Conquer Club

daddy1gringo wrote:

Back in 1988, researchers placed bacteria in an environment that pressured them to evolve the ability to metabolize (eat) citrate instead of the standard glucose. After 31,500 generations and 20 years, the bacteria finally ate citrate.1
Actually, this does represent new information acquired by the bacteria. However, the kind of information is critical to the question of whether Darwinian evolution has taken place. There is a difference between originating new information that is less specified, and originating new information that is more specified.
Although the bacteria under investigation gained the ability to process citrate, it was likely (although we do not yet know for sure) caused by the loss of their enzyme’s ability to recognize only glucose. It could also represent the expression of a pre-existing but dormant gene—again, nothing new. After all those generations, the tested bacteria remain the same genus and species, Escherichia coli. So far, the bacteria reproduce “according to their own kinds,” just as Genesis states.

Once again, you jump to the conclusion that an adaptation proves evolution which proves no such thing. I'm working on the genome one.

Adaptation does prove evolution... it doesn't prove that species evolve into new species, but it *does* prove evolution. As stated before, the mere fact that YOU are different from your parents proves evolution. There is a huge difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution, which namely the religious die-hards fail to recognize.

FabledIntegral wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

Back in 1988, researchers placed bacteria in an environment that pressured them to evolve the ability to metabolize (eat) citrate instead of the standard glucose. After 31,500 generations and 20 years, the bacteria finally ate citrate.1
Actually, this does represent new information acquired by the bacteria. However, the kind of information is critical to the question of whether Darwinian evolution has taken place. There is a difference between originating new information that is less specified, and originating new information that is more specified.
Although the bacteria under investigation gained the ability to process citrate, it was likely (although we do not yet know for sure) caused by the loss of their enzyme’s ability to recognize only glucose. It could also represent the expression of a pre-existing but dormant gene—again, nothing new. After all those generations, the tested bacteria remain the same genus and species, Escherichia coli. So far, the bacteria reproduce “according to their own kinds,” just as Genesis states.

Once again, you jump to the conclusion that an adaptation proves evolution which proves no such thing. I'm working on the genome one.

Adaptation does prove evolution... it doesn't prove that species evolve into new species, but it *does* prove evolution. As stated before, the mere fact that YOU are different from your parents proves evolution. There is a huge difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution, which namely the religious die-hards fail to recognize.

That's just splitting hairs and semantics though, all educated theists accept microevolution.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:That's just splitting hairs and semantics though, all educated theists accept microevolution.

To distinguish between micro and macro-evolution is silly anyway. Macro-evolution is precisely that which micro-evolution leads to.

Snorri1234 wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:That's just splitting hairs and semantics though, all educated theists accept microevolution.

To distinguish between micro and macro-evolution is silly anyway. Macro-evolution is precisely that which micro-evolution leads to.

Ditto.

little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change= Where the crap did this thing come from?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

Back in 1988, researchers placed bacteria in an environment that pressured them to evolve the ability to metabolize (eat) citrate instead of the standard glucose. After 31,500 generations and 20 years, the bacteria finally ate citrate.1
Actually, this does represent new information acquired by the bacteria. However, the kind of information is critical to the question of whether Darwinian evolution has taken place. There is a difference between originating new information that is less specified, and originating new information that is more specified.
Although the bacteria under investigation gained the ability to process citrate, it was likely (although we do not yet know for sure) caused by the loss of their enzyme’s ability to recognize only glucose. It could also represent the expression of a pre-existing but dormant gene—again, nothing new. After all those generations, the tested bacteria remain the same genus and species, Escherichia coli. So far, the bacteria reproduce “according to their own kinds,” just as Genesis states.

Once again, you jump to the conclusion that an adaptation proves evolution which proves no such thing. I'm working on the genome one.

Adaptation does prove evolution... it doesn't prove that species evolve into new species, but it *does* prove evolution. As stated before, the mere fact that YOU are different from your parents proves evolution. There is a huge difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution, which namely the religious die-hards fail to recognize.

