An infinite series of finite causes.

[mattbballman31]

Phfffffffft! Splat! Nothing here of substance.

The problem with both of you is no competent educational background in the science you ridicule and denigrate. There is no reason, logic nor coherent facts backing up these endless denigrating sound bites.

HEY, IGNORANT IDIOT. BEFORE YOU SHOOT YOUR DUMB MOUTH OFF, WHY DON'T YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

I have a Bachelor's in Philosophy, minoring in Chemistry and Physics from Coastal Carolina University.
I have a Masters degree in Physics from the University of Southern California.
I have a Masters degree in Philosophy from Houston Baptist University.
I'm currently working on a Ph.D in philosophy at the University of Birmingham with a special interest in the philosophy of physics and philosophy of science generally.

SO BE A THE GOOD LITTLE LAPDOG YOU ARE, AND SCRAM, PEABRAIN. I know pseudo-intellectuals when I see them, read them, hear them. AND YOU ARE ONE. You're a sloppy, self-deceived chowderhead and no one, but your BFF Sassy-Tassy, thinks you have anything of worth to say. You WASTE everyone's time mangling the English language, while lecturing other people on their reading comprehension; you post giant-sized quotations from scholarship that is almost entirely immaterial to the topic, derailing the focus of a thread, you 'amen' the most moronic posts imaginable because they reflect your idiotically narrow understanding of reality, you look like a darn loser Santa Clause that uses the appearance of elderly wisdom to pass off your utterly useless and unintelligible little quips that Eastern sages would roll their eyes at (I think in pencil??? so dumb!), you write your posts like an intellectually developing 4 year old with a click-happy copy/paste button, you demand well-thought out analysis and when it's brought to you, it's disfigured beyond recognition as it passes into whatever phase of mucky liquefaction your laughably slow brain is foundering in.

It's actually kind of sad that someone can get as far along as you in years and still be . . . . a dumb-dumb.

[shunyadragon]

FALSIFICATION ISN'T WHAT SEPARATES SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE, RETARD. I SAID THIS IN POST 33. IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE IT, DON'T JUST REPEAT THAT IT CAN. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THE DOLT THAT YOU ARE. IT'S SETTLED IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE THAT FALSIFICATION IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR SUFFICIENT FOR THEORY CONFIRMATION. IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, YOU DUMB LITTLE SIMPLETON.

That was FAR from a mess of pottage, dingbat! You're just a lazy piece of stinky doo-doo, and you're not used to actually working through an issue. You just exercise that dumb, unchecked, knee-jerk, sound-bite, chatty cathy doll of a brain you have, and think it settles the issue. It doesn't. It won't. It can't. If what I took the time to write out for you is a mess of pottage, then you're an idiotic, pathetic waste of insignificant mucus. Oh, a little bit of what was accomplished in post #33 . . .

1. Described the demarcation problem in science. (YOU IGNORED)

2. Gave detailed, demonstrative evidence of the different methods employed in the sciences. (YOU IGNORED)

3. Critiqued your fetishizing of 'verification' (which has now morphed into falsification). (YOU IGNORED).

4. Critiqued your ambiguity with the idea of truth (YOU IGNORED)

5. Critiqued your ambiguity with the idea of fact (YOU IGNORED)

6. Gave an argument for how the settlement of such ambiguities involve the very methods you denounce, and provided a disjunctive argument for the conclusion that you either give up the rationality of practicing science or accept the methods of the non-sciences to justify the practice of science (YOU IGNORED)

7. Against your idea that no non-scientific methodology can verify a true premise, I presented a 3-step argument that assumes the truth of your PREMISE [Only science has the capacity to demonstrate verifiable “truth” as per fact or reality], and reduces it to 3 different kinds of absurdity, a reductio ad absurdum. (YOU IGNORED).
8. Gave 12 examples of methodologies employed in metaphysics (YOU IGNORED).

9. Gave 4 characteristics of such methodologies, to distinguish them from typical scientific methodologies (YOU IGNORED).

10. I illustrated some of the methodologies in practice, along with some of the characteristics, with the example of 'causation' (YOU IGNORED)

11. I showed that your PREMISE [Only science has the capacity to demonstrate verifiable “truth” as per fact or reality] can be JUSTIFIED by at least one or all of 10 reasons I GAVE YOU. (YOU IGNORED)

12. I showed that to EVEN GO ABOUT JUSTIFYING ONE OF THE 10 REASONS I GAVE YOU, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME ONE OF THE 12 METHODOLOGIES I ALREADY GAVE YOU ABOVE (YOU IGNORED)

13. This methodology (conceptual analysis) I then SHOWED had already been taken up by PHILOSOPHERS, where Rik Peels had delineated 30 different varieties of scientisms. THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT EVEN IF I WERE TO GRANT YOU YOUR PREMISE, AND YOUR CONCLUSION (!), YOU'D HAVE TO USE METAPHYSICAL METHODOLOGIES TO GET THERE. (YOU IGNORED).

