Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An infinite series of finite causes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by element771 View Post
    What is the speed of light? Does that change? Is that not an absolute?
    No, it is not. The speed of light has been validated to such a degree that it can be regarded as an absolute. But it is potentially falsifiable as are all scientific “truths”.

    You are conflating the two as usual. If you don't use the currently most accepted hypothesis in science, what should you use?
    In science one accepts that “the currently most accepted hypothesis in science” is falsifiable and may well be superseded. This is a problem for those using it to support a theological doctrine.

    By this logic, you can never use any science to support anything. What if it changes?
    Not so. One uses science to support other scientific facts about the physical natural world, not theological doctrines.

    I think...It is only a compelling possibility to you because you like that it undercuts the theological argument. If it supported it, you would be crying that it was pseudoscience.
    You’re back to attributing unworthy motives to those who disagree with you.

    Again you are assuming too much. My objections to multiverse are 100% scientific. I personally don't care if there was a multiverse. I have already explained the science behind the multiverse and why it is not actual science.
    You are entitled to your opinion. OTOH, as I understand it, relativistic physics, quantum physics, cosmological physics, unified physics, and computational physics – all lead to some form of a multiverse..

    Also, on what planet are you living on where you think that it resits scientific development. Do you really think that scientists would curtail their research because of theological concerns?
    The fact is that believers who argue that BB theory is sacrosanct because it aligns with the creatio ex nihilo dogma do resist it. One sees it on these very boards,
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Flailing Carp? In your world there is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest, prostitution, having sex with a German shepherd, promiscuity, pornography, etc... Just lifestyle choices.
      I don’t know of anyone in our society that accepts many of these “lifestyle choices” as legitimate moral choices. One doesn’t need a hypothetical deity to tell us that they are not acceptable; our social norms tell us this.

      And that Jewish child has no inherent worth, so off to the ovens. The Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to think and do so, if subjectivism is correct. Humans don't have unalienable rights, these are merely legal fictions that are invented with no grounding in the reality of your subjective world. And your choices, moral or otherwise, are just as trivial as you are by nature.
      See above.

      Yet you live in a country, one of the greatest in human history, where the very freedoms you enjoy was founded on a principle of universal moral truths. Yep, and I'm flailing
      The USA is one of the most inequitable, and violent countries in the developed world. One needs to go to a more secular country like Norway to experience universal moral truths in action..
      Last edited by Tassman; 04-22-2018, 12:01 AM.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        The USA is one of the most inequitable, and violent countries in the developed world. One needs to go to a more secular country like Norway to experience universal moral truths in action..
        Nonsense Tass, the USA is one of the greatest countries in History, many of the very things you depend on today were invented here, if not invented mass produced here for the world. This "arsenal of democracy" stopped imperialism, fascism and communism from taking the world. What has your country given the world beside The Dr Blake Mysteries, and wool? And what has Norway given the world in comparison to the U.S. And they can thank us later for the freedom they enjoy today.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          No, it is not. The speed of light has been validated to such a degree that it can be regarded as an absolute. But it is potentially falsifiable as are all scientific “truths”.
          Ok...perhaps this is an error in how I was using absolute. Science has one answer not several but you are correct that they are falsifiable so they would not be absolute in the sense that they could never change.


          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          In science one accepts that “the currently most accepted hypothesis in science” is falsifiable and may well be superseded. This is a problem for those using it to support a theological doctrine.
          Sure but again, this is not your problem...it is the problem for the person using the argument.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          You’re back to attributing unworthy motives to those who disagree with you.
          Question: How is this any different than you attributing skepticism for the multiverse theory to those who are holding on to religious ideas?

          If you can assume things about peoples motives, so can I.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          You are entitled to your opinion. OTOH, as I understand it, relativistic physics, quantum physics, cosmological physics, unified physics, and computational physics – all lead to some form of a multiverse..
          No they don't. I have actually already gone into the science about how they come to the idea of the multiverse (at least for string theory and QM). If you think that is solid ground for such a radical idea, then you have more faith in the multiverse than I do.

