Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:There's no such thing as 'human' logic, just logic.

Good for you, I'll not bother you again with my non-human logic.

Why would it be good for me?

There is no 'non-human' logic, just logic and by-and-large in Philosophy it has proved a useful tool in discussion but not so useful in discovering how things actually work in the world. This is why Aristotle, Anselm, et al, died a death in such matters and the natural philosophers arose but apparently some haven't heard the word.No surprise there as Philosophy is oft talked about but little read.

Dubious wrote:Your belief it seems...

A lot of things "seem" that are not so, Dube.

Your motives are clear...

Then how come you got them wrong?

...to leave the field...

Not leaving, Dube. Still here. And still looking for answers to my invitation for people to share their view.

Also note, nothing is an insult when it's true.

What I said, Dube, was that I can't be bothered with insults. I don't waste time on them. They don't add information to anything, and they're just silly.

People who resort to personal insults make me think of someone who's lost bladder control right in the middle of a discussion. I have to watch them wet themselves, and figure out how to remain composed. I never feel wounded (how could I: people here have no idea who I am -- every word I say could be a screen -- it's not, but it could be). I do, however, feel embarrassed on their behalf, and I dislike that feeling.

I have no hesitancy to answer a relevant question, Dube. I just don't want to play insult tennis with anybody, and especially not you right now. And really, I don't think anybody else wants to read that kind of stuff.

So let's not.

thedoc wrote:Well IC, Have you had enough fighting with everyone so that you can just continue with your explanation of the Cosmological argument?

I'm beginning to think you're just here for the fight.

Hey, I'm trying desperately NOT to fight.

I'm simply holding my ground in an argument and enduring a lot of specious attempts at abuse. But I have no interest in a fight here. I'm more than happy to abandon all that sort of thing...I just wish others would.

That being said, why should I back off a position if the position is true, or even if I think I have good reason to believe it is? What are we here for?

I'm ready to continue. But I was hoping somebody would be interested in telling me whether they find empirical grounds to believe the First Cause (whatever "it" is, yet to be established) is purposeful or chance-driven, and why.

So let me just put that out there again: any takers?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
You believe in "created gods"? Are you a Roman? An ancient Greek?

No. I'm asking you. I don't believe in anything.

I don't believe in "created gods" either. So what's your question?

You might want to learn to read.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Well IC, Have you had enough fighting with everyone so that you can just continue with your explanation of the Cosmological argument?

I'm beginning to think you're just here for the fight.

Hey, I'm trying desperately NOT to fight.

I'm simply holding my ground in an argument and enduring a lot of specious attempts at abuse. But I have no interest in a fight here. I'm more than happy to abandon all that sort of thing...I just wish others would.

That being said, why should I back off a position if the position is true, or even if I think I have good reason to believe it is? What are we here for?

I'm ready to continue. But I was hoping somebody would be interested in telling me whether they find empirical grounds to believe the First Cause (whatever "it" is, yet to be established) is purposeful or chance-driven, and why.

So let me just put that out there again: any takers?

I can see that, sort of. Do you realize that I had to go back to page 27 to find the question just to be sure I got it right, and we're on page 29 now.
I would think that you can recognize a post that is just being hostile and ignore it, I have no problem with your intention to stand your ground, but some posters are not here to make you move, just to antagonize you for no good reason.

"Step 4: What would be most adequate as an explanatory cause of the kind of universe in which we live? (Here we are thrown on empirical and inductive methodology, seeking the hypothesis that gives the best, most probable explanation.)"

One explanation (which the atheists won't like), is that God created the universe.
It could also be considered that the universe came into existence spontaneously, but some will claim that everything had to have a cause, but they are short of stating why.
The cycling universe is another possibility but that just puts the problem back to the cause of the first universe, so we are no better off than just explaining how this universe could have started.
My self, I tend to favor the God created it idea, and I don't believe it is necessary or meaningful to contemplate where God came from, God just existed and there is no reason to expect God to behave according to human expectations, or human logic.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No. I'm asking you. I don't believe in anything.

I don't believe in "created gods" either. So what's your question?

You might want to learn to read.

And you should as well, you brought up the idea of a created God and IC stated that he didn't believe in a created God, so the question "Who created God?" is meaningless and you need to rephrase the question.

IC I'm just trying to clarify for everyone else's benefit, I know Hobbes is just being hostile.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
I don't believe in "created gods" either. So what's your question?

You might want to learn to read.

And you should as well, you brought up the idea of a created God and IC stated that he didn't believe in a created God, so the question "Who created God?" is meaningless and you need to rephrase the question.

IC I'm just trying to clarify for everyone else's benefit, I know Hobbes is just being hostile.

You might be fooling yourself, but the cosmological argument is question begging nonsense, and denying that god is created, means that anyone can assert that the universe is created by the same token.

