Originally posted by 37818
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYOU 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'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.
Therefore the conclusion that the cause is God cannot be shown to be true.
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
-
Oh look! It's Mr. Irrelevant Block-quote hurler!
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBizarre 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 . . .
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.
Endless Universe
[cite=http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html]
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.
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA 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.. . . 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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostAn 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.
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
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThanks for not acknowledging your gross misappropriation of the argument from ignorance.
I've snipped the rest of your obnoxious crap and don't bother responding to this. .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostHis 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. .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
-
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?
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
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostTwo 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat is this obsession you have with people knowing what your methodologies are. You act as if you've never heard of google.
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
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostIt'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.
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.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?
Comment
-
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
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment