Death

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Daemon Seed
Do we believe it's the end?

TacDavey
Who's "We"?

Daemon Seed
Originally posted by TacDavey
Who's "We"?

You, me etc. We may vary in our views. :-)

TacDavey
Me? No, I don't think death is the end. But of course that is a result of my religious views. In order to debate the finality of death, you would have to debate weather or not Christianity (in my case) is true or false. And I think there is already a thread about that. stick out tongue

Daemon Seed
Originally posted by TacDavey
Me? No, I don't think death is the end. But of course that is a result of my religious views. In order to debate the finality of death, you would have to debate weather or not Christianity (in my case) is true or false. And I think there is already a thread about that. stick out tongue

and that's what it comes down to belief systems and faith. I have no evidence what you believe is wrong and you have no evidence to support what you believe. You have a faith though which I do not.

Impediment
This seems better suited for the philosophy forum, methinks.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
and that's what it comes down to belief systems and faith. I have no evidence what you believe is wrong and you have no evidence to support what you believe. You have a faith though which I do not.

Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say there is absolutely no reason outside of faith to believe in my religious views.

Daemon Seed
Originally posted by TacDavey
Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say there is absolutely no reason outside of faith to believe in my religious views.

Well tell me more, have you seen something?

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say there is absolutely no reason outside of faith to believe in my religious views.
Oh, do tell.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Well tell me more, have you seen something?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh, do tell.

Well, actually I already did over in the "atheism" thread, I think. But I have no problem going over it again on this thread if I'm not going to get into trouble for it. I dunno if that would be considered off topic or not.

The one I brought up over there was the kalam cosmological argument.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Do we believe it's the end? "We" believe in magic, in a young girl's heart.

But not death.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, actually I already did over in the "atheism" thread, I think. But I have no problem going over it again on this thread if I'm not going to get into trouble for it. I dunno if that would be considered off topic or not.

The one I brought up over there was the kalam cosmological argument.
can you explain it here?

Deja~vu
Death is just an end to this experience. Like going home after visiting a crappy trip. In the end you get your T-shirt that says, "Lived on Earth and survived it," Next time I'll pick a better place.

Heck I don't know, somewhere else might be quite boring compared to all I've experienced here.

Damn over achiever that I am. thank_you

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
can you explain it here?

Sure.

Summarized, the first part goes:

p1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2: The universe began to exist
c: The universe has a cause.

Followed by:

p1: The cause of the universe was either an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe, or a being with a will that has the ability to create a universe.
p2: The universe could not be caused by an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
c: The universe must have been caused by a being will a will of it's own and the ability to create universes. (God).

And, in support of p2:

p1: An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions cannot create a temporal effect.
p2: The universe was a temporal effect
c: The universe was not created by an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

I think that sums up the gist of it. Now you can pick a premise you disagree with or want more info on and I can focus on that one.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
p1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Actually we see that being violated more and more in quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by TacDavey
p2: The universe began to exist
Actually this is not known.

Originally posted by TacDavey
p2: The universe could not be caused by an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
I don't see why not.

Originally posted by TacDavey
c: The universe must have been caused by a being will a will of it's own and the ability to create universes. (God).
Is this really the only other option you can think of?

Originally posted by TacDavey
p1: An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions cannot create a temporal effect.
I don't see why not.

Originally posted by TacDavey
p2: The universe was a temporal effect
Actually this is not known.




Additionally, this still would not support YOUR beliefs (christianity), just the idea that something sentient exists.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually we see that being violated more and more in quantum mechanics.

Oh? This is news to me. It seems if something didn't exist and then it does, there has to be a reason for the change.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually this is not known.

Modern cosmology has already determined this. I have several quotes I brought up in the "atheism" thread. I'll have to post them here later, as I have them written down somewhere I would need to dig up again. or you can look for them in the atheism thread.

At at any rate, it is the accepted cosmological view that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. In which time, space, and matter all came into existence.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why not.

The universe can't be cause by an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions because once the necessary and sufficient conditions for an event are met, the event will always take place. No matter what.

However, if you want to claim that an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions created the universe, you would have to claim that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the necessary and sufficient conditions existed, but there was no universe.

Which is logically impossible.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Is this really the only other option you can think of?

There is literally no other option. It's basically like saying

God or not God.

There is no third choice.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why not.

Explained above.



Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually this is not known.

Also explained above.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Additionally, this still would not support YOUR beliefs (christianity), just the idea that something sentient exists.

That's true. Technically this argument does not support Christianity specifically. But it does provide logical reasoning behind belief in a God. It isn't completely blind faith, as Deamon Seed suggested. But rather a valid stance that can be debated and defended rationally.

lil bitchiness
No, I don't think it's the end. I have few theories - we either return to the 'source' or we are re-born as something/someone else. I don't believe we just cease to exist - nothing can be created or destroyed, so our conscience, just like our bodies gets ''recycled''... for the lack of a better word.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, I don't think it's the end. I have few theories - we either return to the 'source' or we are re-born as something/someone else. I don't believe we just cease to exist - nothing can be created or destroyed, so our conscience, just like our bodies gets ''recycled''... for the lack of a better word.

The laws of thermodynamics being applied to our essence/souls? It's certainly a comforting thought.


I have a similar theory that we experience de javu because we are either connected to our "other selves" in the multiverse OR we are continually reliving our lives in an infinite loop and our essence is consistantly recycled and we experience slightly different lives due to the recycle. Since that "essence" is recycled, there are impressions that remain with us each cycle which is why we get very strong feelings of de javu at times.

lil bitchiness
I have a similar belief, but I believe the loop can be broken.

How I see it is that we are reborn (that is curse in and of itself) and we live and what not. We make mistakes and choices that may affect others in positive or negative ways.

When we die, before we're reborn we see the mistakes and understand their impact to the fullest. Then we're returned to be re-born - but we forget EVERYTHING from our previous lives and start with a clean slate - we don't remember the mistakes and the choices nor the reasons why we have returned, but instead we have to re-live and re-do it again.

Those who are able to spiritually grow quicker will break the cycle quicker.

Religion according to lil. Teehee teehee

Mindship
Is death the end? In life we can't know. Would we know in death? Only if it isn't. With nothing to lose, I prefer to see death as liberation not termination, the '!' waking up, smiling and perhaps playing again.

Utsukushii
What happens when we die? I believe that we are reborn. 80 years is too short. There has to be more.

Lucius
No, dead is dead. You die, you rot, the end.

Utsukushii
I hope that's not what happens. But no one knows and that can very well be the case.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Oh? This is news to me. It seems if something didn't exist and then it does, there has to be a reason for the change.
Look up "virtual particles".

Originally posted by TacDavey
Modern cosmology has already determined this. I have several quotes I brought up in the "atheism" thread. I'll have to post them here later, as I have them written down somewhere I would need to dig up again. or you can look for them in the atheism thread.

At at any rate, it is the accepted cosmological view that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. In which time, space, and matter all came into existence.
No... in fact, any scientist would tell you that it is impossible to know if there was anything before the big band or not. In fact, in the absence of time, the word "before" has no real meaning.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The universe can't be cause by an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions because once the necessary and sufficient conditions for an event are met, the event will always take place. No matter what.
Actually that is not true. For instance in quantum mechanics, different things will happen based on probability even if the starting conditions are the exact same.

Originally posted by TacDavey
However, if you want to claim that an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions created the universe, you would have to claim that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the necessary and sufficient conditions existed, but there was no universe.
Why would I have to claim that?

Originally posted by TacDavey
There is literally no other option. It's basically like saying

God or not God.

There is no third choice.
Sure there is. What about a cyclic universe?

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's true. Technically this argument does not support Christianity specifically. But it does provide logical reasoning behind belief in a God. It isn't completely blind faith, as Deamon Seed suggested. But rather a valid stance that can be debated and defended rationally.
You were claiming that your view on death was based on more than faith. But I still fail to see anything you've brought up that actually would indicate that.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
Look up "virtual particles".

I did. They seem to pop up for a short time. I see nothing that suggests there is no cause for their appearance.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No... in fact, any scientist would tell you that it is impossible to know if there was anything before the big band or not. In fact, in the absence of time, the word "before" has no real meaning.

Paul Davies (Physisist): "The coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of orginization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."

Velenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose The Nature of Space and Time pg 20: "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beggining at the Big Bang."

John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford University Press: "Our new picture is more akin to the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning of events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."


Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually that is not true. For instance in quantum mechanics, different things will happen based on probability even if the starting conditions are the exact same.

The necessary and sufficient conditions for something are the conditions that must be met or something to take place. That includes the correct "probability" for something to take place. If an event doesn't take place, the requirements for it to do so were obviously not met.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would I have to claim that?

Because the set of conditions are eternal. Which means they have always been around, and will always be around. But the universe is NOT eternal. Which means that there was a point causally prior to it's existence that it did not exist. Which means there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the conditions existed (because they have always existed) but the universe did not.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure there is. What about a cyclic universe?

Obviously that would fall under the "Not God" field then, wouldn't it?

And if you want to know my response to this idea, see the above quotes.


Originally posted by King Kandy
You were claiming that your view on death was based on more than faith. But I still fail to see anything you've brought up that actually would indicate that.

No. I claimed my view of death was based off of my religion. I also said that I do not think my religion has nothing other than faith supporting it.

Daemon Seed
I believe it's silly to say you can't destroy energy and relate that to a biological entity. Of course energy cannot be created or destroyed; however, the processes by which energy is converted into a form useable for the processes of life can obviously be stopped. Hence- a metabolic poison like Arsenic. A dead body has the same number of atoms a living body has; however, the processes which exist to keep the living body in its shape and form and functioning to the criteria we attribue to a living orgaanism at this poin-t are no longer in effect, the organism gives way to entrophy, accelerated by decomposers. All things break down, all systems fail; Eventually everything dies. Death is not the end as those atoms will be used by other living organisms. In that sense we do reincarnate. I do not believe in an immortal soul, so in that sense for me; I end when I die and sometimes- death calls to me strongly.