That's just splitting hairs and semantics though, all educated theists accept microevolution.

Really, given the evidence for microevolution, and ignoring all nonrelevant background information, what would the proper hypothesis for the continuation of research in the field of evolutionary biology be?

1) Ups, we're done.
2) I wonder if this stuff adds up? Might there be more to this?

It's really not counterintuitive.

BTW HeavyCola, your childish antics impress noone, least of all me.

Now, on to the menial task at hand.......

MeDeFe wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:That's a good one D1G, I can't seem to find the philosophical post I made so I'll repost it here:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligibility.).

2. The existence of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (Confirmed by the definition of rationality.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essence of the thing to be explained requires it's existence.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existence of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.


----Originally postulated by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris, found on a pamphlet I read when I was last at college.

And here we go again. Version 1.2 with a commentary already... And you, Jenos, have so far not once responded to my reponse to your little pamphlet, you're running out of credibility.

When did you respond? But, since you are responding now, I'll take it on.

MeDeFe wrote:First of all, I'm working under a relativistic definition of 'explanation', me not pointing this out caused some confusion a while back and I'm trying to avoid making the same mistake again.
Any explanation is relative to and limited by humans and their knowledge and what humans and human technology can perceive. There might be a causal chain for every phenomenon, but if the chain can not (at least in theory) be recreated by humans the phenomenon will not have an explanation (or at least not a full explanation).

Fairly logical, save for the fact that a partial explaination will always leave you with more questions than answers. Sort of like "who created the Creator" or the classic cliche of the Chicken and the Egg.

But I will concede that Human understanding is limited, especially compared to the entity called "God".

MeDeFe wrote:This does not in any way make it magical (Nappy claimed I was saying that in the other thread), just unexplainable. I think it likely that at some point the particles (or maybe dimensions) being dealt with will be so small that there's not even a theoretical chance of showing that they exist.

How can the universe be both explainable and unexplainable? And I'M the one who is illogical?

MeDeFe wrote:1. intelligible - understandable, in the way that you can "get your mind around it", but where is the prerequisite of an explanation? Personally I'm quite happy to let, say, gravity go on and be something that comes with matter and just is. There are degrees of understanding as well, it's not a 1/0 issue.

In this case, like most other instances, it is. Otherwise, we run into screaming rubbish like what you just posted before you began to "tear" my argument apart.

MeDeFe wrote:And understandable in what way? In the way it works? That would in this case be the physical laws and whatnot. In 'where it all came from'? I'm not convinced knowing exactly down to the last detail how the universe started (or if it ever did) is necessary to understand the basic workings of the universe.

This just circles back to your preamble.

MeDeFe wrote:2. has just fallen flat on its face because there's a third option of partial understanding, but I'm not done yet, even if we allow for only his two options and disregard 3. that "We cannot ever fully understand the unvierse and where it came from" is not all that irrational and nicely allows a person to get on with other stuff than posting on an internet forum.

Since you have concluded the universe is unintelligable in any meaningful way, this actually makes some sence. Too bad it proves the irrationallity of your argument, by silent acceptance of 2a.

MeDeFe wrote:4. is correct under my previously stated premises, you need to disregard the problems with the first 3 points in order to accept this one. While there might well be a causal chain for the universe, there is nothing to say there's a full explanation for it.

More of the same.

MeDeFe wrote:5. Back in my first reply I accepted this one. No more...
There's really only one sort of explanation, which is really more accurately termed 'description': we see phenomenon A and can list the factors which caused the phenomenon, then we can list the factors that caused the factors causing A to come about and so on. At some point, though, we're forced to say that we observe entities with certain distinguishing features behave in a certain way under certain conditions, but can not (yet) say why they behave that way. This applies to all explanations, be they of scientific phenomena (why does this rubber ball bounce back if I throw it against a wall?) or human behaviour (why did you murder your wife?).

Again, the universe cannot be understood, I get it already!

MeDeFe wrote:6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe?

