Philosophy Now Forum

That's why i fuck with god so much. Two things i do all the time is give my customers (if they aren't bourgeois) really low prices, and I'm constantly giving homeless people money and 'rounding up' during purchases for charity. All the while being a hellion on erf.

I've turned that asshole's brain into a pretzel and he's so shook up he duddint know what to do.

God be like 'Michael, Gab, u two go down there and straighten this punk out' and then Mike and Gab are like 'yeah u know i uh, I'm not feelin too well.... think i have a cold or sumthin. Can i sit this one out?'

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:50 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:03 pm
No, there is no need. You have to try to imagine a situation in which there was physical stuff at the beginning of time.

"Stuff" is material. Materials are entropic.

A proper account would be for you to explain what created the "stuff."

There is no need for the creation if the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

"Beginning of time"? If there was a "beginning" for the "stuff," then it's not eternal.

But do tell me everything you know about this eternal "stuff" that has power to create. I'd be interested in hearing about that.

I agree with the fact that things cannot have always existed. There was a beginning. There were things, material stuff, at the beginning.

That's the issue: did the material stuff have to "begin"? If not, tell me what this stuff was. But it can't be entropic, so it can't be material. It has to have been eternal. So what was this "stuff"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:50 pm

So are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?

Are you supposing that water erosion is "creation"? It rather seems the opposite, does it not? It seems yet another case of entropy.

Fair enough. Would you say that the argument that you presented was a "deductive" one or an inductive one?

I've already said that the second stage of the argument, like all good science, is high-level inductive. And it's all the more so, since nobody has any plausible proposal for what an alternate "First Cause" could be.

By analogy, when there's only one candidate in the election, the outcome is pretty much decided, isn't it?

So propose another "candidate," if you can.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:45 pm
Are you supposing that water erosion is "creation"? It rather seems the opposite, does it not? It seems yet another case of entropy.

Fair enough. Would you say that the argument that you presented was a "deductive" one or an inductive one?

I've already said that the second stage of the argument, like all good science, is high-level inductive. And it's all the more so, since nobody has any plausible proposal for what an alternate "First Cause" could be.

I don't think we know an answer to that question. Maybe it's a human prejudice to think that everything had to have an "intelligent" designer. Maybe it's a human prejudice to think that God has any care for us at all. Maybe we can't fathom the answer to what created the universe or maybe we can't fathom an infinite universe for whatever reason.

We know of 1 universe. In 1 out of 1 known universes, order arose out of seeming disorder. Is that indicative that 100% of universes can be this way or are there other universes in which there is no order from disorder?

But think of all the misguided religions and scientific hypotheses out there proposed by the priestly class to the populace. Many ideas have been shown to be wrong or shown to lack solid evidence. What are the chances that we humans are still wrong, just as Ptolemy was or some of the failed religions that no longer exist appear to have been?

"Maybe it's a human prejudice to think that God has any care for us at all."

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:04 pm

Fair enough. Would you say that the argument that you presented was a "deductive" one or an inductive one?

I've already said that the second stage of the argument, like all good science, is high-level inductive. And it's all the more so, since nobody has any plausible proposal for what an alternate "First Cause" could be.

I don't think we know an answer to that question.

Okay. Then here's what you have: one possible explanation of how the universe began, by intelligent design, and on the other side....no explanation at all.

Maybe it's a human prejudice to think that everything had to have an "intelligent" designer.

Or it's a prejudice to want to avoid believing there's an intelligent designer. The criticism swings both ways, equally: so it's not very useful, is it?

We know of 1 universe.

Be careful with this claim. Literally, the term "universe" refers to "all-in-one": the universus, in Latin, literally means "combined into one."

In other words, "universe" means absolutely everything we know, or can know. So there is, by definition, not a single evidence at all for any other "universes." And if evidence of some other realm becomes evident, it will mean that it's part of this "universe," not of another one.

So we have only one "universe," and there is only one explanation that makes any sense for the existence of that universe, because we can't seem to even imagine a competing candidate.

So far, so good?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:15 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:50 pm
"Stuff" is material. Materials are entropic.

A proper account would be for you to explain what created the "stuff."

There is no need for the creation if the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

"Beginning of time"? If there was a "beginning" for the "stuff," then it's not eternal.

But do tell me everything you know about this eternal "stuff" that has power to create. I'd be interested in hearing about that.

I agree with the fact that things cannot have always existed. There was a beginning. There were things, material stuff, at the beginning.

That's the issue: did the material stuff have to "begin"? If not, tell me what this stuff was. But it can't be entropic, so it can't be material. It has to have been eternal. So what was this "stuff"?

Matter, itself, is eternal. OBVIOUSLY.