          And again, multiverse is literally causing people to question if we need empirical validation in order for a theory to be counted as science. Do you really want to go down that road?

          If so, then astrology and ID will rightfully start claiming that they are also science by this new definition. This is my biggest problem with the multiverse.


          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          The fact is that believers who argue that BB theory is sacrosanct because it aligns with the creatio ex nihilo dogma do resist it. One sees it on these very boards,
          No, they are arguing the that BB theory is the most successful theory to explain the beginning of the universe so far. And they are correct.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Flailing Carp? In your world there is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest, prostitution, having sex with a German shepherd, promiscuity, pornography, etc... Just lifestyle choices. And that Jewish child has no inherent worth, so off to the ovens. The Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to think and do so, if subjectivism is correct. Humans don't have unalienable rights, these are merely legal fictions that are invented with no grounding in the reality of your subjective world. And your choices, moral or otherwise, are just as trivial as you are by nature. Yet you live in a country, one of the greatest in human history, where the very freedoms you enjoy was founded on a principle of universal moral truths. Yep, and I'm flailing
            Wow - you managed to pack Techniques 1, 2, AND 3 into one paragraph without one iota of indication that you recognize none of this is an argument. You're list above boils down to:

            1) Subjective/relative morality is not objective/absolute (yes, we know that, and we know blue is not green - but you STILL have not made the case that "not green" is a bad thing).
            2) Trivializing moral choices because they have no objective/absolute basis
            3) And back to the Nazi's and Jewish children - which is an appeal to outrage, again based in no objective/absolute basis.

            Seer, I am pretty sure you think you are saying something here, and I have come to believe that you are completely blind to the emptiness of the argument. I pressume it feels like an argument to you (otherwise, you wouldn't keep repeating it), but there is nothing there. Yes, subjective/relative moral frameworks have no objective/absolute basis - which means there is no objective/absolute basis for saying "you're right" and "you're wrong." There is only a subjective relative basis for doing so, by definition. Subjective/relative moral frameworks are no more "fictions" than legal systems are (argument from ridicule). The U.S. Constitution is a legal document that is subjective/relative to the country that accept it as their guiding document. I know of no one who argues that the American legal system is a "fiction" or "trivial" or "irrational" because it's scope is subjective/relative to the American nation. Yet you attempt to do this for moral frameworks, which are closely analogous to legal frameworks, with nothing to support your argument but your continued assertions, which have been shown to be tautologies, arguments from ridicule, and arguments from outrage.

            Do you see any purpose to continuing this exchange? I have to admit, at this point, that I do not. It does not appear that you are going to bring any arguments to the table, and the ones you repeat over and over have been show, over and over, to be inadequate arguments. We KNOW (at this point) that you think anything that isn't objective/absolute doesn't "work." But you have not made the case for this being true. You just keep asserting it, over and over, in one way or another.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-22-2018, 10:49 AM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Seer, I am pretty sure you think you are saying something here, and I have come to believe that you are completely blind to the emptiness of the argument. I pressume it feels like an argument to you (otherwise, you wouldn't keep repeating it), but there is nothing there. Yes, subjective/relative moral frameworks have no objective/absolute basis - which means there is no objective/absolute basis for saying "you're right" and "you're wrong." There is only a subjective relative basis for doing so, by definition. Subjective/relative moral frameworks are no more "fictions" than legal systems are (argument from ridicule). The U.S. Constitution is a legal document that is subjective/relative to the country that accept it as their guiding document. I know of no one who argues that the American legal system is a "fiction" or "trivial" or "irrational" because it's scope is subjective/relative to the American nation. Yet you attempt to do this for moral frameworks, which are closely analogous to legal frameworks, with nothing to support your argument but your continued assertions, which have been shown to be tautologies, arguments from ridicule, and arguments from outrage.
              No Carp, I was speaking of our rights, human rights, and where the Founders grounded them.

