Page 2 of 82 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 814

Thread: An infinite series of finite causes.

  1. #11
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    196
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The argument from first cause (i.e. the cosmological argument) claims that the universe must have a cause, and that this cause is posited to be God. This is a classic Argument from Ignorance.
    Do you even know what the Argument from Ignorance is? X is true because X hasn't been proven false. How in the name of Zeus' chest muscles is this an Argument from Ignorance?


    There is no substantive evidence supporting the premise that universe must have a cause.
    Prove it.


    This is an unverified assumption and especially specious given that contemporary physics considers that physical existence is possibly infinite.
    More Tass Nye the Scientism Guy! Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass . . . . Scientism rules!

    Still running away from my questions?

    Oh, and prove that contemporary physics considers physical existence possibly infinite, please.
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

  2. #12
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,239
    Amen (Given)
    2240
    Amen (Received)
    1544
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Do you even know what the Argument from Ignorance is? X is true because X hasn't been proven false. How in the name of Zeus' chest muscles is this an Argument from Ignorance?

    Prove it. [that universe must have a cause.]
    YOU are the one promoting the Cosmological Argument so YOU prove the unsubstantiated premise that the universe must have a cause and is not infinite. You cannot show the assertion that "the universe must have a cause" to be true. Therefore the conclusion that the cause is God cannot be shown to be true.
    Last edited by Tassman; 02-23-2018 at 09:19 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.

  3. #13
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    YOU are the one promoting the Cosmological Argument so YOU prove the unsubstantiated premise that the universe must have a cause and is not infinite. You cannot show the assertion that "the universe must have a cause" to be true. Therefore the conclusion that the cause is God cannot be shown to be true.
    Well, more realistically, since the universe is also made up of causes, the issue really is to show, prove, that it had to have a unique first cause with no prior cause and that it cannot be do to an infinite series of causes without a first cause. The evidence is the observable apparent origin has a known beginning (calculated to be some 13.7 billion years ago). We have no evidence that was not caused by another cause prior. All causes are caused being finite temporal events.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  4. #14
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,945
    Amen (Given)
    1272
    Amen (Received)
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Do you even know what the Argument from Ignorance is? X is true because X hasn't been proven false. How in the name of Zeus' chest muscles is this an Argument from Ignorance?

    Prove it.

    More Tass Nye the Scientism Guy! Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass . . . . Scientism rules!

    Still running away from my questions?

    Oh, and prove that contemporary physics considers physical existence possibly infinite, please.
    Bizarre none answer! You cannot falsify nor prove the negative.

    Scientist do not prove anything, and whether our physical existence is infinite, eternal, finite nor temporal cannot by falsified by a scientific hypothesis, but . . .

    The hypothesis for a cyclic universe has determined our physical existence is possibly endless.

    Endless Universe

    Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html


    The Cyclic Theory agrees that there was some violent event 14 billion years ago – we still call it a "big bang" – but this was not the beginning of space and time. The key events causing the creation of matter, radiation, galaxies and stars occurred billions of years before the bang. Furthermore, there was not just one bang. The evolution of the universe is cyclic with big bangs occurring once every trillion or so, each one accompanied by the creation of new matter and radiation that forms new galaxies, stars, planets, and presumably life. Ours is only the most recent cycle.

    . . .

    In the Cyclic Theory, the universe is the same almost everywhere, so the laws and properties we see are typical of the whole. Hence, the Cyclic Theory restores the hope that the universe is simple and comprehensible to us even though we are only able to observe it from a limited vantage point.

    How can you test the “Cyclic Theory”?

    Answer:
    There are several ways. For example, the Cyclic Theory leaves a distinctive pattern of gravitational waves that is very different from the one expected in the Big Bang Theory, as described in Chapter 9 of our book. A number of experimental groups throughout the world are now starting to search for these waves using detectors on satellites, high altitude balloons and on mountaintop observatories, and may prove or disprove our theory within the next few years.

    Why write this book now before the theory has been tested?

    Answer:
    Most science books are written after ideas have been around for many years and already well established. We thought it would be interesting to write about a radically new scientific idea with far-reaching implications at a time when it is first emerging and before it is proven. This provides to capture science as it is happening through the eyes of scientists directly involved. We not only describe the ideas, but also the real struggles and risk-taking involved in developing new scientific ideas. In this way, we hope the book not only conveys the new ideas themselves, but also gives the reader an insider’s view on how science really works.

    © Copyright Original Source

    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.

  5. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.
  6. #15
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post

    The hypothesis for a cyclic universe has determined our physical existence is possibly endless.
    An hypothesis does not determine anything. It is a guess. It is metaphysics. Not science.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  7. #16
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,239
    Amen (Given)
    2240
    Amen (Received)
    1544
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    An hypothesis does not determine anything. It is a guess. It is metaphysics. Not science.
    A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess based on prior scientific knowledge and observation. It makes predictions which are then tested via scientific methodology to see whether or not the predictions can be supported. If they cannot they are discarded. Metaphysics does not have such a methodology to test its premises.
    “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.

