mean by 'This of course causes an infinite regression'. Are you saying that the concept of a "prime mover" that precedes all other causes in the universe is equivalent to infinite regress of causes?

[hackysack]

I would like to add that I'm enjoying this. It's very challenging for me because I'm usually not very good at expressing abstract ideas (as you can see).

I'm with you on that one! Contrary to what's suggested by some of my other writing on this site, I'm very, very not good at expressing abstract ideas. Putting any of my thoughts into words is struggle enough. Coming up with words that I think might communicate my abstractions is like swimming in the thickest mud.

[hackysack]

Stasis is really just a human perception that is fallaciously generalized and expresses nothing about the universe at all.

I'm currently very much struggling with this one (how to make sense of the idea). How far down into microscopy do you, yourself get the sense that motion (non-stasis) exists? Do you grant that it might go on infinitely smaller? Or, instead, do you grant that it cannot so go on? If you grant the latter, then are you purposely allowing that some level of motion is omnipotently exempt from stasis?

(If, at some microscopic level, material constituents are exempt from stasis, then what accounts for their motion being subject to be slowed?)

[FiveHundo500]

I'm curious whether this 'dimensional logic' addresses the subject of metaphysical omnipotence?

It doesn't. It's really just a term to enrich the span of my statement about science. It all really comes back to proportions in mathematics.

As for intuition and the biblical creation story, I'm unclear what you mean by 'This of course causes an infinite regression'. Are you saying that the concept of a "prime mover" that precedes all other causes in the universe is equivalent to infinite regress of causes?

Yes. There is a distinction between infinite regression and infinite progression, though. In infinite progression, a creator is categorically incompatible.

How far down into microscopy do you, yourself get the sense that motion (non-stasis) exists?

Physically, then the only condition at which stasis can theoretically exist is absolute 0 (-273 C), at which there is no energy (no motion). However, this creates again the problem of infinite regression--if there was once a state with no motion, there must have been a prime mover; thus, if we disregard the prime mover, we must disregard the concept of 0 motion.

[hackysack]

Physically, then

hmm... To my mind, prime cause is not the same as prime mover. I grant infinite regress of current physical causes (motions of specific kinds of empirically knowable stuff), while also granting a Prime Cause that exists outside of any and all of those physical causes. In other words, I grant that any physical specimen, as defined on a given physical level in that infinite regress, can be caused---with sufficient technology---to achieve zero motion, such that said zero motion does not (I repeat, not) include all of the motions that would still exist within the infinitely regressive constituents of the specimen, while said infinite regress requires (in my mind) not only a prime cause, but one which transcends the said physical.

[FiveHundo500]

I grant infinite regress of current physical causes (motions of specific kinds of empirically knowable stuff)

The distinction you are making is not one that I would make. Physical reality is an empirical term, but it's not what science actually thinks of the constitution of things. Quantum mechanics suggests that everything behaves like a wave, or that "matter" doesn't actually exist in the terms that we think it does.

while also granting a Prime Cause that exists outside of any and all of those physical causes.

You're exempting the "Prime Cause" from a category that doesn't exist ("physical causes"). Motion is perpetual in the universe, there are no causes. Both quantum mechanics and general relativity reflect that.

In other words,

It was a better idea to keep it in your former words.

I grant that any physical specimen, as defined on a given physical level in that infinite regress, can be caused---with sufficient technology---to achieve zero motion, such that said zero motion does not (I repeat, not) include all of the motions that would still exist within the infinitely regressive constituents of the specimen, while said infinite regress requires (in my mind) not only a prime cause, but one which transcends the said physical.

Ehem...

No. Not only do I have no idea what you're saying, but I also don't have ANY IDEA WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!!!

I grant that any physical specimen, as defined on a given physical level in that infinite regress

What? How can a specimen be defined on a level in infinite regress? Either you made a grammatical mistake or you are using infinite regress to mean something that I don't understand.

can be caused---with sufficient technology---to achieve zero motion

Nothing will ever achieve zero motion, even in a laboratory. Energy doesn't work like that in any physical model.

such that said zero motion does not (I repeat, not) include all of the motions that would still exist within the infinitely regressive constituents of the specimen

Again, you're using infinite regress in a very odd way. Nothing that exists has infinitely regressive constituents. That doesn't even really mean anything.

while said infinite regress requires (in my mind) not only a prime cause, but one which transcends the said physical.

Binary logic again. There is no evidence that anything transcends existence.

Please just... reword this... and define your terms.

[nightbringer]

Enjoyable discussion going on here. FiveHundo500 seems like a cool and reasonable guy

[hackysack]

Physical reality is an empirical term, but it's not what science actually thinks of the constitution of things. Quantum mechanics suggests that everything behaves like a wave, or that "matter" doesn't actually exist in the terms that we think it does.

First, I want to deeply apologize to you for my often poor way with language (past, present, and future). I just have no other way of easily putting words to my ideas. It could easily take me a cummulative 24 hours of typing and retyping just to think that the resultant ten short paragraphs couldn't possibly confuse anyone (and, I'd still be wrong in thinking so).

Now, to the substance of your reply.

While I believe there is an effectively 'controlling majority view' within professional theoretical physics, I'm aware of contentions within that professional community as to how to interpret the evidence. So, I wouldn't use a phrase like 'science thinks.' Too many of the people who disagree with you will too easily twist that around by thinking you have a poor handle on the nature of the scientific endeavor.

How can a specimen be defined on a level in infinite regress? Either you made a grammatical mistake or you are using infinite regress to mean something that I don't understand.
Nothing will ever achieve zero motion, even in a laboratory. Energy doesn't work like that in any physical model.

What I mean by zero motion is zero motion on a given level of matter, not on every level at once. In fact, I reject the idea that there is any technology possible that could render an object static on all levels.

But, a bowling pin that's just standing there is not moving relative to its immediate environment. I'm assuming the pin's constituent molecules are (or, at least, can be) likewise in stasis. But, I don't actually know about the molecules, so I'm just thinking in terms of the logic of the directly sensible world. In other words, if, and only if, a molecule (as such) can be in stasis relative to its environment, will my logic even have a chance of acheiving traction in your mind.

As for what I mean by infinite regress, I don't think that's important to this stage in this discussion. It was just an idea that I had put on the table in order to try to show a better, full account of my point of view. But, I'll try to define it if, in any future reply, you request that I do so.

Binary logic again. There is no evidence that anything transcends existence.

I admit that one could not obtain a specimen of a kind of object if that object is insensible in all practical terms. But, if logic is to be a pattern, as such, of that which exists, and if that pattern is to be knowable to us, then I have to admit that there must be a Prime Axiom of 'All Sensible Things'---an axiom which nevertheless is essentially higher in the epistemic topography than myself, and therefore the essential power of which is not analogous to that of a man-with-a-hammer. A man with a hammer has power, say, over a nail only because he has a hammer: his hand, by itself, is not able to drive a nail. But, the hypothetical Prime axiom which I have in mind is a power which does not rely on any mediating object (analogous to a hammer) in order to 'keep everything running' as it were.

I fear I may still not be clear to most people, so I apologize for any frustration that my current reply may cause you.

[hackysack]

You're exempting the "Prime Cause" from a category that doesn't exist ("physical causes"). Motion is perpetual in the universe, there are no causes.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready to argue in support of the idea that not only does the disease (dysfunction) and ultimate death of an organism have a cause, but that disease-and-death is a perfect term for discussing the presense or absence of ultimate causes in general physics.