The priniciple of Causality, Logic & Scientific Observation.

[warpspeedpetey]

Because I understand enough to know when people make up stuff and assert things without evidence.

really?, you keep saying that but you havent given an argument to support that i am asserting anything, and as you didnt know that infinite possible universes are a common device in quantum mechanics interpretations, i dont think you can really claim to just know when people are making up or asserting things, you have yet to display that, at least.

I know this debate this is a common debate, I’ve heard it all before.

then why didn’t you know some basic cosmological devices?

And if there was evidence for creation in current scientific data I would know about it or my friends would, or my lecturers would, or I would be able to easily Google it. Because it would be huge.

we call it the Big Bang. im pretty sure you’ve heard of it, and can google it.

I guess at this point I could make a joke about (most) Christians and evolution.

please do so. im sure its quite funny.

But I can’t be bothered. I was just hoping to read the equation proposed, I have my last semesters probability lecturer near by we’ve been making chit chat waiting for a response.

why cant you be bothered? it would take no more time to type a joke than anything else.

btw if your math professor has read this, he has told you by now that the drake equation is not the best analogy, but then i told you that too, when you brought it up.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you understood my points the main contetion I am holding is you can’t just make up assertions based on logic and claim to know deffinitively that one probability is greater than the other.

you have completely missed the point. you didn’t read the thread did you?

we are not talking about a match between the probability of physical versus non-physical creation, we can exclude the physical based on thomistic first cause.

it is between a non-physical random act, and a non-physical independant actor.

the match is between the overall probabilities of this particular universe being created by 2 different processes

1. a random act

• the random act has nearly an infinite number of equally probable possible universes that it could randomly create.

1. an independant actor

• an independant actor could simply choose to create this partiular universe from any number of options

we are talikng about the difference between a coin flip, to create or not to create, and a lottery from which one particular ticket must be pulled from among a nearly infinite number.

do you get it now?

 

[Abbadon]

The law of non-contradiction must give you fits. :hypno:

You haven’t demonstrated an understanding of science here.

Well then I guess there goes all my hopes for a research position.

 

[Abbadon]

you have completely missed the point. you didn’t read the thread did you?

we are not talking about a match between the probability of physical versus non-physical creation, we can exclude the physical based on thomistic first cause.

it is between a non-physical random act, and a non-physical independant actor.

the match is between the overall probabilities of this particular universe being created by 2 different processes

1. a random act

• the random act has nearly an infinite number of equally probable possible universes that it could randomly create.

1. an independant actor

• an independant actor could simply choose to create this partiular universe from any number of options

we are talikng about the difference between a coin flip, to create or not to create, and a lottery from which one particular ticket must be pulled from among a nearly infinite number.

do you get it now?

But reactions aren’t random.

And your still implying one probability is greater than the other because at this current time logic tells you that it is so. Didn’t you listen to my spiel about the 4s 2d subshells?

The drake equation is a fine analogy.

Argh who care you win, I’m going back to science and real logic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But reactions aren’t random.

i just explained to you. if there are laws by which a reaction takes place, as in a chemical reaction, that simply assumes a preexistent universe with its own laws. it doesn’t avoid causality. that universe needs a cause just as much as this one.

if there were no laws for a reaction to take place, then its not a reaction, its a random event.

please tell me what is not making sense here.

And your still implying one probability is greater than the other because at this current time logic tells you that it is so

.

how will the probabilities change over time?

1. a random act will always be able to generate a nearly infinite number of universes, time doesn’t change that.
2. an independent agent has 2 choices. to create or not.

so which is more likely to result in the observable universe?

im not implying, im straight out showing why it is more likely that this universe is the result of a non-physical independent actor, than a non-physical random event.

please make an arguemnt as to why that is wrong, stating so is insuffecient, you need counter arguments to the hypothesis, ones you can defend.

Didn’t you listen to my spiel about the 4s 2d subshells?

yes, ive had a few chem classes too. i just have no clue how that changes the model?

i understand you to mean that some further evidence may change the model or make the logic wrong.

big deal, that can be said of any theory or model from evolution to relativity.

unless you have a specific reason of why the model is wrong i dont see its applicability.

other than a reaction, which i explained is contingent on laws, necessitating a universe, in the same fashion that the physical laws of this universe dictate reactions, and therefore requires a cause also, you havent offered any arguments.

saying i might be proven wrong in the future is not the same thing as being wrong.

The drake equation is a fine analogy.

here is another statement with no argumentation.

an anology is supposed to reflect the probabilities. drake has 7 variables, and i see how none of them relate to the model.

Argh who care you win, I’m going back to science and real logic.

its not a contest.

why do you think this is not sound reasoning?

please offer arguments not just statements, its difficult to debate if you wont follow the general form of argument and refutation.

 

[1holycatholic]

Well then I guess there goes all my hopes for a research position.

A truck driver who is a member of the Flat Earth Society can still get a job driving a truck. I doubt your scientism will be an impediment in your search for employment.

 

[1holycatholic]

Argh who care you win, I’m going back to science and real logic.

You are seeking refuge in scientism.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Causality is not dependent on the passage of time.

Why not? This is a genuine question. I honestly can’t see how you can have cause and effect if there is no time.

 

[Nebogipfel]

MindOverMatter,

I can follow the logic of arguing that, if all physical things require a cause, then the cause of all physical things must be a non-physical thing which itself has no cause. However, I remain skeptical that purely logical arguments based on the necessary need or absence of cause can really mean anything under circumstances where time does not exist, and hence the very concept of causality is meaningless.

Even if I do accept that the causal agent of the physical universe is a non-material, uncaused thing, I still see no reason to conclude that it must therefore necessarily be “like a mind” with a “will to create”. You have not explained the argument that leads you to this conclusion, nor given any reference to such an argument. You have merely repeated the assertion that it is so.

