Philosophy Now Forum

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:43 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:30 pmWizard22, your argument is an escalating display of ignorance wrapped in self-congratulatory fantasy. Let’s dive into the absurdity you’ve just served up.

You claim that human imagination is “unbound by physical laws and reality.” Really? What powers this so-called “unbound imagination”? Your physical brain, running on energy derived from physical processes, is what enables imagination. Neurons fire, neurotransmitters interact, and voilà, you conjure your dragons and fantasies. These aren’t “uncaused causes”—they’re the result of a massively complex deterministic system. You’re not defying physics when you daydream; you’re obeying it.

Now, let’s address your bizarre assertion that "the greatest scientists worked outside frameworks." Nonsense. Einstein didn’t ignore the conservation of energy when formulating relativity—he worked with it. Hawking didn’t break the laws of physics; he used them to predict black hole radiation. What you’re confusing here is creativity within constraints with the outright rejection of physical laws. Science advances not by ignoring these laws but by better understanding their scope and limitations.

You also hilariously claim that humans have the ability to "defy the laws that govern the universe." Really? Which law did you personally defy today? Gravity when you didn’t float into space? Conservation of energy when you ate lunch and metabolized it? If you think you can reject these principles, demonstrate it. Otherwise, stop throwing around baseless claims like you’ve transcended the cosmos.

Your assertion that human choice is based on “uncaused causes” is the height of delusion. The phrase itself is a contradiction. Causes, by definition, are not uncaused. If your choices arise from “uncaused causes,” then they’re magical, disconnected, and nonsensical. But every shred of neuroscience, physics, and common sense shows that choices are outcomes of complex, interdependent physical processes.

Finally, your #1 and #2 points are laughable non-arguments. The idea that humans “defy laws” or that I “don’t know what governs the universe” is as empty as your grasp of science. If you’re so certain humans operate outside physical laws, I challenge you again: identify which conservation law or fundamental interaction you’re rejecting. Is it gravity? Electromagnetism? The strong or weak nuclear forces? Name it. Until you do, your claims are nothing more than flights of fancy, utterly detached from reality.

Your imagination doesn’t break laws of physics—it’s a product of them. Deal with it.

Your robotic persistence and mechanical responses are impressive...but not good enough.

Gravity is a Theory, as are all "Physical Laws". These Theories and "Laws" were discovered by great European Scientists, such as Isaac Newton. Human knowledge is not limited by them, however. They are merely the best current understanding of Physics, Science, and Reality that we have. The "Laws" are made to be broken, undone, disproved, and replaced. So too does this apply to what you call "Causality".

Many Paradigms have been broken in the past, and will continue to be so in the future. So your reliance on "Laws" and "Determinism" represents your own, personal, subjective limitations.

You show no capacity for imagination too--something which every human has some experience with.

You don't mean imagination , you mean fantasy.

In this life which all living creatures live, we are immersed in time, space and force.
The force of gravity etc that Mike identifies are not ephemeral. They are as much the base of life as are time and space. Force , like time and like space ,is an enduring circumstantial cause of how our brainminds work, and we have no evidence of any supernatural cause.

You, Wizard, pretend to knowledge of a supernatural way of being.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:56 pmwe have no evidence of any supernatural cause.

Most times I ask Atheists to define "God", they define Him as "Nothingness".

That tells me more about the Atheists, than it does about God.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:43 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:30 pmWizard22, your argument is an escalating display of ignorance wrapped in self-congratulatory fantasy. Let’s dive into the absurdity you’ve just served up.

You claim that human imagination is “unbound by physical laws and reality.” Really? What powers this so-called “unbound imagination”? Your physical brain, running on energy derived from physical processes, is what enables imagination. Neurons fire, neurotransmitters interact, and voilà, you conjure your dragons and fantasies. These aren’t “uncaused causes”—they’re the result of a massively complex deterministic system. You’re not defying physics when you daydream; you’re obeying it.

Now, let’s address your bizarre assertion that "the greatest scientists worked outside frameworks." Nonsense. Einstein didn’t ignore the conservation of energy when formulating relativity—he worked with it. Hawking didn’t break the laws of physics; he used them to predict black hole radiation. What you’re confusing here is creativity within constraints with the outright rejection of physical laws. Science advances not by ignoring these laws but by better understanding their scope and limitations.