ADarksideJedi
When we die our soul goes to heaven or hell or Limbo and when the world ends our bodies join our souls to where ever it is.

Daemon Seed
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
When we die our soul goes to heaven or hell or Limbo and when the world ends our bodies join our souls to where ever it is.

Bless you. :-)

TacDavey
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I believe it's silly to say you can't destroy energy and relate that to a biological entity. Of course energy cannot be created or destroyed; however, the processes by which energy is converted into a form useable for the processes of life can obviously be stopped. Hence- a metabolic poison like Arsenic. A dead body has the same number of atoms a living body has; however, the processes which exist to keep the living body in its shape and form and functioning to the criteria we attribue to a living orgaanism at this poin-t are no longer in effect, the organism gives way to entrophy, accelerated by decomposers. All things break down, all systems fail; Eventually everything dies. Death is not the end as those atoms will be used by other living organisms. In that sense we do reincarnate. I do not believe in an immortal soul, so in that sense for me; I end when I die and sometimes- death calls to me strongly.

Death calls to you strongly? What the f**k?

What does that mean? You want to die?

Daemon Seed
Originally posted by TacDavey
Death calls to you strongly? What the f**k?

What does that mean? You want to die?

Sometimes I have my friend, yes.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
I did. They seem to pop up for a short time. I see nothing that suggests there is no cause for their appearance.
What do you see as the cause? They have no theoretical framework for a cause, so speculating they have one is just that; idle speculation, with nothing to support it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Paul Davies (Physisist): "The coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of orginization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."

Velenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose The Nature of Space and Time pg 20: "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beggining at the Big Bang."

John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford University Press: "Our new picture is more akin to the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning of events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."
OK, that's their opinion. Stephen Hawkings also said that the universe simply created itself, with no god involved.

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/stephen-hawking-places-premium-not-on-god-but-the-laws-of-physics/

If you're going to be taking "expert witnesses", at least do it with consistency.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The necessary and sufficient conditions for something are the conditions that must be met or something to take place. That includes the correct "probability" for something to take place. If an event doesn't take place, the requirements for it to do so were obviously not met.
That makes no sense at all. Let me give you an example:

When a pion decays due to a weak interaction, it reacts; at this reaction point, it has a 99.9% probability of forming a muon and muon neutrino. However, in the exact same collision, it has a small chance of making an electron and electron neutrino instead. In fact, both of these things occur at once, in a superposition of states that is later resolved, purely on a probabilistic basis. There are many cases where even though the condition (pion decay) is the exact same, it can enter multiple outcomes based on nothing but probability...

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because the set of conditions are eternal. Which means they have always been around, and will always be around. But the universe is NOT eternal. Which means that there was a point causally prior to it's existence that it did not exist. Which means there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the conditions existed (because they have always existed) but the universe did not.
Well actually, because time did not exist, "casually prior" is a completely meaningless term.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No. I claimed my view of death was based off of my religion. I also said that I do not think my religion has nothing other than faith supporting it.
But your religion is not "something out there created the universe", your religion is christianity. What supports christianity?

TacDavey
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Sometimes I have my friend, yes.

Oh... That sucks. I would think someone who see's death as the end of their existence would try there best to avoid it at all costs.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What do you see as the cause? They have no theoretical framework for a cause, so speculating they have one is just that; idle speculation, with nothing to support it.

Just because we don't know what the cause of something is doesn't mean it doesn't have one. This does nothing to refute the stance that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, that's their opinion. Stephen Hawkings also said that the universe simply created itself, with no god involved.

That's irrelevant. The point I was making was that the universe has a beginning, which these quotes show according to modern cosmology.

By the way. These "opinions" come from he experts in the field.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://scienceray.com/astronomy/stephen-hawking-places-premium-not-on-god-but-the-laws-of-physics/

If you're going to be taking "expert witnesses", at least do it with consistency.

Why? Steven Hawkings view as to what caused the universe is irrelevant to what MY argument was. The point is, the universe had a beginning. Modern cosmology has shown this. That's the point I was defending.


Originally posted by King Kandy
That makes no sense at all. Let me give you an example:

When a pion decays due to a weak interaction, it reacts; at this reaction point, it has a 99.9% probability of forming a muon and muon neutrino. However, in the exact same collision, it has a small chance of making an electron and electron neutrino instead. In fact, both of these things occur at once, in a superposition of states that is later resolved, purely on a probabilistic basis. There are many cases where even though the condition (pion decay) is the exact same, it can enter multiple outcomes based on nothing but probability...

You seem to be confused as to what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means. It means literally every single thing, physical or otherwise, that needs to take place for the event to happen. So the necessary and sufficient conditions for a muon to form are what you described in your post, as well as the 99.9% probability coming out on the "muon side". That's part of the conditions that need to be met for muon to form.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Well actually, because time did not exist, "casually prior" is a completely meaningless term.

Actually, no it isn't. Causally prior is a term based in cause and effect. Not time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But your religion is not "something out there created the universe", your religion is christianity. What supports christianity?

Well, there are arguments concerning that too. I was focusing more on the theism vs atheism aspect of it.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Just because we don't know what the cause of something is doesn't mean it doesn't have one. This does nothing to refute the stance that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
That's basically circular logic.

"We know the universe has a cause, because everything that begins does"
"What about these things that have no particular cause?"
"Well, they must have a cause as well, since i've already made up my mind about it"

How is this statement falsifiable? If it isn't, how does it have any scientific meaning?

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's irrelevant. The point I was making was that the universe has a beginning, which these quotes show according to modern cosmology.

By the way. These "opinions" come from he experts in the field.

Why? Steven Hawkings view as to what caused the universe is irrelevant to what MY argument was. The point is, the universe had a beginning. Modern cosmology has shown this. That's the point I was defending.
It's not "irrelevant". The whole reason we are arguing is because you claimed that a universe that began, must have a sentient creator. In fact Hawking's quote shows exactly the opposite. If you're going to take his word on the big bang because he was an "expert", why not take his word on this?

Originally posted by TacDavey
You seem to be confused as to what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means. It means literally every single thing, physical or otherwise, that needs to take place for the event to happen. So the necessary and sufficient conditions for a muon to form are what you described in your post, as well as the 99.9% probability coming out on the "muon side". That's part of the conditions that need to be met for muon to form.
And the physical mechanism for this is what? If your definition of "identical conditions" requires more than every single physical property being the same, then I question whether that concept has any application to real life.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, no it isn't. Causally prior is a term based in cause and effect. Not time.
What do you think time measures?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, there are arguments concerning that too. I was focusing more on the theism vs atheism aspect of it.
Well since this is the "death" thread, and we were discussing death, why were you going on that aspect?

Digi
Hawking's also not a theist. Not that it matters, because he's just a popular physicist, not necessarily the foremost authority on it. Any reference to "God" in his works is pretty much equivalent to Einstein's natural God (in a pantheistic sense). Appeals to authority are among my least favorite arguments, especially when they are only selectively quoted.

Tac, you're a bit out of your element because, as Kandy is elucidating, yes we do have mathematically consistent models of how the universe could have come to be from "nothing." Once that is established, apply Occum's Razor and you have your logical conclusion.

He's also rightly pointed out that "some being" and "Christian God" are worlds apart, and you've failed to support even the former, much less the latter. Your argument is just a variation on the "Cosmological Constants" argument, which has been around for decades, and has been ignored for the vast majority of that time by everyone outside of Christians with some basic but hardly thorough understand of physics.

..

Anyway, death is the end imo, and I've yet to see anything to convince me otherwise. I'd like to be wrong, of course, but wishing and believing are two very different things. I wish beer and ice cream were the healthiest foods in the world for you. Doesn't mean it's any more likely to be true.

Imo, the only remaining credible tether to this hope lies in the "hard question" of consciousness, which posits that consciousness itself might be something other than material (physical). And even if you are a dualist when it comes to that question, there's then the problem of whether or not that dualism allows the consciousness to continue after the physical body giving rise to it has gone. I'd concede a healthy "maybe" on the question itself, but believe it's foolish to believe it would continue on without the mind that produced it.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's basically circular logic.

"We know the universe has a cause, because everything that begins does"
"What about these things that have no particular cause?"
"Well, they must have a cause as well, since i've already made up my mind about it"

How is this statement falsifiable? If it isn't, how does it have any scientific meaning?

That isn't circular logic at all. I said it is a logically sound stance that if something doesn't exist and then it does, there is a reason for the change. You claim that isn't so, and then provided an example of what you thought proved this stance was wrong.

But it did nothing of the sort. You gave me an example of something that we don't know the cause of, not something that we know has no cause. Big difference, and it does not disprove my stance.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's not "irrelevant". The whole reason we are arguing is because you claimed that a universe that began, must have a sentient creator. In fact Hawking's quote shows exactly the opposite. If you're going to take his word on the big bang because he was an "expert", why not take his word on this?

Yes it is irrelevant. You are trying to claim that if I accept one of Hawkings stances, I must accept them all, which is completely untrue.

In fact, this very argument we are talking about now is meant to show that Hawkings view of what caused the universe is incorrect.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And the physical mechanism for this is what? If your definition of "identical conditions" requires more than every single physical property being the same, then I question whether that concept has any application to real life.

Of courses it does. Saying "necessary and sufficient conditions" is an easy way of saying everything that led up to something happening. Instead of trying to list all the reasons something happens. I don't know what you mean.


Originally posted by King Kandy
What do you think time measures?

Not cause and effect. Cause and effect are not bound by time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well since this is the "death" thread, and we were discussing death, why were you going on that aspect?

Because Deamon Seed, I think it was, said there is no good reason outside of faith to believe in God. I said I disagreed, and you guys wanted some arguments supporting it.

Originally posted by Digi
Hawking's also not a theist. Not that it matters, because he's just a popular physicist, not necessarily the foremost authority on it. Any reference to "God" in his works is pretty much equivalent to Einstein's natural God (in a pantheistic sense). Appeals to authority are among my least favorite arguments, especially when they are only selectively quoted.