Otherwise, those conditions would still be present.

MeDeFe wrote:In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember?

All of which reinforces your contention of an unintelligalble universe.

MeDeFe wrote:In the old thread it was mentioned in reply to this that no closed system can be fully explained without referencing to whatever's outside the system. Well, but so what? If Godel's incompleteness theorem (says Colossus) is true it only means that we cannot fully explain the universe. (Which, unlike what Morris may think and say, is not a problem.)

More reinforcement of unintelligabilty, jeepers, it's almost as if you know that this argument will not last serious debate......

Oh.

MeDeFe wrote:[And anyway, what's "outside the universe" supposed to mean.

Independant of it. I can't help it if you choose not to read things more carefully.

MeDeFe wrote:The universe is not some ball which we're sitting inside where we can just walk up to the boundary, poke a hole in it and take a look at what's "outside".

I don't recall saying that. You're skirting a Strawman Fallacy.

MeDeFe wrote:7. You would do well to include a short definition of 'contingent' here, the first one you're likely to find when checking a dictionary is 'contingent on' which means "dependent on something that might happen in the future", which doesn't fit at all.

"Dependant on the item/issue in question" would seem to fit. Too bad this did not occur to you.

MeDeFe wrote: But that's not meant here, no, you could imagine the universe not existing you say. Really? Do you even have a vague idea of what a "complete lack of anything" is? Not just the space between any two hypothetical subatomic particles where there isn't a hypothetical subatomic particle, but not even any hypothetic subatomic particles between which there can be a space, not even the space for the particles to exist in. I know I don't. For all we know a total lack of any matter or dimensions might even lead to random, spontaneous generation of matter (or dimensions). Matter itself might be "essential", existence might be a necessary feature of matter. We don't know, you postulate that it has to come from "somewhere" because it cannot from nothing, but you have not yet been able to watch this "nothing", so your claim is as far-fetched as any other.

Again, you tell that there is no logical explaination to anything. Please say something new, seriously.

MeDeFe wrote:And furthermore, to me the claim of a sentient being with all the attributes ascribed to god being essential sounds far more unlikely than some subatomic particle or dimension "popping into existence".

So Something came out of Nothing. Brilliant. Not, just more reinforcement.

MeDeFe wrote:8. And where did this Person come from? We're back to the old question of who created the creator, and that's one you cannot get out of. A creator outside of the universe "must" exist only if you can prove that nothing else can have caused it. And Tom Morris has shown nothing of the sort so far. Even if you can show that the universe has to have been created, there's nothing to indicate that the creator is "essential" and must exist, you end up with an infinite regress.

In order for this creator to be what it is, it must be essential. Otherwise, it is not the creator. In whichcase, yes, you end up with the Chicken and the Egg.

Just as you have been trying to establish from the start.

MeDeFe wrote:9. And now we give it a name, hey, let's call it Bob. And we ascribe attributes to it, "power" and "wisdom". Now really, the origins of the universe we largely see today might have required some large-scale border conditions, but "wisdom"?
This step is completely unnecessary and serves no other end than to introduce the term 'God' into the line of reasoning.

Since you've thrown any sort of creative force or entity out of the equation, this is logical, if just more reinforcement of your set agenda.

MeDeFe wrote:10. The conclusion has been shown not to follow, because the premises are flawed on several levels, thank you for your time.

Congratulations, you've just proven to yourself that God does not exist, just like you set out to do.

Will your pride compell you to try again?

Jenos Ridan wrote:Congratulations, you've just proven to yourself that God does not exist, just like you set out to do.

Will your pride compell you to try again?

But you also clearly decided that God exists before you started arguing. Take this for instance:

Jenos Ridan wrote:6. The existence of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

Why are we assuming initial conditions outside of the universe? The universe (using the definition of universal) is everything in existence. Why would there be things outside of it? And where are they exactly? You essentially are saying that nothing existed before the universe was "created"...oh, except for that one dude that can live in a void, that knows everything and can do everything, but still can't entertain himself without creating intelligent life and bending it to his will.

That said, things turn south for your arguement shortly after this.

Jenos Ridan wrote:7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

Perhaps the universe itself is not contigent, but the fact that there is an observer capable of observing whether the universe exists indeed forces one to. Either there is something or there is nothing, there's no nothing with a something in it. Whether it be an insect, a human, or a god, their existence necessitates the existence of a universe. The idea of living "outside of" reality is an impossible one.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:And here we go again. Version 1.2 with a commentary already... And you, Jenos, have so far not once responded to my reponse to your little pamphlet, you're running out of credibility.

When did you respond? But, since you are responding now, I'll take it on.

Every single time you've posted that pamphlet, Jenos, check the old threads if you don't believe me.

MeDeFe wrote:First of all, I'm working under a relativistic definition of 'explanation', me not pointing this out caused some confusion a while back and I'm trying to avoid making the same mistake again.
Any explanation is relative to and limited by humans and their knowledge and what humans and human technology can perceive. There might be a causal chain for every phenomenon, but if the chain can not (at least in theory) be recreated by humans the phenomenon will not have an explanation (or at least not a full explanation).

Fairly logical, save for the fact that a partial explaination will always leave you with more questions than answers. Sort of like "who created the Creator" or the classic cliche of the Chicken and the Egg.

But I will concede that Human understanding is limited, especially compared to the entity called "God".

Great! So we agree that Tom Morris' definition of 'explanation' is shite because it's impossible to give a full account of every factor on all levels.

MeDeFe wrote:This does not in any way make it magical (Nappy claimed I was saying that in the other thread), just unexplainable. I think it likely that at some point the particles (or maybe dimensions) being dealt with will be so small that there's not even a theoretical chance of showing that they exist.

How can the universe be both explainable and unexplainable? And I'M the one who is illogical?

It would really help if you would bother to read everything I write. My point is that we will most probably not be able to come up with a full explanation of the universe. Down to a certain level it will be possible, but once we can no longer observe the next smaller particles/dimensions/whatever we will be stuck. The universe is partially explainable, but a part of the chain will not be visible to us.

MeDeFe wrote:1. intelligible - understandable, in the way that you can "get your mind around it", but where is the prerequisite of an explanation? Personally I'm quite happy to let, say, gravity go on and be something that comes with matter and just is. There are degrees of understanding as well, it's not a 1/0 issue.

In this case, like most other instances, it is. Otherwise, we run into screaming rubbish like what you just posted before you began to "tear" my argument apart.

See above, you're ignoring the consequences of not accepting Morris' wishful definition of explanations as something perfect.

MeDeFe wrote:And understandable in what way? In the way it works? That would in this case be the physical laws and whatnot. In 'where it all came from'? I'm not convinced knowing exactly down to the last detail how the universe started (or if it ever did) is necessary to understand the basic workings of the universe.

This just circles back to your preamble.

Let's say it spirals in the general direction of it. The point here is that a full explanation of the origins of the universe is not necessary for understanding how the physical laws in it work. Nor for anything else for that matter.

MeDeFe wrote:2. has just fallen flat on its face because there's a third option of partial understanding, but I'm not done yet, even if we allow for only his two options and disregard 3. that "We cannot ever fully understand the unvierse and where it came from" is not all that irrational and nicely allows a person to get on with other stuff than posting on an internet forum.

Since you have concluded the universe is unintelligable in any meaningful way, this actually makes some sence. Too bad it proves the irrationallity of your argument, by silent acceptance of 2a.

I have concluded no such thing, nor have I accepted 2a. You are only forced to that conclusion if you accept Morris's implicit definition of explanation, which I do not, and btw you said agreed with my relativistic definition. Morris seems to think that an explanation needs to cover every last detail of the causal chain in order to be an explanation. I maintain that that's impossible, and that Morris' definition is therefore unreasonable.

MeDeFe wrote:4. is correct under my previously stated premises, you need to disregard the problems with the first 3 points in order to accept this one. While there might well be a causal chain for the universe, there is nothing to say there's a full explanation for it.

More of the same.

Yes, you're right, I still don't agree with Morris' definition of 'explanation'. That's my main beef with his argument.

MeDeFe wrote:5. Back in my first reply I accepted this one. No more...
There's really only one sort of explanation, which is really more accurately termed 'description': we see phenomenon A and can list the factors which caused the phenomenon, then we can list the factors that caused the factors causing A to come about and so on. At some point, though, we're forced to say that we observe entities with certain distinguishing features behave in a certain way under certain conditions, but can not (yet) say why they behave that way. This applies to all explanations, be they of scientific phenomena (why does this rubber ball bounce back if I throw it against a wall?) or human behaviour (why did you murder your wife?).

Again, the universe cannot be understood, I get it already!

No you don't. I'm doing more than just attacking his unreasonable demands on explanations here, I'm questioning the nature of explanations itself. It's not crucial to my criticism of Morris, but it's an interesting tangent I think.

MeDeFe wrote:6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe?

Otherwise, those conditions would still be present.

No, see below, if physical constants can change it's possible that the conditions once were present and changed over time.

MeDeFe wrote:In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember?

All of which reinforces your contention of an unintelligalble universe.

No, all of which questions your claim of physical laws and conditions being unchangeable.

MeDeFe wrote:In the old thread it was mentioned in reply to this that no closed system can be fully explained without referencing to whatever's outside the system. Well, but so what? If Godel's incompleteness theorem (says Colossus) is true it only means that we cannot fully explain the universe. (Which, unlike what Morris may think and say, is not a problem.)

More reinforcement of unintelligabilty, jeepers, it's almost as if you know that this argument will not last serious debate......

No, more reinforcement of my claim that explanations are not, nor need be, complete in all details on all levels.

MeDeFe wrote:And anyway, what's "outside the universe" supposed to mean.

Independant of it. I can't help it if you choose not to read things more carefully.

MeDeFe wrote:The universe is not some ball which we're sitting inside where we can just walk up to the boundary, poke a hole in it and take a look at what's "outside".

I don't recall saying that. You're skirting a Strawman Fallacy.

Oh you didn't, but your idol Tom Morris skirts it, using overly simplified language to express something he seems to know even less about than I do, and I know I know next to nothing. Read the 2nd last block of quotes before this one for a few details.

MeDeFe wrote:7. You would do well to include a short definition of 'contingent' here, the first one you're likely to find when checking a dictionary is 'contingent on' which means "dependent on something that might happen in the future", which doesn't fit at all.

"Dependant on the item/issue in question" would seem to fit. Too bad this did not occur to you.

MeDeFe wrote: But that's not meant here, no, you could imagine the universe not existing you say. Really? Do you even have a vague idea of what a "complete lack of anything" is? Not just the space between any two hypothetical subatomic particles where there isn't a hypothetical subatomic particle, but not even any hypothetic subatomic particles between which there can be a space, not even the space for the particles to exist in. I know I don't. For all we know a total lack of any matter or dimensions might even lead to random, spontaneous generation of matter (or dimensions). Matter itself might be "essential", existence might be a necessary feature of matter. We don't know, you postulate that it has to come from "somewhere" because it cannot from nothing, but you have not yet been able to watch this "nothing", so your claim is as far-fetched as any other.

Again, you tell that there is no logical explaination to anything. Please say something new, seriously.

"Dependent on" which "item/issue in question"? I didn't quite catch what either you or Tom Morris said the universe is dependent on. Anyway, I was pointed in the general direction of 'contingency' which made a little more sense, the idea that an act could not have happened. Applied to the universe it means that one can imagine the universe not existing.
What I asked you was if you can really imagine the universe not existing and if you have any idea at all of what a complete lack of everything entails in terms of which (if any) physical laws apply. I claim that you do not have even the slightest idea, much less any knowledge about it. Until you do and can show that such "nothingness", even a lack of all space, not just matter, can exist, I suggest you be a little more careful with your claims regarding the "essentiality" of matter. I wish to point you in the general direction of quantum theory and spontaneously appearing and disappearing particles which have a lot more mathematics backing them up than any god ever conceived of.

MeDeFe wrote:And furthermore, to me the claim of a sentient being with all the attributes ascribed to god being essential sounds far more unlikely than some subatomic particle or dimension "popping into existence".

So Something came out of Nothing. Brilliant. Not, just more reinforcement.

A very small, very simple particle on the one hand, a very complex being with attributes only observed as the result of a long process on the other. Yes, which is more likely to come out of nothing?

MeDeFe wrote:8. And where did this Person come from? We're back to the old question of who created the creator, and that's one you cannot get out of. A creator outside of the universe "must" exist only if you can prove that nothing else can have caused it. And Tom Morris has shown nothing of the sort so far. Even if you can show that the universe has to have been created, there's nothing to indicate that the creator is "essential" and must exist, you end up with an infinite regress.

In order for this creator to be what it is, it must be essential. Otherwise, it is not the creator. In whichcase, yes, you end up with the Chicken and the Egg.

Just as you have been trying to establish from the start.

So, the creator has to be essential or he won't be a creator, therefore we can conclude that the creator is essential and because the creator is essential the creator must have always existed. Looks rather circular to me.
Add to this what I just wrote, that the attributes (intelligence, "wisdom", "power", love, and so on) commonly ascribed to this creator have only been observed as the result of a long process, never as spontaneously appearing to the extent to which god supposedly has them.

MeDeFe wrote:9. And now we give it a name, hey, let's call it Bob. And we ascribe attributes to it, "power" and "wisdom". Now really, the origins of the universe we largely see today might have required some large-scale border conditions, but "wisdom"?
This step is completely unnecessary and serves no other end than to introduce the term 'God' into the line of reasoning.

Since you've thrown any sort of creative force or entity out of the equation, this is logical, if just more reinforcement of your set agenda.

I had no need of dismissing the idea of a creator prior to my criticism of Morris' pamphlet, please notice that what I have mainly criticised is his definition of "explanation" and the conclusions he drew from it, as well as the idea that the universe not existing is a likely scenario. Here he postulates, without any proof at all, that "power" and "wisdom" are necessary for a universe to be brought into existence, he also fails to explain where and how this creator exists if there is absolute "nothingness" before the act of creation.

MeDeFe wrote:10. The conclusion has been shown not to follow, because the premises are flawed on several levels, thank you for your time.

Congratulations, you've just proven to yourself that God does not exist, just like you set out to do.

Will your pride compell you to try again?

No, that's something I did not prove, nor would I try. How do you prove a negative outside of mathematics? What I have shown though, is that belief in god is not necessarily the rational state of mind.

An alternative spurious chop-logic argument, more reasonable than Jenos's:

1: The universe either had a beginning or it did not.
2: If it did not, there was no creation.
3: if it did then everything since the beginning is a cause of an effect (D happened because B & C happened, B happened because A happened, etc back to the beginning).
4: Therefore there was a first event
5: By definition, the first event cannot have a cause.
6: Therefore it just happened.

jonesthecurl wrote:An alternative spurious chop-logic argument, more reasonable than Jenos's:

1: The universe either had a beginning or it did not.
2: If it did not, there was no creation.
3: if it did then everything since the beginning is a cause of an effect (D happened because B & C happened, B happened because A happened, etc back to the beginning).
4: Therefore there was a first event
5: By definition, the first event cannot have a cause.
6: Therefore it just happened.

You know......... While I agree with 5, it doesn't feel right when you add it together with 6. Though I tried to fault this, but I couldn't. Do you think people are unable (as a whole) to understand the concept? Everything in our world is cause and effect. It just doesn't feel right.

Juan_Bottom wrote:little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change+little change= Where the crap did this thing come from?

We have a winner.

