Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 15, 2017, 07:07:47 AM
-
Here's a correlation
Adherence to God falling
Will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases.
-
Here's a correlation
Adherence to God falling
Will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases.
Adherence to god can make some people abuse others in the name of their god! >:(
-
Here's a correlation
Adherence to God falling
Will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases.
Here's another: global temperature up, pirates down.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing (or in this case proper measurements and use of statistics, and even then correlation ain't cause and effect).
-
Here's another: global temperature up, pirates down.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing (or in this case proper measurements and use of statistics, and even then correlation ain't cause and effect).
Of course and I suppose you'd like us to believe there was never any link between correlation and cause?
-
Adherence to god can make some people abuse others in the name of their god! >:(
A post ignoring such behaviour in the general secular population.
-
Of course and I suppose you'd like us to believe there was never any link between correlation and cause.
Correlation is association, Vlad: nothing more and nothing less. It can be very useful statistically of course but to calculate it you need data, which implies a method, and you can't just chuck things together willy-nilly.
-
Here's a correlation
Adherence to God falling
Will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases.
What are your sources that the second of those is true?
-
I think the OP should say there seems to be a coincidence , not a correlation. One of the beliefs held by many religions has been that some sort of divine punishment would follow any misdemeanour, ranging from the smallest to the largest, if not on earth, then after death. As more and more people have realised, this is rubbish and as far as I know the principal church leaders no longer assert such things, so those who wish to commit crimes know that they will be punished by real people, parents, and if necessary, the law, and that is only if they get caught. It will, like all things connected with the lessening of religious beliefs, not happen in a hurry, and not until people realise they have to take full responsibility for their actions. As soon as it is also realised that we humans can take all the credit for everything done well and not ascribe it to God/god/s, the better and faster it will happen.
-
Here's a correlation
Adherence to God falling
Will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases.
That is what Freud feared is it not ? He believed that the rise of atheism would mark the beginning of the end of human civilisation. With no god to fear, people would turn to base desires and self interest. Maybe he underestimated humans though. Sociological studies reveal the opposite correlation, with high levels of religious observance corresponding with high levels of crime at national and state levels. Sweden, for instance, one of the most atheist countries has been among the most welcoming to refugees and migrants and they are among the most generous in terms of donating to charitable causes. For another example consider the environmental movement - this is concern for the wider context of life and for future generations of life and yet it has been spearheaded largely by non-religious groups, and the American religious right are amongst the most prominent climate change deniers.
So your initial assertion is not clear cut I would say. Religions run deeply and widely but core human values run yet more deeply than any religious instinct.
-
Of course and I suppose you'd like us to believe there was never any link between correlation and cause?
No he didn't say that.
Just because this particular correlation (if it is one, see my earlier post) may not have a causal link does not mean that no correlation has a causal link.
-
Of course and I suppose you'd like us to believe there was never any link between correlation and cause?
There may be, but the statistical tests used to calculate association aren't measures used to indicate possible cause and effect.
-
That is what Freud feared is it not ? He believed that the rise of atheism would mark the beginning of the end of human civilisation. With no god to fear, people would turn to base desires and self interest. Maybe he underestimated humans though.
I'm reasonably well up on Freud; this is news to me. Freud himself was a passionate atheist - anti-theist, even - and The Future of an Illusion looks forward to the end of religious belief. Jung was far more accepting of religious faith; are you thinking of him?
The broader point - that humans are a roiling mass of instinctual drives and desires kept (mostly) in check by social mores - is quite true (in terms of Freud's work at any rate: Civilization and Its Discontents etc.), but I know of nothing in Freud's work to suggest that he thought religion was a, or the, last bulwark against anarchy and raping horses in the streets and what have you. The end of widespread religious belief in a given society /= the end of the society; it means what it means. The rest of your post - Sweden, etc. - gives the lie to that belief.
Religions run deeply and widely but core human values run yet more deeply than any religious instinct.
Absolutely. Because those core values predate any religion. They were here first.
-
And meanwhile in the USA that most religious of countries the crime rate is practically undetectable........oh wait a minute...fuck how did I get that so wrong!
-
I'm reasonably well up on Freud; this is news to me. Freud himself was a passionate atheist - anti-theist, even - and The Future of an Illusion looks forward to the end of religious belief. Jung was far more accepting of religious faith; are you thinking of him?
The broader point - that humans are a roiling mass of instinctual drives and desires kept (mostly) in check by social mores - is quite true (in terms of Freud's work at any rate: Civilization and Its Discontents etc.), but I know of nothing in Freud's work to suggest that he thought religion was a, or the, last bulwark against anarchy and raping horses in the streets and what have you.
Yes he was an atheist and an advocate of such. The section from Wikipedia reproduced below mentions his concerns about these matters :
Freud then examines the issue of whether, without religion, people will feel "exempt from all obligation to obey the precepts of civilization".[11] He notes that "civilization has little to fear from educated people and brain-workers" in whom secular motives for morality replace religious ones; but he acknowledges the existence of "the great mass of the uneducated and oppressed" who may commit murder if not told that God forbids it, and who must be "held down most severely" unless "the relationship between civilization and religion" undergoes "a fundamental revision"
-
I hadn't read any of that before (or didn't remember doing so; maybe I repressed it ;) ). It's disagreeably high-handed, isn't it? Atheism is OK for us, but the great unwashed still need blankie.
-
What are your sources that the second of those is true?
UK polls
Brexit result
-
UK polls
Brexit result
Which polls?
What about the Brexit result?
-
I hadn't read any of that before (or didn't remember doing so; maybe I repressed it ;) ). It's disagreeably high-handed, isn't it? Atheism is OK for us, but the great unwashed still need blankie.
Yes it comes across as very patronising now but it does touch on a valid insight.
-
UK polls
Brexit result
Well, you cant argue with that. I bow to your superior insight.
-
Yes it comes across as very patronising now but it does touch on a valid insight.
Do you think he was right, then?
-
Which polls?
What about the Brexit result?
Support for the anti welfare self interest party.
The Brexit result was apparently a punishment vote.........all very dark, cynical with a tang of cruelty.....a bit like your posts.
-
I hadn't read any of that before (or didn't remember doing so; maybe I repressed it ;) ). It's disagreeably high-handed, isn't it? Atheism is OK for us, but the great unwashed still need blankie.
Actually, forget the blankie, he seems to say that the great unwashed are savages who need religion to keep them from committing mass slaughter.
-
Support for the anti welfare self interest party.
Isn't that - like Trump's victory - explicable by the existence of ludicrously illogical systems of voting?
The Brexit result was apparently a punishment vote
Apparently according to whom, and punishment of whom?
.........all very dark, cynical with a tang of cruelty.....a bit like your posts.
Thank you. I try ;)
-
Actually, forget the blankie, he seems to say that the great unwashed are savages who need religion to keep them from committing mass slaughter.
As said no doubt by sundry French persons c. 1789.
-
Isn't that - like Trump's victory - explicable by the existence of ludicrously illogical systems of voting?
Trump I don't know .Britains love for the anti welfare self interest party is undeniable.
-
Support for the anti welfare self interest party.
The Brexit result was apparently a punishment vote.........all very dark, cynical with a tang of cruelty.....a bit like your posts.
The Brexit vote and Trump's victory both come out of fear. Thinking that God will get us out of the shit is the worst kind of fantasy - Christianity was far stronger in the thirties and then we saw religious genocide, the slaughter of millions in combat and in civilian life and the deployment of weapons that could destroy us all. Forgive me if I don't look to religion to fix things this time.
-
Trump I don't know .Britains love for the anti welfare self interest party is undeniable.
Right. And Christians don't vote Tory?
-
Obviously one hates to interrupt random word generation with some numbers
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-2015-general-election-religious-affiliation-and-party-vote-share-across-constituencies/#.WHtSnXrLdoM
-
Trump I don't know .Britains love for the anti welfare self interest party is undeniable.
Oh yes - that's right. A country that always (ok nearly always) returns a majority government on a MINORITY share of the vote.
Your arguments are all over the fucking place.
-
Right. And Christians don't vote Tory?
That doesn't account for the overwhelming love for the party of anti welfare and self interest. How can it in a largely and increasingly secular society.
14 points ahead in the polls.
-
The Brexit vote and Trump's victory both come out of fear. Thinking that God will get us out of the shit is the worst kind of fantasy - Christianity was far stronger in the thirties and then we saw religious genocide, the slaughter of millions in combat and in civilian life and the deployment of weapons that could destroy us all. Forgive me if I don't look to religion to fix things this time.
In my view secular humanism is well meaning but it is overly sentimental and too focus send on being anti heavenly to be any earthly good. On the other hand Dawkins either deliberately or inadvertently provide part of the intellectual basis for Thatcherism.
Paganism to me seems to be just middle class dressing up at the weekend like nominal Christianity and both, like humanism seem to have no real agenda for social responsibility.
-
In my view secular humanism is well meaning but it is overly sentimental and too focus send on being anti heavenly to be any earthly good. On the other hand Dawkins either deliberately or inadvertently provide part of the intellectual basis for Thatcherism.
Paganism to me seems to be just middle class dressing up at the weekend like nominal Christianity and both, like humanism seem to have no real agenda for social responsibility.
You don't need EVIDENCE for anything you say or believe do you ?
-
Paganism to me seems to be just middle class dressing up at the weekend like nominal Christianity and both, like humanism seem to have no real agenda for social responsibility.
Perhaps it seems that way to you because you don't know much about it?
-
Perhaps it seems that way to you because you don't know much about it?
They themselves would say they don't advertise what they believe in. It's all secret rites though isn't it and one has to be specially predisposed.
The pagans I know claim special powers that us muggles don't or can't possess....that is natural abilities rather than gifts
I remember a pagan laddy on this board saying he would answer my questions.....but on another board. He never did.
-
They themselves would say they don't advertise what they believe in. It's all secret rites though isn't it
Secret enough to be in umpteen books and all over the Webernet, sure ::)
and one has to be specially predisposed.
What does that even mean? That you pursue something you're interested in? Not exactly stop-the-presses stuff, is it?
The pagans I know claim special powers that us muggles don't or can't possess....that is natural abilities rather than gifts
Right ... and?
-
You don't need EVIDENCE for anything you say or believe do you ?
It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.
-
It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.
That sounds a lot like the way the (assumed) Christian message of love, peace and mercy has been used to enslave, oppress, persecute, torture and kill for two thousand years. Whose fault is that, I wonder?
-
Secret enough to be in umpteen books and all over the Webernet, sure ::)What does that even mean? That you pursue something you're interested in? Not exactly stop-the-presses stuff, is it?
Right ... and?
Shakari ..........There are as many paganism so as there are pagans. Modern Paganism is a trolley being filled from the shelves of today's spiritual super market.
Therefore the usually accusations which atheists love to throw at Christians are going unthrown when it comes to paganism.
In fact even atheism it seems can be turned into paganism although, as I have told Owlswing.....if there are no Christians available atheist 'fellow travellers" like are likely to make a meal of theists like him.
Mind
-
It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.
Dawkins is a scientist, he also writes books some of which are very popular. One in particular sold very well and raised much criticism .
I don't know what you mean by 'his universal Darwinian ideas' , please explain. and the rest is just bollocks .
-
Shakari ..........There are as many paganism so as there are pagans. Modern Paganism is a trolley being filled from the shelves of today's spiritual super market.
All religions pick up bits and pieces from other cultures and traditions as a boat's hull accretes barnacles. Problem?
Therefore the usually accusations which atheists love to throw at Christians are going unthrown when it comes to paganism.
Which ones are those, specifically?
In fact even atheism it seems can be turned into paganism
There are non-theist pagans for sure, if that's what you mean.
although, as I have told Owlswing.....if there are no Christians available atheist 'fellow travellers" like are likely to make a meal of theists like him.
No, sorry ... you've lapsed back into Vladese again.
-
Shakari ..........There are as many paganism so as there are pagans. Modern Paganism is a trolley being filled from the shelves of today's spiritual super market.
Therefore the usually accusations which atheists love to throw at Christians are going unthrown when it comes to paganism.
In fact even atheism it seems can be turned into paganism although, as I have told Owlswing.....if there are no Christians available atheist 'fellow travellers" like are likely to make a meal of theists like him.
Mind
But there is a crucial difference - it is not part of their religion to go out and convert people, or as far as I can see to try to persuade law makers that they should get some special recognition and priviledge based on their unevidenced beliefs.
Quite frankly, no matter how ridiculous a religion/belief is provided it is not harming the participants or other members of society I don't care.
-
That sounds a lot like the way the (assumed) Christian message of love, peace and mercy has been used to enslave, oppress, persecute, torture and kill for two thousand years. Whose fault is that, I wonder?
None of that in the gospels or scripture or even Jesus reported there in.
Dawkins on the other hand preaches a bleak, universal Darwinian harshness.
Karen Armstrong had it when commenting that Dawkins world was ok for people with absorbing employment and conditions like er, Dawkins.
-
None of that in the gospels or scripture or even Jesus reported there in.
Excellent. So you're agreeing, then, that a message can be misrepresented by others for their own ends in ways that the author of the message never intended. Capital - glad we got there so soon.
Even to say this much is to dignify your "case" with being true, i.e. that somehow a book on evolution formed the ideological footings of Thatcherism, which is some going for a man who once expressed mild support for the Lib Dems IIRC. Not a whisper of Friedmanian economics in this analysis, no - it's all down to devil in disguise Dicky again ::)
Dawkins on the other hand preaches a bleak, universal Darwinian harshness.
Nope. It might be your opinion that that's the case, but that doesn't make it fact. Dawkins is a scientist and predominantly writes about his specialities, namely ethology and evolutionary biology.
-
Dawkins is a scientist, he also writes books some of which are very popular. One in particular sold very well and raised much criticism .
I don't know what you mean by 'his universal Darwinian ideas' , please explain. and the rest is just bollocks .
He is also an antitheist.
Universal darwinianism is when you take tried and tested Darwinian principles which occur in biology and apply them where there is no such evidential basis or basis of application.
Dawkins has done this twice at least.....once in memetics and in his advocacy of Smolin's evolutionary cosmology. He also applies darwinianism in philosophy but we'll give him a bye on that.
-
He is also an antitheist.
Universal darwinianism is when you take tried and tested Darwinian principles which occur in biology and apply them where there is no such evidential basis or basis of application.
Dawkins has done this twice at least.....once in memetics and in his advocacy of Smolin's evolutionary cosmology. He also applies darwinianism in philosophy but we'll give him a bye on that.
Ive had enough of this shit , I'm off.
-
Universal darwinianism is when you take tried and tested Darwinian principles which occur in biology and apply them where there is no such evidential basis or basis of application.
Dawkins has done this twice at least.....once in memetics and in his advocacy of Smolin's evolutionary cosmology.
Shouldn't the target of your ire here be Lee Smolin, a physicist applying a biological principle to cosmology ("where there is no such evidential basis"), rather than Dawkins?
Or would that deflect too much attention away from your nemesis?
-
UK polls
Which ones?
Brexit result
In what way does the result of the Brexit poll show that people are more likely to act in a way that makes others worse off? What are you comparing it to? How do you tell the difference between somebody who voted Brexit for selfish reasons and those who voted for Brexit because they genuinely (misguidedly IMO) thought we'd be better off?
-
Which ones?In what way does the result of the Brexit poll show that people are more likely to act in a way that makes others worse off? What are you comparing it to? How do you tell the difference between somebody who voted Brexit for selfish reasons and those who voted for Brexit because they genuinely (misguidedly IMO) thought we'd be better off?
Nobody was able to make a case that we would be better off then let alone now. It was done apparently to teach people a lesson ......the metropolitan elites.......it was done in conjunction with the newspapers......and that is both well recorded and the consensus report.
-
Just to remind you, Vlad, that even in two pages there's rather a large backlog of questions you still haven't answered, the most fundamental of them being jeremy's in #6 - what are your sources that the "will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases" is true?
-
Nobody was able to make a case that we would be better off then let alone now. It was done apparently to teach people a lesson ......the metropolitan elites.......it was done in conjunction with the newspapers......and that is both well recorded and the consensus report.
Where's your evidence that everybody who voted Leave was doing it "to teach people a lesson"?
What historical data are you comparing the result to?
-
Where's your evidence that everybody who voted Leave was doing it "to teach people a lesson"?
What historical data are you comparing the result to?
Of course it was a huge piece of contrarianism.
-
Of course it was a huge piece of contrarianism.
Well that's me convinced ::)
-
Of course it was a huge piece of contrarianism.
There were two questions in the post. Before I believe your thesis I need you to answer both of them, not none of them.
-
There were two questions in the post. Before I believe your thesis I need you to answer both of them, not none of them.
You have to separate how Brexit won from why people voted for it.
The reasons why people voted for it mostly contain an element of spite for some group or other.
It was by turns anti European anti immigrant anti establishment anti metropolitan elite anti subsidised profession.
This is all well documented.
If there is an overwhelming alternative that people really thought it was good for everybody or a majority evidence has not come to light.
-
You have to separate how Brexit won
That's the easy bit - more people voted for it than didn't.
from why people voted for it.
The reasons why people voted for it mostly contain an element of spite for some group or other.
And it's at precisely this point that we're going to have to wheel out the 'e' word again.
-
That's the easy bit - more people voted for it than didn't.
And it's at precisely this point that we're going to have to wheel out the 'e' word again.
You mean
Eebyeckshakerstryingtopolishaturdagain ?
-
Personally I was thinking of the one that ends with '-vidence'.
-
Vlad,
Will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases.
That's an odd thing to say given the huge body of evidence to the contrary. Here for example is a link to a talk that illustrates well your deep ignorance about what's actually happening:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_ignorant_about_the_world
What you're actually doing by citing examples of occurrences you don't like is akin to asserting things to be worse by telling us that Tiddles has gone missing while ignoring a cure for cancer. What you should do is to address the net bad set against the net good, and to look for trends in both.
Incidentally, as you seem keen to conflate corroboration with cause, should we then take the decline in religiosity to be causal of these remarkable (and continuing) improvements in the most people's lived experience?
-
You have to separate how Brexit won from why people voted for it.
The reasons why people voted for it mostly contain an element of spite for some group or other.
Mostly? Can you quantify this please.
If there is an overwhelming alternative that people really thought it was good for everybody or a majority evidence has not come to light.
So all we have for Brexit is "mostly" the 52% voted out of spite (although no proper citations) and for historical data, which is needed to prove that it is getting worse, you still have provided nothing.
-
The more churches in an area, the more crime there will be.
-
Vlad,
That's an odd thing to say given the huge body of evidence to the contrary. Here for example is a link to a talk that illustrates well your deep ignorance about what's actually happening:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_ignorant_about_the_world
Any relation to Hans Knees and Bumpsidaisy?
Well read on the way the world is are they?
-
They themselves would say they don't advertise what they believe in. It's all secret rites though isn't it and one has to be specially predisposed.
The pagans I know claim special powers that us muggles don't or can't possess....that is natural abilities rather than gifts
Seriously?
-
Vlad,
Well read on the way the world is are they?
Yes - because they have facts to support them.
What's your excuse for ignoring them?
-
Vlad,
Yes - because they have facts to support them.
What's your excuse for ignoring them?
The way the world is.
-
The way the world is.
What facts do you think you have to support what you take to be "the way the world is"?
-
Vlad,
The way the world is.
What makes you think citing narrow individual stories you don't like tells you more about "the way the world is" than, you know, global statistics collated and published by reputable bodies like the UN looking at a wide range of indicators of wellbeing drawn from global sources?
-
What facts do you think you have to support what you take to be "the way the world is"?
Syria, refugee crises, state of the environment, extinction rate, state of Europe, superpowers.
-
See bluey's post above yours for an efficient refutation of what is anyway a random string of words. (I mean, "superpowers"?).
-
See bluey's post above yours for an efficient refutation of what is anyway a random string of words. (I mean, "superpowers"?).
Oh yes.....Hillside said the word fact before Vlad did so he wins of course.
-
Vlad,
Syria, refugee crises, state of the environment, extinction rate, state of Europe, superpowers.
School attendance, disease reduction or elimination, life expectancy, female emancipation, growth in democratic countries, equality legislation...
Do the maths!
-
Vlad,
Oh yes.....Hillside said the word fact before Vlad did so he wins of course.
Er no - "Bluey" has pointed you to a source of facts that you've just ignored, which is not the same thing at all.
Tiddles going missing is a fact. So is the elimination of smallpox. Your mistake is to look only at the former and to extrapolate from it a supposed global truth.
-
Vlad,
School attendance, disease reduction or elimination, life expectancy, female emancipation, growth in democratic countries, equality legislation...
Your list is full of the frighteningly easily overturned as can be seen in this country and others I'm afraid.
-
Your list is full of the frighteningly easily overturned as can be seen in this country and others I'm afraid.
Where have or are these things been or are being overturned, here or elsewhere?
-
Vlad,
Your list is full of the frighteningly easily overturned as can be seen in this country and others I'm afraid.
You may think that (though I'm not sure how you think, say, the elimination of smallpox could be "overturned") but your assertion was that overall the world is a worse place, not that it could be. The evidence you just ignore though falsifies your claim.
A newspaper will report an old lady being mugged, but it won't report a thousand old ladies having their shopping paid for by kindly neighbours. Your mistake is to read the paper and to think that it's in some way indicative of the way the world is. If you really wanted to make an argument first have a look at the video, then try to tell us why the statistics are wrong.
-
It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.
Our great leader R D on high, has declared the opposit view to this one you seem so keen to plant on him, several times to my knowledge, you can find it somewhere on YouTube, something about he wouldn't want to live in a Thatchorite system or world, he couldn't think of anything worse.
I learned of this at Sunday Dorkinsism classes, just after Dorkins in the sky worship time.
We're, secular humanists that is and we are thinking of setting up classes about Dorkinsism for very young children, any that are seven years old or younger, only we've found it's a realy effective way of gaining vunerable, gullible new recruits, to spread the word about thinking for themselves and how to not believe in any ideas that haven't got a schred of evidence to back them up; have you got any youngsters you'd like to send along Vlad?
ippy
-
Our great leader R D on high, has declared the opposit view to this one you seem so keen to plant on him, several times to my knowledge, you can find it somewhere on YouTube, something about he wouldn't want to live in a Thatchorite system or world, he couldn't think of anything worse.
I learned of this at Sunday Dorkinsism classes, just after Dorkins in the sky worship time.
We're, secular humanists that is and we are thinking of setting up classes about Dorkinsism for very young children, any that are seven years old or younger, only we've found it's a realy effective way of gaining vunerable, gullible new recruits, to spread the word about thinking for themselves and how to not believe in any ideas that haven't got a schred of evidence to back them up; have you got any youngsters you'd like to send along Vlad?
ippy
Ippy.........you're Torkin Dorkin.
-
Your list is full of the frighteningly easily overturned as can be seen in this country and others I'm afraid.
Vlad
You seem to have morphed seamlessly from your recent flirtation with energy ('actual' vs 'derived', iirc) to full blown conspiracy theory: mind you, I'm sure you'll settle into this new groove nicely enough (until the next one comes along that is).
-
Vlad
You seem to have morphed seamlessly from your recent flirtation with energy ('actual' vs 'derived', iirc) to full blown conspiracy theory: mind you, I'm sure you'll settle into this new groove nicely enough (until the next one comes along that is).
I make no apology for the observation that the ability and potential for anything you observe is derived and that derived power without actual power is illogical.
-
Vlad,
I make no apology for the observation that the ability and potential for anything you observe is derived and that derived power without actual power is illogical.
Then you should - it's just a crude re-stating of the "nothing comes from nothing" daftness followed by some special pleading and the insertion of whichever god happens to appeal.
Incidentally, do you see now why relying on newspaper stories is pretty much the worst way reliably to grasp "the way the world is"?
-
Vlad,
Then you should - it's just a crude re-stating of the "nothing comes from nothing" daftness followed by some special pleading and the insertion of whichever god happens to appeal.
Incidentally, do you see now why relying on newspaper stories is pretty much the worst way reliably to grasp "the way the world is"?
It's obvious you don't understand this at all.
The argument is bottom up. All change or potential we observe is derived.
Derived change is illogical without actual power.
Your brain is locked in a linear chain of causation which I acknowledge could be infinite. What we cannot have though is derived/potential/power/ability and change alone without actual power.
Did you watch Feser or do you wish to do a Dawkins not bother with the argument because you feel just asserting it must be rubbish is in fact your knock down?
That of course would be humbug from someone who constantly refer us to sundry pop and TV experts.
So we are not talking about something coming from something like a shape shifting mass of matter energy begetting new forms of itself.
The mass needs to move NOW.
Away from Feser and Aristotle there are numerous articles of how Dawkins gets the wrong end of the stick about this thing so it's not surprising his little wizards have the same flaw in their 'memes'.(unfortunately some pseudoscience always manages to creep through) There is also my contribution to the debating thread which no one has yet put up a refutation.
You tried but saying science will eventually go beyond the supernatural possible start of everything from nothing, or eternal matter or self potentialised and transferred energy is just faith.
You are of course free to refute...................Cue bluster.
All this of course is transcended IMHO by the issue of why something and not nothing.
-
Vlad,
It's obvious you don't understand this at all.
The argument is bottom up. All change or potential we observe is derived.
Derived change is illogical without actual power.
Your brain is locked in a linear chain of causation which I acknowledge could be infinite. What we cannot have though is derived/potential/power/ability and change alone without actual power.
Did you watch Feser or do you wish to do a Dawkins not bother with the argument because you feel just asserting it must be rubbish is in fact your knock down?
That of course would be humbug from someone who constantly refer us to sundry pop and TV experts.
So we are not talking about something coming from something like a shape shifting mass of matter energy begetting new forms of itself.
The mass needs to move NOW.
Away from Feser and Aristotle there are numerous articles of how Dawkins gets the wrong end of the stick about this thing so it's not surprising his little wizards have the same flaw in their 'memes'.(unfortunately some pseudoscience always manages to creep through) There is also my contribution to the debating thread which no one has yet put up a refutation.
You tried but saying science will eventually go beyond the supernatural possible start of everything from nothing, or eternal matter or self potentialised and transferred energy is just faith.
You are of course free to refute...................Cue bluster.
All this of course is transcended IMHO by the issue of why something and not nothing
Oh dear. You’re still just trying to gussy up “nothing comes from nothing” and relying on an argument from personal incredulity by just popping “God” into the space you think you've created.
If you seriously wanted to try an argument, you might want to start with telling us what you even think you mean by “derived change” and “actual power”.
Oh, and yes I did look at Feser – right up to the point his efforts collapsed in fact. He’s also an exceptionally dull speaker by the way – you owe me!
-
Vlad,
Oh dear. You’re still just trying to gussy up “nothing comes from nothing” and relying on an argument from personal incredulity by just popping “God” into the space you think you've created.
If you seriously wanted to try an argument, you might want to start with telling us what you even think you mean by “derived change” and “actual power”.
Oh, and yes I did look at Feser – right up to the point his efforts collapsed in fact. He’s also an exceptionally dull speaker by the way – you owe me!
This is not a Kalam cosmological argument Hillside since it works just as well in an infinite universe with infinite chain of cause and effect.
This is a bottom up idea fro the observation of derived power. Logically you cannot derived power etc without actual power.
In terms of what these are see Feser. But basically we don't observe things changing themselves or their own status.
That is always derived from something else.
The only refuge for a derived change only-ist is to impute intrinsic actual power/ability to things. The trouble is.....that still gives us a mysterious actual power which goes unobserved.
If you can get the meaning of the terms actual, derived and ability you should get the hang of it.
If you think Feser collapsed you'll have no trouble telling us where and how.....................Cue the Hillside and his naturalistic jugband.....The Beverly Hillblusterers.
-
Vlad,
This is not a Kalam cosmological argument Hillside since it works just as well in an infinite universe with infinite chain of cause and effect.
This is a bottom up idea fro the observation of derived power. Logically you cannot derived power etc without actual power.
In terms of what these are see Feser. But basically we don't observe things changing themselves or their own status.
That is always derived from something else.
The only refuge for a derived change only-ist is to impute intrinsic actual power/ability to things. The trouble is.....that still gives us a mysterious actual power which goes unobserved.
If you can get the meaning of the terms actual, derived and ability you should get the hang of it.
If you think Feser collapsed you'll have no trouble telling us where and how.....................Cue the Hillside and his naturalistic jugband.....The Beverly Hillblusterers.
Nope. If you want to introduce terms that have no definitions in science (“derived power” etc) then it’s for you to tell us what you mean by them. If you think Feser has done that, then you can’t just tell us to read or listen to him and then come back with what we think he’s said: you introduced the terms, you tell us what you mean by them.
Oh, and if you want to posit a universe with an infinite chain of cause and effect haven’t you just removed a gap in which your god can hide?
-
Vlad,
Nope. If you want to introduce terms that have no definitions in science (“derived power” etc) then it’s for you to tell us what you mean by them. If you think Feser has done that, then you can’t just tell us to read or listen to him and then come back with what we think he’s said: you introduced the terms, you tell us what you mean by them.
Oh, and if you want to posit a universe with an infinite chain of cause and effect haven’t you just removed a gap in which your god can hide?
Again Hillside. This is not the Kalam cosmological argument.
For some reason you aren't getting the hierarchical nature of ability where a chain of derived abilities has to end with an actual ability and that this can be true with a chain infinite chain of causation.
Motion, energy transfers etc are all observed as derived but logically there has to be actual ability or power....what Aristotle/Aquinas referred to as the prime mover.
As for making science the final arbiter in this....that just confirms your scientism. Science only FINDS energy and in doing so finds derived ability unless you are arguing for an unseen intrinsic power from which the observed ''derived'' depends but that of course takes an atheist onto dodgy territory.