People appeal to authority on a daily basis. We can't be experts at everything, so you accept the word of the experts in their selected fields.

Originally posted by Digi
Tac, you're a bit out of your element because, as Kandy is elucidating, yes we do have mathematically consistent models of how the universe could have come to be from "nothing." Once that is established, apply Occum's Razor and you have your logical conclusion.

I don't know what you mean here. What is Occam's Razor suppose to show?

Originally posted by Digi
He's also rightly pointed out that "some being" and "Christian God" are worlds apart, and you've failed to support even the former, much less the latter. Your argument is just a variation on the "Cosmological Constants" argument, which has been around for decades, and has been ignored for the vast majority of that time by everyone outside of Christians with some basic but hardly thorough understand of physics.

I already admitted that this argument is not about the Christian God.

And if the argument is such rubbish, pick one of the premises and refute it. But I'm certainly not going to accept that it is faulty just because you say so. stick out tongue

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Bless you. :-)

For what? smile

Digi
Originally posted by TacDavey
People appeal to authority on a daily basis. We can't be experts at everything, so you accept the word of the experts in their selected fields.

Or you subvert their words to your own purposes, even when the opinions of those quoted differs from your own. You're being deliberately (or blindly, I suppose) obtuse here.

Also, saying people do it frequently also isn't a logical argument, nor does it justify appeals to authority. You're covering bad logic with more of the same.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. What is Occam's Razor suppose to show?

Occum's Razor: you take the least extravagant explanation given two or more possibilities.

In this case, we know that matter can arise from nothingness. It's been mathematically tested and observed. There's one possibility. OR....an omnipotent divine being with infinite complexity but no prior cause, nor physical evidence to support their existence, created the universe according to his/her/its whim. There's another. Apply Occum's Razor.

In anything but a biased and/or generous estimation of probabilities in such a scenario (which also leaves out other possibilities of the universe's inception), you're believing in a negligible, unimaginably small, probability, which is justified by nothing.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I already admitted that this argument is not about the Christian God.

Ah, ok then. A good thing too.

But remember that as far as your own beliefs are concerned, if you are a Christian, you do have to bridge that gap in a logical manner, else your beliefs are fanciful wishes and nothing more.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And if the argument is such rubbish, pick one of the premises and refute it.

Mostly Kandy, and to a lesser extent my own posts, have done just that. I don't know to retell what I've said in more understandable language. But to make it official....

Originally posted by TacDavey
p1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2: The universe began to exist
c: The universe has a cause.

Agreed, unless certain cyclical models of the universe prove true.

Originally posted by TacDavey
p1: The cause of the universe was either an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe, or a being with a will that has the ability to create a universe.
p2: The universe could not be caused by an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
c: The universe must have been caused by a being will a will of it's own and the ability to create universes. (God).

Uninformed ridiculousness to the first two. Wishful guesswork for the third. The first two are refuted heavily already in this thread.

Originally posted by TacDavey
p1: An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions cannot create a temporal effect.
p2: The universe was a temporal effect
c: The universe was not created by an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

Again, pseudo-scientific hogwash. You'd have to do such a precise job of defining terms here to even justify it internally, let alone when held against empirical science.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Digi
Or you subvert their words to your own purposes, even when the opinions of those quoted differs from your own. You're being deliberately (or blindly, I suppose) obtuse here.

Also, saying people do it frequently also isn't a logical argument, nor does it justify appeals to authority. You're covering bad logic with more of the same.

Hawking said almost everyone now believes the universe came from nothing. How am I twisting that to my own goals? It's pretty straight forward.

Argument from authority is NOT bad logic. Are you saying it is illogical accept the finds from someone who is an expert in that field?

I'm sorry, then who should I believe? You? Who do I go to who is more knowledgeable than the experts?

Originally posted by Digi
Occum's Razor: you take the least extravagant explanation given two or more possibilities.

In this case, we know that matter can arise from nothingness. It's been mathematically tested and observed. There's one possibility. OR....an omnipotent divine being with infinite complexity but no prior cause, nor physical evidence to support their existence, created the universe according to his/her/its whim. There's another. Apply Occum's Razor.

In anything but a biased and/or generous estimation of probabilities in such a scenario (which also leaves out other possibilities of the universe's inception), you're believing in a negligible, unimaginably small, probability, which is justified by nothing.

We have proof that the universe can come into being from nothing for absolutely no reason? I fully accept the fact that the universe can come into being from nothing. But not by nothing. If something begins to exist it needs a cause. Even you agreed with this farther down in the post. The argument is showing what that cause is.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah, ok then. A good thing too.

But remember that as far as your own beliefs are concerned, if you are a Christian, you do have to bridge that gap in a logical manner, else your beliefs are fanciful wishes and nothing more.

I know.

Another subject for another time.

Originally posted by Digi
Mostly Kandy, and to a lesser extent my own posts, have done just that. I don't know to retell what I've said in more understandable language. But to make it official....

With all do respect, I disagree. Kandy has responded, but not anything I haven't been able to respond to. I don't see any of my points as being refuted at this time.

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed, unless certain cyclical models of the universe prove true.

Good.

Originally posted by Digi
Uninformed ridiculousness to the first two. Wishful guesswork for the third. The first two are refuted heavily already in this thread.

Again, I disagree. There have been challenges to the points, but I have defended each.

Originally posted by Digi
Again, pseudo-scientific hogwash. You'd have to do such a precise job of defining terms here to even justify it internally, let alone when held against empirical science.

Simply calling your opponents argument hogwash does not refute it, you know. If you disagree with the points, then show me why they are wrong.

Digi
Originally posted by TacDavey
We have proof that the universe can come into being from nothing for absolutely no reason? I fully accept the fact that the universe can come into being from nothing. But not by nothing. If something begins to exist it needs a cause. Even you agreed with this farther down in the post. The argument is showing what that cause is.

Here's the crux of it. Your opinion doesn't match with empirical findings. For something to be true, in this case the mechanisms by which quantum mechanics allow for matter to arise from nothingness, it is not necessary for you to understand it or accept it for it to be true. That's one of the nice things about science.

Saying that I agree with you is again twisting words. You just don't agree with the cause I'm providing you.

A simple google search will help you with this, I'm not saying anything that isn't publicly known. Though you may have to sift through a lot of "Nothing Else Matters" links from Metallica, depending on what terms you use for your search.

...

There's a much more obvious flaw here that you have yet to reconcile as well, as your cause/effect logic is undermined by the presupposition of an eternal, infinitely complex creator entity...with no prior cause. It's self-contradicting. Even if it's not the Christian God specifically, you're still stuck on providing a reason for that to be even remotely possible.

There has to be a first cause, yes. But given what we know of cause and effect, the very first cause, almost by necessity, is likely very, very simple...like a particle, not God.

Still, if want to say it's possible, I must concede the point on principle, since it's not a falsifiable claim. In terms of plausibility, however, it's sillier than almost anything I can imagine.

...

{edit} here's a decent link: informative without being overly technical or long. This was also suggested to you by Kandy (he suggested a search on virtual particles). So you either didn't take him up on his suggestion, didn't understand what you found, or reconciled what you read to re-fit your views.
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

TacDavey
Originally posted by Digi
Here's the crux of it. Your opinion doesn't match with empirical findings. For something to be true, in this case the mechanisms by which quantum mechanics allow for matter to arise from nothingness, it is not necessary for you to understand it or accept it for it to be true. That's one of the nice things about science.

How does my opinion not match with empirical findings? I fully accept that the universe was created out of nothing. That doesn't excuse it's need for a cause.

Originally posted by Digi
Saying that I agree with you is again twisting words. You just don't agree with the cause I'm providing you.

You haven't provided a cause. You made the claim that the universe came from nothing. I agreed. Again, it still needs a cause.

Originally posted by Digi
There's a much more obvious flaw here that you have yet to reconcile as well, as your cause/effect logic is undermined by the presupposition of an eternal, infinitely complex creator entity...with no prior cause. It's self-contradicting. Even if it's not the Christian God specifically, you're still stuck on providing a reason for that to be even remotely possible.

That one's simple. The argument doesn't state that EVERYTHING needs a cause. It states that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause. God did not begin to exist, thus He needs no cause.

This is further supported by the fact that time came into being at the Big Bang. That means that whatever cause the universe had to be outside of time I.E. Eternal. Having no beginning and no end. I have actually already covered this in past posts.

Originally posted by Digi
{edit} here's a decent link: informative without being overly technical or long. This was also suggested to you by Kandy (he suggested a search on virtual particles). So you either didn't take him up on his suggestion, didn't understand what you found, or reconciled what you read to re-fit your views.
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

This article is not bringing any new information to the table. We both agree the universe came from nothing. We are debating what caused the universe. Not whether it came from nothing or not.

Like I said. There is only 2 options.

1. God

or

2. And eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe (Any other possibility)

And my argument has shown why it can't be 2.

Digi
Nothing else is required for the universe to have been created from nothing. Quantum fluctuations need no God. We've proven this. You're clinging to an idea of a prior cause for this when none is needed, and as a result shoehorning your religion into a place it doesn't belong.

Because the article does indeed form a very plausible method by which the entire universe came into being. And none of it requires a Creator entity. That you don't see it makes it no less true.

Clearly that's where this discussion ends for the two of us. We can only work on common ground for so long before the fundamental differences prove insurmountable to productive conversation.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Digi
Nothing else is required for the universe to have been created from nothing. Quantum fluctuations need no God. We've proven this. You're clinging to an idea of a prior cause for this when none is needed, and as a result shoehorning your religion into a place it doesn't belong.

Because the article does indeed form a very plausible method by which the entire universe came into being. And none of it requires a Creator entity. That you don't see it makes it no less true.

Clearly that's where this discussion ends for the two of us. We can only work on common ground for so long before the fundamental differences prove insurmountable to productive conversation.

I'm sorry, Digi, but my argument explains clearly why a creator is required. That you don't see it makes it no less true.

I hate to have to repeat myself, but the part of the argument I'm talking about is:

p1: Either the universe was caused by God or Not God
p2: The universe cannot be created by the "Not God" option
c: The universe was created by God.

As for Premise 2, we can see this by the following:

The "Not God" option really means an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe. That basically means every other option in existence that isn't God. Including any and all options presented in the article you sent me.

Now, the reason it cannot be the "Not God" option, is because that set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe had to be eternal. That means having no beginning and no end. They had to be this way, because time itself began at the Big Bang, thus whatever caused the Big Bang had to be outside of time. That is, eternal.

But since the conditions were eternal, we come into a direct contradiction when we factor in the fact that since the universe began to exist, that demands that there be a point causally prior to it's existence in which it did not exist.

But that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible, as once all the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the event will always take place no matter what.

So it cannot be the "Not God" option, as that produces a logical contradiction. Thus, what we are left with is the "God" option.

Digi
Even if you're right (which is unlikely, but for the sake of the argument), your premise is logically flawed because you're assuming that there needs to be an eternal beginning. You're presupposing what you haven't proven. because in saying something like this:

Originally posted by TacDavey
But since the conditions were eternal...

...you're asserting something as fact that you can neither prove nor provide evidence for. You're simply assuming the premise, then fitting an answer to it that suits your purpose. In this case it's "it had to be God." There's an official term for that logical fallacy, but it escapes my atm.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
But that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible, as once all the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the event will always take place no matter what.
And based on what do you derive that conclusion? I already mentioned cases where when the necessary conditions are met, something still only happens part of the time. And your response was basically to change your definition not to include those (making your definition of "conditions" a bit strange since it no longer has any relation to physical properties).

TacDavey
Originally posted by Digi
Even if you're right (which is unlikely, but for the sake of the argument), your premise is logically flawed because you're assuming that there needs to be an eternal beginning. You're presupposing what you haven't proven. because in saying something like this:



...you're asserting something as fact that you can neither prove nor provide evidence for. You're simply assuming the premise, then fitting an answer to it that suits your purpose. In this case it's "it had to be God." There's an official term for that logical fallacy, but it escapes my atm.

No, I explained the logical reasons why what created the universe had to be eternal.

If time came into beginning at the Big Bang, then whatever caused the universe had to be outside of time. That's eternal. I said that already.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And based on what do you derive that conclusion? I already mentioned cases where when the necessary conditions are met, something still only happens part of the time. And your response was basically to change your definition not to include those (making your definition of "conditions" a bit strange since it no longer has any relation to physical properties).

No, I tried to better define what necessary and sufficient conditions are, as you seem to be mistaking what they mean. You are only relating them to the physical components necessary for an event to take place, but that is not what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means. It means literally every single possible thing, physical or otherwise, that needs to take place for something to occur. You gave the example of things that have the same PHYSICAL conditions that sometimes do not take place because the probability can sometimes swing the other way. But you seem to not understand that that means the necessary and sufficient conditions HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

If something has a 99% chance of happening then the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for the event to happen INCLUDE that 99% chance swinging in it's favor. That's one of the conditions that has to be met in order for the event to take place.

If the necessary and sufficient conditions for something are met they will ALWAYS take place. If it doesn't, the conditions have not been met.

Digi
Originally posted by TacDavey
If time came into beginning at the Big Bang, then whatever caused the universe had to be outside of time.

I'm trying and unfortunately failing to find a new way to explain this to you: the quoted statement here is presupposing something you can't possibly know. Your logic becomes circular when you're saying "I believe that a creator exists outside of time because there needs to be something outside of time." Do you see the fallacy here?

...nevermind that there doesn't need to be something eternal, as the studies show. We go from literally nothing to something, with no other influence needed outside of what we know of quantum mechanics. I'm convinced you're just refusing to believe that at this point, or interpreting it in such a way that would make any quantum physicist laugh.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Digi
I'm trying and unfortunately failing to find a new way to explain this to you: the quoted statement here is presupposing something you can't possibly know. Your logic becomes circular when you're saying "I believe that a creator exists outside of time because there needs to be something outside of time." Do you see the fallacy here?

There is absolutely NOTHING circular about that. Neither of those points requires the other to support it. Logically layed out it would look something like this:

p1: The creator of time cannot be inside of time
p2: The cause of the universe created time
c: The cause of the universe cannot be inside of time.

I don't know where you got the idea that this argument is circular, but unfortunately you are mistaken. Even the example you gave isn't circular. It seems you are mistaken as to what a circular argument is.

Originally posted by Digi
...nevermind that there doesn't need to be something eternal, as the studies show. We go from literally nothing to something, with no other influence needed outside of what we know of quantum mechanics. I'm convinced you're just refusing to believe that at this point, or interpreting it in such a way that would make any quantum physicist laugh.

Incorrect. There does need to be something. A cause. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You yourself agreed with this in past posts. And whatever that "cause" was had to be eternal. For the reasons above.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
If the necessary and sufficient conditions for something are met they will ALWAYS take place. If it doesn't, the conditions have not been met.
That's circular logic; how is that statement falsifiable?

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's circular logic; how is that statement falsifiable?

What? It isn't an argument, it's a definition. That's what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
What? It isn't an argument, it's a definition. That's what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means.
But you've never shown that the universe actually works on that definition. You're saying there's this kind of existential property of flipping one way or another; I don't think that such conditions actually exist in this universe.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
But you've never shown that the universe actually works on that definition. You're saying there's this kind of existential property of flipping one way or another; I don't think that such conditions actually exist in this universe.

What? of course they exist. What do you mean?

If a muon, or whatever it was, has a 99% chance of being created, then obviously one of the things that HAS to happen for it to be created is the probability to flip on the side of the 99% chance, right? So that's one of the conditions that must to be met in order for a muon to be created. I'm confused as to what problem you have with this...

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
What? of course they exist. What do you mean?

If a muon, or whatever it was, has a 99% chance of being created, then obviously one of the things that HAS to happen for it to be created is the probability to flip on the side of the 99% chance, right? So that's one of the conditions that must to be met in order for a muon to be created. I'm confused as to what problem you have with this...
No, I disagree. This is not a coin, there is no "process of flipping". It is simply one thing and then it is another, which statistically happens x amount of the time. There is nothing that actually makes it choose one or another.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I disagree. This is not a coin, there is no "process of flipping". It is simply one thing and then it is another, which statistically happens x amount of the time. There is nothing that actually makes it choose one or another.

I never said there was. But you DO agree that in order for a muon to form, the probability must come up on the 99% chance side of things?

EDIT: I think you're trying to think of the condition as a physical thing. Which is not correct. Conditions don't have to be physical things.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said there was. But you DO agree that in order for a muon to form, the probability must come up on the 99% chance side of things?

EDIT: I think you're trying to think of the condition as a physical thing. Which is not correct. Conditions don't have to be physical things.
No, I disagree. I don't think there is anything to "come up".

Well, a condition does have to be something in some way knowable, or else you can't know if it really exists. You can't tell me what "thing" is necessary for a muon, other than "the thing that makes the muon form". which is highly circular and really proves nothing.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I disagree. I don't think there is anything to "come up".

Well, a condition does have to be something in some way knowable, or else you can't know if it really exists. You can't tell me what "thing" is necessary for a muon, other than "the thing that makes the muon form". which is highly circular and really proves nothing.

bored

King Kandy, you are making this harder than it really is. Like I said, you seem to stuck on the physical aspect of it. There is no "thing" that switches from 99% to 1% or back. You seem to think that's what I'm saying, and I'm not.

If a person says you can have this money as long as you take this package to a friend, isn't one of the conditions for you to be given the money the delivery of the package? Now, there is no "package delivered" object that is placed in the equation once you do the job. But the delivery of the object is still a condition that is required in order for you to be given the money, right?

King Kandy
There is a "package delivered" object. You physically had to go through the package delivery process. If I had the package, and then it suddenly disappeared and my friend had it, I think that would hardly be attributable to something I did.

inimalist
"you are making this harder than it really is" is quickly becoming one of my favorite phrases on this forum

King Kandy
Usually only uttered by people who are trying to prove issues debated for millenia, in online quip format.

inimalist
quantum physics = solved, and in under 25 words!

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
There is a "package delivered" object. You physically had to go through the package delivery process. If I had the package, and then it suddenly disappeared and my friend had it, I think that would hardly be attributable to something I did.

What? That made no sense... What is this "package delivered" object? What color is it? What does it look like?

EDIT: YOU are a physical object. THE PACKAGE is a physical object. But there is no "package delivered" object. That is an ACTION. Not an OBJECT. Yet, it is still a necessary condition for you to get them money.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Usually only uttered by people who are trying to prove issues debated for millenia, in online quip format.

The definition of "necessary and sufficient conditions" is not something that has been debated for a millenia.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
What? That made no sense... What is this "package delivered" object? What color is it? What does it look like?
It looks like a guy getting on his bicycle and delivering the package. Or in general, some form of transition period.

I'm going to ask a question to you. If an eternal condition can only cause one thing to occur, then how could an atom possibly decay? Wouldn't the condition that kept it in check, have to continue eternally and would only ever keep it in good form? Does the atom suddenly achieve the condition of decaying, when it did not have it before?

Cool22212
lol i know right! smile

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
It looks like a guy getting on his bicycle and delivering the package. Or in general, some form of transition period.

I'm going to ask a question to you. If an eternal condition can only cause one thing to occur, then how could an atom possibly decay? Wouldn't the condition that kept it in check, have to continue eternally and would only ever keep it in good form? Does the atom suddenly achieve the condition of decaying, when it did not have it before?

No, like I said. That is an ACTION. You DO know the difference between an action and a physical object, right?

Who said an eternal condition can only cause one thing to occur? I never said that, certainly.

