secularmerlin

I am after all only human. In any case it was wrong of me.

I owe you an apology. It is too late to take it back now but I realize upon reading ypur reply that our pm was only our business and that I had no call to share the details of it publicly. I am sorry EtrnlVw.

Assuming that something has or could exist eternally puts the laws of thermodynamics on shaky ground. It seems that the laws of physics are on shaky ground no matter what we propose. Perhaps we should simply admit that we do not and cannot know where the universe came from (assuming it is more than an illusion).

I am contending that we do not know if it is or is not possible and that a claim either way without proof to back it up is an argument from ignorance. 

Ironic that EtrnlVw is making a claim you feel is beyond human epistemology but he feels is obvious. Do not give in Mopac do not violate your epistemology further than your standard argument already does.

One cannot prove a negative. If one claims that nothing could possibly begin to exist without a cause one us committing a black swan fallacy. If one further claims that one special thing exists that did not begin then one is also committing a case of special pleading. It is not reality that I am arguing against it is logical fallacies.

What is your preferred definition of conciousness?

As someone who shares deb's struggle with dyslexia if I could translate. Inventing god(s) not inventing god's. As ypur friend I appreciate your patience with deb as it I sympathize with the difficulty inherent for a dyslexic person to make themselves understood.

I will admit that some reality most likely exists and that I have perceptions that seem real. These perceptions leave me with no reason to accept more than that and they are the only perceptions that I have. If that is not enough then I cannot give you what you want.

Your argument bears remarkable similarity to the kalam argument. It doesn't really matter the jump from reality exists to some transcendent eternal force being or object is unsupportable by the evidence. I do notvaccept that everything that begins to exist necessarily must have a cause. This is not the same as saying that nothing is real.

I disagree. You cannot pigeonhole people with averages like that. I don't know what you mean by low IQ races but if even one exceptional individual has the potential to add something to scientific knowledge or the public discourse we owe it to ourselves as the human race (a fare more important distinction than this orvthatsubspecies of human) to encourage them to improve our policies or find a cure to a disease or invent a paradigm shifting theory or machine. In the same way most members of races you may consider high IQ race will probably not be gifted scientists and we should accept them for what they end up being.

If your goal is the improvement of human quality of life limiting a person's education or opportunities based on their "race" is counterproductive. Is that not your goal?

I  will not step over the epistemological precipice you present me. That there is logically some noumana does not give you licence to say that any rejection of your personal interpretation of the kalam cosmological argument amounts to a denial of reality. Sorry failure to accept, are you more comfortable with that than rejection of?

Logic based on faulty premises can and often does lead to false conclusions. So we have two possibilities. Either there is a primal eternal conciousness or there is not. What information is available to us upon which to base our logical conclusion?

We don't actually know for certain. That is my only real point. Whether the claim is that cause is necessary or that it is not you are making an argument from ignorance. We can say that some events appear to be causeless. We can also say that most events observably have a cause. We cannot say what caused the physical universe or even that it had a cause per se.

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

So I do not accept the premise that everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause. This is the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument and until it is addressed the rest of the argument has no basis. Not that the other premises of the argument are necessarily sound but the beginning is generally a good place to start.

Whatever you want to call it. That my meaning has been communicated is far more important than the specific language being used. 

No but quantum fluctuations may show that cause is completely unnecessary. Would you care to address that plisken?

Until we have cleared this up it is the only relevant issue.

Since I do claim to.know what I am talking about that is acceptable.

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

The fact remains however that we have observed particles pop into existence with seemingly no cause and we have observed effects that happen before the cause of those effects have happened. It is therefore not beyond the realm of possibility that there is no cause of the universe or that the cause is a finite event that has not yet occurred which leaves us with at least two alternatives to the idea of a transcendent eternal cause. This means your first premise is flawed and must be addressed before the other premises of your argument can even be addressed.

You have not observed the ultimate reality then you cannot make any claims about it other than that it exists that are not merely conjecture.

I can say with boldness that there is some number of blades of grass in my lawn but I would be committing an argument from ignorance if I were to claim to know if it were an even number. If I added that an even number is the only possibility that makes any logical sense to me and that an odd number of blades of grass was ridiculous we could add an argument from incredulity to the list. If I went on to state thay anyone who thinks an odd number of blades of grass are possible is an idiot with retarded views we can add an ad hominem attack to the list of logical fallacies being committed.

Are you prepared to go forward without logical fallacies or are they integral to your argument?

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

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

I do not accept your first premise.

@Grugore 

Yes but that universal physical constant would be meaningless without any bodies of atoms to hold together. You are talking about the properties of the physical universe not something separate from the physical universe.

Your claims are what I am discussing. How many times must I repeat that it is not reality but your specific claims about its nature that I do not believe you can be certain of? It is your claims of eternal transcendent specifically judeo christian reality that you have not supported. Is my meaning unclear somehow? Are we still not even having the same conversation?

Is that a no Then? Can you say "no I have not observed it"?

That something must be true because no other (equally untestable) possibility males sense to you is an argument from incredulity. 

@Grugore 

As an example let us take the speed of light (a generally accepted universal physical constant) the speed of light just describes a property of photons and other massless particles and it would have no meaning if no such particles existed. I'm sorry did you mean some other kind of universal physical constant? If so please be more specific and we can discuss in further detail.

By that rational would it not make you more open if you could say "I don't know if anything eternal exists maybe it doesnt"? You see it isn't reality I do not accept it is ypur specific claims about it.

That was a lot of words with which to say neither yes or no. Odd since yes or no was all that was required. You have given me much that was not required by my question and not provided what was. 

How can I rephrase the question "have you observed the ultimate reality?" so that it becomes possible for you to answer with a yes or no?

