For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Well, thanks for not ignoring me I guessImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:50 pmI will ignore those who can't keep up, intellectually. Obviously, they aren't capable of understanding it anyway.
No, there is no need. You have to try to imagine a situation in which there was physical stuff at the beginning of time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pmYou've just contradicted yourself. If the "stuff was just there," then there has to be a cause of "the stuff."
That does not follow.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm Whatever that is, IT is the First Cause, by definition.
That is correct.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm Moreover, since physical stuff is entropic, we know it hasn't always existed.
Dissolving!? Physical stuff does not dissolve but evolves to a state of maximum entropy, so-called heat death.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm We can watch it dissolving. There's only so long dissolution can go on, until there's nothing left.
We'll see. If you can at least show a basic understanding of the argument, great.
"dissolving" lmaobahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:03 pmDissolving!? Physical stuff does not dissolve but evolves to a state of maximum entropy, so-called heat death.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm We can watch it dissolving. There's only so long dissolution can go on, until there's nothing left.
"Stuff" is material. Materials are entropic.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:03 pmNo, there is no need. You have to try to imagine a situation in which there was physical stuff at the beginning of time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pmYou've just contradicted yourself. If the "stuff was just there," then there has to be a cause of "the stuff."
Actually, it does. You can't go beyond the First Cause.That does not follow.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm Whatever that is, IT is the First Cause, by definition.
Which contradicts your first claim. So you're going to have to "pick a horse and ride it," because those claims are opposite: the "stuff" can't be both entropic, and hence not always existed, and also be the First Cause.That is correct.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm Moreover, since physical stuff is entropic, we know it hasn't always existed.
Dissolving is a word that simply means, "moving from a state of higher concentration to one of lower concentration." Matter decaying is a moving from a state of higher concentration to one of equal distribution of energy.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:31 pm"dissolving" lmaobahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:03 pmDissolving!? Physical stuff does not dissolve but evolves to a state of maximum entropy, so-called heat death.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm We can watch it dissolving. There's only so long dissolution can go on, until there's nothing left.
"concentration"Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:54 pmDissolving is a word that simply means, "moving from a state of higher concentration to one of lower concentration." Matter decaying is a moving from a state of higher concentration to one of equal distribution of energy.
Sad that you don't know that. But my expectations of your wit and knowledge have taken a serious hit today.
Ah so that's why you ad hommed me like 5 times now, instead of making a real argument.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:05 pmAaaaand...there it is!Right on cue. The ad hominem. The first refuge of the defeated.
Well, I'm not going to waste my time.
There is no need for the creation if the stuff existed at the beginning of time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:50 pm"Stuff" is material. Materials are entropic.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:03 pmNo, there is no need. You have to try to imagine a situation in which there was physical stuff at the beginning of time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm
You've just contradicted yourself. If the "stuff was just there," then there has to be a cause of "the stuff."
A proper account would be for you to explain what created the "stuff."
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pmThat does not follow.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm Whatever that is, IT is the First Cause, by definition.
Actually, it does. You can't go beyond the First Cause.
I agree with the fact that things cannot have always existed. There was a beginning. There were things, material stuff, at the beginning.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pmWhich contradicts your first claim. So you're going to have to "pick a horse and ride it," because those claims are opposite: the "stuff" can't be both entropic, and hence not always existed, and also be the First Cause.That is correct.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:48 pm Moreover, since physical stuff is entropic, we know it hasn't always existed.
He really isn't great at self-reflection in these conversations. I guess most of us aren't, but seeing the irony front and center is entertaining.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:08 pmAh so that's why you ad hommed me like 5 times now, instead of making a real argument.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:05 pmAaaaand...there it is!
Well, I'm not going to waste my time.
I don't think he cares, he's just trying to score points with God no matter what.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:50 pmHe really isn't great at self-reflection in these conversations. I guess most of us aren't, but seeing the irony front and center is entertaining.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:08 pmAh so that's why you ad hommed me like 5 times now, instead of making a real argument.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:05 pm
Aaaaand...there it is!
Well, I'm not going to waste my time.
Fair enough. Would you say that the argument that you presented was a "deductive" one or an inductive one?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:45 pmAre you supposing that water erosion is "creation"? It rather seems the opposite, does it not? It seems yet another case of entropy.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:50 pmSo are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:43 pm
That's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.
What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."
He doesn't need to score points with God, he's a Christian. God forgives those who follow Jesus no matter what they do and sends the rest of us to hell even if we regularly help little old ladies cross the street. He gets a get out of jail free card according to his Bible.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:58 pmI don't think he cares, he's just trying to score points with God no matter what.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:50 pmHe really isn't great at self-reflection in these conversations. I guess most of us aren't, but seeing the irony front and center is entertaining.