And I have no idea what you are talking about with the atom. Who said the condition that keeps it in check was eternal?

With all due respect, what are you talking about? no expression

King Kandy
why couldn't the universe simply have achieved the conditions for creation, when before it had now?

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
why couldn't the universe simply have achieved the conditions for creation, when before it had now?

Because the conditions had to be eternal, remember?

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Because the conditions had to be eternal, remember?
but obviously they are not, because the laws of the universe produce many different things. not simply one unchanging thing.

Digi
What I honestly think is happening here is a philosophical necessity on Tac's part. He's far too invested in the idea of God behind it all. As such, he must reconcile what we do know with what he believes. And I know as well as any that we can reconcile all sorts of semi-logical, reasonable, or ridiculous things based on needs outside of the strictures of logic itself.

As such, I find this somewhat fascinating, because I actually think it's a case of the mind being so conditioned to a certain approach that it literally can't fathom an explanation outside of that approach. And it might actually be happening on both sides of the argument, to shunt some of the scrutiny away from just Tac.

Obviously I'm in agreement with Kandy here, and none of Tac's arguments have swayed me and some haven't even made sense imo. But I'm at the point where I'm seeing the futility of continuing to hammer home a point that isn't going to be accepted. it's much more an anecdotal sociological observation at this point....which seems too abstract to me when I write it, but hopefully makes some sense.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
but obviously they are not, because the laws of the universe produce many different things. not simply one unchanging thing.

....What? You really aren't making any sense here. You're saying the conditions are not eternal, because... the law of the universe doesn't make eternal things?

First, prove that.

Second, eternal things aren't created anyway. So no worries there. Eternal means no beginning and no end.

And the conditions MUST BE ETERNAL. Because time came into being at the Big Bang. So whatever caused the Big Bang MUST BE OUTSIDE OF TIME.

Originally posted by Digi
What I honestly think is happening here is a philosophical necessity on Tac's part. He's far too invested in the idea of God behind it all. As such, he must reconcile what we do know with what he believes. And I know as well as any that we can reconcile all sorts of semi-logical, reasonable, or ridiculous things based on needs outside of the strictures of logic itself.

As such, I find this somewhat fascinating, because I actually think it's a case of the mind being so conditioned to a certain approach that it literally can't fathom an explanation outside of that approach. And it might actually be happening on both sides of the argument, to shunt some of the scrutiny away from just Tac.

Obviously I'm in agreement with Kandy here, and none of Tac's arguments have swayed me and some haven't even made sense imo. But I'm at the point where I'm seeing the futility of continuing to hammer home a point that isn't going to be accepted. it's much more an anecdotal sociological observation at this point....which seems too abstract to me when I write it, but hopefully makes some sense.

I never intended to sway either of you. The first thing you learn in debates is that you will rarely ever convince the other side of your stance.

That being said, I do not accept that I am forcing God into the equation. I think this is a logically sound argument for the existence of a God which has yet to be refuted. Points have been challenged, but not refuted.

But, like I said, you're right. No one is changing their religious viewpoint here and I never thought they would.

Digi
I've also become somewhat fascinated by Model-Dependent Realism recently (an offshoot of astrophysics as it applies to unified field theories), and am viewing all this through that prism. The idea that you can somehow reliably prove or even provide evidence for an incomprehensible cosmic being who is literally beyond the universe is laughable to begin with, and more so when you consider any kind of input or thought we have about the universe is approximate, at best, and based on all kinds of biological and cultural influences that are ingrained within us.

Aspects of religion are, provably so, hardwired into us for evolutionary purposes. People will believe in a creator, and human manipulations will give that creator all sorts of preposterous qualities. To pretend that you have some philosophical proof for God is spitting in the face of reason, especially when in most interpretations of God blind faith is the highest form of belief...a direct contradiction with evidence.

I'm also still quite stupified that you can't accept that A. there was nothing. Nothing in the truest sense of it. And then came something, according to physical models we have directly observed. Nothing else is needed for existence. We've directly seen this, observed it. I realize you don't accept that, but it boggles my min why you can't.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Digi
I've also become somewhat fascinated by Model-Dependent Realism recently (an offshoot of astrophysics as it applies to unified field theories), and am viewing all this through that prism. The idea that you can somehow reliably prove or even provide evidence for an incomprehensible cosmic being who is literally beyond the universe is laughable to begin with, and more so when you consider any kind of input or thought we have about the universe is approximate, at best, and based on all kinds of biological and cultural influences that are ingrained within us.

Aspects of religion are, provably so, hardwired into us for evolutionary purposes. People will believe in a creator, and human manipulations will give that creator all sorts of preposterous qualities. To pretend that you have some philosophical proof for God is spitting in the face of reason, especially when in most interpretations of God blind faith is the highest form of belief...a direct contradiction with evidence.

I'm also still quite stupified that you can't accept that A. there was nothing. Nothing in the truest sense of it. And then came something, according to physical models we have directly observed. Nothing else is needed for existence. We've directly seen this, observed it. I realize you don't accept that, but it boggles my min why you can't.

I disagree with just about everything in this post.

I do not think that blind faith is ever required for religion. indeed, the Bible even says you should be able to defend your faith.

I also deny that we cannot provide ration, logical reasons for belief in a higher power based off of observations and what we know of the universe and the way it works. Even if we cannot know EVERYTHING about said being. Furthermore, I believe this argument is a good example of just that.

Lastly, you yourself agreed that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. I fully accept that the universe came into being from nothing. But not BY nothing. There is a BIG difference there.

Bicnarok

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
....What? You really aren't making any sense here. You're saying the conditions are not eternal, because... the law of the universe doesn't make eternal things?

First, prove that.

Second, eternal things aren't created anyway. So no worries there. Eternal means no beginning and no end.

And the conditions MUST BE ETERNAL. Because time came into being at the Big Bang. So whatever caused the Big Bang MUST BE OUTSIDE OF TIME.
It was outside of time, but, it was not eternal. Or to say it another way, time became defined when the conditions for change were met.

Deadline
Yea I'm backing out again.

Mindship
Originally posted by King Kandy
time became defined when the conditions for change were met. Good way to put it.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
It was outside of time, but, it was not eternal. Or to say it another way, time became defined when the conditions for change were met.

It can't be outside of time and not eternal. That's what eternal means. If it has a beginning or an end it is inside of time.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
It can't be outside of time and not eternal. That's what eternal means. If it has a beginning or an end it is inside of time.
And the universe did have a cause, inside of time. The moment there was a "cause", there was also time, because time is a sequencing of events. Unless an event occurs, time is meaningless.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
And the universe did have a cause, inside of time. The moment there was a "cause", there was also time, because time is a sequencing of events. Unless an event occurs, time is meaningless.

But you just said it was outside of time, but not eternal. Now you're bouncing around on your stance.

And anyway, time was the effect, not the cause. Time was created BY the cause, and thus cannot have had a part in initiating the cause.

EDIT: So in the end, the cause must still be outside of time.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
But you just said it was outside of time, but not eternal. Now you're bouncing around on your stance.

And anyway, time was the effect, not the cause. Time was created BY the cause, and thus cannot have had a part in initiating the cause.

EDIT: So in the end, the cause must still be outside of time.
I disagree. I think you are creating distinctions that do not exist. If something is "initiated", that means time exists because an event has occured. There were no events, until an event occurs. that event defines time, so we choose to count time from there.

like i said, cause and effect make no sense "outside" of time. Time is a sequencing of events, so if there was a "Cause" event and a "effect" event, then time already exists.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
I disagree. I think you are creating distinctions that do not exist. If something is "initiated", that means time exists because an event has occured. There were no events, until an event occurs. that event defines time, so we choose to count time from there.

like i said, cause and effect make no sense "outside" of time. Time is a sequencing of events, so if there was a "Cause" event and a "effect" event, then time already exists.

There isn't a "cause event" there is simply a cause. The effect is the only "event" in this case.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
There isn't a "cause event" there is simply a cause. The effect is the only "event" in this case.
Oh really? can you give me a single time there was a cause with no causal event?

Existere
Originally posted by TacDavey
There isn't a "cause event" there is simply a cause. The effect is the only "event" in this case. What does that even mean?

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh really? can you give me a single time there was a cause with no causal event?

Well, I suppose it depends on what you consider an event. The necessary and sufficient conditions for something coming together could technically be considered an "event". But this wouldn't be the case if, say, the conditions never came together, they were simply always together, as the conditions for the universe would have to have been. In that sense, the only "event" would be the effect.

I'm curious. Are you saying that the cause of time was inside of time? The thing it created? That doesn't make any logical sense.

Originally posted by Existere
What does that even mean?

I can cause something, but you wouldn't consider me an event.

Deadline
Looks like a semantical debate.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, I suppose it depends on what you consider an event. The necessary and sufficient conditions for something coming together could technically be considered an "event". But this wouldn't be the case if, say, the conditions never came together, they were simply always together, as the conditions for the universe would have to have been. In that sense, the only "event" would be the effect.

I'm curious. Are you saying that the cause of time was inside of time? The thing it created? That doesn't make any logical sense.
Nothing "created" time. Time is defined as the sequencing of events. When the first event occurred, time therefore had a starting point to be defined from. However, there was no actual tangible creation of something called "time".

ushomefree
I would state, in my humble opinion, that the answer to this question is "no." I think human beings universally believe - whether outwardly and/or inwardly (regardless of their upbringing, education level and religious views) - that life does not end at death - or physical death as some would argue.

The bottom line is, all human beings, in my view, understand that life is more abundant, more personal than raw material/matter alone. We all understand - instinctively! - that an entity exists far beyond our nature - something that provides meaning and depth.

I've noticed, that many so-called atheist friends of mine, spend more time challenging God's moral character, than His existence. This, of course, indirectly, confirms that they believe in an entity greater than themselves - and if I may speak freely - the Cosmos itself.

Yes... I'm getting off topic, but I truly embrace, that the belief in life after death is universally excepted - outwardly and/or inwardly. People except that life (in this world) is not the end, and no one ever taught you this. If your anything like me, you realized this before you began puberty.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Do we believe it's the end?


I think people want to believe it isn't. As for the truth....I have no clue, and neither does anybody else....who's alive.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
Nothing "created" time. Time is defined as the sequencing of events. When the first event occurred, time therefore had a starting point to be defined from. However, there was no actual tangible creation of something called "time".

Time isn't a physical object. That doesn't mean it didn't have a beginning. And again, if it has a beginning, it needs a cause.

Digi
Originally posted by ushomefree
I would state, in my humble opinion, that the answer to this question is "no." I think human beings universally believe - whether outwardly and/or inwardly (regardless of their upbringing, education level and religious views) - that life does not end at death - or physical death as some would argue.

The bottom line is, all human beings, in my view, understand that life is more abundant, more personal than raw material/matter alone. We all understand - instinctively! - that an entity exists far beyond our nature - something that provides meaning and depth.

Besides not being a logical appeal, which it isn't, saying that a sense of an afterlife is ingrained within us is probably wrong. The default "setting" for human beings is a lack of belief in, well, anything. Not atheism, I'm not here to drive an agenda. Just a blank slate, an utter lack of opinion. Anything beyond that is mostly culturally driven.

Unless you have some information on the brain states of newborns or infants that I'm not aware of, of course. Because given that most types of abstract thought aren't even possible at birth and infancy, and build gradually as our brain develops and we build prerequisite cognitive skills, I'd say it might actually be physically impossible for such beliefs to be intrinsic.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I've noticed, that many so-called atheist friends of mine, spend more time challenging God's moral character, than His existence. This, of course, indirectly, confirms that they believe in an entity greater than themselves - and if I may speak freely - the Cosmos itself.

Then you're dealing with a weird subset of atheists, or not atheists at all in a traditional sense.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Yes... I'm getting off topic, but I truly embrace, that the belief in life after death is universally excepted - outwardly and/or inwardly. People except that life (in this world) is not the end, and no one ever taught you this. If your anything like me, you realized this before you began puberty.

My 2-year-old niece makes the sign of the cross before meals. It doesn't mean it's ingrained within her, just that she has religious parents and has learned to mimic behavior. I'm quite sure the concept of God, the afterlife, death, etc. is still quite unknowable and foreign to her.

"Puberty" is a laughable line to draw. Nobody is at their initial natural belief state by such a point in their life.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
Besides not being a logical appeal, which it isn't, saying that a sense of an afterlife is ingrained within us is probably wrong. The default "setting" for human beings is a lack of belief in, well, anything. Not atheism, I'm not here to drive an agenda. Just a blank slate, an utter lack of opinion. Anything beyond that is mostly culturally driven.

Unless you have some information on the brain states of newborns or infants that I'm not aware of, of course. Because given that most types of abstract thought aren't even possible at birth and infancy, and build gradually as our brain develops and we build prerequisite cognitive skills, I'd say it might actually be physically impossible for such beliefs to be intrinsic.

it would depend on how strict of a definition of "intrinsic" you want to use.

For instance, our mind produces the sensation that we are this things, living behind our eyes, and it feels very much like we ride our bodies, rather than feeling like we are this deconstructed set of biological systems. Like, our consciousness doesn't feel like an epiphenomena of neuronal processes, it feels like something distinct from the rest of our biology.

This is clearly a natural process of development, as it holds, afaik, universally across cultures. The idea of dualism is apparent in all civilizations.

We also develop a "theory of the mind" at a very young age, where we realize that this dualistic experience is something that all other people have. In fact, it is considered a mental health problem if you don't develop this, and has serious implications for social interaction (one couldn't live a normal life without a theory of the mind, imho).

So, if our biology predisposes us to see ourselves as a ghost in the shell, and further predisposes us to see others as the same, disconnected from our biology, as something distinct, how far of a leap is it to "this distinct thing survives death"? There would be a number of other cognitive biases at work (simple explanation, sense to the world, less unfairness, meaning in life, etc), but even just the feeling of dualism itself, and the knowledge that other people are dualists would clearly make the idea that there is something that survives body death one of the most intrinsic conclusions to our information processing systems.

Dualism, or the fact it doesn't bare out scientifically, is one of the hardest concepts for students in psych to internalize, because it is so counter intuitive. Not being a dualist is far more culturally determined than is being one.

like, dont get me wrong, the belief is demonstrably false, there isn't anything beyond our biology, its just that we are very much predisposed to experience the universe as if there were. At the very least, this wouldn't be a belief that falls out of some culture, but almost certainly one that informed cultures, and is common throughout the world

Digi
Originally posted by inimalist
it would depend on how strict of a definition of "intrinsic" you want to use.

For instance, our mind produces the sensation that we are this things, living behind our eyes, and it feels very much like we ride our bodies, rather than feeling like we are this deconstructed set of biological systems. Like, our consciousness doesn't feel like an epiphenomena of neuronal processes, it feels like something distinct from the rest of our biology.

This is clearly a natural process of development, as it holds, afaik, universally across cultures. The idea of dualism is apparent in all civilizations.

We also develop a "theory of the mind" at a very young age, where we realize that this dualistic experience is something that all other people have. In fact, it is considered a mental health problem if you don't develop this, and has serious implications for social interaction (one couldn't live a normal life without a theory of the mind, imho).

So, if our biology predisposes us to see ourselves as a ghost in the shell, and further predisposes us to see others as the same, disconnected from our biology, as something distinct, how far of a leap is it to "this distinct thing survives death"? There would be a number of other cognitive biases at work (simple explanation, sense to the world, less unfairness, meaning in life, etc), but even just the feeling of dualism itself, and the knowledge that other people are dualists would clearly make the idea that there is something that survives body death one of the most intrinsic conclusions to our information processing systems.

Dualism, or the fact it doesn't bare out scientifically, is one of the hardest concepts for students in psych to internalize, because it is so counter intuitive. Not being a dualist is far more culturally determined than is being one.

like, dont get me wrong, the belief is demonstrably false, there isn't anything beyond our biology, its just that we are very much predisposed to experience the universe as if there were. At the very least, this wouldn't be a belief that falls out of some culture, but almost certainly one that informed cultures, and is common throughout the world

Your position is framed much differently than ushome's. He's saying that we instinctively believe in God or a god. An inherent dualism is very far removed from this. You're talking about something abstract, yes, but there is a wealth of sensory input and thought behind it, whereas there is nothing tangible linking our brain state directly to a belief in God. I'm very squarely of the mind that if you insulated a human being from outside influence entirely, no such trend would emerge, because our default position is a lack of belief about such things. Some might wonder about their origins and come up with the answer of God, certainly, but not a default condition of our very nature.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
Your position is framed much differently than ushome's. He's saying that we instinctively believe in God or a god. An inherent dualism is very far removed from this. I'm very squarely of the mind that if you insulated a human being from outside influence entirely, no such trend would emerge, because our default position is a lack of belief about such things. Some might wonder about their origins and come up with the answer of God, certainly, but not a default condition of our very nature.

actually, I'm talking specifically about the mind surviving death. You and ushome mentioned the afterlife explicitly in the stuff I quoted from. Sure, I agree, a concept of a "father in the sky" is probably not intrinsic... well, not so much so that I'd argue it here.

You are probably right, but a child who develops in isolation is hardly an example of normal human thought, the brain requires socialization to develop normally

If you reared a child in a cultural setting that did not explicitly endorse the mind surviving death, I imagine it would appear in the vast majority of people.

This plays no role in what is true or not of course. People are biologically tuned to see patterns in randomness, it doesn't mean the patterns are there. People are biologically tuned to sensory illusions, doesn't mean the Necker Cube is actually a fully drawn cube.

Digi
I might also be a bit more receptive if he had framed a natural belief in terms of evolutionary survival, which may have something to it. But clearly he was simply talking in a religious sense, with it being imbued within us in a divine metaphysical way.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
I might also be a bit more receptive if he had framed a natural belief in terms of evolutionary survival, which may have something to it. But clearly he was simply talking in a religious sense, with it being imbued within us in a divine metaphysical way.

well, for sure, it isn't that the creator has placed a spark in us smile

Digi
Your earlier points are well made, and yes it's demonstrably true that certain tendencies are part of our biological makeup. Pattern-forming and facial recognition are well-known examples. I just think it would be hard to prove or even provide evidence that "there exists a God" is one of them.

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
like, dont get me wrong, the belief is demonstrably false, there isn't anything beyond our biology, its just that we are very much predisposed to experience the universe as if there were. At the very least, this wouldn't be a belief that falls out of some culture, but almost certainly one that informed cultures, and is common throughout the world

Hey, hold on. How can you demonstrate that there is nothing beyond our biology? Or were you talking about the belief that we are pre-programmed to believe in God?

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
Hey, hold on. How can you demonstrate that there is nothing beyond our biology? Or were you talking about the belief that we are pre-programmed to believe in God?

we can show that all parts of the mind people associate with dualism are actually subservient to or produced from lower level, basic biological processes.

Originally posted by Digi
Your earlier points are well made, and yes it's demonstrably true that certain tendencies are part of our biological makeup. Pattern-forming and facial recognition are well-known examples. I just think it would be hard to prove or even provide evidence that "there exists a God" is one of them.

big G, for sure, definitely not

that there is a higher power responsible for things beyond human control... I'd be willing to say that again is totally part of our biology and just very basic cognitive processing strategies that exist

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
we can show that all parts of the mind people associate with dualism are actually subservient to or produced from lower level, basic biological processes.

That doesn't prove there is nothing beyond our biology. It might refute evidence supporting the idea we have more to us than our biology, but it does not prove the alternative.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
That doesn't prove there is nothing beyond our biology. It might refute evidence supporting the idea we have more to us than our biology, but it does not prove the alternative.

I'm not going to argue with you about burden of proof again

suffice to say, there is no evidence of anything beyond biology, and pretty much most things can be drawn back to biological origins, even if the mechanisms are not completely understood yet.