14. I REPEATED MY 3 reductio ad absurdum points IN INTERACTION WITH YOUR PREMISE, AGAIN JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT IT, AND, YOU GUESSED IT . . . (STILL IGNORED).

15. I then PROVIDED REASONS FOR MY 3 REDUCTIOS (and STILL IGNORED).

AT LEAST, 15 SOLID POINTS. ALL IGNORED BY YOUR STUPID, DISHONEST, PATHETIC, REPETITIVE HOGWASH YOU CALL ACTUAL RESPONSES.

Face it. You're a pseudo-intellectual, dishonest, troll with absolutely no interest in finding the truth.

What mess of pottage!!! You #@$!%%^^&&*!

I think you broke the world record of Tweets, sound bites, and smiley faces in one post. You even beat out Donald Trump!

[shunyadragon]

HEY, IGNORANT IDIOT. BEFORE YOU SHOOT YOUR DUMB MOUTH OFF, WHY DON'T YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

I have a Bachelor's in Philosophy, minoring in Chemistry and Physics from Coastal Carolina University.
I have a Masters degree in Physics from the University of Southern California.
I have a Masters degree in Philosophy from Houston Baptist University.
I'm currently working on a Ph.D in philosophy at the University of Birmingham with a special interest in the philosophy of physics and philosophy of science generally.

SO BE A THE GOOD LITTLE LAPDOG YOU ARE, AND SCRAM, PEABRAIN. I know pseudo-intellectuals when I see them, read them, hear them. AND YOU ARE ONE. You're a sloppy, self-deceived chowderhead and no one, but your BFF Sassy-Tassy, thinks you have anything of worth to say. You WASTE everyone's time mangling the English language, while lecturing other people on their reading comprehension; you post giant-sized quotations from scholarship that is almost entirely immaterial to the topic, derailing the focus of a thread, you 'amen' the most moronic posts imaginable because they reflect your idiotically narrow understanding of reality, you look like a darn loser Santa Clause that uses the appearance of elderly wisdom to pass off your utterly useless and unintelligible little quips that Eastern sages would roll their eyes at (I think in pencil??? so dumb!), you write your posts like an intellectually developing 4 year old with a click-happy copy/paste button, you demand well-thought out analysis and when it's brought to you, it's disfigured beyond recognition as it passes into whatever phase of mucky liquefaction your laughably slow brain is foundering in.

It's actually kind of sad that someone can get as far along as you in years and still be . . . . a dumb-dumb.

It is terribly sad that someone with your 'supposed education' can get as far along as you in years and still be . . . . a dumb-dumb.

. . . but than again a radical conservative religious agenda trumps all education, evidence, reason and logic!

[mattbballman31]

What mess of pottage!!! You #@$!%%^^&&*!

I think you broke the world record of Tweets, sound bites, and smiley faces in one post. You even beat out Donald Trump!

Pathetic troll

[mattbballman31]

It is terribly sad that someone with your 'supposed education' can get as far along as you in years and still be . . . . a dumb-dumb.

. . . but than again a radical conservative religious agenda trumps all education, evidence, reason and logic!

Shut up, troll!

[shunyadragon]

Shut up, troll!

NO!!!!

[Tassman]

FALSIFICATION ISN'T WHAT SEPARATES SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE, RETARD. I SAID THIS IN POST 33. IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE IT, DON'T JUST REPEAT THAT IT CAN. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THE DOLT THAT YOU ARE. IT'S SETTLED IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE THAT FALSIFICATION IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR SUFFICIENT FOR THEORY CONFIRMATION. IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, YOU DUMB LITTLE SIMPLETON.

That was FAR from a mess of pottage, dingbat! You're just a lazy piece of stinky doo-doo, and you're not used to actually working through an issue. You just exercise that dumb, unchecked, knee-jerk, sound-bite, chatty cathy doll of a brain you have, and think it settles the issue. It doesn't. It won't. It can't. If what I took the time to write out for you is a mess of pottage, then you're an idiotic, pathetic waste of insignificant mucus. Oh, a little bit of what was accomplished in post #33 . . .

1. Described the demarcation problem in science. (YOU IGNORED)

2. Gave detailed, demonstrative evidence of the different methods employed in the sciences. (YOU IGNORED)

3. Critiqued your fetishizing of 'verification' (which has now morphed into falsification). (YOU IGNORED).

4. Critiqued your ambiguity with the idea of truth (YOU IGNORED)

5. Critiqued your ambiguity with the idea of fact (YOU IGNORED)

6. Gave an argument for how the settlement of such ambiguities involve the very methods you denounce, and provided a disjunctive argument for the conclusion that you either give up the rationality of practicing science or accept the methods of the non-sciences to justify the practice of science (YOU IGNORED)

7. Against your idea that no non-scientific methodology can verify a true premise, I presented a 3-step argument that assumes the truth of your PREMISE [Only science has the capacity to demonstrate verifiable “truth” as per fact or reality], and reduces it to 3 different kinds of absurdity, a reductio ad absurdum. (YOU IGNORED).
8. Gave 12 examples of methodologies employed in metaphysics (YOU IGNORED).

