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

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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

        Comment


        • #19
          Oh look! It's Mr. Irrelevant Block-quote hurler!


          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

          Comment


          • #20
            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

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              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.
              An hypothesis is still a yet to be proven guess. A metaphysics method can weigh between two truth claims consequences if one claim is true an tbe one believed is not.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . 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 KJV

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

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                An hypothesis is still a yet to be proven guess. A metaphysics method can weigh between two truth claims consequences if one claim is true an tbe one believed is not.
                Two things you'll probably find out about Tass sooner or later.

                1. He thinks that only the scientific methodology leads to knowledge (strong, epistemological scientism)

                and

                2. He doesn't even know what the methodologies of metaphysicians are. I've been asking him for eons.
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  An hypothesis is still a yet to be proven guess.
                  The difference is that a scientific hypothesis is more than just a “guess”. It is based upon existing, established knowledge and makes predictions which can be verified. OTOH a hypothesis used as the premise for a metaphysical argument is axiomatic, i.e. it’s a statement accepted as true as the basis of a deductive argument. But it cannot be shown to be true and therefore its conclusion cannot be shown to be true.
                  “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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                    Thanks for not acknowledging your gross misappropriation of the argument from ignorance.
                    Aquinas' Cosmological Argument, First Way, The Argument from motion: According to Saint Tom only actual motion can convert potential motion into actual motion. Maybe and maybe not (we don't know). His inductive inference certainly didn't account for the quantum world. However, the real flaw is his assumption that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past (a classic argument from ignorance).

                    I've snipped the rest of your obnoxious crap and don't bother responding to this. .
                    “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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      His inductive inference certainly didn't account for the quantum world.
                      It's not an inductive inference, and the quantum world doesn't change a darn thing. There's other methods for demonstrating truth than just science. I'll ask my question again: are you aware of the methodologies metaphysicians use or no? Simple question.

                      However, the real flaw is his assumption that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past (a classic argument from ignorance).
                      Again, the argument from ignorance is stipulating that because X hasn't been proven false, X is true. Aquinas doesn't do anything even close to this. Please provide chapter and verse where Aquinas makes such a blunder. Until then, it's just hot air.

                      I've snipped the rest of your obnoxious crap and don't bother responding to this. .
                      What? The fact that your scientism blinds you to other methodologies? I can see why you'd run screaming from that. Are you going to answer my question?
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        The difference is that a scientific hypothesis is more than just a “guess”. It is based upon existing, established knowledge and makes predictions which can be verified.
                        Completely naive understanding of the demarcation problem, and still blissfully oblivious to other methodologies that aren't based on guesses at all. Are you going to answer my question?

                        OTOH a hypothesis used as the premise for a metaphysical argument is axiomatic, i.e. it’s a statement accepted as true as the basis of a deductive argument. But it cannot be shown to be true and therefore its conclusion cannot be shown to be true.
                        Doesn't have to be 'shown' to be true using the methodologies of science. Are you going to answer my question?
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                          Two things you'll probably find out about Tass sooner or later.

                          1. He thinks that only the scientific methodology leads to knowledge (strong, epistemological scientism)

                          and

                          2. He doesn't even know what the methodologies of metaphysicians are. I've been asking him for eons.
                          What is this obsession you have with people knowing what your methodologies are. You act as if you've never heard of google.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            What is this obsession you have with people knowing what your methodologies are. You act as if you've never heard of google.
                            Dude, seriously? Idiotic question if you've read the entire context of the discussion.

                            Tassman is asserting that scientific methodologies alone are able to demonstrate truth. He has the stupid idea that no other methodologies are able to do this, understanding that the kind of demonstration is relative to whatever domain of inquiry we're talking about. I'm asking Tassman what the methodologies of metaphysicians are and whether he's read about them because he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about in this area at all. He has yet to answer the question.

                            It's not about me not Googling something, moron. I'm asking if he even knows about that which he denounces. Got that?
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              It's not an inductive inference, and the quantum world doesn't change a darn thing.
                              This counts as a rebuttal in your world does it?

                              There's other methods for demonstrating truth than just science.
                              Only science has the capacity to demonstrate verifiable “truth” as per fact or reality and in relation to the OP on the classical cosmological argument.

                              I'll ask my question again: are you aware of the methodologies metaphysicians use or no? Simple question.
                              I know of no methodology to establish a verifiable true premise for a metaphysical argument. So educate me.

                              Again, the argument from ignorance is stipulating that because X hasn't been proven false, X is true. Aquinas doesn't do anything even close to this. Please provide chapter and verse where Aquinas makes such a blunder. Until then, it's just hot air.
                              Aquinas’ blunder is that he assumes that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past. How is this not a classic Argument from Ignorance?

                              What? The fact that your scientism blinds you to other methodologies? I can see why you'd run screaming from that. Are you going to answer my question?
                              So funny!
                              “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


                              • #30
                                The idea of an infinite universe. The idea of an infinite past. These are metaphysical questions. As there are others. Infinity in standard algebra is not defined. In calculus it is used as a limit.

                                In the classical cosmological argument for God an infinite regress is claimed impossible for the cause of our known universe. I do not believe it is impossible. I just do not believe that this is the case. Those are two different beliefs that I hold. So I disagree with the cosmological argument for God on the point that an infinite regression is impossible for our known universe to be. It can only be known to be impossible from knowing God created our heavens and earth uniquely (Genesis 1:1). We have no way of knowing what God has not told us. So if God created (John 1:3) infinite realities beyond our heavens and earth and having always created such, where there is no only such creation ever - no first ever. So what?
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . 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 KJV

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

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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