From where I’m standing, then, the argument that the logical existance of an unmoved mover demonstrates the real existance of something like a God, is a non sequitor.

Finally, I have said all I have to say in response to accusations of intellectual laziness and dishonesty, and it’s clearly wasted effort. Feel free to continue speculating as to my motives, but I will just ignore any further such speculation on your part.

 

[Dameedna]

But why is it so unreasonable to ask what caused the non-physical cause? You’re just defining the problem out of existence.

Exactly.

God…is an excuse. We don’t know. That, is the “truth”. hehe.

 

[Dameedna]

How can a logical argument be formed to demonstrate that something can come from nothing? This is absurd. I only respond to your lack of thinking for the sake of the weak.

I never realized how many people are close to losing their faith.

Science is really hurting you isn’t it? I’m not trying to be provocative but this entire issue really bother’s believers doesn’t it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not? This is a genuine question. I honestly can’t see how you can have cause and effect if there is no time.

because time and cause are qualities of physical things, we have no reasonable argument that they could or should apply to the non-physical.

in fact if non-physical things were subject to time and causality, the basis of physical laws, then one would expect that they wouldn’t really be non-physical, they would be physical.

therefore non-physical things must, by definition, be free of all such constraints as time, causality, dimension, mass, etc or else they would have the qualities of physical things and be physical.

if thats a little convoluted let me know, i want to make sure people understand, becaused you raised a point that confuses alot of people.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

MindOverMatter,

I can follow the logic of arguing that, if all physical things require a cause, then the cause of all physical things must be a non-physical thing which itself has no cause. However, I remain skeptical that purely logical arguments based on the necessary need or absence of cause can really mean anything under circumstances where time does not exist, and hence the very concept of causality is meaningless.

this is answered in the previous post, non-physical objects must logically be free of physical qualities.

Even if I do accept that the causal agent of the physical universe is a non-material, uncaused thing, I still see no reason to conclude that it must therefore necessarily be “like a mind” with a “will to create”. You have not explained the argument that leads you to this conclusion, nor given any reference to such an argument. You have merely repeated the assertion that it is so

.

what are the possible causes?

1. a random act.
2. a independent actor

if it was a random act, then the chances that we end up with the exact universe we have, out of an infinite or near infinite number of equally possible universes, is as close to impossible as you can get without actually being impossible.

an independent actor could simply have chosen to create the universe as such to achieve specific goals.

From where I’m standing, then, the argument that the logical existance of an unmoved mover demonstrates the real existance of something like a God, is a non sequitor.

hopefully now you can find it sequitorianamous…hehehe

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Exactly.

God…is an excuse. We don’t know. That, is the “truth”. hehe.

now you know…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I never realized how many people are close to losing their faith.

Science is really hurting you isn’t it? I’m not trying to be provocative but this entire issue really bother’s believers doesn’t it?

we are a little bothered that people so easily gloss over such a huge issue as cause, people aren’t taught how to reason any more. they seem to get all their information from the discovery channel.

if you were one of us you would be appalled at the lack of understanding exactly what Christianity is or believes, or why we believe it.

speaking of being one of us… how long do you think you can lay down with us theist dogs, and not wake up with some theist fleas?

your only real objection that i have seen over the last few months is moral, and mostly you bring up cults from other religions like the flds.

how much longer can you resist the dark side of the force?..bwa ha ha ha ha, bwa ha ha ha (in my best evil master of the universe laugh)

…

 

[Dameedna]

Sorry warpy, you just try way too hard. Everything you say has been refuted over and over on different threads by those that know far more about science than you.

You aren’t here to debate with those who have knowlege. You seem to only get a “kick” out of a debate, when another agrees with you using your own psuedoscience theories.

No internet site, can affirm your faith.

 

[reggieM]

We don’t know.

As mentioned earlier, this would mean that we cling to certain conclusions on the basis of faith. Evidence for God is found through inference and logic. An attitude of pure scepticism would destroy all human endeavors (since very much is assumed by faith and not by empirical proof).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sorry warpy, you just try way too hard. Everything you say has been refuted over and over on different threads by those that know far more about science than you.

show proof of these refutations please. all these threads are recorded if you are right than you can prove it.

but you wont, because you cant, in fact last time you said this was right before a physicist admitted that i was right and there is no proof of a singularity of a monobloc. you were sure i was wrong, because someone else said so.

you had to eat your words that time too.

You aren’t here to debate with those who have knowlege. You seem to only get a “kick” out of a debate, when another agrees with you using your own psuedoscience theories.

please, post my ‘pseudoscience theories’. frankly you’ve posted the same things about matter always existing as megatherion did.

from what i have seen you dont know the difference between pseudo science, logical systems, philosophy, and actual evidence.

if you did you wouldn’t make statements about matter always existing.

No internet site, can affirm your faith.

then you should google the words ‘Catholic’ ‘Christain’ etc, because the web is absolutley full of sites that affiirm my faith, not to mention some 1.5 billion other Christains of varying denominations.

frankly i suspect that you dont like it when a ‘discovery channel’ scientist gets his rear handed to him. but thats what happens when you rely on pop science and incomplete theory to form cosmological opinions.

that said, i dare you too back up any of your assertions with proof.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sorry warpy, you just try way too hard. Everything you say has been refuted over and over on different threads by those that know far more about science than you.

You aren’t here to debate with those who have knowlege. You seem to only get a “kick” out of a debate, when another agrees with you using your own psuedoscience theories.

No internet site, can affirm your faith.

i dare you to prove any of these assertions with actual proof.

you like one liners, but you never back them up, lets see what you got then.