Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Surely, the non-physical arises from the interaction of the  topoid and the tubules and the transcendental vectors.  Easy-peasy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Surely, the non-physical arises from the interaction of the  topoid and the tubules and the transcendental vectors.  Easy-peasy.

Well yes, obviously that but surely you could only identify it if you also had access to a highly conjustable hindecompendent front hocstensionometer and those things don't come cheap you know...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No it is a sleight of hand because an argument is being deployed which works in everyday situations, indeed it seems abundantly clear beyond all reasonable doubt that things exist because thing(s) made them.

But then surely that should tell you that counter arguments are wrong?

One of the reasons I keep bringing up properties of truth here is because one is illustrated here. For example:
If I said that Theresa May is the President of the United States, I could show that this is false by showing that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. The counter-example is true, therefore my original assertion is false.

However, the reasoning fails for first causes which by definition are not made by something else

Or alternatively, it exposes a flaw in the reasoning. As Vlad tried to explain a couple of pages back in his #29336, if a first cause is eternal, it needs no explanation. The only alternative is to have things creating themselves from nothing. There is no evidence to support this, the physics of the natural world contradict it (Newton's conservation of xxx laws, for example), and the best that philosophy can apparently come up with is the argument from incredulity, which only renders its position as unfalsifiable by science's own standards!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Swordy,

But then surely that should tell you that counter arguments are wrong?

One of the reasons I keep bringing up properties of truth here is because one is illustrated here. For example:
If I said that Theresa May is the President of the United States, I could show that this is false by showing that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. The counter-example is true, therefore my original assertion is false.

Except as you insist on keeping whatever you mean by "properties of truth" a big fat secret there's no telling what it means, even to you.

Or alternatively, it exposes a flaw in the reasoning. As Vlad tried to explain a couple of pages back in his #29336, if a first cause is eternal, it needs no explanation. The only alternative is to have things creating themselves from nothing. There is no evidence to support this, the physics of the natural world contradict it (Newton's conservation of xxx laws, for example), and the best philosophy can apparently come up with is the argument from incredulity, which only renders its position as unfalsifiable by science's own standards!!

But as I tried to explain back again, conjecturing a separate eternal first cause and calling it "god" adds nothing of explanatory value when the same conjecture could be said of the universe in any case.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Swordy,

Unusual combination of the category error and Paley's watch there. Good effort.

Which says nothing about whether what I wrote was true or false and if false, why.

I refer you to the poster who said this in #29395. You may recognise the name:

assuming your premise

You may want to heed your own advice:

yet another of the basic logical errors on which you consistently rely?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surely, the non-physical arises from the interaction of the  topoid and the tubules and the transcendental vectors. 

You can get ointment for that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Swordy,

Which says nothing about whether what I wrote was true or false and if false, why.

Wrong again. A false argument is always a wrong argument. Whether its outcome ("god", leprechauns, whatever) are true just as a matter of dumb luck is irrelevant.   

I refer you to the poster who said this in #29395. You may recognise the name:

Quote from: bluehillside Retd.
assuming your premise

You may want to heed your own advice:

Oh dear.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But as I tried to explain back again, conjecturing a separate eternal first cause and calling it "god" adds nothing of explanatory value when the same conjecture could be said of the universe in any case.

So how many people are saying that the universe is eternal. If I googled age of the universe how many links will I find giving me an answer of infinity, as opposed to e.g. around 14 billion years?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

So how many people are saying that the universe is eternal. If I googled age of the universe how many links will I find giving me an answer of infinity, as opposed to e.g. around 14 billion years?

Actually it would tell you that the universe we observe is that age. If you did some more research though you'd find all sorts of hypotheses about repeated big bangs and collapses, about multiverses (Vlad's favourite Trojan horse by the way), about time itself being a property of the universe so the question of eternality is meaningless etc. That's the problem when you're mired in a sort of mediaeval ontology - it simply can't recognise the alternative later and more sophisticated thinking we've produced.

[Gordon]

So how many people are saying that the universe is eternal. If I googled age of the universe how many links will I find giving me an answer of infinity, as opposed to e.g. around 14 billion years?

Whoosh (again).

[SusanDoris]

Sword of the Spirit

I have no time for Vlad's posts and only dip into them when absolutely necessary, but I think even he would have to agree that most of what you say does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny; and thinking back over some of the memorable 10 and 11 year olds I taught over the years, particularly those with a natural ability to think critically, there were quite a few who would see the flaws in your non-arguments quite easily.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

I have no time for Vlad's posts and only dip into them when absolutely necessary, but I think even he would have to agree that most of what you say does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny; and thinking back over some of the memorable 10 and 11 year olds I taught over the years, particularly those with a natural ability to think critically, there were quite a few who would see the flaws in your non-arguments quite easily.