-
Vlad,
Again Hillside. This is not the Kalam cosmological argument.
Again Vlad, yes it is – only you don’t realise it.
For some reason you aren't getting the hierarchical nature of ability where a chain of derived abilities has to end with an actual ability and that this can be true with a chain infinite chain of causation.
Leaving aside the internal contradiction in that statement (either it ends somewhere or it’s eternal – you can’t have both) if you want to introduce different terms like “ability” then you’ll need to define them. So far at least, I see no difference between that and cause.
Motion, energy transfers etc are all observed as derived but logically there has to be actual ability or power....what Aristotle/Aquinas referred to as the prime mover.
And there we have it – “prime mover” is the cosmological argument, so it’s goodnight Vienna time.
As for making science the final arbiter in this....that just confirms your scientism. Science only FINDS energy and in doing so finds derived ability unless you are arguing for an unseen intrinsic power from which the observed ''derived'' depends but that of course takes an atheist onto dodgy territory.
And he rounds off with that old Vlad stand-by, a straw man. Good effort.
No-one said that that science is the “final arbiter” at all. I merely said that the terms you’re attempting aren’t defined in science, so you’ll need to come up with definitions of your own. No more than that, and no less.
Unless you finally at least attempt to tell us what you think you mean by them all you have is white noise.
Again.
-
Vlad,
Again Vlad, yes it is – only you don’t realise it.
Leaving aside the internal contradiction in that statement (either it ends somewhere or it’s eternal – you can’t have both) if you want to introduce different terms like “ability” then you’ll need to define them. So far at least, I see no difference between that and cause.
And there we have it – “prime mover” is the cosmological argument, so it’s goodnight Vienna time.
Well you have had your opportunity to show how it's goodnight anything and you have not taken it.
Feel free to do so at anytime.
There is of course, more than one cosmological argument but New Atheist theology hasn't either the brains or the balls to recognise that. It's too busy whacking itself off over ''besting'' Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmological argument.
Let's face it any argument for why or how the universe is..... is a cosmological argument.
It looks like the New Atheists need all cosmological arguments to be the Kalam cosmological argument....just like they need all Christians to believe that the world was literally created in six days.
Finally I think we've all spotted that you keep requesting definition of terms in an argument you simultaneously claim to have demolished. That's a huge portion of ROFL with a side order of LOL.
Moderator: content removed.
-
Moderator:
Some graffiti has been removed from the playground walls: any repetition may result in access to the playground being denied for a while.
-
Vlad,
Well you have had your opportunity to show how it's goodnight anything and you have not taken it.
Feel free to do so at anytime.
Did you know that leprechauns exist? I know this because the indecompendent flippertiwillis clearly provide evidence of hocstensional cultural artefacts.
So now’s your opportunity to show me to be wrong about that.
(Fun this innit – just using terms like "derived ability" that superficially sound meaningful but not bothering to define them?)
There is of course, more than one cosmological argument but New Atheist theology hasn't either the brains or the balls to recognise that. It's too busy whacking itself off over ''besting'' Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmological argument.
Let's face it any argument for why or how the universe is..... is a cosmological argument.
Wrong again. Essentially they’re all riffs on the same argument – “I can’t imagine how the universe came to be, therefore god”. It’s just poor reasoning, but there it is nonetheless.
It looks like the New Atheists need all cosmological arguments to be the Kalam cosmological argument....just like they need all Christians to believe that the world was literally created in six days.
“They” need no such thing. If arguments for “God” are false, then they’re false. That you get some extra stripes of wrong with some Christians is a secondary issue.
Finally I think we've all spotted that you keep requesting definition of terms in an argument you simultaneously claim to have demolished. That's a huge portion of ROFL with a side order of LOL.
Er, no. Any argument that uses white noise in place of meaningful terms is self-refuting. The demolition need do no more that notice that – you're squarely in not even wrong territory. Now for all I know you may actually think the terms you attempt do have meanings, but as you seem to want to keep whatever those meanings are a secret I guess we’ll never know.
PS I notice too by the way that you’ve just ignored your mistake of combing “infinite” with “must have had a prime mover”. Should we take your silence as your hands-in-your-pockets-while-whistling-tunelessly embarrassment at the howler?
PPS I also notice that you've just ignored being caught out in your most recent straw man re misunderstanding "scientism". Should I expect your apology for it any time soon?
-
Vlad,
Did you know that leprechauns exist? I know this because the indecompendent flippertiwillis clearly provide evidence of hocstensional cultural artefacts.
So now’s your opportunity to show me to be wrong about that.
(Fun this innit – just using terms like "derived ability" that superficially sound meaningful but not bothering to define them?)
Wrong again. Essentially they’re all riffs on the same argument – “I can’t imagine how the universe came to be, therefore god”. It’s just poor reasoning, but there it is nonetheless.
“They” need no such thing. If arguments for “God” are false, then they’re false. That you get some extra stripes of wrong with some Christians is a secondary issue.
Er, no. Any argument that uses white noise in place of meaningful terms is self-refuting. The demolition need do no more that notice that – you're squarely in not even wrong territory. Now for all I know you may actually think the terms you attempt do have meanings, but as you seem to want to keep whatever those meanings are a secret I guess we’ll never know.
PS I notice too by the way that you’ve just ignored your mistake of combing “infinite” with “must have had a prime mover”. Should we take your silence as your hands-in-your-pockets-while-whistling-tunelessly embarrassment at the howler?
PPS I also notice that you've just ignored being caught out in your most recent straw man re misunderstanding "scientism". Should I expect your apology for it any time soon?
Derived ability? It's pretty straight forward.
You are only able to do things because of something else is occurring and that is only happening because something else is occurring.
That is the hierarchical chain and it all looks derived but you cannot have derived ability or power without actual ability
Kalam, Dawkins, Krauss, lane Craig et all are talking about the sequential linear chain of causation which could as laid out by antikalamists...... be infinite. The hierarchical chain is independent of that.
I'd love to hear your alternative cosmology but I fear you are just another Just Is-icist.
Check Feser out.
-
Vlad #88
I've listened once, but I don't think I'll try and listen to it again!!
-
Vlad,
Derived ability? It's pretty straight forward.
You are only able to do things because of something else is occurring and that is only happening because something else is occurring.
So all you actually mean is that the universe appears to consist of unfathomably long chains of cause and effect. There’s no “ability” in that though, derived or otherwise – it’s just a commonplace observation, albeit one now superseded in part by our understanding of quantum fluctuation.
That is the hierarchical chain and it all looks derived but you cannot have derived ability or power without actual ability…
Sadly, “ability” here is meaningless – I have no idea what you’re trying to say by using it, and nor it seems have you. Just stick with cause and effect and you’ll be on safer ground.
…Kalam, Dawkins, Krauss, lane Craig et all are talking about the sequential linear chain of causation which could as laid out by antikalamists...... be infinite. The hierarchical chain is independent of that.
No it isn’t, not least because you’ve yet to explain both what you mean by it and – if you do manage that – why you think it exists at all independent of cause and effect. Sadly, that’s what you end up with though if you rely for your physics on the understanding of an ancient Greek philosopher.
I'd love to hear your alternative cosmology but I fear you are just another Just Is-icist.
There’s no need for an alternative as you’ve yet to demonstrate that there’s anything for it to be an alternative from.
Check Feser out.
Why? Putting lipstick on the pig of the cosmological argument doesn’t stop it from being a pig notwithstanding.
-
Vlad,
So all you actually mean is that the universe appears to consist of unfathomably long chains of cause and effect. There’s no “ability” in that though, derived or otherwise – it’s just a commonplace observation, albeit one now superseded in part by our understanding of quantum fluctuation.
Sadly, “ability” here is meaningless – I have no idea what you’re trying to say by using it, and nor it seems have you. Just stick with cause and effect and you’ll be on safer ground.
No it isn’t, not least because you’ve yet to explain both what you mean by it and – if you do manage that – why you think it exists at all independent of cause and effect. Sadly, that’s what you end up with though if you rely for your physics on the understanding of an ancient Greek philosopher.
There’s no need for an alternative as you’ve yet to demonstrate that there’s anything for it to be an alternative from.
Why? Putting lipstick on the pig of the cosmological argument doesn’t stop it from being a pig notwithstanding.
Mere sloganeering here and short circuiting to bring us round to a shamanic use of the words physics and quantum fluctuation which after all is just another example of change and therefore an example of derived ability.
In fact physics at present points us away from a universe which didn't have a start.
Aristotle reminds us that the observation of derived ability is a bottom up argument.
The Feser argument is good for all arguments. A universe with a start. A universe popping out of physical zilch, a universe popping out of a 'Krauss nothing' (i.e. a something), and also an infinite universe where 'dominos' have fallen infinitely because of, well, take your pick.
-
Vlad,
Mere sloganeering here and short circuiting to bring us round to a shamanic use of the words physics and quantum fluctuation which after all is just another example of change and therefore an example of derived ability.
Actually all I asked you to do was to define the terms you were attempting. There’s nothing “sloganeering” or “shamanic” about that – if you’re unwilling or unable to do so, we can treat your “argument” accordingly.
In fact physics at present points us away from a universe which didn't have a start.
Whether that’s true or not, if you take “universe without a start” as your premise what need have you for a god to start it?
Aristotle reminds us that the observation of derived ability is a bottom up argument.
Aristotle might “remind us” of all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make him any more right about that than he was about thinking that eels don’t reproduce. He knew nothing of modern physics.
The Feser argument is good for all arguments. A universe with a start. A universe popping out of physical zilch, a universe popping out of a 'Krauss nothing' (i.e. a something), and also an infinite universe where 'dominos' have fallen infinitely because of, well, take your pick
The Feser “argument” is just the failed cosmological argument in drag. You can invent “derived ability” and such like to your heart’s content if you like, but it all leads to the same broken reasoning – nothing comes from nothing, therefore god.
-
Vlad,
Actually all I asked you to do was to define the terms you were attempting. There’s nothing “sloganeering” or “shamanic” about that – if you’re unwilling or unable to do so, we can treat your “argument” accordingly.
