Correlation

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Some graffiti has been removed from the playground walls: any repetition may result in access to the playground being denied for a while.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[SusanDoris]

Vlad #88

I've listened once, but I don't think I'll try and listen to it again!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

Well, that's something we can all derive satisfaction from, I'm sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well Shaker......unlike your normal source of satisfaction this is easier on your eyesight.

[Shaker]

Oh, I wouldn't go that far.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.