You also hilariously claim that humans have the ability to "defy the laws that govern the universe." Really? Which law did you personally defy today? Gravity when you didn’t float into space? Conservation of energy when you ate lunch and metabolized it? If you think you can reject these principles, demonstrate it. Otherwise, stop throwing around baseless claims like you’ve transcended the cosmos.

Your assertion that human choice is based on “uncaused causes” is the height of delusion. The phrase itself is a contradiction. Causes, by definition, are not uncaused. If your choices arise from “uncaused causes,” then they’re magical, disconnected, and nonsensical. But every shred of neuroscience, physics, and common sense shows that choices are outcomes of complex, interdependent physical processes.

Finally, your #1 and #2 points are laughable non-arguments. The idea that humans “defy laws” or that I “don’t know what governs the universe” is as empty as your grasp of science. If you’re so certain humans operate outside physical laws, I challenge you again: identify which conservation law or fundamental interaction you’re rejecting. Is it gravity? Electromagnetism? The strong or weak nuclear forces? Name it. Until you do, your claims are nothing more than flights of fancy, utterly detached from reality.

Your imagination doesn’t break laws of physics—it’s a product of them. Deal with it.

Your robotic persistence and mechanical responses are impressive...but not good enough.

Gravity is a Theory, as are all "Physical Laws". These Theories and "Laws" were discovered by great European Scientists, such as Isaac Newton. Human knowledge is not limited by them, however. They are merely the best current understanding of Physics, Science, and Reality that we have. The "Laws" are made to be broken, undone, disproved, and replaced. So too does this apply to what you call "Causality".

Many Paradigms have been broken in the past, and will continue to be so in the future. So your reliance on "Laws" and "Determinism" represents your own, personal, subjective limitations.

You show no capacity for imagination too--something which every human has some experience with.

Wizard22, your argument is not just ignorant; it's laughably desperate. You’re flailing in the shallow end of logic, grasping at anything to keep your delusion afloat. Let’s dissect your latest masterpiece of incoherence.

First, your claim that “gravity is a theory” betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of science. Gravity is both a theory and a fact. The phenomenon of objects attracting one another is observable and measurable, while the theory of gravity explains how and why it happens. Calling it "just a theory" doesn’t diminish its reality—it only highlights your lack of comprehension. You’d do well to learn the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of "theory."

Second, your statement that "laws are made to be broken" is pure lunacy. The conservation of energy, the principles of thermodynamics, and the fundamental interactions of nature are not arbitrary suggestions waiting to be replaced by your personal flights of fantasy. They are foundational to everything you see, touch, and experience. The fact that you woke up this morning and gravity kept your sorry self tethered to the planet proves their consistency.

Now, let’s address your fixation on paradigms being "broken." Yes, science evolves as we refine our understanding, but this doesn’t mean the underlying principles of nature are discarded. Einstein didn’t “break” Newton’s laws—he expanded them into new contexts. Your idea that these advancements somehow support your notion of “uncaused causes” or magical free will is absurd. If anything, they reinforce the fact that science is grounded in evidence, not your juvenile fantasies.

But here’s where your argument goes off the rails entirely: your insistence that human imagination proves freedom from causality. Imagination is a product of your brain—a physical organ operating under the laws of physics and biology. The fact that you can picture a pink dragon doesn’t mean you’ve escaped causality. It means your neurons, influenced by past experiences and stimuli, are doing their job.

Finally, let’s get to the heart of your cowardice. You continually dodge the challenge: which conservation law or fundamental interaction are you rejecting? If you’re so convinced that humans can operate outside the laws of physics, have the guts to name the principle you believe is invalid. Is it the conservation of energy? The second law of thermodynamics? Electromagnetism? Or are you too afraid of exposing just how nonsensical your argument is?

And while we’re at it, let’s talk about why you’re so desperate to cling to this illusion of free will. Is it fear? Fear that admitting the deterministic nature of reality might strip away the comforting fantasy of your autonomy? Fear that your “God” might not be there to save you if you stop pretending you’re special? If you had the courage to face reality, you’d realize that free will, as you define it, is as mythical as the unicorns you claim your imagination can conjure.

So I’ll say it one more time: deal with the reality of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws that govern the universe, or admit that your argument is nothing but the frightened ramblings of someone terrified to confront the truth. Choose—if your "free will" allows it.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:04 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:56 pmwe have no evidence of any supernatural cause.