Whether that’s true or not, if you take “universe without a start” as your premise what need have you for a god to start it?
Aristotle might “remind us” of all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make him any more right about that than he was about thinking that eels don’t reproduce. He knew nothing of modern physics.
The Feser “argument” is just the failed cosmological argument in drag. You can invent “derived ability” and such like to your heart’s content if you like, but it all leads to the same broken reasoning – nothing comes from nothing, therefore god.
You have been asked to demonstrate where the argument fails.Please feel free to take up the challenge.
Also we need from you your cosmological position.
You did provide some kind of view of time at the end of December and were quite dogmatic about it.
I seem to remember you arguing against an infinite universe by raising Big Bang.
The Feser argument is good for a popping out of nothing since that represents a change and condemns the nothing of which you speak to be necessarily a something.
Also, which nothing are you arguing? A Krauss or physicists nothing, a John Cornwell nothing or a physical Zilch?
-
Vlad,
You have been asked to demonstrate where the argument fails.Please feel free to take up the challenge.
You have been asked to tell us what you think the argument to be. Please take up the challenge.
Notwithstanding there being no way of guessing even what you think you mean by “derived ability” etc, it fails because it’s just a re-stating of the cosmological argument using different (but undefined) terms.
Also we need from you your cosmological position.
Who’s “we”, and the cosmological argument has been smashed out of the park countless times here.
You did provide some kind of view of time at the end of December and were quite dogmatic about it.
I seem to remember you arguing against an infinite universe by raising Big Bang.
Then you misremember. “Big Bang” is currently though to be a recombination event rather than the beginning of everything.
The Feser argument is good for a popping out of nothing since that represents a change and condemns the nothing of which you speak to be necessarily a something.
Why are you sticking with this gibberish? No-one says that something “pops out of nothing” so your straw man effort falls at the first hurdle. There are competing hypotheses in play, but one such (quantum borrowing) suggests at least one alternative. You need to think a bit too about why you’re just assuming time to be linear – and what would a “before time” even mean?
Also, which nothing are you arguing? A Krauss or physicists nothing, a John Cornwell nothing or a physical Zilch?
Red herring noted. Your mistake is the straw man of “something popping out of nothing” – which isn’t an argument anyone makes (actually if you wanted to continue with the cod science, you'd be better suggesting something popping into nothing). If you want to populate your straw man with terms like “nothing” though, by all means tell us what you mean by them if you want to.
Perhaps you could do that right after you finally tell us what you mean by “derived ability” etc?
-
Vlad,
You have been asked to tell us what you think the argument to be. Please take up the challenge.
Notwithstanding there being no way of guessing even what you think you mean by “derived ability” etc, it fails because it’s just a re-stating of the cosmological argument using different (but undefined) terms.
Who’s “we”, and the cosmological argument has been smashed out of the park countless times here.
Then you misremember. “Big Bang” is currently though to be a recombination event rather than the beginning of everything.
Why are you sticking with this gibberish? No-one says that something “pops out of nothing” so your straw man effort falls at the first hurdle. There are competing hypotheses in play, but one such (quantum borrowing) suggests at least one alternative. You need to think a bit too about why you’re just assuming time to be linear – and what would a “before time” even mean?
Red herring noted. Your mistake is the straw man of “something popping out of nothing” – which isn’t an argument anyone makes (actually if you wanted to continue with the cod science, you'd be better suggesting something popping into nothing). If you want to populate your straw man with terms like “nothing” though, by all means tell us what you mean by them if you want to.
Perhaps you could do that right after you finally tell us what you mean by “derived ability” etc?
You keep talking about things I am not asserting.
There are many alternative cosmologies, cosmogenies, and cosmologies without cosmogeny. You clutch at a few but in the absence of you allowing your position to be known let us assume that your position to be an eternal universe then the Feser argument and those it is based on were formulated at a time when the universe was thought eternal.
You proceed from the assumption that I am making the Kalam argument. I am not you have been told that. You have also had the meaning of derived ability explained.
Since I derive no benefit repeating myself again or encouraging the behaviour you demonstrate or provide entertainment for any sadistic looker on...mentioning no names...........I think we are done.
-
Well, that's something we can all derive satisfaction from, I'm sure.
-
Well Shaker......unlike your normal source of satisfaction this is easier on your eyesight.
-
Oh, I wouldn't go that far.
-
Vlad,
You keep talking about things I am not asserting.
Leaving aside the deep irony of you of all people complaining about the use of straw men, to the contrary all I’ve done is to respond to exactly what you have said. If you don’t want to respond though, that’s your choice.
There are many alternative cosmologies, cosmogenies, and cosmologies without cosmogeny. You clutch at a few but in the absence of you allowing your position to be known let us assume that your position to be an eternal universe then the Feser argument and those it is based on were formulated at a time when the universe was thought eternal.
And there’s another of your straw men – I don’t ”clutch” at anything. As you know full well, I merely pointed out that there are various hypotheses. Nonetheless, if you want to go with the premise that the universe is eternally old then on what possible basis do you (or Feser for that matter) think that a god was necessary to start it? Can you really not see that "eternal" and "started" are mutually contradictory?
You’ve ducked and dived from this a couple of times now, and no doubt will do so again. Why?
You proceed from the assumption that I am making the Kalam argument. I am not you have been told that.
You can “tell” me whatever you wish, but it doesn’t alter the fact. Throw in “derived abilities” and the rest all you like but you still end up in the same place: “something started it, therefore god”.
You have also had the meaning of derived ability explained.
No I haven’t – your attempt was incoherent. Try again using a logic that isn’t hopeless.
Since I derive no benefit repeating myself again or encouraging the behaviour you demonstrate or provide entertainment for any sadistic looker on...mentioning no names...........I think we are done.
And having yet again avoided every challenge and question, brave Sir Galahad disappeared over the hill once more.
Oh well. If ever you do feel like unravelling the contradiction you’ve given yourself of a universe that’s at once eternal and that was started though, by all means give it a go.
-
There is an entire eternal universe hillside. But what is it which makes it change?
Hence the observed category of derived ability/power/potential but more importantly no mention of a beginning.
You therefore misrepresent my argument ....and that is why we are done.
-
Vlad,
There is an entire eternal universe hillside. But what is it which makes it change?
On your premise of an eternal universe, the forces that have eternally been there. That's what "universe" means – it's not just material stuff, it's forces too.
Hence the observed category of derived ability/power/potential but more importantly no mention of a beginning.
But that's plain stupid. If by "ability/power/potential" you actually mean "forces" (you'll have to forgive me for guessing here as you're unable to tell us what you think mean by these terms) then in an eternal universe they/it didn't begin either. Why then contradict yourself by positing a god to have begun them?
You therefore misrepresent my argument ....and that is why we are done.
Nope - I represent correctly the corner into which you've actually painted yourself. That you can't or won't see it though is another matter.
-
Vlad,
On your premise of an eternal universe, the forces that have eternally been there. That's what "universe" means – it's not just material stuff, it's forces too.
But that's plain stupid. If by "ability/power/potential" you actually mean "forces" (you'll have to forgive me for guessing here as you're unable to tell us what you think mean by these terms) then in an eternal universe they/it didn't begin either. Why then contradict yourself by positing a god to have begun them?
Nope - I represent correctly the corner into which you've actually painted yourself. That you can't or won't see it though is another matter.
Telegram for mr Hillside
Congratulations on your invention of the perpetual motion machine.stop.
Who'd have thought it was special pleading that kept it going?
That aside I see you edging towards the notion of an actual power from which other things are derived.
The trouble now is to demonstrate it rather than its effects and prior to that that we are not just talking at any moment about a force which isn't derived
I think you are moving towards Fesers notion that actual power must be immaterial in the standard sense of matter energy.
Welcome to the club.
-
Posting to say that I read with interest and admire any posts which attempt to make sense of Vlad's recent (and, of course, many previous) efforts!
-
Vlad,
Telegram for mr Hillside
Congratulations on your invention of the perpetual motion machine.stop.
Who'd have thought it was special pleading that kept it going?
It’s your “invention”, not mine – you’re the one who’s posited a universe that’s “eternal” remember?
Me, I'm fairly agnostic about that. I'm not sure the question even has meaning to be frank - time is essentially entropy, and without something to be entropic I can't see how there can be time. Either way though, at some point you're going to have to get off the fence: eternal universe = no beginning, therefore no need for a god to start it; not eternal universe = the "everything has a cause, therefore god" cosmological argument daftness. Which do you plump for, or do you intend to keep ducking and diving about this?
That aside…
Priceless!
… I see you edging towards the notion of an actual power from which other things are derived.
I see you’re edging towards unicorns being real.
Where exactly do you think I did that? (Clue: I’ve done no such thing of course.)
The trouble now is to demonstrate it rather than its effects and prior to that that we are not just talking at any moment about a force which isn't derived
No, your problem now is finally to demonstrate that there’s a hint of an iota of a scintilla of a reason even to think that there is “an actual power from which other things are derived”.
I think you are moving towards Fesers notion that actual power must be immaterial in the standard sense of matter energy.
As I’ve said only pretty much the opposite of that I’m not sure why you persist in the lie, but that’s your business I guess.
Welcome to the club.
Dream on. This “derived ability” nonsense you’re attempting by way – I just ate an apple. Does that mean that the apple had a derived ability to be eaten or something? It’s a weird folkloric model of reality you’re attempting here – essentially you seem to be projecting onto stuff qualities on the basis of the way other stuff can interact with them. I can just about see why the ancient Greeks liked it (they were keen on al sorts of whacky stuff) but I can’t think why someone around now would give it house room.
Ah well - there's nowt so queer as folk I guess.
-
Hi Susan,
Posting to say that I read with interest and admire any posts which attempt to make sense of Vlad's recent (and, of course, many previous) efforts!
He does seem to be getting awful confused doesn't he. On the one hand he wants to posit a universe eternally old (in which case there'd be nothing to "begin" and so no need for a causal god), and on the other if he wants to posit a universe that did begin he's back to the broken cosmological argument, however much he insists otherwise. I have little hope that he'll ever make his mind up, but you never know - he may surprise us both by finally trying to answer something!