Immanuel Can wrote:
People who resort to personal insults make me think of someone who's lost bladder control right in the middle of a discussion. I have to watch them wet themselves, and figure out how to remain composed. I never feel wounded (how could I: people here have no idea who I am -- every word I say could be a screen -- it's not, but it could be). I do, however, feel embarrassed on their behalf, and I dislike that feeling.

It must be awfully frustrating for you having to watch...while still remaining composed. I'm in total awe of your missionary zeal in ignoring and mutilating every counter argument presented or simply saying there aren't any. Yours is a long history of that from the very beginning!

Never once did you try to understand the profound faith based premise of Credo Quia Absurdum and what it implies. If I were a theist - inherently there is nothing wrong with being a theist - I would start with that in defense of the faith for it is a truly powerful argument. Instead a troll like you only manages to turn most people off with the exception of very few. If your intention was to elicit contempt you have succeeded admirably.

As an unbeliever I would consider you as nothing more than a bad joke, but worse, if I were a theist, you would not be a joke but a palpable insult to the very meaning and definition of faith.

thedoc wrote:One explanation (which the atheists won't like), is that God created the universe.

It's world's most poorly-kept secret that I would agree with you on that.

It could also be considered that the universe came into existence spontaneously, but some will claim that everything had to have a cause, but they are short of stating why.

Indeed. Moreover, they are much challenged by the inexplicable emergence of order out of what ought to be expected to be chaos. ( David Goldberg's article on this in Slate magazine is an excellent one: all the physics are against our existence, it would seem. http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/31/e ... f=comments )

The cycling universe is another possibility but that just puts the problem back to the cause of the first universe, so we are no better off than just explaining how this universe could have started.

The cyclical universe idea has been proved wrong, if we stick to things like linear time and one "reality." It was over with the Red Shift, if not before. It seems to me that Hawking's failure to provide a linear-cyclical model in his A Brief History of Time was probably the last convulsion of a dead theory there. Nobody's had anything on the linear basis since, so far as I can find. Even with non-linear models, the only life left in the cyclical model is when theoretical physicists posit empirically-unknown and eternally-unverifiable entities, like "layered realities and times," and "multiverses."

My self, I tend to favor the God created it idea, and I don't believe it is necessary or meaningful to contemplate where God came from, God just existed and there is no reason to expect God to behave according to human expectations, or human logic.

That makes sense. Whatever the necessary First Cause was -- God or otherwise -- it has to be different from all the contingent, caused beings for which it is supposed to account.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You might be fooling yourself, but the cosmological argument is question begging nonsense, and denying that god is created, means that anyone can assert that the universe is created by the same token.

Yes I could be, as could everyone else. The cosmological argument is an interesting question for those who wish to pursue it.

Yes it opens the way for anyone to assert anything they want, without proof, which is the usual way things are done here.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You might be fooling yourself, but the cosmological argument is question begging nonsense, and denying that god is created, means that anyone can assert that the universe is created by the same token.

Yes I could be, as could everyone else. The cosmological argument is an interesting question for those who wish to pursue it.

Yes it opens the way for anyone to assert anything they want, without proof, which is the usual way things are done here.

It is no argument at all.
It is baseless and always has been. Though it tries to resurface from time to time, its arguing its own premise - absurd.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
Indeed. Moreover, they are much challenged by the inexplicable emergence of order out of what ought to be expected to be chaos. ( David Goldberg's article on this in Slate magazine is an excellent one: all the physics are against our existence, it would seem. ...

Darwin, Biology and Dennett's 'Cranes not Skyhooks' would seem to be an answer to this one.

The cyclical universe idea has been proved wrong, if we stick to things like linear time and one "reality." It was over with the Red Shift, if not before. It seems to me that Hawking's failure to provide a linear-cyclical model in his A Brief History of Time was probably the last convulsion of a dead theory there. Nobody's had anything on the linear basis since, so far as I can find. Even with non-linear models, the only life left in the cyclical model is when theoretical physicists posit empirically-unknown and eternally-unverifiable entities, like "layered realities and times," and "multiverses."

Which completely ignores the main point of his book and that is that it is possible to have an infinite bounded space.

That makes sense. Whatever the necessary First Cause was -- God or otherwise -- it has to be different from all the contingent, caused beings for which it is supposed to account.

Why? Why is it not emulation rather than simulation?

What on earth makes IC think that if there is a 'God' that 'God' cannot have a 'God'?

Immanuel Can wrote:...
The cyclical universe idea has been proved wrong, ...

This is hysterical given that IC has repeatedly made the claim that physics is only about probabilities. So how has it been proved 'wrong'?

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:...
The cyclical universe idea has been proved wrong, ...

This is hysterical given that IC has repeatedly made the claim that physics is only about probabilities. So how has it been proved 'wrong'?

Often enough that it is no longer in question, except for those who have no understanding.