Morality and law (2 Viewers)

[rounder]

everything that must exist must exist in a causal relationship, if everything natural obeys casaulity then something supernatural by its very definition is not natural and must not exist.

We can all use circular logic.

Time re: the universe is not comprenesable in a linear sense anyway.

What?

If something is supernatural, this proves it cannot exist within nature, it does not prove that it cannot at all exist beyond nature. I don't see the logic behind your argument, perhaps you can clarify.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

In terms of "time," time does not exist, it's something humans invented to give a linear definition of life.

Time exists. We invented only values for time (day, months, years). We didn't invent time in itself. Time is a dimension and so is space.

 

[IrishZebra]

What?

If something is supernatural, this proves it cannot exist within nature, it does not prove that it cannot at all exist beyond nature. I don't see the logic behind your argument, perhaps you can clarify.

I was using circular logic to jest at your point


Some didn't have to exist before the Universe, Can you logically explain why you think that way


Also how can anything exist before time

 

[rounder]

I was using circular logic to jest at your point


Some didn't have to exist before the Universe, Can you logically explain why you think that way


Also how can anything exist before time

Sure, God could have simultaneously created the universe through the progression of time. He did not have to create before time. Also, I never said God exists before the universe. He exists outside the universe infinitely. Why?

1) Because the cause can only be Supernatural(It could be anything), if it were supernatural, it does not abide by time thus is infinite.
2) It had to be a Mind because of the existence of the physical laws of nature. Laws of physics cannot exist without intelligence engineering those laws.

Even if this life permitting universe did not exist and a multiverse existed instead. There also must have been a set of physical laws that allowed multiverses to exist. So the problem just gets a lot bigger. In either case, an Intelligent, Supernatural mind is necassary, God.

 

[IrishZebra]

1) Because the cause can only be Supernatural(It could be anything), if it were supernatural, it does not abide by time thus is infinite.
2) It had to be a Mind because of the existence of the physical laws of nature. Laws of physics cannot exist without intelligence engineering those laws.

Even if this life permitting universe did not exist and a multiverse existed instead. There also must have been a set of physical laws that allowed multiverses to exist. So the problem just gets a lot bigger. In either case, an Intelligent, Supernatural mind is necassary, God.

Im not a Physicist, but If cause must exist before effect then something had to create god, now as you are saying as supernatural God is above this contradiction, however if he is a supernatural being, it is to differ in kind from natural existence, and so must exist without a limited nature--which amounts to existing without any nature at all.

it goes both ways bra.

the laws of phyics have yet to transcend the dimensions created by the big bang as far as I know and as such, how can they have been enigereed by soemthing outside of this if they have of yet no link?

 

[rounder]

Im not a Physicist, but If cause must exist before effect then something had to create god, now as you are saying as supernatural God is above this contradiction, however if he is a supernatural being, it is to differ in kind from natural existence, and so must exist without a limited nature--which amounts to existing without any nature at all.
it goes both ways bra.

the laws of phyics have yet to transcend the dimensions created by the big bang as far as I know and as such, how can they have been enigereed by soemthing outside of this if they have of yet no link?

Again, you have made the same invalid point.

You seem to define supernatural as 'non-existent'. Your notion of supernatural is that it simply cannot exist, that's the problem. As a matter of fact, if something cannot possibly be supernatural, we would never have the word to begin with. You are limiting all possiblities to the natural. You are suggesting that nothing exists beyond the dimensions of space and time. You are making assumptions based on your opinion that God does not exist. I am basing my opinion on the facts that suggest God's existence.

You aren't making a very good case for atheism. If you say that something cannot possibly be supernatural. Show me why and how. Verynine once posted the possibility of a fourth dimension that I found very interesting. Perhaps you should look into it.

As for your last paragraph. That is exactly why it is considered supernatural, because it transcends the laws of physics and is not linked. If it were, it would be natural.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Time exists. We invented only values for time (day, months, years). We didn't invent time in itself. Time is a dimension and so is space.

Doc Brown wants the Flux Capacitor back.

 

[rounder]

I was using circular logic to jest at your point


Some didn't have to exist before the Universe, Can you logically explain why you think that way


Also how can anything exist before time

I seem to have missed something in my premises.

Let me rephrase it.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) God never began to exist.
3) The universe did begin to exist.
4) The cause must be supernatural.,

Ccnclusion: God created the universe but does not necessarily had to have been caused himself.

 

[IrishZebra]

As a matter of fact, if something cannot possibly be supernatural, we would never have the word to begin with.

you're lecturing me on invalid points???