Most times I ask Atheists to define "God", they define Him as "Nothingness".

That tells me more about the Atheists, than it does about God.

Wizard22, your comment is as ignorant as it is laughable. Let’s get something straight: your god, this stupid, cruel, and sadistic figment of your imagination, isn’t "nothingness." It’s worse—it’s a delusion. A dangerous, manipulative, and utterly human-made delusion. It’s a creation of fear and ignorance, designed to control and intimidate. And thank reality, it doesn’t exist outside of the fantasies of those too afraid to face the world as it is.

You toss around the word "God" as if it carries some intrinsic meaning, yet you offer nothing but circular nonsense to back it up. You project your delusions onto atheists, accusing them of defining "God" as nothingness, when the truth is that atheists define it exactly as it deserves to be: non-existent. Your inability to comprehend this simple distinction says far more about you than it does about those of us who reject your fairy tales.

Your god isn’t powerful; it’s pathetic. It’s not a cosmic force; it’s a reflection of human cruelty, your own insecurities, and a refusal to take responsibility for the reality of the universe. If your god is the best explanation you can come up with for existence, then your imagination is as empty as your arguments.

So keep clinging to your delusions if they comfort you, but don’t expect the rest of us to humor your fantasy. Your "God" deserves nothing more than ridicule and rejection, and it gets exactly that from anyone who values reason over fear.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:48 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:04 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:56 pmwe have no evidence of any supernatural cause.

Most times I ask Atheists to define "God", they define Him as "Nothingness".

That tells me more about the Atheists, than it does about God.

Wizard22, your comment is as ignorant as it is laughable. Let’s get something straight: your god, this stupid, cruel, and sadistic figment of your imagination, isn’t "nothingness." It’s worse—it’s a delusion. A dangerous, manipulative, and utterly human-made delusion. It’s a creation of fear and ignorance, designed to control and intimidate. And thank reality, it doesn’t exist outside of the fantasies of those too afraid to face the world as it is.

You toss around the word "God" as if it carries some intrinsic meaning, yet you offer nothing but circular nonsense to back it up. You project your delusions onto atheists, accusing them of defining "God" as nothingness, when the truth is that atheists define it exactly as it deserves to be: non-existent. Your inability to comprehend this simple distinction says far more about you than it does about those of us who reject your fairy tales.

Your god isn’t powerful; it’s pathetic. It’s not a cosmic force; it’s a reflection of human cruelty, your own insecurities, and a refusal to take responsibility for the reality of the universe. If your god is the best explanation you can come up with for existence, then your imagination is as empty as your arguments.

So keep clinging to your delusions if they comfort you, but don’t expect the rest of us to humor your fantasy. Your "God" deserves nothing more than ridicule and rejection, and it gets exactly that from anyone who values reason over fear.

Not to mention dishonest. ''Most times I ask Atheists to define "God", they define Him as "Nothingness". Something no so-called 'atheist' said EVER. It doesn't even make sense and is self-contradictory

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 5:47 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 4:43 am

This saying amounts to a metaphor which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Let's see if that turns out to be true.

Let's see depends on who decides.

No, "let's see" depends only on what reality turns out to be.

Heavens! This is getting serious! The Cosmic Order is being upset!

Woe unto thee, Wizard22, whose words are as empty as the void that lies between thy ears. Thy argument, a laughable travesty, doth stumble and stagger, like a drunken fool in the dark.

Thy grasp of logic, a fragile reed, doth bend and break beneath the weight of thy own ignorance. Thou flailest in the shallow end of reason, clinging to any straw that might keep thy delusion afloat.

And now, thou hast unleashed upon the world thy latest masterpiece of incoherence. A claim so absurd, so bereft of understanding, that it doth beggar description. Thou sayest that "gravity is a theory," as if the very fabric of reality were but a mere notion, a whimsy to be dismissed at thy pleasure.

Fie upon thee, Wizard22! Thou dost betray thy fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Gravity, that most fundamental of forces, is both a theory and a fact. The phenomenon of objects attracting one another, a truth observable and measurable, is explained by the theory of gravity. And yet, thou dost seek to diminish its reality, to reduce it to a mere "theory," as if the word itself were a talisman, a magical incantation that could banish the truth.