  8. #17
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,945
    Amen (Given)
    1272
    Amen (Received)
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    An hypothesis does not determine anything. It is a guess. It is metaphysics. Not science.
    What alternate hypothesis can you offer based on the evidence other than assertions based on a religious agenda.
    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.

  9. #18
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    196
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    YOU are the one promoting the Cosmological Argument so YOU prove the unsubstantiated premise that the universe must have a cause and is not infinite.
    Thanks for not acknowledging your gross misappropriation of the argument from ignorance. Your ability to swivel away from the point is very noteworthy.

    You're also pretty vapid about how the burden of proof works.

    Yes, crank, I know I'm the one promoting the cosmological argument. Yes, crank, I know I have to prove the (as yet!) unsubstantiated premise that the universe must have a cause, and that it's not infinite.

    That wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about your sweeping assertion that "There is no substantive evidence supporting the premise that universe must have a cause."


    This is a positive assertion and a claim to knowledge. So, I asked you to prove it. If you always like to run away petrified whenever you slip on the burden of proof banana peel, stop phrasing it in a way that a darn high school debate team would immediately jump on you for. You're not supposed to make the sweeping claim 'there is not such and such . . .", otherwise you assume the burden of proof. You have to say that you "don't accept X" because "those who advocate X" haven't assumed their burden of providing sufficient reason to accept X. If you don't get that, you don't get how debate and the burden of proof works. In any debate context, you would've stuck your "burden of proof" foot in your unwitting mouth.

    You cannot show the assertion that "the universe must have a cause" to be true.
    See? Like crap like this dumb comment. I can't? Really? Prove it. You've assumed another darn burden, you oblivious dunderhead. You're speaking too strongly. If you don't want the burden, stop phrasing it like this. You have to say, "I don't accept the assertion that the universe must have a cause because I haven't been presented with sufficient reason." Then I'd obligingly come along, hold your hand, and lead you to the promised land.


    Therefore the conclusion that the cause is God cannot be shown to be true.
    Cool. Carry the burden and prove the premises, and your conclusion follows. You win, I lose. But you don't want to do that. So, rephrase your premises so as not to assume the burden of proof, and this conclusion goes bye-bye.

    Do you read logic textbooks, my lad? Do they sell those down under?
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

  10. #19
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    196
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61
    Oh look! It's Mr. Irrelevant Block-quote hurler!


    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Bizarre none answer! You cannot falsify nor prove the negative.
    Whatever that means, doofus. Learn English. NON-ANSWER. But it's wrong anyway, so who cares.

    Scientist do not prove anything, and whether our physical existence is infinite, eternal, finite nor temporal cannot by falsified by a scientific hypothesis, but . . .
    Nice move playing fast-and-loose with 'prove'. Pretty cool sophistry. Wouldn't expect anything less than your worst.

    Yes, really? Prove why theses regarding the alleged idea that physical nature is finite can't be falsified by a scientific hypothesis. And because you can't read very well, what I mean by that is "a hypothesis graduated to a theory due to repeated experimental confirmation." Are you an anti-realist? Do you know what that is?


    The hypothesis for a cyclic universe has determined our physical existence is possibly endless.
    Great, another glob of a block-quote to choke down . . . Thanks you slothful aardvark.

    Endless Universe

    [cite=http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html]
    The Cyclic Theory agrees that there was some violent event 14 billion years ago – we still call it a "big bang" – but this was not the beginning of space and time. The key events causing the creation of matter, radiation, galaxies and stars occurred billions of years before the bang. Furthermore, there was not just one bang. The evolution of the universe is cyclic with big bangs occurring once every trillion or so, each one accompanied by the creation of new matter and radiation that forms new galaxies, stars, planets, and presumably life. Ours is only the most recent cycle.
    Cool. I know what the Cyclic Theory says. Show that it's true, ya boob. It's not enough to just throw around the theories.


    How can you test the “Cyclic Theory”?

    Answer:
    There are several ways. For example, the Cyclic Theory leaves a distinctive pattern of gravitational waves that is very different from the one expected in the Big Bang Theory, as described in Chapter 9 of our book. A number of experimental groups throughout the world are now starting to search for these waves using detectors on satellites, high altitude balloons and on mountaintop observatories, and may prove or disprove our theory within the next few years.
    Cool. Let me know what the groups find when their done. In the mean time . . .

    Answer:
    Most science books are written after ideas have been around for many years and already well established. We thought it would be interesting to write about a radically new scientific idea with far-reaching implications at a time when it is first emerging and before it is proven.
    BEFORE IT IS PROVEN. Thanks, Shunya. You're always a great help.

    So hypotheses CAN BE PROVEN, OR NOT, you inconsistent simpleton.
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

  11. #20
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    196
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61
    Oh yea . . . Mr. Tass-dodger,

    P.S. Still running, screaming from my simple question? Or have you forgotten what it was?
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •