Total posts: 7,093
-->
@keithprosser
Unless we disagree thay determinism is an existent phenomenon it is not my burden of proof to demonstrate that determinism was a possible candidate for the phenomenon that produced the universe (though if I claimed positive knowledge that it was the only possible candidate I might) there is however a burden of proof when citing an undemonstrated phenomenon like freewill as a possible candidate and especially since our observations would seem to indicate that conciousness (and therefore freewill if freewill even exists) is an emergent property of matter rather than the other way around.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. "
Laws of physics break down you say? The universe would have evolved from the big bang completely independently of what happened before the big bang you say?
That sounds very much like we don't know what if anything happened before the universe began to exist and logic is insufficient to the task of unteasing the mystery of the universe's origin to me.
And if that is the case the intellectually honest thing to do is to withhold belief of any kind until sufficient information becomes available, if it ever does that is.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
We know that determinism is a force at large in the universe. We do not know that freewill necessarily is. One needs to be demonstrated one has already been demonstrated. That is the difference.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
There are others but I must admit that janesix and yourself seem more reasonable than some theists (and also some atheists) and I enjoy our conversations as a result.Btw, are there any other theists that you guys argue with on here? I think the only one I've seen is Janesix.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
It is actually beyond our current cosmological model to say how the universe began so there is no scientific consensus on the subject. There is a scientific consensus about what the earliest event we have evidence for but that is not the same thing. And I thinknyou know that I do not accept anybtheory which requires freewill until freewill can somehow be demonstrated
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
We have no evidence of what existed or occurred before the planc time if exist, occur or begore are even applicable terms. For all we know the energy that comprises the universe has simply always existed. Certainly if you can posit a being we have no evidence for has simply always existed I can make a similar supposition about energy which we have evidence for. Otherwise you are making a case of special pleading which is a logical fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
We were discussing the scientific method which is a cause and effect methodology. The scientific method does not tell us that everything has a cause.
Then why assume thay the universe has a cause?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Because the universe began to exist
Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
What if the uuniverse has simply always existed in one form or another?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
According to you things happening with no cause invalidates science. How do you avoid this problem in your hypothesis?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
If not everything needs a cause then why would the universe need a cause?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Claiming that conciousness somehow circumvents the need for a cause is special pleading
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
It does, because free will is the only way you avoid the mathematically impossible infinite regress.
How have you made the leap from infinite regress seems logically incoherent to only conciousness can (or even could) avoid infinite regress? All conciousnesses I have ever observed have a very definite cause. For example my parents had sex.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
When current scientific understanding is falsified we do not give up on the scientific method we adjust pur understanding in light of the new information. Quantum mechanics may invalidate some of our most fundamental ideas about cause and effect. The universe is under no special obligation to make sense to us.
This still does nothing to make the leap from a cause to a consciously directed cause.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
What would a perfectly rational person's epistemic approach be?
The most rational approach would be to withhold belief until a claim cam be demonstrated.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Science does not take at particular stance it only evaluates information. In any case it hardly seems to matter in the face of the fact that we seem to have observed nonlinear causationNon-linear causality would falsify science.
Infinite regress is impossible mathematically.
How do you make the leap from there must be a cause to the cause must be concious? We observe causes that are not directed by any conciousness all the time.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Nothing beyond the statement itself. Also while infinite regress seems logically incoherent so does any eternal existent object or force and so does a causeless event. Clearly logic is insufficient to the task of unteasing the mystery of the universes origin.That cause or event could not have been preceded by an infinite chain of causes. That itself tells us something about that cause or event.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
quantum mechanics suggesting that reality is indeterminate without conscious participation
The double slit experiment shows that observation can backload the course of quantum events. In event nonlinear causality. That being the case the event which causes the universe to manifest may not have yet happened. The same experiment shows us that there is no all knowing being or all particles would be observed all the time and no waveforms could exist only superpositions. Since this us not what we observe omniscience is logically contradictory to our findings.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
we don't always have access to a rigorous framework and must make an inference to the best explanation
I disagree. I'm pretty sure under those circumstances the intellectually honest thing to do is to admit that we do not know the answer.
The point in mentioning the infinite regress is that we CAN apply human epistemology to the origins of the universe
Even if we assume that our current local time space (otherwise known as the physical universe) did require some cause or initial event that still tells us literally nothing about that cause/event. Presuming that said cause/event was necessarily concious is a leap that is not supported by the logic you have presented.
Created:
Sufficient information" is relative to your epistemological standards
Why would you except anything less than demonstrable?
In this case, we can use logic to say that whatever brought the universe into being did not have an infinite chain of preceding causes
Which even if true has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not this hypothetical event was being consciously guided.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
don't think that making a determination of whether the universe arose from consciousness or not is beyond the limits of human understanding.
It is nevertheless something we have no sufficient information about at this time. Whether this will change in the future remains to be seen.
The advent of consciousness on earth is irrelevant to whether the universe originated from consciousness or not.
We have no sufficient evidence of any conciousness that has not originated on earth.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Knowledge about the origin of the universe is at this time beyond human epistomology. Belief in any hypothesis is premature. That being said conciousness does not seem to have developed in the universe until very very recently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
So your claim is that there can be no definite Devine plan involving humans because people cannot be made to act in accordance with any Devine plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
If I say I don't know what your trying to say will you explain it in plain English or will you just insult me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
In order to be detectable a ghost would have to interact with the physical universe. For an example let us look to popular fiction. In ghost busters the ghosts can often be seen by the naked eye. In order for this to be the case ghosts would have to either react with photons or emit photons.
As for attributing existence to undetectable objects or beings I for one would be very reluctant in doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I must admit that I am still curious about your method of determining what any given deity would or would not find disrespectful, your definition of "contingent being" and any demonstration that the Yahweh can or should be excluded from this category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Then the simple answer to the question originally posted in this thread is that we have no reason to think that the Yahweh supports conservatism and so no connected religious text can be cited as a justification for such politics or political institutions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So the commands of the Yahweh are inconsistent. This makes determining his politics much more difficult. But at least if we view conservative politics as consistent we can say definitively that the commands of the Yahweh are not directly equatable to conservatism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Because I do not know what difference you are trying to highlight when you talk about contingency and further do not understand what disrespect you are refferencing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Until you define "contingent being" and detail your method of excluding the Yahweh from this category of beings we may not even be having the same discussion and you are making a bald assertion. A bald assertion is any statement made without an accompanying argument that establishes the statement as logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
What do you mean by contingent being and how have you determined A) that any god(s) are not part of this category of beings and B) that any god(s) would find being included in that category disrespectful.
Until you have answered these questions the statement
It doesn't make sense to speak as if God is a contingent being, which would be disrespectful.
Is a bald assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
you have still not explained to me your method of determining what any given deity would or would not find disrespectful. You have also failed to provide a definition of "contingent being" or demonstrated that the Yahweh can or should be excluded from this category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You sound ignorant when you put "the" in front of a reference to a historical name.
If by historical name you mean the moniker of a being who is or was demonstrably existent I have not done so.
Even If I had refering to a historical figure so does not seem to me to necessarily denote ignorance. Would you object if I were referring to the Elvis Presley?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Perhaps it is a bit off subject but you have still not explained to me your method of determining what any given deity would or would not find disrespectful. You have also failed to provide a definition of "contingent being" or demonstrated that the Yahweh can or should be excluded from this category.It doesn't make sense to speak as if God is a contingent being, which would be disrespectful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If the Yahweh's commands reflect the Yahweh politics I fail to see how the commands of the Yahweh are not central to the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Are you now claiming that the Yahweh's commands do not acurately reflect the politics of the Yahweh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Well, maybe, but I actually don't know the precise purpose of the thread.
I propose that the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not the Yahweh (if such a being even exists) supports traditionally conservative politics and since the only measuring stick we have to determine the answer to that question are the commands attributed to the Yahweh I would further propose that these commands are central to the discussion. If you see a specific flaw in my reasoning please point it out or provide a counter factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Post 39 not 34 my mistake.
Apologies to @Snoopy as well for the misunderstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Ah so you are being pedantic about the exact wording of the thread title rather than seeing the actual purpose of the thread. That actually clears up alot. As someone who is also prone to pedantry I understand your objection but I believe that the commands of the Yahweh are what are actually under discussion here. Of course if I am incorrect 3RU7AL is more than welcome to correct me.
Created:
Posted in:
If I am to take that as wanting to return to the conversation at hand I then ask if you intend to respond to 34 or if you would like to return to the original point of contention (That the commands of the Yahweh are not directly equatable to conservative politics).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Odd it would seem from my reading that he has attempted several times to bring you back to the subject at hand. Perhaps I have misunderstood your responses.
Created:
Posted in:
I must have missed your apology and/or the ceding of your position to 3RU7AL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I am not the poster you engaged in ad hominem attack against. If you intend to cede all points to someone perhaps 3RU7AL would be a better choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You used an ad hominem and I pointed it out at which time you began making excuses for why an ad hom has any place in the discussion you were engaged in. I failed to see how these excuses made any point and you decided you would very much like to change the subject.
That is our conversation in a nutshell. If I have somehow misunderstood you are welcome to clarify your position further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I was referring to post 72 and red herring is simply one of the possibilities I have mentioned.
Allow me to clarify. In a discussion about a hypothetical deity bringing up trains is either a red herring (attempting to distract from the actual duscussion) or the beginning of an entirely unrelated conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
That is a red herring at best and completely unrelated at worst. You need not reply if you find making logical points tiresome. Thank you in any case for the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I am uninterested in winning. I am interested in logical discourse. If you have none then we both lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
What mistakes and/or misinformation are you refering to specifically and how exactly does it relate to the conversation at hand? Also how does this free us from the fact that arguments (formal or informal) must follow a logical structure in order to keep them from being fallacious?
Created:
Posted in:
If any omniscient being existed freewill would logically be precluded (actions counter to the preexisting knowledge of said beingvwpuld be imposdible).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You are of course welcome to cede your point (whayever it actually is).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
So is yoyr claim that humans have no choice but to behave according to this hypothetical plan?God would take everything into account
Created: