There is no such thing as an Atheists.

Author: Grugore

Posts

Total: 518
#391
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Grugore
You would first have to educate yourself on the subject. I bet you don't even know how many physical constants there are or what they do. One of them is preventing the atoms in your body for flying apart and becoming a bunch of subatomic particles.
Physics is god.

Ok, now what.
#392
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not talking about "my claims" witg you until you admit that The Ultimate Reality exists.

If you can't do that, we will go nowhere.

#393
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
Physics is a class of study related to the concept of matter.
#394
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, thank you, I think I understand what you are saying.

Please help secularmerlin catch up with you.

#395
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

This specifically is a black swan fallacy. Indeed in light of quantum fluctuation we cannot even say that we have not ever observed something which appears to be causeless. Also since quantum physics shows the possibility of nonlinear causation a cause need not precede an effect at all. The cause of the universe may not have yet occurred.

I do not accept your first premise.
#396
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Ok, thank you, I think I understand what you are saying.
Please help secularmerlin catch up with you.
My pleasure.
#397
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Everything that begins to exist has a cause


Even you admit that something in the future could cause something in the past, which is an admission of causality. You aren't even being consistent in your own bullshit.


And no, I don't believe for a second you know what you are talking about. I simply do not accept that you are a scientist.




#398
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
This specifically is a black swan fallacy. Indeed in light of quantum fluctuation we cannot even say that we have not ever observed something which appears to be causeless. Also since quantum physics shows the possibility of nonlinear causation a cause need not precede an effect at all. The cause of the universe may not have yet occurred.
Well stated.
#399
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Since I do claim to.know what I am talking about that is acceptable.

And since I do not believe you know what you are talking about that is fair.

The fact remains however that we have observed particles pop into existence with seemingly no cause and we have observed effects that happen before the cause of those effects have happened. It is therefore not beyond the realm of possibility that there is no cause of the universe or that the cause is a finite event that has not yet occurred which leaves us with at least two alternatives to the idea of a transcendent eternal cause. This means your first premise is flawed and must be addressed before the other premises of your argument can even be addressed.
#400
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If a cause does not "precede" an effect by normative relativity in time, that does not negate the necessity of cause for effect.  
#401
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
No but quantum fluctuations may show that cause is completely unnecessary. Would you care to address that plisken?
#402
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I will probably not be able to devote sufficient time necessary for processing theory at the quantum level, but in the interest of the conversation what are you contending is not an effect, not requiring a 'cause', or otherwise consistant with uncaused cause.

#403
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
Whatever you want to call it. That my meaning has been communicated is far more important than the specific language being used. 
#404
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know what "it" is or if "it" is.  You just said cause may be unnecessary and later mentioned "it".  Can you relate "it" to me?
#405
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
...what are you contending is not an effect, not requiring a 'cause', or otherwise consistant with uncaused cause.
Quantum flux. [LINK]

Quantum particles seem to "randomly" pop into and out of (observable) existence with no apparent cause.

This does not mean that they are "uncaused" but it also does not mean they are caused.

We are unable to determine if they are caused or not.

To assert they are caused would be to violate our epistemological limits.

To assert they are uncaused would also be a violation of our epistemological limits.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.


#406
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I am aware. that the stupidest interpretations of quantum physics say that everything is random and things just happen for no reason, but this is certainly not science.

And fyi "seemingly no cause" is not evidence of lack of cause. It is evidence of ignorance of a cause. Non linear causality as well as non local variables are still causal forces.

But really, this is another one of your ploys to weasel away from admitting The Ultimate Reality exists, and until you do this, you are wasting your time because I can't help but believe every word that proceeds from you is a lie or deception if you cannot accept this common ground.
#407
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
We don't actually know for certain. That is my only real point. Whether the claim is that cause is necessary or that it is not you are making an argument from ignorance. We can say that some events appear to be causeless. We can also say that most events observably have a cause. We cannot say what caused the physical universe or even that it had a cause per se.

(You will notice that I said quantum fluctuations may show that cause is completely unnecessary not that they do conclusively show this. Despite Mopac's objections and my all too frequent typos and misspellings I do try to be careful what I say.)

So I do not accept the premise that everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause. This is the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument and until it is addressed the rest of the argument has no basis. Not that the other premises of the argument are necessarily sound but the beginning is generally a good place to start.
#408
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac

#409
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
1 quantum fluctuation is not an evidence of things coming into being without a cause. That is preposterous and ignorant.

2 This has nothing to do with The Ultimate Reality existing.




And fyi, 3ru7al confesses what is obvious, that The Ultimate Reality exists.


Just waiting on you.
#410
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
One cannot prove a negative. If one claims that nothing could possibly begin to exist without a cause one us committing a black swan fallacy. If one further claims that one special thing exists that did not begin then one is also committing a case of special pleading. It is not reality that I am arguing against it is logical fallacies.
#411
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
One cannot prove a negative. If one claims that nothing could possibly begin to exist without a cause one us committing a black swan fallacy. If one further claims that one special thing exists that did not begin then one is also committing a case of special pleading.
Pure logic.
#412
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you contending that it's possible to get something from the absence of anything?  No energy, no wavy things, no basis for 'reality' of any sort whatsoever...nothing.  That would be the only way to rule out any cause.

#413
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
I am contending that we do not know if it is or is not possible and that a claim either way without proof to back it up is an argument from ignorance. 
#414
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If something can come from nothing, that must put the conservation of energy on shaky ground.
#415
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
Assuming that something has or could exist eternally puts the laws of thermodynamics on shaky ground. It seems that the laws of physics are on shaky ground no matter what we propose. Perhaps we should simply admit that we do not and cannot know where the universe came from (assuming it is more than an illusion).

#416
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
The Hindu have the nice idea that the gods are part of creation and not even they know where they came from.


#417
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Something does not come from nothing.  That's not fallacious in the way you say it is because the two are mutually exclusive.  One might even ponder that "thing" can be a limited way of thinking but Nothing has no way of resulting in anything.  I bet when I look into this it's going to be indicative of not being able to know certain things at the same time at the quantum level or something along those lines.  

#418
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
The Hindu have the nice idea that the gods are part of creation and not even they know where they came from.

Well geeze, what am I mincemeat? I've been explaining how creation works for awhile now. Perhaps you either ignore my posts or just shuck them off because you have the preconceived idea that all Theists are delusional. Oh excuse me, partially delusional my bad.

However, this is only partially correct. Some gods do and some don't they actually are not ignorant of it there are gods that do know the order of creation because there are different levels and multiverses. You have several divisions of creation and several overlords that govern those areas and just like the Bruce Lee movie Game of Death there is a hierarchy and that includes ability and knowledge. The game is that they enjoy playing the role of God and that is their existence and in return many souls love them unconditionally. Like any other being, they too love that relation. It is what life is, the only other option is to exist as One reality where there is no creation, no duality, no separation or contrast and no individual experience. 
All in all there is only a single Source out of which all originates, that is the final Godhead or what Mopac calls the "Ultimate Reality". 

#419
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
@keithprosser
Or what the Hindus call Brahman.

What they call Brahman is what monotheists call God.

#420
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
It is not a fallacy to declare the existence of The Ultimate Reality.

It is a fallacy to deny the existence of The Ultimate Reality.


As this is the case, being on the fence is not an intelligent position.


To say that The Ultimate Reality never began to exist is not a special pleading fallacy, it is necessarily true.


But it is a waste of time demonstrating this to someone who can't even believe that The Ultimate Reality exists to begin with. If you can't make that first step of sanity, proving anything would be a waste ofntime, because you don't really believe in proof.