9. Gave 4 characteristics of such methodologies, to distinguish them from typical scientific methodologies (YOU IGNORED).

10. I illustrated some of the methodologies in practice, along with some of the characteristics, with the example of 'causation' (YOU IGNORED)

11. I showed that your PREMISE [Only science has the capacity to demonstrate verifiable “truth” as per fact or reality] can be JUSTIFIED by at least one or all of 10 reasons I GAVE YOU. (YOU IGNORED)

12. I showed that to EVEN GO ABOUT JUSTIFYING ONE OF THE 10 REASONS I GAVE YOU, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME ONE OF THE 12 METHODOLOGIES I ALREADY GAVE YOU ABOVE (YOU IGNORED)

13. This methodology (conceptual analysis) I then SHOWED had already been taken up by PHILOSOPHERS, where Rik Peels had delineated 30 different varieties of scientisms. THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT EVEN IF I WERE TO GRANT YOU YOUR PREMISE, AND YOUR CONCLUSION (!), YOU'D HAVE TO USE METAPHYSICAL METHODOLOGIES TO GET THERE. (YOU IGNORED).

14. I REPEATED MY 3 reductio ad absurdum points IN INTERACTION WITH YOUR PREMISE, AGAIN JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT IT, AND, YOU GUESSED IT . . . (STILL IGNORED).

15. I then PROVIDED REASONS FOR MY 3 REDUCTIOS (and STILL IGNORED).

AT LEAST, 15 SOLID POINTS. ALL IGNORED BY YOUR STUPID, DISHONEST, PATHETIC, REPETITIVE HOGWASH YOU CALL ACTUAL RESPONSES.

Face it. You're a pseudo-intellectual, dishonest, troll with absolutely no interest in finding the truth.

Empty bluster!

Just show me how the premise(s) of a deductive metaphysical argument can be true. That's all I ask. Because, even you are aware that a deductive argument can be a 'sound' argument ONLY if it is both valid AND all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. I.e. its conclusions cannot be shown to be true.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

[shunyadragon]

Empty bluster!

Just show me how the premise(s) of a deductive metaphysical argument can be true. That's all I ask. Because, even you are aware that a deductive argument can be a 'sound' argument ONLY if it is both valid AND all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. I.e. its conclusions cannot be shown to be true.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Double down!!!! Blue smoke and mirrors of obfuscation does not answer any of the question.

Not only can such answers not be true, but the answer will vary greatly depending on ones metaphysical world view.

[seer]

Double down!!!! Blue smoke and mirrors of obfuscation does not answer any of the question.

Not only can such answers not be true, but the answer will vary greatly depending on ones metaphysical world view.

Except you have to make assumptions to even do science, that is why Matt kept bringing up the demarcation problem, or what even qualifies as science:

The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and non-science, including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs. The debate continues after over two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

[37818]

Nor can it (at this stage) be empirically disproved. Certainly, at the mathematical level, infinities are at the heart of standard quantum theory.

Two things. 1) That an infinite regression can or cannot be empirically proven shows that the question is metaphysical. 2) Quantum machanics has do do with finite things.

[Tassman]

Two things. 1) That an infinite regression can or cannot be empirically proven shows that the question is metaphysical.

No it "shows that the question" is a scientific hypothesis, i.e. something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This cannot be done in metaphysics.

2) Quantum machanics has do do with finite things.

Quantum mechanics is the theory of the mechanics of atoms, molecules, and other physical systems that are subject to the uncertainty principle. The Aristotelian view that infinities are not realised in nature is incorrect. Another bit of physics that Aristotle got wrong.

[seer]

No it "shows that the question" is a scientific hypothesis, i.e. something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This cannot be done in metaphysics.

How can you scientifically prove that, for instance, there was an infinite number of past universes leading up to this one.

[JimL]

How can you scientifically prove that, for instance, there was an infinite number of past universes leading up to this one.

There would only be one universe, whose nature is etenal and subject to change. Your answer to the dilema is that there is one god, whose nature is eternal and static. Static means doesn't change, and that which can't change, can't create something new.

[seer]

There would only be one universe, whose nature is etenal and subject to change. Your answer to the dilema is that there is one god, whose nature is eternal and static. Static means doesn't change, and that which can't change, can't create something new.

Who says His nature is static? All I have said is that His moral nature never changes.

[JimL]

Who says His nature is static? All I have said is that His moral nature never changes.

Well if gods nature is not static, if god acts, then according to your own logic, gods existence is impossible because it would require an infinite regression of actions.