-
Hillside. You have no handle on what I am proposing at all!
In fact I can but propose, like anyone else the range of cosmogeny and cosmology.
Let's eliminate though a universe with a beginning and set aside the question of why there is anything anyway.
That leaves us in the classic "universe just is position".
We are then asked by you to accept that it goes by itself.
That still leaves what that is driving the perpetual motion.
All your arguments propose an internal actual ability to move itself.
You have abandoned science then and perhaps logic in a mighty act of special pleading.
There are of course other violations of science and logic here in your scheme.
Of course a continual movement suggests continual movement or operation but you have failed to spot the logic and failed to see that you are suggesting it with your talk of forces.
Observed ability or change is derived but logically you cannot only have derived ability without actual ability.
In short we can imagine an endless chain of railway trucks but still have the burden of explaining how they are moving.
Good luck with demonstrating how an infinite chain of railway wagons move themselves or to put it another way, how the motion is derived from the infinity rather than energy.
I would give up using half of Occam's razor in arguments here.
So science doesn't help you out and as far as I can see it Quantum theory doesn't help you since the implication of particles popping in and out of existence merely helps theories of actual power and creator and sustainer theologies.
-
Hi Susan,
He does seem to be getting awful confused doesn't he. On the one hand he wants to posit a universe eternally old (in which case there'd be nothing to "begin" and so no need for a causal god), and on the other if he wants to posit a universe that did begin he's back to the broken cosmological argument, however much he insists otherwise. I have little hope that he'll ever make his mind up, but you never know - he may surprise us both by finally trying to answer something!
I have said that there is a hierarchical chain. Whatever you are doing now depends on the present existence of something else (derived power) right down to what,at the bottom of it it is all dependent on(actual power). That is not an infinite causal chain since you cannot have derived power without
Actual power.
Also the hierarchical chain ends with you in this case.
It's obvious you either didn't watch Feser or you don't understand the argument.
The evidence is your clutching that in some mystical way, this is the Kalam argument. It ain't.
-
Posting to say that I read with interest and admire any posts which attempt to make sense of Vlad's recent (and, of course, many previous) efforts!
He sure sounds Purdee Miss Doris. I bet he uses expensive cologne and smells real good.
I value style in man too.
-
Vlad - how is actual power immaterial? How do you know this?
-
Vlad,
Hillside. You have no handle on what I am proposing at all!
That’s right. Sadly though, nor do you – presumably because it’s incoherent.
In fact I can but propose, like anyone else the range of cosmogeny and cosmology.
Let's eliminate though a universe with a beginning and set aside the question of why there is anything anyway.
That leaves us in the classic "universe just is position".
We are then asked by you to accept that it goes by itself.
No, we’re left with a “don’t know with any degree of confidence, but here are some hypotheses that look promising” but ok…
That still leaves what that is driving the perpetual motion.
Of course it doesn’t. What “drives” motion is the forces that act on materials – which themselves are part of the infinitely old universe you posit.
All your arguments propose an internal actual ability to move itself.
You have abandoned science then and perhaps logic in a mighty act of special pleading.
Why even bother lying about that? If you want to posit an infinitely old universe you can’t just split out the “stuff” bits from the forces bits and treat them differently. That really is special pleading.
There are of course other violations of science and logic here in your scheme.
You’ve yet to identify a first one, and there is no “scheme” – just various hypotheses.
Of course a continual movement suggests continual movement or operation but you have failed to spot the logic and failed to see that you are suggesting it with your talk of forces.
Take a deep breath, and try in comprehensible terms to describe what you think I’ve “forgotten’” exactly.
Observed ability or change is derived but logically you cannot only have derived ability without actual ability.
Presumably I’ll be wasting my breath if I ask you yet again what on earth you even think you mean by “ability”? Did my apple have the "ability" to be eaten? Why so coy?
Yup, thought so. It’s just white noise, however much you seem to be in thrall to it.
In short we can imagine an endless chain of railway trucks but still have the burden of explaining how they are moving.
They’re moving because of the forces acting on them. Why do you think it reasonable to posit on the one hand materials that are infinitely old, but on the other hand forces acting on them that are not?
Good luck with demonstrating how an infinite chain of railway wagons move themselves or to put it another way, how the motion is derived from the infinity rather than energy.
Good luck explaining away your special pleading for forces.
I would give up using half of Occam's razor in arguments here.
A principle you’ve never grasped – why poof into existence “god” when that requires more assumptions than no god?
So science doesn't help you out and as far as I can see it Quantum theory doesn't help you since the implication of particles popping in and out of existence merely helps theories of actual power and creator and sustainer theologies.
Oh dear. The quantum borrowing hypothesis merely suggests one way in which your “something popping out of nothing” is a straw man. Why is this so difficult for you?
I have said that there is a hierarchical chain. Whatever you are doing now depends on the present existence of something else (derived power) right down to what,at the bottom of it it is all dependent on(actual power). That is not an infinite causal chain since you cannot have derived power without Actual power.
Naturally you’ll be along any time now finally to tell us what you mean by “power” here then won’t you.
Won’t you?
Also the hierarchical chain ends with you in this case.
NURSE – COME QUICK, HE’S RANTING GIBBERISH AGAIN!
It's obvious you either didn't watch Feser or you don't understand the argument.
The evidence is your clutching that in some mystical way, this is the Kalam argument. It ain't.
Not as obvious as your complete and utter failure to grasp that it’s just Kalam re-stated.
Coda: Incidentally old son you seem to to be inventing a new theology all of your own. As I understand it, most who posit "God" assert that this god created everything. You on the other hand seem to be arguing for a god who happened one day across an infinitely old (but apparently force-less) universe, and thought: "You know what, all I have to do here is give it a jolt of the old power juice and Robert's yer Auntie's husband".
Well, it's novel - I'll give you that.
-
Wiggs,
Vlad - how is actual power immaterial? How do you know this?
Be nice too if he tried to explain what he even thinks "immaterial" consists of.
Mind you, I'm quite taken with his notion of god as a starter motor. Not a creator god at all, but rather a god with a big battery who injected some (apparently immaterial) "power" into the stuff that was already there. I could have done with some of that when I was defrosting the car this morning - maybe a prayer would have caused it to fire into life?
-
Vlad - how is actual power immaterial? How do you know this?
Because matter/energy is in a state of being changed and that is derived.
-
Wiggs,
Be nice too if he tried to explain what he even thinks "immaterial" consists of.
Mind you, I'm quite taken with his notion of god as a starter motor. Not a creator god at all, but rather a god with a big battery who injected some (apparently immaterial) "power" into the stuff that was already there. I could have done with some of that when I was defrosting the car this morning - maybe a prayer would have caused it to fire into life?
Origen believed in something similar and I believe there is a Souther Baptist theologian with similar views.
However, I think it's your view of energy which needs modifying because energy is not monolithic.
In other words energy only is.....if there is a change.
-
Vlad,
Because matter/energy is in a state of being changed and that is derived.
Which has nothing to do with the question. What makes you think it's "immaterial" exactly? Electrical power for example is moving electrons - is that no longer power according to your definition?
-
Vlad,
Origen believed in something similar and I believe there is a Souther Baptist theologian with similar views.
However, I think it's your view of energy which needs modifying because energy is not monolithic.
In other words energy only is.....if there is a change.
All very gnomic I'm sure, but nothing to do with the problem you've given yourself. Having apparently arbitrarily split the infinitely old material in the universe from the "not infinitely old therefore a god was needed to kick start it" forces in the universe, you still have the basic problem of the cosmological argument in drag: "forces can't come from nothing, therefore god".
Good luck with it though.
-
Vlad,
All very gnomic I'm sure, but nothing to do with the problem you've given yourself. Having apparently arbitrarily split the infinitely old material in the universe from the "not infinitely old therefore a god was needed to kick start it" forces in the universe, you still have the basic problem of the cosmological argument in drag: "forces can't come from nothing, therefore god".
Good luck with it though.
I have no problem since an Aristotelian argument is good for a universe with a start or one without a start.
What we are left with then is New Atheist bleating when theists suggest an infinite universe and when they suggest a universe with a start.
But at the moment a naturalist argument for an infinite universe is like Anselms ontological argument since it calls on our imaginations.
If you argue that this doesn't work for Anselm then such an argument fails for a naturalistic appeal for us to imagine an infinite universe.
Infinite or not there is always going to be the non infinite chain of actual power and a limited number of derived powers at any moment.
-
Vlad,
I have no problem since an Aristotelian argument is good for a universe with a start or one without a start.
Except of course your problem of asserting that “power”, “ability” or whatever other undefined terms you want to poof into existence did have a start - hence “God”.
What we are left with then is New Atheist bleating when theists suggest an infinite universe and when they suggest a universe with a start.
It’s got nothing to do with atheism, new or otherwise. Your broken logic is broken whether or not there are other reasons for thinking there to be god(s). You’re welcome to suggest either an infinite or a finite universe as you please. What you can’t do though is the special pleading of arbitrarily deciding that one part of it (matter) is infinite, whereas a different part of it (forces) is finite. Matter and forces each consist of sub-atomic particles – you have no argument of any kind to explain why for this purpose they should be treated differently.
But at the moment a naturalist argument for an infinite universe is like Anselms ontological argument since it calls on our imaginations.
Oh dear. GIBBERISH ALERT! GIBBERISH ALERT!
You can “call on imaginations” (or as the more sensible call it, conjecture or hypothesise) as much as you like but that has nothing to do with the arbitrary special pleading you’re attempting here.
If you argue that this doesn't work for Anselm then such an argument fails for a naturalistic appeal for us to imagine an infinite universe.
What on earth are you smoking these days? You can imagine whatever takes your fancy. If you want to go beyond imagining though then you need more – like reason and logic and, better yet, evidence.
Infinite or not there is always going to be the non infinite chain of actual power and a limited number of derived powers at any moment.