Ah but could they run as quickly a Swordy does, ie away from arguments he doesn't like or can't process? He might have been bottom in the classroom but I reckon he'd have shone on sports' day!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

Actually it would tell you that the universe we observe is that age.

But Hillside we won't have to wait long before we read you arguing against people because they are arguing for things that aren't observed.

Pure humbug on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

But Hillside we won't have to wait long before we read you arguing against people because they are arguing for things that aren't observed.

Pure humbug on your part.

Weird. I was merely explaining to Runaway Boy that the immediately observable is not necessarily a reliable guide to more fundamental truths. Even you could grasp that I'd have thought.

Incidentally, I falsified your last car crash re "Joe Bloggs" and the rest a few replies ago.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

Actually it would tell you that the universe we observe is that age. If you did some more research though you'd find all sorts of hypotheses about repeated big bangs and collapses, about multiverses (Vlad's favourite Trojan horse by the way), about time itself being a property of the universe so the question of eternality is meaningless etc. That's the problem when you're mired in a sort of mediaeval ontology - it simply can't recognise the alternative later and more sophisticated thinking we've produced.

Eternity means timelessness. You have asserted that the universe is a perpetual motion machine but were quite happy not to challenge Jim Alkalili on his idea that it is entropy by which the universe
works.

You are just therefore merely arguing the opposite.

You are therefore inventing science and blaming others for your own ideas and then reinforcing by saying only they and you understand these things.

In other words a virtuoso courtiers reply.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Eternity means timelessness. You have asserted that the universe is a perpetual motion machine but were quite happy not to challenge Jim Alkalili on his idea that it is entropy by which the universe works.

I haven’t asserted that at all, and you seem fundamentally to misunderstand what the good Prof was actually saying. That entropy clearly applies to the observable universe tells you nothing about hypotheses about the fundamental nature of time. 

You are just therefore merely arguing the opposite.

Very funny. I was actually arguing that “the universe” as a whole cannot be assumed to work on the same basis as the phenomena it contains. 

You are therefore inventing science and blaming others for your own ideas and then reinforcing by saying only they and you. Some sort of accountant, understand these things.

Stop digging – you’re embarrassing yourself now. Lying about what I said and then criticising your lies may keep you amused but it’s dull stuff for anyone else.

In other words a virtuoso courtiers reply.

And to finish you’ve just confirmed that you don’t understand the term “Courtier’s reply” either.

Oh well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

I haven’t asserted that at all, and you seem fundamentally to misunderstand what the good Prof was actually saying. That entropy clearly applies to the observable universe tells you nothing about hypotheses about the fundamental nature of time. 

Very funny. I was actually arguing that “the universe” as a whole cannot be assumed to work on the same basis as the phenomena it contains. 

Stop digging – you’re embarrassing yourself now. Lying about what I said and then criticising your lies may keep you amused but it’s dull stuff for anyone else.

And to finish you’ve just confirmed that you don’t understand the term “Courtier’s reply” either.

Oh well.

I was hoping for your justification for how the universe is a perpetual motion machine as asserted by you previously but you have unsurprisingly disappointed.

Utter courtiers reply from you.

The universe has always been or popped out of nothing, or was created by something separate from it and not dependent on it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Weird. I was merely explaining to Runaway Boy that the immediately observable is not necessarily a reliable guide to more fundamental truths. Even you could grasp that I'd have thought.

Incidentally, I falsified your last car crash re "Joe Bloggs" and the rest a few replies ago.

How can you falsify a question that has three possible answers?

[Alan Burns]

2. Still you have neither even a rudimentary explanation of what this non-physical would be, nor an argument of any kind to demonstrate its existence; and ......

I have my God given freedom

[Nearly Sane]

I have my God given freedom

Which you still haven't provided any coherent approach to. 

[Alan Burns]

Which you still haven't provided any coherent approach to.

Oh yes I have !   

[Nearly Sane]

Oh yes I have !   

aw! How cute, a bit of impersonation. Thank you for that. Still no coherent approach from you though.

[Alan Burns]

aw! How cute, a bit of impersonation. Thank you for that. Still no coherent approach from you though.

Well try this:

I have the freedom to say,

"I am right and you are wrong - Nah Nah Nee Ah Nah!"

(try generating that from the uncontrollable deterministic activity of physical brain cells  )

[ippy]

Vlads resorted to lying on the Religion in our schools thread too; I'm trying to be kind perhaps his sight is failing or he's lost his glasses.

My wife's always hiding my glasses from me, when I catch her!

Regards ippy

[torridon]

Well try this:

I have the freedom to say,

"I am right and you are wrong - Nah Nah Nee Ah Nah!"

(try generating that from the uncontrollable deterministic activity of physical brain cells  )

You probably said that because you wanted to;  and given that we do cannot choose what to want, it's not really free is it ?

That penny is long overdue for dropping.