It is like some of these adult human beings, when this was being written, were, literally, completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF, thinking and understanding wise.

Some, actually, believed, absolutely, that 'matter', itself, just appeared, and 'before' this there was absolutely no thing.

While some, actually, believed, absolutely, that 'matter', itself, just appeared, and 'before' this there was some thing.

These people were, literally, absolutely CLOSED, by the 'beliefs' that they had, and were holding onto.

What is, absolutely, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct here, and irrefutably so, is blatantly obvious. If only those who cannot yet 'see' this just stopped presuming and believing what they are, then they, also, could 'see' the actual Truth also.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:45 pm
Are you supposing that water erosion is "creation"? It rather seems the opposite, does it not? It seems yet another case of entropy.

Fair enough. Would you say that the argument that you presented was a "deductive" one or an inductive one?

I've already said that the second stage of the argument, like all good science, is high-level inductive. And it's all the more so, since nobody has any plausible proposal for what an alternate "First Cause" could be.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about showing and proving absolutely True how some are absolutely CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF here.

I have provided 'the alternate', which absolutely no one could refute, a number of times already. Obviously, some are just to BLIND, and DEAF, to 'see' and 'hear'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:18 pm By analogy, when there's only one candidate in the election, the outcome is pretty much decided, isn't it?

So propose another "candidate," if you can.

LOL 'This one', still, believes, absolutely that some thing, which it believes, absolutely as well, is, laughingly, 'male gendered' of all things, created absolutely everything else, besides its 'male self'.

Which gets more funnier each and every time 'this one' tries to fight and argue for this here.

'This one' is 'trying to' claim and argue that a so-called 'male gendered first cause' created absolutely every thing, other than "his" 'self', of course.

This really was how absolutely STUPID human beings used to be.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:04 pm

Fair enough. Would you say that the argument that you presented was a "deductive" one or an inductive one?

I've already said that the second stage of the argument, like all good science, is high-level inductive. And it's all the more so, since nobody has any plausible proposal for what an alternate "First Cause" could be.

I don't think we know an answer to that question. Maybe it's a human prejudice to think that everything had to have an "intelligent" designer. Maybe it's a human prejudice to think that God has any care for us at all. Maybe we can't fathom the answer to what created the universe or maybe we can't fathom an infinite universe for whatever reason.

We know of 1 universe. In 1 out of 1 known universes, order arose out of seeming disorder.

you present this like the One and only Universe came out of something else. Which is as laughable as what "Immanuel can" 'tries to' present and argue for here.

you both are as CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF as each other here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:45 pm Is that indicative that 100% of universes can be this way or are there other universes in which there is no order from disorder?

What does this word 'disorder' even mean, or refer to, exactly?

What might actually be found is that the word 'disorder' was used to just try to cover up what one does not, actually, know, and thus considers 'complex'.

There is, absolutely, nothing at all hard, nor complex, to comprehend and understand here regarding how the Universe, Itself, through evolution is creating "Its" 'Self', always.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:45 pm But think of all the misguided religions and scientific hypotheses out there proposed by the priestly class to the populace.

Yes, think of them all, and 'see', and realize, that every one has FAILED, and HOW they have.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:45 pm Many ideas have been shown to be wrong or shown to lack solid evidence. What are the chances that we humans are still wrong, just as Ptolemy was or some of the failed religions that no longer exist appear to have been?

Obviously, every time any one of you presents some thing that can be refuted, then what is presented IS Wrong.

Only that which is presented that is irrefutable IS Right. All of 'the rest' that you human beings have been going on about is just a, complete, 'waste of time', as some of you call 'it'. And, as the past few thousand or so years of 'discussions', hitherto when this is being written, proves so, irrefutably.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:51 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:18 pm I've already said that the second stage of the argument, like all good science, is high-level inductive. And it's all the more so, since nobody has any plausible proposal for what an alternate "First Cause" could be.

I don't think we know an answer to that question.

Okay. Then here's what you have: one possible explanation of how the universe began, by intelligent design, and on the other side....no explanation at all.

LOL Although there has never ever been one shred of proof for this 'these ones', literally, still went on believing, absolutely, that the Universe began. They did not just assume or presume this to be the case, they, literally, absolutely believed that the Universe, Itself, begun.

Thus why they, literally, completely and utterly missed, and misunderstood, what the 'first cause', actually, is, and what 'that term' is referring to, exactly.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:51 am

Maybe it's a human prejudice to think that everything had to have an "intelligent" designer.

Or it's a prejudice to want to avoid believing there's an intelligent designer. The criticism swings both ways, equally: so it's not very useful, is it?

Are you implying here that you 'want to' 'choose' to believe that there is a so-called 'intelligent designer' here "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:51 am

We know of 1 universe.

Be careful with this claim. Literally, the term "universe" refers to "all-in-one": the universus, in Latin, literally means "combined into one."

So, what would any one have to be so-called 'careful' about with the claim here, 'There is One Universe', for, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:51 am In other words, "universe" means absolutely everything we know, or can know. So there is, by definition, not a single evidence at all for any other "universes." And if evidence of some other realm becomes evident, it will mean that it's part of this "universe," not of another one.

Talk about showing just how much 'these ones' would 'trip up' on words, and their usage of words.

By the way, what can be very clearly noticed throughout this forum, among countless other places, is just how much 'these people', back then, would 'rely on' 'evidence', instead of 'actual proof', instead. For example, there is 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth. Which some just preferred to 'look at', 'see', and use, instead of just 'looking at', 'seeing', and using 'proof'.

It was like some people, back then, believed that 'evidence' countered or overrode 'proof'. Which was funny to observe, and play out, in what was called 'real time'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:51 am So we have only one "universe," and there is only one explanation that makes any sense for the existence of that universe, because we can't seem to even imagine a competing candidate.

So far, so good?

LOL Now, this is what happens with 'belief', in its purest form.

'This one' believes some thing here, so absolutely any and everything else that counters or opposes 'that belief' is absolutely false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect, and thus can be automatically instantly dismissed and ignored. Even though the 'other view' could be what, actually, is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct. Once one believes some thing is true and while believing that 'it' is true, then that one is completely and utterly CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF.

As "immanuel can", among others, here is proving absolutely True and Correct, for me, HERE.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:58 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:50 pm

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.

I don't think he cares, he's just trying to score points with God no matter what.

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.

He's playing it safe. The Bible usually talks about what normal people should do, but since IC is a sociopath and not really a person, things are more uncertain. So he tries to imagine what kind of things God (who he can only imagine as the boss sociopath) would be pleased with, and he does that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:15 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:50 pm
"Stuff" is material. Materials are entropic.

A proper account would be for you to explain what created the "stuff."

There is no need for the creation if the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

"Beginning of time"? If there was a "beginning" for the "stuff," then it's not eternal.

Yes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:15 pm But do tell me everything you know about this eternal "stuff" that has power to create. I'd be interested in hearing about that.

I didn't say about eternal stuff that has power to create. I simply said that stuff existed at the beginning of time.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:15 pm

I agree with the fact that things cannot have always existed. There was a beginning. There were things, material stuff, at the beginning.

That's the issue: did the material stuff have to "begin"?

No, the stuff didn't begin to exist. It simply existed.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:15 pm If not, tell me what this stuff was.

Simply material stuff.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:08 am I didn't say about eternal stuff that has power to create. I simply said that stuff existed at the beginning of time.

If it's not eternal, then your candidate for "First Cause" isn't plausible. You would have the causal regress problem, namely, that a chain of causes infinite in the past would never begin. But things have begun. So we know that it had to be something prior to the "stuff," as you call it, that is the genuine First Cause of all things.

No, the stuff didn't begin to exist. It simply existed.

Then again: tell us what this "stuff" is, so we can see if it is an adequate explanation for the universe existing. If it is, we'll believe you; if it's not, then it's not. And we'll say why.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:15 pm If not, tell me what this stuff was.

Simply material stuff.

Again, all material "stuff" is contingent and entropic. That means it's obviously not eternal. We can map its history of 'decay' by its rate of entropy, and the fact of its contingent nature by the mere fact of its entropy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 2:19 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:08 am I didn't say about eternal stuff that has power to create. I simply said that stuff existed at the beginning of time.

If it's not eternal, then your candidate for "First Cause" isn't plausible. You would have the causal regress problem, namely, that a chain of causes infinite in the past would never begin. But things have begun. So we know that it had to be something prior to the "stuff," as you call it, that is the genuine First Cause of all things.

No, there is no prior point to the beginning of time. It is meaningless to talk about the prior point to the beginning of time. There was a point, the beginning of time and there was physical stuff there. If physical stuff simply existed at the beginning of time then you don't need a first cause to create it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 2:19 pm

No, the stuff didn't begin to exist. It simply existed.

Then again: tell us what this "stuff" is, so we can see if it is an adequate explanation for the universe existing. If it is, we'll believe you; if it's not, then it's not. And we'll say why.

Just physical stuff, matter, and energy.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 2:43 pm No, there is no prior point to the beginning of time. It is meaningless to talk about the prior point to the beginning of time. There was a point, the beginning of time and there was physical stuff there. If physical stuff simply existed at the beginning of time then you don't need a first cause to create it.

When did the beginning of time begin, in your opinion bahman?