Like I've said before, at least half a dozen times in this thread alone, as far as I am concerned (not physics per se but empiricism in general) a theory is assumed false until conclusively tested ad naseum or proven outright but methods agreed upon by both sides, I can't proove that the Sun is going to rise but it has done that the past 7000 days in terms of my life.I realise that is an abstract example but I'm just trying to convey a basic point. As far as I can see there exists no way to test this theory of yours save for analysing prayers etc.

Im responding to two post here so bear with me.
1.Existence is an absolute, nothing can begin to exist.
I can't personally see the way in which you link the other three


I take your point about what I define as super-natural, and I'm starting to see that we both see the others points as different to what they are. My last paragraph about the laws of physics was stating that due to your bleief in causality then a link must exist between god and the afforementioned laws, a link which has yet to be prooven.





All in all I'll summarise where I was orgininally coming from and what my core assumption is.

1.Every theory is assumed false until proven *(see above)
2.I said that I believed the big bang to be the msot credible theory, I did not say it was fact or any such thing.

 

[rounder]

you're lecturing me on invalid points???


Like I've said before, at least half a dozen times in this thread alone, as far as I am concerned (not physics per se but empiricism in general) a theory is assumed false until conclusively tested ad naseum or proven outright but methods agreed upon by both sides, I can't proove that the Sun is going to rise but it has done that the past 7000 days in terms of my life.I realise that is an abstract example but I'm just trying to convey a basic point. As far as I can see there exists no way to test this theory of yours save for analysing prayers etc.

Im responding to two post here so bear with me.
1.Existence is an absolute, nothing can begin to exist.
I can't personally see the way in which you link the other three


I take your point about what I define as super-natural, and I'm starting to see that we both see the others points as different to what they are. My last paragraph about the laws of physics was stating that due to your bleief in causality then a link must exist between god and the afforementioned laws, a link which has yet to be prooven.





All in all I'll summarise where I was orgininally coming from and what my core assumption is.

1.Every theory is assumed false until proven *(see above)
2.I said that I believed the big bang to be the msot credible theory, I did not say it was fact or any such thing.

You think so?

Well, the Big Bang theory is not proven so does that make it false? The theory of relativity is not proven so does that make it false? The evolution theory is not proven so does that make it false? Your premise just destroyed just about every single scientific theory known to man. Congratulations, and yes, I am lecturing you on invalid points.

Mind you, the cosmological argument is a philosophical one. Thus, in order to prove it to be wrong you must do one of three things.

1) Show me why the premise(s) are false.
2) Show me why the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. If the conclusion does follow logically from the premise, it is a valid one, not necessarily sound, but valid.
3) Show me why the argument is not a sound one. Meaning, give me an example of an argument analogous the cosmological argument. One that includes correct premises and validity but is not sound.

What you have done so far is deny the possiblity of supernatural existence for no apparent reason. You have rejected the argument because it is not 'proven' thus is assumed false, but I have shown above why that statement is uterly ridiculous.

 

[Ford Prefect]

The theory of evolution is true. They found the missing link, a Lemur called Ida. Do you not read anything i say? Almost every major christian religious leader has come out to say its true and that they have accepted that. Even fucking John Paul II did. " In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation" - JPII

 

[mikhail]

The theory of evolution is true. They found the missing link, a Lima called Ida. Do you not read anything i say?

There hasn't been a missing link since the late nineteenth century. The missing link was a fossil intermediate between a man and an ape. They've loads of them now. It's about the dumbest stick people can beat evolution with. It's like people have just repeated the same crap over and over since Darwin's day without actually paying attention to developments.

 

[IrishZebra]

You think so?

Well, the Big Bang theory is not proven so does that make it false? The theory of relativity is not proven so does that make it false? The evolution theory is not proven so does that make it false? Your premise just destroyed just about every single scientific theory known to man. Congratulations, and yes, I am lecturing you on invalid points.

Mind you, the cosmological argument is a philosophical one. Thus, in order to prove it to be wrong you must do one of three things.

1) Show me why the premise(s) are false.
2) Show me why the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. If the conclusion does follow logically from the premise, it is a valid one, not necessarily sound, but valid.
3) Show me why the argument is not a sound one. Meaning, give me an example of an argument analogous the cosmological argument. One that includes correct premises and validity but is not sound.

What you have done so far is deny the possiblity of supernatural existence for no apparent reason. You have rejected the argument because it is not 'proven' thus is assumed false, but I have shown above why that statement is uterly ridiculous.

Thats why theres an Asterix and see above where I spend a whole fucking paragraph explaining what I meant by that. You can lecture all you want but your points don't appear to be as valid seeing as we are both using different approaches to the question, it's really rather petty.