              We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

              That in your would of subjectivism is a fiction. And of course it would be trivial, as trivial as we are by nature.

              Do you see any purpose to continuing this exchange? I have to admit, at this point, that I do not. It does not appear that you are going to bring any arguments to the table, and the ones you repeat over and over have been show, over and over, to be inadequate arguments. We KNOW (at this point) that you think anything that isn't objective/absolute doesn't "work." But you have not made the case for this being true. You just keep asserting it, over and over, in one way or another.
              Where was I arguing about the usefulness of subjectivism or not? And show me one false statement in my last post.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                No Carp, I was speaking of our rights, human rights, and where the Founders grounded them.

                We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

                That in your would of subjectivism is a fiction. And of course it would be trivial, as trivial as we are by nature.
                a) the founders were men, not gods.
                b) they were theists, so they saw "inalienable rights" grounded in a creator - that doesn't make them right.
                c) In my world, it actually is not a "fiction." All people (not just men) are equal in many ways - specifically in their nature as humans. So no person (not "man") has a greater claim to "rights" than any other person (not "man"). That has nothing to do with gods - it has to do with out nature as humans and sentient beings. It has to do with our choices.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Where was I arguing about the usefulness of subjectivism or not? And show me one false statement in my last post.
                As I noted before, a statement can be "true" and "meaningless" simultaneously. "Blue cars are not green" is a true statement, and essentially meaningless because "not green" is implied in the definition of "blue." Likewise, "not objective" is implied in the meaning of "subjective" and "not absolute" is implied in the definition of "relative." So your statements are true - and without value. They are simply tautologies.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                  Out of the two of us, I am the only one qualified to have an opinion. And I disagree with them as they are changing what science is in order to put the multiverse under the umbrella of science. I do not consider your "opinion" because you don't understand science or much of anything.

                  What is "none scientific"? Also, I never said proof... See this is another instance of you just making things up. This is why no one takes you seriously.

                  Again, where do you publish and how do you "do science" for a living?
                  Oh Lord and Master of all of science who claims your 'opinion' rules all. Your qualification whatever they are does prevent you from making a false statement and generalization concerning science and dodging the legitimate request for an explanation.

                  It has become over whelming obvious that seer and you are the masters of Ad hominems instead coherent responses,

                  Also your false statement concerning the beginning of the universe and science.

                  Originally posted by element771
                  Sure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.

                  Theological point: Universe had a beginning.

                  Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

                  To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.
                  I missed this, and Tassman is correct. The above bold is a false statement.Science does not consider the universe to have a beginning in the theological sense, nor in any definitive physical sense. In science there are numerous possibilities including: cyclic models for our universe, multiverse hypothesis, and Black Hole hypothesis Even without these possibilities science currently considers the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, and the singularity to form from preexisting matter/energy. Absolute beginnings that would be a theological beginning of our universe nor our physical existence are not a remote consideration in science. It is often the case I hear apologists argue that science does not know nor cannot falsify hypothesis beyond the beginning of our universe therefore. . . is a fallacious arguing from ignorance.

                  I am calling you out on basic foundation science at the freshman level of college.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-22-2018, 03:51 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    a) the founders were men, not gods.
                    b) they were theists, so they saw "inalienable rights" grounded in a creator - that doesn't make them right.
                    c) In my world, it actually is not a "fiction." All people (not just men) are equal in many ways - specifically in their nature as humans. So no person (not "man") has a greater claim to "rights" than any other person (not "man"). That has nothing to do with gods - it has to do with out nature as humans and sentient beings. It has to do with our choices.
                    It is not about being right or wrong Carp, my point was that the freedoms that you enjoy in this nation were grounded in a universal truth. Whether you agree with them or not that is where they grounded human rights. And that truth was the moral impetus for our revolution, an ideal that has echoed in the courts and body politic down to today. And your opinion on rights, if just that your opinion.