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not going to argue with you about burden of proof again

suffice to say, there is no evidence of anything beyond biology, and pretty much most things can be drawn back to biological origins, even if the mechanisms are not completely understood yet.

big grin Don't worry, I won't ask you to. I'm really not interested in debating if we have a soul or not. I think I've already done that dance on KMC.

I'm simply pointing out that you said we can demonstrate that there is nothing to us except our physical body. Which simply isn't true. We can deny reasons to believe in a soul, but we cannot provide proof a soul doesn't exist.

I AM interested in where you are getting your information about dualism and how we know how consciousness works. Because last I heard it was still a pretty big mystery.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
I AM interested in where you are getting your information about dualism

mixture of textbooks, lectures, discussions and journal articles

Originally posted by TacDavey
and how we know how consciousness works. Because last I heard it was still a pretty big mystery.

It is generally divided into what is called the soft question and the hard question. The soft question is describing neuronal and biological processes that give rise to certain aspects of experience. The hard question is about describing how these things come together to form the way we experience the universe.

The soft question is, while not entirely fleshed out mechanistically, fairly well understood through a series of different neurological paradigms. Things like distributed processing loops, the use of language, plasticity, etc, can describe the processes going on whenever you do something. Our knowledge isn't perfect, but certainly enough to say there is nothing going on independent of biology, and the big questions are more about how that biology functions or represents information, rather than if it is biology at all.

The hard question is a different kettle of fish though. There are a number of schools of thought about how to approach it, however, I come from one that sort of sees the hard question as unnecessary. For the question to be relevant, we would have to show that there is some aspect to experience that differs from those understood through the soft question. I generally believe that the soft question answers the hard question, and it is an illusion of these "soft" processes that we even have this singular sense of experience, rather than some mechanism of "consciousness".

There is some evidence that points to the contrary, such as the fact that conscious neuronal networks tend to fire in gamma frequency bursts, or other such things, but to me, this doesn't show consciousness as a thing distinct from other parts of the brain in the same way the processing of movement is distinct from that of vision. Sure, we can divide them into unique systems, but ultimately they are all just normal processes that would be described under the soft question.

I honestly only believe the hard question exists because of how pervasive the illusion of dualism is.

TacDavey
Any links?

TitanicFTW
lol what the **** are you talking about

Deadline
I don't know what to say but it seems certain opinions have hijacked this forum.

Mindship
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I think people want to believe it isn't. As for the truth....I have no clue, and neither does anybody else....who's alive. If reductive-materialism is right, even da dead don't know.

Deja~vu
Hence, they keep walking around here....lol

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
Any links?

links to what?

Existere
Originally posted by TacDavey
I can cause something, but you wouldn't consider me an event. I would certainly consider the act of you causing something an event.

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
links to what?

To these journals or articles that disprove dualism.

Meh, nevermind. Like I said, don't really want to debate this subject. stick out tongue

Originally posted by Existere
I would certainly consider the act of you causing something an event.

But I'm not an event. Yet I'm still a cause.

Like I said. Kinda comes down to word play. It's all irrelevant to the main point anyway.

Digi
Originally posted by Deadline
I don't know what to say but it seems certain opinions have hijacked this forum.

You'll find tendencies on various forums, but as long as everyone is free to post, "hijacked" is the wrong word. A lot probably just has to do with perception based on post counts and such. As it is, while we don't have a full spectrum of backgrounds and ideas here on KMC, it seems to me like one of the few inherently neutral forums when it comes to politics, philosophy, and religion. It's very hard to find a site to talk about any of those that doesn't have a sort of built-in demographic because of the audience or content of the main site.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
To these journals or articles that disprove dualism.

Meh, nevermind. Like I said, don't really want to debate this subject. stick out tongue


maybe I didn't explain correctly

there is no such thing as a "dualism is dead" study

rather, you have to look at 30 years worth of fMRI and neuroscience literature, through the perspective of philosophical relevance to consciousness, to get an appreciation for how the brain and mind work

I can link you to some of the seminal studies and most important work (Libet, Gazanaga, Goodale, Wolfe, Triesman, Blackmore, among many, many others), but its unlikely to convince you unless you are willing to read up on neuroscience in the first place, which imho, anyone who is really interested in neuroscience probably doesn't need me to link them to it.

I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts on these forums that require more than introductory level psych courses to understand. This is not one of them. Unless you are really interested, I probably can't just "link" you to something you are going to find meaningful.

That being said, Sue Blackmore's "Very Short Introduction to Consciousness" would be the best place to start for a philosophical introduction to the hard and soft problems from a scientific perspective.

Digi
No no, in. Links or it didn't happen.

uhuh

Deadline
Originally posted by inimalist
maybe I didn't explain correctly

there is no such thing as a "dualism is dead" study

rather, you have to look at 30 years worth of fMRI and neuroscience literature, through the perspective of philosophical relevance to consciousness, to get an appreciation for how the brain and mind work

I can link you to some of the seminal studies and most important work (Libet, Gazanaga, Goodale, Wolfe, Triesman, Blackmore, among many, many others), but its unlikely to convince you unless you are willing to read up on neuroscience in the first place, which imho, anyone who is really interested in neuroscience probably doesn't need me to link them to it.

I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts on these forums that require more than introductory level psych courses to understand. This is not one of them. Unless you are really interested, I probably can't just "link" you to something you are going to find meaningful.

That being said, Sue Blackmore's "Very Short Introduction to Consciousness" would be the best place to start for a philosophical introduction to the hard and soft problems from a scientific perspective.

Wait a second what the hell is going on here? Are you trying to argue that science contradicts the existence of a soul?

inimalist
Originally posted by Deadline
Wait a second what the hell is going on here? Are you trying to argue that science contradicts the existence of a soul?

directly? no, a soul is an inherently unfalsifiable object with ambiguous qualities and no discernible way to predict outcomes based upon.

however, any aspect of dualism that would arise from the soul, yes, I'm saying neuroscience has rendered them as moot at best, but generally as incorrect.

So, if you think there is a soul that has nothing to do with your perception, emotion, behaviour, thoughts, etc, no, I can't test that. If you think your soul is responsible for those things, sure, science has shown that they are biological rather than spiritual/super-natural/whichever-term-you-wont-take-offense-to

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
maybe I didn't explain correctly

there is no such thing as a "dualism is dead" study

rather, you have to look at 30 years worth of fMRI and neuroscience literature, through the perspective of philosophical relevance to consciousness, to get an appreciation for how the brain and mind work

I can link you to some of the seminal studies and most important work (Libet, Gazanaga, Goodale, Wolfe, Triesman, Blackmore, among many, many others), but its unlikely to convince you unless you are willing to read up on neuroscience in the first place, which imho, anyone who is really interested in neuroscience probably doesn't need me to link them to it.

I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts on these forums that require more than introductory level psych courses to understand. This is not one of them. Unless you are really interested, I probably can't just "link" you to something you are going to find meaningful.

That being said, Sue Blackmore's "Very Short Introduction to Consciousness" would be the best place to start for a philosophical introduction to the hard and soft problems from a scientific perspective.

No that's alright...

Besides, I think the debate on a "soul" is more a philosophical debate than it is a scientific one. Much like the existence of God.

Deadline
Originally posted by inimalist
directly? no, a soul is an inherently unfalsifiable object with ambiguous qualities and no discernible way to predict outcomes based upon.

Who told you that?

Originally posted by inimalist

however, any aspect of dualism that would arise from the soul, yes, I'm saying neuroscience has rendered them as moot at best, but generally as incorrect.


Didn't you also say that science hasn't proven psi as well?

Originally posted by inimalist

So, if you think there is a soul that has nothing to do with your perception, emotion, behaviour, thoughts, etc, no, I can't test that. If you think your soul is responsible for those things, sure, science has shown that they are biological rather than spiritual/super-natural/whichever-term-you-wont-take-offense-to

Really?

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
I think the debate on a "soul" is more a philosophical debate than it is a scientific one. Much like the existence of God.

I'd agree, except calling something "philosophy" like that is generally derogatory from where I sit

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd agree, except calling something "philosophy" like that is generally derogatory from where I sit

Really? philosophy is just as important as science imo. They are two different things.

inimalist
Originally posted by Deadline
Who told you that?

well, what testable predictions could you generate based on the existence of a soul?

Originally posted by Deadline
Didn't you also say that science hasn't proven psi as well?

yes, I feel there is insufficient evidence to conclude that psi is real, and any mechanism through which it could work is nonsensical

Originally posted by Deadline
Really?

yes, while all the mechanisms are not as well understood as they could be (distributed processing networks comprised of millions of interacting neurons are complicated), there is nothing we know of that doesn't show consistent biological origins.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
Really? philosophy is just as important as science imo. They are two different things.

oh, thanks for letting me know, because clearly scientists have no interest in philosophy

Deadline
Originally posted by inimalist
well, what testable predictions could you generate based on the existence of a soul?

Are you serious?

Originally posted by inimalist

yes, I feel there is insufficient evidence to conclude that psi is real, and any mechanism through which it could work is nonsensical


That isn't because there isn't any evidence it's because you keep finding things wrong with experiments, and I don't mean constructive criticism. The last time I had a debate with you I just gave up because it was exasperating. As far as I was concerned there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that the soul exists but my point is that you have a biased way in which you analyse data, if there was proof for psi or the soul we may not even find out because even if there is some evidence that is in favour of psi you won't even acknowledge it. You proved that by strawmanning and creating arguments I wasn't making.

You also don't even seem to have even done enough research because you would have known that Susan Blackmore has stated that her experiments were poorly done. I don't even think you've even heard or Rupert Sheldrake.

Originally posted by inimalist


yes, while all the mechanisms are not as well understood as they could be (distributed processing networks comprised of millions of interacting neurons are complicated), there is nothing we know of that doesn't show consistent biological origins.

I don't know you seem to say that about alot of stuff then I go and do research and find out it's not as simple as you're making out.

