Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:56 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:52 pm In other words, I declare pox on both houses, nobody who takes one side over the other in that debate has a sufficient understanding of the limits of their arguments.

Sounds fair to me.

I don't normally look in the religion sub tbh, it's a sacred space reserved for crazy people to shout at each other and I feel like a trespasser in a clowns graveyard when I go there. But it's good that you let the crazy people take a vacation in the general sub so we can all get our occasional reminder not to visit their home. Age is on quite the streak there.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:52 pm In other words, I declare pox on both houses, nobody who takes one side over the other in that debate has a sufficient understanding of the limits of their arguments.

I declare pox on your faux fence-sitting.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:52 pm P3. We have no means to look outside of time and space that we inhabit.

Q.E.D you believe there is an outside, despite your epistemic limitations. Guess which side of the fence this puts you on...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:42 pm the existence of God

What is God doing now, Gary?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 5:48 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:28 pm

If we live in a world where God is so easily logically provable, it seems strange that we also live in a world where the most apparently rational people in bulk seem not to believe in God...

It is great to see you use the 'apparently' word here. Because, and obviously, what is 'apparent' to you is not to another.

And, obviously, the 'rational people' are, always coincidentally, the exact same ones who have the exact same belief/s.

To not believe in God is just as foolish and irrational as to believe in God.

The Truly rational people here, by the way, already know what 'to do'.

Well I'm glad our resident time traveller knows what to do, even if he's too good to spell it out for us lowly 21st-centurians

It appears ones like 'this one', still, do not yet know what to do. Or, if they do, then they, still, will not just do it.

Me-Be wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:31 pm Something, physical stuff, could simply existed at the beginning of time without a cause.

The beginning of time is a 'thought'.

But, 'the beginning of time' is what it is. Obviously, though, one would have known what the word 'time' is referring to, exactly, to know when, and what, the the term and phrase 'the beginning of time' is referring to, exactly.

Me-Be wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 am There is no time where time began. There is no time when time ends.

Are 'you' even able to explain to the readers here what the word 'time' here is even referring to, exactly?

If no, then why claim things about 'time', itself?

But, if yes, then will you explain to the readers here what the word 'time' is referring to, exactly, here?

Me-Be wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 am So what or who is conscious of 'thought' right now?

The 'Mind', or 'God' if one prefers.

Me-Be wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 am That question cannot be answered, because there is nobody asking it, it's simply a 'thought' known Now.

But, 'that question' was asked through a human body, therefore there was a, or some, body asking that question. Therefore, 'that question' can, and as seen, was answered.

Me-Be wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 am Now is never in some past or future time. 'Time' is a 'thought' known only Now.

Unless 'you' can, and will, backup, support, and prove your claim/s here True and Right, then what are more or less saying is just illogical nonsense.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:09 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:56 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:52 pm In other words, I declare pox on both houses, nobody who takes one side over the other in that debate has a sufficient understanding of the limits of their arguments.

Sounds fair to me.

I don't normally look in the religion sub tbh, it's a sacred space reserved for crazy people to shout at each other and I feel like a trespasser in a clowns graveyard when I go there. But it's good that you let the crazy people take a vacation in the general sub so we can all get our occasional reminder not to visit their home. Age is on quite the streak there.

Once again I just show how illogical another's views and/or beliefs are, and instead of them just staying and just even just 'trying to' counter me, or even 'trying to' prove me Wrong, they do not respond to 'my words', and prefer to just talk 'about me' instead.

I asked 'this one' to just clarify its position, but obviously it could, and would, not. And, why this is so is blatantly obvious.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:42 pm I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?

People that make such arguments often fill the gaps with others - such as the fine-tuning argument.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

The argument goes something along the lines of "Well, if multitudes of universes are possible, what is the mechanism which chooses any particular settings for any particular universe?"

Which effectively reduces "intelligence" down to the ability to choose to manigest this universe from an infinite range of possible universes.
The argument has teleological merit - as an intelligent being you choose what to manifest as breakfast from a range of possibilities.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:31 pm I attack the first premise. Something, physical stuff, could simply existed at the beginning of time without a cause.

Your objection amounts to special pleading. P1 holds empirically/inductively for everything known.

The physical is what physics describes. That's all the stuff which began expanding.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:38 pm Once again...

Not today Josephine

Most of the message boards responses are just data dumps. Do you understand what you are posting in your data dumps? Most of message boards responses do you understand what you are posting?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:12 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:31 pm I attack the first premise. Something, physical stuff, could simply existed at the beginning of time without a cause.

Your objection amounts to special pleading. P1 holds empirically/inductively for everything known.

The physical is what physics describes. That's all the stuff which began expanding.

Yeah, all stuff began to expand from something that existed at the beginning of time. There is no need for a God to cause it since that stuff simply existed at the beginning of time.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:20 pm Yeah, all stuff began to expand from something that existed at the beginning of time. There is no need for a God to cause it since that stuff simply existed at the beginning of time.

OK... was there any need for anything to cause the pre-existing stuff to start expanding? Or is that just what pre-existing stuff does?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:20 pm Yeah, all stuff began to expand from something that existed at the beginning of time. There is no need for a God to cause it since that stuff simply existed at the beginning of time.

OK... was there any need for anything to cause the pre-existing stuff to start expanding? Or is that just what pre-existing stuff does?

That was its property. It was a very hot and dense so it has capacity to expand. Of course we need to accept that the universe is expanding from a point.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:27 pm That was its property. It was a very hot and dense so it has capacity to expand. Of course we need to accept that the universe is expanding from a point.

So this stuff that had the capacity to expand....began actualizing this capacity.

And you think that event neither requires nor has an explanation.

Methinks you are a few steps removed from recognizing the man-made Mathematical construction obscuring your view.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:27 pm That was its property. It was a very hot and dense so it has capacity to expand. Of course we need to accept that the universe is expanding from a point.

So this stuff that had the capacity to expand....began actualizing this capacity.

Yes.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:58 pm And you think that event neither requires nor has an explanation.

There is an explanation for it. The stuff was very hot and dense so the pressure was very high at that point. Any system that has high pressure tends to reach lower pressure if it can expand. That was what happened. I studied cosmology long time ago, over 30 years ago, so I do not recall the details but what I provided is the gist of the cosmology.