And again our Vlad flatly contradicts himself – if “the universe” is infinitely old then on what possible basis would you argue that the bits you call “power”, “ability” etc are not? What would this infinitely old but apparently powerless and ability-less universe that your god tripped over one day have looked like would you say?
Weird weird thinking indeed. Weird theology too by the way if you believe in a god of the omnis.
-
Vlad,
Except of course your problem of asserting that “power”, “ability” or whatever other undefined terms you want to poof into existence did have a start - hence “God”.
It’s got nothing to do with atheism, new or otherwise. Your broken logic is broken whether or not there are other reasons for thinking there to be god(s). You’re welcome to suggest either an infinite or a finite universe as you please. What you can’t do though is the special pleading of arbitrarily deciding that one part of it (matter) is infinite, whereas a different part of it (forces) is finite. Matter and forces each consist of sub-atomic particles – you have no argument of any kind to explain why for this purpose they should be treated differently.
Oh dear. GIBBERISH ALERT! GIBBERISH ALERT!
You can “call on imaginations” (or as the more sensible call it, conjecture or hypothesise) as much as you like but that has nothing to do with the arbitrary special pleading you’re attempting here.
What on earth are you smoking these days? You can imagine whatever takes your fancy. If you want to go beyond imagining though then you need more – like reason and logic and, better yet, evidence.
And again our Vlad flatly contradicts himself – if “the universe” is infinitely old then on what possible basis would you argue that the bits you call “power”, “ability” etc are not? What would this infinitely old but apparently powerless and ability-less universe that your god tripped over one day have looked like would you say?
Weird weird thinking indeed. Weird theology too by the way if you believe in a god of the omnis.
No you still aren't quite there.......indeed you seem to be against both a finite universe and an infinite universe.
What universe then is OK as far as you are concerned?
In any case the Feser argument is good for both an infinite universe sustained moment by moment as supported by quantum theory and derived power which you leave unaddressed.........or a Universe which appears out of nothing.....Physical zilch or a creation from an immaterial uncaused cause.
What is it about an infinite universe that you think is permanent?
-
Vlad,
. What you can’t do though is the special pleading of arbitrarily deciding that one part of it (matter) is infinite, whereas a different part of it (forces) is finite.
Never suggested this. This is you projecting your own confusion.
We observe change and status to be derived from the actual. If the universe is infinite they have always been derived from the actual.
See. No suggestion of any division of matter......No special pleading....just going along with an antitheists appeal to an infinite universe.
What though do you think is permanent in an infinite universe though since big bang seems to suggest that not even the laws of physics are immune from break down?
-
Vlad,
No you still aren't quite there.......indeed you seem to be against both a finite universe and an infinite universe.
What universe then is OK as far as you are concerned?
I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but yet again – I’m not sure that “infinite” anything is a meaningful term, but either way I’m agnostic about whether or not the universe is infinitely old. If you want to posit an infinite universe though that’s fine by me – what you don’t get to do however is just arbitrarily to take some bits out of it that you’ve decided aren’t infinite after all. That’s called special pleading and it doesn’t wash.
In any case the Feser argument is good for both an infinite universe sustained moment by moment as supported by quantum theory and derived power which you leave unaddressed.........or a Universe which appears out of nothing.....Physical zilch or a creation from an immaterial uncaused cause.
Why are you persisting with this utter bollocks? The Feser argument (or at least the version of it you’ve attempted) just decides that there are things called “power”, “ability” etc with no attempt either to define or to demonstrate them, and then unilaterally asserts these things to require a cause. Finally it puts some lipstick on the pig of the cosmological argument and inserts “God” into the slot that that cause apparently requires.
It’s desperate stuff, but there it is nonetheless.
What is it about an infinite universe that you think is permanent?
He lied.
Again.
If you want to post a universe that’s infinitely old, knock yourself out. So far as I know though you’ve said nothing about whether you think it’s permanent too, and nor for that matter have I. There's nothing about an infinitely old universe that means it can't end tomorrow.
Never suggested this. This is you projecting your own confusion.
We observe change and status to be derived from the actual. If the universe is infinite they have always been derived from the actual.
That’s exactly what you’ve suggested, and in any case if you want to posit an eternal universe then you don’t get to treat some bits of it differently.
See. No suggestion of any division of matter......No special pleading....just going along with an antitheists appeal to an infinite universe.
I’ve no idea what on earth you think “antitheism” has to do with it, but if you’ve now changed your mind and think “the universe” as a whole to be infinite then of course you have no need of a god to begin anything.
Welcome to atheism!
What though do you think is permanent in an infinite universe though since big bang seems to suggest that not even the laws of physics are immune from break down?
And for those of us working in English?
I see by the way that – as ever – you’ve just ignored every rebuttal of your efforts and kept on lying instead.
What does that say about you do you think?
-
Vlad,
I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but yet again – I’m not sure that “infinite” anything is a meaningful term, but either way I’m agnostic about whether or not the universe is infinitely old. If you want to posit an infinite universe though that’s fine by me – what you don’t get to do however is just arbitrarily to take some bits out of it that you’ve decided aren’t infinite after all. That’s called special pleading and it doesn’t wash.
Why are you persisting with this utter bollocks? The Feser argument (or at least the version of it you’ve attempted) just decides that there are things called “power”, “ability” etc with no attempt either to define or to demonstrate them, and then unilaterally asserts these things to require a cause. Finally it puts some lipstick on the pig of the cosmological argument and inserts “God” into the slot that that cause apparently requires.
It’s desperate stuff, but there it is nonetheless.
He lied.
Again.
If you want to post a universe that’s infinitely old, knock yourself out. So far as I know though you’ve said nothing about whether you think it’s permanent too, and nor for that matter have I. There's nothing about an infinitely old universe that means it can't end tomorrow.
That’s exactly what you’ve suggested, and in any case if you want to posit an eternal universe then you don’t get to treat some bits of it differently.
I’ve no idea what on earth you think “antitheism” has to do with it, but if you’ve now changed your mind and think “the universe” as a whole to be infinite then of course you have no need of a god to begin anything.
Welcome to atheism!
And for those of us working in English?
I see by the way that – as ever – you’ve just ignored every rebuttal of your efforts and kept on lying instead.
What does that say about you do you think?
Power and ability are quite clear Hillside.
You have the power and ability or even the potential to do things but all of that is dependent on something else and that is dependent on other things and that is what derived means.
That is quite straight forward your faux ignorance not withstanding.
You cannot have dependent power without it ultimately being actually supplied.
I think you have acknowledged that.
Feser makes the argument for why actual power etc. must be unique because it would be derived otherwise.
I'm sorry Hillside, even an infinite universe doesn't get rid of God easily or at all.
Also there is for your conception of the universe the problem of not being able to produce say......last Tuesday.
If the universe is infinite then the above has always been true. If it is finite then the above has been true for as long as it has existed.
See again, No division of matter energy.
I cant begin to err toward your argument since you don't seem to have one. That leaves you with ''I don't know, but I know it isn't yours''. Debate with that line is as they say a waste of time.
By the way No rebuttals from you.....just assertions of rebuttals so far.
-
Vlad,
Power and ability are quite clear Hillside.
Good. Then perhaps finally you’ll define what you mean by them, and then demonstrate that the phenomena you’ve defined exist at all.
You have the power and ability or even the potential to do things but all of that is dependent on something else and that is dependent on other things and that is what derived means.
What is this gibberish even supposed to mean? These things aren’t “power” or “ability” at all. Rather what you’re fumbling toward is the idea that matter and forces can act on each other to produce outcomes they don’t posses alone. Well yes, that’s what happens when material things combine but that doesn’t for one moment mean there’s any inherent “power” or such like just lurking away in either or both of them.
There was no “power” or “ability” in the apple I ate today that meant it was somehow equipped to be digested.
Good grief man – can you really not see that this is the nonsense you end up with when your rely for your understanding of the world on the knowledge of the ancient Greeks?
Really?
That is quite straight forward your faux ignorance not withstanding.
It’s straightforwardly ludicrous – on that at least we can agree. How would you propose to identify this “power” etc? Would you weigh it, measure it, hook it up to a voltmeter? What?
You cannot have dependent power without it ultimately being actually supplied.
Er, actually you cannot have “power” of the type you conjecture at all until and unless you can finally demonstrate its existence in the first place. Where would it reside do you think, and in what form exactly? Ectoplasm maybe? Scotch mist perhaps?
I think you have acknowledged that.
Oh stop it now – my sides are splitting…
Feser makes the argument for why actual power etc. must be unique because it would be derived otherwise.
Is he really as idiotic as you are about this stuff? And he’s drawing down a salary for it? Really?
Wow!
I'm sorry Hillside, even an infinite universe doesn't get rid of God easily or at all.
It does if you want to argue for this god on the ground that “He” was necessary to begin it all. It it’s infinite, then it had no beginning.
QED
Also…
“Also…”?
…there is for your conception of the universe the problem of not being able to produce say......last Tuesday.
Oh blimey, he’s gone again. NURSE!
If the universe is infinite then the above has always been true. If it is finite then the above has been true for as long as it has existed.
The above what exactly? Not the wreckage of a thought about last Tuesday surely?
See again, No division of matter energy.
Er no – so far at least, you haven’t returned to that (which is probably just as well by the way).
I cant begin to err toward your argument since you don't seem to have one. That leaves you with ''I don't know, but I know it isn't yours''. Debate with that line is as they say a waste of time.
You really haven’t understood a word of this have you. You're the one “arguing” (ok, asserting actually) “power”, “ability” etc with no logic or evidence of any kind for them. All I need to do is to identify where you go wrong when you do it – a trivially easy thing to do.
That’ll be the burden of proof issue you’ve never understood either.
By the way No rebuttals from you.....just assertions of rebuttals so far.
No - when your attempt at logic is falsified, that’s called a rebuttal. There are lots of them in the last few posts. That you don’t recognise or just lie about them is a different matter though.
Still, you could jus prove me wrong by finally demonstrating these “powers” and “abilities” you so blithely assert to be real.
Over to you then!
-
Vlad,
Good. Then perhaps finally you’ll define what you mean by them, and then demonstrate that the phenomena you’ve defined exist at all.