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, thanks for letting me know, because clearly scientists have no interest in philosophy

no expression You said calling something philosophical was derogatory...

inimalist
Originally posted by Deadline
I don't know you seem to say that about alot of stuff then I go and do research and find out it's not as simple as you're making out.

cool smile

as I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts that are beyond intro level psych courses on the forum. congrads that you can go find stuff beyond that level

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
no expression You said calling something philosophical was derogatory...

yes, as it means "you want to talk about something without ever having to back up your point"

science is the philosophy of how to provide evidence for things

Deadline
Originally posted by inimalist
cool smile

as I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts that are beyond intro level psych courses on the forum. congrads that you can go find stuff beyond that level

Whatever.

Digi
Originally posted by inimalist
well, what testable predictions could you generate based on the existence of a soul?

Originally posted by Deadline
Are you serious?

Seems an odd response. What are you objecting to in his question, Deadline. He's just asking for something that can be tested in regards to a soul. Otherwise, the idea of a soul is unfalsifiable and lacking evidence for or against it entirely.

...though, many people wouldn't have an issue with the idea of an unfalsifiable soul, but then we're not talking about science anymore.

Deadline
Originally posted by Digi
Seems an odd response. What are you objecting to in his question, Deadline. He's just asking for something that can be tested in regards to a soul. Otherwise, the idea of a soul is unfalsifiable and lacking evidence for or against it entirely.

...though, many people wouldn't have an issue with the idea of an unfalsifiable soul, but then we're not talking about science anymore.

Why is he asking me a question he already knows the answer to? Why are we assuming the soul can't be tested?

inimalist
Originally posted by Deadline
Whatever.

alright, fine, let's do I like this

I openly challenge you to a debate about psi and the soul, in a separate thread dedicated to just you and I going over the issues.

I'll make the thread if you want, and make the first arguments

this will involve me making criticisms of the studies and evidence you present, but that is typical of the scientific process, so you can't get butthurt when I challenge your studie's conclusions, methods or statistics

I wont be able to start until tonight, and I'm camping this weekend, but otherwise I'm game, and he ball is in your court

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
Really? philosophy is just as important as science imo. They are two different things.

When you say "philosophy" are you referring to "metaphysics"?

Deadline
Originally posted by inimalist
alright, fine, let's do I like this

I openly challenge you to a debate about psi and the soul, in a separate thread dedicated to just you and I going over the issues.

I'll make the thread if you want, and make the first arguments

this will involve me making criticisms of the studies and evidence you present, but that is typical of the scientific process, so you can't get butthurt when I challenge your studie's conclusions, methods or statistics

I wont be able to start until tonight, and I'm camping this weekend, but otherwise I'm game, and he ball is in your court

What on earth are you talking about we tried that already it was a disaster. It's like you're acting like we haven't done this before.

You see thats not even the problem. In our last debate it wasn't about the scientific process it's you debating style. You invent things that don't exist. I even had to go and do further reasearch to find the information I was looking for to disprove NDEs. It's pretty reasonable to assume that you didn't know about the info or you would have made that argument.

I have thought about re-bumping thread maybe I will but as far as I'm concerned not sure it will be worth it. Hell I wasn't really going to mention it but you seem to set yourself up as an authority of science when you don't seem to know that much. Anyone coming to this forum who is interested in parasychology is going to get a misrepresentation of science if they come to this forum.

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, as it means "you want to talk about something without ever having to back up your point"

science is the philosophy of how to provide evidence for things

laughing

Philosophy doesn't demand that you don't back things up. Just the opposite, actually. Science can't tell us everything, you know.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
When you say "philosophy" are you referring to "metaphysics"?

Not only metaphysics, but yes.

Deadline
Originally posted by TacDavey
laughing

Philosophy doesn't demand that you don't back things up. Just the opposite, actually. Science can't tell us everything, you know.

O god you opened the gates of hell.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
laughing

Philosophy doesn't demand that you don't back things up. Just the opposite, actually. Science can't tell us everything, you know.

Metaphysics tells us nothing by design.

What do you think "philosophy" can tell us? And how do we know which of the many, and contradictory, things "philosophy" tells us is correct?

TacDavey
Originally posted by Deadline
O god you opened the gates of hell.

omg_smilie

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
Not only metaphysics, but yes.

Well what exactly are you referring to then? Philosophy is a broad and very varied term, seldom do people share the same definition of it. So to make it possible to discuss your post, would you kindly define your usage of the word "philosophy" properly?

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
Metaphysics tells us nothing by design.

What do you think "philosophy" can tell us? And how do we know which of the many, and contradictory, things "philosophy" tells us is correct?

Philosophy uses logic and intellectual reasoning to tell us... well... a lot of stuff. Is there a God? That's a philosophical question. Not a scientific one. And it's probably the single most important question to answer, in my opinion.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
Philosophy uses logic and intellectual reasoning to tell us... well... a lot of stuff. Is there a God? That's a philosophical question. Not a scientific one. And it's probably the single most important question to answer, in my opinion.

Where would you separate things that are in the realm of science versus those you'd put in the realm of "philosophy"?

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well what exactly are you referring to then? Philosophy is a broad and very varied term, seldom do people share the same definition of it. So to make it possible to discuss your post, would you kindly define your usage of the word "philosophy" properly?

I dunno all the branches of philosophy, so I can't narrow it down to which ones are important and which one's aren't.

Philosophy is trying to answer the questions science can't. Things outside of what we can touch or smell. Idea's, the mind, all those things.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
Where would you separate things that are in the realm of science versus those you'd put in the realm of "philosophy"?

Science deals in what we can witness with our physical senses, or what we can experiment and test. Philosophy deals with reasoning and logic to use what we know from science to try and answer the questions of what we can't physically interact with or test.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by TacDavey
Philosophy uses logic and intellectual reasoning to tell us... well... a lot of stuff. Is there a God? That's a philosophical question. Not a scientific one. And it's probably the single most important question to answer, in my opinion.

That's clearly a scientific question. "Does x object/person exist?" and "Where is object/person?" can and often is investigated by science. We don't hire philosophers to finding missing person's after all.

Now the question of "Can x object/person exist?" is arguably an issue of metaphysics.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's clearly a scientific question. "Does x object/person exist?" and "Where is object/person?" can and often is investigated by science. We don't hire philosophers to finding missing person's after all.

Now the question of "Can x object/person exist?" is arguably an issue of metaphysics.

I don't think that's the same. God is not a physical person we can run tests on or run experiments to find.

The question of God's existence is more based on logic and reasoning, rather than physical evidence.

There is no experiment we can run to determine if God exists.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
I dunno all the branches of philosophy, so I can't narrow it down to which ones are important and which one's aren't.

Philosophy is trying to answer the questions science can't. Things outside of what we can touch or smell. Idea's, the mind, all those things.

But science is dealing the mind. It is a huge part of scientific endeavor.

Ideas depends, do you mean ideas as in what people have in their mind, cause then it falls under the former, or do you mean ideas as in Platos sense? Because then they are unfalsifiable again, and science can not deal with them, while philosophy only deals with them in meaningless ways (for example, pretending they exist for no good reason).

Deadline
Originally posted by TacDavey
Philosophy uses logic and intellectual reasoning to tell us... well... a lot of stuff. Is there a God? That's a philosophical question. Not a scientific one. And it's probably the single most important question to answer, in my opinion.


You can't conclusively prove using logic that God exists due to his characteristics.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
But science is dealing the mind. It is a huge part of scientific endeavor.

Understanding the brain is a scientific endeavor. The question as to whether we are more than a brain is a philosophical one. There are no experiments or tests you can run to tell you the answer.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ideas depends, do you mean ideas as in what people have in their mind, cause then it falls under the former, or do you mean ideas as in Platos sense? Because then they are unfalsifiable again, and science can not deal with them, while philosophy only deals with them in meaningless ways (for example, pretending they exist for no good reason).

"For no good reason" isn't accurate. Philosophy uses logic and reasoning to come to it's conclusions.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Deadline
You can't conclusively prove using logic that God exists due to his characteristics.

You cannot prove 100% that God exists, but then, you can't really prove anything 100%. You can show His existence is more logical than the alternative, though.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think that's the same. God is not a physical person we can run tests on or run experiments to find.

The question of God's existence is more based on logic and reasoning, rather than physical evidence.

There is no experiment we can run to determine if God exists.

If god has an effect on the physical world, even indirectly then he can be investigated scientifically. God simply being a concept, like truth or justice, seems to contradict every religion that includes a god.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
Science deals in what we can witness with our physical senses, or what we can experiment and test. Philosophy deals with reasoning and logic to use what we know from science to try and answer the questions of what we can't physically interact with or test.

The latter falls squarely within most definitions of science. Science uses logic to derive things from what it has found "through experiments".

Mathematics logically derives from a few axioms complex systems.

Philosophy as it is often used (as a sort of bastardized metaphysics) does neither of those. It may or may not apply logic to certain unfalsifiable/random ideas (non Plato sense).

That is kind of unfair to philosophy of course, but that's how it is often used (based on things that people like Berkeley, Hegel or Heidegger did).

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
"For no good reason" isn't accurate. Philosophy uses logic and reasoning to come to it's conclusions.

Sometimes. It doesn't use any useful or sensible ways to come to its axioms though, which makes the logic usage moot.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
Understanding the brain is a scientific endeavor. The question as to whether we are more than a brain is a philosophical one. There are no experiments or tests you can run to tell you the answer.

Well I don't think that's quite true, if we can explain everything that we perceive as a "mind" based on biological functions, I'd say we have pretty conclusively proven that this "mind" we perceive is an illusion rather than something spiritual.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If god has an effect on the physical world, even indirectly then he can be investigated scientifically. God simply being a concept, like truth or justice, seems to contradict every religion that includes a god.

It depends on how one thinks God interacts with the world. Perhaps He can interact with the world outside of the physical sense, and interact with the spiritual. Something science cannot deal with.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>