There's no macro/micro dichotomy. It either is or it isn't. Bosh.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:An alternative spurious chop-logic argument, more reasonable than Jenos's:

1: The universe either had a beginning or it did not.
2: If it did not, there was no creation.
3: if it did then everything since the beginning is a cause of an effect (D happened because B & C happened, B happened because A happened, etc back to the beginning).
4: Therefore there was a first event
5: By definition, the first event cannot have a cause.
6: Therefore it just happened.

You know......... While I agree with 5, it doesn't feel right when you add it together with 6. Though I tried to fault this, but I couldn't. Do you think people are unable (as a whole) to understand the concept? Everything in our world is cause and effect. It just doesn't feel right.

I don't think this is necessarily true: but it demonstrates the difficulty of applying boolean logic in an area so far outside normal experience, as Jenos tries ot do so. It is far more consistent and logical than Jenos's thing.

Or indeed the nonsense with which Jay started this thread (look back at the very first post)

But the point with your quibble is this: yes, everything in cause and effect, until you get to the start, That's what makes it "the start".

jonesthecurl wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:An alternative spurious chop-logic argument, more reasonable than Jenos's:

1: The universe either had a beginning or it did not.
2: If it did not, there was no creation.
3: if it did then everything since the beginning is a cause of an effect (D happened because B & C happened, B happened because A happened, etc back to the beginning).
4: Therefore there was a first event
5: By definition, the first event cannot have a cause.
6: Therefore it just happened.

You know......... While I agree with 5, it doesn't feel right when you add it together with 6. Though I tried to fault this, but I couldn't. Do you think people are unable (as a whole) to understand the concept? Everything in our world is cause and effect. It just doesn't feel right.

I don't think this is necessarily true: but it demonstrates the difficulty of applying boolean logic in an area so far outside normal experience, as Jenos tries ot do so. It is far more consistent and logical than Jenos's thing.

Or indeed the nonsense with which Jay started this thread (look back at the very first post)

But the point with your quibble is this: yes, everything in cause and effect, until you get to the start, That's what makes it "the start".

I don't know dude. A start without a start?????

While I agree that you make perfect sense, it doesn't make logical sense. I'm thinking that maybe I can't comprehend it fully because I have no concept of---NO ACTION=REACTION. I wonder if that is a flaw of humanity. Like one that will perpetually cause man to believe in god(s) for eternity.

But the idea of NO ACTION=REACTION does appear to favor the god concept......

Doesn't the theory of the big bang put forth the idea that the universe will forever go through cycles of expansion and contraction? Like a perpetual motion machine? -This I get.

Certianly the beggining must have a starting place. I can't imagine anything not having one. Am I the only one? I am as Atheist as they come, but I just can't understand. I bet all people have an inability to see that. Which lends support to them turning to a god?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Certianly the beggining must have a starting place. I can't imagine anything not having one. Am I the only one? I am as Atheist as they come, but I just can't understand. I bet all people have an inability to see that. Which lends support to them turning to a god?

God is a quantum?

MeDeFe wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Certianly the beggining must have a starting place. I can't imagine anything not having one. Am I the only one? I am as Atheist as they come, but I just can't understand. I bet all people have an inability to see that. Which lends support to them turning to a god?

God is a quantum?

I'm speaking of the first action ever. EVER ever....
I don't think that I am calling God a small subdivision of energy, am I???? Maybe I am..... Quantum can be a broad term I suppose.... I'm not supporting a God concept or anything, but man am I confused.

How can there be a first action, without an action to precede it? It does seem to give creedance to the Jesus Freaks doesn't it?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Certianly the beggining must have a starting place. I can't imagine anything not having one. Am I the only one? I am as Atheist as they come, but I just can't understand. I bet all people have an inability to see that. Which lends support to them turning to a god?

God is a quantum?

I'm speaking of the first action ever. EVER ever....
I don't think that I am calling God a small subdivision of energy, am I???? Maybe I am..... Quantum can be a broad term I suppose.... I'm not supporting a God concept or anything, but man am I confused.

How can there be a first action, without an action to precede it? It does seem to give creedance to the Jesus Freaks doesn't it?