@Grugore 

Ok that doesn't tell us what is true however. That still leaves us with this problem.

Truth that cannot be observed and confirmed is from a practical standpoint no different from untruth that cannot be proven false.

Fine what word do you suggest I use to convey my meaning then. If using the word reject makes my stance impossible for you to understand then please provide the word that you would like me to use go8ng forward. That the person you are having a discussion with understands you is far more important than what terms are actually being used so I don't mind cussing another. Would you prefer I simply say that I do not accept your claims? Would that help you to understand what I am actually trying to say?

It's really very simple. 

Have you observed the ultimate reality, yes or no?

@Grugore 

Universal physics constants are s property of the physical universe. They are meaningless without the physical. They are in fact only the human explanation for why the physical universe behaves the way it does. Since they exist in our minds they are as physical as our minds are.

This is similar to the argument that the DNA code is a language which is technically true as the code of numbers is a human language for describing DNA but DNA itself is not a language it is nearly a collection of proteins that give rise to certain physical and behavioral characteristics in organisms.

I have never said that no reality could exist. That has nothing to do with the substance of my objection to your claims. I do not reject the idea of some reality or some truth. I reject any of the many specific claims you have made about that reality and that truth.

@Grugore

What does this have to do with our ability to discern what that absolute truth is? Truth that cannot be observed and confirmed is from a practical standpoint no different from untruth that cannot be proven false.

How does one test for a primal eternal conciousness? How does one detect or observe such a thing? Is it more rational to believe in something that cannot be confirmed or to withhold judgement and say I do not believe until such time as any information is available? 

Assuming we accept this hypothesis what is the practical point here? How should this inform our decisions in real time? How do you suggest we use this information going forward? Is there some particular change in policy or attitude you are hoping to achieve?

I agree that without Mopac's cooperation this argument will be fruitless but I'm not ready to give up on him just yet. He doesn't seem unintelligent just indoctrinated.

I can claim no knowledge of noumenon. I cannot be certain that ducks are even a part of it. In just the same way I have no way to know if anything eternal is part of the noumenon or even if time is a part of it. It's all well and good to say there must be a noumenon it is another thing entirely to say that it contains ultra mega mecha duck.

Certainly not all religions are male dom8nated but you must admit that some of the most wide spread are suspiciously patriarchal. Cover your hair (or st least in church) don't teach a man serve your husband etc.

Then retract your unsupportable claims about the ultimate reality so that I can agree. You are the one arguing that he has special knowledge. I am not asking you to accept anything let alone something I cannot demonstrate. Give it a try at home and see how it goes. Look in the mirror and say "although the ultimate reality exists I have no idea what it could be like because I cannot observe it" then get back to me.

So the difference is that I have a drect observational experience of one and no reason to believe that the other exists (though I cannot rule out the possibility and would accept it if evidence could be procured)?

That's ok because you cannot hope to teach anything in the state you are in. By that I mean accepting things on faith for which you have no sufficient evidence.

What are you talking about? My whole point is that we can't know ad aposed to your dogged insistence that you must be right. Which stance shows more humility? I am a flawed human being and I do not kniw where the universe came from. Are you more than a flawed human being? Do you think you know better than astrophysicist and quantum physicists who have spent their whole life studying the universe? Because those good humble men don't claim to know. 

What makes you think I am without hope? I don't know isn't a scary thing to admit it is wonderful it means there is still more to learn. Hope I always have more to learn. See there is one thing I hope for. You still don't seem to understand my actual objection to your claim. Or if you do you don't seem able to acknowledge it and just keep tromping along repeating your circular arguments. What evidence are you talking about by the way? I haven't noticed you showing any evidence that proves that anything could be eternal or that proves what exists outside the physical or even that anything does. I haven't noticed you showing any evidence universe of what existed before the physical universe or indeed that anything existed before it. Something might have or it might not have. Until we have evidence we cannot know.

One probable reason for christianity being so widespread is the conversion of emporer Constantine to christianity but how many people identify as christians is not proof of the truth or falsehood of the bible. To say otherwise is an argument from popularity and that's a logical fallacy.

I am relatively fulfilled l just so happen to be a relatively fulfilled person who enjoys these conversations and finds them mentally stimulating.

I hope you enjoy your grooming ritual may your head become quite clean.

What if there is only illusory reality with no actual reality? Can you prove conclusively that this is not the case? I reject any claim that reality is not an illusion and any claim that reality is an illusion. There is no way to test the hypothesis. We cannot know which is the case though I accept that reality is not illusory as a convenience and because it is the only reality that I can observe. Can you say I dont know? The only thing we can be certain of is that we must be wrong about something (probably a lot of things). No matter how sure you feel that some transcendent eternal thing exists there may be nothing transcendent or eternal in all of existence. Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that the ultimate reality is neither of those things? If you can admit we don't known for certain we will be that much closer to being on the same page.

You just went in a complete circle and ended up where you started without getting anywhere. Something is real therefore something is real. Ok let's accept that for a moment. so what it doesn't tell us anything about it other than that some undefined thing is. I'm ok with accepting reality I'm ok with you calling it what ever you want. It is only when you make a claim about reality that is beyond human epistemology that I object. If you stop at something is real I won't disagree. I accept that something is real until it is proved otherwise. If you claim that something is eternal or not eternal or that it is a red ball in an unopened box then I will.ask for sufficient evidence of your claim. If there is none then I reject your claim. That is the only reasonable stance given that human beings cannot know what is unobservable to them.

100 percent certainty is beyond human epistemology. Most likely is as close to full certainty as I am capable of on any point because I am forced to experience the universe through my flawed human senses. Just like you. 

I reject the claim that nothing is real. While it is possible I have no reason to think it is true and I'm not even sure how we could test the hypothesis.