                    As I noted before, a statement can be "true" and "meaningless" simultaneously. "Blue cars are not green" is a true statement, and essentially meaningless because "not green" is implied in the definition of "blue." Likewise, "not objective" is implied in the meaning of "subjective" and "not absolute" is implied in the definition of "relative." So your statements are true - and without value. They are simply tautologies.
                    And in your world the Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children into ovens. That is true.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                      Ok...perhaps this is an error in how I was using absolute. Science has one answer not several but you are correct that they are falsifiable so they would not be absolute in the sense that they could never change.
                      As referenced and you have not responded science does not consider the value for the speed of light absolute, nor does it consider the laws of nature developed by science, and theories of science as absolutes. ALL are subject to change based future knowledge and information.


                      No, they are arguing the that BB theory is the most successful theory to explain the beginning of the universe so far. And they are correct.
                      Again not correct on several points. First, the Big Bang is not considered an absolute beginning in any theological nor physical sense, and cannot be used as a scientific finding' to support a theological argument nor belief. Second, there are several alternate hypothesis concerning the nature of the physical history of our universe and all possible universes.

                      I am so glad you expressed your view as 'opinion,' because it does not reflect the views of other scientist, many of which are far more qualified than you.Many do consider the various multiverse hypothesis to be 'science, and accept the present limits of science at present to falsify the multiverse hypothesis.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It is not about being right or wrong Carp, my point was that the freedoms that you enjoy in this nation were grounded in a universal truth.
                        And that "universal truth" is....?

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Whether you agree with them or not that is where they grounded human rights. And that truth was the moral impetus for our revolution, an ideal that has echoed in the courts and body politic down to today. And your opinion on rights, if just that your opinion.
                        And American law is just that - the opinion of Americans expressed as law.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        And in your world the Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children into ovens. That is true.
                        Technique #3 - yet again...
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Oh Lord and Master of all of science who claims your 'opinion' rules all. Your qualification whatever they are does prevent you from making a false statement and generalization concerning science and dodging the legitimate request for an explanation.

                          I am calling you out on basic foundation science at the freshman level of college.
                          You don't have the right to call any one out for making false statements. This is why I am not engaging you...can't trust you.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I am so glad you expressed your view as 'opinion,' because it does not reflect the views of other scientist, many of which are far more qualified than you.Many do consider the various multiverse hypothesis to be 'science, and accept the present limits of science at present to falsify the multiverse hypothesis.
                            You don't have the qualifications, the knowledge, nor the credibility to judge my statements in a scientific manner.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                              You don't have the right to call any one out for making false statements. This is why I am not engaging you...can't trust you.
                              You are not above being responsible for your false statements. Tassman has also realized this and you have not responded to him either.

                              It has become over whelming obvious that seer and you are the masters of Ad hominems instead coherent responses,

                              Also your false statement concerning the beginning of the universe and science.

                              Originally posted by element771
                              Sure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.

                              Theological point: Universe had a beginning.

                              Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

                              To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.
                              I missed this, and Tassman is correct. The above bold is a false statement.Science does not consider the universe to have a beginning in the theological sense, nor in any definitive physical sense. In science there are numerous possibilities including: cyclic models for our universe, multiverse hypothesis, and Black Hole hypothesis Even without these possibilities science currently considers the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, and the singularity to form from preexisting matter/energy. Absolute beginnings that would be a theological beginning of our universe nor our physical existence are not a remote consideration in science. It is often the case I hear apologists argue that science does not know nor cannot falsify hypothesis beyond the beginning of our universe therefore. . . is a fallacious arguing from ignorance.

                              I am calling you out on basic foundation science at the freshman level of college.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                You are not above being responsible for your false statements. Tassman has also realized this and you have not responded to him either.
                                I have not made a false statement. You, on the hand, have not owned up to yours.

                                In the thread that you falsified information and in this thread that you claimed to "do science" for a living.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                                I am calling you out on basic foundation science at the freshman level of college.
                                Freshman level of college is about 8-10 years beyond your understandings.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X