So now you are able to designate the argument for the existence of a higher being to whichever field of endeavour that you see fit!?
That is utterly ridiculous. I see it as a Logical and Empirical problem, Logic is not part of philosophy (although the later utilizes formal logic frequently).

As I said before, assumed false until proven, and you can see my previous post re: that because Im not going to re-type work that you don't have the decency to read.

 

[rounder]

The theory of evolution is true. They found the missing link, a Lima called Ida. Do you not read anything i say? Almost every major christian religious leader has come out to say its true and that they have accepted that. Even fucking John Paul II did. " In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation" - JPII

No.

I do believe in evolution, I was trying to make a point that theories do not have to proven to be true, that's a false assumption, it's very sad you didn't see that.

 

[rounder]

Thats why theres an Asterix and see above where I spend a whole fucking paragraph explaining what I meant by that. You can lecture all you want but your points don't appear to be as valid seeing as we are both using different approaches to the question, it's really rather petty.

So now you are able to designate the argument for the existence of a higher being to whichever field of endeavour that you see fit!?
That is utterly ridiculous. I see it as a Logical and Empirical problem, Logic is not part of philosophy (although the later utilizes formal logic frequently).

As I said before, assumed false until proven, and you can see my previous post re: that because Im not going to re-type work that you don't have the decency to read.

A philsophical argument is a logical argument. I don't know what you are rambling about here.


Existence is an sbsolute you say, nothing can begin to exist? Really? So you just exist absolutely, you never came to exist at a certain point int time? Do you not see the absurdity in what you are saying? Do you take yourself seriously, really, do you?

Please enlighten us all and explain to us how existence is an absolute. That existence never came to being, that existence is inifinite, that the universe's hstory is inifinite. By the way, that alone is logically fallable. If history was inifinite, and inifinity is cannot possibly be part of the natural world, it is merely a concept. What is inifinity minus infinity? Thus, past, present, and future would become illusory.

 

[Ford Prefect]

There hasn't been a missing link since the late nineteenth century. The missing link was a fossil intermediate between a man and an ape. They've loads of them now. It's about the dumbest stick people can beat evolution with. It's like people have just repeated the same crap over and over since Darwin's day without actually paying attention to developments.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

 

[IrishZebra]

A philsophical argument is a logical argument. I don't know what you are rambling about here.


Existence is an sbsolute you say, nothing can begin to exist? Really? So you just exist absolutely, you never came to exist at a certain point int time? Do you not see the absurdity in what you are saying? Do you take yourself seriously, really, do you?

Please enlighten us all and explain to us how existence is an absolute. That existence never came to being, that existence is inifinite, that the universe's hstory is inifinite. By the way, that alone is logically fallable. If history was inifinite, and inifinity is cannot possibly be part of the natural world, it is merely a concept. What is inifinity minus infinity? Thus, past, present, and future would become illusory.

Logical arguments can exist outside the scope of philosophy in both its formal and informal forms, Now obviously you more versed on the subject than me, I've only read The History of Philosophy, which is a introductary text.

Exsistence is an absolute is a different statement from exsistence is absolute. Begin to exist implies that there is a gap between your existence and non existence, the sperm and the egg, the zygote etc. are all points of existence per se. On this point I believe it is a grammatical dispute, but if its not do continue.

History is a human construct. I'll say only this because you seem to have yet again rejected my stance as it is not your stance. Perhaps I can't proove my point in a philosophical argument, because I am not properly versed, I never disputed this, but I'd very much like you to Empiricaly proove it and as you say enlighten us all.

Seriously man, I understand where your argument is coming from but I don't rate Philosophy personally and it's evident from you inscure babbling that you aren't too certain on it yourself.

I do take myself seriously, and that is why I'm taking the high road and ending this discussion purely because I'm attempting to engage with understanding for your point of view but you are not reciprocating.

We'll just leave it there yeah?

 

[mikhail]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

Journalists repeat the same old buzz-words.

Chocolate is good for you.
There's a debate about vaccine safety.
This fossil is a "missing link".

It's all crap, lazy thinking, meant to sell papers or clicks on online ads.

 

[Hist]

Journalists repeat the same old buzz-words.

Chocolate is good for you.
There's a debate about vaccine safety.
This fossil is a "missing link".

It's all crap, lazy thinking, meant to sell papers or clicks on online ads.

There is the new Ardi! a fossil older than of lucy!

 

[IrishZebra]

Evolution is a close to a fact as any non-mathematical 'theorum'