No, because it makes no sense to say : I can't imagine A having no cause. Therefore I'll assign it a cause B which has no cause. All that does is to put the question one step further back, an needless multiplication of entities.

jonesthecurl wrote:No, because it makes no sense to say : I can't imagine A having no cause. Therefore I'll assign it a cause B which has no cause. All that does is to put the question one step further back, an needless multiplication of entities.

I'm not assigning it a cause. I'm kinda saying what you are. To say that A is the only thing to exist ever without a cause is unbelievable, literally. Human beings know nothing in this world without a cause. I have no concept of something without one. The universe must be perpetual.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:No, because it makes no sense to say : I can't imagine A having no cause. Therefore I'll assign it a cause B which has no cause. All that does is to put the question one step further back, an needless multiplication of entities.

I'm not assigning it a cause. I'm kinda saying what you are. To say that A is the only thing to exist ever without a cause is unbelievable, literally. Human beings know nothing in this world without a cause. I have no concept of something without one. The universe must be perpetual.

That may be so - in which case of course it doesn't have a creator either.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Uh, just to throw it out there, the Universe was created when the membranes of two universes collided.

So all of you are wrong...
The real debated should be about what created any matter.

Read my posts people...

Cause and effect is a human interpretation of a much looser system. As things get smaller and smaller cause and effect tends to be much less of a law and much more of a general trend. There is, for instance, a very high probability that a particle from somewhere light years away randomly popped up right in front of us for an instant and then popped right back an instant later. The space between you and your computer screen is literally writhing with infinitesimally small worm holes caused by such events. We try to satisfy our urge for an ordered world by looking for a first cause, when it likely just happened.

Juan_Bottom wrote:While I agree that you make perfect sense, it doesn't make logical sense.

But according to Hume, cause and effect as described by us doesn't make logical sense either. We can not observe it, we only observe events and then assign them arbitrary names like "Cause" and "Effect".


Logic is fun and all that, but let's not try to ignore real stuff.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:No, because it makes no sense to say : I can't imagine A having no cause. Therefore I'll assign it a cause B which has no cause. All that does is to put the question one step further back, an needless multiplication of entities.

I'm not assigning it a cause. I'm kinda saying what you are. To say that A is the only thing to exist ever without a cause is unbelievable, literally. Human beings know nothing in this world without a cause. I have no concept of something without one. The universe must be perpetual.

As posted in the OP, given that something can not come from nothing, "A" has always had to exist. Otherwise nothing could ever come to be. If "A" is not eternal show me how it came to be? Show me how anything came to be for that matter.

jay_a2j wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:No, because it makes no sense to say : I can't imagine A having no cause. Therefore I'll assign it a cause B which has no cause. All that does is to put the question one step further back, an needless multiplication of entities.

I'm not assigning it a cause. I'm kinda saying what you are. To say that A is the only thing to exist ever without a cause is unbelievable, literally. Human beings know nothing in this world without a cause. I have no concept of something without one. The universe must be perpetual.

As posted in the OP, given that something can not come from nothing, "A" has always had to exist. Otherwise nothing could ever come to be. If "A" is not eternal show me how it came to be? Show me how anything came to be for that matter.

Did you just say that the universe is eternal and didn't have to be created?

MeDeFe wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:No, because it makes no sense to say : I can't imagine A having no cause. Therefore I'll assign it a cause B which has no cause. All that does is to put the question one step further back, an needless multiplication of entities.

I'm not assigning it a cause. I'm kinda saying what you are. To say that A is the only thing to exist ever without a cause is unbelievable, literally. Human beings know nothing in this world without a cause. I have no concept of something without one. The universe must be perpetual.

As posted in the OP, given that something can not come from nothing, "A" has always had to exist. Otherwise nothing could ever come to be. If "A" is not eternal show me how it came to be? Show me how anything came to be for that matter.

Did you just say that the universe is eternal and didn't have to be created?

No. I was talking about "A".

This Thread Is Important.