What is this gibberish even supposed to mean? These things aren’t “power” or “ability” at all. Rather what you’re fumbling toward is the idea that matter and forces can act on each other to produce outcomes they don’t posses alone. Well yes, that’s what happens when material things combine but that doesn’t for one moment mean there’s any inherent “power” or such like just lurking away in either or both of them.
There was no “power” or “ability” in the apple I ate today that meant it was somehow equipped to be digested.
Good grief man – can you really not see that this is the nonsense you end up with when your rely for your understanding of the world on the knowledge of the ancient Greeks?
Really?
It’s straightforwardly ludicrous – on that at least we can agree. How would you propose to identify this “power” etc? Would you weigh it, measure it, hook it up to a voltmeter? What?
Er, actually you cannot have “power” of the type you conjecture at all until and unless you can finally demonstrate its existence in the first place. Where would it reside do you think, and in what form exactly? Ectoplasm maybe? Scotch mist perhaps?
Oh stop it now – my sides are splitting…
Is he really as idiotic as you are about this stuff? And he’s drawing down a salary for it? Really?
Wow!
It does if you want to argue for this god on the ground that “He” was necessary to begin it all. It it’s infinite, then it had no beginning.
QED
“Also…”?
Oh blimey, he’s gone again. NURSE!
The above what exactly? Not the wreckage of a thought about last Tuesday surely?
Er no – so far at least, you haven’t returned to that (which is probably just as well by the way).
You really haven’t understood a word of this have you. You're the one “arguing” (ok, asserting actually) “power”, “ability” etc with no logic or evidence of any kind for them. All I need to do is to identify where you go wrong when you do it – a trivially easy thing to do.
That’ll be the burden of proof issue you’ve never understood either.
No - when your attempt at logic is falsified, that’s called a rebuttal. There are lots of them in the last few posts. That you don’t recognise or just lie about them is a different matter though.
Still, you could jus prove me wrong by finally demonstrating these “powers” and “abilities” you so blithely assert to be real.
Over to you then!
So an apple has no ability to grow itself by deriving that ability from sunlight which derives it's ability to transfer energy from nuclear reaction and of course you owe nothing to the apple at all.
We are not arguing beginnings here but existence and that is observed to be derived or contingent on something else.
You cannot have derived without an actual.
You would be the one who needs to learn some modern physics old son since energy is only observed as transferred energy.
Not as something monolithic which is what you are suggesting I'm suggesting. That somehow God finds solid energy.
Energy is only realised in its transfer. In other words it is dependent on change. Also we know that the mass of anything is dependent on how much energy is put into it.
The universe is therefore 'dependent' and if infinite.....infinitely so.
Still waiting for a rebuttal.
-
Vlad,
So an apple has no ability to grow itself by deriving that ability from sunlight which derives it's ability to transfer energy from nuclear reaction and of course you owe nothing to the apple at all.
You’re just abusing the term “ability” again. There’s not some quixotic stuff called “ability” (or “power” either for that matter) residing somehow in the apple. All there is are materials and forces that can sometimes combine or react with other materials and forces. What you’re asserting though is a whole additional layer of property for which there’s no supporting logic or evidence of any kind.
I went for a bike ride yesterday, but when we got to the cafe there were no bike racks. There was though a handy tree, so I chained by bike to it. Does that in your view mean that the tree had the “ability” or some such to be a makeshift bike rack, or did it just happen to be a convenient shape to do the job?
Do you see your problem now?
We are not arguing beginnings here but existence and that is observed to be derived or contingent on something else.
You cannot have derived without an actual.
Nope – there’s stuff that exists only because other stuff has interacted or combined to make it so, but you’re basically just back to cause and effect here – which leads you inexorably to the cosmological argument. Again.
You would be the one who needs to learn some modern physics old son…
You never have done irony have you.
…since energy is only observed as transferred energy.
Actually it isn’t, but no matter. If you want to argue for “transferred” energy nonetheless there’s your basic cause and effect again: A transferred energy to B, B transferred energy to C etc in order to give you a god-shaped hole for where A obtained its energy in the first place.
Not as something monolithic which is what you are suggesting I'm suggesting.
You may want to drop the “monolithic” here as it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. What are you trying to say?
That somehow God finds solid energy.
No. You asserted a “universe” that was infinitely old, and at the same time hat something about that universe must have been kick started by a deity. You can have either of those contentions, but not both.
Energy is only realised in its transfer. In other words it is dependent on change. Also we know that the mass of anything is dependent on how much energy is put into it.
The universe is therefore 'dependent' and if infinite.....infinitely so.
You’re still terribly confused. “The universe” means everything – matter and forces (or “energy” if you prefer). If that everything is infinitely old, then by definition there was no beginning, and so no agency was needed to begin it.
Still waiting for a rebuttal.
There are lots of them in the last few posts. That you’ve ignored or lied about them is a matter for you, not me. Your cop out answer incidentally – just calling anything you want to assert into existence but that has no logic or evidence to support it “immaterial” – is so full of holes that you ought to be working in a Swiss cheese factory.
-
Hillside a description of what you did at the weekend hardly constitutes a refutation of ........well anything.
Indeed it just demonstrated derived ability to do or to be.
You've a Just isicist Old Chap.
You cannot have derived power ability or any of the numerous words you have been provided with without actual power.
Your refutation turns out (finally to be philosophical materialism which is based on the circular argument. Mine is based on the logic of no derived without an actual.
You seem to be supporting no actual power but an infinity of derivation..
-
Vlad,
Hillside a description of what you did at the weekend hardly constitutes a refutation of ........well anything.
Indeed it just demonstrated derived ability to do or to be.
Yes it does because it shows you where your ludicrous reasoning leads. Some stuff happens to be conveniently shaped and available to interact or combine with other stuff – that does not though mean that either stuff has “power” or “ability” as if there were some mysterious property situated in ether. What you’re actually doing is projecting forward onto something an inactive latent “something” that’s just waiting to be activated with the right input.
Funnily enough this takes us back to emergence – the backward thinking that there’s some special inherent property in, say, ants that means they’re built to farm other species whereas in fact the farming happens spontaneously rather than because the ants have qualifications in animal husbandry.
You've a Just isicist Old Chap.
Stop lying. I’m actually a “at certain points no-one knows, but here are some promising hypotheses that may or may not in due course have explanatory use-ist”. “Just is” on the other hand implies a shrug of the shoulders and a walking away from the problem, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
You cannot have derived power ability or any of the numerous words you have been provided with without actual power.
Depends whether you’re talking about your made up version of “power” (that you can neither define nor demonstrate) or the common-or-garden meaning, which is only “derived” in the standard way that effects are “derived” from causes.
And if it is the latter, you’re back to bog standard “nothing can come from nothing, therefore god” territory again.
Your refutation turns out (finally to be philosophical materialism…
Again, are you using your made up version of the meaning of that term or the actual one? If you’re back to your personal re-definition, we can all point and laugh. If though you want to use the actual meaning (that the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable) then that remains the case. If you can’t demonstrate this “power”, “ability” etc of yours using naturalistic method then finally find a method of your own instead to demonstrate them.
…which is based on the circular argument.
It isn’t - which is why you’re unable to demonstrate that supposed circularity.
Mine is based on the logic of no derived without an actual.
Oh stop it now. Yours is based on wishful thinking, poor reasoning, undefined terms, dishonesty about the arguments that undo you, and an understanding of the world developed by the ancient Greeks that has long been superseded.
You seem to be supporting no actual power but an infinity of derivation..
No, actually you do. If you want to posit an infinitely old universe, then the chain of cause and effect is infinite too. I’m relaxed about that, but I’m surprised that you are as it removes one of the gaps in which your god can hide.
Enough now. Unless you can finally tell us what you even think you mean by these terms and then demonstrate their existence at all using whatever method you like cogently to distinguish your claims from just guessing, then – once again – we’ll know that you’ve crashed and burned.
-
Vlad's discussion of 'ability' and 'power' reminds me of vitalism, which was kicking around in the 19th century, and even into the 20th. Something similar can be found in 'elan vital', discussed by Bergson.
Of course, it disappeared, as it became clear that no-one could find this mysterious 'life force'. It does survive in some areas of alternative medicine, thus, homeopathy used to teach that some immaterial vital force was disturbed in illness, and could be rebalanced.
But one interesting issue is that vitalism seems to be unfalsifiable. Now, does that remind you of anything?
-
Hi Wiggs,
Vlad's discussion of 'ability' and 'power' reminds me of vitalism, which was kicking around in the 19th century, and even into the 20th. Something similar can be found in 'elan vital', discussed by Bergson.
Of course, it disappeared, as it became clear that no-one could find this mysterious 'life force'. It does survive in some areas of alternative medicine, thus, homeopathy used to teach that some immaterial vital force was disturbed in illness, and could be rebalanced.
But one interesting issue is that vitalism seems to be unfalsifiable. Now, does that remind you of anything?
Or phlogiston maybe. Funnily enough during that exchange with Vlad I've thought several times of homeopathy - various claims of supposed properties are made for that too, only no-one can ever find them either. The trick seems to be to pick words like "power" and "ability" that do have meanings in other contexts, and to hope that some of their credibility will rub off when they're used in contexts for which there's only bad logic and no evidence whatever. Of course his escape from that is, "It's all immaterial innit, so you and your stupid naturalism will never find it" or some such, though that of course opens up so many more problems that he bolts as soon as he tries it.
Ah well.
-
It's quite familiar really, you get a cross-over from something metaphysical (there is this power in everything), to something physical (the apple has the power to be eaten). It produces bizarre results, and tends to be very vague and unempirical, and as you say, it just rings the changes on the cosmological argument.
-
Wiggs,
It's quite familiar really, you get a cross-over from something metaphysical (there is this power in everything), to something physical (the apple has the power to be eaten). It produces bizarre results, and tends to be very vague and unempirical, and as you say, it just rings the changes on the cosmological argument.
Why do I keep hearing echoes of, "No I'm not a creationist...I believe in intelligent design"?