Woe unto thee, Wizard22, for thou dost confuse the scientific theory with the colloquial use of the term. Thou dost conflate the rigorous, evidence-based explanations of science with the idle speculations of the uninformed.

Heed this warning, Wizard22, and tremble before the altar of knowledge. For thy ignorance is not just a laughing matter, but a danger, a threat to the very foundations of our understanding. Repent, and seek wisdom, lest thou fall prey to the very delusions thou dost seek to perpetuate.

Guess it's just a baseless fantasy that apples fall and people don't randomly float up into the sky. Oh my Nothingness, how was I so blind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:12 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 5:47 am
Let's see if that turns out to be true.

Let's see depends on who decides.

No, "let's see" depends only on what reality turns out to be.

The truth content of a metaphor is determined by him who interprets it. Metaphors, in effect, are liquid interpretations of truth relative to the insight of the interpreter.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 8:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:12 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:02 am

Let's see depends on who decides.

No, "let's see" depends only on what reality turns out to be.

The truth content of a metaphor is determined by him who interprets it.

No, the truth is determined by reality; and the accurate interpretation, defined by the one who created the statement. What the recipient would like to believe is just about the least important thing on earth. It will not alter reality, nor the meaning of the speaker.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:39 pm [
So I’ll say it one more time: deal with the reality of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws that govern the universe, or admit that your argument is nothing but the frightened ramblings of someone terrified to confront the truth. Choose—if your "free will" allows it.

You've been told many times but fail to understand:

The conservation laws don't govern the universe: they describe the universe. To claim otherwise is to have a deistic, cosmic clockmaker world view.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 11:03 am Human imagination is unbound by physical laws and reality. In my imagination, I can move any direction, any time, past present and future. I can create matter. I can destroy matter. I can conjure fantastical beasts and dragons. There is no Causality, or, as much Causality as I desire. I can Cause things to be. I can Uncause things to be.

That is true based on the actual existence of human fantasy, which allows for the mental escape velocity to encompass regions unbridled to any reality. Its effect on actual science is not to be underestimated as thought experiments.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 11:03 amImagination influences Choice. Therefore something "Impossible" affects the decision-making process, something Uncaused.

That is also true. The first step in attempting to apply credibility to another nugget of reality is to decide what makes it impossible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 8:56 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 8:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:12 pm
No, "let's see" depends only on what reality turns out to be.

The truth content of a metaphor is determined by him who interprets it.

No, the truth is determined by reality; and the accurate interpretation, defined by the one who created the statement. What the recipient would like to believe is just about the least important thing on earth. It will not alter reality, nor the meaning of the speaker.

If truth is determined by reality, which it is, then your plenary biblical beliefs are in deep doo-doo.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:20 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:39 pm [
So I’ll say it one more time: deal with the reality of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws that govern the universe, or admit that your argument is nothing but the frightened ramblings of someone terrified to confront the truth. Choose—if your "free will" allows it.

You've been told many times but fail to understand:

The conservation laws don't govern the universe: they describe the universe. To claim otherwise is to have a deistic, cosmic clockmaker world view.

Alexiev, your comment is nothing but a transparent attempt to dodge the actual challenge. Describing the universe and governing the universe aren’t mutually exclusive. The conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—are the frameworks within which everything observable happens. They describe the universe precisely because they govern it. Without them, there’s no coherent model of reality, no explanation for cause and effect, and certainly no basis for your pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

But let’s not pretend this is about semantics. You’re not interested in engaging with the science because it obliterates your position. You’re clinging to your flimsy rhetoric like a drowning man clutching at straws because you’re terrified to confront the truth: your argument is baseless. If you think the conservation laws and fundamental interactions don’t shape every process in the universe, name a single physical event that occurs outside their domain. Go ahead. Point to one shred of evidence.

Your weak jab about a "deistic, cosmic clockmaker worldview" is laughable. Believing that the universe operates under consistent physical principles isn’t deism—it’s reality. You’re the one projecting magical thinking, desperately trying to pretend that something as absurd as "uncaused causes" can fit into a universe governed by causality.

So, once again: deal with the reality of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws, or admit that your argument is nothing but frightened rambling, a crutch for someone too scared to face the deterministic truth. If you want to keep dodging, fine, but don’t expect anyone here to take your nonsense seriously.