Page 3 of 82 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 814

Thread: An infinite series of finite causes.

  1. #21
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    443
    Quote 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 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.

  2. #22
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    212
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    65
    Quote 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

  3. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  4. #23
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,841
    Amen (Given)
    2311
    Amen (Received)
    1624
    Quote 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.

  5. #24
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,841
    Amen (Given)
    2311
    Amen (Received)
    1624
    Quote 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.

  6. #25
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    212
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    65
    Quote 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

  7. #26
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    212
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    65
    Quote 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

  8. #27
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,775
    Amen (Given)
    1341
    Amen (Received)
    1330
    Quote 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.

  9. #28
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    212
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    65
    Quote 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

  10. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  11. #29
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,841
    Amen (Given)
    2311
    Amen (Received)
    1624
    Quote 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.

  12. #30
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    443
    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 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.

Posting Permissions

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